Greek: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
I think it would be fair to say that ἐν + the dative case here could be rendered "in him." As for the dative case itself, I originally learned that it describes how action affects the indirect object: I equally learned that casus dativus/ἡ δοτικὴ πτῶσις is the "to" or "for" case. But while these observations are technically correct, the matter becomes more complex with Greek prepositions and cases.
For instance, context is a factor that one must consider when translating the dative case. Additionally, one must reflect on the usus loquendi of the particular dative being analyzed. What is its particular usage within a determinate context?
For example, ἐν + dative could be locative (maybe locative of sphere) or it could be instrumental. The Old Vine's Dictionary used to describe constructions like Colossians 1:16 that way. Compare 2 Cor. 5:19.
Nevertheless, I prefer to say that Colossians 1:16 is probably a dative of agent while I acknowledge that it could be understood differently. Cf. also Heb. 1:1-3.
101 comments:
https://cranfordville.com/Cranfordville/ColGkTxtParsed.pdf
See pages 21-22. In this verse, one of the datives probably functions adverbially, according to M.J. Harris and NET Bible.
But 1:29 also seems different to me from Col. 1:16.
Yes, I agree that it's common in Paul. However, the occurrences don't necessarily function in the same way. For example, Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11.
https://www.academia.edu/29835731/THE_OVERLAP_OF_%CE%95I%CE%A3_AND_%E1%BC%98%CE%9D_IN_THE_NEW_TESTAMENT_NEITHER_SYNONYMOUS_NOR_ALWAYS_DISTINCT
Could it be a idiom for agency - in Gen in the LXX Eve came "ek" Adam
Please see the uses of ek here: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%90%CE%BA
Agency is more like God speaking through the prophets or his Son.
My apologies I read "en" as "ek"
I have had a quick look at all instances (source: NWT) and each time this construction occurs the translators understand seemingly as meaning the same as dia + gentive (passive verb)
"by means of him" = "through him"
see Gen 18:18 lxx:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/gen/18/18/s_18001
another: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/psa/72/17/s_550001
One thing ti note is that ἐν αὐτῷ is preceded by ὅτι, i.e. the ἐν αὐτῷ and what follows provides the basis of verse 15. I think it's some kind of instrumentality, although that is also covered by διʼ αὐτοῦ, whereas εἰς αὐτὸν is probably teleological. So I think ἐν αὐτῷ has the idea of a kind of active instrumentality, in which Christ has agency, as opposed to a passive instrumentality which might be indicated through dia.
Of course this is all tentative, but similar language is used in the Sophia and Logos traditions.
NETS and Brenton both translate Genesis 18:18 with "in him"
Roman, like you, I don't take a hard and fast stand on this verse's syntax. I've posted this before, but M.J. Harris discusses these options:
From Murray J. Harris:
The prep. phrase ἐν αὐτῷ may be instr. (“by him,” NASB, HCSB, ESV), comparable in sense with δἰ αὐτοῦ (“ through him,” v. 16d; so BDF § 219[ 1]; Zerwick, Analysis 448) or even causal (“because of”) (T 253; but cf. later Turner, Insights 124), but a locat. or local sense is to be preferred. “All things in heaven and on earth” were created in God's beloved Son (v. 13), not in the sense that he was the preexistent or ideal archetype of creation but in the sense that creation occurred “in association with” Christ (BDAG 327d) or, better, “within the person of” Christ. In his person resided the creative energy that produced all of creation (Vincent 897; cf. R 587– 88); in the work of creation God did not act apart from Christ. But Barth-Blanke 198 regards the ἐν as explained by the following διά and εἰς (v. 16d).
Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (Kindle Locations 1664-1667). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (Kindle Locations 1659-1664). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/02/petr-pokorny-on-colossians-116.html
I agree that we have to consider hoti as well.
I'm not sure about hoti, I read some where it might not need to be translated at all (Ill try and find the source)
I have checked the NET for some of the same scriptures and a lot are also translated "in him"
"as opposed to a passive instrumentality which might be indicated through dia." - Paul, I'm quite sure uses both. Paul either wanted to emphasis 2 different points or they are synonymous and rather for stylistic choice.
https://justpaste.it/ahekb Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"
Duncan: John 1:3 makes Col 1:15,16 explicitly clear, notice John goes "through him" all things were made and "with out" nothing was made [that was made] - So Paul and John likely mean everything that was made through Jesus without exception - HOWEVER that doesn't exclude Jesus from being created. He is just excluded from being made "through" himself (that is self evident)
Ninc:
I do have one question - Where in the Bible is the Fig tree explicitly stated to be a "tree"?
Its not
(most of your justpaste is very misleading, why are you not examining the context to each of the claims in detail? Why are you asserting things and not citing proper sources? Why are you omitting other important details? Which you have proven you are well aware of & are valid to your argument - you have to be being willfully ignorant at this point.)
Edgar has probably cited this book somewhere on his blog:
but see: https://archive.org/details/dogmatics01brun/page/308/mode/2up
John 1:3 is is referencing Genesis 1:2 ff in the LXX, i.e. God spoke and things "came to be" (egeneto), now prior to John, within Jewish thinking there was all kinds of speculation and theological construction around creation and that which preceded creation. The point John is making is that all things that were created referencing Genesis 1, was through the Logos, this is not a claim that the Logos is himself uncreated, but the claim that the material phenomenal world all comes through the Logos.
John is drawing on traditions already present in platonic informed Judaism.
As is Paul, to take "panta" in those passages in such a way so as to exclude the possibility of Christ being, in some sense, created, is to ignore the cultural milieu of those passages.
"All other" is correct
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQu3VT2sD_SAOxc8nRselEbjclOX4ZxM/view?usp=drivesdk
Roman, good point about connecting Genesis 1:2 with John 1:3: that seems to be a pretty clear connection to me and I think that Judaism allows for God to create an agent to share in the creative work with him, even if one takes issue with the way that things actually played out of Jewish history.
Unknown, the book by Brunner (Dogmatics I) was about the first theological book I read. You're right that I've mentioned or quoted from that work more than once: I love the points that he makes about Christ.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/02/one-of-my-favorite-books-is-emil.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/colossians-116-17-passive-verbs-and-non.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2021/10/if-jesus-is-almighty-god-then-why-these.html
I've never read Brunner, I've read a bit of Barth, in that poast you mention that the first voluem of Brunner's Dogmatics is one of your favorite books. Why? what about Bruner's theological work did you find so attractive?
Roman, I chiefly had Brunner's Christological statements in mind although I like other parts of his book too. In my view, Brunner gets a lot right about Christology and I like his writing style and methodology. His writing is more exegetical than Barth's, it seems.
I like Brunner better than a lot of others especially those who show blatant theological motivation, a balanced point of view is always better than leaning to one side.
Interesting, am I mistaken in thinking that Brunner held to an orthodox catholic (small o, small c) trinitarian theology? Perhaps I'm just assuming that because he's reformed and within the neo-orthodoxy movement.
Anonymous,
You said:
"I'm not sure about hoti, I read some where it might not need to be translated at all (Ill try and find the source)"
J.C. O'Neill offered that suggestion, if memory serves. While this may be possible, we may be on firmer ground by inferring that hoti implies a question and its answer.
Paul just said that the Son is the "firstborn of all creation," which causes the mind to immediately ponder: How so? Then the answer "for through of him all [other] things were created..."
In other words, we know that the Son is FIRSTborn because only by being brought into being first could he be used as the agent through whom all other things were brought into being.
So I don't think hoti presents any real difficulty for the view that Jesus is the first and therefore preeminent member of God's creation. His preeminence is a result of his being the first one brought into existence by God. I think this understanding is virtually demanded by the parallel use of "firstborn" in 18, which clearly involves the fact that he was resurrected first, and as a result is the preeminent member of new creation as well.
I agree completely with Sean here, I think an exegesis that ignores teh hoti is going to be flawed there. But I also completely agree with his exegesis here, especaily with teh parallel with verse 18, as well as the metaphysical consequences of the metaphore and the demiurgic role Christ plays in the poem.
Roman, see https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/02/must-you-believe-in-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-to-be-a-christian/
A few thoughts on Colossians 1:16:
I think the article Sean has in mind is J. C. O'Neill (1979). The Source of the Christology in Colossians. New Testament Studies,26, pp
87100 doi:10.1017/S0028688500008687
IMO, the most common way to handle hoti is to treat it as causal, but Trinitarians normally reason from there that Christ is the Creator, a position with which I disagree.
From Colossians, the ZECNT Series: "This clause introduced by 'for' (ὅτι) provides the basis of v. 15. It does not acquire a strong or full causal force,53 however, since this statement merely provides the basis or explanation for the assertion in v. 15."
Footnote 53 points the reader to pages 31-32 of BDAG to get a sense of the range for hoti.
Regarding whether Colossians 1:15-20 is a hymn, the same Colossians commentary in the ZECNT Series says:
Most scholars consider this section a “hymn,” a conclusion that is
based on a number of features in this section: the use of relative
clauses (vv. 15, 18), parallelism (vv. 15–16 and vv. 18b–20) and
balance, the use of relative and personal pronouns as connectives,
the self-contained nature of this unit, the presence of hapax
legomena, similarities of style and subject matter with other early
christological “hymns” in Paul (Phil 2:6–11; 1 Tim 3:16), and
references to “hymns” in this letter (Col 3:16; cf. 1 Cor 14:26; Eph
5:19–20).
It is unclear, however, as to the criteria against which a section
can qualify as a “hymn.” For those who insist on “meter” as a
necessary condition for a hymn, the strophic arrangement of this
section is not sufficient for this label.13 Even with parallelism, the
structure is not as tightly organized as some would have expected.14
Some therefore prefer to label this section as “elevated prose” or
“some kind of poem.”15 But to replace the label “hymn” with that of
“elevated prose” or “poem” is simply to replace one group having
clear ancient literary examples with ambiguous titles that bear no
such parallels.
Concerning Marcion: https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30463-the-foreign-god-and-the-sudden-christ-theology-and-christology-in-marcion-s-gospel-redaction.pdf
"The Christian Canon for Tertullian: The Position and Criterion of the Bible
in his Polemic against Marcion"
http://160.23.12.112/bitstream/handle/123456789/412/is-n26v1-p97-106-tsu.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Duncan said "the author of John make the author of Colossians clear"
I think my point should be rather clear, however I will elaborate
John 1:3 and Col 1:15,16 may or may not refer to the time point in time from 2 different perspectives (There are differing opinions on this) however what is (or should be self evident) from both of these is Christ is the agent of creation rather than the creator himself.
You can see this via other sources online or changing the verb from passive to active and making the subject the object, by doing so we get not The Firstborn as the creator but "The Father" [last]referenced in v 12* (notice a common theme is the son's "actions" all lead back ultimately to the Father)
There is nothing in the context of Col that would lead us to believe the new creation is the intended referent, because we have Christs sacrifice after the creation. (written order may not be important but you should get the point)
parallel events in the gospels show that writers perspectives are important and that the same event can be told from multiple points of view although it is the same point in time & event, just with different things in focus.
What is in focus is what is important to the writers, sometimes to the detriment of our understanding.
panta (or pas) with or without the article is also maybe something to consider, which I have no real conclusive answer for.
* I am leaving some stuff off this explanation as short on time. (i.e sources etc)
Greek for Colossians 1:16: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
Yes, τὰ πάντα is qualified here, but why appeal to Roman parlance for an explanation of the language in this verse? Greek usage explains it quite well although I don't deny that Rome had some influence on the NT language of Paul and Peter.
Are you saying that "ktesis" means "founder? Maybe you mean "ktisis."
As you may recall, I don't necessarily hold to the "hymn" view. It's going to take more evidence for me to accept that idea.
One thing that has to be kept in mind with Tertullian is that he's likely working with the Latin, not the Greek text. That makes a great difference.
Sorry, Duncan, but I fail to see the relevance between the brynmawr book review and the Colossians letter. I know about the Romulus/Remus myth for the founding of Rome, but what that has to do with Jesus, I have no idea.
Duncan, did you read the article you linked that discusses Pauline interpolations? Did you notice that no hard and fast evidence was presented in that article for such interpolations? Sort of strange to bring up the issue while providing no textual evidence for any intrusion of foreign material.
This is not to say that things weren't added at some point, but prove it, don't just assert the claim.
http://jbtc.org/v27/TC-2022-Klinghardt-Roth.pdf
Paul Foster on Marcion (discusses Tyson's work): https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28964315.pdf
Glad you spelled it out, but I'm sure you know that many people /scholars believe it's not from a pre-existing hymn and it's not a later insertion. One can consistently hold both positions.
Quite frankly, I see no evidence that Colossians is a letter to promote Roman authority. Study the history of Rome with the early church. It was only much later that the church gained Roman favor. What about the Edict of Milan?
Constantine's move was 4th century. No way Colossians is that late.
I tried accessing the digital repository link and it could not find the page although it took me to the Trinity website: and look at the context of Tertullian's words. He's making a related but different point from Col. 1:16. Additionally, his entire treatise (Adversus Praxean) is a polemic against modalism, which makes it quite theological in orientation.
The early Christians didn't need the Romans to conceive of an invisible deity.
Quote from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0034637319879033?casa_token=Nk7F-bpZf9MAAAAA%3AcdGBGTwNoDC61zOnTD6Rnbveo2jPlh3StboGGMWozzsMCm0nQTcTUB5iHeknkiVScQ0uQKOukFds
Colossians threatens the empire, even if it is not explicitly or intentionally anti-empire, because it disrupts imperial claims of sovereignty and power. Yet Colossians also imitates facets of Roman imperial power, to the extent that one might say the letter presents not an “anti-imperial” but rather a “supra-imperial” vision of the kingdom/empire of God.64 As an alternative to the emperor, Christ represents the pinnacle of power, the one who reigns supreme. The divine triumph comes through Christ, and his empire, not Rome’s, is all-encompassing. This empire does have significant differences from Rome’s empire, however. With the words, “Remember my chains,” the author concludes the letter (Col 4:18). Writing from prison, the author of Colossians reminds readers that God’s empire is neither established nor maintained through military force or violence, but rather through vulnerability, weakness, and self-sacrificial love. Whereas Rome’s empire is death-dealing, God’s empire is life-giving.
Just jumping in real quick, I know the authorship of Colossians is contested, although the tendency in recent decades has been in favor of it's authenticity, I mean it's strange that a pseudo-Paul would write a letter addressed to a city that laid in ruins after an earthquake, he assumes his audience knows these 'false teachings' (he never lays them out explicitly).
As far as Colossians being somehow pro-imperial ... I just can't see it at all ... I cannot see how all authorities rules etc etc, being subordinated under a peasant from the provinces who was crucified as a rebel could be at all considered pro-imperial, at least not without significant qualification and explanation.
In the NT you DO have texts which are, not pro-imperial, but pro subservience to authorities, and those are explicit, they say exactly what they mean; and there's a reason they have to be explicit, Christianity was often seen as subversive to imperial ideology.
Prior to constantine the most pro-imperial Christianity gets is apologetic, i.e. we are good citizens, we pray for the emperor, etc etc, i.e. "we aren't a threat." With anti-imperial going the other way to documents like John's revelation.
Early Christian literature ranged from War Scroll style anti-imperialism (i.e. God will destroy you), to please don't persecute us type apologetics ala Justin Martyr.
Duncan, I disagree with your comment about Revelation. It provoked discussion among the patristics, but they took it seriously.
Where is Pilate mentioned in Colossians? Where is the biblical evidence that his appearance before Pilate was pro Roman? We deal with texts here, not with speculation that has no basis in the text.
When scholars examine the quality of Luke's Greek, what do they find? What about the Greek in Colossians? Furthermore, I know that we have ancient examples of Colossians texts that are quite early.
But Duncan, can we stay close to the OP topic?
The Apocalypse is not an outlier at all, it has a pretty rich reception history in the early Church, yes it was controversial, but it's not like it was not taken seriously, and , you have apocalyptic thinking in Q, Mark, Paul, and other early documents.
Jesus's appearance before Pilate in which gospel? They have different ways of portraying the episode. But the episode with Barabbas is in no way "pro-Roman" I can't even see how it satisfies an apologetic purpose. Pilate kills him, he's not even deceived, he kills without really caring whether or not he's guilty.
If there is ANY apologetic purpose there it's "us Christians are not revolutionaries, please don't kill us." That's hardly "pro-Roman." I don't know how one can maintain that with the rest of the synoptic tradition.
I know the argument's against the authorship of Colossians, there are many arguments the other way also, and the arguments against often assume a method which is flawed (i.e. different styles, and even differences in thinking mean different author) ... take any modern thinker and you'll see those differences.
I'm not saying I'm ruling out a pseudo-Paul, I'm saying the arguments are far from conclusive, and the trend as been towards a genuine Paul as of late.
Duncan, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was jumping on your or singling you out. The original topic was about the dative in Colossians 1:16 but we (I include myself), then turned to other issues. However, I just hate to get so far out that we're discussing things that have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
Nevertheless, I assume that we're still talking about the text of Colossians. For me, nothing in that book screams pro-Roman. I've read actual pro-Roman stuff from the Latin poets and other Roman writers. It was usually clear when a writer had that agenda, even poetically.
My reference to early copies of Colossians is based on the dates assigned by those who study them.
As for canonization in terms of lists, that was a later process itself.
I see your point about visible and invisible but I still don't think that adds weight to a pro-Roman ideology in the book.
I'm familiar with the ancient curricula in Greece/Rome and how they taught. Maybe I could learn more specially about doctors in antiquity and I understand the situation was much different when it came to writing and reading back then, but whoever wrote Luke-Acts exemplifies the ability to write quality Greek.
On the other hand, the doctors I've read about in ancient Greece were learned men. To know something about the body and physiology, one better have some medical knowledge.
Just to be clear, it's not a hard fact that Marcion started the canonization process. As scholars have also noted, "canon" has more than one meaning.
https://www.academia.edu/41107356/MARCION_AND_NEW_TESTAMENT_CANON
http://www.misselbrook.org.uk/GNT/Luke.pdf
Use search term "medical"
You might like this doc: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rivervalleybc/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17192158/Commentary-on-Luke-with-Medical-Terms.pdf
To be clear, Duncan, I don't deny how the Greco-Roman context of Paul and others shaped the NT writings and I see the plausibility of claiming that Colossians could be showing the supremacy of Christ over the emperor. However, what you posted does not support the belief that Colossians is a pro-Roman tract, nor do I think we should reduce the letter to an ideological powerplay as opposed to theology.
You might also like Matt Gordley's book about Colossians: he deals with the poetic aspects of the letter, etc.
https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/the-colossian-hymn-in-context-9783161492556?no_cache=1
Gordley
Duncan, fair enough about reading the paper, but that it's pro-Roman is a stretch to me. Here is another recent paper about Colossians:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368355049_Colossians_between_Texts_and_Contexts_status_quaestionis_of_the_Recent_Research
In my estimation to say that Colossians is pro-Roman would be like saying a Witness in the USA is pro-American but not necessarily pro-President. But I'm not trying to judge whether Colossians is pro-Rome through a priori spectacles: the very content of the letter does not lend itself to a pro-Rome perspective IMO. One would have to be doing some serious reading between the lines to get that impression.
Here is someone who did a "post-colonial" reading of Colossians for their doctoral thesis: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/1192/1/Tinsley10PhD.pdf
Quoting from the dissertation/thesis:
"The use of imperial language in no way detracts from the message of the letter. This view complements other prevailing ideas and commentaries in helping to discover how these treatments were probably personalized and revised as a means of creating a religious and social identity that was unique to Colossae. Acting as a vehicle, the imperial language enabled the writer to get the message of the gospel to the diverse people of Colossae."
Check out https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/190295/190295.pdf
"The Essence of Paul's Message to the Colossians: What Makes His Message Distinctively Christian"
Duncan, thanks but I've got that paper. Don't agree with most of the paper but I have it.
The info you just quoted doesn't sound very pro-Roman to me at all. Note the terminology, supraimperial, but I still think the writer's comments are filled with rhetorical flourish.
the distinction between "anti-imperial" and "supraimperial" is materially not all that relevant. Of course the early Christians were not imagining a kind of ancient equivalent of a liberal egalitarian order with no hierarchical power, so if that's what's meant by "anti-imperial" (i.e. anti-ALL imperial power), then they clearly were not, since they imagined a Kingdom of God with Christ as supreme. But if what one means is that the ruling ideological framework was rejected for a different framework, i.e. rejecting the idea of the earthy powers being there by right and merit, and the naturalization of the current hierarchies, then clearly they were "anti-imperial," I mean that is obvious when they are saying that the king is a person executed by the ruling authorities who himself was near the bottom of the social hierarchy.
But if the fact that they were hoping for a new kind of imperial power meant they were actually somehow "pro-imperial" then so were the Zealots, and frankly, so were the vast majority of "anti-imperial" movements in history.
In fact, often, anti-imperial movements will adopt aspects of the ruling ideology and flip them on their head.
Crossley's and Myles's book "Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict" is good on this issue; the general Jewish apocalyptic/millenarian ideological tendency is the best way to view both Jesus and the early Christians when it comes to their general attitude towards political power and empire.
Roman, I interpreted the imperial language in this context as vis-à-vis Rome and pertaining to the Colossians correspondence. So, that is why I'd say that Paul was not necessarily militating against Rome or the emperor in his letter or being subversive politically, but I could see him being a supraimperialist respecting Rome since Paul speaks about Christ as the firstborn, the image of God, and the head of God's ecclesia. However, if applied in a broader context to more than Rome, then I would largely agree with your statement that the distinctions might not be all that relevant. Moreover, I don't think of God's basileia as an instance of imperial rule.
Thanks for the recommendation and I concur that one needs familiarity with apocalypticism (etc.) to understand what Jesus and the early Christians were doing.
Lastly, the tone of Colossians is markedly different from tracts like Lactantius' De mortibus persecutorum.
The phrase "τὰ πάντα" (ta panta) translates directly to "all things" and is comprehensive, including the entirety of creation without exceptions. There is no linguistic basis for adding "other" to this phrase. The term "τὰ πάντα" is used in various New Testament passages (e.g., Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 3:9, Revelation 4:11) to denote the totality of creation. Adding "other" contradicts this comprehensive scope.
In contexts where "other" is implied, such as Luke 13:2, it is clear from the context that the comparison is between similar entities (e.g., Galileans and other Galileans). In Colossians 1:16, no such contextual implication exists, as it speaks of Christ's relationship to all creation, not a subset of creation.
The use of "other" in Luke 13:2 is contextually justified because it compares two groups of Galileans. This justification does not apply to Colossians 1:16, where the text speaks universally of creation. The Greek terms "allos" and "heteros" (both meaning "other") are not used in Colossians 1:16-17. Paul could have used these terms if he intended to imply "other" created things, but he did not. Scriptures like Isaiah 44:24, John 1:3, and Hebrews 1:2 affirm that Christ is the creator of all things, not a created being. The insertion of "other" creates a theological inconsistency with these passages.
Let's address the JW argument about adding "other" in Colossians 1:16 to support the idea that Jesus is a created being and not the Creator himself.
JW Argument for Adding "Other":
A literal rendering of the Greek text would be "all things" (πάντα). Their concern is that this "might imply" Jesus is not part of creation but the Creator himself.
The JW interpretation holds that because Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15, he must be part of creation. They link this to Revelation 3:14, where Jesus is called "the beginning of the creation by God."
They argue that the Greek word for "all" (πάντα) can *sometimes/ mean "all other" based on other biblical contexts (e.g., Luke 13:2, Luke 21:29, Philippians 2:21).
They reference 1 Corinthians 15:27 to show that "all things" sometimes excludes the one doing the subjecting, implying that "all things" can have exceptions.
Refutation of the JW Argument
The Greek text of Colossians 1:16 reads, "For by him all things were created," without any indication of "other." The inclusion of "other" is an insertion that changes the original meaning.
The context of Colossians 1:16-17 emphasizes the comprehensive nature of Christ's creative work: "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." There is no hint that some things were excluded from Christ's creative work.
The term "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος) in Colossians 1:15 does not necessarily mean the first created. It often signifies preeminence in rank or status. For example, King David is called the "firstborn" in Psalm 89:27, though he was the youngest son of Jesse, indicating his preeminence as king, not his birth order.
While "all" (πάντα) can sometimes indeed mean "all other" in *specific* contexts, it does so *only* when the context clearly indicates exceptions. In the case of Colossians 1:16, there is no contextual basis for adding "other." The examples given (Luke 13:2, Luke 21:29, Philippians 2:21) involve contexts that clearly define the limits of "all." Colossians 1:16, however, is expansive and inclusive, not limiting.
1 Corinthians 15:27 states, "For 'God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says, 'all things are put in subjection,' it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him." This passage deals with the subjection of all things to Christ and explicitly mentions the exception (God the Father), which is clear from the context.
Colossians 1:16 does not provide such an explicit exception, making the insertion of "other" unwarranted. The JW insertion of "other" in Colossians 1:16 is hence unwarranted both linguistically and contextually. The text clearly states that "all things" were created by Christ, emphasizing his role as the Creator. The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 should be understood in terms of preeminence and supremacy, not as the first created being.
There is no contextual or linguistic justification for modifying the text to fit the theological presupposition that Jesus is a created being. The broader biblical context supports the understanding of Jesus as the eternal Creator, consistent with passages like John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2-3.
Post a Comment