In addition to Philippians 2:5-8, another one of the main proof-texts to which Arians will appeal in support of their position is Colossians 1:15-16. However, the Arian’s interpretation of these verses can be shown to be based on his own assumption that Christ pre-existed (and not what’s actually being said in the text itself). That is, the Arian’s assumption that Christ pre-existed is the reason why he’s interpreting these verses in the way that he does.
Here’s how Col. 1:13-17 reads in the CLNT:
[The Father] rescues us out of the jurisdiction of Darkness, and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins, Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.
When Paul wrote “the Son of His love” in v. 13, he was obviously referring to the same person he referred to in verses 1-3 of this letter as “Christ Jesus,” “the Lord Jesus Christ” and “our Lord Jesus Christ.” But what kind of being is Christ Jesus? Answer: Christ Jesus is, of course, a human. Since he’s a human, we know he ultimately descended from the first humans, Adam and Eve. In accord with this fact, we know from Scripture that Christ has a mother (Miriam), and that she became pregnant with her son when his Father – i.e., God – generated him (i.e., brought him into existence).
Now, given that Paul was writing about a certain human being who was fathered by God when he referred to “the Son of [God’s] love” in v. 13, the reader has good reason to believe – and no good reason not to believe – that what Paul is going to go on to say about this man pertains to what is true of Christ now (since the time that he was roused/vivified). In other words, knowing that the individual to whom Paul was referring in v. 13 as “the Son of His love” is a man, we have good reason to think (and no good reason not to think) that what Paul is going to say about him is consistent with this fact. We have no reason to think that what Paul is going to go on to say about Christ is inconsistent with the fact that Christ is a human who was fathered by God at the time when his mother became pregnant with him.
Now, both the Arian and the non-Arian agree that, when Paul referred to “Christ Jesus,” “our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God’s love” in Colossians 1, he was referring to a certain man. But suppose that one is reading Colossians for the first time, without believing what the Arian believes on this subject. And suppose that one knows that, when Paul referred to Jesus as “the Son of God’s love,” he was referring to a man who was fathered by God when his mother became pregnant with him. Now, before reading the verses in which the Arian thinks his understanding of Christ is being revealed, would the reader have any reason to think that, when Paul referred to “Christ Jesus,” “our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God’s love,” he was referring to someone who pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human celestial being? No. Before we get to these verses, the reader would have no reason to think that Christ pre-existed. He would, instead, have reason to think that Christ’s existence began when his mother became supernaturally pregnant with him.
Let’s now first consider verse 15 (“Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature”). To whom does the pronoun “Who” refer in this verse? Answer: Christ Jesus. And what kind of being is Christ Jesus? Answer: he’s a human being whose human life began when his mother became pregnant with him, and who, after dying, was roused by God with an incorruptible body. But the Arian doesn’t believe that Christ has been a human being for as long as he’s been “the Image of the invisible God.” Instead, the Arian assumes that Christ’s being “the Image of the invisible God” refers to something that was true of Christ before his life on earth began (and has been true of Christ since before the creation of the heavens and the earth). But there’s no good reason to assume this. Paul isn’t telling us when Christ became “the Image of the invisible God,” or how long Christ has been “the Image of the invisible God.” One must already believe that Christ existed before the creation of the heavens and the earth in order to think that Christ existed as “the Image of the invisible God” at this time.
The Arian also assumes that Christ has been “Firstborn of every creature” since before the creation of the heavens and the earth as well (he also understands “Firstborn of every creature” to mean that Christ was created before every creature). But once again, there’s no good reason to assume this. The Arian is simply reading his own belief into the text. Since the pronoun “Who” in v. 15 refers to someone who everyone agrees (or should agree) is a vivified human being, is there any good reason to assume that “Firstborn of every creature” refers to a status that originally belonged to, and was true of, someone who wasn’t human at the time, and who wasn’t “the Son of God” by virtue of having been fathered by God in the womb of his mother? No. Instead, we should seek to understand what Paul wrote in a way that’s consistent with the fact that the one to whom the pronoun “Who” refers is a vivified human being. But is there any reason why the expression “Firstborn of every creature” that can’t validly be used of someone whose existence began when he was fathered by God (and who’s never been anything other than a human)? No.
The literal meaning of the word “firstborn” – whether in Hebrew, Greek or English – is found in Exodus 13:2 (where we read, “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast”). Literally, then, the word denotes the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother. In accord with this fact, the word from which the second element of the Greek term “firstborn” is derived is regularly used in Scripture to refer to childbirth (see Strong's Greek: 5088. τίκτω).
Of course, Paul wasn’t using the term in Col. 1:15 to express the idea that Christ was the first child to exit the womb of his mother. Although Christ was the first child to be born to Miriam (thus making him Miriam's firstborn son, as stated in Luke 2:7), this isn’t the truth that Paul was communicating here. Instead, Paul was using the term in accord with its figurative usage. According to this usage, the term denotes preeminence/supremacy in rank. For example, in Psalm 89:26-29 we read the following:
He, he shall call out to Me, You are my Father, My El and the Rock of my salvation. Indeed, I, I shall make him the firstborn, The uppermost of the kings of the earth. For the eon shall I keep My benignity upon him, And My covenant with him is faithful. I will establish his seed for the future, And his throne as the days of the heavens.
Just as David being made “the firstborn” refers to the future primacy of rank that he’ll be given in relation to “the kings of the earth,” so Christ’s being “Firstborn of every creature” refers to his present supremacy in relation to every creature (the expression “of every creature” is in the genitive case, and thus expresses the idea that Christ belongs to the group comprised of “every creature,” and that it’s in relation to “every creature” that Christ is “firstborn” - i.e., uppermost, or highest-ranking). For other examples of this figurative usage of “firstborn,” see Ex. 4:22 and Jer. 31:9.
This understanding of the term “Firstborn” in Col. 1:15 is supported by Paul’s use of the term in v. 18. When we read that Christ is “Firstborn from among the dead,” we can conclude that Paul wasn’t expressing either of the following ideas:
1. Christ was the first to be born/first to exit his mother’s womb from among the dead (which would be in accord with the literal meaning of “firstborn”).
2. Christ was the first one brought into existence from among the dead (which is how Arians define the word in Col. 1:15).
The first option makes no sense, while the second option simply isn’t true (for there are other humans who, before Christ’s death and resurrection, were brought back into existence after being dead).
Again, according to the scriptural usage of the word “firstborn,” the term denotes either (1) the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother (which is the primary/literal meaning of the word), or (2) one who is “uppermost,” or first in rank. Just as the use of the term “firstborn” in Col. 1:15 expresses the fact that Christ is uppermost/first in rank in relation to every creature, so the use of the term in v. 18 expresses the fact that Christ is uppermost/preeminent from among the dead. In both verses, it is Christ’s exalted, preeminent status – and not when or where Christ came into existence – that’s in view. But Stephen’s position requires that “Firstborn” mean something different in Col. 1:18 than it does in Col. 1:15. This fact alone indicates that his understanding of Col. 1:15 is flawed.
According to the original and literal meaning of “firstborn,” Christ is the firstborn of his mother, Miriam. However, in accord with the other inspired usage of the term “firstborn” (i.e., the usage that we find in, for example, Ex. 4:22, Jer. 31:9, Ps. 89:27 and Heb. 12:23), Christ became “Firstborn of every creature” – i.e., first in rank in relation to every creature – when he was roused from among the dead.
Stephen says that I referenced Hebrews 12:23 “as if this isn’t literal ‘first born.’ Dunno why he does that.” If “firstborn” in Heb. 12:23 means “literal ‘first born,’” then it’s just another example of this term being used in accord with its literal, non-figurative usage (and thus has a different meaning that it does in Col. 1:15 and 1:18, where it doesn’t mean that Christ was “born first” but rather that he’s highest-ranking).
Despite the above facts, Stephen objects that I’m “throwing the qualifier with firstborn (“of every creature”) in relation to Christ, out the window.” No, what I’m doing is understanding the term “firstborn” in accord with its figurative (not literal) meaning – i.e., “uppermost” or “first in rank” – and then understanding what this means in connection with the qualifying words “of every creature.” Christ is uppermost/first in rank in relation to every creature.
Stephen went on to object as follows:
“If what Aaron is assuming were true, it would quite literally mean that “Firstborn from among the dead” and “Firstborn of every creature” hold the same meaning, as all are being vivified. It means Paul repeats Himself in the same argument, which makes the Scriptural logic unjust, thus presents us with an unjust God.”
Stephen errs when he claims that, if my understanding were true, the expressions “Firstborn from among the dead” and “Firstborn of every creature” would “hold the same meaning, as all are being vivified.” This is simply not the case. Being “Firstborn of every creature” (i.e., first in rank in relation to every creature) is not the same as being “Firstborn from among the dead” (i.e., first in rank from among the dead). “Every creature” in Col. 1:15 includes all creatures who are now alive (and not every created being that is alive now – or will be alive in the future – is going to die). However, “the dead” in Col. 1:18 only includes all who have died (or will die). In addition to this point, when Paul referred to “the dead” here (i.e., the dead from among whom Christ is Firstborn), he most likely had in mind the human dead (i.e., the same group of whom we’re told Christ is “the Firstfruit”). The fact that all who are dead (or will die) are going to be vivified doesn’t mean that “the dead” from among whom Christ is “Firstborn” includes (or will include) every creature.
Christ’s spirit (i.e., his life-principle) continued to exist after he died, but Christ isn’t identical with his spirit. Rather, Christ’s spirit or life-principle is something that Christ has (and not what he is). Christ himself is a human. And as we find helpfully defined in the Greek-English Keyword Concordance for the CLNT, a “human” is “a living, sentient being of the genus Homo, as distinct from the lower animals and from spirits.”
As a human, Christ’s existence depends on his being alive (for one is only composed of one’s body when one is alive). Just as Christ didn’t exist before he was alive, so he ceased to exist (temporarily) when he died. Unlike the existence of a rock or a chair, the existence of Christ – i.e., the human being whose life began when he was generated by God (and whose life ceased when he died on the cross and was subsequently restored when he was roused by God) – depends on his having a spirit and being composed of a body. When these two elements are united, they constitute a certain human being (i.e., the “Man, Christ Jesus”). But Christ is not identical with his body or his spirit, and the continued existence of Christ’s spirit and his lifeless body after he died was not the continued existence of Christ himself.
It should be emphasized that this view is not unique to me or to the non-Arian position in general. For example, Martin Zender has, on several occasions, stated that, during the three days that Christ was dead, Christ didn’t exist. That which was entombed (Christ’s body) could be referred to as “Christ” only figuratively (i.e., by use of the figure of speech known as “retention”). Since humans are essentially living, bodily beings – i.e., beings who are essentially composed of a living human body (whether it’s a mortal “soulish body” or an immortal “spiritual body”) – then this view logically follows. And I think Scripture is clear that this is, in fact, the case.
Stephen went on to write:
No, “Firstborn from among the dead” is a permanent, not temporary, title. Lazarus is not “firstborn from among the dead” because he’s definitely dead right now. Jairus’ daughter is not “firstborn from among the dead” because I didn’t grab lunch with her last Saturday. But Christ? Death is lording it over Him no longer (Rom. 6:9.) Thus, the second option (when the spirit, and not His entire existence, is implemented,) is true.”
Of course “Firstborn from among the dead” is “a permanent, not temporary, title.” I never said otherwise. But does this mean Christ was the first one brought into existence from among the dead? No. Again, there are other humans who, before Christ’s death and resurrection, were brought back into existence after being dead. So “Firstborn” in Col. 1:18 doesn’t mean (and can’t mean) that, when Christ was roused, he was the “first created” or the “first to exist” from among the dead.
Stephen goes on to emphasize that the term “firstborn” literally means “born first.” Correct. And this fact is contrary to his understanding of Col. 1:15 and 1:18. Neither of these verses has anything to do with when Christ was born. They have everything to do with the fact that Christ is first in rank in relation to every creature and first in rank from among the dead.
Stephen then says that “The phrase “of every creature” clarifies that, if [Christ] is firstborn of all, and all is created in Him, then He must be before all (1:16-17.)”
No, the phrase “of every creature” clarifies the category of beings in relation to which Christ is “firstborn” (first in rank).
Stephen goes on to object that “it doesn’t make any rational sense for Christ to ‘technically’ be the First of all, especially considering He is the Origin of creation (Unv. 3:14, Unv. 22:13.) How to be Head over all if you’re not actually the Origin??”
Neither Rev. 3:14 nor 22:13 reveal that Christ is “the Origin of creation.” First, the expression “God’s Creative Original” in Rev. 3:14 (CLNT) is a poor translation. It’s not even grammatically correct. The word translated “Creative” in the CLNT is a noun rather than an adjective (and should thus be translated “creation”). And the word translated “Original” (arché) can mean “chief” or “sovereign/sovereignty.” In accord with these facts, Young’s Literal Translation more accurately reads, “the chief of the creation of God.”
Significantly, the CLNT translates the same term arché as “Sovereign” in Col. 1:18 (“...Who is Sovereign, Firstborn from among the dead...”). Here, the word clearly refers to Christ’s preeminent rank or status since the time of his resurrection. And in Rev. 1:5 we find Christ referred to as “the Firstborn of the dead, and the Suzerain of the kings of the earth.” The word translated “Suzerain” in this verse (archōn) is a cognate of archē. And the similarities between what’s being said concerning Christ in Rev. 1:5 and in Col. 1:18 are clear. In light of these considerations, the CLNT should’ve translated arché as “Sovereign” (or “Chief”) in Rev. 3:14, just as it did in Col. 1:18.[i]
As for Rev. 22:13, Christ didn’t declare himself to be “the Origin of creation” here, either. Christ’s use of the first and last titles found in Revelation 22:13 shows that these expressions are basically equivalent in meaning, and communicate related (if not identical) ideas. Essentially, these titles express the fact that Christ is the one through whom something is begun (or originated) and completed (or consummated). In other words, it’s a way of saying, “I am the originator and consummator” of whatever is in view. But of what is Christ to be understood as the originator and consummator? The Arian is assuming that Christ is the originator of what God is said to have created in the beginning. But that idea is not only absent from the text, but contrary to the context.
The first time that Christ applied the titles “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the Origin and the Consummation” to himself, it’s after he had referred to his involvement in the making of all things new (“Lo! New am I making all!”). This is the key to understanding what Christ meant when he applied these titles to himself. The titles “Alpha and Omega,” “First and the Last” and “Origin and the Consummation” are titles that became true of Christ when, after his obedient death on the cross, he was roused from among the dead and given the authority by which he is able to bring about the new creation.
Stephen then claims that the term “Firstborn” “is being used in Col. 1:15 to mean that Christ was the first Being created by God, through which all else is made (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16,) as every other use of the term in the New Testament is in relation to one hierarchically created first.“
Arians are intent on changing the meaning of “firstborn” to mean “first created” or “first to be brought into existence.” It is this entirely made-up meaning that the Arian must give to the word in order for Col. 1:15 to be understood by them as supporting the Arian position. However, this made-up meaning is not in accord with either the established literal or figurative usage of the word. Again, according to the scriptural usage of the term “firstborn,” the term denotes either (1) the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother (which is the primary/literal meaning of the word), or (2) one who is “uppermost,” or first in rank. And as already noted, the Arian’s unscriptural definition of “firstborn” is contrary to the way Paul used the term again in v. 18. “Firstborn” can’t mean “first being created” here. It means “first in rank.” So the Arian’s understanding of “Firstborn” in Col. 1:15 is contrary to the literal meaning of the word and the figurative meaning of the word (of which Paul’s use of the word in Col. 1:15 and 18 are both examples).
Stephen went on to claim that the term “firstborn” “doesn’t mean “uppermost,” or “highest-ranking.” That is what the title “Head” means, or “Sovereign,” in an authoritative sense.”
Literally, the term “firstborn” doesn’t mean “uppermost” or “highest-ranking.” The literal meaning is “the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother.” But when used figuratively, it does denote preeminence/supremacy in rank (and thus means “uppermost” or “highest-ranking”). Stephen acknowledged this when he wrote the following:
“…very few uses of “firstborn” in the Old Testament mean “highest ranking,” but, literally, “BEFORE-MOST-BROUGHT-FORTH.” And, again, each Greek use of the word in the NT has been consistent and can concordantly mean, literal “first born.”
Here Stephen admits that the figurative meaning of “firstborn” is “highest ranking,” and that the literal meaning is “first born” (i.e., the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother). But neither of these meanings is consistent with the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:15. “First born” doesn’t mean “first created” (notwithstanding the Arian’s insistent claims to the contrary). To quote what Stephen wrote concerning me, “He just says this. Just speaks it. Just because [Stephen] says something doesn’t make it fact.”
Stephen went on to say, “So, again, let’s change the text to fit Aaron’s view, instead. It would be more compatible if God had said,
[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, but in the middle of creation, so that, like, He becomes this, in the middle of My story, but He isn’t literally, just, like, proleptically.
Stephen’s caricature of my understanding of Col. 1:15 only betrays his own unwarranted assumption that, in v. 15, Paul was referring to a state of affairs that was true before the six days of creation in the beginning. But Paul’s not referring to what was true of Christ in eons past. He’s referring to what was true of Christ when he wrote, and what has been true of Christ ever since he was given all authority in heaven and on earth. So it’s not the case that, according to my view, Paul was speaking “proleptically” when he referred to Christ as “Firstborn of every creature.” Christ – the vivified, exalted human who was generated (and thus fathered) by God when his mother became pregnant with him – wasn’t “Firstborn of every creature” during the six days of creation. This view is being assumed by the Arian, and then read into Col. 1:15.
Remarkably, Stephen reminds the reader that we should interpret a word or statement “literally if possible.” I agree. And it’s not possible to understand “firstborn” in accord with its literal meaning in Col. 1:15 and 1:18. As Stephen has acknowledged, this term literally means “born first” or “first to be born.” But it makes no sense to say that Christ is “born first of every creature,” or “born first from among the dead.” That’s nonsense. And the Arian would, I’m sure, agree. That’s why he has to change the meaning of the word to “created first” or “first-created” (without, it would seem, even realizing that he has done so). But this interpretation is contrary to both the literal meaning of the word (“born first”) and the established figurative meaning of the word (“highest ranking”/”uppermost”).
Stephen went on to object that “David is literally said to be “made firstborn.” The term “made” should clarify that this is an outlier to the literal definition of firstborn, not the root by which every other use of firstborn must be considered. Moreover, the scope is radically different. David is made king for the eon, and Christ is not said to be “made” Firstborn of every creature, but is the Firstborn of every creature. There’s a clear qualifier given in the passage.”
Despite Stephen’s objection, I never said or implied that the use of “firstborn” in Psalm 89 is “the literal definition of firstborn” or “the root by which every other use of firstborn must be considered.” What Stephen doesn’t seem to realize is that, since “firstborn” in Col. 1:15, 18 isn’t being used literally to mean “one who was born first” (i.e., the first human or animal to exit the womb of his or her mother), then it’s being used in accord with its established figurative meaning (i.e., highest ranking). And this means that, for Paul to refer to Christ as “Firstborn” in accord with its figurative usage, the clear implication is that Christ was given his “highest ranking” status by God.
In other words, like David, Christ was made “firstborn” (obviously, he didn’t make himself “firstborn”). But when did God make Christ “Firstborn of every creature?” It certainly wasn’t eons before Christ was generated by God. Paul doesn’t say this (and what he does say – both in this verse and the next – is perfectly consistent with the revelation of when Christ’s existence began, as found in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35). The obvious answer – at least, for those who are presupposing that Christ pre-existed and reading this belief into the text – is that Christ was made “Firstborn” by God when Christ was roused from among the dead as Lord of all, and was graced with “the name that is above every name…” (Phil. 2:9-10). It was when Christ became “so much better than the messengers as he enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they” (Heb. 1:4).
Despite their appeal to Colossians 1:15 in support of the theory that Christ pre-existed his conception, Arians are unable to prove from Col. 1:15 alone that what’s true of Christ now (i.e., that he is “Firstborn of every creature”) was true of Christ when God created all things in the beginning. The Arian must use v. 16 to support his interpretation of v. 15. But as we’ll see, his interpretation of v. 16 is just as much based on certain assumptions he’s making as his interpretation of v. 15.
In Him is all created
The Arian is assuming that when Paul wrote “for in [Christ] is all created…all is created through Him and for Him,” he had in mind a past event that occurred during the six days of creation described in Genesis 1. But there’s nothing said by Paul in the immediate context that indicates this (and if the Arian must appeal to some other “proof-text” to support his interpretation of Col. 1:16, it only further confirms the assumption-based nature of his interpretation of this verse). The fact is that the Arian can’t give a non-question-begging reason as to why one should understand Col. 1:16 as a reference to what was true of Christ eons before he was actually generated and begotten by God. The Arian can only appeal to other verses and expressions that he thinks prove his position (but which, in reality, require the same question-begging assumptions that the Arian must make whenever he appeals to a certain verse in support of his position).
What Paul wrote in Col. 1:16 is exactly what we would expect him to have written if all has remained created in Christ for as long as he’s been Lord of all and had all authority in heaven and on earth. There is no contextual or grammatical reason why the words “in [Christ] is all created…all is created through Him and for Him” can’t refer to a past and present state of affairs that began after Christ was given his exalted status and universal authority by God. That is, there is no contextual or grammatical reason why Paul’s words in Col. 1:16 can’t be understood to mean that, ever since Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth (which he received from God as a result of his obedience unto death), everything in the heavens and on the earth has remains created through Christ and for Christ.
According to this understanding, rather than referring to an event that occurred exclusively in the past (i.e., when God spoke everything into existence “in the beginning”), Paul was referring to the same present, ongoing action that’s referred to in Hebrews 1:3. There, we read that Christ is “carrying on all by His powerful declaration” [CLNT] or “bearing up all things by the utterance of his power” [Rotherham]). We know from the immediate context that it was not until after Christ became “so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they” (i.e., after Christ was highly exalted by God) that he became the one who is “carrying on all by His powerful declaration.”
When does the Arian believe that Christ began “carrying on all by His powerful declaration?” If he says that this began during the six days of creation, then he’s saying that Christ had the creation-upholding authority that he received because of his sacrificial death eons before he received it. This view completely minimizes the sacrifice because of which Christ became worthy of the authority that enables him to do what we’re told he’s now doing. On the other hand, if the Arian says (correctly) that Christ began “carrying on all by His powerful declaration” after he was given all authority in heaven and on earth – i.e., that the upholding/preserving of the entire creation through Christ began after his death and resurrection – then there’s no good reason to think that the state of affairs that Paul had in mind when he wrote “all is created through him and for him” began after Christ’s death and resurrection. For there’s no good reason to think that, in Col. 1:16, Paul was referring to a different state of affairs than that which is in view in Heb. 1:3.
As I’ve pointed out, this understanding of Col. 1:16 is consistent with the grammar that Paul used. In the first part of v. 16 (where we read that “in Him [Christ] is all created”), Paul used the constative aorist passive indicative of the Greek verb “to create” (ktizō). The aorist tense – which is the most commonly-used verb tense in the Greek Scriptures – simply points to an action without telling us anything further about it. It leaves the exact time of the action/event undetermined and undefined, and simply describes the action/event as a bare fact (for a defense of this understanding of the aorist tense, see Frank Stagg’s article “The Abused Aorist”: 1972_stagg.pdf (biblicalstudies.org.uk). In the expression with which v. 16 concludes (“all is created through Him and for Him”), Paul used the perfect passive indicative of ktizō. The use of the perfect tense focuses on the continuance of a present state of affairs that began at some point in the past. According to A.E. Knoch, this verb form (which he refers to as the “state” or “complete” form) gives “the state resulting from an action.” Other scholars are in agreement on this point as well. [ii]
Thus, rather than referring to an event that occurred exclusively in the past (i.e., when God spoke everything into existence “in the beginning”), the verb form used by Paul in Col. 1:16 can – and should – refer to present, ongoing action that began at some point in the past. To quote A.T. Robertson, the word translated “is created” in the CLNT expresses the idea that everything “stands created” or “remains created” through and for Christ. Paul used the same tense in v. 17 as well. In this verse we read that “all has its cohesion in Him.” Is this referring to an exclusively past state of affairs? Or is this referring to a state of affairs that was present and ongoing when Paul wrote? Answer: Obviously, it’s referring to a state of affairs that was present and ongoing at the time Paul wrote. But when did this state of affairs begin? When did all begin to have “its cohesion in [Christ]”?
The Arian assumes that this became true when God created the heavens and the earth. But why does he assume this? Answer: He assumes this because he’s already assuming that Christ pre-existed at this time (and he assumes this because he denies that Christ began to exist when it’s revealed that he began to exist). In other words, because the Arian already believes that Christ existed before God created the heavens and the earth, he assumes that the state of affairs of which we read in Col. 1:16-17 began at this time. His interpretation of Col. 1:16-17 is completely governed by his already-held belief that Christ existed before the creation of the heavens and the earth.
However, what Paul wrote is perfectly consistent with the understanding that this state of affairs began after Christ was roused from among the dead and given all authority in heaven and on earth (and that it wasn’t until after Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth – and thus became Lord of all – that everything in the heavens and on the earth has remained created through and for Christ). And there is nothing that Stephen (or any other Arian) has said that proves that the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:16-17 is correct. The most that the Arian can say is that the grammar used in Col. 1:16-17 isn’t inconsistent with an Arian interpretation. But again, the grammar is equally consistent with (if not more consistent with) the non-Arian understanding. And the only reason one would even be inclined to interpret Col. 1:16-17 in the way that Arians (or Trinitarians) do is that one already holds to the Arian (or Trinitarian) view.
In other words, only those who (1) deny that Christ began to exist when it’s revealed that he began to exist and (2) already hold to the view that Christ pre-existed the six days of creation would, when reading Col. 1:16-17, conclude that these verses are revealing that Christ was personally involved in what occurred during this time. However, the fact that it’s grammatically possible to understand Col. 1:16 in a way that is consistent with the fact that Christ was caused to exist by God when he was conceived means that this is how we ought to understand it. The Arian can’t say, “Well, even if it’s grammatically possible to understand Col. 1:16 in a way that’s consistent with the non-Arian position, we shouldn’t understand it that way, because we know that Christ pre-existed.” This kind of reasoning is, of course, completely circular and question-begging (for Colossians 1:16 is one of the main verses – if not the main verse – that the Arian appeals to in support of the doctrine that Christ pre-existed).
What the Arian needs to be able to do (but what I believe they haven’t done) is prove that the event referred to by Paul in Col. 1:16 began during the six days of creation (and not simply that this verse could be interpreted that way if one already believes that Christ pre-existed at this time and was the one through whom God created everything).
One way in which Stephen has tried to defend the Arian interpretation is as follows:
“Through Christ, all of creation dies (2 Cor. 5:14.) This can’t happen if all do not come into being through Him (John 1:3.)”
It will be demonstrated in part ten that, despite Stephen’s claims to the contrary, John 1:3 does not say that all came into being through Christ. With regard to 2 Cor. 5:14, Paul didn’t say that “all creation dies through Christ” in this verse. As I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere (https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2023/12/did-paul-teach-that-all-mankind-died.html), the words “all died” in this verse mean the same thing as the words “the many died” in Rom. 5:15 (which means that all mankind was condemned to die/doomed to die because of Adam’s sin). I also noted that the word translated “consequently” (ára) is an inferential particle that “marks a consequence drawn from the connection of thought, and expresses impression or feeling” (perseus.tufts.edu). According to HELPS Word-studies, the word means, “it follows that...” (Strong's Greek: 686. ἄρα). Similarly, Bill Mounce defines the term as follows (emphasis mine): “a particle which denotes, first, transition from one thing to another by natural sequence; secondly, logical inference; in which case the premises are either expressed, Mt. 12:28, or to be variously supplied, therefore, then, consequently; as a result, Acts 17:27 (ἄρα | Free Online Greek Dictionary | billmounce.com).
Thus, the words translated “consequently all died” in 2 Cor. 5:14 simply mean, “it follows that all died” (or “it’s because all died”). Paul is telling us WHY Christ had to die for all mankind here. The reason “One died for the sake of all” is because all were condemned to die as a result of Adam’s sin.
Stephen went on to say that
“…the ‘aorist’ tense does not limit us to present or future revelations. “Without regard to time” does not mean that it must be a present or future event. The argument Aaron makes here, again, is trying to deny the full scope of the text, for no discernable reason.”
I never said that the aorist tense limits us “to present or future revelations,” or that it “must be a present or future event.” What I was instead pointing out is this: Paul’s use of the aorist tense is consistent with the understanding that Paul wasn’t referring to an event that is limited to a certain event in the past (and certainly doesn’t necessitate the view that the past event began before Christ’s death and resurrection).
Can Stephen (or any Arian) demonstrate that what Paul wrote is grammatically inconsistent with the understanding that Paul was referring to a state of affairs that began after Christ’s resurrection, and was ongoing at the time Paul wrote (and continues today)? No. The most he can try and do is argue that the grammar is also consistent with the Arian interpretation. But in doing so, he’s only proving my point that the Arian is reading Col. 1:16 with the assumption that Christ pre-existed. For if the grammar used in Col. 1:16 is consistent with both the Arian and the non-Arian interpretation, then the only reason one would conclude that the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:16 is correct is that one already believes that Christ pre-existed, and is reading Col. 1:16 with this assumption.
Remember, it’s not up to the non-Arian to prove that Col. 1:16 “proves that Christ didn’t pre-exist.” It’s up to the Arian to prove that what’s said in Col. 1:16 proves that Christ did pre-exist. If all he can do is prove that the grammar is (possibly) consistent with the Arian interpretation (rather than proving that it’s inconsistent with the non-Arian understanding), then he’s failed to prove that Col. 1:16 supports the Arian view. All he’s done is exposed his own doctrinal bias is.
Stephen went on to write the following:
“When He is begotten by God, this is not “created for the first time ever in 4 B.C.” Otherwise, He wouldn’t have all created in Him.”
Once again, the Arian must assume that Col. 1:16 is referring to an event that happened during the six days of creation. He assumes this because he’s assuming that Christ pre-existed.
Stephen: The word “is” is not “remains.”
Based on this criticism, one would think that Stephen thinks that, in Col. 1:16, there’s a Greek word distinct from the verb “to create” (ktizō) that’s being translated “is” in the CLNT. But that’s not the case. It’s the form of the verb itself that’s telling us what the nature of the “creating” is. Again, the first occurrence of ktizō in this verse is in the constative aorist passive indicative tense. This tense simply points to an action without telling us anything further about it. It leaves the exact time of the creative action/event undetermined and undefined, and simply describes it as a bare fact. One must already be assuming that Paul was referring to an event that occurred during the six days of creation in order to conclude that Paul was saying that all WAS created in Christ at this time. If one isn’t assuming this (because one believes the inspired revelation of when and how God caused his Son to exist), then one won’t conclude that, in Col. 1:16, Paul was referring to an event that occurred during the six days of creation.
Both the Arian and the non-Arian agree that the event of which Paul was writing in Col. 1:16 (and which is expressed in the words, “for in [Christ] is all created”) began at a certain point in the past (i.e., before Paul wrote Colossians). What we disagree on is when, exactly, this past event began. The Arian is assuming that the event that Paul had in mind occurred during the six days of creation (because the Arian already believes that Christ pre-existed as a celestial being before the six days of creation). But what Paul actually wrote is consistent with the view that the event referred to in Col. 1:16 (that which is expressed in the words, “for in [Christ] is all created”) began after Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth.
For the next occurrence of the verb “to create,” Paul used the perfect passive indicative tense. Again, the use of this tense focuses on the continuance of a present state of affairs that began at some point in the past (again, as A.E. Knoch puts it, this verb form gives “the state resulting from an action”). Thus, rather than referring to an event that occurred exclusively in the past, the verb form used by Paul in Col. 1:16 can – and should – refer to a present, ongoing action that began at some point in the past. Again, to quote A.T. Robertson, the word translated “is created” in the CLNT expresses the idea that everything “stands created” or “remains created” through and for Christ. As already noted, Paul used the same tense in v. 17 (where we read that “all has its cohesion in Him”). This isn’t referring to an exclusively past state of affairs, but rather to a state of affairs that was present and ongoing when Paul wrote. So the tense that Paul used for the second use of the verb “to create” in Col. 1:16 tells us what the nature of the “creating” is. “All is created through Him and for Him” refers to what was, in Paul’s day (and is in our day, as well) a present and ongoing state of affairs. So the word translated “is created” in Col. 1:16 means “remains created.” To claim otherwise one has to disregard the grammar (of course, as we’ve seen, Arians don’t let grammatical considerations stop them from reading their theory into the text).
Stephen: The term “all” in Col. 1:16 has a definite article in front of it, and thus is in reference to the entire creation.
Yes, Paul was referring to “the entire creation” in Col. 1:16. But once again, Stephen is assuming that Paul was referring to the entire creation at the time when God spoke it into existence during the six days of creation (which is what the Arian must do in order to understand Col. 1:16 as a proof-text for his doctrinal position). However, ever since Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth and has been “carrying on all by His powerful declaration,” it has been true to say that the entire creation “is created through Christ and for Christ.” Obviously, the entire creation was not, in Paul’s day, comprised of the same exact creatures that were created by God in the beginning. Nevertheless, we can refer to all creatures that were in existence in Paul’s day as having comprised “the entire creation” at this time (just as we can say the same thing about the entire creation in our day). And it is this that has remained created in, through and for Christ for as long as Christ has been “carrying on all by His powerful declaration.”
Stephen: It is impossible for folk like Abraham to be created in Christ if Christ isn’t there.
But all wasn’t “created in Christ” at the time when Abraham was alive. Christ didn’t exist yet (for he hadn’t been generated by God yet). And one who doesn’t yet exist can’t be the one through whom and for whom God upholds all creation.
When Christ began using his authority to uphold/preserve all creation (and the state of affairs referred to by Paul in Col. 1:16 began), Abraham – who died nearly 2,000 years before Christ was generated – was not among the living beings of whom “the entire creation” was comprised (for when one dies, one ceases to belong to “the entire creation”).
Stephen: That’s not “presupposing” a view, but using simple common sense, which is why I said, “this is a simple fact,” that Aaron has not adequately disproven Col. 1:15-17. I’ll add that he is twisting the aorist tense, here, to make it mean something else entirely.
Neither I nor Stephen is trying to “disprove” Col. 1:15-17. What I’ve “adequately disproven” is the Arian’s assumption-based belief that that Paul wrote in Col. 1:15-17 proves that Christ existed before his life on earth began. And Stephen’s assertion that I’m “twisting the aorist tense…to make it mean something else entirely” is false. I’ve never said that the aorist tense means anything other than what it does mean. The aorist tense simply points to an action without telling us anything further about it. It leaves the exact time of the action/event undetermined and undefined, and simply describes the action/event as a bare fact. Other considerations have to inform our understanding of when, exactly, the event began. For example, when we read in Mark 13:19 that there will be affliction “such as has not occurred from the beginning of the creation which God creates till now,” it’s evident that the verb “creates” (which is in the aorist tense) refers to what God did during the six days of creation. But when Paul referred to those in the body of Christ as “being created in Christ Jesus for good works,” the verb “being created” (which is also in the aorist tense) refers to a more recent event (i.e., when we were spiritually “baptized into Christ” [Gal. 3:27] and became “a new creation” in him [2 Cor. 5:17]).
So the use of aorist tense in Col. 1:16 neither proves nor disproves the Arian or non-Arian interpretation. It’s consistent with either view. So why does the Arian assume that the state of affairs to which Paul was referring in this verse began during the six days of creation? The answer is, of course, that he already believes that Christ existed at this time.
Stephen: What Paul writes in 1 Cor. 8:6 also has a definite article in front of ‘the,’ which includes everything, and nothing short of it. If all comes into being through Christ, then Christ is the Image by which God forms the rest of creation. This is indeed in reference to everything, and Paul goes into detail on this throughout Col. 1:16.
Once again, I’ve never denied that, in 1 Cor. 8:6, “all” refers to the entire creation. What I deny (because it’s not based on what’s said in this verse or anywhere else in Scripture) is that, when Paul wrote that there is “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him,” he was referring to a state of affairs that was true before Christ became Lord of all. Arians are assuming – and indeed must assume (in accord with their assumption-based doctrinal theory) – that the state of affairs involving Christ that’s being referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 8:6 began during the six days of creation (and not after Christ received all authority in heaven and on earth).
Stephen: According to Aaron, 1 Cor. 8:6 should say: For us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all presently is, and we through Him.
According to Stephen, 1 Cor. 8:6 should say: For us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is and has been for as long as it’s been out of God, and we through Him.
The Arian interpretation completely minimizes the sacrifice because of which Christ is the “one Lord, through whom all is, and we through Him.” It is as the “one Lord” that all is through Christ (and “we through him”). And Christ became this “one Lord” when he was roused by God and given all authority in heaven and on earth (and thus became “Lord of the dead as well as of the living”). That is, the authority that Christ has (and needed to have) in order to be the one “through Whom all is, and we through Him” was given to him by God because of his sacrificial death. Christ wouldn’t be the “one Lord” (i.e., the one Lord who is the Lord of everyone except the one God) if it weren’t for his obedience unto death.
The state of affairs involving Christ to which Paul was referring here is one that is present and ongoing. The words “and we through Him” make this clear. Just as we presently exist “for God,” so we presently exist “through Christ.” So let’s consider the following questions: “When did the ongoing state of affairs expressed in the words, ‘and we through [Christ]’ begin? When did it begin to be true that we are ‘through’ Christ?” The Arian assumes that it began to be true when God created mankind on the earth. Why does he assume this? Answer: Because he already believes that Christ pre-existed at this time. In other words, he’s interpreting 1 Cor. 8:6 with the assumption that Christ existed before the six days of creation. He’s not getting this belief from what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:6; he’s reading it into what Paul wrote 1 Cor. 8:6.
Stephen: The only way the text can deny the conclusion to reach is if the text said, “will be created,” which is undoubtedly future tense. But it’s not. It’s aorist, which is ‘without regard to time.’
By “the conclusion to reach,” Stephen means the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:16. But as I’ve stated before, the Arian needs to prove that Col. 1:16 reveals that Christ pre-existed (and not simply that what we read in this verse doesn’t “deny” that Christ pre-existed). No one is claiming (at least, I haven’t been claiming) that Paul’s use of the aorist tense is an argument against the Arian position. No, what I’ve been saying is that it’s not an argument FOR the Arian position (and it’s not, because it’s just as consistent with the non-Arian understanding). In other words, I’ve been demonstrating that the reason the Arian reads Col. 1:16 the way that he does and reaches the conclusion that he reaches is not because the grammar necessitates this conclusion (it doesn’t), but because the Arian already believes that Christ pre-existed.
The Arian has to do more than simply claim that the text doesn’t say “will be created” (for that’s not even consistent with my understanding of what Paul wrote). What he needs to prove is that the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:16 is grammatically required/necessitated by what Paul wrote. But he can’t do this. At best, he can only claim that the grammar isn’t inconsistent with what he believes concerning when Christ’s existence began. But that’s precisely what the non-Arian can say. So what reason can the Arian provide as to why we should understand Col. 1:16 as proof that Paul was referring to what occurred during the six days of creation (as opposed to what began to occur after Christ received all authority in heaven and on earth, and began “carrying on all by his powerful word”)? He can’t provide a reason. And that’s because he understands Col. 1:16 the way that he does because he’s reading this verse with the assumption that Christ existed during the six days of creation, and was involved in what occurred during this time.
Stephen: The only way the text can deny the conclusion to reach is if the text said, “will be created,” which is undoubtedly future tense. But it’s not. It’s aorist, which is ‘without regard to time.’
When Stephen says “the conclusion to reach,” he apparently means the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:16. But as already stated, the Arian needs to prove that Col. 1:16 reveals that Christ pre-existed (and not simply that what we read in this verse doesn’t “deny” that Christ pre-existed). No one is claiming – or at least, I haven’t been claiming – that Paul’s use of the aorist tense is, in itself, an argument against the Arian position. No, what I’ve been saying is that it’s not an argument FOR the Arian position. Paul’s use of aorist tense here is just as consistent with the non-Arian understanding of the text as it is with the Arian interpretation. And since the grammar that Paul used in Col. 1:16 doesn't necessitate/entail "the conclusion" to which Stephen was referring, we have reason to conclude the following: the reason that the Arian reads Col. 1:16 the way that he does (and reaches the conclusion that he reaches) is because the Arian already believes that Christ pre-existed.
The Arian has to do more than simply point out that the text doesn’t say “will be created” (for the use of the future tense wouldn't be consistent with my understanding of what Paul wrote, either). No, what the Arian needs to prove (in order to claim Col. 1:16 as a “proof-text” for the Arian position) is that the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:16 is grammatically necessitated by what Paul wrote. But he can’t do this. At best, he can only claim that the grammar isn’t inconsistent with what he believes concerning when Christ’s existence began. But that’s precisely what the non-Arian can say as well. And as already stated, we know that the person of whom Paul was writing is a human being.
When Paul referred to “Christ” and “the Son of [God’s] love” in Colossians 1, he wasn’t referring to a celestial being. He was referring to a human being who’d been roused from among the dead with an incorruptible body. And since it’s grammatically possible to understand what Paul wrote in Col. 1:16 in a way that’s consistent with this fact (i.e., that it’s in, through and for a certain vivified and exalted human being that “all is created”), then that’s how we should understand it. To read Col. 1:16 with the assumption that Paul was referring to a state of affairs that was true of (and could’ve only been true of) a non-human celestial being is simply contrary to the fact that he wasn’t referring to a non-human celestial being.
So what reason can the Arian provide as to why we should understand Col. 1:16 as proof that Paul was referring to what occurred during the six days of creation (as opposed to what began to occur after Christ received all authority in heaven and on earth, and began “carrying on all by his powerful word”)? He can’t provide a reason that isn't circular, and which doesn't involve begging the question. And that’s because he understands Col. 1:16 the way that he does because he’s reading this verse with the assumption that Christ existed during the six days of creation, and was involved in what occurred during this time.
Now, let’s move on to Col. 1:17. As I've pointed out in an earlier article, the word translated “before” in this verse (pro) can mean “in a higher or more important position than” (i.e., superior to). This is also the case with the English word “before” (see, for example, the third definition provided by Merriam-Webster, along with the example provided). I also noted that the exact same expression “before all” (pro pantōn) that's used by Paul in Col. 1:17 was used two other times in Scripture to express this idea (James 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:8). And in response to Stephen’s criticism that I'm appealing to verses outside of Paul’s letters, I pointed out that the Greek words “pro” and “pantōn” are completely neutral with regard to who’s using them.
These words don’t change meanings based on where in Scripture they occur, or based on whether or not the author is communicating truth to believers in the body of Christ or to believers among God’s covenant people Israel. None of the original recipients of Paul’s letters would’ve understood the word “pro” (or the expression “pro pantōn”) as having some special “body-of-Christ-meaning” just because Paul was the one using it instead of James or Peter. That’s absurd. The word used simply has the meaning and significance that it has, regardless of who’s using it. Whether the inspired writer is Paul, James or Peter, the word was used in accord with the meaning it was understood to have at the time that these men wrote. And unless we’re assuming the Arian position, we have reason to believe that the word “pro” means the same thing in Colossians 1:17 as it does in James 5:12 and 1 Peter 4:8. That is, unless one is reading Col. 1:17 with the Arian assumption, there’s no reason why one wouldn’t understand Paul to have been using the words pro pantōn to express the fact that Christ is before all in importance and rank (rather than in time).
This understanding of “before all” in Col. 1:17 is confirmed by what Paul wrote just two verses later. In v. 19 Paul wrote that Christ is “…Firstborn from among the dead, that in all He may be becoming first…” The word translated “first” here is prōteuō [be-BEFORE-most]. According to Strong’s, the word means “to be first (in rank or influence).” Greek scholar Bill Mounce defines it as meaning “to be first, to hold the first rank, or highest dignity, have the preeminence, be chief” (πρωτεύω). Clearly, Christ’s “becoming first” does not mean or imply that he preexisted as the first being created by God. Rather, the word has to do with Christ’s preeminence in rank, which is a status he received when he became “Firstborn from among the dead.” It was so that Christ could “in all be becoming first” that he was roused and vivified by God. Since this event took place, Christ has been – and remains – “first” and “before all.”
Now, in my first response to Stephen, I wrote the following concerning Paul’s use of the term pro (“before”) in v. 17:
“When used with regard to time, the term pro (“before”) doesn’t actually mean “older than.” It means “preceding in time” (or “existing/occurring prior to”). Thus, the problem with [Stephen's] criticism of what I wrote is that, if Paul had time in view in Col. 1:17, then there’s no reason why he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) have written “Christ was before all,” for that would be equivalent to saying, “Christ preceded all in time,” or “Christ existed prior to all.”
To this point, Stephen responded as follows: Except for the fact that it would imply that Christ is no longer here, which, per Rom. 6:9, is not the case.
First, when the word pro is not being used to mean “in front of” or “superior to/above,” it means “earlier than/prior to something or someone else.” So if “before” was being used by Paul to refer to time, then “he is before all” would mean, “he is prior to all.” But this would imply that the “all” to whom Christ is “prior” (i.e., the all before whom he exists) don’t exist yet. Only if we were to say “he was prior to all” would it imply that the “all” to whom Christ was prior exist now (but didn’t exist before him).
Second, if the statement, “And he was before all” did have a “negative implication” (it doesn’t), the negative implication would be, “but he’s no longer before all” (not, “but he’s no longer here”). But that would falsify the statement that Christ “was before all.” So it’s impossible for that statement to have the negative implication that Stephen thinks it would have.
Third, the word translated “is” in Col. 1:17 (eimi) means “to be” or “to exist.” So if the word “before” in Col. 1:17 means “before in time” (or “prior to”), then the words “and he was before all” would mean, “and he existed before all.” In other words, if “before” has a chronological meaning in Col. 1:17, it would in no way imply that Christ “is no longer here.” Does Stephen think that the statement, “Christ existed before me” implies that Christ no longer exists? No. So if Paul had wanted to communicate the idea that Christ existed before all (i.e., that he preceded all in time), there’s no good reason why he wouldn’t have written “and He was before all.”
One wouldn’t say (at least, when speaking normally), “The earth IS [exists] before the sun, moon and stars.” No, one would say, “The earth WAS [existed] before the sun, moon and the stars” (with there being no implication that the earth stopped to exist when the sun, moon and stars were created, or that it’s no longer true that the earth was before/prior to the sun, moon and stars after they were created). Similarly, one wouldn’t say, “Christianity IS [exists] before Islam.” One would say, “Christianity WAS [existed] before Islam” (with there being no implication that the Christian religion no longer exists, or that it’s no longer “before Islam”).
So the Arian interpretation of Col. 1:17 is not only contrary to the fact that Paul was referring to a human being (and not to a celestial being) when he used the pronoun “he,” but it’s grammatically problematic. The past tense “was” (rather than the present tense “is”) would’ve more accurately expressed the idea that Christ existed before all if that had been what Paul was trying to communicate. Conversely, if Paul was using the word pro to mean “superior to” in Col. 1:17, then “is” (rather than “was”) is precisely what we’d expect him to have written.
Stephen went on to say, ”Also, it’s not “if” Paul had time in view; Paul did have time in view, per “the all” encompassing everything."
Both the Arian and the non-Arian agree that “the all” encompasses everything. So how does this fact prove that, when Paul used “before” in Col. 1:17, he meant “chronologically prior to”? Answer: It doesn’t. The fact that “all” encompasses every created being is just as consistent with the view that “before all” means “superior to all” in Col. 1:17 as it is with the view that it means “before all in time.”
Stephen’s next statement is very telling with regard to how he interprets the verses that Arians consider “proof-texts” for their position:
And, if Aaron knows that this could easily be referencing ‘before all’ in regards to time, then we’ve no reason to sit here and question the text at all.
This statement only exposes the doctrinal bias with which Arians interpret certain verses. The Arian’s “default” position is that Arianism is true. Thus, if a certain word or expression can be interpreted in a way that supports the Arian position, then – according to the Arian – it should be interpreted that way. In other words, if it’s grammatically possible for “before” to mean “before in time,” then – according to the Arian – that’s just what it means. But one has to already believe that Christ pre-existed his life on earth as a non-human celestial being in order to conclude (or even be inclined to think) that, in Col. 1:17, “before” means “prior to” (rather than superior to). If one instead believes that Paul was referring to what is presently true about a certain human being (i.e., Christ), then the natural understanding of what we read in Col. 1:17 would be that “he is before all” means “he is superior to all” (not, “he is prior to all,” which – as already argued – is grammatically problematic).
Part ten: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part ten
[i] As for why Christ used the word arché (rather than archegos) in Rev. 3:14, it’s likely because the latter word can carry the additional meaning of being an example to emulate. But when Christ referred to himself as the “Sovereign/Chief of God’s creation” in Rev. 3:14, he wasn’t referring to himself as an example for others to emulate (for his position as Sovereign/Chief of God’s creation is not one that anyone else can have). As the Sovereign of God’s creation, God commissioned Christ to accomplish all that God intends for him to do in the future (including bringing the present wicked eon to an end, restoring the kingdom to Israel and making all things new).
[ii] For example, Curtis Vaughan and Virtus E. Gideon explain the perfect tense as follows: “The perfect tense…represents a completed state or condition from the standpoint of present time.” (Curtis Vaughan and Virtus E. Gideon, “A Greek Grammar of the New Testament”, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1979, page 149) Similarly, according to M. Zerwick, the perfect tense indicates “not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action” (M. Zerwick, “Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples”, Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963, page 96).
No comments:
Post a Comment