The stones continue to cry out.

 

The lawless dead vs. Eternal torture.

 Roman ch.7:1NIV"Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?"

At death law ends and hence sin ends and sanction for sin ends.

Romans ch.6:7NIV"because anyone who has died has been set free from sin."

These facts are key to understanding how Christ substitutionary atonement works. 

If it is not literally the case that no further penalty can be exacted from the dead as the transition from living to dead is itself a plenary payment of the Divine sanction Christ death and resurrection does not constitute a legal substitution for anyone.

So the claim of some kind of additional post mortem penalty is irrational.

Getting ready to welcome our AI overlords?

 

Against litigious V

 Litigious:The claim that "prototokos" always makes Christ a part of the creation is unfounded. The term prototokos in Colossians 1:15 does not imply that Christ is a created being. Instead, the context and the biblical use of the term emphasize rank, preeminence, and authority, not chronological order or membership within the group.

Myself:I'm afraid until you produce an example of protokos being outside of his group you point remains unproven so get to work on that.

Litigious:ous:The term prototokos is used in the Septuagint to convey primacy or supremacy, not just birth order. For example:

• Psalm 89:27 refers to King David: "I will make him the firstborn (prototokos), the highest of the kings of the earth." David was not the first king, nor was he the eldest in his family. Instead, prototokos here means preeminence and highest rank.

• Exodus 4:22: God calls Israel His "firstborn son." This designation refers to Israel's unique relationship and status, not chronological order.

Similarly, in Colossians 1:15, Christ is called "the firstborn of all creation" to signify His preeminence over creation, as demonstrated in the immediate context (v. 16), where it is stated that "all things were created through Him and for Him."

Myself I am afraid that it does not matter whether first or foremost as I stated before nincs the prototokos is ALWAYS part of the group or of the same kind as his forebearer until you produce an example to the contrary you point fails.

The assertion that prototokos "always makes Christ a member of the set" leads to logical inconsistencies. If this reasoning were applied universally:

•litigious: In Psalm 89:27, David would be part of the "kings of the earth" but also their creator, which is nonsensical.

What nonsense are you talking? Of course David was one of earth's kings why would he need to be their creator?

Litigious• In Exodus 4:22, Israel would be part of a "set" of other sons of God, contradicting the unique covenant relationship.

All nations are children of JEHOVAH Descendents of the prophet Noah no contradiction there.

Litigious:• Similarly, Colossians 1:15 would make Christ both a part of creation and the creator of "all things" (v. 16), which is a contradiction. The immediate context of v. 16 excludes this interpretation because Christ is described as the one through whom all creation exists.

Myself :the propositions en and dia are never used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation these preposition show that that Jesus is JEHOVAH'S Instrument and not JEHOVAH. 

Litihious:The claim that "prototokos" makes Jesus part of creation misunderstands the Greek construction. The phrase "firstborn of all creation" (prototokos pases ktiseos) does not indicate that Christ is part of creation but rather that He is over creation. The genitive case (pases ktiseos) is most appropriately understood as a genitive of subordination, meaning that Christ is sovereign over creation, not part of it. This usage aligns with biblical examples:

Myself:The firstborn is always part of the group.

•litigious Colossians 1:18: "Firstborn from the dead" does not mean Christ is part of death but that He is supreme over it.

Myself Nobody rules the dead he is the first to be resurrected to unending life.

The dead are dead and have no ruler

•litigious: Revelation 1:5: "Firstborn of the dead" emphasizes Christ’s preeminence over death, as the first to rise in glorified form and never die again.

Myself 1Corinthians ch.15:20NIV"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

That is what his being first born from the dead means.

1Corinthians ch.7:1NIV"Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?"

No one rules the dead.

Litigious:The text claims that the preposition dia indicates subordination and that Christ is merely a "secondary agent" in creation. This is a misunderstanding of Greek grammar and theology. The preposition dia often denotes the means or instrument by which something is accomplished but does not imply inferiority or subordination. For instance:

In JEHOVAH'S Case the one dia who he accomplishes anything is ALWAYS Subordinate because he ALONE is the one ex whom ALL things are 1Corinthians ch.8:6 NKJV"yet for us there is one God, the Father, of (ex) whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

JEHOVAH is the ONE God EX whom all the information an energy in the creation is that is why the propositions "en" and "dia" are never used of his role in creation.

•litigious John 1:3: "All things were made through (dia) Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

Myself:"Made" referring to origin.

Litigious• Romans 11:36: "For from Him and through (dia) Him and to Him are all things.

The word "exists" here does NOT refer to origin but brother Paul explains it here at acts ch.17:28NKJV"for in(en) Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"

So these are two different context when it comes to origin EN AND DIA ARE Never used of JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH's Creatures sustain, strengthen themselves through JEHOVAH In that case the initiative would be with the creature.

James ch.4:8

Litigious:in both cases, dia emphasizes the active and integral role of Christ in creation. If dia implied subordination, then God the Father Himself would be considered subordinate in Romans 11:36, which uses the same preposition.

Actually both cases the the subject is instrumental JEHOVAH sustains us but we still have to show initiative ,we have work to get money to feed and clothe ourselves we  have to use what JEHOVAH Has provided wisely.

On the other hand it would be ridiculous to suggest that JEHOVAH needs to be sustained by anyone,

Jesus nakes his dependence on JEHOVAH Clear. John ch.5:19 NIV"Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do NOTHING by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

LITIGIOUS: THE text misrepresents the relationship between the Father and the Son by asserting that Christ’s creative role is secondary. The New Testament consistently presents the Son as fully divine and equal to the Father (cf. John 1:1, John 10:30, Philippians 2:6). As Athanasius argued against Arius, the creative act belongs to God alone. If Christ participates in creation, He must be truly God.

No every single time JEHOVAH acts through someone in the Bible he is the sustaining agent never the other way around. He is never strengthened by anyone, Christ is strengthened by JEHOVAH he said so.

John ch.5:19

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Colossians ch.1:16, Hebrews ch.1:2.

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against Litigious IV

Litigious: The claim that "firstborn" implies membership in creation is not supported by the grammar or broader scriptural context. If Paul intended to communicate that Christ is a part of creation, he could have used a term like "πρωτόκτιστος" (protoktistos, "first-created"), a term never used in the New Testament. Early Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Basil, explicitly noted this distinction to refute Arian interpretations. The genitive construction in Colossians 1:15 functions relationally, not partitively. Christ is "firstborn" over creation, emphasizing His authority and preeminence, much like a firstborn son would have authority in a family context.

Myself:Prototokos would satisfy Paul's needs because no one has provided me with a single exception to protokos being Part of the group of which he is protokos or of a different kind to his forebearer not one.

Jesus having authority over the group of which he is firstborn and being of the same kind as his siblings are not mutually exclusive, thayers clearly makes prototokos colossians ch.1:15 a partitive genitive the fact that the creation occurs "dia" him proves conclusively that he is not JEHOVAH.

litigious:The assertion that Christ cannot be divine because Jehovah is called "the Most High" (Luke 1:32) misunderstands the Trinitarian doctrine: The title "Most High" refers to God’s supremacy over all creation, not an exclusion of the Son or Spirit from the Godhead. In John 1:1, the Word is explicitly called God ("theos"), co-eternal with the Father. Psalm 83:18 affirms that Jehovah is supreme, but this does not exclude Christ’s divinity. Instead, the New Testament reveals Christ as sharing in Jehovah’s divine identity, as seen in Philippians 2:9-11, where every knee bows to Jesus and every tongue confesses Him as Lord (kyrios), the Greek equivalent of Yahweh.

Myself:his FATHER is supreme according to the inspired scriptures therefore his Father Alone is the Most High God ,this falsifies utterly the claim that their are two others who are coequal to his God and Father,

Litigious:Isaiah 44:24 states that Jehovah created "alone." However, this does not exclude Christ’s role, as the New Testament reveals the plurality within the Godhead. Jehovah is one God, and Christ, as the Word, is His eternal agent in creation. The New Testament consistently attributes creation to Christ (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2), affirming His equality with the Father in essence and work.

Myself:Again no creation can be considered a suppliment to JEHOVAH because ALL of the energy and information in said creation came out of his form so JEHOVAH'S Using a prior creation to produce a later one is no violation of isaiah ch.44:24 his receiving aid from an uncreated being would definitely be a violation of that scripture. 

LitihiousInconclusion, the arguments presented fail to undermine the clear biblical testimony of Christ’s divinity, preeminence, and role as Creator. The use of "πρωτότοκος" in Colossians 1:15 signifies His supremacy over creation, not His inclusion within it. The Trinitarian understanding harmonizes the full scriptural witness, affirming Christ as fully divine, co-eternal with the Father, and distinct in personhood.

It depends on what one means by divinity,Christ is definitely superhuman as are the holy angels the angels are called gods Psalm ch.8:5,

But the Bible is strikingly clear about the utter supremacy of the God and Father of Jesus.

Matthew ch.24:36KJV"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. "

The incarnation fudge does not work here because the unincarnated spirit is not even mentioned the verse is quite clear the FATHER ALONE is supreme and after all that is the meaning of the word supremacy and equality are mutually exclusive. 

Now among the examples of " dia" being used in the sense of instrumentality by an author in thayers lexicon we have John ch 1:3 ,1Corinthians 8:6,colossians ch 1:16, Hebrews ch.1:2 .

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against Litigious III

Litigious: The claim that "πρωτότοκος" (prototokos, "firstborn") necessarily implies that Christ is part of creation conflates the term's use as denoting rank or preeminence with its use as a literal birth order.

Myself:it really does not matter whether rank or temporal order the protokos is without exception always part of the group of which he is prototokos there is not one single exception in all of scripture.

 Litigious: In Colossians 1:15, Paul writes, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." The phrase "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" does not use a partitive genitive (indicating membership within the group). Instead, the context clarifies that Christ is preeminent over all creation, not a member of creation. Support from context: Verse 16 immediately explains why Christ is called "firstborn": "For by Him all things were created." If Christ created "all things," He cannot logically be part of the created order. The "all things" includes "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible," emphasizing Christ’s role as Creator, not created

 Myself:Thayers begs to differ prototokos at colossians ch.1:15 is a partitive genitive according to thayers please check for yourself,but it would be worse if it were a possessive genitive because that would definitely make him the offspring of the creation and make his creative status more rather than less certain

And again the propositions "en" and "dia" are NEVER used of JEHOVAH NEVER regarding his role in the creation,those propositions prove that he us not JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH'S Instrument.

Litigious:You cite Thayer's explanation of "πρωτότοκος" as partitive in certain contexts, such as "firstborn of the flock" (Genesis 4:4) or "firstborn of your sons" (Exodus 22:29). However, these examples involve biological or literal relationships. In Colossians 1:15, Paul is using "firstborn" metaphorically to signify rank and authority, consistent with its use in Psalm 89:27: "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." Here, "firstborn" signifies preeminence, not literal birth.

Myself:It does not Matter no example is available in scripture where the prototokos whether use in the sense of the first or in the sense of the foremost is of a kind other than the one possessing him or his implied siblings

Litigious:The argument that Christ’s title as "monogenes" (only-begotten) suggests He is part of creation misunderstands the theological use of the term: In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s "only-begotten" (monogenes), even though Abraham had another son, Ishmael. The term "monogenes" here emphasizes Isaac’s unique role as the son of promise, not that he is the only son in a literal sense. Similarly, Christ’s designation as "monogenes" in John 1:14 and 1:18 highlights His unique relationship to the Father as the eternal Word, not that He was created. The temporal begetting in Acts 13:33, where the resurrection of Christ is referenced with Psalm 2:7 ("You are my Son; today I have begotten you"), pertains to Christ’s glorification, not His ontological origin. This event is distinct from His eternal generation as the Son of God.

Myself : birth language when used of JEHOVAH Refers to creation,Psalm ch.90:2 for example, the resurrection is a creative act that is why the resurrected are called children of God.

Luke ch.20:36NASB"for they cannot even die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being [u]sons of the resurrection. "

Isaac was literally abraham's Son but he was his only Son through the free woman he is the only son he begot in that matter, so the way he was begot was unique not the fact that he begot.

So to Christ the way he was created was unique not the fact that like EVERY Other son he of JEHOVAH He was created.

Christ himself admitted that JEHOVAH Caused him to live.

John ch.6:57NASB"Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, the one who eats Me, he also will live because of Me"

Litigious:The argument that Jehovah creates through preceding creations is flawed when applied to Christ: In Genesis 6:7, Jehovah speaks of "creating" humans and animals. While these beings emerged through natural processes after their kinds, Jehovah is still credited as Creator because He initiated these processes. However, this analogy fails to account for Christ’s unique role as Creator. Colossians 1:16 states that "all things were created through Him and for Him." This does not suggest that Christ was a secondary agent but rather emphasizes His direct involvement as Creator, as also affirmed in John 1:3: "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

I never ever asserted that Christ was created through a prior creation in fact I've always stated the reverse that he us the only creation that was not created through a prior creation, again the fact that creation is accomplished "dia" or "en" him proves conclusively that he us not JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH'S Instrument these propositions are never ever used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation not even one time. The reason why JEHOVAH Can take full credit for what he accomplishes dia his first creation is the same as why he can take full credit for what he accomplishes through any other creation. All the power sustaining that first creation and being transmitted through that first creation is from him.

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against Litigious II

 Litigious:The phrase apo archē (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) is context-dependent. While it often refers to a temporal starting point, it can also emphasize a state of existence or origin. For example:

• 1 John 1:1: "That which was from the beginning (apo archē), which we have heard..." Contextually, this refers to the eternal existence of the Logos (Christ), consistent with John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word").

Myself:that is tremendously circular even by trinitarian standards what in the "context " mandates a departure from the default.

Litigious:• John 8:44: Jesus says the devil "has been a murderer from the beginning (apo archē)," referring to the devil's enduring nature rather than a specific moment in time.

Myself there was a definite moment when he became the slanderer.

Ezekiel ch.28:15NIV"You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you."

Litigious:Thus, apo archē in 1 John 1:1 underscores Christ’s eternal existence, not a created origin.

Myself:Argument by assertion and circular logic fallacy.

Litigious:Reputable translations (e.g., NASB, ESV, NIV) are based on rigorous textual analysis and scholarly consensus. Even non-Trinitarian scholars often reject the claim that Proverbs 8 or Colossians 1 teaches Christ's creation. The insertion of "other" in the New World Translation (e.g., Colossians 1:16-17) reflects theological bias, as the word "other" does not appear in the Greek text.

Myself:Why is it that you people are ALWAYS the first, as in every single time ,to mention the NWT You people far more obsessed with the NWT than I,I said and I say again that The word "all" is ROUTINELY used with sensible exceptions throughout the scriptures as at Genesis ch.3:20 where Eve is called the mother of ALL with sensible exceptions, the use of the prepositions "en" and "dia" which are NEVER EVER used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation indicate the Logos is Not the source of the energy and information manifest in creation.

Litigious:Bruce Metzger, a renowned textual critic, highlights how the Watchtower Society’s translation of Colossians 1:16-17 distorts the text to align with Arian theology, an approach inconsistent with sound exegesis.

Myself:I promise to never use the NWT In our discussion O.K

Litigious:In conclusion, the broader biblical and linguistic evidence overwhelmingly supports the eternal pre-existence of Christ as the Logos and Wisdom of God. Proverbs 8 poetically describes Wisdom's role in creation without implying ontological creation. Colossians 1:15-17 and Revelation 3:14 affirm Christ's supremacy and role as Creator, not a created being. Your interpretation relies on selective readings, misunderstandings of language, and theological presuppositions inconsistent with the full biblical witness.

Myself: all I see more extremely circular logic and argument by assertion. The assertion that your position is true is evidence of nothing especially if you are arguing for a departure from the mutually agreed upon default.

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm

Against litigious.

Litigious:he Hebrew word qanah is highly flexible and context-dependent. While qanah can mean "create" or "acquire," its usage in Proverbs 8:22 more likely conveys the idea of "possessed" or "acquired," as seen in translations like the ESV, NASB, and KJV. This aligns with the understanding of Wisdom as an eternal, inherent attribute of God, not a created being.

Myself:JEHOVAH innate Wisdom has no beginning and of course is not an acquistion the only way so no Proverbs ch.8:22 cannot be referring to anything eternal or innate. The logic of the context suggest a discrete expression of that wisdom such as would be an acquisition and would be the first of JEHOVAH'S Work

Litigious:• Genesis 4:1: qanah is used to mean "acquired" or "gotten," not necessarily "created." Eve says, "I have acquired [qanah] a man from the LORD," which clearly refers to receiving Cain, not "creating" him in an ultimate sense.

Myself:Cain was not a perpetual possession but was acquired at a discrete point in time and did not exist eternally. Her decision was necessary though not sufficient in bringing about the existence of cain

Litigious• Deuteronomy 32:6: qanah describes God's relationship with Israel as their "Father" or "Owner," indicating covenantal possession, not literal creation.

Myself:He was the founder of a nation that did not previously exists and likely would never had existed if he had not intervened so no cana does not mean innate or perpetual possession here either, but the bringing forth of that which did not previously exists.

Litigious:Even ancient Jewish sources, such as the Targum and Philo of Alexandria, understood Wisdom in Proverbs 8 as eternal and intrinsic to God. Philo describes Wisdom as God's "first-born" (prōtotokos), but not in a created sense—it is an eternal manifestation of God's nature.

Myself:Again cana according to your own examples does not allude to any innate or perpetual possession but the creation or acquisition of what was not previously owned or existing.

Litigious:The verb chuwl (חול) does not inherently mean "created" in the ontological sense. Instead, it often refers to "originating" or "manifesting." For example:

• Psalm 90:2: "Before the mountains were brought forth (yalad), or ever you had formed the earth and the world..." This does not mean the mountains were literally birthed but figuratively describes God's creative activity

Myself:That is my point, when birth language is used of JEHOVAH It always means create literally never birthed literally,

Litigious:• Micah 5:2: The Messiah’s "goings forth" (motsa'ot) are described as "from eternity" (miqedem). Similarly, Proverbs 8:24-25 speaks of Wisdom’s manifestation in creation without implying its ontological beginning.

Myself:According to strong's miqedem can and indeed usually means from old not necessarily from eternity. Olam also basically means hidden time and need not imply eternity and as this particular acquisition is spoken of as having a beginning. Eternity does not fit the context.

Wisdom is described poetically as "brought forth" to illustrate its active role in creation, not its origin. The broader context of Proverbs 8 portrays Wisdom as God's eternal attribute, foundational to all creation, aligning with John's depiction of the Logos (John 1:1). 

Myself: or The fact that the creation was the beginning of the manifestation of JEHOVAH'S Wisdom which seems to make more sense, no one can read JEHOVAH'S Mind the only way that his Wisdom can be known is by observing expressions of it.

 see Romans ch.1:20

Litigious:The Greek word archē (ἀρχή) has multiple meanings, including "beginning," "ruler," "origin," or "source." Its precise meaning is determined by context. In Revelation 3:14, the phrase hē archē tēs ktiseōs is better translated as "the source [or origin] of creation," not "the first created being."

Myself:Well you assert that he is the source you have not demonstrated that note that he is the arche of THE GOD'S creation why is the expression "the God" in the third person if he is the God who is the source of the creation. And given John's use of arche at 1John ch.1:1 and throughout the book of revelation . And the fact That he used archon at revelation ch.1:5 when he wanted to put Christ status as ruler to the fore. A mere assertion is not sufficient to overturn the king James verdion [good trinitarians like yourself] on this one

Litihious:• Colossians 1:16-17: Paul emphasizes that "all things" (πᾶντα) were created through Christ, and Christ existed "before all things" (pro pantōn), clearly excluding Him from the category of created beings.

Myself :The fact that all things were created "dia" christ indicates that he is not the source of the power and wisdom in the creation, you will note that propositions like "en" and "dia" are NEVER used of JEHOVAH'S Role in the creation so while Christ is exempt from the rest of the creation that took place THROUGH Him  he is not exempt from  JEHOVAH'S Creation.

The word all is routinely used in scripture with sensible exceptions.

Example Genesis ch.3:20NKJV"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve,[g] because she was the mother of ALL living." This does not exclude Eve or Adam from being numbered among the living.

Litigious:• John 1:1-3: The Logos (Jesus) is described as existing "in the beginning" (en archē), not as having a beginning, and "all things" were made through Him. If all things were made through Him, He cannot be part of the "all things" created.

Myself:Again the Bible speaks of the creation as occurring "dia" JEHOVAH Dia suggest an intermediary role not a source or supreme authority.

John ch.1:17NKJV"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

Of course Moses was not the source of the law but the channel through which the law was transmitted.

1John ch.1:1 NKJV"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—"

"Apo arkhe definitely means from a definite beginning without exception not so much as one.

Litigious:Thus, Revelation 3:14 describes Christ as the source or origin of creation, consistent with His divine role as Creator, not a created being.

Myself:You are repeating yourself we dealt with this unsubstantiated assertion already he is arkhe of someone else's creation the expression the God is in the third person not the first ,John consistently uses arkhe for beginning in Revelation and archon for prince.

Litigious:While Paul identifies Christ as the "Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), this is metaphorical, not ontological. The personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 poetically describes an attribute of God, not a separate created entity.

Myself:Of course it's metaphorical he is manifestation of JEHOVAH'S Wisdom and power.

Especially in terms of JEHOVAH'S Resurrection of him a manifestation of both JEHOVAH'S Power and wisdom.

JEHOVAH of course is the immortal God and thus was never resurrected from the dead.

Roman's ch.1:22,23NIV"lthough they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

Note our brother Paul states that it is foolish to even assert that JEHOVAH Outwardly resembles a mortal man let alone could ever have the nature of one JEHOVAH Cannot die and thus cannot be resurrected.

Litigious:• Colossians 1:15-17: Christ is the "image of the invisible God, the firstborn (prōtotokos) of all creation." The term prōtotokos does not mean "first created" (prōtoktistos). Instead, it signifies preeminence and supremacy over creation, as demonstrated in Psalm 89:27, where David is called God's "firstborn," though he was not literally the firstborn son of Jesse.

Myself:You know who else is the icon of JEHOVAH

1Corinthians ch.11:7NKJV"For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

And if David is called firstborn of JEHOVAH why mention Jesse as if he is JEHOVAH, David was indeed the first in the line of kings leading to the Messiah, even Jesus is called Son of David. Son of God was a title held by the messianic kings of Israel 2Samuel ch.7:14ASV"I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;"

So not just David but his royal lineage up to shiloh was meant. 

Litigious:Christ's role as Creator in Colossians 1 and John 1 underscores His divine nature. The personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 anticipates the New Testament's fuller revelation of Christ as the eternal Logos. 

Myself:The propositions "en" and "dia" which are NEVER EVER used of JEHOVAH regarding his role in the creation indicates that Christ is JEHOVAH'S Created instrument just as the use of the preposition "dia" with regard to Moses transmission of the law indicates that he was JEHOVAH'S Instrument and not the source of the law.

1Corinthians ch.8:6ASV"yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."

Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16

https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm