Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority
Winer's Grammar, 379 (355))) ἐγένετο or ἐκτίσθη: John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6 (where he is expressly distinguished from the first cause: ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Winer's Grammar, 419 (391))); Colossians 1:16 (Winer's Grammar, the passage cited), cf. Hebrews 1:2 (Philo de cherub. § 35). The instrumental cause and the principal are distinguished in 1"
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the Greek preposition dia ("through") when used of the Logos always denotes "instrumentality by an authority," as suggested by Thayer’s Lexicon and supported by certain grammatical sources like Winer's Grammar, oversimplifies the term's theological and semantic depth. While dia can indeed convey the idea of agency or instrumentality, this interpretation cannot be divorced from the broader context of the passages in which it appears, especially in the writings of John and Paul.
In John 1:3, the statement "all things came into being through (dia) him" does not merely reduce the Logos (Christ) to a passive instrument in creation. The prologue to John's Gospel clearly identifies the Logos as preexistent, divine, and actively involved in creation. John 1:1 affirms that "the Word was God," and this sets the stage for interpreting dia in verse 3. The Logos is not an external tool wielded by the Father but is intrinsically divine and co-equal in essence, participating in creation as the agent through whom the Father acts. This complements the Trinitarian understanding of the unity and cooperation within the Godhead, where the Father, Son, and Spirit act inseparably yet distinctly.
The appeal to 1 Corinthians 8:6 to argue that the Son is "expressly distinguished from the first cause" misunderstands Paul's intent. The verse distinguishes relational roles within creation: the Father as the source (ex hou, "from whom") and the Son as the agent (di' hou, "through whom"). This relational distinction does not imply subordination in essence or nature. Instead, it highlights the unity of purpose and action within the Godhead. The very fact that "all things" are said to come "through" the Son underscores his divine authority and active participation in creation. It would be inconsistent with the broader context of Paul's Christology—such as in Colossians 1:16-17 and Philippians 2:6-11—to suggest that the Son is merely an instrument devoid of divinity.
Colossians 1:16 reinforces this interpretation, stating that "all things were created through (dia) him and for him." The additional phrase "for him" (eis auton) further emphasizes the Son's divine prerogative as the ultimate purpose and goal of creation. This cannot be reconciled with the notion of mere instrumentality, as such language points to the Son’s active and sovereign role in creation—a role that only God can fulfill. The same applies to Hebrews 1:2, which declares that God created the world "through (dia) the Son." The context of Hebrews 1 makes it abundantly clear that the Son is not a subordinate instrument but the "radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:3). These descriptions affirm the Son’s divine essence and equality with the Father.
The reliance on Winer’s Grammar to distinguish between "instrumental cause" and "principal cause" in these texts does not negate the Son's divinity. Such grammatical distinctions are useful for clarifying relational roles but should not be misapplied to assert a hierarchy of essence. Within Trinitarian theology, distinctions in relational roles (e.g., the Father as the source, the Son as the agent) do not imply inequality. Instead, they reflect the harmonious and unified operation of the divine persons.
Finally, the broader biblical witness resists the reduction of the Son to a mere instrument. John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2-3 consistently present the Son as both distinct in person and fully divine. The term dia when used of the Logos must be understood in light of the Logos' identity as God, not as a created being or subordinate entity. Any interpretation that denies the Son’s equality with the Father misrepresents the theological intent of the New Testament writers and the consistent testimony of Scripture regarding the nature of Christ.
Thayer's is a lexicon they are saying that dia as applied to the Logos likely means instrumentality they are being specific.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in the context that rules out instrumentality.
If he reflects JEHOVAH's glory then he is certainly inferior to the source of the glory . At 1Corinthians 11:7 it says that man is the image and doxa of JEHOVAH So by your logic man must be JEHOVAH'S equal.
First, the claim that Thayer’s lexicon interprets dia as referring to instrumentality in relation to the Logos needs to be contextualized. While dia can indeed denote instrumentality in some cases, it also frequently conveys agency or participation in a way that does not imply inferiority. Lexicons like Thayer's provide broad definitions that must be understood within the specific context of the passages in which they are used. In the case of John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Colossians 1:16, the context emphasizes the active and essential participation of the Logos in creation, not mere passive instrumentality. The Logos is depicted as the one through whom all things were made (dia hou), underscoring His integral and active role in creation, not as a subordinate tool, but as an eternal agent working in unity with the Father.
DeleteRegarding 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul explicitly distinguishes the roles of the Father and the Son without suggesting inferiority. The verse states, "Yet for us, there is one God, the Father, from whom (ex hou) all things came and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (di’ hou) all things came and through whom we exist." This delineation shows a relational distinction, with the Father as the ultimate source (ex hou) and the Son as the agent (dia hou), but this distinction does not equate to subordination in essence. The cooperative nature of creation reflects the unity of the Godhead, with both Father and Son involved in creation, consistent with Trinitarian theology. To argue that the Logos is merely an instrument ignores the weight of the biblical texts that affirm His divine nature (e.g., John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6).
The comparison to 1 Corinthians 11:7, where man is called the image and glory (doxa) of God, is a false equivalence. In this passage, Paul discusses the hierarchical relationships between men, women, and God in the context of worship practices. The statement that man is the image and glory of God reflects humanity’s unique role as God's representative in creation (Genesis 1:26-27). This does not mean that man possesses divinity or is equal to God; instead, it highlights humanity's role in reflecting God’s attributes within the created order. By contrast, when Christ is described as the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), the context explicitly affirms Christ’s divine nature, indicating that He shares fully in the essence and being of God. The radiance (apaugasma) of God’s glory does not suggest inferiority, but rather that Christ manifests and shares in the same divine essence as the Father.
The argument also misunderstands the implications of reflecting glory. For Christ to reflect the Father’s glory does not necessitate inferiority, as the analogy between man and God in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is not parallel to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Christ’s role as the doxa (glory) of the Father must be understood within the broader scriptural witness that affirms His divine identity (e.g., John 10:30, Philippians 2:6). He reflects the Father’s glory precisely because He shares in the same divine essence, not because He is subordinate or created.
Finally, it is essential to address the fundamental misunderstanding underlying this argument: the difference between relational roles and ontological equality. Within Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal in essence, but they have distinct relational roles. The Son’s role as the one through whom (dia hou) creation came into being does not make Him inferior to the Father; rather, it demonstrates the perfect unity and harmony within the Godhead. The Father, as the source, and the Son, as the agent, operate inseparably in the act of creation.
Your a.ssertions your churches assertions are not proofs you need to get that through your thick skull, the fact that you assert it without scriptural precedent is a reason to reject not accept, one simply assert a lone exception and demand that your assertion be accepted
ReplyDeleteYou argue that my "assertions" without scriptural precedent should be rejected. This is a misunderstanding of how doctrine is developed. Trinitarian doctrine is based on the cumulative witness of Scripture, which includes understanding how various biblical texts interrelate. I do not merely "assert" a doctrine but interpret the whole of Scripture, which consistently portrays the Son as fully divine and equal to the Father, even in passages where distinct relational roles are described. The Church’s position is based on this holistic understanding of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity—that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal in essence but distinct in roles—is derived from the full counsel of Scripture. John 1:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16 all provide insight into the unity and equality of the Father and the Son, not their subordination. The context of these passages supports the interpretation that the Son is not a mere instrument of creation but actively and fully involved in creation in a manner that reflects His divine nature.
DeleteIn Trinitarian theology, the distinction of roles (Father as source, Son as agent, Spirit as the one who applies God's will) does not imply inequality in essence. The Son’s role as the agent “through whom” creation occurs is consistent with the doctrine of eternal generation—that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father but shares the same divine essence. This is what it means to be fully divine while also fulfilling a distinct role in creation. The term διά ("through") in John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16 refers to the active participation of the Son in creation, not a passive instrumentality. The Son as the Logos is not a mere instrument used by the Father, but an agent who is intimately and actively involved in creation. The distinction between the Father as the source and the Son as the agent is a relational distinction, not a statement about ontological inferiority.
You mentioned the need for scriptural precedent, and this is where Trinitarians have a strong case. The NT consistently portrays Christ as fully divine and equal with the Father, as seen in several key passages:
• John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... all things were made through him.”
• Col. 1:16-17: “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth... all things were created through him and for him.”
• Hebrews. 1:2-3: “In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world... He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”
These passages affirm the divinity of the Son, His preexistence, and His active role in creation. The Son, while distinct in role, shares fully in the divine essence of the Father. This is not a mere assertion but is grounded in the full biblical testimony.
You seem to confuse relational roles with ontological equality. In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal in essence but distinct in their roles. The fact that the Son is described as the agent “through whom” creation happens does not imply that He is ontologically inferior to the Father. The Father's role as the source (ἐξ οὗ, ex hou) and the Son’s role as the agent (δι' οὗ, dia hou) does not imply a hierarchy of being, but rather reflects a distinct yet unified work of creation within the Trinity. In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul’s distinction of roles—the Father as the source, and the Son as the agent through whom all things came into being—is not a theological statement of inequality. Instead, it is a relational distinction. The Father is the source of all things, and the Son is the agent through whom the Father’s will is accomplished. This should be understood in light of the unified work of the Godhead in creation, with the Father, Son, and Spirit all acting inseparably but with distinct roles. The Son’s role does not negate His divinity or equality with the Father.
DeleteI have already pointed out that the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews. 1:3) describe Christ as fully divine. This is a crucial point that must be emphasized. For Christ to be the radiance of God's glory is not a statement of inferiority but of unity in essence. The radiance and the source are inseparable but distinct—just as the Son’s participation in creation is not separate from His divine essence but is a reflection of His unity with the Father. This is consistent with Philippians 2:6-11, where Christ is described as being in the form of God and equal with God, yet He takes on the role of the servant, humbling Himself. This self-emptying does not involve a loss of His divine essence but a voluntary assumption of a subordinate role for the sake of His mission.
I'm not at all confused by the fact that there is not one single instance of prototokos referring to some one outside of the group of which he is prototokos not one and if such an example were available you or one your cohorts would have produced it by now nothing else matters.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your statement. Let’s take a closer look at the issue of πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") and its semantic range, especially in light of your claim that there is not a single instance of the term referring to someone outside of the group of which they are firstborn.
DeleteThe term πρωτότοκος in Greek generally refers to rank, priority, or preeminence rather than a strict temporal or partitive concept. While πρωτότοκος is often used in contexts where it refers to a member of a specific group (e.g., the firstborn child in a family or the firstborn of a flock), this is not an inherent, fixed semantic feature of the term. Its meaning often depends on the broader context in which it is used. You’ve rightly pointed out that the typical use of πρωτότοκος often relates to a specific group—for example, the firstborn son of a family or tribe. However, the notion of preeminence or priority is not always tied to membership in a specific, created group. This is where your assertion falls short: πρωτότοκος can convey the idea of supremacy or rank over a group, rather than being simply a member of that group.
Let me present a few biblical examples where πρωτότοκος does not imply a partitive relationship but indicates preeminence or priority:
1. Psalm 89:27 (LXX): "And I will make him the firstborn (πρωτότοκος), the highest of the kings of the earth."
In this case, πρωτότοκος is used to denote supremacy or preeminence over all kings, not membership in the group of kings. The passage speaks of God’s chosen king (often understood as a messianic reference) being given a position of highest rank, not as a part of the kings but as superior to them.
2. Exodus 4:22 (LXX): "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn (πρωτότοκος).'"
Here, Israel is referred to as God’s firstborn. The term does not imply that Israel is a member of a specific group of "firstborns" within a family; rather, Israel is described as God’s chosen people, having a special place of preeminence in God’s plan of salvation.
3. Colossians 1:15-18: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (πρωτότοκος) of all creation... that in everything he might be preeminent (πρῶτος)."
In this key passage, Christ is described as the firstborn of all creation. This does not mean Christ is part of creation, but rather that He has preeminence over creation. The firstborn is not being counted among a specific group but is established as the first and most important, transcending any created order. The context makes it clear that Christ’s preeminence is being emphasized, not His membership within creation.
You claim that "not one single instance of πρωτότοκος refers to someone outside of the group of which they are firstborn." This claim overlooks the broader semantic possibilities of the term and the specific contextual factors that allow it to convey preeminence over a group rather than simply membership in a group. In fact, the context of Colossians 1:15–18 explicitly demonstrates that πρωτότοκος can refer to a preeminent position over a group rather than membership within it. Christ is called the firstborn over creation, which places Him in a position of supremacy and authority over the entire created order, not as part of creation.
In conclusion, the assertion that πρωτότοκος always implies membership in a group is simply not supported by the broader semantic range of the term in the Greek language or by its use in key biblical passages. The term can certainly convey preeminence, rank, or priority over a group (as in the case of Christ in Colossians 1:15-18), which is why it is perfectly appropriate to apply it to Christ as the firstborn over all creation. The burden of proof is not on me to provide counterexamples but on you to show that πρωτότοκος in every case must imply membership in the group. The examples I’ve provided indicate that preeminence or supremacy is indeed a valid and appropriate semantic force of the term.
I trust this clarifies the issue. Feel free to respond if you wish to continue this discussion.
All the families of the ground are JEHOVAH'S Children so Israel is one of the families of the earth.
DeleteDavid is one of the kings of the earth so fail and fail.
You assert that Israel is simply “one of the families of the earth,” but this understanding overlooks the unique role that Israel holds in God’s redemptive plan. The term “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος) as applied to Israel is not partitive, nor does it imply that Israel is just another member of a group of “firstborns.” Rather, it indicates preeminence and special status. In Exodus 4:22 Israel is referred to as God’s “firstborn”. This is not a statement that Israel is one among a set of firstborns, nor is it suggesting a temporal or chronological priority. Rather, it is emphasizing Israel’s unique position and special relationship with God. Israel is chosen, and as the firstborn, it has a position of privilege and responsibility among the nations. This is not a claim of membership in a group of firstborns but a statement of preeminence over the other nations. It is a term that signifies God’s sovereign choice of Israel as His people, not that Israel is in a category with other firstborns. Thus, the term “firstborn” here emphasizes Israel's unique identity and role, not its membership in a group of firstborns.
DeleteYou also claim that David is one of the kings of the earth, but again, this does not correctly capture the biblical understanding of David’s role, especially when looking at passages like Psalm 89:27. Here, David is referred to as the “firstborn” of the kings of the earth, but this is not suggesting that David is one king among a set of equal kings. Rather, this verse speaks of David’s preeminent position and sovereignty over all other kings. He is not just another member of a group of kings, but he is the highest among them. The term “firstborn” in this case indicates supremacy and sovereignty over the kings of the earth. David is set apart and placed in a unique position by God, as the anointed king, and this role is fulfilled ultimately in the Messianic reign of Christ, who is the ultimate King of Kings. Thus, the term “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 (and similarly applied to David) denotes rank and preeminence, not membership in a partitive set of firstborns. It emphasizes authority and leadership over others.
Your assertion that prototokos is intrinsically partitive is a misunderstanding of its biblical usage, particularly in the Old Testament and New Testament. As we've seen in both the examples of Israel and David, the term “firstborn” is used to denote preeminence, rank, and unique position, not to indicate a member of a group of firstborns. In the case of Christ, Colossians 1:15-18 explicitly states that He is the firstborn of all creation and the firstborn from the dead, indicating that Christ holds a unique, preeminent position over all creation and resurrection. This is not to suggest that Christ is part of a created group, but rather that He is supreme and eternally preexistent, having authority over all things.
1Corinthians man is said to be the doxa of JEHOVAH So his being the icon of JEHOVAH Proves that he is NOT equal to JEHOVAH.
ReplyDeleteYou reference 1 Corinthians 11:7, which states that man is the image and glory of God. This passage is important in understanding the role of humankind in relation to God, particularly in the created order. In this passage, Paul is addressing the relationship between men and women in the context of worship and the created order. The statement that man is the glory of God underscores the special role of humanity in reflecting God's image and attributes. However, this does not mean that man shares the same essence as God or that he is equal to God. The key difference here is that man is the glory of God in the sense of representing or reflecting God’s attributes in creation. Man is not equated with God but rather is His representative on earth. This is similar to the idea that humankind was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27), which means humanity reflects God’s likeness but is not identical to God in nature. So, the fact that man is the glory of God does not imply any ontological equality with God. It means that humans reflect God's glory in the world, but we are not God, just as a statue of a king represents the king’s glory but is not the king himself.
DeleteNow, let’s compare this with how Christ is described in Scripture. While it’s true that man is called the glory of God, Christ is described as the image of God in a far deeper and more unique sense. Colossians 1:15 says: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." This means that Christ is the perfect reflection of God’s nature and being. The term "image" here (εἰκών, eikón) indicates substantial equality with God, as Christ is the perfect revelation of God in His full deity. 2 Corinthians 4:4 also affirms that Christ is the "image of God", but the language is more than simply saying He is a representative or a reflection—Christ fully manifests God in His divine essence, not merely reflecting God’s glory as humans do. Thus, Christ being the image of God is qualitatively different from the way in which man is said to reflect God’s glory. In Christ’s case, He shares the divine essence because He is fully God, not just a reflection of God’s glory.
It’s important to emphasize that Christ, as the Son, is not inferior to the Father. While man may reflect God’s glory and be created in God’s image, Christ is God—the exact representation of God’s being. Hebrews 1:3 says that the Son is the "radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being." This means that Christ is not just a reflection of God’s glory in the same way man is, but He is the full and complete revelation of God’s divine essence. Furthermore, John 10:30: "I and the Father are one" affirms that the Son and the Father share the same essence. There is no inequality in their divine nature; instead, they are distinct persons within the one Godhead.
In contrast to man being the glory of God (reflecting God’s image and attributes), Christ is described as sharing in God’s glory in a way that reveals His divinity. In John 17:5 Jesus prays to the Father, saying, "Now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began." This is a powerful statement that Jesus shared in the eternal glory of God before He took on human form. Philippians 2:9-11 also emphasizes that Jesus Christ is Lord and that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is God, a declaration of His divine status.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhether literal or figurative the prototokos is part of the set first part or foremost part either can work, and this is true of christ as firstborn of the resurrected, see Revelation ch.1:5
ReplyDeleteYou assert that "firstborn" refers to something being part of the set of the "first" or "foremost," and you use Revelation 1:5 to support your view that Christ is the "firstborn of the dead" in a figurative sense. While "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος) can refer to rank or preeminence, especially in the cultural context of the ancient world, it does not imply that the firstborn is part of the set in the way you're suggesting. When applied to Christ, the term signifies His preeminent position in creation and resurrection, not that He is the first of a created group.
DeleteColossians 1:15-18 presents Christ as the "firstborn of all creation", and it emphasizes His preeminence over all creation (v. 16-17). This does not mean Christ was created as the first being, but that He is supreme and preeminent over everything created. The passage also says "in Him all things hold together"—which refutes the idea of Him being part of creation or created Himself.
Revelation 1:5 calls Christ the "firstborn from the dead", highlighting His preeminence in the resurrection. Just as "firstborn" refers to rank and authority in the resurrection (Christ is the first to be resurrected in glory, the beginning of the new creation), it does not suggest that Christ is part of the created order or subject to death like all others. Instead, He is the beginning and the ultimate source of the resurrection, as the eternal Son of God. This role is distinct and eternal—Christ's firstborn status in the resurrection emphasizes His unique, preeminent authority over life and death, not His being part of the created world.
It is critical to differentiate between "firstborn" in the sense of rank and the idea that Christ was a created being. The term "firstborn" in biblical usage does not imply chronological priority or that the person was the first to come into existence. In fact, Christ’s preeminent status as "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος) is tied to His eternal nature and authority, as affirmed in John 1:1-3, where the Word (Logos, Christ) is described as eternally existing and participating in creation—not created in any way.
He definitely one of the resurrected. It does not Matter whether he is the foremost member of the set or not. It is a can you produce a lexicon that denies that prototokos is partitive at col.1:15. You keep mentioning his rank as if it has some importance it dies not. There are ranks within the creation and among the resurrection. But all ranks are part of the set.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let’s address the "partitive" argument for πρωτότοκος in Colossians 1:15. While πρωτότοκος can be used partitivally in certain contexts (e.g., referring to the firstborn of a group or set), it does not inherently demand a partitive interpretation. Its meaning is determined by context, and the surrounding verses in Colossians 1:15-18 clearly emphasize Christ's preeminence over creation, not His inclusion as a member of it.
DeleteVerse 16 explicitly states that "all things" were created in Him, through Him, and for Him. The phrase "all things" (τὰ πάντα) is repeated multiple times and encompasses "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible." This language removes any ambiguity about whether Christ is included in creation—He is the agent through whom creation came into existence. If He were part of creation, the text would logically contradict itself by stating that He created Himself. Verse 17 asserts that Christ is "before all things" (πρὸ πάντων), both temporally and ontologically. If He were part of the created order, He could not be "before all things." This negates the idea that πρωτότοκος at verse 15 should be read partitivally. The broader context demonstrates that πρωτότοκος refers to rank and supremacy over creation, not partitive inclusion within it.
It is inaccurate to claim that πρωτότοκος is always partitive. While partitivity is one possible meaning, πρωτότοκος frequently refers to rank, priority, or supremacy. Psalm 89:27: David is not part of a literal group of "firstborn kings"; rather, he is elevated above all kings in rank. Exodus 4:22: Israel is not literally part of a group of "firstborn nations"; the term emphasizes Israel's preeminence and special relationship with God. The lexical range of πρωτότοκος includes notions of rank and supremacy. No reputable lexicon demands a strictly partitive interpretation for πρωτότοκος in Colossians 1:15. For example BDAG Lexicon notes that πρωτότοκος in Colossians 1:15 refers to Christ’s supreme rank over creation. Thayer’s Lexicon (which you mention) acknowledges the use of πρωτότοκος for preeminence (as in Psalm 89:27).
Yes, Christ is one of the resurrected. But Revelation 1:5 calls Him the "firstborn of the dead" (πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν) to emphasize His preeminence and authority over death and the resurrection, not merely His membership in the group. This is consistent with Colossians 1:18, which states that Christ is "the firstborn from the dead, so that He might have preeminence in everything." Your argument conflates membership with supremacy. Christ is indeed the first to be resurrected in glory and power, but His resurrection inaugurates the new creation, placing Him as the source and ruler of the resurrected. His "firstborn" status signifies His unique role and authority, not simply His inclusion in a set of resurrected beings.
You argue that πρωτότοκος is necessarily partitive in Colossians 1:15 because there are "ranks within creation," but this misses the theological distinction between the Creator and the created. While πρωτότοκος can be used partitivally in human contexts (e.g., firstborn sons, flocks), the context of Colossians 1:15 excludes Christ from being part of creation. The phrase "firstborn of all creation" (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) is a genitive of subordination rather than partitivity. This means Christ is supreme over creation, not included within it. The same grammatical structure is used in the LXX (e.g., Psalm 89:27). The assertion that πρωτότοκος must always indicate partitivity imposes a rigid interpretation that the biblical context does not support. The genitive case in Greek is flexible and can denote a variety of relationships, including subordination, as seen here.
DeleteYou claim that the prepositions "en" (in) and "dia" (through) indicate Christ’s instrumentality but not His divine role as Creator. However, the comprehensive nature of the statement in John 1:3 excludes Christ from being a created being—He is the agent of all creation. The prepositions in Colossians 1:16: emphasize Christ’s agency, not His subordination or membership within creation.
Your claim that πρωτότοκος in Colossians 1:15 is necessarily partitive is linguistically and contextually flawed. The term frequently conveys preeminence and rank, as demonstrated in both biblical and extrabiblical contexts. In Colossians 1:15, Christ’s designation as πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως emphasizes His supremacy over all creation, consistent with the broader context of Colossians 1:16-17, which portrays Him as the Creator and sustainer of the universe. Your insistence on reducing Christ’s role to that of a created being contradicts the plain meaning of the text, which clearly distinguishes Him as the eternal and supreme Creator.
No the fact that creation takes place dia christ no more excludes his being part of the creation than the fact that the resurrection is dia him excludes his being resurrected we've been here before,if you're just going to continue repeating your assertions ad nauseum without honestly addressing my counter arguments I'm going to have no choice but to block you again the resurrection us through Christ yet he himself us resurrected so you.need to quit repeating these nonsequitirs.
DeleteThayers not I clearly states that dia at John ch.1 and colossians ch.1 equal instrumentality you can't just ignore that and expect to be taken seriously and your nonsequitir is getting old his being JEHOVAH'S Instrument does not make him JEHOVAH'S equal.
Servant, take this as a primer:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_interest_(autism)
Let’s address your claim that the resurrection being through Christ (as stated in passages like 1 Cor. 15:21) is analogous to creation being through Christ, and therefore Christ must be part of creation because He was also resurrected. This analogy is flawed because the contexts of creation and resurrection are categorically different. In creation, Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were made (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17). This emphasizes His active role as Creator, not as a participant in the created order. The resurrection, on the other hand, involves Christ's voluntary submission to death and His victory over it as part of His incarnate mission. His resurrection was not something external imposed upon Him, but rather an act of His divine power: "I lay down my life that I may take it up again" (John 10:17-18). Christ's resurrection does not diminish His divine nature but demonstrates His authority over life and death. Thus, equating the resurrection with creation oversimplifies and conflates two distinct aspects of Christ’s work and being.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that Thayer’s Lexicon indicates DIA in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 denotes instrumentality and therefore excludes Christ from being equal to God. This is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of the term's theological implications. While DIA can indeed express instrumentality, it does not inherently imply subordination or inequality. Context matters. In both John 1 and Col. 1, DIA is used in a way that highlights Christ's divine agency. John 1:3 explicitly states, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." This absolute language excludes the possibility that Christ Himself is a created being—He is the source of all creation, and nothing exists apart from Him. If Christ were part of creation, He could not have brought all things into existence, as this would imply a logical impossibility: a created being creating itself.
Similarly, in Col. 1:16, the phrase "all things were created through Him and for Him" emphasizes not only Christ’s role as Creator but also His divine prerogative as the ultimate purpose of creation. The inclusion of "for Him" underscores His supremacy and ownership over creation—attributes that belong to God alone. The term DIA in these contexts highlights Christ's role as the active agent of creation in unity with the Father, not as a subordinate instrument akin to a tool.
Your assertion that being an "instrument" of Jehovah excludes Christ from equality with Jehovah ignores the broader theological context of the NT. The distinctions in relational roles (e.g., the Father as the source, the Son as the agent) do not imply inequality in essence. The NT consistently portrays Christ as fully divine, sharing the same essence as the Father while fulfilling a distinct relational role. John 1:1 explicitly states, "The Word was God," affirming the Logos’ full divinity. Phil. 2:6 further declares that Christ, "being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." These passages affirm Christ’s divine nature and equality with the Father, even as they describe His distinct role in creation and redemption.
Your insistence on equating instrumentality with subordination contradicts the scriptural portrayal of Christ’s divine authority and preeminence. In Heb. 1:3, Christ is described as "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power." This passage not only affirms Christ’s divine nature but also underscores His ongoing role in sustaining creation—an attribute that only God possesses.
The claim that Christ is distinct from creation because He is its Creator is a logical conclusion drawn from the explicit language of Scripture. If "all things" were created through Christ and "without Him was not anything made that was made", then Christ cannot be part of the created order. To suggest otherwise would render these passages incoherent, as it would require Christ to create Himself.