Chapter XII – The Purpose of Christ – All Created in Him
[Christ] 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, whether
thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities…
hoti (that) en (IN) autO (Him) ektisthE (IS-CREATed) ta
(THE) panta (ALL) ta (THE) en (IN) tois (THE)
ouranois (HEAVENS) kai (AND) ta (THE) epi (ON) tEs (THE)
gEs (LAND) ta (THE) horata (SEEn) kai (AND) ta (THE)
aorata (UN-SEEn) eite (IF-BESIDES) thronoi (THRONES) eite (IF-BESIDES)
kuriotEtes (masterdoms) eite (IF-BESIDES) archai (ORIGINALS) eite
(IF-BESIDES) exousiai (authorities)
All
Placed In Him
We are now ready to
confront the second aforementioned question: where is all creation placed
when it is brought out of God?
The Socinian camp would
tell us that there is no answer to this question; that God has simply brought
all out of Him, and all was thus hanging in some suspended place, bound by God,
headless until Christ’s ascension from the earth. Yet with Colossians 1:15-16,
the answer is provided for us. Before all is said to be created “through”
Christ and “for” Christ (cf. Col. 1:17,) the all is first placed in
Him (Col. 1:16.)
This is the necessary
preparation for all to then be created in Him; the all that was in
God must first be transplanted in God’s Image. We do not receive the
how for this ordeal, likely because there is no way for our finite and
stupid brains to comprehend such an event beyond its conceptual presentation.
We are not asked to grasp every minute detail of this event, any more than we
are requested to grasp how God parts the Red Sea, or bring His Son back
from among the dead. The most that we could establish is that this event
occurred sometime before Genesis 1:1, given what we already know from
Philippians 2:6-8, and later evidence that we will read in John 1 and Hebrews 1.
With Christ’s creation,
and the establishment of Him at the Head of creation, His exaltation may begin
(note that He is not highly exalted until after His ascension.) By
being the first created, He holds the pre-eminent status that no other could
attain. He is on the level of the creature – but He is the first creature,
the Original, whose seed is in Him (cf. Gen. 1:11.)
This is, then, also the
necessary preparation for God’s glorification of His Son. In order to progressively
glorify His Son – and thus ultimately bring glory toward Himself – He must
establish creation in Love’s Image first. No other creature can attest
to being appointed an enjoyer of the allotment of all, the One through
Whom God makes all (1 Cor. 8:6, Heb. 1:3-4.) He is simultaneously the only One
Who could step above the rest of creation, brought into the closest relation
and likeness to God. His intermediary position makes Him the best
Representative of both parties. Thus we perceive His inevitable
mediatorial role, which must reflect both God’s perspective and man’s
perspective (Phil. 2:6-8, 1 Tim. 2:5.)
It is yet again argued
that this “makes Christ a Co-creator.” In the words of a recent protestation by
an angry advocate for this claim, “Your view is basically Mormonism. They
believe Jesus was a pre-existent brother of Satan too. You’re arguing for an
angel-Jesus who helped out at creation. If he’s not God, but he was there
creating, he’s a demi-god or an angel. Pick one.”
This advocate, while
admittedly not the best representative (on the grounds that their
assessment hardly aligns with any claim we have yet made for the opposition,)
touches upon the general “zeitgeist” of the present-day body of Christ within
this sect. The position we concordant believers have continually affirmed is hardly
known, yet it is felt like it pertains to “this” philosophy or
“that” philosophy. The grammatical distinctions are blurred. Our brother Liam,
a primary representative for this view, says with
his posse concerning our present passage:
“‘In Him’ speaks of
‘God’s sphere,’ His purpose, His reason for creating, which is Jesus
Christ – King of kings, Lord of lords. That’s how ‘all is created in
Him…’ It is referring to God’s plan being centered in Jesus Christ, not
executed by Jesus Christ. If this verse were referring to
that, then all the verses in the Old Testament saying ‘Yahweh is the sole
Creator,’ and ‘He alone created the heavens and the earth,’ would be
contradicted by this one.”
Such a take is why this
is such a difficult matter to discuss at present; those who oppose our view
often do not demonstrate an understanding of it, first and foremost,
for, if they were, they would not begin with misinformation concerning it. We
have not proclaimed that Christ “executes” His Father’s creation. We have
affirmed that He is “the creation,” in so many words, and the stretching
out of the heavens as we read in Isaiah 44:11, while depicted in Christ,
is done entirely by the power of God. None were with Him, as His
equal; all, including Christ, are subject to the Subjector’s will.
To the angrier advocate,
we reply: we have picked one. Christ is the Image of the invisible God,
the One in Whom all is. Christ is not only a brother of Satan, but a brother of
all. Yet not only so, but He is also the Kinsman Redeemer of all.
He is not the Creator of all, but its means. He did not “create”
all, but is the One in which all is created. The One Who made Christ
makes all. Christ is not the “helper” of any of this. To misrepresent us
as Mormons is quite a stretch of the imagination, and to limit our view
to one of Jesus as one angelic Messenger among many is
disingenuous. To proclaim this of us when we have done nothing but praise the
Lord at the Head of all creation, as a Created One – subject to His
Father in both the highest Form in the universe, and the lowest –
demonstrates a lack of understanding of the position we have been taking. We
are grateful to God that we receive such slander, for it affirms our position
(Phil. 1:29-30.)
The clearest contrast
which, for us, highlights that Christ is not a Co-Creator, are the
prepositions in view when we contrast Christ with The Father. When
we read of The Father, we specifically note:
1.
Out of God
is all (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6)
2.
Through God
is all (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 12:6)
3.
For God
is all (Rom. 11:36, Phil. 2:11)
Conversely, when we read
of The Son, we note:
1.
In Christ is all (Col.
1:16)
2.
Through Christ
is all (Col. 1:17, 1 Cor. 8:6)
3.
For Christ
is all (Col. 1:17, Phil. 2:9-10)
We may note that in the
two passages which refer to the entire scope of creation – Rom. 11:36
and Col. 1:16-17 – the first preposition in the sequence is different.
If we may: we are
limited dullards who are graced to form a sentence, to consider a complex
thought, and even breathe as conscious, living creatures, in what
limited, finite, imperfect ways we do. We are reading the words of One Who created
sentences, Who enables our thoughts, and authors both our voluntary and
involuntary functions. On this, no member of the body of Christ should be
discordant.
We further find that
Romans 11:36, in our physical Concordant Literal New Testament, is on page 383.
Comparatively, Colossians 1:16-17 can be found on page 468.
96 pages. This is the
difference in length between the two.
God can foreshadow and
orchestrate the entire universe. Yet can He differentiate between these two
statements? Is He able to distinguish His role from His Son? These two
prepositions are the difference drawn between the two – otherwise,
almost the exact same thought is conveyed; the all, its place, its
means, and its destiny.
One takes out –
and the Other is given.
For God to ensure that
the thought of this is conveyed should yet again place us beyond all reasonable
doubt as to Who truly authors creation. Christ gets to be the
Representative of Creator, being the first created. We are thus
able to appreciate the most intimate likeness He holds to God, as the
Son. As all was in God, there was then no creature that escaped Him. All were
found in Him, and thus all is bound to Love’s Image.
We must appreciate the
symmetry in this, having considered the higher exaltation spoken of in
Philippians 2:9-11. The structure of the eons are chiastic. This is a
pattern that arranges ideas in a symmetric pattern in order to convey a point. As
all is out of God, placed in Christ, created in Him, so
also Christ is the through-line, that on the other end, all is
reconciled into Him, to be brought back into God. Such a prospect
is even more plainly given in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, where we read that Christ
remains a Subjector until He is placing all opposition under
His feet. When none remain opposed, all are subject, and thus Christ can
yet again relinquish His role, and give all back to God.
In short: the story begins
as it concludes, with Christ as the visible Representative
until all creation is able to enjoy God without mediation, for
rebellion will no longer find refuge in any heart.
In Christ, then, is all.
To exclude any would be
to exclude the very Channel which God uses to establish, draw in, and reconcile
all creation. As we all were once in Adam, Adam was once in the
Image of God (Gen. 1:27, Col. 1:16,) as the Image of God was once in God
(cf. Rom. 11:36.) Before sin’s strain upon the relationship between man
and God, all was established in Christ, for the benefit of the same all.
All Created in the Son
We understand that each
article in the “Purpose of Christ” portion of the study has included Colossians
1:15-20. Please have grace with us as we cite part of this passage once more
for the pleasure of our spirits–
[Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every
creature, for in Him is all created…
We are delighted to
perceive, further, the Greek of the passage, which has been more straightforward
than the English counterpart above. Thus far, we have stressed the preposition
“for” at the beginning of Colossians 1:16, to connect the two clauses
“Firstborn of every creature” and “in Him is all created,” as the cause (for
in Him…) and effect (Firstborn.) Though the passage speaks
highly of Christ’s role and station, let us not neglect the time
aspect.
In this portion of the
study, we wish, in roundabout fashion, to expose two falsehoods, which
do not hold up in light of the grammar of the Greek passage. First, we have
been told by some that the above passage refers solely to the new creation
– that the “old” creation was never created in Christ, and we are
inserting it where it does not belong . And, second, we have been told by our
favorite task force that “all” being created in Christ is figurative,
and not literal. In other words, that the statement that “in Christ
is all created” refers to the purpose of creation, as opposed to a
literal fact for us to believe.
To expose both of
these interpretations as cherry-picking the evidence, we will, as with
Philippians 2, take the clause word by word, so as to acknowledge all the
evidence, and leave no stone unturned.
We admittedly began this
process with the first half of this study, by acknowledging the contrasting “in
Christ” and “out of God.” We will therefore consider the verb created.
In Greek, the term is ktizo. Yet, as with Philippians, there are
critical inflections imposed on the term which must modify our understanding of
the dynamic between Christ and God. First, and most notably, “created”
is not in the active voice – so as to indicate that “Christ” is
the One creating. It is, instead, in the passive voice, showing us that
Christ is the recipient of the action of creation. Surely, we can
acknowledge that the all-knowing God can differentiate between the passive and
the active voice! He intentionally modifies the verb so as to be passive.
There is not one passage in scripture which would indicate that the one
being acted upon is somehow also the active participant in the act.
This could not possibly
be understated enough, seeing as many scoffers have put the word “Co-Creator”
in our mouth. These scoffers may not like that we insist that they lie on our
names, but this debate has gone on to such lengths that to ignore that
we have made such a statement is to shy away from the truth of our position,
and thus shirk the light in which we should be walking (Eph. 4:24-25, 5:8-9.) To
be clear: this is not even a matter of “belief” in the position, but an
intellectual acknowledgement of the position taken. To this day, we have
not yet seen the brothers who oppose us acknowledge with understanding that we treat
Christ as the Recipient of creation, and not the cause.
The verb ktizo is
also written in the indefinite, or aorist tense – hence the
Concordant Version has written “is created,” as opposed to many English
translations which would say “was created.” This has been used by our
opponents to make the same compositional fallacy as that noted in Philippians 2
– that we must delegate the events above to the present, ascended Christ
alone. Yet given the very first use(s) of the aorist tense in Matt.
1:1-16, this take is demonstrably shortsighted and inconclusive.
As both our brothers A.E.
Knoch and Thijs Amersfoort conveyed earlier in this study, the “aorist” tense
does not regard time, but regards the entirety of an action that
could have taken place at any point in time. Thus we cannot regard
“created” as that taking place at the present time only, or in some
figurative sense which only conveys the “new” creation. Both interpretations
disregard the aorist tense entirely, and, in the case of the “figurative”
sense, forcefully add the word “new” to the mix, so as to limit the
revelation.
Still, we have faced the
objection, “To say the aorist tense ‘precludes nothing’ regarding time is a
grammatical fallacy. If that were true, then the ‘new creation’ (kaine
ktisis) of 2 Corinthians 5:17 would have to be the same event as Genesis
because the language is identical. Paul frequently uses ‘creation’ terminology to
describe the new order established at the resurrection.”
On this, we not only
point again to Matthew 1:1-16, to highlight that, yes, the aorist tense indeed disregards
time entirely, and can be used of any event in the past, present, or future.
We further note that Paul uses the aorist tense in regard to the verb “passed
by,” in regard to the old creation ending (2 Cor. 5:17.) We
can tell that this refers to the “new creation” because Paul explicitly refers
to the creation as “new.”
We may further add that
the old creation was bound to the living Christ at the cross (Rom.
6:5-6.) If it is as our objectors claim, then Christ would have no right
to have all of the old creation bound to Him. Yet this poses an
insoluble problem: “What you are sowing is not being vivified if it should not
be dying” (1 Cor. 15:36.) Such a change cannot occur without relation to the
object being sown. How, then, if He holds no connection to the old
by way of inclusion in God’s own stated method (Col. 1:16,) can He have
a connection to the new? What right does He have to all if He is
not first shown as the Image of God, with all created in Him
first?
Yet again, we are being
mildly argumentative, for such a “new creation” opinion falls flat, even from
verse 15. Christ is said to be Firstborn of every creation, not only
new creations. We heartily agree that “firstborn” on its own does not prove
first in time, but we do insist that context, and the genitive
phrase which follows “firstborn,” as well as its explanatory clause, does
affirm a close, vital relationship, at the beginning of the
eonian plot! Christ must be “Firstborn of every creation,” or His
sacrifice cannot enable God to establish the new through Him in like manner.
* * *
What can we glean from
all this? Undoubtedly, the verb in view conveys Christ as Recipient, and does
not limit Him to the present. It must, then, only be God Who creates
all in Christ. We see, on God’s authority, creation come
into being in Christ, not out of Christ.
We read that this
concerns all creation – not some, not only new, but all.
To deny the scope of this first “all” is to deny the scope of the last
“all” in Colossians 1:20. All must be made old, so that all can
be made new. The reform creation undergoes at the cross must relate to
Christ on both sides of the equation.
To confirm that all are
in view – not merely authority figures, or humanity, or some other severe
limitation of the text – Paul immediately contextualizes that he is
referring to those on the earth and those in the heavens, both the
visible and the invisible.
Surely, there is nothing
God has made which does not fall into one of these four categories? The heavens,
the earth, the visible, the invisible. No matter where
one creature falls, they are said to be created in Christ.
That all is created through
Christ is undeniably clear (Col. 1:17, 1 Cor. 8:6, John 1:3 – a claim we
will scrutinize in more detail later.) Yet to note that all was actually
created in Him beforehand impresses upon us the depth of Christ’s
connection to all. One brother likens creation to the “seed” within Christ. God
creates all within this seed, itself within the Created Image. The
preparation for the universe was far more than a “blueprint” or “idea”
or “concept” that God conceived of prior to lifting a finger (like
“Forethought,” Mr. Barbelos, an unproven notion.) God calls all into existence
in His Son, in spirit.
A few will certainly
object to the last sentence, yet we insist that this is in line with the
scriptures themselves. In spirit, for example, God has already played
out Revelation. He is not subject to time, as we are, and was thus able
to actually bring John, in spirit, to the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10,) to the
throne in heaven (Rev. 4:2,) and even to witness the holy city, Jerusalem, from
atop a mountain on the new earth (Rev. 21:10.) John was perceiving things,
not merely imagining them. He saw and heard the events written as
they occurred. This is, indeed, because God has already created all. Though,
to us, our expectation of new is future, in spirit (which He is
– John 4:24,) His action as Creator is accomplished.
Many more examples
suffice – namely, every prophecy in the Old Testament, which foresaw Jesus’
crucifixion exactly as it came to pass. A clear example of this is in Ezekiel
40-47, where we read of Ezekiel being taken away, in spirit, to the temple
in the holy oblation, in the coming kingdom. To Ezekiel, the experience was
real and visceral. He was, indeed, walking around houses and through streams.
Who in Christ could
forget the most exciting example of this, from our brother Paul? In 2 Cor.
12:1-6, we read of his greatest spiritual revelation – witnessing the new
heavens. He proclaimed that this experience was so great that he
could not even speak of it. Yet it was so real he could not tell if he
was already there or not! Yet this is the heavens that, according to our
present place in God’s timeline, has
not yet come to pass.
Yet excitement cannot
even transcend the greatest example – our Lord’s death. The Lamb is said
to have been “slain from the disruption of the world” (Rev. 13:8.) From the
moment Sin imposed her will upon creation, the Son of God had been considered
slain. All intelligible expositors will agree that this is a figure of speech,
of course, speaking of something as having occurred when it has not. Yet
scriptural figures, while not true literally, are meant to
illustrate a true point. In regards to God’s dealings with creation,
innocent blood is continually shed on account of the sins of mankind. Apart
from their inclusion in the great Antitype, every sacrifice since
the disruption of the world could be of no effect, as one could not be sheltered
outside of the types of the only true Shelter from Enmity (Rom. 3:24-26.)
From these various
examples (not to mention God’s clear methodology, already shown in Genesis 1,) we
are able to appreciate “how,” thematically, all is said to be created in the
Son of His Love. This prepared the way for all His dealings with the
creation He alone made, through a righteous Mediator, for the
effectual reconciliation to Love that all were first created in.
Praise Yah for His
indescribable gratuities! How beautifully He composes a tale in which He may establish
all in Christ, and reconcile all in Christ by vitally connecting
this same all to the Shelter God provides! This, indeed, most magnifies
our Lord. Here we can appreciate both His glory as the Son of Man,
in a body of humiliation, and as the Son of God, in the form of God. We
need not assume He has some authority over His own God, nor by
attributing any accomplishment of God to Christ. God begins all in
the Son (creation of the Son and, in spirit, all,) brings all through
the Son (death of the Son and, in spirit, all,) and brings all into
the Son (highest exaltation of the Son, and, in spirit, Himself – as
our all.)
The Beginning and the End
Please note that this
portion of the study will not concern Revelation, though, for your average
reader, please note that there are, indeed, two passages in Revelation
directly call Christ “The Alpha,” “The Origin.” Stil another
calls Him “The First.” We will avoid these, for the time being – not
because we disagree, but because taking them literally and relating them to the
present passage makes most angry or apathetic toward us.
For now, we wish, solely
on the evidence we have conveyed so far, and in light of the objections we have
fielded, to briefly review by comparing the beginning of creation with
the consummation of creation, and how each unfolds and relates an aspect
of Christ.
We believe that the creation
of all in the Son cannot truly be appreciated without the reconciliation
of all in the Son. That the two are presented in such close quarters in
Colossians strongly hints that this is the case. The fact that the truth we are
considering is in Colossians further validates our opinion, here. If
this truth were readily able to be understood, it would not be in the zenith
of divine revelation, but at the beginning of Paul’s letters, or
perhaps even in the Hebrew texts. That God instead introduces the modern reader
to Himself by relaying the salvation of the individual – the midpoint
of creation’s thematic tale – and follows this up with the briefest of
hints at the justification of all (Rom. 5:18-19,) shows us that it is
better for the creature if we recognize the cause and effects of
Christ’s cross, as opposed to the underlying foundation for
Christ Himself as the Sacrifice upon it.
It is with this in mind
that we may appreciate Paul’s scope. As one becomes intimately familiar with
the midpoint of the story, we mature in truth to the extent that the end
goal of creation – reconciliation in the Son – is apparent, which in
turn enlightens us to the cause of the end goal of creation – inclusion
in the Son.
When we studied God’s
timeline, I made a big deal about the symmetrical nature of it. The
first eon/world reflects the fifth eon/world. The first administration reflects
the final administration. The midpoint of the details between is, of course,
the cross. God always works in orderly, detailed fashion like this. It should
come as no surprise, then, that the beginning and end of the
story and their means are symmetrical of one another. The two balance in such a
way that we can only appreciate the fulness of both topics in appreciating
their relation to each other. The seeds of the conclusion of any good
story are apparent at its beginning. This is true of us – yet how much more true
of the creative God of the universe!
Those who have recognized
the immutable sovereignty of God can note that He does not change. How He ends
cannot differ from how He begins. If He concludes in a righteous, loving
Image, He cannot differ in His methodology beforehand without contradicting
Himself. Yet we clearly read of the salvation of all, that it is settled at the
start. We are, then, intuitively obliged to teach the reconciliation in
accord with its establishment at the beginning of creation, in the Son
of God’s Love, so that we do not erode the object of salvation, or its underlying
necessity.
What follows is a rough
sketch of the balance we considered in greater detail in the former study:
1.
God was alone
2.
God made a Son, and created all in Him,
for the purpose of reserving every creature’s vital connection to
Himself, in light of any calamity
3.
The Son is the Head of this creation –
Firstborn of every creature, since all is created in Him
4.
Christ is thus responsible for the
estrangement of creation, and must sacrifice Himself to reverse the effects of
creation’s disruption
5.
Christ can then return upon saving the least
to upend the failed anti-Christ political and religious constructs
6.
Restoring all, and correcting all, still
through Christ, God thus paves the way for the new creation
7.
As the penalties for correction are
served, God advances the reconciliation of the universe, until death
itself is dissolved
8.
With death – the necessary penalty for
unjustness – out of the picture, God is thus All in all.
This is not a complicated
program to acknowledge. To this day, our opponents – Trinitarian, Socinian, and
even adversarial Arians, each of whom express individual differences from the
above – have not provided a good reason why this cannot be so. We have
received ambiguous, distasteful commentary from most Trinitarians, who falsely
insist that we are severing some “oneness” of their pantheon. The Socinians
have proclaimed that we are demarcating the faith of Christ – a more nuanced
criticism, yet one that we have been inductively rebutting at almost every
turn.
When we set aside the
lacking arguments from many opposers, who must misrepresent us in their
attempts to charge us with falsehood, we are left to rest in the beautiful,
symmetrical events which book-end the eonian times. When all was in God,
all was undeniably subject to Him, given the spirit’s fruit of self-control
(Gal. 5:23.) This event finds its complement at the consummation of this
tale, in which God is All in all. The roles will have been reversed –
instead of us being all in God, God will be All in us.
At the time prior to
creation’s establishment, the subjection of all to God speaks most clearly to
His Headship over all. Later, by being the First, Christ
contained within Him an entirely subject creation, and was Himself completely
subject to the Father. This, too, foreshadows the penultimate conclusion to
this story, where all are subject to the Son, that the Son relinquishes the
appointment of all to Himself to His Father (1 Cor. 15:27-28.)
A few have asked, “Why
does this foreshadowing matter, and how does it contribute to our faith?” Such
few must recall that the entire foundation of our faith recognizes that
God is entirely sovereign over His creation, and His plot entails countless
examples of foreshadowing to convey this point. Is the reconciliation
of all, which itself is the final plot point within the eonian
times, supposed to lack foreshadowing at its very beginning?? What kind
of Storyteller would He be if He makes such a big deal about His control
over all in the scriptures, and yet fail to embed the destination of all
in the story’s beginning?
God, in placing His
creation in His Son, is as prophetic in scope as every other event which unfolds
before the cross – yet it is the greatest prophecy, in this sense, since
it proposes the conclusion. Christ is not “appointed enjoyer of the allotment
of all” at any later point in time than the beginning of creation
(or He cannot truly enjoy the tenancy of all.) We have been told
that His appointment occurred after His resurrection, while Jesus
Himself affirms that He held this allotment well before His sacrificial
offering (John 3:35, 6:39, 13:3.) When we consider His statements revealing
Himself to Israel throughout the four accounts in light of what Paul is
saying in Colossians 1, we can finally grasp some intimation of their
scope and significance.
A Few Brief Objections
These objections, as
before, are prevalent primarily among the great Socinian thinkers of our modern
era.
If you are upset, first,
that Trinitarians are not receiving the same attention as the Socinians, I will
briefly give a reason for such here. If you are seeking a “Trinitarian”
refutation, the simple fact is that our entire presentation thus far attests to
the falsehood of the Trinity. This passage has directly attributed a visual to
Christ, a lacking visibility to God, shown Christ as created, and,
in the next chapter, we will read of Christ as the Channel for creation,
and the various layers that this entails. The Trinitarian cannot accept the
reality of Christ as the Sacrifice, instead creating loopholes in which
Christ brings Himself back from the dead, implying that He is not
really dead, and somehow maintains some authority that He is said to relinquish
(Phil. 2:7.) He is said to be one third of a deity, indicating that
the actual sacrifice necessary for all creation never occurred. Such an
ideology fundamentally disagrees with the critical message of Paul: Christ
crucified.
In contrast, the Socinian
can readily accept this fact, even if they cannot grasp the premise for
it. That the Socinian can apprehend Christ crucified indicates that they could
be given a measure of Christ’s faith (supposing that some other element of
their doctrine does not contradict Paul’s core message.) Even if their claims
are founded on the same logical errors as the Trinitarian, their interpretive
reasoning does not lead them to discard the sacrifice itself. As such,
since we have already (quite easily) demonstrated the illogical quality of the
Trinitarian, and since the Socinian can still be considered a
believer in Paul’s evangel, we figure that, statistically, we are more likely
to enter a rational, logical discussion with the Socinian than the Trinitarian,
and focus our efforts there.
This is not to say that
the Socinian suffers nothing, for we have already discussed that this topic is
the difference between maturity and immaturity. Immaturity is no
resting place for one destined for an allotment among the celestials. It is
best to recognize the full scope of our own Lord’s life, for the
various reasons proposed hitherto. Though the sacrifice may not be
discarded, the life and character of the One being sacrificed is being
discounted, as well as the efficacy of the sacrifice.
The objections briefly
noted here are, then, easily refuted in light of the facts uncovered. Firstly,
it is argued by our favorite task force that Col. 1:15-17 speaks “not of a
co-creator, but of God’s sphere, purpose, and reason for creating.”
In their
designated video for this verse, the crew does not
provide evidence for this interpretation. Instead, they found it by ignoring
the concordant conclusion entirely, creating a false dichotomy between
Trinitarianism and some odd theory that Christ is “the Agent of creation.” Such
terminology is not only ambiguous, but seems to carry a meaning that only this
task force and its proponents could understand and dispute. Whether the
concordant interpretation is refused by these men intentionally or by
neglecting research is unclear, but with the Concordant Crash Course, there is ample
room for them to research the position for the first time, and learn what the
various teachers have learned with the Concordant Greek Text.
Another objection by the
same sect is established with their reasoning, “Verse 16 isn’t referring to
physical matter (Sun/Moon/Stars). He’s referring specifically to powers, both
celestial and terrestrial.” This view is also incorrect, though we admit there
is some merit to such a claim in light of the second half of the verse (for at least
we are considering an objection that relates to a statement in the
verse, and does not outright contradict the plain tenses and voice in which
each word is written.)
The problem with this
interpretation is not that it recognizes the prominence of thrones, lordships,
sovereignties, and authorities, but that it isolates them from the
grammatical structure that precedes them. The apostle does not begin
with powers. He begins with “the all,” immediately qualified by
“that in the heavens and that on the earth,” and only then further delineates
“the visible and the invisible,” before narrowing to specific ranks of
authority. The sequence moves from the comprehensive to the particular, not from
the particular to the comprehensive. To restrict the scope to ruling powers
alone is to reverse Paul’s order and to treat the final specification as though
it were the controlling definition of the whole (which further dampens the complementary
portion of verses 18-20, in which the reconciliation of all would
have to be limited to authorities, not individuals.)
As stated before, the
paired categories “in the heavens” and “on the earth,” together with “visible
and invisible,” are exhaustive in scope. There is nothing created that
does not fall within those spheres. The visible includes what is
materially perceptible—the luminaries, the atmosphere, the land, and its
inhabitants—while the invisible encompasses spiritual beings and unseen
structures of authority. If Paul had intended to limit his meaning to celestial
and terrestrial powers only, the prior, broader statements would have
been unnecessary and misleading.
Let us view the figures
that are highlighted, then, in their proper perspective. They are not exclusively
Paul’s point. They concern some of his strongest examples. Presently,
these powers stand in opposition to God. Yet Paul enumerates them as an
emphatic reminder that even the highest ranks are included within “the
all” created in Him.
Therefore, rather than
narrowing the passage, the mention of thrones and lordships intensifies its universality.
If even the most august celestial rulers are created in Him, how much more
the visible order over which they preside? Paul’s design is not to exclude the
material cosmos, but to ensure that no substratum of reality escapes inclusion
in the Son. The sun and the sovereign, the stone and the messenger, the dirt of
the earth and the dominions of the heavens alike find their origin in Christ.
To deny this is to diminish the force of God’s creative work: not only for His
Son, but first in His Son.
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment