The following is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 2: Like Father, Like Son: Jesus’ Divine Attributes, Chapter 13. Was Christ the First Creature?, pp. 255-263.
In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.
FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION (COLOSSIANS 1:15)
In Colossians 1:15, the apostle Paul calls God’s Son “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Throughout church history, the expression “the firstborn of all creation” has been one of the most popular proof texts against the deity of Christ—perhaps the most popular. But what does it mean?
Competing Interpretations of “the Firstborn of All Creation”
The alternative Christologies we are considering throughout this book have offered varying interpretations of Colossians 1:15. Latter-day Saints believe it refers to Jesus as the literal firstborn of God’s billions of spirit sons and daughters who lived in heaven before becoming mortals on earth.22
This is the official LDS interpretation of the verse, expressed in a statement published in 1916 by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles.23
Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that the expression “the firstborn of all creation” means that Christ was “the first creation by Jehovah God.”24 Specifically, the Watchtower Society teaches that Christ in his prehuman state was the archangel Michael. Historically, Jehovah’s Witnesses have emphasized Colossians 1:15 as one of their main proof texts against the deity of Christ. Danny Dixon, a non-Jehovah’s Witness advocating an Arian Christology, also appeals to Colossians 1:15–16 to defend this position, though without identifying Jesus as Michael.25
Unitarians take a radically different approach to the interpretation of Colossians 1:15, while still regarding it, as Kegan Chandler asserts, as “one of the strongest evidences against the deity of Christ.”26 Since Unitarians do not believe that Christ existed before his human life, they cannot take “firstborn of all creation” to mean the first creature chronologically. Here is how Chandler interprets the verse:
To say that Jesus is “the first born of all creation” (v. 15b) furthermore places him squarely within the realm of created things. The designation “firstborn” means simply that he is preeminent within that group, that he has priority among the other subjects in that category.27
Finally, we may briefly mention how Oneness Pentecostal leader and theologian David Bernard interprets the expression “firstborn of all creation.” He also denies that Christ preexisted his human life, and so interprets the expression to mean that Christ is “the firstborn of the spiritual family of God that is called out of all creation” and that he is “first in power, authority, and preeminence, just as the eldest brother has preeminence among his brothers.”28 This Oneness interpretation of Colossians 1:15 is quite similar to the Unitarian interpretation, despite their theological differences.
Before discussing the meaning of Colossians 1:15, we might pause to reflect on just how differently the various alternative Christologies interpret this verse. It has been taken to mean that Jesus Christ is the first spirit offspring of God and a heavenly Mother (Latter-day Saints), the first creature God made (Jehovah’s Witnesses), a man exalted by God to the position of preeminent member of creation (Unitarians), and God’s self-manifestation in a human being who is thereby the preeminent human being (Oneness Pentecostals). Members of these groups (especially Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses) sometimes think that their understanding of Colossians 1:15 is obviously correct, and they often assert that orthodox Christians reject that understanding because of their theological bias. Evidently, though, freedom from an orthodox perspective does not make the meaning of the text obvious or easy to determine. Such is often the case with proof texts used by critics of the doctrine of the incarnation.
Interpreting Colossians 1:15 in Context
Words vary in their precise meaning and connotation depending on context. If we want to understand what Paul meant by the expression “firstborn of all creation,” then, we need to read it in context. This means looking at what the passage says leading up to that expression as well as what it says in the lines following it. Here is the statement in its context (translating very literally):
12 giving thanks to the Father, who qualified you for the share of the inheritance of the saints in the light;
13 who delivered us from the domain of the darkness and transferred [us] into the kingdom of the Son of his love,
14 in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins;
15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,
16 because in him all things were created— in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rules or authorities— all things have been created through him and for him;
17 and he is before everything, and all things in him hold together.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become preeminent in everything. (Col. 1:12–18)
This passage strongly emphasizes Christ’s relationship to God the Father as his Son. Note the references to “the Father” (v. 12) and “the Son of his love” (v. 13). Between these references Paul says that the Father has qualified Christians “for the share of the inheritance of the saints in the light.” The idea here is that the Father’s beloved Son is the primary heir of this “inheritance” from the Father, and yet those redeemed in Christ are graciously invited to receive a “share” of that inheritance. The other key theme that introduces our passage is that of kingdom or rule: we have been rescued from the domain or authority (exousia) of darkness and transferred into the kingdom (basileia) of God’s beloved Son (vv. 13–14).
It is in this context of Father, Son, kingdom, and inheritance that we should understand the word “firstborn” (prōtotokos). Although the literal meaning of the word is the first offspring born to a biological parent, the cultural significance of the word is that of the father’s primary heir. In ancient Israel and the ancient Mediterranean world generally, the firstborn son in a family was customarily the father’s primary heir, inheriting the largest or best portion of his estate (and sometimes all of it). In the context of the preceding explicit reference to an “inheritance” and the use of the titles Father and Son, this significance of firstborn as the primary heir is clearly the point of the term “firstborn.” As God the Father’s beloved Son, Christ rules the divine kingdom. Probably the main Old Testament text influencing this reference to Jesus as the “firstborn” is God’s promise to David to establish his kingdom forever above all other rulers: “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27). The title “firstborn” thus has clear messianic significance, in which, according to Paul, the Messiah (Christ) rules over all creation.
This understanding of Paul’s meaning is amply confirmed by what follows. Immediately after calling the Son “the firstborn of all creation,” Paul says that “in him [the Son] all things were created.” Paul here distinguishes the Son from the creation by stating that all things were created in the Son, which means he was not one of the members of those created things. The words “all creation” (pasēs ktiseōs, v. 15)29 and “all things were created” (ektisthē ta panta, v. 16) are clearly synonymous in what they signify: pasēs and panta are two different grammatical forms of the same adjective meaning “all” or “every,” and ktiseōs (“creation” or “creature”) is the noun corresponding to the verb ektisthē (“were created”). In the Greek text, as in most English versions, these two expressions are separated by only three words, “for in him” (hoti en autō). Thus, Paul clearly is not including the Son in the category of “all creation.” Instead, he is saying that “all creation” was created in the Son.
Paul goes on at the end of verse 16 to say that “all things were created through him and for him.” Now Paul has distinguished the Son from the created things using three similar phrases: all things were created “in him . . . through him and for him” (en autō . . . di’ autou kai eis auton). The last part of this statement about the Son closely parallels what Paul says about God in another epistle (translating literally):
. . . all things through him and for him have been created. (Col. 1:16b)
. . . through him and for him [are] all things. (Rom. 11:36)
If all things were created in, through, and for the Son, then the Son is not one of the created things. It is that simple. Paul’s statement does not mean that the Son was God’s first creature, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim. As Murray Harris has pointed out, “If Paul had believed that Jesus was the first of God’s creatures to be formed,” verse 16 “would have continued ‘for all other things were created in him.’”30 Notoriously, in order to fix this problem and circumvent the clear teaching of verses 16–17 that the Son Jesus Christ is not part of the created world, the Watchtower added the word “other” four times in these two verses (as well as once in verse 20) in its New World Translation (NWT):
Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist. (Col. 1:16–17 NWT)31
In an article that appeared the same year as the first edition of the NWT, the publishers explained the reasoning behind their addition of the word other to the passage:
But now trinitarians confront you with Paul’s words at Colossians 1:15– 20 according to the King James Version. They argue that, if Jesus Christ was before all things and all things consist by him and were created by him and for him, then he must be the very same as the Almighty, Most High God, or be one person with God. But we must harmonize these verses with all the other scriptures that Jesus Christ was God’s Son and a creation of His. So the Greek word here must be rendered in the sense of “all other.” Note, then, how the New World Translation blasts the trinitarian argument.32
One could not ask for a more candid explanation: the translators added the word other to make Colossians 1:16 cohere with their theological assumptions (supposedly validated by other biblical passages). Read the passage (even in the NWT) without adding other and the text clearly affirms that absolutely every created thing was created in, through, and for the Son.
Jehovah’s Witnesses defend these insertions by pointing to other places in the Bible where the word “other” seems to be implied by the context. “But how could Jesus be a creature if ‘in him all things were created’? At times the Bible uses the word ‘all’ in a way that allows for exceptions.”33 None of the supposed exceptions supports the Watchtower’s rendering of Colossians 1:16–17. If anything, their examples actually undermine their conclusion. Perhaps the text most commonly cited in this regard (as in the article just cited) is Paul’s statement, “But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him” (1 Cor. 15:27). However, Paul is definitely not saying that God is a member of the category denoted by “all things”; quite the contrary. He is saying that God is outside or apart from that category. This is why English versions—including the NWT— uniformly translate the expression as “all things” (or “everything”) and not “all other things.”34 So this text is in no sense precedent for what the NWT does in Colossians 1:16–17. The issue is not whether the word “other” can ever be implied or even added to a translation to make for more idiomatic or smoother English (e.g., Luke 13:2, 4). The issue is whether it is proper to add the word in order to make a text say the opposite of what it would mean without it. That is what the NWT does in Colossians 1:16–17. Where Paul says that all things were created in, through, and for the Son, the NWT attempts to convey the idea that the Son is one of the things that were created.
In three of the four places the NWT has “all other things,” Paul uses the specific expression ta panta (Col. 1:16 [bis], 17b), which is the nominative (subject) neuter plural form with the article (“the all [things]”).35 As A. T. Robertson pointed out in his Greek grammar almost a century ago, the neuter plural was commonly used “in a collective sense for the sum total,” like the English “the all,” citing Colossians 1:16 as an example.36 That is, the neuter plural refers to the totality or whole category, and thus does not allow exceptions. Although the expression ta panta can be used in other contexts, when it is used in the context of creation (as is explicitly the case here), it is a standard Jewish expression referring to the totality of God’s creation (Gen. 1:31; Neh. 9:6; Eccl. 3:11; 11:5; Job 8:3 LXX; Jer. 10:16; 51:19 [28:19 LXX]; 3 Macc. 2:3; Wis. 1:7, 14; 9:1; Sir. 18:1; 23:20; 43:26; Acts 17:25; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:3; 2:10; Rev. 4:11). An excellent example appears in 3 Maccabees: “Lord, Lord, king of the heavens and sovereign of all creation [pasēs ktiseōs] . . . you, the creator of all things [ta panta]” (3 Macc. 2:2–3a NRSV). This text uses the same two expresions we find in Colossians 1:15–16a and in the same context of the creation of the world. As Richard Bauckham points out, the expression “belongs to the standard rhetoric of Jewish monotheism, in which it constantly refers, quite naturally, to the whole of the created reality from which God is absolutely distinguished as its Creator and Ruler.”37 By placing the Son outside the category of “the all” that was created, Paul excludes the notion that Christ was the chronologically first of all creatures.
In verse 17 Paul again distinguishes the Son from the created order, stating, “and he is before everything.” Paul uses the word translated here “before” (pro) eleven other places in his epistles, always with the temporal meaning of “before” (Rom. 16:7; 1 Cor. 2:7; 4:5; 2 Cor. 12:2; Gal. 1:17; 2:12; 3:23; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 4:21; Titus 1:2). For that reason, virtually all commentators agree that “he is before everything” expresses primarily the idea that the Son existed prior to everything that was created as well as secondarily the idea that he has priority of rank over all creation, with this second idea being entailed or implied by the first.38 The Unitarian claim that Paul means only “supremacy of rank rather than priority in time”39 is not a tenable interpretation. We have here, then, yet another clear statement of the Son’s personal preexistence before creation. This finding is not only a problem for Unitarianism; it is also a problem for Oneness Pentecostalism, which regards the Son as strictly the human manifestation of the Father.
To sum up what we have said so far, Colossians 1:16–17 tells us three things of relevance to interpreting what Paul means in 1:15 by “firstborn of all creation”: (1) the Son is distinct from “all creation”; (2) the totality of all things in creation were created in, through, and for the Son; and (3) the Son exists before everything that was created. On the basis of these three ideas in verses 16–17, commentators in recent decades have reached a consensus that the expression “firstborn of all creation” cannot mean that the Son was the first being in creation to be created or born.40 This “partitive genitive”41 interpretation of “all creation” (in which the “firstborn” is the earliest “part” of all creation) is the view assumed by the Arians in the fourth century. Jehovah’s Witnesses and other modern Arians also assume that “all creation” is partitive.
The LDS interpretation of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is similar to the Arian view, but it understands Christ to have been the first literal son born to our “heavenly Parents” (Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother) rather than the first being whom God created. The problem with this view (beyond the unbiblical theology it presupposes) is that Paul uses the term firstborn to express the Son’s relation to “all creation,” not his relationship to God or to other supposed spirit children. Had Paul intended to identify Christ as the chronologically first of many sons, he could easily have said something like “the firstborn of the sons of God.” Such a wording would have followed a recognizable (and undeniably partitive) form used in the Old Testament (reflected literally in the NKJV: “the firstborn of your/our sons,” Exod. 22:29; 34:20; Neh. 10:36; “the firstborn of the children of Israel,” Num. 3:46, 50; 8:17, 18). Alternatively, if Paul had meant to use the word literally to mean the first one born to heavenly Parents, he could have said something like “the firstborn of God.” This wording (which is not partitive) would also have used a familiar form in the Old Testament (“Reuben the firstborn of Israel,” Exod. 6:14; 1 Chron. 5:1, 3; “the firstborn of Pharaoh,” Exod. 11:5; 12:29; “Er, the firstborn of Judah,” 1 Chron. 2:3; etc.). He said nothing like these things.
The near consensus view among scholars now is that Paul means that “the firstborn” has, as the Father’s heir, dominion or rulership over “all creation.”42 This “genitive of subordination” is found in other places in the New Testament, as when Christ is called “the ruler over the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5 NET, NKJV), where of course Christ is not one of the earthly kings, or when God is called “King over the nations” (Rev. 15:3 NET).43 A good Old Testament example is the statement that the king of Egypt made Joseph “ruler of all his possessions” (archonta pasēs tēs ktēseōs autou, Ps. 104:21 NETS). Conceptually, Paul’s description of the Son as “the firstborn of all creation” parallels the statement in Hebrews that the Son was “the heir of all things” (klēronomon pantōn, Heb. 1:2), which also uses the genitive of subordination.
Based on such considerations, a large number of contemporary English versions translate the second part of Colossians 1:15, more traditionally translated as firstborn “of all creation” (ESV, NABRE, NASB, NJB, NRSV), as firstborn “over all creation” (CEB, CSB, LEB, NEB/REB, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT).44 Chandler criticizes the NIV for its rendering (apparently unaware of how many other versions do the same), suggesting that bias against the idea of Christ being part of the creation was the reason.45 In fact, careful exegesis of the passage has led most interpreters and a majority of recent translators to the same interpretation.
22. Pyle, I Have Said Ye Are Gods, 360–61; Andrew C. Skinner, “The Premortal Godhood of Christ: A Restoration Perspective,” in Jesus Christ: Son of God, Savior, ed. Paul H. Peterson, Gary Layne Hatch, and Laura D. Card (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2002), 50–78, accessed online at rsc.byu.edu.
23. “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition.”
24. “Colossians Study Notes—Chapter 1,” in NWT (Study Edition), at Col. 1:15.
25. Danny André Dixon, “An Arian Response to a Trinitarian View,” in Son of God, by Irons, Dixon, and Smith, 32.
26. Chandler, The God of Jesus, 300.
27. Chandler, The God of Jesus, 301.
28. Bernard, Oneness of God, 119.
29. The KJV translated this expression “every creature,” but every modern version we reviewed says “all creation.” For a detailed explanation of why “all creation” is correct, see G. K. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 86.
30. Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, rev. ed., EGGNT (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 40.
31. Earlier editions of the NWT enclosed “other” in these verses in brackets, as was done with added words in other places in the Bible, but later editions, as well as the major 2013 revision, dropped all use of brackets.
32. “Further Enrichment of Understanding,” Watchtower, 15 Oct. 1950, 396.
33. “Jesus Christ as ‘the Firstborn of All Creation,’” Awake! (April 8, 1979): 29.
34. This mistake also appeared in Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, 3rd ed., 384.
35. In Colossians 1:17a, which we translated, “and he is before everything,” Paul uses the genitive pantōn (which could be masculine or neuter), as required by the use of pro (“before”), without the article, rather than the nominative ta panta with the article, perhaps emphasizing that Christ exists prior to all beings such as those mentioned in 1:16.
36. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (New York: George H. Doran, 1923; reprint, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 653–54.
37. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 23.
38. See esp. David W. Pao, Colossians and Philemon, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 98; Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 95–96.
39. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 190.
40. A partial exception is James Dunn, who holds that firstborn “can mean first created being and/or that which has precedence over creation,” with the former possibility assuming a direct relationship between Colossians 1:15 and texts about wisdom being created (Prov. 8:22 LXX; Sir. 1:4; 24:9). Yet Dunn also says that the church fathers were correct to prefer “begotten” to “created.” See James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 90. In our view and that of many scholars today, Dunn’s view overstates the role of wisdom motifs in Colossians 1:15–20.
41. That is, this interpretation understands the expression pasēs ktiseōs, which is in the genitive case, is an example of the partitive use of the genitive.
42. E.g., Morna D. Hooker, “Colossians,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 1406; C. H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 187; Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 119–20. For an especially thorough discussion see Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 86–91, esp. 90–91.
43. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 103–4.
44. The BBE paraphrases “coming into existence before all living things.” A few versions include both temporal priority and supremacy: “He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation” (NLT); “He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation” (CEV, GNT).
45. Chandler, The God of Jesus, 355.
FURTHER READING
JWS ADMIT: JESUS IS THE ETERNAL CREATOR!
JESUS CHRIST: SUPREME OVER ALL CREATION
CHRIST: THE OFFSPRING OF CREATION?
IS PROTOTOKOS INTRINSICALLY A SO-CALLED “PARTITIVE WORD”?
Answering Islam Blog 
Love it. Printing it now into my binder.
LikeLike