There is a passage in Paul’s letter to the Colossians that is often used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and others as a proof text for their view that Jesus is not divine.
The passage is Col 1:15-16, and it reads as follows:
‘15 He [the Son of God] is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in
heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.’ (ESV)
The argument
used
The argument
used by those who claim that Jesus is not divine goes in the following way:
Verse 15
describes Jesus as the image of the invisible God. This implies that he is not
himself God.
Furthermore,
v. 15 describes him as ‘the firstborn of all creation’. This is sometimes
translated into English as ‘the firstborn over all creation’, but this is a
mistranslation of the Greek original.
‘The
firstborn of all creation’ implies that Jesus is the part of creation that was
created first, or that he is the most important part of creation, or both these
things. But it doesn’t mean that he is a creator.
Besides,
in v. 18 of the same chapter, Jesus is described as ‘the firstborn from the
dead’, and this means that he is part of the group of people who have died. So
it makes sense to think that the similar phrase ‘the firstborn of all creation’
in v. 15 should be interpreted in a similar way, i.e., that he is part of the
creation.
At first
sight this might seem to be an impressive argument. However, when we dig a
little deeper, we find that it doesn’t hold water.
Jesus as
the image of the invisible God
To begin
with, what should we make of the fact that Jesus is described in v. 15 as the
image of the invisible God? Does this mean that he isn’t God himself?
The text
doesn’t have to be interpreted in this way at all. The word ‘image’ can mean
different things in different contexts. In this context, with its reference to
the invisible God, it is not at all unnatural to understand the image to be a
way of visibly seeing that which is invisible.
In other
words, it is not a forced interpretation of these words to say that when we
look at Jesus we see the invisible God. And interpreted in this way, there
would be no suggestion that Jesus is not divine.
The upshot
is that these words hardly count as proof that Jesus is not divine.
Jesus as
the firstborn of all creation
But what
about the description of Jesus as ‘the firstborn of all creation’? Does this phrase
have to mean that he is not divine?
Before I
answer this question, there are a couple of preliminary points to get out of
the way.
Firstly, I have
already noted that in v. 15 ‘the firstborn of all creation’ is sometimes
translated as ‘the firstborn over all creation’. On this I agree completely
with Jehovah’s Witnesses and others that we should translate with ‘of’ rather
than ‘over’. In the Greek text the construction is a simple genitive that
translates naturally into English as ‘of all creation’. There is no preposition
meaning ‘over’.
Secondly, Jehovah’s
Witnesses are also correct that in v. 18 ‘the firstborn from the dead’ means
that Jesus is part of the group of people who have died.
However,
there is a fatal flaw with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of ‘the
firstborn of all creation’. It is simply impossible in the context to take these
words to mean that Jesus is created, for a very specific reason.
Crucially,
we must note the first clause of v. 16: ‘For by him all things were created’,
which immediately follows the reference to ‘the firstborn of all creation’ in
v. 15. This first clause of v. 16 shows that the reason why Jesus can be called
the firstborn of all creation is because he created all things. In other words,
he is the firstborn of all creation because he created stuff!
So, whatever
exactly ‘the firstborn of all creation’ means, it cannot possibly be about him
being created, because v. 16 gives his activity as creator as the reason why he
is the firstborn of all creation.
But what
about the fact that ‘the firstborn from the dead’ in v. 18 means that Jesus is part
of the group of people who have died? If ‘the firstborn of all creation’ is not
about Jesus being part of creation, it looks very awkward, doesn’t it, to have
two very similar phrases being used in different ways so close to each other in
the text?
Not really.
Sometimes in the Bible, as in modern English language generally, we find the
same or similar words or phrases in close proximity to each other being used in
different ways. It’s not a rare thing to come across.
All
things were created by Jesus
There is one
final thing about this passage that is difficult for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’
interpretation. Note how v. 16 says twice that ‘all things were created’ by or
through Jesus.
Most
naturally, this sounds as if literally everything that has ever been created
was created by Jesus. And in this case, he would have to be divine, since as
creator of every created thing he couldn’t have been created himself.
It is less
natural to take these words to mean that Jesus created everything that has been
created apart from himself, who God created. If we were to interpret in this
way, we would need to understand ‘apart from himself’ as an unexpressed
exception to ‘all things’: ‘For by him all things were created (apart from
himself, who was created by God) . . .’ But this is not the most natural way of
taking these words.
Summing
up
Despite the
claims of some, then, Colossians 1:15-16 in no way counts as a proof text that
Jesus is not divine.
In fact, the
words in this passage most naturally point towards his deity rather than away
from it. And in the light of the rest of biblical revelation, we should have no
hesitation in saying that Jesus is indeed divine.
See also:
Is It Right to Say That God Died on
the Cross?
How Can the Word Be With God and Also
Be God?
The Problem with Drawing Conclusions
from a Few Bible Proof Texts
