Free Articles for Reprint. Free Articles for your web site and newsletters. Submit Your Articles to Our Articles Directory from FaithWriters.com

by Max Aplin

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.

Thanks!