7

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: - Colossians 1:16 (KJV)

Here we have all (things) created and given as including literally into...to the...to heavens and unto...of the...of earth. Then follows an apparently inclusive qualifier of visible and invisible followed by four categories that seem to limit the scope of visible and invisible, for example trees are neither thrones, nor dominions, etc. This is then referred to again as all (things).

Do thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers act as delimiters making the all things created by him to be a sub-set within the universe and not the universe itself? A related question would be, does all into heaven and unto earth preclude the creation of heaven and earth themselves?

Related: Does "all things" always mean the same in these seven verses?

Does Colossians 1:15, refer to the Genesis creation, or merely present Jesus as the beginning of those raised from the dead?

What is Jesus being credited with here? Col 1:16

Mike Borden
  • 4,280
  • 11
  • 38
  • 1
    The context and comparison is 'the power of darkness'/'the kingdom of his dear Son'; thus the emphasis (contextually) is 'thrones, dominions, principalities, powers'. Yes, they are a 'sub-set', but the context (and thus the emphasis of argument) is clear. – Nigel J Jul 22 '22 at 15:11
  • Perhaps they are descriptions of invisible things only, since the visible needs no explanation? – Mike Borden Jul 23 '22 at 13:45
  • If this is an attempt to denounce the Son as divine, you’re going to fail. Jesus the human body biological machine without the spirit is a created thing, but if you take the Son who is Spirit and place Him in that body, to experience humanity, He already pre existed. Otherwise H10:7 cannot be fulfilled, he could accept an earthly body if he only existed after he was in an earthly body. I say that to say, there are also heavenly bodies, and before the Son was in the human body He was in a heavenly body. And before that there was NOTHING but God and the Son was with God and was God cont. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '22 at 12:05
  • Cont. just because Jesus took on a heavenly body and then proceeded to create EVERYTHING, for there is nothing, absolutely nothing that was created without Him, that must include the heavens and earth themselves, except God who is uncreated and a spirit, God is spirit J4:24 then the spirit of the Son merely took on a heavenly body and stepped down into creation J17:5,24. Yes his heavenly body might be created, but He the spirit is uncreated and eternal, He is the archon, He is the head, the principle, the one in charge of Creation. J1:18, J6:46 tells us that no one has seen God, yet OT they do – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '22 at 12:15
  • 1
    @NihilSineDeo It's honestly just a question about how "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" serves to modify things "visible or invisible". – Mike Borden Jul 24 '22 at 12:35
  • 1
    @NihilSineDeo What support do you have for '... He was in a heavenly body' (sic) ? The Son is Divine . . . then he is incarnate. Yet still 'The Son, of man' . . 'is in heaven' (even as his incarnate feet stand upon earth). – Nigel J Jul 25 '22 at 09:14
  • @nigelj I don’t know I understand your question. the short answer is 1Cor15:40 there are only two body categories. He was the visible God that everyone saw in the OT, therefore had a heavenly body for He hadn’t received the earthly body yet and had not yet incarnated. Bodies are sophisticated carcasses, that house spirits and souls. His Spirit during incarnation was moved from his heavenly body into an earthly body, this remaining fully God (because God is spirit) and fully human, he was in a human body. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 25 '22 at 14:20
  • @NihilSineDeo There is absolutely nothing in 1 Cor 15:40 that would lead to the conclusion of the Son of God having a 'heavenly body' prior to incarnation. And no, bodies are not 'carcases' 'sophisticated' or otherwise. And 'visible God' (sic) that 'everyone saw' (sic) ? ?. Is this your own self-made doctrine or can you link to a source ? – Nigel J Jul 25 '22 at 19:54
  • @NigelJ this requires a long drawn out discussion with an open Bible. I’ve said what I’ve said, you can look into it or ignore it. But the Son pre existed incarnation (I think you already agree) what was His form if not the “Angel of the Lord” and angels has heavenly or supernatural bodies. And bodies ARE sophisticated shells (I see you don’t like the use of carcass) “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground” ‭‭Gen‭2:7‬ a body without God’s spirit or breath of life is a shell. YES when God was seen in the OT it was only the visible God, the Father no one saw J1:18,6:46 – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 26 '22 at 02:35
  • @NihilSineDeo I think I understands what you are saying but I see manifestations (as the angels manifest themselves when they are messengers to men on earth). The Son of God has no inherent physical form, prior to incarnation. And there I think I leave it with you. Regards. – Nigel J Jul 26 '22 at 04:16
  • @NigelJ earthly bodies are subject to the laws of nature, hence a natural body, while heavenly bodies are not subject to these laws, hence supernatural bodies. I don’t know what you mean by “physical form” but we know angels can interact with nature, Peter was struck in the side by the angel or moved the water at Bethesda, or OT killed a whole army, we know angels eat, manna was and is the food of angels…. The supernatural can interact with the natural but is not limited by the natural, they can walk through walls, appear and disappear, walk on water. Don’t over spiritualize without backing – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 26 '22 at 11:33

3 Answers3

3

Paul is very fond of using the "hendiadys" = two extremes to signify the whole. In Col 1:16 we have

  • heaven and earth (ie everything)
  • visible and invisible (ie everything)
  • thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities (ie everything). Compare Eph 1:21.

We also see the same literary device in many other places in Paul's writing, with the best known in Gal 3:28 -

  • neither Jew nor Greek (ie, no distinction with anyone)
  • neither slave nor free (ie, no distinction with anyone)
  • neither male nor female (ie, no distinction with anyone)

Now, there are several ways to view this. The first two items can be seen as including all objects/things while the last item can either be seen as a double hendiadys, or, included as distinct from objects to ensure that absolutely everything was created by Jesus.

Here are a few more from Paul:

  • Rom 2:28, (Jewish) not openly nor in the flesh (= a believer, not a biological Jew)
  • Rom 3:10, none righteous nor one (= nobody is righteous, all are sinners)
  • Rom 4:15, no law nor transgression (= no Torah nor 10 commandments)
  • Rom 8:7, not subject to law nor can be (= outside the law)
  • Rom 9:6, 7, not all descended from Israel nor can they be (= unconnected with literal Israel)
  • Rom 9:16, not the [one] wishing nor the [one] running (= unrelated to humans at all)
  • Rom 11:21, not spare branches nor you (= spare no one)
  • 1 Cor 2:6, (wisdom) not of this age nor the rulers of this age (= unrelated to human wisdom)
  • 1 Cor 11:16, (custom) not have neither the churches have (= nothing else)
  • 1 Cor 15:13, (resurrection of dead) not is neither Christ has been raised (= no resurrection)
  • 1 Cor 15:16, (dead) not raised neither Christ has been raised (= no resurrection)
  • 1 Cor 15:50, (flesh and blood) not able to inherit corruption nor incorruption (= mortal man does not enter eternity)
  • 2 Cor 7:12, not for the sake of the offender neither the sake of the wronged (= unrelated to the crime)
  • Gal 1:1, not from men nor through men (= unrelated to humanity)
  • Gal 1:11,12, not according to man neither from man neither taught [by man] (= unrelated to humanity)
  • Gal 1:16,17, not conferred with flesh and blood neither go up to Jerusalem (= unrelated to human advice)
  • and many more
Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • 3
    How is "throne, dominions, rules, authorities" a hendiadys? That's 4 things, not 2, and what are they extremes of? They're all the same sort of thing. Thrones and slaves, say, would be more of extremes, no? – Only True God Jul 22 '22 at 22:06
  • 1
    @OneGodtheFather - it is a kind of double hediadys. – Dottard Jul 22 '22 at 22:28
  • 1
    Perhaps "thrones, dominions, rules, principalities or powers" describes the invisible things only, since the visible needs no explanation (they are visible), thus it is not a limiter but merely a descriptor within the hediadys of "visible or invisible"? @OneGodtheFather – Mike Borden Jul 23 '22 at 13:50
  • 2
    @MikeBorden One way to gain context would be to look at how St. Paul uses those terms (thrones, dominions, principalities, powers) in the rest of his writing. – Only True God Jul 23 '22 at 15:12
1

If I say that US Open tournament sponsors paid and provided all things within the precincts of the area of the tournament both in-courts and outside courts, it does not mean that the courts themselves and the buildings outside courts weren’t paid and provided by the same sponsors. On the contrary all things within courts entail courts themselves (concrete, plastic covering of it, paints of lines etc.), as well as all things in the buildings outside courts entail buildings themselves (locker rooms, toilets, sportsmen resting areas etc.).

So, if your question hiddenly implies that Father first created - or even could create - heaven and earth without His Logos, who is called also Jesus Christ after the Incarnation, and only then created all things through His Logos in those pre-created settings of the Heaven and earth, then this is a heresy, for Father is ontologically unable to create anything without His Logos. Could Mohammad Ali deliver his knocking-out without his hand? Impossible. The same with the Father and the Son/Logos.

Levan Gigineishvili
  • 10,559
  • 1
  • 11
  • 26
  • Jesus attributed creation to his God. Mark 13:19. Even if He created Jesus for that purpose, it still would be Jesus ' God who created everything, including Jesus. That is why Jesus is the beginning of God's creation. Revelation 3:14. Colossians 1:15 – Alex Balilo Jul 24 '22 at 11:47
  • 1
    @AlexBalilo That’s mythology, not theology. For Father His Logos is the very instrument of creation and therefore the Logos is uncreated. If Father created His Logos then He would have needed some Super-Logos for making this happen. Even if we fancy mythologically that Father creates heaven and earth without Logos and then creates Logos to create giraffes and rhinos through this created Logos, then creation of this Logos has no sense, for Father could create -es -es alone. But again, this is a theology site, not mythology. – Levan Gigineishvili Jul 24 '22 at 12:08
  • No hidden implications, just a question about how "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" modifies things "visible and invisible". – Mike Borden Jul 24 '22 at 12:39
  • @AlexBalilo Since Isaiah 44:24 states that God is the maker of all things by Himself and all alone why does the Apostle John say Jesus is the creator of all things at John 1:3? There are not two creators, only one so how do you reconcile this glaring contradiction? Secondly, Revelation 3:14 is teaching that Jesus is the "arche" of creation. We get our English word "architect" from that word and an architect is the "origin/draws up the plans, designer, the beginning of something to be created. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0746.html So again, please reconcile all of this. – Mr. Bond Jul 24 '22 at 18:17
  • @Mr.Bond. The Creator in Isaiah 44 :24 that you quoted is Jehovah. Jesus is not Jehovah. The construction of theophoric names, starting with the letters “Jeho” is evidence that God’s name is actually ‘Jehovah’ (and that Christ’s name is actually Jehoshua)” – Smith’s 1863 “A Dictionary of the Bible”Section 2.1. Jesus plainly ascribe creation to his God in Mark 13.19. The beginning that Jesus said in Mark 13 :19 and Revelation 3:14 John 1.1-3 are the same beginning. He pointed to his God as the source of his life. John 6 :57. Jesus is not YHWH. YHWH is never called firstborn nor is He begotten – Alex Balilo Jul 24 '22 at 21:17
  • @LevanGigineishvili. Jesus did not " fancy mythologically that Father created.... ' He unequivocally ascribed creation to his God, not himself. Mark 13:19. – Alex Balilo Jul 24 '22 at 22:26
  • @AlexBalilo Mark 13:19, and? It says that God created the created order of beings, the universe. So what? But He could create this created order only through Logos, and thus the Later is uncreated and only God is uncreated, thus Logos is co-God with Father as John says and co-Builder with the universal Builder-Father as Paul says in Hebrews 3:3-5. – Levan Gigineishvili Jul 25 '22 at 06:06
0

I think one ought not skip over the conjunction whether “whether they be” in other words even these things are created and he enumerates them. These are not excluded, they are not eternally preexisting, (like God) but they were created. And they were created by none other than the Son Himself v15

This is Paul’s way of showing the SUPERIORITY of Christ. He the Son even created the gods of the nations, all the hosts of the heavens. He is their creator too. He is unlike them because He made them.

We know not only know they were created by Him but it goes on to say they were created FOR Him. That puts Him in a category entirely superior to anything created, including the rulers, principalities, powers et cetera

And to leave no confusion whatsoever that the Son is preexistant he adds

“And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:17‬ ‭

He predates everything that is created and the heavens and earth have a day one, they are created. He preexists them too, and especially the heavenly beings, they too are after Him, because without a heaven to be in, they wouldn’t have a place to exist in geographically/spatially.

Paul is making a case for the divine eternal existence of the Son by contrasting it to ALL (without exception) all things that were created. The Son being uncreated.

Nihil Sine Deo
  • 9,044
  • 7
  • 38
  • 83
  • So, would you say that "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" serve to describe the invisible things while the visible things need no description (since they are visible) thus cementing "in heaven and on earth, visible or invisible" as meaning literally everything? – Mike Borden Jul 24 '22 at 12:48
  • 1
    They serve to describe some but not all the invisible things. They were emphasized to give no one the illusion that somehow they were excluded. All means all. Absolutely everything created was created by and through the Son. And for the Son. Without exception. Emphasis is created things, uncreated are necessarily excluded. And principalities, thrones, dominions, rulers and powers are created, and number among the created, emphasis added by Paul. They don’t represent the invisible in entirety, they represent themselves and were emphasized to show that we’re not excluded but included – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '22 at 13:14
  • 1
    I could use an illustration. The expression no one is above the law, is also the same as saying everyone is under the law, whether they be judges, law enforcement, politicians, the elite rich, the oligarchs. This small group does not represent everyone who is under the law, it is used to show that even these are subject to the law, even if some might assume they are not or they behave as if they weren’t. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '22 at 13:37
  • @NihilSineDeo. Jesus plainly ascribe creation to his God in Mark 13.19. The beginning that Jesus said in Mark 13 :19 and Revelation 3:14 John 1.1-3 are the same beginning. He pointed to his God as the source of his life. John 6 :57. Jesus is not YHWH. YHWH is never called firstborn nor is He begotten. Jesus cannot be the faithful and true witness is his statements are not true. – Alex Balilo Jul 24 '22 at 21:25
  • 1
    @AlexBalilo You might want to drill down a little deeper on John 6. Jesus lives by the Father because He is begotten of Him. He also said that He has, in Himself, the same life that the Father has (John 5:26). I know you believe the Father has uncreated, self-existent, eternal life. – Mike Borden Jul 25 '22 at 11:32
  • @MikeBorden. Jesus has life in himself because his Father granted it to him that he did not originally had. His God was the source of his life. – Alex Balilo Jul 26 '22 at 03:01
  • 1
    @AlexBalilo He has the same kind of life in Himself. – Mike Borden Jul 26 '22 at 12:31
  • @MikeBorden. That is only if you cut the part of john 5:26 that says that the Father granted the same kind of life in himself. – Alex Balilo Jul 26 '22 at 21:12
  • @alex When did the Father give the Son this life? Granted in your contextless JW understanding Jesus appeared on the scene only at incarnation, thus ignoring the OT context and numerous verses that speak of His preexistance prior to the incarnation J8:58 J17:5,24 and so on. Yes as a human, yes even as a human, Jesus was given by the Father life, because Jesus nullified voluntarily all His divine attributes (turned them off, disrobed them in a manner of speech) Phil2:7. There is nothing unusual about this J5:26 verse, it’s entirely consistent with His Kenosis and incarnation. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 27 '22 at 02:13
  • @NihilSineDeo. Please explain what Kemosis and incarnation are? – Alex Balilo Jul 27 '22 at 02:20
  • @alex yet you claim to understand John5:26. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 27 '22 at 03:41
  • @NihilSineDeo. Does John 5:26 teach Kenosis and incarnation? – Alex Balilo Jul 27 '22 at 05:36
  • @alex it’s relevant, contextual and necessary to understand J5:26. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 27 '22 at 12:32
  • 1
    @AlexBalilo It is certainly proper to incorporate kenosis in understanding J 5:26. Verses should not be divorced from the whole. – Mike Borden Jul 28 '22 at 12:12
  • @MikeBorden.Then explain why i kenosis should not be divorced from John 5:26. Does John 5 :26 teach Kenosis? – Alex Balilo Jul 28 '22 at 13:47
  • @Alex “being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” ‭‭Phil2:8‬ was Jesus a human? Yes He was. Was He a human the whole time He was on earth prior to the resurrection? Yes. So that’s why kenosis cannot be divorced from J5:26 because the NT says He was kenosis while on earth as a human. It’s impossible to split these up and still be taking about the same person. Stop cherry picking and go read the OT to get context. Stop making things up to fit your presuppositional dogma you’re married to, that has no Biblical backing – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 28 '22 at 14:12