Jesus' "pre-existence"

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

All things were made through him/it and without him/it nothing was made that has been made
God made all things by/through His logos (Psalm 33:6, Heb 11:3). If "he" is the intended pronoun, then I would understand this to be John personifying the logos as per wisdom in Proverbs (especially chapter 8 in which a lot of the same things are said about wisdom as are said about the logos here).

I was wondering if you apply this interpretation to the texts we left off discussing a while back. All of the following verses, strongly suggest that Jesus was the agency through whom the Father created all that there is. Last time I checked, we were in agreement, that the word "dia" should be interpreted as "through" in all of these verses.

<b>Ely said: </b>"...Apparently, whenever the preposition dia is followed by a noun in the genitive case, then dia always indicates the means by which something was done, not the reason for which something was done..."

This is also stated in Albert Barnes commentary:

...the more common and Classical usage of the word rendered “by” (διὰ dia), when it governs a genitive, as here, is to denote the instrumental cause; the agent by which anything is done;

In these verses, "dia" is followed by a noun in the genetive case. The only exception is Collosians 1:16a, but 16b has the genetive, making it "through". (Of course Hebrews 1:10, does not have the word dia at all).


So again, do Paul and the author of Hebrews have in mind the "thought, reasoning, motive" of God, or Jesus Christ? If they do in fact have Jesus in mind, how is it that He was the creator of the world, without actually existing when the world was created? (i.e. without pre-existing)

Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made dia (through) him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

You've already commented on this, but the context seems to bear out the interpreation that this is literally Jesus. See vs. 10:

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not

If I am not mistaken, you were reading this as literally about Jesus, (as opposed to a personification of the logos). Please correct me if I'm wrong. It says in this verse, that the world was made "through" (dia) Him. The "Him" that was "in the world".


Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things dia Jesus Christ:. ("dia Jesus Christ", is not in the Alexandrian text)

Col 1:16 For by him [Jesus] 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 dia him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, dia whom also he made the worlds;

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands

It appears that a common thread running through the New Testament, is that the world was created "through" Jesus.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

God bless,

[_Ely]

Hi Derek,

Hebrews 1:10 is a passage which I just don't have an explanation for.

All the other ones though are clearly pointing to the same truth. Some unitarians interpret the Colossians 1 to be referring to the new creation. This may or may not be so, but it seems to me that all of passages (John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1) are so similar in language that they must all be talking about the same creation - i.e. the original one.

For a long time now, I have sought to interpret the apostolic writings in light of the scriptures which came before them. This is a major factor behind why I am both solidly chialistic (premill) and why I am now a unitarian. For me, it is crucial that we understand the Jesus and his emissaries in light of the Tanakh. If we go the other way round, we risk divorcing them from their cultural and historical context. This in turn makes it virtually inevitable that we will mis-interpret what them and then read this mis-intepretation back into the Tanakh.

Anyway, what does this have to with anything? Well, many commentators can see the direct conection between passages like John 1 and Colossians 1 and biblical wisdom literature. In these comments concerning Jesus, the apostles are alluding to statements in places like Psalm 33:6 and Proverbs 1-8 concerning Adonai's wisdom/word in relation to creation. In these contexts, the wisdom/word of Adonai is used to talk about His creative, upholding and sustaining power. What I believe we see in the apostolic writings is Jesus being seen as a personalisation (actual, literal personification rather than a purely literary one) of God's creative, upholding and sustaining power.

The following from Trinitarian scholar James Dunn from his the oft-quoted (in Unitarian circles) "Christology in the Making" really flesh out this idea:

"What does this mean, to say that Christ is the creative power (= wisdom) of God by means of which God made the world? Is the intention of the writer to ascribe pre- existence to Christ as such? Despite its obvious attractiveness that interpretation does not necessarily follow. This may simply be the writer's way of saying that Christ now reveals the character of the power behind the world. ... In other words that language may be used here to indicate the continuity between God's creative power and Christ without the implication being intended that Christ himself was active in creation". Dunn, p.190

We must grasp the fact that Paul was not seeking to win men to belief in a preexistent being. He did not have to establish the viability of speaking of preexistent wisdom. Such language was commonly used, common ground, and was no doubt familiar to most of his readers. Nor was he arguing that Jesus was a particular preexistent being... What he was saying is that wisdom, whatever precisely that term meant for his readers, is now most fully expressed in Jesus - Jesus is the exhaustive embodiment of divine wisdom; all the divine fullness dwelt in him. The mistake which many make (unconsciously) is to turn Paul's argument around and make it point in the wrong direction. Because language which seems to envisage preexistent divine beings is strange to modern ears, it is easy to assume (by an illegitimate transfer of twentieth-century presuppositions to the first century) that this is why the language was used (to promote belief in preexistent divine intermediaries) and that Paul was attempting to identify Christ with or as such a being....

But Paul's talk was of course conditioned by the culture and cosmological presuppositions of his own day. So he was not arguing for the existence of preexistent divine beings or for the existence of any particular divine being (in this verse)...And the meaning is, given the understanding of this language within Jewish monotheism, that Jesus is to be seen as the wise activity of God, as the wisdom and embodiment of God's wisdom more fully than any previous manifestation of the same wisdom whether in creation or in covenant. (Dunn, p.195-196, both quotes taken from Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. hunting, "The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound", 1998, p.104-105)

[_djeaton]

Jesus seemed to be saying that Abraham saw Jesus and experienced Him. This is in fact born out in the OT story in which one of three angels who were sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, stayed behind and conversed with Abraham. That angel was addressed by Abraham as "Yahweh".

Okay, that's one way of understanding Jesus' words. But notice, Jesus didn't say that Abraham "saw me," he said Abraham "saw it." He was referring to "my day" What did he mean by this?

Pardon me for jumping in here a bit late, but would it help the conversation to point out that in Genesis 22, the famous "now I know" passage that the Open Theists love, the Angel of the Lord there (the Character in the story that is "learning" something) not only speaks as God, but speaks of God in the third person. Seems to me that would indicate that the Angel of the Lord was Christ. This passage and others seem to indicate clearly to me that Christ did indeed exist in a material, spacial, temporal sense prior to the Nativity. I believe a case could be made that Christ even was in physical form in Genesis 1-3 when "God" physically planted a garden, made man and the animals out of the dirt, took Adam's rib, walked and talked with them, and so forth. Our being in His image could very well be literal as well as figurative. That is why I brought up the Trinity as it relates to Old Testament inferences that "God" learned something. We already know that Christ, in physical form, "grew in wisdom" and didn't know everything the Father did. I believe this understanding of Christophanies in the Old Testament could easily explain the Old Testament stories that infer "God" (in the essence of the Son) learning things while also staying true to the New Testament *and* Old Testament stories *and* direct teaching that "God" (in the essence of the Father) knows everything.
D.

[Guest]

Interesting explanation, D. I am inclined to agree with you.

This might explain the "Now, I know..." passage. I have often wondered why God wouldn't know what was in the heart and mind of Abraham.

[_Ely]

Concerning those "Theophanies" - I wanted to ask a question and make some observations.

1. "And to you seed" = "and to me"?
"14 And Jehovah said unto Abram, after Lot's being parted from him, `Lift up, I pray thee, thine eyes, and look from the place where thou [art], northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for the whole of the land which thou are seeing, to thee I give it, and to thy seed -- to the age."13:14-15 YLT

1And Abram is a son of ninety and nine years, and Jehovah appeareth unto Abram, and saith unto him, `I [am] God Almighty, walk habitually before Me, and be thou perfect; ... `And I have established My covenant between Me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to their generations, for a covenant age-during, to become God to thee, and to thy seed after thee; and I have given to thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, the whole land of Canaan, for a possession age-during, and I have become their God.' 17:1, 7-8 YLT

As I understand it, you would interpret this to be an appearance of a pre-incarnate Jesus. When he says of "and to your seed," do you understand that he meant "and to me, who will become your seed"?

I'd like to point out that these passages are referred to by Paul and he gives no idea that they involved Jesus in any way except as being the subject of the conversations. Consider Galatians 3:

"And to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, `And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, `And to thy seed,' which is Christ; and this I say, A covenant confirmed before by God to Christ, the law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not set aside, to make void the promise. For if by law [be] the inheritance, [it is] no more by promise, but to Abraham through promise did God grant [it]. 19 Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made"Galatians 3:16-17 YLT

Notice, Paul does not say that the promises were made by Christ to Abraham. He says the promises made by God to Abraham and to Christ! When the promise was made to Abraham, his seed did not yet exist - neither did it "pre-exist"!

He then affirms that the seed still did not (pre-)exist when the Torah was given. Which leads me on to my comments...

2. According to the apostles - Jesus is NOT one of the angels of the lord
Continuing in the same passage, Paul says concering the Torah that it was "set in order through messengers in the hand of a mediator

The Torah was given through messengers - in Greek, aggelos (pronounced angelos - angels) via Moses. This is something that is repeated several times in the apostolic writings. In Stephen's address before the council, he makes several references to the fact that an angels had communicated with the fathers in the wilderness (Acts 7:30, 35, 38). At no point does he give any idea that he considered any of these angels to be Jesus. Rather, he he says:

`Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and in ears! ye do always the holy spirit resist; as your fathers -- also ye; which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed those who declared before about the coming of the righteous one, of whom now ye betrayers and murderers have become, who received the law by arrangement of aggelos, and did not keep [it].' (Acts 7:51-53)

Notice, the fathers had resisted the prophets who had foretold the coming of the righteous one - Jesus. He does not say that the righteous one had always been interacting with the fathers. He does not say that the righteous one had given the Torah. No, the angels had done that.

Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews affirms that the Torah was given by angels (Hebrews 2:2), but is at pains to thoroughly refute the idea that Jesus was one of these angels. He opens with the affirmation that while God had spoken to the fathers in various ways in the past - now at the end of the ages, He has spoken through His son, Jesus (1:1). In other words, He had not previously spoken through His son. Why not? Because His son, the seed of Abraham, did not yet exist! He then goes to some lengths to differentiate Jesus from any of the angels of old.

"For to which of the aggelos said He ever, `My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten thee?' and again, `I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?'"

The answer is none of them!

And unto which of the aggelos said He ever, `Sit at My right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?'

Again, God did not say this to any of the angels!

3. Finally, what sayeth Jesus himself? did he claim to be one of the "Theophany" angels?
Consider the burning bush passage:

And Moses hath been feeding the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, priest of Midian, and he leadeth the flock behind the wilderness, and cometh in unto the mount of God, to Horeb; and there appeareth unto him a messenger [Hebrew: malak - equivalent of aggelos, angel] of Jehovah in a flame of fire, out of the midst of the bush, and he seeth, and lo, the bush is burning with fire, and the bush is not consumed. (Exodus 3:1-2 YLT, cf. Acts 7:30)

Jesus himself refers to this incident. This is the only time I can think of that he explictly refers to one of the so called Theophanies. Does he equate himself with this angel? Let's see:

But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God [not "by me"], saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is [not "I am"] not the God of the dead, but of the living. Matthew 22:31-32

`And concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the Book of Moses (at The Bush), how God spake [not "I spake"] to him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is [not "I am"] not the God of dead men, but a God of living men.' Mark 12:26-27

`And that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the Bush, since he doth call the Lord [not "he doth call me"], the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and He is [not "I am"] not a God of dead men, but of living, for all live to Him.' Luke 20:37-38

Please notice - all three acocunts make clear that Jesus spoke exclusively in the the third person. He did not in any way claim to be the one speaking these words.

4. Summary
In summary, according to the clear testimony of Jesus and his earliest followers:

- The Abrahamic promises were made to Jesus by God. They were not made by Jesus.
- The angel who spoke to Moses in the bush was not Jesus.
- The angels who gave the Torah to Moses were not Jesus. Rather, they were angels speaking on behalf of the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Who is someone other than Jesus).

[Guest]

For a long time now, I have sought to interpret the apostolic writings in light of the scriptures which came before them. This is a major factor behind why I am both solidly chialistic (premill) and why I am now a unitarian. For me, it is crucial that we understand the Jesus and his emissaries in light of the Tanakh. If we go the other way round, we risk divorcing them from their cultural and historical context. This in turn makes it virtually inevitable that we will mis-interpret what them and then read this mis-intepretation back into the Tanakh.

While I do think that it's very important to interpret the scriptures in light of their historical context, (more and more lately, thanks to Rick C.), I do not think that the Old Testament is to be used to interpret the New. I think that that is backwards.

Speaking of historical context, let's not forget that while it is very important to consider the culture and worldview of a given author, it's equally important to consider his audience. Remember that Paul is not writing to Jews, but Gentiles. When Paul says "all things are created through Jesus", I am not sure how his Gentile audience, who were in all likelyhood ignorant as to Jewish wisdom literature, were to be expected to think that he really didn't mean "Jesus" did it. Why would Paul lead them into such error, that could only be corrected by comparing Paul's actual statements, with Jewish Wisdom liturature? After all, Paul did actually say that all things were created through Jesus.

This, taken with the myriad of incarnational statements uttered by Jesus Himself, (which we have discussed ad nauseum), leads me to believe that He did "come down from Heaven" where He was in Glory with the Father "before the world was", and that He "laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of His hands". This all rather clearly points to pre-existence, in my opinion.

We must grasp the fact that Paul was not seeking to win men to belief in a preexistent being.

I don't think that Paul is trying to "win men to the belief in a preexistent being" either. That doesn't mean that Paul didn't believe that Jesus existed prior to the incarnation though.

Here is NT Wright, another New Perspective scholar, commenting on this passage:

"Its clear poetic structure reveals it to be a Wisdom poem, which explores the classic Jewish theme that the world’s creator is also its redeemer and vice versa. The poem confronts the “powers of the world” with the news that their creator and lord is now revealed, made known, and worshipped as the one who has liberated his people from the grip precisely of those “powers.”[21] But at every point of creation and redemption, as revealed by this poem, we discover, not Wisdom, but Jesus. The same point is made, by a sort of concentration of this theology into one statement, the spectacular verse in Colossians 2:9: “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” "

THIS ESSAY, of which the above is taken, by N.T. Wright should be of interest to you. In it, he has much to say about the Christology of the early Jewish Christians. He believes that the early Christology was very high, and very Jewish. He also speaks about the possibility of incarnational theology, from a Jewish perspective. You'll find it at least interesting, if not convincing. It has caused me to take a long look at how I think of God, and has made me see that interpreting things in it's historical context is more important than I once thought.

Here's another small excerpt:

This God was both other than the world and continually active within it. The words “transcendent” and “immanent,” we should note, are pointers to this double belief, but do not clarify it much. Because this God is thus simultaneously other than his people and present with them, Jews of Jesus’ day had developed several ways of speaking about the activity of this God in which they attempted to hold together, because they dared not separate, these twin truths. Emboldened by deep-rooted traditions, they explored what appears to us a strange, swirling sense of a rhythm of mutual relations within the very being of the one God: a to-and-fro, a give-and-take, a command-and-obey, a sense of love poured out and love received. God’s Spirit broods over the waters, God’s Word goes forth to produce new life, God’s Law guides his people, God’s Presence or Glory dwells with them in fiery cloud, in tabernacle and temple. These four ways of speaking moved to and fro from metaphor to trembling reality-claim and back again. They enabled Jews to speak simultaneously of God’s sovereign supremacy and his intimate presence, of his unapproachable holiness and his self-giving compassionate love.

Best known of all is perhaps a fifth. God’s Wisdom is his handmaid in creation, the firstborn of his works, his chief of staff, his delight. God’s Wisdom is another way of talking about God present with his people in the checkered careers of the patriarchs and particularly in the events of the Exodus. Wisdom becomes closely aligned thereby with Torah and Shekinah.[12] Through the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs 1-8, the creator has fashioned everything, especially the human race. To embrace Wisdom is therefore to discover the secret of being truly human, of reflecting God’s image...

...Jewish monotheism was never in any case a numerical analysis of the being of the one God. Rather, as I have set out extremely briefly here, there were five ways (not to be confused with Aquinas’ five Ways!) in which second-Temple Jews could and did speak of the activity of the one God within the world, and particularly within Israel, without of course compromising their monotheism. I cannot stress too strongly that first century Judaism had at its heart what we can and must call several incarnational symbols, not least the Torah, but particularly the Temple. And, though this point has been routinely ignored by systematic theologians from the second century to the twentieth, it is precisely in terms of Torah and Temple that the earthly Jesus acted symbolically and spoke cryptically to define his mission and hint at his own self understanding.


Once we recognize, the “five ways” of speaking about God-at-work-in-the-world in first-century Judaism—something which, as I must stress, neither the study of the OT nor the study of the Fathers would have taught me—then it becomes obvious that the key central christological passages of the NT are all heavily dependent on precisely this way of thinking. They offer a very high, completely Jewish, and extremely early christology, something that is still routinely dismissed as impossible, both at the scholarly and the popular level.

God bless,

[_Ely]

Shabbat shalom Derek,

I'll file that article and have a read when I get a chance. But I just wanted to challenge something that you said:

Speaking of historical context, let's not forget that while it is very important to consider the culture and worldview of a given author, it's equally important to consider his audience. Remember that Paul is not writing to Jews, but Gentiles. When Paul says "all things are created through Jesus", I am not sure how his Gentile audience, who were in all likelyhood ignorant as to Jewish wisdom literature, were to be expected to think that he really didn't mean "Jesus" did it. Why would Paul lead them into such error, that could only be corrected by comparing Paul's actual statements, with Jewish Wisdom liturature? After all, Paul did actually say that all things were created through Jesus.

Hey Derek,

I believe you are very much mistaken in this assessment of Paul's audiences.

First of all, one of the epistles which contain remarks concerning all things being made through Jesus is the epistle to the Hebrews. This is clearly written to Jews who are well-acquainted with the Tanakh. Paul (who probably wrote Hebrews) would not mean one thing when he said this to the Jews and another thing when he said this to Gentiles.

Secondly, it is incorrect to suppose that the congregations which Paul helped set up were primarily made up of Gentiles, and that these Gentiles were ignorant of the scriptures. On the contrary, these congregations primarily consisted of Jews and God-fearing Gentiles who were well-versed with the Hebrew Scriptures (or most likely - the Septuagint). Let's consider some passages:

Salamis
And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. Acts 13:4-5

Antioch in Pisidia
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God [i.e. Greek converts], listen... So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles [i.e. God-fearing Gentiles] begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 13:14-15, 42-43

Notice, the Gentiles were Proselytes, i.e. Greeks who had previously converted to Judaism and were this knowledgeable in the Scriptures.

Iconium
Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed. 14:1

Thessalonica
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. 17:1-4

Berea
Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. 17:10-12

Athens
Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. 17:16-17

Corinth
And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus,one who worshiped God (i.e. a God-fearing Gentile), whose house was next door to the synagogue. Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. 18:4-8

Ephesus
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews... And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. 18:19, 19:8-10

So, Paul's ministry was not solely to Gentiles, far from it. He always went to the synagogues first. Those who believed always included both Jews and Gentiles. And while in some areas (such as Ephesus) many who had previously been pagans had come to faith in Messiah, the normal pattern was that the Gentiles saints had previously been God-fearers (like Cornelius). Thus, it is safe to conclude that the majority of the people who Paul was writing to (both Jew and Gentile) were steeped in the Tanakh and would have understood everything he said in light of these scriptures.

[Guest]

So, Paul's ministry was not solely to Gentiles, far from it. He always went to the synagogues first. Those who believed always included both Jews and Gentiles. And while in some areas (such as Ephesus) many who had previously been pagans had come to faith in Messiah, the normal pattern was that the Gentiles saints had previously been God-fearers (like Cornelius). Thus, it is safe to conclude that the majority of the people who Paul was writing to (both Jew and Gentile) were steeped in the Tanakh and would have understood everything he said in light of these scriptures.

Yep you're right! I stand corrected.

However, the writers actually say that Jesus created the world. I think I'm ok just going with what the scripture says. That Paul is using a Jewish idiom to speak of Jesus is not enough to convince me that He doesn't really mean Jesus, but something else that is not even personal. I can say "Jesus did it" with the full support of scripture, because those are the exact words of scripture.

First of all, one of the epistles which contain remarks concerning all things being made through Jesus is the epistle to the Hebrews.

Let's compare vs.2 w/vs.10 in Hebrews 1.

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Heb 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

Now, although I don't buy it, you can say that in vs.2 the author of Hebrews doesn't mean Jesus, but a non personal, "idea" (even though it says "the Son"). But in vs. 10 the Father is saying of the Son, that He laid the foundations of the earth.

I am aware that in it's origianal context, this appears to be a reference to the Father. But the inspired writer of Hebrews, says it is about the Son. This is why we have to interpret the Old Testament by the Apostolic writings.

When I compare the two, I am more likely to go with what the text rather plainly says; What the Father says. Both verses say that Jesus created. To say that when Paul says Jesus created, he doesn't really mean that at all, but actually he's really only saying that to show that Jesus is a personification of God's "creative, upholding and sustaining power" is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.


God bless,