2

When the role of the Son is spoken of by Paul in Creation it is always as the intermediate agent (δια) or instrument (εν) used by God and not as source as in Creator Ex Nihilo.

BDAG on the agency of δια and εν are provided to illustrate in footnote [0].

God creates “in him” (εν) 'and “through him” (δια) at Colossians 1:15-16 and at Hebrews 1:2 God is the Maker through (δια) the Son. God the Father is the source of all things with εκ at 1 Co 8:6 and all things are through (δια) Jesus.

At Romans 11:36 all things are εξ, δια and εις the Father. [1]

So since the Father is both Creator and Maker and Jesus is never the source is the Son Creator or Maker in Paul?


[0] BDAG δια 4. marker of pers. agency, through, by ... Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world J 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16

BDAG ἐν 4. marker of close association within a limit, in a. fig., of pers., to indicate the state of being filled w. or gripped by someth.: in someone=in … ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (prob. to be understood as local, not instrumental, since ἐν αὐ. would otherwise be identical w. δι᾽ αὐ. in the same vs.) everything was created in association with him 1:16

[1] Verse 33 has God as the subject. Verse 34 begins with the particle Γαρ (for) that is a marker that points backwards so that what is said about κύριος describes the reason or cause of three previous verse. So κύριος here is a further descriptive of God.

  • 2
    I think your point holds only if ‘God’ is used exclusively of the Father and never of the Godhead/Son. But John says that the Word was God, and since Jesus cannot be the Father, and the Hebrew from where the Godhead is derived namely echad (united as one) it’s not possible to come to the conclusion that Jesus is not Creator simply because He is the mimra. If A council of three decide to use one of the three, that one was still be part of the creating council prior to creation. Re4:11 is referencing Jesus v8 who is to come. Daniel thrones plural. Jesus has a throne too. Heralded as creator here – Nihil Sine Deo Jan 4 at 9:52
  • God and Jesus are only distinguished by how you read into the text. For example ” Romans 11:36 says all things are εξ, δια and εις the Father” no it doesn’t, it says to God. And contextually Paul is using the OT and the God that was in the burning bush, on Sinai, showed His backside entered into marriage covenant with Israel (12 tribes) divorcing 10 and remaining in covenant with Judah though Judah was far more wicked and was then able to release the divorced ten tribes from the divorce certificate from the law of the first husband is the one that died, Jesus. The Father is the invisible God – Nihil Sine Deo Jan 4 at 14:29
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Soldarnal Jan 5 at 3:49
  • I appreciate the attention to your post and shall consider your request. Again contextually the NT is nested in OT Hebrew writings. The invisible God (Father), the visible God and Angel of the Lord (Jesus) and the Spirit of God. The echad/one God. Consider “...**Christ is all, and in all**.” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3:11‬ and contrast this with “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:6‬ ‭if the Father is singular one God then it makes no sense that Jesus is all and in all too. But Paul was thinking like a Hebrew not a Greek, God is one (echad). – Nihil Sine Deo Jan 5 at 20:07
  • I have downvoted this question through the agency of my computer mouse. Does my use of English portray the mouse as a downvoter ? – Lucian Apr 27 at 16:25
0

Since my initial post was deleted because I did not provide the Apostle Paul's thoughts as it relates to the question about Romans 11:36 The following is the question?

"So since the Father is both Creator and Maker and Jesus is never the source is the Son Creator or Maker in Paul?"

As you can see the poster of the question says, "and Jesus is never the source is the Son Creator or Maker." The "kicker" or the cause of my post being deleted is based on the last two words, "in Paul?"

Fine, Here are Paul's thoughts on the matter. Colossians 1:16,17, "For BY Him all things were created, in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones of dominions or rulers or authorities--ALL have been created BY Him and for Him." Verse 17, "And He is before all things and in Him ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER."

The implication of the posters thread or point is that Jesus Christ is not God. He bases this on how he understands or interprets Paul's thoughts of Romans 11:36.

In conclusion, I just provided rock solid Biblical evidence of the Apostle Paul crediting the Son of God Jesus Christ as the creator of "ALL" things which ironically includes Romans 11:36 and it was done "Ex Nihilo."

I want to respond to Mr.Pearne regarding his comment about the phrase, "by means of him." You just brought up Wallace and BDAG and stated, "It is short for "by means of him." The "English" is not ambiguous as you say. There's a difference between the words "By and Through." By is used to indicate, "Origin or A result. Through is used to indicate "The manner in which something is achieved." So in both cases, and even in your example which states "by means of him" refers to the referent/Jesus Christ as the creator. And the following is what Wallace states in His notes on Colossians 1:15,16, "In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator). How ironic it is that you would quote a man/Wallace to prove Jesus is not God or the Creator (in your opinion) and yet the man believes that Jesus Christ is God and the Creator.

I want to explain the "dilemma" you have put yourself in Mr.Pearne. Your view of the Trinity is that there is more than one God which makes you think Trinitarianism is Polytheistic. This is proven by the fact that you have a thread stating John 1:1 should be translated "and the Word was "a god." This is the same argument the Jehovah Witnesses use in their New World Translation of the Bible at John 1:1.

There is only "ONE" God and that ONE God chose to manifest Himself as three distinct persons. NOT separate persons as some say, but "distinct" persons. There is a difference between the two words "distinct and separate." Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature because of His Father who is God. Jesus Christ is the Son of Man by nature on His mother's side.

It's a universal law that all sons share the same nature as their father. You can prove me wrong by giving me an example of a son that DOES NOT share the same nature as its father. You and I have the same nature of "human." We received are nature from our father/parents. Even though all humans have and share the same nature we are "DISTINCT" persons. You are not your father or mother or me or anybody else, your a distinct person from us. The same thing is true of the Trinity who have the same nature but are identified in the Bible as distinct persons. Please read Romans 8:11 or Mark 1:11,12.

It is the nature of God that separates Him from all that is not God. Our nature of human separates us from all that is not human. The nature of birds of horses separates them from all that are not birds or horses. There is also a difference between the words, "being" and "person." Being is the state or fact of existing; existence or the nature or essence of a person. Person or personality is the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinct character. Gods characteristics or attributes include being "omniscient or omnipresent." We do not have those attributes even though we are made in Gods image. This would include and not limited to being rational human beings, knowing right from wrong and being "cognitive" as in intellectual activity. There you have it.

| improve this answer | |
  • To rise somebody from dead is absolutely the same divine act as creating out of nothing, no difference whatsoever as to the divine action put and exerted; and Jesus says Sovereignly "I will rise dead" (cf. John 6:39). The same could have been said also as that "Father rises from dead" (John 5:21), and this is the very same action performed by Both. Thus, Logos creates, and rises from dead, and expels demons through action ("finger"/Luke 11:20/) of the Father and the Father does the same through action of His Logos, for the Father's and the Son's divine action is one divine action (John 5:17). – Levan Gigineishvili Jan 6 at 18:11
  • Jesus’ words are so clear that no complicated linguistic techniques are needed to explain them. Jesus speaks of himself as the one sent by “the only true God”. It should, therefore, have been perfectly obvious to anyone truly listening to what Jesus said that if the Father is the one and only true God, then no one else can also be God alongside Him.It should be absolutely clear from Jesus’ words that he definitely excludes himself from any claim to deity by this absolute monos or “only” referring to the Father. – Alex Balilo Jun 19 at 9:31
  • @AlexBalilo Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you in the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE. John 1:3, "ALL things came into being by Him, and apart (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:16, "For by Him all things were created." The Father credits Him with creation at Hebrews 1:8. Revelation 3:14, Jesus is the "arche" of creation. Our English word architect is from arche. If Jesus is not God why is He credited with creation? – Mr. Bond Jun 19 at 20:19
  • If he himself, the faithful and true witness said that his Father is the only true God, to me , that is unequivocal. No amount of equivocation can change that. If we confess to be followers of Jesus Christ, we should not force upon him what he rejected. – Alex Balilo Jun 19 at 22:12
  • @AlexBalilo Jesus is both God and man. He is speaking as a man to His God. The Father is the true God in opposition to all gods which are not true gods. And Jesus is not denying His own divinity. Your isolating one verse and not considering the "whole" of Scripture. Jesus is called God at John 1:1, 8:58, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9 and at Hebrews 1:8 by His own Father. Prove me wrong by giving me an example of a Son that does not share the same nature as his father? Again, if Jesus is not God why is He credited with creation? I'm not "equivocating," or being "ambiguous," just stating facts. – Mr. Bond Jun 19 at 23:17
0

Question: When the role of the Son is spoken of by Paul in Creation it is always as the intermediate agent (δια) or instrument (εν) used by God and not as source as in Creator Ex Nihilo. Therefore, does Paul's use of the Greek represent the Son as Creator or Maker?

Here is what some believe to be one of the earliest confessions of the Christian faith:

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
(1 Corinthians 8:6) [ESV]

ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ.

This specifically mentions both Father and Son and demonstrates unity of the two:

One of the few New Testament confessions which does mention both Christ and God the Father is in 1 Cor. 8.6, and it is characteristic of this that it does not know the separation between God as Creator and Christ as Savior, but on the contrary speaks of creation both in the first article (God) and in the second (Christ): ‘…one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.’ Both have to do with creation.1

If it is true this is an early confession, then it did not originate with Paul, but it was something Paul accepted and, obviously, passed on. What is not in dispute, is the certainty the Son had some role in creation and if not coequal and so inseparable, as Cullmann states, then, as some would say, the Son is secondary as an intermediate agent.

However, while the passage in the letter to the Corinthians may encompass all creation, it clearly speaks to things which are current and in a way where the Son's role is not in dispute. This is significant since Paul also describes the current state of the created world:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1)

18 Ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων, 19 διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. 20 τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους,

According to Paul, "God" has been and is still revealing Himself to mankind and the means by which this is still being done is by the things that have been made. These things which were made by the Son are in the world now to reveal "God;" namely His eternal power and divine nature.

Therefore, Paul calls the Son "God" (ὁ θεὸς) and says He has eternal power and divine nature. This should not be taken to mean the Son is superior to the Father (although that is the literal meaning in the limited context of the passage). Rather, in light of other statements such as 1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans should be understood as expressing the coequal unity of Father in Son in the things made which reveal God to mankind.


  1. Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, Revised Edition, translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall, The Westminister Press, 1963, p. 195
| improve this answer | |
-1

It is the same as to ask: "Is the radiation of the sun the enlightener or merely the light-shedder on the landscape sunk in an utter darkness, while the sun-disc is the sole source of enlightening and driving out of the mentioned utter darkness from the mentioned landscape?"

But the question is out of point, for the sun disc is the sole source of enlightening only in virtue of its shedding its radiation, without which it cannot be the sole source of enlightening from utter darkness at all. Similarly, the Father is the sole source of creatio ex nihilo, only because He can but create ex nihilo through His only-begotten Son/Logos.

Actually, once upon a time, or rather, once before a time, when the world was not yet created ex nihilo (and even when God did not yet meditate about creation of hell for those who would in the future idly quibble about the issue of what God did before creation of the world), the Father and the Holy Spirit plotted against the Son/Logos and decided to create the world while the Latter was sleeping, to present it to Him as a birthday present. They utterly failed to do so having discovered that this was ontologically (although they used a different term) impossible; and then, after the Son, having known about it, laughed heartily about this perfect failure, all Three of them decided to create together the world ex nihilo, which superbly worked and the result was καλὰ λίαν :0)

More seriously: the Son is no less Sovereign in the act of creation of the world out of nothing than the Father, so we can confidently say that the Son creates the world just as the Father creates the world, and Son makes/fashions the world just as the Father makes/fashions the world, no semantic difference whatever between those terms (κτίζω, ποιέω).

Just consider: to rise somebody from dead is absolutely the same divine act as creating out of nothing, no difference whatsoever as to the divine action put and exerted; and Jesus says Sovereignly "I will rise dead" (cf. John 6:39). The same could have been said also as that "Father rises from dead" (John 5:21), and this is the very same action performed by Both. Thus, Logos creates, and rises from dead, and expels demons through action ("finger"/Luke 11:20/) of the Father and the Father does the same through action of His Logos, for the Father's and the Son's divine action is one divine action (John 5:17).

P.S. Hey, mysterious down-voter, if you think that I am hurt by your down-voting, let you know that I have 0 concern for stack-exchange points, but infinite concern for truth of philosophy and theology (both being the same for both are about ultimate reality). If you have reasonable objections, write them openly, let's discuss, if you have not them, then why you down-vote that which you cannot even object and cannot even know whether is right or wrong? I cannot divine this mystery of down-voting without argumentation and substantiation, it perfectly eludes my limited comprehension.

| improve this answer | |
  • @Thomas Pearne Having down-voted me, it would have been nice and more decent of you, had you given a bit of your comment for the reason of this down-vote (the latter bothers me not a tiny bit for I bother about truth through logic, common sense and the Biblical text - no stackexchange points will be transmitted to eternity, but the search for truth and decency - will). If you find my answer ironic and that is the reason, then let it be known that it is such not out of any bad intent, but out of a trial to make my (actually traditional patristic) theological point clearer. Just that. – Levan Gigineishvili Jan 5 at 22:02
  • 1
    @ThomasPearne Sorry for my mistake. I am on this site for more than two years and haven't down-voted anybody either even a single time. If I do not agree with some theological point, I write it openly, why to down-vote anybody? Here on this site it is possible that if you do not agree with some opinion but cannot prove your objection logically, based on sound theological grounds and reasons, out of frustration and anger to just bite and harm an opponent with your name hidden by down-voting him/her. What frustrates me is that I am down-voted without arguments when I am in love with arguments :) – Levan Gigineishvili Jan 6 at 4:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy