How should we understand the words, “in him all things were created” in Col 1.16? Although commonly taken to mean Christ created the universe, this view has contextual, structural, and exegetical problems. In what follows I’ll name six problems with old-creation readings before laying out why a new creation approach makes sense. I presented this talk at the 2025 Unitarian Christian Alliance (UCA) conference in Uxbridge, England. Scroll down to see the full-length paper.

For those listening to the audio, here’s a quick reference to Colossians 1.15-20

Strophe 1 (Col 1.15-18a)

15a      who is (the) image of the invisible God,

Strophe 2 (Col 1.18b-20)

18b      who is (the) beginning,

Here’s Randy Leedy’s New Testament Diagram

Here are the slides in the original PowerPoint format

Download [13.82 MB]

Here are the slides converted to PDF

Download [3.16 MB]

To read the paper, simply scroll down or read it on Academia.edu.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

Below is the paper presented on July 25, 2025 in Uxbridge, England at the 2nd annual UCA UK Conference. Access this paper on Academia.edu to get the pdf. Full text is below, including bibliography and end notes.

by Sean P. Finnegan

Abstract

 How should we understand the words, “in him all things were created” in Col 1.16? Although commonly taken to mean Christ created the universe, this view has contextual, structural, and exegetical problems. In what follows, I will explain the difficulties with the various old creation readings of Col 1.16 along with five reasons for a new creation approach. Then I’ll provide a new creation reading of Col 1.16 before summarizing my findings in the conclusion.

Introduction

 Colossians 1.15-20 is a fascinating text of great importance for Christology. Commonly understood to be a hymn, it is fascinating in its cosmic scope and elevated Christology. Although many commentators interpret Paul[1] to say that Christ created the universe in his pre-existent state in Col 1.16, not all scholars see it that way. For example, Edward Schillebeeckx writes, “There is no mention in this text of pre-existence in the Trinitarian sense.”[2] Rather he sees “an eschatological pre-existence, characteristic of wisdom and apocalyptic.”[3] G. B. Caird agreed that Paul’s focus in Col. 1.15-20 was not pre-existence (contra Lightfoot), rather, “The main thread of Paul’s thought, then, is the manhood of Christ.”[4] In other words, “All that has been said in vv. 15-18 can be said of the historical Jesus.”[5] James Dunn also denied that Paul saw Christ as God’s agent in creation in Col 1.15-20, claiming that such an interpretation was “to read imaginative metaphor in a pedantically literal way.”[6] James McGrath argued that “Jesus is the one through whom God’s new creation takes place.” [7] Andrew Perriman likewise noted, “There is no reference to the creation of heaven and earth, light and darkness, sea and dry land, lights in the heavens, vegetation, or living creatures,”[8] also preferring a new creation approach.[9]

To understand why such a broad range of scholars diverge from the old creation interpretation of Col 1.16, we will examine several contextual, structural, and exegetical problems. While explaining these, I’ll also put forward four reasons to interpret Col 1.16 as new creation. Then I’ll provide a fifth before giving a new creation reading of Col 1.15-20. But before going any further, let’s familiarize ourselves with the text and structure.

The Form of Col 1.15-20

 To get our bearings, let me begin by providing a translation,[10] carefully structured to show the two strophes.[11]

Strophe 1 (Col 1.15-18a)

15a      who is (the) image of the invisible God,

Strophe 2 (Col 1.18b-20)

18b      who is (the) beginning,

Here I’ve followed the two-strophe structure (1.15-18a and 18b-20) noted more than a century ago by the classical philologist Eduard Norden[13] and repeated by James Robinson,[14] Edward Lohse,[15] Edward Schweizer,[16] James Dunn,[17] Ben Witherington III,[18] and William Lane[19] among others. By lining up the parallel lines of the two strophes, we can clearly see the poetic form.

15a who is (the) image…

18b who is (the) beginning,

Such striking repeated language between the two strophes means that we should be careful to maintain the parallels between them and not take a grammatical or exegetical position on a word or phrase that would disconnect it from the parallel line in the other strophe.

Some scholars, including F. F. Bruce,[20] Michael Bird,[21] David Pao,[22] among others proposed vv. 17-18a as an independent transitional link between the two strophes. Lohse explained the motivation for this unlikely innovation as follows.

Above all, it is curious that at the end of the first, cosmologically oriented strophe, Christ is suddenly referred to as the “head of the body, the church” (1:18a κεφαλή τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας). Considering its content, this statement would have to be connected with the second strophe which is characterized by soteriological statements. The structure of the hymn, however, places it in the first strophe.[23]

For interpreters who prefer to think of the first strophe as cosmogony and the second as soteriology, a line about Christ’s headship over the church doesn’t fit very well. They restructure the form based on their interpretation of the content. Such a policy reverses the order of operations. One should determine the form and then interpret the content in light of structure. Lohse was right to reject the addition of a new transitional bridge between the two strophes. He called it “out of the question” since vv. 17-18a underscore “all things” and “serve as a summary that brings the first strophe to a conclusion.”[24]

Now that we’ve oriented ourselves to some degree, let’s consider old creation readings of Col 1.16 and the problems that arise when reading it that way.

Old Creation Readings

 Within the old creation paradigm for Col 1.16 we can discern three groups: those who see (A) Christ as the agent by whom God created, (B) Wisdom as the agent, and (C) Christ as the purpose of creation. Although space won’t allow me to interact with each of these in detail, I will offer a brief critique of these three approaches. As a reminder, here is our text in both Greek and English.

Colossians 1.16

16a      ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα

16a      for in him were created all things

1. Christ as the Agent of Creation

Scot McKnight is representative in his claim that “The emphasis of the first stanza is Christ as the agent of creation … and the second is Christ as the agent of redemption.”[25] This view sees the phrase “in him were created all things” as Christ creating the universe in the beginning. However, this position has six problems with it.

Firstly, the context of the poem—both before (vv. 13-14) and after (vv. 21-22)—is clearly soteriological not cosmogonical.[26] By inserting vv. 15-20 into the text after vv. 13-14, Paul connected the two together.[27] V. 15 begins with ὅς ἐστιν (who is), which makes it grammatically dependent on vv. 13-14. “It is widely accepted,” wrote Dunn, “that this passage is a pre-Pauline hymn interpolated and interpreted to greater or less extent by Paul.”[28] By placing the poem into a redemptive frame, Paul indicated how he interpreted it. The fact that God “rescued us from the authority of darkness and transferred (us) into the kingdom of his beloved son” is the controlling context (v. 13).[29] As I will show below, I believe vv. 15-20 are ecclesiology not protology, since ecclesiology naturally flows from soteriology. Rather than remaining in the old domain of darkness, vulnerable to malevolent spiritual powers of this age, Colossian Christians are transferred into the new domain of Christ. The context makes it more natural to interpret the creation language of vv. 15-16 in light of Christ’s redemptive work—as references to new creation rather than old creation. Doing so retains the contextual frame rather than jumping back to the beginning of time.

A second problem arises when we consider the phrase “image of the invisible God” in v. 15. Although some see a Stoic or Wisdom reference here, I agree with F. F. Bruce who said, “No reader conversant with the OT scriptures, on reading these words of Paul, could fail to be reminded of the statement in Gen. 1:26f., that man was created by God ‘in his own image.’”[30] Immediately after making humanity in his own image, God blessed us with dominion over the earth. Philo also connected humanity’s image of God with “the rulership over the earthly realms.”[31] But if the Christ of v. 15 is the pre-existent son prior to his incarnation, as the old creation model posits, “How can he be the ‘image of God,’” asked Eduard Schweizer, since “the one who is thus described here is not the earthly Jesus?”[32] It is precisely by virtue of his humanity that Jesus is the image of God not his pre-existence.[33] Thus, image-of-God language points us to the creation of a new humanity.

A third problem is that “firstborn of all creation” prima facia implies that Christ is a member of creation (a partitive genitive). This is how Paul thought about Christ as firstborn in Rom 8.29 when he called Christ “firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Clearly he saw Christ as a member of the “ἀδελφοῖς” (brothers and sisters). Furthermore, “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως” (firstborn of all creation) in v. 15 parallels “πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν” (firstborn from the dead) v. 18. Although the former (v. 15) can be taken as a genitive of subordination (firstborn over creation) or as a partitive genitive (firstborn of creation), the latter (v. 18) is unambiguously partitive. Because v. 18 includes the word ἐκ (from/out of), instead of a multivalent genitive, it must mean that Jesus was himself a member of the dead prior to his resurrection. Likewise, he was the firstborn member of creation. To take v. 15 as a genitive of subordination and v. 18 in a partitive sense allows theology to drive exegesis over against the clear structural link between v. 15b and v. 18c. In fact, as the BDAG noted, Christ is “the firstborn of a new humanity.”[34] He is chronologically born first and, by virtue of that, also preeminent.[35]

Fourthly, the phrase, “ἐν αὐτῷ” (in him), implies soteriology not protology as it does throughout the Pauline corpus. The prepositional phrases “in Christ,” “in the Lord,” “in him,” and others that are similar occur more than a hundred times in Paul’s epistles. McKnight elucidated the sense nicely: “This expression, then, is the inaugurated eschatological reality into which the Christian has been placed, and it also evokes the new-creation realities that a person discovers.”[36] Creation in Christ is not likely to refer to Genesis creation. In fact, apart from Col 1.16, there is no text within Paul or the rest of the Bible that speaks of the origin of the universe as something created “in Christ.”[37] Sadly translators routinely obscure this fact by translating “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “by him.”[38] Amazingly, the NASB and ESV render “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “in him” in every other usage apart from Col 1.16![39] For the sake of consistency, it makes better sense to render “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “in him” and let the reader decide how to interpret it.

Fifthly, the line, “and he is the head of the body, the Church” (v. 18a) clearly roots the first strophe in redemptive history not creation. Our English translations follow Robert Estienne’s verse divisions, which confusingly combine the last line of the first strophe (v. 18a) and the first line of the second (v. 18b), obscuring the native poetic structure. As I made the case above, the structure of the text breaks into two strophes with v. 18a included in the first one. As I mentioned earlier, vv. 15-20 are a pre-existing poem that Paul has modified and incorporated into the text of Colossians. Ralph Martin pointed out that the poem contains “no less than five hapax legomena” and “about ten non-Pauline expressions.”[40] Additionally, there appear to be awkward additions that disrupt the symmetry. These additions are the most explicitly Christian material. It is likely that the original said, “and he is the head of the body” to which Paul appended “the church.” Edward Schillebeeckx commented on this.

In Hellenistic terms this must primarily mean that he gives life and existence to the cosmos. Here, however, Colossians drastically corrects the ideas … The correction made by Colossians is to understand ‘body’ as a reference to the church, and not the cosmos. This alters the whole perspective of the cultural and religious setting … The cosmic background is reinterpreted in terms of salvation history and ecclesiology. In fact Christ is already exercising his lordship over the world now … however, he is doing this only as the head of the church, his body, to which he gives life and strength. Thus Colossians claims that the church alone, rather than the cosmos, is the body of Christ.[41]

If this is true, it shows Paul’s careful concern to disallow a strictly old creation or protological reading of the first strophe. For by inserting “of the church,” he has limited the context of the first strophe to the Christ event. “The addition of ‘the church,’” wrote Dunn, “indicates that for Paul at any rate the two strophes were not dealing with two clearly distinct subjects (cosmology and soteriology).”[42] Karl-Joseph Kuschel wrote, “The answer would seem to be he wanted to ‘disturb’ a possible cosmological-protological fancy in the confession of Christ … to prevent Christ from becoming a purely mythical heavenly being.”[43] Thus Paul’s addition shows us he interpreted the creation of v16 as new creation.

Lastly, theological concerns arise when taking Col 1.16 as old creation. The most obvious is that given the partitive genitive of v. 15, we are left affirming the so-called Arian position that God created Christ as the firstborn who, in turn, created everything else. Another thorn in the side of this view is God’s insistence elsewhere to be the solo creator (Isa 44.24; cf. 45.18). On the strength of this fact, modalism comes forward to save the day while leaving new problems in its wake. However, recognizing Col 1.15-20 as new creation avoids such theological conundrums.

2. Wisdom as the Agent of Creation

Dustin Smith noted, “The christological hymn contains no less than nine characteristics of the wisdom of God (e.g., “image,” “firstborn,” agent of creation, preceding all things, holding all things together) that are reapplied to the figure of Jesus.”[44] Some suggest that Col 1.15-20 is actually a hymn to Wisdom that Paul Christianized.[45] The idea is that God created the universe through his divine Wisdom, which is now embodied or incarnate in Christ. Dunn explained it as follows.

If then Christ is what God’s power/wisdom came to be recognized as, of Christ it can be said what was said first of wisdom—that ‘in him (the divine wisdom now embodied in Christ) were created all things.’ In other words the 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.[46]

Before pointing out some problems, I must admit much of this perspective is quite noncontroversial. That Jewish literature identified Wisdom as God’s creative agent, that there are linguistic parallels between Col 1.15-20 and Wisdom, and that the historical Jesus uniquely embodied Wisdom to an unprecedented degree are not up for debate. Did Paul expect his readers to pick up on the linguistic parallels? Afterall, he could have just said “in her were created all things” in v. 16, clearly making the connection with the grammatically feminine σοφία (Wisdom). Better yet, he could have said, “in Wisdom were created all things.” Even if the poem was originally to Wisdom, Paul has thoroughly Christianized it, applying to Christ what had been said of Wisdom.

However, the most significant defeater for this view is that applying Wisdom vocabulary to Christ only works one way. Wisdom has found her home in Christ. This doesn’t mean we can attribute to Christ what Wisdom did before she indwelt him any more than we can attribute to the living descendants of Nazis the horrific deeds of their ancestors. Perriman’s critique is correct: “The point is not that the act of creation was Christlike, rather the reverse: recent events have been creation-like. The death and resurrection of Jesus are represented as the profoundly creative event in which the wisdom of God is again dynamically engaged, by which a new world order has come about.”[47] Once again a new creation approach makes better sense of the text.

3. Christ as the Purpose of Creation

Another approach is to take ἐν αὐτῷ (in him) in a telic sense. Martha King, a linguist with SIL, said the phrase can mean “in association with Christ everything was created” or “in connection with Christ all things were created.”[48] Lexicographer, Joseph Thayer, sharpened the sense with the translation, “[I]n him resides the cause why all things were originally created.”[49] William MacDonald’s translation brought this out even more with the phrase, “because for him everything … was created.”[50] The idea is that God’s act of creation in the beginning was with Christ in view. As Eric Chang noted, “Christ is the reason God created all things.”[51] G. B. Caird said, “He is the embodiment of that purpose of God which underlies the whole creation.”[52] The idea is one of predestination not agency.[53] Christ was the goal for which God created all things.

A weakness of this view is that purpose is better expressed using εἰς or δία with an accusative than ἐν. Secondly, the parallel line in the second strophe (v. 19) employs “ἐν αὐτῷ” in a clearly locative sense: “in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.” So even though “ἐν αὐτῷ” could imply purpose, in this context it much more likely refers to location. Lastly, Paul mentioned the sense of purpose at the end of v. 16 with “εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται” (for him has been created), so it would be repetitive to take “ἐν αὐτῷ” that way as well.

To sum up, the three positions that see Col 1.16 as a reference to old creation all have significant problems. With these in mind, let us turn our attention to consider a fourth possibility: that Paul has in mind new creation.

Reasons for a New Creation Reading

I’ve already provided four reasons why Col 1.15-20 refers to new creation: (1) calling Christ the image of God points to the new humanity begun in Christ as the last Adam;[54] (2) since the firstborn of the old creation was Adam (or, perhaps, Seth), Jesus must be the firstborn of the new creation; (3) saying Jesus is the head of the church, limits the focus for the first strophe to the time following the Christ event; (4) the context of the poem, both before (vv. 13-14) and after (vv. 21-22) is soteriological, making an old creation paradigm awkward, while a new creation view fits perfectly. The Catholic priest and professor, Franz Zeilinger, summarized the situation nicely: “Christ is (through his resurrection from the realm of death) Lord over the possession granted to him, of which he is the ἀρχή (beginning) and archetype, … and head and beginning of the eschatological new creation!”[55]

Additionally, a new creation paradigm fits best with Paul’s elaboration of what visible and invisible things in heaven and on earth he has in mind. Once again, here’s our text.

16a      for in him were created all things

By specifying thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities, we discern Paul’s train of thought. Form critics are quick to point out that v. 16d is Paul’s addition to the poem. Without it, the reader may have thought of sky, land, and animals—old creation. However, with v. 16d present, we direct our attention to political realities not God’s creative power or engineering genius.

Martha King noted the two possible meanings for εἴτε: (1) specifying the “invisible things” or (2) giving examples of “all things.” Taking the second view, we read “in him were created all things, including thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities.”[56] Randy Leedy also presented this position in his sentence diagrams, identifying v. 16d as equivalent to v. 16c and v. 16b, all of which modify τὰ πάντα (all things) at the end of v. 16a. (See Appendix for Leedy’s diagram.) Perriman pressed home the point when he wrote:

The fact is that any interpretation that takes verse 16 to be a reference to the original creation has to account for the narrow range of created things explicitly listed. … The Colossians verse mentions only the creation of political entities—thrones, lordships, rulers and authorities, visible and invisible—either in the already existing heaven or on the already existing and, presumably, populated earth. What this speaks of is a new governmental order consisting of both invisible-heavenly and visibly-earthly entities.”[57]

Understanding v. 16d as equivalent to “all things” in v. 16a nicely coheres with a new-creation paradigm. However, taken the other way—as an elaboration of only the invisible created realities—v. 16d introduces an asymmetrical and clumsy appendix.

A New Creation Reading of Col 1.16

Now that we’ve considered some problems with old creation views and some reasons to read Col 1.16 from a new creation perspective, let’s consider how a new creation reading works. New creation is all about the new breaking into the old, the future into the present. G. F. Wessels said, “Paul made clear that there is a present realized aspect of salvation, as well as a future, still outstanding aspect, which will only be realized at the eschaton.”[58] New creation, likewise, has future and present realities.

Exiting Old Creation

Before becoming part of the new creation, one must exit the old creation. “Our old humanity was co-crucified“ (Rom 6.6). “With Christ you died to the elemental principles of the world” (Col 2.20). “As many as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death” (Rom 6.3). We were “co-buried with him through baptism into the death … having been united with the likeness of his death” (Rom 6.4-5). Our death with him through baptism kills our allegiance and submission to the old powers and the old way of life “in which you formerly walked according to the zeitgeist of this world, according to the rule of the authority of the air, the spirit which now works in the children of disobedience” (Eph 2.2).

Entering New Creation

As death is the only way out of the old creation, so resurrection is the only way into the new creation. “You have been co-raised with Christ” (Col 3.1). God “co-made-alive us together with him” (Col 2.13).[59] By virtue of our union with Christ, we ourselves are already “co-raised and co-seated us in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2.6). The result of this is that “we also may walk in newness of life” (Rom 6.4). For those who are “in Christ, (there is) a new creation; the old has passed away, behold (the) new has come into existence” (2 Cor 5.17). “They have been ‘transported,’” wrote Schillebeeckx, “they already dwell above in Christ’s heavenly sphere of influence (Col 1.13)—the soma Christou … that is the church!”[60]

Community

For the people of God, “neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision but a new creation” is what matters (Gal 6.15). Those who “are clothed with the new” are “being renewed in knowledge according to the image of him who created, where there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, (or) free, but Christ (is) all and in all” (Col 3.10-11). Through Christ God has nullified the law “in order that he might create the two into one new humanity in him” (Eph 2.14-15). Thus, within new creation, ethnic identity still exists, but it is relativized, our identity in Christ taking priority ahead of other affiliations and duties.

Lifestyle

When the lost become saved through faith, they become his creation (ποίημα), “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2.10). This means we are to “lay aside the former way of life, the old humanity corrupted according to deceitful desires” and instead be clothed with “the new humanity created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Eph 4.22-24). Rather than lying to one another, we must “strip off the old humanity with its way of acting” and “be clothed with the new (humanity), renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it” (Col 3.9-10). “The ones who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts” and instead “walk by the spirit” (Gal 5.24-25).

Ultimately, All Creation

Although new creation is currently limited to those who voluntarily recognize Jesus as Lord, all “creation is waiting with eager expectation for the unveiling of the children of God” (Rom 8.19). Because of the Christ event, the created order eagerly awaits the day when it will escape “the enslavement of corruption” and gain “the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v. 21). Like a bone out of joint, creation does not function properly. Once Christ sets it right, it will return to its proper order and operation under humanity’s wise and capable rulership in the eschaton.

Eschatology

God predetermined that those who believe will be “conformed to the image of his son, that he be firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Rom 8.29). Thus, the resurrected Christ is the prototype, “the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15.20). Whereas “in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (v. 22). We await Christ’s return to “transform the body of our humble station (that it be) shaped to his glorious body according to the energy which makes him able to also to subject all things to himself.” (Phil 3.21). This is the end goal of new creation: resurrected subjects of God’s kingdom joyfully living in a renewed world without mourning, crying, and pain forevermore (Isa 65.17-25; Rev 21-22).

The Powers

Taking Col 1.16 as a new creation text adds key information about the present governing powers to this richly textured picture. In Christ God created thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities. He made these through Christ and for Christ with the result that Christ himself is before all things, and in Christ all things hold together (Col 1.17). He is the head of the body, the Church (Col 1.18). We find very similar language repeated in Ephesians in the context of Christ’s exaltation.[61]

Ephesians 1.20-23

The parallels are striking. Both speak of Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s exalted position of authority over all the powers, Christ’s role as head of the church, and both mention the fullness. It’s easy to miss the connection between these two passages since most think of Eph 1.20-22 as ascension theology and Col 1.15-20 as creation theology. But, if we adjust our thinking to regard Col 1.16 as new creation, we see how the two fit together. In Ephesians we see Christ’s ascension to God’s right hand as the reason for a cosmic reordering of authorities with the result that all rule, authority, power, and dominion are subjected to him. (Though we may be accustomed to reading these powers in Eph 1.21 as only malevolent owing to Eph 2.2 and 6.12, the list here must be mixed, since only benevolent powers will survive the final judgement and continue into the age to come.)

Instead of exaltation, in Colossians Paul employed the language of creation to describe Christ’s relation to the powers. Perhaps lesser terms like reassign, reorder, or establish were just too small to adequately express the magnitude of how the Christ event has changed the world—both in heaven and on earth. The only term big enough to convey the new situation was “creation”—the very same word he routinely used elsewhere with the meaning of new creation.[62]

We can gain more insight by considering what the powers of Eph 1.21 and Col 1.16 mean. McKnight saw them “as earthly, systemic manifestations of (perhaps fallen) angelic powers—hence, the systemic worldly, sociopolitical manifestations of cosmic/angelic rebellion against God.”[63] I partially agree with McKnight here. He’s right to see the powers as both heavenly and earthly, or better, as the heavenly component of the earthly sociopolitical realities, but he has not made room for the new authority structures created in Christ. John Schoenheit helpfully explained it this way:

Not only did Jesus create his Church out of Jew and Gentile, he had to create the structure and positions that would allow it to function, both in the spiritual world (positions for the angels that would minister to the Church—see Rev. 1:1, “his angel”) and in the physical world (positions and ministries here on earth—see Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:7-11).[64]

We must never forget that Paul has an apocalyptic worldview—a perspective that seeks to unveil the heavenly reality behind the earthly. He believed in powers of darkness and powers of light. In Christ were created thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities (Col 1.16). He is “the head of all rule and authority” (Col 2.10). These new creation realities make progress against the old powers that still hold sway in the world outside the Church. Although the old powers are still at work, those who are in Christ enjoy his protection. With respect to the Church, he has already “disarmed the rulers and authorities” (Col 2.15). We can don “the armor of God that we be able to stand against the methods of the devil” (Eph 6.11) and “subduing everything, to stand” (v. 13).

We find glimpses of this heavenly reality scattered in other places in the Bible. Peter mentioned how Christ “is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and power having been subjected to him” (1 Pet 3.22). In John’s Revelation, he addressed each of the seven letters to the angels of their respective churches.[65] Although it’s hard for us to get details on precisely what happened at Christ’s ascension, something major occurred, not just on earth, but also in the spiritual realm. Jesus’s last recorded words in Matthew are: “all authority in heaven and upon earth was given to me” (Mat 28.18-20). Presumably such a statement implies that prior to his resurrection Jesus did not have all authority in heaven and earth. It didn’t exist until it was created. Similarly, because of his death, resurrection, and ascension, Christ has “become so much better than the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to them” (Heb 1.4). Once again, the text implies that Christ was not already superior to the angels, but “after making purification of the sins, he sat on the right hand of the majesty on high” at which time he became preeminent (Heb 1.3). Perhaps this also explains something about why Christ “proclaimed to the spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3.19). Another possibility is that Christ’s ascension (Rev 12.5) triggered a war in heaven (v. 7) with the result that the dragon and his angels suffered defeat (v. 8) and were thrown out of heaven down to the earth (v. 9).

Sadly, for most of the history of the church we have missed this Jewish apocalyptic approach that was obvious to Paul, limiting salvation to individual sins and improved morality.[66] Only in the twentieth century did interpreters begin to see the cosmic aspect of new creation. Margaret Thrall wrote the following.

The Christ-event is the turning-point of the whole world … This Christ ‘in whom’ the believer lives is the last Adam, the inaugurator of the new eschatological humanity. … Paul is saying that if anyone exists ‘in Christ’, that person is a newly-created being. … In principle, through the Christ-event and in the person of Christ, the new world and the new age are already objective realities.[67]

New creation is, in the words of J. Louis Martyn “categorically cosmic and emphatically apocalyptic.”[68] In fact, “The advent of the Son and of his Spirit is thus the cosmic apocalyptic event.”[69] In Christ is the beginning of a whole new creation, an intersecting community of angelic and human beings spanning heaven and earth. The interlocking of earthly (visible) and heavenly (invisible) authority structures points to Paul’s apocalyptic holism. The Church was not on her own to face the ravages of Rome’s mad love affair with violence and power. In Christ, people were no longer susceptible to the whims of the gods that have wreaked so much havoc from time immemorial.[70] No, the Church is Christ’s body under his direct supervision and protection. As a result, the Church is the eschatological cosmic community. It is not merely a social club; it has prophetic and cosmic dimensions. Prophetically, the Church points to the eschaton when all of humanity will behave then how the Church already strives to live now—by the spirit instead of the flesh (Gal 5.16-25). Cosmically, the Church is not confined to the earth. There is a heavenly dimension with authority structures instantiated under Christ to partner with the earthly assemblies. God’s “plan for the fulness of the times” is “to head up all thing in the Christ, the things upon the heavens and the things upon the earth in him” (Eph 1.10). Although this is his eschatological vision, Zeilinger pointed out that it is already happening.

[T]he eschatological world given in Christ is realized within the still-existing earthly creation through the inclusion of the human being in Christ, the exalted one, by means of the proclamation of salvation and baptism. The eschaton spreads throughout the world in the kerygma and becomes reality, in that the human being, through baptism, becomes part of Christ—that is, in unity with him, dies to the claim of the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (2.20) and is raised with him to receive his eschatological life. The people thus incorporated into the exalted Christ thereby form, in him and with him, the new creation of the eschaton within the old! The body of Christ is thus recognizable as the expanding Church. In it, heavenly and earthly space form, in a certain sense, a unity.[71]

The Church is a counter society, and embassy of the future kingdom shining the light of the age to come into the present in the power of the spirit with the protection of Christ and his heavenly powers over against the powers of darkness, who/which are still quite active—especially in the political realities of our present evil age (Gal 1.4). We bend the knee to the cosmic Christ now in anticipation of the day when “every knee may bend: heavenly and earthly and subterranean” (Phil 2.10) and “every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ (is) Lord” (v. 11).

Christ’s destiny is to fulfil the original Adamic mandate to multiply, fill, and have dominion over the earth (Gen 1.28). He has already received all authority in heaven and earth (Mat 28.18). God has given him “dominion over the works of your hands and put all things under his feet” as the quintessential man (Ps 8.6). Even so, “Now we do not yet see all things subjected to him” (Heb 2.8), but when he comes “he will reign into the ages of the ages” (Rev 11.15). Until then, he calls the Church to recognize his preeminence and give him total allegiance both in word and deed.

Conclusion

We began by establishing that the structure of the poetic unit in Col 1.15-20 breaks into two strophes (15-18a and 18b-20). We noted that Paul likely incorporated pre-existing material into Colossians, editing it as he saw fit. Then we considered the problems with the three old creation readings: (A) Christ as the agent of creation, (B) Wisdom as the agent of creation, and (C) Christ as the purpose of creation. In the course of critiquing (A), which is by far most popular, we observed several reasons to think Col 1.16 pertained to new creation, including (1) the image of God language in v. 15a, (2) the firstborn of all creation language in v. 15b, (3) the head of the Church language in v. 18a, and (4) the soteriological context (frame) of the poem (vv. 13-14, 21-22). To this I added a fifth syntactical reason that 16d as an elaboration of “τἀ πάντα” (all things) of 16a.

Next, we explored the idea of new creation, especially within Paul’s epistles, to find a deep and richly textured paradigm for interpreting God’s redemptive and expanding sphere of influence (in Christ) breaking into the hostile world. We saw that new Christians die and rise with Christ, ending their association with the old and beginning again as a part of the new—a community where old racial, legal, and status divisions no longer matter, where members put off the old way of living and instead become clothed with the new humanity, where people look forward to and live in light of the ultimate transformation to be brought about at the coming of Christ. Rather than limiting new creation to the salvation of individuals, or even the sanctifying experience of the community, we saw that it also includes spiritual powers both “in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” (Col 1.16). Reading Col 1.15-20 along with Eph 1.20-23 we connected God’s creation of the powers in Christ with his exaltation of Christ to his right hand “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph 1.21).

The point from both texts is clear: as “the head of the body, the Church” (Col 1.18; Eph 1.22), Christ is “before all things” (Col 1.17), “first in all things” (Col 1.18), and “far above all” (Eph 1.21), since God has “subjected all things under his feet” (Eph 1.22). Christ is preeminent as the firstborn of all new creation, “the new Adam … the starting point where new creation took place.”[72] Although the old powers still hold sway in the world, those in the interlocked heaven-and-earth new creation domain where Christ is the head, enjoy his protection if they remain “in the faith established and steadfast and not shifting away from the hope of the gospel” (Col 1.23).

This interpretation has several significant advantages. It fits into Paul’s apocalyptic way of thinking about Christ’s advent and exaltation. It also holds together the first strophe of the poem as a unit. Additionally, it makes better sense of the context. (The ecclesiology of Col 1.15-18a follows logically from the soteriological context of vv. 13-14.) Lastly, it is compatible with a wide range of Christological options.

Here is Col 1.16 from Leedy’s sentence diagrams.[73] Of note is how he equates the τὰ πάντα of 16a with 16c and 16d rather than seeing 16d as an elaboration of τά ὁρατά.

Bauer, Walter, Frederick William  Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Gingrich, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Viktor Reichmann. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bird, Michael F. Colossians and Philemon. A New Covenant Commentary. Cambridge, England: The Lutterworth Press, 2009.

Brown, Anna Shoffner. “Nothing ‘Mere’ About a Man in the Image of God.” Paper presented at the Unitarian Christian Alliance, Springfield, OH, Oct 14, 2022.

Bruce, E. K. Simpson and F. F. The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Ned B. Stonehouse. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957.

Buzzard, Anthony F. Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian. Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship, 2007.

Caird, G. B. New Testament Theology. Edited by L. D. Hurst. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 2002.

Caird, G. B. Paul’s Letters from Prison. New Clarendon Bible, edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Carden, Robert. One God: The Unfinished Reformation. Revised ed. Naperville, IL: Grace Christian Press, 2016.

Chang, Eric H. H. The Only Perfect Man. Edited by Bentley C. F. Chang. 2nd ed. Montreal, QC: Christian Disciples Church Publishers, 2017.

Deuble, Jeff. Christ before Creeds. Latham, NY: Living Hope International Ministries, 2021.

Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. New International Greek Testament Commentary, edited by Gasque Marshall, Hagner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019.

King, Martha. An Exegetical Summary of Colossians. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 1992.

Kuschel, Karl-Joseph. Born before All Time? Translated by John Bowden. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1992. Originally published as Beforen vor aller Zeit?

Lane, William L. The New Testament Page by Page. Open Your Bible Commentary, edited by Martin Manser. Bath, UK: Creative 4 International, 2013.

Leedy, Randy A. The Greek New Testament Sentence Diagrams. Norfolk, VA: Bible Works, 2006.

Lohse, Edward. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1971.

MacDonald, William Graham. The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament. Norfolk, VA: Bibleworks, 2012.

Mark H. Graeser, John A. Lynn, John W. Schoenheit. One God & One Lord. 4th ed. Martinsville, IN: Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, 2010.

Martin, Ralph. “An Early Christian Hymn (Col. 1:15-20).” The Evangelical Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1964): 195–205.

Martyn, J. Louis. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997.

McGrath, James F. The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

McKnight, Scot. The Letter to the Colossians. New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018.

Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen Zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede. 4th ed. Stuttgart, Germany: B. G. Teubner, 1956. Originally published as 1913.

Pao, David. Colossians and Philemon. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament, edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2012.

Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022.

Philo. The Works of Philo. The Norwegian Philo Concordance Project. Edited by Kåre Fuglseth Peder Borgen, Roald Skarsten. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005.

Robinson, James M. “A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1:15-20.” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 4 (1957): 270–87.

Schillebeeckx, Eduard. Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord. Translated by John Bowden. New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1977.

Schoberg, Gerry. Perspectives of Jesus in the Writings of Paul. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Letter to the Colossians. Translated by Andrew Chester. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982.

Smith, Dustin R. Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2024.

Snedeker, Donald R. Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals. Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1998.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

Thrall, Margaret. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 1. The International Critical Commentary, edited by C. E. B. Cranfield J. A. Emerton, G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994.

Wachtel, William M. “Colossians 1:15-20–Preexistence or Preeminence?” Paper presented at the 14th Theological Conference, McDonough, GA, 2005.

Wessels, G. F. “The Eschatology of Colossians and Ephesians.” Neotestamentica 21, no. 2 (1987): 183–202.

Witherington III, Ben The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary of the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Yates, Roy. The Epistle to the Colossians. London: Epworth Press, 1993.

Zeilinger, Franz. Der Erstgeborene Der Schöpfung. Wien, Österreich: Herder, 1974.

[1] Since the nineteenth century biblical scholars have been divided over whether Paul wrote Colossians. One of the major reasons for thinking Paul didn’t write Colossians is his exalted Christology—the very conclusion this paper seeks to undermine. A second major factor to argue against Pauline authorship is the difference in vocabulary, but this is explainable if Paul used a different amanuensis. The theologically more cosmic emphasis (also evident in Ephesians) is likely due to Paul’s time in prison to reflect and expand his understanding of the Christ event. Lastly, the proto-Gnostic hints in Colossians do not require dating the epistle outside of Paul’s time. Although Gnosticism flourished at the beginning of the second century, it was likely already beginning to incubate in Paul’s time.

[2] Eduard Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1977), 185.

[3] Schillebeeckx, 185.

[4] G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, New Clarendon Bible, ed. H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1976), 177.

[5] Caird, 181.

[6] James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. Gasque Marshall, Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 91. “[W]hat at first reads as a straightforward assertion of Christ’s pre-existenct activity in creation becomes on closer analysis an assertion which is rather more profound—not of Christ as such present with God in the beginning, nor of Christ as identified with a pre-existent hypostasis or divine being (Wisdom) beside God, but of Christ as embodying and expressing (and defining) that power of God which is the manifestation of God in and to his creation.” (Italics in original.) James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 194.

[7] James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 46.

[8] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 200.

[9] In addition, biblical unitarians routinely interpret Col 1.16 as new creation. See Anthony F. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian (Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship, 2007), 189–90, Robert Carden, One God: The Unfinished Reformation, Revised ed. (Naperville, IL: Grace Christian Press, 2016), 197–200, Eric H. H. Chang, The Only Perfect Man, ed. Bentley C. F. Chang, 2nd ed. (Montreal, QC: Christian Disciples Church Publishers, 2017), 151–52, Jeff Deuble, Christ before Creeds (Latham, NY: Living Hope International Ministries, 2021), 163–66, John A. Lynn Mark H. Graeser, John W. Schoenheit, One God & One Lord, 4th ed. (Martinsville, IN: Spirit & Truth Fellowship International, 2010), 493–94, Donald R. Snedeker, Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals (Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1998), 291–92, William M. Wachtel, “Colossians 1:15-20–Preexistence or Preeminence?” (paper presented at the 14th Theological Conference, McDonough, GA, 2005), 4.

[10] All translations are my own.

[11] Stophes are structural divisions drawn from Greek odes akin to stanzas in poetry or verses in music.

[12] Throughout I will capitalize Church since that reflects the idea of all Christians collectively not just those in a particular local assembly.

[13] Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen Zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: B. G. Teubner, 1956), 250–54.

[14] James M. Robinson, “A Formal Analysis of Colossians 1:15-20,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 4 (1957): 272–73.

[15] Edward Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1971), 44.

[16] Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, trans. Andrew Chester (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982), 57.

[17] Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 84.

[18] Ben  Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary of the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 129.

[19] William L. Lane, The New Testament Page by Page, Open Your Bible Commentary, ed. Martin Manser (Bath, UK: Creative 4 International, 2013), 765.

[20] E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 65.

[21] Michael F. Bird, Colossians and Philemon, A New Covenant Commentary (Cambridge, England: The Lutterworth Press, 2009), 50.

[22] David Pao, Colossians and Philemon, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 87.

[23] Lohse, 42.

[24] Lohse, 43–44.

[25] Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018), 144.

[26] Col 1.13-14: “who rescued us from the authority of darkness and transferred (us) into the kingdom of his beloved son in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of the sins.” Col 1.21-22: “And you being formerly alienated and hostile in thought in the evil deeds, but now he reconciled (you) in his body of the flesh through the death to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him.”

[27] In fact, we can easily skip from vv. 13-14 to vv. 21-22.

[28] Dunn, Christology in the Making, 187–88.

[29] Sadly, most translations erroneously insert a paragraph between vv. 14 and 15. This produces the visual effect that v. 15 is a new thought unit.

[30] Bruce, 193.

[31] Moses 2.65: “τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τῶν περιγείων” in Philo, The Works of Philo, The Norwegian Philo Concordance Project (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005). See also Sirach 17.3.

[32] Schweizer, 64.

[33] For a helpful treatment of how the image of God relates to Christology, see Anna Shoffner Brown, “Nothing ‘Mere’ About a Man in the Image of God” (paper presented at the Unitarian Christian Alliance, Springfield, OH, Oct 14, 2022).

[34] Walter Bauer et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. “πρωτότοκος,” 2.a.

[35] Franz Zeilnger wrote, “Christ is temporally the first of a series that essentially proceeds from him, and at the same time its lord and head.” Franz Zeilinger, Der Erstgeborene Der Schöpfung (Wien, Österreich: Herder, 1974), 182. Original: “als “Wurzel” ist Christus zeitlich der erste einer Reihe, die wesentlich aus ihm hervorgeht, und zugleich ihr Herr und Haupt.”

[36] McKnight, 85–86.

[37] The closest parallels are 1 Cor 8.6; Heb 1.2; and John 1.3, which employ the preposition δια (through). Upon close examination these three don’t teach Christ created the universe either.

[38] ESV, CSB, NASB, etc. Notably the NET diverges from the other evangelical translations. Roman Catholic, mainline, and unitarian translations all tend to straightforwardly render “ἐν αὐτῷ” as “in him” in Col 1.16; cf. NABRE, NRSVUE, OGFOMMT, etc.

[39] Chang, 150.

[40] Ralph Martin, “An Early Christian Hymn (Col. 1:15-20),” The Evangelical Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1964): 198.

[41] Schillebeeckx, 186.

[42] Dunn, Christology in the Making, 191.

[43] Karl-Joseph Kuschel, Born before All Time?, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1992), 336.

[44] Dustin R. Smith, Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2024), 5–6. For more on wisdom Christology in Col 1.16 see Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 89, Roy Yates, The Epistle to the Colossians (London: Epworth Press, 1993), 18–19, 23, G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 2002), 46, McGrath, 44, 46.

[45] See Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 89. See also Yates, 18–19, 23.

[46] Dunn, Christology in the Making, 190.

[47] Perriman, 199.

[48] Martha King, An Exegetical Summary of Colossians (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 1992), 53.

[49] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), s.v. “ἐν,” 1722. He recognized the cause was both instrumental and final.

[50] William Graham MacDonald, The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament (Norfolk, VA: Bibleworks, 2012).

[51] Chang, 147. Similarly James McGrath wrote, “[I]f all things were intended by God to find their fulfillment in Christ, then they must have been created “in him” in the very beginning in some undefined sense, since it was axiomatic that the eschatological climax of history would be a restoration of its perfect, original state.” McGrath, 46.

[52] Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 172.

[53] “God so designed the universe that it was to achieve its proper meaning and unity only under the authority of man (Gen. 128; Ps. 86). But this purpose was not to be implemented at once; it was ‘to be put into effect when the time was ripe’ (Eph. 110), when Christ had lived a human life as God intended it, and had become God’s image in a measure which was never true of Adam. Only in unity with ‘the proper man’ could the universe be brought to its destined coherence. For one who believes in predestination it is but a small step from this to saying that the universe was created in him.” Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 178.

[54] See also Paul’s Adam Christology in Rom 5.12-21; 1 Cor 15.21-22, 45-49.

[55] “Christus ist (durch seine Auferstehung aus dem Todesbereich) Herr über den ihm verliehenen Besitz, dessen ἀρχή und Urbild er ist, … und Haupt und Anfang der eschatologischen Neuschöpfung!” Zeilinger, 188.

[56] King, 54.

[57] Perriman, 200.

[58] G. F. Wessels, “The Eschatology of Colossians and Ephesians,” Neotestamentica 21, no. 2 (1987): 187.

[59] I realize my translation is awkward, but I prioritized closely mirroring the Greek over presenting smooth English. The original reads, “συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ.”

[60] Schillebeeckx, 187.

[61] Scholars who make this connection include Caird, New Testament Theology, 216, Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 177, McGrath, 44, Perriman, 201.

[62] In fact, only two of the texts I cited above explicitly say “new creation” (2 Cor 5.17 and Gal 6.15). In all the others, Paul blithely employed creation language, expecting his readers to understand that he was not talking about the creation of the universe, but the creation of the new humanity in Christ—the Church.

[63] McKnight, 152.

[64] Mark H. Graeser, 493.

[65] Rev 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14.

[66] See Gerry Schoberg, Perspectives of Jesus in the Writings of Paul (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), 280–81, 83.

[67] Margaret Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, The International Critical Commentary, ed. C. E. B. Cranfield J. A. Emerton, G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994), 423, 26–28.

[68] J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997), 122.

[69] Martyn, 121.

[70] Whether the old gods actually existed or not is a topic beyond the scope of this paper. Interested readers should consult Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019).

[71] “[D]ie in Christus gegebene echatologische Welt verwirkliche sich innerhalb der weiterhin existenten irdischen Schöpfung durch die Einbeziehung des Menschen in Christus, den Erhöhten, mittles Heilsverkündigung und Taufe. Das Eschaton setzt sic him Kerygma wetweit durch und wird Wirklichkeit, indem der Mensch durch die Taufe Christi Teil wird, d. h. in Einheit mit ihm dem Anspruch der στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου stirbt (2, 20) und mit ihm auferweckt sein eschatologisches Leben erhält. Die so dem erhöhten Christus eingegliederten Menschen bilden somit in ihm und mit ihm die neue Schöpfung der Eschata innerhalb der alten! Der Christusleib ist somit als sich weitende Kirche erkennbar. In ihr bildet himmlischer und irdischer Raum gewissermaßen eine Einheit.” Zeilinger, 179.

[72] “Der neue Adam … Ausgangsort, in dem sich Neuschöpfung ereignete,” Zeilinger, 199.

[73] Randy A. Leedy, The Greek New Testament Sentence Diagrams (Norfolk, VA: Bible Works, 2006). This is now available in Logos Bible Software.

Today is part three of our summer mini-series on evangelism. We started two weeks ago with a focus on God’s heart for the lost. Then last week we heard how simple it is to find opportunities to speak to people. Still, we need to cover what the message is that we ultimately want to share with the lost. Today you’ll learn about the rich, threefold message of the kingdom, the cross, and the resurrection. Today’s sermon will equip you with what you need to know to share the full gospel with those you encounter.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

Last week we began our summer mini-series on evangelism with a focus on why we should reach the lost. Today I’ve got a real treat for you. In this powerful message, David Sowers challenges believers to move beyond their comfort zones and share the gospel with the lost. His stories of everyday evangelism encounters will demystify the whole idea of telling people about Jesus. You don’t need to be exceptionally well-studied, full of charisma, or educated in psychology. All you need to do is open your eyes and step out in faith in little ways as God leads you. Get ready to be stirred, equipped, and sent with a fresh sense of purpose.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

Many of us are annoyed by non-Christians. They mock our beliefs, criticize our way of life, and undermine us at every turn. If you’re honest with yourself, you probably would be happy to have a world with only Christians–real Christians–in it, right? However, this is not God’s heart–at least not right now. In today’s episode, my father, Vince Finnegan, reveals God’s deep, active loving compassion for humanity. No better example of God’s heart for the lost can be found than looking to his son. Jesus embodied that compassion, tirelessly ministering to the hurting, the outcast, and the spiritually blind. Rather than seeing the lost as an annoyance to be tolerated or–even worse–enemies to be defeated in a never-ending culture war, it’s time to see unbelievers as precious souls in need of grace. Listen in and be inspired to develop a heart that feels, sees, and acts like God’s.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

This is a follow up to our 5-part response series on The Incarnate Christ and His Critics.

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation with a coworker, acquaintance, or family member trying to explain who Jesus is? Every wish there was a simple acrostic that could guide you through a brief yet thoughtful presentation of who Jesus is? Well, friend, you need look no further. After spending five weeks responding to arguments for the deity of Christ, Brandon Duke and I are going to do an entire episode focused on a positive case for the genuine Jesus of scripture. We’ll use the word GOSPEL to help you remember six main points about Jesus. We’re hopeful that this content will equip you to better share your faith with others.

G – given life by his Father

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

This is part 5 of our response series on The Incarnate Christ and His Critics.

Today in our fifth episode in this series critiquing the book, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, we broach the topic of thrones. If Jesus sits on God’s throne, does that make him God too? If so, isn’t that two Gods? We’ll deal with these kinds of questions while examining throne texts, including Daniel 7.13-14; Psalm 110.1; Revelation 3.21; and Hebrews 1.3. In each case we’ll see how incredibly subordinationist the throne texts are.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

This is part 4 of our response series on The Incarnate Christ and His Critics.

Only God has power over nature. Jesus walked on water. Therefore Jesus must be God. Right? Does that line of reasoning convince you? How about this one. Only God has power over nature. Elijah called down fire from heaven. Therefore Elijah must be God. Or how about this one? Only God has power over nature. Moses split the Red Sea. Therefore Moses must be God. Listen in to today’s episode to find out why this kind of argument doesn’t hold water as well as how the evangelists who wrote the Gospels intended Jesus’s miracles to be interpreted.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

This is part 3 of our response series on The Incarnate Christ and His Critics.

Today we get to the heart of the case for the deity of Christ to see if it holds up to scrutiny. In addition to considering whether the name “Jesus” and the title “son of God” implies divinity, we look at the 8 major texts in which the New Testament allegedly applies the title “God” to Jesus, including John 1.1, 18; 20.28; Romans 9.5; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; and 1 John 5.20. In each we briefly explain why evangelicals take the passage to teach the deity of Christ and then show what it really means in its context. Over and over we find that these foundation texts are actually built upon the unstable sands of manuscript differences, translation ambiguity, and strained interpretations rather than solid bedrock.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

This is part 2 of our response series on The Incarnate Christ and His Critics.

Most of us understand of what deity means. Generally we think to be God is to be eternal, uncaused, and indestructible. This gets at the word aseity, which is a fancy philosophical term for a being that doesn’t depend on anyone or anything else for existence. To be a se (from the Latin a = from, and se = self) is to be uncaused and non-contingent. This cuts to the very essence of what it means to be God in the proper sense of the word. So, if Jesus is God in the same way in which the Father is God, then Jesus, too, must have aseity. Right? We’ll see about that in today’s episode.

But, here’s the thing. It’s actually even harder than establishing Jesus’s aseity. To claim Christ’s deity, entails claiming he has all the other divine attributes as well. Deity-of-Christ apologists like Bowman and Komoszewski know that this is a problem. In fact, in part two of their book, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, they outline seven conflicting attributes between Jesus’s alleged divine and human natures. They say he is both eternal and born, immutable and able to grow, impeccable and tempted, omnipresent and able to walk, omniscient and not knowing something, omnipotent and capable of sleep, and lastly, immortal and mortal–all at the same time. Although they revel in such “paradoxes,” this list presents grave difficulties for the classic dual natures view from Chalcedon that we covered last week. In this episode we’ll consider several of these contradictions as part of our second episode on whether or not Jesus had the divine attributes.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——

This is part 1 of our response series on The Incarnate Christ and His Critics.

Today we’re shifting gears. We’ve had an eighteen-episode class delving into biblical and contextual study of 1 Corinthians. Then last time we had an interview with someone struggling with mental health. For the next several weeks we’re going deep into Christology. This is going to be a five-part series of interviews with Brandon Duke reviewing an important book that came out last November defending the deity of Christ from a trinitarian perspective. In what follows Brandon and I discuss the arguments they make and respond to them.

Our hope is that this series will (1) build your confidence in your biblical unitarian faith, (2) train you to see the flaws in their approach, and (3) equip you with responses to these types of arguments. Together Brandon and I offer two complimentary lenses through which to analyze and respond. Whereas Brandon is well versed in analytic theology and the philosophical approach, I’m more specialized in the exegesis of biblical texts in their original languages and historical context. Together I think we make a great team to guide you through this journey.

Today’s episode is about divine honors. Did Jesus receive honors only appropriate for God? If so, does that imply that he just is God? Listen in to find out.

  Listen on Spotify

  Listen on Apple Podcasts

—— Links ——