The interpretation of Colossians 1:15–20 -in proper context and theme

[Justified]

At verse 1 Cor 8:6), there's more then to explain I see? Without again adding into this verse any religious and novel preconceived ideas....

But that is what you keep doing.

This verse distinguishes between "one God" (the Father) and "one Lord" (Jesus Christ), asserting that Yeshua is not included in the one God of the Shema but is a subordinate figure.

This is fallaciously begging the question.

It suggest that titles like "Lord" can apply to human figures of authority or those exalted by God, similar to how David is called "lord."

So is this.

Although the expression in this verse "one Lord" is specifically used as a title reserved for Yeshua that excludes the Father from that specific designation, while noting that God can still be called "Lord" in other contexts and he does in many NT verses. You do know that the translators unfortunately translated the Greek word for LORD, Lord or lord indiscriminately in many places for us to decide, primarily on local context, who and which is the Lord referring to, either the Messiah or his God. And in this case it is Yeshua, and his God is the one who exalted and made him this Lord of course.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The phrase "all things" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not include Yeshua because the interpretation of the context is promoting the direct reference to the Church and the new covenant rather/over than the Genesis creation. Paul distinguishes between the Father, "from whom" all things come, and Yeshua, "through whom" all things come, placing Jesus in a subordinate role as the agent of God's provision for believers rather than any source of creation of as a co-equal Creator.

No. This is the very thing you state that you weren't going to do--you're "adding into this verse . . . religious and novel preconceived ideas." This is seen in your claim that, "The phrase "all things" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not include Yeshua because the interpretation of the context is promoting the direct reference to the Church and the new covenant rather/over than the Genesis creation." That has absolutely nothing to do with the context.

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 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.

Paul is addressing proper Christian conduct and in so doing here, basis that on who God is--the Father and the Son. He begins by making reference to the Shema and then pointing out that all other idols, gods, and lords are false. That gets us to the true God in verse 6.

You're completely ignoring the simple words, "all things." Of course Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son, because they are not the same person. Again, basic logic tells us that if "all things" came "from" the Father reveals to us his absolute nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "all things" coming "through" the Son reveals his absolute nature as God.

It simply cannot be otherwise.

Contextual Focus: The verse is seen as addressing issues within the Corinthian church, such as food sacrificed to idols, meaning "all things" refers to the freedom and blessings of the new covenant rather than the original creation of the universe.

All the "so-called gods in heaven or on earth" are false, whose images are represented by man-made idols, which are made of wood and stone and can do nothing. The point is to show that there is only one true God, whom believers are to worship--"yet for us there is"--precisely because he is the one who created "all things."

So, in context, "all things" refers to the creation of "all things."

Now this is logic, in context, to apply on this verse. This particular verse cannot be that difficult to explain. Paul is making a clear distinction between Yeshua (made lord) and his Father, who is God. It's that's simple, why change its basic underling thought given by Paul to the Corinthians?

Of course he is making that distinction, as he does in all his letters, because they are distinct persons. That is precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical.

Unless you have an underlining and a completely different agenda to impose upon it.

Which you have done, yet simply come to the conclusion that Trinitarians agree with--that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.

 

[JustMe]

But that is what you keep doing.


This is fallaciously begging the question.


So is this.


Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”


No. This is the very thing you state that you weren't going to do--you're "adding into this verse . . . religious and novel preconceived ideas." This is seen in your claim that, "The phrase "all things" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not include Yeshua because the interpretation of the context is promoting the direct reference to the Church and the new covenant rather/over than the Genesis creation." That has absolutely nothing to do with the context.

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 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.

Paul is addressing proper Christian conduct and in so doing here, basis that on who God is--the Father and the Son. He begins by making reference to the Shema and then pointing out that all other idols, gods, and lords are false. That gets us to the true God in verse 6.

You're completely ignoring the simple words, "all things." Of course Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son, because they are not the same person. Again, basic logic tells us that if "all things" came "from" the Father reveals to us his absolute nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "all things" coming "through" the Son reveals his absolute nature as God.

It simply cannot be otherwise.


All the "so-called gods in heaven or on earth" are false, whose images are represented by man-made idols, which are made of wood and stone and can do nothing. The point is to show that there is only one true God, whom believers are to worship--"yet for us there is"--precisely because he is the one who created "all things."

So, in context, "all things" refers to the creation of "all things."


Of course he is making that distinction, as he does in all his letters, because they are distinct persons. That is precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical.


Which you have done, yet simply come to the conclusion that Trinitarians agree with--that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.

No, I sincerely have not intended or added one iota to this verse that would change its true meaning and the contextual setting, as you are bend on doing, and of course I do know why. You cannot afford to leave my post standing as it exists, as others of the past. It must be shot down at all costs because it does not agree with your rigid archaic religious views concerning who actually are the persons of the Father and the Son. You can only recite a dogmatic religious jingle, as your explanation.

I would suggest you come right out and say what you really mean concerning this verse.

Let me help you by completing your last sentence, of your last post.

"Which you have done, yet simply come to the conclusion that Trinitarians agree with--that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. Although they are the same God. (my addition for you)

This is what all your fuss is about isn't it.

This verse clearly does not infer or deduce this as truth. And scripture never does.

And Paul would agree with me, that this belief of yours is grossly in error and not the word of God.

And my statement: "This verse distinguishes between "one God" (the Father) and "one Lord" (Jesus Christ), asserting that Yeshua is not included in the one God of the Shema but is a subordinate figure.

No, there is no begging the question here. That's a desperate and ridiculous response to discredit me when you are already losing ground.

You are just afraid that Paul is actually saying the Father is the only God and not the Son, who is only the lord made by his Father.

There are grounds and justification for my conclusion. So you could not or would not conclude this then. Then I wonder what you would conclude? Maybe it is what I already said, that you believe these two 'people' are the same God, somehow, someway. And Paul never suggests this at all.

Again, in other words, the verse actually says is that all things came “from” God, “through” Yeshua. This then must place Yeshua in a subordinate role to God. According to this verse, he is not “co-equal’ with the Father, as you would define it literally as the very same equality.

See, now we are done with this discussion, I hope.

 

[Fred J]

The interpretation of Colossians 1:15–20 - in conformance with both the local and outer context drawn for other scripture.

Paul's theme here is about a new spiritual creation of man in Christ - the Church- 2 Cor 5:17-20 and Yeshua the Messiah is the firstborn and head of this new creation.

Colossians 1:15-17 collaborates with John 1:1-11 and Hebrews 1:10, and Genesis 1:1-, as to in the beginning the foundation of the earth He had laid.

Colossians 1:18 onward collaborates with John 1:12 onward and distinguishably other scriptures equally in the New Testament collaborates with the redemption plan, acts, and new creation or church of GOD.

Shalom in the name of Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Fred J]

Paul's theme here is about a new spiritual creation of man in Christ - the Church- 2 Cor 5:17-20 and Yeshua the Messiah is the firstborn and head of this new creation.

Can you give us the verse that read, 'the Messiah is the firstborn of this new creation'?

Seems like you're taking after Dough proclaiming a 'twisted' Gospel.

 

[David Lamb]

I believe you are trying to say that the word 'sent' in John 3:17 proves Yeshua's pre-existence. And if this is the case you would be wrong even as the casual observer would read the verse. Need I go further and explain myself or do you want the opportunity to explain it in more clarity? I give you the choice.

The pre-existence of Jesus is shown in various places in Scripture. Somebody has already quoted John 1:1-3. Then there these words of Jesus to His heavenly Father:

(Joh 17:5) And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

If He had no existence before His incarnation, how could He have had glory with the Father before the world was?

 

[Justified]

No, I sincerely have not intended or added one iota to this verse that would change its true meaning and the contextual setting, as you are bend on doing, and of course I do know why.

You might be sincere, but so are JWs and Mormons, and they are wrong in their sincerity. You are changing the meaning by reading things into the text that aren't there, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

You cannot afford to leave my post standing as it exists, as others of the past. It must be shot down at all costs because it does not agree with your rigid archaic religious views concerning who actually are the persons of the Father and the Son. You can only recite a dogmatic religious jingle, as your explanation.

I cannot let your posts be because they are biblically false and will lead people to hell. You have a deficient God and a deficient Christ who is unable to save. There is hardly any more serious error that could be committed than denying the true deity of Christ.

I would suggest you come right out and say what you really mean concerning this verse.

What do you mean? I have said what I really mean.

Let me help you by completing your last sentence, of your last post.

"Which you have done, yet simply come to the conclusion that Trinitarians agree with--that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. Although they are the same God. (my addition for you)

This is what all your fuss is about isn't it.

Of course. I don't see why you felt the need to complete my last sentence. I'm Trinitarian, as all Christians are, so it goes without saying that they are the same God.

This verse clearly does not infer or deduce this as truth. And scripture never does.

It absolutely does infer that truth. As I have stated many times, monotheism is taught throughout Scripture, from beginning to end, even by Jesus himself. Yet, Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus, or rather the Son, is truly God, yet that he is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity is the only solution that best takes into account all that Scripture says.

And Paul would agree with me, that this belief of yours is grossly in error and not the word of God.

No, Paul clearly taught it himself.

And my statement: "This verse distinguishes between "one God" (the Father) and "one Lord" (Jesus Christ), asserting that Yeshua is not included in the one God of the Shema but is a subordinate figure.

No, the Shema is this:

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

And Paul says this:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 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.

So, not only does Paul repeat the language of the Septuagint. And, again, basic logic dictates that if "from whom are all things" speaks of the absolute existence of the Father, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the absolute existence of the Son. It cannot be otherwise.

No, there is no begging the question here. That's a desperate and ridiculous response to discredit me when you are already losing ground.

No, it is begging the question. Just look at the equivalent language that Paul uses, which I've pointed out several times--"from whom are all things;" "through whom are all things." If the Son is not as eternal as the Father, then it is false that all things came through the Son, since it would be absurd to say that he came through himself.

You are just afraid that Paul is actually saying the Father is the only God and not the Son, who is only the lord made by his Father.

Not at all.

There are grounds and justification for my conclusion. So you could not or would not conclude this then. Then I wonder what you would conclude? Maybe it is what I already said, that you believe these two 'people' are the same God, somehow, someway. And Paul never suggests this at all.

Again, it is the only logical conclusion. You don't really seem to understand the doctrine of the Trinity though; it seems as though you're erroneously equating "God" with "person."

Again, in other words, the verse actually says is that all things came “from” God, “through” Yeshua. This then must place Yeshua in a subordinate role to God. According to this verse, he is not “co-equal’ with the Father, as you would define it literally as the very same equality.

Yes, there are different roles or functions of the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), but you're then falsely concluding that different functions equate to a difference in nature or equality. They're coequal, being of the same nature, but have different functions, particularly in relation to the salvation of humans and the redemption of creation.

Do you think women are inferior to men? Or, do you have the biblical view that men and women are equal, both being made in the image of God, but that God seems to have made them differently to fulfill different roles?

See, now we are done with this discussion, I hope.

Far from it.

 

[JustMe]

Colossians 1:15-17 collaborates with John 1:1-11 and Hebrews 1:10, and Genesis 1:1-, as to in the beginning the foundation of the earth He had laid.

Colossians 1:18 onward collaborates with John 1:12 onward and distinguishably other scriptures equally in the New Testament collaborates with the redemption plan, acts, and new creation or church of GOD.

Shalom in the name of Lord Jesus Christ

Thanks Fred for your response, although I believe Paul is speaking to his audience about an important message of hope, not with the constant obsession of self-identification of the key subjects in it.

 

[JustMe]

Can you give us the verse that read, 'the Messiah is the firstborn of this new creation'?

Seems like you're taking after Dough proclaiming a 'twisted' Gospel.

It should be obvious Paul's creation here, concerns the new man, the new creation in Christ, and not Genesis. We can step through the entire Chapter and discover this together if you want.

 

[shepherdsword]

The interpretation of Colossians 1:15–20 - in conformance with both the local and outer context drawn for other scripture.

Paul’s letter to the church in Colossae, written to counteract false teachings that were undermining the supremacy and sufficiency of Yeshua the Messiah. The Colossian believers were being drawn toward a syncretistic mix of Jewish legalism, pagan mysticism, and angel worship—ideas that placed created beings or spiritual intermediaries on par with Christ. Paul responds with a powerful Christological hymn (likely an early Christian creed) to reassert Christ’s absolute preeminence as the founder of the new creation of, and for men.

Paul's theme here is about a new spiritual creation of man in Christ - the Church- 2 Cor 5:17-20 and Yeshua the Messiah is the firstborn and head of this new creation.

(2Co 5:17) Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things are passed away, behold, all things have become new.
(2Co 5:18) But all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation.
(2Co 5:19) That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Rom 8:29 - " For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many other children. "

Gal 6:15 - " For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything. What counts is being a new creation."

The Interpretation of Colossians 1:15–20 affirms Yeshua as the preeminent human Messiah and agent of God’s redemptive plan, not as a preexistent divine being. The creation language in verse 16 refers not to the physical creation of the universe, but to the spiritual creation of the Church and the new creation in believers.

"All things were created through him" (Col 1:16): this is referring to the new creation in Christ—specifically, the Church formed from Jew/Judahite and other outside nations (Eph 2:15), the "new man" (Eph 4:24), and the renewal of individual believers (2 Cor 5:17). The Greek word ektisthē (created) refers to actual creation, not arrangement, and is used throughout Scripture to denote God’s physical creation (e.g., Gen 1:1, Rev 10:6), but in Colossians, it is contextually tied to Christ’s role in redemption, not cosmogony. Paul does not suddenly reopen the discussion of the old Genesis experience here, and then for what purpose? This is about the new Genesis or new creation of the new man through Christ as the head of this creation by his resurrection to immortality.

"In him" (en autō): the preposition en (in) in Col 1:16 should be understood as "in intention" or "because of him", not "by him." or even not "through him" who has no independent power apart for his Father, his God. Scholars like James Dunn and F.F. Bruce, they suggest Paul speaks of God’s plan being centered on Christ before creation (Eph 1:4). Thus, creation was planned in view of Christ, not executed through him.

"Firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15): this as a title of honor and preeminence, not literal preexistence. It echoes Israel’s designation as God’s firstborn (Ex 4:22), meaning Christ is the foremost among God’s creation, especially in his role as the resurrected head of the Church.

"He is before all things" (Col 1:17): This is seen as a statement of Christ’s priority in God’s redemptive plan, not ontological preexistence. His supremacy is established through resurrection, to immortality, not eternity.

"God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in him" (Col 1:19): this is God bestowing divine authority and spiritual fullness upon Christ, not as a statement of divine essence. The same phrase in Ephesians 3:19 refers to believers receiving God’s fullness through the Spirit—showing that "fullness" does not imply divinity.

"Beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14): this verse confirms Christ’s role as the first to be raised to immortality, not the creator. He is the firstborn from the dead, not the Creator.

In summary, Colossians 1 is a high Christology rooted in God’s plan, not in Christ’s divinity or preexistence. Paul’s language is polemical against Gnosticism—affirming Christ’s real humanity and role in salvation—while maintaining strict monotheism, with God the Father as the sole Creator (Isa 44:24).

Ref John 11:25, Romans 8:29, 1 Cor 15:20, 23, 2 Cor 5, Col 3:9, Heb 1:4-5 as related to Col 1:15-20

Let's try to clear this up. Are you against the divinity and preexistence of Christ or just against interpreting Col 1 to support that?

 

[Fred J]

It should be obvious Paul's creation here, concerns the new man, the new creation in Christ, and not Genesis. We can step through the entire Chapter and discover this together if you want.

Paul"s creation??

Colossians 1:
15. Who is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn of every creature:

'every creature/creation' and not 'new creature/creation'

17. And He was before all things, and by Him all things consist.

Again Paul is not referring to the new creation but the beginning of creation and after.

The foundation of the earth the Word laid and have evolved besides the heavens are likewise the works of His hands.

18. And He is the Head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence.

This is when the Word became Jesus Christ the 'Son of man', and became the 'firstbord from the dead' or the 'firstfruit of resurrection'.

Connecting 'both' together and claiming Paul is referring to the 'new creation', is as 'twisting' his teaching and also the other scripture.

We disagree and you're on a wrong path and soon will be 'shipwrecked'.