Scripture teaches that God is the creator of all things, serving as its source. (Rev. 4:11; Rom. 11:36)  That God is called creator is well established throughout Scripture, but what do we make of the references made to Jesus’ role in creation?  The view taken by the Trinitarian position is that Christ too must be called the creator and thus he is God.  Is this what Scripture teaches? 

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16
On more than one occasion the Bible testifies to Christ’s involvement in creation.  To dispute such a thing would be to go beyond Scripture.  Nevertheless an involvement does not make necessarily make him the creator any more than an architect would be deemed the builder of a building.  Following the order of the New Testament, John 1:3 proves to be the first text for requiring consideration. It begins by stating: “All things came into being through him.”  Certain translations have been found to mislead the reader by render this as “by him”, causing some to conclude that Christ is the source of creation and thus the creator.  In contrast, this text shows intermediate agency, where Christ is not the creator, but the one through whom creation takes place.  Dana and Mantey note: “Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the λογος as the intermediate agent.”^[1]  Vincent further explains: “The preposition διά is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as διὰ του προφήτου, through the prophet (Matthew 1:22, on which see note).”^[2]

The B clause of John 1:3 tells us that “apart from him not one thing came into being.”  Many Trinitarians will argue by the “not one thing” being created apart from Christ, he himself must be uncreated.  On this point we would note the parallel between the language of this text and Hebrews 2:8.  In this text it explains that God “left nothing not subject to [Jesus].”  Nevertheless, elsewhere we are told that the one performing the action of subjecting is the one that is the exception to the “nothing.” (1Cor. 15:27)  Similarly, if John 1:3 were to have an exception it would be the one through him all things came into being, which is Jesus.  It might be argued that other texts teach that this is true just as other texts teach that God himself is the exception to Hebrews 2:8. (Prov. 8:22; Rev 3:14)  Yet in the case of John 1:3 we need only read into the very next sentence to find the exception defined. 

Taking the final two words of John 1:3 with the sentence found in verse 4, we read, “What has come into being in him was life.”  Most by translations will simply say that “in him was life,” not including the words “what has come into being.”  The words that make the difference are ό γεγονεν, and these translations generally connect the words with the sentence that begins at the start of verse 3.  Yet, The Catholic Answer Bible relates: "Connection [of ό γεγονεν] with v[erse] 3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism."^[3]

If we look at the testimony of the early church up to the end of the third century, the thought of those final two words belonging to the sentence of verse four is almost unanimous.  Those offering such testimony include, but are not limited to, Theophilus, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, and Athenasius.  Their witness on this matter is seen when they independently quote either verse 3 or verse 4. Westcott explains: "The last clause of v[erse] 3 may be taken either (1) with the words which precede, as A.V., or (2) with the words which follow. It would be difficult to find a more complete consent of ancient authorities in favour of any reading, than that which support the second punctuation: Without him was not anything made. That which hath been made in Him was life."  When 1:3 is quoted by the early church and others it does not include the final words ό γεγονεν, while when the text of 1:4 is quoted the words are attached to it.^[4]

Adding to the weight of this evidence is the poetic structure in the prologue of John.  The book Anatomy of the New Testament explains: “The rhythmic, poetic character of the prologue can best be perceived in Greek, especially when the text is printed in strophic form… There is, for example, a peculiar chainlike progress in the repetition of key words in verses 1-5 and 9-19… Although the sequence is not perfect, it is too pronounced to be coincidental and unintentional.”^[5]  The authors go on to provide an English translation of John 1:1-5 and in doing so the provided translation reads as follows in the key verse: “That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the light of men.”  Such punctuation is accurately reflected in several translations as well, such as the New Jerusalem Bible. 

To not attach the words ό γεγονεν to the sentence that continues into verse 4 would be to annihilate the poetic structure of the text.  This would result in a rhythm in verses 1-3, an interruption at the beginning of verse 4 and then a continuation from the B portion of 4 into verse 5.  The only real objection to this is that γεγονεν is in the perfect tense while ην is imperfect, but this is easily resolved by recognizing that ό γεγονεν is the subject of ην, with it being what came to be in him.  Naturally then, the rhythm would follow through the entire set of verses and this is easily seen by accepting these two key words to be with the sentence found in verse 4. 

Having established the proper reading of the text, what is the “life” that came to be in Jesus?  We are told that “the life was the light of men.”  From Scripture we know that “the light of men” was the Messiah himself (Isa. 9:2; Joh. 1:9; 8:12) and the text tells us that the light of men is this life, and so the Messiah must in some way also be the life. 

This notion of the life coming into Jesus with him also being this life takes us back to the account of Adam’s creation in Genesis.  Here God breathed “the breath of life” into Adam (Gen. 2:7), thus making life “come to be in Adam” and yet that life that then existed could be equated with none other than Adam himself.  The life came to be in the Word at his creation and when he “emptied himself” (Phil. 2:7) to become flesh, that life was placed into the womb of Mary.  Having been born he proved to be “the light of men,” the Messiah.  The life coming to be in him would not be limited to his human existence, for the life would then not have been coming to be in him. It would have come to be in a human body in that he became flesh. (Joh. 1:14)

While some might note that the text comes after him being identified as the one through who all came to be, we should not assume that temporal order is in view.  This is a poetic passage and so such an argument need not apply here.  Nevertheless, a similar ordering is found within the book of Revelation that properly parallels John 1:3-4. 

Turning to Revelation 5:3-4 we learn that there is a scroll.  We are told that “no one was found worthy to open the book,” here paralleling the statement that “not one thing” was created apart from Christ.  Well if no one was worthy to open it, how is it that Revelation 6:1 presents a seal being open?  Revelation 5:6 qualifies that “no one” spoken of in verses 3-4, explaining that in actuality the Lamb is worthy and this is so because he had overcome through his sacrifice and resurrection.  Just as Jesus proved to be the exception to the “no one” of Revelation 5, he also proves to be the exception to the “not one thing” in John 1:3.  In both cases this exception is provided immediately following the statement so as to qualify what was said, and in doing so it magnifies him as the lone exception. 

Following the chain of texts speaking of Christ’s involvement in creation, Colossians 1:16 also cannot be overlooked, but as with John 1:3, this verse also shows us intermediate agency.  The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament explains: “The prep[osition] w[ith] the gen[itive] describes Christ as the intermediate instrument of creation (Abbott; Lightfoot).”^[6]  This construction shows Christ not to be the source of creation, but an intermediate agent that was used by God.  Origen explains: "Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage [John 1:3, which uses the same grammar as Colossians 1:16] also, through the Λογος, then they were not made by the Λογος, but by [one] stronger and greater than He."^[7] This one “stronger and greater than He” is the Father, who, as explained by 1 Corinthians 8:6, is the one “out of whom” all things came. 

Colossians 1:16 also speaks of Christ as the one that all things came to be “in.”  While some translations render this “by” as in John 1:3, such a rendering then misleads the reader.  Vincent explains the proper translation: “In is not instrumental but local; not denying the instrumentality, but putting the fact of creation with reference to its sphere and center.”^[8]  Within the text, Christ is seen as the intermediate agent and the one in whom creation takes place.  As the intermediate agent, God is the one doing the creation in him.  How this specific played out when creation took place we are not told, and so we should not venture to speculate on this.  We simply accept that it did.

Noting Christ in the role of intermediate agent, Trinitarians will at times argue that δια, the preposition used for Christ’s involvement in creation, is also used of God. (Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10)  Hebrews 2:10 finds the preposition used with the accusative, carrying the meaning of “because of” according the Moule.^[9]  This is followed by the same preposition with the genitive.  In the case of Romans 11:36, it is used with the genitive as when applied with Christ, but preceded by the preposition εκ, too with the genitive.  This is significant, as BDAG notes that δια not only shows intermediate agency, but it can also be used for “the originator of an action.”^[10]  In provided lexical glosses it assigns such a definition to the two verses in question, which in light of the context including εκ in Romans 11:36, showing God as the source, and δια with the accusative in Hebrews 2:10, showing him being the primary cause, this comes as little surprise.^[11]  Winer notes that “dia but rarely indicates the causa principalis… in other words but rarely seems to be equivalent to upo or para… Rom[ans] xi. 36, owing to the prepositions ek and eis, admits no other interpretation”. ^[12]   To attempt to attribute this application to Christ, however, is refuted in that never does the context indicate anything but intermediate agency, as demanded by Hebrews 1:2.  Winer specifically states: “Many passages, however, have been erroneously refer to this class: in J[ohn]. i. 3…” ^[13]  Thus, when it comes to Christ we find him to be the “intermediary in the creation of the world.”^[14]  Therefore, while the preposition δια is used for both, it is not denoting the same thing for God as when it is used for Christ.  When it is used of God it is used along with other prepositions that specifically signal the use as being something other than intermediate agency.  This is not merely a theological issue but a grammatical one, where contextual issues play a role in the meaning of the statements made. 

Hebrews 1:10
The author of Hebrews presents a text indicating Christ’s role in creation that is commonly argued for by Trinitarians to be in support of their position.  In question is Hebrews 1:10-13, a quotation from Psalms 102:25-27.  The original text was applied to Jehovah, with the author of Hebrews applying it to Christ.  This has lead Trinitarians to argue that Jesus must be Jehovah.  Yet such an argument fails to consider the context of Hebrews.

Hebrews 1 and 2 contain numerous quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures that were originally applied to various individuals.  These include David at Psalm 2:7 and 22:22 (1:5a; 2:12), Solomon at 2 Samuel 7:14 (1:5b), an unnamed Jewish King at Psalm 45:6-7 (1:8-9), God at Psalm 102:25-27 (1:10-13) and Isaiah at Isaiah 8:17-18 (2:13).  Though the original applicants of these passages were not the Messiah, the author of Hebrews did not see an issue in quoting these passages so that the quoted statements applied to Jesus.

That the author of Hebrews did not intend to identify Jesus with the original applicants of the quoted texts is clearly evident when we consider the full context of those passages.  As an example, we note that Hebrews 1:5 is quoted in part from 2 Samuel 7:14 where it prophetically speaks of Solomon being corrected when he sins.  Were we to argue for the author of Hebrews to be equating Jesus with the person to whom the texts were originally applied we would be forced to go to 2 Samuel 7 and read the entire passage.  In doing this we would note that Christ did sin, for it was prophesied that one in the original context would. 

In this same way, we observe that the text quoted from Psalm 102:25-27 is taken and applied to Christ though it was originally applied to God.  Simply because the original application finds itself in God does not mean that it is not also true of Christ.  How can this be when God is the creator? 

George Buchanan gives a very proper explanation of the text: “Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah.  For example in LXX Deut[eronomy] 32:43, in which the object of worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6)…  By the same logic, since “the Lord” was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the temporal nature of the angels. [Jesus upon his resurrection was now immortal]  If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and earth as well as the ages (1:2, 10).  In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was addressed as God.”^[15]

That Christ had an involvement in creation, specifically as cited in Hebrews 1:10, is noted in verse 2 of Hebrews 1.  The text clearly shows Christ as the one “through whom” God created.  The truthfulness of Jesus role as the intermediate is seen in Hebrews 1:10 when we compare it to what is said of Wisdom within the book of Proverbs. Here Christ, as Wisdom,^[16] is said to have been used by God in making the heavens and the earth. (Prov. 3:19)^[17]  In Proverbs 8:30 we find that Christ served the role of a “master worker”, a view and translation confirmed by the apocryphal book of Wisdom, chapter 7 verse 21, where we read that Wisdom “is the worker of all things.” (KJV)  Indeed, on this point of Jesus as Wisdom being involved in creation at Proverbs 3:19, Barnes’ commentary notes: “This thought [of Jesus being the one though whom God created], developed in Prov[erbs] 8, is the first link in the chain which connects this ‘Wisdom’ with the Divine Word, the Λογος of John’s Gospel.”^[18] 

The most that Hebrews 1:10 shows us that Jesus served a role in the creation of heaven and earth and in that role these words proved true of him, but in a different way than they proved true of God. (c.f. Heb. 1:2)  While some might argue that the text goes on to stress the eternality of the Son, we must observe that Jesus was not the one to whom the text was originally applied any more than he was in the other passages cited.  In light of this, the text is only seen applied to him after the resurrection, and thus he is immortal and eternal.  This “proof text” fails to aid the Trinitarian position in any way.

Isaiah 44:24
When shown that Christ has not truly the creator the typical Trinitarian response is to go to Isaiah where it speaks of God “spreading out the earth by [himself].” (Isa. 44:24)  It then goes on to explain that he is “stretching out the heavens alone.”  If Jesus is not Jehovah does the fact that Jesus is said to be God’s intermediate agent, with the heavens being “the works” of his own hands, contradict this?

When we consider the context of Isaiah 44 we recognize that it is contrasting God with the idol gods of the nations. These were not really gods, but as we have elsewhere discussed, they were wood, metal and other materials that the people had formed into their gods.  In this proper context the point of God’s statement is that he was the one that created the heavens and the earth, not these false gods who the nations claimed were on par or superior to him.  Recognizing the context, when we consider the thought of the creation of the universe and earth, along with other planets, it is easy to see how God’s statement holds true without presenting any issue for Jesus’ role as intermediate agent.

God created the universe by himself, for he himself is the source of all that is.  Yet this did not prohibit him from making use of his own creation to bring about other creation.  He made use of various existent creation and brought it together to form things such as the planets and the stars.  Gravity was made use of, as were various gasses that were brought together by that gravity.  Land was formed through the eruption of volcanoes, where lava cooled and formed solid ground.  The process of forming new land in this way even continues today. 

The fact that he used these does not contradict his clear statement, for they too are his own creation and so they prove only to be the means that he uses to bring further creation about.  In that same way, as one of his creation, God used Jesus.  It is not because he has to but because he wanted to.  As God’s intermediate agent Jesus cannot be counted as the source of creation.  He is God’s means of bringing creation about.  While Jesus is a person, he is just as much one of God’s creation as the impersonal things that God made use of in bringing so much of his creation about. 

How then does this relate to the text?  We must remember that the text is dealing with competing gods that were placed on the same level as Jehovah by the nations.  These were gods that were not created by Jehovah, but they were in opposition to him.  Their involvement in any sort would be contrary to Jehovah’s statement, and so his point is proper and correct in that he does it by himself, without the help of any who people claimed that were co-equal and co-eternal with him. With creation originating in Jehovah alone, it does not matter whether or not he made use of his own creation to bring about further creation, for even that creation originates within him.^[19]

This text presents a classic example of Trinitarian proof texting, where a text is taken entirely out of context in order to make the text mean something that it was never intended.  This is an abuse of Scripture.  While a text, and especially a single sentence or two might have an absolute meaning of some type if taken in isolation, in context that does not always remain true.^[20]  When we read a sentence in Scripture we must not ask ourselves what that sentence means in isolation, but we must ask what it means in context.  This is true of all Scripture, not this text alone.  In the case of Isaiah 44:24, the context clarifies what the text means,  It is clear that there is no contradiction between this passage and what we have already discussed. 

It is therefore seen that while Christ had a role in creation, Scripture never articulates him as the creator.  In fact, he is distinguished repeatedly from the creator, shown to have served an intermediate role, next to the creator. (Prov. 8:30)  If one were to identify Christ as “creator,” it would necessarily be in a different sense than the Almighty.  This one served as the source of all things, while Jesus proved to be the one that this one used to bring it about.^[21]