The study of Colossians 1 has lead many to more questions than answers.  Addressing the preexistence of Christ, many have argued that verse 15 places Christ as the first in the created order, while others have appealed to verse 16 for the purposes of denying this. Interestingly, some on the Trinitarian front have come to admit that Colossians 1:15, by itself, does teach that Christ is created, when read literally.  Nevertheless, they feel that such an interpretation is ruled out when read in context.  Within this article we will examine the basis for all of these claims and see the position that best fits the evidence.

Of primary importance is that we understand the meaning and use of the word "firstborn," translated from the Greek word prwto&tokoj (prototokos). _[1]  It is derived from the words prw~toj, meaning first, and to&koj, meaning begotten (with the verbal form being ti&ktw).  Numerous examples of prwto&tokojare found within Scripture and Greek literature. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) reads of the firstborn of various animals (Gen. 4:4; Ex. 34:19; Num. 18:17; Deut. 15:19) and of men. (Ex. 22:29; Num. 3:40; Neh. 10:36)  Here the word carries the plain sense of one who is "born first."  This same thought is carried over into the New Testament, where Jesus Christ is identified as the firstborn of Mary, namely, the first child that she bore. (Mat. 1:25; Luk. 2:7) 

Outside of the Bible both Josephus and Clement tell of Abel giving “the firstborn of sheep” as a sacrifice. (Ant 1:53; 1Clem. 4:1)  Josephus speaks of the firstborn children that were killed in Egypt (Ant. 2:313), which is universally understood as the children that were born first to their parents.  Philo also used the term literally, identifying Cain as the “firstborn” of Adam and Eve, as their first child. (Che. 1:54) The Apocrypha also uses the term in a literal sense, referring to a “firstborn son” as an “only child.” (Pss. 18:4)

The term firstborn can at times take for itself a figurative meaning.  Lou and Nida explain: “In Jewish society the rights and responsibilities of being a firstborn son resulted in considerable prestige and status. The firstborn son, for example, received twice as much in inheritance as any other offspring.”[2]  The right of the firstborn was something that could be transferred.  In such cases, a person who was not the firstborn would come to be identified as the firstborn in a figurative way, identifying the one that possessed the firstborn right.  In such cases the one who is born first continues to be identified as the firstborn in a literal sense, though without the privileges associated of the birthright, as can be demonstrated by example. 

To see what we have explained, consider the example of the first children born to Isaac.  Esau was the firstborn, the child that was literally "born first." (Gen. 25:25)  He was Jacob’s older brother.  Later in life Esau requested bread and stew from Jacob, and he agreed to provide it, but only in exchange for Esau’s right as firstborn.  When Esau agreed, the rights and privileges that were bestowed upon Esau as the firstborn were transferred to Jacob. (Gen. 25:30-34)  Even though this right was transferred to Jacob, he was still not considered Isaac’s literal firstborn.  He was not the child born first to Isaac.  Esau  acknowledged that he no longer possessed the right of the firstborn (Gen. 27:36; cf. Gen. 25:34), but he continued to recognize that although he had given up his birthright, he was the true, literal firstborn. (Gen. 27:32)

From the account in Genesis we learn that when one is figuratively the firstborn there remains one who is literally the firstborn.  The one who is so figuratively has, for some reason, been given the rights properly due to the one that holds the literal position.  The one who literally holds the firstborn position once possessed the rights of that position, but for one reason or another those rights were taken or given up. 

Examples of the figurative firstborn are perhaps found in Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9.  These texts speak of Israel and Ephraim as God’s firstborn, respectively.  The respective contexts dictate that the subjects represent the nation of Israel.[3]  Neither text, however, is addressing the positions of the men, Israel and Ephraim, relative to their respective human fathers. 

These texts could perhaps be understood literally.  This would present Israel as the first nation to have received a divine decree by which it came to exist.  This understanding would mean that Israel was literally God’s firstborn nation.  Nevertheless, if it were understood figuratively, it would only mean that the rights that belonged to the first nation that did exist (even if it did so without an explicit divine decree) were given to Israel.  So Israel received the double inheritance from God, making the people of Israel especially blessed. 

Another figurative text is found when God promises to make David firstborn in Psalm 89:27.  Though this text has a clear Messianic undertone,[4] in its original context it likely refers to David’s covenant position with God.  In this text the parallel to David as firstborn is seen in that he is “the highest of the kings of the earth.”  (Psa. 89:27)  In this context we might understand that the first human to ever hold a position of “king” was literally the “firstborn.”  If the thought were literal, this one, through his descendents, would have had a kingdom that grew, being greater than all subsequent kingdoms.  As this did not happen, David is given the position of this one.   

Two figurative examples occur within the Hebrew Scriptures that are not translated to prwto&tokoj in the Septuagint.  The first example is Job 38:17, where we read of a disease as “the firstborn of death.”  The language is clearly poetic, for death itself is not conscious and it does not bear children. The thought is that a disease is the greatest of those that cause death.  Similarly, in Isaiah 14:30 we read of “the firstborn of the poor,” which is a passage that contains clear poetic imagery. (cf. Isa. 14:8, 31)  The thought is that of those that are poor, the firstborn is the poorest.[5] 

While a select few examples of prwto&tokoj are figurative, it is most often used literally.  Because of this, unless the context presents some overriding factor, a literal application of the term should be anticipated.  We would not assume a figurative meaning, but when the context clearly dictates a figurative meaning we should also be willing to accept it.

The Firstborn of All Creation

To understand how Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” we must understand the background of the hymn in which he is identified as such.  By understanding this background we can compare our interpretation of Colossians 1 with it.  If one’s interpretation proves compatible with the literary background, it can be considered possible, yet if it does not prove to be compatible, then we must set it aside as false. 

The background of the Colossians hymn is not unanimously agreed upon by scholars, though there is a clear majority consensus.  We have taken to agreeing with the majority on this, for the evidence favors this view.  This majority has come to understand this text as an allusion to Wisdom in Proverbs 8.

Regardless of whether or not one chooses to equate Jesus Christ with Wisdom (a position that we do take and have put forth significant evidence for in our article Jesus Christ - Wisdom Personified) is not entirely relevant.  The point need not be that Jesus Christ is Wisdom (though, again, we feel he is), but only that the language used in the passage is based upon that which is used for Wisdom.  For example, Brown explains that “the closest and most commonly accepted background for the description in [Colossians 1:]15-16a is the OT picture of personified female Wisdom, the image of God’s goodness (Wisdom 7:26) who worked with God in establishing all other things (Prov 3:19)- that Wisdom was created by God at the beginning (Prov 8:22; Sirach 24:9).”[6]  Similarly, C.F. Burney notes the connection in his article Christ as the ARXH of Creation: “No one can contemplate the rendering which I have, as I hope, substantiated for יְֽהוָ֗ה קָ֭נָנִי רֵאשִׁ֣ית דַּרְכֹּ֑ו “The Lord begat me as the beginning of His way” (i.e. His creative activity) without perceiving that prwto&tokoj pa&shj kti&sewj “the first-begotten of all creation” can hardly be other than a direct reference to the O.T. passage [Prov. 8:22].”[7] 

But how does one make this connection?  Burney continues:  “This conclusion, which at first I supposed to have been unnoticed (it is not found, for example, in Lightfoot’s commentary), I have since discovered to have been anticipated by St Epiphanius (c. Haer. II lxxiii 7).  His words are ‘In place of a)rxh&n the Apostle used prw~toj, in place of genna~| me (i.e. the LXX rendering of חֹולָֽלְתִּי ‘I was brought forth’ in v. 25) the term to&koj, for the whole statement ‘E!ktise&n me a)rxh&n u(dwn au)tou! and Genna~| me the expression Prwto&tokoj pa&shj kti&sewj, instead of e)qemeli&wse&n me (v. 23) the statement E)n au)tw~| e)kti&sqh ta& pa_nta…’“[8] 

If you have not had the opportunity to study Greek these comments might mean little to you.  Therefore, a closer analysis of the expressions that run in parallel between Proverbs 8 and Colossians 1 might be beneficial. 

In the Septuagint version of Proverbs 8:22 we find the word a)rxh.  It is translated either as “first” or “beginning” and here Wisdom is said to be the a)rxh of God’s ways.  God's ways, as Burney notes of this context, refer to his creative ways. (cf. Job 26:14; 40:19) It is a reference to his activities, which began with creation.  The thought of “first” parallels Colossians 1:15's use of prwto&-, which we noted to have come from the Greek word prw~toj, also translated as “first.”  Similarly, Proverbs 8:24 reads of Wisdom having been “born.”  This is translated from the word genna&w.  The parallel to Colossians 1:15 is seen in -tokoj, coming from the Greek word to&koj, meaning begotten. 

So while Proverbs 8:22-26 presents Wisdom as the “first” to be “born,” Colossians 1:15 defines Christ as “firstborn.”  As already noted, the term firstborn literally refers to the one who is born first, so we would naturally understand Christ to fill this position.  Much of the point can be summarized in the words of Carson: “Paul’s language comes from G[enesis] 1 and the OT Wisdom Literature where wisdom is called the ‘craftsman’ (Pr. 8:30). For Paul that ‘craftsman’ is not a figure of speech, but the personal, heavenly Christ who met him on the Damascus road.”^[9]   Wisdom is somehow said to work with God in, as Brown highlights, the “establishing of all other things,”[10] while we note from The Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition Greek New Testament that Colossians 1:17 is an allusion to Proverbs 8:24-26.[11] 

In appealing to this background it is readily apparent that Wisdom is spoken of as coming into existence.  Wisdom is said to have been “born” and to be the “the first of God’s ways.” With this the thought is quite simply that Wisdom was created..  This is explicitly seen in the words of the Septuagint and Syriac versions of Proverbs 8:22, along with the Targum, where Wisdom is said to have been “created.”  Therefore, our interpretation of Colossians 1 would naturally follow this thought.

Setting the Septuagint translation aside and following the Hebrew text, some might remark that the text describes birth and not creation, giving nothing to indicate that Wisdom was created.  However, as was discussed in the article Jesus Christ – Wisdom Personified, this use of “birth” is in fact idiomatic for creation.  The thought is that Wisdom was created, while the process is described as birth.  As discussed in that article, Psalm 90:2 presents a similar thought, where the mountains, as created objects, are spoken of as having been “born.” 

If, however, the thought of Jesus as the firstborn is that he is the first created, then why did Paul not simply use the Greek word prwto&ktistoj (first-created)?  Three reasons can be presented.

First, we cannot disregard the literary background of the Colossian hymn.  This background is found in Wisdom, who is the “first” to be “born.”  With the use of prwto&tokoj Paul maintained the allusion to this text.  While prwto&ktistoj would not have entirely destroyed the allusion in light of the LXX’s use of e#ktise&n (created), this would have made the allusion significantly less pronounced. 

Second, we have already noted that the firstborn was not only the first child born, but he also received certain rights and privileges unique to that position.  By identifying Christ as the firstborn, he was not only seen to be the one born first, but also to have the rights and privileges that accompany the position.  Were Christ identified only as the “first-created,” the additional thought of status that is associated with the one born first would be absent. 

Finally, there is good reason to question whether or not the word prwto&ktistoj would have been even contemplated by Paul or use.  The lack of evidence to support the use of the term in Paul’s day cannot be overlooked.  In fact, the first known record of the term does not come until approximately 100 years after Paul wrote his Epistle.  While this does not prove that Paul could not have used the term, we see it to be unlikely. 

When all of the evidence is considered it becomes clear that prwto&tokoj was the ideal term for Paul to use.  Had he written prwto&ktistoj the Trinitarian position would have found a way to dismiss the text as they already do.  Their theology has demanded that they come up with oxymoronic teaching of him being an “eternal creation,” which is overturned by the Septuagint’s use of the aorist that is translated “created.” (Prov. 8:22)  This, as a point elsewhere made by The Expositor’s Greek Testament demonstrates, points to “a definite time”[12] when this creation took place, thus eliminating the idea of eternity. 

A Member of Creation

The thought of Christ as a member of the created order is found in more than the use of prwto&tokoj.  The two words that follow it, pa&shj kti&sewj, also point to this.  These words are in the Greek genitive case, and they are translated “of all creation.”  When the word firstborn is used with a genitive in the Septuagint and New Testament, it is interesting to note that it is only used in two ways. 

The first way that this construction is used might be defined as a genitive of source.  In this case the firstborn is “of” the one in whom he originated.  Typically, this one would be the parent of the firstborn, for the parent is the source of the child, having pro-created so as to bring the child into existence.  This thought is certainly incompatible with Colossians 1:15, for it would present creation as the source of Jesus Christ!

The only other way prwto&tokoj is used is with a partitive genitive.[13]  This type of genitive defines the group that the firstborn is a member of.  So, for example, if one were to speak of a person as the firstborn of a parent’s children, the firstborn would be the child of the group of children that was born first. 

Due to the verse's difficulty Trinitarians have been forced to essentially redefine the meaning and use of prwto&tokoj in order to overcome the plain meaning of the text and to justify their theology.  Yet, it is interesting to note that what they argue for is not even compatible with the very figurative passages to which they appeal.

The Trinitarian position has redefined prwto&tokoj to mean “preeminent over.”[14] Wuest along with numerous others have taken this a step further, arguing that prwto&tokoj refers to Christ’s “priority to all creation and sovereignty over all creation.”[15]  Can these views be supported by the evidence? 

prwto&tokoj does include the thought of priority, yet it does not denote priority to the group that one is the firstborn of.  With regard to temporal priority, the term always defines the one that is the earliest of the group, not merely one that is before the group.  What though of the meanings “preeminent over” and “sovereign over?”  Can these meanings be justified within Scripture?  Do any of the figurative passages parallel what is found in Colossians 1:15?  Let us consider the various figurative passages to see if these meanings can apply.

God spoke of both Israel and Ephraim as his firstborn.  In Exodus 4:22, Israel is spoken of, not as a person, but as a nation.  In context, Moses is to address Pharaoh about the people, and so to speak of the man Israel would make little sense.   The Septuagint translates this as prwto&tokoj mou, and so God is identifying the nation of Israel as his firstborn. 

It is certainly difficult to draw a parallel between the term as applied to an entire nation and an individual.  Even more significant is the difficulty found with this text if we here understand prwto&tokoj in a way that Trinitarians have come to in Colossians 1:15.  By viewing prwto&tokoj in Exodus 4:22 as meaning either “preeminent over” or “sovereign over” finds the nation to be preeminent over God himself!  Can one reasonably argue that Israel is the sovereign of Jehovah God?  Clearly this text does not support a differing interpretation of Colossians 1:15. 

The same issues beset Jeremiah 31:9, where Ephraim is spoken of.  As with Exodus 4:22, this text speaks of Ephraim not as the man, but as the people.  As a nation of people and as God’s firstborn, as in Exodus 4:22, no parallel can be drawn between the meaning of prwto&tokoj here and in Colossians 1:15 to support the Trinitarian position.

Most Trinitarians have appealed to Psalm 89:27 for support of their Colossians 1 argument.  In this text David is presented as having been made firstborn.  Some have suggested that the text means that David was made the firstborn of his human father Jesse, but this is not at all suggested by the context.  Even so, there are still two ways that the text might be understood.

Many Bible translations have taken the liberty of adding the possessive “my” prior to firstborn, indicating that David is God’s firstborn.  With such an understanding the same issue that besets Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9 with the meanings “preeminent over” and “sovereign over” would here apply.  With this understanding, we continue reading the passage to see that David is “the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psa. 89:27b), and this would be the result of him as God’s firstborn. 

Alternatively, the text may be understood to mean that David is firstborn in that he is “the highest of the kings of the earth.”   This would be akin to saying that David is prwto&tokoj tw~n basile&wn (the firstborn of the kings).  This view, however, is equally difficult, for David still is not “preeminent over” or “sovereign over” the kings of the earth, but he is merely the one king out of them all that is the most preeminent or that holds the highest authority.  David remains one of “the kings of the earth.” 

With these points alone, Psalm 89:27 can in no way be appealed to in support of the Trinitarian position on Colossians 1:15.  The most one could argue for is that Jesus is the highest of the created order, and we agree he is, as a result, in part, of him having been the first to be created.  Yet there is even more to be said on the lack of a parallel between the two texts.  David is stated to have been “made firstborn,” for he was placed in the position by God.  At no time is this said of Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:15.  While David is placed into the position of firstborn, Colossians 1:15 tells us only that Christ is the firstborn, without any idea of placement. 

The two passages that speak of the firstborn in Hebrew, but without a parallel in the Septuagint, are Job 38:17 and Isaiah 14:30.  Job speaks of a disease as “the firstborn of death.”  Here the thought brought out by the use of “firstborn” is that it is the worst disease.  The meaning is either that it is derived from death in some way, or it is classed among those that cause death.  Either way, the thought is not of preeminence or sovereignty over death.  Similarly, Isaiah 14:30 reads of “the firstborn of the poor.”  Again, no thought of being “over” the poor is found, for the firstborn continues to be one of the poor, while being poorest of the poor.

Some, such as White, have pointed to Romans 8:29 as a text supposedly supporting the Trinitarian view of Colossians 1:15.  White argues:  “In Romans 8:29, the Lord Christ is described as ‘the firstborn among many brethren.’  These brethren are the glorified Christians.  Here the Lord’s superiority and sovereignty over ‘the brethren’ is acknowledged, as well as His leadership in their salvation…”[16]  Undoubtedly White is correct when he argues that “these brethren are the glorified Christians.”  Yet how he concludes that “the Lord’s superiority and sovereignty over the brethren” is here defined by “firstborn” can hardly be explained. 

The highlight of Romans 8:29 is found in that Christians are “conformed to the image” of the glorified Jesus.  Jesus Christ, as an heir of God, was given glory.  This glory was extended to Christians. (Joh. 17:22)  As the first to be in possession of this, Christ is the “firstborn.”  As others come to possess it as sons of God by the model which Christ established, he is “among many brethren.”  (cf. Gal. 4:1-7)  Undoubtedly Christ is the most exalted, as the firstborn traditionally is, but this is far from saying that this text indicates “superiority and sovereignty over ‘the brethren.’” This is an undeniable first-in-time element to the text.

At this point it is worth interjecting some comments on an argument that has struck the attention of more than a few.  Originally provided by J.B. Lightfoot, the argument stems from a Jewish source, where R. Bechai identifies God as “the firstborn of the world.”  Would not this reference give support to the Trinitarian position?  Far from it!  Stafford summarizes the issue: “Moule notes that ‘R. Bechai appears to be R. Bahya ben Asher, a late writer (died 1340 [CE]), who is scarcely important for the original meaning of our passage.’ The reason for this is not only because Bechai’s work on the Pentateuch is nearly thirteen centuries removed from the first-century use and understanding of ‘firstborn,’ but Bechai’s methods of biblical interpretation are highly questionable, to say the least . . . Apparently it does not seem to matter to Lightfoot, or those who cite him on this point, that Bechai relied on Jewish mysticism and special revelation to help him interpret the Scriptures. Abbott is correct when he says, ‘Rabbi Bechai’s designation of God as ‘firstborn of the world’ is a fanciful interpretation of Ex. xiii. 2.’”[17]  Not only was Bechai far removed from Biblical times, alive some 1300 years after Christ, giving little indication of how they would have understood the term “firstborn” in the 1^st century, but the methods used for his argument have little to do with Scripture and the truth about God.

In reviewing the evidence it is clear that the Trinitarian position lacks a proper foundation. There is no ground for their position by way of the meaning of the term firstborn as seen in Scripture.  Trinitarians deserve credit for their creativity in coming up with this interpretation, but when compared to the evidence their position simply does not stand. 

In light of this, it is of no surprise what one reference work confesses: "Translated literally (as RSV), it implies that Christ is included in the created universe….”  Indeed, we would agree.  Yet this work continues by saying that such would be “inconsistent with the context of the whole passage."[18]  Is this accurate?  What are the arguments involved and what does the context really indicate? 

“Because in Him All Things were Created”

A consideration of the textual and grammatical evidence in Colossians 1:15 shows that the interpretation that is by far the most natural identifies Christ as the first one to have been created.  The Trinitarian position would have us reject this notion based upon what follows.  Yet it would make little sense for Paul to state something that would so naturally be taken to mean one thing, and then to turn around and speak against that which he just defined.  Certainly it is not impossible, but it is unlikely.  So we must ask, do the words of verse 16 contradict the understanding of verse 15 that we had advanced?  Or are Trinitarians forcing an unnecessary interpretation on verse 16 so as to advance their theological agenda?

The contextual argument against the plain reading of Colossians 1:15 is based upon what is defined within verse 16.  The verse begins with the Greek word o(ti, which is here translated as “because.”  Verse 16 defines the basis for him being the “firstborn of all creation.”

A consideration of verse 16 requires that two primary points be discussed.  First, we must determine what Paul meant by the Greek words ta& pa_nta (all things).  Second, we must see what is meant when the text states that this “all things” were “created in him.”  Beyond these two points that are critical to our understanding of verse 15, we will examine what it means to say that these were created “through him,” though this has already been discussed in our article Is Jesus Christ the Source of Creation? 

A clear distinction between ta& pa_nta and Jesus Christ is made in Colossians 1:16.  Because of this, it is said that the distinction indicates that Christ cannot be a part of the “all things” that refers to creation.  After all, how can Christ be part of the “all things” that have been created if he is distinguished from them?  To really understand this we must look at how language was used in Biblical times.

In Colossians 1:16 ta& pa_nta refers to all things collectively, which would here be the universe and that which is contained within it, including the spirit realm.  In Greek, however, the term “all” is often qualified by the context.  In other words, there are numerous occasions in which one that is normally included within “all” of a group is distinguished.

As an example of this, we might consider Genesis 3:20 within the Septuagint.  Here Eve is said to be “the mother of all living.”  To understand this statement as absolute would require that Eve be the mother of Adam.  In fact, she would have to be her own mother!    Nevertheless, these two are excluded by the context.  While these two would normally have been included within the class of “all living,” this specific context excludes them.  Because of the obvious contextual exclusion, Moses saw no issue in penning these words as he did, though in English we might say “all others living.” 

An example of ta& pa_nta qualified by the context is found in the writings of Josephus.  In Antiquities of the Jews we read of when Antiochus prohibits the Jews from following their own laws.  It was thought that if Mattathias could be turned to do what was instructed his “follow citizens” would follow, for he had a significant influence upon the people.  But in Mattathias’ response he speaks of ta& pa_nta e!qnh, which translates literally to “all the nations.”  Now when he speaks of “all the nations,” was he also referring to his own nation, which he and the others were “citizens” of?  No, but it was speaking of the nations other than their own.  Hence, in translating this text William Whiston has rendered it as “all the other nations.”[19]  (Ant. 12:268-269) 

Another example of a contextual qualification is found in Luke 21:29.  Here we read of “the fig tree and all the trees.”  The text clearly defines the fig tree as a tree, and yet it is spoken of relative to “all the trees.”  Obviously the group of “all the trees” does not exclude the fig tree, but here, for the purposes of what is being defined, they are distinguished.  Therefore, the text speaks of what is really “all the other trees.”  Luke 13:2 does the same when a select group of Galileans is distinguished from “all the Galileans.”  While this group of Galileans would normally be included in the complete group of “Galileans,” it is for the purpose of what is being stated in this context that they are distinguished.  These are therefore distinguished from “all the other Galileans.”[20]  

It is natural to read Colossians 1:15 and understand that Jesus is a part of “all things,” although because what is being described in the context, he is distinguished as well.  The obvious thought then, as with these other texts, is that ta& pa_nta refers to “all” excluding Jesus himself.  In other words, verse 16 refers, in context, to “all other things.” 

At this point some may cry foul, noting that if Paul wanted to say “all others” he could have said as much explicitly in the Greek.  Such an argument truly fails to acknowledge the evidence that we have considered.  As our examples demonstrate, when the context indicates that one is normally in the group from which that one is distinguished for contextual reasons, it is not necessary.  The thought of “other” is considered by the author to be implied.   In the case of this text, verse 15 provides a thought that qualifies verse 16.  Therefore, this objection is not sufficient.

The next portion of the text explains that the “all things” from which Christ is contextually distinguished have been created “in him.”  Some translations have taken to rendering this as “by him,” causing readers of such translations to misunderstand the verse.  These ones have mistakenly concluded that the text identifies Christ as the ultimate source of creation.[21]  How was it then that “all things” were created “in him?”  The thought itself might seem strange to many.  How, after all, can something be created within another?  Further, how does this serve as a basis for him as the one that is the firstborn of all creation?

Scholars do not unanimously agree as to the meaning of “in him” within Colossians 1:16.  There are differing views, and if verse 16 is isolated, many (though not all) have some level of reasonableness.  Nevertheless, we must take 15 and 16 together, as a single unit.  We have come to see the most natural reading of Colossians 1:15 in light of both the grammar and background of the passage.  We should also take verse 16 in a way that just as naturally allows it to harmonize with verse 15.  

For the proper interpretation it is worth considering the comments of Abbott: “The Schoolmen, following, indeed, Origen and Athanasius, interpreted the words of the causa exemplaris, viz. that the idea omnium rerum was in Christ.  So that He was, as it were, the Archetypal Universe, the summary of finite being as it existed in the Eternal Mind.  This view has been adopted by Neander, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, and others. Olshausen says: ‘The Son of God is the intelligible world, the ko/smoj mohto/j, that is, things in their Idea.  In the creation they come forth from Him to an independent existence.’ . . . This would correspond to Philo’s view of the Logos..."[22]

What Abbott is presenting is the idea of Christ as the center of the creative ideas.  In other words, all of God’s plans for creation were brought into a type of existence within Christ.  Peake explains this thought further:  “The schoolmen, follower by some modern theologians, explain that the Son is the archetype of the universe, the kosmos nohtos, the eternal pattern after which the physical universe has been created.”[23]  Christ served as the model for the “all things” that would follow him in coming to exist. They were based upon him as their prototype. 

Interestingly, Abbott seems to strongly favor this view, which should not be surprising in that it so well accords in concept with Philo’s view on creation.  Nevertheless, both Abbott and Peake are forced to reject this interpretation.  Why?  Primarily because the text states that these things were “created in him.”  Viewing Christ as eternal, he would have to be the “eternal pattern” by which “all things” were created.  In other words, to serve as the pattern, he would have had to always have been the pattern.  The text, however, says that they were “created in him,” and so the prototypal form that he possessed would have been created.  In other words, he was created, which is entirely contrary to their view of him as the eternal God.  Both reference works properly point out that because of the aorist verb, a specific point in time for them to have been “created in him” is in view.  Can this basis for rejection be resolved?

To address the objection presented for this interpretation we need only accept the most natural interpretation of Colossians 1:15, pointing to Christ as the first of creation.  If we accept this, then it is no longer necessary for him to be the “eternal pattern.”  He would indeed be the “pattern,” but not eternal.  That it was “created in him” is in agreement with his own creation, for when God created Jesus, he established the pattern or idea for everything else that would come to be. 

In light of this view we can see how Christ is “the firstborn of all creation, because all things were created in him.”  They were created in him in their idea as part of his own creation.  They came to consist in him, not physically, but ideally.  The power and energy to bring about their existence came out of God to dwell v in him as well.  This corresponds to what we see following in Colossians 1:16, which is that this same “all things” was created “through him.” 

The verse concludes by stating that “all things” are also “created… for him.”  This naturally refers to his pleasure in them and his enjoyment of these things.  One cannot help but call to mind the words of Wisdom: “Then I was at His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before Him at every time; rejoicing in the world, His earth; and my delight was with the sons of men. “ (Prov. 8:30-31)

We should mention that a few Trinitarians apologists have taken to an argument in order to explain away the partitive genitive of Colossians 1:15.  These ones have argued that Christ is only a member of creation as a human, and so it is only when he “became flesh” (Joh. 1:14) that he became part of the created order.  This argument, however, disregards the context, where in 16a the basis for him holding this position is defined, and it is entirely based upon his existence before he became a man as the one in whom “all things were created.”  The holding of this position has nothing to do with him as a human.  Therefore, this argument is nothing more than a weak attempt to explain away the straightforward teaching of the text. 

Continuing in the text, just as in verse 16, “all things” in verse 17 is contextually relative.  The text tells us that he is “before all things.”  Some have understood this to be an indication of eternal pre-existence, but the text does not demand such an interpretation.  As a contextually relative statement, one would expect him to be before the rest of those defined as “all things,” with him as the first to have been created.  In fact, the same concept is expressed by the apocryphal Sirach, where Wisdom is said to have been “created before all things.”  (Sir. 1:4) 

The Apocrypha, though not inspired, gives us a picture at early Jewish thought, some accurate and some not.  Often times the language of early Jewish and Greek writings proved useful to the Bible writers, and so they would borrow it.  Whether Paul made use of this existing Jewish theological thought or developed his own consistent with it, the position we take here stays in the discernable first-century Jewish and Christian expression concerning Wisdom and Christ, relative to God. We do not take with us to the text the philosophy and theological of post-Apostolic writers. Thus, we can point to existing biblical (Prov 8:22ff.) and Bible-related language and thought (for example, Sirach 1:4, again, where Wisdom is said to have been “created before all things”). If Paul is making use of such biblical and Bible-related language and thought in the Colossians hymn, then he picked the rights words to describe the pre-human Messiah, “the firstborn of all creation.”

The Firstborn

Further paralleling Colossians 1:15 is a statement made in verse 18.  A footnote in the New America Bible explains: “There is a parallelism between firstborn of all creation (15) and firstborn from the dead (18).” [24]  The thought of him as the firstborn from the dead is repeated in Revelation 1:5, while Paul further defines him as “the first fruits of those having fallen asleep.”  (1Cor. 15:20)  Paul and John understood that Christ was the first to be raised from the dead in the resurrection.  It is not surprising then that Jesus, speaking in the context of the resurrection, identifies himself as “the first.”[25] (Rev. 1:17)    

Before Christ, no other person had been raised in “the resurrection.”  No other had been given immortality and no other had been given a spiritual body. (1Cor. 15:44-45)  It is therefore significant that a first-in-time understanding of Colossians 1:18 is confirmed elsewhere.  With such a confirmation, the fact that there is a parallelism between verses 15 and 18 proves to be extremely significant, for such would confirm a first-in-time sense for verse 15.     

In no way can the meaning of “preeminent over” be the meaning in verse 18.  This text includes the preposition e)k, meaning “out of.”  The thought is that Christ was removed out of the group of the dead, which he had been a part of.  This is resurrection process is spoken of as birth and he is the “first” to have received it.  

It is easy to see the natural way in which Colossians 1:15-18 should be read with respects to Christ’s prior existence.  We can see both when he came to be and the role he had in creation.  The Trinitarian positions of “preeminent over” or “sovereign over” not only lack the necessary evidence, but they are simply not compatible with the language used of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. 

As the Trinitarian view of the text proves incompatible with the language as used of Wisdom, we must reject it.  Yet, we must accept the obvious view, contrary to what their theology demands, and recognize that Christ was the first to be created.  He is not only the first created, but he is also the greatest of all creation.  This view best fit the language to which the passage alludes, while perfectly suited to the text itself.

[18] Bratcher, R.G. and Nida, E.A. 1977, A Translators Handbook on Paul's Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (United Bible Societies, 1977), 22.