This is an interesting article on how 'oneness pentecostals' try and explain away the Apostle Pauls clear teaching. including notes below the article that are interesting in their own right.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him [en autō] all things [panta] were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’ autou] and for Him [eis auton]. He is before all things, [autos estin pro pantōn] and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together (emphasis added).
Words could not be more clearly spoken then what we have right here in this letter to the Colossians. Paul leaves nothing to ambiguity in confronting the false teaching of his day: the Son is presented as the actual Creator of all things. Yet, in spite of the straightforward language of the apostle, Oneness teacher, David Bernard, tries to circumvent the language of the text:
In verses 13-15, Paul clearly differentiates Jesus from the Father. Thus, from the start, verses 13-15 contextually preclude the Oneness notion that Jesus is both the Father and the Son:
He first states that the Son is the very “image [eikōn] of the invisible God,” something that the Gnostics categorically denied. Then in verses 16-17, Paul teaches in the strongest way possible that Jesus the Son (cf. v. 14) is the actual Agent of creation. Note the clear and potent (and even redundant) way he presents this:
===Notes:===
1. David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood: Word Aflame, 1983), 116-17.
2. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998], 213, n. 17.
3. Cf. Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. and rev. by Frederick W. Danker [BDAG] [Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000], 225; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 68; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 31; Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1932], 4:478-79.
4. Oneness teachers argue that Son could not have been the Agent of creation because passages like Isaiah 44:24 (“I, the LORD maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone”) teach that God (viz. the Father) alone created all things. Also asserted is 1 Corinthians 8: 6: “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things. . . .” But as pointed out elsewhere, Oneness teachers assume unitarianism, that is, God as one Person—the Father. Hence, they start with that assumption and argue therefrom. The doctrine of the Trinity, however, teaches that God is one undivided and unquantifiable Being who has revealed Himself as three distinct coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons. Hence, the three Persons share the nature (ousia) of the one Being. Thus, as fully God it can be said that the Father is the Creator (cf. Acts 17:24), the Son is the Creator (cf. John 1:3; Col. 16-17; Heb. 1:10), and the Holy Spirit is the Creator (cf. Job 33:4). For God is one indivisible, inseparable, and unquantifiable Being. So, passages like Isaiah 44:24, which say that God created by Himself and alone are perfectly consistent with Trinitarian theology. Again, the three Persons are not three separate Beings; they are distinct self-conscious Persons or Selves sharing the nature of the one Being. Unless this is made clear, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity will be confounded and misapprehended.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him [en autō] all things [panta] were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’ autou] and for Him [eis auton]. He is before all things, [autos estin pro pantōn] and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together (emphasis added).
Words could not be more clearly spoken then what we have right here in this letter to the Colossians. Paul leaves nothing to ambiguity in confronting the false teaching of his day: the Son is presented as the actual Creator of all things. Yet, in spite of the straightforward language of the apostle, Oneness teacher, David Bernard, tries to circumvent the language of the text:
Perhaps these scriptural passages have a deeper meaning that can be expressed as follows: Although the Son did not exist at the time of creation except as the word in the mind of God, God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world. . . . The plan of the Son was in God’s mind at creation and was necessary for the creation to be successful. Therefore, He created the world by the Son.1
Thus, Oneness teachers posit an awkward proposition: passages that speak of the Son as the Creator mean that when God the Father (i.e., Jesus’ divine nature) created all things, He had the “plan of the Son” in mind or in view. However, to say “God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world” assumes unitarianism and disallows normal exegesis.
In verses 13-15, Paul clearly differentiates Jesus from the Father. Thus, from the start, verses 13-15 contextually preclude the Oneness notion that Jesus is both the Father and the Son:
For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God [the Father] (emphasis added).
The main purpose of the book of Colossians was to refute the Gnostic ideology (i.e., proto-Gnosticism): spirit vs. matter. Hence, they did not believe that Jesus could ever create something as evil as “matter.” Accordingly, the docetic brand of Gnosticism (flowering in the first cent.) denied that Jesus had a “physical” body and was Creator of “all things,” as I have pointed out elsewhere. Hence, both Paul and John refuted this form of Gnosticism (e.g., Col. 1:14ff.; 2:9; 1 John 4:1ff.; 2 John 7). Correspondingly, in verses 15-17, Paul provides a clear anti-Gnostic polemic by demonstrating that Jesus the Son of God did in fact create all things.
He first states that the Son is the very “image [eikōn] of the invisible God,” something that the Gnostics categorically denied. Then in verses 16-17, Paul teaches in the strongest way possible that Jesus the Son (cf. v. 14) is the actual Agent of creation. Note the clear and potent (and even redundant) way he presents this:
By Him [en autō] all things [panta] were created . . . all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’ autou] and for Him [eis auton]. He is before all things [autos estin pro pantōn], and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together.
Consider the following grammatical aspects:
1. Paul employs the neuter panta (“all things”), which indicates, in Paul’s mind, that the Son was the actual Creator of all things. “It is significant,” says White, “that Paul does not use the more popular terms pas or pan, both of which had meanings in Greek philosophy that allowed the creation to be a part of God or God a part of creation (as in pantheism). Instead he uses a term that makes the creation a concrete, separate entity with the real existence.”2
Paul utilizes three different prepositions to amplify his declaration that the Son was the Agent of creation: All things were created “by/in Him” (en + dative; vv. 16-17); “through Him” (dia + genitive; v. 16); and “for Him” (eis + accusative; v. 16). Again, Paul is speaking here of the Son, not the Father (cf. v. 14).
3. Finally, what immediately shuts down the “Son in view” notion, which is asserted by Oneness teachers is that Paul specifically says that “all things” were created “through [dia] Him [autou]” (viz. the Son). In particular, the preposition dia followed by the genitive autou indicates that the Son was not merely an instrument of creation, but rather the Creator Himself. In Greek, dia followed by the genitive case ending clearly indicates “agency” or “means.”3 There is no stronger way in which Paul could have communicated that the Son was the real and actual Agent of creation4 (also dia + genitive at John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; and Heb. 1:2).
If Paul wanted to convey the idea that the Son was merely “in view” of the Father or an absent instrument of creation, as Oneness teachers assert, he would not have used dia followed by the genitive. Rather he would have used, exclusively, dia followed by the accusative case ending, but he does not. Yes, Paul does use the accusative, but after the preposition eis (meaning, “for,” or “because of”): “all things are for Him [eis auton]” (v. 16).
Hence, the Oneness theological assumption that the Son was not the Agent of creation, but merely in view of creation, cannot stand grammatically or contextually—it changes the intended meaning of the text and ignores the chief theme of the letter. The Oneness interpretation would actually support, in essence, the very error that Paul was refuting.
===Notes:===
1. David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood: Word Aflame, 1983), 116-17.
2. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998], 213, n. 17.
3. Cf. Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. and rev. by Frederick W. Danker [BDAG] [Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000], 225; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 68; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 31; Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1932], 4:478-79.
4. Oneness teachers argue that Son could not have been the Agent of creation because passages like Isaiah 44:24 (“I, the LORD maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone”) teach that God (viz. the Father) alone created all things. Also asserted is 1 Corinthians 8: 6: “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things. . . .” But as pointed out elsewhere, Oneness teachers assume unitarianism, that is, God as one Person—the Father. Hence, they start with that assumption and argue therefrom. The doctrine of the Trinity, however, teaches that God is one undivided and unquantifiable Being who has revealed Himself as three distinct coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons. Hence, the three Persons share the nature (ousia) of the one Being. Thus, as fully God it can be said that the Father is the Creator (cf. Acts 17:24), the Son is the Creator (cf. John 1:3; Col. 16-17; Heb. 1:10), and the Holy Spirit is the Creator (cf. Job 33:4). For God is one indivisible, inseparable, and unquantifiable Being. So, passages like Isaiah 44:24, which say that God created by Himself and alone are perfectly consistent with Trinitarian theology. Again, the three Persons are not three separate Beings; they are distinct self-conscious Persons or Selves sharing the nature of the one Being. Unless this is made clear, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity will be confounded and misapprehended.
