Hi Little Angel
Here is a small part of a book I have been reading by John Piper...The pleasures of God
I scanned a little bit of it and as I get time I will scan more...
Blessings,
Begotten Not Made
Now again we should press on a step farther to guard against misunderstanding and to enlarge the vista of the glory of God’s gladness in the Son. The fullness of deity, which now dwells bodily in Jesus (Colossians 2:9), already existed in personal form before the God-Man, Jesus Christ, existed as a Jewish teacher on the earth. This pushes us back further into the happiness of the triune God. The Son, in whom God delights, is the eternal image and radiance of God and is thus himself God.
In Colossians 1:15–16 Paul says, “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things were created in heaven and on earth.â€Â
Historically this has been a very controversial text. And still today there are sects like the Jehovah’s Witnesses that give it a meaning contrary to the meaning understood by historic Christian orthodoxy. About a.d. 256 a man named Arius was born in Libya who became one of the most famous heretics of the Christian church. He put this text to use for his doctrine. He was educated by a teacher named Lucian in Antioch and became a prominent elder in the church of Alexandria in Egypt. He was described as “a tall, lean man, with a downcast brow, very austere habits, considerable learning, and a smooth, winning address, but quarrelsome disposition.â€Â
The so-called Arian controversy began about a.d. 318 in Alexandria when Arius disputed with Bishop Alexander concerning the eternal deity of Christ. Arius began to teach that the Son of God was different in essence from the Father and that he was created by the Father rather than coeternal with the Father. Socrates, a church historian who lived in Constantinople between a.d. 380 and 439, tells the story of how this controversy began:
Alexander [Bishop of Alexandria] attempted one day, in the presence of the presbyters and the rest of his clergy, too ambitious a discourse about the Holy Trinity, the subject being “Unity in Trinity.â€Â
Arius, one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, a man possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, thinking that the bishop was introducing the doctrine of Sabellius the Libyan [who stressed Jewish monotheism to the extent of denying a true Trinity], from love of controversy, advanced another view diametrically opposed to the opinion of the Libyan, and, as it seemed, vehemently controverted the statements of the bishop. “If,†said he, “the Father begat the Son, He that was begotten has a beginning of existence; and from this it is evident, that there was when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows that He had His essence from the non-existent.â€Â
It is easy to see how Colossians 1:15 could be made to support Arius’s position. Paul said that Christ is “the firstborn of all creation.†One could easily take this to mean that Christ was himself part of creation and was the first and highest creature. Thus he would have a beginning; there would be a time when he had no existence at all. And thus his essence would not be the essence of God but would be created out of nothing like the rest of creation. This is in fact what Arius taught.
The next seven years after this first dispute in a.d. 318 saw the controversy spread across the entire empire. Constantine, the emperor, was forced to become involved for the sake of the unity of the church. He called a great Council in a.d. 325 to deal with these weighty matters, and designated the city to be Nicea “because of the excellent temperature of the air, and in order that I may be present as a spectator and participator in those things which will be done.†The Council produced a creed that left no doubt that it considered Arius’s ideas heretical.
The Nicene Creed that we know and recite today is based on the one I will quote which is technically called “The Creed of Nicea.†It will be plain to every reader which parts of the creed are intended to distinguish orthodoxy from Arianism.
We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge living and dead; And in the Holy Spirit.
And those that say “There was when he was not,†and, “Before he was begotten he was not,†and that, “He came into being from what-is-not,†or those that allege, that the Son of God is “Of another substance or essence†or “created,†or “changeable,†or “alterable,†these the Catholic and
Apostolic Church anathematizes.
This has remained the orthodox understanding of Scripture throughout all church history to our own day. I feel compelled to defend this understanding here because if Arianism (or the Jehovah’s Witnesses) proved right, then the pleasure of God in his Son would be a radically different thing than I take it to be. And the foundation of everything else in this book would be shaken. Everything hangs on the unbounded joy in the triune God from all eternity. This is the source of God’s absolute self-sufficiency as a happy Sovereign. And every true act of free grace in redemptive history depends on it.
How then are we to understand Paul when he says in Colossians 1:15, “He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation� What does firstborn mean? And does not “of all creation†mean that he is part of creation?
First, we should realize that “of all creation†does not have to mean that Christ was part of creation. If I said, “God is ruler of all creation,†no one would think I meant God is part of creation. I mean that he is ruler “over all creation.†There is a good clue in the next verse (Colossians 1:16) which helps us understand whether Paul means something like this. He says, “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because in him all things were created.†In other words, the reason Paul calls Christ the firstborn “of all creation†is “because in him all things were created.†The reason is not that he was the first and greatest created thing. The reason is that every created thing was created by him. This does not incline us to think then that “firstborn of all creation†means “firstborn among all created things,†but rather “firstborn over all created things.â€Â
The second thing to realize is that the term “firstborn†(prōtotokos) can have a strictly biological meaning: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths†(Luke 2:7). But it can also have a nonbiological meaning of dignity and precedence. For example, in Psalm 89:27 God says of the one who will sit on David’s throne, “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.†The meaning here is that this king will have preeminence and honor and dignity over all the kings of the earth. Other nonbiological uses are found in Exodus 4:22 where Israel is called God’s “firstborn sonâ€Â; and Hebrews 12:23 where all believers are called the “firstborn who are written in heaven.â€Â
So there are four reasons we can give now why Arius and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong to say that Colossians 1:15 means that Christ was part of God’s creation. First, the word “firstborn†can very naturally mean “preeminent one†or “one with superior dignity†or “one who is first in time and rank.†It does not have to imply that Christ was brought forth as part of the creation. Second, verse 16 (as we have seen) implies clearly that Christ was the Creator of all things and not part of the creation (“because in him all things were createdâ€Â). Third, Chrysostom (a.d. 347–407) pointed out that Paul avoided the word that would have clearly implied that Christ was the first creation (prōtoktistos) and chose to use instead a word with connotations of parent-child, not Creator-creation (firstborn, prōtotokos).
This leads to the fourth reason for rejecting the Arian interpretation of Colossians 1:15. In using the term “firstborn,†Paul speaks in remarkable harmony with the apostle John who calls Christ God’s “only begotten Son†(John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and teaches clearly that this does not make him a creature but rather makes him God: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God†(John 1:1). C. S. Lewis shows why the use of the term “begotten†(and we could add Paul’s term, “firstbornâ€Â) implies the deity of Christ and not his being a creature.
When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, and man makes a wireless setâ€â€or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set, say, a statue. If he’s clever enough a carver he makes a statue which is very much like a man indeed. But, of course, it’s not a real man; it only looks like one. It can’t breathe or think. It’s not alive.
For these reasons, then, I take my stand gladly with the great tradition of Christian orthodoxy and not with ancient or modern Arianism. Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature†(Hebrews 1:3). “Though he was in the form of God, [he] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped†(Philippians 2:6). “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God†(John 1:1).
So the Son in whom the Father delights is the image of God and the radiance of the glory of God. He bears the very stamp of God’s nature and is the very form of God. He is equal with God and, as John says, is God.
From all eternity, before creation, the one reality that has always existed is God. This is a great mystery, because it is so hard for us to think of God having absolutely no beginning, and just being there forever and ever and ever, without anything or anyone making him be thereâ€â€just absolute reality that everyone of us has to reckon with whether we like it or not. But this ever-living God has not been “alone.†He has not been a solitary center of consciousness. There has always been another, who has been one with God in essence and glory, and yet distinct in personhood so that they have had a personal relationship for all eternity.
The Bible teaches that this eternal God has always had a perfect image of himself (Colossians 1:15), a perfect radiance of his essence (Hebrews 1:3), a perfect stamp or imprint of his nature (Hebrews 1:3), a perfect form or expression of his glory (Philippians 2:6).
We are on the brink of the ineffable here, but perhaps we may dare to say this much: as long as God has been God (eternally) he has been conscious of himself; and the image that he has of himself is so perfect and so complete and so full as to be the living, personal reproduction (or begetting) of himself. And this living, personal image or radiance or form of God is God, namely God the Son. And therefore God the Son is coeternal with God the Father and equal in essence and glory.
