Something Paul said. Notice the "from whom", the "for whom", and the "through whom." This is important. Also note who Paul said God is and who Paul said the Lord is.
1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but
one God, the Father, from whom all things came and
for whom we exist. And there is but
one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and
through whom we exist.
The prepositions in 1 Cor. 8:6 show a distinction of function as it relates to their roles in bringing about creation, but do not say anything of consubstantiality. Consubstantiality pertains to nature/essence, not function. But even that being said, Paul speaks of God the Father as the one “from” whom, “through” whom, and “for” whom everything exists (Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10). These three prepositional phrases express God’s causation of all things in three ways: as the efficient cause for (“from whom”), the instrumental cause (“through whom”), and the final cause (“for whom”). In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul assigns two of the causal functions to the Father, and one to Christ.
Paul uses these prepositions almost interchangeably for the Father and the Son. Whereas Paul attributes the roles of instrumental cause and efficient cause to the Father (Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10); he freely—without hesitation—attributes to Jesus the roles of instrumental cause (“through whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2), and efficient cause (“for whom,” Col. 1:17). And in Hebrews 1:10 an active verb (
ethemeliōsas) is used when speaking of Jesus as the one who “laid the foundations of the earth.” This only goes to show that the Son’s role in creation is not a lesser role than God’s role; it is exclusively God’s role.
I do want to point out something that I don’t think a lot of people catch: In Colossians, Paul states not only that all things “were created” (
ektisthē) in the Son, but also that all things “have been created” (
ektistai) through Him and for Him (Col. 1:16).
Ektisthē and
ektistai are the same verb but in different forms. The first form is the aorist, and functions as a simple past tense. The second is in the perfect form, which refers not only to past activity, but also carries with it an emphasis on present results. The shift of the tense from aorist to perfect indicates creation’s ongoing existence; not only were all things created but they also remain in their created existence
through and
for Christ. Thereby, creation stands in an ongoing relation of dependence on the Son for its existence. What is implicit in v. 16, is explicit in v. 17: “In Him all things hold together.”
Whereas Col. 1:16-17 speaks of Jesus as the one “in,” “through,” and “for” all things have their place in existence, and that “in” Him all things hold together; just one chapter later in 2:19, it is Jesus, “…the head,
from whom the entire body, being supplied and
held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.” Similarly, Eph. 4:15-16 speaks of Jesus in this way, but with one slight adjustment: “Him who is the head, Christ,
from whom the whole body, being fitted and
held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Whereas Col. 2:19 speaks of “a growth which is from God,” in Eph. 4:16, it is Jesus who “causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”
While Col. 2:19 and Eph. 4:15-16 are not about creation, these texts do help demonstrate that Paul freely used prepositions interchangeably for the Father and the Son.
But on a final note, the point I originally made still stands: In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus’ work in creation is described as being coextensive with the Father’s. It is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom”, and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are all things. The same “all things” — without exception — that are “from” the Father, are the same “all things” that came into being “through” Jesus. Thus, by placing Jesus’ work in creation in juxtaposition with God’s, the text affirms Jesus’ eternality with the Father. It is this eternality which speaks of consubstantiality, as it is a trait unique to God’s own being.
2
