BJ Bear
Well-known member
Thanks for the clarification. What is in the text you cited that makes you think it is about creation and that creation excludes the Son?
Col. 1 Is Not About The Genesis Creation - Change My Mind
- Thread starter JNelson
- Start date
Because the dictionary says the whom at col 1 that everyone says is the subject is instead the object and who or the other one is the subject. Meaning since Jesus is the whom at col. 1:14 he is the object and the Father is the subject.
It is preeminent one and the dictionary says it has to do with rank and dignity. The Father is the subject from col. 1:1through 17 or 18. Give a documented definition that says otherwise? How many times do you all have to be told that the dictionary says the whom is the object and the other one is the subject? The whom you think is the subject is not the subject.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Yes, I note the misspelling, mea culpa! Rank and dignity is not equivalent to being the first to be born. David was at least the eighth born, assuming no sisters being born between the brothers. But he is the highest of Israel's kings, through which the King of all Kings will come, Jesus Christ, the ruler of all creation, the most important of those risen from the grave, the one at whose name the entire creation will bow in worship!
The grammatical subject changes frequently, from Paul and his associates, to the Colossian church, to God the Father and back again. In 1:15, however, the nominative is indisputably the Son. The transition begins in verse 13-14: For he (Literally, ὃς, who, referring to God the Father, the nominative of the sentence) has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
"the Son" is a proper noun, and sets the stage for what is to follow in verse 15. The fact of it being a genitive case, grammatically necessary because of its prediction to " into the kingdom of", it is a shift of focus from the ὃς to the son. ἐν ᾧ at the bringing of 1:14, relates directly back to the last proper personal noun to which it is related. This is a parallel to Eph 1:7-8, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8that he lavished on us."
(You will note the same construction in Eph 1:7-8 as in Col 1:13-14. The "riches of God's grace/the kingdom of his Son" followed by, "that he (God) lavished on us/ in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The pronoun following the genitive proper noun is referring to that genitive noun, not an earlier nominative noun.)
It is not the subject to which whom is referencing, but the proper/personal noun last referenced in the clause! For example, if I wrote: "I purchased a toy for the birthday of my grandson, who is turning six." Am I turning six, or my grandson? According to your argument, I am!
Doug
TibiasDad
Well-known member
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Thank you for the reply, but it doesn't explain or demonstrate what in the text moves you to write of the creation/Creator.
After you identify that then the next question is what in the text causes you to exclude the Son from the creation?
I have explained the Son could not have created anything many times because he can not be the him who is the creator at John 1 and the Son is the whom at col. 14 and the dictionary says the whom is the object and the who or the other one being talked about is the subject. Since the Son is not the subject at col.1: 14 he can not be the creator.
Just type in "whom" on Google and start reading as you can get many definitions that way instead of one definition from me.
That is what I said the whom is not the subject and is the object and thus the who or the other one being talked about is the subject is what I said.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
That is what I said the whom is Jesus and the dictionary defines the whom as the object and the who or the other one mentioned is the subject. According to many dictionary definitions the whom(Jesus) is not the subject at col. 1:14.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
According to The Bible Jesus Christ IS the subject of Col. 1:14-18.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Ok, so what you've written is a tacit admission that there is nothing in the text you cited which refers to the creation/Creator. That means your exclusion of the Son in this instance can only apply to what you've imagined in the text.
If you provide a link to your thread or post regarding John 1 then I will join the discussion there.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Nathan, with all do respect, you need to reread your definition. Whom is used when it is the object of the verb. The pronoun may or may not be the subject of the sentence.
Websters defines it thusly:
Whom
objective case of WHO
- —used as an interrogative or relative —used as object of a verb or a preceding preposition//to know for whom the bell tolls— John Donne— or less frequently as the object of a following preposition//the man whom you wrote to— though now often considered stilted especially as an interrogative and especially in oral use —occasionally used as predicate nominative with a copulative verb or as subject of a verb especially in the vicinity of a preposition or a verb of which it might mistakenly be considered the object.
Now lets review Col1:15-20:
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
In verses 15-18, "The Son" and all of the pronouns which follow referring to "the Son" are the subject, the nominative, and all the adjectival clauses are describing the subject, "the Son". The Father is not referenced in these verses. These are the verses that talk about "all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him..." so the Father cannot be the creator in this passage.
The Father becomes the subject in 1:19-20, and is acting through "the Son", referenced by the pronoun, "him". All of these actions by the Father through the Son are redemptive in purpose and nature. Creation is not in view in these verses.
So all the bold font words refer to the Son alone as the nominative, and all of the italicized words are referring to the Father as the nominative, and the actions he accomplishes through the Son.
Nothing in this passage about the creation/creator is affected by Col 1:13-14 in the least. Verse 15 is a complete shift of focus, begun in 1:13-14, from the Father as the focus/nominative to the Son.
Lastly, and in recap, the sense in which you have applied the term "object" vs "subject" is incorrect, for as I demonstrated to you, to say whom is an object does not necessitate that it is not the subject. The pronoun Whom is the objective case of Who, which means that the use of whom is only proper when the action of the verb is received by the pronoun, or something is moving or given "to" the pronoun. It does not indicate if it is the subject or not, as Webster shows, it can be a predicate nominative, but may not be.
Again, the use of whom in 1:13-4 has zero bearing of the question of who is creator in 1:16. Verse 15 establishes "the Son" as the nominative/subject, and thereafter as the creator!
Doug
I just said why and the Son (whom) is the object and the Father is the subject at col. 1:14. You say the Son is the subject at col. 1: 14 18 and it is the Father who is the subject.
Last edited:
I just read it and whom is the object. Like you say above whom is a referent of the subject and not the subject. The whom can not be both the subject and the object. Prove with your definition the Son is the subject and not the object?
Last edited:
I typed in "who is the subject at Colossians 1:14" on Google and some of them partly agree with you. But they also say it could or should be rendered that way and not that it is the way it has to be rendered. We have some work to do in finding out what it means because we are not going to get the answers in one or a few conversations. In the meantime we will have to use an official definition and do the best we can.