Philippians 2:6: The Form of God

The epistle to Philippi, if Pauline, would have been written during the apostle's third missionary tour, (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. IV. 1931, p. 435-437.) which is evident from its mention of his imprisonment by the Praetorian guard, and his Salutations from the pious in Caesar’s household; two lines of evidence which establish the letter as being written during his imprisonment in Rome. (Phil. 1:13; 4:22; cf. Acts 28:30-31.) The words of Phil. 2:5-11 are an inspired hymn written in honor of the Christ. (See. Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians ii. 5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 4: Cambridge University Press, 1967, xii, 364., p. 55.) 

Philippians 2:6-8  

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος  ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ· (SBLGNT)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (RSV)

Paul introduces the Son as being in μορφῇ θεοῦ (form of God) not the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (image of God) which is significant evidence against an intended Adam parallel. ( Nicholas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Reprint 2003, 2004; First published 1991), p. 72.) If an Adam parallel was in view εἰκὼν would have been used, a direct allusion to the LXX of Gen. 1:27 would be far more effective to make this point. (Ibid.) It is admitted, as O’Brien wrote “most exegetes recognize that the semantic fields of the two terms overlap considerably,” (  Peter T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), p. 263.) but the fact that Phil. 2:6 and the LXX of Gen. 1:27 share none of the same Greek words in common besides “God” (θεὸς), and certainly this counts against a direct Adam parallel. 

The present tense εἶναι is used in Verse 6 however Marvin Vincent says, "It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence." (Word Studies, Vol. III, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906, p. 430, 431.) 

The verb ἡγέομαι here translated “count” denotes a mental state, “thinking” or “considering.” The adjective here translated “equality” is the Greek ἶσα, which may also mean “alike” or “similar in appearance.” (LXX Job 5:14; 10:10; 11:12; 13:12, 28; 15:16; 24:20; 27:16; 28:2; 29:14; 30:19; 40:4; Wis. 7:3; Isa. 51:23)

It is unlikely that ἐκένωσεν in Verse 7 means anything more than a humble mental status, and need not mean emptying of divine nature. Elsewhere forms of κενοω are used figuratively in Paul, as in Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor 1.7; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3. There are no examples where the verb means a literal emptying of ontology anywhere in his epistles.

The word γενόμενος is here translated “being made,” rather than “born” and often elsewhere means a change of status. (Mk. 6:26; 9:33; Lk. 10:32; 22:40, 44; Acts 1:18; 4:11; 7:32, 38; 10:4; 12:11, 23; 16:27, 29; 24:25; Gal. 3:13; Phil. 3:6; 2Tim. 1:17; Heb. 1:4; 6:20; 7:26; 11:24; Jas. 1:12, 25) 

Paul had earlier advised Christians to be “of the same mind,” (Phil. 2:2) and here at Phil. 2:5 he specifies what “mind” Christians ought to share, the mind which “was also in Christ Jesus.” Paul gives Christians the greatest example of humility, the Son’s condescending to the “form of a servant” and becoming human in likeness. We are called to imitate his mental disposition in doing this, Christ’s selfless love, and willingness to bear the burdens of others rather than to cling onto position or prominence. (Heb. 4:15; cf. Gal. 6:2.)  

A contrast is made by the apostle between the “form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ) and the “form of a servant” (μορφὴν δούλου). If the phrase "form of a servant" means by nature a servant, then the former phrase would mean that he is by nature God, as the NIV says, "who, being in very nature, God." If it is to mean instead a role or position, then it would mean that Christ acts in the world as both man and God, an interpretation which a Unitarian might welcome as much as a Trinitarian interpreter. There exists a fascinating similarity on three points between Phil. 2:6-10 and Gal. 4:1-5, which offer insight into what the apostle meant by a “slave’s form." 

Philippians 2:6-10

who, (a) though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (b) but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (c) Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Galatians 4:1-5

I mean (a) that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. But when the time had fully come, (c) God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 

Both passages introduce Christ in an exalted state, an “heir” being comparable to the “form of God.” Similarly, both passages refer to taking on the human condition as a kind of slavery. Christians, before their adoption as Sons were “under the law,” (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 4:3.) and correspondingly Christ became “under the law” when he was born as a human child. (Rom. 5:18; 8:3; Gal. 4:4.)

The descriptions of Phil. 2:6 could abstractly be applied to the humanity of Christ, there is something very similar is found in Josephus, where the young Moses is said to have been in “a divine form” (μορφῇ τε θεῖον). (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 2:232.) The fact that μορφῇ primarily denotes outward appearance and not ontology is manifest from its usage in the LXX, for example, certain pagan idols are said to have been fashioned in a “human form” μορφὴν ἀνδρὸς. (Isa. 44:13)

Monogenes "Only-Begotten"

There is a great deal of confusion regarding the Greek term μονογενές (mo·no·gen·ēs), which has traditionally been translated “only-begotten.” The proper meaning of this term is very significant, because it is used five times with regard to Jesus Christ in his preexistence.1 Some have asserted the term instead means “unique” or “one of a kind,”2 Loader went so far to state that “only-begotten” is not the “proper meaning of μονογενές.”3 They would render such famous passages such as Jn. 3:16 “God gave his unique Son,” rather than “God gave his only-begotten Son.” It seems to me that the most influential work which advocates this viewpoint is The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by Moulton, and Milligan which argues,

 

“μονογενές is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique” (unicus), not “only begotten,” which would be μονογέννητος (unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense […] The emphasis is on the thought that, as the “only” Son of God, he has no equal and is able fully to reveal the Father.”4

 

This entire entry is full of errors, and assertions which are without historical basis. The term μονογέννητος is found nowhere in the LXX, and is in fact a second century invention, the apostles could not have used this word because it did not yet exist!5 Regarding the Latin unigenitus, this very term is used in the Vulgate as a translation of μονογενές, at John 1:18 “unigenitus Filius (only-begotten Son),” which clearly expresses the concept of begetting according to their own criterion. The entry proceeds to cite from Tobit 8:17 as evidence that μονογενές does not carry the concept of begetting with it, but this is also misguided, as Marlowe has written on the subject in his article The Only Begotten Son,

 

“The meaning is, the son is the only offspring of the parent, not the only existing person of his kind. And so, in the Greek translation of the book of Tobit, when Raguel praises God for having mercy on δύο μονογενεῖς (8:17), he does not mean that his daughter Sara and Tobias were two “unique” persons; he means that they were both only begotten children of their fathers.”6

 

There is very strong evidence, etymological and historical that μονογενές literally means “only-begotten.” The Nicene Creed of 325 uses the term μονογενές to describe the doctrine of Eternal Generation, because all of the three hundred or so Bishops present at the Council understood that the word carried the concept of begetting with it.7 Even though many of the Nicene bishops rejected the notion that Christ was a creature, they could not avoid the fact that scripture clearly calls him “only-begotten.” Greek was the native language of all the bishops present, and they had no concept that μονογενές might mean “only” without reference to begetting.

 

James Bushwell Jr. followed Moulton and Milligan in arguing that μονογενές meant only “unique” or “one of a kind.”8 His study became quite influential, in fact all subsequent scholars I have read who would strip μονογενές of the concept of begetting use at least some of Bushwell’s arguments. On the basis of etymology, he argued that μονογενές is derived from the Greek μόνος meaning “one” and γένος meaning “kind,” or “species.” As such the word would mean something akin to “one of a kind,” or “unique,” and not “only-begotten.” This sort of etymological argument was refuted concisely by Gordon Clark,

 

“Dr. Bushwell says that the Greek Fathers did not know as much Greek as we do, it must surprise the student to learn that Athanasius and a hundred Greek bishops, whose mother tongue was Greek, knew less Green than we do, and in particular did not know that monogenēs is derived from ginomai rather than gennao. Even so, the two verbs are themselves derived from an earlier common stem. At any rate, the genes in monogenēs derives immediately from genos. This word as a matter of fact suggests begetting and generation, as much as if it had been derived from gennao, Genos means first of all race, stock, kin.”9

 

Even after being refuted by a prominent figure in Christendom, this etymological argument of Bushwell, has still been repeated by later Protestant Trinitarian authors such as Dale Moody,10  and Craig Keener.11 But far more numerous and influential are the scholars who have rejected the notion that μονογενές means anything other than “only-begotten.”12 In fact, the conclusion of Bushwell’s etymological argument is universally rejected by all Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox scholars.13 Even if Bushwell’s assertions about etymology are to be believed, there are clear Biblical examples where γένος signifies begetting. Jesus Christ is “the root and the offspring [γένος] of David, the bright morning star.” (Rev. 22:16) Therefore, to render μονογενές as “only” would be to discard the second half of the word in translation, as if it were only μόνος that was being translated. All Patristic evidence shows a complete absence of Bushwell’s definition,14 and so strongly favors the translation “only-begotten” that Clark concludes patristic testimony “forces the idea of begetting.”15 If Christ is in no way “begotten” he cannot truly be the Son of the living God, Helm rightly said,

 

“It might be argued that the Son is the Son of the Father without being begotten by him, the Spirit the Spirit of the Father and (possibly) of the Son without processing from one or both of them. But then words start to lose their meaning. For how could the Son be the Son without being begotten, or the Spirit the Spirit without processing?”16

 

Denying that Christ is begotten of the Father, is to deny that he is the Son of the living God. This is the true motive for defining μονογενές without the concept of begetting, not history, etymology or grammar, but to deny Christ’s divine Sonship, and along with it, any subordination he has to the Father. White admitted frankly his motivation for translating μονογενές as “unique” or “only,” namely, to avoid any suggestion that the Son is dependent upon the Father for his existence,

 

“One thing is for certain: [John 1:8] is not telling us that Jesus Christ was “created” at some time in the past. He is not denying everything he said in the previous seventeen verses and turning Jesus into a creation! Such ideas flow from wrong thinking about what monogenēs means [this alleged “wrong thinking” is defining the word as “only begotten]. Remember that the term means “unique” or “one of a kind.”17

 

Trinitarian theories like White’s, which deny eternal generation, are much less sophisticated than the Cappadocian model of the 381 Creed. They are in fact incapable of making personal distinctions between the Father and the Son. If a Catholic theologian were asked to distinguish between the persons of the Trinity without reference to their activities in the created order, he could easily say, gesture to the begetting of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit. However, Protestants who deny eternal generation and filioque can make no such distinctions between the persons, which inevitably leads to Sabellianism. In all of the Classical occurrences, as well there is nothing that even vaguely requires μονογενές to be stripped of the concept of begetting.18 This is especially true with regard to Plato’s writings,19 he concludes the Timaeus dialogue by writing,

 

“We may now say that our discourse about the nature of the universe has an end. The world has received animals, mortal and immortal, and is fulfilled with them, and has become a visible animal containing the visible the sensible God who is the image of the intellectual, the greatest, best, fairest, most perfect the one only-begotten (μονογενὴς) heaven.” (92c)

 

Here he describes the heavens produced by the Demiurge (demiurgos), the “sensible [creator] God,” as “only-begotten,” likening the created world to an offspring of God. Elsewhere, the Demiurge was often likened to a “Father” in the same sort of analogy,20 so it is not surprising that the heavens produced by him should be likened to an only-begotten Son near the end of the Timaeus. That the term literally means “only-begotten,” is the majority opinion of scholars in Christendom and the opposing viewpoint is overall a minority position in scholarship, shared only by a specific class of protestant scholars who advocate a hyper-Trinitarianism contrary to the Ecumenical Councils.

1 Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jn. 4:9.

2 William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (1992), pp. 168-170.

3 J. White, The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 202.

4 James H. Moulton, & George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1929), pp. 416-417.

5 There are no entries for the term in Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, or in Arndt and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, and surely if the word was used during this time period it would have been cataloged.

6 Michael Marlowe, The Only Begotten Son (Trinity Sunday, 2006)

7 With the words γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ, which are also found both in the 325 version and in the Constantinopolitan vers. of 381. (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, New York: 1905, pp. 60.)

8 James Oliver Bushwell Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan., 1962), pp. 110ff.

9 G. Clark, The Trinity, pp. 144.

10 Dale Moody, God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version (Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXII., no. 4, 1953), pp. 213-219.

11 C. Keener, The Gospel of John, Vol. I. (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2003), pp. 412-13.

12 Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol., XII. 177, pp. 184; Gill, A Complete Body of Divinity, pp. 143.; Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I., pp. 468.; Clark, The Trinity, pp. 133-150.

13 To reject the Nicene definition of monogenēs would be to reject the Creeds of their Church. (See, Lossky, The Vision of God, pp. 27.; Swinburne, The Christian God, pp. 182-191.; Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, I., §14.)

14 John V. Dahms, in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, published Dec. 1989, pp. 495 wrote,

John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 teach than Christ is God’s monogenēs Son. That monogenēs implies that he was begotten is the understanding of Justin Martyr Apol. 1.23 (c. A.D. 150); Dial. Trypho 105 (c. 153). Theophilus of Antioch (115-181) Theophilus to Autolycus 2.10 seems to issue such an understanding. Tertullian (c. 197-c. 225) Against Praxeas vii evidently had such an understanding. And Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity 1.10; 6.39 (before 358) implies that the Latin Bibles with which his readers were familiar had unigenitus in John 1:14, 18. Moreover the fact that Isaac could be described as Abraham’s monogenēs son (Heb. 11:17), despite Ishmael, is not surprising. Philo had stated: “He [Abraham] had begotten no son in the truest sense but Isaac” (de Abr. 194: cf. de Sac. 43) and had even spoken of Isaac as Abraham’s “only (monos) son” (de Abr. 168: cf. de Abr. 196; Quod Deus Imm. 4).

15 Gordon H. Clark, The Trinity (Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 2010, Originally published 1985), pp. 145.

16 Paul Helm, Of God and of the Holy Trinity: A Response to Dr. Beckwith (The Churchman 115, no. 4, 2001), pp. 355.

17 J. White, Forgotten Trinity, pp. 62, 63.

18 Hesiod, Theogony, 426, 448; Herodotus, Histories, 7, 221; Plato, Critias, 113d.; Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 898.

19 Ibid.

20 Timaeus, 28c, 41a, 50d, 71d

Hebrews 1:2: The Trinity and Creation

0. Introduction

I shall discuss the roles of the persons of the Holy Trinity in creation, and whether the language of the New Testament on the matter contradicts passages in the Old Testament. God the Father is often described as the origin of creation. (1 Cor. 8:6; Acts 4:24; Eph. 3:14; Rev. 4:11; 14:7) There are many passages which identify Christ as the mediator and sustainer of creation. (St. Joh. 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; [Eph. 3:9]; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:1-3, 10-12) The Holy Ghost is similarly the agent of the Son in creation. (Gen 1:2; Job 33:4; Psa. 33:6; 104:30)

1. Roles of the Persons

It is plain that the Father did not create the world without the involvement of another, he spoke to another involved in creation and said, "Let us make man in our image." (Gen. 1:22 cf. 3:2) The Rabbis often understood this passage to refer to the holy angels, and suggest that they had a role in the creation of humankind, Rashi says, "because the man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore He took counsel with them." (Bereshit Rabbah 8:1, 8.) The New Testament authors never implicate angels in the creation of the world, rather they attribute to Christ the role of mediator in creation. The Son is the one "in (εν)," "through (διά)" and "for (εις)" the universe was created; this is the language of agency. (Col. 1:16, 17) God the Word and God the Holy Spirit are jointly mentioned in creation in Psa. 33:6 "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, their host by the Spirit of his mouth." The persons of the Trinity take different yet overlapping roles in creation, the preposition εξ is reserved for the Father's role in creation, and the preposition διά is used most often for the role of the Son, while in the Creeds εν is the common preposition for the role of the Spirit. 

	The Father	The Son
1 Cor. 8:6; 11:12	εξ	—
Rom. 11:36; Joh. 1:3	διά	διά
Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16	εις	εις
Acts 17:28; Col. 1:17	εν	εν

The Second Council of Constantinople (553) "For there is but one God even the Father of (εξ) whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through (διά) whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in (εν) whom are all things." Creation originates from the Father and is mediated by the Son and is perfected in the Holy Ghost. St. Gregory of Nyssa says that every energy of God has “an origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit.” (Not Three Gods) Their respective roles are reflected in the use of prepositions for their roles in the New Testament. Bindley explains, 

 

"δι΄ού τά πάντα εγένετο. The phrase is taken from the Caesarean Creed, and is based upon 1 Cor. viii. 6; St. John i. 3; Col. i. 16. In theological language the Son of God is the "instrument of creation," the mediate Agent of its "becoming." His action is thus co-ordinate and co-operant with that of the Father (St. John v.17). All finite being, phenomenal and noumenal, springs from (ἐκ) the Father through (διά) the Son. To write ἐξ ού of the Son would be Sabellianism." (The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, p. 34, 35.) 

The Socinians and Photinians deny the pre-existence of Christ and claim that Isa. 44:24 and similar passages prove that the Son was not actually involved in creation. It should be noted that the Jews never considered Isa. 44:24 to contradict the concept that angels were involved in creation, the passage says:  

"I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself And spreading out the earth alone." 

This language does not mean that others were not present or involved in the actions described. In the Scriptures performing an action "alone" often signifies that the actor is ultimately responsible or is the final cause of the action. Solomon said that "God alone works wonders." (Psa. 72:18) And yet we read that the prophets and apostles worked wonders and miracles by the power of God. (Acts 6:8; 15:12; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12) The meaning of Solomon's words is that God is the sole source of true miracles, in this way "God alone works wonders," but he did not mean to preclude agency, the Lord God often works wonders through the agency of others. 

We may say something similar regarding Isa. 44:24, that while the Father "alone" is the creator, he made the world through the agency of his Son and Spirit. The Father himself is the final cause of the creation of the universe, but he acted through his Son. In the same way Nebuchadnezzar boasted, "Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for a royal residence, by the might of my power?" (Dan. 4:30) Nebuchadnezzar did not mean to suggest that he himself constructed every building in Babylon, he meant that he built Babylon through the agency of masons, artisans, carpenters and slaves. 

The apostle St. John says of him, "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him." (St. Joh. 1:10) He speaks of the world of mankind because he says "the world did not know him," ignorance and knowledge could only be attributed to persons. Those who deny the pre-existence of Christ endeavor to explain away this passage and ones like it by claiming it is actually about the "new creation," or the "new heavens and new earth." (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 3:12; 21) But the new creation could not be in mind in St. Joh. 1:10 because it "did not know him." 

2. The Epistle of the Hebrews

The epistle of Hebrews begins by saying that the "ages (αιών) were made through his Son." (Heb. 1:2) To support this claim, Heb. 1:10-12 then quotes from Psa. 102:26-28 to prove his point and demonstrate that the heavens and earth were made through the Son. 

"And you, O Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They will perish; but you remain; and they will all wear out as does a garment; And as a garment you will fold them up, and they shall be changed: but you are the same, and your years shall not fail." (Heb. 1:10-11) 

These words are a quotation from Psa. 102:26-28 [101:25-27] but there is a significant difference between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. In the MT, these words are addressed by the prophet David to God himself, in verse 23 he says that he was "afflicted (עִנָּ֖ה)" by God. However, the Septuagint reads that God "answered (απεκρίθη)" the prophet David and spoke these words to him. In other words, the MT reads that God afflicted David while the LXX reads that God answered David and then spoke the words which follow. The words of Psa. 102:26-28 [101:25-27] apply to God in the MT however in the LXX they apply to the Messiah, Guthrie concludes, 

"Thus, in the LXX the words of our quotation can be taken as the words of Yahweh spoken to the one addressed as "Lord," and in that case they must refer to divine Wisdom or the Messiah.” (G. Beale and D. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 940.)

St. Paul quoted from this text to support what he had said just before, that God had 'created the worlds through his Son.' (Heb. 1:2) This is undoubtedly a reference to the creation of the universe, not to the new creation; the new creation will never come to an end or be 'rolled up like a garment.' Therefore, the Socinian claim that Heb. 1:10-12 is somehow about the new creation is baseless. 

St. Paul drew a parallel between the role of Christ in creation and salvation in his epistle to the Colossians which was written to combat the error of Judaizers and Gnostics. The Judaizers rejected the pre-existence of Christ, and rejected the canonicity of St. John's gospel, while the Gnostics affirmed the pre-existence of Christ but denied his role in creation because they regarded the material world as wicked. 

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, so that he himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Col. 1:15-20)

He is the "first-born of all creation," in his humanity, for in his divine nature he is uncreated and eternal, the deity of the Son is elsewhere directly confirmed in the same epistle, "in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily." (Col. 2:9) St. Paul forbids "worship of the angels" by which it is proven that Christ could not possibly be an angel, for he is worshipped frequently in the New Testament. (Col. 2:18) The pre-existence of Christ is further proven by the mention of "rulers" and authorities" which refer to angelic beings as in Ephesians 6:12 and Romans 8:38.  

John 20:28: My Lord and my God

 It is doubtless that Thomas was addressing the risen Christ when he exclaimed “My Lord and my God” Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. consider, for example, the phrase “my King and my God,” (ὁ βασιλεύς μου καὶ ὁ θεὸς μου) appears twice in the LXX of Psa. 5:3 and also Psa. 83:4(84:4).

White comments “No angel, no prophet, no sane human being, could ever allow himself to be (similarly) addressed,” (The Forgotten Trinity. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998, p. 70.) 

In the first century, the Roman Emperor Domitian was given the royal address, “our Lord and God (dominus et deus noster)” throughout his reign. (Suetonius, Life of Domitianus, XIII. 2.) The Latin Vulgate more closely illustrates the similarity of the two forms of address, using ei Dominus meus et Deus meus for Christ. It may very well be that John deliberately applied this sort of language to Christ himself, is the true Sovereign of the Gentiles not the Caesars.