Jesus the Firstborn of Creation

Pattern christology claims that Jesus had a created nature prior to his incarnation as a man, referred to in scripture as the “Angel of the Lord.” Jesus was truly God, and truly creature from the moment that God said, “let there be light” — at which point the angel of the Lord, Jesus’ first created nature, came into being. Pushing the hypostatic union back to the point of creation makes Jesus the firstborn of creation in the plain sense of the term (Col 1:15), without reducing his divine nature to that of a highly exalted creature, like what we see in arianism.

The motive for viewing Jesus’ preincarnate form in this way is twofold. First, it answers a significant trinitarian objection to our claim that Jesus is the son of God according to his human nature. The objection is that some passages which speak of Jesus’ preincarnate form also describe a preincarnate father / son relationship (e.g Jhn 17:1-5). If Jesus is a son of God because of his human nature, then how could this father / son relationship predate his incarnation as a man? Because the Bible describes a preincarnate father / son relationship, it is believed that the relationship must therefore come from his divine nature.

This objection assumes that prior to the incarnation, Jesus only existed in the form of his divine nature. If, however, Jesus also had a created nature before the incarnation, one which could serve as the source of his father / son relationship with God, then belief in a human sonship can be upheld. Additionally, there are actually several ways to answer this objection, so pattern christology doesn’t rise and fall with the acceptance of this tenet. But the second motivation for making Jesus the firstborn of creation in a literal sense is that it actually harmonizes well with other scripture. Not only does it answer the trinitarian objection to the pattern; there’s corroborative evidence to suggest that it may actually be the correct view.

Pattern christology on the other hand simply pushes the hypostatic union back to the point of creation, giving Jesus a created nature that is united with his (eternally existing) divine nature from the moment of creation onward. We agree with the trinitarian view that Jesus is truly God, being the uncreated, eternally existing Word (Logos). We also agree that He is now truly man, with a created, human nature, soul and body from the point of the incarnation onward. All that pattern Christology adds is that prior to the incarnation, He also had a created nature known as the Angel of the Lord. If we take the term “angel” to refer to a heavenly angelic being, then one might succinctly say that prior to the incarnation, Jesus was truly God, and truly angel.

Trinitarians typically agree with the pattern’s claim that the angel of the Lord is a preincarnate appearance of Jesus (often called a christophany). Wayne Grudem wrote the following overview in his Systematic Theology:

11. Who Is the Angel of the Lord? Several passages of Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, speak of the angel of the Lord in a way that suggests that he is God himself taking on a human form to appear briefly to various people in the Old Testament.

In some passages “the angel of the LORD” (not “an angel of the LORD”) is spoken of as the Lord himself. So “the angel of the LORD” who found Hagar in the wilderness promises her, “I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude” (Gen. 16:10), and Hagar responds by calling “the name of the LORD who spoke to her “You are a God of seeing”’ (Gen. 16:13). Similarly, when Abraham is about to sacrifice his son Isaac, “the angel of the LORD” calls to him from heaven and says, “Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” (Gen. 22:12). When “the angel of God” appeared to Jacob in a dream, he said, “I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me” (Gen. 31:11, 13). Again, when “the angel of the LORD” appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush, he then said, “I am the God of your father the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Ex. 3:2, 6). These are clear instances of the angel of the Lord or the angel of God appearing as God himself, perhaps more specifically as God the Son taking on a human body for a short time in order to appear to human beings.

At other times the angel of the Lord seems to be distinguished from God (see 2 Sam. 24:16; Ps. 34:7; Zech. 1:11–13), and passages that mention “an angel of the Lord” (e.g., Luke 1:11) usually indicate an angel sent by God.

— Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 19

Two things are of note in the above summary.

1. The angel of the Lord is considered to be Yahweh God
2. The angel of the Lord is considered to be distinct from Yahweh God

This correlates well with the creation account in John’s gospel, which describes a being who is simultaneously God, and someone distinct from God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (Jhn 1:1-5)

The classic, trinitarian interpretation of John 1 is to view “God” as “God the Father,” and the “Word” as “God the Son,” two persons in the godhead existing from before time began. But if we push the hypostatic union back to the point of creation, viewing the angel of the Lord as a created being who is also truly divine, then this offers us a second possible interpretation, one which may fit the details of the passage a little better.

The first thing to note is that there’s a subtle difficulty in the trinitarian framing of the passage, which is masked by the language that’s used. If we replace the titles used in the verse with more common trinitarian language, then we can see the issue more clearly. Consider the following revision: “In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father.”

Trinitarian theology claims that both the Father and the Son are “God,” but the Father is not the Son; they are distinct persons that never overlap. So if we interpret the word “God” to mean “Father” in John 1:1, and if we apply that consistently within the verse, then we produce a non-trinitarian idea that the Son is the Father. So when trinitarians interpret this passage, they equivocate — changing the meaning of “God” in the span of a few words, often without realizing it. First it is understood to mean “God the Father,” then a few words later it means “The divine nature shared among all persons of the godhead.” This kind of inconsistently is generally a bad interpretive practice if the verse gives no indication of a change in meaning, and it should be viewed as a difficulty for trinitarian theology.

So while patternists do believe in a plurality of persons in the godhead, appealing to that plurality to explain this verse may not be the cleanest interpretation of the passage. An alternative would be to make Jesus the firstborn of creation through an earlier hypostatic union that joins “God” with a created nature before his incarnation.

During his earthly life, we know that Jesus considered Himself to be distinct from God, and He was generally “with God” according to his human nature (e.g. Mat 27:46). At the same time, He also “was God” (Jhn 8:57-58, Jhn 20:27-28) according to his divine nature. So through his incarnation as a man, it would be accurate to say that Jesus was with God, and that He was God, strictly on the basis of the hypostatic union — without ever appealing to a plurality of persons in the godhead. In the same way, if we view the angel of the Lord as a preincarnate hypostatic union (joining of a divine and a created nature into one unified person), then this harmonizes well with the language that we see in John 1. The Word — the angel of the Lord was with God, and He was God.

This preincarnate union of God and creature allows us to elegantly answer the main question of this article — Is Jesus the firstborn of creation in a literal sense? Trinitarians will typically work around Colossians 1:15 by claiming that he has the rights of the firstborn, even though he wasn’t the first creature. That’s certainly a decent interpretation if it’s necessary to harmonize scripture, but viewing the angel of the Lord as a preincarnate hypostatic union removes the need. It allows us to see Jesus as the firstborn of creation in the plain sense of the term, without any qualification, and without compromising his true divinity.

If we make Jesus the firstborn of creation in a literal sense, then this allows for further harmony between the creation accounts in Genesis 1, John 1, and Psalm 104. Genesis oddly begins with the creation of light, three days before the sun, moon and stars were ever created to bear it. Light simply existed, shining in the darkness, and separating the day from the night. Making Jesus the firstborn of creation would suggest that He was / is that light that was first created — that God, when He first clothed Himself with a created nature, wrapped Himself with light. This accords with the creation account in Psalm 104, which suggests that God first dwelt in unapproachable light (1Ti 6:16), before He manifested Himself in the dust of the earth.

Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, you are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. (Psa 104:1-2)

Here we see God clothing Himself in light. This analogy of putting on clothes is sometimes used to describe the taking on of a physical body (2Co 5:1-4). Whatever the nature of that light may be, at the very least this psalm seems to teach that God clothed Himself with the light that He created when He stretched out the heavens, and this could refer to the angel of the Lord. The psalm then goes on to describe the creation of angels, and his general forming of the heavens and the earth, so the context fits nicely.

Making Jesus the firstborn of creation also harmonizes well with the rest of John’s creation account, which immediately focuses on Jesus’ role as the light of the world. This of course is rightly understood as a spiritual light that Jesus brings to men’s souls, but its presence in John’s creation account suggests that the physical light in Genesis 1 is at least a picture / type of Jesus, if not Jesus Himself.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. (Jhn 1:1-9)

The light of Christ becomes a common theme throughout John’s gospel, his epistles, and the book of Revelation. At the end of Revelation, he records a description of the new city of Jerusalem, which closely parallels / expands upon the garden of Eden that we see at the beginning of creation. Notably, like the light described in Genesis 1, New Jerusalem has a light that does not require the sun, moon or stars to bear it. This independent form of light is identified as Jesus (the lamb).

And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. (Rev 21:23-24)

Making Jesus the firstborn of creation in a literal sense therefore adds a great deal of consistency and beauty to the harmonization of scripture, allowing Him to be the light of the world that was first created to shine forth, and that is enthroned at the end of recorded history. By simply pushing the hypostatic union back to the beginning of creation, to the point at which God said, “let there be light,” we gain three primary advantages.

1. Passages that speak of Jesus as the son of God can be interpreted consistently with passages that speak of Christians as sons of God, by deriving Jesus’ sonship from His human and / or angelic natures.
2. Passages that speak of Jesus as the firstborn of creation can be taken plainly, without compromising His divinity
3. Passages that speak of Jesus as the light of the world can be taken, quite beautifully, in both a spiritual and physical sense.

Some will object that the angel of the Lord is not a created being, but rather a manifestation of God the Son that occasionally took human (or humanoid) form. Although this may sound persuasive to some, particularly those inclined to believe and defend the trinity, this objection doesn’t actually offer any biblical evidence against the pattern; it simply offers a different interpretation of the evidence. Scripture doesn’t tell us one way or the other that the angel of the Lord’s created nature was or was not permanent. Trinitarians simply interpret the data that we have through the lens of their theological system, and (generally) conclude that it must refer to Jesus’ uncreated divine nature alone. Any evidence that scripture provides concerning (e.g.) a created body for the angel of the Lord is therefore dismissed as simply being temporary, unlike the human form that He would later take.

Lacking any conclusive evidence one way or the other, patternists are equally free to interpret the same data through the lens of our theological system, and come to a different conclusion. What evidence do we have to suggest a created nature for this angel?

• He sat, spoke, and ate food with the patriarchs (Gen 18). There’s no indication that this was merely an apparition, or that He pretended to eat food, or that it was really just a mirage, etc. All of the evidence of the passage suggests that He really ingested biological matter into a biological body. This is the same kind of evidence that He used in the new testament, to prove to the disciples that He was truly resurrected into a physical body (Luk 24:36-45). Although Genesis 18 doesn’t speak to the permanence of this preincarnate body — whether Jesus created a new body at every appearance, or kept the same body throughout — anyone who believes in the biblical account of the resurrection should have no problem agreeing that Jesus / God must have possessed a truly physical, created body prior to the incarnation, at least at certain points in time.
• A figure who is called both God and “man” wrestled with Jacob (Gen 32:1-2, 24-30). This was a clearly physical altercation with a physically manifested being.
• While the children of Israel were in the desert, God sent his angel before them to wage war against the inhabitants of Canaan. When Joshua led them into the promised land, this angel met him, accepted his worship, and claimed to be the commander of the armies of the Lord (Exo 23:20-24, Jos 5:13-15). Throughout Israel’s history, these angelic armies had a physical impact on the enemies of Israel, as well as on their own people when they sinned (2Ki 6:15-18, 19:32-35, 1Ch 21:14-30).

The last example above suggests a permanence to this angel’s created nature. At the very least He had a long-standing role as the captain of the Lord’s angelic armies. Without any specific reason to believe that He destroyed and re-created his physical frame at every encounter, the most natural assumption (given every other example we have in creation) would be that he possessed his angelic body throughout the entire time of his service as the captain over God’s angelic hosts.

In any case, trinitarians and patternists generally agree that God manifested Himself in a physical form of some sort prior to the incarnation. While the evidence may lean toward the conclusion that this was a permanent, created nature that He held prior to the incarnation, the evidence is inconclusive. Thus trinitarians and patternists are free to interpret the angel of the Lord according to their respective theological systems; the relative accuracy of each system must therefore be determined on other, more solid ground.

As discussed above, making Jesus the firstborn of creation allows us to change our interpretation of the Word / Logos of John 1 in some key ways (as well as in other Johannian passages, e.g. 1Jo 1:1-3, Rev 19:11-14). Instead of referring to an uncreated, divine person within the godhead who would exist with or without creation, it could be interpreted as referring to a preincarnate hypostatic union of God and an angelic nature. This interpretation makes sense of the angel of the Lord figure in the old testament, and it harmonizes well with the creation of light.

In the end, making Jesus the firstborn of creation may remove the need to view the Word / Logos of John 1 as a distinct person in the godhead. That isn’t to say that Christians should abandon belief in a divine Word; to the contrary, I am fully persuaded that such a divine Person exists. But it should be carefully noted that biblical Christians are not necessarily forced into that viewpoint by passages like John 1, as we have at least one other interpretive option, namely to view the title “Word” as describing the pre- and postincarnate hypostatic unions.

With that said, there is good theological reason to continue believing that Jesus’ divine nature is a co-equal, co-eternal member of the godhead called the “Word.” First, the light in Genesis 1 was itself created after God spoke words of creation; words came first. So even if we make Jesus the firstborn of creation, as the preeminent light of the world that is shining in the darkness — and even if the Word in John 1 is properly understood as describing that preincarnate union of God and light — we still have reason to believe in a more foundational and truly-divine Word who dwells within the temple-Word of John 1. For example, we see a distinction between the created Word and the divine Word in the first chapter of Hebrews, which makes the divine Word of God something possessed by the Son, rather than something equivalent to the Son.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. (Heb 1:1-3a)

So it seems biblically reasonable that there is the uncreated and transcendent Word of God, and a firstborn Word created in his image and likeness, as the cornerstone of God’s temple in creation. The divinely-empowered words of creation are what brought into being the temple-Word of John 1, the Word creating himself as the Angel of the Lord before the rest of creation — just as he would later resurrect himself as the firstborn from the dead (Jhn 2:19, Col 1:18). Technically it was the divinity in Christ which performed these two acts, but because of the united person of the God-man, it is appropriate to speak of the Word as creating and resurrecting himself.

Simply put, Jesus’ Word is created after the pattern of God’s Word, a fitting temple through which the transcendent God would speak the rest of creation into being. The Word of created light is the very image and likeness of God’s transcendent Word, expressed as an “in-house” representation of God who would create and preside over the universe within which he dwelt (Col 1:15-17, Rev 4).

We know that the angel of the Lord bears the image of God, similar to what we see with Adam. Adam was from the dust of the ground, but the “man from heaven” bore the image of God in a greater way (1Co 15:39-49). One way in which the angelic Christ bore the image of God is in his creation as light. God Himself is uncreated light (1Jo 1:5-7), so the light that we see created in Genesis 1 must therefore be modeled after a greater light, bearing the image of God (Col 1:15-17). In the same way, Jesus’ role as the ultimate angelic word / logos — as powerful as he must be as a creature — must still be viewed as derivative to the divine word of God that dwells within Him, and by which he created the world (Heb 1:1-3, Jhn 17:1-3, 14-18).

So regardless of how we interpret the “Word” of John 1, we can be reasonably confident that a divine Word also exists, since Jesus is created in his image. We can also conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that this Word is personal, and not merely an impersonal form of speech. If we accept the classic view, that John 1 refers to Jesus’ divine nature alone, then we know that this divine Word has a personal relationship with “God,” whatever is meant by that term. If it refers to Jesus’ angelic nature on the other hand, which seems to be the more consistent view, then we know that it was created in the image and likeness of a greater Word of God. Because the angelic Word is personal, we can reasonably conclude that the divine Word after which He is patterned is also personal.

Marriage also offers strong evidence for a plurality of persons within the godhead. God’s creation of man as two persons who are one would be an odd design decision if He Himself did not also experience a plurality of persons, since man is created in his image and likeness. Granted, Genesis 1:26-27 could be interpreted as God speaking with the angel of the Lord, but the resulting creation of man as two distinct and unified persons suggests a discussion between two persons within the godhead, rather than (or in addition to) a discussion between God and the angel.

The subject of marriage is further discussed in the tenets of pattern theology, which argues that God exists as two persons who are one (the Word and the Spirit), rather than three. For the purposes of this study in pattern christology, we’ve seen that a careful reading of scripture does support the possibility of a preincarnate created nature for Christ, which would make Jesus the firstborn of creation in a literal sense, as the angel of the Lord. We are able to do this without compromising his true divinity, and without significantly changing the trinitarian understanding of the divine Word. This in turn allows us to read scripture concerning the sonship of Christ in a natural sense, such that He is our literal brother, because we are all children of the same Father (Heb 2:10-14).

Next we will look at the relationship between Jesus’ divine nature and his human / angelic nature, in particular the claim that the Father (God) dwells within the Son (Jesus) through the divine person of the Word (Logos).