What is the Biblical basis for the logos being only the means for creation? [closed]

Question

All things came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being that has come into being John 1:3

Are we given any indication that the logos made anything? Or is it simply that God is the sole Creator and does so through His logos/word?

What is the Biblical basis for the logos being only the means for God's creating process? And explicitly, that the logos did not, could not, make anything of itself.

As an example using the same word dia,

More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Rom 5:11

We note we are rejoicing IN GOD not in Jesus - it is made possible dia (through) Jesus. Jesus is the means, the manner etc. by which the joy is expressed or realised.

Answer 1

Absolutely, the Logos/Word is clearly identified as the creator. Not only here at John 1:3 but at Colossians 2:16 as well as by His own Father at Hebrews 1:10.

Colossians 1:16, "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 by Him and for Him.'

Now, there is a difference between the word "by" (which is a preposition) and the word "through. "By" is used to indicate origin or the manner of something. "Through" is used has a function word to indicate means, agency or because of.

You quoted Romans 5:11 and said this: "We note we are rejoicing IN GOD not in Jesus." The Apostle Paul stated at Philippians 3:1, "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord." At vs3, "for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and GLORY in Jesus Christ."

Philippians 4:4, "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!" You can't have one without the other. This is why I keep bringing up Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Since this is true, how do you reconcile these statements with John 1:3, Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews 1:10? Since the Lord created all alone and by Himself why does the Bible include Jesus Christ as the creator?

Here's another example that needs to be reconciled. Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the Lord; And there is NO savior besides Me." Now going back to Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ."

How many times have people said, "Jesus was made Lord," quoting Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." Luke 2:11, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." He was already a Savior and Christ/Messiah the Lord to begin with.

Answer 2

There is, indeed, a religious group with millions of active members today, teaching and believing that the Logos "was only the means for creation". There is no reason to suppose that the OP belongs to this group, but (holding to a very similar view) it is surprising if he does not know of this group, so as to insert their name in his question, as one of the Moderators suggests. This is the Jehovah's Witness denomination. I could provide lots of quotes from their literature proving that they do, indeed, only attribute a secondary role in creation to the Logos (the Word of God as per John 1:1-14), but as I am not a supporter of them, anyone wishing this information could go to their official web site.

Their idea appears to be that God created the Logos, and then used the Logos (as a sort of conduit?) through whom everything else was created. This - to them - 'deals with' the verse in John's gospel that says "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (vs. 3) It does not deal with the simple logic that, if the Word made everything that was made, he could not have been made himself.

That brings up the terminology of "it" for the Logos - "explicitly, that the logos did not, could not, make anything of itself." The Jehovah's Witnesses never refer to the Logos as an "it". Some Unitarians may hold to that, but they would have to answer here on that point. It would certainly have a massive bearing on the question, for an 'it' could not create anything. A new question would really need to be posted for biblical reasons claiming the Word of God (the Logos) to be an 'it'.

Regarding creating "through" having a critically important difference to creating "by" someone: This matter requires examining the Greek words in John 1:3. The Biblical Hermeneutics site will no doubt have already gone into that. I would say that most translations of this verse say "through," though the A.V. has "by". Yet if the Word of God was a created creature, created by God directly as his first and only direct creation (as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim), then for that idea to have biblical support, the verse would have needed to say, "Apart from himself all things were made through him". But, it does not.

The question as it stands seems to imply that the OP considers the Word (or, Logos) of John chapter 1 to be an "it" and not a "him" (hence his use of lower case). It would therefore be up to the OP to state the case for having that unusual view. It is certainly not a commonly held view in Christianity, and the Jehovah's Witnesses do not have that view either, even though they agree with the OP about the Word of God "being only the means for God's creating process". Because of the mixture of different denominational beliefs here, I can offer no more information by way of an answer. The two groups I have mentioned would be the best ones to provide their own answers. My answer may serve to show why neither of them have (so far).

EDIT This answer is not scoped to show either the Jehovah's Witness or the Unitarian view on this matter. Given that Moderators wish the OP to "give evidence of a group that does believe the position asked about" but (so far) has not done so, my examples should help keep the Question open. I am not here to compare one view on this matter with another. I know that such views exist (with variations) so it's surprising that neither group I mentioned (or other groups) have given their explanations. My answer is trying to take a neutral stance, in order to answer the Question. I may not entirely succeed, but I am trying, and hope that this answer is better than no answer at all.