i found this discussion on reddit interesting.

/

“There’s a difference between supposing that other non-gods were involved in the creation process and lifting creation passages that were ascribed to YHWH and then ascribing it to a being that isn’t YHWH as Paul and the NT writers seem to do.”

Yes, the former was just the first step in the argument. It was necessary to first establish that the OT does not preclude the possibility that YHWH used other non-god beings in his creative process. Now that that’s been established, we still have to deal with the specific language Paul used. So let’s address that…

“In him all things were created… all things have been created through him and for him.” I can appreciate just how out-of-the-ordinary it is for a Jew to talk like this about anyone besides YHWH. This kind of language would’ve never been applied to a mere angel, much less an ordinary human. But suppose you had come to believe that YHWH the God of Israel had somehow begotten a Son and made him Lord over all creation — how would you speak about such a being? Well you certainly wouldn’t dare dishonor the very Offspring of YHWH by describing him in ‘mere human’ terms. And you wouldn’t depict him in ordinary ‘angelic’ language either. But simultaneously you also recognize that he isn’t God, even though he’s as close to a god as any being could ever get. So you might use language that sounds very ‘god-like’ while being careful not to call him God. And if you came to believe that OT prophecies about what YHWH would do were actually prophecies about what YHWH would do through his Offspring, then it’s not surprising to find prophecies that were once ascribed to YHWH being ascribed to his Son.

The point here is that, in Paul’s mind, Jesus is not just some human or angel — he is a divine being, begotten of the very God of Israel, through whom God would accomplish his purposes. So verses like “In him all things were made” seem highly appropriate given Jesus’ ontological status.

As I mentioned, we’d expect Paul to use god-like language without directly calling him God. And that’s precisely what we find. Notice the indirect language used in the Colossians passage you cited. It’s noteworthy that the writer doesn’t use the active voice (i.e. “For he created all things”), but rather he uses the passive voice: “For in him all things were created” and “all things have been created through him.” In fact, in all of Paul’s writings Jesus’ role in creation is never described in anything other than the passive voice. He is never described as the one doing the creating in an active sense, but rather the one through whom the Creator God works (see also Eph 3:9 and 1 Cor 8:6).

You might respond “but the OT still says Yhwh was ALONE in creating the world.” The problem with this objection is that words like “alone” can have so many different connotations in Scripture depending on the context. Just because someone is described as being “alone,” it doesn’t necessarily mean other beings aren’t around.

Take a simple example. In Genesis God says “It is not good for the man to be alone,” but there were clearly other beings in the garden with Adam. So how could Adam be alone? Obviously, we understand that the context suggests Adam was only “alone” in the sense that there was no suitable helper found for him. Or take Psalm 51:4 “Against you and you alone have I sinned.” Obviously David had also sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, but we understand that “alone” here is just a way of saying he had sinned “chiefly” against God.

I could point to several more examples, but I think you get the point. “Alone” does not strictly mean that no one else is involved. And when we read passages that say “Yhwh created alone”, it’s always in the context of other gods. It’s not saying that no other beings could’ve possibly been used instrumentally in God’s creative process. It’s just a way of expressing the folly of idolatry to a people that had repeatedly followed after false gods. If you want to suggest that it means something more than that, then you’ll have to explain how the context supports your specific interpretation.

///

Firstly, I agree that the Bible nowhere depicts angels as involved in creation. I brought up angels to make the point that historically, the “Yhwh created alone” passages were not understood as precluding the possibility of Yhwh utilizing instrumental beings in his creation process. Many Jews throughout history (including the renowned Jewish scholar Rashi) believed that angels were involved in creation. They rightly understood that the “Yhwh created alone” passages were always situated in a context talking about other false gods, and that the true intended meaning was that no other gods were involved in creation but Yhwh alone. But this of course does not preclude Yhwh from using other non-god beings as instruments to bring about his creation.

To respond to your numbered points:
1. Gen 1 & 2 don’t explicitly state that other beings were involved, but to say God created completely by himself in Genesis would be an argument from silence.
2. Jer 10 merely says that other gods didn’t create the world and that Yhwh did. There’s nothing in there precluding the possibility of Yhwh using instrumental beings in creation.
3. Isa 44:24 is situated within a larger context where Yhwh is pointing out the folly of idolatry. See vv 8-20 that lead up to vs 24. This is again another example of Yhwh saying “no other gods created the world but me.”
4. In Job 38, Yhwh merely says that Job wasn’t around when he laid the foundations of the earth. This doesn’t preclude the use of other instrumental beings.