Jesus "first born" does not mean "first created"

by sacolton 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sacolton

  Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation"

  "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." ( Col. 1:15-17 , for context. The New World Translation - Emphasis added. Note the NWT's addition of 'other' into the text four times. This is discussed here.)

  The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh ( John 1:1 , 14 ) is not a created thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15 . The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.

  Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family ( Luke 2:7 ), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20 , 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.

  Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:

  • Gen. 41:51-52 , "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
  • Jer. 31:9 , "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."

  Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh ( John 1:1 , 14 ) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15 . They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.
• 

  isaacaustin

  NASB has a very good explanatory footnote on this
• 

  Leolaia

  Of course, context is the key. If you look at the verses that immediately follow, the whole emphasis is on the preeminence of the Son over everything else. (v. 15-20). Of course, a first creation could have preeminence as well. But the grammatical construction of the passage is at odds with the NWT rendering that makes the Son part of "all creation" by inserting "[other]" in brackets. I can think of at least three problems with this translational interpretation. (1) The chief problem is the presence of hoti "because" at the beginning of v. 16. A clause marked with causal hoti "because, for the reason that" semantically explains the preceding clause, i.e. John 5:27 "He gave authority to him to render judgment because (hoti) he is the Son of Man." X has AUTHORITY because HE IS THE SON OF MAN. X is FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION because ALL THINGS WERE CREATED IN HIM. It is Jesus' role in creation that makes him the "firstborn of all creation". The NWT interpretation is rather nonsensical: Jesus was the first creature because all other things were created in him? (2) The second problem is the scope of the quantifier pas "all". In v. 15 of the NWT pasés includes Jesus within the set of "all creation" and then suddenly, inexplicably, panta excludes him from that same set in v. 16-18. It is certainly more parsimonious that pas has the same scope throughout v. 15-18. (3) The insertion of "[other]" is justified in the NWT by pointing to examples like Luke 11:42: "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue, and all [other] garden herbs (pan lakhanon) but you neglect justice and the love of God". But this is not a parallel to Colossians 1:15 because here mint and rue are included in the set of garden herbs and pas occurs to complete the set, whereas in Colossians 1:16-18 where the NWT adds "[other]" in brackets, pas "all" does not complete a set that includes the Son but rather excludes him from that set.

  Instead, it is much better to take pasés ktiseós "of all creation" as a genitive of subordination (cf. Basics of New Testament Syntax, pp. 54-55). There is an excellent example involving prótotokos "firstborn" elsewhere in the NT:

  "Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the firstborn of the dead (prótotokostón nekrón), and the ruler of the kings of the earth (arkhón tón basileón tés gés)" (Revelation 1:5).

  Here we have two clauses with paralleled genitives, with prótotokos "firstborn" corresponding to arkhón "ruler" as a noun that lexically implies some kind of rule or authority. The symmetry would most naturally have both clauses as genitives of subordination, with "firstborn of the dead" indicating Jesus' preeminence in the resurrection over "the dead [ones]". In fact, this passage is allusive of Psalm 89:27 LXX which depicts David as the "firstborn (prótotokos) higher than the kings of the earth (hupsélon para tois basileusin tés gés)". This passage possibly was an influence for the passage in Colossians as well.

  It is also important to recognize that the genitive pasés ktiseós was frequently used in the literature of the era in statements expressing supremacy over creation:

  Judith 9:12: "God of my forefather, God of the heritage of Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, creator of the waters (ktista ton hudaton), king of all creation (basileu pases ktiseos), hear my prayer".
  
  3 Maccabees 2:2: "Lord, Lord, king of heaven, master of all creation (despota pasés ktiseós), holy among the holy ones, sovereign, conquerer of all, pay heed to us who are worely vexed by a wicked and corrupt man".
  
  4 Baruch 9:2: "I implore you, Almighty Lord of all creation (kurié pantokratór pasés ktiseós), unbegotten and incomprehensible, in whom all judgment was hidden before these things existed".
  1 Clement 59:2-3: "We ask with earnest prayer and supplication that the creator of the unierse may keep intact the specified number of the elect....Grant us, Lord, to hope on your name, which is the primal source of all creation (arkhegonon pasés ktiseós), and open the eyes of our hearts that we may know you, who alone is highest among the high".
  
  Shepherd of Hermas, Parable 9.23.4: "Our God and Lord, who rules over all things (ho pantón kurieuón) and has authority over all his creation (ekhón pasés tes pasés ktiseós), holds no grudge against those who confess their sins and is merciful".
  
  Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1: "O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through who, we have received knowledge of you, the God of angels and powers and of all creation (ho theos ... pasés ktiseós)".
  
  Acts of John 13:7-9: "O Lord, the God of every kingdom, and master of all creation (despota pasés ktiseós), give to this maiden the breath of life".

  The language in Colossians 1:15-18 is also possibly influenced by Philo of Alexandria (early first century AD):

  "The Word of God is above (huperanó) all the world (pantos tou kosmou), and he is the oldest and most original (genikótatos) of what has been begotten (gegone)" (Legum Allegoriarum, 3.175.4).

  "The invisible Word of the eternal God is the firmest and most stable foundation (ereisma) of the whole [universe] (holón). He stretches to reach from the middle to the edges and from the heights to the borders, and again from the heights to the center, uniting and binding (sunagón) all(panta) the parts firmly together. For the Father who begot (gennésas) him made him the indissoluable bond of all things (arrekton tou pantos)" (De Plantatione, 8-10; cf. Colossians 1:17, 20, "In him all things hold together ... through him he reconciles to himself all things, whether things on earth or in heaven").

  It is also worth considering how the expression from Colossians 1:15 was used in a parallel in Hermas (middle of the second century AD):

  Shepherd of Hermas, Parable 9.12.2: "The Son of God is far older than (progenesteros estin, lit. "older in birth" or "born before") all creation (pasés tés ktiseós), with the result that he was the Father's counselor in his creation (tés ktiseós autou)".

  Here the Son is clearly external to "all creation" (pasés tés ktiseós) and not a part of it; as in Colossians 1:15-16, this text also discusses the Son's secondary role in creation. The language of generation and birth is also used to refer to the Son's origin (cf. the similar statements by Philo concerning the Logos).
• 

  Narkissos

  From a slightly different angle, I would suggest that the conceptual antagonism between "generation" and "creation," which is central to 4th-century theology, is to be considered in its historical genealogy: it is dependent on the 2nd-century "Gnostic" crisis and its "orthodox" solution. From then on "divine generation" and "creation" were regarded as mutually exclusive. Before they weren't. In 1st- and even many 2nd-century texts "either begotten or created" is not yet a dilemma. The angelic "logology" in Philo, just as the angelic christology in Justin Martyr, testify to this -- to us "angel" falls on the "wrong," i.e., "created" side of the border; but at that point the border did not exist. The "ambiguity" of NT texts on this question only reflects the anachronism of the question...
• 

  Leolaia

  Good point. It is always good to be aware when such distinctions began to become manifest or carry more weight, or to what use the distinctions are made. I suppose it would be interesting to track down the first instance when the two were opposed to each other in extant writings. I had thought the distinction was already made by the second century (e.g. between demiurgical hylic activity and the non-demiurgical begetting of aeons, such as the self-begotten Autogenes), but I could be wrong and it is possible that usage of the relevant terms was not consistent until later. Of course, the Arian debates should certainly not be retrojected back to the second century.

  Wonderful to see you in these parts. :)
• 

  sacolton

  Leolaia, what's your IQ? 250? Your intelligence is amazing!
• 

  Luo bou to

  Wow you guys are so smart and Leolaia your beautifull. I am no scholar so please bear with me. Jesus said "the father loves the son" For love to exist their must be an object of that love. If the WT is correct then this primary attribute of God had a beginning with the creation of the Word. Tell me do they still believe that he is also bounded by space living somewhere in the universe. I was a JW once thinking I knew all about God because I knew the name Jehovah when I started reading theology I was humbled by my ignorance. As creatures we can only know what God chooses to reveal about himself. The WT puts him in a box of boundaries Not God at all
• 

  Leolaia

  Now, now, I have just read and studied a lot, that's all.....the same goes for anyone else here on this board who has delved deeply into an area of study. And as Narkissos shows in his last post, with a complex subject like this, there is always room for clarification, critique, and discussion. I kind of miss the old days when a number of us would debate together and critique each other's points — that used to be such fun. As I said earlier today in another thread, this is my take on the subject — it's hardly the last word.

  There is one area in particular I'd like to do further reading on: the relationship in Colossians between the expressions "firstborn of all creation" and "firstborn from(ek) the dead". The latter is interesting because the preposition makes the genitive complement of "firstborn" the source of the (resurrected) Son, and because the connotation of "firstborn" seems to be slightly different here. Do you have any thoughts, Narkissos?
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you Leolaia :)

  Although the distinction between "creation" and "generation" has a long prehistory (it could be traced back to the "demythologising" of cosmogenesis in the OT, where only vestiges of "generation" can be found, e.g. toledoth, and the gradual trend toward creatio ex nihilo), I think it is indeed dramatised in Gnosticism (already in Johannine literature, those who are "begotten" by God are notfrom the world, kosmos, cf. one previous discussion of ours) and anti-Gnostic polemics (which keeps the distinction, but for the Son only). Of course this is not a linear and universal development: at the same time this may not be a valid distinction to Christian authors whose problematics are different (such as Justin).

  Actually what prompted my remark, in part, is that I was not fully convinced by the last part of your demonstration, especially as regards Revelation.

  1. I'm not sure of the validity of an argument which combines "semantics," i.e. metalinguistical distinctions of identical forms (e.g. "genitive 'of subordination'") with structural observations (such as "parallelism"). Especially when the semantic "nuance" ascribed to the genitive actually rests on the meaning of the main noun ("ruler, king, master" etc.). A parallelism involving different, or even opposite "nuances" of the genitive (e.g. "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"!) is entirely possible imo. For instance, "creator of the waters" in Judith 9:12 could as well be construed as an "objective genitive".

  2. A nuance of subordination is especially unlikely with "firstborn of the dead" if the expression in Revelation is related to Colossians 1,18 and if the ek there is original (it is omitted in P46 inter alia). Firstborn from (among) the dead parallels the common idiom for "resurrection from the dead).

  3. The literary allusion to Psalm 89:27 cuts both ways, semantically: because the unambiguous syntax in the LXX is not the simple genitive but para + dative; moreover it is related to hupsèlos (`elyôn!), not prôtotokos -- the latter (in absolute use, without any complement) gathers its hierarchical nuance from the global parallelism.

  4. The characterisation of the logos / Son as "older" or "oldest" in Philo and Hermas (which later orthodox christology would certainly avoid) is at best ambiguous; I don't think an inclusive interpretation ("the oldest among" rather than "older than") can be strictly ruled out.

  This is not to argue against a hierarchical sense of prôtotokos in Colossians, which is obvious. But imo had the author really meant to make the relation with "creation" exclusive, he would have made it more clearly. He is close to doing that with the hoti in v. 16 (which is consistent with the "pre-gnostic" character of the epistle as a whole), but "creation" is not yet the demarcation line it will become later. The same applies, a fortiori, to Revelation 3:14 (which is much further from Gnostic thinking imo).
• 

  Leolaia

  Thanks, you reminded me of a few points I had forgotten about since the last time I read up on this. And your methodological point in #1 is well-taken, as well as its implication for Revelation 1:5. Similar expressions are "the first to rise from the dead" (prótos ex anastaseós) in Acts 26:23 and "firstfruits of those who sleep" (aparkhé tón kekoimémenón) in 1 Corinthians 15:20. I wonder if the difficulty with the text in Colossians is partly due to the author adapting a preexisting sapiential liturgy to Christ which, in part, involved expanding it with a second strophe (v. 18-20). "Firstborn of creation" by itself is ambiguous and it is quite plausible that outside of its present context it originated in a Wisdom hymn that did explicitly construe Wisdom as part of creation, for that would have Proverbs 8:22 LXX, Sirach 24:9 (both ektise me), and kindred texts as antecedents. Outside of the wisdom literature, there is the striking formulation in the Prayer of Joseph (first century AD), which says that "Abraham and Isaac were created before any work (proektisthésan pro pantos ergou), but I, Jacob, ... am the firstborn of every living thing (prótogonos pantos zóiou) to whom God gives life" (fr. A.2-3). The clauses referring to Christ as the "image of the invisible God" and "all things were created through him" also have obvious parallels with the wisdom literature (e.g. Psalm 104:25 LXX, Proverbs 3:10 LXX, Wisdom 8:5, Philo of Alexandria, Quod Deterius 54). The adaptation by the author however took the phrase in a somewhat new direction (with hoti suggesting primary over creation rather than among creation, "for him" indicating the purpose of creation, etc.). The latent ambiguity however assists in setting up "firstborn from the dead" in the corresponding second strophe (v. 18), even tho Christ is not the first member of a class in v. 15. The omission of the ek in some MSS would then (possibly) represent a further assimilation to v. 15. So I don't know, maybe a kind of Bakhtinian polyphony might account for some of the difficulties (with "firstborn from the dead" linking to both the expression in v. 15 and to separate christological statements in the discourse like "firstfruits of those that sleep")?