*
What does Colossians 1:15 mean according to rabbinical sources?
*
*
"He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation..." (Colossians 1:15)
The Watchtower Society refers to this Bible verse to support its doctrine that the Son is a "creature," as opposed to the universal Christian teaching that the Son is "begotten of the Father before all ages [...], begotten, not made". But is the Watchtower Society's interpretation correct? First of all, let's clarify that the Bible nowhere calls Christ created (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma), or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). So, what does this statement mean in relation to the Son?
Christ being "the Firstborn of all creation" (Greek: prototokos pasēs ktiseōs) refers to His inheritance, as the term "firstborn" here traditionally in the Bible implies that Jesus is the distinguished heir of everything that has been created. The heir owns everything that belongs to the Father (though he may not have entered into his inheritance yet). It is said about this relationship: "You have put everything under his feet." Furthermore, everything that the Father created was created in him, through him, and for him. If there were something over which he would not have the same lordship as the Father, then that thing would likely have been excluded from these pronouns, and it would have been created by the Father without consideration of him.
Therefore, "the Firstborn of all creation" means that He is the distinguished, noble heir, hence the Lord, of all creation. Prototokos = firstborn: here it signifies superiority and the pre-existence of the heir, and not that he is the first-creation, as the Watchtower Society claims.
The usage of the term in the Old Testament is instructive. David is called the firstborn in Psalms 89:27, but not because he was literally Jesse's first child (since he was the youngest), but to denote the power of the kingdom of Israel with him, clearly not in a chronological sense, but as a title of dignity. Similarly, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, even though Manasseh was the first chronologically (Genesis 41:50-52). The nation of Israel was called by God "my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22), clearly not in a chronological sense, since Isaac's firstborn was not Israel, but Esau. Furthermore, Israel was also Jehovah's firstborn, not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9).
In Hebrews 1:6, the term "prototokos" is used as a title for Jesus. However, in the context, Jesus is portrayed as Almighty (1:3), the radiance of God's glory (and his image) (1:3), Creator (1:10), worthy of worship (1:6), and is called God by the Father (1:8). These characteristics can only apply to God.
Thus, the issue here is that Christ has the rights of "the Firstborn" over all creation, meaning that the Son is not a part of creation, but its Lord.
Let's see how the Watchtower Society argues:
"Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?"
Yes, the Son had no temporal beginning, as the Father did not create Him, but the Scriptures consistently state that He was begotten (gennao) / born (tikto) by the Father before all ages (aións), and according to John 1:1a, He, the Word, was "in the beginning", not that He came into being, or was created in the beginning.
"Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created."
The Watchtower too can recognize that "the Firstborn" in the biblical context is a title, meaning distinguished, honored heir. For example, the Watchtower publication Aid to Bible Understanding writes:
"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the 'first-born,' due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position, David prophetically represented the Messiah.—Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5."
So they too can correctly recognize the biblical meaning of "firstborn", if their ideological bias is not in the way...
"If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?"
This is an "argument from silence," why should all those titles be listed for each divine person? The Father does not need to be called the "firstborn of all creation" (let alone "from among") because He was not born. The Holy Spirit was not born but proceeded. But it was Jesus who came into the world of creation as an heir (Hebrews 1:2), not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. Incidentally, Jewish rabbinic writers called Yahweh as "Bekoroh Shel Olam" (בכורו של עולם), which essentially means the same thing that Paul used here: the Firstborn of the world. In a Jewish context, then, this title proves His deity, not His creatureliness.
This, if we really want to remove the possessive (genitive) construction, can also be translated as: "firstborn over all creation." The Watchtower arbitrarily clarifies this ambiguity. Their interpration would only be acceptable if the text was prototokos ek tōn ktismatōn; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, among), where Paul says Jesus is "the firstborn from among the dead" (prototokos ek tōn nekrōn).
"“The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals."
However, Israel's firstborn was born from an Israelite, Pharaoh's firstborn was born from Pharaoh, the firstborn of beast was born from an animal, and that's exactly why they actually belong to that group. The Son, however, was obviously not born "from all creation" or any specific creature, but from the Father (Hebrews 1:5), and thus the so-called partitive genitive is not self-evident here. It would need at least an "ek" (prototokos ek pasēs ktiseōs), or at least the word order would need to be reversed (pasēs ktiseōs prototokos).
"Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”?"
Yes, and this is corroborated when read in conjunction with John 1:3 (where they forgot to insert their favorite "other" term in the NWT), indicating that the Son does not belong to the category of created, the thins that "became", or "came into being".. The possessive/genitive case does not necessarily mean that the πρωτότοκος (firstborn) is part of the κτίσις (creation), and if the words themselves do not demand this meaning, then the context directly excludes it. The πρωτότοκος (firstborn) does not fall within the πᾶσα κτίσις (all creation); because the expression used is not τὰ ἄλλα (the others) or τὰ λοιπά (the rest), but τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη (all things were created), which are absolute and comprehensive, leaving no room for exceptions.
Scripture declares of the Son that He created everything, and without Him, nothing was made that has been made (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). The idea that a lesser god outside Jehovah also participated in creation is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8. The Father did not create alone, but the Son (Jn 1:1-4, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2, Job 33:4, Ps 104:30) also took part in creation, and creation is exclusively a divine capability; even a creature cannot be made an instrument of creation. God is uniquely the source of creation because He does not collaborate with any tool, partner, or material in the act of creation. God's creative activity is exclusive. The way God brings things into existence, no one and nothing else can. God's ability to create is an incommunicable attribute to creatures. To be able to create, that is, to call existence out of non-existence, one must be God.
It logically follows from this that the Son cannot belong to the category of created, the things that came into being, thus cannot be the "first creature." In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Gen 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6). Creation is solely and directly the act of God. However, it's also true that God is more than just the Father: He is also the Son, and when God created, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit created.
- https://www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col1_15.htm
- Old Testament Background of the Firstborn: Robert Keay (on Col 1:15)
- The Structure and Rhetoric of Colossians 1:15-20: Luis C. Reyes
- The Latest JW Argument from Col 1:15 Ray Goldsmith
- Is Prototokos a 'Partitive Word?' Luis C. Reyes
According to the WTS, Jesus is just the first, directly created creature, God's 'masterpiece or junior partner', who created the "rest" of creation. The WTS, translating the phrase 'firstborn of all creation' faithfully, kept it as a possessive structure and refers to it in other publications, suggesting that this text of Scripture asserts Christ's status as a "creature".
Based on the context of the text, we see that Paul isn't discussing the timing of Christ's birth, but his identity (image of God), role (creation), and rank (heir).
The translation of "firstborn of all creation" depends on the meaning of 'ktisis' (creation) and 'pas' (all, whole), as well as the interpretation of the possessive structure (whose is it?). Regarding the translation of "firstborn of all creation", the 'ktisis' here is a richly meaningful word: establishment, foundation, institution (1Pt 2:13), the creation of the world as a process, although looking back it is a completed act (Rom 1:20, 2Pt 3:4), or the created world and its things, the creatures (Rom 8:39). The verb 'ktizo' (to create) appears twice in verse 16, usually translated as "was created". Its first occurrence (ektisthe) refers to creation as a one-time event, and the second form (ektistai) also refers to the created world as a permanent, existing one. It's not about the firstborn of "all the creatures" (ktismata), but the firstborn of creation, i.e., the thole created world (ktisis).
The meaning of 'pas' is "all" or "every single one", depending on what it refers to. Since it is about the created world here and not individual creatures, the meaning of "all" is evident.
The basic meaning of 'prototokos' is the firstborn, first born; the Bible often uses it in a biological sense, less often in the sense of priority, superiority in rank. In our case, the choice may be influenced by the fact that everything in heaven and on earth was created by Christ (verse 16, cf. Jn 1:3), which excludes the possibility that he himself could be classified into the "creatures" category. Thus, Christ "has the rights of the firstborn over all creation". This possible use of the word is confirmed by the whole Bible. When God gives firstborn status to David, he talks about his rank among kings (Ps 89:28 LXX), since he was the last son in his family. Jacob considered the firstborn status a purchasable legal position (Gen 25:31 LXX, Heb 12:16). God calls Israel his firstborn because of its privileges (Ex 4:22 LXX; according to Jer 31:9 LXX, however, Ephraim).
The WTS among its objections claims that the Bible uses the expression in a biological sense, e.g. Pharaoh's firstborn or the firstborn of animals (as we saw: it also uses it in another sense). It also asks why, if firstborn status means rank, the Bible only uses it for the Son, and not for the Father and the Holy Spirit? The answer is simple: the Son is the one who became human, and with whom this concept can be associated at all, based on its basic meaning.
Therefore, the interpretation of 'prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs' primarily depends on how we understand the possessive structure. From a purely logical point of view, several cases are possible (1) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire created world, i.e., he is the firstborn in all creation, therefore he is a "product" of the created world, but the Society would also deny this, (2) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire creation process, the first product, as the Society understands it, so he is someone born before all creatures (3) Jesus is the firstborn over all creation.
Paul cannot claim of Christ that he lists Christ among the creations (the created world) created by creation, since he claims that he created everything (see following verses and Jn 1:3). It is not about creatures (ktismata), but about creation (ktisis). He does not claim that Christ is the "firstborn of the Creator (ho ktistes)" (which would be prototokhos tou ktistou), but that he is the firstborn of all/whole creation (he ktisis). For this reason alone, the analogy drawn with the parental relationship is also unthinkable (e.g. "like Pharaoh's firstborn," etc.) is incorrect.
As for the repeated insertion of "other," it does not follow from the textual context. The textual context can also assist in the correct translation of the phrase "the firstborn of all creation". This is about the Heir who was before all, is above all, precedes everyone in everything (1:17-18), and in whom is the inheritance of the believers. The text talks about, and only about, that he created everything, so we can exclude the interpretation that he could be the firstborn, the first product of the universe he created.
According to verse 16, the world was created "in him" (en autó), or "with him" (di' autou), and thirdly "for him" (eis auton), or according to interpretive translations: "for his sake", "flowing into him" was created. Some translations interpret "eis auton" as "for him" everything was created, i.e., that it should be his; since 'eis' expresses some kind of intentionality, Jesus could also be the goal of the created world in the sense that man in the world should have been like him.
The Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the "first creature" either.
In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God's work. A "first created" being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society's interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.
The interpretation "the firstborn in all creation" is not acceptable. Even in this train of thought, in verse 23, we find a text that can be translated as: 'en pasé ktisei' = "in all creation [under heaven]". If Paul had thought the same in verse 15, he would surely have formulated it just as clearly (en ktisei) there.
The "firstborn among all creation" could only be acceptable if the text was 'prototokos ek ton ktismaton'; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, out of, among), where Paul says that Jesus is the 'firstborn from the dead' (prototokos ek ton nekron).