The very fact that Jesus was "firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:15) speaks of a birth, as coming forth into life. No where in the scriptures is the word "firstborn" ever used to designate the firstborn of a living group who did not actually come forth into existence, although those who wish to believe that Jesus is God would claim such, but only as it relates to Jesus, and that only because they do not wish to acknowledge that Jesus was actually the first one born (brought forth into being) of every creature. Thus, their excuse for not accepting that "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 means the first one of those creatures to receive life is actually circular: "since we believe that Jesus was not a creature, then firstborn as applied to Jesus cannot mean that he was actually the first one brought forth by God, thus firstborn as applied to Jesus cannot mean that he was actually the first one brought forth by God," and thus they seek to find ways to thwart what the scripture actually tells us.
Nevertheless, the partitive genitive usage of Colossians 1:15 does show that Jesus is a member of the creation being spoken of, thus a "creature". This rule of Greek grammar on the partitive genitive proves this, because of the genitive nature of the Greek rendered as "every creature," this is regarded as "partitive genitive," meaning that the genitive contains as a part of its contents the thing or things mentioned in the noun that governs the genitive. Thus, in the expression, "the firstborn of every creature," the firstborn is included as a member of "every creature. Therefore, it proves that the firstborn one is a part of creation and, accordingly, was created and thus had a beginning. It is because of the "partitive genitive" usage here that we refer to Jesus as the "firstborn creature."
The word "firstborn" in the Bible as applied to being the firstborn of a living group, appears to be always used in either of two settings: as being the firstborn offspring of a father (as in Genesis 25:13), or as being part of the group being spoken of. Nevertheless, even when used as the firstborn offspring of a father, it is still the group of children that the offspring of the father that the firstborn is a member of. For instance, In Exodus 11:5 we find: "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of the group that would make up Pharaoh's offspring. The point we need to understand is that the firstborn of a living group is ALWAYS a member of the group of which he is firstborn. In no case does "firstborn" mean that the firstborn of living group did not have a beginning, or that the firstborn is not included in the group of which he is firstborn.
The expression "firstborn of every creature" is further shown to include Jesus as a creature as can be seen from similar usage in Revelation 1:5: "firstborn of the dead". Jesus was indeed dead, a member of the group of which he was the firstborn, and was the first member of the group, "the dead," to be fully made alive from the dead, never to die again. That Jesus was actually a member of those dead can be seen a few verses further, for Jesus says: "I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." (Revelation 1: 18) Later on, Jesus is referred to as the one "who was dead, and has come to life". (Revelation 2:8) Further, Paul tell us that "Christ died, rose, and lived again." (Romans 14:9) Jesus is not being spoken of as simply a ruler over the dead. Certainly, however, as being the first to actually be made alive from the dead, he possesses the right of firstborn in that sense also, thus we read: "Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living." (Romans 14:9) Thus Colossians 1:18 tells us: "He is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." The usage of "firstborn", however, both in Revelation 1:5 as well as Colossians 1:15, does not mean that the one spoken of as firstborn is not a member of the group of which he the firstborn.
Thus, from Colossians 1:15, we have two lines of proof that Jesus was a creature, thus having a beginning.
Some seek to deny that that Colossians 1:15 is partitive genitive, and thus endeavor to promote the idea that the genitive usage in Colossians means something else than partitive. The only reason to promote such an idea because of their preconception that Jesus is not creature; thus, the circular reasoning.
Revelation 3:14
To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: -- New American Standard Version.
In this verse, Jesus refers to himself as the "beginning of the creation of God" [ARCHE TES KTISEOS TOU THEOU = the beginning of the creation of the God ], which, we believe is an allusion to Proverbs 8:22,23: "The LORD [Yahweh, Jehovah] created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." (Revised Standard Version)
The Westcott and Hort Interlinear transliterates the phrase as "hee archee tees ktisews tou theou." The interlinear English rendering is: "the beginning of the creation of the God."
Many, not willing to admit that Jesus as had a "beginning", would change Revelation 3:14 to read "the Head of God's creation" (World English Bible translation) or "the Originator of God's creation." (The New King James Version)
Regarding the latter, while the pre-human Jesus, as the mighty Logos, was indeed the Agent of God in creation of the "all" referred to in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, in the manner of rendering the phrase as "the originator" would imply that the "originator" was not God, since the verse goes on to designate the creation as being that of God, and Jesus as the originator of God's creation. We would have no objection to such a view as a possibility, although we do not believe that this was the intent of Jesus in using Greek expression. Obviously, the desire to render this as "the originator" rather than "the beginning" is to deliberately deny that Jesus had a beginning.
We should point out that the designation as "the head of God's creation" would actually place Jesus outside of being God, but as the one appointed by God as "head of God's creation," although we are sure that the intent of those who would render the phrase as such is to deny that Jesus was saying that he had a beginning as part of God's creation, being the first one to so created.
Nevertheless, similar genitive case constructs in the Greek NT do not support the rendering "originator" or "head" rather than the beginning, thus Revelation 3:14 would be singled out for theological reasons for such a rendering, not because it is actually a result of anything in the Greek grammar itself. For instance, in Matthew 24:8, we find the phrase "archee wdinwn" (W&H). To render this as "the originator of pangs of birth" would actually not fit the context, nor do we know of any translation that renders the word as "originator" or "head" in Matthew 24:8. Likewise, in Philippians 4:15, we find the phrase "en archee tou euaggeliou." Again, we know of no translation that presents this as saying "in the originator/head of the good news" in this verse. Another verse we might also note is Mark 1:1, where we find the phrase, "archee tou euaggeliou ieesou christou" (W&H), "the beginning of the Good News."
Similar constructs can also be found in the LXX at: Genesis 10:10; 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17; and Hosea 1:2. Concerning the phrase as found in Revelation 3:14, however, Vincent states:
Obviously, neither in Mark 10:6 nor in Mark 13:19 would one want to claim that Jesus was speaking of the head or originator of creation. Again, this shows that those who advocate a such meanings in Revelation 3:14 do so, not because that such in inherent in the Greek, but because of their theological prejudice.
If we look at Revelation 1 and 2, we can see that a clear distinction is being made between Jesus and God. Revelation 1:1,2 begins by showing that distinction. Revelation 1:6 shows "God" as the Father of Jesus. The World English shows this, stating that Jesus "made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father." In Revelation 2:7, Jesus speaks of "the paradise of my God." In Revelation 3:2,12, Jesus speaks of "my God". In all of these verses Jesus delineates himself from God. Was he stating in Revelation 3:14 that he was God the originator of God's creation, or that he was God the head of God's creation? If Jesus was God the creator, why would he be speaking in Revelation 3:14 of "God's creation"? Why did he not say, using the slanted translations that would evidently seek to deny that he had a beginning, "the head of my creation", or "the originator of my creation?"
The above was originally written in April 2008; it has been updated with some new thoughts, and republished December 1, 2014; November, 2020.
Links to Studies Related to Colossians 1:15
Links to Studies Related to Revelation 3:14
Excellent work Ronald! You have clearly exposed the circular(if not dishonest) arguments against the scriptures where Jesus himself states that he is created.
ReplyDeleteIf the proponents on the trinity quit putting stumbling blocks before people the vast majority would correctly understand who Jesus is.
Curtis Christensen
The "firstborn" means distinguished, preeminent heir in biblical context. This is even supported by what your bosses wrote, open it up:
ReplyDeletehttps://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483
"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. Jesus Christ is shown to be “the first-born of all creation” as well as “the first-born from the dead.” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; 3:14)"
So even on the basis of their publication (Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584) it can be supported that the statement in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" does not mean that he is the "first created being", but that he enjoys the status of the "firstborn", being in preeminent position as distinguished heir in relation to the whole creation.
So the standard interpretation of this verse just seems fine for the Watchtower as well, if it is not to be abused as a "one-liner" "proof text".
The genitive does not at all mean that he is included, that "the firstborn of the whole creation" does not mean that the Son is among the creatures, any more than "Lord of worlds" means that the Lord is also a world himself, or "the king of the country" means that the king is also a country himself. The genitive in itself expresses a relation, not "belonging" to a group. If you think he always belongs to that respective group, then it doesn't really mean anything good for you if the Son is also the firstborn of the Father, with this logic this just justifies the "homoousios" doctrine, that the Son "belongs" to the same category as the Father, thus God. Or what about Exodus 4:22? If Israel is "the firstborn of the God", then Israel is also God?
"Firstborn" is a title of preeminence or of unique relationship with the Father, rather than suggesting that Jesus was a created being. The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created. I point to the rest of Colossians 1, particularly verses 16-17, which suggest that Jesus, the Son, is not part of creation but is instead the agent through whom all things were created.
Firstborn, when used of firstborn of any group of living creatures, usually refers to the first one to be brought forth of that group. I am not sure who is being referred as my bosses; evidently it is referring to the Jehovah's Witnesses leadership. I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I do not consider the Jehovah's Witnesses governing body to be my bosses. The Restoration Light sites are not designed to defend the Jehovah's Witnesses or their organization.
DeleteGod willing I will return later to respond to more. For more of my studies related to firstborn, see: https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/firstborn.html
More than likely, Psalm 89:27 speaks of David as being Jehovah's firstborn of the kings of the land. If so, the actual group would be Jehovah's kings of the land. Specifically, this is speaking of the land of Israel. Jehovah's actual firstborn king of Israel was Saul, who proved unfaithful; David, however, received the right of being firstborn due to his faithfulness.
DeleteIf, however, one assumes tht Psalm 89:27 is speaking of the sons of Jesse, we know that there were 3 other sons older than David. These three older sons followed into disobedience with Saul, thus, whichever of them was the actual firstborn could be considered as having lost the right of firstborn, which, if one applies Psalm 89:27 in this manner would mean that Jehovah took the right of firstborn from the actual firstborn and gave it to David.
In neither application, however, does "firstborn" mean that David was never brought forth in to being; in both applications, there was one who was the real firstborn who lost the right of being firstborn. Nor does it in either application mean that the firstborn was not member of the group of which he is firstborn.
However, how would the replacement of right of firstborn be applied to Colossians 1:15? Was there actually another who was the real firstborn of God's creatures who lost that right, and thus the right was given to another -- Jesus?
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2018/06/ps89-27.html
The phrase "something of something" does not at all mean "belonging to a category" in any language (not even in English), in itself it just expresses a kind of relation. What that relation is, is expressed by the specific statement and the broader context.
ReplyDeleteIt is not difficult to understand what the "Firstborn of the whole creation" means. It is enough to see what the title "Firstborn" title means: preeminent, distinguished heir, ruler, etc., therefore it's a lordly title, is also related to the Davidic-Messianic title - even according to the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584.
What kind of relationship this "Firstborn" has with "the whole creation" mentioned after it, well, that it is a part of it, does not follow at all from the linguistic meaning of this term, nor from a narrower or broader context. Once "Firstborn" is a lordly title, and "the whole creation" (which by definition is subject to this ruling Firstborn - also according to the WTS) mentioned mentioned after, then it is much more reasonable that this person enjoys the status of the "Firstborn" over "the whole creation" rather than being classified as a part of it. The whole context is a passage glorifying the Son, it is completely foreign if you rewrite the second half of Col 1:15 to say that he is "the first created being", then it would become completely meaningless. Is he "the first created being, BECAUSE all [other things was created in him"? What?
The funniest thing is that this is the standard interpretation of these words ("the firstborn of all creation"), that this means that the Son is "the Firstborn", therefore the Lord, the Ruler of the whole creation, otherwise it is completely compatible with the theology of the Watchtower too, but they still cannot admit it, they have to stick to it until they break the nails, because they NEED this "one-liner" "proof" text, if the Scriptures do not declare the Son to be a creature anywhere.
Responding to:
Delete"The phrase something of something' does not at all mean 'belonging to a category' in any language (not even in English), in itself it just expresses a kind of relation. What that relation is, is expressed by the specific statement and the broader context."
Response: I first wish to state that the idea of a non-specific "something of something" and "category" is irrelvant to the Biblical usage of "firstborn". Of course, it is true the genitive in Koine Greek is not always partitive; nevertheless, in the Bible, the firstborn of a living group is always a member of the group [not category] of which he is the firstborn (the first to be brought forth). There is no scriptural reason to think that firstborn in Colossians 1:15 is not a member of all of God's creation as spoken of in Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14. The only reason to seek to make the genitive in Colossians 1:15 is to make it appear to be in agreement with a doctrine that is nowhere found in the Bible.
Responding to: "It is not difficult to understand what the 'Firstborn of the whole creation' means. It is enough to see what the title 'Firstborn' title means: preeminent, distinguished heir, ruler, etc., therefore it's a lordly title, is also related to the Davidic-Messianic title - even according to the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584."
It is not difficult to see what "firstborn of every creature" means in Colossians 1:15. Firstborn means what it means, the first to be brought forth of the group being spoken of. The group in Colossians 1:15 is every creature, that is, every creature of God, in harmony with Revelation 3:14.
For links to studies related to Colossians 1:15
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/colossians.html#col1-15
Nevertheless, the default reasoning is that since Jesus is not the "one God" from whom are all, then Jesus was at some point brought forth into being. Since Jesus is not God of whom he is the son, the default reasoning is that his being spoken of as the "son" of his God would mean that at some point his God and Father had given life to his Son, just as the default reasoning is that the sons of God who were present at the beginning of the world of mankind were also at some time given life. -- Job 38:4-7. The only reason I can see for denying that Jesus was ever brought forth into being as the only-begotten Son of God is to support a concept that is nowhere presented in the Bible.
This site is not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I do have a pdf of 1971 edition of their book Aid to Bible Understanding. I am sure what is being referred to in the article presented their book that would support the idea that the word "firstborn" itself, when applied to the firstborn of living group, would not mean that the first one to be brought forth of that group (not category), or in some cases, the one to whom right of firstborn is given. Even in the latter instances, however, the one to whom the right of firstborn is given is still a member of the group of which becomes firstborn. Of course, preemience is given to the one who is firstborn, either due to the fact that he was the actual first one to be brought forth of the group, or because he has been given the right due to the first one to be brought forth of the group.
Thus, because Jesus is God's firstborn creature, by means of him all dominions, principalities, etc, visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth were created. -- Colossians 1:16. Indeed, the most natural reading of the genitive case in Colossians 1:15 is the partitive genitive; this means that Jesus is the first one to brought forth of every creature of God. the dead in a new, everlasting body. However that interpretation is rejected by Trinitarians, not because of grammar, but because they claim that Jesus was not in fact part of the creation at all, but is actually the eternal God. (Continued in next comments)
(Continued from earlier comments)
DeleteOf course, the Greek word for "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 does not mean "first-created". We have made no such claim. The Greek word often transliterated as "prototokos" (Strong's Greek #4416) corresponds with the forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as "bekor" (Strong's Hebrew #1060). The LXX usually renders forms of Hebrew "bekor" with forms of the Greek "prototokos." The meaning "preeminent one" is not inherit in either the Hebrew or Greek words, although the first one to be born of a group, or the one who is assigned the rights of the first one to be born of a group, is given the preeminence throughout the Bible.
The Greek word for first-created is “protoktistos”. As far as I know, there is no evidence that such a word had been invented in the first century, nor can I think of any reason Paul would have had to use such a word in the context he was speaking of. Paul was not emphasizing that Jesus was the first created, but rather that Jesus held the preeminent right as the firstborn of every creature.
Nevertheless, the word protoktistos was used by Clement later. He refers to Christ as both protoktistos and prototokos; both is true but the two words do not actually mean the same thing.
Because Jesus is God's firstborn Son, God has made Jesus to be the "one Lord" through whom are all. (Ezekiel 34:23,24; Isaiah 61:1,2; Acts 2:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6) God Almighty does not need anyone to exalt Him to a higher position of glory, but God Almighty did exalt Jesus to the highest position in the universe, far above the angels, next only to God Almighty. Thus, because Jesus is God's firstborn Son, Jesus is given preeminence over all, of course, with the evident exception of God Almighty who has exalted Jesus. -- Acts 2:33,36; 5:31; Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22.
For links to studies related to Colossians 1:16:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/colossians.html#col1-16
Regarding the default reasoning of Jesus' relationship with his God and Father.
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/jesusnotjah.html
Firstborn" does not have any "temporal meaning" taken by itself, obviously if it refers to a human, etc. of course they are temporal beiing, but this does not follow from the saying or not saying of the Firstborn, since it does not refer to such a thing in itself at all. "Firstborn" means "preeminence", "supremacy", "distinguished heir", "ruler", nothing more, nothing less. Context determines whether the term “first-born” in a particular passage should be interpreted as referring to supremacy of position as the preeminent one or the first one physically born. Since the whole context of Colossians chapter one is speaking about the supremacy of Christ as being the Creator rather than being of the creation, it is in this sense that Christ is called the “firstborn” or preeminent one in relation of the whole creation.
ReplyDeleteNumbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations. That is why the Jews called the other peoples, the gentiles "the nations" (goyim).
At Colossians 1:15, a dynamic equivalence Bible translation can translate the text as "the Firstborn over the whole creation", since this is the natural meaning of the text. However, the NWT claims to be a "literal" translation, so it is not entitled to include "other" in the continuation.
In response to: "Numbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations. That is why the Jews called the other peoples, the gentiles "the nations" (goyim)."
DeleteNumbers 23:9 - For from the top of the rocks I see him, And from the hills I behold him: Lo, it is a people that dwelleth alone, And shall not be reckoned among the nations.
The above words are part of the words Balaam had received from Jehovah. -- Numbers 23:16-24.
I am not sure why this is being cited, but God separated Israel as the only nation to be given the Law Covenant. In God's eyes they are not counted among the nations; they are God's separate people.
"Goyim" is a transliteration of a plural form of Hebrew word often transliterated as "goy" (Strong's #1471). God says to Israel: "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy (separated, set apart) nation [Strongs' #1471]." (Exodus 19:6) These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." God's separating Israel from the other nations does not mean that the Hebrew word "goy" does not apply to Israel.
Nevertheless, Israel, being the only nation that God "brought forth" as his covenant people, is God's firstborn child (figuratively) as a nation. God did not form a law covenant with any other nation at all. -- Exodus 4:22.
In response to:
DeleteQuote: "Firstborn" does not have any "temporal meaning" taken by itself, obviously if it refers to a human, etc. of course they are temporal beiing, but this does not follow from the saying or not saying of the Firstborn, since it does not refer to such a thing in itself at all. "Firstborn" means "preeminence", "supremacy", "distinguished heir", "ruler", nothing more, nothing less. Context determines whether the term “first-born” in a particular passage should be interpreted as referring to supremacy of position as the preeminent one or the first one physically born. -- Endquote
The usual usage of firstborn is that of being the first to be brought forth of he group being spoken of. That is certainly referring to a time when the firstborn was brought forth. It also includes the firstborn in the group of which he is firstborn. Many trinitarian scholars, however, claim that in Colossians 1:16, firstborn cannot mean the first to be brought for every creature of God, since that would mean that Jesus was created. Since they imagine and assume that Jesus is God the Creator, they therefore try to make firstborn in Colossians 1:15 mean something else that the first one to be brought for every creature of God. However, the Bible can be seen to be fully in harmony with itself without all the trinitarian assumptions being added to and read into the scriptures.
While in the Bible preeminence is given to the firstborn, the word "firstborn" itself does not mean preeminence, supremacy, or ruler. It simply means the first to be brought forth of the group being referring to. The firstborn of such a group is, however, always a member of the group of which he is firstborn. The group in Colossians 1:15 is "every creature" -- referring to the creation of living creatures that the one person who is "God" in Colossians 1:15 created, that is, all of God's creatures. Thus, by the fact that he is firstborn of this group shows that he is himself a member of God's creatures.
See links to some of our other studies related to Jesus as God's Firstborn.
In response to:
DeleteQuote: Since the whole context of Colossians chapter one is speaking about the supremacy of Christ as being the Creator rather than being of the creation, it is in this sense that Christ is called the “firstborn” or preeminent one in relation of the whole creation. -- Endquote.
I have no scriptural reason to imagine and assume that whole context of Colossians 1 is speaking about the supremacy of Christ (God's anointed one) as being the Creator rather than being one of the creation. Throughout Colossians 1, God is presented as one person and Jesus is presented as Christ, that is, anointed one -- the one whom God anointed -- Psalm 2:26; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Ezekiel 34:23,24; John 10:29; 17:1,3; Acts 2:23,36; 4:27; 10:38; Hebrews 1:9.
It is Jesus' God whose will was that Paul be an apostle of Jesus Christ. (Colossians 1:1) Grace and Peace is from the one person who is God and also from the one whom God anointed. (Colossians 1:2) God is one person who is the Father of Jesus whom God anointed. (Colossians 1:3) Faith is by means of (Instrumental en, Strong's #1722) the one whom the one person who is God anointed. (Colossians 1:4) Knowing God's -- one person -- grace is by means of (Instrumental en, Strong's #1722) truth (revealed by God's anointed -- Christ: Colossians 1:6). Colossians 1:10,11 speak of the power of Jesus' God -- as one person -- to provide strength. Jesus' God is the one person who is spoken of in Colossians 1:12 as the one person who qualifies one to share in the inheritance of the saints. It is one person -- Jesus' God -- who transfers the saints into the Kingdom that God has given to His Son. (Colossains 1:13) The redemption of the saints is from one person -- Jesus' God -- by means (instrumental EN, Strong's #1722) of the Son. (Colossians 1:13,14) In Colossians 1:15, Jesus is presented as being the "image" of the same one person who is God throughout Colossians 1:1-14. Verses 16 and 17, in harmony with verses 1-15, presents Jesus as the instrument of the creation of all dominions, visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth. This also harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:6 and the Textus Receptus of Ephesians 3:9.
In response to:
DeleteQuote: At Colossians 1:15, a dynamic equivalence Bible translation can translate the text as "the Firstborn over the whole creation", since this is the natural meaning of the text. However, the NWT claims to be a "literal" translation, so it is not entitled to include "other" in the continuation. -- End quote.
We are NOT with the JWs and rarely use their NWT. We believe that in English what Paul was saying in Colossians 1:16 is this: "For by means of him all in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible were created, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities. All have been created through him and for him."