Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

John Ronning wrote:


>Rolf Furuli wrote re. Col 1:15 (Christ as firstborn of all creation)
>
>>
>> I use 16 pages in my book to a discussion of Colossians 1(my viewpoint is
>> all the time what is linguistically possible and preferable). Conclusion: A
>> rendition of pas as "all other" is perfectly legitimate and "other" is no
>> addition (See BDB ß 480). And particularly if prototokws in 1:15 is taken
>> in the only meaning it has in the Bible, "the one who is born first", a
>> rendition which many translations are at pains to avoid, the word "other"
>> can also be conceptually defended.
>
>"Firstborn" does not have just one meaning in the Bible.  In Ps 89:27/28
>God speaks of
>making David a firstborn w.r.t. the kings of the earth, so firstborn has
>to do with
>his status or office, certainly not any process of birth.  According to 2
>Sam 7 and
>Psalm 2, God's anointed king becomes his "son" (i.e. is "begotten") when
>he assumes
>the throne; as applied to the Lord by the apostles, Jesus is "begotten" at 
>the
>resurrection (his raising up to the throne; Acts 13:33).  Again, no
>implication of a
>creation involved.
>
>Regards,
>John


Dear John,

If you by"meaning" have in mind "lexical meaning" the word prototokws has
just one meaning in the Bible- "the one who is born first".  Your example
does not prove another meaning. The firstborn had different rights,
responsibilities and functions, and in different contexts one of these may
be stressed. But this does not add to the *lexical* meaning of the word but
only serve as collocations. For instance, one function of the kohen was his
service as physcian, but this important side of his work does not add
"physician" to the lexical meaning of cohen. And similarly with )e:lohim.
According to Exodus 4:16 Moses should serve as "god" for Aron, but this
does not add a new lexical meaning to  )e:lohim. I therefore claim that all
uses of prototokws in the Bible, literally or metaphorically, takes as
their point of departure "the one who is born first".  A new king would
normally be the firstborn (the one who was born first) of the former king.
To say that someone would "be put in the position of a firstborn" is
nothing strange. It does not say more that that the one got the position
the firstborn normally would have had. In time the meaning of bekor
developed, and at some time some would even say that God was "firstborn",
but such meanings are not found in the Bible.

The problem, however, is not lexical but rather theological. The word
prototokws taken in is plain meaning of "the one who is born first"
strongly suggests a partitive genitive i Colossians 1:15, and this again
places Jesus among the creatures - something  which is disgusting for those
believing in the trinity. Therefore, systematic searches have been done to
find another meaning of bekor/prototokws, and the meagre result (shown
inthe lexicons) is Psalm 89:27 which adds nothing to the lexical meaning of
the word.



Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo