Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Rolf,

I fear that you are falling into the etymological fallacy here. The 
meaning of a word cannot be determined by history but by its 
synchronic use. This is not the place to comment on "prwtotokos", but 
the following is relevant to the idea of Christ being called the 
B:KOWR of creation.

In VanGemeren (#1144) Bill Arnold writes: "The Jacob and Esau episode 
demonstrates the transferability of the birthright (Gen 25:31-34) and 
illustrates the common OT pattern of the younger son displacing the 
firstborn (Gen 25:23; 1 Chron 5:1-2...). So Israel as Yahweh's 
firstborn received a position of honor and privilege, though she was 
youngest and least among the nations (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9). God's 
grace and sovereign rule over people and nations was demonstrated by 
his freedom to choose those who were not the firstborn by nature and 
treat them as firstborn."

Thus it is fully in accord with this OT idea and usage of B:KOWR for a 
man Jesus who was born "late in time" to be nominated as the 
firstborn. The parallel with Israel in Exod 4:22 is clear. The issue 
has nothing to do with his created or uncreated status.

Peter Kirk
       

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Bible translations
Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet
Date:    20/03/1999 06:35


John Ronning wrote:


>Rolf Furuli wrote re. Col 1:15 (Christ as firstborn of all creation) 
<snip>

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