Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Wes wrote to Rolf concerning Ps 89:27 and Col 1:15:


> . . .
> It is interesting that your surface Psa. 89:27 here in connection with Col
> 1:15. I researched this very topic over the weekend. What I found was in
> line with your thoughts. The only critical commentary I cound find on Psa
> 89:27 was T.K. Abbott and H.A.W.Meyer. However, both reject Psalm 89:27 as
> having any connection with Col 1:15. Abbott notes that Psa 89:27 speaks of
> the *result* of being placed as BeQWR/ PRWTOTOKOS. That *result* is that he
> is higher than the kings of the earth and thus there is no new meaning for
> the word.

Dear Wes,

The issue as I understand it is not whether Ps 89:27 represents a "new" use of
"firstborn" but whether the term "firstborn" necessarily involves the idea of 
a
creative process.  To put it another way, did David arrive at his position of
"firstborn" by:
(1) appointment by God, or
(2) a creative process by which he was "born."

This is not a difficult concept and one need not research psycholinguistics or
consult commentaries on Colossians or Psalms to arrive at the obvious
answer, which is (1).

> Meyer's argument was that the Psa 89:27 firstborn is not the
> PRWTOTOKOS TWN BASILEWN (or, firstborn of kings), but rather, firstborn of
> God. Thus, although Ps 89:27 is frequently used as an example of exclusion
> from the group, the claim has no base. I tried to argue against this
> conclusion in my mind, but their arguments are quite sound. This adjusts my
> thinking on the verse and causes me to reject Ps 89:27 as a parallel to Col
> 1:15. More modern commentators should highlight this exegesis of Psa 89:27.

I would agree with you that Ps 89:27 is not "an example of exclusion from the
group" but the conclusion does not follow that there is no relevance to Col
1:15; that Christ is conceived in the NT as the "true David" makes it natural
for Paul to apply the davidic office of firstborn (attested only in Ps 89:27 
as
far as I know) to Christ.  When Christ became such "firstborn" would have been
at the time he became "son" in terms of Psalm 2, namely at his resurrection, 
per
the apostolic interpretation, thus there is no implication here of Christ 
being
created prior to the creation of the universe.

>
> BTW, T.K. Abbott was so theologically frustrated commenting on Col 1:15 that
> he stated that there is no satisfactory semantic category for the genitive
> KTISEWS after PRWTOTOKOS, although every example of LXX use is partitive
> when not possessive (such as "my firstborn").

Perhaps that's an example of the reason for the coinage of the rule of
interpretation that clear passages should be used to aid the interpretation of
obscure ones, and not vice versa.

>
>
> In conclusion, the charge of bias does not apply to those who translate as
> "firstborn of all creation", but to those who would translate it otherwise.
> The solution, I propose, is to seek an understanding of TA PANTA ("all
> things" 1:16) that is in harmony with PASHS KTISEWS ("all creation" 1:15),
> which resolves the "context problem."
>

I believe the charge of "bias" in Mark J.'s original message that made 
reference
to Col 1:15 was directed at the insertion of the word "other," not the literal
translation "firstborn of all creation."  If Paul were an Arian, such an
insertion would be warranted; if not, it means (God's) firstborn [set] over 
the
creation, like David was firstborn over the kings of the earth; the concept 
does
not imply that the "firstborn" got that office by a creative process.

Regards,

John Ronning