Biblical Hebrew Forum

["dan-ake mattsson" <dan-am AT online.no>]

Jon,

One of the chief architects of the trinity doctrine, Athanasius, had two
particular viewpoints regarding words which definitely are untenable: 1) He
accepted Plato's view that words were secondary to essences. This means
that because he had decided that Jesus was eternal God, any word saying
that Jesus had a beginning got its meaning changed - for Jesus had no
beginning! 2) He felt free to change the meaning of words instantly, in
order to use them in the creed about Jesus. Thus the words "to create" and
"to be born" which were synonyms before Nicaea, were at the council at
Nicaea changed to be antonyms. A similar strange way to use words is seen
in several of the councils leading up to the full trinity doctrine.

Your statement that what is at stake is "whether the term "firstborn"
necessarily involves the idea of a creative process." is a pseudo-question,

and it has not been voiced by Rolf or Wes or by anybody else.
We may illustrate the real point by quoting romans 8:29 which says that
Jesus is PRWTOTOKON EN POLLOIS ADELFOIS
 ("The firstborn among many brothers"). The many brothers are all creatures
that
had a beginning, but nobody would argue that because Jesus is "a brother"
among other brothers, and these brothers had a beginning, Jesus also must
have a beginning. The point is of course that there was a group of brothers
and Jesus was one of the group; what signals that he was one of the group
is the word "firstborn". In practical application it means that because
Jesus was the first to be anointed  by The holy spirit, he was the
"firstborn" among the other anointed ones. Even though the word firstborn
is not used for the *literal birth of Jesus*, the point of departure in the
argument in Romans 8:29 is "the one who is born first", the very meaning of
PRWTOTOKOS.

The question in Colossians 1:15 is simply whether PRWTOTOKOS is used in
another meaning than it is used in all other cases in the LXX and in the NT
- namely as "firstborn", "the one who is born first". Your argument about
Psalm 89:27 is irrelevant as to the meaning of PRWTOTOKOS. 
The Psalm isparallel to Jeremiah 31:9 which was quoted by Rolf 
"I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son." The fact that
Ephraim
was not literally the firstborn son but was treated as such do not change
the meaning of "firstborn". And it is exactly the same in Psalm 89:27!
In Colossians 1:15, the pattern of Athanasius is followed by many
commentators 
and translators; one tries hard to show that PRWTOTOKOS is used with the
meaning
"one who is standing over" or "one who is before". The problem is however,
that PRWTOTOKOS is never used in one of these meanings, and the reason
why another meaning than the literal one is sought is theology, one has
decided 
beforehand that Jesus is not one of the group of creatures.

If we therefore use PRWTOTOKOS  in the only *meaning* attested in the
Bible, namely "firstborn", then Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation".
Jesus is not shown to be a creature by arguing that "firstborn" necessarily
involves the idea of a creative process", but simply because he is the
firstborn of the group of creatures, just as he is a brother because he is
the firstborn among many brothers. What suggests he is a creature,
therefore, is KTISEWS  and not PRWTOTOTOKOS, the role of PRWTOTOKOS is to
show that he is one ("the firstborn") of the group of KTISEWS. it is quite
thought-provoking that those showing the socalled "Arian bias" take
PRWTOTOKOS in its ordinary
literal sense, while those who are not biased try with all kinds of
arguments to avoid the literal sense.


Greetings

Dan-Ake Mattson









>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