Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Williams, Wes" <Wes.Williams AT echostar.com>]

Dear John,

You wrote:

> 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).
> 
Agreed with a brief comment. The term "firstborn" here (Ps 89:27) is a
simile, which is contrafactual. BeQWR/ PRWTOTOKOS does indeed mean "first in
time" with respect to an implicit or explicit group (cf. Gen 49:3, Deut
21:17) When the use is metaphor or simile, the referent is not *really* the
firstborn, but is only *as* a firstborn in some sense. Exodus 7:1 is
similar: "See, I make you ELOHIM to Pharaoh." Moses is not *really* ELOHIM,
but *as* him in certain respects since he is *made* ELOHIM. This use of
simile does not affect the meaning of "God" in any way. Nor does the Psa
89:27 simile affect the idea of beginning in the words BeQWR/ PRWTOTOKOS.

Therefore John, to say that the term "firstborn" does not involve the idea
beginning may be an overstatement. I respectfully beg to differ that the
meaning of the term does imply this. However, it would not necessarily imply
a beginning in contexts of simile or metaphor, as is the case here since he
is made such by "appointment," as you observed.
>  
> > 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 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.
> 
This is, of course, a theological position that may or may not be true since
positions vary on the interpretation. Even still, if the Christ became
firstborn in the same sense as when he became son by means of resurrection
(Rom 1:4), then he is first in time within the group of resurrected "sons"
(cf; Col 1:18 "firstborn of/ from the dead"). Thus, the partitive force of
"firstborn" remains even in your proposed interpretation. He is not external
to the group of "sons," but "first in time" within it and thus is consistent
with the lexical and naturally partitive force of the phrase at Col. 1:15.

> > 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.
> 
True. The point I was indirectly making is that our views should be shaped
by what the text says rather than seeking other word meanings when the text
conflicts with our views. The reason that Abbott was frustrated is that he
rejected the partitive because it conflicted with his theology. I think that
there are a number of other possiblities to resolve the theological issue
without taking away the partitive force of the word. But now we are delving
into areas outside of b-hebrew, and we don't want to do that, do we? :~)

> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
Arius was several centuries after Paul so I don't know who asserts that Paul
was an Arian. The insertion of "Arian" is likely used as loaded language to
import negative connotations into the discussion to shade a particular view.
So, I overlook such words in a scholarly discussion and try not to use such
tactics myself.

I am neutral as respects the insertion of "other" since I don't think anyone
states that the PRWTOTOKOS is part of the TA PANTA ("all things"). The
bottom line is that there is more theological "bias" in an exclusionary view
than an inclusionary one since the lexical and semantic case is weak to
exclude the PRWTOTOKOS from the group. This naturally makes the PRWTOTOKOS
part of the PASHS KTISEWS ("all creation") and separate from TA PANTA. It
would strengthen your case if you could prove that TA PANTA (1:16) = PASHS
KTISEWS (1:15), but you have been silent on this. Other possibilites that
have some have offered on b-greek were to do this very thing.

I sense that this part of the discussion is getting away from the Hebrew
context. Perhaps we should make a greater effort to remain in scope.

Sincerely,
Wes Williams