Biblical Hebrew Forum

["atombomb AT sirius.com" <atombomb AT sirius.com>]

Re: 

> Quote from Dan-Ake Mattson: 

[snip]

> Quote: "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"..."
> 
> No, what signals that Jesus was one of the group is the EN meaning
> "among", which distinguishes this from PRWTOTOKOS + genitive of a
> person which literally means "first-born of", and the person in the
> genitive is the parent. The child is not one of the group of his
> parents!

[snip]

Once again, I apologize for not having the reference right at hand-- I
wish I could know in advance when I will need them!  But anyway, I read
a patristic comment just the other day (now just *which* book was it??)
the statement that God, in Christ, has made all of us believers his
"firstborn sons", with all the prerogatives of incumbency.... 
Apparently the fathers recognized the passage, PRWTOTOKON EN POLLOIS
ADELFOIS ("The firstborn among many brothers"), in this way. Certainly,
Israel in the OT was recognized as God's "son".  

It would be foolish to try to determine who, in Israel, was "firstborn",
and who was his "second-born", his "third",.... his
"twelve-million-three-hundred-forty-five-thousand-one-hundred-ninety-ninth",
etc.-- but taking the passage as D.-A. Mattson would, might seem to
invite this.

Regards to all,

John Burnett