Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Wes Williams wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> <snip>
> 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.

Wes, I think Col 1:18 is a separate issue and I've said nothing about it.  I 
don't
agree that Col 1:15 is analogous - if Christ became "firstborn" at his 
resurrection
(thanks for mentioning Rom 1:4 which supports this idea), then "firstborn of 
creation"
doesn't make sense as a partitive (does it?), since the creation was long in 
existence
before Christ became its "firstborn."

> <more snipped>
> 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.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to use "tactics."  I should have said "If Paul's 
thought could
be shown to be arian . . ."  meaning in agreement with what Arius later 
taught; just
as I would say Paul's thought is trinitarian, even though the term had not 
been coined
yet.  Describing someone's thought as "arian" is certainly not out of place 
if it is
accurate.

Sincerely,

John