Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Wes,

I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but I had thought that you were 
supporting the interpretation of Col 1:15 as "born before the rest of 
creation". That is how I took the sentence in your posting of 5 April 
"The Nicene Fathers considered your proposed interpretation but still 
honored the partitive force of "firstborn."", and the following 
passage from your posting of 30 March:

"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")... 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."

On 7 April you wrote: "Your proposed suggestion, "born before the 
other children of all creation" is possible, as long as the one 'born 
before' is part of the same group. I must call attention to the lack 
of support where the firstborn is not part of the group to which it is 
related." On this point, I accept that Jesus can be called one of the 
"children of creation" in the sense used in the wider context (Col 
1:18) of the first to be resurrected. The only other sense in which 
Jesus could be taken as one of the "children of creation" would be to 
make him simply a normal man with no preexistence, which conflicts 
with verses 16-17 as well as forcing "first" to mean rank rather than 
time. So I continue to defend my interpretation of Col 1:15 as a 
reference to the resurrection.

Incidentally, I would defend my interpretation of Exodus 13:15 (fourth 
occurrence LXX), 22:28, 34:20 as referring to grandsons on the basis 
of Hebrew family structure: typically when a firstborn son was born 
his grandfather would still be alive, and would be the head of the 
family and the one responsible for ensuring that the correct rites of 
redemption are performed. One man can have only one firstborn son (or 
perhaps the meaning was firstborn son of each wife?) but can have many 
grandsons who are each the firstborn of one of his potentially many 
sons.

Peter Kirk