Hello folks,

I thought I'd post this up here to see if anyone would care to discuss it with me.

Colossians 15 is a strong argument against the Trinity. Of course Trinitarians are quick to dismiss it, giving some weak arguments in an attempt to do so. However, an examination of this scripture and the grammar behind it actually provides stronger evidence against the Trinity than most non-Trinitarians realize, and it shows clearly how Trinitarian replies to it simply hold no ground.


Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

The image of God
The A part of verse 15 clearly states that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God." To be an image of one, you are their representation or in their likeness. Strong’s defines the Greek work for image, EIKWN, as follows:

From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.

Thus, we use simple logic here. Who does it state that Jesus is in the image of? Well he is the image of God of course. Is he the one he is the image, or representation of? Not at all. He is representing God, so, therefore, he cannot be God.

Trinitarians will say that this reference to God is speaking only of the Father, but this is an example of the Trinitarian fallacy of equivocation: they do not say what they mean and they do not mean what they say. How so? Well QEOS, and more specifically hO QEOS are used throughout the Bible. For those unfamiliar with Greek, QEOS means God, while hO is the definite article (i.e. the). Trinitarians will not give a proper definition for God. They state that sometimes it just means the Father, sometimes it just means the Son and sometimes it just means the Holy Spirit. Other times, they will say it means all three in the Trinity. They base this determination on theology, not on context. In fact, they will change their definition of QEOS within single chapters of the Bible (Acts 10 is an example of such). How sound is such reasoning? Not very.

Therefore, the simply fact of the matter, is that Jesus is the image of God, ALL of God. If he was simply the image of the Father, the verse would say such, but it does not, it says God.

Firstborn
Our next key word here is firstborn. Trinitarians are quick to dismiss this argument as well, stating that it simply means preeminence. With what basis? They sight a few isolated examples of such (Jer 31:9; Psa 89:27) as their evidence.

Unfortunately for Trinitarians, their isolated examples are in the VAST minority. Overwhelmingly, firstborn (Greek: PRWTOTOKOS) is used simply as the one born first. Included with this is preeminence, as it is part of the birthright, but it also displays the order of birth.

Further evidence of this comes from considering every case of firstborn in the Bible. In doing this, we find that each case of firstborn that is then followed by a genitive (such as "of") consistently means the one born first. We will consider the OT examples of this by looking in the LXX at each case. Keep in mind that this is not every example of firstborn meaning the one born first, but every example showing possession.


Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,
Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth, and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam,
Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben, Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon.
Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief Sophar, chief Kenez,
Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before the Lord; and God killed him.
Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went into Egypt with their father Jacob- Jacob and his sons. The first-born of Jacob, Ruben.
Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben.
Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sits on the throne, even to the first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the first-born of all cattle.
Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle.
Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.
Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every first-born of my sons I will redeem.
Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me.
Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep.
Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear before me empty.
Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according to their heads, were- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one that went out with the host-
Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every first-born male of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards, and take the number by name.
Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me- I am the Lord-- instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the children of Israel.
Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle, and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord.
Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of Israel;
Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of Israel, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to the holy shekel.
Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb.
Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself.
Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine: only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt redeem the first-born of unclean cattle.
Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats; they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the Lord.
Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the Phalluites.
Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the first-born of your herds, and of your flocks.
Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine herd and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands.
Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.
Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of thy sheep.
Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse.
Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse, (for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were in the land of Galaad and of Basan.
1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of Ismael, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam,
1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him.
1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother.
1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor.
1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim,
1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the father of Baethalaen.
1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; and he was not reckoned as first-born;
1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi.
1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and Abia.
Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the priests that minister in the house of our God.
Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and beast.

The evidence speaks for itself. Firstborn is clearly used in the VAST majority as the one born first, and when followed by a genitive, it is consistently such.

Part of Creation
The next point of our consideration is the use of the Greek words PASHS KTESIWS. These are translated to "of all creation." PASHS is the genitive form of PAS, where PAS means the whole, or all. This construction in grammar is saying that Jesus is the firstborn of the entire group of creation. So the question is, how can one be firstborn of a group and yet not be part of that group? Is there any example in scriptures, even when preeminence is used exclusively and one is firstborn of a group that they do not belong to? Well the simple answer is no.

The grammar here is what is defined as a part partitive genitive. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testiment defines this as being when a noun is "defined by indicating in the genitive the whole of which it is a part." In this case, we clearly have the entire group of creation in consideration, and he is said to be the firstborn of that group. Having taken into consideration the simple fact that firstborn is never used of a member not belonging to a group; we have no choice but to conclude from a grammatical standpoint that Jesus belongs to the group of creation, him thus being a created being.


When First Born?
Some might argue that he became firstborn at his resurrection. By his dying for all, he was given this position of preeminence. However, the scriptures clearly show that he was firstborn prior to this.


Hebrews 1:6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."

Thus, even when Jesus came into the world, he was already God's firstborn. As he is called God's "only-begotten" (John 1:18), he truly is the firstborn.

Firstborn From the Dead
Some argue that Colossians 1:18 shows Jesus having preeminence in position only, because there were ones resurrected prior to him. However, is this really considered to be "the resurrection of the dead" that Jesus partook of? No it is not. Jesus became immortal, while these others died again. In the true resurrection of the dead, the bible tells us that ones become immortal.

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.

Jesus was truly the first to partake of this. Because of this, yes he was preeminent, but he was truly the one born first from the dead.

Wisdom or Jesus?
Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" and yet Proverbs 8 speaks of Wisdom as such. Of course, many link Jesus to the Wisdom in Proverbs (1 Cor 1:24). Here Wisdom is speaking of being the one that is created and born first. Let us consider this:

Proverbs 8:22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works.

Here Jehovah is said to have possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way. This Hebrew word is QANAH. It literally means it possess by acquisition. Of course, God acquires things by means of creating them, which is why the LXX translates this to EKTISEN, which translates directly as created. Further reading, we find that Wisdom is spoken of as being brought forth, or brought to birth. The Bible in Basic English renders it here as "given birth." If Wisdom is the one that Jehovah first acquired/produced/created/possessed and this was done by "birth" and Jesus is called firstborn of all creation and is linked to Wisdom here in Proverbs 8, we have even further evidence that Jesus is in fact the one born first.

First Created?
Finally, some will argue that if Jesus was the first created being the grammar would say PRWTOKTIZO or something of the like. Before they can claim this they need to find a single example of this word being used being any time prior to the late second or third century. The simple fact is that the word was not used in Bible times, so the word would not have been used for Christ. Beyond that though, Jesus is called MONOGENHS (only-begotten) and so born is much more appropriate.

Thus, in conclusion, the simple fact of the matter is that Colossians 1:15 clearly distinguish Jesus from God and place him within the group of creation.

-Tony

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."

Thus, even when Jesus came into the world, he was already God's firstborn. As he is called God's "only-begotten" (John 1:18), he truly is the firstborn.

This misses a great deal of the point. Let me give you an example. Say we are doing a recapitulation of the life of President Bush. We might say, "The President was born in ***** on *****." Are we suggesting that he was born President?

I am not saying at this poitn my opinion on your point one way or another, just commenting on the weakness of your argument.

Col 1:15, though as White really demonstrates, it an excellent Trin test and really cannot in context be explained any other way.

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:



This misses a great deal of the point. Let me give you an example. Say we are doing a recapitulation of the life of President Bush. We might say, "The President was born in ***** on *****." Are we suggesting that he was born President?

I don't see what this has to do with being firstborn of all creation. I'm not sure which is older, George W. or Jeb (assuming I spelt that right). However, lets assume George W. is. We would thus say, George W. is firstborn of all of George Bush's sons. That is the same type of grammar we have in Col 1:15.

Edit: On reconsideration I believe the problem you are having is that you view first-born simply as a title, as you would President, when the fact is that the natural use of PRWTOTOKOS is that of the one born first, not a title. One one is naturally PRWTOTOKOS, they are born that way.

I am not saying at this poitn my opinion on your point one way or another, just commenting on the weakness of your argument.

Col 1:15, though as White really demonstrates, it an excellent Trin test and really cannot in context be explained any other way.

I don't see a weakness from what you presented. Honestly, I don't see how they relate at all.

As for Mr. White's attempt at scholarship. Well I have not read his writings on this particular topic, but I have on others, and I really don't think it has much consequence.

-Tony

Tsmith,

You seem somewhat familiar with the Wisdom theology, so let me make some comments. I take the view that Col. 1:15-18 offers several allusions to the Wisdom literature and thus identifies Christ as an eternal hypostasis of the Father, in line with Triniatarianism.

To address a few specifics....you really should make shorter posts to start...


Thus, we use simple logic here. Who does it state that Jesus is in the image of? Well he is the image of God of course. Is he the one he is the image, or representation of? Not at all. He is representing God, so, therefore, he cannot be God.

Do you realize that "God" is not actually used as a proper name in the NT? It is more like an adjectival noun -- like "deity". It states a property of Jesus, not an identity. The hO before QEOS shows you this. And this is why the Nicean Creed says Father, Son, and Spirit are all "God". It is a statement of property, not identity.

Our next key word here is firstborn. Trinitarians are quick to dismiss this argument as well, stating that it simply means preeminence. With what basis? They sight a few isolated examples of such (Jer 31:9; Psa 89:27) as their evidence.

Er, no -- not me, anyway. For me the examples come from the pre-NT Wisdom literature in which eternal Wisdom is called YHWH's "firstborn".

In doing this, we find that each case of firstborn that is then followed by a genitive (such as "of") consistently means the one born first.

Yes, but it's not that simple and your note on the genitive needs more info. You need Col. 1:15 to be in a partitive genitive which makes Christ the "firstborn" of creation out to be a part of that creation. Helyer points out ("Arius Revisited," JETS Mar. 1998) there are actually four possible interpretations of the genitive here: 1) partitive (preferred by the Arians and the JWs); 2) comparitive (which would exclude Christ from the creation; 3) place (defines the sphere of Christ's rule over creation) or 4) objective (relates to the action of the "firstborn" upon the creation). Helyer notes that option 1) is excluded by virtue of a) the hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17, which clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things; b) the language of eikon in v. 15 and pleroma in v. 19, which includes Christ in the full deity; c) the parallels to the Wisdom tradition, in which Wisdom is not a creation as the rest of creation, but is eternally begotten; d) that the partitive would emphasize the -tokos aspect of prototokos (firstborn), something paralleled in the NT only in Luke 2:7. Helyer therefore opts for the objective genitive as the intent of the passage.

Here Jehovah is said to have possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way. This Hebrew word is QANAH. It literally means it possess by acquisition. Of course, God acquires things by means of creating them, which is why the LXX translates this to EKTISEN, which translates directly as created. Further reading, we find that Wisdom is spoken of as being brought forth, or brought to birth. The Bible in Basic English renders it here as "given birth." If Wisdom is the one that Jehovah first acquired/produced/created/possessed and this was done by "birth" and Jesus is called firstborn of all creation and is linked to Wisdom here in Proverbs 8, we have even further evidence that Jesus is in fact the one born first.

Not quite that simple. QANAH is concerned with the "possession" aspect of the interchange process, rather than the "transaction" or acquisition aspect:

Gen. 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Prov. 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

"Wisdom" is not something we create or acquire from outside; we cultivate our own attributes from within. Yet we also see QANAH, as in Gen. 4:1 and Prov. 8, used of the imagery of giving birth. The nature of Wisdom to God is of an attribute that is possessed, used, and cultivated (in line with God using Wisdom as a tool to create, in Proverbs 8). By that token, the land that is qanahed is land which is taken possession of for use. [The word for "bought" in terms of a transaction is miqnah: Lev. 25:15-16, According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy (qanah) of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee: According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price (miqnah) thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it...

Add to this the understanding of the ancients of the interlinking of owner and property, and the conclusion comes that qanah carries the meaning of a possession that is an extension of the owner. In this light Prov. 8 says nothing in terms of the means and method where Wisdom was qanahed and cannot be used to argue that Christ is a being created as humans were rather than eternal.

Today @ 04:53 PM post located here
jpholding:

Tsmith,

You seem somewhat familiar with the Wisdom theology, so let me make some comments. I take the view that Col. 1:15-18 offers several allusions to the Wisdom literature and thus identifies Christ as an eternal hypostasis of the Father, in line with Triniatarianism.

I fail to see where in scripture Wisdom is ever spoken of as being eternal. Rather, the personification of such is shown to have come into existance, but with this personification having the attribute of wisdom (Prob 8:14).

Do you realize that "God" is not actually used as a proper name in the NT? It is more like an adjectival noun -- like "deity". It states a property of Jesus, not an identity. The hO before QEOS shows you this. And this is why the Nicean Creed says Father, Son, and Spirit are all "God". It is a statement of property, not identity.

I disagree to a large extent. While, granted, QEOS is a title, it is a title that often carries the force of a proper name. For example, when we say "Almighty God," who do we mean? Well there is only one Almighty God, and so we mean that one, Jehovah. QEOS only really could be said to function as an adjective in certain grammatical cases. Specifically, a predicate nominative, where the qualitative or class force of such is shown.

Er, no -- not me, anyway. For me the examples come from the pre-NT Wisdom literature in which eternal Wisdom is called YHWH's "firstborn".

I see no bearing on how this refutes anything. With Wisdom in Proverbs spoken of as being birthed, the use of QANAH and in the LXX, EKTISHN, the does not really present an issue for me.

Yes, but it's not that simple and your note on the genitive needs more info. You need Col. 1:15 to be in a partitive genitive which makes Christ the "firstborn" of creation out to be a part of that creation. Helyer points out ("Arius Revisited," JETS Mar. 1998) there are actually four possible interpretations of the genitive here: 1) partitive (preferred by the Arians and the JWs); 2) comparitive (which would exclude Christ from the creation; 3) place (defines the sphere of Christ's rule over creation) or 4) objective (relates to the action of the "firstborn" upon the creation). Helyer notes that option 1) is excluded by virtue of a) the hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17, which clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things; b) the language of eikon in v. 15 and pleroma in v. 19, which includes Christ in the full deity; c) the parallels to the Wisdom tradition, in which Wisdom is not a creation as the rest of creation, but is eternally begotten; d) that the partitive would emphasize the -tokos aspect of prototokos (firstborn), something paralleled in the NT only in Luke 2:7. Helyer therefore opts for the objective genitive as the intent of the passage.

Can you show me one example of scripture where PRWTOTOKOS is used with a genitive that carries a meaning other than a partitive genitive or genitive of source? Obviously Col 1:15 is not a genitive of source, this leading us to what conclusion.? It is partitive.

Col 1:16 and 17 present no issue for Col 1:15 being a partitive genitive on careful examination of the grammar.

You have not presented any solid grammatical evidence for Col 1:15 to be anything other than a partitive genitive, with the majority of LXX uses agreeing with this conclusion.

"Wisdom" is not something we create or acquire from outside; we cultivate our own attributes from within. Yet we also see QANAH, as in Gen. 4:1 and Prov. 8, used of the imagery of giving birth. The nature of Wisdom to God is of an attribute that is possessed, used, and cultivated (in line with God using Wisdom as a tool to create, in Proverbs 8). By that token, the land that is qanahed is land which is taken possession of for use. [The word for "bought" in terms of a transaction is miqnah: Lev. 25:15-16, According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy (qanah) of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee: According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price (miqnah) thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it...

God does not cultivate Wisdom, he simply has it. Looking in Proverbs 8 we found that the Wisdom spoken of in relation to QANAH is said to have the attribute of wisdom in verse 14, thus showing us that the Wisdom related to QANAH is not an attribute, but something else. Being that all things belong to God, the only way for him to QANAH something is to create.

Add to this the understanding of the ancients of the interlinking of owner and property, and the conclusion comes that qanah carries the meaning of a possession that is an extension of the owner. In this light Prov. 8 says nothing in terms of the means and method where Wisdom was qanahed and cannot be used to argue that Christ is a being created as humans were rather than eternal.

I really fail to see your point. Wisdom, seperate from the attribute (Prov 8:14), is said to be QANAH'ed. In the LXX, we find Wisdom is actually said to be created here. So really, it can be used exactly for this purpose.

-Tony

Yesterday @ 08:19 PM post located here
Tsmith:

Colossians 15 is a strong argument against the Trinity. Of course Trinitarians are quick to dismiss it, giving some weak arguments in an attempt to do so. However, an examination of this scripture and the grammar behind it actually provides stronger evidence against the Trinity than most non-Trinitarians realize, and it shows clearly how Trinitarian replies to it simply hold no ground.

Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

The image of God
The A part of verse 15 clearly states that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God." To be an image of one, you are their representation or in their likeness. Strong’s defines the Greek work for image, EIKWN, as follows:

From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.

Thus, we use simple logic here. Who does it state that Jesus is in the image of? Well he is the image of God of course. Is he the one he is the image, or representation of? Not at all. He is representing God, so, therefore, he cannot be God.

-Tony

Ho Hum! Another of those endless "This one verse totally destroys, the Trinity argument.," assertions. While a study of Greek grammar is very beneficial, we must remember that the N.T. was primarily written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews. I heard a former Orthodox, then a Messianic, Jew, say that. The meaning of the Greek word tranlsated "first born" is not very helpful here. So what was the Jewish understanding of "first born?" Here is the article on "Primogeniture, "First Born" from the Jewish Encyclopedia, linked below. This would have been the understanding of the Jewish Christians, e.g. Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, paul, etc. writing in the N.T.

• Primogeniture
  In the Old Testament as well as in the rabbinical legislation a distinction is made between the first-born of inheritance (בכור לנחלה) and the first-born of redemption (בכור לכהן; comp. Bek. viii. 1, 46a).
  
  Primogeniture of Inheritance.
  
  The primogeniture of inheritance refers to the first-born son on the side of the father by any of his wives (if he lived in polygamy). The law of such primogeniture is found in Deut. xxi. 16 et seq., according to which the first-born is to receive a double portion of the inheritance. The passage referred to, however, did not introduce this right, for the preference of the first-born, as the issue of the "first strength" ( ) of the father, existed in patriarchal times (comp. Gen. xxv. 31, xxvii. 29, xlviii. 13, xlix. 3). It is generally assumed that the prerogatives of the first-born consisted in a kind of potestas over the family; in a double share of inheritance (comp. I Chron. v. 1); and in the right to the priesthood (comp. Targ. Onk. and Yer. to Gen. xlix. 3). From Gen. xxv. 31 (comp. xxvii. 36) it appears also that God's promises to the Patriarchs were considered as attached to the line of the first-born. But, as the cases of Esau and Reuben (and Ishmael, Gen. xxi.) show, it was possible for the father to deprive the first-born of his right; and the lawgiver in Deuteronomy prohibits the misuse of parental power in favor of a younger son by a favorite wife. In the succession to the throne primogeniture was generally taken into consideration (comp. II Chron. xxi. 3), though it was not always decisive, as appears in the case of Solomon (I Kings i. 30, ii. 22) and of Abijah (II Chron. xi. 22; and comp. Junior Right).
  
  In the Rabbinical Writings.
  
  Rabbinical law further specifies and qualifies the right of primogeniture. Only the first-born—not the eldest surviving son who has been preceded by another child that has died—and only such a one as, by a normal birth and not by a surgical operation, came into the world in the lifetime of his father is entitled to the double share (Bek. 46a, 47b; B. B. 142b). Furthermore, the first-born of a first-born does not receive a double portion of the inheritance of the grandfather who dies before the father (Bek. 51b; B. B. 124a). On the other hand, if the first-born dies before his father his right passes over to his children, even to daughters (B. B. 122b). Neither the inheritance left by the mother nor posthumous improvements () of and accessions () to the inheritance left by the father are subject to the right of primogeniture (Bek. 51a; B. B. 122b, 124a). The double share of the first-born is not one-half of the property, but double the share of each of the other brothers. If there are, for instance, four brothers, the property is divided into five parts, the first-born receiving two-fifths and the others each one-fifth. But the portion of the first-born is affected by either the death or the birth of another brother after the demise of the father (B. B. 123a, 142b). As the double share of the inheritance entails a double share in the obligations on the part of the first-born, both may be waived by him (B. B. 124a).
  
  It is apparent from the preceding regulations that both in the Old Testament and in the rabbinical law the prerogative of primogeniture was not conceived as an inalienable right inherent in the first-born, but rather as a gift by the Law, prompted by economic considerations. The eldest son, who was to take the father's position, was to be placed economically in a condition to be able to preside with dignity over the family—something like the right of majorat. It is, moreover, probable that the first-born had the obligation of maintaining the female members of the family who remained in the household. For the Talmudic regulation of the status and maintenance of the unmarried daughters after the father's death see Ket. 68a, b.
  
  Primogeniture of Redemption.
  
  The primogeniture of redemption refers to the male first-born on the mother's side and applies to both man and beast: "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine"(Ex. xiii. 2). In the manner of the sanctification of these first-born the following distinctions are drawn:
  
  1. The first-born of a clean animal had to be brought to the sanctuary within a year from the eighth day of its birth (Ex. xxii. 30). If without a blemish it was treated as a sacrifice; i.e., the blood was sprinkled and the fat burned on the altar. As regards the disposal of the flesh there is a difference between the laws in Deuteronomy and those in Numbers. According to the former (Deut. xv. 19 et seq.; comp. xii. 6 et seq., 17 et seq.; xiv. 23) the flesh is eaten by the owner in a sacrificial meal, like that of the "shelamim," while according to the latter (Num. xviii. 17 et seq.; comp. Ex. xxii. 29) it fell to the priest. The latter practise prevailed in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 37) and Josephus (Josephus, "Ant." iv. 4, § 4). Had the animal a blemish, it was treated like any other common food (Deut. xv. 21-23).
  
  2. The first-born of an unclean animal had to be redeemed, when a month old, according to the estimation of the priest, with the addition of one-fifth (Lev. xxvii. 27; Num. xviii. 15 et seq.). The first-born of an ass was either ransomed by a sheep or killed, its neck being broken (Ex. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20). In Josephus' time (l.c.) all unclean animals were redeemed with one and a half shekels.
  
  3. The first-born of man was, at the age of one month, redeemed with five shekels (Ex. xiii. 13, xxii. 28, xxxiv. 20; Num. xviii. 15 et seq.; comp. iii. 44 et seq.; Neh. x. 37).
  
  In the Talmud the fact that the first-born in this case must be a is emphasized. Thus a first-born son whose birth has been preceded by a miscarriage, or by a still-birth, or by the birth of a monstrosity, or one who was himself brought forth by a surgical operation, is not due to the priesthood. On the other hand, if two wives of the same man both bear sons as first-born children, each must be redeemed (Bek. viii. 1, 2, 46a, 47b).
  
  Origin and Significance.
  
  In Ex. xiii. 11-15 and Num. iii. 12 et seq. (comp. ib. 40 et seq. and viii. 15-18) the dedication of the first-born to Yhwh is connected with the slaying of the first-born of Egypt and the consecration of the Levites to the service of the sanctuary. By destroying the first-born of Egypt and sparing those of Israel, Yhwh acquired an especial ownership over the latter. But as it was not feasible to select the first-born of the entire nation and thus disturb the family organization, the Levites were substituted for them; and, indeed, rabbinical tradition assigns the priesthood to the first-born until the completion of the Tabernacle (Zeb. 112b, 115b; comp. Targ. to Ex. xxiv. 5 and Rashi and Ibn Ezra to Ex. xix. 22, 24). The view implied in the passages quoted seems to be that the Levites took the place of only those first-born which Yhwh actually spared in Egypt, and that while the Levites continued to serve at the sanctuary, all the first-born after the Exodus were nevertheless the property of Yhwh, and therefore had to be redeemed, just as the 273 first-born who surpassed the number of the Levites at Sinai had to be redeemed each with five shekels (Num. iii. 45-51). Doubtless there is here also the adaptation of an ancient custom (comp. Gen. iv. 4). The dedication of the first-born of man is the extension and application by analogy of the custom of consecrating to God the first-fruits of the soil and the firstlings of animals (comp. Ex. xxii. 28 et seq.), a custom found also among other peoples. In Israel this dedication had the significance of an acknowledgment that it was Yhwh's "heritage," that it owed to Him all which it had and was.
  
  The interpretation of the custom of redeeming the first-born as a modification of an older custom of sacrificing the first-born sons in connection with the Passover feast (Baudissin, in Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc." 2d ed., x. 176; comp. also Frazer, "The Golden Bough," 2d ed., ii. 48), has no foundation in history. There are instances in later times attesting not only the custom of sacrificing children, but also the fact that at times the first-born was preferred as a victim (II Kings iii. 27; Micah vi. 7; Ezek. xx. 26); but there is nowhere a trace of the demand of such a "blood-tax" on the part of the Deity or Lawgiver from the people, and its existence is unknown even among the Canaanites (comp. Wellhausen, "Prolegomena," 2d ed., p. 91; Robertson Smith, "Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 464; and Toy on Ezek. xx. 26 in "S. B. O. T.").
  
  In Modern Times.
  
  Since the destruction of the Temple and cessation of sacrifices the dedication of the first-born of clean animals is limited to their being kept inviolate and exempt from any use (comp. Deut. xv. 19), unless they have or receive some blemish, in which case they may be slaughtered for food. The redemption of the first-born of an ass and of man is still carried out according to the Biblical ordinances, and the redemption of the first-born son () is a festive occasion. From such redemption are exempt not only priests and Levites, but also their children (Bek. 4a, 47a). Adult first-born on either side are also obliged to fast on the eve of Passover, unless they are released from the obligation by some festive celebration, such as the completion of the study of a tract of the Talmud ("siyyum"; comp. "Yad," Bekorot, xi. 17; Yoreh De'ah, §§ 300, 305, 321).
  
  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=527&letter=P

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here
OldShepherd:



Ho Hum! Another of those endless "This one verse totally destroys, the Trinity argument.," assertions. While a study of Greek grammar is very beneficial, we must remember that the N.T. was primarily written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews. I heard a former Orthodox, then a Messianic, Jew, say that. The meaning of the Greek word tranlsated "first born" is not very helpful here. So what was the Jewish understanding of "first born?" Here is the article on "Primogeniture, "First Born" from the Jewish Encyclopedia, linked below. This would have been the understanding of the Jewish Christians, e.g. Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, paul, etc. writing in the N.T.

• [/url]

Well an interesting post, but I don't see how it refutes a single point I've made. I would suggest you make a closer consideration what I actually wrote because this did not disagree with it on any level that I can find.

-Ton

Today @ 06:59 PM post located here
Tsmith:

Well an interesting post, but I don't see how it refutes a single point I've made. I would suggest you make a closer consideration what I actually wrote because this did not disagree with it on any level that I can find.

-Ton

Or you could go back and actully read the post. The first born was not necessarily the one whose birth occurred first. And the second paragraph in, "In the Rabbinical Writings.", particularly the sentence which begins, "The eldest son"

Today @ 01:27 PM post located here
OldShepherd:



Or you could go back and actully read the post. The first born was not necessarily the one whose birth occurred first. And the second paragraph in, "In the Rabbinical Writings.", particularly the sentence which begins, "The eldest son"

I grant you as much, that the right could change. However, the natural usage of the word is the one born first. In Col 1:15, 16 we are dealing specifically with creation, and with such, Col 1:15 stands as the obvious qualifier to verse 16. There is nothing within the context to indicate otherwise.

Further, if Jesus was not the one born first of all creation, why did the one who was lose that right?

That said, still nothing within the text refutes what I have stated.

-Tony

Hmmm,

I fail to see where in scripture Wisdom is ever spoken of as being eternal.

It is so spoken of in the intertestamental Wisdom literature. In the time of Proverbs Hebrew had no word as such for "eternal" and came as close as they could by "piling on" indications of Wisdom's awesome age. (The only possible word suggested, 'olam, means "in perpetuity" and not "eternal" -- see Barr's Biblical Words for Time.

If you respond by saying we can't consider extrabiblical sources, you need reply no further. You would not be someone I could do business with.

Rather, the personification of such is shown to have come into existance, but with this personification having the attribute of wisdom (Prob 8:14).

Hmm, where in Proverbs do you find the word "personification"? :brow: You are aware that "hypostasis" defined, at any rate, is, a personified attribute of a deity?

I disagree to a large extent. While, granted, QEOS is a title, it is a title that often carries the force of a proper name.

"Force of" is not the same as "is". And our modern use of "Almighty God" is not relevant to use of the words in the Bible.

I see no bearing on how this refutes anything. With Wisdom in Proverbs spoken of as being birthed, the use of QANAH and in the LXX, EKTISHN, the does not really present an issue for me.

Hmm. You seem to have a repeated problem with not seeing bearing of material that refutes what you say. smile: I'll put it this way: If Philo can say the Eternal Logos is "firstborn" of God then clearly the word means preeminence and not strict creation order. Now the Logos WAS a "creation" of the Father but as a hypostatic attribute -- eternally produced of the Father. So you could call it "first created" in a real sense, but you would have to add that it was "first eternally". Thus also Wisdom and the Trinity members of Son and Spirit.

Can you show me one example of scripture where PRWTOTOKOS is used with a genitive that carries a meaning other than a partitive genitive or genitive of source?

Why do I need to do that?

Col 1:16 and 17 present no issue for Col 1:15 being a partitive genitive on careful examination of the grammar.

Um, merely saying "nuh uh" is not an answer to what Heyler said...is this the best you can do?

God does not cultivate Wisdom, he simply has it.

Ahhhh...so you just shot your position in the foot. Now is God eternal, unchanging in nature? If He is, then He can NEVER have been without His Wisdom. Hence, Wisdom in Prov. 8 MUST be eternal. Thank you!

Looking in Proverbs 8 we found that the Wisdom spoken of in relation to QANAH is said to have the attribute of wisdom in verse 14, thus showing us that the Wisdom related to QANAH is not an attribute, but something else.

Um, it is shown to be an attribute of God, and I would expect the attribute of Wisdom, personified, to HAVE wisdom in practice...

Being that all things belong to God, the only way for him to QANAH something is to create.

This is not an answer to my point about it reflecting the possession aspect. But even if you ARE right, "create" is a perfectly acceptable verb to use for an eternal hypostasis.


I really fail to see your point. Wisdom, seperate from the attribute (Prov 8:14), is said to be QANAH'ed.

Wisdom, a personification (8:12), possesses wisdom itself (8:14) and is what is QANAHed.

I can't keep up with something I am ignorant of (extensive use of Greek and its grammar).

But, I do not have a problem with the following idea. We are called to compare spiritual with spiritual. Often truth is uncovered via doing things like word searches.

I do not have a problem that the word WISDOM was selected, by God, to be a metaphor for His Son. IF this is so, it is inappropriate to maintain the Son is God due to the age wisdom must be (as old as God).

It would be like requiring that because Christ is the chief cornerstone, he is made of rock.

Again, I don't know a lot of Greek, but I believe I know some reasonable principles. The Bible uses words as metaphors almost constantly. Metaphors only go so far. It is bad interpretation, in my opinion, to take literal realities from words used as metaphors, and require they apply to what the metaphor is being used to represent.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Interesting discussion, Found this article, might be of some use on the discussion.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Goldsmith.Col1_15.htm

Today @ 04:00 PM post located here
jpholding:

It is so spoken of in the intertestamental Wisdom literature. In the time of Proverbs Hebrew had no word as such for "eternal" and came as close as they could by "piling on" indications of Wisdom's awesome age. (The only possible word suggested, 'olam, means "in perpetuity" and not "eternal" -- see Barr's Biblical Words for Time.

Being that we can seemingly agree that OLAM does not make something eternal, I fail to see your real point. Wisdom personified has an awesome age, but it does have an age. God has no age.

Hmm, where in Proverbs do you find the word "personification"? :brow: You are aware that "hypostasis" defined, at any rate, is, a personified attribute of a deity?

The word is not there, but the definition of the word is brought forth in the statements made. I fail to see where your hypostasis point applies.

"Force of" is not the same as "is". And our modern use of "Almighty God" is not relevant to use of the words in the Bible.

Actually, semantically, it is the same.

Hmm. You seem to have a repeated problem with not seeing bearing of material that refutes what you say. smile: I'll put it this way: If Philo can say the Eternal Logos is "firstborn" of God then clearly the word means preeminence and not strict creation order. Now the Logos WAS a "creation" of the Father but as a hypostatic attribute -- eternally produced of the Father. So you could call it "first created" in a real sense, but you would have to add that it was "first eternally". Thus also Wisdom and the Trinity members of Son and Spirit.

The problem is that Biblically, you cannot refute what I'm saying. Where does scripture call hO LOGOS eternal? You can only seem to supply non-biblical statements that use post-biblical language in attempting to explain things away, but that does not prove anything. God eternally had his LOGOS, but that does not mean he eternally had the one CALLED LOGOS. There is a difference between something and someone who is called something. If you fail to seperate the two, you come to a variety of contradictions, such as "eternally begotten" and "eternal son" and "eternally created." All are contradict, but are used to describe Trinitarianism. Fortunately, the Bible is much simpler than this and does not require the philosophy that you try and introduce to it.

It is interesting how people introduce terms like "eternally begotten." If the Bible was trying to relate such a concept, it would have said such! The fact that people must later come up with these terms in an attempt to explain away what it actually says tells us a lot.

Why do I need to do that?

Because you tried to state that I was wrong without a single piece of grammatical evidence for such. So, I said, provide evidence. You didn't even open the door to a CHANCE that I might be wrong. Until you do, your attempted refute serves no purpose.

Um, merely saying "nuh uh" is not an answer to what Heyler said...is this the best you can do?

Ask and you shall recieve.

For starters, if we compare Col 1:15 to verse 16, we find that the ALL discussed is not the same. In Col 1:15 we find that Paul used the feminine of PAS, where verse 16 contains the neuter. Thus, the all of creation he is firstborn of is not the same as that which was created through him. With that said, when a subject is in view and PAS is used, the subject is not neccesarily removed from the group which he/it is spoken of in relation to. We can see this at Matthew 26:35; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:2, and Luke 21:29. So that said, grammatically, Jesus is not issolated from being created. We could go into this further, but I see no need as its rather cut and dry.

Ahhhh...so you just shot your position in the foot. Now is God eternal, unchanging in nature? If He is, then He can NEVER have been without His Wisdom. Hence, Wisdom in Prov. 8 MUST be eternal. Thank you!

Umm, no. Because we are dealing with the person Wisdom is personified in, Jesus Christ. That said, this PERSON, who has the attribute of Wisdom (Prov 8:14), which is something God eternally had (the attribute), is not eternal.

Um, it is shown to be an attribute of God, and I would expect the attribute of Wisdom, personified, to HAVE wisdom in practice...

And so we know this personification to be in a person, not the attribute itself. That said, the person in the LXX is clearly said to be created, thus not being eternal.

This is not an answer to my point about it reflecting the possession aspect. But even if you ARE right, "create" is a perfectly acceptable verb to use for an eternal hypostasis.

If you create something, it is not eternal. Jesus is created, so he is not eternal. Are we going to now introduce another post biblical term such as eternally created? You cannot be eternal and be created, as created, by definition, introduces a point of origin.

Wisdom, a personification (8:12), possesses wisdom itself (8:14) and is what is QANAHed.

QANAH is used for the personification, not the attribute.

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here
Happy Giraffe:

Interesting discussion, Found this article, might be of some use on the discussion.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Goldsmith.Col1_15.htm

I've read this article before and it really fails because he is attempting to say that Jesus was created when he became flesh, which I believe O2BWise has shown quite well not to be true. He "took the form of man" (Phil 2:7) he was not recreated as man.

-Tony

I as read he doesnt argue that. I believe it offers a sound defense for the trinity. Perhaps if you could explain why you think he is suggesting what you stated he did.

Today @ 11:42 PM post located here
Happy Giraffe:

I as read he doesnt argue that. I believe it offers a sound defense for the trinity. Perhaps if you could explain why you think he is suggesting what you stated he did.

Actually, he argues exactly what I stated. From paragraph 2:

"It is a fundamental tenet of the Trinity that at a certain point in history the Logos “became flesh”, both sides agreeing that He possessed a truly human nature (creature). So the fact that Christ can be shown to be a member of creation tells us nothing whatsoever about His pre-existence before he “became flesh”, or his ultimate identity (John 1:14 cf. Phil. 2:1-6). "

and from the third from the last paragraph:

"We also believe that Christ entered the category as per John 1:14."

That said, Mr. Goldsmith errors because Christ does not change his being. One does not become a creature. We note that his MORPH changed, not his being (Phil 2:6,7). He took the form of man, he did not become a created being that he once was not.

Further, the use of hOTI at Col 1:16 I believe removes this possibility as well, because this indicates that because his being first-born of the group of creation, from there all things were created through him. So his being first-born was something that happened before anything else was created. That said, Christ would HAVE to be created because he could not be first-born of all creation if creation had not started at that point, and yet this indicates he was first-born of all creation before anything was created through him.

-Tony