Firstborn, first created? 🤔

[SteveB]

Way back in the summer of 2010, I was working in my garage, one Saturday morning and an older JW couple stopped by to give me their standard spiel.
After a few minutes, I asked him a question that had been of interest to me in late 2009, when another JW on a forum I'd previously been a member of had failed to answer questions about the difference between the firstborn of Colossians 1:15, and the first created, they believed was actually meant with the word,
Prototokos.

So....
Several years ago, once I came over to the CARM forum and realized that I could ask there.... thinking that a real JW would actually answer me, and then explain it.... none ever did...


Since when does firstborn become first created, since JW are claiming that prototokos actually means that Jesus is God's first created being. "A god."

 

[Dizerner]

The phrase in question is actually "Firstborn of all creation."

This puts the kind of birth into a category, "of all creation," and is specifically speaking of Christ's resurrection here.

It seems strange to me that people seem to often forget that Jesus is not just God, under standard Christian theology.

He is also man; and Man is, by definition, a created thing, so Jesus is both created and uncreated in one being.

In this one verse we actually have the two natures of Christ in one person:

who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; (Col. 1:15 DBY)

 

[civic]

13.79 NT:4416† ‎protokos, ‎on‎: pertaining to existing prior to something else - 'existing first, existing before.' ‎prwto/toko$ pa/sh$ kti/sew$ ‎'existing before all creation' or 'existing before anything was created' Col 1:15. It is possible to understand ‎protokos ‎in Col 1:15 as 'superior in status' (see 87.47). See also discussion at 10.43. (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon )

The first born ‎proototokos‎. Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the ‎Logos ‎passage in John 1:1-18 and to Heb 1:1-4 as well as Phil 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (the Septuagint and the New Testament) can no longer be considered purely "Biblical" (Thayer), since it is found in inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luke 2:7 and Codex Sinaiticus (a) for Matt 1:25; Rom 8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like "all creation" ‎pasees ‎‎ktiseoos‎, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of ‎prootos ‎that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col 1:18; Rom 8:29; Heb 1:6; 12:23; Rev 1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before "all creation" (angels and men). Like ‎eikoon ‎we find ‎proototokos ‎in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the Septuagint. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as ‎eikoon ‎(Image) and to the universe as ‎proototokos ‎(First-born). (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament

 

[SteveB]

The phrase in question is actually "Firstborn of all creation."

Yes.... probably overkill here.... but here are numerous translations from my phone's Bible app.

Colossians 1:15 view_headline perm_identity
ABP ος who εστιν is εικών the image του of the θεού του αοράτου unseen God, πρωτότοκος first-born πάσης of all κτίσεως creation;

BBE Who is the image of the unseen God coming into existence before all living things;

BIB Ὅς (He) ἐστιν (is) εἰκὼν (the image) τοῦ (of the) Θεοῦ (God) τοῦ (-) ἀοράτου (invisible), πρωτότοκος (the firstborn) πάσης (over all) κτίσεως (creation),

Bishops Who is the image of the inuisible God, the first borne of all creatures.

BLB He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,

BSB The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Coverdale Which is the ymage of the inuisyble God, first begotte before all creatures.

Darby who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;

DRC Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

EasyEnglish We cannot see God. But Jesus Christ is completely what God is. Even before God made anything, Jesus was already the Son of the Father.

Geneva Who is the image of the inuisible God, the first begotten of euery creature.

HNV He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

ISV The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

JMNT It is [this Son] Who is the Image (portrait; the Exact Formed Likeness; the Figure and Representation; visible likeness and manifestation) of the not-seen God (or: the unable to be seen God; the invisible God), the Firstborn of all creation (or: of every creature; or: of every framing and founding; of every act of settling from a state of disorder and wildness; or: pertaining to the whole creation; or: = the Inheritor of all creation Who will also assume authority over and responsibility for every creature [note: this is the duty of the firstborn]),

KJV Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

KJVLite Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Matthew whyche is the ymage of the inuisible God, fyrste begotten of creatures.

MKJV1962 who is [the] image of the invisible God, [the] First-born of all creation.

NET He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,

NHEB who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

OGNT ¬Ὅς Hos os which ἐστιν estin estiyn is εἰκὼν eikōn iykon image τοῦ tou tu the Θεοῦ Theou θeu God τοῦ tou tu the ἀοράτου aoratou aoratu invisible, ¬πρωτότοκος prōtotokos prototokos firstborn πάσης pasēs pasiys all κτίσεως ktiseōs ktiyseos creation,

OGNTa ¬Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, ¬πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,

OGNTbe ⚐¬Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, ⚐⊕¬πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
Ὅς[He] ἐστινis εἰκὼν[the] image τοῦof the ΘεοῦGod τοῦ- ἀοράτουinvisible,
[He] is [the] image of the invisible God,
[The Son] is [the] image of the invisible God,
πρωτότοκος[the] firstborn πάσηςover all κτίσεωςcreation,
[the] firstborn over all creation,
[the] firstborn over all creation.
OGNTk ¬οϲ εϲτιν εικων του θ̅υ̅ του αορατου, ¬πρωτοτοκοϲ παϲηϲ κτιϲεωϲ,

RNKJV Who is the image of the invisible Elohim, the firstborn of every creature:

SLT Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation:

T4T God’s Son reveals perfectly what God, his Father, is like, whom no one can see. God’s Son existed before and ranks above everything that God has created.



WEB He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Wycliffe Which is the ymage of God vnuysible, the first bigetun of ech creature.

Wycliffe-Modern Which is the image of God invisible, the first begotten of each creature.

YLT who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

This puts the kind of birth into a category, "of all creation," and is specifically speaking of Christ's resurrection here.

To me there's a distinction between created, and born.
For born, there's a passing of one's nature along to those begotten.
For created, there's an impartation on the created.
An invention would be a good example.

It seems strange to me that people seem to often forget that Jesus is not just God, under standard Christian theology.

Ok.

He is also man; and Man is, by definition, a created thing, so Jesus is both created and uncreated in one being.

But Jesus wasn't created. He was begotten.
He has His Father's nature and he has human nature.
Adam and Eve are the only created humans.
Everyone else is begotten, and has the nature of Adam and Eve.
This is a truly critical issue....

In this one verse we actually have the two natures of Christ in one person:

who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; (Col. 1:15 DBY)

Yep.
Not created though...

Born.

If you're a parent, you did not create your children. You begat them.

The egg, and the sperm (previously created by God), were joined by a previously created process, by God, and they grew into a human being.

For humans, birth is not a human invention or creation. It's a begetting.

In the Hebrew, there are two different words for creation and beget.

Barah is what God did.

Yulad is what parents do.

 

[civic]

I can see monogenes entering this discussion @SteveB

 

[SteveB]

I can see monogenes entering this discussion @SteveB

Uhm... ok.

G3439 - monogenēs - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G3439 - μονογενής monogenḗs, mon-og-en-ace'; from and ; only-born, i.e. sole:—only (begotten, child).

www.blueletterbible.org

I'm not, nor have I ever been, formally, academically educated in the Bible.
My experience has been reading and attending Bible studies in church for the past 46 years.

Doing a word search for this word, I found the above stated Blue Letter Bible article/Strong's Definition.

I see 9 uses in the new testament.
Luke, John, Hebrews and 1 John.

Jesus is in fact the only begotten Son of God.

That however is tertiary to my primary point...

Being....

How in the world do JW get created out of born?!

I can see young, inexperienced, non-parents, uneducated in biology and invention....

But older people....
Uh.... no!

 

[civic]

MONOGENÊS

BAGD: "In the Johannine lit[erature] m[onogenês] is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here...But some (e.g., WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard m[onogenês] as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One." (Bauer, it will be remembered, believed the Gospel of John was a gnostic text, and hence saw a theology behind John's writing compatible with the creation of the Logos as a semi-divine intermediary between the Monas and the creation with which He could not directly interact).

Louw & Nida: "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.'"

Moulton & Milligan: "Literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only-begotten....'"

Grimm/Thayer: "Single of its kind, only, [A.V. only-begotten]." (Note that Thayer's insertion merely cites the KJV translation, which owes considerable debt to the Vulgate of Jerome, who translated monogenês "unigenitus").

NIDNTT: "The only begotten, or only....RSV and NEB render monogenês as 'only.' This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means “of a single kind,” and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “only begotten” goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made."

Newman: "Unique, only."

LSJ: "Only, single" (references John 1:14, the only NT verse cited).

TDNT: defines monogenês as "only begotten," but distinguishes between nouns ending in -genes and adverbs ending in -genês. The former denote the source of the derivation, the latter the nature of the derivation. Thus, the author (Buchsel) concludes that monogenês means "of sole descent." But Pendrick argues strongly against this view:

 

[Dizerner]

Born.

If you're a parent, you did not create your children. You begat them.

Yes, I agree completely with you here.

God is the only Creator!

Yep.
Not created though...

But here I think you've missed the mark.

If you deny Jesus is created, then you are denying his humanity.

You can say "Jesus wasn't ONLY created."

But it is a false doctrine to say Jesus was a man from all eternity, it is conflating his two natures.

How in the world do JW get created out of born?!

False doctrine comes from supernatural influences, so you can't argue people out of it with logic.

Believe you me, I've tried.

 

[SteveB]

Yes, I agree completely with you here.

God is the only Creator!



But here I think you've missed the mark.

If you deny Jesus is created, then you are denying his humanity.

Nope.
Adam and Eve were created.
Everyone after them were begotten.
Yes, their begetting results from the initial action of creation, but they are not created.

You can say "Jesus wasn't ONLY created."

This doesn't make sense to me.
Please elaborate.

But it is a false doctrine to say Jesus was a man from all eternity, it is conflating his two natures.

I'm not saying that he was both man and God from all eternity.
His humanity began at his begetting.
His eternal "Godhood" existed from eternity past.

False doctrine comes from supernatural influences, so you can't argue people out of it with logic.

Believe you me, I've tried.

Ok.
I think unbelief is supernaturally influenced.
This is why the power of God is required in the preaching of the cross.
1 Cor. 1:18-29, John 14, 16, and Acts 1:8.

Without the power of God to quicken the unbelievers, they cannot be saved.

 

[Dizerner]

Nope.
Adam and Eve were created.
Everyone after them were begotten.
Yes, their begetting results from the initial action of creation, but they are not created.

Wait, what!?

Begetting we might say facilitates creation, and is not creation—but I mean, we are creations. God created you. He didn't just create something that begets you, even if he used this means.

To say God did not create me, seems very strange to me—we are God's creations, and that is certainly Biblically and logically attested.

This doesn't make sense to me.
Please elaborate.

Well, Jesus is both God and man.

But the way a lot of people act in practice is that Jesus is "God with some kind of man thing attached."

It's like they subsume the humanity to where Jesus is not what we would define as a full and legitimate man in every sense of the word.

I explain my view in great detail here:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/an-honest-inquiry-into-the-nature-of-christology-by-a-trinitarian.196/

I'm not saying that he was both man and God from all eternity.
His humanity began at his begetting.
His eternal "Godhood" existed from eternity past.

Okay, this is very good.

But is he a real human person?

Is Jesus actually a man?

A man has certain definitions to it.

Without the power of God to quicken the unbelievers, they cannot be saved.

Same thing with doctrines, there are powerful demons behind them.

 

[SteveB]

Wait, what!?

I know! Terrifying, isn't it!

Begetting we might say facilitates creation, and is not creation—but I mean, we are creations.

oh, we're created, but it started with Adam.
the rest of us are begotten.
I suppose if I were to identify the creation of me... it'd be when I was begotten, and then God made my soul.

God created you. He didn't just create something that begets you, even if he used this means.

I suppose if I were to identify the creation of me... it'd be when I was begotten, and then God made my soul.

To say God did not create me, seems very strange to me—we are God's creations, and that is certainly Biblically and logically attested.

I agree, it is strange to me too. But, the bible says that God created Adam out of the dirt, and he created Eve out of Adam's side/rib/etc....
But the rest of us exist as begotten offspring of the results of our parents.
The only act of creation I can identify is when we're begotten, God creates the soul of the individual who is begotten.
It's unfamiliarity to us doesn't mean it's not so.
I suppose my thinking is that what I am was the result of biology.
Who I am is the result of God creating me.

Well, Jesus is both God and man.

Yep! Absolutely! Not in question...
Which is what makes the question i initially asked so important... why would they turn him into a little g-god?
that's polytheism and they claim to be monotheists.

But the way a lot of people act in practice is that Jesus is "God with some kind of man thing attached."

I'd say that's probably because the idea of the eternal God, becoming human and "stuffing himself" into a human body is so utterly profound that.... as you say... very strange to them.
As a young believer, that was a very strange thing to me. How can the eternal God inhabit the body of a man?

It's like they subsume the humanity to where Jesus is not what we would define as a full and legitimate man in every sense of the word.

I explain my view in great detail here:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/an-honest-inquiry-into-the-nature-of-christology-by-a-trinitarian.196/

Ok. Thank you.

Okay, this is very good.

But is he a real human person?

Absolutely!
100% human. 100% YHVH the Son.

Is Jesus actually a man?

Yep!

A man has certain definitions to it.

Yep!

Same thing with doctrines, there are powerful demons behind them.

Yes.
Which is why Truth from the written Word is so important to us.

 

[Dizerner]

But the rest of us exist as begotten offspring of the results of our parents.

In theology this actually has a name, traducianism.

We would still technically be created under this system, not just begotten.

And it does seem to fit quite nicely with the doctrine of original sin, and that all are fallen in Adam.

It's just that we would have been created in the past, and then that creation is the "gift that keeps on giving" so to speak, passing it along.

There is some truth to this, for example in the physical realm as you point out, our literal atoms.

However, I think we can see that God does indeed partake in a special creation for each one of us, in our invisible soul:

Pray and think about this passage for a bit:

13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. (Ps. 139:13-16 NKJ)

Now notice some things about this passage, that to me, don't quite fit traducianism.

God is the one who forms the inward part, they are described as his direct work, our fundamental nature is described as made by him in secret and skillfully wrought in a place that is, we can just say, not the physical location of the womb, and that our substance was yet unformed before we were conceived.

None of those things fit traducianism for me. The way I would expect the passage to read is something like this:

For my inward parts were formed from my parents, marvelous are their works; they skillfully wrought me in the womb, for I was formed when they were.

Now you can make a nice epic attempt to squeeze the passage into traducianism, but the truth is, it just does not fit in that "womb."

And notice here how the spirit is described:

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Notice the sharp distinction between what is physical and spiritual, and that the "biology" goes back to the earth, but the real substance, the "spirit" returns to God who gave it. If it returns, that means it is the place it came from. I would expect the passage to read, "the spirit finally journeys to God who gave Adam and Eve," under the traducian model.

That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit. Again we see that dichotomy. Spirit, soul and body.

We see God does indeed have some creative hand in the conception of all human life.

 

[Johann]

I'd say that's probably because the idea of the eternal God, becoming human and "stuffing himself" into a human body is so utterly profound that.... as you say... very strange to them.
As a young believer, that was a very strange thing to me. How can the eternal God inhabit the body of a man?

Don't look up word studies only-look at the morphologies and syntax in Hebrew and Greek-my 2 cents.


The first born (prōtotokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Heb_1:1-4 as well as Php_2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luk_2:7 and Aleph for Mat_1:25; Rom_8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pāsēs ktiseōs, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prōtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col_1:18; Rom_8:29; Heb_1:6; Heb_12:23; Rev_1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eikōn we find prōtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikōn (Image) and to the universe as prōtotokos (First-born).
RWP

Rev., the first-born of all creation. For first-born, see on Rev_1:5; for creation, see on 2Co_5:17. As image points to revelation, so first-born points to eternal preexistence. Even the Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created. The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, Col_1:17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εἰς) Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Psa_89:27; Heb_1:2.
MV

I'll have to look up "begotten" since you say we are not "created"-perhaps misunderstanding you here.

 

[Johann]

I'd say that's probably because the idea of the eternal God, becoming human and "stuffing himself" into a human body is so utterly profound that.... as you say... very strange to them.
As a young believer, that was a very strange thing to me. How can the eternal God inhabit the body of a man?

Don't look up word studies only-look at the morphologies and syntax in Hebrew and Greek=just my 2 cents.


FIRSTBORN

This word "firstborn" (prōtotokos) is used in the Bible in several distinct senses.

1. its OT background refers to

a. the firstborn belongs to YHWH (BDB 114, KB 131, cf. Exod. 13:2,12; 22:29; 34:19; Num. 3:13)

b. the pre-imminence of the firstborn son of the family (cf. Deut. 21:17; Ps. 89:27; Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 11:28)

2. its use in Col. 1:15 speaks of Jesus as the first of creation which is a possible OT allusion to Pro. 8:22-31, or God's agent of creation (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2)

3. its use in Col. 1:15,18; 1 Cor. 15:20,23; Rev. 1:5 refers to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead

4. it is an OT title used of the Messiah (cf. Ps. 89:27; Heb. 1:6; 12:23); it is a title which combines several aspects of the primacy and centrality of Jesus.
"He is the image of the invisible God" The same word (eikōn) is used of Jesus in Col. 3:10 and 2 Cor. 4:4. A similar theological expression occurs in John 1:18; 14:9; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:3. The Hebrews 1:3 passage has the stronger Greek term (charakter, which means an exact representation, cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). To see Jesus is to see God! The invisible God has become visible! Deity has become a man (cf. John 14:9).

Jesus' ministry was to restore the image of God in humanity. In one sense Eden had been restored through Jesus, the second Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-28; Phil. 2:6). It is even possible that heaven will be a restored Eden:

1. the Bible begins with God, mankind and the animals (cf. Gen. 1-2) and ends with God and mankind in a garden setting (with the animals by implication, cf. Rev. 21-22)

2. the prophecy of Isa. 11:6-9 describes children and animals together in the new age

3. new Jerusalem comes down to a recreated earth (cf. 2 Pet. 3:10-13; Rev. 21:2)



"the firstborn of all creation" This was an OT metaphor for Jesus' unique and exalted position.

1. the rabbis said it meant preeminence (cf. Exod. 4:22)

2. in the OT it was used for the eldest son as heir and manager of the family

3. in Ps. 89:27 it was used in a Messianic sense

4. in Pro. 8:22 it referred to Wisdom as God's first creation and agent of creation. In context options #1 and #2 combined seem best

This phrase is not to be understood as Jesus being the first creation (#4). This would have played into the hands of the Gnostic teachers, who taught that Jesus was the highest angelic level next to the high god. It must be interpreted in its Jewish OT setting. Jesus was deity's unique son (cf. John 1:18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9), yet Jesus was always Deity (cf. Col. 1:17; John 1:1; 5:18; 10:30; 14:9; 20:28). He became a human in time, at Bethlehem, so that fallen mankind could comprehend and understand Deity (cf. John 1:14,18).

 

[Dizerner]

4. in Pro. 8:22 it referred to Wisdom as God's first creation and agent of creation. In context options #1 and #2 combined seem best

This word is not used here as far as I can tell.

Do you have any further references.

 

[Johann]

This word is not used here as far as I can tell.

Do you have any further references.

Yes, I have-read the post again brother-I am tired at the moment.

AND WHEN HE AGAIN BRINGS THE FIRST-BORN INTO THE WORLD: hotan de palin eisagage (3SAAS) ton prototokon eis tên oikoumenên:

Heb 1:5; Pr 8:24;25 Jn 1:14;18 3:16; Ro 8:29; Col 1:15, 18 1Jn 4:9; Rev 1:5)
Notice that this group of translations favor again translated in such a way as to not favor this as a reference to the Second Coming --

And again, when he brings the firstborn (NRSV)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world (KJV)
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world (NIV)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world (DNT)
And again, when he brings his firstborn into the world (ISV)
And again, when he leads the first-born into the world, (NAB)
And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world (ESV)
But when God was about to send his first-born Son into the world (TEV)
Further, when he brings his first-born into this world of men, (Phillips)
And again, when God brings his Firstborn into the world (JNT)
and further when introducing the firstborn into the world (Moffatt)
Now again when He brings the Firstborn [fig., the Pre-existent One] into the inhabited earth (ALT)
And again, when he is sending his only Son into the world (BBE)
Notice that the following translations favor again translated in such a way as to favor this as a reference to the Second Coming --

But speaking of the time when He once more brings His Firstborn (WNT)
And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world (ASV)
And whenever He shall have brought again the first-begotten into the inhabited earth (Wuest)
Moreover, when He brings the firstborn Son again into the habitable world (Amp)
When He again brings His firstborn into the world, (Adds a note: Or And again, when He brings His firstborn into the world..." ) (Holman Christian Std Bible)
But when he again brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!” (NET Bible is similar to Holman above adding an explanatory note but stating that they favor the rendering that "looks forward to Christ's Second Coming to earth")
and when he re-introduces the first-begotten into the world (Mace NT)
But speaking of the time when He once more brings His Firstborn into the world (WNT)
But when He again brings the firstborn (NKJV)
and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world (YLT)
If again the Greek adverb palin is taken as modifying the verb (brings… into) that it immediately precedes in the Greek construction, one would interpret this as a reference is to Second Coming (He 9:28-note; He 10:37-note) - see also Second Coming - Table comparing Rapture vs Second Coming)

Charles Ryrie, Vincent, Wuest, Expositor’s Commentary, and Alford interpret this as a reference to the Second Coming. John MacArthur notes that that one can interpret it either way and A T Robertson adds that

There is no way to decide certainly about it.

First-born (firstborn) (4416) (prototokos = protos = first, + tíkto =bear, bring forth) (Click study of prototokos) can mean first-born chronologically (Lk 2:7) but refers primarily to position, or rank.

In both Greek and Jewish culture, the first-born was the son who had the right of inheritance. He was not necessarily the first one born. Although Esau was born first chronologically, it was Jacob who was the “first-born” and received the inheritance. Jesus is the One with the right to the inheritance of all creation. In Ps 89:27, God says of the Messiah,

“I also shall make him My first-born,” then defines what He means—“the highest of the kings of the earth.”

In Rev 1:5 (note), Jesus is called “the first-born of the dead,” even though He was not the first person to be resurrected chronologically. Of all ever raised, He is the preeminent One.

Ro 8:29(note) refers to Him as the first-born in relation to the church. In all the above cases, first-born clearly means highest in rank, not first created.

TWISTING THE SCRIPTURE
HEBREWS 1:6
BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the title “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15-note) means that Jesus is the first created being, based on the analogy of a human family where the first-born child is younger than his parents. To support this they must insert the word other into their translation called the New World Translation so that it reads

“For by him all other things were created.” (Col 1:15-note)

There is no manuscript support which would warrant the heretical insertion of the word other into the original Greek text. In addition to the example of Esau and Jacob mentioned above, the OT records several instances where the son who is designated the firstborn was not the one chronologically born first. For example, Ishmael was thirteen years older than Isaac, but it is Isaac who is designated as the firstborn. In addition, when Jacob transfers the right of the firstborn to one of Joseph's two sons, he makes the younger son Ephraim the firstborn. over the chronologically firstborn Manasseh.

 

[Dizerner]

Yes, I have-read the post again brother-I am tired at the moment.

I'm talking about Prov. 8:22, I quoted Prov. 8:22.

I read it carefully, none of that is on Proverbs 8:22.

The word is not there.

 

[Johann]

I'm talking about Prov. 8:22, I quoted Prov. 8:22.

I read it carefully, none of that is on Proverbs 8:22.

The word is not there.

Pro 8:22 YHWHH3068 N-proper-ms Yah·weh יְֽהוָ֗ה possessed meH7069 H8804 V-Qal-Perf-3ms+1cs qā·nā·nî קָ֭נָנִי at the beginningH7225 N-fsc rê·šîṯ רֵאשִׁ֣ית of His way,H1870 N-csc+3ms dar·kōw דַּרְכּ֑וֹ N1 BeforeH6924 N-msc qe·ḏem קֶ֖דֶם His worksH4659 N-mpc+3ms mip̄·‘ā·lāw מִפְעָלָ֣יו from then.H227 Prep-m+Adv mê·’āz מֵאָֽז׃
Pro 8:23 From everlasting,H5769 Prep-m+N-ms mê·‘ō·w·lām מֵ֭עוֹלָם I have been establishedH5258 H8738 V-Nifal-Perf-1cs nis·saḵ·tî נִסַּ֥כְתִּי from the beginning,H7218 Prep-m+N-ms mê·rōš מֵרֹ֗אשׁ before there was everH6924 Prep-m+N-mpc miq·qaḏ·mê- מִקַּדְמֵי־ an earth.H776 N-fs ’ā·reṣ אָֽרֶץ׃
Pro 8:24 When [there were] noH369 Prep-b+Adv bə·’ên- בְּאֵין־ depths,H8415 N-cp tə·hō·mō·wṯ תְּהֹמ֥וֹת I was brought forth;H2342 H8797 V-Pual-Perf-1cs ḥō·w·lā·lə·tî חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי when [there were] noH369 Prep-b+Adv bə·’ên בְּאֵ֥ין fountainsH4599 N-mp ma‘·yā·nō·wṯ מַ֝עְיָנ֗וֹת abounding withH3513 H8737 V-Nifal-Prtcpl-mpc niḵ·bad·dê- נִכְבַּדֵּי־ water.H4325 N-mp mā·yim מָֽיִם׃


Pro 8:23 I was set up [to reign] me'olam (from eternity), from the beginning, or ever eretz was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no tehomot, I was brought forth; when there were no springs abounding with mayim.
Pro 8:25 Before the harim were settled, before the geva'ot (hills) was I brought forth;

קנה
qânâh
kaw-naw'
A primitive root; to erect, that is, create; by extension to procure, especially by purchase (causatively sell); by implication to own: - attain, buy (-er), teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy, possess (-or), purchase, recover, redeem, X surely, X verily.

LXX Related Word(s)
G25 agapao
G59 agorazo
G3084 lutroo
G1081 gennao
G2932 ktaomai
G2936 ktizo

BDB Definition:
1) to get, acquire, create, buy, possess
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to get, acquire, obtain
1a1a) of God originating, creating, redeeming His people
1a1a1) possessor
1a1b) of Eve acquiring
1a1c) of acquiring knowledge, wisdom
1a2) to buy
1b) (Niphal) to be bought
1c) (Hiphil) to cause to possess
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
AHLB#: 1428-H (V)

1428) Nq% (Nq% QN) ac: Acquire co: Nest ab: Zealous: The pictograph q is a picture of the sun at the horizon and the gathering of the light, the n is a picture of a seed. Combined these mean "gathering for the seeds". The parent birds go about gathering materials to build a nest where they will raise their seeds (eggs). (eng: coin - for purchasing)
A) Nq% (Nq% QN) ac: ? co: Nest ab: ?: A birds nest as well as a stall for animals as a nest.
Nm) Nq% (Nq% QN) - Nest: [freq. 13] |kjv: nest, room| {str: 7064}
B) Nnq% (Nnq% QNN) ac: ? co: Nest ab: ?: The building of the nest and family.
V) Nnq% (Nnq% Q-NN) - Nest: To build a Nest or home. [freq. 5] (vf: Pual, Piel) |kjv: nest| {str: 7077}
bm) Ninq% (Ninq% Q-NYN) - Possessions: The goods and wealth acquired as the acquiring of materials for building a nest. [freq. 10] |kjv: substance, getting, goods, riches, with| {str: 7075}
E) Anq% (Anq% QNA) ac: ? co: ? ab: Zealous: The parent bird will guard over and protect the nest and eggs from predators. Man can guard over the family, wife, possessions in a positive way (protect, from an enemy) or in a negative way (by not trusting or a desire to have anothers possessions).
V) Anq% (Anq% Q-NA) - Zealous: [freq. 33] (vf: Hiphil, Piel) |kjv: envy, jealous, zealous, zeal| {str: 7065}
Nm) Anq% (Anq% Q-NA) - Zealous: One who is protective over someone or something. [freq. 6] |kjv: jealous| {str: 7067}
Nf1) Eanq% (Eanq% QN-AH) - Zealousy: A protective or suspicious nature. [freq. 43] |kjv: jealousy, zeal, envy, for my sake| {str: 7068}
cm) Afnq% (Afnq% Q-NWA) - Zealous: [freq. 2] |kjv: jealous| {str: 7072}
H) Enq% (Enq% QNH) ac: Gather co: Branch ab: ?: The process of gathering branches for the nest; mans gathering or acquiring materials by taking or buying. The ancients measured wealth by the amount of ones possessions and measured distances using a branch with marks on it.
V) Enq% (Enq% Q-NH) - Possess: To acquire someone or something through a purchase or other method. [Hebrew and Aramaic] [freq. 85] (vf: Paal, Niphal, Hiphil) |kjv: get, gotten, possess, buy, purchase, possessor, buyer, keep| {str: 7066, 7069}
Nm) Enq% (Enq% Q-NH) - Branch: As used for nest building. [freq. 62] |kjv: reed, branch, calamus, cane, stalk| {str: 7070}
hm) Enqm% (Enqm% MQ-NH) - I. Herd: What is purchased or possessed. II. Possession: What is purchased or possessed. Usually of livestock or land. [freq. 75] |kjv: cattle, possession, flocks, substance, herd, purchase| {str: 4735}
hf1) Enqm% (Enqm% MQ-NH) - Possession: What is purchased or possessed. Usually of livestock or land. [freq. 15] |kjv: bought, purchase, price, possession| {str: 4736}
J) Nfq% (Nfq% QWN) ac: ? co: Song ab: ?: The repetitive song or chirping of a bird.
V) Nfq% (Nfq% QWN) - Chant: As a repetitive sound like a bird. [freq. 8] (vf: Piel) |kjv: lament, mourning| {str: 6969}
Nf1) Enfq% (Enfq% QW-NH) - Chanting: [df: hnyq] [freq. 18] |kjv: lamentation, dirge, elegy| {str: 7015}
M) Niq% (Niq% QYN) ac: ? co: Bill ab: ?: The bill of a bird used for feeding it young and as a weapon.
Nm) Niq% (Niq% QYN) - Spearhead: Like the bill of bird used to defend the nest. [freq. 1] |kjv: spear| {str: 7013}



I really need to rest-will take it up and expound with you more fully-we don't want to make mistakes.

 

[SteveB]

In theology this actually has a name, traducianism.

Interesting.... that's the first I've heard of that.
I suppose that would explain why we mimic our parents in our lives.
It'd probably also explain why we want to be like our parents as we grow up.

Although.... each of these things would also be a part of what God instilled into the begetting process.
A new thought to include in my ever developing processes....

We would still technically be created under this system, not just begotten.

Could be.

And it does seem to fit quite nicely with the doctrine of original sin, and that all are fallen in Adam.

Yes.
although, in light of a number of things, which would take a while to describe, I'm thinking that sin passes through the male DNA.
Which is why Jesus could be born of a virgin....

It's just that we would have been created in the past, and then that creation is the "gift that keeps on giving" so to speak, passing it along.

Indeed... which was why it made sense to me that any present creation would be God creating my soul upon conception.

There is some truth to this, for example in the physical realm as you point out, our literal atoms.

However, I think we can see that God does indeed partake in a special creation for each one of us, in our invisible soul:

Pray and think about this passage for a bit:

13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. (Ps. 139:13-16 NKJ)

It actually works for me and I don't have a problem with it.

Now notice some things about this passage, that to me, don't quite fit traducianism.

God is the one who forms the inward part, they are described as his direct work, our fundamental nature is described as made by him in secret and skillfully wrought in a place that is, we can just say, not the physical location of the womb, and that our substance was yet unformed before we were conceived.

None of those things fit traducianism for me. The way I would expect the passage to read is something like this:

For my inward parts were formed from my parents, marvelous are their works; they skillfully wrought me in the womb, for I was formed when they were.

Now you can make a nice epic attempt to squeeze the passage into traducianism, but the truth is, it just does not fit in that "womb."

Exactly...
Not having heard of it before, I'm not explicitly opposed to it, but it seems to be part of the original creation and not part of a new creation at the conception of each new child.

And notice here how the spirit is described:

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Notice the sharp distinction between what is physical and spiritual, and that the "biology" goes back to the earth, but the real substance, the "spirit" returns to God who gave it. If it returns, that means it is the place it came from. I would expect the passage to read, "the spirit finally journeys to God who gave Adam and Eve," under the traducian model.

That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit. Again we see that dichotomy. Spirit, soul and body.

We see God does indeed have some creative hand in the conception of all human life.

Please read Genesis 2:7, Ezekiel 36:25-27, John 3:3-5, 1 Peter 1:23.

The new birth appears to be where we are given a new spirit.
Something changes during the old testament. We start in Genesis 2 with a living soul.
Later on, a spirit is brought into the picture.
This is something that I've been learning about for a long time, and it seems like the spirit might simply be a later description of the soul.
I haven't read much else on it.

 

[SteveB]

Don't look up word studies only-look at the morphologies and syntax in Hebrew and Greek=just my 2 cents.


FIRSTBORN

This word "firstborn" (prōtotokos) is used in the Bible in several distinct senses.

1. its OT background refers to

a. the firstborn belongs to YHWH (BDB 114, KB 131, cf. Exod. 13:2,12; 22:29; 34:19; Num. 3:13)

b. the pre-imminence of the firstborn son of the family (cf. Deut. 21:17; Ps. 89:27; Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 11:28)

2. its use in Col. 1:15 speaks of Jesus as the first of creation which is a possible OT allusion to Pro. 8:22-31, or God's agent of creation (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2)

3. its use in Col. 1:15,18; 1 Cor. 15:20,23; Rev. 1:5 refers to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead

4. it is an OT title used of the Messiah (cf. Ps. 89:27; Heb. 1:6; 12:23); it is a title which combines several aspects of the primacy and centrality of Jesus.
"He is the image of the invisible God" The same word (eikōn) is used of Jesus in Col. 3:10 and 2 Cor. 4:4. A similar theological expression occurs in John 1:18; 14:9; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:3. The Hebrews 1:3 passage has the stronger Greek term (charakter, which means an exact representation, cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). To see Jesus is to see God! The invisible God has become visible! Deity has become a man (cf. John 14:9).

Jesus' ministry was to restore the image of God in humanity. In one sense Eden had been restored through Jesus, the second Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-28; Phil. 2:6). It is even possible that heaven will be a restored Eden:

1. the Bible begins with God, mankind and the animals (cf. Gen. 1-2) and ends with God and mankind in a garden setting (with the animals by implication, cf. Rev. 21-22)

2. the prophecy of Isa. 11:6-9 describes children and animals together in the new age

3. new Jerusalem comes down to a recreated earth (cf. 2 Pet. 3:10-13; Rev. 21:2)



"the firstborn of all creation" This was an OT metaphor for Jesus' unique and exalted position.

1. the rabbis said it meant preeminence (cf. Exod. 4:22)

2. in the OT it was used for the eldest son as heir and manager of the family

3. in Ps. 89:27 it was used in a Messianic sense

4. in Pro. 8:22 it referred to Wisdom as God's first creation and agent of creation. In context options #1 and #2 combined seem best

This phrase is not to be understood as Jesus being the first creation (#4). This would have played into the hands of the Gnostic teachers, who taught that Jesus was the highest angelic level next to the high god. It must be interpreted in its Jewish OT setting. Jesus was deity's unique son (cf. John 1:18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9), yet Jesus was always Deity (cf. Col. 1:17; John 1:1; 5:18; 10:30; 14:9; 20:28). He became a human in time, at Bethlehem, so that fallen mankind could comprehend and understand Deity (cf. John 1:14,18).

Thanks. I'm saving this for future reference.

Your final paragraph (in italics) describes a particular problem in the JW/WTS group.

They appear to be gnostic in their ideas.