Jesus the Firstborn - What the Bible REALLY Teaches!

by UnDisfellowshipped 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  What the Bible REALLY Teaches: The Firstborn of All Creation.

  Jehovah's Witnesses teach that because Jesus is called "The Firstborn of all creation" at Colossians 1:15, this has to mean that Jesus was the first creation by God.

  "the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son."

  (from the book, "Insight on the Scriptures," Volume 2, Page 52)

  "Col. 1:15, 16, RS: "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"? [...] Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God." (from the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures," Page 409)

  However, what does the Bible

  really teach about this?

  Colossians 1:15 is often used by certain religious groups and people (including Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians) to "prove" that Jesus was the first creature that God created, before God made anything else. However, these verses are actually teaching something different.

  In ancient Israel, the firstborn son received twice the inheritance and more honor and authority than the other sons, and upon the father's death, he was regarded as the head of the household. (Deuteronomy 21:17; Genesis 48:13-14; Genesis 49:3; 2nd Chronicles 21:3)

  At Psalm 89:27, God promised that He would "place" or "appoint" David (or the coming Son of David, the Messiah) into the position of "Firstborn," which meant, in this context, the "Most High of all the kings of the earth," the one who held first place. At Exodus 4:22, God declares that "Israel is My firstborn son," that is, Israel would hold first place in God's eyes among all other nations, and Israel would be the most treasured and loved nation to God.

  There was clearly a "position" or "rank" of "firstborn" in the Bible -- this was the position of being in "first place" or the "highest rank."

  At Colossians 1:15-18, the Apostle Paul taught that Jesus is the "Firstborn" of all creation because all things were created through Him and for Him, He existed before anything was ever created, and He is the Firstborn because He is the One who has "first place" in all things. Since Jesus is called "Firstborn" because He created all things and existed before all things, this shows that He is not called "Firstborn" because He was the first thing created.

  Paul himself, at Colossians 1:18, explains that he is referring to the position or rank of "Firstborn," because Paul says Jesus is the one who has "preeminence" or "first place" in all things. Therefore, Paul was not saying that Jesus was the first creature created by God. (Compare also Revelation 1:5)
  
  If Jesus Himself were part of creation, how could He exist before one thing was ever created by God? Did God create Jesus through Jesus? (See John 1:3; Colossians 1:17)

  At Hebrews 1:6, God commands all of His angels to worship The Firstborn Son, which would be idolatry if The Firstborn were a creature.

  There is also a different understanding of this Scripture on the part of some Christians. Some believe that Colossians 1:15-18 is speaking about Jesus Christ as a Human, and that, as a Man, He was indeed a creature in the sense that His Human Body was created by God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Calling Him "Firstborn" would then mean that He holds first place among all of God's creation, or that He is the First of all of God's new creation (which are those believers who have been born again and will go to heaven with immortal human bodies). I do not agree with that understanding because Colossians 1:15-17 is talking about when Jesus Christ created angels and humans, and Jesus was definitely NOT a Human at that time. But even this explanation agrees with the Scriptures better than the idea that Jesus was the first one created by God and then God used Him to create all other things.

  If you are using the New World Translation, please compare Colossians 1:15-17 in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, the American Standard Version, and any other modern translation, and you will see that the words "[other]" are not found in the Greek text. The words "[other]" were added by the translators of the New World Translation in order to support their belief that Jesus was created by God, and then He created all other things. The Watchtower Society even admits this in the "Reasoning" Book, on pages 408-409 (italics and bold added by me):

  "In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God."
  
  My question is, if the entire Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was created by God, then why does the New World Translation need to add words that are not in the Greek text in order to show that Jesus is "a created being, part of the creation produced by God"? Didn't God know what He was doing when He inspired His Apostles to write the Scriptures? Why does He need "help" from the Watchtower Society?

  Finally, if Paul had wanted to say that Jesus was the "First-Created One," instead of "Firstborn" there was a different Greek word specifically for that which he could have used, but did not choose to use.

  What are your thoughts or comments on this?

  Are there any Jehovah's Witnesses or Unitarians willing to argue or present their case for why they believe Colossians 1:15 is teaching that Jesus was created by God?
• 

  burningbridges

  Very insightful and logically presented. I'm going to keep this is mind....
• 

  hamilcarr

  Interesting post!

  Are there any Jehovah's Witnesses or Unitarians willing to argue or present their case for why they believe Colossians 1:15 is teaching that Jesus was created by God?

  I don't qualify, but I guess they will twist things round.

  Since Jesus is called " Firstborn " because He created all things and existed before all things, this shows that He is not called " Firstborn " because He was the first thing created.

  JWs would say "he's called firstborn, so he can't have created all things, hence "other" needs to be added as clarification" (though even Furuli admits this is not strictly necessary according to the JW stance).
• 

  Narkissos

  Christological formulae like those in Colossians did not fall from heaven.

  Compare the Hellenistic Jewish, pre-Christian, descriptions of the logos (also identified to the heavenly, ideal "Adam") in Philo of Alexandria, Of the Confusion of Tongues, 62f and 146f:

  I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" {Cf. Zechariah 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

  And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel. For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, "We are all one man's Sons." For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word.

  Here the Greek term for "firstborn" is different (protogonos instead of prototokos in Colossians) but we already find the main cluster of notions which will make up all the main NT Christological hymns (John, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews): firstborn Son, Word of God, image of God, name of God -- except, it's not about "Jesus"... Unlike the NT Christological hymns, though (and explicitly contrary to Hebrews) we also find angelic (and archangelic) descriptions of the same character. Which means that Philo, at least, did not perceive those qualifications as contradictory. Neither did the later Church Fathers like Justin Martyr who could develop an angelic Christology.

  My opinion is that the question, "created or uncreated?" is anachronistic as far as 1st- or 2nd-century texts are concerned. This issue only came to the fore in the aftermath of the "Gnostic" crisis of the 2nd century. To the "Gnostics," the "elect" (aka "pneumatics," or "spiritual") did not belong to the created "world": they were of the same divine essence as the Father and the Redeemer. To the anti-Gnostic "orthodoxy," otoh, the elect were an integral part of "creation," and the Redeemer had to function as a sort of "bridge" between the "uncreated" and the "created" realms. Which eventually led to the 4th-century question: is the Redeemer himself "created" or "uncreated"? -- which amounted to asking, which bank does the bridge belong to?

  It is hardly a surprise that N.T. texts can only provide an ambiguous answer to this question, because it couldn't make any sense to their writers...
• 

  Shawn10538

  Are there Unitarians who give a flip about the Bible or any doctrine for that matter? I have a bunch of friends from that church and they don't even believe in god let alone being up for a biblical debate.
• 

  Narkissos

  shawn,

  Most Unitarians (e.g. Universalist) are liberal, but not all. There are fundamentalists too (e.g. Biblical Unitarians), not very far from JWs on that matter.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Narkissos said:

  My opinion is that the question, "created or uncreated?" is anachronistic as far as 1st- or 2nd-century texts are concerned. This issue only came to the fore in the aftermath of the "Gnostic" crisis of the 2nd century. To the "Gnostics," the "elect" (aka "pneumatics," or "spiritual") did not belong to the created "world": they were of the same divine essence as the Father and the Redeemer. To the anti-Gnostic "orthodoxy," otoh, the elect were an integral part of "creation," and the Redeemer had to function as a sort of "bridge" between the "uncreated" and the "created" realms. Which eventually led to the 4th-century question: is the Redeemer himself "created" or "uncreated"? -- which amounted to asking, which bank does the bridge belong to?

  It is hardly a surprise that N.T. texts can only provide an ambiguous answer to this question, because it couldn't make any sense to their writers...

  Thank you Narkissos for that information. However, I do believe it was of the utmost importance to the early (1st century) Christians whether or not Jesus was created by God or was the God who created all else.

  First, Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans:

  "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:24-25, ESV)

  There Paul was teaching that it is idolatry to worship or serve any created thing instead of the uncreated Creator. Paul also said that idolaters will not be saved. (1st Corinthians 6:9)

  Revelation also teaches that it is idolatry to worship even exalted angels. (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9) In Revelation 21:8 it says that all idolaters will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for an eternity of torment. Yet also in Revelation it is shown that it is proper to give equal worship to Jesus that is given to God the Father (see Revelation chapter 5).

  At Colossians 2:9, Paul says that all of the fullness of the Deity (Godship, Godness, Godhood) dwells in Christ, but then in Colossians 2:18 Paul teaches that we should not worship angels.

  John 1:1 shows that the Logos "already was" before "the beginning" of Genesis 1:1, and John 1:3 says that not even one created thing was ever created without being created through the Logos.

  If it was not important or relevant in the first century whether Jesus was created or uncreated, then why did Paul, John, Revelation, and Hebrews chapters 1-3 make such a big deal out of this?
• 

  Narkissos

  Undf'd,

  I do believe it was of the utmost importance to the early (1st century) Christians whether or not Jesus was created by God or was the God who created all else.

  If that "either/or" dilemma had been so important to them, they would have expressed and answered it explicitly, wouldn't they? Most NT texts are crystal-clear as to the issues they are actually dealing with. We have no hesitation in deciding whether Paul believed in Torah observance or not. Now when we can toss Bible verses of the same authors both sides of an argument it is highly likely that we are asking them the wrong question.

  Revelation also teaches that it is idolatry to worship even exalted angels. (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9) In Revelation 21:8 it says that all idolaters will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for an eternity of torment. Yet also in Revelation it is shown that it is proper to give equal worship to Jesus that is given to God the Father (see Revelation chapter 5).

  Yet in Revelation it is equally clear that the kind of worship/obeisance (proskunèsis)which a disciple of Christ, as a fellow servant, should (or needs) not pay to an "angel," will be paid to the "angel of the church of Philadelphia" (3:9). Is this "angel" (or perhaps the Christians it stands for) uncreated? Or is the Lord himself promoting "idolatry"?

  At Colossians 2:9, Paul says that all of the fullness of the Deity (Godship, Godness, Godhood) dwells in Christ, but then in Colossians 2:18 Paul teaches that we should not worship angels.

  This is only one (and imo the least likely) meaning of the phrase "worship of angels" (thrèskeia tôn aggelôn), which may equally (or better) refer to the "angelic liturgy" or worship offered by the angels (to God). The author is only pointing that in Christ his readers have immediate contact with the divine and need not be impressed by the claims of sharing in some revealed heavenly worship.

  John 1:1 shows that the Logos "already was" before "the beginning" of Genesis 1:1, and John 1:3 says that not even one created thing was ever created without being created through the Logos.

  Nope, it says the Logos was in "the beginning". Also note that the specific vocabulary of creation (ktizô ktl.) is conspicuously absent from both texts -- which is hardly surprising considering their affinities with (proto-)Gnosticism.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I remember the discussions about Rev 3:14 causing a stir among Witness apologists a few years ago, when the most recent edition of the "BDAG" lexicon changed from viewing "beginning of God's creation" as a "possible" to the "probable" meaning here.

  http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2001-January/015309.html

  So doesn't this verse flat out say Jesus was created?

  Hugh Schonfield thought so from his footnote on the verse: "Clearly John the Elder himself believed the heavenly Christ was a created being, as did the early Christians."
• 

  Eliveleth

  Undisfellowshipped,

  I appreciated this article. It gives a good view on what this word "firstborn" could mean. The Bible says that Jesus is "the only-begotten Son" of God. What does that mean? When we hear the word begotten in the Old Testament, it always mean the BIRTH of a child. How Jesus was born of God, we can only imagine, but this word means more than just created. In Colossians 2:9 it says in the KIT Greek to English:" because in him is dwelling down all the fullness of the godship bodily." Everything has its own nature. Each animal species is different in its nature and the species only "beget" within their kind. The canines beget canines, man begets man, God begets God.

  I suppose it really doesn't matter if Jesus was created or not. The Bible says that he is above all things and deserves worship. If the Bible was clear on each doctrine, then we would not have to try to understand what it means. The way it is we just have to accept that we cannot say that the "Bible says" and expect everyone to understand it the same. This is why, I believe, that it is impossible to have a "united" belief. It is up to God to read the heart and accept us for who we are and not what we believe.

  Velta