If Jesus was created then why is the word protoktisis not used the Bible?

I_love_Jeff

Is the word protoktisis from Koine Greek language? I do know that Clement used it a centuries later. Any greek scholars out there? Thanks

Because Jesus was NOT created. Every "proof text" that JWs use to "prove" that Jesus was created is easily answered when you look at the Greek. Rev 3:16 uses the word "arche" and is translated "beginning" by many translators. He IS the beginning of the creation of God, but this is in reference to His position, status, and authority. Arche means "origin" or "first in position" or "Leader" or "Cause". It's what we get our English word "architect" from.

When you apply this word "arche", you get a clear picture. Jesus is the Leader over all of creation. Jesus is the ORIGIN over all creation. Jesus was teh architect.

No, Jesus was not the first created. Col 1:15,16 shows that Jesus exists before ALL THINGS. This would make no sense if Jesus was a created thing. That is why the WT was forced to insert "other" into the text to try and make sense of it.

Christ Alone

Also the word "firstborn" in Col 1 does not mean first created. PROTOTOKOS, as you brought out, is not the same as PROTOKTISIS. Prototokos refers to position. There are several passages in the Bible where someone is spoken of as being "firstborn" when they were not actually the first person born. An example that is used by many is the example of Manasseh and Ephraim. Manasseh was born first with Ephraim being the second child. (Gen 41:51,52) However, later it is Ephraim that is spoken of as being first born. (Jer 31:9) This is because "first born" refers to position. The usual definition given is "pre-eminence".

This is shown in Psalm 89:27 where God says that He would make David the Firstborn. Obviously David was not the first one born to his father. But in regards to position, David would be pre-eminent over everyone in Israel.

slimboyfat

As I recall Greg Stafford argued that this word is not actually attested in Greek until centuries after the New Testament was written.

A second point is that if Bible writers wanted to express that Jesus was the first creation by calling him the firstborn then why should they not do so?

A third point is that the Bible does actually call Jesus the "beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14) by that still doesn't stop Trinitarians denying it.

Leolaia

There are about a hundred instances of this word, all from Late Antiquity onward. Nothing earlier than Clement of Alexandria, who used it about twenty times. It was also used by Gregorius Nyssenus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Basilius, Didymus Caecus, Joannes Chrysostomus, Julius Africanus, Gregorius Syncellus, and Gelasius Cyzicenus, usually in the context of the Son being described as "firstborn" as opposed to "first-created" in Scripture. It thus appears in a few NT catenae. Outside of this context there are a few occurences in profane (?) sources, but all very late. There is a scolion on line 1113 of Euripedes' Phoenissae regarding the Ogygian gates in Thebes that uses it in the plural. It also occurs a few times in magical papyri.

So no hard evidence that the word pre-dates Clement (early third century AD). It possibly could have existed in earlier times, but there is no evidence that it did, and it looks somewhat like a back-formation from pròtogonos/pròtotokos, derived for apologetic purposes.

If Jesus was created then why is the word protoktisis not used the Bible?

Share this