@Blotty
You claim my dictionary citation is fabricated because I haven’t provided a
title. This accusation is unwarranted, as I have repeatedly used standard
lexicons and reputable biblical dictionaries. Here is a direct citation: The
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB), which is widely
recognized in academic settings, lists qanah with meanings such as
“acquire,” “possess,” and “create” in certain contexts. You can refer to BDB
under the entry for qanah for verification. Additionally, The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) provides similar
definitions, confirming the range of meanings and context-dependence of qanah.
Accusing me of fabricating sources is an ad hominem attack that does not engage
with the linguistic evidence I presented. I didn't mark the other dictionary
because it's not in English, so obviously you wouldn't understand it, I
translated the important part into English.
You claim that David was the “first” king “chosen” by God because he was
from the Messianic line and not a direct descendant of Saul. However, this is
not how “firstborn” is used in biblical contexts. “Firstborn” in Psalm 89:27
refers to David’s preeminence, not his chronological order or bloodline
relation to Saul. Saul’s disqualification as king due to disobedience doesn’t
alter the fact that he was the first king anointed by God for Israel. David
being “firstborn” is about covenantal prominence, not temporal sequence, as
demonstrated by similar symbolic uses of “firstborn” (e.g., Israel in Exodus
4:22 and Ephraim in Jeremiah 31:9).
You assert that “firstborn” has a temporal meaning in both Israel’s and
Ephraim’s cases, citing Deuteronomy 32 and Jeremiah 31:9. However, these
examples do not align with a strict chronological firstborn status. “Firstborn”
for Israel signifies their unique covenantal relationship with God among the
nations, not that they were literally the first nation. Likewise, Ephraim,
though not literally the firstborn of Joseph’s sons, is given preeminence over
his older brother, Manasseh, illustrating that “firstborn” often denotes rank
or honor, not birth order. This is consistent with the non-literal use of
“firstborn” for David in Psalm 89:27.
You requested reputable sources that support “firstborn” as a title of
preeminence. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (AYBD) under the entry for
“Firstborn” provides ample scholarly context showing that the term denotes
preeminence or favored status in many biblical passages. Richard S. Hess’s
commentary on “firstborn” also discusses its symbolic and covenantal uses.
These are reputable sources widely accepted in scholarly circles, not works by
“theologically motivated friends.”
You argue that Burney and the NET Bible favor “created” for qanah in
Proverbs 8:22 based on the context of verses 23-25 and passages like Genesis
14:19, 20, and Deuteronomy 32:6. While some scholars, including Burney,
interpret qanah in Proverbs 8 as “created,” others support “possessed”
or “acquired,” arguing that the context refers to Wisdom’s eternal relationship
with God rather than temporal creation. For example, The New International
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE) suggests that qanah
here implies acquisition in an eternal sense rather than creation in time. The
NET Bible and Burney’s interpretation are valid, but they are not the only
views among scholars.
In my previous point, I clarified that Eve’s use of qanah in Genesis
4:1 does not imply creation ex nihilo but rather acquisition with divine
help. You misinterpret this by suggesting that I missed your point. My argument
is that qanah denotes receiving or acquiring something with God’s
assistance, aligning with the concept of procreation rather than the
theological notion of ex nihilo creation. This example illustrates qanah’s
flexibility and supports that Proverbs 8:22 could convey a relationship rather
than an act of creation.
Your response accuses me of relying on “theologically motivated friends,”
selective use of terms, and cherry-picking church fathers. However, my approach
has consistently been based on recognized linguistic and exegetical methods.
Biblical interpretation involves understanding linguistic, cultural, and
historical contexts, which scholars across denominations apply. Accusations of
bias without addressing the actual arguments are unproductive. If you prefer scholarly
sources free of denominational influence, I recommend consulting works like The
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), The
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, and the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary,
which reflect broad academic consensus.
Your latest response reflects frustration rather than substantive
engagement with the textual and scholarly arguments provided. Addressing
theological topics requires patience, thoroughness, and respect for different
perspectives. I have repeatedly demonstrated a consistent approach based on
reputable scholarship and linguistic analysis. If you are open to scholarly
dialogue rather than personal attacks, I would be glad to continue our
discussion and further explore the nuances of qanah and “firstborn” in
the context of biblical theology.
Origen's passage in Against
Celsus is often misunderstood in terms of its Christology, especially in
light of Arius's later teachings. Although Origen describes the Son as “the
First-born of all creation,” this phrase should not be interpreted in an Arian
sense that places the Son among created beings, as a creature with a definitive
beginning in time. Here’s why this passage does not support an Arian
interpretation and how it should be properly understood within Origen’s
theological framework.
When Origen uses the phrase "First-born
of all creation," he does not mean that the Son is merely the foremost
creature, as Arius would argue. Instead, in Origen’s theology, the term prototokos
(πρωτότοκος) implies a unique and singular relationship between the Father and
the Son, signifying the Son’s eternal generation. Origen saw the Son as
eternally generated by the Father, meaning that the Son's
"begottenness" is without beginning or end, a continuous, timeless
act of the Father.
In the Greek text, the word πρεσβύτατον
(presbyteros), meaning "most ancient," emphasizes the Son's existence
before all creation, positioning the Son outside of the created order. Origen
argues that the Son "is not recent," which directly counters any
interpretation suggesting that the Son's existence had a beginning in time or
that He could be classified among created beings.
Origen consistently
differentiates between the eternal generation of the Son and the temporal act
of creation. The Son’s “generation” from the Father is an eternal, ongoing
relationship, not a moment in time like the creation of the world. This
distinguishes the Son from creatures, who come into existence ex nihilo
(from nothing) and at a distinct point in time. For Origen, the Son is
begotten, not made, and He participates fully in the Father’s divine nature,
which is an uncreated nature.
The phrase “the most ancient
of all the works of creation” could be misleading without the broader context.
Origen likely uses “works of creation” (δημιουργημάτων) not to imply
that the Son is a creation, but to place the Son in a relation to creation as
its divine origin. By saying the Son is “the most ancient,” Origen points to
the Son’s primacy and role in creation, not His inclusion within the category
of created things.
Additionally, in other
writings, Origen makes it clear that while the Son has a “primacy” in relation
to creation, He remains qualitatively different from it, sharing the Father’s
divine essence in a way creatures cannot. Thus, when Origen refers to the Son
in relation to creation, he emphasizes the Son’s distinction as the origin and
sustainer of creation rather than as part of it.
Origen cites the Genesis
account, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,"
to show the Son’s presence with the Father before the act of creation. By
associating the Son with the Father in the creative act, Origen reinforces that
the Son is co-eternal with the Father and shares in the divine essence, acting
as an agent of creation rather than as a created being.
This distinction aligns with
Origen’s understanding that the Son is the divine Logos, who participates in
the Father’s work as a unique, uncreated expression of God’s wisdom and power.
Origen’s theology as a whole
clearly rejects the idea that the Son is a created being. Although Arius later
attempted to use similar language to argue for the Son's subordination and
created nature, Origen’s understanding of the Son’s eternal generation inherently
contradicts any suggestion of temporal creation. Origen sees the Son’s divinity
as fully participating in the Father’s essence, precluding any interpretation
that would reduce the Son to the status of a creature.
Origen’s understanding of the
term "created" (ktistós) in relation to the Son must be
carefully contextualized to avoid confusion with later Arian interpretations
that emerged in the 4th century. In Origen’s time, during the 3rd century, the
vocabulary of "creation" and "creature" (ktisma) had
a broader and less rigid theological application. The use of these terms did
not automatically imply an inferior or ontologically separate nature from God,
nor did it suggest that the Son was a creation in the Arian sense, as something
entirely distinct from the Father’s essence or subordinate in divinity.
For Origen,
"created" could refer to the Son’s role in relation to the created
order, highlighting the Son's unique function as the "First-born of all
creation," who mediates between God and creation. This expression
emphasizes the Son's primacy and preeminence, and it aligns with Origen's
conception of the Son as eternally begotten by the Father—an idea fundamentally
different from the Arian notion of a created, finite being. Origen understood
the Son to exist eternally with the Father, derived from the Father’s essence
in a way that maintained full divinity, while also being distinct as a
"hypostasis" or person.
Before the Arian controversy,
the term "created" did not imply, as it did later under Arian
influence, a clear subordinationist position or a denial of the Son’s divinity.
Origen’s use of "created" thus reflected a flexible and nuanced
approach, which was neither literal in the sense of a temporal beginning nor
implying inferiority, but rather a metaphorical language to express the Son’s
relationship to creation and the Father. In the 4th century, however, Arian
theology rigidly reinterpreted "creation" to argue that the Son had a
beginning in time and was of a different substance from the Father, which
fundamentally departed from Origen’s theological framework.
Thus, Origen’s language
regarding the Son as "created" or "first-born" should be
understood within his context, where it did not denote the same implications
that Arian thought later imposed. Instead, it was part of a rich, symbolic
language used to affirm the Son’s role in creation while upholding his eternal
and divine relationship to the Father.
