THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF THE FIRSTBORN:
A PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR UNDERSTANDING
“THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION” (COLOSSIANS 1:15)
by Robert Keay, Ph.D.
(Dr. Keay is Academic Dean of New
England Bible College, South Portland, Maine.)
Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 1, No.1, Spring 1998.
INTRODUCTION
Any person spending time with a Jehovah’s Witness discussing
the deity of Christ will likely be confronted with the claim that Jesus Christ
cannot be God because Scripture declares that he is the first created being. To
support this claim the Jehovah’s Witness will point to Colossians 1:15 (“the
firstborn of all creation” NWT), Revelation 3:14 (“beginning of the creation by
God” NWT), and Proverbs 8:22 (“Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way”
NWT). This article examines the meaning of the term “firstborn” in order to
assess the accuracy of the Witnesses’ claim concerning Colossians 1:15. The
article will first examine the Old Testament background of the term
“firstborn,” showing how Paul would have understood and used the word. This
will be followed by an evaluation of the arguments the Watchtower uses in Reasoning
from the Scriptures to defend their claim.
OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF FIRSTBORN
The term “firstborn” has a rich background in Israelite
history and literature. The frequent use of the word in the Old Testament (c.
158x) provides a good starting point for understanding its meaning.
Additionally, the firstborn concept occurs in passages where the word does not.
These passages must be consulted to avoid the “word study fallacy.” The
occurrences in the Pentateuch (over half), describing Israel’s ancestry and
earliest history, are especially important in establishing the significance of the
word for the covenant people.
Basic Meaning of Firstborn
In a basic sense the word “firstborn” is related to two
concepts: birth order and birth right. When “firstborn” is related to birth
order it refers to the oldest child in a family, the first child born, either
male (Gen. 22:21; 1 Chron. 2:25) or female (Gen. 19:31,33,34,37; 29:26; 1 Sam.
14:49). Additionally the word is also used in contexts involving the birth
order of animals (Ex. 11:5; 12:29; Lev. 27:26; Num. 18:15-17) and with the
first produce of the harvest (translated “firstfruits” or “firstripe” or
“earliest fruit” Lev. 2:14; 23:7; Isa. 28:4; Jer. 24:2). When “firstborn” is
related to birth right it refers to the child who is the principal heir to the
family estate (Gen. 25:32,34; 27:36; Deut. 21:17). This heir must be a male and
is usually, though not necessarily, the first in birth order. The “firstborn”
as it relates to birth right may not have been first in birth order if he had
an older sister or if the birth right was transferred to him. It was believed
that the first male born possessed the father’s strength and virility to a
greater degree than all subsequent children (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; Pss.
78:51; 105:36); therefore, he should be the heir, for he could best fulfill the
responsibilities of the father when the father grew old and weak. If this first
born son proved himself incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the
heir, the birth right, and therefore the title “firstborn”, could be
transferred to another son of the father’s choosing (Gen. 49:1-4; 1 Chron.
5:1-2; 1 Chron. 26:10).
Covenantal Significance of Firstborn
However, this basic sense of the word does not fully convey
the importance of the firstborn concept in Israelite history. Israel’s history
was governed by major covenants and these covenants promised salvation through
a coming Messiah. The firstborn concept played a major role in this covenantal-
redemptive history of the nation.
Abrahamic Covenant: Birth-Right Not Birth-Order
The importance of the firstborn is evident, first, in the
Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the
firstborn son of Abraham, but God chose Isaac to be Abraham’s heir and receive
the birth right, the covenantal promise. Isaac then had two sons: Esau and Jacob.
Esau was the firstborn, but Jacob received the birth right as heir, the
covenantal promise. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, and he became the
father of that great nation. God chose this nation to be His firstborn son (Ex.
4:22). God then made another covenant with Israel, the Mosaic Covenant,
developing further the promise of salvation. Throughout this early covenantal
history between the time of Abraham and Moses the son who is first in birth
order is set aside and another becomes the “firstborn,” obtaining the birth
right. This transfer of the firstborn’s honor and privilege to another is not
without precedent, however, for God had chosen Abel instead of Cain in the
beginning. This transference of birth right is both unusual and consistent. It is
unusual in that it goes against the normal practice in which birth order
determines birth right. Yet throughout Israel’s covenantal history, God
consistently overrules the norm and names His own choice as “firstborn.” So
consistent is this practice within Israel’s covenantal history that it
establishes a definite literary pattern and a significant theological theme. In
the light of Israel’s early covenantal history, the “birth order” meaning of
the term “firstborn” fades into insignificance as the “birth right” meaning
takes on greater significance, because the birth right privilege includes
participation in furthering the covenantal promise of salvation through a
coming Messiah.
Mosaic Covenant: Redemption by a Representative Substitute
Another event in Israel’s history gives greater meaning to
the term “firstborn.” The importance of the firstborn is evident, secondly, in
the Mosaic Covenant. Throughout the ancient Near East it was believed that the
firstborn son, as well as the firstfruits of the harvest and the firstborn from
the cattle rightfully belonged to the local deity. Offering the firstborn as a
sacrifice to the deity was believed to be significant for the group’s survival.
The firstborn became a representative figure for the whole group, who depended
on the favor of the gods for protection and sustenance. Therefore these
firstborn were sacrificed to the gods. This fact sheds light on events
surrounding the exodus. Before God rescued the Israelites from Egypt he sent
ten plagues on the nation of Egypt (Exodus 7-12), which are often interpreted
as judgments on the false gods of Egypt, the last plague being the death of all
firstborn children and animals in Egypt (Ex. 11-12). With this plague Yahweh
was showing that the firstborn belonged to Him, that He alone is the true God
(Ex. 7:5), that the Egyptian gods are not gods. Then, following the death of
Egypt’s firstborn, the Lord commanded the Israelites to set apart all their
firstborn to Him, for they too belonged to Him (Ex. 13:2). In the case of the
firstborn animals, this meant sacrificing the animal to the Lord. However,
human sacrifice was not tolerated by God. He therefore instituted a program in
which the Israelites could redeem, buy back, their firstborn children. This
redemption was achieved through a substitute. An animal was sacrificed in place
of the firstborn son (Ex. 13:13-15). But this was not a one time event. God
instructed Israel to continue this tradition of redeeming their firstborn sons
throughout their history as a way of symbolizing God’s act of redeeming the
whole nation from Egypt (Ex. 13:14-15). Thus, the firstborn son in Israel had
tremendous symbolic significance. He represented the redemption of the nation
(as the firstborn in Egypt represented God’s judgment of the nation). Later,
the Levites became the substitute for the firstborn. The tribe of Levi was set
apart to God for service in the sanctuary (Num. 3:12-50; 8:16-18; 18:15-17). In
this case the firstborn represented the sacred service of the nation.
Summary of Old Testament Background
This use of the concept and term “firstborn” in the early
history of the nation established the real significance of the firstborn for
Israel’s later history. The firstborn in Israel had a highly significant
symbolic role in the nation. As a representative of the whole nation, the
firstborn represented the redemption of the nation from servitude and bondage
in Egypt as well as the promise that the nation would ultimately bring
salvation to mankind through the Messiah. In later Israelite history usage of
the term “firstborn” revolved around this covenantal-redemptive-representative
significance of the word. Thus, David, the King of Israel, obtained the title
“firstborn” because, as King, he represented the nation (Ps. 89:27).
Furthermore, God established a covenant with David, promising to establish
David’s kingdom forever, indicating that a son of David would rule on David’s
throne throughout history (2 Sam. 7:12-16). Not only was the nation God’s
“firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22), but the King, the representative of the nation, was
also God’s “firstborn son” (Ps. 89:27). The Davidic King as God’s firstborn son
carries on the literary pattern and theological theme established in Israel’s
earliest history in which God advances his promise of salvation through the
coming Messiah by choosing one to be His own firstborn son (without regard to
birth order) and covenanting with him.
The firstborn son in Israel represented the nation’s calling
to be God’s firstborn son. As such he represented the nation’s redemptive
purpose and hope. The nation was called into existence to serve God by bringing
salvation to the world. Ultimately this calling and hope centered in a coming
Messiah who would realize the promise of salvation. The title “firstborn” had
definite Messianic overtones for the Israelites. Redemption would be
accomplished through God’s “firstborn” son Israel (Ex. 4:22), who is
represented by the King, God’s “firstborn” son (Ps. 89:27), whose son would
redeem the nation and rule forever on David’s throne (2 Sam. 7:12-16). It is no
surprise, then, that later Rabbis spoke of the Messiah as “firstborn.” Rabbi
Nathan said, “God said, as I made Jacob a firstborn (Ex. 4:22), so also will I
make king Messiah a firstborn (Ps. 89:27)” [Shemoth Rabba 19 fol. 118:4]. And
since God is ultimately the savior of the world, Rabbi Bechai said that “God is
the firstborn of the world” [Pent. fol. 124:4].
WATCHTOWER INTERPRETATION OF FIRSTBORN
In Reasoning from the Scriptures (pp. 408-409) the
Watchtower provides the Witnesses with three arguments for why the term
“firstborn” cannot refer to one who is “prime, most excellent, most
distinguished,” the pre-eminent one, as Christians claim. They argue that the
word “indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons” (p. 408).
This is based on “the customary meaning of ‘firstborn’” (p. 408). Thus, the
Watchtower argues that the term is used in the “birth order” sense and not in
the “birth right” sense.
Reason # 1: The Father is not called Firstborn
First, the Watchtower reasons, if “firstborn” simply refers
to the one who is most excellent, “why are the Father and the holy spirit not
also said to be the firstborn of all creation?” [p. 408]. Why is only the Son
called “firstborn”? The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the term
cannot refer to pre-eminence because God the Father, who is undoubtedly
pre-eminent, is never called “firstborn.” This reasoning betrays a logical
fallacy, however. One cannot evaluate a statement about one person on the basis
of statements made or not made about another person. For example, a young
mother says to her daughter, “you have two hands.” According to the Watchtower
argument, her young son could deny the truthfulness of his mother’s statement
about his sister, claiming, “you never said I had two hands!” The argument is
absurd. Moreover, this reasoning betrays ignorance of Jewish literature, for
God is called the firstborn. Rabbi Bechai called God “the firstborn of the
world,” as was shown above. More importantly, however, the term firstborn does
not simply indicate pre-eminence in the manner the Watchtower describes.
Instead it describes a specific type of pre-eminence: Messianic pre-eminence.
The term “firstborn” is a Messianic term; therefore, it is appropriate only for
Jesus, not for the Father or the Holy Spirit. Thus, the term was not be used of
either of them in Scripture.
Reason # 2: Firstborn is Always Part of the Group
Second, the Watchtower argues that “the firstborn of” always
indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the
relationship between the two terms is one involving a basic similarity and
equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an
animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants
the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part
of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously
flawed. When the argument is allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion, its
flaws are obvious. The phrase “firstborn of Pharaoh” cannot mean simply that
the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If in fact the
firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family it is only because Pharaoh is the father
of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is a part of that animal
group just because an animal is the parent of the firstborn. One cannot
separate being “part of” from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering or
mothering. When the Watchtower argument is now applied to Jesus as “firstborn
of creation”, the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is
the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then
creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the
Watchtower argument is valid, then the Creation truly is “Mother Earth.” Even
the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument
demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously the phrase “firstborn of
creation” is not being used in the fashion that the Watchtower claims. The
phrases “the firstborn of” that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with
Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not
reason as does the Watchtower. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a
fallacious argument is because they fail to understand the actual usage of the
term in the Old Testament. As was shown above, the “birth order” meaning of
firstborn fades as the “birth right” significance takes on greater meaning,
culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit
the meaning to “birth order” cannot be justified.
Reason # 3: Jesus Created “All Other Things”
Third, the Watchtower claims that it is proper to translate
Colossians 1:16,17 using the word “other”: “all other things were created.”
They then claim, “Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation
produced by God” (p.409). They defend this claim on the basis of Luke 13:2, for
several translations insert the word “other” after “all”: “all other
Galileans.” They claim that the idea “other” is actually contained in the
meaning of the word “all” in Luke 13:2, hence “all other.” But the argument
will not hold up, for the insertion of “other” in Luke 13:2 is contextually
warranted, not linguistically. The insertion of “other” has nothing to do with
the word “all.” The sentence reads, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were
greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this
fate?” Quite obviously Jesus is comparing Galileans with Galileans, two equal
items. The insertion of “other” is warranted by the context of comparing equals
[Galileans] and has nothing to do with the word “all.” It is entirely
appropriate to insert “other” in Luke 13:2 without changing the meaning of the
sentence in any way. However, there is no contextual warrant in Colossians
1:16,17 for the insertion. The two items in the discussion, Jesus and the
creation, are not being compared or equated as the two items in Luke 13:2
[Galileans and Galileans]. To insert “other” in Colossians 1:16,17 changes the
meaning of the sentence significantly, because it is has no contextual
justification. The linguistic argument fails to support their claims. However,
this is not the real basis for their insertion of “other” in Colossians. The
real reason is theological. It is necessary for them to change the meaning of
the sentence, otherwise they must acknowledge that Jesus is not part of
creation. The Watchtower indicates this is their real motivation when they
explain that they are seeking to harmonize this verse with “everything else
that the Bible says regarding the Son” (p.408). However, their mishandling and
changing of the text, rather than harmonizing with other Scriptures,
contradicts other Scriptures (John 1:3; 1:10).
CONCLUSION
The Old Testament background of the “firstborn” concept
reveals the falsehood of the Witnesses claim that Jesus is a created being, the
eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. The use of the term in the Old Testament to
signify the one who held the birthright took on greater significance when the
birthright included the covenant privilege of advancing the promise of
salvation through a coming Messianic savior. In fact, the term did not mean
birth order when it involved this covenantal-redemptive privilege, for none of
the patriarchs carrying the covenantally significant birth right was a
firstborn son in the sense of birth order. They were firstborn only in the
birth right sense. Ultimately the firstborn son who held the birth right in
this covenantal-redemptive sense was the Messiah, Jesus.
Jesus is the “firstborn” who brings the hopes and promises
of the nation to realization. He is the firstborn who redeems the world (cf. Ex
4:22). He is the firstborn who rules His Kingdom (all creation) as the son of
David (cf. Ps. 89:27; 2 Sam. 7:12-14). All previous history pointed to him and
waited for him. The “firstborn” is the promised savior Messiah of Israel who
rules and reigns over his creation. When Paul called Jesus the “firstborn” in
Colossians he was declaring Jesus to be the long hoped for Messianic Savior.
