DiscussMormonism.com

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the 'first-born' over Creation?"

Answer: In a letter to the church at Colossae, the Apostle Paul gave an intriguing description of Jesus. In it, he explained Christ's relationship to God the Father and to creation. Some have claimed that Paul’s description of Christ as the first-born of creation means that Jesus was created -- not eternal, not God. Such a doctrine, however, conflicts with the rest of the Bible. Christ could not be both Creator and created; John 1 clearly names Him Creator. Let’s take a careful look at the passage where Jesus is called the first-born.

Colossians 1:15-21
“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

Jesus is God
Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase "the image of the invisible God." The word “image,” meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity. This word involves more than a resemblance, more than a representation. He is God! Although He took on human form, He has the exact nature of His Father (Hebrews 1:3).

The "Word" of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction. In the incarnation, the invisible God became visible in Christ; deity was clothed with humanity (Matthew 17:2). God is in Christ: visible, audible, approachable, knowable, and available. All that God is, Christ is.

Jesus is Lord of Creation
The description "first-born of all creation" speaks of Christ’s preexistence. He is not a creature but the eternal Creator (John 1:10). God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ (Hebrews 1:2-4).

Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership.

Therefore, the phrase expresses Christ's sovereignty over creation. After resurrecting Jesus from the dead, God gave Him authority over the Earth (Matthew 28:18). Jesus created the world, saved the world, and rules the world. He is the self-existent, acknowledged Head of creation.

Finally, the phrase recognizes Him as the Messiah: "I will make Him [Christ] My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth" (Psalm 89:27).

Six times the Lord Jesus is declared to be the first-born of God (see Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; Revelation 1:5). These passages declare the preexistence, the sovereignty, and the redemption that Christ offers.

Thus, the phrase "first-born of all creation" proclaims Christ’s preeminence. As the eternal Son of God, He created the universe. He is the Ruler of creation!

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-first ... z2agG8JyOF

Says you..............

Jason15 wrote:Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the 'first-born' over Creation?"

There is no text that says that. Col 1:15 says the following:

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως

"firstborn of every creation/creature"

The phrase "every creation/creature" is in the genitive, and it is the partitive genitive, to be specific. What this means is that the nomen regens is one member of the group defined by the nomen rectum (in this case "every creation/creature"). κτίσεως could be "creation" or "creature," but whichever translation one prefers, the sense is clearly a collective reference to created entities, of which the "firstborn" is one, specifically the first. This is made all that much clearer by the similar concept found in Rev 3:14, where the Greek is ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, or "the beginning of the creation of God."

Jason15 wrote:Answer: In a letter to the church at Colossae, the Apostle Paul gave an intriguing description of Jesus. In it, he explained Christ's relationship to God the Father and to creation. Some have claimed that Paul’s description of Christ as the first-born of creation means that Jesus was created -- not eternal, not God. Such a doctrine, however, conflicts with the rest of the Bible.

It does no such thing. In fact, it fits perfectly well with the description throughout the New Testament of Jesus as God's offspring, whether figurative or literal. Even John 1, which states that all things were made by Jesus, doesn't necessarily mean that he was uncreated. No language operates under such philosophical absolutes in texts like this. "All" is a relative term throughout the New Testament, such as in Acts 2:12-13, where the text says "all were amazed" by the speaking in tongues, but then immediately follows by saying "others said, mocking . . ." How can they "all" be amazed if not "all" were amazed? The simple fact is that the Bible very, very rarely speaks in absolutes. These references to Christ as creator is very clearly not one of those instances.

Jason15 wrote:Christ could not be both Creator and created;

Why not? I am both begetter and begotten. I am created and am a creator. What prevents Christ from being both? Are you really going to insist that because the text says he created all, it means he wasn't created? That's a ridiculous flimsy reading. What would he have said if he believed Christ to be created? "He created everything but himself"? That's ludicrous. The simple fact is that he would have stated it exactly as it appears in John 1: he created all.

Jason15 wrote:John 1 clearly names Him Creator. Let’s take a careful look at the passage where Jesus is called the first-born.

Colossians 1:15-21
“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

Jesus is God
Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase "the image of the invisible God." The word “image,” meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity.

No, it actually just refers to appearance or representation. εἰκών refers to a reflection, an image, a description, a comparison, or a pattern. It has reference to something that is separate but bears the image of the original.

Jason15 wrote:This word involves more than a resemblance, more than a representation. He is God!

Completely wrong. Here's the entire entry on the word from the most comprehensive Greek lexicon in the world:

εἰκών, ἡ, gen. όνος, acc. όνα, etc.: poet. and Ion. nom. εἰκώ is implied (though not found) in gen. εἰκοῦς E.Hel.77, acc. εἰκώ A.Th.559, E.Med.1162, Hdt.7.69 (but εἰκόνα 2.143, both εἰκόνα and εἰκώ in Pl.Ti. 37d), Maiist.15: acc. pl. εἰκούς E.Tr.1178, Ar.Nu.559: (*εἴκω, ἔοικα, Ϝεικ-Inscr.Cypr.151 H.):—likeness, image, whether picture or statue, Hdt.2.130, 143, A.Th.559, etc.; εἰ. γεγραμμένη Plu.2.1117c; εἰ. γραπτά IG4.940.23, cf. 3.1330; of needlework, E.IT223 (anap.); bust, Luc.Alex.18; εἰ. βασιλικαί, = Lat. imagines imperatorum, Lib. Or.56.13: generally, εἰ. τοῦ νοητοῦ θεὸς αἰσθητός Pl.Ti.92c.

2. image in a mirror, E.Med.1162, Pl.R.402b.

3. personal description, PTeb.32.21 (ii B. C.), etc.

4. metaph., living image, representation, εἰ. ζῶσα τοῦ Διός OGI90.3 (Rosetta, ii B. C.); τοῦ θεοῦ 2 Ep.Cor.4.4.

II. semblance, phantom, E.HF1002; οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος τέθνηκεν, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ ἡ εἰ. αὐτοῦ Luc.DMort.16.1; imaginary form, Pl.R.588b; image in the mind, εἰκοὺς πατρός E.Tr.1178; δοξῶν καὶ λόγων Pl.Phlb. 39c, etc.; εἰκόνας σῆς ἀρετῆς thy virtue's counterparts, of children, Epigr.Gr.435.4; περίβολον ἔχειν δεσμωτηρίου εἰκόνα Pl.Cra.400c; ἐν εἰκόνι βασιλείας Hdn.7.9.10.

III. similitude, comparison, Ar.Nu. 559, Ra.906, Pl.Phd.87b, Men.80c, Men.536.1; δι’ εἰκόνος λέγεσθαι Pl.R.487e, cf. Arist.Rh.1407a11, Lib.Ep.8.1.

IV. pattern, archetype, ποτὶ τὰν εἰκόνα [κόσμος] ἀπειργασμένος Ti.Locr.99d.

It absolutely does have only to do with resemblance.

Jason15 wrote:Although He took on human form, He has the exact nature of His Father (Hebrews 1:3).

Heb 1:3 says the following:

χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

the likeness of his nature

χαρακτὴρ also refers only to resemblance. It usually refers to an image on a coin or a stamp.

Jason15 wrote:The "Word" of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction. In the incarnation, the invisible God became visible in Christ; deity was clothed with humanity (Matthew 17:2). God is in Christ: visible, audible, approachable, knowable, and available. All that God is, Christ is.

And the problematic presupposition is that God the Father exhausts the category of deity. No such notion is detectable anywhere in the Bible. It is an exclusively post-biblical innovation. Christ can be just as divine as God and still be a separate deity. This is how Philo, from which we draw most of our understanding of first century Jewish ideology, described the "word of God," i.e., as "another god." Even as late as Justin Martyr Jesus was described as "another god," one with God "in will, not in number."

Jason15 wrote:Jesus is Lord of Creation
The description "first-born of all creation" speaks of Christ’s preexistence. He is not a creature but the eternal Creator (John 1:10).

Actually "firstborn of all creation" could just as accurately be "firstborn of all creatures," or "the first creature." The text absolutely does identify Jesus as a creature.

Jason15 wrote:God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ (Hebrews 1:2-4).

Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority.

No, it signifies the entity born first.

Jason15 wrote:In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership.

Completely false. These are apologetic falsehoods people make up in order to justify fundamentalist dogmas. The right to the inheritance of the firstborn could be transferred, but the title "firstborn" was not transferred with it.

Jason15 wrote:Therefore, the phrase expresses Christ's sovereignty over creation. After resurrecting Jesus from the dead, God gave Him authority over the Earth (Matthew 28:18). Jesus created the world, saved the world, and rules the world. He is the self-existent, acknowledged Head of creation.

Finally, the phrase recognizes Him as the Messiah: "I will make Him [Christ] My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth" (Psalm 89:27).

As verse 20 makes absolutely clear, that passage refers explicitly to David. In the ancient Near East, kings were considered divine, and they were thought to be adopted by the gods upon their accession to the throne (see Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God). This is why David is directly referred to as "God" in Ps 45:6-7. Additionally, v. 27 specifically says that God will turn him into his firstborn. This is a change from one state to another. The verb נתן means "to give," "to bestow," and a number of other things that refer to the transfer of an item or alteration of a state. To read Ps 89:27 as a reference to Christ is to acknowledge that he was not originally a firstborn, but was transferred to that position. This is actually Mark's christology, as is very cogently argued by Michael Peppard in The Son of God in the Roman World.

Jason15 wrote:Six times the Lord Jesus is declared to be the first-born of God (see Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; Revelation 1:5). These passages declare the preexistence, the sovereignty, and the redemption that Christ offers.

Thus, the phrase "first-born of all creation" proclaims Christ’s preeminence. As the eternal Son of God, He created the universe. He is the Ruler of creation!

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-first ... z2agG8JyOF

You'd do well to find actual informed sources that can back up their readings rather than just take whatever apologetic website Google gives you.

Says Mak.

"He is the head of the church, and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Colossians 1:18).

The word "first-born" does not necessarily refer to chronology at all. Those who insist that the phrase "first-born of all creation" means that Jesus was chronologically the first being God created need to reconsider how this word is used. For example, does the phrase "first-born from the dead" mean that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead? Obviously not, because Jesus Himself had raised Lazarus; the widow's son; Jairus' daughter and others before He Himself was raised.

The passage above tells us the true meaning of "first-born". It is a term used to convey pre-eminence. Being "the first-born of all creation" means that Jesus is above all creation, not that He was created first, just as His being "first-born from the dead" does not mean He was raised first chronologically.

We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, "I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's "first-born"? Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.

When the text says that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" it means that He is above all creation; that He is God's beloved. Reading the context bears this out as well. The context shows conclusively that the Son was not created, but rather was Himself the Creator of all things: "For by Him were all things created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-18).

And then comes an added clincher; "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him" (Colossians 1:19). All the fullness of Deity dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was nothing less than God in the flesh. There was nothing lacking in the Deity of Christ. Nothing at all.

Mak's arguments are better.

I score this round to Mak.

Mak - 1

Pair of Christian mental lightweights - 0

LittleNipper wrote:"He is the head of the church, and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Colossians 1:18).

The word "first-born" does not necessarily refer to chronology at all. Those who insist that the phrase "first-born of all creation" means that Jesus was chronologically the first being God created need to reconsider how this word is used. For example, does the phrase "first-born from the dead" mean that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead? Obviously not, because Jesus Himself had raised Lazarus; the widow's son; Jairus' daughter and others before He Himself was raised.

The passage above tells us the true meaning of "first-born". It is a term used to convey pre-eminence. Being "the first-born of all creation" means that Jesus is above all creation, not that He was created first, just as His being "first-born from the dead" does not mean He was raised first chronologically.

We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, "I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's "first-born"? Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.

When the text says that Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" it means that He is above all creation; that He is God's beloved. Reading the context bears this out as well. The context shows conclusively that the Son was not created, but rather was Himself the Creator of all things: "For by Him were all things created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-18).

And then comes an added clincher; "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him" (Colossians 1:19). All the fullness of Deity dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was nothing less than God in the flesh. There was nothing lacking in the Deity of Christ. Nothing at all.

You've not engaged my argument, and in fact ignore important portions of it in your own. See my response to this very post, copied and pasted in three other threads, here.

maklelan wrote:You've not engaged my argument...

As the saying goes "what goes around, comes around...."

Bazooka wrote:As the saying goes "what goes around, comes around...."

The difference is that your manipulative questions were off-topic attempts to evade, and I explained that very clearly. Here my argument is directly on-topic, and the poster simply restated assertions my argument directly addressed. If you have input then provide it. If you're just here to poo-poo me because I wouldn't take your rhetorical bait, certainly you can find much more productive use of your time.

"From you One [Jesus] will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." - (NASB) Micah 5:2