Question about "firstborn"

[zaksmummy]

I have a question about the scripture in Colossians 1v15

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation"

I have been discussing this with my DH who says that in Hebrew firstborn is a title denoting high rank rather than a description of someone who is the first child.

Having only ever read the bible in english, and understanding it from an english/western point of view, firstborn is always the firstborn son, so then to an western mind set this implies that Jesus was the first person to be created by God. I think that this is where the cults etc get the idea that Jesus isnt God.

If then, firstborn is a title, do you think it should be translated slightly differently or should it have a capital as in english a title is denoted by a capital letter ie "Firstborn"

The Jewish New Testamant Commentary cites it instead as "supreme over all creation".

Wouldnt this be a better way to translate it?

 

[Orion567]

The english rendering of this passage is correct and synchronizes with the Old Testament description of the firstborn. Paul is quoting from The Torah in Exodus 13 pertaining to the consecration of the First-born. The first-born in Hebrew families was a joy and a strength to them. So it was as well in God the Father that God the Son was the joy and strength that the Father was well pleased with the Son. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father and thus in a figurative way is endowed with all the power of the Father according to Torah. Paul was communicating Jesus power and authority using The Old Testament, which is all the scriptures they had in those days. That is why Jesus was almost stoned by the pharisees when He used language like "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me". Jesus was identifying with His status as the First-born. supreme over all creation would be a much better rendering, but it would deviate from what Paul originally communicated to the church body at Colosse the way the original readers understood it.

 

[HBCountry]

If you will read the next verse, it will give a little more insight. Since Jesus was God in the flesh, it can only be talking about God Himself. And indeed He WAS the First and from Him came all.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

 

[SummaScriptura]

One should not misconstrue Christ's being "the firstborn of all creation" to mean He was created first. In the Bible, the term firstborn does not have to do with being born first. Seth became the firstborn of Adam though not born first. Isaac became the firstborn of Abraham though not born first. Jacob became the firstborn of Isaac though not born first. Joseph became the firstborn of Jacob though not born first. Ephraim became the firstborn of Joseph though not born first. Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, though not born.

The term is a legal one meaning the one slated to inherit his father's household and to inherit a double blessing. The firstborn is the heir.

 

[marktheblake]

The rights of Blessing and the Birthright for the firstborn do seem to be separate things. See Jacob who bought the birthright off Esau for a bowl of soup, and later, tricked a blind Isaac to get the blessing intended for Esau.

Now I shall try to keep this simple because I cant recall all the facts, it was from a sermon and I have yet to research this for confirmation but I am raising it iin hope someone else has some background on it?

In Hebrew culture the sons are either firstborn or secondborn. Being a first born carried certain responsibilities, and thats why they received a double helping of everything. One of these responsibilities was receiving judgement. If one of the family did something wrong, the firstborn pays the price.

See which brother tried to save Joseph from his brothers who wanted to murder him. Was Rueben the oldest, because he knew he would be held to blame.

The second born is always saved by grace because the firstborn received the judgment.

Fast forward a bit, the geneological line to Jesus is a long list of second borns (not sure how well that point is supported in the text, but seems convincing at least after Noah) and Jesus is the second born, because Adam was the first, who received judgment. Now I cant recall what happened next, but Jesus does something that converts him to firstborn, he receives the judgment, and all of us who are second born in Christ, are saved by grace.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I have a question about the scripture in Colossians 1v15

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation"

I have been discussing this with my DH who says that in Hebrew firstborn is a title denoting high rank rather than a description of someone who is the first child.

Having only ever read the bible in english, and understanding it from an english/western point of view, firstborn is always the firstborn son, so then to an western mind set this implies that Jesus was the first person to be created by God. I think that this is where the cults etc get the idea that Jesus isnt God.

If then, firstborn is a title, do you think it should be translated slightly differently or should it have a capital as in english a title is denoted by a capital letter ie "Firstborn"

The Jewish New Testamant Commentary cites it instead as "supreme over all creation".

Wouldnt this be a better way to translate it?

"Supreme over all creation" is a good reading because "firstborn" is refering to rank, not chronology. Saying Jesus is the "firstborn" does not mean He was born first, but rather that Jesus has the supreme status over all creation.

You can also see this concept here where it talks about the king.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me,
‘You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me.’
89:27 I will appoint him to be my firstborn son,
the most exalted of the earth’s kings.

 

[GraceSeeker]

"Supreme over all creation" is a good reading because "firstborn" is refering to rank, not chronology. Saying Jesus is the "firstborn" does not mean He was born first, but rather that Jesus has the supreme status over all creation.

"Supreme over all creation" is indeed a good rendering of the meaning, but a poor translation of the actual words. Herein lies a problem for all translations-- Do you go with the meaning behind the words and be subject to criticism for bias to one's own particular interpretation of a passage? Or, do you go with the literal translation of the text thus leaving those who don't have sufficient biblical background likely to fall into erroneous understandings of what those words actually meant at the time?

 

[cyberlizard]

i suppose you could do a word for word formal translation, or if you knew how the phrase would be understood by its first hears a dynamic approach would be better.

with the former you end up with a need for bible dictionaries and commentaries. With the latter you end up owning books on the culture and understanding of the time of writing.

I say a half way is better (but not the NIV).


Steve

 

[BrotherDave]

I think “firstborn” is defined in Col 1:18: “…who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead…”

Christ as God assumed a human nature (born of Mary – son of man) and endured the second death (eternal damnation) on behalf of all his people. He effectively spent an eternity in Hell and came out at the other end as the victorious Christ, resurrection from the dead – thus the son of God (Ro 1:4), the firstborn. It is as if had a new birth (resurrected).

 

[Yekcidmij]

I think “firstborn” is defined in Col 1:18: “…who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead…”

Christ as God assumed a human nature (born of Mary – son of man) and endured the second death (eternal damnation) on behalf of all his people. He effectively spent an eternity in Hell and came out at the other end as the victorious Christ, resurrection from the dead – thus the son of God (Ro 1:4), the firstborn. It is as if had a new birth (resurrected).

1:15 seems to be referring to priority/status/ranks because it says he is firstborn "over all creation". He is ruling over all creation. God has fulfilled His promises and blessings in Jesus as a father would a firstborn son.

1:18 seems to be referring to chronology because he was reborn from the dead before everyone else.

 

[SummaScriptura]

1:15 seems to be referring to priority/status/ranks because it says he is firstborn "over all creation". He is ruling over all creation. God has fulfilled His promises and blessings in Jesus as a father would a firstborn son.

1:18 seems to be referring to chronology because he was reborn from the dead before everyone else.

That 1:18, is referring to chronology there is no doubt, but don't you think it is also referring to priority/status/rank? That is the primary meaning of "firstborn" in the Bible after all. It is a bit abnormal in the O.T. for instance, to see the one assuming the title "firstborn" to ALSO be born first.

As with the first creation coming into being by means of the Word of God, and held together by that same Word, so too with the new creation which is now underway; the Word made flesh has laid down His life and taken it up again in order to become the progenitor of the world to come.

 

[Yekcidmij]

That 1:18, is referring to chronology there is no doubt, but don't you think it is also referring to priority/status/rank? That is the primary meaning of "firstborn" in the Bible after all. It is a bit abnormal in the O.T. for instance, to see the one assuming the title "firstborn" to ALSO be born first.

Well, as I said, 1:15 established that he is firstborn (as in rank) and 1:18 that he is firstboron (as in chronology since he is first from the dead). Both are established in that passage.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yes, but two different things over which he is frstborn. There is a difference.

 

[scriptures]

I have a question about the scripture in Colossians 1v15

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation"

I have been discussing this with my DH who says that in Hebrew firstborn is a title denoting high rank rather than a description of someone who is the first child.

Having only ever read the bible in english, and understanding it from an english/western point of view, firstborn is always the firstborn son, so then to an western mind set this implies that Jesus was the first person to be created by God. I think that this is where the cults etc get the idea that Jesus isnt God.

If then, firstborn is a title, do you think it should be translated slightly differently or should it have a capital as in english a title is denoted by a capital letter ie "Firstborn"

The Jewish New Testamant Commentary cites it instead as "supreme over all creation".

Wouldnt this be a better way to translate it?

I think Jesus is part of creation a firstborn.... for that what the scripture quoted actually said......


another thing.... your quotation is different from what is written in the greek.... "firstborn over all creation" should be " firstborn of all creation"....

Just a simple alteration from our translators.......

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think Jesus is part of creation a firstborn.... for that what the scripture quoted actually said......


another thing.... your quotation is different from what is written in the greek.... "firstborn over all creation" should be " firstborn of all creation"....

Just a simple alteration from our translators.......

Are you Iglesia ni Kristo?

 

[scriptures]

Are you Iglesia ni Kristo?

No, I am not a member...

I am a christian Bible reader... (for not all so called christians read the Bible)

and I noticed this alteration of the word of God by NIV translators.....

" firstborn of all creation".... was replaced by "firstborn over all

creation"

Major, major alteration.....