The Son is the FIRSTBORN over all creation

[tonychanyt]

See The Son is the FIRSTBORN over all creation

 

[FenderTL5]

Colossians 1:

Is the Son created by God?

The Nicene Creed, are you familair with it?

 

[tonychanyt]

The Nicene Creed, are you familair with it?

Sure.

 

[FenderTL5]

Sure.

Then the issue is settled.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Then the issue is settled.

Not really. The Nicene creed misunderstood what scripture intends by the word "begotten". Psalms 2: 7 casts more light on the subject. "Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee." This "begetting" of the Son took place during a time when DAY and NIGHT were ongoing - in other words, this Son being "begotten" could not be before Creation week when DAY and NIGHT first came into being for this planet.

So this Son being "begotten" took place sometime when the history of mankind on this world was in progress. But at what point in history? Again, the Psalms 2 context gives more light. On this day of the Son being "begotten", God tells the Son directly in Psalms 2:8, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." This was a fully-grown adult Christ being "begotten" on "THIS DAY", when God would give the Son His inheritance of the heathen nations of the world as His possession, with the power to exercise judgment over the uttermost parts of the earth.

This power over the nations already existed with the resurrected Christ in Matthew 28:18-19. Christ announced to the disciples on that mountain in Galilee that, "All authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." This gift of authority over the nations was God's "birthday" gift to the newly-resurrected and ascended Son in heaven.

There is another text which we find in the LXX which actually tells us what time of day that Christ was "begotten" by God. Psalms 110:3 in the LXX is a Messianic Psalm speaking of Christ being seated at God's right hand until His enemies became His footstool. It speaks of Christ having been consecrated as a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, which happened at Christ's resurrection day ascension to the Father when He was anointed our deathless Great High Priest.

God declares in Psalms 110:3 about this newly-resurrected and ascended Son, "I have BEGOTTEN THEE from the womb before the morning." It truly was "when it was yet dark" on the first day of the week (John 20:1) that Christ had arisen from the dead and encountered Mary before that morning had fully dawned. Christ told Mary at that moment that He had not yet ascended to the Father, but that He was ascending, and she was to go tell the disciples of what He had told her (John 20:17). Immediately after Mary left, Christ ascended to the Father, thus becoming the "First-begotten from the dead to ascend to the Father in a glorified, resurrected human body form.

So Christ being "begotten" is not His being created before all worlds. Neither is it the day of His physical conception in Mary's womb, nor the day of His physical birth in Bethlehem. Christ's being "begotten" is the day when a fully-grown, newly-resurrected and ascended Christ "came with the clouds of heaven" and was "brought near before the Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7:13-14). At that time, God gave the ascended Christ dominion, glory, and a kingdom which would never pass away. "THIS DAY" was the day of the resurrected Christ's being "begotten" by the Father, even before the morning had arisen on earth that day.

When Revelation 1:5 says that Christ is "the firstborn of every creature", that only means that Christ was the very first glorified, resurrected human to ascend to the Father and stand before the Ancient of Days. No other creature had ever done that before Christ "opened the matrix" for the rest of His brethren to follow after Him. This is what earned Christ the unique title of the "First-begotten from among the dead" and the "First-born". Christ had to open up the way into God's presence for the rest of believing humanity. A deathless Great High Priest as our advocate and intercessor had to be established FIRST in heaven, before any other glorified, resurrected human creature could ascend and stand before the Ancient of Days in a vicariously pure condition, as being "accepted in the Beloved".

 

[tonychanyt]

Then the issue is settled.

To whom the issue is settled?

 

[CoreyD]

Colossians 1:

Is the Son created by God?

I don't think so. The verse does not use the word "created". The Son is not a creature. On the contrary:

in
ἐν (en)
Preposition
Strong's 1722: In, on, among. A primary preposition denoting position, and instrumentality, i.e. A relation of rest; 'in, ' at, on, by, etc.

In the instrumentality of the Son, all things were created. He is the creator of everything:

The word used is creation - Gree k ktisis (κτίσεως).

Again, look at the prepositions. If the Son is created, it makes little sense that all things have been created in or through or for a creature. The sentence makes better sense if the Son is not just a creature.

that's Paul's point: The Son is the firstborn of all creation: the Son is before all things. Not that he was a creature.

Vincent's Word Studies:


Matthew Poole's Commentary:


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:


Similar sentiments were expressed by Ellicott, Meyer, Benson, Matthew Henry, Bengel, Barnes, etc. The scholarship is quite strong that the Son was not created.

There is an obvious problem with your idea, though. Easy to spot, if we look at it without the common doctrine taught in mainstream Christianity.
Suppose a person were to argue that the Greek word πάσης (pasēs) should be rendered "of all", instead of "over all". That could change the understanding of the text, as it would suggest that the son is the firstborn of all creation, in that he is the first of creation - the first, brought forth.

Would that be correct though? Evidently, yes. Why?
The writer uses the Greek word prototokos (πρωτότοκος) - firstborn.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

This is where the obvious problem is seen.
Could this apply to God? What is God the firstborn of?
The answer to that is obvious. Since God is the Alpha and Omega. That is, God has no beginning nor end, God was never born.
Referring to God as firstborn, would be an obvious mistake.
Would you not agree?

Something that has always troubled many people though, is why do persons insist that the son is not created, as the other spirit sons are?
I know, as many do, that this would cause a primary doctrine of mainstream Christianity to crumble, but wouldn't that be better than be viewed this way : Mark 7:6-9?

 

[tonychanyt]

The word used is creation - Gree k ktisis (κτίσεως).


There is an obvious problem with your idea, though. Easy to spot, if we look at it without the common doctrine taught in mainstream Christianity.
Suppose a person were to argue that the Greek word πάσης (pasēs) should be rendered "of all", instead of "over all". That could change the understanding of the text, as it would suggest that the son is the firstborn of all creation, in that he is the first of creation - the first, brought forth.

Would that be correct though? Evidently, yes. Why?
The writer uses the Greek word prototokos (πρωτότοκος) - firstborn.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

This is where the obvious problem is seen.
Could this apply to God? What is God the firstborn of?
The answer to that is obvious. Since God is the Alpha and Omega. That is, God has no beginning nor end, God was never born.
Referring to God as firstborn, would be an obvious mistake.
Would you not agree?

Something that has always troubled many people though, is why do persons insist that the son is not created, as the other spirit sons are?
I know, as many do, that this would cause a primary doctrine of mainstream Christianity to crumble, but wouldn't that be better than be viewed this way : Mark 7:6-9?

That's pretty good. Thanks. I'd encourage you to be critical of all my posts on this platform. That's how I learn

 

[CoreyD]

That's pretty good. Thanks. I'd encourage you to be critical of all my posts on this platform. That's how I learn

Thanks for the invitation. Stay humble.