Litigious: The claim that "πρωτότοκος" (prototokos, "firstborn") necessarily implies that Christ is part of creation conflates the term's use as denoting rank or preeminence with its use as a literal birth order.
Myself:it really does not matter whether rank or temporal order the protokos is without exception always part of the group of which he is prototokos there is not one single exception in all of scripture.
Litigious: In Colossians 1:15, Paul writes, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." The phrase "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" does not use a partitive genitive (indicating membership within the group). Instead, the context clarifies that Christ is preeminent over all creation, not a member of creation. Support from context: Verse 16 immediately explains why Christ is called "firstborn": "For by Him all things were created." If Christ created "all things," He cannot logically be part of the created order. The "all things" includes "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible," emphasizing Christ’s role as Creator, not created
Myself:Thayers begs to differ prototokos at colossians ch.1:15 is a partitive genitive according to thayers please check for yourself,but it would be worse if it were a possessive genitive because that would definitely make him the offspring of the creation and make his creative status more rather than less certain
And again the propositions "en" and "dia" are NEVER used of JEHOVAH NEVER regarding his role in the creation,those propositions prove that he us not JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH'S Instrument.
Litigious:You cite Thayer's explanation of "πρωτότοκος" as partitive in certain contexts, such as "firstborn of the flock" (Genesis 4:4) or "firstborn of your sons" (Exodus 22:29). However, these examples involve biological or literal relationships. In Colossians 1:15, Paul is using "firstborn" metaphorically to signify rank and authority, consistent with its use in Psalm 89:27: "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." Here, "firstborn" signifies preeminence, not literal birth.
Myself:It does not Matter no example is available in scripture where the prototokos whether use in the sense of the first or in the sense of the foremost is of a kind other than the one possessing him or his implied siblings
Litigious:The argument that Christ’s title as "monogenes" (only-begotten) suggests He is part of creation misunderstands the theological use of the term: In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s "only-begotten" (monogenes), even though Abraham had another son, Ishmael. The term "monogenes" here emphasizes Isaac’s unique role as the son of promise, not that he is the only son in a literal sense. Similarly, Christ’s designation as "monogenes" in John 1:14 and 1:18 highlights His unique relationship to the Father as the eternal Word, not that He was created. The temporal begetting in Acts 13:33, where the resurrection of Christ is referenced with Psalm 2:7 ("You are my Son; today I have begotten you"), pertains to Christ’s glorification, not His ontological origin. This event is distinct from His eternal generation as the Son of God.
Myself : birth language when used of JEHOVAH Refers to creation,Psalm ch.90:2 for example, the resurrection is a creative act that is why the resurrected are called children of God.
Luke ch.20:36NASB"for they cannot even die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being [u]sons of the resurrection. "
Isaac was literally abraham's Son but he was his only Son through the free woman he is the only son he begot in that matter, so the way he was begot was unique not the fact that he begot.
So to Christ the way he was created was unique not the fact that like EVERY Other son he of JEHOVAH He was created.
Christ himself admitted that JEHOVAH Caused him to live.
John ch.6:57NASB"Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, the one who eats Me, he also will live because of Me"
Litigious:The argument that Jehovah creates through preceding creations is flawed when applied to Christ: In Genesis 6:7, Jehovah speaks of "creating" humans and animals. While these beings emerged through natural processes after their kinds, Jehovah is still credited as Creator because He initiated these processes. However, this analogy fails to account for Christ’s unique role as Creator. Colossians 1:16 states that "all things were created through Him and for Him." This does not suggest that Christ was a secondary agent but rather emphasizes His direct involvement as Creator, as also affirmed in John 1:3: "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."
I never ever asserted that Christ was created through a prior creation in fact I've always stated the reverse that he us the only creation that was not created through a prior creation, again the fact that creation is accomplished "dia" or "en" him proves conclusively that he us not JEHOVAH But JEHOVAH'S Instrument these propositions are never ever used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation not even one time. The reason why JEHOVAH Can take full credit for what he accomplishes dia his first creation is the same as why he can take full credit for what he accomplishes through any other creation. All the power sustaining that first creation and being transmitted through that first creation is from him.
Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16
https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm
While you assert that prototokos always implies membership within the group to which the "firstborn" belongs, this is not universally true in Scripture, particularly when metaphorical or figurative language is employed. In Colossians 1:15, the genitive construction "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (firstborn of all creation) is better understood as a genitive of relation rather than partitive. This means Christ is being described in His relationship over creation, not as a part of it. This interpretation aligns with the immediate context of the passage, which emphasizes Christ's preeminence and creative role. Paul clarifies in verse 16 that "by Him all things were created," a statement that explicitly includes "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible." If Christ created all things, it is logically impossible for Him to be part of the created order.
ReplyDeleteYour appeal to Thayer’s lexicon for a partitive genitive reading of prototokos in Colossians 1:15 is not decisive. Thayer's interpretation does not establish a rigid grammatical rule but rather highlights potential usages based on context. Moreover, interpreting prototokos as indicating preeminence is consistent with its usage elsewhere in Scripture. For instance, in Psalm 89:27, David, as king, is described as "the firstborn," not because he was literally first in birth order but because he held the highest rank among the kings of the earth. Similarly, Christ’s designation as "firstborn" emphasizes His authority and supremacy over creation, not that He is a created being.
The assertion that prepositions like "dia" and "en" are never used of Jehovah in creation is demonstrably incorrect. In Romans 11:36, the text states, "For from Him and through Him (διὰ αὐτοῦ) and to Him are all things." Here, the preposition "dia" is applied to God the Father in the context of creation. This undermines the argument that the use of "dia" in reference to Christ in Colossians 1:16 ("through Him all things were created") diminishes His role as Creator or excludes Him from divinity. Rather, the use of "dia" emphasizes the instrumental agency of Christ in creation, consistent with His divine role within the Trinity.
Your understanding of monogenes also warrants correction. While you argue that the term refers to Christ's unique mode of creation, the biblical usage of monogenes primarily highlights uniqueness and relational distinction. In John 1:14 and 1:18, monogenes describes Christ as the unique Son of the Father, emphasizing His singular and eternal relationship to God rather than indicating creation. Similarly, in Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenes despite the existence of Ishmael. The term underscores Isaac's unique role as the son of promise, not his status as Abraham’s only son.
Your citation of John 6:57, where Christ says, "I live because of the Father," is consistent with the orthodox understanding of the Son’s eternal relationship to the Father. Within Trinitarian theology, the Son eternally receives His being from the Father, not as a created being but as one eternally generated. This relationship does not imply subordination or temporal creation but reflects the eternal unity and distinction within the Godhead.
Finally, your claim that Jehovah could take "full credit" for creation accomplished through Christ as His instrument overlooks the broader biblical witness. The New Testament repeatedly attributes creation directly to Christ (e.g., John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2, 10). These passages do not present Christ as a mere tool or intermediary but as the active Creator, equal in power and divinity to the Father. The assertion that Christ is simply Jehovah’s instrument contradicts the explicit statements in Scripture that place Christ at the center of creation and affirm His divine nature.