An Examination of Colossians 1:15-20: “Firstborn”; “Other”: What is
the correct understanding?
There exists much confusion among
Bible students over what the meaning is of the word “firstborn” as used in the
Bible, specifically in reference to Jesus Christ. This is due in large part to
Commentaries supporting their theological views rather than showing normal and
abnormal usage. Colossians 1:15, 16 reads (RSV) “He
(Jesus Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all
creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth…” In what sense is Jesus
Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Is Jesus Christ included in creation? Or is he the Source or Superior to all creation? In
this study we will review the answer to this question as well as the meaning of
the Greek word prototokos
also often read as PRWTOTOKOS along
with the entire phrase and accompanying context. We will also review additional
pertinent Biblical teaching that bears on a proper understanding of this oft
misunderstood topic, with an additional emphasis on the New World Translation
rendering of “other” in the context.
We do so in the spirit of the
ancient Beroeans who “carefully” examined the Scriptures “as to whether these
things were so”. Acts 17:11
Why “other”
As far as we know the New World
Translation is the only English Bible translation that 'inserts' or 'adds'
the word "other" in verses 16(twice), 17(twice) and 20(once) in
Colossians Chapter 1. Why have they done so?
In The Watchtower of April
15th, 1970, p.255 we find this remark: "In considering
this matter it is well to note that Bible writers often took for granted that
certain things would be understood, just as writers in our day do. For example,
the apostle Paul states, as we read at Colossians 1:16, that by means of Jesus
Christ all things were created in the heavens and on earth. But since we know
from Revelation 3:14 that Jesus himself was also created, the New World
Translation adds the word "other," which clearly is what the apostle
had in mind. But even here, it might be added, that, were it not for the
prevalence of the trinitarian teaching that Jesus was
not created, it would not have been necessary to add the word "other."
"(italics mine)
THEREIN, is a frank admission. There is no doubt that the "orthodox
theology", the belief in the Trinity, influenced the NWTTC's
treatment of Colossians 1:16-20.
We might begin here that it is not
unusual for words having to be 'added,' 'supplied,' or 'inserted', whatever way
you like to describe it, to get the proper sense of the original meaning
intended for the readers of it in the Hebrew and/or Greek languages of the
Bible. One only has to pick up a copy of the King James Version and see that
they have indicated where they have done so by putting their
"additions" in italics. Indeed, this 'practice' occurs hundreds of times.
Additionally, the NASV, a favorite translation used by Trinitarians, in it’s introductory “Explanation Of General Format” likewise
states that “Italics are used in the text to indicate words which are not
found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek but implied by it.”
Additionally, IN TRUTH, the Revised Standard version inserts the word “other”
100 times, the King James version 67 times, and the New Revised Standard
version New Testament 31 times. But the arguments usually stem from a theological
perspective. The NIV has been strongly criticized for adding the word *other at 1 Corinthians 6:18, as this
changes the meaning and adds the Translator’s theology on the matter. The NIV
Study Bible back Luther’s insertion of the word “alone” at Roman’s 3:28, as it
fits their theology to do so. BUT we are only pointed to the NWT when they do
what all other Bible’s have done also. ACTUALLY, as will be shown, the word
"other" is part of the Greek word under discussion here. So
it could correctly be said that the word "other" has not
been "added." "Supplied"
would be a better description to use.
THE
MEANING OF PROTOTOKOS
The three important Greek words of
Colossians 1:15 are prototokos (“firstborn”), pases (a genitive form of “all”) and ktiseos (a
genitive form of “creation” or “creature”).The genitive case in Greek may have
several meanings. Grammatically it is possible to include the firstborn in
creation and it is also grammatically possible to exclude this one from
creation. The different meanings of the genitive are not equally probable; the
meaning which would exclude the firstborn from creation is much less likely
than the one that includes him among the created order. But, more important,
the “lexical” meaning of the words may reduce the possibilities even further,
as we will see. Let’s then solve the problem by answering just one question: What
is the meaning of prototokos in this context?
The word occurs 128 times in the
Septuagint and 8 times in the NT. How is it understood? The only lexical meaning ascribed to the word in
Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English
Lexicon, 9th Edition, as well as BAGD, (A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature)and
NIDNTT is “firstborn.” Furthermore, a check in any concordance of the OT for
the use of the word “firstborn” will show that it is predominantly used to
indicate temporal priority, (An excellent example of this usage is Joshua 6:26, where the “firstborn” is
contrasted with the “youngest” child). Again the only lexical meaning of prototokos is ‘firstborn”. Having said this, with all their
ingenuity, those seeking a meaning other
than “the one who is born first” will often list one repeatedly cited
example, and that is Psalm 89:28,
“And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
This Psalm, however, does not give
a new lexical meaning to prototokos, but simply tells about the result of God putting the mentioned
person in the position of a firstborn (compare 1 Chronicles 26:1-2 and 2
Chronicles 21:3). As an illustration we may point to the fact that the priests
of
HOWEVER, let’s explore this above
discussion further in a context of those who object to these views and the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses. THE
FOLLOWING is a CARM(Christian Apologetics and
Research Ministry)comment, in part, on Colossians
"First of all the J.W.'s interpret the word "firstborn" to mean
"first created." This is not correct because there is a Greek word of
"first created" and it is not used. The Greek for firstborn is proto with tikto: firstborn. The Greek for
first created would be proto with ktizo: first
created. Paul did not use the second but the first. Second, the biblical use of
the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born
child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In
Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My
first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born
in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence
here."
Reply: Regarding the first point by the
CARM writer here. Untrue! Jehovah's Witnesses do not interpret the
word "prototokos", "firstborn,"
here as "first created." The meaning of this word is undoubtedly
"the one born first." There is no doubt that PRWTOTOKOS appears to
carry the lexical content of "the one who is born first," so
the TEV and CEV's translation of this
word as "firstborn Son" and "superior" is hardly warranted
and must be construed as truly biased or "theological translations."
(Cp.A Linguistic Key to the Greek New
Testament, F.Rienecker/Cleon Rogers,under "prototokos"
at Col.1:15.)
What the CARM writer also appears
not to be aware of, and necessarily then does not address at all, is that
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the phrase "prototokos pases ktiseos" means that the one here
described as the "firstborn", Jesus Christ, is the 'first one to be
created' .So we have to examine the phrase also, not just the
word. *As to Psalm 89:27, explained
earlier, which the CARM writer
refers us to; True, here, the word means one of an
exalted position. But this position is said to be one that was given
to David. "I shall make him My
first-born" as the NASB says. Other versions say that this position of
"firstborn" was by God to David as of "appoint[ment],"-NIV and NBV and a "place[ment]"-NWT (Hebrew:'natan'.)
But the status of Jesus Christ as God's "firstborn" is never said to
be one of "appointment" or "placement." He is, literally, not figuratively, God's firstborn. True, Jesus
Christ is pre-eminent among those who are created, but this pre-eminence comes
from him literally, really being, the first one of God's sons. So the word
"firstborn" here in Colossians
1:15 has a temporal sense,
a sense that occurs well over a hundred times in the Bible, including
Romans 8:29 and Hebrews 1:6, both in reference to Jesus Christ.
It might be added here that Greg Stafford after referring to J. B. Lightfoot's rejection
of the interpretation of the phrase "the firstborn of," as meaning
"the earliest of created beings"(Saint Paul's Epistle to the
Colossians and to Philemon, pp.144-146)also points
out the weakness of Lightfoot's argument that the Church Fathers of the 4th
century called attention to the fact that the Paul did not write
"first-created," but "firstborn."(This argument is repeated
by Bruce Metzger-The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ, A Biblical and
Theological Appraisal, Theology Today, 10.1(April 1953,p.77) But,
apparently, the word "protoktistos,"
"first-created," "was not in popular use until the second or third century CE!"
IN EVIDENCE of this we might
benefit by looking at what Clement of Alexandria wrote. This Christian writer who lived from 153 -
IN STRONG SUPPORT of this,
according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible the phrase
"the firstborn of" occurs 36 times. They are Genesis 25:13; Exodus
6:14; 11:5(3); 12:29(3); 13:13; 13:15(3); 22:29; 34:20; Numbers 3:13,40,46,50;
8:16,17; 18:15; Joshua 17:1; 1 Chronicles 1:29; 2:3,13,25,27,50; 4:4; 5:1;
9:31; Nehemiah 10:36; Job 18:13; Psalms 135:8; Isaiah 14:30 and Colossians
1:15.
If we examine each and every one of
the above we find that the "firstborn"
is one of, or part of, the
group it is said to be of. Hence, in Exodus 11:5, in the grammatical
construction under consideration, the "firstborn of Pharaoh" belonged
to, or was of, Pharaoh; and the "firstborn of beast" was itself a
beast. So, therefore, the phrase in Colossians 1:15,"the firstborn of all
creation," would, according to Bible usage,
be itself a part of creation, belonging to creation, a created being itself. So
the evidence for a Genitive of subordination so that it could mean as the NIV
reads: "firstborn over all creation," is extremely weak if
not non-existent. The LXX and the NT use of this expression heavily weighs in favor of a partitive
genitive here. The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, 4th
Printing, May, 2000, pg. 555, here at Colossians 1:15 under the word
"prototokos says, "Christ is called [prototokos pases ktiseos](partit[ive] gen[itive]...as
in Gen iv.4;...Deut.xii.17;...Ex.xxii.29.."
To further substantiate the above, a Bible
student can examine the consistent similar usage of Prototokos
(Prwtotokos) in the Greek Septuagint. And what do we
find?
QUITE SIMPLY that the Greek word PRWTOTOKOS followed by a group (in the
Greek genitive) grammatically REQUIRES that the PRWTOTOKOS is part of
that very group. We maintain that this requirement derives from the lexical
force of PRWTOTOKOS. Proof? Using C. L. Brenton’s
translation of the Septuagint, we have examined every example of
PRWTOTOKOS + a group in the LXX as proof. No exceptions in over 50+ examples.
-We submit a parallel example in English:
The word "one" in English followed by
"of" + a group REQUIRES a partitive genitive
(that the "one be a part of the group).
Thus,
*One of the sons (the "one" is
himself in the group of "sons")
*One of the created things (the "one"
is itself a created thing)
Determining
the Meaning of FIRSTBORN
We supply a list of all instances of PRWTOTOKOS
(firstborn) followed by a genitive in the LXX Septuaginta,
edited by Alfred Rahlfs.
Interpreting
Meaning:
Our goal is to interpret the relationship of
the firstborn (or, PRWTOTOKOS)
to the group. As you examine each verse, note that the firstborn is (1) the
first in time, and (2) part of the
group that follows:
LXX Genesis
4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep and of his
fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,
LXX Genesis
25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according to the names of their generations. The
firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth,
and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and
Massam,
LXX Genesis
35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob;
Ruben, Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar,
Zabulon.
LXX Genesis
36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman,
chief Omar, chief Sophar, chief Kenez,
LXX Genesis
38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked
before the Lord; and God killed him.
LXX Genesis
46:8 And these are the names of the sons of
LXX Exodus
6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of
their families: the sons of Ruben the first-born of
LXX Exodus
11:5 And every first-born in the
LXX Exodus
12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the
first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao
that sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the dungeon,
and the first-born of all cattle.
LXX Exodus
13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass
thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not
change it, thou shalt redeem it: every first-born of
man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.
LXX Exodus
13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as
not to send us away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the
first-born of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice every
offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every first-born of
my sons I will redeem.
LXX Exodus
22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits
of thy threshing floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me.
LXX Exodus
34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens
the womb; every first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep.
LXX Exodus
34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it
thou shalt pay a price: every first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not
appear before me empty.
LXX Numbers
1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the
houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according to
their heads, were- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one that
went out with the host-
LXX Numbers
3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every first-born male of
the children of
LXX
Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for
me- I am the Lord-- instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and
the cattle of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the
children of Israel.
LXX Numbers
3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the
first-born of the sons of
LXX Numbers
3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and
seventy-three which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons
of
LXX Numbers
3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of
LXX Numbers
8:16 For these are given to me for a present out
of the midst of the
children of
LXX Numbers
8:17 For every first-born among the children of
LXX Numbers
18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, whatsoever they
bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine:
only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt redeem the first-born of unclean cattle.
LXX Numbers
18:17 But thou shalt not
redeem the first-born of calves and the first-born of sheep and the first-born
of goats; they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood
upon the altar, and thou shalt offer the fat as a
burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the
Lord.
LXX Numbers
26:5 Ruben was the first-born of
LXX Deuteronomy
12:6 And ye shall carry thither your
whole-burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your
vowed-offerings, and your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of
thanksgiving, the first-born of your herds, and of your flocks.
LXX Deuteronomy
12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities
the tithe of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine
oil, the first-born of thine herd and of thy flock,
and all your vows as many as ye shall have vowed, and your thank-offerings, and
the first-fruits of thine hands.
LXX Deuteronomy
14:23 And thou shalt eat
it in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to have his name called
there; ye shall bring the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd and of thy flock,
that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God
always.
LXX Deuteronomy
15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among
thy kine and thy sheep, thou shalt
sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt
not work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not
shear the first-born of thy sheep.
LXX Deuteronomy
33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his horns are the horns
of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at once, even from the end
of the earth: these are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and these are the
thousands of Manasse.
LXX Joshua
17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse,
(for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir
the firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were in the land of Galaad and of Basan.
LXX 2
Samuel 3:2 (LXX, 2 Kings)And sons were born to
David in Chebron: and his first-born was Ammon the son of Achinoom the Jezraelitess.
LXX 1
Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations:
the first-born of Ismael, Nabaeoth,
and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam,
LXX 1
Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda;
Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were born to him of the daughter of
LXX 1
Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron
were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and
LXX 1
Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born
of Jerameel were
LXX 1
Chronicles 2:42 And the sons of Chaleb the
brother of Jerameel were, Marisa his first-born, he
is the father of Ziph:-- and
the sons of Marisa the father of Chebron.
LXX 1
Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim,
LXX 1
Chronicles 3:15 And the sons of Josia; the first-born Joanan, the
second Joakim, the third Sedekias,
the fourth Salum.
LXX 1
Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father of Osan: these are the sons of Or,
the first-born of Ephratha, the father of Baethalaen.
LXX 1
Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel (for he was
the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's couch, his father
gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; and he was not
reckoned as first-born;
LXX 1
Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of
LXX 1
Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born
Sani, and Abia.
LXX 1
Chronicles 8:30 And her first-born son was Abdon, and Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Nadab, and Ner,
LXX 1
Chronicles 9:36 And his first-born son was Abdon, and he had Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab,
LXX 1
Chronicles 26:6 And to Samaias
his son were born the sons of his first-born, chiefs over the house of their
father, for they were mighty.
LXX Nehemiah
10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in
the law, and the first-born of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the
house of our God, for the priests that minister in the house of our God.
LXX Psalm
135:8 Who smote the first-born of
LXX Micah
6:7 Will the Lord accept thousands of rams, or ten
thousands of fat goats? should I give my first-born
for ungodliness, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
Indeed, the word "firstborn";
“firstborn of” (Greek: PRWTOTOKOS) MEANS something. The LEXICAL and biblical meaning of the word“ firstborn" requires a comparison with something else.
A comparison with what? A comparison
with others who come later in time. The very meaning of the
Hebrew BaQaR (verbal form of "firstborn")
is "to be born first." Therefore, LEXICALLY, the phrase "firstborn
of" requires: (1) temporal priority over others in a
given group and
(2) that the firstborn is A MEMBER of the very
group that he preceeds in time.
What do we conclude? That the Scriptures teach
Jesus is a created being.
Jehovah's Witnesses seek
to avoid the kind of scholarship that alters basic lexical requirements that do
not meet a preconceived concept of
God. Rather, Jehovah's Witnesses strive to achieve an honest and knowledgeable
scholarship of the scriptures. This requires that our concepts of God come from
scriptures AND THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE and not the other way around. Thus, there
is no need for Jehovah's Witnesses to redefine the meaning of PRWTOTOKOS at
Colossians1:15 to fit a preconceived
theological view. Rather, we accept what the words themselves tell
us without altering the plain and consistent meaning of that word phrase. That
plain meaning is that Jesus is pre-eminent over all creation because he was
created (figuratively "born" in Hebrew idiom) first in time. Next,
through this highly exalted one, all things came into existence through his
agency, as Colossians
1:16 lays before us.
It should be emphasized, that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and
AN interesting ‘side note’ to the above; In
conversations with others on this topic, some have offered a rather interesting
argument that for Christ to be considered the "firstborn" in any
literal sense he would have to have a father, mother, a brother or brothers and
a sister or sisters. But, really, it seems to me rather strange for one to
posit that to take "firstborn" literally the term must then involve a
human father, mother, brothers sisters, simply because that is the case when it
comes to human firstborns. After all,
we would not think to argue that for the term “father” (as applied to
God)to have a literal application it would have to
involve a human mother or otherwise. No, the term “father” has the sense of one who gives life
and safeguards or provides for his children. The reference (the person to whom the term “father” is applied) simply
tells us on what plane (spiritual or physical) such senses are understood.
Since we do not know exactly how the generative process of creation works in
reference to God’s sons, it is enough to know that there is a parallel
with human procreation in terms of the giving of life, but the specifics of the
generative process are, of course, different.
The Bible uses human words that, to the
greatest extent possible, communicate what is really the case with
corresponding items/beings in the spirit realm. Thus, since we are not told
that “firstborn”, as used of Christ in Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:6, does not convey the lexical sense of temporal
priority, and since Jesus is not said to have been “placed as” or “given” the
position of “firstborn,” it seems that the best and most natural way to
understand the term is to recognize what is true about a father and his
firstborn son, and transfer the same sense to Jesus and his Father, especially
since that is how they are described to us, throughout the New Testament.
Jehovah’s Witnesses understand Colossians 1:15
as an example where the Apostle Paul applies the term “firstborn” to the preexistent
Christ in order to secure his position as the preeminent one of God’s creation.
Paul distinguishes Christ from mediated creations, in terms of temporal
priority, for “all (other) things” were made through Christ. His own creation occurred
prior to that of “all things”, and in an entirely different manner as we have
seen and will elaborate on further.
Interestingly, In Hebrew idiom,
"birth" was viewed as a kind of creative act. Thus, the idiom
of Ps 90:2 "Before the mountains themselves were
born" naturally and poetically meant that the mountains were created.
Another proof offered here is that of Wisdom
Personified. In Prov 8:22 LXX she is
"created" (Greek: EKTISEN). In verse 25, she is "begotten"
(Greek: GENNA). The Hebrew notion of "birth" and "creation"
overlap in their semantic domains.
Thus, the expression "firstborn" was
quite natural enough to express the idea of Jehovah's first created Son.
Interestingly, in line with this discussion,
Jesus Christ has historically always been thought to be the Wisdom of Proverbs. How is this
related? Why is this important? Let’s see:
"She
[Wisdom] is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3;
"The
doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which
will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the personof Christ . Jesus is
referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt
11:19 p; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation
and preservation of the world,
Finally,
NOW, why is this damaging to Trinitarians?
Because Wisdom was created!
"He
created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never
cease."Sirach24:9
The Interpreter's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22:
"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements
made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV
translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:
Wisdom was
created before them all,
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)
The Lord
himself created her (Ecclus 1:9
Then the
Creator of all gave me his command;
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT)."
Also see
Proverbs 8:22 NRSV, "The LORD created me at the beginning of his
work."
"The
LORD formed me as the first of his works, the beginning of
his deeds of old." Smith &Goodspeed
*For more on QANAH, click http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/qanah.htm
INDEED, the Bible is consistent, is
it not, in it’s clear teaching that Jesus Christ is a created being. God’s
“firstborn of all creation”.
For more evidence identifying Wisdom as Jesus Christ *click site then
scroll to Prov. 8:22 discussion http://members.aol.com/hector3001/mark.txt
MOVING ON, we would like to
reproduce the following criticism
made against the NWT and please note the last remarks made: regarding the NWT
use of “other”:
"Attempting to justify this
unheard of travesty upon the Greek language and simple honesty, the New World
Translation committee insert a footnote, marked (a) after each use of the word
"other", which refers the reader to Luke 13:2,4, "and elsewhere,"
for apparent support of their ungrammatical rendering. Upon turning to Luke
13:2,4, however, the elementary Greek student can see that the Witnesses
plainly do not have any grammatical leg to stand on as is shown by their
immature reasoning. The verses utilized by the
Reply:
It is true that the footnote to
verse 16 concerning the word "other" in Luke 13:2,4 in the 1950
edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures only deals with the vocabulary of
the Greek and does not address the linguistics of it nor the context. So it
would have definitely had helped if there had been an appendix supplied in the
NWT, similar to those in the 1984 REFERENCE NWT concerning John 1:1 and 8:58
for instance.(see The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, by Rolf Furuli, p.261,par.1,) The footnote in itself, however,
could not be evidence of "immature reasoning" as it's intention was
only to bring to the NWT's readers attention that there are times when words not in the original are none the less implied
by the context and have to be supplied to get the proper sense/meaning
across in an English translation. **(See also NASV comments on this issue mentioned
earlier here) Actually, there was no "reasoning" contained in the
simple footnote so there can be no charge of it being "immature
reasoning."!
What the above critic has to do is
address or rather do some "reasoning" himself
on the real issue. What did Paul mean when he used the phrase toward
the Son as being the "firstborn of all creation."
As has been shown already there IS good reason not just to "assume",
as the critic alleges above toward the NWT editors, that Jesus is a creature.
The phrase that Paul uses at Colossians 1:15 "the firstborn of all
creation" strongly suggests, even definitely says, just that.
Hence, the critic has inadvertently admitted that if it can be proved that
verse 15 shows that Jesus is indeed a creature then the word "other"
would be "necessitated". Exactly!
So after such proof has been given above, where then is there any
"scholastic dishonesty" or "travesty" on the part of the
NWT editors? Their, the NWT editors, use of the word "other" does not
come from a "pre-conceived theology" but from the correct understanding of Colossians
1:15.
IN FACT, their understanding of the
phrase "the firstborn of all creation" has been given in an Awake magazine issue of 1979 (which the critic has
probably not checked up on and hence in his criticisms above has not addressed
at all) which says:
" To the congregation at Colossae,
Asia Minor, the apostle Paul wrote concerning Jesus Christ, according to the
Common Bible "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all
creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible
and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
authorities-all things were created through him and for him. He is before all
things, and in him all things hold together."- Col.
1:15-17. What did the apostle mean by calling Jesus Christ
"the first-born of all creation"? Paul's further words enlarge on
the matter: "He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning,
the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be
pre-eminent."- Col. 1:18.
Here we find that the Greek words for
both "first-born"( prototokos
) and "beginning" (arkhe )
describe Jesus as the first one of a group of class, "the body, the
church," and therefore he has preeminence in this respect. He also has
preeminence in being the first one resurrected to endless life from among all
the human dead.- 1 Cor.
15:22, 23.
The same Greek words occur in the Greek Septuagint translation at
Genesis 49:3: "Ruben, thou art my first-born [ prototokos ], thou my strength, and the
first [ arkhe] beginning ] of my
children." (Compare Deuteronomy 21:17), From such
Biblical statements it is reasonable
to conclude that the Son of God is the firstborn of all creation in the sense
of being the first of God's creatures. In fact, Jesus refers to himself as
"the beginning [ arkhe
] of God's creation." (Rev. 3:14,CB ) The New
World Translation renders the phrase in this verse: "the beginning of
the creation by God."
There are many who object to the idea of
Jesus as being a created person.* click here http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/firstborn.htm*They argue that since "in him all things were created"(CB)- during his pre-human existence in heaven- Jesus himself
could not be a creature. Such individuals believe that Jesus is himself
Almighty God, the second person of a "trinity" of three coequal,
co-eternal persons in one "godhead."
Individuals of that persuasion interpret the Greek expression (at Revelation
3:14) for "the beginning of God's creation" as meaning "the
origin (or 'primary source' ) of the creation of
God."* click here http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/arche.htm* One who prefers this idea is the noted
Greek scholar Henry Alford. Nevertheless, in his work The Greek Testament,
Alford concedes: "The mere word arkh'e
would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Gen. xlix. 3; Deut. xxi. 17; and Prov. viii. 22. And so the
Arians here take it, and some who have followed them: e.g. Castalio,
chef doeuvre: omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum: [meaning " the first and most excellent of all God's works"
] and so Ewald and Zullig."
According to The Expositor's Greek
Testament, to understand Revelation 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is
"the active source" of creation, rather than the first created
person, one must interpret arkh'e "as in Greek philosophy and [non-Biblical]
Jewish wisdom-literature,= aitia or
origin." The inspired Bible writers, however, never borrowed ideas from
Greek philosophy. But how could Jesus be a creature if "in him all things
were created" ? At times the Bible uses the
word "all" in a way that
allows for exceptions. For example, we read at 1 Corinthians 15:27 :" But when it says, "All things are put in
subjection under him [Jesus Christ]," it is plain that he [God] is
excepted who put all things under him." As a further illustration the
Bible states that "through one man," Adam, "death spread to all
men." (Rom. 5:12, ) Though Adam was not part of
the "all men" to whom death "spread" (since previous to
Adam there was no human who could have spread death to him), he was nonetheless
a man. Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the "all things" that
came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless,
a created person, the very first creature of God. The Greek word "panta" in certain contexts means "all
other," as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American
Translation, Moffatt, Common
Bible.) Hence, the New World Translation reads: "by means of
him all [other] things were created . . . he is before all [other]
things."- Col. 1:16, 17.Jesus' being the firstborn of all creation involves
the law of primogeniture, the right of the one born or produced first. From
earliest times the real firstborn son enjoyed special privileges that included
succeeding to headship of the household and inheriting a double portion of the
father's property. (Deut. 21:15-17) Kingship and priesthood, too, were
inherited by the firstborn son of a king or high priest in ancient Israel.-See
2 Chronicles 21:3.
Since Jesus as the firstborn of all
creation is a created person, he cannot be Almighty God. A person of
God! The Scriptures repeatedly portray him as in a position subordinate to God. For example,
concerning the resurrected Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul wrote: "I want
you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is
her husband, and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor.11:3,CB
) When giving the inspired "Revelation" to the apostle John, Jesus
said concerning himself: "He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the
temple of my God;
never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city
of my God, the new
Jerusalem which comes down from my
God out of heaven, and my own new name." (Rev. 3:12, CB ) Did you note that four times in this verse alone Jesus
refers to his Father, Jehovah, as "my God"?-Compare Philippians 2:5,
6, CB.
In no way is this meant to deny the
exalted position that Jesus occupies next to God. Before ascending to heaven,
Jesus said to his disciples: "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me."(Matt. 28:18, CB ) It was
appropriate for God to "give" to his Son such authority, since the
Son was the firstborn of all creatures. Right in line with primogenitureship, the
apostle Paul could write concerning Jesus: "[God] raised him from the dead
and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule
and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not
only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things
under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church."-
Eph. 1:20-23,CB.
[footnote: The Common Bible is generally approved by
both Catholic and Protestant authorities]-Awake, April 8th,1979,p.28. (end of Awake
quote). (All added emphasis and links are
mine).
So whose "pre-conceived
theology" is being read into the passage of Colossians 1:15-19? Is it the
beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses or those of Trinitarians? If the understanding of Colossians 1:15 is
correct, which Jehovah's Witnesses believe it to be so, that Christ is part of
"all creation"(pases ktiseos), but the first and unique of "all
creation" because of being God's "firstborn," then when Paul
writes that "by means of " this firstborn "all
things"(ta panta)
came into existence the addition of the word "other" is justifiable.
The pre-human Christ could not be part of those through whom himself
these "all things" were created. These "all things" were
those that God created "through" the agency of his
"firstborn". This "firstborn" would be the only creation
that God himself directly created.
But even if the word
"other" had not been used
by the NWT Translation Committee in verses 16 and 17 the readers of this
passage would still be able to understand the meaning of "all things"
as not being equivalent to "all creation." This can be seen from
"ta panta" at verse 20. Is anyone going to assert
that "all things" there mean "all creation"? If so then is
it through the Christ that God will reconcile Satan and the disobedient
angels, whom are of "all creation"? Or do the faithful angels
who are also part of "all creation" in need of "reconcilliation"? No!
So, obviously, the "all things" in verse 20 is restricted to those
who are sinful and in need of reconcilliation.
Hence, if the Christ was part of "all creation" then "all creation"
cannot be equivalent to the "all things" that were created through
him and contextually restricted to creation
other than the "firstborn of all creation," the
pre-human Christ!
The context then would make the use of the word "other" certainly tenable
and defensible in verses 16 and 17, if not absolutely necessary. The
use of the word "other" by the NWT here cannot be deemed
"interpolation" any more than the word "other" has been
used at Acts 5:29(see below)and other places. It is “implied from the context”. If something
is implied then the translator has the right to include it explicitly
in his translation. But this is where we have to go back to the NWT Translation
Committee's "frank admission" that the Trinitarian view of Colossians
1:15-17 influenced how they approached this passage. They wanted a translation
that was not only "justifiable" linguistically, grammatically and
contextually, but one which without any doubt or uncertainty make the passage say
what it means-that the pre-human Christ was indeed a part of creation. That
he was a creature- as the rest of the scriptures show.
Interestingly, Dr Jason BeDuhn wrote to us in 1998 regarding this phrase
"firstborn of all creation":
"On Colossians 1:15-20, you
have focused precisely on the key to this passage. By calling Jesus the
"firstborn of creation" in v.15, Paul has explicitly identified
Christ as part of creation. Amazingly, most Christians overlook this fact.
The JW's draw attention to it by
inserting [other] into the subsequent verses. A bit heavy handed, but
in terms of the content and meaning of the passage, perfectly correct.
Paul does not mean to assert that Christ created himself, and he of course did
not create God; rather he is the agent of creating everything else. Let me add that
Christ is both part of creation and creator in this passage. It's not the
simple either/or that modern Christianity favors."
(reproduced with permission. Dr BeDuhn
is now at the Northern University of Arizona. http://www.nau.edu/~human/rel/faculty.html He will shortly be the author of a book
that will deal with such passages as Colossians 1:15ff).
In addition, Acts 5:29 according to
the New Revised Standard Version says: "But Peter and the apostles
answered...". But was not Peter an apostle also?
Yes, of course. That is why some translations here, such as the New
International Version 'adds' the word "other" so that it
reads: "Peter and the other apostles replied..." (see also Todays English
Version). This 'adding' of the word "other" here is
"perfectly correct" if not absolutely 'necessary,' for the reader
very probably will not be misled into thinking Peter was not an apostle
himself. But below there will be given an example(Acts
2:17)where "pas" cannot be construed in an unlimited, absolute sense
and hence the need for an additional word to be supplied by the careful
translator into the English. Of
course, the above critic would have us believe that the NWT Translation Committee
"did not have a leg to stand on" grammatically here at Colossians
1:16,17. The above quoted Greek
scholar, however, who has no theological "axe" to grind for or
against the Jehovah's Witnesses, indeed, nor against any theological
predilection including those of trinitarian
persuasion, does not agree. In regard to the NWT's use of the word
"other" in verses 16 and 17 of Colossians 1 he says it is
"perfectly correct."
NOW, if you remember the above
critic stated :"not one single competent
Greek authority can be cited for this deliberate attempt to reduce the Son of
God from Creator to creature." Well, I have herein, not only
quoted a "competent" authority on Biblical Greek but one who is not
a theologian as well. Most "competent Greek authorities" the critic
might have in mind may well be those who are also Trinitarians like himself.
The NWT editors have not "deliberately attempted to reduce the Son of God
from God to creature." They have translated this passage in a way that
shows quite clearly, as the original Greek did to the first century Christians,
that the Son of God was just that - the Son of God, God's "firstborn
of all creation."
One point a CARM critic makes in
the NWT's use of "other" in this passage of scripture reads: "there exists two Greek words for
"other": allos
which means another of the same kind; and heteros which means another of a
different kind. Paul could have used either here if he wanted to show that
Jesus was "another" created thing. But he did not." What Paul "could have used" is besides
the point! We have to analyze what Paul did write. But the fact is that this CARM argument is
insubstantial. The word Paul did use "panta,"
an inflected form of "pas," can mean "all other." F. Blass
and A Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (
A place where PAS is certainly used
in a limited, restricted sense is Acts 2:17. Will the Spirit be poured out upon
"ALL flesh",("all flesh"-NRSV,NAB;
"all people"-NIV, "all mankind"-REB,TNT,
"everyone"- CEV. Gk.,"e·pi´ par´san sar´ka)
also upon those having sinned against the Spirit? But the spirit will be
poured out upon "EVERY SORT of flesh"(NWT), the kinds being specified
in the following words. To translate "pas" here as "all"
could, therefore, definitely be misleading. In fact, Professor Furuli, quoted earlier, in his book on p.253 informs his readers that in comparing
the NWT here at Acts 2:17 with 70 other translations the NWT was the only one
that "has hit the target." So
as "pas" can mean "all other" as well as "all,"
absolutely, then linguistically the supplying of the word "other" in
Colossians 1:16ff by the NWT editors is perfectly legitimate and in view that
the NWTTC were also concerned that the trinity doctrine prevails in many
publications in the understanding of this passage the NWTTC no doubt, as they
frankly admit they did(see quote at beginning),wanted a translation that would
offer no cause for doubt what Paul's correct meaning was when he wrote that
"by means of him[the "firstborn of all creation]all [or
"all other"] things were created". Context must be looked
at as a determining factor as well as has been considered above. The CARM
writer has put forth a very weak argument indeed. In fact it is both irrelevant
and unscholarly.
*AT THIS POINT ,
let’s examine the “crux” of the matter by means of posing an “actual” direct
question striking at the “heart”on this issue then
examining the answer:
“Hello, I have a question: How
does the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (NWTCGS)
justify the insertion of the word "other" in Colossians 1:16-17? I have looked at
this issue critically from
numerous perspectives and it seems that the New World Bible Translation Committee (NWBTC) cannot justify
inserting this word here. Is there any
proof that they are correct by inserting this term”?
(Reply): “Dear Luis, Some place a great deal of stress in
interpretation that the Greek word PAS ("all" or "every")
and its conjugations means "Everything without exception." However,
this is not in harmony with the facts. Frequently, the subject in the
context is excepted from the "all." Here are
some examples from the New American Standard Bible, NIV, NRS and others where
the respective translation committee’s translated PAS/PANTA/etc as "all
other." There are many more examples that can be cited, but these suffice
to make the point”
Sincerely, Wes Williams *(one of Jehovah’s
Witnesses).added.
*(First we will read the original
“Greek New Testament”, GNT followed
by the translations)
Examples of EXCLUSION of the Item in the Pre-context:
[The mustard seed is excluded from
the "all seeds" to which it is being compared. Does this mean that
the mustard seed is not a seed? No. The New American Standard Version reflect that understanding in their translations. ]
GNT Matthew 13:32 “ho mikroteron
men estin PANTWN twn spermatwn. hotan de auxhqh
meizon twn lacanwn estin kai
ginetai dendron, hwste elqein ta
peteina tou ouvranou kai, kataskhnoun
en tois kladois autou”.
NAS Matthew 13:32 “and this is smaller than all OTHER seeds; but when
it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so
that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES. "
NAB Matthew 13:32 “and this is smaller than all OTHER seeds, but when
it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so
that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES."
[The mint and rue, as subjects in
the context, are excluded from "all vegetables." This would not except the mint and rue from being garden vegetables. They
are also included. The NIV reflects this fact.]
GNT Luke 11:42 “alla
ouai humin tois Farisaiois, hoti apodekatoute to hHduosmon kai to phganon kai PAN lacanon kai parercesqe
thn krisin kai thn agaphn
tou qeou”.
NIV Luke 11:42 "Woe to you
Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all OTHER kinds
of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God”.
NWT Luke 11:42 “But woe to YOU Pharisees, because YOU give the tenth of
the mint and the rue and of every [OTHER] vegetable, but YOU pass by the
justice and the love of God”!
[The Galileans who died are excluded from the
"all Galileans " to which they are being
compared. In English a translator might choose to use "other" to
reflect that.]
GNT Luke 13:2 “kai apokriqeis
eipen autois, Dokeite hoti hoi Galilaioi houtoi amartwloi para PANTAS tous Galilaious egenonto hoti tauta
peponqasin”;
NIV Luke 13:2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans
were worse sinners than all the OTHER Galileans because they suffered this
way”?
NAS Luke 13:2 “And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose
that these Galileans were greater sinners than all OTHER Galileans, because
they suffered this fate”?
NAB Luke 13:2 “And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these
Galileans were greater sinners than all OTHER Galileans because they suffered
this fate”? NRS Luke 13:2 He asked them, "Do you think that because these
Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all OTHER
Galileans”?
NKJ Luke 13:2 “And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you
suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all OTHER Galileans,
because they suffered such things”?
NWT Luke 13:2 “So in reply he
said to them: ‘Do YOU imagine that these Gal·i·le'ans
were proved worse sinners than all OTHER Gal·i·le'ans
because they have suffered these things’?
[Ditto for Luke 13:4]
GNT Luke 13:4 “hH ekeinoi
hoi dekaoktw ef hous epesen ho purgos en tw Silwam
kai apekteinen autous, dokeite hoti autoi ofeiletai
egenonto para PANTAS tous anqrwpous tous katoikountas Ierousalhm”;
NKJ Luke 13:4 "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell
and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all OTHER men
who dwelt in
NWT Luke 13:4 “Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Si·lo'am fell, thereby killing them, do YOU imagine that
they were proved greater debtors than all OTHER men inhabiting
[The sin of immorality
(fornication) is excepted from the "all
sins" of which Paul speaks.] as follows;
GNT 1 Corinthians 6:18 “feugete
thn porneian. PAN hamarthma ho ean poihsh anqrwpos
ektos tou swmatos estin ho de porneuwn eis to idion swma hamartanei”.
NIV 1 Corinthians 6:18 “Flee from sexual immorality. All
OTHER sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins
against his own body”. NAS
1 Corinthians 6:18 “Flee immorality.
Every OTHER sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man
sins against his own body”.
NAB 1 Corinthians 6:18 “Flee immorality. Every OTHER sin that a man
commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body”.
NWT 1 Corinthians 6:18 “Flee from
fornication. Every OTHER sin that a man may
commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning
against his own body”.
**[The
following is noteworthy even though it does not use PAS, but the principle is
the same. Peter is excluded from a group, but we know that Peter is a member of
that group! In English, we might use "other" to smooth out the
translation as some do.]
GNT Acts 5:29 “apokriqeis de Petros kai hoi apostoloi eipan Peiqarcein dei qew mallon
hH anqrwpois”
KJV Acts 5:29 “Then Peter and the OTHER apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men”.
NKJ Acts 5:29 “But Peter and the OTHER apostles answered and said:
"We ought to obey God rather than men”.
NWT Acts 5:29 “In answer Peter and the [OTHER] apostles said: "We
must obey God as ruler rather than men”.
[In the following, TA PANTA grammatically includes God himself in the context who
did the subjecting. But evidently to avoid any misunderstanding, Paul
explicitly excepted God. This explicit exception would not have been necessary
if it were grammatically unambiguous. However, even if Paul did not except God
explicitly, a reader using reasonableness should know to except God anyway. But
the grammar itself allows for ambiguity.] :
GNT 1 Corinthians 15:27 “PANTA gar hupetaxen hupo tous podas autou. hotan
de eiph hoti PANTA hupotetaktai dhlon hoti ektos tou
hupotaxantos autw TA PANTA”
NAB 1 Corinthians 15:27 “For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER
HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is
evident that He is EXCEPTED who put all things in
subjection to Him”.
[Christ is obviously excepted from "all things" that were created
through his agency. The NWT properly reflects this fact just as many other
versions do in various examples.]
GNT
NWT Col 1:16 “by means of him all [OTHER] things were created”
IN CONCLUSION, "TA PANTA were created by means of him" grammatically may or may not include the one in the
context. In other words, one cannot make a theologically dogmatic
statement from the use of TA PANTA alone. I suppose one could, but one should do so with knowledge of the weakness of the
statement. In Col. 1:16, the farthest one can go with this verse recognizing
the limitations of the grammar is to say that Christ was involved as indirect
agent in the creation of all things. Christ and the Father are certainly
excluded from the “all things” because Christ neither created God nor himself! Therefore,
there is no basis for complaint for adding the word "[other]" in this
verse. Whether or not Christ was also created (or, begotten) first by the
Father must be determined elsewhere. In the previous verse, Paul calls Jesus
the firstborn of all creation. Therefore, the "all things" that came
into existence through Jesus' agency harmonizes well with the teaching that
Jesus himself was the created being. In this case, the "all things"
and the "all creation" do not have the same reference as is
frequently assumed. They are not the same thing”.
__________________________________________________________________ A further Objection,
then a Reply:
One writer who objects to the use of
the word "other" in Colossians 1:16 says: "In John 1:3, the New World Translation (of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses) says “All things came into existence through him, and apart
from him not even one thing came into existence...”“...apart from him...”
is read by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to mean that Jesus created everything
besides himself . They read ‘apart from him’ in the
sense of ‘except him’ or ‘excluding him’. However, the actual meaning of this
word translated “apart” (Greek ‘choris’) means
“without”, i.e. “without him nothing was created”. This word is
translated ‘without’ in Mat 13:34, Mk 4:34, Lk 6:49,
Rom 10:14, Eph 2:12, 1 Co 4:8, 1 Tim 5:21, Phil 1:14, Heb 4:15, Heb 7:7, Js
2:26 et al. Even in the few cases where the New World translation translates the
word ‘apart’ it also must mean ‘without’ (see John 15:5, Rom 3:28, 1 Tim 2:8) -
in these verses ‘apart’ can not be read to mean excepting or excluding. I think
that John 1:3 can not possibly mean what the New World Translation implies.
Rather, to me the verse actually means that without Jesus nothing was
created - Jesus created all things, and therefore could not have been created
himself."
Reply: Ok!! FROM THIS, I
believe the above writer has possibly both misunderstood what John
1:3,4 signifies in regard to the "Word," Jesus and does not fairly
represent the Jehovah's Witnesses view as well. Where we read: “...apart
from him...” is read by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to mean that Jesus created
everything besides himself," We would reply. Not so! Jehovah's
Witnesses believe that according to the context(but we
are not dogmatic about this) the "all things" mentioned in John 1:3
is not "all creation," which would include all spirit creatures, but
is in connection with "the beginning"[Gk.,"en
arkhe"] cited in v.1. This
"beginning," we believe, is the physical creation, the 'cosmos' and
is in reference to the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1["en arkhe" LXX] where it is this creation that is
in view. So, there is no argument between the above writer and Jehovah's Witnesses
here!
Jehovah's Witnesses would agree
that Jesus is not part of the physical creation and so the writer's comments on
how we should view the word "apart" is not in dispute. We agree that
"without him[the Word]nothing was created," but
of course in reference to the physical creation only, and so "all
[physical]things came into existence through him." Note that it
was "through" the Word that these "all things came into
existence." It is the thought of John 1:3b that nothing came into existence
that did not come "through" the Word. But by this John shows that
even here in reference to the physical creation the Word was the 'agency' or
means of creation and not it's ultimate source. The 'ultimate source' or
cause remains the Father, Jehovah God. It is he who the scriptures honor
as the Creator and him alone.- 1 Corinthians 8:6;
Ephesians 3:9; Revelation 4:10,11; 10:6.
*As an interesting summary
to our discussion on the above material, this conversation was taken from B-Greek: One of Jehovah’s Witnesses
responding to a non-Witness, David:
Dear David:
That is an interesting way of construing the meaning of Revelation 3:14, and
certainly in the realm of possibility, but after reviewing the uses of ARCH
in the NT, I would have to say it is not a probability, if we are going to
invoke at all the meanings commonly associated with ARCH, elsewhere. Perhaps
you have some list of verses, biblical or extra-biblical, which would support
"source"?
In any event, you invoke what is said in Col. 1:15-18 and John 1:1-3 as
support for your view that Christ created all things. However, Colossians
1:15 uses a term (PRWTOTOKOS) that could, just as with ARCH, invoke temporal
notions with respect to Christ's being. But, putting that aside as an
accepted area of dispute, in verse 16 the passive verb EKTISQH is used in
reference to what someone else did EN AUTWi (=
Christ). This could not
grammatically be construed as an instance where it is said that Christ
created all things, but where it is said that all things were created "in
him" by someone else.
The same is true of EKTISTAI in verse 17, where we also find DI' AUTOU,
which, together with the passive verbs, clearly involves the idea of agency,
namely, Christ as the medium or instrument through which someone else created
(this concept of mediation does recall what is said of Wisdom in Proverbs 8,
regardless of who/what we think Wisdom might be, there). This is significant
for we also find this construction in John 1:1-3, to which you also refer.
When we compare these texts with 1Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2-3 it is hard, if
not reasonable impossible, to escape the conclusion that God created through
Christ.
Significantly, in Revelation 3:14 we find that Christ is the hH ARCH THS
KTISEWS **TOU QEOU**. Thus, even if we accepted "source" for ARCH,
here, it
is still hH KTISIS TOU QEOU, and, hence, shows that
the position of creator
belongs to someone other than hH ARCH, namely, the
God mentioned.
So, if a temporal beginning is not meant for Christ's being in this verse, as
the first of God's creation (which is *strikingly* similar to what we read in
the LXX of Proverbs 8 [KURIOS EKTISE ME ARCHN hODWN
AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU]),
then it would seem to me that "ruler" would be a better fit; however,
we are
then confronted with the fact that where ARCH has the meaning of
"ruler," in
the NT it is always accompanied by words denoting authority, power, etc., as
Wes pointed out and which BAGD suggests.
Anyway, a few thoughts which I hope will keep the focus on the grammatical
possibilities of Revelation 3:14, and not on some alleged meaning of other
verses that is not consistent with grammar in those verses. Care is needed
here, as I am sure Carl is aware, for if we veer too far off from the grammar
of the passage then our context will become larger and larger, and our
doctrine more and more prominent in our explanations, etc.
Best regards,
Greg Stafford
In conclusion, the following additional related
online articles examine the use and meaning of the title God, as well as a
complete examination of Biblical monotheism. http://jehovah.to/exegesis/otstudies/elohim.htm and
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/general/monotheism.htm
(two most
excellent articles)!
Thank you for your time.
Mark Larson
