The statement “He (Jesus) is the Firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15 has been a source of some confusion. Many people use this verse to say that Jesus is a “created being”. They say that “firstborn” can only mean he was born, and thus was created by God.
However, I think they don’t understand the cultural context surrounding this statement.
In the last article, we talked about why Jesus is called the “Son of God”. As always, we found that having the proper CONTEXT (specifically cultural context) makes a huge difference.
The Bible was primarily written by Jews, to Jews, who lived in a Jewish culture. So before we tackle what it means for Jesus, let’s look at what it meant in the Jewish culture of the time. (other middle-eastern cultures too)
The Firstborn in Jewish Culture
Some background first: The Jews didn’t have Social Security. They didn’t have a stock portfolio, mutual funds or a pension either. I know this is obvious, but consider what it means for a moment.
What if you would receive no income of any kind once you couldn’t work anymore?
How could you plan for that?
They didn’t have “bills” per say, but running out of food and starving was a legitimate concern. (Especially if a famine hit) Collecting a big pile of money was dangerous because thieves could easily steal it. And the Jews didn’t have any banks to securely store money either.
So how did you plan for old age in ancient times?
You had kids.
It might sound strange today because sayings like “kids are expensive” are commonplace. However, in Biblical times it was the opposite. Once a son was old enough to work (typically 12-14) they worked in the family business. (Daughters would work around the house) kids allowed you to increase your wealth by having more people who could help you earn enough food to live.
And no, we’re not talking about child slaves either. Especially in the Jewish culture, children were treasured and loved. The kids had “chores”, but unlike taking out the trash, the chores were necessary for the very survival of the family. Hence, having lots of kids was a good thing and having none was a curse.
(You can see this in many of the women in the Bible who had trouble conceiving. Many of them thought God was displeased with them because they couldn’t have children)
So how does this relate to retirement? (and the idea of the firstborn)
Parents expected their kids to take care of them when they got old. But to do that, they dangled a carrot for their kids: their inheritance. When the father died, all his possessions went to his sons (or daughters if there were no sons).
However, that typically still left a mother to take care of. (women on average live longer than men, and the odds of men dying young were much higher back then)
So to take care of the parents when they were old – and the mother when the father died – the oldest son (firstborn) got a double portion of the inheritance.
It works like this.
- If you had 2 sons, you broke you wealth into 3 parts. The oldest got 2 parts, the other got 1 part.
- If you had 5 sons, you broke your wealth into 6 parts. The oldest got 2 parts, while the rest got 1 part each.
- If you had 10 sons, you broke your wealth into 11 parts, The oldest got 2 parts, while the rest got 1 part each.
The firstborn son typically got double because he was born first and thus (theoretically) had the most wisdom and experience. Also, if you’ve ever read the Birth Order Book by Kevin Leman, you’ll know that oldest children are often more responsible than other children. (though certainly not always)
The Firstborn Typically got a double portion of the inheritance and more authority than his younger brothers.
This is often called the “birthright” of the firstborn; he had a right to the double portion and extra authority because he was born first…
Most of the time.
But not always. (which I’ll show in a minute)
Typically, the father would slowly give the (adult) firstborn more and more control of his estate until the oldest son was basically running the whole show. It still belonged to the father, but the son (in preparation for owning it) would run it while the father was alive so he would know how to run everything when the father died.
The son got extra stuff (the double portion and authority) and the parents weren’t destitute in their old age. Everybody wins.
Yay! 🙂
(Note: Often, the other duties of the father would fall to the eldest son too. For example – depending on the culture and time period – it could include finding husbands for his sisters, taking care of his younger brothers, taking over a tribal/kingly role, etc.)
Firstborn in the Bible
The word translated “Firstborn” is “bĕkowr” and it appears 123 times in the Old Testament. Most of the time, it refers to the first child born from a person or animal. But it also appears with a different meaning connected to the double portion and authority the eldest son was typically given.
However, the eldest son wasn’t always given his “birthright” of being the firstborn.
There are exceptions.
Sometimes, your firstborn just isn’t reliable enough to trust with the double portion and authority. Sometimes, you need to pick a different kid because that’s what’s best. This probably wasn’t very common, but they definitely did it.
1 Chronicles 5:1
1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright.)
1 Chronicles 26:10
10 Also Hosah, one of the sons of Merari had sons: Shimri the first (although he was not the firstborn, his father made him first)
Genesis 48:17-20 (Gen 41:50-52 tell us that Manasseh was born first)
17 When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on Ephraim’s head, it displeased him; and he grasped his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head.
18 Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”
19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know; he also will become a people and he also will be great. However, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.”
20 He blessed them that day, saying,
“By you Israel will pronounce blessing, saying,
‘May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh!’”Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.
God Himself does this order switching.
Jeremiah 31:9
9
“With weeping they will come,
And by supplication I will lead them;
I will make them walk by streams of waters,
On a straight path in which they will not stumble;
For I am a father to Israel,
And Ephraim is My firstborn.”
Jeremiah is interesting because While Ruben was supposed to be Jacob’s (Israel’s) firstborn. (Remember that Jacob’s name was changed to Israel) Israel changed his firstborn to Joseph because of Ruben’s sin. Likewise, Joseph’s son Manasseh was the firstborn, but here God called Ephraim His firstborn. Ephriam is VERY far from being born first, and yet is called the “firstborn”.
Genesis 48:3-5
3 Then Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me,
4 and He said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and numerous, and I will make you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession.’
5 Now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.
I would like to point out, that first Jacob includes his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh with his own children. (This is borne out in Israel’s history. All over the the Old Testament they reference the “half tribes” of Ephraim and Manasseh.) Then, he makes Ephraim his firstborn… Over ALL of his own children (Ephraim’s uncles)
Here we have someone who is clearly NOT Jacob’s firstborn “becoming” the firstborn. And the verse in Chronicles I quoted above makes this clear. (I’ll copy/paste to save you some scrolling)
1 Chronicles 5:1
1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright.)
Again, When Israel was God’s nation, Ephraim was His “firstborn”, even though he wasn’t born anywhere near first.
The fact that you can change your firstborn is actually enshrined in the Mosaic Law… Sort. God places a specific limitation on the practice. He has a prohibition against favoritism when changing your firstborn.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17
15 “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,
16 then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.
17 But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
God says you can’t pick a different firstborn just because you like his mother better. However, the practice of picking a different firstborn is acknowledged here, it’s just limited. (you can look at 1 Chron 26:10 – quoted above – if you disagree) God Himself seems to like taking non-firstborns and making them firstborns. I say this because He said of David:
Psalms 89:20-27
20
“I have found David My servant;
With My holy oil I have anointed him,21
With whom My hand will be established;
My arm also will strengthen him22
“The enemy will not deceive him,
Nor the son of wickedness afflict him.23
“But I shall crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.24
“My faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his horn will be exalted.25
“I shall also set his hand on the sea
And his right hand on the rivers.26
“He will cry to Me, ‘You are my Father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.’27
“I also shall make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.
Again, in verse 27 we see the firstborn connected with authority and preeminence, NOT birth order. David was not the first king. In fact, he wasn’t even the oldest of his brothers. He was the Youngest son of Jesse.
1 Samuel 16:11
11 And Samuel said to Jesse, “Are these all the children?” And he said, “There remains yet the youngest, and behold, he is tending the sheep.” Then Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and bring him; for we will not sit down until he comes here.”
The most of the time, the person who inherits the double portion and authority is the oldest son. But the oldest son’s “birthright” (the double portion and authority) can be given to another. In that case, the other son is the “firstborn” even though he wasn’t born first.
Please note: the Title “Firstborn” Follows the POSITION (authority and double portion) NOT the birth order.
Consequently, it can refer to either the Title (which grants authority and a double portion) or to the order of birth.
Perhaps the best example of this is Kleenex.
And yes, I mean the tissues you blow your nose on.
Most people know that Kleenex isn’t something you blow your nose on. Kleenex is the name of a company who’s most famous product is facial tissue (for blowing noses). However, “facial tissue” is so synonymous with the brand Kleenex, that we say “Kleenex” when we mean “facial tissue”.
So it is with the idea of firstborn.
While we might say “Kleenex” (Firstborn) what we actually mean is “facial tissue” (the double portion and authority.).
…But it can also mean the first person/animal to leave the womb. Either translation is correct and it depends on the context to make it clear.
Why Jesus is called the Firstborn of all creation
So now that we’ve looked at the cultural context and some biblical context, let’s look at the context of the passage in Colossians. (And remember, we’re looking at this passage because many people use it to claim that Jesus was created)
Colossians 1:12-19
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 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 through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Now – bearing in mind everything we’ve discussed so far – do you think Paul is talking about Kleenex (being born first) or tissue paper (the authority and double portion)?
We’ll come back to that in a moment. First, let’s look at some context from the rest of scripture about Jesus’ Authority:
Matthew 28:18
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Ephesians 1:20-22
20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,
And now about what the Father has given to Jesus:
Matthew 11:27
27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
John 3:35
35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.
So, Jesus was definitely given The Father’s authority, and he was definitely given… well, everything. (If a father only had one son, he got everything in the Jewish culture,)
Now, let’s examine the passage in greater detail.
Colossians 1:15-19
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 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 through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Let’s look at verse 17 first. It plainly states that Jesus “is before all things”. You can take that statement one of two ways. (That I see, and they aren’t mutually exclusive.)
#1 – You could say that means that Jesus existed before all things. A strictly literal interpretation of that would mean that – if Jesus is completely separate from The Father as some say – then Jesus would’ve existed before the The Father. (though with the trinity position it means they both existed before all things) Obviously, if that is the proper translation then the case is closed and Jesus was not created.
#2 – You could also say that “He is before all things” means He has the first place before all things. As in, a position of preeminence and higher authority. People who say Jesus was created prefer this meaning, and we’ll go with it for now.
If Jesus being “before all things” means he has a higher position, then doesn’t that sound like “higher authority and double portion” a firstborn gets?
Doesn’t it?
This is made more clear by Verse 18 when it says “so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything“.
Another a clarifying part of verse 18 is the phrase “firstborn from the dead”. Jesus was certainly not the first person to die, and He wasn’t even the first one to be raised from the dead. However, He is the greatest of those who died. Again, this sounds rather like the “higher authority and double portion” than being born first.
Further, the beginning of verse 18 says that Jesus is “The head of the body”. Again, Jesus’ headship refers to authority not creation.
For more biblical context, let’s look at Romans
Romans 8:29
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
We talk about “brothers and Sisters in Christ” a lot. However, Romans makes it clear that while were are brothers, Jesus is the Firstborn. Again, He has a position of higher authority (and owns everything) because The Father declared Him to be “The Firstborn”. (and the firstborn gets the authority and double portion, which Jesus has)
Further, even if we say Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus being “born”, that’s NOT a problem because Jesus was born! (of a virgin named Mary)
As we saw earlier, God seems to have a fondness of making non-firstborns into firstborns. (King David for example) Jesus was certainly not the first person who was born. However, that doesn’t mean The Father couldn’t declare Him the Firstborn because He’s done it before.
Colossians 1:15 *might* (maybe) talk about Jesus being born, but again He was born (of a virgin) so why is that a problem? Nowhere in the verse does it say “first created of all creation”. Besides being terrible grammar, the sense of creation just isn’t in the verse. Being “born” might be (which again is no problem) but being created isn’t.
It seems to me, the most obvious context is about Jesus’ authority.
Many proponents of the “Jesus is created” theory admit the “firstborn” Title is transferable
I learned about the “firstborn” topic because of a few conversations with a Jehovah’s Witness friend of mine. During my research, I checked to see what they (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) have to say about the topic. The following quotes are directly from the JW.org website, which is the official website of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
But the Bible does not always honor the firstborn by listing sons according to birth. The first place is often given to the most prominent or faithful of the sons rather than to the firstborn. (emphasis mine)
The father could transfer the birthright if he had a good reason, giving the firstborn’s inheritance to a younger son. In the instances of this noted in the Bible, it was not through whim or favoritism, but there was a basis on which the father determined to make the change in the birthright inheritance. (emphasis mine)
They say that Colossians 1:15 means Jesus is created. However, their own website agrees that “firstborn” doesn’t always go to the one born first. It can also refer to a birthright that is transferable to another, more faithful son.
Jesus certainly was – and is – more faithful than any other.
A Note about the Greek word translated “Firstborn”
As already noted, the Hebrew word translated “firstborn” in the Old Testament is the word “bĕkowr”. In the New Testament, it’s the Greek word “Prototokos“. It’s only used 8 times in the entire New Testament. Of those 8 times, only twice does it refer to the child who was born first.
By contrast, twice it refers to Jesus being the “Firstborn of the dead”, which clearly does NOT indicate creation of any kind. In those cases, it clearly refers to the authority (and possibly double portion) that the firstborn was given.
The remaining four times the context isn’t 100% clear which meaning is intended. For the majority “authority” makes more sense in the context, but that doesn’t precluded it meaning “born first”.
Conclusion
Could Jesus being the “firstborn of all creation” mean he was created? I have to concede there is a chance it does. However (given the context) it’s a slim chance at best.
Is it possible?
Maybe.
But the overwhelming testimony of the rest of scripture is about Jesus’ authority. The immediate context of the verse is about Jesus authority and preeminence above all things. Some translations even render it this way, including the NIV and half a dozen others.
Colossians 1:15 (NIV)
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
I won’t say it’s impossible…
But I will say it’s highly unlikely.
Wow! I always wondered about the firstborn!
This poses a lot more questions than it could answer. For instance, if all the Father wants is to make us understand that Jesus as the Son has all the power why will he have to make analogies of first born creation authority when all God has to do is say it. A lot of Christians who has understanding of Jewish culture could not relate as I think the way you explain the Jews can understand Jesus power due to such tradition. It takes a lot of explanation for so simple context. Thus I think there is more to what the Bible saying than the Semitic tradition.
Jesus is door to the new life He gave us. If any man be in Christ he is a new creation, old things are passed away. The new life is the life in the spirit which has no similarity to the physical life we have in terms of existence. We enter into that new life following Jesus. He died that those who follow him must also die of their old life and allow Jesus life to be the new life they have. Paul made it clear when he said, ” I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me. The life I live I live in faith with the son of God”. Jesus died to Himself when He left His deity in heaven to become a man. And Ephesians 5:1 says we have to imitate that concept. We too have to die on our own power, agenda and allow god to live in us. When we follow Jesus that way, He is the first born of a creation that He modeled for we too we die as He died and as He moved no longer in His own power but on the power of the Father, we too no longer live in our own way but in the way of Jesus. So the principle of the new creation is set by Jesus who called us HIs brothers if we do the way He did. If we die to ourselves we rise up in the power of Jesus. As he is the person who made himself an example of the kind of life we all ought to live, He is the first. Ad if we follow Him in that same principle we only follow the example He showed. We can never be first because we do not know the way, He showed the way, He lived the way and as He died giving up His God deity, we too die giving up our own live, dreams, happiness.
First Born always means Firstborn. As noted by all of your example’s in your article. You mentioned several times the birthrights that were given to the non firstborn man child. There is huge difference between firstborn and birthrights. Your made it sound like we’re the same thing. I am sure you will correct that in your article.
Col 1:15 does not say Jesus is the firstborn son of Adam as Cain would be the firstborn of Adam. Some might say the firstborn of creation as Adam was created and not born.
Did you ever why Cain is not mentioned as Adam’s firstborn? Thou he was the firstborn of Adam.
Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
This says Jesus is the firstborn of all Creation. The fall of man was not created by God. The sin of man was part of God’s six day Creation. Those born of Adam were dying and still are dying. Remember there was the First Adam (created) and there is the Last Adam (New Creation) in which God planned for in the six day creation. Namely the seed of women/the virgin birth.
It all fits very miraculously together.
Jesus the Firstborn of All Creation
Paul knew what he was talking about in Col 1:15. Where he says Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation. Col 1:18,Paul is not saying Jesus has preeminence or first place in everything; therefore, God says he is the Firstborn of all creation. No! Paul said he is the Firstborn of All Creation; therefore, he has preeminence. Firstborn means firstborn in all cases throughout the Bible, and each has been appropriately placed within its context and should be reviewed within its context.
Colossians 1:18
He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He will come to have first place in everything.
Here we read Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. What Paul is saying is that Jesus is the firstborn human alive unto God. This does not say he was born again as Jesus was sinless from birth and unto death. He was alive when he died. In other words his blood was not tainted by sin. Yet Jesus died or better said he gave up his life/blood.He was still alive. This is one of the reasons Jesus shared the story about Lazarus and the rich man. When you die you will always be you, spirit soul and body. Jesus tells us exactly what happens after death. He takes all the mystery out of the life-death theories.
The secret to Col 1:15 is about the belly button. Jesus had a mother. Adam did not. Stay with me.
The first Adam did not have a belly button, but he did have life.
Genesis 2:7-8 And God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life/blood, and man became a living soul. And God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Leviticus 17:11For the life (God’s Life) of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.
As we can see, the first Adam was created and not born, thus no belly button.
God placed his life/ blood/ seed into Mary/mankind (virgin birth).
Acts 20;28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He (God) purchased with His own blood.
The last Adam. (Jesus Christ)
Creation/Mankind after the fall of Adam/Creation.
Everyone after the fall of mankind/first Adam was born of sin. Separated from eternal life with God. We were not created, we were born of Adam after the fall and we were of our father, the devil. This is why we needed a new life/a new Father.
John 8:43-44 ”Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.”
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ ( by grace you have been saved),
Ephesians 2:4-5
Romans 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “ Abba! Father!”
If God adopted us as our father, this would mean we had a different father before being adopted by God our Father.
(We were dying as our blood/life was tainted by sin, and we were no longer part of the living/ God’s creation/life.) My words, not the Bible.
God did not create the fall of man. Nor did God create the results thereof. The fall of man was not part of the six-day creation. But God did plan for it.
1John 3:8-10 The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin continually, because he has been born of God. By this, the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.
Sin is Passed on by the Father/Male
Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
So with that said, Jesus was the first person of all creation who was born as a human alive unto God since the first created Adam. Jesus was the only person to be Born without sin in his life/blood after the fall of Adam. Thus kJesus had a belly button as he was born of a woman/virgin birth after the fall of Adam. Jesus was the Firstborn of all creation.
The First Adam was the FIRST creation. The Last Adam was a NEW creation. The first human BORN without sin.
Now we know why Jesus had to be born of a virgin and how Jesus was created sinless.
For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originated from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
1 Corinthians 11:8-12
Gal 6:15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
Both the first Adam and the last Adam had unblemished blood/life from God flowing in their veins. There are only two Adams mentioned in the Bible. The first Adam and the last Adam Jesus Christ. There is no second Adam
Thank you. Enjoy His Word.
I won’t reply to everything you wrote because that would take a long time. However, have you read my article on Original Sin? If so, you’d know that your foundational premise appears to be directly contradicted by Ezekiel 18.
Dear Berean Patriot,
Although you made an attempt to determine what “Firstborn” means at Colossians 1:15, 18 regarding Jesus being identified as “Firstborn of creation” and “Firstborn from the dead” your response indicates a need for further research.
You provide a “proof text” of Psalms 89:27 and assert that ‘since David was the youngest of his brothers and not born first, “Firstborn” must mean something else’.
However, do the Scriptures ever say “David my servant”; “David their king”; or give the ‘appearance’ that it is David speaking or being spoken about YET it has actual reference to another who has a significant connection to King David and the throne of David? Yes.
Ezekiel 37:24, 25 states: “24 My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever”. (see also Ezekiel 34:23; Jeremiah 30:9; Hosea 3:5).
Of course this one cannot be David (who was then deceased), but the one whose genealogy of both human parents trace back to King David and the rightful ruler to sit on the throne of David, Jesus Christ.
Throughout the Psalms, Paul demonstrates that many texts in which (it appears) David is speaking or spoken about actually is referring to the seed of David and heir to David’s throne, Jesus Christ.
For example, at Acts 2:24-36 Paul shows that when it appears David is speaking in First Person (I, my, me) at Psalms 16:8-10 he was actually prophesying about Jesus’ resurrection:
Acts 2:25-27, 30, 31: 25 “For David says concerning him, “ ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; 26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. 27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption…. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption”.
Also, Paul, at Romans 15:8-12 informs us:
8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, 9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,
“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name.” ….⁹
Paul is, no doubt, quoting David at Psalms 18:46-50:
46 The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock, and exalted be the God of my salvation— 47 the God who gave me vengeance and subdued peoples under me, 48 who rescued me from my enemies; yes, you exalted me above those who rose against me; you delivered me from the man of violence. 49 For this I will praise you, O LORD, among the nations, and sing to your name. 50 Great salvation he brings to his king, and shows steadfast love to his anointed, to David and his offspring forever.
Thus, going back to Psalm 89:
“20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him, 21 so that my hand shall be established with him; my arm also shall strengthen him. 22 The enemy shall not outwit him; the wicked shall not humble him. 23 I will crush his foes before him and strike down those who hate him. 24 My faithfulness and my steadfast love shall be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. 25 I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers. 26 He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
This Scripture is extremely similar to Psalms 18:46-50 of which Paul tied to Christ fulfilling it even though it appeared as if fully speaking about David—even in its inscription).
Thus, if Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, and David himself can be inspired to pen Scripture in which IT IS IN FACTUAL REFERENCE TO JESUS, although it appears to be about King David, Jesus’ forefather and the one on whose throne Jesus will reign, cannot Ethan the Ezrahite (who is credited in penning Psalms 89) also be inspired to be prophesying about Jesus, while using the term “David my servant” in reference to David’s promised seed and heir to his throne, Jesus Christ?
Thus, there is NO discrepancy in the term “Firstborn” at Psalms 89, as it applies to the same one who is called “Firstborn” at Colossians 1:15, 18, that being God’s only-begotten Son and Firstborn, Jesus Christ. (1 John 4:8-15; Revelation 3:14; Proverbs 8:22-31).
P.S.
I will be glad to discuss how there is also no discrepancy in the term “Firstborn” when the nation of Ephraim is termed “My firstborn” at Jeremiah 31:9 at a later writing.
Wish you well,
Gary Prinkey
Dear Berean Patriot,
Regarding the term ‘Firstborn’, why did the true God, through his prophet Jeremiah, at Jer. 31:9, say: “With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn” ?
Yes, why was this stated to the NATION of Israel about the TRIBE of Ephraim when the forefather of the tribe, Ephraim, was not one of Israel’s (Jacob’s) 12 sons? –he was the grandson of Jacob through his son Joseph; NOR was he a firstborn son (he was Joseph’s second born of two sons).
Berean Patriot, you had some of the pieces of the puzzle, but missed a few:
• Ruben, Israel’s ACTUAL “Firstborn” son FORFEITED his ‘Firstborn Birthright’:
1 Chronicles 5:1, 2: “The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he could not be enrolled as the oldest son; though Judah became strong among his brothers and a chief came from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph),”
Thus, Joseph received the firstborn birthright of Jacob (Israel) instead of Israel’s actual firstborn, Ruben, who lost such right by selfish fornication with Israel’s concubine, Bilhah (Genesis 35:22).
Note that someone else besides Ruben would be “enrolled” LEGALLY and in the eyes of the true God “as the oldest [firstborn] son” (Reuben, though, would always be identified LITERALLY as Jacob’s (Israel’s) firstborn/oldest son. This also informs us something else very important: Ruben’s forfeited Firstborn birthright, “his birthright” was “given to the sons of Joseph”.
Yet, the Firstborn birthright must go to Israel’s SONS ( not grandsons, brothers, nephews, etc.).
• So, what took place in order for the Firstborn Birthright to be able to be transferred from Joseph to Joseph’s sons?
Answer: Genesis 48:3-5. “And Jacob said to Joseph,… And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are”.
So it did because of this fact: Israel made Joseph’s two sons, Manasseh & Ephraim, ‘His Own Sons’. These were NOT considered his grandsons regarding legal matters, but were given all inheritance rights & privileges as being Israel’s own sons. In fact, descendants from each of Joseph’s two sons became two of the tribes of Israel (the Tribe of Ephraim & the Tribe of Manasseh), along with Jacob’s other sons, except for Levi. (The Levites, instead, lived among the 12 tribes caring for priestly duties for the entire nation of Israel—See Numbers1:47-50 below).
• But how did Joseph’s second born son, Ephraim, gain Israel’s (Jacob’s) Firstborn birthright blessing?
Answer: Genesis 48:12-20. 12 “Then Joseph removed them from his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth. 13 And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near him. 14 And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn). 15 And he blessed Joseph and said,
“The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, 16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
17 When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he took his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18 And Joseph said to his father, “Not this way, my father; since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” 19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.” 20 So he blessed them that day, saying,
“By you Israel will pronounce blessings, saying,
‘God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh.’ ”
Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.”
So, for some undisclosed, but surely justifiable reason, God directed Israel to give the Firstborn birthright blessing to the younger son, Ephraim (instead of his firstborn brother, Manasseh)–(compare what Romans 9:6-18 says about the true God’s right to choose regarding the promises made to Abraham—i.e. Esau/Jacob). Had Ruben not FORFEITED his firstborn birthright, Jehovah God would be honoring Ruben instead of Ephraim as his LEGAL ‘Firstborn of Israel’ in the book of Jeremiah 31.
• Some may say, ‘Well does not 1 Chronicles 5:2 say that “to Joseph” “the [Firstborn] birthright belonged”?
Yes, but REMEMBER, Joseph never received the ACTUAL BLESSING FROM ISRAEL—HIS TWO SONS DID (see 1 Chron. 5:1). And of the two boys, which one did Israel place his RIGHT HAND on, giving the blessing as firstborn? It was Ephraim. Being given “The FIRSTBORN BIRTHRIGHT”, Joseph was given DOUBLE (2 portions of) Promised Land inheritance through his two sons. Lastly, REMEMBER, there was NO TRIBE OF ‘Joseph’ in ancient Israel.
According to Numbers 1:32-35, of these two sons of Joseph, it is Ephraim who is identified as representing Joseph’s descendants, the same one who Israel blessed with HIS RIGHT HAND, thus receiving the Firstborn birthright blessing. The second of Joseph’s double portion came about by means of his other son, Manasseh, with ‘the descendants of Manasseh’ being listed AFTER those “of Joseph THROUGH Ephraim” or “of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim”.
Numbers 1:20-50 (Verse 20 identifies Ruben as Israel’s literal –though not legally recognized– ‘firstborn’)
“20 The people of Reuben, Israel’s firstborn, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, head by head, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go to war:
21those listed of the tribe of Reuben were 46,500.
22 Of the people of Simeon, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses,….
24 Of the people of Gad, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses,….
26 Of the people of Judah, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses,….
28 Of the people of Issachar, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses,….
30 Of the people of Zebulun, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses,….
32 Of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war: 33those listed of the tribe of Ephraim were 40,500.
34 Of the people of Manasseh, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war: 35those listed of the tribe of Manasseh were 32,200.
36 Of the people of Benjamin, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses,….
38 Of the people of Dan, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses,….
40 Of the people of Asher, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war: 41those listed of the tribe of Asher were 41,500.
42Of the people of Naphtali, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses, according to
44These are those who were listed, whom Moses and Aaron listed with the help of the chiefs of Israel, twelve men, each representing his fathers’ house. 45So all those listed of the people of Israel, by their fathers’ houses, from twenty years
47But the Levites were not listed along with them by their ancestral tribe. 48For the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 49“Only the tribe of Levi you shall not list, and you shall not take a census of them among the people of Israel. 50But appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its furnishings, and over all that belongs to it. They are to carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall take care of it and shall camp around the tabernacle”.
• So, the facts show that the Tribe of Ephraim can rightfully and legally be called ‘God’s Firstborn’ because their forefather, Ephraim, received the FIRSTBORN BIRTHRIGHT BLESSING from Israel. There is no discrepancy, as the words in Jeremiah 31 are referring to THE FIRSTBORN BIRTHRIGHT BLESSING which their forefather Ephraim received from Israel, of which the LITERAL FIRSTBORN OF ISRAEL, RUBEN, FORFEITED because of disrespectful actions against his father, Israel.
• Again, except for two explainable cases in the Bible: 1) In the case of forfeiting the Firstborn Birthright BLESSING (as Esau and Reuben did) and thus LEGALLY AND IN THE EYES OF GOD being given to another (as in the case of Jacob and Ephraim.
2) In the case of entire nation of Israel identified as ‘God’s “son”, his “firstborn” (Exodus:22, 23)—the first and only nation of people ever to be blessed with a close relationship and protection from its God because of the covenant made with its forefather, Abraham, until shortly after the promised seed arrived and fulfilled that covenant, the term ‘Firstborn’ always means the first and eldest offspring of all living beings.
• Unfortunately, because this hurts the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, many scramble to attempt to find a way to make ‘FIRSTBORN’ mean something else, saying it means “PREEMINENCE” when the Scriptures never identify it that way. For those who insist on such a definition (although lacking proof based upon what the Bible identifies in its meaning) should not we be finding God, the Father and the Holy Spirit identified as “FIRSTBORN”? Yet we never do. Nor do we find it in reference to humans in high positions—it is only regarding Jesus Christ, the “Son of God” (never is the term ‘God, the Son’ found in the Scriptures) who is called “the Firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15); regarding the eldest offspring of humans; and regarding the eldest offspring of animals.
How does the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures(LLX) also support that the Greek word, proto’tokos, has only one prime meaning, that being one’s first child/offspring?
I would like to comment on that in a future writing.
Good health to you,
Gary Prinkey
Let’s say — for the sake of argument — that you’re 100% right in everything you said about “firstborn”. Jesus would still legally be able to be called God’s “firstborn” with being a created being because all other men sinned, thus disqualifying them; Jesus was born of Mary and didn’t sin, so he would qualify. Thus your argument about legally calling someone a firstborn also completely invalidates any attempt to say that 1 Col 1:15 is about Jesus being created. I’m not sure you realize that, but it does. If the other references are about “legal” firstborn status, why not this one as well?
Also, you might consider this article here on Berean Patriot: The Trinity is testified of in many places, and I’d like to point you to the brief paragraphs on Genesis 19:24, Isaiah 9:6, and Zechariah 2:8-11. There’s more, but those are early in the article and noteworthy.
Dear Berean Patriot,
• Your response to me doesn’t fit with the facts: You attempt to tie your rebuttal in conjunction with HUMAN CREATION and imperfection, yet you forget that there was other CREATION already present much, much earlier: that of the angels. Job 38:4-41 (regarding the earth and its creation, vs. 7 states “all the sons of God shouted for joy” observing its formation). Thus, following bringing forth the Firstborn of creation, the angelic beings eventually were created, THEN the earth and all in it and mankind came last, thus your analogy cannot fit.
• Colossians 1:12-19 indicates that “the Father” lovingly honored “his dear Son”, who is “the image of God” (thus, cannot be God himself) and is “the Firstborn of all creation”, to create everything else within the universe [starting with the heavens and angelic spirit beings and THEN concluding with the earth and mankind].
1 Corinthians 8:5, 6 expounds on this Scripture: “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
Here, only two (2) sentient, living beings are identified: 1) only one is identified as “God”, that being “the Father” and “FROM” which everything comes for any creation to be possible (i.e. God’s holy spirit given to his Firstborn son, Jesus, to accomplish the creation of everything else along with his endless wisdom and advice); AND 2) one is identified as “Lord” [means Master], that being his dear Son, “Jesus Christ” and THROUGH whom he permitted the honor to do the creation of all other heavenly beings and elements, along with the earth and all living creatures and mankind . No where do we find the Holy Spirit identified here as some sentient, living being nor is it given a title as is the true God, the Father, and his firstborn Son, Jesus, our Lord.
• Proverbs 8:22-31 confirms that God had (vs. 30) “a master craftsman”, “a master workman”, “the artisan” “beside him”/”at his side” to assist as he (vs. 27) “set the heavens in place ”, (vs. 29) “marked out the foundation of the earth” & “gave the sea its boundary” In poetic language it identifies this one as “Wisdom” (vs. 8) [compare 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; 1Cor. 2:7, 8 which identifies Christ Jesus as “the wisdom of God”].
Proverbs 8:22 (NIV) says of this one: “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.” Other translations say in verse 22: “The Lord created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.”(RSVCE), “…possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.”(ESV). Proverbs 8:24, 25 says “I was born” (RSVCE), “I was brought forth”(ESV), “I was given birth”(NIV) BEFORE there were any mountains, hills, watery depths, heavens in place (vs. 27). This Master Worker in verse 30, 31 says of himself (NIV): “Then I was constantly at his [God’] side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”
Many Bible scholars today and those from early times have identified the “Wisdom” at Proverbs 8 as being Jesus Christ, the same one who was with God at Genesis 1:26 when “God said, “Let US make man in our image, after our likeness, ….
• How does the Greek Septuagint (LLX) also support that ‘Firstborn of creation’ = FIRST OF CREATION and ‘Firstborn from the dead’ = FIRST TO RISE FROM THE DEAD (never to die again: all others who were resurrected in the past still later on died of Adamic sin and death since the Ransom to cover over this had not yet been effected)?
Genesis 49:3 “Ruben, thou my first-born [πρωτότοκος, protόtokos, meaning firstborn], thou my strength, and the first [ἀρχή arché, meaning beginning, first in a series] of my children, hard to be endured, self-willed.”
Deuteronomy 21:17 “But he shall acknowledge the first-born [πρωτότοκοv, protόtokos] of the hated one to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first [ἀρχή arché] of his children, and to him belongs the birthright.”
Regarding “Firstborn from the dead”, Acts 26:23 confirms that the above is the intended meaning: “that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”
Sincerely,
Gary Prinkey
Saludos. Excelente mi hermano. Creo entender que aunque siempre “primogénito” se refiere al primer nacido, por la referencia a los primeros hijos, sean humanos o animales, no obstante, el término era asignado en cierto modo, en forma simbólica en otros contextos, como el de los reyes, donde David llegó a ser considerado el primogénito de los reyes o de Israel como la primera nación ante Dios. Excepcionalmente al primogénito humano no se le daba ese derecho de primogénito sino a otro que agradaba al Padre.
Ahora bien, siempre el primogénito se relaciona con otros de su mismo estatus, quiero decir, en cuanto a lo humano o animal, otros hermano, en cuanto a Israel, otra nación, en cuando al rey otros reyes, pero es el caso que ante el Hijo de Dios cuando se le declara primogénito, no hay un referente que se diga igual a él sino un conjunto de referentes, es decir, la creación, la cual incluye lo visible y lo invisible, cosas inanimadas y cosas animadas, animales y seres humanos, pero no parece posible decir que el Hijo es el primogénito cronológico de determinados seres, por ejemplo, de seres espirituales, por lo menos, el texto de colosenses parece no ayudar en eso.