“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
The second description of Christ in this verse is his relationship to creation — he is the “firstborn over all creation.”
“the firstborn over all creation”
This phrase is not a statement about the creation of Jesus Christ because he cannot create himself. As God, he is not a creature. He created all things (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2,3). He came from eternity and is everlasting (Prov. 8:23-26). “Firstborn” indicates his dominion over all things. The firstborn in Israel had the right to rule. Jesus has the right to rule because of his rank over all creation. He is the sovereign God of creation.
The word “firstborn” has nothing to do with the first Christmas. Nowhere does the Bible teach that Jesus began at Bethlehem. His physical being began there but not his person. The Bible does teach that he was from everlasting (Micah 5:2; Isa. 9:2). The child is born, but the Son is given. He existed before creation (John 1:1-3,14). This passage is not talking about his birth as a creature but his existence as God himself.
“Firstborn” means he is first in priority over creation. Since he preceded creation, he is sovereign over it. There is implied sovereignty in this word. The Old Testament used “firstborn” to designate the Messiah (Ps. 89:27). Jesus is both prior to creation (time) and sovereign over all creation (rank).
The eternal relationship of the Son with the Father is in view here. Jesus is first in priority (preeminent over creation), and he also produced creation.
Five times the Lord is called “the firstborn” (Co 1:15,18; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). In Colossians 1:18, he is the “firstborn” from the dead; this is his resurrection. He was the first to rise from the dead. He is the firstborn of a brand new creation. Because he rose from the dead, all those who put their trust in him will rise from the dead as well. His resurrection launched a brand new society; a new breed of people began with his resurrection.
Note the word “all” again. There is nothing in all creation over which the Son is not sovereign.
Principle:
Jesus has no rivals; he is unchallenged in preeminence and priority.
Application:
Do you acknowledge the preeminence and priority of Jesus Christ in your everyday decisions?
Grant, thank you for your clarity and help on this verse. I finally have a firm apologetic that I can teach.
Why does the Bible say he is the firstborn over all creation, if he always was God and always existed? I understand your explanation of how this demonstrates dominion over all but is this not interpreting it in our own words? I really want to understand this so would you be able to add further comment please? Thank you!!
Sana, the idea of "firstborn" has to do with how both the Old Testament and New Testament used the term. Note this article from the Baker's Encyclopedia:
Firstborn.
Term used in the Bible to describe a family’s oldest son (Gn 22:21). Israel was called God’s firstborn because of that nation’s miraculous beginning and special deliverance out of Egypt (17:5, 15, 16; Ex 4:22). As God’s firstborn, Israel had unique privileges over all other nations. Gentiles were "blessed" only in relation to their kindness to Israel (12:3; Ex 19:6; Dt 4:5–8). The prophet Isaiah foresaw a day when Israel would have a double portion of inheritance (Is 61:7). Thus, firstborn implies priority or preeminence, as well as an inheritance.
The expression "firstborn of the poor," (Is 14:30) means one who is supremely poor, the poorest of the poor. Another figurative expression, "firstborn of death" (Jb 18:13), implied that Job’s disease was fatal.
Because God delivered Israel’s firstborn from death in Egypt, he expected each firstborn to be sanctified to him (Ex 11:4–7; 13:12). The first male child was a representative of the entire offspring (Gn 49:3; Ex 22:29; Nm 3:13). The firstborn of all animals used in sacrifice was to be sanctified to the Lord (Ex 13:2, 15).
Firstborn and Redemption.
The firstborn of every tribe except Levi’s was to be redeemed by a sum not to exceed 5 shekels (Nm 18:15, 16). Redemption implied a previous bondage and was to remind Israel of their redemption from bondage in Egypt (Ex 13:2–8).
The firstborn of ritually clean animals was devoted to the Lord. It was brought to the tabernacle (or later, the temple) within a year from the 8th day after birth. This animal was then sacrificed and its blood sprinkled on the altar. The meat of the sacrificed animal was for the priests (Ex 13:13; 22:30; cf. Nm 18:17). The firstborn of unclean animals could be redeemed with an addition of 1/5 of the value as determined by the priest. If not redeemed these animals were sold, exchanged, or destroyed by the priests (Lv 27:27). The colt of an ass was to be redeemed with a lamb (Ex 13:13). If not redeemed, it was to be killed. Meat from unclean animals was not eaten.
Firstborn and Birthright.
The firstborn acted as priest of the family in the father’s absence or death. Esau and Reuben are both examples (Gn 27:19, 32; 1 Chr 5:1, 2). This position of the firstborn ceased when the priesthood was committed to Levi’s tribe (Nm 3:12, 13). All the firstborn of succeeding generations had to be redeemed. The redemption money became part of the Levites’ yearly income (8:17; 18:16).
A double portion of the family inheritance was the right of the firstborn. This protected the firstborn when there was a polygamous marriage. The son of a favorite wife could not take the place of the first son born of the household (Dt 21:17).
The title "firstborn" is applied to Christ (Lk 2:7; Rom 8:29; Col 1:15, 18; Heb 1:6; Rv 1:5). It stresses Christ’s right or preeminence or his position as first to rise from the dead. As firstborn, Christ is heir of all things (Heb 1:2) and the head of the church (Eph 1:20–23; Col 1:18, 24; Heb 2:10–12).
R. K. Harrison
Thanks Grant. That’s very helpful!
Thanks Sanna for your words.
Grant; I thank God for you and your deep knowledge on the Holy Book! …its so articulate!I covet it.Be blessed n refilled.
Thank you Alal.
I think you are using eisegesis here in Colossians
The big mistake I see you making is that you have used here is to use a Bible that says the Jesus is the “firstborn over creation”
The Greek uses a genitive expression and shows that Jesus was the firstborn OF creation not over.
Using the LXX of the Old Testament I found only 2 instances out of the 57 where the term firstborn is used as a possible title. In all the other cases the firstborn is always a part of the group that there were firstborn of. That includes the instances where the term firstborn does not apply to the actual firstborn but where the firstborn mat suggest preeminence of. But in absolutely all such cases the firstborn was still apart of the group that they were preeminent of.
Even the 9 use of firstborn in New Testament show that the one being spoken of belongs to the group. Jesus is the firstborn OF the group he belongs to, creation.
Ben,
From my viewpoint either “firstborn of” or “firstborn over” is immaterial to the interpretation of this passage. I happen to be using NKJV since the mid-90s on this site. However, translations that use “firstborn of” are fine with me.
You yourself have a problem with hermeneutics. To use the Septuagint as a primary source for interpreting a New Testament passage is interpolation itself, i.e., eisegesis, if used almost exclusively as the interpretative model. Primary interpretation is always first and foremost the argument of the book of the Bible, that is, the entire context of the book. Then the next is a major section of the book then finally the immediate context of the passage.
Also, your conclusions from your own study are insufficient, note studies below.
Regarding your use of the genitive case, note this study:
The kind of genitive. Another exegetical decision must be reached with respect to the kind of genitive we are dealing with in pasēs ktiseōs. Several possibilities present themselves: (1) It could be a partitive genitive, so that prōtotokos would be included in some way in the class of creatures; (2) it could be a genitive of comparison, which would exclude the prōtotokos from the same; (3) it could be a genitive of place, defining the sphere of the firstborn’s authority; (4) it could be an objective genitive, in which case the action implied in prōtotokos terminates on all creation.
It was of course in a partitive sense that the Arians interpreted the phrase, appealing to Prov 8:22.18 This reduced Christ to the status of a created being. The incorrectness of this view is immediately seen when the hoti clause of v 16 and the pro panta predication of v 17 are taken into account. There Christ is unambiguously declared to be the preexistent mediator of all creation. As Martin observes: “If the pre-incarnate Lord was the agent of all creation, and pre-existed before everything, it leads to the conclusion that only God can satisfactorily account for Christ’s being.” 19 Furthermore, full deity is ascribed to Christ by the eikōn title (v 15) and the plerōma ascription (v 19; cf. 2:9). Finally, W. Michaelis gives as the decisive objection against the partitive genitive view the fact that it would put emphasis on the -tokos element, which with the exception of Luke 2:7 is never emphasized in the NT.20
Nigel Turner, however, has taken a different approach with the partitive genitive view. He views the passage as dealing with the incarnate Christ who is so closely identified with the family of which he is head that he can be designated as “firstborn.” He further connects this to the new-Adam motif in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Thus Christ is an “Archetype of a fresh stage or leap forward in the collective evolution of all the creatures of God, in the onward march towards the goal of achieving what Christ is himself—the ‘icon of the invisible God.’”21 While suggestive, this view could only have validity for the prōtotokos ek ton nekron predication inasmuch as vv 15–17 must
JETS 31:1 (March 1988) p. 64
surely refer to the preincarnate Christ. We agree with Michaelis, who rejects all such attempts to relate the passage to the kainē ktisis. 22
Many scholars could be cited in favor of the comparative genitive view. Grillmeier writes concerning our phrase:
It is used to describe the preeminent position of Christ in the whole world (ta panta) … prōtotokos should not be read as a temporal definition … “First-born” has been chosen because of the protos and expresses the element of Christ’s dignity and Lordship. Christ enjoys absolute primacy over all creatures (comparative genitive).23
Argyle also takes the view that we are dealing with a comparative construction but argues that prōtotokos must be understood temporally. He says the phrase must be interpreted “born before all creation.”24 In support of this contention he cites a passage from 2 Kgs 19:43 (LXX) where the man of Israel says to the man of Judah prōtotokos egō ē su and translates it “I was born before you.” 25 Meecham, however, has responded to this and correctly pointed out that the natural rendering of 2 Kgs 19:43 (LXX) is “I am the firstborn rather than you.” He also mentions Lightfoot’s remark that the connecting of the genitive with the first part of the compound (protos) alone unduly strains the grammar.26 Also, as Turner notes, the 2 Kingdoms passage is not really a parallel since prōtotokos is not followed by a genitive.27
The genitive-of-place interpretation makes good sense in the passage and has precedents in Luke’s writings, which reflect a literary style having more points of contact with classical norms (cf. Luke 16:24; 19:4; Acts 19:26).28 It is difficult to choose between a genitive of place and an objective genitive, but we opt for an objective genitive.29 This would accord better with the metaphorical usage of prōtotokos as developed in the LXX and intertestamental literature and as it was influenced by its equivalency to the OT bĕkôr. Thus the idea of a
JETS 31:1 (March 1988) p. 65
temporal comparison, which prōtotokos suggests on the basis of its etymology, has been muted. To the fore is a meaning that accents primacy of position or status.30 The meaning of prōtotokos is, in this context, moving close to the semantic field of kyrios. Thus the thrust of the hymn is to assert the unique sovereignty of the firstborn over all creation. Both the NEB and NIV bring out this meaning in their renderings.
Again, on the genitive, note this statement from one of the best Greek scholars in the world today:
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation
Though some regard this gen. to be partitive (thus, firstborn who is a part of creation), both due to the lexical field of “firstborn” including “preeminent over”87 (and not just a literal chronological birth order) and the following causal clause (“for [ὅτι] in him all things were created”)—which makes little sense if mere chronological order is in view, it is far more likely that this expresses subordination. Further, although most examples of subordination involve a verbal head noun, not all do (notice 2 Cor 4:4 above, as well as Acts 13:17). The resultant meaning seems to be an early confession of Christ’s lordship and hence, implicitly, his deity.
Regarding the Septuagint, note this resource:
Another example of the insights gained from a study of the Septuagint influence can be seen in the NT use of the word “firstborn.” When the title “firstborn” is used concerning Jesus, it may carry merely the literal meaning of the first child born to his mother as in Lk 2:7, “She gave birth to her firstborn, a son.” But this literal sense does not fit the two theological uses of the word in the titles for Christ in Colossians, “the firstborn of all creation” (1:15 NRSV) and “the firstborn from the dead” (1:18 NRSV). While some have suggested that “firstborn of all creation” means that Jesus was the first created being and, therefore, is not God,119 strong evidence from Septuagint usage suggests an entirely different meaning that fits the context more naturally. In their discussion of the word prōtotokos (firstborn) Louw and Nida argue,
In Jewish society the rights and responsibilities of being a firstborn son resulted in considerable prestige and status. The firstborn son, for example, received twice as much in inheritance as any other offspring.120
This prestige associated with being the firstborn in the Jewish culture gave rise to a figurative meaning for firstborn indicating superiority or higher status. This meaning of the Greek “firstborn” belongs to the semantic domain indicating status and to the subcategory of words expressing high status or rank. Thus, Louw and Nida translate Col 1:15, “existing superior to all creation.”121 The NIV seeks to capture this connotation by the phrase “firstborn over all creation.” This finding gains further support from the LXX use of “firstborn” as a messianic title in Psa 89:27, defined by Hebrew parallelism in precise superiority language,
I will appoint him my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
Contextual information in Col 1 confirms that Paul used firstborn as a title to stress Jesus’ superiority over all creation. The references to his kingdom and the purpose statement in verse 18, “so that in everything he might have the supremacy,” corroborate that the superiority of Christ over creation is the meaning of firstborn in this passage. These contextual factors make it clear that the phrase “firstborn from among the dead” (Col 1:18), the second occurrence of firstborn in this passage, also communicates this idea of superiority. Clearly, the Septuagint usage of the word “firstborn” has influenced Paul’s choice of this messianic title to show Christ’s primacy over both creation and those who will experience resurrection from the dead.
Thus, the serious student of the NT must ask whether a given word’s meaning reflects Septuagint influence that shifted its meaning beyond what was current among Greek speakers at the time. To discover any such influences, note the main meanings of the Hebrew words that the Greek word used to translate in the Septuagint. The final step always requires studying the specific NT context to test any potential Septuagint influence. The best help for evaluating Septuagintal usage and potential influence on the NT comes primarily from two sources: C. Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 volumes [NIDNTT],122 and G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 volumes [TDNT].123
And further,
The term prōtotokos was frequently used in the LXX (130 times), mostly in genealogies and historical narratives, to indicate temporal priority and sovereignty of rank (e.g., Gen 49:3). Frequently it was employed to denote one who had a special place in the father’s love. So Israel is called “my beloved son” (huios prōtotokos mou, literally, “my firstborn son,” Ex 4:22), a phrase that expresses the particularly close relation between God and Israel. In Judaism the messianic king, as well as Israel, the patriarchs and the Torah are given this title of distinction (see Str-B and Michaelis).
Please I want clarification on colossian 1:16
ayodeji, did you advance to the next study (1:16)?