4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Jesus Christ was born twice and died once according to the scriptures.
Nope.
Here is what I am getting to. God says here that he has begotten his son.
Does he mean at Bethlehem, although it could truthfully be said that he did.
But the scriptures will clarify it.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Those among us who do not believe it please tell us why.
You probably connect the words,
"He hath Raised Up Jesus again", to automatically be referring to His Resurrection.
This a repeat, I believe, but Br. Gill makes several important and salient points here;
"Thou Art My Son, this Day have I Begotten Thee"; The words are to be understood of the Eternal Filiation of Christ, and are produced, to set forth the Greatness and Dignity of His Person; Whom God had Raised and Sent Forth in Human Nature, to be the Savior and Redeemer of His people: (though should they be applied to the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, it will no ways prejudice the Doctrine of Christ's Proper and Natural Eternal Sonship, as being the Only Begotten of the Father;
"since the Resurrection of Christ is not the Cause of His Sonship,
or the reason why He is called the Son of God, but a Manifestation of it;
"Christ was the Son of God, before His Resurrection from the dead;
"Jesus was Declared to be God the Father's
"Beloved Son" by a voice from Heaven,
was believed on by His Disciples as the Son of God, and confessed by others, both men and devils:
"besides, if His Resurrection was the cause of His Sonship, He must Beget Himself, which is absurd,
because Jesus was Himself concerned in His Resurrection from the dead;
"more over, Jesus' Sonship would not be Proper, but figurative and metaphorical,
whereas He is God's Own, or Proper Son;
"besides, on this account He could not be called God's Only Begotten Son,
because there are others that have been, and millions that will be raised from the dead besides him:
"but the reason why these words are applied to the Resurrection of Christ, allowing them to be so, is not because Jesus experienced a 'birth' and was then Begotten as the Son of God, but because He was then Manifested to be the Eternally Begotten Son of God;
"things are said to be, when they are only Manifested to be;
"so Christ is said to be that Day Begotten, because He was
"Declared to be the Son of God with Power, by the Resurrection from the dead", Romans 1:4.
"Hence these words are applicable to any time or thing wherein Christ is Manifested to be the Only Begotten Son of God, and accordingly are applied to different times and things; see
Hebrews 1:3."
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Those among us who do not believe it please tell us why.
Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) assert that the term "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 suggests that Jesus is the first created being. Their argument hinges on two main points:
Prototokos is a partitive word: This implies that Jesus is a part of creation.
Prototokos means "first in time": This establishes Jesus as the first creature in the category.
However, a critical examination of the linguistic and theological context challenges these assertions. Here, I present a linguistic critique of the JW interpretation, focusing on the claim that "prototokos" is intrinsically a partitive word.
Critique of the "Partitive Word" Argument
Lack of Linguistic Evidence
The central issue with the "partitive word" argument is the lack of linguistic evidence to substantiate the claim that "prototokos" intrinsically possesses a partitive semantic value. To prove that "prototokos" inherently conveys a partitive force, proponents need to demonstrate this from the lexical semantics of the isolated term.
Misunderstanding Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics
Lexical Semantics vs. Pragmatics: The partitive force may arise from the pragmatic context, not from the intrinsic meaning of the word "prototokos." It is crucial to differentiate between a word's inherent meaning (lexical semantics) and meanings derived from context (pragmatics).
Contextual Influence: Advocates need to show that the partitive force is not an implicature conveyed by the context in each instance. If the context provides the partitive sense, it does not prove that "prototokos" intrinsically has this meaning.
Methodological Issues
Scientific Approach: Furuli endorses a scientific approach to linguistic analysis, breaking down language into its smallest units for study. However, the claim that "prototokos" has an intrinsic partitive value is non-testable and falls outside scientific investigation. It cannot be empirically verified or falsified.
Isolating the Term: To prove "prototokos" is a partitive word, it must be isolated from its context and shown to convey partitive meaning independently. This has not been achieved. Theological Implications and Scriptural Context
Non-Numerical Usage in Scripture
Several examples from Scripture show that "prototokos" can denote status or rank, not necessarily "first in time":
Isaac and Ishmael: Isaac, though not the firstborn, is called Abraham's "monogenes" (unique son) in Hebrews 11:17.
Ephraim and Manasseh: Ephraim is called the firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9 despite being born after Manasseh.
David: David, the youngest son of Jesse, is called the firstborn in Psalm 89:27, indicating his preeminent status.
Christ's Pre-eminence Colossians 1:15-20 emphasizes Christ's pre-eminence over creation, not His inclusion as part of it:
Prototokos in Context: The term highlights Christ's supremacy and authority. Paul uses "prototokos" to indicate pre-eminence rather than temporal priority.
Paul's Choice of Terms: Paul would have used "protoktistos" (first-created) if he intended to convey that Jesus was the first created being. The arguments presented by JWs regarding Colossians 1:15 are based on a misinterpretation of "prototokos." The term does not intrinsically convey a partitive semantic value. Scriptural evidence and theological context support the understanding of "firstborn" as denoting Christ's pre-eminence and status. This aligns with the broader biblical narrative of Christ's divine identity and role in creation.
The Watchtower Society's interpretation of Colossians 1:15, which describes Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation," is flawed for several reasons:
Genitive Construction: The genitive phrase "firstborn of all creation" does not imply that Jesus is part of creation. Similar phrases like "Lord of worlds" or "king of the country" denote dominion, not membership.
Preeminence: "Firstborn" signifies preeminence or a unique relationship with the Father, not that Jesus was created. This title means Jesus is the supreme heir and ruler over creation.
Rabbinical Context: In Jewish tradition, titles like "firstborn of the world" (בכורו של עולם, bekoro shel olam) and "primordial one of the world" (קדמונו של עולם, qadmono shel olam) are used for God, indicating preeminence and sovereignty. An educated Jew would understand Paul's usage as asserting Jesus' divine status, not his creation.
Scriptural Consistency: The broader context of Colossians 1, particularly verses 16-17, shows Jesus as the agent of creation, reinforcing His preeminence and excluding the interpretation that He is a created being. The text states all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him.
Biblical Examples: The term "firstborn" in the Bible often indicates rank and privilege. David, though the youngest son, is called "firstborn" due to his preeminent position (Psalm 89:27). This supports the interpretation of "firstborn" as indicating status rather than chronological order.
The term "firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15 indicates Jesus' supreme authority and preeminence over all creation. It does not imply that He is part of creation but rather that He is its sovereign Lord. This interpretation aligns with the broader scriptural context and Jewish understanding of the term.
In light of these findings, it is essential to approach the Bible with an open mind and honor the full identity of Christ as revealed in Scripture. This includes recognizing the comprehensive nature of the divine relationship within the Trinity and valuing the Son "just as" the Father (John 5:23).
See the entire examination in the attached .txt document