All articles

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

"Bob Felts" wrote in message
news:100.24.19.05.716476000@srcbs.org...

>> and in my opinion so was Jesus created before Gen.1:1 (Rev. 3:14)
>
> When I responded earlier, I mentioned that I didn't see how this verse
> supported this conclusion. But I was looking at it in the NIV and have
> now read it in several other versions as well as the Greek. It
> absolutely does not mean "the first created thing". It does mean "that
> which started God's creation."

Please give another Scriptural example where 'the beginning of' something
was not also part of that something. From the LXX or NT.

I have searched but not found any examples within the scriptures where
"arche" can be shown to clearly mean "cause" or "source".

When John and the other Bible writers wanted to say "ruler" they used the
word "archon". When they wanted to say "source", "cause" or "author" they
used "rhiza" or "aitios". It cannot be shown that they ever used "arche" in
the sense of "author" or "source".


> This is verified two different ways.
>
> First, John 1:3 says, "All things were made through him and without him
> not one thing came into being."

The word that some translate 'made' here is the Greek word 'ginomai'.

Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but
never in the sense of create, yet in most versions at John chapter 1, it is
translated "made." Ginomai appears fifty three times in John, and signifies
"to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or
transacted."

Egeneto (a form of the word 'ginomai') NEVER carries a creation meaning and
is never translated such outside the four times rendered such in the first
chapter of John (John 1:3,4, & 10) where it is translated "made".

The NAB says in its footnote,

"What came to be". While the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here,
the corrector of Bodmer P75, some mss, and the ANF take this phrase with
what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with verse 3 reflects 4th
century anti-Arianism."

Has this verse been corrupted to quell a certain doctrine (Arianism) as the
NAB claims?

The Anchor Bible has this reading at vs 4: "That which had come to be in him
was life, and this life was the light of men". Going along with the NAB, is
the 20th Century NT, NRSV, NJB, JB, NEB, BBE, HCSB ftn., RSV ftn.,Weymouth
ftn, ASV ftn, and the Translator's New Testament.

It does not seem that John 1:3 redefines the phrase "the beginning of" as
used previously in the Revelation to mean 'first in rank, but NOT in the
group'.

> If Jesus were created, then the statement "all things were made through
> him" would be false, since he would have been the one thing made without
> himself.

The Greek word "panta" does not mean "every single thing without exception".
The fact that Jesus is the agent (*through* him) provides enough context
that the readers of John's Gospel would see the obvious exception,
especially since John wrote his Gospel about two years AFTER he wrote the
book of Revelation.

The apostle Paul wrote over 40 years earlier:

"For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says,
"All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is
excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him,
then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under
him, that God may be everything to every one." 1Co 15:27, 28

>If Jesus were created, the statement "without him not one
> thing came into being" would also be false, for he would have had to
> come into being without himself.

No, he wouldn't. The apostle Paul made it clear decades earlier when he
wrote his letter to the Colossians, chapter 1. The position of Jesus in
relation to creation is seen in 1:16. Here we find the preposition EN
("in", "by means of"). In the last part of verse 16 we find the preposition
DIA which governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of
an intermediate agent, so this must be the way Jesus should be viewed.

Does the context confirm that God is the direct agent of the passive verbs
which speak about creation, and that Jesus is the intermediate agent? It
certainly does! In 1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through
verse 20. This is seen in v 19 where God is the implied subject for the
verb, and it is particularly evident in v 20, because here both the direct
agent (God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said
that the reconciliation is "through" (DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God.

The same thought is expressed in v 22. The implied agent (grammatical
subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God". The intermediate agent is
Jesus, for it is said that reconciliation occurred "by means of" (EN) his
fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death. The conclusion to this matter
may be expressed in the words of E. Lohse,1971, "A Commentary on the
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon" p 50, note 125. : "It should be
noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK
(from). "From whom are all things" (EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1
Cor 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the
mediator of creation."

Since the expressions 'firstborn of' and 'beginning of' were consistently
used in the LXX and GNT to mean 'the first in a series' or 'highest in this
group', again, there is no reason to conclude that John was contradicting
himself.

> Second, Jesus is _what God says_ (the Logos) without any loss of
> fidelity. He is the "beginning" of God's creation because creation
> began when God spoke.

Please share a scripture where it says that Jehovah God had to speak to
create.

Jesus is Jehovah God's mouthpiece through whom He speaks to man. If the
angel at Judges 13:2-22 can be interchangeably spoken of as elohim/theos,
then how much more so can His Firstborn, with whom He had been for countless
ages before creating the physical universe!

Throughout the LXX and GNT, the phrase 'beginning of' is used consistently
to mean 'the first in a series'. "The beginning of" something is never
excluded from being part of that something. I will of course furnish
examples if you wish.

> Let me also deal with a possible response. Romans 8:29 and Col 1:15
> refer to Jesus as the "firstborn" of all creation. This certainly means
> that he is like the first child in the family, right?
>
> Well, no. "firstborn" doesn't always refer to birth order. In Exodus
> 4:22, Israel is "my firstborn son"; yet Israel wasn't the first nation
> or even the first people.

Israel was still a nation, still a people, was it not? Israel was still
*within the group* (nation or people) of which it was called 'firstborn',
was it not?

> Furthermore, Jer 31:9 calls Ephraim the "firstborn", when Manasseh was
> actually born first (Gen 48:14).

Jesus has no 'older' siblings above which he is exalted to firstborn. He is
simply referred to as 'firstborn' with no further qualification, no 'birth
order' issue is raised at all. And none of that removes Jesus from the
group of which he is Firstborn: the sons of God.

> The point is that "firstborn" also has the connotation of "preeminent"
> or "first in place/line".

Of course. Just like Ephraim was 'firstborn' yet still part of the group
called 'the sons of Jacob', and Israel was 'firstborn' yet still part of the
group called 'nations':

Jesus most certainly IS 'preeminent' and 'first in place' among the group
called 'creation'!

Being 'firstborn' IS like being first child in the family. No, it does not
necessarily refer to birth order, but rank as well. Firstborns in ancient
Israel had a double portion of the father's property, and had great
authority in the family, *second only to the father himself.*

Do you think it is reasonable to think that Jesus is like Israel, Jacob,
David or Manasseh, in that he was given the position of firstborn, not born
into it?

Peace to you and yours.

Sarah


----------------------------------
When Someone You Love Dies
http://www.watchtower.org/library/we/index.htm?article=article_02.htm

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))