What happened on the first Christmas? Mary had a baby!
And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:7 NASB)
Having your first child is always an emotional experience, a blend of anxiety and euphoria. You only get one firstborn, after all. In one sense, this birth was like billions of others down through the centuries. The baby’s name was Jesus, and he was the firstborn son of Mary and Joseph.
But was that all that was going on here?
Christians say that there was more to it. The Bible makes it clear that this was a miraculous birth. Jesus was conceived without the involvement of a human father; it was a direct act of the Holy Spirit. In fact, he could legitimately be described as the Son of God (Luke 1:35). The second Person of the Trinity had, in fact, become one of us, with a human body and a human nature. The divine Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).
Jesus was the “firstborn” of Mary, but he was far more than just another baby.
That’s why a lot of controversy swirls around his identity as the “firstborn.” Colossians 1:15 calls him “the first-born of all creation.” Some groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses point to this phrase to claim that Jesus was not actually God, but was a created being. They teach that God created Jesus first, then worked with Jesus to create everything else.
Their New World Translation inserts the word “other” 5 times in Colossians 1 to make the point that God created Jesus, the Jesus created “all the other things.” The word “other,” however, never appears in the Greek. The translators just added it to reflect their theology.
What does the Greek word for “firstborn” mean?
The word is prōtotokos, which occurs about 8 times in the New Testament. In the Gospels, it appears only in the account of the Christmas story (Luke 2:7; Matthew 1:25) in the literal sense of “the first child to be born.” The same idea appears in Hebrews 11:28 to describe the firstborn Egyptians who were killed in the climactic plague sent by God to free the Jews. It refers to the oldest child in the family.
However, that’s not the only way the word is used. It not only means first in time sequence; it also means first in position or honor. A firstborn son in the Old Testament received extra blessings and a double share in the inheritance. Esau and Jacob battled over those privileges (Genesis 25:31-34). The firstborn son became head of the family when his father died.
Sometimes the position of “firstborn” went to someone who was not actually the first one born into the family. The patriarch Jacob bypassed his three oldest sons and bestowed the blessing of the firstborn to his fourth son Judah (Genesis 49:3-12). And Psalm 89:27 describes David as the “firstborn,” even though he was the youngest of eight sons!
Bottom line: prōtotokos can mean two things: (1) first in time sequence, the first to be born; or (2) first in position, the highest ranking person.
Five passages describe Jesus as the prōtotokos:
Romans 8:29 – God’s purpose is that Christ “might be the first-born among many brethren.”
Colossians 1:15 – Christ is “the first-born of all creation.”
Colossians 1:18 – Christ is “the first-born from the dead.”
Hebrews 1:6 – When God “brought the first-born into the world,” the angels worshipped him.
Revelation 1:5 – Christ is “the first-born of the dead.”
How should we think about Colossians 1:15 and the idea that Christ is “the first-born of all creation”?
The NIV provides a helpful translation: He is “the firstborn over all creation. He existed before the creation, so He could share with His Father in creating it (see verse 16). And He is sovereign over creation, ranking higher than anything in the created universe.
The baby born at Bethlehem was more than just a baby. He was the Creator and Monarch of the universe, who humbled Himself to become one of us. It was God’s great gift at Christmas!
Study Hint: When dealing with a controversial verse, you will often find that people on both sides of the issue build their arguments on only one of the possible meanings of a word. They look for the meaning that best matches their doctrinal position, often ignoring the fact that there are other possible shades of meaning.
In this case, you can simply show that “firstborn” has a perfectly good meaning that harmonizes with the deity of Christ. Then you may choose to go into a deeper discussion of how the context of the passage – or the overall teaching of Scripture – supports the orthodox position.
Q&A
Q: Should John 1:1 be translated, “The Word was God” or “The Word was a god”?
A: Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, and claim that John 1:1 merely calls him “a god,” but not full deity. They rest their case on three facts of Greek grammar:
There is no such word as “a” or “an” in Greek, so we sometimes have to add “a” to translate into English, (Acts 28:6).
The Greek word used here (theos) has two meanings: usually the supreme God revealed in Scripture, but sometimes lesser beings like the gods of Greek mythology.
The Greek word “the” is often attached to the word “God” or theos, but it does not appear in John 1:1. Hiding behind the Witness rendering of the verse is an unspoken equation: God + “the” (ho theos) = Jehovah, the Almighty God, God – “the” (theos) = a created being with divine qualities. Witnesses claim that the apostle John deliberately omitted a “the” in the final phrase to show the difference between God and the Word. As the New World Translation (p. 775) explains:
John’s inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1,2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two.
Is this the proper translation?
No. The equation underlying the Witness rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. According to Watchtower assumptions, we would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says “God” the first time and “god” the second time. The context overrules their rule.
Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”?
To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.
To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit “the” in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.”
Coming Up
We often say that the theme of Philippians is joy. And that’s a major feature of the book. However, there is another theme for Philippians that I want to propose – one that only shows up when you consider an unusual Greek word!
© Ezra Project 2020
5 Responses
All uses of the word πρωτότοκος shows that the first born (or first one brought forth) is always a part of a group.
It is true that being first-born in a family was strongly connected with pre-eminence. The one born first was usually supposed to be the one to receive the birthright and pre-eminence within that family.
But notice the blessings given by Jacob at Gen. 49:3, 8-12, 22-26. The blessings given to Judah and Joseph identify them as the true “pre-eminent ones” of his sons. Reuben, the literal first-born, lost pre-eminence even though he continued to be known as the “first-born” (prototokos in the Septuagint) in the family of Jacob and the “beginning” (arkhe) of Jacob’s family – Gen. 49:3, 4; 1 Chronicles 5:1-3 – RSV.
Be careful not to confuse the rights usually given to the first-born with the person of the first-born. The one actually born first (or first in time in any figurative sense) was known as the “first-born.” In literal families this first-born was supposed to receive pre-eminence in that family upon the death of his father because of his being born first (in time).
“The first-born son’s privileges and responsibilities are known as his `birthright’ (bekorah).” – New Bible Dictionary, 1982, p. 378.
At times, however, a first-born would lose his rights (and pre-eminence over the other sons), and they would be given to another son. Even though this person had lost his birthright (and pre-eminence among his brothers), he was still the first-born! – Examine 1 Chronicles 5:1-3 in most Bible translations (e.g., Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, KJV, ASV, RSV, NIV, NAB, JB, etc.) For example, even though Esau lost his birthright to Jacob, he still remained forever Isaac’s firstborn.
Yes, the use of the word prototokos in the Bible always means one who has come into existence first in time – before all the rest of his “brothers” – the beginning (arkhe) of his father’s creative (or procreative) works
I Colossians 1:15 we find the words πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. This is a partitive genitive, thus, it teaches that the first-born is OF creation, that is a part of or a member of the group called creation.
Thanks for your comments. I agree that a word like prototokos most often refers to the oldest son in a family, but the point of my post is that the word can be used in more than one way. It can carry two ideas: earliest born or highest in privilege. In most cases, the oldest son had a set of privileges (the birthright) that went with his position in the family birth order. But as you pointed out, an “earliest-born” son could lose those rights, as in the case of Esau and Jacob. You could have one without the other. And Psalm 89:27 uses the term to describe David, even though he was the youngest son. He had the position without the birth order.
I also have a problem with the idea that prototokos always means someone who has come into existence in time. That makes sense only when you’re talking about typical human beings who have a moment of birth. If the context shows that you’re describing the One who created all things, as Colossians 1 repeatedly states, then we should recognize that the term refers to the position of privilege, not to the birth order.
Regarding the idea of the partitive genitive, it’s important to remember that labels like that are a matter of interpretation. If you have already decided that Jesus is just another created being, then you might want to use that label, but there’s nothing in the Greek grammar that makes such a label certain.
Anyway, I appreciate your point. The arguments are worth considering, but I am going to stick to my original explanation. Thanks!
Your claim that πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”) intrinsically carries a partitive meaning is not substantiated by linguistic evidence. According to Luis C. Reyes’ detailed analysis (https://t.ly/PwyKL), there is no inherent partitive semantic value in the isolated term πρωτότοκος. This means that πρωτότοκος does not inherently imply that the firstborn is part of the group to which it refers. This is a crucial point because the partitive interpretation hinges on the assumption that πρωτότοκος intrinsically means “part of the group.” However, linguistic evidence shows that such an intrinsic partitive meaning cannot be isolated within the term itself.
Reyes and other scholars have examined numerous instances of πρωτότοκος in the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament. They found that the term does not always imply partitive inclusion. For example, in Hebrews 1:6, πρωτότοκος refers to Christ being brought into the world, emphasizing His unique status without implying He is part of the creation.
Psalm 89:27 does call David God’s “firstborn,” but the term here signifies rank and preeminence rather than partitive membership. The phrase “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” uses πρωτότοκος metaphorically to denote David’s superior status among kings, not his inclusion in a group of literal firstborns. This usage aligns with the broader biblical pattern where “firstborn” often denotes preeminence or special status, as seen in Exodus 4:22, where Israel is called God’s firstborn, emphasizing its special status among nations, not a literal birth order.
In Colossians 1:15-18, the term πρωτότοκος is used to underscore Christ’s supremacy over all creation. Paul’s use of πρωτότοκος here does not imply that Christ is part of the created order. Instead, it highlights His authority and preeminence. Colossians 1:16-17 clarifies this by stating that all things were created through Him and for Him, placing Christ above and before all creation. This fits with the broader theological context where Christ is acknowledged as the agent of creation (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2), not as a part of it.
The argument by some Jehovah’s Witnesses that the genitive construction (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) must be partitive is flawed. As highlighted by Reyes, the partitive interpretation is not linguistically required. The genitive can also denote a relationship of preeminence or supremacy over the group mentioned, without implying partitive inclusion. This is evident in biblical examples where “firstborn” signifies rank or status conferred by God, rather than literal birth order or group membership.
Scholars like Nigel Turner acknowledge the possibility of a partitive sense but do not conclude that πρωτότοκος inherently places Christ within the created order. Instead, the term is used to emphasize Christ’s preeminence. Furthermore, the broader theological context of Colossians, which emphasizes Christ’s role in creation and His divine nature, supports the interpretation of πρωτότοκος as denoting supremacy rather than partitive inclusion.
The assertion that πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”) intrinsically carries a partitive force is not supported by linguistic evidence. As discussed by Luis C. Reyes (https://t.ly/PwyKL), there is no inherent partitive semantic value in the isolated term πρωτότοκος. The term itself does not necessitate inclusion in a group unless specified by the context. In Colossians 1:15, the context emphasizes Christ’s supremacy over creation rather than His inclusion within it. The phrase “firstborn of all creation” (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) signifies His preeminence and authority over all creation, aligning with biblical themes of Christ’s divine role in creation (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2).
“`The firstborn of the sheep` is the `firstborn sheep of the sheep` `the firstborn of Jacob` is the firstborn son of Jacob`.”
Yes, but the lamb was born of a lamb, Jacob’s firstborn was born of Jacob, but the Son was not born of the “whole creation” or of a specific creature, but of the Father. All your examples are just examples of the first born being in the category it was born from. In ALL the examples provided (e.g., the firstborn of Jacob), the firstborn is part of the group because of biological lineage. Luis C. Reyes’ analysis challenges the notion that πρωτότοκος inherently carries a partitive meaning. The term does not intrinsically possess a partitive semantic value, and its meaning must be derived from the context in which it is used.
The term πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”) can refer to both chronological birth order and rank or preeminence. In biblical contexts, it often signifies a position of honor, authority, rank and preeminence rather than mere chronological birth order. This is also supported by the jw.org sources copied above, so you don’t believe them either? For example, in Psalm 89:27, David is called God’s “firstborn,” meaning he holds the highest rank among kings, not that he is the first king chronologically. The distinction between rank and birth order is clear in biblical usage. While Reuben was the firstborn of Jacob, he lost his primogeniture to Joseph, yet he retained the title “firstborn.” This shows that “firstborn” can refer to a position of honor and authority rather than strict partitive inclusion.
While many examples of πρωτότοκος in the Septuagint (LXX) involve partitive genitive constructions, this does not prove that the term intrinsically carries a partitive meaning. Each instance must be evaluated contextually. In Colossians 1:15, the context does not support a partitive interpretation. Instead, it emphasizes Christ’s role as supreme over all creation, which aligns with His divine nature and preexistence (John 1:1-3).
Lexical semantics must consider both intrinsic meaning and contextual usage. The term πρωτότοκος does not inherently carry a partitive meaning; its interpretation depends on context. In Colossians 1:15, the broader theological context indicates Christ’s preeminence over creation, not His inclusion within it. This interpretation is consistent with other New Testament passages affirming Christ’s divine role in creation (Hebrews 1:2-3). The term TA PANTA (“all things”) includes all of creation, and Christ’s preexistence and creative role are affirmed by phrases like “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17).
The primary meaning of πρωτότοκος as “firstborn” includes both chronological and rank-based interpretations, depending on context. While in some contexts it refers to birth order, in others, it signifies preeminence and authority.
https://justpaste.it/bx192
In Colossians 1:15, the phrase “the image of the invisible God” emphasizes Christ’s unique role in making the invisible God known. This is not merely about reflecting God’s image but about embodying God’s nature. This concept aligns with other New Testament teachings, such as Hebrews 1:3, where Christ is described as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.”
The term “first-born of all creation” (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs) refers to Christ’s preeminence and supremacy over all creation, not to being a part of it. This interpretation is consistent with the use of “firstborn” in Jewish tradition, where it often denotes rank or status rather than chronological order. In Psalm 89:27, David is called “firstborn,” not because he was the eldest son of Jesse (he was actually the youngest), but to signify his preeminence as king. Similarly, in Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim is called “firstborn” even though Manasseh was Joseph’s firstborn. These instances demonstrate that “firstborn” denotes status and rank rather than birth order.
In Jewish literature, God is sometimes referred to as “the firstborn of the world” (bekhoro shel olam, בכורו של עולם). This does not mean God is part of creation but underscores His preeminence over it. The use of “firstborn” for Christ in Colossians 1:15 aligns with this Jewish concept, highlighting His supremacy over all creation.
Hebrews 1:6 uses “firstborn” for Jesus in a context that clearly affirms His divinity and superiority. Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus the “radiance of God’s glory” and the “exact representation of His being,” and Hebrews 1:10 describes Him as the Creator, further reinforcing that “firstborn” is about rank, not creation.
Colossians 1:16-17 states that all things were created “in him, through him, and for him.” This passage highlights Christ’s role as the agent of creation and its ultimate purpose. It underscores his divinity and preexistence, showing that he is not a created being but the one through whom all creation came into existence. The phrase “all things were created through him and for him” indicates that Christ is the goal and reason for creation, affirming his central and divine role in God’s plan. The phrase “all things were created through Him and for Him” aligns with the Trinitarian doctrine where the Son’s role in creation is integral to the Godhead. This does not diminish the Father’s role but highlights the unity and distinct roles within the Trinity.
While 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes God the Father as the source of creation and Christ as the one through whom creation exists, it does not contradict Colossians 1:15-17. Both passages affirm the distinct roles of the Father and the Son in creation, with the Father as the ultimate source and the Son as the agent through whom creation is realized. The argument that these ideas do not appear elsewhere in Paul’s writings is not accurate. Philippians 2:6-11 speaks of Christ’s preexistence, divinity, and exaltation, further supporting the high Christology seen in Colossians. Additionally, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 1:2-3, 1:10 align with Colossians in presenting Christ as the divine agent of creation.
The JWs’ interpretation of “first-born of all creation” as indicating that Christ is a created being is problematic for several reasons:
1. The Greek term “πρωτότοκος” (prōtotokos) can denote rank and preeminence, not merely birth order. The context of Colossians 1:15-20 emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and preeminence over all creation.
2. The addition of “other” in their translation (“all *other* things”) is not supported by the Greek text and alters the meaning to fit their theological perspective. The use of “all things” (Greek: πάντα, “panta”) indicates everything in existence. In contexts where “other” is inserted in certain translations, such as Luke 13:2, 21:29, and Philippians 2:21, a comparison is clearly being made. However, in Colossians 1:16, no such comparison exists. The insertion of “other” in Colossians 1:16-17 by the NWT is therefore unwarranted and distorts the text’s meaning.
3. The consistent testimony of Scripture affirms Christ’s divinity and role as the Creator. This comprehensive involvement in creation underscores His divine nature. If Jesus were a created being, He could not be the agent through whom all creation came into existence. John 1:3 explicitly states that “all things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” This explicitly states that Christ is not part of creation but its Creator, which excludes the possibility of Christ being a created being.
4. Hebrews 1:2-3 also presents Christ as the one through whom God made the universe, further affirming his divine nature and preexistence.
The JWs’ argument that “firstborn” MUST mean Jesus is part of creation BECAUSE other “firstborn” individuals are part of their respective groups (e.g., firstborn of Pharaoh, firstborn of Israel) is a fallacy of equivocation.
In each cited example, the “firstborn” status denotes a special position within a family or group DUE TO direct birth from the parent. However, Jesus’ title of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 signifies His supreme rank and authority over creation, not His being created.
If we were to apply the Watchtower’s logic consistently, then saying Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” would imply that creation gave birth to Jesus, which is absurd. The term “firstborn” in this context must be understood as denoting preeminence.
The interpretation that Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation” in the sense of being the first created being is not supported by the broader context of Scripture, the original Greek language, or the theological consistency of the New Testament. Instead, “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and preeminence over all creation, affirming his divinity and role as the agent and purpose of creation.
“In Jewish literature, God is sometimes referred to as “the firstborn of the world” (bekhoro shel olam, בכורו של עולם”
This is great insight . Do you have any sources I can find this in ?
Thanks .
Blessing in Christ !