From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Mon Mar 03 1997 - 19:19:22 EST
S.M. Baugh wrote regarding Col 1:15:
<Although the partitive meaning would be plausible in other 
<contexts, here Paul's meaning is explained in v. 16 as 
<dealing with Christ's pre-incarnate *status* (not ontology 
<per se). prwtotokos in v. 15, then, recalls the status of 
<the firstborn in the patriarchal society as lord
<and owner of the inheritance (e.g., Jacob and Esau). Hence, 
<"Firstborn over all creation" is the preferred rendering 
<taking the genitive as a noun of "ruling" (like arcwn) and 
<the genitive is objective (the realm). The use of ek in the 
<parallel phrase in v. 18 [despite textual variant] is 
<important. If original Paul felt the notion of separation 
<in that phrase should be made explicit by ek.
Dear friend,
What you write is coherent and clearly a possible 
interpretation. But how do you know? Could you have come to 
this explanation if you completely had dropped dogma and 
only have relied on lexical semantics, grammar and syntax?
I ask because I for some time have studied Bible translation 
from the viewpoint of the reader, and realize how widespread 
it is to translate in a way as to force upon the reader a 
particular interpretation where a neutral alternative is 
available. I dont think we should teach sincere truth 
lovers to read the Bible in the light of dogma, but rather 
read dogma in the light of the Bible. In this way they can 
learn to build up their own faith in the Lord Jesus Christ 
without unduly influence.
I do not advocate the abandonment of theology or religious 
teaching, and clearly see the need for in many instances to 
take the whole NT into account, or even the whole Bible.Some 
verses can only be understood in the light of this greater 
context. My point, however, is that the reader should be  
helped to differentiate between what the text says and what 
is interpretation. In other words: More power to the reader!
Regarding Jesus we must take the whole NT into account. 
However, relying on philology alone and not using any 
premise rooted in dogma, those believing that Jesus is a 
creature have a much stronger case when using Col 1:15-20 
than those believing that Jesus is etarnal.
(1) If v 15 did not refer to Jesus but to somebody else, 
there would have been no question, the genitive would have 
been partitive, and the person a part of creation. But it 
refers to Jesus so ...Right, but this is not the point, if 
we want to start with language rather than with theology.
(2) Using the rules of lexical semantics, the contemporary 
use of PRWTOTOKOS is of primary importance, and there is no 
clear example in the NT of anything else than the normal OT 
meaning `the child who is born first`
When you speak of `Christ's pre-incarnate *status*`and that 
this `recalls the status of the firstborn in the patriarchal 
society as lord and owner of the inheritance (e.g., Jacob 
and Esau)`, thus we get the preferred rendring `"Firstborn
over all creation"` this is not philology, but pure theology 
which presumes the christological dogma. 
You are of course free to use these arguments, but the 
reader should be notified that they are based neither on 
lexical semantics,nor on grammar or syntax.
(3) The reason why the most natural rendering `firstborn of 
all creation` is not choosen is said to be `the context`: 
Jesus is the creator and cannot therefore be a part of 
creation. (a) The passive verbs of v 16 explicitly show that 
God is the creator and not Jesus, and (b) These verbs also 
show that God and Jesus as two different persons. (c) The 
premise for the `context argument` is that TA PANTA has the 
same reference as PASHES KTISEOS, but this is highly 
questionable. If this cannot be proven, there is nothing in 
the context forbidding that Jesus is a creature, the first 
child of God, who was used as a mediator in the creation of 
the others.
I would like to stress that what is written above are not 
religious arguments in favour of Jesus being a crature. But 
they are philological arguments showing that this text 
suggests just that. After having found this, we of course 
must review the whole NT, and then our view possibly will 
change, but this is the second step. What I advocate, is 
that we should strictly differentiate between theological 
and philological arguments, and always serve the interets of 
the readers by informing them of the premises we are using.
I therefore return to my question: If you completely drop 
all theological premises, how much of your interpretation 
above can be substantiated?
Greetings
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages
University of Oslo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 18:23:45 EST