For an Answer Home Mars Hill  Index Bibliography Glossary
The Bible Gateway The Blue Letter Bible The Greek New Testament (NA26) Greek & Hebrew Lexicons

 
powered by FreeFind

Mars Hill  Apologetic Discussions

 

 

A Dialog Between Ray Goldsmith and Wes Williams

on Colossians 1:15

 

This dialog took place on Larry Ingram's Trinity Discussion Board in 2000.  Dave Sherrill announced a new article by Ray on Dave's  website.  You can read Ray's article here.  Wes Williams, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, posted a response to Ray's article.  Ray replied to Wes, and the following dialog ensued:

 


 Posted by Wes Williams  on March 14, 19101 at 19:27:41: 64.58.0.22

 

In Reply to: JWs and Col 1:15  posted by Dave Sherrill on February 19, 19101 at 12:43:11:

 

Ray wrote in his article: “Although certain witnesses like Wes Williams and Greg Stafford have quoted extensively from the LXX to demonstrate that the term HAD the "first in time...first in the series" meaning, they also make the point that this meaning constitutes the overwhelming majority of uses, thereby providing them with an argument based on Scriptural precedence. However, as I am about to show, they have grossly overstated their case. These "overwhelming examples" from the bible do not give them the precedence they really need. Since the witnesses have appealed to Colossians 1:15 to prove THEIR case, all we would really need is a single example where "prototokos" was applied without a numerical significance (first in time or series), and they would lose the argument. For such would show that there is no necessity for the term to bear that sense.”
<<

 

Wes replies: Of course, I am no authority, the scriptures are. I posted on this board about two years ago every non-metaphorical instance in the LXX where it occurs with a genitive (or "of a ") phrase.  What the examples show is that the PRWTOTOKOS ("firstborn") is a PART of the group. Of course, in each instance the firstborn is "first in time" and I stand by that as its inherent meaning. Jesus was Mary's PRWTOTOKOS, the one born first in time. It can have no other meaning there.  Ray, you examples use PRWTOTOKOS in a metaphorical sense. As you are aware, a metaphor is contra-factual, it is a formal lie. Therefore, to use metaphor to argue what a non-metaphor meaning should be is not sound argumentation. For instance, the expression "JHWH is a sun and a shield" is metaphor. YHVH is not really a sun but is *like* a sun in certain respects.

Jesus really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS ("firstborn of all creation"). To use your metaphorical examples of where nations are called "firstborn" or the one who YHWH *placed* as his firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed* as such), or where is genitive noun is an abstraction (like "death" in the Job example), you are not using scriptures with accurate judgment.

 

Wes cont:  There is no language at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is *placed* or *set* as firstborn.  But really, Ray, what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is *part* of the group *creation*. This is indubitable.  In passing, Meyer advocated the teaching of the Trinity but had to admit on Col 1:15 "PRWTOTOKOS never means _the most excellent,_ and can only have this sense _ex adjuncto_ (as at Ps 89:27; Rom. 8:29), which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and PRO PANTWN in ver. 17...) brings prominently forward the relation of _time._  Therefore, none of your examples meet the test where any of them show that the firstborn of a group is not a member of the group. Ray, why not simply accept what the natural language indicates, that Jesus is a member of group creation? You can redefine "creation" as they tried to do at Nicaea but you cannot exclude him from the group.

 

Sincerely,   Wes Williams

***************************

 

Posted by RayG  on March 15, 19101 at 01:55:25: 24.140.14.155

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 posted by Wes Williams on March 14, 19101 at 19:27:41:

Hi Wes: I'll just intersperse my comments between yours...here goes

 

Ray wrote in his article: “Although certain witnesses like Wes Williams and Greg Stafford have quoted extensively from the LXX to demonstrate that the term HAD the "first in time...first in the series" meaning, they also make the point that this meaning constitutes the overwhelming majority of uses, thereby providing them with an argument based on Scriptural precedence. However, as I am about to show, they have grossly overstated their case. These "overwhelming examples" from the bible do not give them the precedence they really need. Since the witnesses have appealed to Colossians 1:15 to prove THEIR case, all we would really need is a single example where "prototokos" was applied without a numerical significance (first in time or series), and they would lose the argument. For such would show that there is no necessity for the term to bear that sense.”
<<

 

Wes replies: Of course, I am no authority, the scriptures are. I posted on this board about two years ago every non-metaphorical instance in the LXX where it occurs with a genitive (or "of a ") phrase. What the examples show is that the PRWTOTOKOS ("firstborn") is a PART of the group. Of course, in each instance the firstborn is "first in time" and I stand by that as its inherent meaning. Jesus was Mary's PRWTOTOKOS, the one born first in time. It can have no other meaning there.

 

Ray replies: As to the "partitive" argument, what I showed in my article is that this is nothing but a stawman anyway since both sides agree that Christ was a member of the group. As to whether one needed to be the first in the group, I also showed that most if not all your examples had to do with men's customs and expectations, and the WT Organization agrees with me that Jehovah was not bound by such customs and traditions of men in the making of his choices. Note what they themselves said right in the midst of discussing Jacob's gaining of the birthright over Esau.

 

"By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men's expectations."

 

Hence, then, in Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not the most important thing to consider. This is just one of several examples in the OT which show that Jehovah was not bogged down in the straight-jacket of men's customs when he made his choices.

 

Another example which really shows how the most prominent in Jehovah's eyes was actually called "my firstborn" is recorded in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim. Although Manassah was actually the first numerically (Genesis 41:50-52), yet Jehovah's choice was Ephraim and so he says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). Note that Jehovah's choice of Ephraim over Manassah actually went clear back to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manassah" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manassah but in Jehovah's eyes he was the "firstborn" not Manassah. This was not metaphorical, Wes, nor is it an example of men's traditions like you cited. Would you please tell me what you think of the WT's acknowledgment cited above?

 

Wes said:  Ray, you examples use PRWTOTOKOS in a metaphorical sense. As you are aware, a metaphor is contra-factual, it is a formal lie. Therefore, to use metaphor to argue what a non-metaphor meaning should be is not sound argumentation. For instance, the expression "JHWH is a sun and a shield" is metaphor. YHVH is not really a sun but is *like* a sun in certain respects.

 

Ray replies: As to the metaphorical use, check above.  Actually the examples show various uses for the same Hebrew word,  thus literal (men's customs/numerical order)...literal/Jehovah's choice (Ephraim)...double and pictorial or anticipatory (David)...and figurative such as Job 18:13 which is similar to the example I cited from Polycarp right after the apostolic age where it shows that the term even with a genitive had gained a stereo-typical usage (whosoever). The least important of these uses would be the opposite of what Jehovah made clear according to the WT Society, and that would be the examples you cited of men's customs of numerical order.

 

Wes said: Jesus really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS ("firstborn of all creation"). To use your metaphorical examples of where nations are called "firstborn" or the one who YHWH *placed* as his firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed* as such), or where is genitive noun is an abstraction (like "death" in the Job example), you are not using scriptures with accurate judgment.

 

Ray replies: No doubt the title is applied, but Paul rules out any thought of "first created" in words as plain as language can make it. He gives as the grounds for the application of this title that Christ was hands on responsible for all creation in the first place and hands on responsible for it's reconciliation in the last place. He makes it plain that "he is before all things", and that is the same thing John tells us in John 1:3, right after identifying him as "theos". John says everything came into existence through "theos" and that there were no exceptions to this...oude hen...not even one thing. This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did so through him.

 

Yet getting back whether Christ was placed as "firstborn" in Col. 1:15, we know that Christ was "appointed heir of all things" (Heb.1:2) which is placed in juxtaposition with "the end of these days", and this is crossed back to Psalms 2:8 in the NWT's big reference Bible (page 1438), and if you take this WT lamp and shine it on Psalms 2:7-8 guess what we find? We find a reference to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer! Included here is a reference to Matt. 3:17 (baptism) Heb. 1:5, John 1:14 (birth), and Acts 13:33 (resurrection). And yet, Wes, these references are REALLY interesting because also referenced here is Psalms 89:27 where David in anticipation of Christ is called "firstborn". Looks pretty clear to me, friend. David was "placed" and Christ was "appointed"...and really how much difference is there between them? Hardly enough to deny the clear connection in the exegetical circle tracked in the NWT Reference Bible!

 

Ray cont: You should take the time to trace these references, OK?  I'm not surprised, then, that Greg Stafford admitted a possible "figurative" fullfillment here, although he did try to retrieve himself at the last minute with the complaint that Col. 1 doesn't "say" that Christ was placed. However, as I pointed out, what's the difference between being "placed" and being "appointed"?

 

Wes says: There is no language at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is *placed* or *set* as firstborn.

 

Ray replies: See above. There doesn't need to be...Hebrews 1:2 as crossed through the NWT Reference Bible to Psalms 2:8 and Psalms 89:27 makes it clear enough. Check it out.

 

Wes said: But really, Ray, what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is *part* of the group *creation*. This is indubitable.

 

Ray replies: Trinitarians agree with this, we just notice that Paul rules out any thought of him being the FIRST member of the group by placing him before all creation. We also recognize the Messianic focus in this context which reaches back to David's being called "firstborn" in anticipation of Christ's human experience for our sakes. Paul merely points out that he is most deserving of such recognition because he pre-existed all creation in the first place;  it came into existence through him and for him, and is held together by him. It's really not that difficult to see.

 

Wes says: In passing, Meyer advocated the teaching of the Trinity but had to admit on Col 1:15 "PRWTOTOKOS never means _the most excellent,_ and can only have this sense _ex adjuncto_ (as at Ps 89:27; Rom. 8:29), which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and PRO PANTWN in ver. 17...) brings prominently forward the relation of _time._

 

Ray replies: I'm not concerned with what Meyer advocated,  the WT Soceity through their reference Bible puts us on the same page as far as tracing the "firstborn" through Psalms 89:27 thru...Hebrews 1:2... through Psalms 2:7-8... and then back through Psalms 2:7-8 to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer...Thus...Matt. 3:17 (baptism) also Heb. 1:5, and Acts 13:33 (Resurrection).

 

Wes says: Therefore, none of your examples meet the test where any of them show that the firstborn of a group is not a member of the group.  Ray, why not simply accept what the natural language indicates, that Jesus is a member of group creation? You can redefine "creation" as they tried to do at Nicaea but you cannot exclude him from the group.

 

Ray replies: I'm afraid I must disagree friend.  It is your examples based on men's customs that don't pass the smell test because they are the opposite of what "Jehovah God made clear". What my examples show is exactly what Jehovah God made clear, as even the WT acknowledged. They show that one doesn't NEED to be the first member of a group to deserve the designation "firstborn" (Ephraim..David...Christ).

 

Sincerely,  Wes Williams

 

Take care, Wes....RayG

******************************************

 Posted by Wes Williams  on March 15, 19101 at 12:50:31: 64.58.0.22

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15  posted by RayG on March 15, 19101 at 01:55:25:

 

Dear Ray,

 

My time is fragmented because of a busy schedule, so I cannot take but a few moments here. As time permits I will respond briefly, but I do not wish to detract from the excellent comments made by Martin Smart and Kaz.

 

Here are a few comments on your reply:

 

(Wes)
: What the examples show is that the PRWTOTOKOS ("firstborn") is a PART of the group. Of course, in each instance the firstborn is "first in time" and I stand by that as its inherent meaning. Jesus was Mary's PRWTOTOKOS, the one born first in time. It can have no other meaning there.

 

: Ray replies: As to the "partitive" argument, what I showed in my article is that this is nothing but a stawman anyway since both sides agree that Christ was a member of the group. As to whether one needed to be the first in the group, I also showed that most if not all your examples had to do with men's customs and expectations, and the WT Organization agrees with me that Jehovah was not bound by such customs and traditions of men in the making of his choices. Note what they themselves said right in the midst of discussing Jacob's gaining of the birthright over Esau.

 

Wes replies: Ray, it is NOT a strawman -- it is THE argument since the partitive word PRWTOTOKOS puts Jesus as a member of "creation." Most pop-advocates of the Trinity do *not* believe this as Robert Bowman, Jr argued against your point on this board two years ago, and as the NIV and NKJ argue: "the firstborn *over* all creation". Also Louw-Nida:  87.47 PRWTOTOKOS, on: pertaining to existing superior to all else of the same or related class - 'superior to, above all.' PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS 'existing superior to all creation' Col 1.15.

 

Wes contined: Your argument about Jacob and Esau is meaningless and it shows that you miss the point, which causes you to rail out against those who you consider to be in error. JHWH's selection of Jacob to gain the *right* of firstborn did not make Jacob the PRWTOTOKOS! Esau remained the PRWTOTOKOS because he was born first in time. This never changed and is why your argument is fatal. You have constructed a strawman.

Ray, can you admit that Jacob did not become the PRWTOTOKOS by gaining the *right* (a different Hebrew word)?

 

Ray had said, quoting the Society: "By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men's expectations."

 

Wes replies: True, but meaningless to the point at hand. You have built a strawman.

 

Ray then continues: Hence, then, in Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not the most important thing to consider. This is just one of several examples in the OT which show that Jehovah was not bogged down in the straight-jacket of men's customs when he made his choices.

 

Wes replies: True, but you err when *you assume* that Jacob became the PRWTOTOKOS. He did not. He only received the birthright. Once again, you are tearing down your own strawman built from your own straight-jacket.

 

Ray continued: Another example which really shows how the most prominent in Jehovah's eyes was actually called "my firstborn" is recorded in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim. Although Manassah was actually the first numerically (Genesis 41:50-52), yet Jehovah's choice was Ephraim and so he says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). Note that Jehovah's choice of Ephraim over Manassah actually went clear back to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manassah" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manassah but in Jehovah's eyes he was the "firstborn" not Manassah. This was not metaphorical, Wes, nor is it an example of men's traditions like you cited. Would you please tell me what you think of the WT's acknowledgment cited above?

 

Wes replies: Ray, you really should be more careful with your exegesis. Jeremiah's reference to Ephraim is to the 10-tribe kingdom that was headed by the *tribe* of Ephraim, *not* the person of Ephraim. The PRWTOTOKOS here is *God's* firstborn and *not* the firstborn of *Jacob*. Did you note that?  Ray, have you actually considered the context of Jeremiah 31 and the state of the 2-tribe/ 10-tribe kingdom during that state of affairs? Or are you getting this out of some pop-Trinity book? I really want to know since I want to know what your source is on this, since it is in error.

 

In any case, the Jer 31 reference is to the 10-tribe kingdom, making the reference to PRWTOTOKOS metaphorical. The reason you rail against your detractors is because of a faulty understanding of these basic points.

 

Wes had said: Ray, you examples use PRWTOTOKOS in a metaphorical sense. As you are aware, a metaphor is contra-factual, it is a formal lie. Therefore, to use metaphor to argue what a non-metaphor meaning should be is not sound argumentation. For instance, the expression "JHWH is a sun and a shield" is metaphor. YHVH is not really a sun but is *like* a sun in certain respects.

 

Ray had replied: As to the metaphorical use, check above.

 

Wes replies: Yes, Ray,  I have. You need to review your fundamental assumptions since they are not in harmony with the scriptures.

 

Ray continued: Actually the examples show various uses for the same Hebrew word, thus literal (men's customs/numerical order)...literal/Jehovah's choice (Ephraim)

 

Wes broke in here: (error as per above. Ephraim was never the PRWTOTOKOS - you err when you assume that Jer 31 refers to that)

 

Ray cont:...double and pictorial or anticipatory (David)...and figurative such as Job 18:13 which is similar to the example I cited from Polycarp right after the apostolic age where it shows that the term even with a genitive had gained a stereo-typical usage (whosoever).  The least important of these uses would be the opposite of what Jehovah made clear according to the WT Society, and that would be the examples you cited of men's customs of numerical order.

 

Wes replies: Since you have built a strawman based on your own assumptions, I really recommend you revisit the scriptures. Ray, do some serious work with the *text.* None of your proposed exceptions are exceptions. Therefore, your proposal lacks foundation.

 

Wes had said: Jesus really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS ("firstborn of all creation"). To use your metaphorical examples of where nations are called "firstborn" or the one who YHWH *placed* as his firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed* as such), or where is genitive noun is an abstraction (like "death" in the Job example),  you are not using scriptures with accurate judgement.

 

Ray had replied: No doubt the title is applied, but Paul rules out any thought of "first created" in words as plain as language can make it. He gives as the grounds for the application of this title that Christ was hands on responsible for all creation in the first place and hands on responsible for it's reconciliation in the last place. He makes it plain that "he is before all things", and that is the same thing John tells us in John 1:3, right after identifying him as "theos". John says everything came into existence through "theos" and that there were no exceptions to this...oude hen...not even one thing. This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did so through him.

 

Wes replies: We agree that the firstborn is *before* (PRW) "all things." But once again, you *assume* that "all things" has the same reference as "all creation." Your assumption rips apart your argument.

 

Wes cont:  Both verbs in Col 1:16 and John 1:3 have passive verbs. Therefore, SOMEONE ELSE created "all things" EN ("in", or "by means of") the firstborn (cf 1:12 where the Father is the subject of the passage). Jesus is thus presented as the Father's agent of creation. The Firstborn is naturally excluded from the very things that were brought into existence by means of his agency!

 

Wes cont…As Lohse stated on Col 1:16:

"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." E. Lohse ,1971, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon p 50, note 125.

 

Wes asks: Ray, did you miss the import of the preposition EN here as referring to agency?

 

Ray had said: Yet getting back whether Christ was placed as "firstborn" in Col. 1:15, we know that Christ was "appointed heir of all things" (Heb.1:2) which is placed in juxta-position with "the end of these days", and this is crossed back to Psalms 2:8 in the NWT's big reference Bible (page 1438), and if you take this WT lamp and shine it on Psalms 2:7-8 guess what we find? We find a reference to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer! Included here is a reference to Matt. 3:17 (baptism) Heb. 1:5, John 1:14 (birth), and Acts 13:33 (resurrection).  And yet, Wes, these references are REALLY interesting because also referenced here is Psalms 89:27 where David in anticipation of Christ is called "firstborn". Looks pretty clear to me, friend. David was "placed" and Christ was "appointed"...and really how much difference is there between them? Hardly enough to deny the clear connection in the exegetical circle tracked in the NWT Reference Bible! You should take the time to trace these references, OK? I'm not surprised, then, that Greg Stafford admitted a possible "figurative" fulfillment here, although he did try to retrieve himself at the last minute with the complaint that Col. 1 doesn't "say" that Christ was placed. However, as I pointed out, what's the difference between being "placed" and being "appointed"?

 

Wes replies: Ray, what do you *assume* that the references are for? The publishers explain the purposes of the references in their forward. Do you *assume* that they mean something more than their intended purpose? Could it be, Ray, that you are READING TOO MUCH into the references?

 

Wes says: Jesus' being "appointed heir of all things" *after his resurrection* (Mt 28:18) has nothing to do with his *being* the PRWTOTOKOS of all creation *before* "all things" that came into existence by means of his agency. He *is* the "firstborn of all creation. He was not "appointed* to such. You are going around the bull's horn to force an importation of theology that is not present in the text. The reference to Heb 1:2 is to note that God create the AIWNES *through* the Son, similar language at 1:16 and John 1:3.

 

Wes had said: There is no language at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is *placed* or *set* as firstborn.

 

Ray replied: See above. There doesn't need to be...Hebrews 1:2 as crossed through the NWT Reference Bible to Psalms 2:8 and Psalms 89:27 makes it clear enough. Check it out.

 

Wes had said: But really, Ray, what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is *part* of the group *creation*. This is indubitable.

 

Ray replied: Trinitarians agree with this, we just notice that Paul rules out any thought of him being the FIRST member of the group by placing him before all creation. We also recognize the Messianic focus in this context...which reaches back to David's being called "firstborn" in anticipation of Christ's human experience for our sakes. Paul merely points out that he is most deserving of such recognition because he pre-existed all creation in the first place; it came into existence through him and for him, and is held together by him. It's really not that difficult to see.

 

Wes replies: Your assertion is based on your assumption that "all things" has the same reference as "all creation." The "all things" are reconciled to God in 1:19. Are you sure that you want to do this Ray?

 

Wes says: Once again, your assumptions cause you to not see that the text naturally refers to Jesus as the first-created creature of God.


Wes had said: In passing, Meyer advocated the teaching of the Trinity but had to admit on Col 1:15 "PRWTOTOKOS never means _the most excellent,_ and can only have this sense _ex adjuncto_ (as at Ps 89:27; Rom. 8:29), which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and PRO PANTWN in ver. 17...) brings prominently forward the relation of _time._

 

Ray replied: I'm not concerned with what Meyer advocated,

 

Wes breaks in: Oh, why are you waving away a potentially fatal argument to your point? This is not recommended. Deal with it, Ray.

 

Ray cont: the WT Soceity through their reference Bible puts us on the same page as far as tracing the "firstborn" through Psalms 89:27 thru...Hebrews 1:2... through Psalms 2:7-8... and then back through Psalms 2:7-8 to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer...Thus...Matt. 3:17 (baptism) also Heb. 1:5, and Acts 13:33 (Resurrection).

 

Wes replies: Yes. Your point?

 

Wes had said: Therefore, none of your examples meet the test where any of them show that the firstborn of a group is not a member of the group. Ray, why not simply accept what the natural language indicates, that Jesus is a member of group creation? You can redefine "creation" as they tried to do at Nicaea but you cannot exclude him from the group.

 

Ray replied: I'm afraid I must disagree friend. It is your examples based on men's customs that don't pass the smell test because they are the opposite of what "Jehovah God made clear". What my examples show is exactly what Jehovah God made clear, as even the WT acknowledged. They show that one doesn't NEED to be the first member of a group to deserve the designation "firstborn" (Ephraim..David...Christ).

 

Wes: Dear Ray, I warmly appeal to you to back up and prayerfully consider your points in the light of what I wrote. This is an important topic beyond academia. You built a strawman and tore it down with misapplied scriptures as in Jer 31 and Job 18).

 

Wes: In conclusion, Ray, the examples in the LXX stand and demonstrate that your interpretation of Col 1:15 is forced by your theology. Col 1:15, taken at face value, clearly shows Jesus to be a member of creation *and* all examples of non-metaphorical uses from the LXX with a genitive demonstate that the firstborn is first in time. You have not demonstrated a single example that has withheld scrutiny.

 

Wes: The natural reading demonstrates that Jesus was God first creature, the firstborn of all creation. I see nothing in the text that warrants a redefinition of "creation" since 1:17 says that Jesus is *before* all things, clearly a reference to time in the context.

 

Sincerely,  Wes Williams

 

********************

 

Posted by RayG  on March 16, 19101 at 17:52:05: 24.140.14.155

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15  posted by Wes Williams on March 15, 19101 at 12:50:31:


Wes begins: Dear Ray,   My time is fragmented because of a busy schedule, so I cannot take but a few moments here. As time permits I will respond briefly, but I do not wish to detract from the excellent comments made by Martin Smart and Kaz.

 

Ray replies: Hello Wes: First I must say that I appreciate the attitude that you put on display and you set a good example for the other witnesses. That of course doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with you :-) My time is fragmented too so I can understand your busy schedule. You mention Martin Smart and Kaz, and I've recently been engaged with Dan Parker and Kaz, unless you mean to say that Dan Parker is really Martin Smart. If so then I'm not surprised by Dan's attitude and those guys need to teach each other some manners :-) And I'm not referring to Kaz either, for he seems like a genuinely nice and sincere guy. OK, I'll just intersperse my comments between yours. Here goes...

 

Wes had said: Here are a few comments on your reply:
What the examples show is that the PRWTOTOKOS ("firstborn") is a PART of the group. Of course, in each instance the firstborn is "first in time" and I stand by that as its inherent meaning. Jesus was Mary's PRWTOTOKOS, the one born first in time. It can have no other meaning there.

Ray says: As to the "partitive" argument, what I showed in my article is that this is nothing but a strawman anyway since both sides agree that Christ was a member of the group. As to whether one needed to be the first in the group, I also showed that most if not all your examples had to do with men's customs and expectations, and the WT Organization agrees with me that Jehovah was not bound by such customs and traditions of men in the making of his choices. Note what they themselves said right in the midst of discussing Jacob's gaining of the birthright over Esau.

 

Wes breaks in: Ray, it is NOT a strawman -- it is THE argument since the partitive word PRWTOTOKOS puts Jesus as a member of "creation." Most pop-advocates of the Trinity do *not* believe this as Robert Bowman, Jr argued against your point on this board two years ago, and as the NIV and NKJ argue: "the firstborn *over* all creation". Also Louw-Nida:

 

Ray replies: Mercy, Wes, I know your time is fragmented but you really need to relax and read clear through my article again, only this time pay close attention to the final section called: "Closing Thoughts". I don't disagree with those whom you mentioned, though it wouldn't make any difference to me anyway. I'll make it easy this time, I'll just paste it here for you...but I think this illustrates clearly that detractors aren't really READING the material of others, they're merely searching through it, and there is a big difference between these two things. Here are my words:

 

“Closing thoughts…
In times past I have accepted the partitive interpretation of the genitive in Col. 1:15 only for the sake of the argument and to show JWs that the argument is in reality a strawman, because the inclusion of Christ in the category of creation no more supports the JW view than the Trinity view, as some JWs have been assuming. We also believe that Christ entered the category as per John 1:14. Therefore the witnesses have been boxing the air with this one when their REAL burden is to prove that Christ was the first of God’s creations. I adopted the partitive interpretation also in my debate with Wrench, and the ensuing discussion demonstrates that he was unable to make any headway by showing an advantage for his view over mine. But in reality I’m more inclined to interpret the genitive in Col. 1:15 as a genitive of subordination (firstborn over all creation). This interpretation fits well with the immediate context showing that from start to finish Christ was hand’s on responsible for all creation in the first place, and also responsible for its reconciliation in the last place.”

 

Ray continues: And so that you will not entertain the notion that I just made this up or made this change recently, let me just quote myself in my debate with Wrench...note the date please.

 

"Following is an excerpt from my letter to Wrench dated 2-21-00 to show that I did not accept outright the partitive genitive, but adopted it for the sake of the argument..."

**********

Ray said: "(((Next comes the expression 'firstborn of all creation' in Col 1:15. I began by pointing out that my position doesn't require me to deny the partitive meaning for the genitive case. That doesn't mean that I think it's demanded. In fact I recognize that some take it as comparative. So I'm merely going along here to illustrate that even if we do accept the partitive meaning, it still would not satisfy the burden of proof for you. Your burden is to prove that he was the FIRST creature in the series (numerically), as you set forth at the outset of this treatise.)))"...........

 

So Wes, this was not something I adopted on the spur of the moment or even along the way, but deliberately and with specific design. Yet if you had really read my article instead of just searching thru it you would have seen this.

 

Ray continues: Now why do I say this is a strawman? Not to be mean or arrogant as Kaz or Dan Smart thinks:-) (or is it Martin Parker?), but simply because both sides ALREADY agree that Christ was truly human and as such possessed the nature of a creature. Hence, then, to labor this point is like running in place. It wears you out, but you don't really go anywhere. In other words detractors are boxing the air...wasting time trying to prove a point that nobody denies anyway. So if anyone wanted to know what a strawman is, this is a perfect example of it.

 

Wes quotes needlessly: 87.47 PRWTOTOKOS, on: pertaining to existing superior to all else of the same or related class - 'superior to, above all.' PRWTOTOKOS
PASHS KTISEWS 'existing superior to all creation' Col 1.15.

 

 

Wes then says: Your argument about Jacob and Esau is meaningless and it shows that you miss the point, which causes you to rail out against those who you consider to be in error. JHWH's selection of Jacob to gain the *right* of firstborn did not make Jacob the PRWTOTOKOS! Esau remained the PRWTOTOKOS because he was born first in time. This never changed and is why your argument is fatal. You have constructed a strawman.

 

Ray replies: No I did not miss the point, I think you did.  The passage itself shows that Jacob was considered "firstborn" in Jehovah's eyes,  that's why the WT refers to it as "Jehovah's choice". You just can't seem to shake your reliance on men's customs, for it was only according to men's customs that Esau was the firstborn. Secondly, you failed to really READ my article or you would have seen the reason I gave for citing the passage. I didn't cite the passage to prove that Jacob was called firstborn, but to show that Jehovah was not bogged down with men's customs in making his choices of individuals for certain purposes. And with that point even the WT Society agrees with my assessment. Again, Wes, you should go back and really read my article when you have the time to pay attention. Now, that being said, notice that Esau was NOT Jehovah's choice, Jacob was. Hence, if you make ur decisions based on men's customs or expectations, you are acting in a way contrary to Jehovah's way, as acknowledged by the WT Society! Jehovah was not "bound" to such customs and neither should we be when dealing with the question of whether one NEEDS to be the first in a group to deserve the designation "firstborn". The Scripture demonstrates otherwise.

 

Wes continues: Ray, can you admit that Jacob did not become the PRWTOTOKOS by gaining the *right* (a different Hebrew word)?

 

Ray replies: Wes, can you admit that Jacob was Jehovah's choice? Would you argue that Jehovah regarded Esau as his choice as "firstborn"? Hunker down now. But we can illustrate elsewhere where one who was not first numerically was nevertheless explicitly called "firstborn" by Jehovah (Ephraim and David), hence we know that when Jehovah regards one as deserving of the status he does apply the term "firstborn" and does not base his decisions on men's customs of numerical order. Are you willing to admit that David was called "firstborn" even though he wasn't the first of anything, just Jehovah's choice? And are you willing to admit that David's being placed as "firstborn" anticipated Christ's human experience? You see, friend, you are simply overlooking the difference between men's customs and Jehovah's way. Your view requires you to rely on men's customs, and these become your examples, whereas I'm more inclined to recognize and rely on what Jehovah God made clear, and in doing so the WT Society agrees with me.

 

Ray quoted the Society: "By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men's expectations."

 

Wes replied: True, but meaningless to the point at hand. You have built a strawman.

 

Ray replies: But hold the phone, how can you suggest that ANYTHING Jehovah does anywhere, is meaningless to the point at hand? This clearly illustrates your mindset to anyone reading these posts. We are (or at least SHOULD BE) looking to what Jehovah made clear as we reason on these matters. So if Jehovah demonstrates that numerical order doesn't bog him down, how can we consider this as "meaningless"? It was NOT meaningless that all of David's older brothers were one at a time rejected until finally David was fetched from the field, and then Jehovah told Samuel, "get up, anoint him for he is the one". That was not meaningless, was it Wes? It was not meaningless that Jehovah DIDN'T choose King Saul as "firstborn, most high of the kings of the earth" either, right? I can hardly believe you said this, but as I said, it does illustrate how tightly bound you are to men's customs and traditions that you remain oblivious to Jehovah's choice. Even after Jehovah made his choice clear you continue clinging to Esau as the firstborn. Can the reader not see the fallacy in this? It should help us understand the way God looks at things, instead of trying to base our interpretive decisions on men's expectations like you've been doing. You've got your priorities in the wrong place, friend, you really do. Don't take it wrongly, Wes, take it the way I intend it, as friendly constructive criticism.

 

Ray had said: Hence, then, in Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not the most important thing to consider. This is just one of several examples in the OT which show that Jehovah was not bogged down in the straight-jacket of men's customs when he made his choices.

 

Wes replied: True, but you err when *you assume* that Jacob became the PRWTOTOKOS. He did not. He only received the birthright. Once again, you are tearing down your own strawman built from your own straight-jacket.

 

Ray replies: Again hold on, look once more at my words. I said, "in Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not the most important thing to consider". I said nothing about Jacob becoming the PRWTOTOKOS according to men's customs or expectations. I merely point out that Jehovah was not bound by such customs, and we shouldn't be either.. in making our interpretive decisions, yet you've shown that you are! You've been relying on men's customs all along, even when you quoted all those examples from the LXX. This is where you have erred in your exegesis, and such a method is bound to lead you in the opposite direction from the truth. You should swallow your pride, Wes, and admit this.

 

Ray had said: Another example which really shows how the most prominent in Jehovah's eyes was actually called "my firstborn" is recorded in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim. Although Manasseh was actually the first numerically (Genesis 41:50-52), yet Jehovah's choice was Ephraim and so he says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). Note that Jehovah's choice of Ephraim over Manassah actually went clear back to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manasseh" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manasseh but in Jehovah's eyes he was the "firstborn" not Manasseh. This was not metaphorical, Wes, nor is it an example of men's traditions like you cited. Would you please tell me what you think of the WT's acknowledgment cited above?

 

Wes replied: Ray, you really should be more careful with your exegesis. Jeremiah's reference to Ephraim is to the 10-tribe kingdom that was headed by the *tribe* of Ephraim, *not* the person of Ephraim. The PRWTOTOKOS here is *God's* firstborn and *not* the firstborn of *Jacob*. Did you note that?

 

Ray replies: Wes, we've already seen at least two clear examples of your careless reading earlier in this response, and now you're going for a third. Can you show me where I said that Ephraim was "Jacob's firstborn"? In fact Jacob was not even Ephraim or Mannaseh's literal father, Joseph was! You see, friend, I'm wondering if you really read my article or my previous post, or if you just searched through them. I actually quoted the passage like this: "And as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn". Now isn't that what I did? In fact I even said that the choice was made over the protest of Joseph, didn't I? This shows once again that you have got yourself so bogged down with men's customs that this is preventing you from being alert to JEHOVAH'S ways and thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9) I merely pointed to the actions of Jacob to show where Jehovah first made his choice. Jacob's actions here with Joseph's two sons reflected Jehovah's choice just as earlier his action of gaining the birthright from his own brother reflected Jehovah's choice. Ephraim the tribe makes no difference to the argument, Jehovah's choice STILL reaches back to the literal sons of Joseph (Gen 48), as I said. Jehovah was not bound by men's customs of numerical order, he wasn't bound when Jacob crossed them earlier, and he wasn't bound in the Jeremiah passage. Jehovah was not bound period! But you've shown that you are.

Wes continued: Ray, have you actually considered the context of Jeremiah 31 and the state of the 2-tribe/ 10-tribe kingdom during that state of affairs? Or are you getting this out of some pop-Trinity book? I really want to know since I want to know what your source is on this, since it is in error.

 

Ray replies: Wes, you are a piece of work, LOL! Your question comes rather comically from someone who belongs to the popbook of the year club, namely the WTBTS. But on a more serious note, so far in these posts you've shown yourself to be the careless reader. Not only that but I would imagine that Martin Parker's about ready to knock about two inches off the top of your head for giving him away ;-))

 

Wes continued: In any case, the Jer 31 reference is to the 10-tribe kingdom, making the reference to PRWTOTOKOS metaphorical. The reason you rail against your detractors is because of a faulty understanding of these basic points.

 

Ray replies: Have we not just seen who has a faulty understanding, when you accuse me of saying that Ephraim was the firstborn of Jacob, when Joseph was his father and not Jacob? And all the while I was focusing on Jehovah's choice. Need I say more?

Wes had said: Ray, you examples use PRWTOTOKOS in a metaphorical sense. As you are aware, a metaphor is contra-factual, it is a formal lie. Therefore, to use metaphor to argue what a non-metaphor meaning should be is not sound argumentation. For instance, the expression "JHWH is a sun and a shield" is metaphor. YHVH is not really a sun but is *like* a sun in certain respects.

 

:Ray replied: As to the metaphorical use, check above.

 

Wes replied: Yes, Ray, I have. You need to review your fundamental assumptions since they are not in harmony with the scriptures.

 

Ray answers: First I'm not even sure you know what your own fundamental assumptions are, much less mine. I would recommend that you go back and read my article again though, but just make sure to read it ALL before you start slinging your accusations around.

 

Ray had said: Actually the examples show various uses for the same Hebrew word, thus literal (men's customs/numerical order)...literal/Jehovah's choice (Ephraim)

 

Wes replied: (error as per above. Ephraim was never the PRWTOTOKOS - you err when you assume that Jer 31 refers to that)

 

Ray replies: Wow, I can't believe this is the same Wes Williams I talked to a couple years ago. This was Jehovah's literal choice, and when you say "you err when you assume that Jer 31 refers to that", your mind has taken a logical leap in the dark. Refers to what? Why do you think I said it "goes clear back to the literal (note the words literal sons) sons of Joseph"? Let me give you a clue. It's because I KNEW we were not dealing with the literal sons of Joseph in the Jeremiah passage, but I had BOTH in my mind when writing because in the Jeremiah passage it's the same Jehovah, and the tribe started with the literal person Ephraim, didn't it? Here is a clear example of the cult tendency to compartmentalize and isolate things in their minds. This is how the Scriptures are mangled in the kingdom of the cults. Do you think Jehovah forgot what happened as recorded in Genesis 48 or that he had not been aware of it? Are you meaning to suggest that Jehovah didn't mean what he said, or didn't mean it literally? Notice I didn't say "numerically" now, did I? You see, friend, you are confusing the terms, literal and numerical, taking for granted that they MUST go hand in hand. On the other hand, and I mean no disrespect to you as a person Christ died for, it takes a mind given to exegetical compartmentalization to miss the connection between Genesis 48 and Jeremiah 31:9. Maybe the WT Society can help me make this point since I know you don't think of them as your enemy. Note what they say in the Insight Vol. #1, page 753...

 

"On his deathbed, Jacob, IN EFFECT, adopted his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh and appointed them to be equals of his direct sons (Gen. 48:5). Their Father Joseph, who received the right AS FIRSTBORN among Jacob's sons, received two parts of his father's inheritance by means of the tribal inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh...In blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, the patriarch Jacob gave the preference to Ephraim and prophetically indicated that HE would become the greater.--Ge. 48:13-20"...

 

Now let's think this over for a minute. Note that Joseph received the right AS FIRSTBORN. Now let me ask you a question, Wes. Can you at least admit that Joseph was the firstborn in Jehovah's eyes due to the seed line? Or would you say that Jehovah rejected Joseph? If he didn't reject Joseph, would he then regard Joseph AS FIRSTBORN because he had received the right as such? Please answer friend. Now to Jacob's actions with Joseph's sons, would you assume that Jehovah was unaware of Jacob's actions or that Jacob acted contrary to Jehovah? I don't think even you would go that far, would you? Then with Jehovah's words in Jeremiah 31:9 in mind, would you deny that Ephraim was Jehovah's choice back when Jacob crossed them and gave Ephraim the precedence? Notice I didn't ask if Ephraim was Joseph's or even Jacob's firstborn according to the customs of men...no no, I only asked you if you think Jehovah made HIS choice back then? Or did he suddenly wake up from a season of idleness and declare in the middle of the Jeremiah passage "You know, Come to think of it, now's a good time to make Ephraim my firstborn" :-)

 

OK, now let's think of David. Remember the drill? Samuel goes to Jesse's place and each of his brothers older were one at a time brought before him and rejected...(this is so instructive). Jehovah himself rejected them...I won't go thru them all, but the first one, "Eliab", was brought before Samuel and Jehovah said "Do not look at his appearance and at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him. For NOT THE WAY MAN SEES [is the way God sees]", so finally David was fetched from the field. And what did Jehovah tell Samuel when David walked in? He said "get up, anoint him for this is he". Isn't that what he said, Wes? Yet he was called by Jehovah the firstborn in Psalms 89:27. Do you think Jehovah may have regarded David as "firstborn" way back then? You betcha! It was already true in Jehovah's mind, though the outworking of it may have occurred later. And because he did regard him as such he later made a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings, said the WT Society. Yet in doing this David was in no way the first, not in Jesse's household and not even in the line of Israel's kings. And yet that made no difference whatsoever to Jehovah, did it? Nope, for Jehovah's choice was already sealed in heaven. Let me encourage you, Wes, to recognize and turn away from the tendency to look to men's customs in order to "prove" your doctrines, and start looking instead to Jehovah's pattern. He will not lead you astray. Just as David was Jehovah's choice way back when, you should NOT assume or try to run away from the same thing with reference to Ephraim. Nor should you try to compartmentalize and isolate the person Ephraim from the tribe. Remember whose choice it was.

 

Ray had continued:...double and pictorial or anticipatory (David)...and figurative such as Job 18:13 which is similar to the example I cited from Polycarp right after the apostolic age where it shows that the term even with a genitive had gained a stereo-typical usage (whosoever).

 

: The least important of these uses would be the opposite of what Jehovah made clear according to the WT Society, and that would be the examples you cited of men's customs of numerical order.

 

Wes replied: Since you have built a strawman based on your own assumptions, I really recommend you revisit the scriptures. Ray, do some serious work with the *text.* None of your proposed exceptions are exceptions. Therefore, your proposal lacks foundation.

 

Ray replies: I'm perfectly willing to submit these posts to the readers for their judgment as to who's given the best account of the Scriptures. The opposite of what Jehovah made clear, men's customs, would certainly be the least important, wouldn't it? And you've shown yourself to be helplessly bound to such customs in your thinking, Wes, and I would invite the readers to examine these posts and see for themselves how often you misread what I said, both in my article and in my previous post. There's no doubt in my mind that they will have no trouble seeing this if they are willing to be honest with themselves.

 

Wes had said: Jesus really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS ("firstborn of all creation"). To use your metaphorical examples of where nations are called "firstborn" or the one who YHWH *placed* as his firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed* as such), or where is genitive noun is an abstraction (like "death" in the Job example), you are not using scriptures with accurate judgment.

 

: Ray replied: No doubt the title is applied, but Paul rules out any thought of "first created" in words as plain as language can make it. He gives as the grounds for the application of this title that Christ was hands on responsible for all creation in the first place and hands on responsible for it's reconciliation in the last place. He makes it plain that "he is before all things", and that is the same thing John tells us in John 1:3, right after identifying him as "theos". John says everything came into existence through "theos" and that there were no exceptions to this...oude hen...not even one thing. This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did so through him.

 

Wes replied: We agree that the firstborn is *before* (PRW) "all things." But once again, you *assume* that "all things" has the same reference as "all creation." Your assumption rips apart your argument.

 

Ray replies: Of course, Wes, it's perfectly proper to assume that the bible means what it says until someone proves differently. In this case it's the JWs who are claiming that it means "all but one" instead of what it says. The same expression "ta panta" is translated "all things" in Eph. 3:9, so would you argue that it doesn't mean all things with reference to all creation there, or that it means all but one? I'm sure you wouldn't, but the NWT crosses this to Col. 1:16, so why then shouldn't we take it to mean "all things" like it does in the Ephesians passage? At the very least the burden is yours to prove otherwise. The motive for not taking it the same way is exceedingly transparent, friend, for to take it the same way in Col. 1:16 would distinguish Christ from all creation in the same way it distinguishes God from all creation in Eph. 3:9. hmmm...... Now who's assumption is ripping apart their argument? Remember, Wes, that it wasn't the Trinitarians who couldn't take it the way Paul said it.

 

Wes said: Both verbs in Col 1:16 and John 1:3 have passive verbs. Therefore, SOMEONE ELSE created "all things" EN ("in", or "by means of") the firstborn (cf 1:12 where the Father is the subject of the passage). Jesus is thus presented as the Father's agent of creation. The Firstborn is naturally excluded from the very things that were brought into existence by means of his agency!

 

Ray replies: The mere appearance of a passive verb would not establish agency or necessarily imply another behind the action of the verb. But when agency is established the subject of the passive verb would receive the action directly FROM the agent. You seem to be flailing around like a fish out of water trying to find some grammatical way to emphasize the party behind the agency. Agency is established by preposition, case, and context. Yet this is not an instrumental impersonal dative where we might think that "Jehovah's walks with a cane", assuming that Christ is the cane" :-), but Christ is the direct personal agency. That's why we often describe his role as "hand's on" as clearly shown in Hebrews 1:10. Yet no one denies credit to God as distinguished in function from the intermediate anyway. Besides that, in John 1:3 the verb "egeneto" is deponent (listed in Friberg's as a middle dep), and I think all forms of ginomai are deponent except the perfect. As it is, being deponent it means quite literally "became...or "came to be". In John 1:3 we get the agency you're trying to emphasize from the preposition together with the genitive case. But what makes you think the intermediate doesn't share the credit for the action? We should honor the Son (intermediate) "just as" we honor the Father (John 5:23). Just like in the context of salvation, those who are saved "OWE" their salvation not only to the one sitting on the throne, but also to the Lamb (Rev. 7:10)...the intermediate! What you fail to comprehend, Wes, is that God INCLUDES the intermediate, hence only Jehovah is our Saviour but Jesus is our Saviour...only God created, but the Logos created (recall Heb 1:10..."works of your hands"). No wonder we're supposed to honor this one "just as" we honor the Father. Detractors cannot see the forest thru the trees, but there are none so blind.. :-))

 

Wes Continued: As Lohse stated on Col 1:16:
"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." E. Lohse ,1971, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon p 50, note 125.

 

Ray replies: What makes you think this suggests any kind of a problem for us,  or any kind of an advantage for you? Are you thinking that I'm overlooking Christ's intermediate role in the creation of all things? Of course "He is and remains the creator", but he's not the creator without the intermediate, because God has chosen to do things that way. Jehovah does it with an intermediate with regard to the new creation, and he did it also with the original creation and with the same intermediate. Yet only Jehovah saves and only Jehovah creates. See how easy this is?

 

Wes continued: Ray, did you miss the import of the preposition EN here as referring to agency?

 

Ray replies: What makes you think I missed anything, or is the question intended for someone else's consumption?

 

Ray had earlier said: Yet getting back whether Christ was placed as "firstborn" in Col. 1:15, we know that Christ was "appointed heir of all things" (Heb.1:2) which is placed in juxtaposition with "the end of these days", and this is crossed back to Psalms 2:8 in the NWT's big reference Bible (page 1438), and if you take this WT lamp and shine it on Psalms 2:7-8 guess what we find? We find a reference to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer! Included here is a reference to Matt. 3:17 (baptism) Heb. 1:5, John 1:14 (birth), and Acts 13:33 (resurrection). And yet, Wes, these references are REALLY interesting because also referenced here is Psalms 89:27 where David in anticipation of Christ is called "firstborn". Looks pretty clear to me, friend. David was "placed" and Christ was "appointed"...and really how much difference is there between them? Hardly enough to deny the clear connection in the exegetical circle tracked in the NWT Reference Bible! You should take the time to trace these references, OK? I'm not surprised, then, that Greg Stafford admitted a possible "figurative" fulfillment here, although he did try to retrieve himself at the last minute with the complaint that Col. 1 doesn't "say" that Christ was placed. However, as I pointed out, what's the difference between being "placed" and being "appointed"?

 

Wes replied: Ray, what do you *assume* that the references are for? The publishers explain the purposes of the references in their forward. Do you *assume* that they mean something more than their intended purpose? Could it be, Ray, that you are READING TOO MUCH into the references?

 

Ray replies: I'll tell you what I get out of the references...Your own organization thunk'm up and thus the passages suggested the same connections to them that they did to me. Hence you'd be hard put to accuse me of reading INTO the text what isn't there naturally. For example, the WT Society tells us in the Insight Volumes that Christ underwent a "spiritual begetting" at his baptism, right? They also include a reference to his birth (Jn 1:14) and His Resurrection (Acts 13:33)) at Psalms 2:7-8...and all of this they themselves reference to Psalms 89:27 which anticipates Christ's human experience for us, and so it is in THIS context that David is called "firstborn" in anticipation of Christ's human experience. Now if the WT makes these associations how can you accuse me of reading into the passages what isn't there naturally? See my point? What suggested these connections to the WT, Wes? Don't run away now, please deal with it, OK?

 

Wes said: Jesus' being "appointed heir of all things" *after his resurrection* (Mt 28:18) has nothing to do with his *being* the PRWTOTOKOS of all creation *before* "all things" that came into existence by means of his agency. He *is* the "firstborn of all creation. He was not "appointed* to such. You are going around the bull's horn to force an importation of theology that is not present in the text. The reference to Heb 1:2 is to note that God create the AIWNES *through* the Son, similar language at 1:16 and John 1:3.

 

Ray replies: You have misread the above passages, and although such confusion may mix well in it's own sauce, it's not going to do you any good here. First it does not say he was "PRWTOTOKOS" before all things, it says he IS prwtotokos because he pre-existed all things. In other words Paul says he deserves the designation because he pre-existed all creation in the first place. Nor does Mt 28:18 place the time of the appointment mentioned in Heb. 1:2, for Jesus had already said in John 5:22 that all judgment had been committed to the Son, so the appointment itself had been a fact, and you've just confused the appointment with the outworking of it. Notice it's placed in juxtaposition to "the end of these days", but it also adds "through whom he made the ages", and recall that throughout Jesus' earthly ministry he often referred to himself as the "sent one", did he not? The Logos was on a mission when be became flesh, and his whole human experience reflects that mission. But with regard to being "placed" or "appointed heir", let me quote your own words against you: "(he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed* as such). Thank you for finally admitting this, Wes. We're making some progress now, for even the WT admitted that David pre-figured Christ's human experience. Look at your admission here. This is the crux of the whole matter, and you just gave the farm away, for the placing of David prefigures the placing of Christ.

 

Wes had said: There is no language at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is *placed* or *set* as firstborn.

 

Ray replies: See above. There doesn't need to be...Hebrews 1:2 as crossed through the NWT Reference Bible to Psalms 2:8 and Psalms 89:27 makes it clear enough. Check it out.

 

Wes had said: But really, Ray, what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is *part* of the group *creation*. This is indubitable.

 

Ray replied: Trinitarians agree with this, we just notice that Paul rules out any thought of him being the FIRST member of the group by placing him before all creation. We also recognize the Messianic focus in this context...which reaches back to David's being called "firstborn" in anticipation of Christ's human experience for our sakes. Paul merely points out that he is most deserving of such recognition because he pre-existed all creation in the first place; it came into existence through him and for him, and is held together by him. It's really not that difficult to see.

 

Wes responded: Your assertion is based on your assumption that "all things" has the same reference as "all creation." The "all things" are reconciled to God in 1:19. Are you sure that you want to do this Ray?

 

Ray replies: No, friend, it's based on what it says in plain words. It's your burden to prove it can't mean what it says. Think about it. And your appeal to 1:19 fails to prove that "all things" doesn't have the same meaning here as in Eph. 3:9. The argument is illogical, Wes, for it's like arguing that others have murdered in this neighborhood and therefore the defendant must have murdered because he's also in the neighborhood. You'd lose the verdict based on that kind of thinking. The earlier use includes everything, says Paul, but the later use is restricted to that which is reconcilable. Is Paul saying that only all other reconcilable things were made through Christ in 1:16? Or is he being more inclusive? You see friend, we have two distinct uses here, one is all inclusive and the other isn't, and it is your burden to prove that it CANNOT mean the same in 1:16 as in Ephesians 3:9 since your own organization cross referenced them to each other!


Wes said; Once again, your assumptions cause you to not see that the text naturally refers to Jesus as the first-created creature of God.

 

Ray replies: Our conclusion agrees with what is says, he pre-existed all things, and it's up to you to prove it doesn't mean what it says here. As long as it can mean "all things" like it means in Ephesians 3:9, you've proven nothing with this passage. Recall that the NWT crosses ta panta in Eph 3:9 to Col. 1:16? hmmm....check it out, Wes.

 

Wes had said: In passing, Meyer advocated the teaching of the Trinity but had to admit on Col 1:15 "PRWTOTOKOS never means _the most excellent,_ and can only have this sense _ex adjuncto_ (as at Ps 89:27; Rom. 8:29), which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and PRO PANTWN in ver. 17...) brings prominently forward the relation of _time._

Ray replied: I'm not concerned with what Meyer advocated,

 

Wes replied: Oh, why are you waving away a potentially fatal argument to your point? This is not recommended. Deal with it, Ray.

 

Ray replies: LOL, Wes, you are simply assuming that I'm in a cult like Jehovah's Witnesses where everyone has to agree with the prophet or "slave". But we're not running a cult here, friend, and we can disagree on some points. In fact, unless you're part of the anointed "class" the WT doesn't even consider you qualified to interpret the Bible. That is the unique job of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, isn't it? According to the drill, if God wants to reveal or teach something he uses the Slave to do it, and you're not to run ahead of the Slave. In fact when the Slave places something before you, you are to accept it as from the Lord and true FIRST, rather than check it out first. Otherwise according to them, you're being "suspicious" of the Lord's channel. Such is the reality within the cults.

So with regard to Meyer's opinion on that particular point, I reject it, and I can cite plenty of authorities who would agree with me, including the WT Society. Although they of course add the "first in series" meaning to the term, they also acknowledge that it carries the preeminent meaning at Col. 1:15 as well (Aid to Bible Understanding, page 584, and Insight Vol #1, page 836.) So you need to get back in line with Brooklyn Wes :-))

 

Ray had said: : the WT Society through their reference Bible puts us on the same page as far as tracing the "firstborn" through Psalms 89:27 thru...Hebrews 1:2... through Psalms 2:7-8... and then back through Psalms 2:7-8 to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer...Thus...Matt. 3:17 (baptism) also Heb. 1:5, and Acts 13:33 (Resurrection).

 

Wes replies: Yes. Your point?

 

Ray answers: So they saw the same in David's being "firstborn" as we see,  anticipatory of Christ's human experience,  and yet just as David was not numerically the first,  so likewise Christ whom he anticipated was not the first member of creation either, but as Paul said, he pre-existed all creation. Remember, Wes, it wasn't the Trinitarians who couldn't take it the way Paul said it, right?

 

Wes had said: Therefore, none of your examples meet the test where any of them show that the firstborn of a group is not a member of the group. Ray, why not simply accept what the natural language indicates, that Jesus is a member of group creation? You can redefine "creation" as they tried to do at Nicea but you cannot exclude him from the group.

 

Ray replied: I'm afraid I must disagree friend. It is your examples based on men's customs that don't pass the smell test because they are the opposite of what "Jehovah God made clear". What my examples show is exactly what Jehovah God made clear, as even the WT acknowledged. They show that one doesn't NEED to be the first member of a group to deserve the designation "firstborn" (Ephraim..David...Christ).

 

Wes says: Dear Ray, I warmly appeal to you to back up and prayerfully consider your points in the light of what I wrote. This is an important topic beyond academia. You built a strawman and tore it down with misapplied scriptures as in Jer 31 and Job 18).

 

Ray answers: Dear Wes: I appreciate your warm appeal and I also warmly appeal to you to reread my article when your time isn't so fragmented, so that you can pay closer attention to what I said. Be willing to put your pride in the backseat for a moment, friend, and consider that you have accepted the strawman here by assuming that one has to actually be the first in a series to deserve the designation "firstborn", and your evidence is based on men's customs and traditions rather than on what "Jehovah God made clear", as the WT acknowledged.

 

Wes concludes: In conclusion, Ray, the examples in the LXX stand and demonstrate that your interpretation of Col 1:15 is forced by your theology. Col 1:15, taken at face value, clearly shows Jesus to be a member of creation *and* all examples of non-metaphorical uses from the LXX with a genitive demonstate that the firstborn is first in time. You have not demonstrated a single example that has withheld scrutiny.

 

Ray replies: Let me remind you that you could do nothing with Jehovah's calling David "firstborn" without regard for numerical order (men's customs). You even gave the farm away with your admission "(he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed* as such)", of course you overlooked that the WT itself sees David's being "firstborn" as anticipatory of Christ's human experience! Also you could do nothing with regard to Jehovah's calling Ephraim "my firstborn" without regard for numerical order (men's traditions), and the reason you could do nothing with them is because you are out of sync with Jehovah's ways and thoughts (Is. 55:8-9). Jesus himself warned about being bogged down with the traditions of men, he said that by doing that they made the Word of God of none effect (nullified it). Then again, it seems clear that anyone who would accept and try to further a lie about our Saviour Jesus Christ would need to adopt such a methodology in order to get the job done. This appears to be ur case, Wes, and somehow you find yourself being looked up to by your fellow witnesses and feel obligated to "carry the mail", but the mail won't carry unless men's customs can be made to sound good. For you there is no other way. But let me remind the witnesses who are reading these posts that Jehovah's ways and thoughts are higher than ours, and men's customs are opposite to Jehovah's ways. Following Jehovah's ways will set you free, but relying on men's traditions will put you in bondage. The path to destruction is strewn with the carcasses of those who would not put away their human pride and accept Jehovah's ways, but remained in bondage to men's traditions. This is sad but it is nevertheless true.

 

Wes continued in conclusion: The natural reading demonstrates that Jesus was God first creature, the firstborn of all creation. I see nothing in the text that warrants a redefinition of "creation" since 1:17 says that Jesus is *before* all things, clearly a reference to time in the context.

 

Ray concludes: Let me remind you again, Wes, that it wasn't the Trinitarians who couldn't take Paul's words the way he expressed them. No, the NWT translators regarded Paul's wording as a theological emergency that they *needed* to fix, and so they did. Let the reader beware! In conclusion, please say hi to my friend Dan Smart for me, will you? So long...   Sincerely, Wes Williams

 

Sincerely, RayG

************************************

 

 

Posted by Wes Williams  on March 16, 19101 at 19:45:09: 64.58.0.22

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15  posted by RayG on March 16, 19101 at 17:52:05:

 

Dear Ray,

Let me correct the following comment:

:understand your busy schedule. You mention Martin Smart and Kaz, and I've recently been engaged with Dan Parker and Kaz, unless you mean to say that Dan Parker is really Martin Smart.

 

Wes says: I've noticed that Martin and Dan and Kaz are busy on the board. I erred when I referred to Martin instead of Dan.

 

Ray, there are too many points to cover in the thread. Let us focus on a single point and stick with it:

: Wes replies: Your argument about Jacob and Esau is meaningless and it shows that you miss the point, which causes you to rail out against those who you consider to be in error. JHWH's selection of Jacob to gain the *right* of firstborn did not make Jacob the PRWTOTOKOS! Esau remained the PRWTOTOKOS because he was born first in time. This never changed and is why your argument is fatal. You have constructed a strawman.

: Wes says: Ray, can you admit that Jacob did not become the PRWTOTOKOS by gaining the *right* (a different Hebrew word)?

: Ray replies: Wes, can you admit that Jacob was Jehovah's choice? Would you argue that Jehovah regarded Esau as his choice as "firstborn"?

 

Wes notes that Ray did not answer the question.

 

: Ray replies: But hold the phone, how can you suggest that ANYTHING Jehovah does anywhere, is meaningless to the point at hand?

Wes notes that Ray has twisted Wes' words.

: Ray replies: Wow, I can't believe this is the same Wes Williams I talked to a couple years ago.

Wes notes that he has never talked to anyone named Ray G. So, Wes further infers that someone is hiding himself. Is this "Dean"?? So, who are you, Dean or Ray or/and someone else? Maybe a Modalistic Trinity??!! I was wondering where you went "Dean"!


: Maybe the WT Society can help me make this point since I know you don't think of them as your enemy. Note what they say in the Insight Vol. #1, page 753...

: "On his deathbed, Jacob, IN EFFECT, adopted his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh and appointed them to be equals of his direct sons (Gen. 48:5). Their Father Joseph, who received the right AS FIRSTBORN among Jacob's sons, received two parts of his father's inheritence by means of the tribal inheritence of Ephraim and Manasseh...In blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, the patriarch Jacob gave the preference to Ephraim and prophetically indicated that HE would become the greater.--Ge. 48:13-20"...

Ray ("Dean"? or whoever you are), this agrees precisely with what I have been saying. Only the *right* was transferred to Joseph. REUBEN was STILL THE PRWTOTOKOS!!! Please read the above again.

In application, your reference from Jer. 31 is a metaphor to a nation since Ephraim did not become the PRWTOTOKOS, he only received the right. It is true that he was Jehovah's *choice*, but this did not make him the PRWTOTOKOS.

This would retain the "first-in-time" meaning of the word "firstborn," for which there are no exceptions sans metaphor.

Ray (or, "Dean"),

DO YOU DENY THAT REUBEN WAS THE FIRSTBORN EVEN AFTER THE *RIGHT* WAS TRANSFERRED TO JOSEPH?

If you do deny it, post the evidence right here where *JOSEPH* is called the PRWTOTOKOS of Jacob.

Let's take this one step at a time and keep the posts short.

Sincerely,
Wes Williams

******************************

 

Posted by RayG  on March 16, 19101 at 22:41:01: 24.140.14.155

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in Time  posted by Wes Williams on March 16, 19101 at 19:45:09:

 

Hi Wes: First, Martin Smart hasn't posted to this board for a least two months, perhaps three, at least under that name.  And I'm sorry I forgot that when I had talked with you a couple years or so ago I was posting with my first name "Harvey", and about a year ago I decided to use my middle name "Ray".

 

As far as the rest, I'm not willing to get into a piecemeal shell game with you, Wes. Just take ur time and respond to my post point for point as I did yours, then I will reply. Neither of us have to be in a big hurry.  Sincerely,   RayG

 

***************************

 

Posted by Wes Williams  on March 17, 19101 at 01:03:46: 64.58.0.22

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in Time  posted by RayG on March 16, 19101 at 22:41:01:

: Hi Wes: First, Martin Smart hasn't posted to this board for a least two months, perhaps three, at least under that name.

Harvey,

I have not been to this board for about two _years_ and do not plan to stay. I briefly looked at the John 1:1 board and saw Martin Smart posts everywhere. THere are some who have an outreach ministry to Jehovah's Witnesses. Martin has a ministry to those who have a ministry to outreach to Jehovah's Witnesses, and he is quite effective at it, in my opinion.

Take a look at the John 1:1 board and you'll see what I mean.  Sincerely,  Wes Williams

***************************

 

Posted by Wes Williams  on March 17, 19101 at 00:35:58: 64.58.0.22

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in Time  posted by RayG on March 16, 19101 at 22:41:01:

 

Dear Harvey,  Thank you for revealing that you are a.k.a Ray.   I do miss Dean Welsh.

There is no need to go through lengthy point by point exercises because there is a single key issue that needs resolution so that progress can be made.

 

Let's keep it simple.

Harvey, DO YOU DENY THAT REUBEN WAS THE FIRSTBORN EVEN AFTER THE *RIGHT* WAS TRANSFERRED TO JOSEPH?

These are two distinct Hebrew words: "firstborn" (BeQoWR) and "birthright" (BeQoRaH).

 

After this key point, we can progress.  Sincerely,  Wes Williams

*********************************

 

Posted by RayG  on March 18, 19101 at 10:30:38: 24.140.14.155

In Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in Time  posted by Wes Williams on March 17, 19101 at 00:35:58:


Hi Wes: This will be my final post to you in this thread unless you respond to my response to your points. As I said in my previous post,

 

"As far as the rest, I'm not willing to get into a piecemeal shell game with you, Wes. Just take your time and respond to my post point for point as I did yours, then I will reply. Neither of us have to be in a big hurry."

 

Now if you want to include this point within your responses to the other points, do so, then I'll reply. Keep in mind that many of the points were your own, and I replied to them, now it's your turn...and it's your choice. You don't get to run away from the other points, friend,  nor do you get to set the rules by which this thread continues. My post is on the board, and I'm perfectly satisfied with it and willing to submit it to the reader's judgment.

 

Sincerely RayG

***********************

 

Posted by Wes Williams on March 18, 19101 at 13:09:30: 64.58.0.22

In Reply to: No piecemeal, Wes. Reply.  posted by RayG on March 18, 19101 at 10:30:38:

:
: “Hi Wes: This will be my final post to you in this thread unless you respond to my response to your points. As I said in my previous post, …”

 

Dear Harvey,

This is indeed sad that you will avoid the answer to the core question. I have already responded to your points in my initial response to you. The only thing that you did in your second response is to repeat your assertions that were made in the first. In an effort to get you to stop making theological assertions and deal with the text, you must be forced to deal with the grammar with KEY points and not hide behind a flurry of piffel.

 

Therefore, I ask again and I ask you to focus:

Harvey, DO YOU DENY THAT REUBEN WAS THE FIRSTBORN EVEN AFTER THE *RIGHT* WAS TRANSFERRED TO JOSEPH?

These are two distinct Hebrew words: "firstborn" (BeQoWR) and "birthright" (BeQoRaH) and two distinct Greek words PRWTOTOKOS and PRWTOTOKIA.

After this key point, we can progress. If you fail to focus on the key point at hand, I must accept your failure to answer as conceding defeat of your point.

 

Sincerely,  Wes Williams

**************************

 Ray's Final Comments:

This is where the debate ended.  Wes was unwilling to address the points that he himself introduced and I answered.  Instead he to wanted to be selective, pressing on which he felt he was in a strong position. I would point out that when he brought all the other points up, they were fine; but when he doesn't want to answer my replies,  they are suddenly a “flurry of piffel”.  This piecemeal approach is not the way I like to engage in theological dialog.  It is too easy to lose sight of one's overall argument when the discussion becomes fragmented.  I understand that not everyone agrees with me, but this was the 'style' of Wes' original posts to me.  I also understand that not every may have time to engage in a substantial dialog of this nature, but I indicated to Wes that I was in no hurry and that he was free to take whatever time he needed to address each of my points.

More importantly, his point here is already dealt with in my post (the post he’s declining to answer).  In Jehovah's eyes, Reuben was not the firstborn, Joseph was.  I had already made this point concerning Esau and Jacob.  Esau was only firstborn according to men’s customs, yet I showed that Jehovah was not bound by such customs and neither should we be.  Wes would have seen this, had he simply dealt with each of my points as I had asked.

I'm comfortable that the posts speak for themselves as to who answered who.

  Ray Goldsmith