Featured verse:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(Colossians 1:15-16)
Similar References:
2Co 4:4, Phi 2:6; Heb 1:3, John 1:18, John 14:9
The firstborn of every creature?
To have the preeminence means, “to be first, to have the first place” (Bauer-Danker Lexicon), that is, to be held in highest honor or position (Study Notes – Gary Everett). When Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the “firstborn of every creature” this simply means that He has preeminence over every creature by virtue of being their Creator. In fact, this is the same reason Paul provides in Colossians 1:16 for calling Christ the “firstborn of every creature” in the prior verse. Whatever the Greek word for “firstborn” (“prototokos”) turns out to convey semantically, we must remember that the phraseology of the term “firstborn” is Jewish. The rabbis said that “firstborn” figuratively meant preeminence (Rabbi Bechai) and for good reason; it is used this way in the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament (Exodus 4:22). This means that we must keep in mind how ‘firstborn’ was used in the Hebrew so that we do not unwisely limit its semantic scope in the Greek. After looking at verses like Exodus 4:22 and Psalm 89:27 it is clearly seen that when the parent of the “firstborn” is something or someone who cannot literally give birth in the traditional sense then one is not bound to the customary meaning of “firstborn.” Consequently, and if consistency is the goal, then in Colossians 1:15 since creation cannot literally give birth it stands to reason that we should take the term “firstborn” in a figurative sense.
Logical reasons why Jesus cannot be considered a creature:
The very next verse, Colossians 1:16, asserts that Jesus created all creatures; therefore, He cannot rationally be part of His own creation. This truth is echoed with more devastation to the Arian mindset in Ephesians 3:9 where it is stated that God “created all things by Jesus Christ” and in John 1:3 where it is stated that “all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” Now if God created ALL things by Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ cannot be a creature since that would mean that He created Himself along with ALL other things.
Would those who assert that Jesus was created have us believe that “firstborn” means all creatures were literally born of God, and that Jesus was the first-born among them? This is impossible! One cannot speak of the birth of the earth, ocean, stars, moon, etc. These have all been created, not born; they are creatures rather than children of God. Jesus cannot rationally be the firstborn of all creation in the sense that He is the eldest in the group of all created things. Moreover, not all human creatures are spiritually born of God; Jesus admonishing the Pharisees stated,”you are of your father the devil” (John 8:44). Did the Pharisees have two spiritual fathers? As Dr. Henry Morris states: “Some are sons of God by creation (e.g., angels; see Job 1:6), and we CAN BECOME sons of God by adoption (e.g., Rom 8:14-15), but He [Jesus] is the Son, by eternal generation (or eternal relation) the only-begotten of the Father. (New Defenders Study Bible)” Therefore, we must conclude that the word “born” in “firstborn” is used in an entirely different sense than what is meant by traditional birth.
In the Jehovah Witnesses’ Reasoning From The Scriptures book (page 408, paragragh 2) the following three challenges are made in order to establish that Christ is a created being and not the eternal self-existent Being of Micah 5:2 Who has existed “from everlasting to everlasting”:
(1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.
This objection to the Godship of Christ betrays a misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine. According to Scripture, each member of the Godhead is eternally distinct and may thus do things that other members are not said to do (Isaiah 48:16, Genesis 19:24). For instance, Jesus says that God the Father will judge no one but instead has committed all judgement unto the Son (John 5:22); yet, God the Father still holds the title of Judge and does so vicariously when not doing so directly (Romans 2:16). Likewise, God the Father has every right to be called the firstborn of every creature since He too created all things (Genesis 1:26, Ecclesiastes 12:1). In fact, it is said that the Jews called YHWH the “Firstborn of the World” (Rabbi Bechai). Moreover, Psalms 104:30 and Genesis 1:2 indicate that the Holy Spirit is the Creator as well. So we see that each Person in the Trinity has claim to the title “firstborn of every creature” yet, in Colossians 1:18 we are told that it pleased God the Father that Christ should have the preeminence and thus the title in question. Secondly, because the holy names for God (i.e. YHWH, Adonai) can simultaneously refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is not always immediately clear which Person of the Trinity is referenced when reading certain parts of the Old Testament (i.e. Gen 19). For example, since all three Persons of the Trinity are the Creator, in Isaiah 42:5 it is not immediately clear Who is speaking since the singular word for God (‘El”) is employed to qualify YHWH. Even if all the above were not the case, the fact that other persons in the Trinity do not have the same title as Christ could never necessary lead to a conclusion that Jesus is a created being. At worst, we would be left to wonder about such a question the way we do about the preponderance of knowledge that has yet to be revealed by the Only Wise God.
In the Jehovah Witnesses’ Reasoning From The Scriptures book, the second objection declares:
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
The “firstborn” must indeed be “part of the group” if in fact the word “firstborn” is used in a literal sense; otherwise, this rule does not necessarily apply. Consequently, the reason why we ascribe a different meaning to the phrase “the firstborn of” than the meaning which requires the firstborn to be “part of the group” is because the phrase “the firstborn of” is found to have different non-literal usages throughout the Scriptures. As was stated earlier, creation cannot literally give birth so the phrase as used in Colossians 1:15 is not a literal one and must therefore be understood in a figurative sense. In light of this, it would be inappropriate to force the literal meaning upon the non-literal passage of Colossians 1:15. Instead, we should examine the different ways in which this expression is used non-literally throughout the Scriptures. This conclusion is confirmed by analyzing the Greek word for firstborn (pro¯totokos) in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (or any Greek Lexicon). Upon examination the reader will discover that there is no definition that allows one to use this word in a literal sense when it is not applied to man or beast. This reason alone allows us to discount the idea that the firstborn is necessarily part of a group. Several times in the bible, God uses the term “firstborn” in a figurative sense but each time He does so He always explains what is meant by the figure of speech. Three types of examples are:
1. The Honorable distinction or preeminence usages include: Exodus 4:22, Psalm 89:27, Jeremiah 31:9, Heb 1:6; Hebrews 12:22-23, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18, and Revelation 1:5. Regarding these verses and the reasons why they do not fit into the literal usages category, 19th century pastor and theologian, Dr John Morison states:
Hence God said to Pharaoh, “Israel is My son, My firstborn,” because they were in distinction from other peoples the recipients of the advantages which were the natural prerequisites of primogeniture (the right of inheritance which belongs exclusively to the eldest son). Again in Jer 31:9 the idea of priority in birth is entirely shaded off, for that priority could not be affirmed of Ephraim–the reference is to peculiarity of prerogative and honour. Take again Heb 12:22-23. Here Christians are called the firstborn, and not Christians in heaven, (for they are distinguished from the “spirits of just men made perfect,”) but Christians on earth. All such Christians, though scattered, and variously denominated, are “the one general assembly and Church of the firstborn.” This shows that the term may be and is used without priority of birth, and in the sense of being God’s very highly-favoured children. All the blessings of primogeniture are theirs because they are Christ’s, the Firstborn. As He is the Crown Prince of the universe, the Prince Imperial and hereditary Lord of the whole creation, they are constituted joint heirs with Him of the “inheritance incorruptible,” etc. Again, this interpretation is supported by Rom 8:29. “Firstborn among many brethren” is a notable expression. We cannot suppose that God desired to secure the Saviour a relation of chronological priority. Jesus was already before all. -Biblical Illustrator, 1 Colossians 1:15.
2. Firstborn is also used as a superlative form of an adjective in verses like Isaiah 14:30 and Job 18:13. The “first-born of the poor” signifies the most miserable of the poor (Isa 14:30). The figurative phrase, “the firstborn of death,” means the deadliest disease that death (personified) ever gendered (Job 18:13). See Easton’s Bible Dictionary and Fausset’s Bible Dictionary for more information.
3. Firstborn is used as the title given to the birthright owner who is not necessarily the eldest (Deuteronomy 21:16). In some instances where the father can literally give birth in the traditional sense, “firstborn” is not meant literally. For instance, In Deuteronomy 21:16 the “firstborn” is used of the heir or the person given the birthright and not necessarily of the eldest born even though the son in question is truly born of a man capable of fathering children.
So, since there are such non-literal usages of the word “firstborn” found in the Scriptures, it is prudent to distinguish which usage fits best with the context. The most helpful part of the Colossians 1:15-16 excerpt is the beginning of verse 16; there lies the reason that Paul gives for using the appellation “firstborn”, namely, because Christ created all things. Consequently, it behooves us to consider the expression “firstborn of” as a title bestowing the unique honor of priority and superlative dignity since this conclusion is faithful to prior biblical usage. And if we do so, how can Jesus have the preeminence over EVERY creature without being God?
The third objection of the Watch Tower Organization is:
(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan’ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan’ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God
This interpretation could not have been reached “in harmony with everything else that the Bible says about the Son” for we read in John 1:3 that “without Him was not any thing made that was made”; this verse alone militates against the Watch Tower’s peculiar interpretation of Colossians 1:16-17. In the referenced verse of Luke 13:2 a comparison is made between a group of 18 deceased Galileans and “all other Galileans” which is why some bible translations include the word “other” next to “all” when interpreting the Greek word pan’ta. Likewise, in Luke 21:29 another comparison is made, this time between a single fig tree and “all other trees.” Finally, in Philippians 2:21 we also see yet another comparison being made between Timotheus and “all other people.” So in all three verses that are mentioned as references, the pattern observed is that comparisons are being made which convinces a minority of bible versions to insert the word “other” so that the comparison is amplified. However, in Colossians 1:16, no comparison is being made so these three comparison-oriented verses seem wholly irrelevant. Nevertheless, bible versions that employ the technique of formal equivalence (as opposed to dynamic equivalence) and include the word “other” for Luke 13:2 put it in italics which informs the reader that it does not appear in the original text. It’s also worth pointing out that the dynamic equivalence method of translation, unlike the formal, does not aim for literal, word for word interpretation but instead paraphrases the original words for the purpose of making the text easier to read. The RS (Revised Standard Version), the NE (New English Bible) and the JB (Jerusalem Bible) bibles all employ the dynamic equivalence method so it is not surprising that they would at one point or another paraphrase the Greek word pan’ta. Notwithstanding, it is quite curious that the Watch Tower Organization tells us what these three bible versions say regarding verses like Luke 13:2 and Luke 21:29 which are not contextually pertinent to Colossians 1:16-17 and yet does not disclose what the NE and JB bibles say regarding the actual passage in question. After all, if these versions are good enough to quote for unrelated verses then perhaps they could serve our purpose all the more for the verses that we actually care about, namely, Colossians 1:16-17. Below I have included the text from the three bible versions cited by the Watch Tower Organization on the disputed verses of Colossians 1:15-16.
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. – Colossians 1:15-16 RS
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%201:15-16&version=RSV)
He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all created things. In him everything in heaven and on earth was created, not only things visible but also the invisible orders of thrones, sovereignties, authorities, and powers: the whole universe has been created through him and for him. – Colossians 1:15-16 NE
(http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/master.html?http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/IntroContents.php)
He is the image of the unseen God and the first-born of all creation, for in him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible, Thrones, Dominations, Sovereignties, Powers —all things were created through him and for him. – Colossians 1:15-16 JB
(http://64.62.200.70/BOOK/PDF/Bible-1966v02/343-349/)
Judging by the Colossians 1:15-16 text of the very versions cited by the Watch Tower Organization, we see that they all three render the word “pas” (pan’ta) as “all things” and not “all other things” like the NWT (New World Translation) does. This revelation obviates any attempt by the Watch Tower Organization to use these (unnecessary, obscure and thus out of use) bible versions as supporting evidence for a particular way of misinterpreting Colossians 1:15-16.
Lastly–and I almost hesitate to bring this up since this is speculative and unnecessary but–there is a sense in which even if one were to go along with the idea that Jesus was the first thing created there would still exist an explanation that reconciles this conjecture with the rest of Scripture. Once the reader remembers that in the beginning was the Word of God [Jesus] and this Word was with God and this Word was God, then it becomes clear that Jesus, before the foundation of the world, is not a man but is instead identified as the Living Word of God. Jesus taking on the form of a Man could have in fact been the Word’s first creative act which would in a strange way mean that Jesus as the Word of God created a new aspect to Himself, the aspect of being a man. This would not be a contradiction in the sense that we disallowed earlier since He is not creating Himself but rather a new aspect to Himself. We must remember that in the Bible many times before Jesus is born through Mary, He appears as a man to Old Testament saints such as Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Ezekiel etc. Again, this explanation is probably sailing into unchartered waters and should by no means be asserted dogmatically. I only bring it up to show that the interpretation sought after by the Watch Tower Organization has further obstacles to overcome beyond what has already been stated. It is simply impossible to escape the many verses of Scripture that assert Jesus is YHWH the everlasting and Almighty God. So we see that even if one were to allow the interpretation that Jesus the Man was the first thing created it would still not necessarily warrant His exclusion from being YHWH the Almighty God which is ultimately what this Arian-minded argument seeks to accomplish through this peculiar interpretation.
Other Voices on this topic:
Firstborn is very commonly a title of honour. Israel, for instance, as a nation is the firstborn son of God (Exo 4:22). The meaning is that the nation of Israel is the most favoured child of God. Second, we must note that firstborn is a title of the Messiah. In Ps 89:27, as the Jews themselves interpreted it, the promise regarding the Messiah is “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Clearly firstborn is not used in a time sense at all, but in the sense of special honour. So when Paul says of the Son that he is the firstborn of all creation, he means that the highest honour which creation holds belongs to him. -William Barkley
In no way does the title firstborn indicate that Jesus is less than God. In fact, the ancient Rabbis called Yawhew Himself “Firstborn of the World” (Rabbi Bechai, cited in Lightfoot). Ancient rabbis used firstborn as a Messianic title: “God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exodus 4:22), so also will I make king Messiah a first-born (Psalm 89:27).” (R. Nathan in Shemoth Rabba, cited in Lightfoot)
– David Guzik
The first-born of every creature. The reason of this appellation is immediately added — For in him all things are created, as he is, three verses afterwards, called the first-begotten from the dead, because by him we all rise again. Hence, he is not called the first-born, simply on the ground of his having preceded all creatures in point of time, but because he was begotten by the Father, that they might be created by him, and that he might be, as it were, the substance or foundation of all things.
-John Calvin’s commentary
“the firstborn of all creation” This was an OT metaphor for Jesus’ unique and exalted position.
1. the rabbis said it meant preeminence (cf. Exodus 4:22)
2. in the OT it was used for the eldest son as heir and manager of the family
3. in Psa_89:27 it was used in a Messianic sense
– Bob Utley
The Christ Plus Zero Movement 
The Watchtower Society refers to this Bible verse to support its doctrine that the Son is a “creature,” as opposed to the universal Christian teaching that the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages […], begotten, not made”. But is the Watchtower Society’s interpretation correct? First of all, let’s clarify that the Bible nowhere calls Christ created (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma), or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). So, what does this statement mean in relation to the Son?
Christ being “the Firstborn of all creation” (Greek: prototokos pasēs ktiseōs) refers to His inheritance, as the term “firstborn” here traditionally in the Bible implies that Jesus is the distinguished heir of everything that has been created. The heir owns everything that belongs to the Father (though he may not have entered into his inheritance yet). It is said about this relationship: “You have put everything under his feet.” Furthermore, everything that the Father created was created in him, through him, and for him. If there were something over which he would not have the same lordship as the Father, then that thing would likely have been excluded from these pronouns, and it would have been created by the Father without consideration of him.
Therefore, “the Firstborn of all creation” means that He is the distinguished, noble heir, hence the Lord, of all creation. Prototokos = firstborn: here it signifies superiority and the pre-existence of the heir, and not that he is the first-creation, as the Watchtower Society claims.
The usage of the term in the Old Testament is instructive. David is called the firstborn in Psalms 89:27, but not because he was literally Jesse’s first child (since he was the youngest), but to denote the power of the kingdom of Israel with him, clearly not in a chronological sense, but as a title of dignity. Similarly, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, even though Manasseh was the first chronologically (Genesis 41:50-52). The nation of Israel was called by God “my firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22), clearly not in a chronological sense, since Isaac’s firstborn was not Israel, but Esau. Furthermore, Israel was also Jehovah’s firstborn, not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9).
In Hebrews 1:6, the term “prototokos” is used as a title for Jesus. However, in the context, Jesus is portrayed as Almighty (1:3), the radiance of God’s glory (and his image) (1:3), Creator (1:10), worthy of worship (1:6), and is called God by the Father (1:8). These characteristics can only apply to God.
Thus, the issue here is that Christ has the rights of “the Firstborn” over all creation, meaning that the Son is not a part of creation, but its Lord.
Let’s see how the Watchtower Society argues:
Yes, the Son had no temporal beginning, as the Father did not create Him, but the Scriptures consistently state that He was begotten (gennao) / born (tikto) by the Father before all ages (aións), and according to John 1:1a, He, the Word, was “in the beginning”, not that He came into being, or was created in the beginning.
The Watchtower too can recognize that “the Firstborn” in the biblical context is a title, meaning distinguished, honored heir. For example, the Watchtower publication Aid to Bible Understanding writes:
So they too can correctly recognize the biblical meaning of “firstborn”, if their ideological bias is not in the way…
This is an “argument from silence,” why should all those titles be listed for each divine person? The Father does not need to be called the “firstborn of all creation” (let alone “from among”) because He was not born. The Holy Spirit was not born but proceeded. But it was Jesus who came into the world of creation as an heir (Hebrews 1:2), not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. Incidentally, Jewish rabbinic writers called Yahweh as “Bekoroh Shel Olam” (בכורו של עולם), which essentially means the same thing that Paul used here: the Firstborn of the world. In a Jewish context, then, this title proves His deity, not His creatureliness.
This, if we really want to remove the possessive (genitive) construction, can also be translated as: “firstborn over all creation.” The Watchtower arbitrarily clarifies this ambiguity. Their interpration would only be acceptable if the text was prototokos ek tōn ktismatōn; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, among), where Paul says Jesus is “the firstborn from among the dead” (prototokos ek tōn nekrōn).
However, Israel’s firstborn was born from an Israelite, Pharaoh’s firstborn was born from Pharaoh, the firstborn of beast was born from an animal, and that’s exactly why they actually belong to that group. The Son, however, was obviously not born “from all creation” or any specific creature, but from the Father (Hebrews 1:5), and thus the so-called partitive genitive is not self-evident here. It would need at least an “ek” (prototokos ek pasēs ktiseōs), or at least the word order would need to be reversed (pasēs ktiseōs prototokos).
Yes, and this is corroborated when read in conjunction with John 1:3 (where they forgot to insert their favorite “other” term in the NWT), indicating that the Son does not belong to the category of created, the thins that “became”, or “came into being”.. The possessive/genitive case does not necessarily mean that the πρωτότοκος (firstborn) is part of the κτίσις (creation), and if the words themselves do not demand this meaning, then the context directly excludes it. The πρωτότοκος (firstborn) does not fall within the πᾶσα κτίσις (all creation); because the expression used is not τὰ ἄλλα (the others) or τὰ λοιπά (the rest), but τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη (all things were created), which are absolute and comprehensive, leaving no room for exceptions.
Scripture declares of the Son that He created everything, and without Him, nothing was made that has been made (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). The idea that a lesser god outside Jehovah also participated in creation is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8. The Father did not create alone, but the Son (Jn 1:1-4, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2, Job 33:4, Ps 104:30) also took part in creation, and creation is exclusively a divine capability; even a creature cannot be made an instrument of creation. God is uniquely the source of creation because He does not collaborate with any tool, partner, or material in the act of creation. God’s creative activity is exclusive. The way God brings things into existence, no one and nothing else can. God’s ability to create is an incommunicable attribute to creatures. To be able to create, that is, to call existence out of non-existence, one must be God.
It logically follows from this that the Son cannot belong to the category of created, the things that came into being, thus cannot be the “first creature.” In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Gen 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6). Creation is solely and directly the act of God. However, it’s also true that God is more than just the Father: He is also the Son, and when God created, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit created.
Revelation 3:14
*
What does Colossians 1:15 mean according to rabbinical sources?
*
Proverbs 8:22
*
Proverbs 8:22 according to the Cappadocian Fathers
https://www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col1_15.htm
Correct translations and interpretations: „the first-born of all creation” (NASB, NRSV); „the firstborn over all creation” (NIV, NKJV); „he is the firstborn Son, superior to / supreme / the primacy over all creation / over created things” (NEB, REB, TEV, NLT).
According to the WTS, Jesus is just the first, directly created creature, God’s ‘masterpiece or junior partner’, who created the “rest” of creation. The WTS, translating the phrase ‘firstborn of all creation’ faithfully, kept it as a possessive structure and refers to it in other publications, suggesting that this text of Scripture asserts Christ’s status as a “creature”.
Based on the context of the text, we see that Paul isn’t discussing the timing of Christ’s birth, but his identity (image of God), role (creation), and rank (heir).
The translation of “firstborn of all creation” depends on the meaning of ‘ktisis’ (creation) and ‘pas’ (all, whole), as well as the interpretation of the possessive structure (whose is it?). Regarding the translation of “firstborn of all creation”, the ‘ktisis’ here is a richly meaningful word: establishment, foundation, institution (1Pt 2:13), the creation of the world as a process, although looking back it is a completed act (Rom 1:20, 2Pt 3:4), or the created world and its things, the creatures (Rom 8:39). The verb ‘ktizo’ (to create) appears twice in verse 16, usually translated as “was created”. Its first occurrence (ektisthe) refers to creation as a one-time event, and the second form (ektistai) also refers to the created world as a permanent, existing one. It’s not about the firstborn of “all the creatures” (ktismata), but the firstborn of creation, i.e., the thole created world (ktisis).
The meaning of ‘pas’ is “all” or “every single one”, depending on what it refers to. Since it is about the created world here and not individual creatures, the meaning of “all” is evident.
The basic meaning of ‘prototokos’ is the firstborn, first born; the Bible often uses it in a biological sense, less often in the sense of priority, superiority in rank. In our case, the choice may be influenced by the fact that everything in heaven and on earth was created by Christ (verse 16, cf. Jn 1:3), which excludes the possibility that he himself could be classified into the “creatures” category. Thus, Christ “has the rights of the firstborn over all creation”. This possible use of the word is confirmed by the whole Bible. When God gives firstborn status to David, he talks about his rank among kings (Ps 89:28 LXX), since he was the last son in his family. Jacob considered the firstborn status a purchasable legal position (Gen 25:31 LXX, Heb 12:16). God calls Israel his firstborn because of its privileges (Ex 4:22 LXX; according to Jer 31:9 LXX, however, Ephraim).
The WTS among its objections claims that the Bible uses the expression in a biological sense, e.g. Pharaoh’s firstborn or the firstborn of animals (as we saw: it also uses it in another sense). It also asks why, if firstborn status means rank, the Bible only uses it for the Son, and not for the Father and the Holy Spirit? The answer is simple: the Son is the one who became human, and with whom this concept can be associated at all, based on its basic meaning.
Therefore, the interpretation of ‘prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs’ primarily depends on how we understand the possessive structure. From a purely logical point of view, several cases are possible (1) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire created world, i.e., he is the firstborn in all creation, therefore he is a “product” of the created world, but the Society would also deny this, (2) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire creation process, the first product, as the Society understands it, so he is someone born before all creatures (3) Jesus is the firstborn over all creation.
Paul cannot claim of Christ that he lists Christ among the creations (the created world) created by creation, since he claims that he created everything (see following verses and Jn 1:3). It is not about creatures (ktismata), but about creation (ktisis). He does not claim that Christ is the “firstborn of the Creator (ho ktistes)” (which would be prototokhos tou ktistou), but that he is the firstborn of all/whole creation (he ktisis). For this reason alone, the analogy drawn with the parental relationship is also unthinkable (e.g. “like Pharaoh’s firstborn,” etc.) is incorrect.
As for the repeated insertion of “other,” it does not follow from the textual context. The textual context can also assist in the correct translation of the phrase “the firstborn of all creation”. This is about the Heir who was before all, is above all, precedes everyone in everything (1:17-18), and in whom is the inheritance of the believers. The text talks about, and only about, that he created everything, so we can exclude the interpretation that he could be the firstborn, the first product of the universe he created.
According to verse 16, the world was created “in him” (en autó), or “with him” (di’ autou), and thirdly “for him” (eis auton), or according to interpretive translations: “for his sake”, “flowing into him” was created. Some translations interpret “eis auton” as “for him” everything was created, i.e., that it should be his; since ‘eis’ expresses some kind of intentionality, Jesus could also be the goal of the created world in the sense that man in the world should have been like him.
The Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the “first creature” either.
In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God’s work. A “first created” being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society’s interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.
The interpretation “the firstborn in all creation” is not acceptable. Even in this train of thought, in verse 23, we find a text that can be translated as: ‘en pasé ktisei’ = “in all creation [under heaven]”. If Paul had thought the same in verse 15, he would surely have formulated it just as clearly (en ktisei) there.
The “firstborn among all creation” could only be acceptable if the text was ‘prototokos ek ton ktismaton’; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, out of, among), where Paul says that Jesus is the ‘firstborn from the dead’ (prototokos ek ton nekron).
The Watchtower argues, if “firstborn” simply refers to the one who is most excellent, “why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?”. Why is only the Son called “firstborn”? The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the term cannot refer to pre-eminence because God the Father, who is undoubtedly pre-eminent, is never called “firstborn.” This reasoning betrays a logical fallacy, however. One cannot evaluate a statement about one person on the basis of statements made or not made about another person. For example, a young mother says to her daughter, “you have two hands.” According to the Watchtower argument, her young son could deny the truthfulness of his mother’s statement about his sister, claiming, “you never said I had two hands!” The argument is absurd. Moreover, this reasoning betrays ignorance of Jewish literature, for God is called the firstborn. Rabbi Bechai called God “the firstborn of the world,” as was shown above. More importantly, however, the term firstborn does not simply indicate pre-eminence in the manner the Watchtower describes. Instead it describes a specific type of pre-eminence: Messianic pre-eminence. The term “firstborn” is a Messianic term; therefore, it is appropriate only for Jesus, not for the Father or the Holy Spirit. Thus, the term was not be used of either of them in Scripture.
The Jews term Jehovah בכורו של עולם becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things. Let’s see this in the Talmud:
““You shall redeem every firstborn of your sons. They shall not appear before Me empty-handed.” If someone has the good fortune to be a firstborn this is a true distinction. To some degree he shares this distinction with G’d Himself Who is also “a first in the universe.”” (Shemot 34:20)
So when the apostle Paul called Jesus “the firstborn of creation”, it rhymed with Jewish phraseology, in which God was called “firstborn of the world” (‘bekoro shel olám’ – firstborn-of-the-world; or ‘qadmono shel olam’-First-Primordial-of-the-world), the general idea is clear: the Jesus is above all of creation.
“Bekoro shel olam” (בכורו של עולם) translates to “the firstborn of the world,” and it’s a term used to denote someone or something as the primordial or foremost of creation.
“Qadmono shel olam” (קדמונו של עולם) translates to “the Ancient One of the world” or “the Primordial One of the world.” In Jewish thought, particularly in Kabbalistic literature, it is often used to refer to God as the Eternal and Primordial Being who precedes all creation.
Hence the term “בכורו של עולם” (bekoro shel olam) in Hebrew translates to “the firstborn of the world,” while “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως” (prototokos pasēs ktiseōs) in Greek translates to “the firstborn of all creation.” These term essentially mean the same thing. Both refer to the concept of the “firstborn” or “preeminent” one of all creation or the world. In Christianity, the Greek phrase is used in the New Testament (Colossians 1:15) to describe Jesus Christ, emphasizing his preeminence. The concept of “firstborn” as a special status can also be found in Jewish thought, with the Hebrew phrase carrying the idea of being the first or preeminent one.
Paul makes several key statements about the Messiah: “The firstborn of the world.” He continues by saying that through Him, all things were made; visible and invisible. Everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything subsists in Him. The overall idea is clear: the Messiah is above all creation.
When the apostle speaks of the “firstborn of the world” (v.15), he is alluding to the preexistence of the Messiah as God. In Hebrew, it is said “Bekoro shel olam” (“Firstborn of the World”), and it was used in Jewish literature to refer to God. Bahiá ben Asher (13th century), a disciple of Rashba (considered an extraordinary rabbinic authority), in his commentary on the Torah, says of God: “He is the firstborn of the world.” In his commentary on Exodus 13:2, Bahiá again refers to God as “the firstborn,” interpreting this text as “consecrate to me every firstborn.”
Thus, Paul, fully immersed in his people’s culture, when referring to the Messiah with these terms, native to Judaism, is alluding to the preexistence of the Messiah as God — this fits perfectly with the context; everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything subsists in Him. There could not be a more explicit statement that the universe was created by the Messiah than this one.
These were expressions specific to the Jewish people that could be immediately recognized by the Jewish community members of the Second Temple period. What must certainly be excluded is that the Messiah, by being considered as the “firstborn of the world,” should be included among creatures.
He is not the first of creation or the first creature that God made because, as v.1.16 says, everything was created by Him, so He cannot be a creature. He cannot, with any propriety, be considered as a creature, having Himself created all things and having existed before anything was made.
The phrase “firstborn of the world” also cannot be considered the “first creature” of God. To expose the error of this interpretation, we can use King David as an example; he was the firstborn of his brothers (Psalm 89:27), but not the first to be born (1 Sam. 16:1-13). However, he is called “firstborn.” Ephraim, the second son of Joseph (Gen. 41:52), is also called the firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9).
he phraseology “firstborn of the world” is Jewish, and as they apply it to the Supreme Being — the Infinite, only to denote His eternal preexistence, and to identify Him as the cause of causes. It is more than evident that Paul, as a Jew raised in Jewish and Pharisaic culture and an honored sage of the Jewish people, uses this phraseology in the same way, illustrating its meaning with the following words: everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything subsists in Him. Thus, the interpretation that says that “He is the first creature” or included among creatures is excluded by the statements that followed when it is said of Him that “everything was created in Him, by Him and for Him,” and that He is “before everything, and everything subsists in Him” (v.16-17). All these expressions clearly demonstrate that the Son is in a unique rank, outside the series of creatures.
Another rabbinic parallel, perhaps equivalent to Bekoro shel olam (firstborn of the world), is the term “Qadmono shel olam-First or Primordial of the world,” used to refer to God, as did, for example, the 2nd-century Jewish sage Eleazar ben Shimeón (Bereshit Rabá 38.7 on Gn. 11:2). And also in the Zohar, where God is referred to as “Qadmono shel olam-First or Primordial of the world” (Zohar, Lech-Lecha 1.84a). It is quite likely that the apostle Paul, as a Jew immersed in his people’s culture, used one of these two Jewish phraseologies in this doctrinal exposition recorded in his letter to the Judeo-Messianic community located in Colossae vv. 1:16; “Qadmono shel Olam-First-Primordial of the world” or “Bekoro shel olam–firstborn of the world.” Both are words used to refer to God.
Reading Paul’s key statements about Jesus, as a Jew would have done, completely immersed in his people’s culture, such as when he calls Him “firstborn of the world” (bekoro shel olam-firstborn-of-the-world; or Qadmono shel olam-First-Primordial-of-the-world”), clarifies the text’s message, which perfectly aligns with Jewish phraseology and ideology and with the entire content of the praise written by the Emissary; “everything was created in Him, by Him and for Him,” and He is “before everything, and everything subsists in Him.” The overall idea is clear: the Messiah is above all creation. He is God.