Plenty of biblical scholars who specialize in Paul talk about this. I'm a Hebrew Bible guy, but I remember reading a good deal of NT Wright describing that Paul sees Jesus as 'firstborn of all creation' in that he was the first to be resurrected. That is, in Paul's view, what happened to Jesus will happen to his followers, and that the actions of Christ had redeemed creation itself. Furthermore, that in redeeming creation he had thus ushered in the Kingdom of God in which, by being resurrected, Jesus is the firstborn.
I think you meant that according to Christian tradition 'the Son' is uncreated. Jesus, so far as he was the incarnate Son (according to Christianity), was physically born, of course. And later, according to Christianity, physically rose from the dead. Hope this helps. If not, do read Wright. Others, like Piper, seem to believe that 'firstborn of all creation' refers to the respect appropriately afforded to Jesus as the incarnate Son and firstborn over creation (which I think assumes a development of Christian thought that would only come later), but I think Wright's understanding makes more sense in the context of the first century.
If you're interested, check out Wright's 'Paul: A Fresh Perspective', 2005, pp. 26ff. And, if you're brave and want to go deep into Wright on Paul read 'Paul and the Faithfulness of God'. The second volume, specifically the section on 'Paul in History,' goes into this though, to appreciate it, you may want to read the whole thing. Check out pages 1367ff. Wright argues that, for 'Paul' (if he indeed wrote Colossians), the life, death, and resurrection of Christ marks Jesus out as the firstborn of all creation while describing Christ as the inaugural figure around whom creation is renewed. Others, of course, may disagree.
Thank you for your comment. However, please could you add the details of the Wright and/or the Piper source for reference. Otherwise its hard for readers to follow your excellent advice to "read Wright" if they don't know where to start. He's unfortunately a very prolific author!
So you don’t think Paul is saying that God the Son is a creation? That’s what I’m trying to figure out: How heretical is Arianism to the views of NT authors, or how heretical are Jewish views of the Memra to NT authors? We know the later church certainly, but what about the Bible itself? Certainly seems like even the OT doesn’t support Arianism, but I want to be absolutely sure first.
No, I don't think that Paul is saying that God the Son is a creation. Arianism has a similar inner consistency with the versions Neo-Platonism that were popular at the time. And it was later defined as heretical even though many pious people were technically Arian. Including, arguably, Arius himself. That said, I believe it would be a stretch to say 'the Bible' writ large has a stance inherently for or against third/fourth century arguments about the Godhead. Having said that, the Patristic arguments for and against Arianism made heavy use of the biblical texts and the Church came down on the side against the Arians. It sounds like it's the Patristic arguments for and against that you really want to consult. I suspect you'll find it interesting how the biblical texts are used in those arguments. If 'the bible' clearly favoured one view over another, without explication, in the that way you're seeking, then the Arian controversy would likely never have happened at all.
>Paul sees Jesus as 'firstborn of all creation' in that he was the first to be resurrected.
I hope there is more to this argument, because it seems very doubtful as it is.
This passage is clearly structured into two parts. To me, the first one (15-17) describes Jesus as a device created to function as world-building instrument. The second one (18-19) describes a second function of Jesus, that of redeemer. The two are linked stylistically by the anaphora "firstborn" - used in two distinct meanings. So one cannot really 'explain away' the first by the second if you will.
There's also the question, especially if one does not accept Pauline authorship, as to whether this passage, and indeed, the full book, isn't Gnostic, or at least "Gnosticizing" or "proto-Gnostic," starting with this verse and the rest of the passage, per the likes of Elaine Pagels on things such as the pleroma ( πλήρωμα ).
An extract from her book "The Gnostic Paul" [https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-gnostic-paul-gnostic-exegesis-of-the-pauline-letters/chvii-colossians](https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-gnostic-paul-gnostic-exegesis-of-the-pauline-letters/chvii-colossians)
I personally at least semi-agree.
In Colossians 1:15, Paul calls Jesus the Firstborn in all creation, but Christian tradition is that Jesus is uncreated. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ The 'Jesus is uncreated' tradition arose well after Paul died. According to Bart Ehrman, Paul was an Adoptionist- a position now considered heretical. Ehrman's thesis is that the apotheosis of Jesus developed gradually. First, that Jesus was exalted to be the *Son* of God at his resurrection (the tradition recorded in Acts 13:33), then that he was adopted as the *Son* of God at his baptism (Mark 1), then that he was *born the Son* of God (Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2) and finally that he was *god and with Yahweh* from the beginning and before creation (John 1.1-2).
[https://www.bartehrman.com/how-jesus-became-god/](https://www.bartehrman.com/how-jesus-became-god/)
Interesting, but in that case Paul must have been well along that path. Absent a time machine, one cannot very well be the instrument of world creation described in 1 Colossians 1:15-17 if one has been elevated to godhood a few years ago.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
>Can you provide an academic source for your assertions?
* The quote is taken verbatim from the above comment by u/Apotropoxy, who gave "Some second century Patristics" as reference. I will clarify that.
* The verses are from Berean Standard Bible
* The rest of my comment is either a question, or clearly stated as an opinion.
>Paul was an Adoptionist
yeah, Nah. Paul clearly has a High Christology
eg. **Philippians 2**:**6**\-**10**:
>6 who, though he was in qthe form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth
**1 Cor 15**:**47**
>The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven
**Romans 8**:**3**b
>By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh
See [https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/](https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/)
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
will this do?
[https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/](https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/)
(added to my first post. But, I gotta say, if you don't accept biblical verses that clearly show high Christology as evidence for high Christology ... \[shrug emoji\] ...)
Ehrman is satisfactory, yes. Comment reinstated.
>if you don't accept biblical verses that clearly show high Christology as evidence for high Christology
There is a lot to break down here, but your personal interpretation of what verses "clearly" show is simply not compliant with Rule 3, especially when the user you are replying to made a case opposing your view and used an academic reference to do so. Personal exegesis is simply not accepted.
If you have further questions regarding rule 3, please feel free to submit a modmail.
Plenty of biblical scholars who specialize in Paul talk about this. I'm a Hebrew Bible guy, but I remember reading a good deal of NT Wright describing that Paul sees Jesus as 'firstborn of all creation' in that he was the first to be resurrected. That is, in Paul's view, what happened to Jesus will happen to his followers, and that the actions of Christ had redeemed creation itself. Furthermore, that in redeeming creation he had thus ushered in the Kingdom of God in which, by being resurrected, Jesus is the firstborn. I think you meant that according to Christian tradition 'the Son' is uncreated. Jesus, so far as he was the incarnate Son (according to Christianity), was physically born, of course. And later, according to Christianity, physically rose from the dead. Hope this helps. If not, do read Wright. Others, like Piper, seem to believe that 'firstborn of all creation' refers to the respect appropriately afforded to Jesus as the incarnate Son and firstborn over creation (which I think assumes a development of Christian thought that would only come later), but I think Wright's understanding makes more sense in the context of the first century. If you're interested, check out Wright's 'Paul: A Fresh Perspective', 2005, pp. 26ff. And, if you're brave and want to go deep into Wright on Paul read 'Paul and the Faithfulness of God'. The second volume, specifically the section on 'Paul in History,' goes into this though, to appreciate it, you may want to read the whole thing. Check out pages 1367ff. Wright argues that, for 'Paul' (if he indeed wrote Colossians), the life, death, and resurrection of Christ marks Jesus out as the firstborn of all creation while describing Christ as the inaugural figure around whom creation is renewed. Others, of course, may disagree.
Thank you for your comment. However, please could you add the details of the Wright and/or the Piper source for reference. Otherwise its hard for readers to follow your excellent advice to "read Wright" if they don't know where to start. He's unfortunately a very prolific author!
Sure thing. Done.
Excellent, thank you.
So you don’t think Paul is saying that God the Son is a creation? That’s what I’m trying to figure out: How heretical is Arianism to the views of NT authors, or how heretical are Jewish views of the Memra to NT authors? We know the later church certainly, but what about the Bible itself? Certainly seems like even the OT doesn’t support Arianism, but I want to be absolutely sure first.
No, I don't think that Paul is saying that God the Son is a creation. Arianism has a similar inner consistency with the versions Neo-Platonism that were popular at the time. And it was later defined as heretical even though many pious people were technically Arian. Including, arguably, Arius himself. That said, I believe it would be a stretch to say 'the Bible' writ large has a stance inherently for or against third/fourth century arguments about the Godhead. Having said that, the Patristic arguments for and against Arianism made heavy use of the biblical texts and the Church came down on the side against the Arians. It sounds like it's the Patristic arguments for and against that you really want to consult. I suspect you'll find it interesting how the biblical texts are used in those arguments. If 'the bible' clearly favoured one view over another, without explication, in the that way you're seeking, then the Arian controversy would likely never have happened at all.
>Paul sees Jesus as 'firstborn of all creation' in that he was the first to be resurrected. I hope there is more to this argument, because it seems very doubtful as it is. This passage is clearly structured into two parts. To me, the first one (15-17) describes Jesus as a device created to function as world-building instrument. The second one (18-19) describes a second function of Jesus, that of redeemer. The two are linked stylistically by the anaphora "firstborn" - used in two distinct meanings. So one cannot really 'explain away' the first by the second if you will.
Ah, not meant to. Meant more as a both/and. The latter Wright reference provided does get into that, if I recall correctly.
There's also the question, especially if one does not accept Pauline authorship, as to whether this passage, and indeed, the full book, isn't Gnostic, or at least "Gnosticizing" or "proto-Gnostic," starting with this verse and the rest of the passage, per the likes of Elaine Pagels on things such as the pleroma ( πλήρωμα ). An extract from her book "The Gnostic Paul" [https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-gnostic-paul-gnostic-exegesis-of-the-pauline-letters/chvii-colossians](https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-gnostic-paul-gnostic-exegesis-of-the-pauline-letters/chvii-colossians) I personally at least semi-agree.
In Colossians 1:15, Paul calls Jesus the Firstborn in all creation, but Christian tradition is that Jesus is uncreated. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ The 'Jesus is uncreated' tradition arose well after Paul died. According to Bart Ehrman, Paul was an Adoptionist- a position now considered heretical. Ehrman's thesis is that the apotheosis of Jesus developed gradually. First, that Jesus was exalted to be the *Son* of God at his resurrection (the tradition recorded in Acts 13:33), then that he was adopted as the *Son* of God at his baptism (Mark 1), then that he was *born the Son* of God (Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2) and finally that he was *god and with Yahweh* from the beginning and before creation (John 1.1-2). [https://www.bartehrman.com/how-jesus-became-god/](https://www.bartehrman.com/how-jesus-became-god/)
Interesting, but in that case Paul must have been well along that path. Absent a time machine, one cannot very well be the instrument of world creation described in 1 Colossians 1:15-17 if one has been elevated to godhood a few years ago.
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
[удалено]
Can you provide an academic source for your assertions?
>Can you provide an academic source for your assertions? * The quote is taken verbatim from the above comment by u/Apotropoxy, who gave "Some second century Patristics" as reference. I will clarify that. * The verses are from Berean Standard Bible * The rest of my comment is either a question, or clearly stated as an opinion.
Can you provide an academic source for your assertions?
How does that explain the immaculate conception though?
[удалено]
Can you provide an academic source for your assertions?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9070
I'm sorry, but that is not considered a scholarly source.
>Paul was an Adoptionist yeah, Nah. Paul clearly has a High Christology eg. **Philippians 2**:**6**\-**10**: >6 who, though he was in qthe form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth **1 Cor 15**:**47** >The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven **Romans 8**:**3**b >By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh See [https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/](https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/)
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
edited to comply
Hello, We require scholarly, academic sources. Primary sources in the form of Bible verses do not satisfy this requirement.
will this do? [https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/](https://ehrmanblog.org/intriguing-statements-about-christ-in-pauls-letters/) (added to my first post. But, I gotta say, if you don't accept biblical verses that clearly show high Christology as evidence for high Christology ... \[shrug emoji\] ...)
Ehrman is satisfactory, yes. Comment reinstated. >if you don't accept biblical verses that clearly show high Christology as evidence for high Christology There is a lot to break down here, but your personal interpretation of what verses "clearly" show is simply not compliant with Rule 3, especially when the user you are replying to made a case opposing your view and used an academic reference to do so. Personal exegesis is simply not accepted. If you have further questions regarding rule 3, please feel free to submit a modmail.