|
|
Post by Greg Stafford on Aug 28, 2012 19:32:32 GMT -8
I am opening a thread here in place of the recent, similar thread in the General board, in order to better address the issue and to also put it in a more text-specific board. In Hebrews 1:6 the "Son" (verse 2) is said to be "introduced" (a form of eisago) by God "into the world." This verb, eisago, means clearly the Son was already the "Firstborn" and so introduced as such "into the world." "Firstborn," in texts which are not figurative, means "the beginning of generative power."--Deuteronomy 21:17.
Since there is no reason to believe "the Firstborn" (ton prototokon) is not in fact the one so described, consistent also with his being the "Son," the "copy of God's essence," and the "expression of God's glory" (Hebrews 1:2, 3), this is the understanding we should have for the term when used of Jesus in a spiritual sense as God's "Firstborn" or start to God's "generative power."
If there are actual arguments based on similar uses of "Firstborn" for real persons, then you can present them here for further discussion. Or if there are reasons to reinforce a literal understanding of the term in Hebrews 1:6 and in other ancient texts, that is even more welcome since this teaching is a big part of one of our main beliefs.
Best regards,
Greg Stafford
CWJ Moderator |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2012 23:25:48 GMT -8
Hello:
Thanks Greg for reposting the topic I had started in the other section. Glad to see you're still interested in the topic.
I still remain uncertain regarding the use of "Firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6. The reason being is because Jesus' inheritance is not said to be by virtue of his birth right, but due to appointment. So it seems redundant to appoint someone as heir if he is already heir.
Since the one who is born first is the heir by birth right, it is not needed for this one to be appointed. Thus, I cannot help but to see or at least lean towards a figurative view of "firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6. The concepts of "firstborn" and of being 'appointed' are also found in Ps 89. Given the coronation context, the citation of other Psalms in Hebrews 1-2, it seems legitimate to at least allow for the possibility.
Best,
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Stafford on Sept 10, 2012 5:22:46 GMT -8
Hello: Thanks Greg for reposting the topic I had started in the other section. Glad to see you're still interested in the topic. I still remain uncertain regarding the use of "Firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6. The reason being is because Jesus' inheritance is not said to be by virtue of his birth right, but due to appointment. So it seems redundant to appoint someone as heir if he is already heir. Since the one who is born first is the heir by birth right, it is not needed for this one to be appointed. Thus, I cannot help but to see or at least lean towards a figurative view of "firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6. The concepts of "firstborn" and of being 'appointed' are also found in Ps 89. Given the coronation context, the citation of other Psalms in Hebrews 1-2, it seems legitimate to at least allow for the possibility. Best, John Hi, John: Have you read my Chapter 5, in my 3rd Edition of JWD? If not, you should do so, since I discuss every single issue pertaining to the use and meaning of "firstborn" in biblical literature. Therefore, we are not confused at all when it comes to this subject, since it is clear that being the "heir" in Hebrews Chapter 1 does not mean that "Firstborn" means "heir." They are two separate words, and they mean two separate things. There is not one text which equates the two. The firstborn is usually the heir, or appointed as "heir," but that is not the same as saying the two words mean the same thing or that being "appointed" heir is the same as what it means to be "firstborn." In fact, it is the real firstborn, not some false firstborn, who is the true heir. Please read Deuteronomy 21:17 for an explanation of what it means to be "firstborn," namely, "the beginning of [the F/father's] generative power." If you merely accept the definition of "firstborn" given here in the Bible, and if you accept that Jesus is God's real Firstborn, whom he "introduces" as such according to Hebrews 1:6, then you will not be confused any longer. But you actually have to believe, and not remain in constant confusion or in a state of continuous questioning due to possibilities, etc., that is, when the evidence is so clearly in favor of one view over others. There is no evidence, none, which shows or even which suggests that "firstborn" means only "heir." Therefore, you may want to reconsider this position, as it has no basis in biblical texts or in biblical history. If you actually have a basis for this conclusion, rather than your conclusion itself, then you can present your evidence and we can further discuss it. However, if you don't actually have any evidence, but only a view which believes it is possible that F/firstborn only means "heir," then there is nothing further to discuss, since we try only to give time and attention to views or issues which have actual, presentable evidence. People can believe whatever they want. That does not in an of itself make the belief true. What is "possible" is not really our main focus. We are interested not in any and all remote possibilities, but in what is the best or most likely conclusion, in light of the best available evidence. Anything else is often a waste of time, since questioning the best conclusion because of a much weaker possibility usually serves only to weaken faith in the most likely position. Finally, since there is no reason to take a much weaker possibility over a rather strong and well-founded conclusion, we try to avoid such discussions here as they often result in the opposite of what we are attempting to build. Best regards, Greg Stafford CWJ Forum Moderator |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2012 9:12:51 GMT -8
Impressive. I cannot help but be impressed, by this synopsis you seem to have arrived at through trial and error over the last few years, this method of reasoning and analyzing based on the best available evidence, whose powerful simplicity goes to the heart of the conflict between the reams and tens of thousands of useless, speculative terabytes of information that are now available, and what we as mortal human beings living in this system of things can be expected to know to a certainty in as much as our modes of discovery allow it- skirting the line between reason and faith, skepticism and the simplistic belief of a child- and overwhelms it...I just feel compelled to express my admiration and appreciation of your efforts Greg. Also I know I can speak for at least a few others when I say your struggles of conscience will not be in vain, and I feel very relieved to know there are at least a few other people in this disease and strife ridden world who are consoled by and really understand 2 Corinthians 3:17.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2012 9:37:20 GMT -8
Hello: Thanks Greg for reposting the topic I had started in the other section. Glad to see you're still interested in the topic. I still remain uncertain regarding the use of "Firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6. The reason being is because Jesus' inheritance is not said to be by virtue of his birth right, but due to appointment. So it seems redundant to appoint someone as heir if he is already heir. Since the one who is born first is the heir by birth right, it is not needed for this one to be appointed. Thus, I cannot help but to see or at least lean towards a figurative view of "firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6. The concepts of "firstborn" and of being 'appointed' are also found in Ps 89. Given the coronation context, the citation of other Psalms in Hebrews 1-2, it seems legitimate to at least allow for the possibility. Best, John Hi, John: Have you read my Chapter 5, in my 3rd Edition of JWD? If not, you should do so, since I discuss every single issue pertaining to the use and meaning of "firstborn" in biblical literature. Therefore, we are not confused at all when it comes to this subject, since it is clear that being the "heir" in Hebrews Chatper 1 does not mean that "Firstborn" means "heir." They are two separate words, and they mean two separate things. There is not one text which equates the two. True, the firstborn is usually the heir, but that is not the same as saying the two words mean the same thing: They do not. In fact, it is the real firstborn, not some false firstborn, who is the true heir. Please read Deuteronomy 21:17 for an explanation of what it means to be "firstborn," namely, "the beignning of [the F/father's] generative power." If you merely accept the definition of "firstborn" given here in the Bible, and if you accept that Jesus is God's real Firstborn, whom he "introduces" as such according to Hebrews 1:6, then you will not be confused any longer. But you actually have to believe, and not remain in constant confusion or in a state of continuous questioning due to possibilities, etc., that is, when the evidence is so clearly in favor of one view over others. There is no evidence, none, which shows or even which suggests that "firstborn" means only "heir." Therefore, you may want to reconsider this position, as it has no basis in biblical texts or in biblical history. If you actually have a basis for this conclusion, rather than your conclusion itself, then you can present your evidence and we can further discuss it. However, if you don't actually have any evidence, but only a view which believes it is possible that F/firstborn only means "heir," then there is nothing further to discuss, since we try only to give time and attention to views or issues which have actual, presentable evidence. People can believe whatever they want. That does not in an of itself make the belief true. What is "possible" is not really our main focus. We are interested not in any and all remote possibilities, but in what is the best or most likely conclusion, in light of the best available evidence. Anything else is often a waste of time, since questioning the best conclusion because of a much weaker possibility usually serves only to weaken faith in the most likely position. Finally, since there is no reason to take a much weaker possibility over a rather strong and well-founded conclusion, we try to avoid such discussions here as they often result in the opposite of what we are attempting to build. Best regards, Greg Stafford CWJ Forum Moderator Hello, Greg: I have read your Chapter 5 discussion on firstborn in your Third Edition, and it is the best I've ever read on this topic. It is quite good. But that Jesus is "appointed" heir and what this may mean for Jesus as Firstborn in Hebrews 1:6 is not discussed. I apologize for any confusion from my post, but my point was never that Firstborn means heir, but that an inheritance is due to the Firstborn by birth right--not by appointment. So, of course, I have no text to cite or appeal to as a basis for suggesting that Firstborn means heir, as I never stated they meant the same thing or were synonymous. That duty could be left for someone who actually does make that argument. But can I ask, given that Jesus as the real Firstborn was the rightful heir of all things to begin with, in what new way or sense was he appointed heir that he wasn't already and why would the Firstborn need to be appointed something he already was, according to Hebrews 1? I hope my questions and/or position aren't taken as confrontational or as trying to weaken someone's faith, as it appears my first post was taken in that light. All I'm trying to do is better exegete Hebrews 1 by considering the context. In this, I'm not in a 'constant state of confusion,' as there are only two possibilities: literal or figurative. If the former, then I'm not sure why Jesus needed to be appointed heir; if the latter, then that explains the appointment and the subsequent exaltation. Regards, John |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Stafford on Sept 10, 2012 14:49:00 GMT -8
Hi, John: Have you read my Chapter 5, in my 3rd Edition of JWD? If not, you should do so, since I discuss every single issue pertaining to the use and meaning of "firstborn" in biblical literature. Therefore, we are not confused at all when it comes to this subject, since it is clear that being the "heir" in Hebrews Chatper 1 does not mean that "Firstborn" means "heir." They are two separate words, and they mean two separate things. There is not one text which equates the two. True, the firstborn is usually the heir, but that is not the same as saying the two words mean the same thing: They do not. In fact, it is the real firstborn, not some false firstborn, who is the true heir. Please read Deuteronomy 21:17 for an explanation of what it means to be "firstborn," namely, "the beignning of [the F/father's] generative power." If you merely accept the definition of "firstborn" given here in the Bible, and if you accept that Jesus is God's real Firstborn, whom he "introduces" as such according to Hebrews 1:6, then you will not be confused any longer. But you actually have to believe, and not remain in constant confusion or in a state of continuous questioning due to possibilities, etc., that is, when the evidence is so clearly in favor of one view over others. There is no evidence, none, which shows or even which suggests that "firstborn" means only "heir." Therefore, you may want to reconsider this position, as it has no basis in biblical texts or in biblical history. If you actually have a basis for this conclusion, rather than your conclusion itself, then you can present your evidence and we can further discuss it. However, if you don't actually have any evidence, but only a view which believes it is possible that F/firstborn only means "heir," then there is nothing further to discuss, since we try only to give time and attention to views or issues which have actual, presentable evidence. People can believe whatever they want. That does not in an of itself make the belief true. What is "possible" is not really our main focus. We are interested not in any and all remote possibilities, but in what is the best or most likely conclusion, in light of the best available evidence. Anything else is often a waste of time, since questioning the best conclusion because of a much weaker possibility usually serves only to weaken faith in the most likely position. Finally, since there is no reason to take a much weaker possibility over a rather strong and well-founded conclusion, we try to avoid such discussions here as they often result in the opposite of what we are attempting to build. Best regards, Greg Stafford CWJ Forum Moderator Hello, Greg: I have read your Chapter 5 discussion on firstborn in your Third Edition, and it is the best I've ever read on this topic. It is quite good. But that Jesus is "appointed" heir and what this may mean for Jesus as Firstborn in Hebrews 1:6 is not discussed. I apologize for any confusion from my post, but my point was never that Firstborn means heir, but that an inheritance is due to the Firstborn by birth right--not by appointment. So, of course, I have no text to cite or appeal to as a basis for suggesting that Firstborn means heir, as I never stated they meant the same thing or were synonymous. That duty could be left for someone who actually does make that argument. But can I ask, given that Jesus as the real Firstborn was the rightful heir of all things to begin with, in what new way or sense was he appointed heir that he wasn't already and why would the Firstborn need to be appointed something he already was, according to Hebrews 1? I hope my questions and/or position aren't taken as confrontational or as trying to weaken someone's faith, as it appears my first post was taken in that light. All I'm trying to do is better exegete Hebrews 1 by considering the context. In this, I'm not in a 'constant state of confusion,' as there are only two possibilities: literal or figurative. If the former, then I'm not sure why Jesus needed to be appointed heir; if the latter, then that explains the appointment and the subsequent exaltation. Regards, John Hi, John: I am sorry, but I am confused by what you have written. Can you simply state in plain language what is your argument about "heir" and "firstborn"? What is your point in relating the two in the way you did? If you want to use the "appointment" argument, then you have to actually have that as part of the text in question, which you do not (Hebrews 1:6). So, as I wrote, if you simply read the text and accept Jesus as the Firstborn, since "F/firstborn" is expressly defined in the Bible (Deut. 21:17) then unless you have qualifiers as you do in Psalm 89(88), then you do not need to look for some other meaning. That is the meaning. Now you only need to accept it. Continuously questioning things in an unclear manner, or making strained connections between being appointed as an heir and being firstborn, or trying to connect Psalm 89(88) with Hebrews 1:6 when the essential qualifies are not present in both texts, is not the best way to establish your position on the meaning of "firstborn." You can try again, however, by starting with my first question to you above. Then we can go from there. State plainly your position, from "heir" to "appoint," to "firstborn," explaining why "Firstborn" does not really mean first of the Father's generative power in Hebrews 1:6 since that is what the word actually means.--Deut. 21:17. If you do believe that is what it means, but you have not been clear on that either, then please be clear and then explain why you are spending so much time on being an "heir," being "appointed," and being "F/firstborn." Finally, I do discuss in great detail the very text you have brought up as a comparative example to "Firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6, namely, Psalm 89(88):27(28), on pages 392-395. Did you possibly skip those pages? If not, why are you citing "Psalm 89"? Further finally, I do, in fact, discuss Jesus as the "heir" on page 383, citing Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, and also again on page 424. Indeed, you have not presented any actual good reason for why discussing being "appointed heir" is important when it comes to being the "Firstborn." So you either have no such argument, or you are no longer arguing this way. In as much as you are writing in very strange ways, I will be very curious to see what you write next. Regards, Greg Stafford CWJ Forum Moderator |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Stafford on Sept 10, 2012 16:01:38 GMT -8
I modified my above response to John to make clearer the inclusion of "appointment," since he does believe this is significant in some way to being "F/firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6.
However, being appointed as an heir is nowhere defined as the same as being the Firstborn or used to show how we should understand any particular use of "firstborn." I certainly have no reason to believe "Firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6 means anything but what we are told it means in Deuteronomy 21:17, for the Son, the "character," is not said to be "placed" as the "Firstborn," but, as I wrote in my first post to this thread, he is "introduced" as the Firstborn, which verb (eisago) shows that is what he was already.--Hebrews 1:1-6.
Being "placed as firstborn," as in Psalm 89(88), involves Greek and Hebrew verbs which show the one so described is not already "firstborn." This is the critical difference, and I do discuss this at length on the pages noted above. John has not mentioned this once, yet he remains convinced somehow by a connection he sees between the use of "firstborn" in Psalm 89(88) and in Hebrews 1:6 (though he does not see this same use in Colossians 1:15).
I believe we should accept the actual definition we are given for "firstborn" in Deuteronomy 21:17 unless we have qualifiers like the Greek and Hebrews verbs used in Psalm 89(88), which make plain the figurative meaning of the term.
Regards,
Greg Stafford
CWJ Forum Moderator
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Stafford on Sept 10, 2012 16:13:29 GMT -8
By use of its verbs in each language, this verse (28) is using "firstborn" figuratively, in relation to how a firstborn king would normally be compared to his fellow kings in that same regard, highly prized in the ancient world.--Deuteronomy 21:17.
Hebrews 1:6 does not use "F/firstborn" with any such verbs. Rather, as I wrote in the opening post to this thread, the verb used shows he already is "Firstborn" when he is introduced to the world. That is the one whom Jah sent, not only his "S/son," but his "F/firstborn," or "uniquely begotten god"-son.--Hebrews 1:1-6; John 1:18; compare Colossians 1:15.
This is all explained, with much more, similar discussion, in Chapter 5 of my 3rd Ed. of JWD, and in Chapter 4.
Regards,
Greg Stafford
CWJ Forum Moderator
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Stafford on Sept 10, 2012 19:44:42 GMT -8
It (Hebrew 1:2) says "heir of all things," so "all things" belong to him as an inheritance from Jah, the very things he in fact helped make after he was born first.--John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17.
Greg Stafford
CWJ Forum Moderator
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Stafford on Sept 12, 2012 6:14:20 GMT -8
John has become distracted by another term ("heir"), used with a completely different verb (form of tithemi) in 1:2 which indicates something entirely different from the verb used with "the Firstborn" (eisago) in 1:6.
If there are any actual arguments against 1) "the Firstborn" (not simply an anarthrous "firstborn" as in Psalm 89, but an articulated "the Firstborn") or against 2) Jesus being "introduced" into the world as such (not "appointed" or "set" as "the Firstborn"), then you are welcome to post them here for further consideration.
So far, John has cited or referred to two texts, Hebrews 1:2 and Psalm 89, which do not provide parallels in terms of the verbs used with "the Firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6, nor does Psalm 89 use an articulated "firstborn," but rather an anarthrous reference, perfectly suited to the figurative context of comparison there presented between David and the "kings of the earth."
I may move the Hebrews 1:2 posts into a separate thread if the discussion continues much more (which is fine). I just do not want a thread started for a specific text to become involved with another text with so many clear differences, and then to take over the thread belonging to the original text in question.
Otherwise, readers might be confused by the off-track discussion into thinking that "appoint"/"set" used with "heir" in Hebrews 1:2 has anything to do with 'introducing' Jesus as "the Firstborn," when it does not.
Jesus is "the Firstborn" of God, according to Hebrews 1:6. Nothing in or around this text can or will change that teaching.
For the meaning of "firstborn" when it is not used figuratively of real persons, see Deuteronomy 21:17.
Regards,
Greg Stafford
CWJ Forum Moderator
|
|
