Some modern English versions of Colossians 1:15 translate it according to what some scholars call the "genitive of subordination," i.e., "firstborn over all creation. This attempts to remove the firstborn mentioned here from among the creation of God. By this means the verse is used by some to "prove" that the Firstborn, Jesus Christ, is not a part of the creation of God.
However, not all New Testament scholars agree that Colossians 1:15 in the Greek is representative of a "genitive of subordination," but rather, a partitive genitive, "firstborn of all creation," including the firstborn mentioned there as part of the creation.
The Sahidic Coptic translators performed their work with a background of 500 years of Koine Greek history, and at a time when Koine Greek was still a living, spoken language.
So it is instructive to note what the Coptic translators saw when they rendered the Greek text into Coptic. Did they see a "genitive of subordination," or a partitive genitive?
The Sahidic Coptic translators rendered the Greek text's πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως as ΠϢΡΠΜΜΙСЄ ΝСШΝΤ ΝΙΜ.
The use of Ν.СШΝΤ marks this clearly as a partitive construction in the Coptic.
"N- marks...partitive relationship (the relationship of individual to class...)" --Bentley Layton, A Coptic Grammar, p. 164
Therefore, the Sahidic Coptic text of Colossians 1:15 says "the firstborn of all creation." -- George W. Horner, volume 5
"Over" is expressed in Sahidic Coptic with the use of ЄϪΝ-, which is not used at Colossians 1:15 in the Coptic text.
the "genitive of subordination" requires that verbal action be implicit in the head noun. The only idea implicit in 'firstborn' is "being born first" compare Col 1:18 where the -tokos element is clearly present considering the application of Psl. 2:7 to Jesus in his resurrection (which also shows firstborn is not being used figuratively).
ReplyDeleteJesus is 'placed as firstborn' in his resurrection, notice the three fold allusion to Psl. 89:27,37 in Revelation 1:5.
I would also point out that PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS would be the only gen. of subordination with an anarthrous head noun in all the examples given by GGBB.
Excellent points, showing the fallacy of rendering this as "firstborn over all creation."
ReplyDeleteThat translation is an obvious case of special pleading.
Thanks.
Do you think 2 Cor 4:4 and Acts 13:17 are examples of the Gen. of Subordination "the god over this age" and "the god of...Israel" or something closer to a possessive genitive.
ReplyDeleteWallace (GGBB 104) tries to cite these as counter to "most examples... involve a verbal head noun," and to my knowledge there is no cognate verb for theos or prwtotokos
I'm late to the party here (almost a full five years since the above comments and original post). I agree that Colossians 1:15 contains a partitive genitive, and I think the information you present above about the Coptic translation and how they marked the genitive type is fascinating. I was not aware of any of this before tonight. To read more about the research I did to argue for a partitive genitive in Colossians 1:15, please visit https://nealmatt.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/colossians-115-firstborn-of-all-creation/.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that the Sahidic Coptic translation of Colossians 1:15 necessarily supports a partitive genitive reading and excludes a genitive of subordination is flawed for multiple reasons. First, while Coptic grammar has distinct ways of marking partitive relationships, it does not automatically override the broader interpretative and theological context of the Greek text. The Sahidic Coptic construction using Ν.СШΝΤ can indeed indicate a partitive relationship, but this does not mean that it always excludes a relational or hierarchical nuance, especially when dealing with titles of preeminence such as prototokos. Greek, unlike Coptic, is more flexible in its use of genitives, and the claim that the Coptic translation settles the matter ignores that Greek usage of prototokos in both biblical and extrabiblical literature supports a meaning of rank and supremacy rather than mere inclusion in a group.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the attempt to use Coptic as a definitive argument misunderstands the nature of translation. The Coptic version reflects the interpretative choices of translators working centuries after the original Greek text was written. Even if the Sahidic translators preferred a rendering that implies some sort of partitive nuance, this does not mean that this was the original or only correct understanding of the Greek. Coptic translators were working within their linguistic framework, and while their work provides insight into how early Christian communities may have read the passage, it does not dictate the original intent of the Greek text itself.
Furthermore, the context of Colossians 1:15-20 overwhelmingly supports the interpretation of prototokos as a term of supremacy rather than inclusion within creation. Paul’s use of prototokos in Colossians 1:18 ("the firstborn from the dead") clearly indicates preeminence in status rather than mere chronological sequence. The parallel structure of verses 15-18 shows that Christ's title as prototokos is not about being part of the thing described but rather about having authority and precedence over it. The phrase pantes ktiseos is best understood in a genitive of subordination sense, as many respected scholars acknowledge, because Paul immediately follows with the explanation that Christ is the one through whom and for whom all things were created. This is inconsistent with the idea that Christ himself is part of creation.
Finally, the argument that the absence of the Coptic preposition ЄϪΝ- (which would mean "over") disproves the hierarchical sense of prototokos is an argument from silence. The Greek construction does not require an explicit preposition to convey superiority, as demonstrated by other uses of prototokos in a hierarchical sense, such as Psalm 89:27 (LXX), where David is called prototokos, meaning he is given preeminence over all kings. The fact that the Coptic rendering does not use ЄϪΝ- does not mean the underlying Greek text must be interpreted partitivally.
In conclusion, the Sahidic Coptic translation does not definitively prove that Colossians 1:15 should be read as a partitive genitive. The Greek context, the immediate literary structure, and the broader biblical use of prototokos overwhelmingly favor the interpretation that Christ is being described as supreme over creation, not as a part of it. The argument based on the Coptic text is at best an interesting translational observation, but it is not decisive in settling the Greek meaning of the passage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis is in reply to Litigiosus in regards to his comments about his third paragraph and comments of "the context of Colossians 1:15-20 overwhelmingly supports the interpretation of prototokos as a term of supremacy rather than inclusion within creation".
DeleteYou are plainly wrong, Jesus being the "the firstborn from the dead" is sequential, this is the traditional understanding of the passage even in mainstream Christianity:
- “firstborn from [Or: “of”] the dead” means: “Christ was the first to be raised from the dead.” - Nelson's Compact Bible Commentary, p852
- “Christ was the first to rise in an immortal body (1 Cor. 15:20) ….” - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p673
- “In Rev. 1:5, too, the prōtótoko s signifies not only priority in time but also the primacy of rank that accrues to Jesus with his resurrection.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. W. Bromiley, Abridged Edition, p968
There are explicit passages that express Jesus was the first to rise from the dead, therefore, the expression that he is “the firstborn from the dead” can only be understood temporally:
- Acts 26:23 – “the Christ would suffer, and be THE FIRST to rise from the dead”
- 1 Corinthians 15:20 – “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the FIRSTFRUITS of those who have fallen asleep.”
- 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 – “For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own proper order: CHRIST THE FIRSTFRUITS, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence”
Moreover, the expression is qualified with the term “WHO IS THE BEGINNING the firstborn from the dead”. The term beginning (arche) here can only have a sequential meaning, that being the case, it qualifies the temporal sense of the term PROTOTOKOS. This tied with the fact Jesus was the ‘first to rise from the dead’ of the new creation / eternal life, the expression ‘firstborn from the dead’ is clearly sequential and temporal.
In regards to on whether Col 1:15 is an example of the genitive of subordination or not, the text speaks for itself in showing how it is not. The ending of v18 makes it very clear that the preeminence Jesus has is ‘within’ creation, not ‘over’ creation; the text says, “And He [Jesus] is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that IN ALL THINGS he may have preeminence’. The text explicitly states Jesus preeminence is ‘in all things’ (en pas), not over all things; this is exactly what we’d except to find if Col 1:15 was partitive genitive over a genitive of subordination. Put bluntly, the texts says the opposite of what you say its saying and is expresses exactly what JW/ Unitarians say it says.
Moreover, Prōtotokos is outside the lexeme for a genitive of subordination because its core meaning presumes inclusion in the group named by the genitive. A genitive of subordination requires a head noun that can naturally denote authority over something without belonging to it (e.g., “lord of the house,” “king of the nation”). Firstborn does not work that way; by definition it identifies the first in sequence or rank within the set, not over it.
Your reply trades on a string of non-sequitur moves. Yes—“firstborn from the dead” in Col 1:18 has a temporal dimension in view of the resurrection sequence. But that does nothing to prove that “firstborn of all creation” in v.15 must be a partitive genitive. The two phrases are not even grammatically parallel: in v.18 Paul writes πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (“firstborn from among the dead”), with ἐκ marking source/separation, not inclusion; in v.15 he writes πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως with a simple genitive. You cannot import the partitive force of an ἐκ-phrase into a different construction and then use v.18 to control v.15.
ReplyDeleteNor does the temporal element in v.18 exclude rank. In the resurrection context, “firstborn from the dead” is both first in the eschatological order and sovereign over it—hence Paul’s own purpose clause: “so that in everything he might have the preeminence (πρωτεύων).” Firstfruits (1 Cor 15:20, 23) is a cultic metaphor of representative primacy, not bare chronology. Even the TDNT line you quoted affirms priority and primacy. So the very verse you’re using folds rank into sequence.
Appealing to ἀρχή as “only sequential” will not hold. In Col 1:18 “He is the beginning” naturally means “the principle/source” of the new creation (compare the closely related use of ἀρχή for ruling powers and for origin). It marks Christ as the fountainhead of the redeemed order, not as a mere first member of a class. That coheres with the result clause—his preeminence in all things—not with a claim that he simply happens to be the earliest item on a timeline.
Your “in all things” point also misfires. ἐν πᾶσιν in v.18 expresses the sphere in which his primacy is exercised (“that he might be first in everything”). It says nothing about his ontological membership within creation. “In all things” is about the extent of his supremacy, not his category of being.
The bigger contextual problem for a partitive reading in v.15 is the ὅτι explanation in v.16. Paul tells you why Christ is called “firstborn of all creation”: “because in him all things were created… all things have been created through him and for him.” If Paul meant “first created,” the because clause makes poor sense—he would be grounding Christ’s status as the first product of creation in Christ’s agency, goal, and encompassing sphere of creation. Worse, it would entail that the one through whom “all things” came to be is himself one of the things that came to be through himself. Paul avoids that absurdity with equally careful aspectual choices in v.17: αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων (“he is before all things”) versus ἔκτισται (“have been created”). He assigns Christ continuous, prior existence and assigns “all things” the status of created effects. That is the opposite of inclusion.
On the lexeme: πρωτότοκος does not “by definition” require inclusion within the genitive set. In biblical Greek it frequently functions as a status title that confers rights and rule. The classic LXX text is Ps 89:27: “I will make him firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” That is overtly hierarchical and is exactly how Paul is using the term—with v.16–17 spelling out the cosmic basis for that status. Hebrews 12:23’s “church of the firstborn” likewise uses the term to denote privilege, not a birth order chart. Modern lexica reflect this: alongside “first to be born,” they give the extended sense “preeminent,” and many first-rate commentators and grammarians—right down to standard translations like NIV, CSB, NET—render Col 1:15 “firstborn over all creation,” treating πάσης κτίσεως as a genitive of subordination because the immediate rationale in v.16–17 demands it. Wallace explicitly allows this category for Col 1:15, and the hymn’s logic fits it: Christ has primacy over creation because creation is in him, through him, and for him.
DeleteYour appeal to Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15 proves only that Christ inaugurates the resurrection order—which Christians have always affirmed. It does not tell you how to read πάσης κτίσεως in v.15, and it certainly does not override Paul’s own explanation that follows. Likewise, saying “firstborn presumes membership” simply ignores how firstborn works as an honorific in Scripture: it denotes the heir who rules the estate. In Colossians, the “estate” is all creation; the heir is the Son through whom it came to be and for whom it exists.
Finally, your claim that v.18 limits Christ’s preeminence to being “within creation” collapses under the structure of the hymn. Strophe one (vv. 15–17) grounds his primacy in original creation; strophe two (vv. 18–20) grounds it in new creation and reconciliation. The result clause spans everything—old and new—precisely because his lordship is cosmic. Reading v.18 as if it retracts v.16–17 is not exegesis; it is special pleading.
In short, nothing you have cited compels a partitive genitive in Col 1:15. The grammar allows a subordination reading; the hoti clause in v.16 requires it; the present ἐστιν with πρὸ πάντων supports it; and the wider biblical usage of πρωτότοκος confirms it. Your sequential observations about the resurrection are true—but they’re irrelevant to the point you’re trying to force into v.15.