The title of this post may appear strange. What else would “firstborn” mean other than being born first – the eldest of the children in a family?   In the Bible the designation of firstborn often does mean the literal “one born first” but just as often – if not more often – it has different connotations, and knowing those meanings  can help us to better understand a number of scriptures.

In ancient Israel, as in much of the ancient Near East, the firstborn son inherited his father’s responsibilities as head of the family (Genesis 27), so we read in the Old Testament that he normally received a special – double – inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17).  We see this fact in the stories of the patriarchs, where we also see that being the “firstborn” was a privilege that could sometimes actually be bestowed on a younger son who was not the literal firstborn at all. When we read the stories of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, we see that “firstborn” privilege was frequently not  based on literal birth order, but on selection.

But whether literally firstborn or chosen as such, the holder of the firstborn birthright  held a special place in biblical society.  After the Passover slaying of the Egyptian firstborn and the Exodus from Egypt, every firstborn Israelite male was dedicated to God’s service.  This obligation was later transferred to the Levites (Numbers 8:14-19), but the significance of the special relationship between God and the firstborn continued, as we see in the fact that the nation of Israel as a whole was called God's firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23, Jeremiah 31:9, etc.). This fact signified Israel’s special standing among the nations and also the priestly responsibility of Israel to be a “light” to the Gentile nations around them.

The term “firstborn” can be used metaphorically in the Bible as well as literally.  In the symbolic sense the term was often used in ancient Near Eastern cultures (as it still is today) to mean the superlative example of something – whether good or bad.  So in the Book of Job “firstborn” is even used of a terrible disease: “It consumes the parts of his skin; the firstborn of death consumes his limbs” (Job 18:13 ESV).  But  when speaking of people, firstborn may mean the least or the greatest.  So in Isaiah  we find “The firstborn of the poor will feed, and the needy will lie down in safety” (Isaiah 14:30 NKJV, ESV, etc.); and the Book of Psalms, speaking prophetically of the coming Messiah, states “… I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).

Thus, Jesus Christ is called the “firstborn” in the New Testament, and we can see now how this can mean several things.  The term applies both to his literal position as firstborn of God:  “… when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him” (Hebrews 1:6);  firstborn from the dead: “… the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18); and the One who is supreme: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15).

We see, too, how these meanings flow over into the New Testament’s description of Christians as “firstborn.” Our relationship with Christ and our identification with him mean that we too have become firstborn, like the nation of physical Israel, but even more: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Romans 8:29).  That is why the Book of Hebrews refers to Christians as “the church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23).
​
So, the term “firstborn” in the Scriptures can mean much more than simply “the one born first.” It may mean that, but it may also mean the one to whom the birthright and responsibility was passed (which may apply in many situations, such as what Paul tells us about Christ being the “last” or “second” Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:44-46).  “Firstborn” may also mean the greatest or least of individuals or even things.  Above all, “firstborn” can refer to several aspects of the nature and role of Jesus Christ – and our identity with the One who is the ultimate firstborn.

​The words “How much more” are most often heard as part of a negative statement such as “How much more of this can I take?” But if you search for them, you will find they frequently appear in the Bible in a completely positive manner – that can teach us something.

Back in the 1st Century, in the time of Christ, the renowned Jewish teacher Hillel and other scholars developed careful methods of logical argumentation in order to arrive at sound conclusions regarding interpretation of the Scriptures.  One of those methods was called Qal va-homer (literally “light and heavy”), which argued from the lesser to the greater situation and which is often called the “how much more” argument.  In other words, if X is the case, how much more would Y be the case.

We actually see this principle occasionally in the Old Testament. For example, after Miriam criticized Moses and was punished with leprosy, Moses prayed that she might be healed, but God reminded him: “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days? Confine her outside the camp for seven days” (Numbers 12:14) – in other words, if she would be punished for seven days for offending her human father, how much more should she be punished for seven days for offending God.

When we get to the New Testament we see the method of argument employed regularly by Jesus in his teaching.  Not surprisingly, we see the most examples in the Gospel of Matthew, which seems originally to have been written in Hebrew for a primarily Jewish audience.  The twelfth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel contains a clear examples of Jesus’ use of the “how much more” argument in the story of his healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day.

Before we look at that example, it is good to remember that in using the “how much more” argument, the Jewish scholars and rabbis utilized a common format.  The argument was presented in three propositions: a first fact or premise, a second fact or premise, and a conclusion based on the two preceding premises.  We see this when we read how Jesus replied to the Pharisees who tried to trap him by asking him:  “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matthew 12.10).

First Jesus told them: “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?” (Matthew 12:11 – the first premise). Then he continued: “How much more valuable is a person than a sheep!” (Matthew 12:12a – the second premise). Finally he concluded: “Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12b – the conclusion). Notice that in the parallel account of this event in Mark, that Gospel records a different type of argument made by Jesus at this time that would have satisfied the congregation of the synagogue, but would not have been as effective in combatting the religious leaders – the Pharisees (Mark 3:4).

But in Matthew, Jesus not only answered the learned Pharisees decisively, he also did so using their own scholarly argumentation – their own method of scriptural interpretation.  Jesus’ answer was thus not only a clear statement of the acceptable – and desirable – principle of doing good on the Sabbath day, it was also an indictment of the Pharisees for not reaching that conclusion themselves by using their own principles of exegesis.

Just as the “how much more” argument is found repeatedly in Jesus’ teachings, we find it also used by the apostle Paul, who was steeped in the scholarship of the Pharisees and trained by Hillel himself. Knowing this sheds extra light on many of the things that Paul writes.  For example, in his epistle to the Romans Paul writes:  “… if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!” (Romans 11:24).  Looking closely at these words of Paul, we see the same type of premise, “how much more,” and conclusion. Paul may sometimes vary this format, but the result of his argument is the same.

Remembering that the “how much more” argument was one used frequently by Jesus and Paul can help us to understand more about what they are saying when they use this form of interpretation.  A pattern is certainly clear – neither Jesus nor Paul used this type of argument in a random manner.  Most often it was used to clarify difficult questions or important points of doctrine. If we remember this when we are reading the Gospels or epistles of Paul, we can see why it is helpful to pay special attention whenever we see the words “how much more.”  Once we know the principle and recognize it, how much more we can get out of many of its occurrences!

The word for spirit (pneuma) appears very frequently in the writings of the apostle Paul (146 times, in fact). Understanding his use of the term can be important, because Paul actually uses pneuma in at least five different ways:

1.  The breath of a living being (2 Thessalonians 2:8).   The word pneuma is sometimes used in the New Testament to mean "breath" or any movement of air or wind (John 3:8, etc.), but Paul does not use the word in this way.

2.  A characteristic of human behavior.  This may be negative as in “a spirit of fear” (2 Timothy 1:7) and “spirit of sleep” (Romans 11:8), or positive as in “a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1) and a “spirit of wisdom” (Ephesians 1:17).  The positive references often refer to qualities of the Spirit of God (see 5, below) expressed in us – we must look at the context of each instance to decide.   In this sense of behavior, pneuma is sometimes used as an adverb or adjective with the meaning of “spiritually” or even “crafty” ( 2 Corinthians 12:16)! 

3. A non-material part of the human being (1 Corinthians 2:11). Paul refers to Timothy's spirit (2 Corinthians 7: 13) and tells us to “be renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Ephesians 4:23).  Compare James 2:26, which says that “…the body without the spirit is dead….” 
 
4. A non-physical being. Just as John 4:24 says “God is spirit….,” 1 Corinthians 15:45 says that after his resurrection Jesus Christ became a “life-giving spirit.”  Compare also Hebrews 1:14 which says, “Are not all angels ministering spirits…?”

5. The Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 3:3) or equivalents such as “the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19), “the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead” (Romans 8:11), “the Spirit of His Son” (Galatians 4:6), “the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:14-18) or “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9).

How do these different ways Paul uses the word pneuma or “spirit” affect our understanding of his writings?  Often even Bible translators have to try to decide whether Paul meant “Spirit” as in meaning number 5 – the Spirit of God – or “spirit” as in one of the other possible meanings of the word.  Consider the fact that the King James Version translated pneuma as “Spirit” 138 times and as “spirit” 123 times, whereas the New International Version translated the word as “Spirit” 246 times and as “spirit” 92 times.  That means the word is translated differently over one hundred times between these two versions – a considerable difference!

Sometimes context makes it clear which meaning of “spirit” is intended.  In 1 Corinthians 2:11, for example, Paul writes: “For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” Both instances of pneuma are translated spirit, but it is clear one is human spirit and the other God’s Spirit that is meant.

But the lesson for us in our own study is that we should look carefully when Paul uses the word “spirit.”  Should it be capitalized or not? And if not, which of the meanings of the word given above best fits the context?  In the Book of Galatians, for example, Paul frequently mentions “spirit” but does not qualify the word, so we need to read each instance carefully to see what he meant.

There are clues we can utilize.  When Paul uses the definite article and says “the spirit,” it is usually the Spirit of God (unless he states otherwise as in “the spirit of fear”).   If Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit in the verses before an instance of just “spirit,” he usually means the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 12:3-7). When he writes that people have “received the spirit,” he means the Spirit of God. 

But even with the clues we have, translation is often not easy.  For example, “gentleness” can be a characteristic of the human spirit or the Spirit of God – we must look carefully to try to decide which spirit is meant.  When Paul writes that he is absent in body but present “in the spirit” (1 Corinthians 5:3-4), he may mean in his human spirit, just as we use the expression today, but he may mean he is connected to his audience by the fellowship of the Spirit of God he and they have received – so they are of “one spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:17).

No great doctrinal uncertainties hang on the exact meaning of pneuma in the writings of Paul or elsewhere in the New Testament, but we can often deepen our understanding of God’s word by thinking about the possible meanings when we do read this word in our study.

Something to Think about:  Psalm 65:8 (CEB) "... you make the gateways of the morning and the evening shout for joy."

In many parts of the ancient Near East, in the cultures surrounding ancient Israel such as Babylon and Egypt, the sun was believed to rise from the underworld each day through gates which opened in the morning on the eastern horizon and to sink back into the depths of the earth at night ​through the gates of the evening in the west. 

For the cultures that held this kind of belief, the gates of the evening and morning were places of great significance controlled by the gods, but they were essentially part of the underworld and as such they were places of darkness, foreboding, and closeness to death.

The biblical writers rejected this view and characterized the morning and evening as times of joy – times in which the One true God demonstrated his power and his care for his creation (Psalm 30:5, 42:8, 49:14, 141:2, etc.).  Psalm 65:8 captures this view in a single verse, showing that each morning was a sign of the hope of life and each evening a rejoicing in the life God had given. Its wording is slightly different in other translations, but the idea is the same: "The whole earth is filled with awe at your wonders; where morning dawns, where evening fades, you call forth songs of joy" (NIV).

Today we may smile at the concepts of ancient pagan peoples, but we should be equally impressed with the enlightened nature of the biblical view.  Psalm 65:8 and similar verses shun the darkened views of ignorance that surrounded ancient Israel and remind us that each morning and evening are a cause for joy.  It's a message we should remember as we go from day to day and one we can apply in two small ways.  

First, the psalmist tells us "It is good to praise the Lord ...  proclaiming your love in the morning and your faithfulness at night" (Psalm 92:1-2), yet it is easy to forget to do this joyfully at the sleepy and tired ends of the day when joy is so often replaced by the hurry of preparing for the day or the wind-down at its end.  Psalm 65:8 is a colorful reminder to include real joy in our morning and evening prayers.  

Second, despite the problems or the simple ongoing strain that our lives may involve, Psalm 65:8 calls us to consider ourselves as gatekeepers: to consider each morning and evening an opportunity of reflecting joy.  They can sometimes be the hardest times to let our light shine, but remembering this simple verse can make a difference in our lives, and the lives of those around us, when we treat the morning and the evening as the times of joy they were intended to be!

Our new free eBook, THE BIBLE IN FIVE VERSES: KEY SCRIPTURES ON 36 BIBLICAL TOPICS by R. Herbert, is now online and ready for download.  
 
This eBook is a basic introduction to Christianity and was designed for personal study or missionary use. It explains thirty-six “key” Christian beliefs and principles of living in a straightforward, easy to understand manner, with introductory text and five key verses for each subject. 

​The book also includes a question for personal reflection on each topic and can be used to review key scriptures, for sermon and Bible Study preparation, or for inspirational reading.  

As is the case with all our eBooks, this one is completely free and you can download a copy for yourself without any kind of registration or hassle.  Just download the book in the format you prefer here.

Unfortunately, this blog post does not claim to offer the true significance of existence – but it does look at the meanings of the words for “life” in the New Testament, and the lessons we can draw from them. It is often pointed out that the different words used for “love” in the Greek New Testament help us better understand the breadth of that concept. In the same way, the three Greek words used for “life” can also give us insight into some important biblical verses.

The most basic word for life found in ancient Greek, and in the New Testament, was bios – from which we take our bio- rooted words such as biosphere, of course. Bios was commonly used for life in the simple sense, for the period of one’s “lifetime” and for those things that sustain physical life such as physical resources and even wealth. It is found with this meaning in scriptures such as Luke 21:4: “All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

The next word for life is psuche from which we take our psych- rooted words relating to the mind such as psychology, though in ancient Greek the word had a broader meaning including the breath of life, the vital physical force which animates the body,  the physical life or “soul.” We find this word most often in the New Testament with the simple meaning of our physical life – in verses such as Matthew 10:39: “He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”  

The final word for life, and the most important, is zoe. We take our zoo- rooted terms such as zoology from this word, but zoe signifies not only the animate aspect of life as opposed to non-life, but also life in the absolute and fullest sense. It is the word used repeatedly in the New Testament in statements regarding the kind of eternal life God has (John 5:26) and wishes to give to us – life which is both qualitatively and quantitatively greater than the life we have now.  Zoe is found in verses such as 1 John 5:11-12: “And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.  He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” 

Keeping the different meanings of these three words in  mind can often give us greater understanding of passages in the New Testament. An example is 1 John 2:16: “For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.”  Here, knowing that the word “life” in “the pride of life” is a translation of the word bios helps us to see that the pride being spoken of is not arrogance, but pride of physical possessions – which fits better with the context. 

In Matthew 6:25, where we find: “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink ... Is not life more than food …?” the word “life” is actually not bios, and the stress is not on the things that sustain life, but psuche – our very existence itself (just as Jesus said “is not life more than food…”).  

As a final example, notice John 10:10: “I have come that they may have life and may have life  abundantly.” Here, knowing the the word used for life is zoe, we see that Jesus’ goal was not that we just have a better or more abundant physical life, but that we get true life and come to have that life abundantly. 

By simply checking which word for “life” is used in a given scripture, when it might make a difference, we can often come to a fuller understanding of what is being said. To do that, all we need do is check the verse in an online Greek interlinear New Testament such as the one here.  It’s a simple enough procedure in order to be able to know the meaning of life. 

​We all remember the story of the teacher of the law who asked Jesus, “Who is my Neighbor?”  This was the question that prompted Jesus to reply with the Parable of the Good Samaritan – showing that even our enemies are neighbors when it comes to the law of God.

But what if the teacher had asked the question in a slightly different way, saying, “Who is my Friend?”  Could the answer to that question also impact our understanding of the Way of Christianity?  We don’t have any indication in the New Testament of that question being asked of Jesus, but we do have Jesus’ answer to it, nevertheless.

In his Gospel, Matthew tells the story of Jesus’ betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane. Judas Iscariot, the disciple turned traitor, had led a group of soldiers and other armed men to where he knew Christ would be in order to betray him for a cash reward.  As Judas approached Jesus in the dark of night and greeted him with a kiss in order to identify him to those who were to arrest him, Matthew records Jesus’ surprising  words:  “ ‘Do what you came for, friend.’ Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him” (Matthew 26:50).

Think about this. Jesus was not one to soften the truth. He was the one who called the Pharisees “whitened sepulchers” and a “brood of vipers” – to their faces.  But at the very moment of his betrayal , Jesus did not call Judas all the things we probably would have done. He did not call Judas “Traitor!” “Enemy!” “Back-Stabber!” – he did not even call him “False Friend!”  Amazingly, he just called him “friend.”

Now if we want to get technical, the word the Bible uses to record what Jesus called Judas was not philos, the Greek word usually translated “friend” and meaning “dear” in the sense of a close friend.  It uses the word hetairos meaning “friend” in the sense of a comrade, one who is a friend without necessarily having any affectionate relationship.  But he did call Judas by a word that means “friend” in the general sense (Matthew also uses the word in this sense in Matthew 20:13 and Matthew 22:12).

How do we apply his example?   The Old Testament gives us some clues.  Hebrew has a word, merea, which is very similar in meaning to the Greek hetairos – it also means friend in the sense of companion or comrade and it is found in Job’s words: “He who withholds kindness from a friend forsakes the fear of the Almighty” (Job 6:14). It is the same word that is used to tell us that after Job prayed for his “friends” (the individuals who had been haranguing him), God forgave them (Job 42:10).  

So if righteous Job prayed for the “friends” who mistreated him, and Christ could even call Judas “friend” as he betrayed him, can we learn a lesson from this? When we pray for our enemies (Matthew 5:44), do we pray grudgingly, with reservations, or do we pray for them as we would for a friend?  ​

From the classic Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, Harper Collins, 2009 Edition.


“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic … Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.”    ~ C. S. Lewis