In the last two decades Jehovah's Witnesses have gradually mounted a variety of counterattacks on the claims of mainline (and may I add "orthodox") Christianity. They continue to undermine Christian apologetics toward the advancement of their peculiar teachings.  Like the Latter-Day Saints in Mormonism there has been a growing trend in defending one's faith against the arguments buttressed by Evangelical Christians. The Jehovah's Witnesses are no exception to this. In a much-celebrated book by fellow Witness author Greg Stafford entitled Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (California: Elihu Books, 1998) we see the continuation of the Watchtower saga of defending and maintaining some basic Watchtower beliefs. While Stafford does not claim to have written his work at the behest of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, there is some indication that Jehovah's Witnesses in general will profit by Stafford's apologetic even if they do not understand the technical and complicated language imported. They repose confidence in Stafford's erudite jargon to, at the very least, academically threaten his critical interlocutors.  By way of criticism, I want to look at one of his arguments directly related to today's MyChurch "Scripture of the Day."

     Let me begin by noting that the Greek word prototokos  ("firstborn") implies a metaphorical meaning when contextually realized in Colossians 1:15-17. Greg Stafford gives several reasons why prototokos should mean "first of the created order" when applied here to Jesus, one of which is leveled against New Testament commentator J. B. Lightfoot and another which is an unsupported presupposition meriting no real status as an argument. The other reasons we will consider here pertain to prototokos directly. First, Stafford argues that the Church Father Justin Martyr acknowledged a literal understanding of prototokos when applied to Jesus by citing his Dialogue with Trypho where Justin uses such phrases as "before all creatures" and "proceeded before all creatures" in reference to Jesus. The problem here is that (i) the early Church was not an infallible source of doctrinal information even on the assumption of the accuracy of this claim, and (ii) Justin certainly did not believe that Jesus was created. His language used in regard to Jesus is intended to portray his procession from the Father, not his creation. The vernacular of the early Church Fathers was much more different than it is now and, when matched against today's usages, would naturally confuse those unaware. For example, when a Church Father would deify human beings in their relationship to God, they would not imply that human beings could become actual deities. Mormons have often made this mistake on various occasions.  Instead, they wished to convey a transformation power within the life of the believer so overwhelming that they appeared God-like in their pursuit. Likewise, Stafford's citation of Justin is similarly misleading. Justin Martyr himself has confessed the Deity of Christ by using such obvious statements as "I have proved at length that Christ is called God"( Dialogue with Trypho, 124). This seems to abolish Stafford's historical understanding of Justin.

     Stafford then states that "the Bible does not speak of Christ's status as firstborn in terms of a 'placement' or 'appointment'" (Stafford, p. 95). But he fails to provide any arguments for this view. Instead, he continues as though this claim were factual and concludes "he is 'the firstborn of all creation' because of his having been created by the Father before all those things he was instrumental in making” (ibid.). This question-begging is a recurring problem with Stafford which makes him an easy target.  Worse than that he proclaims that when the Septuagint (LXX) uses prototokos in the Old Testament (as alluded to in an earlier section) then a metaphorical meaning is to be understood, but when the New Testament uses prototokos of Christ it "does not use the title firstborn to indicate a 'placement,' 'adoption,' or 'election' of Christ to a more favored position” (Stafford, p. 97).  Not only is there no argument in support of this assumption, he’s simply picking and choosing to employ a literal meaning in Colossians 1:15!  He leaves the reader at a loss for good substantial support against the otherwise obvious metaphorical connotation of prototokos in Colossians 1.

     Stafford's next argument is a mere inference (and a poor one at that).  His argumentative inference that Jesus was indeed created stems from the suggested "temporal priority" latent in Col. 1:15 (Stafford, p. 100). But this argument fails miserably.  Even if temporal priority in the sense of “first among a set” were implied by Col. 1:15 it does not necessarily sustain the conclusion that Jesus himself created as the first of a class of created beings.  Analogously, Jehovah himself is also the first of all unextended, non-spatial, physically timeless beings (e.g., angelic beings) prior to the creation of mankind (cf. Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28).  But this in no way implies that Jehovah is a created being.

     Stafford also presses for a literal meaning for prototokos by appealing to Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5 where Jesus is said to be the "firstborn from the dead."  He concludes that "Christ is shown to have been the first one 'born' from the dead to a special kind of resurrection in which others would follow” (Stafford, p. 98).  Although it is true that believers will become engaged in a similar resurrection at the consummation of the church age (1 Corinthians 15:20, 51-54; 1 John 3:2), there is no reason to utilize inconsistent usages of prototokos that bespeak interpretive hypocrisy.  To say that "first-" (prwto-) is a literal designation but that "-born" (-tokos) is figurative is to have your cake and eat it, too.  It cannot be in the confines of the selfsame reference that prototokos is in one sense figurative and in another literal. Stafford of course opts for this etymological distinction since he cannot live with the fact that prototokos would imply a literal birth of Jesus from God Himself!  This is perhaps why Stafford surreptitiously switches "created" with "born."

By observing Stafford's apologetic for a created-Jesus meaning, the reader may notice that such a defense centers around the mere possibility of prototokos meaning "first created" instead of the preferability of it. This is to say that Stafford argues for his interpretation outside of a given context and reserves his justifications for abstract observations of prototokos independently of any contextual considerations.  Thus Stafford's objections on this matter are, at best, vacuous.  There are only two general ways prototokos is translated.  It either means "first one born" or "preeminent one/heir."  Stafford, who wants to avoid the Mormon conclusion that Jesus was literally birthed into existence imports a new hybrid interpretation where Jesus is "firstborn" in a literal sense but then not actually "born" at all.  Despite the fact that this makes no sense, in no biblical passage uses such a novel interpretation - not a single one!  Further, the phrase used in Col. 1:15 is not "firstborn of God" but "firstborn of all creation."  This would have the awkward rendition of making Jesus' birth the product of the class of "creation" instead of as the product of Jehovah.  Thus any and all attempts by Jehovah’s Witnesses at removing the deity of Christ on the basis of Greg Stafford’s use of Colossians 1:15 will have to look elsewhere for their arguments.