Welcome to EBible Fellowship’s Bible study in the book of Romans. Tonight is study 11 of Romans, chapter 1, and we are reading Romans 1:3-4:

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

In our last study, we went to Psalm 2:7:

I will declare the decree: JEHOVAH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

We talked about how “this day” being referred to is the day of salvation; that is, when Christ rose from the dead at the foundation of the world, He became that light of salvation, making salvation possible for mankind from that point. He was the light of the Gospel.

Remember that we went to John 1:4, where it said, “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” He brought life to those He died for, and that is what the “day” had to do with.

Then from Psalm 2:7, we went to Hebrews 1, and we are going to turn back there. We read from verse 1 and spent some time hovering over verse 2, emphasizing that God said the Son made the world. Very specifically, it was the Son, and not any other name for Christ, but the Son. Now I will read, again, Hebrews 1:5:

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

We saw that this was quoting from Psalm 2:7. But remember that I spent a little time asking questions of someone who thinks Christ paid for sins in 33 A. D., and they just do not understand the whole idea of Jesus having paid for sins at the foundation of the world. Then when He entered into the world and went to the cross, it was simply a tableau or demonstration of what He had done before. But, for whatever reason, a person may not understand that. So then I went to the last part of the verse in Hebrews 1:3:

… when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The purging of sin and being seated at the right hand of God is something that someone may think of as happening in 33 A. D., but in verse 5 it is still speaking of Christ who purged our sins, and it says in in Hebrews 1:5:

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Remember the reference to “Son” back in verse 2 as being the “Son” that created the world. You know, when a father has his firstborn, it is the time of the “begetting,” and if someone thinks that took place in 33 A. D., then you think that is when Christ became the Son and God the Father became His Father. Then it had to be in 33 A. D., if that was the time He purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Father. So, is this time that He died and rose the time He was begotten, and the Father made the declaration that He would be to Him a Son? But it does not fit, because He had already been declared the Son before the world was, and He created the world as the Son of God. To further confirm that, let us read the next verse, in Hebrews 1:6:

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

This is a follow-up statement to verse 5: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” and then it said in verse 6: “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world.” And “when” is a time reference. When did Jesus enter into the world? It was when He was conceived and then born of the Virgin Mary, and we know from the Bible that this was in 7 B. C. And the year 7 B. C. was 11,006 years from creation. Was that when God brought Jesus into the world? No – it does not say that. Was that when God brought The Word into the world? No – it does not say that. It says that it was the time when He brought the “firstbegotten” into the world. That is saying something different. He is not using other names for Christ, but He is using names that go along with being the Son, because if you are the “firstbegotten,” male child, you are a son. Of course, we know that Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of the Father, and the Father brought the “firstbegotten” Son into the world. This goes along with verse 2, where it says that when He created the world, He was already called the Son. So at the time of the creation of the world, Jesus already held the name of “the Son of God.” Likewise, prior to His entry into the world after 11,000 years of history had already taken place, we read that He already had the name of “my firstbegotten.” It goes back to verse 5, which says, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Not only did God beget Christ, but Christ is also the first to be “begotten.”

The Greek word translated as “firstbegotten” in Hebrews 1:6 is Strong’s #4416 in the concordance, and it is a compound word. One of the words is “before” or “first,” and can be translated either way, and the other word is “born,” so it is literally “first born” or “before born.” The word “firstbegotten” is also a good translation, but what God is saying is that He brought the “before born” into the world. Now that does not seem to make sense, does it? So the “firstborn” means He had already been born. It had happened previously – he had already experienced birth as the firstborn. He was “before born” when God brought Him into the world.

“Now hold it,” someone might interrupt, thinking that Christ paid for sins at the cross in 33 A. D., “It just means that Jesus was the firstborn Son of God and when He made entry into the world He was firstborn as He was coming forth from the Virgin Mary.” But that is incorrect. “What do you man it is incorrect? He is being born, is He not? And He will be the Father’s firstborn son when He is born.”

But – no – that is not the definition of what it means to be firstborn as far as God is using that word in pertaining to Christ in the Bible. That would be incorrect. That person has not done the homework and has not checked that word out and, perhaps, that is one reason that person is holding to the error that Christ paid for sins at the cross.

Again, I would encourage anyone still holding on to that idea to be a Berean. Check out these things to see if they are so. I know how we can get into a mindset when we hear something new, and when we go to the Bible with a negative mindset: “Let me prove how it is not true.”

And I am familiar with that because I remember when I first heard about the end of the church age. I think it was in 2001 at the Tuscarora Bible Conference. Mr. Camping had just started teaching it. Earlier that summer, we had started a brand new church, and we understood that God was putting out the light of the Gospel more, and more, within the churches, so we started with the idea that we would be as faithful as possible – we would get rid of the “high places.” But it was a “stunner” when I heard at that conference that the church age was over. I could not understand it, and I was fighting against it, and I was trying to think of every verse I could to disprove it. It was the most miserable conference I had ever been to, and my family and I had been going to them for years (and we continued to go for years thereafter), but this one was definitely the most miserable one. I would go back to my room after hearing Mr. Camping do study, after study on this subject, and I was searching the Bible. “OK, he said this, and this is the verses he used. But what can I find in the Bible to disprove it? Where can I find something to prove that what he is saying is not so?”

Then only by the grace of God…it had been like being “run through the wringer,” and by the end of the conference I was exhausted and miserable. But, by God’s grace, I got it in my mind that when I got back home, I was going to look at it anew and honestly lay everything out. That is, I was not going to have any kind of predetermined stance. Again, we already knew that judgment was on the churches, but the real question was to what degree. Was it total? Was it 100%? So I went back to the Bible, and in our church, we looked at this issue for several Sundays. Is the church age over? And, especially, we asked the question, “Was the judgment of God on Judah and Jerusalem total, or could there be some that did not experience it?” That was the idea we were holding. There could be a faithful church here or there, and we wanted to be one of that small number. But I went back to the Bible, and it was everywhere I looked in the book of Jeremiah. It was a complete and comprehensive judgment upon Judah and upon Jerusalem. All were to go into captivity. When some stayed back, they came under the rule of the Babylonian governor who was under the authority of King Nebuchadnezzar, a type of Satan. And the remnant that returned ended up going into Egypt, which was not sanctioned by God at all. God had commanded them not to do it, so they were rebellion against God.

So, by God’s grace, when I had the proper mindset to search the Bible to see if these things were so, God opened up my eyes and I saw. I said, “Oh, boy, we have to disband and stop being a church. We have to depart out.” I think that was the title of some of the studies we were doing.

So I am familiar with that type of mindset, and I think that some people have that mindset with some of these doctrines, and it could be that one of God’s elect has just not had his understanding opened up regarding one of these doctrines, like Christ’s atonement.

So that person must go back to the Bible and look up this word translated as “firstbegotten,” and that is what we are going to do. Again, it said, “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” So here are the facts. God brought the firstbegotten into the world. And we have to remember that God hides truth. He is a master of misdirection, as far as He has written the Bible. He speaks of Jesus as His Son, and of Jesus entering into the world and being born. We are just accustomed to thinking of Him as the Son of God, and here is a little baby born in a manger, and He is the “firstborn” son.

However, look up this word, and it is a compound word that means “before born.” Let us to Colossians 1:13:

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

So here is the reference to the Son, and God is speaking of salvation when we are delivered at the point of salvation and we are translated into the kingdom of His dear Son. We are moved from darkness to light.

Then as we move on, let us keep track of who is in view in the next verse. It is referring back to verse 13 and the Son of God, and then it says in Colossians 1:14:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

We can understand that, and then it says in Colossians 1:15:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

That word “firstborn” is the same word as translated as “firstbegotten,” #4416 in Strong’s concordance.

Remember, we are talking about Jesus, the Son of God, and He is the firstborn (before born) of every creature. The word “every” is a word that can be translated as “all,” and the word “creature” is translated as “creation,” which means that this verse could properly read: “The Son, the firstborn or before born of all creation.” And that would be a proper translation. The Son is “before born” or “firstborn.” Even if you read it as “firstborn,” He is still the firstborn of all creation.

How is that possible? When we start considering Revelation 13:8 where it says He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” and we put that together with Hebrew 4:3 where it says “although the works were finished from the foundation of the world;” and we can put that with Hebrews 1:2, where it says “by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” and now we read that the Son was the “before born or firstborn” of all creation. ( Even if you say, “the firstborn of every creature,” it would identify with that as well.)

So let us continue to read in Colossians 1, where it continues the thought found in verse 13, speaking of God’s dear Son, and it says in Colossians 1:16:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible…

So this is, indeed speaking of all creation, is it not? It is a correct understanding to say that the Son is the firstborn of all creation. That is a Biblical statement to make, and verse 16 confirms it and it agrees with Hebrews 1:2 where it says the Son created the worlds. He created the world and everything in it. But, again, He is also called the “firstborn” and He is the Son that was “before born” of all creation.

Again, if He is the firstborn of all creation, then He could not be the firstborn Son of God when He was born of the Virgin Mary over 11,000 years after creation. That idea does not harmonize. It does not jive, and it does not fit together. If you are someone that is holding to the idea that Christ became the Son of God when He was born of the Virgin or when He died on the cross in 33 A. D., you have a lot of explaining to do. You cannot just “sweep it under the proverbial rug,” and get rid of it: “These are uncomfortable verses and, yet, I really do not want to look on it. You know, everyone just kind of believes that Jesus paid for sins on the cross. The churches have believed that for almost two thousand years. And I do not know about this whole idea of progressive revelation.”

But, no, that is not right. That is not right because it is not the way to study the Bible. That is not the way to be a Christian. That is not the way to be someone who loves the Word of God. If we love the Word of God, we love the truth of the Word of God, and we have to find the truth. We seek and search after the truth, even if it is a truth that will correct us and to turn us from something we had been holding on to (maybe even fervently), but we want the truth above all things.

Continuing in Colossians 1, again, it says in Colossians 1:16-17:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

That is, by the Son or by the firstborn Son of God, all things consist. Then it says in Colossians 1:18:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead…

Whoa! Now we are facing something we had not seen in these other verses. It had said in Hebrews only that He brought the firstbegotten into the world, and in the earlier verses of Colossians, it only said that the Son was the firstborn of all creation. But now we are being given further information regarding in what way Christ is the firstborn, especially since this title predates the world and goes back to before the world was. So we wonder, “How can God and Jesus have this intimate Father/Son relationship. In what way is God the Father the Father of Jesus the Son? And this is the answer the Bible gives: He is the beginning, “the firstborn from the dead.” You see, this has to be considered. It has to be looked at intently. How is it possible that Jesus is the “firstborn Son” because He is the firstborn from the dead?