"firstborn from the dead" = the first who died?

[MrMacSon]

Ben, I may be misreading but I should still see a case for Jesus not being crucified before the creation of the world, in the Pauline epistles and Apocalypse.

A possible dimension to this, (somewhat encompassed in what Giuseppe says here), is a notion or two that seem/s to have been common in early Christianity (yet is/ are hardly addressed today) -- that celebration of Jesus' resurrection is (i) timed to be "assimilated to the creation account of Genesis 1:1 - 2:2, specifically the separation of day and night which was taken to imply perfectly equal separation, with the creation of the moon and sun taking place on the fourth day of creation",* so (ii) timed to be at the spring equinox which was perceived and expressed as representing a "perfect equilibrium, stasis, [and] harmony".*

* Susan K Roll (1995) Towards the Origins of Christmas, Peeters Publishers; p. 64.

[DCHindley]

Are you ignoring the fact that, per Eph. 4:10, before the death, the Son was exactly identical to himself after the Resurrection: as filling the whole universe?

The keys of Hades can be gained by being the first being to enter in it and to exit from it.

Eph 4:10 He who descended [into the lower parts of the earth, vs 9] is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things [ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα]. The word Plerose (πληρώσῃ, Aorist Active Subjunctive 3rd person singular) means to make full, the Pleroma. I don't think the intent was for Jesus Christ to expand to fill all space, but that by ascending after having descended he will make everything complete again. You've possibly heard the phrase "If it isn't broken, don't fix it," yes? The fact that Jesus Christ had to fixed something, means the universe was broken, in disrepair (maybe). I think it could also mean he fulfilled Gods grand plan, or just that he returned to his proper place (as I think you are implying).

When Valentinus proposed that the Aeon Christ volunteered to rescue that which had been trapped in the material world due to the Aeon Sophia's faulty mental state creating matter, this was in contradiction to Plato, who saw there was always unformed matter, with the other eternal entities being the One and the Craftsman. For Plato, the highest heaven, where the eternals hung out, was beyond space and time, and was thus "full". Valentinus just saw things quite differently.

Use of the verb "to make full" doesn't have to mean that this is a reference to Valentinianism or Gnosticism. Christians saw Jesus as fulfilling God's plan for mankind.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

Ephesians 4:10

He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.

If Jesus filled already the whole universe before the his death, then just the his death is what gave rise to the world. So his death has to precede the creation. Therefore in that sense he should be the firstborn of the dead.
.

nb. " ... who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe".

Andrew is correct upthread: and the order is death, descent, ascent/resurrection/firstborn from the dead, filling all.

Isn't the order: .. death, .. resurrection, appear [descend?] / first born from the dead, .. ascend ./. [filling all*] .. ??

* 'filling all' could apply to the appearance after the resurrection (?)

I am not understanding this.

[Ben C. Smith]

My point is that the ascent comes after the descent but before the "filling up" of all things. There is no suggestion of a filling up of all things before the ascent; the sentence, in fact, insists upon the opposite.

[MrMacSon]

I am not understanding this.

Sorry Ben, my comment about what you wrote was unrelated to what Giuseppe had quoted [Ephesians 4.10] and briefly commented on. I should have done two separate posts to each of you.

Andrew is correct upthread: and the order is death, descent, ascent/resurrection/firstborn from the dead, filling all.

Isn't the order: .. death, .. resurrection, appear [descend?] / first born from the dead, .. ascend ./. [filling all*] .. ??

* 'filling all' could apply to the appearance after the resurrection (?)
.

My point is that the ascent comes after the descent but before the "filling up" of all things. There is no suggestion of a filling up of all things before the ascent; the sentence, in fact, insists upon the opposite.

I guess I was trying to be 'logical' about the notions of these concepts and how they might relate to each other, unrelated to 'the sentence' [Eph 4.10, or any other sentence]

[Secret Alias]

Ben, I may be misreading but I should still see a case for ...

You'd have to long and hard for an example of a blind man arguing against those who can see. We're very lucky to have our Giuseppe.

[robert j]

In what sense did the author of Ephesians intend with πληρώσῃ? (4:10)

That He might fill? Or that He might fulfill?

Both uses are widely represented in the NT.

[Giuseppe]

I don't think the intent was for Jesus Christ to expand to fill all space, but that by ascending after having descended he will make everything complete again. DCH

The Elchasaites believed that the Risen Christ was a filling-space giant. Precisely what I see in Eph. 4:10.

[Giuseppe]

My point is that the ascent comes after the descent but before the "filling up" of all things. There is no suggestion of a filling up of all things before the ascent; the sentence, in fact, insists upon the opposite.

ὁ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα.

In my view the sentence is saying that, since who is descending is the same entity who is ascending, then he has to fill the entire universe (in order to return to the his original status of filling-universe giant - just as the Elchasaites believed).

ADDITION: In other terms, the filling of the universe is a mere collateral effect of the identity between the descending and the ascending one. So the filling of the universe by Jesus occurred both before and after the death.

But not during the Death itself: the precise thing that moves to think that the death itself of the giant provoked the birth of this material universe.

[Ben C. Smith]

In my view the sentence is saying that, since who is descending is the same entity who is ascending, then he has to fill the entire universe (in order to return to the his original status of filling-universe giant - just as the Elchasaites believed).

I finally at least see what you are trying to say. You are saying that the equation itself is the reason for his filling up the universe. But that is surely not the best reading:

Ephesians 4.10: Ὁ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα.

"In order that he might fill all things" surely responds to "above all the heavens," making the ascent itself the reason for the filling.

In other terms, the filling of the universe is a mere collateral effect of the identity between the descending and the ascending one. So the filling of the universe by Jesus occurred both before and after the death.

No, it is the collateral effect of the ascent above all the heavens. The equation is between (A) one who descended and (B) one who ascended and filled all things.

Now that I think I understand what you are saying, at any rate, I would not call your reading completely impossible, but it strikes me as extremely forced. Christ filling up all things is surely the same thing as the "summing up of all things in Christ" (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῶ Χριστῶ, 1.10), which has taken place in "the fullness of the seasons" (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν). Christ's current position of power applies to the present and to the future ("not only in this age but also in the one to come," 1.21), but nothing is said about it having been something in the past (at the foundation of the world), too.