πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως] ‘the
First-born of all creation.’ The word
πρωτότοκος has a twofold parentage:
(1) Like εἰκών it is closely connected
with and taken from the Alexandrian
vocabulary of the Logos. The
word however which Philo applies to
the λόγος is not πρωτότοκος but πρωτόγονος:
de Agric. 12 (I. p. 308) προστησάμενος
τὸν ὀρθὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον πρωτόγονον
ὑίον, de Somn. i. 37 (I. p. 653)
ὁ πρωτόγονος αὐτοῦ θεῖος λόγος, de
Confus. ling. i. 28 (I. p. 427) σπουδαζέτω
κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον
αὐτοῦ λόγον: comp. ib. i. 14 (I. p. 414)
τοῦτον πρεσβύτατον υἱὸν ὁ τῶν ὄντων
ἀνέτειλε πατήρ, ὃν ἑτέρωθι πρωτόγονον
ὠνόμασε: and this designation πρεσβύτατος
υἱὸς is several times applied
to the λόγος. Again in Quis rer. div.
her. § 24 (I. p. 489) the language of
Exod. xiii. 2 ἁγίασόν μοι πᾶν πρωτότοκον
πρωτογενές κ.τ.λ. is so interpreted
as to apply to the Divine Word. These
appellations, ‘the first-begotten, the
eldest son,’ are given to the Logos by
Philo, because in his philosophy it
includes the original conception, the
archetypal idea, of creation, which
was afterwards realised in the material
world. Among the early Christian
fathers Justin Martyr again and
again recognises the application of the
term πρωτότοκος to the Word; Apol.
i. 23 (p. 68) λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ
πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις, ib. § 46 (p. 83)
τὸν Χριστὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι
... λόγον ὄντα οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων
μετέσχε, ib. § 33 (p. 75 C) τὸν λόγον ὃς
καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ Θεῷ ἐστι. So too
Theophilus ad Antol. ii. 22 τοῦτον τὸν
λόγον ἐγέννησεν προφορικόν, πρωτότοκον
πάσης κτίσεως.
(2) The word πρωτότοκος had also
another not less important link of
connexion with the past. The Messianic
reference of Ps. lxxxix. 28, ἐγὼ
πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ., seems
to have been generally allowed. So
at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan
in Shemoth Rabba 19, fol. 118. 4, ‘God
said, As I made Jacob a first-born
(Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make
king Messiah a first-born (Ps. lxxxix.
28).’ Hence ‘the first-born’ ὁ πρωτότοκος
(בכור), used absolutely, became
a recognised title of Messiah. The
way had been paved for this Messianic
reference of πρωτότοκος by its prior
application to the Israelites, as the
prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘Israel
is my son, my first-born’: comp. Psalm.
Salom. xviii. 4 ἡ παιδεία σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς
ὡς υἱὸν πρωτότοκον μονογενῆ, 4 Esdr. vi.
58 ‘nos populus tuus, quem vocasti
primogenitum, unigenitum,’ where the
combination of the two titles applied
in the New Testament to the Son is
striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the
note on Gal. iii. 16 καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν
κ.τ.λ.), the terms are transferred from
the race to the Messiah, as the representative,
the embodiment, of the race.
As the Person of Christ was the
Divine response alike to the philosophical
questionings of the Alexandrian
Jew and to the patriotic hopes
of the Palestinian, these two currents
of thought meet in the term πρωτότοκος
as applied to our Lord, who is
both the true Logos and the true
Messiah. For this reason, we may
suppose, as well as for others, the
Christian Apostles preferred πρωτότοκος
to πρωτόγονος, which (as we may
infer from Philo) was the favourite
term with the Alexandrians, because
the former alone would include the
Messianic reference as well.
The main ideas then which the word
involves are twofold; the one more
directly connected with the Alexandrian
conception of the Logos, the
other more nearly allied to the Palestinian
conception of the Messiah.
(1) Priority to all creation. In
other words it declares the absolute
pre-existence of the Son. At first
sight it might seem that Christ is
here regarded as one, though the
earliest, of created things. This interpretation
however is not required
by the expression itself. The fathers
of the fourth century rightly called
attention to the fact that the Apostle
writes not πρωτόκτιστος, but πρωτότοκος;
e.g. Basil, c. Eunom. iv (p. I.
p. 292). Much earlier, in Clem. Alex.
Exc. Theod. 10 (p. 970), though without
any direct reference to this passage,
the μονογενὴς καὶ πρωτότοκος is
contrasted with the πρωτόκτιστοι, the
highest order of angelic beings; and
the word πρωτόκτιστος occurs more
than once elsewhere in his writings (e.g.
Strom. v. 14, p. 699). Nor again does
the genitive case necessarily imply that
the πρωτότοκος Himself belonged to
the κτίσις, as will be shown presently.
And if this sense is not required by the
words themselves, it is directly excluded
by the context. It is inconsistent
alike with the universal agency in
creation which is ascribed to Him in
the words following, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη
τὰ πάντα, and with the absolute pre-existence
and self-existence which is
claimed for Him just below, αὐτὸς
ἔστιν πρὸ πάντων. We may add also
that it is irreconcileable with other
passages in the Apostolic writings,
while it contradicts the fundamental
idea of the Christian consciousness.
More especially the description πρωτότοκος
πάσης κτίσεως must be interpreted
in such a way that it is not inconsistent
with His other title of μονογενής,
unicus, alone of His kind and
therefore distinct from created things.
The two words express the same
eternal fact; but while μονογενής
states it in itself, πρωτότοκος places it
in relation to the Universe. The
correct interpretation is supplied by
Justin Martyr, Dial. § 100 (p. 326
D) πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ πάντων
τῶν κτισμάτων. He does not
indeed mention this passage, but it
was doubtless in his mind, for he elsewhere
uses the very expression πρωτότοκος
πάσης κτίσεως, Dial. § 85
(p. 311 B), § 138 (p. 367 D); comp. also
§ 84 (p. 310 B), where the words πρωτότοκος
212τῶν πάντων ποιημάτων occur.
(2) Sovereignty over all creation.
God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler,
the acknowledged head, of God’s
household. The right of primogeniture
appertains to Messiah over all
created things. Thus in Ps. lxxxix.
28 after πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτὸν
the explanation is added, ὑψηλὸν
παρὰ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν τῆς γῆς, i.e. (as
the original implies) ‘above all the
kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic
reference this secondary idea of
sovereignty predominated in the word
πρωτότοκος, so that from this point of
view πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως would
mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all creation
by virtue of primogeniture.’ The
ἔθηκεν κληρόνομον πάντων of the Apostolic
writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly corresponds
to the θήσομαι πρωτότοκον
of the Psalmist (lxxxix. 28), and
doubtless was tacitly intended as a
paraphrase and application of this
Messianic passage. So again in Heb.
xii. 23, ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων, the most
probable explanation of the word is
that which makes it equivalent to
‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful
Christians being ipso facto πρωτότοκοι,
because all are kings. Nay, so completely
might this idea of dominion by
virtue of priority eclipse the primary
sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some
of its uses, that it is given as a title to
God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pentateuch,
fol. 124. 4, ‘Who is primogenitus
mundi,’ שהוא בכורי של עולם,
i.e. ὅς ἐστιν πρωτότοκος τοῦ κόσμου, as
it would be rendered in Greek. In this
same work again, fol. 74. 4, Exod. xiii.
2 is falsely interpreted so that God is
represented as calling Himself ‘primogenitus’:
see Schöttgen p. 922.
For other instances of secondary uses
of בכור in the Old Testament, where
the idea of ‘priority of birth’ is over-shadowed
by and lost in the idea of
‘pre-eminence,’ see Job xviii. 13 ‘the
first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the
first-born of the poor’.
πάσης κτίσεως ‘of all creation,’
rather than ‘of every created thing.’
The three senses of κτίσις in the New
Testament; are (1) creation, as the
act of creating, e.g. Rom. i. 20 ἀπὸ
κτίσεως κόσμου: (2) creation, as the
aggregate of created things, Mark xiii.
19 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ Θεός
(where the parallel passage, Matt.
xxiv. 21, has ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κόσμου), Rom.
viii. 22 πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει: (3)
a creation, a single created thing, a
creature, e.g. Rom. viii. 39 οὔτε τις
κτίσις ἑτέρα, Heb. iv. 13 οὐκ ἔστιν
κτίσις ἀφανής. As κτίσις without the
definite article is sometimes used of
the created world generally (e.g. Mark
xiii. 19), and indeed belongs to the
category of anarthrous nouns like
κόσμος, γῆ, οὐρανός, etc. (see Winer
§ xix. p. 149 sq.), it is best taken so
here. Indeed πάσης κτίσεως, in the
sense of πάντος κτίσματος, would be
awkward in this connexion; for πρωτότοκος
seems to require either a collective
noun, or a plural πασῶν τῶν
κτίσεων. In ver. 23 the case is different
(see the note there). The anarthrous
πᾶσα κτίσις is found in Judith
ix. 12 βασιλεῦ πασῆς κτίσεώς σου,
while πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις occurs in Judith
xvi. 14, Mark xvi. 15, Rom. viii. 22,
Clem. Rom. 19, Mart. Polyc. 14. For
πᾶς, signifying ‘all,’ and not ‘every,’
when attached to this class of nouns,
see Winer § xviii. p. 137.
The genitive case must be interpreted
so as to include the full meaning
of πρωτότοκος, as already explained.
It will therefore signify:
‘He stands in the relation of πρωτότοκος
to all creation,’ i.e. ‘He is the
Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the
absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of
all creation.’ The connexion is the
same as in the passage of R. Bechai
already quoted, where God is called
primogenitus mundi. Another explanation
which would connect the
genitive with the first part of the compound
alone (πρωτό-), comparing Joh.
i. 15, 30, πρῶτός μου ἦν, unduly strains
the grammar, while it excludes the
idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’
The history of the patristic exegesis
of this expression is not without a painful
interest. All the fathers of the
second and third centuries without
exception, so far as I have noticed,
correctly refer it to the Eternal
Word and not to the Incarnate Christ,
to the Deity and not to the humanity
of our Lord. So Justin l.c.,
Theophilus l.c., Clement of Alexandria
Exc. Theod. 7, 8, 19 (pp. 967,
973), Tertullian adv. Prax. 7, adv.
Marc. v. 19, Hippolytus Hær. x. 33,
Origen c. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, in Ioann.
i. § 22 (IV. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p. 305),
xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian Test.
ii. 1, Novatian de Trin. 16, and
the Synod of Antioch (Routh’s Rel.
Sacr. III. pp. 290, 293). The Arian
controversy however gave a different
turn to the exegesis of the
passage. The Arians fastened upon
the expression πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
and drew from it the inference
that the Son was a created being.
The great use which they made of
the text appears from the document
in Hilary, Fragm. Hist. Op. II. p.
644. The right answer to this false
interpretation we have already seen.
Many orthodox fathers however, not
satisfied with this, transferred the
expression into a new sphere, and
maintained that πρωτότοκος πάσης
κτίσεως describes the Incarnate Christ.
By so doing they thought to cut up
the Arian argument by the roots. As
a consequence of this interpretation,
they were obliged to understand the
κτίσις and the κτίζεσθαι in the context
of the new spiritual creation, the
καινὴ κτίσις of 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15.
Thus interpreted, πρωτότοκος πάσης
κτίσεως here becomes nearly equivalent
to πρωτότοκος ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς
in Rom. viii. 29. The arguments alleged
in favour of this interpretation
are mainly twofold: (1) That, if applied
to the Divine nature, πρωτότοκος
would contradict μονογενὴς which elsewhere
describes the nature of the
Eternal Son. But those who maintained,
and rightly maintained, that
πρωτότοκος (Luke ii. 7) did not necessarily
imply that the Lord’s mother
had other sons, ought not to have
been led away by this fallacy. (2) That
πρωτότοκος in other passages (e.g.
Rom. viii. 29, Rev. i. 5, and just below,
ver. 18) is applied to the humanity
of Christ. But elsewhere, in
Heb. i. 6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν
πρωτότοκον κ.τ.λ., the term must almost
necessarily refer to the pre-existence
of the Son; and moreover
the very point of the Apostle’s language
in the text (as will be seen presently)
is the parallelism in the two
relations of our Lord—His relation to
the natural creation, as the Eternal
Word, and His relation to the spiritual
creation, as the Head of the Church—so
that the same word (πρωτότοκος
πάσης κτίσεως ver. 15, πρωτότοκος ἐκ
τῶν νεκρῶν ver. 18) is studiously used of
both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a
nemesis on itself. Logical consistency
required that this interpretation should
be carried farther; and Marcellus, who
was never deterred by any considerations
of prudence, took this bold step.
He extended the principle to the
whole context, including even εὶκὼν
τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ, which likewise he
interpreted of our Lord’s humanity.
In this way a most important Christological
passage was transferred into
an alien sphere; and the strongest
argument against Arianism melted
away in the attempt to combat Arianism
on false grounds. The criticisms
of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly
just: Eccl. Theol. i. 20 (p. 96) ταῦτα
περὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ,
κἂν μὴ Μαρκέλλῳ δοκῇ, εἴρηται· οὐ γὰρ
ἂν περὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἂν εἶπεν τοσαῦτα ὁ
θεῖος ἀπόστολος κ.τ.λ.; comp. ib. ii. 9
(p. 67), iii. 6 sq. (p. 175), c. Marcell. i.
1 (p. 6), i. 2 (p. 12), ii. 3 (pp. 43,
46 sq., 48). The objections to this
interpretation are threefold: (1) It
disregards the history of the terms
in their connexion with the pre-Christian
speculations of Alexandrian
Judaism. These however, though directly
or indirectly they were present
to the minds of the earlier fathers
and kept them in the right exegetical
path, might very easily have escaped
a writer in the fourth century. (2) It
shatters the context. To suppose
that such expressions as ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη
τὰ πάντα [τὰ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ
[[τὰ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, or τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ
... ἔκτισται, or τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν,
refer to the work of the Incarnation,
is to strain language in a way
which would reduce all theological
exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as
Marcellus truly saw, is a strictly logical
consequence of the interpretation
which refers πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
to Christ’s humanity. (3) It takes no
account of the cosmogony and angelology
of the false teachers against
which the Apostle’s exposition here
is directed (see above, pp. 101 sq.,
110 sq., 181 sq.). This interpretation
is given by St Athanasius c. Arian.
ii. 62 sq. (I. p. 419 sq.) and appears
again in Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. ii
(II. pp. 451–453, 492), ib. iii (II. p.
540–545), de Perf. (III. p. 290 sq.),
Cyril Alex. Thes. 25, p. 236 sq., de
Trin. Dial. iv. p. 517 sq., vi. p. 625 sq.,
Anon. Chrysost. Op. VIII. p. 223, appx.
(quoted as Chrysostom by Photius
Bibl. 277). So too Cyril expresses
himself at the Council of Ephesus,
Labb. Conc. III. p. 652 (ed. Colet.).
St Athanasius indeed does not confine
the expression to the condescension
(συγκατάβασις) of the Word in the Incarnation,
but includes also a prior
condescension in the Creation of the
world (see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9. §
1, with the remarks of Newman Select
Treatises of S. Athanasius I. pp. 278,
368 sq.). This double reference however
only confuses the exegesis of
the passage still further, while theologically
it might lead to very serious
difficulties. In another work, Expos.
Fid. 3 (I. p. 80), he seems to take a
truer view of its meaning. St Basil,
who to an equally clear appreciation
of doctrine generally unites a sounder
exegesis than St Athanasius, while mentioning
the interpretation which refers
the expression to Christ’s human nature,
himself prefers explaining it
of the Eternal Word; c. Eunom. iv (I.
p. 292). Of the Greek commentators
on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is
not clear; Severianus (Cram. Cat. p.
303) and Theodoret understand it
rightly of the Eternal Word; while
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cram. Cat.
pp. 306, 308, 309, Rab. Maur. Op. VI.
p. 511 sq. ed. Migne) expresses himself
very strongly on the opposite
side. Like Marcellus, he carries the
interpretation consistently into the
whole context, explaining ἐν αὐτῷ to
refer not to the original creation (κτίσις)
but to the moral re-creation
(ἀνάκτισις), and referring εἰκών to the
Incarnation in the same way. At a
later date, when the pressure of an
immediate controversy has passed
away, the Greek writers generally
concur in the earlier and truer interpretation
of the expression. Thus
John Damascene (de Orthod. Fid. iv.
8, I. p. 258 sq.), Theophylact (ad loc.),
and Œcumenius (ad loc.), all explain
it of Christ’s Divine Nature. Among
Latin writers, there is more diversity
of interpretation. While Marius
Victorinus (adv. Arium i. 24, p.
1058, ed. Migne), Hilary of Poictiers
(Tract. in ii Ps. § 28 sq. I. p. 47 sq. de
Trin. viii. 50, II. p. 248 sq.), and Hilary
the commentator (ad loc.), take it of
the Divine Nature, Augustine (Expos.
ad Rom. 56, III. p. 914) and Pelagius
(ad loc.) understand it of the Incarnate
Christ. This sketch of the history of
the interpretation of the expression
would not be complete without a reference
to another very different explanation.
Isidore of Pelusium, Epist.
iii. 31 (p. 268), would strike out a new
path of interpretation altogether (εἰ
καὶ δόξαιμί τισι καινοτέραν ἑρμηνίας
ἀνατέμνειν ὁδόν), and for the passive
πρωτότοκος suggests reading the active
πρωτοτόκος, alluding to the use of this
latter word in Homer (Il. xvii. 5 μήτηρ
πρωτοτόκος ... οὐ πρὶν εἰδυῖα τόκοιο:
comp. Plat. Theæt. 151 C ὥσπερ αἱ
πρωτοτόκοι). Thus St Paul is made
to say that Christ πρῶτον τετοκέναι,
τουτέστι, πεποιηκέναι τὴν κτίσιν.
216I. 16]
←
πάσης κτίσεως· 16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, [τὰ]
→
16. ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] We have in this sentence
the justification of the title
given to the Son in the preceding
clause, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. It
must therefore be taken to explain
the sense in which this title is used.
Thus connected, it shows that the
πρωτότοκος Himself is not included
in πᾶσα κτίσις; for the expression
used is not τὰ ἄλλα or τὰ λοιπά, but
τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη–words which are
absolute and comprehensive, and will
admit no exception.
Source
