^{15}ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος
15 sq. In the passage which follows St Paul defines the Person of
Christ, claiming for Him the absolute supremacy,
(1) In relation to the _Universe_, the _Natural_ Creation (vv. 15–17);
(2) In relation to the _Church_, the new _Moral_ Creation (ver. 18);
and he then combines the two, ἵνα γένηται _ἐν πᾶσιν_ αὐτὸς
πρωτεύων, explaining this twofold sovereignty by the absolute indwelling
of the _pleroma_ in Christ, and showing how, as a consequence, the
reconciliation and harmony of all things must be effected in Him (vv.
19, 20).
As the idea of the _Logos_ underlies the whole of this passage, though
the term itself does not appear, a few words explanatory of this term
will be necessary by way of preface. The word λόγος then, denoting both
‘reason’ and ‘speech,’ was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian
Judaism before St Paul wrote, to express the _manifestation_ of the
Unseen God, the Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the
World. It included all modes by which God makes himself known to man. As
His _reason_, it denoted His purpose or design; as His _speech_, it
implied His revelation. Whether this λόγος was conceived merely as the
divine energy personified, or whether the conception took a more
concrete form, I need not stop now to enquire. A fuller account of the
matter will be found in the dissertation at the end of this volume. It
is sufficient for the understanding of what follows to say that
Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its
meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) ‘The Word
is a Divine Person,’ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος; and
(2) ‘The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ,’ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.
It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially
the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of
the λόγος; and that therefore their use in Alexandrian writers, such as
Philo, cannot be taken to _define_, though it may be brought to
_illustrate_, their meaning in St Paul and St John. With these cautions
the Alexandrian phraseology, as a providential preparation for the
teaching of the Gospel, will afford important aid in the understanding
of the Apostolic writings.
15–17. ‘He is the perfect image, the visible representation, of the
unseen God. He is the Firstborn, the absolute Heir of the Father,
begotten before the ages; the Lord of the Universe by virtue of
primogeniture, and by virtue also of creative agency. For in and through
Him the whole world was created, things in heaven and things on earth,
things visible to the outward eye and things cognisable by the inward
perception. His supremacy is absolute and universal. All powers in
heaven and earth are subject to Him. This subjection extends even to the
most exalted and most potent of angelic beings, whether they be called
Thrones or Dominations or Princedoms or Powers, or whatever title of
dignity men may confer upon them. Yes: He is first and He is last.
Through Him, as the mediatorial Word, the universe has been created; and
unto Him, as the final goal, it is tending. In Him is no before or
after. He is pre-existent and self-existent before all the worlds. And
in Him, as the binding and sustaining power, universal nature coheres
and consists.’
15. ὅς ἐστιν κ.τ.λ.] The Person of Christ is described _first_ in
relation more especially to Deity, as εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, and
_secondly_ in relation more especially to created things, as πρωτότοκος
πάσης κτίσεως. The fundamental conception of the Logos involves the idea
of _mediation_ between God and creation. A perverted view respecting the
nature of the mediation between the two lay, as we have seen, at the
root of the heretical teaching at Colossæ (p. 34, p. 101 sq., p. 181
sq.), and required to be met by the true doctrine of Christ as the
Eternal Logos.
εἰκών] ‘_the image_.’ This expression is used repeatedly by Philo, as a
description of the Logos; _de Mund. Op._ 8 (I. p. 6) τὸν ἀόρατον καὶ
νοητὸν θεῖον λόγον εἰκόνα λέγει Θεοῦ, _de Confus. ling._ 20 (I. p. 419)
τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἱερώτατον λόγον, _ib._ § 28 (I. p. 427) τῆς ἀϊδίου
εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου κ.τ.λ., _de Profug._ 19 (I. p. 561) ὁ
ὑπεράνω τούτων λόγος θεῖος ... αὐτὸς εἰκὼν ὑπάρχων Θεοῦ, _de Monarch._
ii. 5 (II. p. 225) λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν Θεοῦ δι’ ὁῦ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος
ἐδημιουργεῖτο, _de Somn._ i. 41 (I. p. 656), etc. For the use which
Philo made of the text Gen. i. 26, 27, κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν, κατ’ εἰκόνα
Θεοῦ, see the note on iii. 10. Still earlier than Philo, before the idea
of the λόγος had assumed such a definite form, the term was used of the
Divine σοφία personified in Wisd. vii. 26 ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστι φωτὸς
ἀϊδίου ... καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ. St Paul himself applies the
term to our Lord in an earlier epistle, 2 Cor. iv. 4 τῆς δόξης τοῦ
Χριστοῦ ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. iii. 18 τὴν αὐτὴνεἰκόνα
μεταμορφούμεθα). Closely allied to εὶκὼν also is χαρακτήρ, which appears
in the same connexion in Heb. i. 3 ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ
τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, a passage illustrated by Philo _de Plant._ 5 (I.
p. 332) σφραγῖδι Θεοῦ ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ἀΐδιος λόγος. See also Phil.
ii. 6 ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων.
Beyond the very obvious notion of _likeness_, the word εἰκών involves
two other ideas;
(1) _Representation._ In this respect it is allied to χαρακτήρ, and
differs from (ομοίωμα. In ὁμοίωμα the resemblance may be accidental, as
one egg is like another; but εἱκών implies an archetype of which it is a
_copy_, as Greg. Naz. _Orat._ 30 (I. p. 554) says ἅυτη γὰρ εἰκόνος φύσις
_μίμημα_ εἶναι τοῦ _ἀρχετύπου_. So too Io. Damasc. _de Imag._
i. 9 (I. p. 311) εἰκών ἐστιν ὁμοίωμα _χαρακτηρίζον_ τὸ
_πρωτότυπον_; comp. Philo _de Mund. Op. 23_ (I. p. 16). On this
difference see Trench _N. T. Synon._ § xv. p. 47. The εἰκὼν might be the
result of direct imitation (μιμητική) like the head of a sovereign on a
coin, or it might be due to natural causes (φυσική) like the parental
features in the child, but in any case it was _derived_ from its
prototype: see Basil. _de Spir. Sanct._ 18 § 45 (III. p. 38). The word
itself however does not necessarily imply _perfect_ representation. Thus
man is said to be the image of God; 1 Cor. xi. 7 εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ
ὑπάρχων, Clem. Rom. 33 ἄνθρωπον ... τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Thus
again an early Judæo-Christian writer so designates the duly appointed
bishop, as the representative of the divine authority; _Clem. Hom._ iii.
62 ὡς εἰκόνα Θεοῦ προτιμῶντας. The idea of _perfection_ does not lie in
the word itself, but must be sought from the context (e.g. πᾶν τὸ
πλήρωμα ver. 19). The use which was made of this expression, and
especially of this passage, in the Christological controversies of the
fourth and fifth centuries may be seen from the patristic quotations in
Petav. _Theol. Dogm._ de Trin. ii. 11. 9 sq., vi. 5. 6.
(2) _Manifestation._ This idea comes from the implied contrast to τοῦ
_ἀοράτου_ Θεοῦ. St Chrysostom indeed maintains the direct opposite,
arguing that, as the archetype is invisible, so the image must be
invisible also, ἡ τοῦ ἀοράτου εἰκὼν καὶ αὐτὴ ἀόρατος καὶ ὁμοίως ἀόρατος.
So too Hilary _c. Const. Imp._ 21 (II. p. 378) ‘ut imago invisibilis
Dei, etiam per id quod ipse invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago
esset.’ And this was the view of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers
generally. But the underlying idea of the εἰκών, and indeed of the λόγος
generally, is the manifestation of the hidden: comp. Philo _de Vit.
Moys._ ii. 12 (II. p. 144) εἰκὼν τῆς ἀοράτου φύσεως ἐμφανής. And adopted
into Christian theology, the doctrine of the λόγος expresses this
conception still more prominently by reason of the Incarnation; comp.
Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 19 ‘Scientes filium semper retro visum, si
quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut imaginem ipsius,’ Hippol. _c. Noet._
7 διὰ γὰρ τῆς εἰκόνος ὁμοίας τυγχανούσης _εὔγνωστος_ ὁ πατὴρ
γίνεται, _ib._ § 12, 13, Orig. _in Ioann._ vi. § 2 (IV. p. 104). Among
the post-Nicene fathers too St Basil has caught the right idea, _Epist._
xxxviii. 8 (III. p. 121) ὁ τῆς εἰκόνος κατανοήσας κάλλος ἐν περινοίᾳ τοῦ
ἀρχετύπου γίνεται ... βλέπειν διὰ τούτου ἐκεῖνον ... τὸ ἀγέννητον κάλλος
ἐν τῷ γεννητῷ κατοπτεύσας. The Word, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate,
is the revelation of the unseen Father: comp. John i. 18 Θεὸν _οὐδεὶς
ἑώρακεν_ πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός,
ἐκεῖνος _ἐξηγήσατο_, xiv. 9, 10 _ὁ ἑωράκως ἐμὲ ἑώρακέν τὸν
πατέρα_· πῶς σὺ λέγεις, _Δεῖξον_ ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; (compared with
vi. 46 οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις κ.τ.λ.). The epithet ἀοράτου
however must not be confined to the apprehension of the bodily senses,
but will include the cognisance of the inward eye also.
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 τῶν 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 [OE]cumenius
(_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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------