(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.
I. 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.
ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him,’ as below ver. 17 ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. For the preposition comp. Acts xvii, 28 ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καί ἐσμεν. All the laws and purposes which guide the creation and government of the Universe reside in Him, the Eternal Word, as their meeting-point. The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal Word as holding the same relation to the Universe which the Incarnate Christ holds to the Church. He is the source of its life, the centre of all its developments, the mainspring of all its motions. The use of ἐν to describe His relations to the Church abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom. viii. 1, 2, xii. 5, xvi. 3, 7, 9, etc., 1 Cor. i. 30, iv. 15, 17, vii. 39, xv. 18, 22, etc.), and more especially in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians (e.g. below ii. 7, 10). In the present passage, as in ver. 17, the same preposition is applied also to His relations to the Universe; comp. Joh. i. 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν (more especially if we connect the preceding ὃ γέγονεν with it).
Thus it is part of the parallelism which runs through the whole passage, and to which the occurrence of πρωτότοκος in both relations gives the key. The Judæo-Alexandrian teachers represented the Logos, which in their view was nothing more than the Divine mind energizing, as the τόπος where the eternal ideas, the νοητὸς κόσμος, had their abode; Philo de Mund. Op. 4 (I. p. 4) ὅσαπερ ἐν ἐκείνῳ νόητα, ib. § 5 (p. 4) οὐδὲ ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν κόσμος ἄλλον ἂν ἔχοι τόπον ἣ τὸν θεῖον λόγον τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμήσαντα, ib. § 10 (p. 8) ὁ ἀσώματος κόσμος ... ἱδρυθεὶς ἐν τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ; and see especially de Migr. Abr. I. p. 437) οἶκος ἐν ᾧ διαιτᾶται ... ὅσα ἂν ἐνθυμήματα τέκη, ὥσπερ ἐν οἴκῳ τῷ λόγῳ διαθείς. The Apostolic teaching is an enlargement of this conception, inasmuch as the Logos is no longer a philosophical abstraction but a Divine Person: see Hippol. Hær. x. 33 ἄιτιον τοῖς γινομένοις Λόγος ἦν, ἐν ἑαυτῷ φέρων τὸ θέλειν τοῦ γεγεννηκότος ... ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἐν τῷ πατρὶ προεννοηθείσας ἰδέας ὅθεν κελεύοντος πατρὸς γίνεσθαι κόσμον τὸ κατὰ ἒν Λόγος ἀπετελεῖτο ἀρέσκων Θεῷ: comp. Orig. in Ioann. i. § 22, IV. p. 21.