J. B. Lightfoot on Colossians 1:14-15

^{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.