In a new translation it is said, "it is not each individual as such, but of everything called χτίσις in its nature (compare Heb. 9:1111But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; (Hebrews 9:11)). Creature' individually is χτίσμα." This settles it as against the querist if that passage had been in his mind.
But Meyer says [on πρωτότοχος πάσης χτίσεως] after the relation of Christ to God, now follows His relation to what is created, in an apologetic interest of opposition to the Gnostic false teachers.. The false teachers denied to Christ the supreme unique rank in the order of spirits. But He is first-born of every creature, that is, born before every creature-having come to personal existence, entered upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created was extant (Rom. 1:25;825Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25)
25But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (Romans 8:25). 39; Heb. 4:1313Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:13)). Analogous, but not equivalent, is Prov. 8:2222The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. (Proverbs 8:22), f.
In a note as against Hoffmann he says that this expression "posits the origin of Christ (as λόγος προφοριχός) in His temporal relation to the creature; and this point is the more purely to be adhered to, seeing that Christ Himself does not belong to the category of the χτίσις.”
Then, in the text, he proceeds-" It is to be observed that this predicate [first-born] also belongs to the entire Christ, inasmuch as by. His exaltation His entire person is raised to that state in which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed before the creation of the world," etc. "The mode in which he (Paul) conceived of the personal pre-existence of Christ before the world, as regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the figurative προτότοχος more precisely than as procession from the Divine nature, whereby the pre-mundane Christ became subsistent, ἐν μορφῆ Θεῷ (Phil. 2:66Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (Philippians 2:6)).
The genitive πάσης χτισεώς, moreover, is not the partitive genitive (although De Wette still, with Usteri, Reuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because the anarthrous πᾶσα χτίσις does not mean the whole creation, or everything which is created (Hoffmann), and consequently cannot affirm the category or collective whole to which Christ belongs as its first-born individual (it means every creature: compare on, πᾶσα οὶχοδομή, Eph. 2:2121In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: (Ephesians 2:21)); but it is the genitive of comparison, corresponding to the superlative expression, "the first-born in comparison with every creature," that is, born earlier than every creature.
In a note he says against Hoffmann-" The interpretation of H. is incorrect, because there would thereby be necessarily affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for Christ and all the χτἱσις."H. opines that πάσης χτίσεως is simply genitive of, of the definition of relation ' (e.g.,' in relation to all that is created, Christ occupies the position which a first-born has towards the household of his father ')." " But this" (continues Meyer) " explains nothing, because the question remains, What relation is meant to be defined by the genitive? The προτότοχος is not at all to be got over so easily as it is by Hoffmann, namely, with a grammatically erroneous explanation of the anarthrous πᾶσα χτίσις, and with appeal to Psa. 89:2727Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. (Psalm 89:27) (where in fact, προτότοχος stands without genitive, and בְּבו֗ר in the sense of the first rank."
" The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative genitive with πρῶτος (see on John 1:1515John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (John 1:15), etc.) The element of comparison is the relation of time (πρὸ τοῦ χόσμον, John 17: 5), and that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case of every χτίσις is different from what it is in the case of Christ.... the term πρωτότοχος is chosen, which, in comparison as to the time of origin, points to the peculiar nature of the origination in the case of Christ, namely, that He was not created by God like the other beings in whom this is implied in the designation χτἰσις, but born, having come forth homogeneous from the nature of God.
" And by this is expressed, not a relation homogeneous with the χτίσις (Holtzmann), a relation kindred to the world, but that which is absolutely exalted above the world, and unique....
"At variance, therefore, with the words is the Arian interpretation that Christ is designated as the first creature. With this view the sequel also conflicts, which describes Christ as the accomplisher and aim of creation; hence in His case a mode of origin higher and different from the being created must be pre-supposed, which is, in fact, characteristically indicated in the purposely-chosen word πρωτοτοχος.... If the creation of all things took place in Christ, it is evident that He must stand before the series of created things, and be πρωτότοχος πάσης χτίσεως."
So far Meyer, the best of all the German critics of the Greek text. What say you to it?
Do you think εἴχων and πρωτότοχος refer to Christ in His divine nature, or in incarnation?
See also Dr. J. B. LIGIFITOOT'S " Colossians," pp. 210-216, for an historical sketch of the interpretation. Augustine and Pelagius, he says, held both to be expressions of the Incarnate Christ. The " Fathers " did so generally to meet the Arians. And Marcellus went into error, making it all the moral creation, and applying the term to the whole context.
Dr. LIGHTFOOT'S notes are copious, and his discussion contains much valuable information; but he does not very distinctly tell us what he thinks, though I gather that he regards both expressions of Christ's divine nature.
OLSHAUSEN says: " In verses 15-17 Christ is delineated without reference to His incarnation." Again: " He (the Son of God) must have been born of the substance of the Father before all the creation, for all things are created in Him."
Be. ELLICOTT will have it everything that is created, not the whole creation, " begotten, and that antecedently to everything that was created." " He disdains not to institute a temporal comparison between His own generation from eternity and their creation in time." He admits in a very secondary and inferential sense priority in dignity, "the genitive of the point of view."
ALFORD suggests that the safe method is to combine the two ideas of priority and dignity-" that Christ was not only firstborn of His mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father before the worlds, and that He holds the rank, as compared with every created thing, of first-born in dignity. FOR, etc., 5: 16, where this assertion is justified."
THEODORET: " Not as having creation for a sister, but as begotten before all creation."
CHRYSOSTOM: " Not significant of glory and honor, but only of time."
BRAUNE: "Since πάσης denotes every kind of creature, angels and men, Christ existed before all. He does not begin the series of a category as first-begotten of the dead' (Rev. 1:55And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (Revelation 1:5)) among many brethren' (Rom. 8:2929For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)), but He is antecedent, conditioning the creation."
This is the reply which the sending of the foregoing has elicited from a friend:-
"I believe that Meyer errs in making πρωτότοχος expressive of priority in time, and is inconsistent in applying it to the Lord before He became a man. His language that He came to personal existence before creation, what does it mean? Put it back as far as you like, His becoming a person is to me a strange proof of Meyer's own soundness in the faith; but it proves the false interpretation. The man he most opposes, Hoffmann, seems nearer the truth in this matter.
John 1 is perfectly clear that the Word was God, and had a personal existence as the. Word with God before time began, that is, from all eternity. In time He became man; in time He was to be (as I understand it) both first-born of all creation (i.e. of everything to be designated creature), and first-born from the dead, but the former as incarnate, and the latter as risen.
" Hoffmann is right in designating the genitive as expressive of relation or in an objective point of view. It is, indeed, still more common than either of its special applications to ablation or partition; so that no objection can be valid on that score. It is notoriously comprehensive, so as to take in that which expresses comparison, value, etc., and is the objective rather than the subjective genitive. The Lord then is shown to be, not only the image of the invisible God, but first-born of all creation, meaning not priority of time, which would then be contrary to fact, but pre-eminence of dignity, no matter when He was born in time; and this because He created all. I, too, do not deny that it is a genitive of comparison; only it is supremacy, and not merely earliest in time, which is not true, and, if applied to His divine existence, would simply deny and destroy its reality. Did He become a Divine person, no matter how early in time? It is a very narrow partition, if any, which divides this idea from Arianism. Psa. 89 explains very clearly the case. For Solomon, though in fact late as being David's tenth son, became by God's will and sovereign choice first-born, that is, chief; so with Christ as man, though on the infinitely deeper ground of His own divine glory and right as Creator of all.
" Hence, we must of course reject such forced efforts as that founded on the very different phrases in John 1:1515John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (John 1:15) or inn John 17:55And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5). Origin is not the point, but relation of comparison. Begotten ' or born,' in relation to the Son in the Godhead cannot be allowed to mean a point of time, or subsequence, as I understand Meyer to mean, but simply the nearest relationship, or community of nature, between the Son and the Father. Was He or was He not Son from all eternity, as the Father was Father from all eternity or are we to reason from manhood, and infer that, because a father precedes his son, so it is in the Godhead? This I believe to be Arianism, and as baseless in Scripture as in sound reasoning, if we reason from the revealed nature of Godhead.
" In words, no doubt, Meyer avoids bald Arianism; but what does he mean if not the same thing in substance? Applied to Christ as man and in time, all is plain and certainly true; and His divine glory is left untouched; whereas these speculations do sully and lower and deny it in effect. For, as I understand the opening paragraph, it is taught by Meyer that Christ is first-born of every creature, as born before all, as having come to personal existence, or entered on subsistent being before creation, citing Rom. 1:25;825Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25)
25But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (Romans 8:25). 39, and Heb. 4:1313Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:13), not one of which touches the question, and saying that Prov. 8:2222The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. (Proverbs 8:22) is analogous, though not equivalent. Is it the old Alexandrian idea of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος becoming, προφοριχός Is this sound doctrine? In Scripture I see the Word God, and with God eternally, not the Word coming to personal existence; I see the Son in the bosom of the Father, not entering on subsistent being, be the point ever so early so as to create all that is created.
" But, further, where is the consistency of teaching that, if τ.ρ. π. χτ. means such priority as this, Christ's temporal relation to the creature, it also belongs to the entire Christ. Certainly the entire Christ was late in the history of human kind. When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son. Now, once in the end or consummation of the ages has He been manifested for putting away of sin by His sacrifice. Nay, stress is laid on the language of the apostle, that it is what Christ is, not what He was, that is on His exaltation as risen to heaven. How then, if it be so, are we to put this interpretation of πρ. π. χτ.into harmony with what we have already heard? How can this predicate, first-born of every creature, belong to the entire Christ, and Christ exalted after the assumption of humanity and His work on earth, in the sense of born ere yet anything created was extant? If I do not mistake, the idea is that He who became personally pre-existent before the world, became also man, and in due time risen from the dead and exalted in heaven; but that Christ is πρ. π. χτ. in both senses seems to be Meyer's notion. It appears to me that the Lord is πρ. π. χτ. in neither sense, and that it is as incarnate He is so designated. For in becoming man His glory might have been obscured and forgotten. Taking part in blood and flesh, as the apostle says elsewhere, He might have been viewed in a way derogatory to His person and His higher nature. Therefore, He is carefully shown to be first-born of all creation,' and this because in the power of His person all the universe was created, invisible no less than visible; and this in strong contradistinction from His being first-born from among the dead,' which He is as exalted to heaven and head of the church. Alone, and always, and perfectly representing the invisible God, as His image, He had the headship of all creation when incarnate, the headship of the church when risen from the dead.
"And how absurd the mysticism of the Germans, who limit iv to a local sphere, as I understand, and will have it to mean that the creation of all things took place in Christ' I What a dreamland is all this pretension to superior accuracy, which is really but the pseudo-literalism of a schoolboy tacked on to the balloon of some wild philosophy! Had it been πρῶτος or πρὸ π. χ., there might have been some grammatical reason, though poor and feeble doctrinally; whereas it is a great truth that, born when He might be, the Creator, if He deigned so to be, was necessarily, when He ἐγένετο σάρξ, πρωτότοχος πάσης χτίσεως. Of course ἐν here means 'in virtue' or 'in the power of,' as distinguished from διά,`through' or by means of,' as an instrument. For the universe to be created in Him seems to me sheer nonsense.
" In the others I see little or nothing but what is wrong. If saints are not often scholars, scholars prove themselves almost always poor saints. If they do not speak ill of Christ, they do not hold fast or confess aright His glory, through their desire to please men."