Chapter V: PERSONAL (iv. 7–18) (2)

(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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

ἐκτίσθη] The aorist is used here; the perfect below. Ἐκτίσθη describes the definite historical act of creation; ἔκτισται the continuous and present relations of creation to the Creator: comp. Joh. i. 3 χωρὶς αὐτοῦ _ἐγένετο_ οὐδὲ ἔν with _ib._ _ὃ εγέονεν_, 1 Cor. ix. 22 ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἀσθένεσιν ἀσθενής with ib. τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, 2 Cor. xii. 17 μή τινα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα with ver. 18 καὶ συναπέστειλα τὸν ἀδελφόν, 1 Joh. iv. 9 τὸν μονογενῆ _ἀπέσταλκεν_ ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ with ver. 10 ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ _ἀπέστειλεν_ τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ.

τὰ πάντα] ‘_the universe of things_,’ not πάντα ‘all things severally,’ but τὰ πάντα ‘all things collectively.’ With very few exceptions, wherever this phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands in a similar connexion; see below, vv. 17, 20, iii. 11, Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, xi. 12, xii. 6, xv. 27, 28, 2 Cor. v. 18, Eph. i. 10, 11, 23, iv. 10, Heb. i. 3, ii. 8, Rev. iv. 11. Compare Rom. viii. 32 τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται, 2 Cor. iv. 15 τὰ πάντα δι’ ὑμᾶς, with 1 Cor. iii. 22 ἔιτε κόσμος ... ὑμῶν; and Phil. iii. 8 τὰ πάντα εζημιώθην with Matt. xvi. 26 ἐὰ τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ. Thus it will appear that τὰ πάντα is nearly equivalent to ‘the universe.’ It stands midway between πάντα and τὸ πᾶν. The last however is not a scriptural phrase; for, while with τὰ πάντα it involves the idea of connexion, it suggests also the unscriptural idea of _self-contained_ unity, the great world-soul of the Stoic pantheist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 16]

ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ [τὰ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τα

ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, κ.τ.λ.] This division of the universe is not the same with the following, as if [τὰ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς were equivalent to τὰ ἀόρατα and [τὰ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς to τὰ ὁρατά. It should rather be compared with Gen. i. 1 ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, ii. 1 συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν, xiv. 19 ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, Rev. x. 6 ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῳ καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῃ. It is a classification by _locality_, as the other is a classification by _essences_. Heaven and earth together comprehend all space; and all things whether material or immaterial are conceived for the purposes of the classification as having their abode in space. Thus the sun and the moon would belong to ὁρατά, but they would be ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς; while the human soul would be classed among ἀόρατα but would be regarded as ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; see below ver. 20.

It is difficult to say whether τὰ ... τα should be expunged or retained. The elements in the decision are; (1) The facility either of omission or of addition in the first clause, owing to the termination of πάντα: (2) The much greater authority for the omission in the first clause than in the second. These two combined suggest that τὰ was omitted accidentally in the first clause, and then expunged purposely in the second for the sake of uniformity. On the other hand there is (3) The possibility of insertion in both cases either for the sake of grammatical completeness or owing to the parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. 10. On the whole the reasons for their omission preponderate. At all events we can hardly retain the one without the other.

τὰ ὀρατὰ κ.τ.λ.] ‘Things material and immaterial,’ or, according to the language of philosophy, φαινόμενα and νούμενα: comp. Plato _Phæd._ 79 A θῶμεν οὖν, εἰ βούλει, ἔφη, δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν, τὸ δὲ ἀειδές, κ.τ.λ.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες, εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε

εἴτε κ.τ.λ.] ‘_whether they be thrones or lordships, etc._’ The subdivision is no longer exhaustive. The Apostle singles out those created beings that from their superior rank had been or might be set in rivalry with the Son.

A comparison with the parallel passage Ephes. i. 21, ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς κ.τ.λ., brings out the following points:

(1) No stress can be laid on the sequence of the names, as though St Paul were enunciating with authority some precise doctrine respecting the grades of the celestial hierarchy. The names themselves are not the same in the two passages. While ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, κυριότης, are common to both, θρόνος is peculiar to the one and δύναμις to the other. Nor again is there any correspondence in the sequence. Neither does δύναμις take the place of θρόνος, nor do the three words common to both appear in the same order, the sequence being ἀρχ. ἐξ. [δύν.] κυρ. in Eph. i. 21, and [θρόν.] κυρ. ἀρχ. ἐξ. here.

(2) An expression in Eph. i. 21 shows the Apostle’s _motive_ in introducing these lists of names: for he there adds καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένον οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, i.e. ‘of every dignity or title (whether real or imaginary) which is reverenced,’ etc.; for this is the force of παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένον (see the notes on Phil. ii. 9, and Eph. _l.c._). Hence it appears that in this catalogue St Paul does not profess to describe objective realities, but contents himself with repeating subjective opinions. He brushes away all these speculations without enquiring how much or how little truth there may be in them, because they are altogether beside the question. His language here shows the same spirit of impatience with this elaborate angelology, as in ii. 18.

(3) Some commentators have referred the terms used here solely to earthly potentates and dignities. There can be little doubt however that their chief and primary reference is to the orders of the celestial hierarchy, as conceived by these Gnostic Judaizers. This appears from the context; for the words τὰ ἀόρατα immediately precede this list of terms, while in the mention of πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα and in other expressions the Apostle clearly contemplates the rivalry of _spiritual_ powers with Christ. It is also demanded by the whole design and purport of the letter, which is written to combat the worship paid to angels. The names too, more especially θρόνοι, are especially connected with the speculations of Jewish angelology. But when this is granted, two questions still remain. First; are evil as well as good spirits included, demons as well as angels? And next; though the primary reference is to spiritual powers, is it not possible that the expression was intended to be comprehensive and to include earthly dignities as well? The clause added in the parallel passage, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ κ.τ.λ., encourages us thus to extend the Apostle’s meaning; and we are led in the same direction by the comprehensive words which have preceded here, [τὰ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς κ.τ.λ. Nor is there anything in the terms themselves which bars such an extension; for, as will be seen, the combination ἀπχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι is applied not only to good angels but to bad, not only to spiritual powers but to earthly. Compare Ignat. _Smyrn._ 6 τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὀρατοί τε καὶ ἀόρατοι.

Thus guided, we may paraphrase the Apostle’s meaning as follows: ‘You dispute much about the successive grades of angels; you distinguish each grade by its special title; you can tell how each order was generated from the preceding; you assign to each its proper degree of worship. Meanwhile you have ignored or you have degraded Christ. I tell you, it is not so. He is first and foremost, Lord of heaven and earth, far above all thrones or dominations, all princedoms or powers, far above every dignity and every potentate—whether earthly or heavenly—whether angel or demon or man—that evokes your reverence or excites your fear.’ See above, pp. 103 sq.

Jewish and Judæo-Christian speculations respecting the grades of the celestial hierarchy took various forms. In the _Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_ (Levi 3), which as coming near to the Apostolic age supplies a valuable illustration (see _Galatians_ p. 307 sq.), these orders are arranged as follows: (1) θρόνοι, ἐξουσίαι, these two in the highest or seventh heaven; (2) οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ φέροντες τὰς ἀποκρίσεις τοῖς ἀγγέλοις τοῦ προσώπου in the sixth heaven; (3) οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ προσώπου in the fifth heaven; (4) οἱ ἄγιοι in the fourth heaven; (5) αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν παρεμβολῶν in the third heaven; (6) τὰ πνεύματα τῶν ἐπαγωγῶν (i.e. of visitations, retributions) in the second heaven: or perhaps the denizens of the sixth and fifth heavens, (2) and (3), should be transposed. The lowest heaven is not peopled by any spirits. In Origen _de Princ._ i. 5. 3, _ib._ i. 6. 2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. 1, _ib._ p. 74), we have five classes, which are given in an ascending scale in this order; (1) angels (_sancti angeli_, τάξις ἀγγελική); (2) princedoms (_principatus_, δύναμις ἀρχική, ἀρχαί); (3) powers (_potestates_, ἐξουσίαι); (4) thrones (_throni vel sedes_, θρόνοι); (5) dominations (_dominationes_, κυρίοτητες); though elsewhere, _in Ioann._ i. § 34, IV. p. 34, he seems to have a somewhat different classification in view. In Ephrem Syrus _Op. Syr._ I. p. 270 (where the translation of Benedetti is altogether faulty and misleading) the ranks are these: (1) θεοί, θρόνοι, κυριότητες; (2) ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι; (3) ἄγγελοι, δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ; these three great divisions being represented by the χιλίαρχοι, the ἐκατόνταρχοι, and the πεντηκόνταρχοι respectively in Deut. i. 15, on which passage he is commenting. The general agreement between these will be seen at once. This grouping also seems to underlie the conception of Basil of Seleucia _Orat._ 39 (p. 207), who mentions them in this order; θρόνοι, κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ. On the other hand the arrangement of the pseudo-Dionysius, who so largely influenced subsequent speculations, is quite different and probably later (Dion. Areop. _Op._ I. p. 75, ed. Cord.); (1) θρόνοι, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ; (2) ἐξουσίαι, κυριότητες, δυνάμεις; (3) ἄγγελοι, ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαι. But the earlier lists for the most part seem to suggest as their common foundation a classification in which θρόνοι, κυριότητες, belonged to the highest order, and ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι to the next below. Thus it would appear that the Apostle takes as an illustration the titles assigned to the two highest grades in a system of the celestial hierarchy which he found current, and which probably was adopted by these Gnostic Judaizers. See also the note on ii. 18.

θρόνοι] In all systems alike these ‘thrones’ belong to the highest grade of angelic beings, whose place is in the immediate presence of God. The meaning of the name however is doubtful: (1) It may signify the _occupants of thrones_ which surround the throne of God; as in the imagery of Rev. iv. 4 κύκλοθεν τοῦ θρόνου θρόνοι εἴκοσι τέσσαρες (comp. xi. 16, xx. 4). The imagery is there taken from the court of an earthly king: see Jer. lii. 32. This is the interpretation given by Origen _de Princ._ i. 5. 3 (p. 66), i. 6. 2 (p. 70) ‘judicandi vel regendi ... habentes officium.’ Or (2) They were so called, as _supporting or forming the throne of God_; just as the chariot-seat of the Almighty is represented as resting on the cherubim in Ezek. i. 26, ix. 3, x. 1 sq., xi. 22, Ps. xviii. 10, 1 Chron. xxviii. 18. So apparently Clem. Alex. _Proph. Ecl._ 57 (p. 1003) θρόνοι ἂν εἶεν ... διὰ τὸ ἀναπαύσθαι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν Θεόν. From this same imagery of the prophet the later mysticism of the Kabbala derived its name ‘wheels,’ which it gave to one of its ten orders of Sephiroth. Adopting this interpretation, several fathers identify the ‘thrones’ with the cherubim: e.g. Greg. Nyss. _ad Eunom._ i (II. p. 349 sq.), Chrysost. _de Incompr. Nat._ iii. 5 (I. p. 467), Theodoret (_ad loc._), August. _in Psalm._ xcviii. § 3 (iv. p. 1061). This explanation was adopted also by the pseudo-Dionysius _de Cœl. Hier._ 7 (I. p. 80), without however identifying them with the cherubim; and through his writings it came to be generally adopted. The former interpretation however is more probable; for (1) This highly symbolical nomenclature accords better with a later stage of mystic speculation, like the Kabbala; and (2) It seems natural to treat θρόνοι as belonging to the same category with κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, which are concrete words borrowed from different grades of human rank and power. As implying _regal_ dignity, θρόνοι naturally stands at the head of the list.

κυριότητες] ‘_dominations_,’ as Ephes. i. 21. These appear to have been regarded as belonging to the first grade, and standing next in dignity to the θρόνοι. This indeed would be suggested by their name.

ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι as Ephes. i. 21. These two words occur very frequently together. In some places they refer to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11, Tit. iii. 1 (comp. Luke xx. 20); in others to a spiritual hierarchy. And here again there are two different uses: sometimes they designate good angels, e.g. below ii. 10, Ephes. iii. 10; sometimes evil spirits, e.g. ii. 15, Ephes. vi. 12: while in one passage at least (1 Cor. xv. 24) both may be included. In Rom. viii. 38 we have ἀρχαὶ without ἐξουσίαι (except as a v. l.), and in 1 Pet. iii. 22 ἐξουσίαι without ἀρχαί, in connexion with the angelic orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 16]

ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

δι’ αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ.] ‘As all creation passed out from Him, so does it all converge again towards Him.’ For the combination of prepositions see Rom. xi. 36 ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα. He is not only the ==α== but also the ==ω==, not only the ἀρχή but also the τέλος of creation, not only the first but also the last in the history of the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13. For this double relation of Christ to the Universe, as both the initial and the final cause, see Heb. ii. 10 δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, where δι’ ὃν is nearly equivalent to εἰς αὐτὸν of the text.

In the Judaic philosophy of Alexandria the preposition διὰ with the genitive was commonly used to describe the function of the Logos in the creation and government of the world; e.g. _de Cherub._ 35 (I. p. 162) where Philo, enumerating the causes which combine in the work of Creation, describes God as ὑφ’ οὗ, matter as ἐξ οὗ, and the Word as δι’ οὗ; comp. _de Mon._ ii. 5 (II. p. 225) λόγος ... δι’ οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο. The Christian Apostles accepted this use of διὰ to describe the mediatorial function of the Word in creation; e.g. John i. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ., _ib._ ver. 10 ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, Heb. i. 2 δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας. This mediatorial function however has entirely changed its character. To the Alexandrian Jew it was the work of a passive tool or instrument (_de Cherub._ l.c. δι’ οὗ, _τὸ ἐργαλεῖον_, ὄργανον ... δι’ οὗ); but to the Christian Apostle it represented a cooperating agent. Hence the Alexandrian Jew frequently and consistently used the simple instrumental dative ᾧ to describe the relation of the Word to the Creator, e.g. _Quod Deus immut._ 12 (I. p. 281) ᾧ καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰργάζετο, _Leg. All._ i. 9 (I. p. 47) τῷ περιφανεστάτῳ καὶ τηλαυγεστάτῳ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ ῥήματι ὁ Θεὸς ἀμφότερα ποιεῖ, comp. _ib._ iii. 31 (I. p. 106) ὁ λόγος ... ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος. This mode of speaking is not found in the New Testament.

εἰς αὐτόν] ‘_unto Him_.’ As of the Father it is said elsewhere, 1 Cor. viii. 6 ἐξ ὁῦ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, so here of the Son we read τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. All things must find their meeting-point, their reconciliation, at length in Him from whom they took their rise—in the Word as the mediatorial agent, and through the Word in the Father as the primary source. The Word is the final cause as well as the creative agent of the Universe. This ultimate goal of the present dispensation in time is similarly stated in several passages. Sometimes it is represented as the birth-throe and deliverance of all creation through Christ; as Rom. viii. 19 sq. αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις ... συνωδίνει. Sometimes it is the absolute and final subjection of universal nature to Him; as 1 Cor. xv. 28 ὅταν ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. Sometimes it is the reconciliation of all things through Him; as below, ver. 20 δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα. Sometimes it is the recapitulation, the gathering up in one head, of the Universe in Him; as Ephes. i. 10 ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ. The image involved in this last passage best illustrates the particular expression in the text εἰς αὐτόν ... ἔκτισται; but all alike enunciate the same truth in different terms. The Eternal Word is the goal of the Universe, as He was the starting-point. It must end in unity, as it proceeded from unity: and the centre of this unity is Christ. This expression has no parallel, and could have none, in the Alexandrian phraseology and doctrine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 17]

^{17}καὶ αὐτὸς ἔστιν πρὸ πάντων, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ

17. καὶ αὐτος κ.τ.λ.] ‘_and HE IS before all things_’: comp. Joh. viii. 58 πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, _ἐγὼ εἰμὶ_ (and perhaps also viii. 24, 28, xiii. 19). The imperfect ἦν might have sufficed (comp. Joh. i. 1), but the present ἔστιν declares that this pre-existence is absolute existence. The ==αυτοϲ εϲτιν== here corresponds exactly to the ==εγω ειμι== in St John, and this again is illustrated by Exod. iii. 14. The verb therefore is not an enclitic, but should be accentuated ἔστιν. See Basil _adv. Eunom._ iv (I. p. 294) ὁ ἀπόστολος εἰπών, Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, ὤφειλεν εἰπεῖν, Κὰι αὐτὸς _ἐγένετο_ πρὸ πάντων, εἰπὼν δὲ, Καί αὐτὸς _ἔστι_ πρὸ πάντων, ἔδειξε τον μὲν ἀεὶ ὄντα τὴν δὲ κτίσιν γενομένην. The αὐτός is as necessary for the completeness of the meaning, as the ἔστιν. The one emphasizes the _personality_, as the other declares the _pre-existence_. For this emphatic αὐτός see again ver. 18; comp. Ephes. ii. 14, iv. 10, 11, 1 Joh. ii. 2, and esp. Rev. xix. 15 καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ ... καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ. The other interpretation which explains πρὸ πάντων of superiority in rank, and not of priority in time, is untenable for several reasons. (1) This would most naturally be expressed otherwise in Biblical language, as ἐπὶ πάντων (e.g. Rom. ix. 5, Eph. iv. 6), or ὑπὲρ πάντα (Eph. i. 22), or ὑπεράνω πάντων (Eph. i. 21, iv. 10). (2) The key to the interpretation is given by the analogous words in the context, esp. πρωτότοκος, vv. 15, 18. (3) Nothing short of this declaration of absolute pre-existence would be adequate to introduce the statement which follows, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.

πρὸ πάντων] ‘_before all things_.’ In the Latin it was translated ‘ante omnes,’ i.e. thronos, dominationes, etc.; and so Tertullian _adv. Marc._ v. 19 ‘Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, si non primogenitus conditionis?’ But the neuter τὰ πάντα, standing in the context before and after, requires the neuter here also.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 18]

συνέστηκεν. ^{18} καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος,

συνέστηκεν] ‘_hold together, cohere_.’ He is the principle of cohesion in the universe. He impresses upon creation that unity and solidarity which makes it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus (to take one instance) the action of gravitation, which keeps in their places things fixed and regulates the motions of things moving, is an expression of His mind. Similarly in Heb. i. 3 Christ the Logos is described as φέρων τὰ πάντα (_sustaining_ the universe) τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. Here again the Christian Apostles accept the language of Alexandrian Judaism, which describes the Logos as the δεσμὸς of the Universe; e.g. Philo _de Profug._ 20 (I. p. 562) ὅ τε γὰρ τοῦ ὄντος λόγος _δεσμὸς ὢν τῶν ἁπάντων_ ... καὶ _σύνεχει_ τὰ μέρη πάντα καὶ σφίγγει καὶ κωλύει αὐτὰ διαλύεσθαι καὶ διαρτᾶσθαι, _de Plant._ 2 (I. p. 331) _συνάγων_ τὰ μέρη πάντα καὶ σφίγγων· _δεσμὸν_ γὰρ αὐτὸν ἄρρηκτον τοῦ παντὸς ὁ γεννήσας ἐποίει πατήρ, _Quis rer. div. her._ 38 (I. p. 507) λόγῳ σφίγγεται θείῳ· κόλλα γάρ ἐστι καὶ _δεσμὸς_ οὗτος τὰ πάντα τῆς οὐσίας ἐκπεπληρωκώς: and for the word itself see _Quis rer. div. her._ 12 (I. p. 481) _συνέστηκε_ καὶ ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ, Clem. Rom. 27 ἐν λόγῳ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ συνεστήσατο τὰ πάντα. In the same connexion σύγκειται is used, Ecclus. xliii. 26. The indices to Plato and Aristotle amply illustrate this use of συνέστηκεν. This mode of expression was common also with the Stoics.

18. ‘And not only does He hold this position of absolute priority and sovereignty over the Universe—the natural creation. He stands also in the same relation to the Church—the new spiritual creation. He is its head, and it is His body. This is His prerogative, because He is the source and the beginning of its life, being the First-born from the dead. Thus in all things—in the spiritual order as in the natural—in the Church as in the World—He is found to have the pre-eminence.’

The elevating influence of this teaching on the choicest spirits of the subapostolic age will be seen from a noble passage in the noblest of early Christian writings, _Epist. ad Diogn._ § 7 τὸν λόγον τὸν ἅγιον ... ἀνθρώποις ἐνίδρυσε ... οὐ, καθάπερ ἄν τις εἰκάσειεν, ἀνθρώποις ὑπηρέτην τινὰ πέμψας ἢ ἄγγελον ἢ ἄρχοντα ἤ τινα τῶν διεπόντων τὰ ἐπίγεια ἤ τινα τῶν πεπιστευμένων τὰς ἐν οὐρανοῖς διοκήσεις, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων ... ᾧ πάντα διατέτακται καὶ διώρισται καὶ ὑποτέτακται, οὐρανοὶ καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ κ.τ.λ. See the whole context.

καὶ αὐτὸς] ‘_and He_,’ repeated from the preceding verse, to emphasize the identity of the Person who unites in Himself these prerogatives: see on ver. 17, and comp. ver. 18 αὐτός, ver. 19 δι’ αὐτοῦ. The Creator of the World is also the Head of the Church. There is no blind ignorance, no imperfect sympathy, no latent conflict, in the relation of the demiurgic power to the Gospel dispensation, as the heretical teachers were disposed consciously or unconsciously to assume (see above, p. 101 sq., p. 110 sq.), but an absolute unity of origin.

ἡ κεφαλή] ‘_the head_,’ the inspiring, ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the centre of its unity, and the seat of its life. In his earlier epistles the relations of the Church to Christ are described under the same image (1 Cor. xii. 12–27; comp. vi. 15, x. 17, Rom. xii. 4 sq.); but the Apostle there takes as his starting-point the various functions of the members, and not, as in these later epistles, the originating and controlling power of the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph. i. 22 sq., ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 15 sq., v. 23, 30.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 18]

τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος

τῆς ἐκκλησίας] in apposition with τοῦ σώματος: comp. i. 24 τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία, Eph. i. 23.

ἀρχή] ‘_the origin_, _the beginning_.’ The term is here applied to the Incarnate Christ in relation to the Church, because it is applicable to the Eternal Word in relation to the Universe, Rev. iii. 14 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ. The parallelism of the two relations is kept in view throughout. The word ἀρχή here involves two ideas: (1) Priority in time; Christ was the first-fruits of the dead, ἀπαρχή (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23): (2) Originating power; Christ was also the source of life, Acts iii. 14 ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς; comp. Acts v. 31, Heb. ii. 10. He is not merely the _principium principiatum_ but the _principium principians_ (see Trench _Epistles to the Seven Churches_ p. 183 sq.). He rose first from the dead, that others might rise through Him.

The word ἀρχή, like πρῶτος (see the note on Phil. i. 5), being absolute in itself, does not require the definite article. Indeed the article is most commonly omitted where ἀρχή occurs as a predicate, as will appear from several examples to be gathered from the extracts in Plut. _Mor._ p. 875 sq., Stob. _Ecl. Phys._ i. 10. 12 sq. Comp. also Aristot. _Met._ x. 7, p. 1064, τὸ θεῖον ... ἂν εἴη πρώτη καὶ κυριωτάτη ἀρχή, Onatas in Stob. _Ecl. Phys._ i. 2. 39 αὐτὸς γὰρ [θεὸς] ἀρχὰ καὶ πρᾶτον, Tatian. _ad Græc._ 4 Θεὸς ... μόνος ἄναρχος ὢν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τῶν ὅλων ἀρχή, Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iv. 25, p. 638, ὁ Θεὸς δὲ ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων παντελής, ἀρχῆς ποιητικός, Method. _de Creat._ 3 (p. 100, ed. Jahn) πάσης ἀρετῆς ἀρχὴν καὶ πηγὴν ... ἡγῇ τὸν Θεόν, pseudo-Dionys. _de Div. Nom._ v. § 6 ἀρχὴ γάρ ἐστι τῶν ὄντων, § 10 πάντων οὖν ἀρχὴ καὶ τελευτὴ τῶν ὄντων ὁ προών.

The text is read with the definite article, ἡ ἀρχή, in one or two excellent authorities at least; but the obvious motive which would lead a scribe to aim at greater distinctness renders the reading suspicious.

πρωτότοκος] Comp. Rev. i. 5 ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. His resurrection from the dead is His title to the headship of the Church; for ‘the power of His resurrection’ (Phil. iii. 10) is the life of the Church. Such passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 17, where the πρωτότοκος is called ἀρχὴ τέκνων and superior privileges are claimed for him as such, must necessarily be only very faint and partial illustrations of the connexion between ἀρχὴ and πρωτότοκος here, where the subject-matter and the whole context point to a fuller meaning of the words. The words πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν here correspond to πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως ver. 15, so that the parallelism between Christ’s relations to the Universe and to the Church is thus emphasized.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 19]

ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων· ^{19} ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι,

ἵνα γένηται κ.τ.λ.] As He _is_ first with respect to the Universe, so it was ordained that He should _become_ first with respect to the Church as well. The _γένηται_ here answers in a manner to the _ἔστιν_ of ver. 17. Thus ἔστιν and γένηται are contrasted as the absolute being and the historical manifestation. The relation between Christ’s headship of the Universe by virtue of His Eternal Godhead and His headship of the Church by virtue of His Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection is somewhat similarly represented in Phil. ii. 6 sq. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὕαρχων ... μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ... γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου ... _διὸ_ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν κ.τ.λ.

ἐν πᾶσιν] ‘_in all things_’ not in the Universe only but in the Church also. Καὶ γάρ, writes Theodoret, ὡς Θεὸς, πρὸ πάντων ἐστὶ καὶ σὺν τῷ πατρί ἐστι, καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ τοῦ σώματος κεφαλή. Thus ἐν πᾶσιν is neuter and not masculine, as it is sometimes taken. Either construction is grammatically correct, but the context points to the former interpretation here; and this is the common use of ἐν πᾶσιν, e.g. iii. 11, Eph. i. 23, Phil. iv. 12. For the neuter compare Plut. _Mor._ p. 9 σπεύδοντες τοὺς παῖδας ἐν πᾶσι τάχιον πρωτεῦσαι. On the other hand in [Demosth.] _Amat._ p. 1416 κράτιστον εἶναι τὸ πρωτεύειν ἐν ἅπασι the context shows that ἅπασι is masculine.

αὐτὸς] ‘_He Himself_’; see the note on καὶ αὐτὸς above.

19, 20. ‘And this absolute supremacy is His, because it was the Father’s good pleasure that in Him all the plenitude of Deity should have its home; because He willed through Him to reconcile the Universe once more to Himself. It was God’s purpose to effect peace and harmony through the blood of Christ’s cross, and so to restore all things, whatsoever and wheresoever they be, whether on the earth or in the heavens.’

19. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κ.τ.λ.] The eternal indwelling of the Godhead explains the headship of the Church, not less than the headship of the Universe. The resurrection of Christ, whereby He became the ἀρχὴ of the Church, was the result of and the testimony to His deity; Rom. i. 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ... ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν.

εὐδόκησεν] sc. ὁ Θεός, the nominative being understood; see Winer § lviii. p. 655 sq., § lxiv. p. 735 sq.; comp. James i. 12 (the right reading), iv. 6. Here the omission is the more easy, because εὐδοκία, εὐδοκεῖν etc. (like θέλημα) are used absolutely of God’s good purpose, e.g. Luke ii. 14 ἐν ἀνθρῶποις εὐδοκίας (or εὐδοκία), Phil. ii. 13 ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας, Clem. Rom. § 40 πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἐν εὐδοκήσει; see the note in Clem. Rom. § 2. For the expression generally comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 35 σύ, Κύριε, εὐδόκησας ναὸν τῆς σῆς κατασκηνώσεως ἐν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι. The alternative is to consider πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα personified as the nominative; but it is difficult to conceive St Paul so speaking, more especially as with εὐδόκησεν personification would suggest personality. The πλήρωμα indeed is personified in Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ 43 (p. 979) συναινέσαντος καὶ τοῦ πληρώματος, and in Iren. i. 2. 6 βουλῇ μιᾷ καὶ γνώμῃ τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα τῶν αἰώνων κ.τ.λ., i. 12. 4 πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ηὐδόκησεν [δι’ αὐτοῦ δοξάσαι τὸν πάτερα]; but the phraseology of the Valentinians, to which these passages refer, cannot be taken as an indication of St Paul’s usage, since their view of the πλήρωμα was wholly different. A third interpretation is found in Tertullian _adv. Marc._ v. 19, who translates ἐν αὐτῷ _in semetipso_, taking ὁ Χριστὸς as the nominative to εὐδόκησεν: and this construction is followed by some modern critics. But, though grammatically possible, it confuses the theology of the passage hopelessly.

τὸ πλήρωμα] ‘_the plenitude_,’ a recognised technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes; comp. ii. 9. See the detached note on πλήρωμα. On the relation of this statement to the speculations of the false teachers at Colossæ see the introduction, pp. 102, 112. Another interpretation, which explains τὸ πλήρωμα as referring to the Church (comp. Ephes. i. 22), though adopted by several fathers, is unsuited to the context and has nothing to recommend it.