303
explained to be after the προ or πρωτο in πρωτότοκος (cf. John i. 15, ὅτι πρῶτός pov ἦν). This, as Lightfoot says, ‘unduly strains the grammar,” and on this ac- count it seems best to exclude the tem- poral element altogether. The pre-exist- ence is sufficiently asserted in what follows. There seems to be no real affinity with Philo’s doctrine of the Logos as πρωτόγονος- πάσης κτίσεως may be taken either as a collective, “all creation” (Lightf., R.V.), or distributively, “every creature” (Mey.,Ell., Haupt, Abb.). Lightfoot urges in favour of the former that πρωτότ. ‘‘ seems to require either a collective noun or a plural”. But if πρωτότ. be taken in the sense of ruler, this is not so; and Haupt points out that πᾶσα κτίσις elsewhere is used of every created thing, and that Paul uses κτίσις without the article in the sense of crea- ture. It is accordingly best to take it so here, “firstborn of every creature”. A further question is raised as to what the term includes. Haupt thinks its sense is limited to spiritual beings, since (1) Paul is proving the superiority of Christ to the angels, (2) he defines by τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρα- vois καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Not including heaven and earth themselves, (3) ets αὐτὸν shows that animate creatures must be referred to. At the same time he is careful to point out that, according to Jewish ideas, shared, no doubt, by the false teachers, the heavenly bodies were regarded as possessed of souls and as standing in the closest relation to the spirit world. This, combined with the fact that all material things were supposed similarly to have guardian spirits, rather tells against his limitation. For Paul really was concerned to show not only that Christ was superior to the angels, but that He and not the angels was Lord of the material creation. The phrase should therefore be taken in its full sense, though probably it is the spiritual side of the universe that he has chiefly in mind. The interpretation of creation as the new creation, adopted by many Fathers to meet the Arian inference that the Son was a creature, scarcely needs refutation. It would have no point against the false teaching at Colosse, nor can it be carried through the passage, ver. 16 being decisive against it. Paul would probably have said firstborn of the Church or of the new creation if he had meant this.
Ver. 16. Paul now gives the ground for the designation of the Son as πρωτότ. π. κτίσεως. In Him τὰ πάντα were created. From this it follows that the Son cannot be a creature, for creation
504
a Test. Lev,; only here in
ὁ
et. ii. 10; Jude 8, χαι,
God, Rom. xi. 36; Heb. ii. 10.
ΠΝ . 1.215 2P
wit
is exhausted by the “all things” which were so created in Him (‘‘omnem ex- cludit creaturam,” Bengel).—év αὐτῷ: this does not mean “by Him”. The sense is disputed. The schoolmen, followed by some modern theologians, explain that the Son is the archetype of the universe, the κόσμος νοητός, the eternal
attern after which the physical universe
as been created. So Philo held that the Logos was the home wherein the eternal ideas resided. But it is by no means clear that Alexandrian influence can be traced in the Epistle. Further, the notion of creation is not suitable to the origin of the ideal universe in the Son. If the Son was from eternity the arche- type of the universe, then ἐκτίσθη ἐν αὐτῷ ought not to have been used, both because the aorist points to a definite time and the idea of creation is itself inapplicable. But that the ideal universe was at some time created in the Son is an highly improbable, if it is even an intelligible, idea. Again, the sense of ἐκτίσθη is controlled by that of κτίσις, which does not refer to the ideal universe. It must therefore refer to the actual creation of the universe. If Paul had intended to speak of the realisation in creation of the ideal universe which had in the Son its eternal home he would have said ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Others (Mey., ΕΙΠ., Moule) take ἐν αὐτῷ to mean simply that the act of creation depended causally on the Son. This is perhaps the safest explanation, for Haupt’s interpretation that apart from His Person there would have been no creation, but with His Person creation was a necessity—in other words, that creation was “given” in Christ—seems with the aorist and the choice of the word ἐκτίσθη to be in- consistent with the eternal existence of the Son.—ra πάντα, {.ε., the universe in its widest sense regarded as a collective whole.—év τ οὐρανοῖς κ. ἐπὶ τ. rae As Lightfoot points out, “a classi-