He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,“ and of the term “First born,“ four times used by the Apostle.

Bad Advertisement?

Are you a Christian?

Online Store:

Visit Our Store

He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,“ and of the term “First born,“ four times used by the Apostle.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP

§8. He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,” and of the term “First born,” four times used by the Apostle.

The mighty Paul, knowing that the Only-begotten God, Who has the pre-eminence in all things³²⁷

³²⁷ Cf. Col. i. 18
, is the author and cause of all good, bears witness to Him that not only was the creation of all existent things wrought by Him, but that when the original creation of man had decayed and vanished away³²⁸

³²⁸ Cf. Heb. viii. 13, whence the phrase is apparently adapted.
, to use his own language, and another new creation was wrought in Christ, in this too no other than He took the lead, but He is Himself the first-born of all that new creation of men which is effected by the Gospel. And that our view about this may be made clearer let us thus divide our argument. The inspired apostle on four occasions employs this term, once as here, calling Him, “first-born of all creation³²⁹

³²⁹ Col. i. 15.
,” another time, “the first-born among many brethren³³⁰

³³⁰ Rom. viii. 29.
,” again, “first-born from the dead³³¹

³³¹ Col. i. 18 (cf. Rev. i. 5).
,” and on another occasion he employs the term absolutely, without combining it with other words, saying, “But when again He bringeth the first-born into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him³³²

³³² Heb. i. 6.
.” Accordingly whatever view we entertain concerning this title in the other combinations, the same we shall in consistency apply to the phrase “first-born of all creation.” For since the title is one and the same it must needs be that the meaning conveyed is also one. In what sense then does He become “the first-born among many brethren?” in what sense does He become “the first-born from the dead?” Assuredly this is plain, that because we are by birth flesh and blood, as the Scripture saith, “He Who for our sakes was born among us and was partaker of flesh and blood³³³

³³³ Cf. Heb. i. 14
,” purposing to change us from corruption to incorruption by the birth from above, the birth by water and the Spirit, Himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to His own by water and the Spirit. But since it was also meet that He should implant in our nature the power of rising again from the dead, He becomes the “first-fruits of them that slept³³⁴

³³⁴ 1 Cor. xv. 20.
” and the “first-born from the dead³³⁵

³³⁵ Col. i. 18.
,” in that He first by His own act loosed the pains of death³³⁶

³³⁶ Cf. Acts ii. 24. See note 2, p. 104, supra.
, so that His new birth from the dead was made a way for us also, since the pains of death, wherein we were held, were loosed by the resurrection of the Lord. Thus, just as by having shared in the washing of regeneration³³⁷

³³⁷ The phrase is not verbally the same as in Tit. iii. 5.
He became “the first-born among many brethren,” and again by having made Himself the first-fruits of the resurrection, He obtains the name of the “first-born from the dead,” so having in all things the pre-eminence, after that “all old things,” as the apostle says, “have passed away³³⁸

³³⁸ Cf. 2 Cor. v. 17
,” He becomes the first-born of the new creation of men in Christ by the two-fold regeneration, alike that by Holy Baptism and that which is the consequence of the resurrection from the dead, becoming for us in both alike the Prince of Life³³⁹

³³⁹ Cf. Acts iii. 15
, the first-fruits, the first-born. This first-born, then, hath also brethren, concerning whom He speaks to Mary, saying, “Go and tell My brethren, I go to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God³⁴⁰

³⁴⁰ Cf. S. John xx. 17: the quotation is not verbal.
.” In these words He sums up the whole aim of His dispensation as Man. For men revolted from God, and “served them which by nature were no gods³⁴¹

³⁴¹ Cf. Gal. iv. 8
,” and though being the children of God became attached to an evil father falsely so called. For this cause the mediator between God and man³⁴²

³⁴² Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 5
having assumed the first-fruits of all human nature³⁴³

³⁴³ The Humanity of Christ being regarded as this “first-fruits:” unless this phrase is to be understood of the Resurrection, rather than of the Incarnation, in which case the first-fruits will be His Body, and ἀναλαβὼν should be rendered by “having resumed.”
, sends to His brethren the announcement of Himself not in His divine character, but in that which He shares with us, saying, “I am departing in order to make by My own self that true Father, from whom you were separated, to be your Father, and by My own self to make that true God from whom you had revolted to be your God, for by that first-fruits which I have assumed, I am in Myself presenting all humanity to its God and Father.”

Since, then, the first-fruits made the true God to be its God, and the good Father to be its Father, the blessing is secured for human nature as a whole, and by means of the first-fruits the true God and Father becomes Father and God of all men. Now “if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy³⁴⁴

³⁴⁴ Rom. ix. 16. The reference next following may be to S. John xii. 26, or xiv. 3; or to Col. iii. 3.
.” But where the first-fruits, Christ, is (and the first-fruits is none other than Christ), there also are they that are Christ’s, as the apostle says. In those passages therefore where he makes mention of the “first-born” in connexion with other words, he suggests that we should understand the phrase in the way which I have indicated: but where, without any such addition, he says, “When again He bringeth the first-born into the world³⁴⁵

³⁴⁵ Heb. i. 6.
,” the addition of “again” asserts that manifestation of the Lord of all which shall take place at the last day. For as “at the name of Jesus every knee doth bow, of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth³⁴⁶

³⁴⁶ Phil. ii. 10, 11.
,” although the human name does not belong to the Son in that He is above every name, even so He says that the First-born, Who was so named for our sakes, is worshipped by all the supramundane creation, on His coming again into the world, when He “shall judge the world with righteousness and the people with equity³⁴⁷

³⁴⁷ Cf. Ps. xcviii. 10.
.” Thus the several meanings of the titles “First-born” and “Only begotten” are kept distinct by the word of godliness, its respective significance being secured for each name. But how can he who refers the name of “first-born” to the pre-temporal existence of the Son preserve the proper sense of the term “Only-begotten”? Let the discerning reader consider whether these things agree with one another, when the term “first-born” necessarily implies brethren, and the term “Only-begotten” as necessarily excludes the notion of brethren. For when the Scripture says, “In the beginning was the Word³⁴⁸

³⁴⁸ S. John i. 1
,” we understand the Only-begotten to be meant, and when it adds “the Word was made flesh³⁴⁹

³⁴⁹ S. John i. 14
” we thereby receive in our minds the idea of the first-born, and so the word of godliness remains without confusion, preserving to each name its natural significance, so that in “Only-begotten” we regard the pre-temporal, and by “the first-born of creation” the manifestation of the pre-temporal in the flesh.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH