Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| He then again admirably discusses the term πρωτότοκος as it is four times employed by the Apostle.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§3. He then again admirably discusses the term
πρωτότοκος
as it is four times employed by the
Apostle.
But that the readers of our work
may find no ambiguity left of such a kind as to afford any support to
the heretical doctrines, it may be worth while to add to the passages
examined by us this point also from Holy Scripture. They will perhaps
raise a question from the very apostolic writings which we quoted:
“How could He be called ‘the first-born of creation622
| 622 Cf. Col. i. 15 Πρωτότοκος
may be, as it is in the Authorized Version, translated
either by “first born,” or by “first-begotten.”
Compare with this passage Book II. §8, where the use of the word
in Holy Scripture is discussed. | ’ if He were not what creation is? for
every first-born is the first-born not of another kind, but of its own:
as Reuben, having precedence in respect of birth of those who are
counted after him, was the first-born, a man the first-born of men; and
many others are called the first-born of the brothers who are reckoned
with them.” They say then, “We assert that He Who is
‘the first-born of creation’ is of that same essence which
we consider the essence of all creation. Now if the whole creation is
of one essence with the Father of all, we will not deny that the
first-born of creation is this also: but if the God of all differs in
essence from the creation, we must of necessity say that neither has
the first-born of creation community in essence with God.” The
structure of this objection is not, I think, at all less imposing in
the form in which it is alleged by us, than in the form in which it
would probably be brought against us by our adversaries. But what we
ought to know as regards this point shall now, so far as we are able,
be plainly set forth in our discourse.
Four times the name of
“first-born” or “first-begotten” is used by the
Apostle in all his writings: but he has made mention of the name in
different senses and not in the same manner. For now he speaks of
“the first-born of all creation623
,” and
again of “the first-born among many brethren624
,” then of “the first-born from
the dead625
;” and in the Epistle to the
Hebrews the name of “first-begotten” is absolute, being
mentioned by itself: for he speaks thus, “When again He bringeth
the first-begotten into the world, He saith, ‘Let all the angels
worship Him626
.’” As these passages are
thus distinct, it may be well to interpret each of them separately by
itself, how He is the “first-born of creation,” how
“among many brethren,” how “from the dead,” and
how, spoken of by Himself apart from each of these, when He is again
brought into the world, He is worshipped by all His angels. Let us
begin then, if you will, our survey of the passages before us with the
last-mentioned.
“When again He bringeth
in,” he says, “the first-begotten into the world.”
The addition of “again” shows, by the force of this word,
that this event happens not for the first time: for we use this word of
the repetition of things which have once happened. He signifies,
therefore, by the phrase, the dread appearing of the Judge at the end
of the ages, when He is seen no more in the form of a servant, but
seated in glory upon the throne of His kingdom, and worshipped by all
the angels that are around Him. Therefore He Who once entered into the
world, becoming the first-born “from the dead,” and
“of His brethren,” and “of all creation,” does
not, when He comes again into the world as He that judges the world in
righteousness627
, as the prophecy saith, cast off the
name of the first-begotten, which He once received for our sakes; but
as at the name of Jesus, which is above every name, every knee bows628
, so also the company of all the angels
worships Him Who comes in the name of the First-begotten, in their
rejoicing over the restoration of men, wherewith, by becoming the
first-born among us, He restored us again to the grace which we had at
the beginning629
| 629 Oehler’s punctuation, which is probably due to a
printer’s error, is here a good deal altered. | . For since there is joy among the
angels over those who are rescued from sin, (because until now
that creation groaneth and travaileth in pain at the vanity that
affects us630
, judging our perdition to be their own
loss,) when that manifestation of the sons of God takes place which
they look for and expect, and when the sheep is brought safe to the
hundred above, (and we surely—humanity that is to say—are
that sheep which the Good Shepherd saved by becoming the
first-begotten631
| 631 This
interpretation is of course common to many of the Fathers, though S.
Augustine, for instance, explains the “ninety and nine”
otherwise, and his explanation has been often followed by modern
writers and preachers. The present interpretation is assumed in a
prayer, no doubt of great antiquity, which is found in the Liturgy of
S. James, both in the Greek and the Syriac version, and also in the
Greek form of the Coptic Liturgy of S. Basil, where it is said to be
“from the Liturgy of S. James.” | ,) then especially will they offer, in
their intense thanksgiving on our behalf, their worship to God, Who by
being first-begotten restored him that had wandered from his
Father’s home.
Now that we have arrived at the
understanding of these words, no one could any longer hesitate as to
the other passages, for what reason He is the first-born, either
“of the dead,” or “of the creation,” or
“among many brethren.” For all these passages refer to the
same point, although each of them sets forth some special conception.
He is the first-born from the dead, Who first by Himself loosed the
pains of death632
, that He might also make that birth of
the resurrection a way for all men633
| 633 See
Book II. §§4 and 8, and note on the former
passage. | . Again, He
becomes “the first-born among many brethren,” Who is born
before us by the new birth of regeneration in water, for the travail
whereof the hovering of the Dove was the midwife, whereby He makes
those who share with Him in the like birth to be His own brethren, and
becomes the first-born of those who after Him are born of water and of
the Spirit634
: and to speak briefly, as there are in
us three births, whereby human nature is quickened, one of the body,
another in the sacrament of regeneration, another by that resurrection
of the dead for which we look, He is first-born in all three:—of
the twofold regeneration which is wrought by two (by baptism and by the
resurrection), by being Himself the leader in each of them; while in
the flesh He is first-born, as having first and alone devised in His
own case that birth unknown to nature, which no one in the many
generations of men had originated. If these passages, then, have been
rightly understood, neither will the signification of the
“creation,” of which He is first-born, be unknown to us.
For we recognize a twofold creation of our nature, the first that
whereby we were made, the second that whereby we were made anew. But
there would have been no need of the second creation had we not made
the first unavailing by our disobedience. Accordingly, when the first
creation had waxed old and vanished away, it was needful that there
should be a new creation in Christ, (as the Apostle says, who asserts
that we should no longer see in the second creation any trace of that
which has waxed old, saying, “Having put off the old man with his
deeds and his lusts, put on the new man which is created according to
God635
,” and “If any man be in
Christ,” he says, “he is a new creature: the old things are
passed away, behold all things are become new636
:”) —for the maker of human nature
at the first and afterwards is one and the same. Then He took
dust from the earth and formed man: again, He took dust from the
Virgin, and did not merely form man, but formed man about Himself:
then, He created; afterwards, He was created: then, the
Word made flesh; afterwards, the Word became flesh, that He might
change our flesh to spirit, by being made partaker with us in flesh and
blood. Of this new creation therefore in Christ, which He Himself
began, He was called the first-born, being the first-fruits of all,
both of those begotten into life, and of those quickened by
resurrection of the dead, “that He might be Lord both of the dead
and of the living637
,” and might
sanctify the whole lump638
by means of its
first-fruits in Himself. Now that the character of
“first-born” does not apply to the Son in respect of His
pre-temporal existence the appellation of “Only-begotten”
testifies. For he who is truly only-begotten has no brethren, for how
could any one be only-begotten if numbered among brethren? but as He is
called God and man, Son of God and Son of man,—for He has the
form of God and the form of a servant639
, being some
things according to His supreme nature, becoming other things in His
dispensation of love to man,—so too, being the Only-begotten God,
He becomes the first-born of all creation,—the Only-begotten, He
that is in the bosom of the Father, yet, among those who are saved by
the new creation, both becoming and being called the first born of the
creation. But if, as heresy will have it, He is called first-born
because He was made before the rest of the creation, the name does not
agree with what they maintain concerning the Only-begotten God. For
they do not say this,—that the Son and the universe were from the
Father in like manner,—but they say, that the Only-begotten God
was made by the Father, and that all else was made by the
Only-begotten. Therefore on the same ground on which, while they hold
that the Son was created, they call God the Father of the created
Being, on the same ground, while they say that all things were made by the
Only-begotten God, they give Him the name not of the
“first-born” of the things that were made by Him, but more
properly of their “Father,” as the same relation existing
in both cases towards the things created, logically gives rise to the
same appellation. For if God, Who is over all, is not properly called
the “First-born,” but the Father of the Being He Himself
created, the Only-begotten God will surely also be called, by the same
reasoning, the “father,” and not properly the
“first-born” of His own creatures, so that the appellation
of “first-born” will be altogether improper and
superfluous, having no place in the heretical conception.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
