St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A...

(1) Representation. In this respect it is allied to χαρακτήρ, and differs from (ομοίωμα. In ὁμοίωμα the resemblance may be accidental, as one egg is like another; but εἱκών implies an archetype of which it is a copy, as Greg. Naz. Orat. 30 (I. p. 554) says ἅυτη γὰρ εἰκόνος φύσις μίμημα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπου . So too Io. Damasc. de Imag. i. 9 (I. p. 311) εἰκών ἐστιν ὁμοίωμα χαρακτηρίζον τὸ πρωτότυπον ; comp. Philo de Mund. Op. 23 (I. p. 16). On this difference see Trench N. T. Synon. § xv. p. 47. The εἰκὼν might be the result of direct imitation (μιμητική) like the head of a sovereign on a coin, or it might be due to natural causes (φυσική) like the parental features in the child, but in any case it was derived from its prototype: see Basil. de Spir. Sanct. 18 § 45 (III. p. 38). The word itself however does not necessarily imply perfect representation. Thus man is said to be the image of God; 1 Cor. xi. 7 εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, Clem. Rom. 33 ἄνθρωπον ... τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Thus again an early Judæo-Christian writer so designates the duly appointed bishop, as the representative of the divine authority; Clem. Hom. iii. 62 ὡς εἰκόνα Θεοῦ προτιμῶντας. The idea of perfection does not lie in the word itself, but must be sought from the context (e.g. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ver. 19). The use which was made of this expression, and especially of this passage, in the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries may be seen from the patristic quotations in Petav. Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 11. 9 sq., vi. 5. 6.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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).

(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 Œcumenius (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.

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.

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.