關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（八）
五、W.E. Vine（1873-1949）
PROTOTOKOS (πρωτοτοκος) , firstborn (from protos, first, and tikto, to beget), is used of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, Luke 2:7; further, in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used occasionally of superiority of position in the OT; see Ex. 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of thefirstborn to one born subsequently to the first child.
The five passages in the NT relating to Christ may be set forth chronologically thus:
(a) Col 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the Firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as Col 1:16 makes clear);
(b) Col 1:18; Rev 1:5, in reference to His resurrection;
(c) Rom 8:29, His position in relationship to the church;
(d) Heb 1:6, RV, His Second Advent (the RV “when He again bringeth in,” puts “again” in the right place, the contrast to His First Advent, at His birth, being implied); cp. Psalm 89:27. The word is used in the plural, in Heb 11:28, of the firstborn sons in the families of the Egyptians, and in Psalm 12:23, of the members of the Church.
Note: With (a) cp. John 1:30, “He was before me,” lit., “He was first (protos) of me,” i.e., “in regard to me,” expressing all that is involved in His pre-existence and priority.
【中譯】：
πρωτοτοκος, 首生 ( 從protos「首」 + tikto「生」而來 )，用於基督為馬利亞所生（路二7），進一步，用於祂與父的關係，表明其先於且超越造物，意思不是祂是第一個生的。在舊約有時用於地位上的優越，見於出四22；禁止指定長子之特權地位給在長子之後生者的罪惡，見於申二十一16～17。
在新約裡五處關於基督的經節可以依序列之如下：
1.西一15，這裡表明祂與父永遠的關係，而這個子句意思是，祂是在所有造物之先的首生（或長子），祂也創造了萬有（是受詞所有格，如16節所明證的）。
2.西一18和啟一5，關於祂的復活。
3.羅八29，祂與教會關係上的地位。
4.來一6（修定本），祂的再臨…。比較詩八十九27。
本字複數則用於希十一28埃及家的眾長子和十二23教會的眾成員。
（註：第1點，比較約一30「祂在我以前」，原文是「祂是我的第一」，亦即「關於我」祂是第一，表明他的先存和優先）
（W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pp.434-435, second printing, Thomas Nelson）
評論：W.E. Vine是弟兄會中傑出的聖經教師之一，他的「An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words」在西方英語世界極受推崇、歷久不衰，在聖經原文字義方面解析清楚，而且同義詞分析、字詞格類排比等都非常清楚、豐富。我個人認為，其所下的斷言不能等閒視之，應尊重採納。
六、A.C. Gaebelein（1861 - 1945）
…Arianism, Socianism, Unitarianism, Russellism, Christian Science and other “isms” which rob the Lord Jesus Christ of His full glory and deny His Deity, are completely answered in the brief words which unfold His glory. It was Arius of Alexandria who taught in the beginning of the fourth century that the Lord Jesus was a creature, the first of all created things, though super-angelic, yet not eternal in His being nor a partaker of the divine essence. The council of Nice (325 A.D.) condemned the wicked theory of Arius. Socinus in the Reformation period revived this error, as did Priestly and Martineau in England and Channing and others in America. It remained for one Charles T. Russel, whose system is known by different names, to popularized these false and corrupt views and spread them throughout Christendom. Russell with Arius asserts that in His pre-existent state Jesus was a pure spirit, higher than the angels, yet only a creature. When born of Virgin Mary, He dropped His spirit nature while on earth. He teaches that the atonement offered by our Lord was only human, having nothing divine about it. Russellism also denies that the human body of our Lord was raised from the dead. The whole system is a conglomerate of Arianism，Ebioniteism and Rationalism….
2. “Firstborn of all creation”-not as the authorized version has it “the firstborn of every creature.” It is here where the false teaching originates, which claims that our Lord was after all only a creature, called into existence by God, and not very God. This passage teaches no such thing. The title “ Firstborn” denotes His priority to creation, for He is the creation’s Head; the Headship of all creation belongs to Him. When He who is the image of the invisible God takes His place in creation, as He did in incarnation, it can only be as the Firstborn, as the Beginning of the Creation of God, the Head of all. He, who became man, under whose feet as the second Man all things will be put in subjection (Ps. Viii, Heb. ii), is the Lord from Heaven, the Creator of all things.
3. That He is not a creature, though He took on the creature’s form, is at once demonstrated by the words which follow. The Holy Spirit anticipated the errors which would deny His glory and therefore we read of Him as the creator. “ For by Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by Him and for Him.” It is therefore absolutely certain that the “Firstborn” does not mean that our Lord is a creature, but the Creator. These words which were written by the Apostle are revelation. Nor is Paul the only instrument through whom the Spirit of God makes known His glory. John wrote in the beginning of his gospel the same truth. “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” (John i:2)
The Son of God is therefore the Creator, yet not to the exclusion of the power of the Father, nor the operation of the Spirit. The three are one, in character and in their work; in creation and in redemption the three persons of the Godhead are active….
【中譯】：
…亞流主義、動力神格唯一論、索西奴主義、羅素主義（按羅素，耶和華見證人會的創始人）、基督教科學會（按為艾迪女士所創始），還有其他的「主義」，這些掠奪了主耶穌基督完全的榮耀並拒絕祂的神性，在這短短揭示祂榮耀的話裡完全回應了他們。亞歷山大的亞流在第四世紀初教導主耶穌是一個造物，一切造物的第一個，雖然超越天使，就其本身而言卻不是永遠的，也不能有分神聖的本質。尼西亞大會（主後325年）定罪了亞流邪惡的學說。索西奴在改教時期復燃其錯誤，…，直到有一個名叫羅素的（Charles T. Russell），他的系統有著許多不同的名稱，將這些錯誤和敗壞的觀點流傳出去，使之散佈在基督教世界中。
羅素跟著亞流，主張在耶穌存在之前，祂純是一個靈，高於天使，卻仍是個受造物。當祂在地為馬利亞所生時，祂降下祂的靈質。他教導我們的主所給的贖罪只是屬人的，並不是神聖的。羅素主義又否認我們的主屬人的身體從死裡復活。這整個系統是亞流主義、以便俄尼主義和理性主義的大雜燴。基督教科學會也是否認基督的神性，它裡面全是歌羅西人當時所面對的諾斯底主義致死的錯誤。…
2.「一切受造之物的首生者」，不是欽定本的「每一造物的首生」。錯誤的教訓就是從這裡產生的，這個教訓聲稱我們的主終究不過是個造物，是神使祂存在，祂不是神。這個經文教導的絕不是這樣。「首生」的頭銜表明祂之於造物的居先，因為祂是造物的頭，所有屬祂之造物的首領。當祂作為不能看見之神的像來道成肉身，在造物中有其位時，祂只能是首生、神造物的元始、一切的頭。祂來成為人，作為第二個人，萬有都要服在祂的腳下（詩八，來二），祂是天來的主、萬有的創造者。
3.這個－祂雖然取了造物的樣式，卻不是一個造物－立刻從後面的話表露出來。聖靈預料到會有否認祂榮耀的錯誤，因此我們讀關於祂是創造主的話：「因為萬有都是靠祂造的，無論是天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的；或是有位的，主治的，執政的，掌權的；一概都是藉著祂造的，又是為祂造的。」因此絕對確定的，「首生」的意思不是我們的主是一個造物，而是創造主。使徒所寫的這些話是啟示。神的靈使人知道祂的榮耀並不是只有藉著由保羅一個器皿，約翰在祂的福音書開頭寫了一樣的真理：「萬物是藉著祂造的；凡被造的，沒有一樣不是藉著祂造的。」（約一2）
因此神的兒子是創造主。然而卻不能排除父的能力，也不能排除聖靈的運行。祂們三者在性質和工作上是一，神格中的三個人位在創造和救贖的事上都是活躍的。…
（A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible, Vol. IV, Loizeaux Brothers, 1970, 3rd printing, Dec. 1979, pp.51-53 ）
評論：A.C. Gaebelein也是弟兄會中傑出的聖經教師之一，他的「The Annotated Bible」在西方英語世界裡是一套非常經典的著作，備受推崇、值得信賴。著名的「司可福參考聖經」（The New Scofield Reference Bible）亦列他為諮詢學者之一，可見其份量。
Gaebelein的文章不僅解經正確、滿了亮光、文筆流暢、絕無贅句，而且駁斥異端教訓更是不遺餘力，使仇敵一切的謊言被拆穿，無所遁形。他在他所處的時代裡是捍衛真理的勇士。
讀者讀讀他所寫關於西一15的評註就可以知道，他在那裡所下的斷言何等地清晰正確，所有關乎亞流的錯誤、遺毒在這樣的評註前完全站不住腳。讀者當以其人之斷言為斷言，不當輕信錯誤的教訓，被其如風帶走！
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（七）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（七）
四、J.B. Lightfoot（1828 –1889）
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως] ‘the First-born of all creation.’ The word πρωτοτοκος has twofold parentage:
（I）Like εικων it is closely connected with and taken from the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo applies to the λογος is not πρωτοτοκος but πρωτογονος… and this designation…is several times applies to the λογος. Again in...the language of Exod. xiii. 2...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 philosphy it includes the oroginal conception, the archytype idea, of creation, which was afterward realised in the material world. Among the early Christian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the application of the term πρωτοτοκος to the Word;…So too Theophilus …
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，「一切造物的首生」，πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）「首生」一字有雙重的來源：
1.就如「像」（εικων）一字，它（「按「首生」」一字）是緊連並從亞歷山大的「道」（Logos）的辭彙而來。然而斐羅（Philo）所用於「道」的字不是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）而是πρωτογονος （protogonos），…而這個稱謂…有幾次用於「道」。再者在…出十三2的話…當被用於「聖道」，也是這樣詮釋的。「頭生」、「長子」這些稱號是斐羅（Philo）用於稱呼「道」的，因為在他的哲學裡含有最初創造的概念，就是原型（archytype）的觀念，後來這都實化在物質的世界裡。在早期的基督徒教父中，殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）一再地確認πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一詞是用於「道」，…提阿非羅（Theophilus）亦然。…
（2）The word πρωτοτοκος had also another not less important link of connexion with the past. The Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix 28, εγο πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον κ.τ.λ., seems to have been generally allowed. So at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan… ‘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’ ο πρωτοτοκος（בכור）used absolutely, because a recognised title of Messiah. The way had been paved for this Massianic reference of πρωτοτοκος by its prior application to the Israelites, as the prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘Israel is my son, my first-born ’ : comp. Pslm. Salom. xviii. 4 η παιδεια σου εφ ημας ως υιον πρωτοτοκον μονογενη… 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…), the terms are transferred from the race to the Messiah, as the representative, the embodiment, of the race.
2.πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一字也有另一個也是很重要的關連，就是與過去的連結。詩八十九28（按中文聖經是27節，下同）「我也要立他為長子…」，作為彌賽亞的引證（Messianic reference），似乎是眾所公認的。所以至少拿單（R. Nathan）… 詮釋之為：「神說，我立雅各為長子（出四22），所以我也立彌賽亞君王為長子（八十九27）。」
因此，「長子」（ο πρωτοτοκος，בכור）的用法絕對，因為是認定彌賽亞的一個頭銜。先前出四22「以色列是我的兒子，我的長子」，用於作為特權族類的以色列人的方式，已為πρωτοτοκος （prototokos）一字作為這個彌賽亞的引證先鋪好了路。比較所羅門詩歌十八4…，那裡把兩個用於新約的頭銜（按是πρωτοτοκον μονογενη，prototokon monogene）合併在一起是叫人稀奇的。這裡，就如別處（見加三16註），這詞從族類轉到作為族類代表和體現的彌賽亞身上。
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 πρωτοτοκος 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 πρωτοτοκος to πρωτογονος, 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.
當基督這個人位，同時作為亞歷山大猶太人的哲學問題，和在巴勒斯坦人愛國主義者的神聖回應時，這兩道思想的水流相遇於用在主身上的πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）這個字上。他是真道，也是真彌賽亞。因這理由，我們可以假設，同樣的別的理由也可以，就是基督的眾使徒喜用πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）勝於用πρωτογονος（protogonos），因為只有前者可以包含彌賽亞的引證，而後者是亞歷山大的人所喜用的（這我們可從Philo得知）。
The main idea 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 beings. This interpretation is not required by the expression itself. The fathers of the fourth century rightly called attention to the fact that the Apotle writes not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος; e.g. Basil… Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. …, though without any direct reference to this passage, the μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος is contrasted with the πρωτοκτιστοι, the highest order of angelic beings; and the word πρωτοκτιστος occurs more than once elsewhere in his writings(e.g. Strom. v. 14, 699). Nor again does the genitive case necessarily imply that the πρωτοτοκος Himself belonged to the κτισις , 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, εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα, and with absolute pre-existence and self-existence which is claimed for Him just below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων. We may add also that it is irreconcilable with other passages in the Apostolic writings, while it contradicts the fundamental idea of the Christian consciousness. More especially the description πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως must be interpreted in such a way that it is not inconsistent with His other title of μονογενης, unicus, alone of His kind and therefore distinct from created things. The two words express the same eternal fact; but while μονογενης states it in itself, πρωτοτοκος places it in relation to the Universe. The correct interpretation is supplied by Justin Martyr,…πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων. He does not indeed mention this passage, but it was doubtless in his mind, for he elsewhere uses the very expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως…comp. also…, where the words πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων occur.
因此這個字所含有的主要意思有雙重，其一是與亞歷山大「道」的觀念有著更為直接的關連，另一是與巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」的觀念有著更近的相連。
1.「先於」一切造物。
換言之，表示子的絕對先存。乍看之下，似乎這裡是說基督是最早的，但也被看為是造物之一，然而這樣的詮釋並不需要這個字來表達。第四世紀的教父們注意到一個事實，就是使徒們所寫的不是πρωτοκτιστος （protoktistos）而是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）。例如巴西流（Basil）…，再早一點亞歷山大的革利免（Clem. Alex.），雖無直接引此處經文，把「獨生和首生」（μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος）與作為天使之最高階的「首造」（πρωτοκτιστοι）相比較。而且「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）之一字不只一次出現在他其他的著作中。
再者，所有格不需要表示「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）是屬於「造物」（κτισις），正如待會兒所要說的。而且如果這個意思不從這些話的本身來得著（按意即該字在舊約裡的轉意特殊用法），上下文就直接把這個意思排除了。這樣也與接著描述他做萬有創造的憑藉的話－「萬有都是靠他造的」（或直譯「萬有都是在他裡面造的」）－不一致，也與下面緊接著宣稱他是絕對先存和自存的話－「他在萬有之先」－不一致。我們還可以加上一個，就是與使徒著作中其他的經文不相合，也與基督徒良心的基本思想相牴觸。甚且「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）必須在一種與「獨生」（μονογενη，unicus）不能不一致的方式裡來詮釋。「獨生」是獨自一類的，因此與造物迥別。
這兩個字同樣表明永恆的事實，然而「獨生」（μονογενης）用於陳述字的本身，「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）則把它擺在與宇宙的關係上。正確的詮釋乃是殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）…所提供的：「神的首生和一切被造的以先」（πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων）。雖然他沒有真正提到這經文（按指西一15下），但是無疑地這是在他的心中的，因為在別處他用了「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）這個特殊的發表。…也可比較…，那裡出現「一切工作品的首生」（πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων）這樣的話。
（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. Ps. Lxxxix. 28 after πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον the explanation is added, υψηλον παρα τοις βασιλευδιν της γης, i.e. (as the oroginal implies) ‘above all the kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic refernece this secondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word πρωτοτοκος, so that from this point of view πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως would mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture.’ The εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων of the Apostolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly corresponds to the θησομαι πρωτοτοκος 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, εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων, the most probable explanation of the word is that which makes it equivalent to ‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful Christians being ipso factor πρωτοτοκοι, 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,…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-emience,’ see Job xviii. 13 ‘the first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the first-born of the poor.’
2.「統管」萬有。
神的「長子」是神家裡理所當然的管理者、眾所公認的頭。統管所有造物的長子繼承權歸屬於彌賽亞。因此，詩八十九27在「立他為長子」之後，加了解釋的話：「為世上最高的君王」。在彌賽亞的引經裡，πρωτοτοκος這個字重在統治權的第二個思想，所以從這個觀點來看，πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（按是西一15下）意思是「由於長子名分而為統管萬有的主」。使徒著作的εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων（萬有的承受者，來一2）完全等同於詩篇作者的θησομαι πρωτοτοκος（立為長子，詩八十九27），而且無疑的是心照不宣地故意作為這個彌賽亞經文的釋意和運用。
所以，再一次在來十二23的εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων（眾長子的教會），這個字最可能的解釋是等同於「國度的繼承者」，就是根據事實，所有的基督徒都是長子（πρωτοτοκοι），因為都是王。不，所以完整的應該是由於居先而為掌權的意思，在有些用法裡脫離了「長子」這個詞的第一個意思，而用於神的本身…。在舊約裡，另一些בכור（prototokos，「長子」）作為第二種用法的例子裡，「頭生」的意思被「超越」的意思所遮蓋而失去，這見於伯十八13「死亡的長子」、賽十四30「貧寒人的長子」。
πασης κτισεως] ‘of all creation,’ rather than ‘of every created thing.’… The genitive case must be interpreted so as to include the full meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as already explained. It will therefore signify: ‘He stands in the relation of πρωτοτοκος to all creation,’ i.e. ‘ He is the Firstborn , and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.’ …Another explanation which would connect the genitive with the first part of the compound alone (πρωτο-), comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, πρωτος μου ην, unduly strains the grammar, while it excludes the idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’
πασης κτισεως]：「一切造物」比「每一造物」佳。…正如所已經解釋的，所有格的詮釋必須涵蓋到πρωτοτοκος（首生）完整的意思。因此表明「他與一切造物的關係是站在πρωτοτοκος（首生）的地位上」，亦即「他是首生，而作為首生，他是一切造物絕對的繼承者和統管的主。」
另一種解釋只將所有格連於複合字的第一部分(πρωτο-，proto-)，比較約一15、30「他本來在我以前」（πρωτος μου ην）。這是文法過度的曲解，這樣解就把「繼承權」、「統治權」的意思排除了。
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 Incarnated Christ, to the Deity and not to the humanity of our Lord. So Justin, … Theophilus, … Clement of Alexandria, … Tertullian, … Hippolytus, … Origon, …Cyprian, … Novatian, …and the Synod of Antioch….The Arian controversy however gave a different turn to the exegesis of the passage. The Arians fastened upon the expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως, and drew from it the inference that the Son was a created being. …Many orthodox fathers howevere, not satisfied with this, transferred the expression into a new sphere, and maintained that πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως describes the Incarnated Christ. By so doing they thought to cut up the Arian argument by the roots. As consequence of this interpretation, they were obliged to understand the κτισις and the κτιζεσθαι in the context of the new spiritual creation, the καινη κτισις of 2 Cor. V. 17, Gal. vi. 15. Thus interpreted πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως here becomes nearly equivalent to πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις in Rom. viii. 29.
教父解釋這個發表的歷史也是令人頭痛又有興趣的。就我所知，所有第二、三世紀的教父無一例外的，都正確的指向永恆的道，而不是成為肉身的基督；都指向我們主的神性，而非其人性。所以猶斯丁（Justin）、…提阿非羅（Theophilus）、…亞歷山太的革利免（Clement of Alexandria）、…特土良（Tertullian）、…希波律陀（Hippolytus）、…俄利根（Origen）、…居普良（Cyprian）、…諾窪天（Novatian）以及安提阿信條（the Synod of Antioch）。（按都是這樣認為）。然而因著亞流的爭議，使得這個經文的釋經轉了一個不同的方向。亞流者緊抓πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）的發表不放，從這裡推論生出子是一個受造物。…然而許多正統的教父並不滿意於此，將這發表轉到另一個新的領域裡去，主張πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）是描繪成為肉身的基督。他們認為這樣做可以斬斷亞流者論辯的根，豈知這樣詮釋的結果，他們只好被迫將經文中的「造物」（κτισις，按是西一15）和「創造」（κτιζεσθαι，按是西一16）領會為屬靈的新造，就是林後五17和加六15的「新造」（καινη κτισις）。因此詮釋這裡的「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως），幾乎把它等同於羅八29的「在許多弟兄中作長子」。
The arguments alleged in favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold:
(1) That, if applied to the Divine nature, πρωτοτοκος would contradict μονογενης which elsewhere describes the nature of the Eternal Son. But those who maintained, and rightly maintained, that πρωτοτοκος (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 πρωτοτοκος 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 οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον 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 (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως ver. 15, πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων ver. 18) is studiously used 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 ικων του αορατου θεου, which likewise he interpreted of our Lord’s humanity. In this way a most important Christological passage was transferred into alien sphere; and the strongest argument against Arianism melted away in the attempt to combat Arianism on false grounds.
爭論裡把它說成傾向這樣的解釋的主因有二：
(1).若是用於神聖的性情（按即神性，下同），那麼「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）將與別處用來描繪永恆之子的性情：「獨生」（μονογενης）相牴觸。但那些主張，且是正確主張「首生」（路二7）並不須要含有主的母親有其他的兒子們的意思的，不應該被這謬論帶走了。
(2).「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）在別處經文（如羅八29，啟一5，18）用於基督的人性。然而在別處（來一6「神再使長子到世上來的時候…」，οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον κ.τ.λ.），這詞必須幾乎全然指先存的子，更有甚者是，使徒在上下文裡用語主要的點（正如待會兒所要說的）是兩個關乎我們的主的對句：作為永恆的道，是他與自然造物（按即一切舊造）的關係；作為教會的頭，是他與屬靈創造（按即一切新造）的關係。所以同樣一個字（15節「一切受造的首生」πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，18節「死人中的首生」πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων）是精心設計地用於二者。錯誤的解經當然給自己招來報應。邏輯的一致性要求（按迫使、逼著）這樣的解釋被帶往前去，而馬西流（Marcellus）從來沒有被深思熟慮所阻止，他走了大膽的一步。他擴展這個原則到整個上下文，甚至包括了「不能看見之神的像」，也把它解釋為主的人性。如此一來，一個關於基督論最為重要的經文，被轉到另一個全然不同的領域裡去了，而（本來）最強而有力反對亞流主義的論據，反而因為在錯誤的基礎上試圖與亞流主義爭戰時流失了。
The criticism of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly just… The objection to this interpretation are threefold :
(1) It disregards the history of the terms in the connexion with the pre-Christain speculations of Alexandrian Judaism.These however, though directly or indirectly they were preset 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 εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης, or τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται, or τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν, refer to the work of the Incarnation, is to strains 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 πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως 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…
優西比烏對於馬西流（Marcellus）的評語是公正的…。反對這樣的詮釋有三重：
(1) 它忽略了這些用詞與在基督徒之前的亞歷山大猶太教思想相關連的歷史。這些雖然直接或間接地預置於早期教父們的心裡，也保守他們在正確釋經的路上，然而，卻可能非常輕易地就從第四世紀的作者身上失去了。
(2)它忽略了上下文。假設諸如：「萬有都是在他裡面造的，無論是天上的，地上的」（εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης），或「一概都是藉著他造的」（τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται），或「萬有也靠他而立」（τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν），都指道成肉身的工作，那麼這是曲解文義到一個地步，使一切神學上的釋經降到一堆混亂裡去。
(3)它沒有考慮到與使徒這裡所闡述的相對立之假教師的宇宙起源論和天使學…。
This interpretation is given by St. Athanasius….and appears again in Greg. Nyss.…Cyril Alex…. St. Athanasius indeed does not confine the expression to the condescension…of the Word in the Incarnation, but includes also prior condescension in the Creation of the world….This double reference however only confuses the exegesis of the passage still further, while theologically it might lead to very serious difficulties…St. Basil,..himslef prefers explaining it of the Eternal word…Of the Greek commentators on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is not clear; Severianus… and Theodoret …understand it rightly of the Eternal Word; while Theodoro of Mopsuestia…expresses himself very strongly on the opposite side. Like Marcellus, he carries the interpretation consistently into the whole context, explaining εν αυτω to refer not to the original creation（κτισις）but to the moral re-creation（ανακτισις）, and referring εικων 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,…Theophylact,…CEcumenius, all explain it of Christ’s Divine Nature. Among Latin writers there is more diversity of interpretation. While Marius Victorinus,…Hilary of Poictiers,…Hilary the commentator, take it of the Divine Nature, Augustine,…Pelagius…understand it of the Incarnate Christ.
這樣的詮釋是亞他那修（Athanasuis）所給的，…且出現在尼撒的貴格利（Greg. Nyssa）…、亞歷山大的區利羅（Cyril Alex.）…。聖亞他那修的確不是把這個發表侷限在「道」的成為肉身時的紓尊降貴，也包括在創造世界前的紓尊降貴…。然而，這種雙重的旁註只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。…聖巴西流…較喜解釋之為永恆的道…。這經文，希臘的註釋者中屈梭多模（Chrysostom）的觀點不清，塞凡流斯（Serverianus）…和狄奧多勒（Theodoret）…確定領會為永恆的道。然而摩普妥提亞的狄奧多若（Theodoro of Mopsuestia）強烈表達他是站在另一邊。就像馬西流（Marcellus），他將整個上下文作一致的詮釋，他解釋「在他裡面」（εν αυτω，按和合本「靠他」）不是指原先的創造（κτισις），而是指道德的複造（ανακτισις，按指新造），而同樣將「像」（εικων）解為道成肉身者。
稍後，當直接爭論的壓力過了之後，整體來說希臘的作者們與較早期、較正確的詮釋看法一致。（按指「首生」是指永恆的道，而不是他的人性）。因此，達馬新約翰（John Damascene）、…狄奧非拉（Theophylact）、…色克曼紐斯（CEcumenius），都將其解釋為基督的神聖性情。拉丁的作者們在詮釋上則較為多樣。維克多林納斯馬流（Marius Victorinus）、波依克提爾的希勒立（Hilary of Poictiers）…、解經家希勒立（Hilary the commentator）等，將其解釋為基督的神聖性情；奧古斯丁（Augustine），…伯拉糾（Pelagius）…，將其認為是成為肉身的基督。
（J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes and Dissertations, pp.146-150, Repr. Ed. Of 1879 edition, Zondervan Publishing House）
評論：
一、之所以列出幾乎J.B. Lightfoot西一15下整段的評文，目的是要讀者知道其內容，不讓任何人有異想天開的空間曲解其意，引之往自己「錯誤」的臉上貼金。請讀者不殫其煩地讀完它，相信必有斬穫。J.B. Lightfoot的著作具足份量、權威，原則上討論西一15及其上下文的著作，聖經學者幾無不引用其評註做為佐證、加強。同樣的，他的加、腓、西、門四卷書的註解也是經典之作，至今仍為聖經學者、神學家、解經家所津津樂道。此君的解經嚴謹、學識淵博、眼光銳利、思想宏大、思路清楚，所寫文章引經據典，精闢深入，點點中肯，點點命中要害。
Lightfoot不僅詳述西一15「prototokos」一字在舊約聖經裡的特殊用法、亞歷山大猶太教哲學家（如Philo）「道」觀念的闡述和巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」觀念的思想、文法分析，同時也詳細追查第二至第五世紀教父們關於此處經文的解釋。關於教父，他清楚講述亞流異端前（第四世紀以前）教父們的「正確」詮釋，也講明因應亞流異端時，當代教父（第四、五世紀）所採「轉彎」的詮釋時所帶給他們自己的困擾，也講明亞流事件趨緩之後，回歸正確詮釋的情形。Lightfoot的贊同具足理由，他的反對也同樣具足理由。讀者若詳讀其文，且清楚其意，必會珍賞如此經典權威之詮釋，且以其斷案為斷案。
二、西一15「首生」之意有二，一為「先於」一切造物，一為「統管」萬有，這是夠清楚的了。讀者不必遷就第四、五世紀教父的說法，正如他們為了起來反對亞流的異端，也採了一個遷就的辦法來詮釋西一15的「首生」。這樣的詮釋，正如Lightfoot所說的：「只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。」當時他們以為這樣做可以徹底斬斷亞流異端論辯的根，誰知這樣詮釋的結果，使他們被迫將經文中的西一15「一切造物」和西一16的「萬有」的創造領會為屬靈的「新造」（林後五17，加六15）。這樣的詮釋把原本「首生」與「一切造物」關係的居先、居上、居首，等同於基督在他復活之後才帶進的新造，就是他「在許多弟兄中作長子」（羅八29）的關係。這樣的詮釋把自己鎖死了，無法正確合宜的顧到西一15的上下文。
西一15的「像」是論愛子與父神的關係，「首生」是論他與一切造物的關係，16至17節是他與一切造物的關係進一步的說明和解釋（以上均指基督未成肉身前的神性，即他是永恆的道），18節才是講他與新造教會的關係，這是他的復活所帶進來的，而20至22節才回頭講他所成就的救贖，因為藉著救贖才能帶進和好、新造。15節的「首生」的確是指「永恆的道」，就是父的愛子，他在創世前已存，他在萬有之先、之上，且統管這一切。15節的「首生」不應該解為「成為肉身的基督」，藉復活產生新造，使他在許多弟兄中作長子。這樣的解釋的確是牽強，不是上下文所要表達的。
三、我們當注意的是，並不因為是第四、五世紀的教父，他們在解經上就不會有錯誤和偏差。當然亞流是全然錯誤的，然而當時的教父在對付這異端時卻也矯枉過正地產生了偏差（其中以馬西流Marcellus最甚）。對於他們的解經我們不可盡信，但也當知道他們這樣做乃是時代背景所使然。
一件非常重要的事讀者當知道的，就是即便如亞他那修所採牽強的雙重解釋（「永恆的道」或「基督的神性」與「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」）或其他一些教父所採的偏差單一的解釋（「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」），他們卻從無一人說基督乃「神的造物」，是「神造物的第一項（個）」。這樣說不啻與保羅當時的諾斯底派所說的相同，也與他們當時亞流的錯謬同流，這是他們不能苟同的。他們不會離譜到一個地步，把基督說成是「神造物的第一項（個）」，這樣的說法正是他們當時所攻擊和極力反對的！因著亞流，才有尼西亞的信經；因著亞流，才有亞他那修的被逐。套一句保羅的話：「我素來所拆毀的，若重新建造，這就證明自己是犯罪的人。」（加二18）若正統的教父大力反對亞流的「基督受造論」，卻又高舉「基督乃為神的造物，且是第一項（個）」，這不是天底下最大的笑話麼？這不是天底下最大的矛盾麼？
四、既是這樣，凡根據西一15主張「基督是受造之物」，是「神的第一個造物」的是嚴重錯解聖經，是異端教訓。凡引述第四、五世紀教父著作，以其解釋「首生」為「道成肉身的基督」、「基督的人性」，而為「基督是受造之物」、「基督是神的第一個造物」做佐證的，不啻拉著教父們往自己錯誤的臉上貼金，甚至可以說是故意忽略當時的時空背景，置教會歷史的史實於不顧！不幸的是，前者出現在李常受許多解釋西一15的文字信息裡，也出現在「水流職事站」出版的刊物「肯定與否定」，第一卷、第一期「正統與異端的仲裁者－聖經」一文中之「異端中正端之處－基督是受造之物」一段中（該刊物第77～78頁）。讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/1-1/07heresy.htm
亦見於「肯定與否定」，第三卷、第一期「基督－受造之物的首生者」一文中（該刊物第56～64頁），讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/3-1/3105.htm
亦見於「水流職事站」網站「真理論壇」：「辯明基督身位的純正信仰」的第四章「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://defenseoftruth.tychurch.org.tw/christ_person/chapter4.htm
後者則出現在「水流職事站」網站「真裡辯正」中：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」，第二篇 關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
稀奇的是，該文宣稱：「十九世紀解經家雷德福（J B Lightfoot，1828 -1889）在其解經書中，詳細整理了從教會初期至第四世紀，歷代教父在此題上的不同見地。一般聖經學者公認，雷德福所作的歸納，是解釋此一歷史之爭的最好說明。」既是這樣，我們不禁要問，為甚麼不願接受其所敲定的斷案？該文大量引述Lightfoot文章的內容，卻未完整忠實的譯出全部或主要的部份。不但如此，Lightfoot清楚表明西一15的「首生」（prototokos）應指基督之神性，宣示他是先於一切造物、統管萬有，他強烈反對將之解為基督的人性，因為連帶的帶進後面經文錯誤勉強的解經，在對付亞流異端時反而自陷解經的泥沼裡。關於這一個，「真裡辯正」中的「回」一文，竟把他的斷案削弱為：「雷德福顯然傾向支持二、三世紀教父的觀點…」。這樣做，間接地使沒有讀過Lightfoot文章的讀者被誤導，也使他們產生誤判，這是筆者不能同意的。這種錯誤的信仰內容－「基督受造論」是被普世所有神的兒女、基督的教會所棄絕的。關於基督身位的詮釋是一件嚴肅的事，所有的論述、傳講都得謹慎小心！
四、J.B. Lightfoot（1828 –1889）
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως] ‘the First-born of all creation.’ The word πρωτοτοκος has twofold parentage:
（I）Like εικων it is closely connected with and taken from the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo applies to the λογος is not πρωτοτοκος but πρωτογονος… and this designation…is several times applies to the λογος. Again in...the language of Exod. xiii. 2...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 philosphy it includes the oroginal conception, the archytype idea, of creation, which was afterward realised in the material world. Among the early Christian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the application of the term πρωτοτοκος to the Word;…So too Theophilus …
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，「一切造物的首生」，πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）「首生」一字有雙重的來源：
1.就如「像」（εικων）一字，它（「按「首生」」一字）是緊連並從亞歷山大的「道」（Logos）的辭彙而來。然而斐羅（Philo）所用於「道」的字不是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）而是πρωτογονος （protogonos），…而這個稱謂…有幾次用於「道」。再者在…出十三2的話…當被用於「聖道」，也是這樣詮釋的。「頭生」、「長子」這些稱號是斐羅（Philo）用於稱呼「道」的，因為在他的哲學裡含有最初創造的概念，就是原型（archytype）的觀念，後來這都實化在物質的世界裡。在早期的基督徒教父中，殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）一再地確認πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一詞是用於「道」，…提阿非羅（Theophilus）亦然。…
（2）The word πρωτοτοκος had also another not less important link of connexion with the past. The Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix 28, εγο πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον κ.τ.λ., seems to have been generally allowed. So at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan… ‘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’ ο πρωτοτοκος（בכור）used absolutely, because a recognised title of Messiah. The way had been paved for this Massianic reference of πρωτοτοκος by its prior application to the Israelites, as the prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘Israel is my son, my first-born ’ : comp. Pslm. Salom. xviii. 4 η παιδεια σου εφ ημας ως υιον πρωτοτοκον μονογενη… 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…), the terms are transferred from the race to the Messiah, as the representative, the embodiment, of the race.
2.πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一字也有另一個也是很重要的關連，就是與過去的連結。詩八十九28（按中文聖經是27節，下同）「我也要立他為長子…」，作為彌賽亞的引證（Messianic reference），似乎是眾所公認的。所以至少拿單（R. Nathan）… 詮釋之為：「神說，我立雅各為長子（出四22），所以我也立彌賽亞君王為長子（八十九27）。」
因此，「長子」（ο πρωτοτοκος，בכור）的用法絕對，因為是認定彌賽亞的一個頭銜。先前出四22「以色列是我的兒子，我的長子」，用於作為特權族類的以色列人的方式，已為πρωτοτοκος （prototokos）一字作為這個彌賽亞的引證先鋪好了路。比較所羅門詩歌十八4…，那裡把兩個用於新約的頭銜（按是πρωτοτοκον μονογενη，prototokon monogene）合併在一起是叫人稀奇的。這裡，就如別處（見加三16註），這詞從族類轉到作為族類代表和體現的彌賽亞身上。
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 πρωτοτοκος 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 πρωτοτοκος to πρωτογονος, 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.
當基督這個人位，同時作為亞歷山大猶太人的哲學問題，和在巴勒斯坦人愛國主義者的神聖回應時，這兩道思想的水流相遇於用在主身上的πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）這個字上。他是真道，也是真彌賽亞。因這理由，我們可以假設，同樣的別的理由也可以，就是基督的眾使徒喜用πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）勝於用πρωτογονος（protogonos），因為只有前者可以包含彌賽亞的引證，而後者是亞歷山大的人所喜用的（這我們可從Philo得知）。
The main idea 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 beings. This interpretation is not required by the expression itself. The fathers of the fourth century rightly called attention to the fact that the Apotle writes not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος; e.g. Basil… Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. …, though without any direct reference to this passage, the μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος is contrasted with the πρωτοκτιστοι, the highest order of angelic beings; and the word πρωτοκτιστος occurs more than once elsewhere in his writings(e.g. Strom. v. 14, 699). Nor again does the genitive case necessarily imply that the πρωτοτοκος Himself belonged to the κτισις , 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, εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα, and with absolute pre-existence and self-existence which is claimed for Him just below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων. We may add also that it is irreconcilable with other passages in the Apostolic writings, while it contradicts the fundamental idea of the Christian consciousness. More especially the description πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως must be interpreted in such a way that it is not inconsistent with His other title of μονογενης, unicus, alone of His kind and therefore distinct from created things. The two words express the same eternal fact; but while μονογενης states it in itself, πρωτοτοκος places it in relation to the Universe. The correct interpretation is supplied by Justin Martyr,…πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων. He does not indeed mention this passage, but it was doubtless in his mind, for he elsewhere uses the very expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως…comp. also…, where the words πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων occur.
因此這個字所含有的主要意思有雙重，其一是與亞歷山大「道」的觀念有著更為直接的關連，另一是與巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」的觀念有著更近的相連。
1.「先於」一切造物。
換言之，表示子的絕對先存。乍看之下，似乎這裡是說基督是最早的，但也被看為是造物之一，然而這樣的詮釋並不需要這個字來表達。第四世紀的教父們注意到一個事實，就是使徒們所寫的不是πρωτοκτιστος （protoktistos）而是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）。例如巴西流（Basil）…，再早一點亞歷山大的革利免（Clem. Alex.），雖無直接引此處經文，把「獨生和首生」（μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος）與作為天使之最高階的「首造」（πρωτοκτιστοι）相比較。而且「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）之一字不只一次出現在他其他的著作中。
再者，所有格不需要表示「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）是屬於「造物」（κτισις），正如待會兒所要說的。而且如果這個意思不從這些話的本身來得著（按意即該字在舊約裡的轉意特殊用法），上下文就直接把這個意思排除了。這樣也與接著描述他做萬有創造的憑藉的話－「萬有都是靠他造的」（或直譯「萬有都是在他裡面造的」）－不一致，也與下面緊接著宣稱他是絕對先存和自存的話－「他在萬有之先」－不一致。我們還可以加上一個，就是與使徒著作中其他的經文不相合，也與基督徒良心的基本思想相牴觸。甚且「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）必須在一種與「獨生」（μονογενη，unicus）不能不一致的方式裡來詮釋。「獨生」是獨自一類的，因此與造物迥別。
這兩個字同樣表明永恆的事實，然而「獨生」（μονογενης）用於陳述字的本身，「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）則把它擺在與宇宙的關係上。正確的詮釋乃是殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）…所提供的：「神的首生和一切被造的以先」（πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων）。雖然他沒有真正提到這經文（按指西一15下），但是無疑地這是在他的心中的，因為在別處他用了「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）這個特殊的發表。…也可比較…，那裡出現「一切工作品的首生」（πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων）這樣的話。
（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. Ps. Lxxxix. 28 after πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον the explanation is added, υψηλον παρα τοις βασιλευδιν της γης, i.e. (as the oroginal implies) ‘above all the kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic refernece this secondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word πρωτοτοκος, so that from this point of view πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως would mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture.’ The εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων of the Apostolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly corresponds to the θησομαι πρωτοτοκος 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, εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων, the most probable explanation of the word is that which makes it equivalent to ‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful Christians being ipso factor πρωτοτοκοι, 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,…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-emience,’ see Job xviii. 13 ‘the first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the first-born of the poor.’
2.「統管」萬有。
神的「長子」是神家裡理所當然的管理者、眾所公認的頭。統管所有造物的長子繼承權歸屬於彌賽亞。因此，詩八十九27在「立他為長子」之後，加了解釋的話：「為世上最高的君王」。在彌賽亞的引經裡，πρωτοτοκος這個字重在統治權的第二個思想，所以從這個觀點來看，πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（按是西一15下）意思是「由於長子名分而為統管萬有的主」。使徒著作的εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων（萬有的承受者，來一2）完全等同於詩篇作者的θησομαι πρωτοτοκος（立為長子，詩八十九27），而且無疑的是心照不宣地故意作為這個彌賽亞經文的釋意和運用。
所以，再一次在來十二23的εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων（眾長子的教會），這個字最可能的解釋是等同於「國度的繼承者」，就是根據事實，所有的基督徒都是長子（πρωτοτοκοι），因為都是王。不，所以完整的應該是由於居先而為掌權的意思，在有些用法裡脫離了「長子」這個詞的第一個意思，而用於神的本身…。在舊約裡，另一些בכור（prototokos，「長子」）作為第二種用法的例子裡，「頭生」的意思被「超越」的意思所遮蓋而失去，這見於伯十八13「死亡的長子」、賽十四30「貧寒人的長子」。
πασης κτισεως] ‘of all creation,’ rather than ‘of every created thing.’… The genitive case must be interpreted so as to include the full meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as already explained. It will therefore signify: ‘He stands in the relation of πρωτοτοκος to all creation,’ i.e. ‘ He is the Firstborn , and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.’ …Another explanation which would connect the genitive with the first part of the compound alone (πρωτο-), comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, πρωτος μου ην, unduly strains the grammar, while it excludes the idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’
πασης κτισεως]：「一切造物」比「每一造物」佳。…正如所已經解釋的，所有格的詮釋必須涵蓋到πρωτοτοκος（首生）完整的意思。因此表明「他與一切造物的關係是站在πρωτοτοκος（首生）的地位上」，亦即「他是首生，而作為首生，他是一切造物絕對的繼承者和統管的主。」
另一種解釋只將所有格連於複合字的第一部分(πρωτο-，proto-)，比較約一15、30「他本來在我以前」（πρωτος μου ην）。這是文法過度的曲解，這樣解就把「繼承權」、「統治權」的意思排除了。
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 Incarnated Christ, to the Deity and not to the humanity of our Lord. So Justin, … Theophilus, … Clement of Alexandria, … Tertullian, … Hippolytus, … Origon, …Cyprian, … Novatian, …and the Synod of Antioch….The Arian controversy however gave a different turn to the exegesis of the passage. The Arians fastened upon the expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως, and drew from it the inference that the Son was a created being. …Many orthodox fathers howevere, not satisfied with this, transferred the expression into a new sphere, and maintained that πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως describes the Incarnated Christ. By so doing they thought to cut up the Arian argument by the roots. As consequence of this interpretation, they were obliged to understand the κτισις and the κτιζεσθαι in the context of the new spiritual creation, the καινη κτισις of 2 Cor. V. 17, Gal. vi. 15. Thus interpreted πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως here becomes nearly equivalent to πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις in Rom. viii. 29.
教父解釋這個發表的歷史也是令人頭痛又有興趣的。就我所知，所有第二、三世紀的教父無一例外的，都正確的指向永恆的道，而不是成為肉身的基督；都指向我們主的神性，而非其人性。所以猶斯丁（Justin）、…提阿非羅（Theophilus）、…亞歷山太的革利免（Clement of Alexandria）、…特土良（Tertullian）、…希波律陀（Hippolytus）、…俄利根（Origen）、…居普良（Cyprian）、…諾窪天（Novatian）以及安提阿信條（the Synod of Antioch）。（按都是這樣認為）。然而因著亞流的爭議，使得這個經文的釋經轉了一個不同的方向。亞流者緊抓πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）的發表不放，從這裡推論生出子是一個受造物。…然而許多正統的教父並不滿意於此，將這發表轉到另一個新的領域裡去，主張πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）是描繪成為肉身的基督。他們認為這樣做可以斬斷亞流者論辯的根，豈知這樣詮釋的結果，他們只好被迫將經文中的「造物」（κτισις，按是西一15）和「創造」（κτιζεσθαι，按是西一16）領會為屬靈的新造，就是林後五17和加六15的「新造」（καινη κτισις）。因此詮釋這裡的「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως），幾乎把它等同於羅八29的「在許多弟兄中作長子」。
The arguments alleged in favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold:
(1) That, if applied to the Divine nature, πρωτοτοκος would contradict μονογενης which elsewhere describes the nature of the Eternal Son. But those who maintained, and rightly maintained, that πρωτοτοκος (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 πρωτοτοκος 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 οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον 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 (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως ver. 15, πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων ver. 18) is studiously used 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 ικων του αορατου θεου, which likewise he interpreted of our Lord’s humanity. In this way a most important Christological passage was transferred into alien sphere; and the strongest argument against Arianism melted away in the attempt to combat Arianism on false grounds.
爭論裡把它說成傾向這樣的解釋的主因有二：
(1).若是用於神聖的性情（按即神性，下同），那麼「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）將與別處用來描繪永恆之子的性情：「獨生」（μονογενης）相牴觸。但那些主張，且是正確主張「首生」（路二7）並不須要含有主的母親有其他的兒子們的意思的，不應該被這謬論帶走了。
(2).「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）在別處經文（如羅八29，啟一5，18）用於基督的人性。然而在別處（來一6「神再使長子到世上來的時候…」，οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον κ.τ.λ.），這詞必須幾乎全然指先存的子，更有甚者是，使徒在上下文裡用語主要的點（正如待會兒所要說的）是兩個關乎我們的主的對句：作為永恆的道，是他與自然造物（按即一切舊造）的關係；作為教會的頭，是他與屬靈創造（按即一切新造）的關係。所以同樣一個字（15節「一切受造的首生」πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，18節「死人中的首生」πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων）是精心設計地用於二者。錯誤的解經當然給自己招來報應。邏輯的一致性要求（按迫使、逼著）這樣的解釋被帶往前去，而馬西流（Marcellus）從來沒有被深思熟慮所阻止，他走了大膽的一步。他擴展這個原則到整個上下文，甚至包括了「不能看見之神的像」，也把它解釋為主的人性。如此一來，一個關於基督論最為重要的經文，被轉到另一個全然不同的領域裡去了，而（本來）最強而有力反對亞流主義的論據，反而因為在錯誤的基礎上試圖與亞流主義爭戰時流失了。
The criticism of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly just… The objection to this interpretation are threefold :
(1) It disregards the history of the terms in the connexion with the pre-Christain speculations of Alexandrian Judaism.These however, though directly or indirectly they were preset 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 εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης, or τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται, or τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν, refer to the work of the Incarnation, is to strains 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 πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως 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…
優西比烏對於馬西流（Marcellus）的評語是公正的…。反對這樣的詮釋有三重：
(1) 它忽略了這些用詞與在基督徒之前的亞歷山大猶太教思想相關連的歷史。這些雖然直接或間接地預置於早期教父們的心裡，也保守他們在正確釋經的路上，然而，卻可能非常輕易地就從第四世紀的作者身上失去了。
(2)它忽略了上下文。假設諸如：「萬有都是在他裡面造的，無論是天上的，地上的」（εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης），或「一概都是藉著他造的」（τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται），或「萬有也靠他而立」（τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν），都指道成肉身的工作，那麼這是曲解文義到一個地步，使一切神學上的釋經降到一堆混亂裡去。
(3)它沒有考慮到與使徒這裡所闡述的相對立之假教師的宇宙起源論和天使學…。
This interpretation is given by St. Athanasius….and appears again in Greg. Nyss.…Cyril Alex…. St. Athanasius indeed does not confine the expression to the condescension…of the Word in the Incarnation, but includes also prior condescension in the Creation of the world….This double reference however only confuses the exegesis of the passage still further, while theologically it might lead to very serious difficulties…St. Basil,..himslef prefers explaining it of the Eternal word…Of the Greek commentators on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is not clear; Severianus… and Theodoret …understand it rightly of the Eternal Word; while Theodoro of Mopsuestia…expresses himself very strongly on the opposite side. Like Marcellus, he carries the interpretation consistently into the whole context, explaining εν αυτω to refer not to the original creation（κτισις）but to the moral re-creation（ανακτισις）, and referring εικων 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,…Theophylact,…CEcumenius, all explain it of Christ’s Divine Nature. Among Latin writers there is more diversity of interpretation. While Marius Victorinus,…Hilary of Poictiers,…Hilary the commentator, take it of the Divine Nature, Augustine,…Pelagius…understand it of the Incarnate Christ.
這樣的詮釋是亞他那修（Athanasuis）所給的，…且出現在尼撒的貴格利（Greg. Nyssa）…、亞歷山大的區利羅（Cyril Alex.）…。聖亞他那修的確不是把這個發表侷限在「道」的成為肉身時的紓尊降貴，也包括在創造世界前的紓尊降貴…。然而，這種雙重的旁註只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。…聖巴西流…較喜解釋之為永恆的道…。這經文，希臘的註釋者中屈梭多模（Chrysostom）的觀點不清，塞凡流斯（Serverianus）…和狄奧多勒（Theodoret）…確定領會為永恆的道。然而摩普妥提亞的狄奧多若（Theodoro of Mopsuestia）強烈表達他是站在另一邊。就像馬西流（Marcellus），他將整個上下文作一致的詮釋，他解釋「在他裡面」（εν αυτω，按和合本「靠他」）不是指原先的創造（κτισις），而是指道德的複造（ανακτισις，按指新造），而同樣將「像」（εικων）解為道成肉身者。
稍後，當直接爭論的壓力過了之後，整體來說希臘的作者們與較早期、較正確的詮釋看法一致。（按指「首生」是指永恆的道，而不是他的人性）。因此，達馬新約翰（John Damascene）、…狄奧非拉（Theophylact）、…色克曼紐斯（CEcumenius），都將其解釋為基督的神聖性情。拉丁的作者們在詮釋上則較為多樣。維克多林納斯馬流（Marius Victorinus）、波依克提爾的希勒立（Hilary of Poictiers）…、解經家希勒立（Hilary the commentator）等，將其解釋為基督的神聖性情；奧古斯丁（Augustine），…伯拉糾（Pelagius）…，將其認為是成為肉身的基督。
（J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes and Dissertations, pp.146-150, Repr. Ed. Of 1879 edition, Zondervan Publishing House）
評論：
一、之所以列出幾乎J.B. Lightfoot西一15下整段的評文，目的是要讀者知道其內容，不讓任何人有異想天開的空間曲解其意，引之往自己「錯誤」的臉上貼金。請讀者不殫其煩地讀完它，相信必有斬穫。J.B. Lightfoot的著作具足份量、權威，原則上討論西一15及其上下文的著作，聖經學者幾無不引用其評註做為佐證、加強。同樣的，他的加、腓、西、門四卷書的註解也是經典之作，至今仍為聖經學者、神學家、解經家所津津樂道。此君的解經嚴謹、學識淵博、眼光銳利、思想宏大、思路清楚，所寫文章引經據典，精闢深入，點點中肯，點點命中要害。
Lightfoot不僅詳述西一15「prototokos」一字在舊約聖經裡的特殊用法、亞歷山大猶太教哲學家（如Philo）「道」觀念的闡述和巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」觀念的思想、文法分析，同時也詳細追查第二至第五世紀教父們關於此處經文的解釋。關於教父，他清楚講述亞流異端前（第四世紀以前）教父們的「正確」詮釋，也講明因應亞流異端時，當代教父（第四、五世紀）所採「轉彎」的詮釋時所帶給他們自己的困擾，也講明亞流事件趨緩之後，回歸正確詮釋的情形。Lightfoot的贊同具足理由，他的反對也同樣具足理由。讀者若詳讀其文，且清楚其意，必會珍賞如此經典權威之詮釋，且以其斷案為斷案。
二、西一15「首生」之意有二，一為「先於」一切造物，一為「統管」萬有，這是夠清楚的了。讀者不必遷就第四、五世紀教父的說法，正如他們為了起來反對亞流的異端，也採了一個遷就的辦法來詮釋西一15的「首生」。這樣的詮釋，正如Lightfoot所說的：「只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。」當時他們以為這樣做可以徹底斬斷亞流異端論辯的根，誰知這樣詮釋的結果，使他們被迫將經文中的西一15「一切造物」和西一16的「萬有」的創造領會為屬靈的「新造」（林後五17，加六15）。這樣的詮釋把原本「首生」與「一切造物」關係的居先、居上、居首，等同於基督在他復活之後才帶進的新造，就是他「在許多弟兄中作長子」（羅八29）的關係。這樣的詮釋把自己鎖死了，無法正確合宜的顧到西一15的上下文。
西一15的「像」是論愛子與父神的關係，「首生」是論他與一切造物的關係，16至17節是他與一切造物的關係進一步的說明和解釋（以上均指基督未成肉身前的神性，即他是永恆的道），18節才是講他與新造教會的關係，這是他的復活所帶進來的，而20至22節才回頭講他所成就的救贖，因為藉著救贖才能帶進和好、新造。15節的「首生」的確是指「永恆的道」，就是父的愛子，他在創世前已存，他在萬有之先、之上，且統管這一切。15節的「首生」不應該解為「成為肉身的基督」，藉復活產生新造，使他在許多弟兄中作長子。這樣的解釋的確是牽強，不是上下文所要表達的。
三、我們當注意的是，並不因為是第四、五世紀的教父，他們在解經上就不會有錯誤和偏差。當然亞流是全然錯誤的，然而當時的教父在對付這異端時卻也矯枉過正地產生了偏差（其中以馬西流Marcellus最甚）。對於他們的解經我們不可盡信，但也當知道他們這樣做乃是時代背景所使然。
一件非常重要的事讀者當知道的，就是即便如亞他那修所採牽強的雙重解釋（「永恆的道」或「基督的神性」與「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」）或其他一些教父所採的偏差單一的解釋（「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」），他們卻從無一人說基督乃「神的造物」，是「神造物的第一項（個）」。這樣說不啻與保羅當時的諾斯底派所說的相同，也與他們當時亞流的錯謬同流，這是他們不能苟同的。他們不會離譜到一個地步，把基督說成是「神造物的第一項（個）」，這樣的說法正是他們當時所攻擊和極力反對的！因著亞流，才有尼西亞的信經；因著亞流，才有亞他那修的被逐。套一句保羅的話：「我素來所拆毀的，若重新建造，這就證明自己是犯罪的人。」（加二18）若正統的教父大力反對亞流的「基督受造論」，卻又高舉「基督乃為神的造物，且是第一項（個）」，這不是天底下最大的笑話麼？這不是天底下最大的矛盾麼？
四、既是這樣，凡根據西一15主張「基督是受造之物」，是「神的第一個造物」的是嚴重錯解聖經，是異端教訓。凡引述第四、五世紀教父著作，以其解釋「首生」為「道成肉身的基督」、「基督的人性」，而為「基督是受造之物」、「基督是神的第一個造物」做佐證的，不啻拉著教父們往自己錯誤的臉上貼金，甚至可以說是故意忽略當時的時空背景，置教會歷史的史實於不顧！不幸的是，前者出現在李常受許多解釋西一15的文字信息裡，也出現在「水流職事站」出版的刊物「肯定與否定」，第一卷、第一期「正統與異端的仲裁者－聖經」一文中之「異端中正端之處－基督是受造之物」一段中（該刊物第77～78頁）。讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/1-1/07heresy.htm
亦見於「肯定與否定」，第三卷、第一期「基督－受造之物的首生者」一文中（該刊物第56～64頁），讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/3-1/3105.htm
亦見於「水流職事站」網站「真理論壇」：「辯明基督身位的純正信仰」的第四章「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://defenseoftruth.tychurch.org.tw/christ_person/chapter4.htm
後者則出現在「水流職事站」網站「真裡辯正」中：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」，第二篇 關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
稀奇的是，該文宣稱：「十九世紀解經家雷德福（J B Lightfoot，1828 -1889）在其解經書中，詳細整理了從教會初期至第四世紀，歷代教父在此題上的不同見地。一般聖經學者公認，雷德福所作的歸納，是解釋此一歷史之爭的最好說明。」既是這樣，我們不禁要問，為甚麼不願接受其所敲定的斷案？該文大量引述Lightfoot文章的內容，卻未完整忠實的譯出全部或主要的部份。不但如此，Lightfoot清楚表明西一15的「首生」（prototokos）應指基督之神性，宣示他是先於一切造物、統管萬有，他強烈反對將之解為基督的人性，因為連帶的帶進後面經文錯誤勉強的解經，在對付亞流異端時反而自陷解經的泥沼裡。關於這一個，「真裡辯正」中的「回」一文，竟把他的斷案削弱為：「雷德福顯然傾向支持二、三世紀教父的觀點…」。這樣做，間接地使沒有讀過Lightfoot文章的讀者被誤導，也使他們產生誤判，這是筆者不能同意的。這種錯誤的信仰內容－「基督受造論」是被普世所有神的兒女、基督的教會所棄絕的。關於基督身位的詮釋是一件嚴肅的事，所有的論述、傳講都得謹慎小心！
Friday, December 5, 2008
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（六）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（六）
柒、聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案
以下摘錄一些聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案，有些譯自英文原著，有些是中文的著作，「參考聖經」（Reference Bible）的註解則置於最後。讀者若覺得研讀英文吃力，可以直接跳讀中文譯文。之所以同時將英文原著放進來，沒有別的用意，只為取信於眾。每段之後若有評論，是我個人下的。
一、Matthew Henry（1662-1714）
In the early ages the firstborn son possessed extra-ordinary privilege and honors. Hence the Hebrew term, and its correspondent word in other languages, acquired the secondary meaning of that which is chief and most excellent. Of these there are many examples in the Scripture, and in Jewish phraseology, the Holy and blessed God is called the Firstborn of the world, to signify his supremacy over all created beings. The just inference from what follows there is, that Christ is superior to all creatures, and that subsequently, in his proper and original nature, he cannot be a creature.- J.P. Smith
在早代長子擁有特權和尊榮。因此，在希伯來用詞和其他語言中對等的詞，產生了第二個意思，就是首領和最卓越的。這個在聖經中有許多例子，在猶太人的用詞裡，那聖潔可稱頌的神被稱為世界的「首生」，表明祂在造物之上的主權。從後面接著的話公正的推論，基督是優於一切造物，因此，就祂的本性而言，祂不會是個造物。（引J.P. Smith的話）
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.240）
Christ is the first-born of every creature. Not that he is himself a creature; he was born or begotten before all the creation, or any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us. It signifies his dominion over all things; as the first-born in a family is heir and lord of all, so he is the Heir of all things, Heb 1:2…Christ is so far from being himself a creature, that he is the Creator. For by him were all things created,…
基督是每一造物的首生（筆者按，是英文「欽定本」的翻譯），不是說祂是一個造物。祂是在所有造物之先被生。這是聖經表明永恆的方式，藉此神的永恆向我們表明。這表徵祂在上統管萬有。就如家中的長子繼承並統管一切，照樣，祂是萬有的承受者（來一2）。基督根本不是一個受造之物，祂是造物主，因為萬有都是被祂所造的…
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.241）
二、J.N. Darby（1800-1882）
But then what place can He have in creation when He has come into it according to the eternal counsels of a God? He could have but one, namely, that of supremacy without contestation and without controversy. He is the firstborn of all creation, that is a relative name, not one of date with regard to time. It is said of Solomon, “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Thus the Creator, when He takes a place in creation, is necessarily its Head….
那麼，當祂照著神永遠的定旨來到造物中時，祂在其中的地位為何？祂只能有一個，意即祂是至高無上、天下無匹的。祂是一切造物的首生，而首生是一個相對的名字，不是時間裡的一個日子。論到所羅門，「我要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」因此造物主，當祂來到造物中有其位時，祂必然是它的頭。…
He is then the image of the invisible God, and, when He takes His place in it, the firstborn of all creation. The reason of this is worthy of our attention-simple, yet marvelous: He created it. It was in the Person of the Son that God acted, when by His power He created all things, whether in heaven or in the earth, visible and invisible. All that is great and exalted is but the work of His hand; all has been created by Him (the Son) and for Him. Thus, when He takes possession of it, He takes it as His inheritance by right. Wonderful truth, that He who has redeemed us, who made Himself man, one of us as to nature, in order to do so, is the Creator. But such is the truth.
祂是不能看見之神的像，當祂在造物中有其位時，是一切受造之物的首生。這個的理由值得我們的注意－簡單卻是稀奇：祂創造了它。當神用祂的大能創造萬有（無論天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的）時，祂是在子的人位裡行動。一切偉大和崇高的乃是祂手的工作，一切都是藉著祂（子）造的，又是為祂造的。因此，當祂擁有它時，祂是有權利得它為產業。奇妙的真理就是，那救贖我們的是創造主。為了要這樣做，祂使自己成為人，成為就本質說是我們中間的一個人。而這是真理。
（J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Vol. 5, Bible Truth Publishers, 1980, Col. pp.12-13）
（達秘，聖經略解，第五冊，「歌羅西」，第12-13頁）
評論：達秘的話，第一段清楚強調基督首生的地位，就是作頭、居先的地位；第二段強調這樣的一位，為了救贖的緣故，來成為一個與我們一樣的人。這是福音叫人稀奇的地方，但這是聖經的真理！
若有人引達秘的話，說基督道成肉身，來成為與我們屬性相同的人，就將西一15的「首生」解為「造物中的第一個」，是明顯錯解了他的話。他從來沒有說過這樣的話！他在「聖經略解」西一15這裡所說的是：基督是造物主，祂是萬有的頭，為了救贖的工作，祂來成為一個人。
達秘在他的時代被譽為解經之王，這個封號絕非過獎。讀他的著作就知道他的解經是非常嚴謹、謹慎的。在西一15這麼重要的地方，他絕不會出差錯，叫人對他所說的起質疑。
人並不能因為基督為了救贖的工作來成為人，有了人性，就說基督是「受造之物，且是第一個」，這是錯誤的解經。基督來成為人，與基督是受造之物，是兩件大不同的事！
這種錯誤的「牽線」出現在「水流職事站」的網站「真裡辯正」：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」的第二篇：關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以上網自行瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
三、Henry Alford（1810-1871）
The first and simplest meaning is that of priority of birth. But this, if insisted on, in its limited temporal sense, must apply to our Lord’s birth from his human mother, and could have reference only to those brothers and sisters who were born of her afterward; a reference clearly excluded here. But a second and derived meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as a designation of dignity and precedence, implied by priority, cannot be denied. Cf. Ps. 89:27…, Exo.4:22…, Rom.8:29…, Heb.12:23…It would be obviously wrong here to limited the sense entirely to this reference, as the very expression below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων, shews, in which his priority is distinctly predicated. The safe method of interpretation therefore will be, to take into account two ideas manifestly included in the word, and here distinctly refer to – priority, and dignity, and to regard the technical term πρωτοτοκος as used rather with reference to both these, than in strict construction where it stands.“First-born of every creature” will then imply, that Christ was not only first-born of His mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father, before the worlds,- and that He holds the rank, as compared with every created thing, of first-born in dignity.
第一和最簡單的意思是第一個出生的，然而若這樣堅持，在它受限的時間意思裡，必須用於我們的主從祂肉身的母親而有的出生上，也只能與後來從她而生做祂弟妹的有關係。顯然地，這個關係在這裡是被排除掉的。然而πρωτοτοκος第二個和衍生出來的意思，是優越所表明的尊貴和領先的一個稱號，這是不能否認的。參考詩八十九27…，出四22…，羅八29…，來十二23…。
這裡若完全侷限於這種關係是明顯的錯誤，正如後面的發表「αυτος εστιν προ παντων」（祂在萬有之先）所表明的，清楚斷言祂在其中的優越。
安全詮釋的方法，乃是考慮包含在這字裡的二個思想，無疑的是：優越和尊貴。…因此「一切造物的首生」指明基督不僅是祂母親在世上所頭生的，也是在諸世界以前祂的父所獨生的。當祂與一切受造物相比時，祂擁有尊貴的首生地位。
...The Arians maintained that Christ is thus Himself declared to be a κτισις of God. It might have been enough to guard them from this, that as Chr. remarks, not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος advisedly used by the Apostle.
亞流主義者堅持…基督是神的一個造物（κτισις），…正如屈梭多模（Chrysostom）注意到的，使徒深思熟慮的用了「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）一字，而不是「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）。
(Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. III, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ, 1:15 notes, pp.202-203)
評論：保羅在西一15下的用詞非常謹慎，正如Henry Alford所說的，是經過深思熟慮的。他所要表達的乃是基督的超越和尊貴。若他所要表達的是基督乃受造之物的第一個，他的寫法應該是：「一切造物的首造」（ the first-created of all the created things）。這樣的寫法把基督貶低了，正和諾斯底異端的講法。若他所要表達的是所有受造之物也是神生的，正如基督是神生的，且是第一位，那麼他的寫法會是：「一切所生的首生者」（ the first-born of all born）。但這是泛神論，無法被接受。保羅寫的是：「一切造物的首生」（the first-born of all created things），因此他所表達的是一切都是被造的，唯基督是被生的，他之於萬物是居先、居首、居上的！
（未完待續）
柒、聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案
以下摘錄一些聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案，有些譯自英文原著，有些是中文的著作，「參考聖經」（Reference Bible）的註解則置於最後。讀者若覺得研讀英文吃力，可以直接跳讀中文譯文。之所以同時將英文原著放進來，沒有別的用意，只為取信於眾。每段之後若有評論，是我個人下的。
一、Matthew Henry（1662-1714）
In the early ages the firstborn son possessed extra-ordinary privilege and honors. Hence the Hebrew term, and its correspondent word in other languages, acquired the secondary meaning of that which is chief and most excellent. Of these there are many examples in the Scripture, and in Jewish phraseology, the Holy and blessed God is called the Firstborn of the world, to signify his supremacy over all created beings. The just inference from what follows there is, that Christ is superior to all creatures, and that subsequently, in his proper and original nature, he cannot be a creature.- J.P. Smith
在早代長子擁有特權和尊榮。因此，在希伯來用詞和其他語言中對等的詞，產生了第二個意思，就是首領和最卓越的。這個在聖經中有許多例子，在猶太人的用詞裡，那聖潔可稱頌的神被稱為世界的「首生」，表明祂在造物之上的主權。從後面接著的話公正的推論，基督是優於一切造物，因此，就祂的本性而言，祂不會是個造物。（引J.P. Smith的話）
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.240）
Christ is the first-born of every creature. Not that he is himself a creature; he was born or begotten before all the creation, or any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us. It signifies his dominion over all things; as the first-born in a family is heir and lord of all, so he is the Heir of all things, Heb 1:2…Christ is so far from being himself a creature, that he is the Creator. For by him were all things created,…
基督是每一造物的首生（筆者按，是英文「欽定本」的翻譯），不是說祂是一個造物。祂是在所有造物之先被生。這是聖經表明永恆的方式，藉此神的永恆向我們表明。這表徵祂在上統管萬有。就如家中的長子繼承並統管一切，照樣，祂是萬有的承受者（來一2）。基督根本不是一個受造之物，祂是造物主，因為萬有都是被祂所造的…
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.241）
二、J.N. Darby（1800-1882）
But then what place can He have in creation when He has come into it according to the eternal counsels of a God? He could have but one, namely, that of supremacy without contestation and without controversy. He is the firstborn of all creation, that is a relative name, not one of date with regard to time. It is said of Solomon, “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Thus the Creator, when He takes a place in creation, is necessarily its Head….
那麼，當祂照著神永遠的定旨來到造物中時，祂在其中的地位為何？祂只能有一個，意即祂是至高無上、天下無匹的。祂是一切造物的首生，而首生是一個相對的名字，不是時間裡的一個日子。論到所羅門，「我要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」因此造物主，當祂來到造物中有其位時，祂必然是它的頭。…
He is then the image of the invisible God, and, when He takes His place in it, the firstborn of all creation. The reason of this is worthy of our attention-simple, yet marvelous: He created it. It was in the Person of the Son that God acted, when by His power He created all things, whether in heaven or in the earth, visible and invisible. All that is great and exalted is but the work of His hand; all has been created by Him (the Son) and for Him. Thus, when He takes possession of it, He takes it as His inheritance by right. Wonderful truth, that He who has redeemed us, who made Himself man, one of us as to nature, in order to do so, is the Creator. But such is the truth.
祂是不能看見之神的像，當祂在造物中有其位時，是一切受造之物的首生。這個的理由值得我們的注意－簡單卻是稀奇：祂創造了它。當神用祂的大能創造萬有（無論天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的）時，祂是在子的人位裡行動。一切偉大和崇高的乃是祂手的工作，一切都是藉著祂（子）造的，又是為祂造的。因此，當祂擁有它時，祂是有權利得它為產業。奇妙的真理就是，那救贖我們的是創造主。為了要這樣做，祂使自己成為人，成為就本質說是我們中間的一個人。而這是真理。
（J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Vol. 5, Bible Truth Publishers, 1980, Col. pp.12-13）
（達秘，聖經略解，第五冊，「歌羅西」，第12-13頁）
評論：達秘的話，第一段清楚強調基督首生的地位，就是作頭、居先的地位；第二段強調這樣的一位，為了救贖的緣故，來成為一個與我們一樣的人。這是福音叫人稀奇的地方，但這是聖經的真理！
若有人引達秘的話，說基督道成肉身，來成為與我們屬性相同的人，就將西一15的「首生」解為「造物中的第一個」，是明顯錯解了他的話。他從來沒有說過這樣的話！他在「聖經略解」西一15這裡所說的是：基督是造物主，祂是萬有的頭，為了救贖的工作，祂來成為一個人。
達秘在他的時代被譽為解經之王，這個封號絕非過獎。讀他的著作就知道他的解經是非常嚴謹、謹慎的。在西一15這麼重要的地方，他絕不會出差錯，叫人對他所說的起質疑。
人並不能因為基督為了救贖的工作來成為人，有了人性，就說基督是「受造之物，且是第一個」，這是錯誤的解經。基督來成為人，與基督是受造之物，是兩件大不同的事！
這種錯誤的「牽線」出現在「水流職事站」的網站「真裡辯正」：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」的第二篇：關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以上網自行瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
三、Henry Alford（1810-1871）
The first and simplest meaning is that of priority of birth. But this, if insisted on, in its limited temporal sense, must apply to our Lord’s birth from his human mother, and could have reference only to those brothers and sisters who were born of her afterward; a reference clearly excluded here. But a second and derived meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as a designation of dignity and precedence, implied by priority, cannot be denied. Cf. Ps. 89:27…, Exo.4:22…, Rom.8:29…, Heb.12:23…It would be obviously wrong here to limited the sense entirely to this reference, as the very expression below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων, shews, in which his priority is distinctly predicated. The safe method of interpretation therefore will be, to take into account two ideas manifestly included in the word, and here distinctly refer to – priority, and dignity, and to regard the technical term πρωτοτοκος as used rather with reference to both these, than in strict construction where it stands.“First-born of every creature” will then imply, that Christ was not only first-born of His mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father, before the worlds,- and that He holds the rank, as compared with every created thing, of first-born in dignity.
第一和最簡單的意思是第一個出生的，然而若這樣堅持，在它受限的時間意思裡，必須用於我們的主從祂肉身的母親而有的出生上，也只能與後來從她而生做祂弟妹的有關係。顯然地，這個關係在這裡是被排除掉的。然而πρωτοτοκος第二個和衍生出來的意思，是優越所表明的尊貴和領先的一個稱號，這是不能否認的。參考詩八十九27…，出四22…，羅八29…，來十二23…。
這裡若完全侷限於這種關係是明顯的錯誤，正如後面的發表「αυτος εστιν προ παντων」（祂在萬有之先）所表明的，清楚斷言祂在其中的優越。
安全詮釋的方法，乃是考慮包含在這字裡的二個思想，無疑的是：優越和尊貴。…因此「一切造物的首生」指明基督不僅是祂母親在世上所頭生的，也是在諸世界以前祂的父所獨生的。當祂與一切受造物相比時，祂擁有尊貴的首生地位。
...The Arians maintained that Christ is thus Himself declared to be a κτισις of God. It might have been enough to guard them from this, that as Chr. remarks, not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος advisedly used by the Apostle.
亞流主義者堅持…基督是神的一個造物（κτισις），…正如屈梭多模（Chrysostom）注意到的，使徒深思熟慮的用了「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）一字，而不是「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）。
(Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. III, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ, 1:15 notes, pp.202-203)
評論：保羅在西一15下的用詞非常謹慎，正如Henry Alford所說的，是經過深思熟慮的。他所要表達的乃是基督的超越和尊貴。若他所要表達的是基督乃受造之物的第一個，他的寫法應該是：「一切造物的首造」（ the first-created of all the created things）。這樣的寫法把基督貶低了，正和諾斯底異端的講法。若他所要表達的是所有受造之物也是神生的，正如基督是神生的，且是第一位，那麼他的寫法會是：「一切所生的首生者」（ the first-born of all born）。但這是泛神論，無法被接受。保羅寫的是：「一切造物的首生」（the first-born of all created things），因此他所表達的是一切都是被造的，唯基督是被生的，他之於萬物是居先、居首、居上的！
（未完待續）
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
