關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（十三）
二十一、參考聖經
1.「尋道本」
耶穌為甚麼被稱為是「首生的」？（1：15，18）
保羅從他的猶太背景借用了這個詞彙。根據希伯來人的說法，「首生的」表示某人是「特別受尊重的」。以色列國被稱為「長子」（出4：22），大衛也得了這稱呼（詩89：29）。這個稱謂指的不是肉身出身的次序，而是指某人在神面前尊貴的身分。所以保羅的意思是說，基督在一切受造物之上享有尊貴的地位。
（尋道本聖經，更新傳道會，2002年12月初版，第1592頁）
2.「新國際版研讀本」
1：15－20 可能是早期基督徒的一首詩歌（見3：16註釋），歌頌基督的至高性。保羅在此用來對付在歌羅西錯謬的教導。這詩共分兩部分：（1）基督在「創造」方面的至高無上（1：15－17）；（2）基督在「救贖」方面的至高無上（1：18－20）。
1：15 …「是首生的，在一切被造的以先」：正如在聖經時代的世界，長子享有某些特權與利益，照樣基督與一切被造之物相比較，也想有某些權利－優先權、最高地位，和統治權（1：16－18）。
（新國際版研讀本，更新傳道會，1997年6月修定版，第2252頁）
3.「啓導本」
1:15 本節至20節可能是初期教會的一首詩歌，頌讚基督超越的地位。15-16節讚美基督為創造主，萬物藉祂而造，宇宙的命運握在祂手中。
本節至16節簡潔綜述了新約有關基督位格的教訓。…基督是在人的世界中彰顯神。祂存在於一切造物之先。「首生的」不是說基督為神的造物，而是說一切靈界的力量和萬有都是藉祂而造。「有位的，主治的，執政的，掌權的」概指天使，在諾斯底異端中，天使地位甚高。保羅指出，天使乃被造物，是藉基督而造的。
不但如此，也是創造的目的，整個宇宙萬有都是為祂而造的；祂才能結合萬有於一身，一人釘死十架，使神與全人類和好。
（中文聖經啟導本，海天書樓，1989年11月初版，第1719頁）
4. C.I. Scofield（1843-1921）
As used of our Lord here, this term (Gk. Prototokos) refers to priority of position rather than of origin. This meaning is clear in Ps.89:27: “Also I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.” The assertion in 1:15, therefore, is that Christ, as the Eternal Son, holds the position of priority in relation to all creation, in that He was before all things(v. 17), He created all things(v.16), and by Him all things consist, i.e. hold together(v. 17).
【中譯】：
這裡用在我們的主身上，這個詞（希臘文Prototokos）意指地位的居先勝於來源。這個意思在詩八十九27是清楚的：「我也要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」因此一15的斷案是，作為永遠的子，基督在祂與一切受造的關係上持有居先的地位。祂在萬有之先（17節），祂創造了萬有（16節），萬有也靠祂而立，就是凝聚在一起（17節）。
（C.I. Scofield, The New Scofield Reference Bible, New York, Oxford University Press, Copyright renewed, 1937, 1945, p.1285）
5. C.C. Ryrie
the firstborn over all creation, i.e., the son has all the rights belonging to the firstborn, because of His preeminent position over all creation(v. 16).
【中譯】：
「首生的，在一切被造的之上」，亦即子有屬長子的一切權利，因為祂有在一切受造的之上超越的地位（第16節）
（C.C. Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible Expended Edition, Moody Press, 1994, foot note of Col. 1:15, p.1833）
（未完待續）20090208
Friday, February 13, 2009
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（十二）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（十二）
十三、賈玉銘「聖經要義」
永為萬有元首的基督－基督的職位（15～17）
（一）論其偉大可從四方面看
1).按時間言－是在萬有之先的，他是首生的，在一切被造的之先（19節）。
2).按地位言－是在萬有之上的（16節），一切都藉他造，為他造的。
3).按本身言－是充滿一切豐富的。
4).按工作言－是萬有所本萬物所歸的。「萬有都是靠祂造的」（15節）…為祂造的（19節），是萬物所屬，萬物所本的。
（二）論其尊榮
1).是神的像（15節）－愛子是那不能看見之神的像（15節），將神具體表現出來（約一18），祂是神本體的真像（來一3）。
2).是萬有之主－萬物為祂所造，靠祂造的，靠祂而立（17節），造化萬有，管理萬有，維持萬有，承受萬有（來一2），祂是萬有之主。
3).是教會之首－祂是教會全體之首，讓祂居首位，…
4).是萬事的元始－祂是元始（18節），在一切被造的以先，是首生的，首先從死復活的，祂是初，是阿拉法，是新的開頭。是新人類之第一個，新生命的開頭，祂是元始。
（賈玉銘，「聖經要義」，卷六，加拉太－啟示錄，晨星出版社，1991年5月2版，第79～80頁）
十四、倪柝聲
關於主耶穌的身位，聖經給我們看見：第一，主耶穌乃是神；第二，主耶穌是神的兒子；第三，主耶穌又是神所設立的基督；第四，主耶穌是完全的人；第五，主耶穌復活時回到天上，祂仍是人，祂也是神，並且從那時起神又立祂為主為基督。…
人對於聖經有誤解，有不可原諒的，也有可以原諒的；但對於基督的身位，非嚴格維持不可。…若有人說，神先造一個『道，』道是祂頭一個創造，然後『道』再創造天地和其他的受造之物，這也是異端。再者，若有人說基督是靈，是在神之下，在天使之上的一個靈，來到地上為人，這也是異端。…
（倪柝聲，如何分辨異端，倪柝聲著述全集，卷26，第218～219頁）
或倪柝聲文集，第三輯，第14冊，鼓嶺訓練記錄（卷二），第三十篇， 「如何分辨異端」一文，第貳點，「關於基督的身位」一段。此乃倪柝聲一九四八年九月二十八日講於鼓嶺訓練。讀者亦可上網直接研讀
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/nee/read.asp?no=3-14-07
十五、江守道
神本性一切的豐盛都有形有體的居住在祂裡面，因為祂是一切受造之物的首生者。「首生」，並非指一般所謂出生次第的首生。「首生」這個辭，在聖經中有兩種用法：一種是普通所使用的，另一種是特別的用法。一個家庭裡，所謂首生的，即指後面還有弟妹們，那就是「首生」的通常用法。但是歌羅西書一章十五節的「首生」是一種特別的用法，並不是指出生的次序，而是指「居於領先」和「至高無上的超越」，祂是「居於領先」的首生，是早先於一切在祂之後者。祂與受造的萬有不再同一次序裡，是先於那次序；祂是首先者，是至高無上、超越一切後來的。那就是「首生」的意義。
所以一切受造之物的首生者，簡單的意思是指我們的主耶穌早先於一切受造之物。聖經在這裡已接著作了解釋，說：「祂在一切被造的以先」，祂不是受造的，祂乃是創造者，祂是在一切之先。祂之所以被說為一切受造之物的首生者，是因為一切都是在祂裡面被造的，並且被祂所造，也是為祂造的。
（江守道，基督是一切－新約各卷精華，卷二，活道出版社，1994年3月初版，第100～101頁）
二、主與創造的關係
所以在歌羅西書裡說：「是首生的，在一切被造的以先。」很多人看了這句話就產生一個錯誤觀念，認為主是首生的，就以為我們的主也是被創造的，是第一個被創造的而已。但這是異端，不是聖經的真理。…聖經裡沒有這個教訓，…因為對於「首生」不清楚。在我們普通的觀念裡，所謂的「首生」就是所謂的長子。我們對於「首生」的觀念是時間的觀念，就是說在時間裡是第一個生的。…這個就是我們普通對於首生的一個觀念。普通的用法是根據時間的，你是在時間上第一個出來的，所以你是長子，是首生的。
基督是「首生」的意義
但在聖經裡，這個「首生」還有另一個特別的用法，與時間沒有多大的關係，卻與性質有關。懂得希臘文的Lightfoot這樣解說：根據這一個字，意思有兩個，一個是優先的，祂是站在首位的。還有一個是主權的，祂是有主權的，所以這個特別的意義是「優先有主權的」。我們由聖經裡看它的例子：
出埃及記四章22節：「你要對法老說：耶和華這樣說：以色列是我的兒子，我的長子。」…埃及始於一個古國，那時以色列還沒有成國，還在埃及作奴隸呢！那麼，神怎麼能說以色列是我的兒子、我的長子呢？對法老說，以色列是我的兒子，我的長子，意思就是說，在埃及國之前已經有以色列國了，那不就變成以色列是成立在埃及之先？在時間上這是講不通的。所以在這裡神的意思就是說：「以色列是我的長子，它們是有優先權，是有主權的。」因為神要以色列作萬國之首。所以，這裡給我們看見，這個長子和手生乃是有一個特別的意義。
詩篇八十九篇27節說：「我也要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」這個話是指著大衛說的，神說我要立大衛為長子，為首生的。我們知道大位在作君王之前，不知道有多少君王已經存在了。就是在以色列國裡，大衛也不是第一個君王，掃羅才是第一個君王。但是在神的國裡，神說我立大衛為長子，在眾君王之中，他是最高的，是優先的，他是有主權的。換句話說，所有的君王都要根據他那時的光景，他是一個榜樣，好像神把他立起來：這是我的長子，你們要像他那樣，這樣你們才是合乎神心意的君王。
所以在聖經裡，神說我們的主是「首生」的，在所有的創造裡是首生的，並不是說，祂是第一個被創造的，乃是說，在所有的創造裡，祂是站在一個優先的地位，並且祂是有主權的，神把祂設立起來，要叫萬有都歸向祂。這是首生的意義。
聖經的話常常有這樣的意思，比方說亞伯拉罕。誰是亞伯拉罕的長子呢？誰是第一個生的呢？以實瑪利。但在預言上，誰是長子呢？誰得長子的名分呢？以撒。應為以撒是從應許生的。不但是這樣，以撒也有兩個兒子，一個是以掃，一個是雅各。誰先生下來的呢？雖然他們兩個人在那裡爭，但還是以掃先生下來呀！可是長子的名分歸給雅各。所以在看下去，以色列有十二的支派，流便是最早生的，他是長子，按著時間來說他是長子，但是因為他犯罪失去了長子的名分，這個名分就落在約瑟的身上，他得了雙分的產業。所以在聖經裡，常可以看到這個特別的用法，在歌羅西書就是這樣。我們中文聖經為著要保險一點，所以說：「是首生的，在一切被造的以先。」如果你知道祂在一切被造之先，那麼祂就不能是被造的了。所以我們看見，我們的主乃是首生的。
在所有的創造裡，祂是站在一個優先的地位上，祂對於所有的創造，都有祂的主權，神把祂作為一個模範、一個榜樣，一切能就祂的、能符合祂的，都為神所喜悅。一切不能符合祂的，都是神所棄絕的。這是神對於創造的一個旨意。
（江守道、劉志雄，豐盛與神，道聲出版社，2003年11月初版，第33～35頁）
十六、王國顯「神的奧秘就是基督」
神與人的區別，最基本的界線就在於人是被造的。萬物都是神所造的，人事萬物裡面的一類，所以人是神所造的。…
基督是稱為「父懷裡的獨生子」，祂是神所生的，不是被神造出來的。…基督是神所生的，神的話說明了這個事實，是「父懷裡的獨生子」，是生下來的兒子。
生下來，和被造出來，是兩件絕然不相同的事，不能調和在一起的。生就是生，造就是造。基督是神所生的兒子，這是明確的一件事，任何人的想法與辯論，都不能改變這一件屬靈的事實。在還沒有被造之物出現以前，祂已經生出來了。…
基督不單不是被造的，…祂是執行神創造計畫的那一位。萬物是藉著祂造成的，祂是創造主。…
（王國顯，神的奧秘就是基督－歌羅西書讀經劄記，宣道出版社，1982年1月初版，第36～38頁）
十七、天道聖經註釋
「首生的」一語在新約中用過八次，除了本章第18節及啟示錄1：5講到「是從死人中首先復生的」以外，其他五次都是指頭生的長子說的，其實從死人中「首先復生的」一語，也包含著有「頭生」的意義。這八次經文中有五次用在主耶穌作彌賽亞的身份和地位上。在詩篇89：27，詩人說要立大衛為神的長子，為世上最高的君王，顯然那是指大衛作為彌賽亞的預表而說的。希伯來書作者將此經文直接用在主耶穌身上，「神差遣長子到世上來的時候又說，『神所有的天使都要拜祂』。」因此亞伯特（T.K. Abott）認為「長子」一語，在新約時代已經是公認的彌賽亞的一個名稱了。實際上這樣的用法是很自然的。…
保羅用「首生的」一語，意思不是說基督在我們以先出生，好像祂和世人的分別，只是祂比我們早出生；保羅的重點不在時間的先後，而是在主出生的獨特性。…若單論時間的先後，主耶穌並沒有生在舊約的聖徒以前。連「從死裡首先復生的」都是一樣，若論時間，許多人比主更先從死裡復生。因此，這話的重點不在時間，而在主「生」的方式和意義。
「首生的」一語有幾方面的意義，首先是指出祂和人類萬物之間的基本分別，宇宙萬有是「被造的」，是創造的果效。主耶穌是首「生」的；正如一首讚美詩所說，主耶穌「是生成，非造成」的。在基本生命上，祂和我們有一個絕對的分別。下面保羅說，「天上地上的萬有…都是藉著祂，又是為祂而造的。」如果萬有都是藉著祂造的，那麼當然祂自己不是被造的。「祂在萬有之先」。萬有還沒有被造，祂已經存在；祂作了萬有創造的工作，萬有才開始存在。在主耶穌和一切被造之物中間有絕對的分別，祂是「首生的」。
另一面，「首生的」一語也表明主的尊貴和權柄。祂是首生的，因為祂的地位在一切之上。祂既是坐在大衛寶座上的彌賽亞，祂就有王的尊貴和權柄。希伯來書說，因為基督是首生的祂有權柄坐在寶座上，征服仇敵，統治國度。這裡所說的國度不是指猶太人的國度，也不是單指屬祂的人，祂的教會，乃是指全宇宙，一切被造之物。主耶穌要治理萬有，因為祂是在一切被造的之上。歌羅西書的基督論非常崇高：基督不單掌管教會，也掌管全宇宙；不單是教會的頭，萬有都靠祂而存在；不單信主的人因祂得與神和好，全宇宙都要藉著祂與神和好。歌羅西的異端說基督是神人之間許多不同等級的被造物其中的一個，保羅說基督不是被造之物，乃是在一切之上，是萬有的主。
「首生的」再一方面的意義，乃是說主耶穌是承受萬有的，祂是神後嗣。雅各從以掃得了長子的名分，祂的年齡並沒有變得真正大過以掃，但他得了承受父親產業的權柄。雅各成了神的長子，就有權承受神給他百姓所預備的一切福分，一切產業。在第16－17節，保羅說萬有都是為祂造的，所以都是屬祂的，也都要靠祂而存在。在受死以前和復活以後，主曾說天上地上的萬物，和一切的權柄，都交在祂手裡了。祂是首生的，祂有權承受萬有，因此屬祂的人才能同作後嗣。
（鮑會園，天道聖經註釋：歌羅西書，第52～54頁，天道書樓，1980年11月初版）
十八、天道研經導讀
基督和宇宙的關係，就是祂「是首先的，在一切被造的之上」，這裡每一個字都要小心解釋。…它可以在時間上佔首位（priority in time，參閱莫法德，高斯壁）或至高的等級（參閱NEB）的意思，在此我們應該看見這兩個含意，基督在時間上是先存於一切創造物；祂也是在等級和威嚴上勝過它們，TCNT的翻譯把這意思反映出來：「…是一切被造的首生和元首」。主要的重點似乎是在至尊的觀念上（參閱皮克）。
黎富和其他的人認為這個字和古時的習慣有關連，就是一個家庭中的長子，得到其他孩子所沒有的權利和特殊利益，他是父親的代表和繼承人，家中的行政也是交託他的。依照這看法來解釋，這段經文告訴我們，基督是分的代表和繼承人也擁有，管理神家（所有造物）之權，所以祂是神一切創造之主宰。
上面所說關於「首先的」提是我們應該如何解釋「一切被造的」，膚淺的看這段聖文，會使人下結論說基督是被造物之一，只不過是神第一個的創造物。這個看法與上下文不合，因為它很清楚地把基督與一切被造的分開，同時文法上也不要求這看法。在希臘文裡，「被造的」可以是一個比較的奪格（ablative of comparison）（「在被造的以先」）或是一個所有格詞（genitive）；若是後者，它也可以有指示之意（genitive of reference）（「就被造的而論」）或受格之意（objective genitive）（「在被造的以上」），NEB譯作「祂佔一切被造物的首位」。
第十六、十七節是說明基督統管萬有的原因。基督是萬物的首先（主宰），是因為祂創造了它們，萬有的合一、意義，甚至存在都是源於祂。
（Curtis Vaughan著，胡啟芬、馮越明譯，天道研經導讀，歌羅西書、腓利門書，天道書樓，1995年7月初版，第39～40頁）
「首先復生」是和「元始」同格位的（in apposition），把保羅的意思更準確的說出來，這個名詞也出現在第十五節（和「首先」是同一個字）指出基督和萬有的關係，是在一切被造的之上，在這兒祂是死人中首先復生的，前者教導祂在時間上的首先和等級的至尊，此處著重祂的首先多於祂的至尊。意思是基督是第一個從死裡真正復生的（永不再死的，參閱林前十五20）。…
（同上，第43頁）
十九、中文聖經註釋（基文）
「首生的」，希臘文是「第一」和「出生」的複合字。其要點有「天字第一號」的地位，而與時間無關。他與其他被造之物比起來，就好像家中的老大，高居首位。這只是大而化之的類比，顯然包含崇高和優先的意義。
「在一切被造之先」，希臘文的ktisis可以翻成「創造」或「被造的」，正如原文也沒有區分一切或「所有」。因此可以得到兩種不同的翻譯，近代學者通常同意「超越萬有」（現代中文譯本）為較佳的翻譯。說基督在一切被造的當中作長子，的確會發生困難。自從初代教會的亞流主義（Arianism）以來，那些否認耶穌神性的人，就抓住這節經文作為證明他是被造的證據，即使他是首生的。
正如在聖經時代的世界，長子享有某些特權和利益，照樣基督與一切被造之物相比較，也享有某些特權－優先權、崇高地位和統治權，更何況他是超越萬有的長子。
…亞流（Arius, 256-366）主張的觀念為聖子不是上帝，他是受造的神明。在禮拜儀式中不妨稱他為上帝，但實際上他不是上帝。
（周天和；揚東川，中文聖經註釋，第三十七卷，腓立比書、歌羅西書，基督教文藝出版社，1997年11月初版，第340～341頁）
二十、「馬歇爾神學」
…祂也是「一切受造物的首生者」（《思高聖經》、《新修定標準本》）。保羅不可能認為基督是神第一個創造的人，是受造之物的一部分；下一節經文明確地說一切都是他所創造的。比較正確的意思應該是：所以，基督是在創造以先，也超越受造之物。（註6）這個先存性使保羅能夠斷言：基督超越了宇宙中的所有掌權者，無論他們是誰或是甚麼。就像在哥林多前書八6一樣，基督是宇宙的創造者與維繫者，但在這裡，以其他地方無法相比的方式發揮並強調祂在宇宙論中的角色。
註6：如果這樣理解基督的背後，含有智慧的觀念，那麼箴言八22～31清楚地說明：智慧在創造宇宙之先就已經存在了。沒有一個基督徒可以接受一個被造的基督。
（馬歇爾新約神學，潘秋松、林秀娟、蔡蓓譯，美國麥種出版社，2006年4月初版，第345頁，譯自 I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVasity Press）
（未完待續）20090208
十三、賈玉銘「聖經要義」
永為萬有元首的基督－基督的職位（15～17）
（一）論其偉大可從四方面看
1).按時間言－是在萬有之先的，他是首生的，在一切被造的之先（19節）。
2).按地位言－是在萬有之上的（16節），一切都藉他造，為他造的。
3).按本身言－是充滿一切豐富的。
4).按工作言－是萬有所本萬物所歸的。「萬有都是靠祂造的」（15節）…為祂造的（19節），是萬物所屬，萬物所本的。
（二）論其尊榮
1).是神的像（15節）－愛子是那不能看見之神的像（15節），將神具體表現出來（約一18），祂是神本體的真像（來一3）。
2).是萬有之主－萬物為祂所造，靠祂造的，靠祂而立（17節），造化萬有，管理萬有，維持萬有，承受萬有（來一2），祂是萬有之主。
3).是教會之首－祂是教會全體之首，讓祂居首位，…
4).是萬事的元始－祂是元始（18節），在一切被造的以先，是首生的，首先從死復活的，祂是初，是阿拉法，是新的開頭。是新人類之第一個，新生命的開頭，祂是元始。
（賈玉銘，「聖經要義」，卷六，加拉太－啟示錄，晨星出版社，1991年5月2版，第79～80頁）
十四、倪柝聲
關於主耶穌的身位，聖經給我們看見：第一，主耶穌乃是神；第二，主耶穌是神的兒子；第三，主耶穌又是神所設立的基督；第四，主耶穌是完全的人；第五，主耶穌復活時回到天上，祂仍是人，祂也是神，並且從那時起神又立祂為主為基督。…
人對於聖經有誤解，有不可原諒的，也有可以原諒的；但對於基督的身位，非嚴格維持不可。…若有人說，神先造一個『道，』道是祂頭一個創造，然後『道』再創造天地和其他的受造之物，這也是異端。再者，若有人說基督是靈，是在神之下，在天使之上的一個靈，來到地上為人，這也是異端。…
（倪柝聲，如何分辨異端，倪柝聲著述全集，卷26，第218～219頁）
或倪柝聲文集，第三輯，第14冊，鼓嶺訓練記錄（卷二），第三十篇， 「如何分辨異端」一文，第貳點，「關於基督的身位」一段。此乃倪柝聲一九四八年九月二十八日講於鼓嶺訓練。讀者亦可上網直接研讀
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/nee/read.asp?no=3-14-07
十五、江守道
神本性一切的豐盛都有形有體的居住在祂裡面，因為祂是一切受造之物的首生者。「首生」，並非指一般所謂出生次第的首生。「首生」這個辭，在聖經中有兩種用法：一種是普通所使用的，另一種是特別的用法。一個家庭裡，所謂首生的，即指後面還有弟妹們，那就是「首生」的通常用法。但是歌羅西書一章十五節的「首生」是一種特別的用法，並不是指出生的次序，而是指「居於領先」和「至高無上的超越」，祂是「居於領先」的首生，是早先於一切在祂之後者。祂與受造的萬有不再同一次序裡，是先於那次序；祂是首先者，是至高無上、超越一切後來的。那就是「首生」的意義。
所以一切受造之物的首生者，簡單的意思是指我們的主耶穌早先於一切受造之物。聖經在這裡已接著作了解釋，說：「祂在一切被造的以先」，祂不是受造的，祂乃是創造者，祂是在一切之先。祂之所以被說為一切受造之物的首生者，是因為一切都是在祂裡面被造的，並且被祂所造，也是為祂造的。
（江守道，基督是一切－新約各卷精華，卷二，活道出版社，1994年3月初版，第100～101頁）
二、主與創造的關係
所以在歌羅西書裡說：「是首生的，在一切被造的以先。」很多人看了這句話就產生一個錯誤觀念，認為主是首生的，就以為我們的主也是被創造的，是第一個被創造的而已。但這是異端，不是聖經的真理。…聖經裡沒有這個教訓，…因為對於「首生」不清楚。在我們普通的觀念裡，所謂的「首生」就是所謂的長子。我們對於「首生」的觀念是時間的觀念，就是說在時間裡是第一個生的。…這個就是我們普通對於首生的一個觀念。普通的用法是根據時間的，你是在時間上第一個出來的，所以你是長子，是首生的。
基督是「首生」的意義
但在聖經裡，這個「首生」還有另一個特別的用法，與時間沒有多大的關係，卻與性質有關。懂得希臘文的Lightfoot這樣解說：根據這一個字，意思有兩個，一個是優先的，祂是站在首位的。還有一個是主權的，祂是有主權的，所以這個特別的意義是「優先有主權的」。我們由聖經裡看它的例子：
出埃及記四章22節：「你要對法老說：耶和華這樣說：以色列是我的兒子，我的長子。」…埃及始於一個古國，那時以色列還沒有成國，還在埃及作奴隸呢！那麼，神怎麼能說以色列是我的兒子、我的長子呢？對法老說，以色列是我的兒子，我的長子，意思就是說，在埃及國之前已經有以色列國了，那不就變成以色列是成立在埃及之先？在時間上這是講不通的。所以在這裡神的意思就是說：「以色列是我的長子，它們是有優先權，是有主權的。」因為神要以色列作萬國之首。所以，這裡給我們看見，這個長子和手生乃是有一個特別的意義。
詩篇八十九篇27節說：「我也要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」這個話是指著大衛說的，神說我要立大衛為長子，為首生的。我們知道大位在作君王之前，不知道有多少君王已經存在了。就是在以色列國裡，大衛也不是第一個君王，掃羅才是第一個君王。但是在神的國裡，神說我立大衛為長子，在眾君王之中，他是最高的，是優先的，他是有主權的。換句話說，所有的君王都要根據他那時的光景，他是一個榜樣，好像神把他立起來：這是我的長子，你們要像他那樣，這樣你們才是合乎神心意的君王。
所以在聖經裡，神說我們的主是「首生」的，在所有的創造裡是首生的，並不是說，祂是第一個被創造的，乃是說，在所有的創造裡，祂是站在一個優先的地位，並且祂是有主權的，神把祂設立起來，要叫萬有都歸向祂。這是首生的意義。
聖經的話常常有這樣的意思，比方說亞伯拉罕。誰是亞伯拉罕的長子呢？誰是第一個生的呢？以實瑪利。但在預言上，誰是長子呢？誰得長子的名分呢？以撒。應為以撒是從應許生的。不但是這樣，以撒也有兩個兒子，一個是以掃，一個是雅各。誰先生下來的呢？雖然他們兩個人在那裡爭，但還是以掃先生下來呀！可是長子的名分歸給雅各。所以在看下去，以色列有十二的支派，流便是最早生的，他是長子，按著時間來說他是長子，但是因為他犯罪失去了長子的名分，這個名分就落在約瑟的身上，他得了雙分的產業。所以在聖經裡，常可以看到這個特別的用法，在歌羅西書就是這樣。我們中文聖經為著要保險一點，所以說：「是首生的，在一切被造的以先。」如果你知道祂在一切被造之先，那麼祂就不能是被造的了。所以我們看見，我們的主乃是首生的。
在所有的創造裡，祂是站在一個優先的地位上，祂對於所有的創造，都有祂的主權，神把祂作為一個模範、一個榜樣，一切能就祂的、能符合祂的，都為神所喜悅。一切不能符合祂的，都是神所棄絕的。這是神對於創造的一個旨意。
（江守道、劉志雄，豐盛與神，道聲出版社，2003年11月初版，第33～35頁）
十六、王國顯「神的奧秘就是基督」
神與人的區別，最基本的界線就在於人是被造的。萬物都是神所造的，人事萬物裡面的一類，所以人是神所造的。…
基督是稱為「父懷裡的獨生子」，祂是神所生的，不是被神造出來的。…基督是神所生的，神的話說明了這個事實，是「父懷裡的獨生子」，是生下來的兒子。
生下來，和被造出來，是兩件絕然不相同的事，不能調和在一起的。生就是生，造就是造。基督是神所生的兒子，這是明確的一件事，任何人的想法與辯論，都不能改變這一件屬靈的事實。在還沒有被造之物出現以前，祂已經生出來了。…
基督不單不是被造的，…祂是執行神創造計畫的那一位。萬物是藉著祂造成的，祂是創造主。…
（王國顯，神的奧秘就是基督－歌羅西書讀經劄記，宣道出版社，1982年1月初版，第36～38頁）
十七、天道聖經註釋
「首生的」一語在新約中用過八次，除了本章第18節及啟示錄1：5講到「是從死人中首先復生的」以外，其他五次都是指頭生的長子說的，其實從死人中「首先復生的」一語，也包含著有「頭生」的意義。這八次經文中有五次用在主耶穌作彌賽亞的身份和地位上。在詩篇89：27，詩人說要立大衛為神的長子，為世上最高的君王，顯然那是指大衛作為彌賽亞的預表而說的。希伯來書作者將此經文直接用在主耶穌身上，「神差遣長子到世上來的時候又說，『神所有的天使都要拜祂』。」因此亞伯特（T.K. Abott）認為「長子」一語，在新約時代已經是公認的彌賽亞的一個名稱了。實際上這樣的用法是很自然的。…
保羅用「首生的」一語，意思不是說基督在我們以先出生，好像祂和世人的分別，只是祂比我們早出生；保羅的重點不在時間的先後，而是在主出生的獨特性。…若單論時間的先後，主耶穌並沒有生在舊約的聖徒以前。連「從死裡首先復生的」都是一樣，若論時間，許多人比主更先從死裡復生。因此，這話的重點不在時間，而在主「生」的方式和意義。
「首生的」一語有幾方面的意義，首先是指出祂和人類萬物之間的基本分別，宇宙萬有是「被造的」，是創造的果效。主耶穌是首「生」的；正如一首讚美詩所說，主耶穌「是生成，非造成」的。在基本生命上，祂和我們有一個絕對的分別。下面保羅說，「天上地上的萬有…都是藉著祂，又是為祂而造的。」如果萬有都是藉著祂造的，那麼當然祂自己不是被造的。「祂在萬有之先」。萬有還沒有被造，祂已經存在；祂作了萬有創造的工作，萬有才開始存在。在主耶穌和一切被造之物中間有絕對的分別，祂是「首生的」。
另一面，「首生的」一語也表明主的尊貴和權柄。祂是首生的，因為祂的地位在一切之上。祂既是坐在大衛寶座上的彌賽亞，祂就有王的尊貴和權柄。希伯來書說，因為基督是首生的祂有權柄坐在寶座上，征服仇敵，統治國度。這裡所說的國度不是指猶太人的國度，也不是單指屬祂的人，祂的教會，乃是指全宇宙，一切被造之物。主耶穌要治理萬有，因為祂是在一切被造的之上。歌羅西書的基督論非常崇高：基督不單掌管教會，也掌管全宇宙；不單是教會的頭，萬有都靠祂而存在；不單信主的人因祂得與神和好，全宇宙都要藉著祂與神和好。歌羅西的異端說基督是神人之間許多不同等級的被造物其中的一個，保羅說基督不是被造之物，乃是在一切之上，是萬有的主。
「首生的」再一方面的意義，乃是說主耶穌是承受萬有的，祂是神後嗣。雅各從以掃得了長子的名分，祂的年齡並沒有變得真正大過以掃，但他得了承受父親產業的權柄。雅各成了神的長子，就有權承受神給他百姓所預備的一切福分，一切產業。在第16－17節，保羅說萬有都是為祂造的，所以都是屬祂的，也都要靠祂而存在。在受死以前和復活以後，主曾說天上地上的萬物，和一切的權柄，都交在祂手裡了。祂是首生的，祂有權承受萬有，因此屬祂的人才能同作後嗣。
（鮑會園，天道聖經註釋：歌羅西書，第52～54頁，天道書樓，1980年11月初版）
十八、天道研經導讀
基督和宇宙的關係，就是祂「是首先的，在一切被造的之上」，這裡每一個字都要小心解釋。…它可以在時間上佔首位（priority in time，參閱莫法德，高斯壁）或至高的等級（參閱NEB）的意思，在此我們應該看見這兩個含意，基督在時間上是先存於一切創造物；祂也是在等級和威嚴上勝過它們，TCNT的翻譯把這意思反映出來：「…是一切被造的首生和元首」。主要的重點似乎是在至尊的觀念上（參閱皮克）。
黎富和其他的人認為這個字和古時的習慣有關連，就是一個家庭中的長子，得到其他孩子所沒有的權利和特殊利益，他是父親的代表和繼承人，家中的行政也是交託他的。依照這看法來解釋，這段經文告訴我們，基督是分的代表和繼承人也擁有，管理神家（所有造物）之權，所以祂是神一切創造之主宰。
上面所說關於「首先的」提是我們應該如何解釋「一切被造的」，膚淺的看這段聖文，會使人下結論說基督是被造物之一，只不過是神第一個的創造物。這個看法與上下文不合，因為它很清楚地把基督與一切被造的分開，同時文法上也不要求這看法。在希臘文裡，「被造的」可以是一個比較的奪格（ablative of comparison）（「在被造的以先」）或是一個所有格詞（genitive）；若是後者，它也可以有指示之意（genitive of reference）（「就被造的而論」）或受格之意（objective genitive）（「在被造的以上」），NEB譯作「祂佔一切被造物的首位」。
第十六、十七節是說明基督統管萬有的原因。基督是萬物的首先（主宰），是因為祂創造了它們，萬有的合一、意義，甚至存在都是源於祂。
（Curtis Vaughan著，胡啟芬、馮越明譯，天道研經導讀，歌羅西書、腓利門書，天道書樓，1995年7月初版，第39～40頁）
「首先復生」是和「元始」同格位的（in apposition），把保羅的意思更準確的說出來，這個名詞也出現在第十五節（和「首先」是同一個字）指出基督和萬有的關係，是在一切被造的之上，在這兒祂是死人中首先復生的，前者教導祂在時間上的首先和等級的至尊，此處著重祂的首先多於祂的至尊。意思是基督是第一個從死裡真正復生的（永不再死的，參閱林前十五20）。…
（同上，第43頁）
十九、中文聖經註釋（基文）
「首生的」，希臘文是「第一」和「出生」的複合字。其要點有「天字第一號」的地位，而與時間無關。他與其他被造之物比起來，就好像家中的老大，高居首位。這只是大而化之的類比，顯然包含崇高和優先的意義。
「在一切被造之先」，希臘文的ktisis可以翻成「創造」或「被造的」，正如原文也沒有區分一切或「所有」。因此可以得到兩種不同的翻譯，近代學者通常同意「超越萬有」（現代中文譯本）為較佳的翻譯。說基督在一切被造的當中作長子，的確會發生困難。自從初代教會的亞流主義（Arianism）以來，那些否認耶穌神性的人，就抓住這節經文作為證明他是被造的證據，即使他是首生的。
正如在聖經時代的世界，長子享有某些特權和利益，照樣基督與一切被造之物相比較，也享有某些特權－優先權、崇高地位和統治權，更何況他是超越萬有的長子。
…亞流（Arius, 256-366）主張的觀念為聖子不是上帝，他是受造的神明。在禮拜儀式中不妨稱他為上帝，但實際上他不是上帝。
（周天和；揚東川，中文聖經註釋，第三十七卷，腓立比書、歌羅西書，基督教文藝出版社，1997年11月初版，第340～341頁）
二十、「馬歇爾神學」
…祂也是「一切受造物的首生者」（《思高聖經》、《新修定標準本》）。保羅不可能認為基督是神第一個創造的人，是受造之物的一部分；下一節經文明確地說一切都是他所創造的。比較正確的意思應該是：所以，基督是在創造以先，也超越受造之物。（註6）這個先存性使保羅能夠斷言：基督超越了宇宙中的所有掌權者，無論他們是誰或是甚麼。就像在哥林多前書八6一樣，基督是宇宙的創造者與維繫者，但在這裡，以其他地方無法相比的方式發揮並強調祂在宇宙論中的角色。
註6：如果這樣理解基督的背後，含有智慧的觀念，那麼箴言八22～31清楚地說明：智慧在創造宇宙之先就已經存在了。沒有一個基督徒可以接受一個被造的基督。
（馬歇爾新約神學，潘秋松、林秀娟、蔡蓓譯，美國麥種出版社，2006年4月初版，第345頁，譯自 I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVasity Press）
（未完待續）20090208
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（十一）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（十一）
十二、活泉新約希臘文解經
「是首生的，在一切被造的以先」（ πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως ＝ the firstborn of all creation；直譯作「一切被造的首生的」）。
本句是前句中「是」（εστιν）的另一個述語，並且也不帶冠詞，進一步解說「愛子」之所是。前句「不能看見之神的像」，描述愛子與神之間的關係；本句「是一切被造的首生的」，則描述愛子與所有被造之物的關係。與本句平行經文，請參考約一：1～18；來一1～4；及腓二5～11，所有這些經文的作者都一致認定愛子的高超位格。古今多少異端，如主後第四世紀的亞流派（Arianism），因著對這一節經文的誤解，而把基督的位格貶低，成為「一切被造之物」中之首生的。這是極大的錯誤。首先，論到「首生的」（πρωτοτοκος）一詞，「πρωτοτοκος」這個字在古碑銘和蒲紙文獻中常出現，所以不算是純「聖經」用字。但是，在這裡這個字所強調的乃其字首「πρωτος」（第一，首先，在上）之比較級或最高級的意義，如西一18的「首先復生的」；羅八29；來一6，十二23的「長子」；啟一5「首先復活」。這些詞原文都是「首生的」，不過所強調的都是「πρωτος」（第一）的最高級意義。從「πρωτοτοκος」（「首生的」）字源來看，這個字原由「πρωτος」（首先，第一）和「τικω」（生產）父合而成的晚期字，在七十士譯本中出現達一百三十次之多，原指人或動物的「頭胎」，但後來轉而為指與神的特殊親密關係，如出四22「以色列是我的兒子，我的長子」，所指乃「以色列是耶何華所揀選，所愛的」。在這種用法時，「πρωτος」和「τικω」這兩個字根已經失去其原始意義。誠然，在新約中，「πρωτοτοκος」這個字仍然保有其原始意義「頭胎」（見路二7），但不可以一看到這個字，就認為它必然是指「頭一個被生的」。Peter T. O’Brien的判斷是正確的，他認為無論就上下文的意義，或保羅神學的一致性而言，本節的「首生的」都不可以按其原始意義解，其所要強調的乃是基督之於萬有，無論時間上或位格上，都是最優越的。Lightfoot研究本節「首生的」一詞，他認為保羅在此用這個字，具有兩層意義：
1.基督先於萬有：
保羅使用「πρωτοτοκος」（首生），而不用指天使中最高階級的「πρωτοκτιστοι」（首先被造），表示基督並不在受造之列。再者「首生的」之後的「一切被造的」（πασης κτισεως），雖為所有格，確沒有必要將「首生的」解釋為屬於「一切被造的」之列（關於所有格之解釋，見下）；何況下文「萬有都是靠祂造的」（第16節）自然將基督排除於「萬有」之外。而第十七節的「祂在萬有之先」，則更顯示了基督的先存性與自存性。
2.基督統管萬有：
七十士譯本詩篇八十九27提到神要立他為「長子」（πρωτοτοκος）之後，接著就解釋，這乃是要立祂為「世上的君王」（筆者按應是「世上最高的君王」）。因為「長子」（即「首生的」）自然包括了「長子繼承權」的觀念，這也是「彌賽亞」一詞所含的一個重要的觀念。因此，本句話可以意譯為「愛子是長子，因而成為統管萬有之元首」。
至於「首生的」之後的所有格「一切被造的」（πασης κτισεως），Nigel Turner指出，它絕不可能是「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），故具「長子」身分的愛子絕不是被造之萬物中的一部分。這個所有格比較可能是屬於「受詞所有格」（objective genitive），即指「一切被造的」來自「首生的」；或「比較所有格」（a genitive of comparison），即指在時間上「首生的」是在「一切被造的」之先。F.F. Bruce也認定，這裡的這個所有格澄清了這句的意思，愛子不可能是一切被造之物中的首先被造者，相反的，這個所有格所強調的乃是，「一切被造的」都是因著祂才存在的。
故此，本節正確的翻譯應為：「是首生的，在一切被造的之上」；也因此之故，古今多少「亞流派」，無一能引用本節，而把耶穌基督的位格貶低。在當時，保羅乃是藉此駁斥諾斯底派主義所認為的，基督乃自神發出的系列之「愛安」（aeon）之一，地位只在天使之上卻仍在受造之列的謬論。（活泉新約希臘文解經，卷七，第426～428頁，美國活泉出版社，1991年8月初版）
評論：
1.「活泉新約希臘文解經」一書是根據A.T. Roberston 所著的「The Word Pictures in the New Testament」一書為主軸，刪其過時或不合時宜的資料，補進其他新增、新寫資料編譯而成，在中文解經著作中堪稱上乘著作，極具權威，備受各方稱道，也廣為援引。本書共十冊，從1986年開始動工編譯，到1998年完工，前後歷經十三年，可謂工程浩大、艱鉅，而編譯者皆是解經、翻譯界的佼佼者。
2.本文西一15下之註解頗值得參考，它把「首生的」（πρωτοτοκος）一字的用法、與「一切被造的」的關係，簡單扼要做了陳述，其中並引述四位學者的文章，亦值得注意。
其中Peter T. O’Brien所下的斷言是正確有力的，「他認為無論就上下文的意義，或保羅神學的一致性而言，本節的「首生的」都不可以按其原始意義解，其所要強調的乃是基督之於萬有，無論時間上或位格上，都是最優越的。」（摘錄1）
J.B. Lightfoot的文章我已在前面貼過其譯文，及我的評論，正如這裡所說的，他認為保羅在此用「首生的」一詞，具有兩層意義，一是「基督先於萬有」，一是「基督統管萬有」。
F.F. Bruce的論述有權威性，具參考價值，他說：這裡的這個所有格澄清了這句的意思，愛子不可能是一切被造之物中的首先被造者，相反的，這個所有格所強調的乃是，「一切被造的」都是因著祂才存在的。
至於Nigel Turner的部份，「活泉」認為他下的斷言是：『「首生的」和所有格「一切被造的」（πασης κτισεως）絕不可能是「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），故具「長子」身分的愛子絕不是被造之萬物中的一部分。這個所有格比較可能是屬於「受詞所有格」（objective genitive），即指「一切被造的」來自「首生的」；或「比較所有格」（a genitive of comparison），即指在時間上「首生的」是在「一切被造的」之先。』但我詳讀其文（摘錄2），發現雖然Nigel Turner在其文中引述T. K. Abbott的文章（摘錄3），確定同意的是「受詞所有格」（objective genitive）和「比較所有格」（a genitive of comparison），但他卻主張可以解釋為「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）。「活泉」引述其文顯然錯解其意，做了錯誤的判讀。不過，Nigel Turner雖主張「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），其意乃基督為了「救贖」之故與他所救贖的造物「認同為一」，作為他們的「原型」，如同羅八29所說的。換句話說，他之所以是他們的一部份，是因為他先做為「原型」，「一切造物」經過他救贖的工作，與他相像合一。但這樣解釋，就又落到Lightfoot所說的，會被迫把經文中西一15的「造物」和西一16的「創造」領會為屬靈的新造，就是林後五17和加六15的「新造」了！但即便這樣說，Nigel Turner也絕沒有說「基督是神的造物之一，且是第一項」！這種過度延伸解釋別人的文章，把作者沒有的意思強加其上，或引來為自己的錯誤做佐證，乃是自取其辱！Nigel Turner若是一個聖經希臘文的學者，絕不致於落入亞流的異端而不自知！這種說法見於「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
3. 即便如J.H. Thayer在「A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament」（希英新約辭彙字典）裡說，西一15這裡是作「部分所有格」用，如創四4、申十二17、出二二29那樣，好像他贊成基督是造物之一，但他同時說：「他是藉神而出，在全宇宙所有造物之先…，西一15這裡的經文無法確認保羅同意道是造物之一，…。」（摘錄4）可見他仍然謹慎避開亞流的異端，並不是像前述網站文中所說，似乎Thayer是贊成基督是造物之一，因該文說：『號稱這世紀以來最好的新約希臘文語文辭典之一的著者泰爾（Thayer）在其《新約原文辭彙字典》（The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament）中也說：「基督被稱為一切受造之物的首生者（partit. gen.）〔partitive genitive〕，與創四4…出二二29同。』這樣的引述只是該彙編作者就prototokos一字所寫文中非常少部分的文字。這麼簡短的引述會使讀者誤解、誤判！
另外，讀者也當知道，編寫聖經彙編的學者或文法專家未必就是聖經教師或解經家，因為他們也會有錯解之處或欠妥之文。解經必須合於整本聖經的啟示，就是合於整本聖經中聖靈所要傳達的思想。一處經文的解釋必須合於全本聖經，受其他許多處經文的牽制、平衡、約束，否則單就一處經文就直接下斷案，一點不顧及其他經文，或與聖經的中心思想、主要啟示相牴觸，就成了「私意解經」了！像基督的身位這麼重要的事，不可能單就西一15一處經文就可以做主軸來敲定的！若直解其意，卻不顧及他處經文，必要錯得離譜！
4.摘錄文章部分，讀者若有興趣，請自行瀏覽，我只能做部份翻譯或圈出重要段落，請讀者見諒。另外，【摘錄3】T. K. Abbott的文中有許多希臘文氣音、重音的符號，貼在本網站上會顯出亂碼，故本人將所有這些符號取消，請讀者一併知道。
【摘錄1】：Peter T. O’Brien
But the context makes it plain that the title cannot refer to him as the first of all created beings since the immediately following words, which provide a commentary on the title (oti), emphasize the point that he is the one by whom the whole creation came into being. Further, apart from the incompatibility of this thought with the teaching of Paul in general about the person and work of Christ, such an understanding is not required by the word “ prototokos” (“firstborn”) itself.
(Peter T. O’Brien, About prototokos of Col.1:15, Word Biblical commentary)
【摘錄2】：Nigel Turner
"Archetype of All Creation" (Col. 1:15)
It is not my present purpose to quarrel with whatever the mechanical computers may declare about the authorship of the epistle to the Colossians, but I refer to "St. Paul" for convenience sake.
The epistle was canonical from the earliest period of which there is any record and its contents are equally important at the moment when atheism often goes thinly disguised. St. Paul's theme is knowledge of God. He contrasts the Power of darkness with the Kingdom of God's beloved Son; deliverance from the first is achieved by "his blood." God's Son is "the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." "He is before all things."
The enemy, in St. Paul's opinion, was a humanist philosophy which had become fashionable at Colosse, all the more disquieting because it posed as the genuine Christian gospel. It was based on physical science and was materialistic, like the philosophy of our own age of Enlightenment, and like it too, it had its superstitious side: fixed holidays scrupulously observed, moral expediency, astrological curiosity, and the black arts.
Against it all St. Paul promoted Christ as sole deliverer from dark powers, for he is "the firstborn of every creature" (1:15), a phrase which is capable of two meanings in Greek. One of them is endorsed. She has already endorsed the check in the text of the N.E.B.: "His is the primacy over all created things." The alternative meaning is in the margin: "He was born before all created things." All turns on whether the reader understands the genitive ("all created things") as objective (therefore "over all created things"), or as a genitive of comparison, understanding the adjective "firstborn" as an adjective of the comparative degree, perfectly permissible in this kind of Greek (therefore "he is born before all created things "). Doubtless the two titles are equally appropriate for Christ: he is both "first in rank over all created things" and also "born before all created things." The former represents a primacy of status, while the latter is a temporal priority. The prototokos phrase has divided commentators into two camps. although a few make the attempt to unite both: e.g. "born first, before all the creation" (Moffatt).
Prototokos occurs in the Greek Old Testament, II Kingdoms (II Samuel) 19:43, where the context requires the interpretation, "I was born before you," but this is not really a parallel. Since prototokos is not followed by a genitive, it supplies no assistance in deciding which kind of genitive St. Paul was using with prototokos.
Bishop Lightfoot felt that St. Paul's construction could not be a genitive of comparison, for it would be straining syntax to connect the genitive with only the first part of the compound word prototokos; it ought to depend on the whole of the word, whatever it means. And what of the meaning? Is it primacy in status and sovereignty, or primacy only in time?
A new tendency among critics* favours the idea of status and sovereignty, and it well accords with an early conception of Christ as reflected in the literature of the New Testament. Christ is the Alpha (Rev. 1:11 2:16), the Beginning, and the context makes it clear that this is more than temporally understood, as when the seer wrote, "Jesus … is … the Prototokos of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth.… To him be glory and dominion" (Rev. 1:5). St. Paul wrote of him, "He is the head of the Body, the Church: who is the Beginning, the Prototokos from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence" (Col. 1:18). So from every theological point of view, the word is dearly concerned with sovereignty, and the phrase should mean "Sovereign over all created things." As St. Theodore of Mopsuestia commented, "This concerns not time alone, but is also a matter of pre-eminence." It is what Dr. T. K. Abbott alleged was impossible (International Critical Commentary, p. 211), and he pre-ferred the view that only priority in time and distinction from creation itself was intended, quoting Theodoret and Chrysostom in favour. "The meaning is not of power and glory," wrote St. Chrysostom, "but only of time." This is commendable. Although the contexts of the word involve the theological conception of sovereignty, one must beware of importing it into the word itself. On the other hand, the construe which Dr. Abbott suggested is not the only alternative, for the genitive may be neither objective nor comparative, both of which, as our discussion reveals, leave much to be desired when taken closely with prototokos. Might it not rather be the partitive genitive? "Among all created things." I would retain the manifest meaning of prototokos, "firstborn"—but in the sense that the Messiah was said to be first-born—and interpret the word as closely identifying Christ with the family of which he is head, i.e. the whole of creation which looks eagerly for redemption. It has a parallel in the epistle to the Romans where St. Paul again described him as a new Adam, closely identified with believers as an Archetype of a fresh stage or leap forward in the collective evolution of all the creatures of God, in the onward march towards the goal of achieving what Christ is himself—the "icon of the invisible God." In I Corinthians the thought re-appears: he is the First-fruit of them that sleep in death.
Suppose then that prototokos does not express superiority so much as indentification, and it is little wonder if later, when the Church was facing the Arian heresy, her teachers felt that the title had its dangers. This was because the significance of Christ as the universal Archetype was not sufficiently realized. It had been St. Paul's answer to the speculative intellectuals of Colosse. It concerned salvation as well as christology. It was the characteristic way in which St. Paul linked salvation with christology—through him who was identified with humanity as its new Leader and all nature's First-fruit on the one hand, and as the "icon of the invisible God" on the other. When St. Paul immediately proceeds to say (1:16) that all things heavenly and earthly were created "in" Christ, the preposition must be taken literally and not instrumentally.* Christ embraces them all, having become their prototokos, so that they are his icon in the same sense that he is God's. For he is "in" God, and they are "in" him. There is much in common with the Johannine theology of true pantheism.
N.E.B. The New English Bible (New Testament), Oxford and Cambridge, 1961.
* Specimens of recent views include: A. W. Argyle, Expos. Times, LXVI, 2, p. 62 (in favour of temporal primacy); H. G. Meecham, ibid., LXVI, 4, p. 124; C. Masson, L'Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, Paris, 1950, p. 99.
* See the discussion, pp. 118–122.
(Turner, N., Grammatical insights into the New Testament, pp. 122-24, 1966, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.)
【部份中譯】
全然反對之（筆者按，歌羅西流行的屬人哲學），聖保羅高倡基督是使我們脫離黑暗權勢中惟一的一位，因為他是「一切受造之物的首生」（一15），這詞在希臘文可以有二個意思。其中之一是N.E.B.（新英文聖經）正文中認可的：「祂是在一切造物之上居首位」（「He is the primacy over all created things」），另一個意思是在旁註：「祂在一切造物之先被生」（「He was born before all created things」）。打開這一切就在於讀者是否領會所有格（「一切造物的」）作為受詞（因此是「在一切造物之上」），或作為比較所有格，領會形容詞的首生」為比較程度的形容詞，在這一種希臘文裡是全然可以接受的（因此是「祂在一切造物之先被生」）。無疑的這二個頭銜都同樣合適用於基督身上：祂是「在一切造物之上居首位」（first in rank over all created things），同時也是「在一切造物之先被生」（born before all created things）。前者代表地位的卓越，後者代表時間上的居先。prototokos一詞使注釋者分成二派，雖然也有少數人嚐試把這二者連起來，就是說：「首生，在一切造物以先」（Moffatt）。…
Lightfoot主教認為聖保羅的構句不會是比較所有格（筆者按，不是指「祂在一切造物之先被生」），…是地位的卓越和主權，或時間上的居首位？
在批判學裡有一個新的趨勢，較中意地位和主權的思想，而這很合於新約著作中所傳達，早期關於基督的觀念。…T.K. Abbott博士…比較喜歡只是時間上的居先，而與造物絕對有別的觀點。…另一面，Abbott博士的分析所建議的，並不是唯一二而一的選擇而已，因為所有格也可以不是受詞（所有格）或比較（所有格），…它不能是部份所有格－「所有受造之物中」麼？我會保留prototokos這個字是「首生」的清楚的意思（但意思是彌賽亞是第一個生的），而詮釋這個字為基督與祂作為頭的家緊密地認同為一，就是說整個造物在熱切的等候救贖。在寫給羅馬人的書信裡有一個對照，那裡聖保羅再一次描寫祂作一個新亞當，在祂肉身階段所作為的原型，祂與信徒緊密地認同為一，或者跳往前去在神所有的造物整體的進化裡，在往前達到基督自己的所是－「不能看見之神的像」。這樣的思想在林前再度出現：他是睡了之人初熟的果子。
若是prototokos一字沒有表達超越過於認同，而若是是後者，則教會面對亞流異端時，她的教師們會覺得有危險。這是因為基督作為宇宙原型的意義沒有被充分了解。這是保羅對歌羅西那些投機知識分子的回答。連結救恩與基督論是保羅典型的方式，藉著他與人性的認同，一面作為新領袖和所有大自然的初熟果子，另一面作為「不能看見之神的像」。當保羅緊接著說（一16），萬有無論是天上的，地上的都是在他裡面造的，介系詞必須照原意領會，不是機械式的領會 。基督包含他們所有，成為他們的prototokos，所以他們才能成為他的像，如同他是神的像。這與使徒約翰的真正汎神主義（pantheism）神學非常相同。
【摘錄3】：T. K. Abbott
The genitive here is not partitive, as the following context clearly shows, for εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα. Setting this aside, commentators are not agreed as to the interpretation of πρωτοτοκος. Eadie, Hofmann, al., understand it of sovereignty. Alford and Lightfoot, while giving the first place to the idea of priority to all creation, admit sovereignty over all creation as part of the connotation. So Theodore of Mops., ουκ επι χρονον λεγεται μονον· αλλα γαρ και επι προτιμησεως (but he interprets κτισεως of the new creation). In defence of this interpretation of the word Ps. 88:28 is quoted, where after πρωτοτοκον θησομαι αυτον the explanation is added, υψηλον παρα τοις βασιλευσι της γης: also what appears as a paraphrase of this, εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων, Heb. 1:2: also Ex. 4:22; Rom. 8:29, εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις. Job 18:13, "the firstborn of death," for "a fatal malady"; and Isa. 14:30, "the firstborn of the poor," for "the very poor," are also referred to. Lightfoot quotes R. Bechai, who calls God Himself the firstborn of the world, and he concludes that the words signify "He stands in the relation of πρ. to all creation," i.e. "He is the Firstborn, and as the Firstborn the absolute Heir and Sovereign Lord of all creation."
The passages cited do not justify this interpretation. In Ex. 4:22 the word does not at all mean "sovereign," which would be quite out of place even apart from the prefixed "my," but "object of favour." In Ps. 88:28, again, the added words, if taken as an explanation of πρωτ. simply, would go too far; but it is the πρωτοτοκος of God, who is said to be "higher than the kings of the earth." θήσομαι αυτον πρ. is, "I will put him in the position of a firstborn," and the following words are not an explanation of πρ., but state the result of God's regarding him as such. Compare the English phrase, "making one an eldest son by will." By no means would the words of the psalm justify such an expression as πρωτοτοκος των βασιλεων, unless it were intended to include the πρ amongst the βασιλεις. As the context forbids our including the πρωτοτοκος here amongst the κτισις, the interpretation leaves the genitive inexplicable. It is called "the genitive of reference"; but this is too vague to explain anything, as will appear by substituting either κοσμου for κτισεως, or μεγας for πρωτ. Thus πρωτοτοκος του κοσμον for "sovereign in relation to the world," and μεγας πασης κτισεως are equally impossible. If by "genitive of reference" is meant "genitive of comparison," then we come back to the relation of priority in πρωτος. In fact, the genitive after πρ. must be 1st, genitive of possession, as "my firstborn," 2nd, partitive, "firstborn" of the class, or 3rd, of comparison, as in John 1:15, πρωτος μου ην. A moment's reflection will show that Isa. 14:30 is not parallel, for there "the firstborn of the poor". is included in the class. In Job 18:13 (which, moreover, is poetical) the genitive is possessive, "death's chief instrument." Rom. 8:29, there is no genitive, but πρ is included εν πολλοις αδελφοις.
Rabbi Bechai's designation of God as "firstborn of the world" is a fanciful interpretation of Ex. 13:2. R. Bechai probably meant by the expression "priority," not "supremacy." The firstborn were to be consecrated to God because He was the First of all. But it must be remembered that the Hebrew word is not etymologically parallel to πρωτοτοκος.
Hence the only tenable interpretation of the words before us is "begotten before πασα κτισις, " the genitive being like that in John 1:15, πρωτοτοκον του Θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων, Justin M. Dial. § 100. The only ideas involved are priority in time and distinction from the genus κτισις. ουχ ως αδελφην εχων την κτισιν, αλλα ως προ πασης κτισεως Tγεννηθεις, Theodoret; and so Chrysostom: ουχι αξιας κ. τιμης αλλα χρονου μονον εστι σημαντικον. Compare Rev. 3:14, η αρχη της κτισεως του Θεου. πρωτοκτιστος or πρωτοπλαστος would have implied that Christ was created like πασα κτισις.
Isidore of Pelusium, in the interests of orthodoxy, assigns an active meaning to πρωτοτόκος (to be in that case thus accented), not, however, a meaning corresponding to the signification of πρωτοτοκος in classical writers, which is "primipara," and could yield no tolerable sense, but as "primus auctor." His words are: ου πρωτον της κτισεως … αλλα πρωτον αυτον τετοκεναι τουτω εστι πεποιηκεναι την κτισιν ινα η τριτης συλλαβης οξυμενης, ως πρωτοκτιστος (EP. iii. 31). Basil seems to adopt the same view, for, comparing ver. 19, he says: ει δε πρωτοτοκος νεκρων ειρηται, δια το αιτιος ειναι της εν νεκρων αναστασεως, ουτω και πρωτοτοκος κτισεως, δια το αιτιος ειναι του εξ ουκ οντων εις το ειναι παραγαγειν την κτισιν (Contra Eunom. lib. iv. p. 292 D). (The true reading in ver. 19 is πρ. εκ των νεκρων, but πρ. των ν. is in Rev. 1:5.)
This interpretation is followed by Michaelis and some others. In addition, however, to the unsuitableness of τίκτειν in this connexion, πρῶτος is unsuitable, since there would be no possibility of a δευτεροτόκος.
(Abbott, T. K., A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 211, New York: C. Scribner's sons., 1909)
【摘錄4】J.H. Thayer
Πρωτοτοκος
a. prop.:… Mt. i. 25;… Lk. ii. 7;… , the first-born whether of man of beast, Heb. xi. 28…
b. trop. Christ is called πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως( partiti. gen. [see below], as in …Gen. iv. 4;…Deut. xii. 17;…Ex. xxii. 29), who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things…, Col. i. 15;-this passage does not with certainty prove that Paul reckoned the λογος in the number of the created things…
(Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament, 20th Zondervan Printing, 1979, p. 555)
（未完待續）20090119
十二、活泉新約希臘文解經
「是首生的，在一切被造的以先」（ πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως ＝ the firstborn of all creation；直譯作「一切被造的首生的」）。
本句是前句中「是」（εστιν）的另一個述語，並且也不帶冠詞，進一步解說「愛子」之所是。前句「不能看見之神的像」，描述愛子與神之間的關係；本句「是一切被造的首生的」，則描述愛子與所有被造之物的關係。與本句平行經文，請參考約一：1～18；來一1～4；及腓二5～11，所有這些經文的作者都一致認定愛子的高超位格。古今多少異端，如主後第四世紀的亞流派（Arianism），因著對這一節經文的誤解，而把基督的位格貶低，成為「一切被造之物」中之首生的。這是極大的錯誤。首先，論到「首生的」（πρωτοτοκος）一詞，「πρωτοτοκος」這個字在古碑銘和蒲紙文獻中常出現，所以不算是純「聖經」用字。但是，在這裡這個字所強調的乃其字首「πρωτος」（第一，首先，在上）之比較級或最高級的意義，如西一18的「首先復生的」；羅八29；來一6，十二23的「長子」；啟一5「首先復活」。這些詞原文都是「首生的」，不過所強調的都是「πρωτος」（第一）的最高級意義。從「πρωτοτοκος」（「首生的」）字源來看，這個字原由「πρωτος」（首先，第一）和「τικω」（生產）父合而成的晚期字，在七十士譯本中出現達一百三十次之多，原指人或動物的「頭胎」，但後來轉而為指與神的特殊親密關係，如出四22「以色列是我的兒子，我的長子」，所指乃「以色列是耶何華所揀選，所愛的」。在這種用法時，「πρωτος」和「τικω」這兩個字根已經失去其原始意義。誠然，在新約中，「πρωτοτοκος」這個字仍然保有其原始意義「頭胎」（見路二7），但不可以一看到這個字，就認為它必然是指「頭一個被生的」。Peter T. O’Brien的判斷是正確的，他認為無論就上下文的意義，或保羅神學的一致性而言，本節的「首生的」都不可以按其原始意義解，其所要強調的乃是基督之於萬有，無論時間上或位格上，都是最優越的。Lightfoot研究本節「首生的」一詞，他認為保羅在此用這個字，具有兩層意義：
1.基督先於萬有：
保羅使用「πρωτοτοκος」（首生），而不用指天使中最高階級的「πρωτοκτιστοι」（首先被造），表示基督並不在受造之列。再者「首生的」之後的「一切被造的」（πασης κτισεως），雖為所有格，確沒有必要將「首生的」解釋為屬於「一切被造的」之列（關於所有格之解釋，見下）；何況下文「萬有都是靠祂造的」（第16節）自然將基督排除於「萬有」之外。而第十七節的「祂在萬有之先」，則更顯示了基督的先存性與自存性。
2.基督統管萬有：
七十士譯本詩篇八十九27提到神要立他為「長子」（πρωτοτοκος）之後，接著就解釋，這乃是要立祂為「世上的君王」（筆者按應是「世上最高的君王」）。因為「長子」（即「首生的」）自然包括了「長子繼承權」的觀念，這也是「彌賽亞」一詞所含的一個重要的觀念。因此，本句話可以意譯為「愛子是長子，因而成為統管萬有之元首」。
至於「首生的」之後的所有格「一切被造的」（πασης κτισεως），Nigel Turner指出，它絕不可能是「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），故具「長子」身分的愛子絕不是被造之萬物中的一部分。這個所有格比較可能是屬於「受詞所有格」（objective genitive），即指「一切被造的」來自「首生的」；或「比較所有格」（a genitive of comparison），即指在時間上「首生的」是在「一切被造的」之先。F.F. Bruce也認定，這裡的這個所有格澄清了這句的意思，愛子不可能是一切被造之物中的首先被造者，相反的，這個所有格所強調的乃是，「一切被造的」都是因著祂才存在的。
故此，本節正確的翻譯應為：「是首生的，在一切被造的之上」；也因此之故，古今多少「亞流派」，無一能引用本節，而把耶穌基督的位格貶低。在當時，保羅乃是藉此駁斥諾斯底派主義所認為的，基督乃自神發出的系列之「愛安」（aeon）之一，地位只在天使之上卻仍在受造之列的謬論。（活泉新約希臘文解經，卷七，第426～428頁，美國活泉出版社，1991年8月初版）
評論：
1.「活泉新約希臘文解經」一書是根據A.T. Roberston 所著的「The Word Pictures in the New Testament」一書為主軸，刪其過時或不合時宜的資料，補進其他新增、新寫資料編譯而成，在中文解經著作中堪稱上乘著作，極具權威，備受各方稱道，也廣為援引。本書共十冊，從1986年開始動工編譯，到1998年完工，前後歷經十三年，可謂工程浩大、艱鉅，而編譯者皆是解經、翻譯界的佼佼者。
2.本文西一15下之註解頗值得參考，它把「首生的」（πρωτοτοκος）一字的用法、與「一切被造的」的關係，簡單扼要做了陳述，其中並引述四位學者的文章，亦值得注意。
其中Peter T. O’Brien所下的斷言是正確有力的，「他認為無論就上下文的意義，或保羅神學的一致性而言，本節的「首生的」都不可以按其原始意義解，其所要強調的乃是基督之於萬有，無論時間上或位格上，都是最優越的。」（摘錄1）
J.B. Lightfoot的文章我已在前面貼過其譯文，及我的評論，正如這裡所說的，他認為保羅在此用「首生的」一詞，具有兩層意義，一是「基督先於萬有」，一是「基督統管萬有」。
F.F. Bruce的論述有權威性，具參考價值，他說：這裡的這個所有格澄清了這句的意思，愛子不可能是一切被造之物中的首先被造者，相反的，這個所有格所強調的乃是，「一切被造的」都是因著祂才存在的。
至於Nigel Turner的部份，「活泉」認為他下的斷言是：『「首生的」和所有格「一切被造的」（πασης κτισεως）絕不可能是「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），故具「長子」身分的愛子絕不是被造之萬物中的一部分。這個所有格比較可能是屬於「受詞所有格」（objective genitive），即指「一切被造的」來自「首生的」；或「比較所有格」（a genitive of comparison），即指在時間上「首生的」是在「一切被造的」之先。』但我詳讀其文（摘錄2），發現雖然Nigel Turner在其文中引述T. K. Abbott的文章（摘錄3），確定同意的是「受詞所有格」（objective genitive）和「比較所有格」（a genitive of comparison），但他卻主張可以解釋為「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）。「活泉」引述其文顯然錯解其意，做了錯誤的判讀。不過，Nigel Turner雖主張「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），其意乃基督為了「救贖」之故與他所救贖的造物「認同為一」，作為他們的「原型」，如同羅八29所說的。換句話說，他之所以是他們的一部份，是因為他先做為「原型」，「一切造物」經過他救贖的工作，與他相像合一。但這樣解釋，就又落到Lightfoot所說的，會被迫把經文中西一15的「造物」和西一16的「創造」領會為屬靈的新造，就是林後五17和加六15的「新造」了！但即便這樣說，Nigel Turner也絕沒有說「基督是神的造物之一，且是第一項」！這種過度延伸解釋別人的文章，把作者沒有的意思強加其上，或引來為自己的錯誤做佐證，乃是自取其辱！Nigel Turner若是一個聖經希臘文的學者，絕不致於落入亞流的異端而不自知！這種說法見於「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
3. 即便如J.H. Thayer在「A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament」（希英新約辭彙字典）裡說，西一15這裡是作「部分所有格」用，如創四4、申十二17、出二二29那樣，好像他贊成基督是造物之一，但他同時說：「他是藉神而出，在全宇宙所有造物之先…，西一15這裡的經文無法確認保羅同意道是造物之一，…。」（摘錄4）可見他仍然謹慎避開亞流的異端，並不是像前述網站文中所說，似乎Thayer是贊成基督是造物之一，因該文說：『號稱這世紀以來最好的新約希臘文語文辭典之一的著者泰爾（Thayer）在其《新約原文辭彙字典》（The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament）中也說：「基督被稱為一切受造之物的首生者（partit. gen.）〔partitive genitive〕，與創四4…出二二29同。』這樣的引述只是該彙編作者就prototokos一字所寫文中非常少部分的文字。這麼簡短的引述會使讀者誤解、誤判！
另外，讀者也當知道，編寫聖經彙編的學者或文法專家未必就是聖經教師或解經家，因為他們也會有錯解之處或欠妥之文。解經必須合於整本聖經的啟示，就是合於整本聖經中聖靈所要傳達的思想。一處經文的解釋必須合於全本聖經，受其他許多處經文的牽制、平衡、約束，否則單就一處經文就直接下斷案，一點不顧及其他經文，或與聖經的中心思想、主要啟示相牴觸，就成了「私意解經」了！像基督的身位這麼重要的事，不可能單就西一15一處經文就可以做主軸來敲定的！若直解其意，卻不顧及他處經文，必要錯得離譜！
4.摘錄文章部分，讀者若有興趣，請自行瀏覽，我只能做部份翻譯或圈出重要段落，請讀者見諒。另外，【摘錄3】T. K. Abbott的文中有許多希臘文氣音、重音的符號，貼在本網站上會顯出亂碼，故本人將所有這些符號取消，請讀者一併知道。
【摘錄1】：Peter T. O’Brien
But the context makes it plain that the title cannot refer to him as the first of all created beings since the immediately following words, which provide a commentary on the title (oti), emphasize the point that he is the one by whom the whole creation came into being. Further, apart from the incompatibility of this thought with the teaching of Paul in general about the person and work of Christ, such an understanding is not required by the word “ prototokos” (“firstborn”) itself.
(Peter T. O’Brien, About prototokos of Col.1:15, Word Biblical commentary)
【摘錄2】：Nigel Turner
"Archetype of All Creation" (Col. 1:15)
It is not my present purpose to quarrel with whatever the mechanical computers may declare about the authorship of the epistle to the Colossians, but I refer to "St. Paul" for convenience sake.
The epistle was canonical from the earliest period of which there is any record and its contents are equally important at the moment when atheism often goes thinly disguised. St. Paul's theme is knowledge of God. He contrasts the Power of darkness with the Kingdom of God's beloved Son; deliverance from the first is achieved by "his blood." God's Son is "the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." "He is before all things."
The enemy, in St. Paul's opinion, was a humanist philosophy which had become fashionable at Colosse, all the more disquieting because it posed as the genuine Christian gospel. It was based on physical science and was materialistic, like the philosophy of our own age of Enlightenment, and like it too, it had its superstitious side: fixed holidays scrupulously observed, moral expediency, astrological curiosity, and the black arts.
Against it all St. Paul promoted Christ as sole deliverer from dark powers, for he is "the firstborn of every creature" (1:15), a phrase which is capable of two meanings in Greek. One of them is endorsed. She has already endorsed the check in the text of the N.E.B.: "His is the primacy over all created things." The alternative meaning is in the margin: "He was born before all created things." All turns on whether the reader understands the genitive ("all created things") as objective (therefore "over all created things"), or as a genitive of comparison, understanding the adjective "firstborn" as an adjective of the comparative degree, perfectly permissible in this kind of Greek (therefore "he is born before all created things "). Doubtless the two titles are equally appropriate for Christ: he is both "first in rank over all created things" and also "born before all created things." The former represents a primacy of status, while the latter is a temporal priority. The prototokos phrase has divided commentators into two camps. although a few make the attempt to unite both: e.g. "born first, before all the creation" (Moffatt).
Prototokos occurs in the Greek Old Testament, II Kingdoms (II Samuel) 19:43, where the context requires the interpretation, "I was born before you," but this is not really a parallel. Since prototokos is not followed by a genitive, it supplies no assistance in deciding which kind of genitive St. Paul was using with prototokos.
Bishop Lightfoot felt that St. Paul's construction could not be a genitive of comparison, for it would be straining syntax to connect the genitive with only the first part of the compound word prototokos; it ought to depend on the whole of the word, whatever it means. And what of the meaning? Is it primacy in status and sovereignty, or primacy only in time?
A new tendency among critics* favours the idea of status and sovereignty, and it well accords with an early conception of Christ as reflected in the literature of the New Testament. Christ is the Alpha (Rev. 1:11 2:16), the Beginning, and the context makes it clear that this is more than temporally understood, as when the seer wrote, "Jesus … is … the Prototokos of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth.… To him be glory and dominion" (Rev. 1:5). St. Paul wrote of him, "He is the head of the Body, the Church: who is the Beginning, the Prototokos from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence" (Col. 1:18). So from every theological point of view, the word is dearly concerned with sovereignty, and the phrase should mean "Sovereign over all created things." As St. Theodore of Mopsuestia commented, "This concerns not time alone, but is also a matter of pre-eminence." It is what Dr. T. K. Abbott alleged was impossible (International Critical Commentary, p. 211), and he pre-ferred the view that only priority in time and distinction from creation itself was intended, quoting Theodoret and Chrysostom in favour. "The meaning is not of power and glory," wrote St. Chrysostom, "but only of time." This is commendable. Although the contexts of the word involve the theological conception of sovereignty, one must beware of importing it into the word itself. On the other hand, the construe which Dr. Abbott suggested is not the only alternative, for the genitive may be neither objective nor comparative, both of which, as our discussion reveals, leave much to be desired when taken closely with prototokos. Might it not rather be the partitive genitive? "Among all created things." I would retain the manifest meaning of prototokos, "firstborn"—but in the sense that the Messiah was said to be first-born—and interpret the word as closely identifying Christ with the family of which he is head, i.e. the whole of creation which looks eagerly for redemption. It has a parallel in the epistle to the Romans where St. Paul again described him as a new Adam, closely identified with believers as an Archetype of a fresh stage or leap forward in the collective evolution of all the creatures of God, in the onward march towards the goal of achieving what Christ is himself—the "icon of the invisible God." In I Corinthians the thought re-appears: he is the First-fruit of them that sleep in death.
Suppose then that prototokos does not express superiority so much as indentification, and it is little wonder if later, when the Church was facing the Arian heresy, her teachers felt that the title had its dangers. This was because the significance of Christ as the universal Archetype was not sufficiently realized. It had been St. Paul's answer to the speculative intellectuals of Colosse. It concerned salvation as well as christology. It was the characteristic way in which St. Paul linked salvation with christology—through him who was identified with humanity as its new Leader and all nature's First-fruit on the one hand, and as the "icon of the invisible God" on the other. When St. Paul immediately proceeds to say (1:16) that all things heavenly and earthly were created "in" Christ, the preposition must be taken literally and not instrumentally.* Christ embraces them all, having become their prototokos, so that they are his icon in the same sense that he is God's. For he is "in" God, and they are "in" him. There is much in common with the Johannine theology of true pantheism.
N.E.B. The New English Bible (New Testament), Oxford and Cambridge, 1961.
* Specimens of recent views include: A. W. Argyle, Expos. Times, LXVI, 2, p. 62 (in favour of temporal primacy); H. G. Meecham, ibid., LXVI, 4, p. 124; C. Masson, L'Epître de Saint Paul aux Colossiens, Paris, 1950, p. 99.
* See the discussion, pp. 118–122.
(Turner, N., Grammatical insights into the New Testament, pp. 122-24, 1966, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.)
【部份中譯】
全然反對之（筆者按，歌羅西流行的屬人哲學），聖保羅高倡基督是使我們脫離黑暗權勢中惟一的一位，因為他是「一切受造之物的首生」（一15），這詞在希臘文可以有二個意思。其中之一是N.E.B.（新英文聖經）正文中認可的：「祂是在一切造物之上居首位」（「He is the primacy over all created things」），另一個意思是在旁註：「祂在一切造物之先被生」（「He was born before all created things」）。打開這一切就在於讀者是否領會所有格（「一切造物的」）作為受詞（因此是「在一切造物之上」），或作為比較所有格，領會形容詞的首生」為比較程度的形容詞，在這一種希臘文裡是全然可以接受的（因此是「祂在一切造物之先被生」）。無疑的這二個頭銜都同樣合適用於基督身上：祂是「在一切造物之上居首位」（first in rank over all created things），同時也是「在一切造物之先被生」（born before all created things）。前者代表地位的卓越，後者代表時間上的居先。prototokos一詞使注釋者分成二派，雖然也有少數人嚐試把這二者連起來，就是說：「首生，在一切造物以先」（Moffatt）。…
Lightfoot主教認為聖保羅的構句不會是比較所有格（筆者按，不是指「祂在一切造物之先被生」），…是地位的卓越和主權，或時間上的居首位？
在批判學裡有一個新的趨勢，較中意地位和主權的思想，而這很合於新約著作中所傳達，早期關於基督的觀念。…T.K. Abbott博士…比較喜歡只是時間上的居先，而與造物絕對有別的觀點。…另一面，Abbott博士的分析所建議的，並不是唯一二而一的選擇而已，因為所有格也可以不是受詞（所有格）或比較（所有格），…它不能是部份所有格－「所有受造之物中」麼？我會保留prototokos這個字是「首生」的清楚的意思（但意思是彌賽亞是第一個生的），而詮釋這個字為基督與祂作為頭的家緊密地認同為一，就是說整個造物在熱切的等候救贖。在寫給羅馬人的書信裡有一個對照，那裡聖保羅再一次描寫祂作一個新亞當，在祂肉身階段所作為的原型，祂與信徒緊密地認同為一，或者跳往前去在神所有的造物整體的進化裡，在往前達到基督自己的所是－「不能看見之神的像」。這樣的思想在林前再度出現：他是睡了之人初熟的果子。
若是prototokos一字沒有表達超越過於認同，而若是是後者，則教會面對亞流異端時，她的教師們會覺得有危險。這是因為基督作為宇宙原型的意義沒有被充分了解。這是保羅對歌羅西那些投機知識分子的回答。連結救恩與基督論是保羅典型的方式，藉著他與人性的認同，一面作為新領袖和所有大自然的初熟果子，另一面作為「不能看見之神的像」。當保羅緊接著說（一16），萬有無論是天上的，地上的都是在他裡面造的，介系詞必須照原意領會，不是機械式的領會 。基督包含他們所有，成為他們的prototokos，所以他們才能成為他的像，如同他是神的像。這與使徒約翰的真正汎神主義（pantheism）神學非常相同。
【摘錄3】：T. K. Abbott
The genitive here is not partitive, as the following context clearly shows, for εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα. Setting this aside, commentators are not agreed as to the interpretation of πρωτοτοκος. Eadie, Hofmann, al., understand it of sovereignty. Alford and Lightfoot, while giving the first place to the idea of priority to all creation, admit sovereignty over all creation as part of the connotation. So Theodore of Mops., ουκ επι χρονον λεγεται μονον· αλλα γαρ και επι προτιμησεως (but he interprets κτισεως of the new creation). In defence of this interpretation of the word Ps. 88:28 is quoted, where after πρωτοτοκον θησομαι αυτον the explanation is added, υψηλον παρα τοις βασιλευσι της γης: also what appears as a paraphrase of this, εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων, Heb. 1:2: also Ex. 4:22; Rom. 8:29, εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις. Job 18:13, "the firstborn of death," for "a fatal malady"; and Isa. 14:30, "the firstborn of the poor," for "the very poor," are also referred to. Lightfoot quotes R. Bechai, who calls God Himself the firstborn of the world, and he concludes that the words signify "He stands in the relation of πρ. to all creation," i.e. "He is the Firstborn, and as the Firstborn the absolute Heir and Sovereign Lord of all creation."
The passages cited do not justify this interpretation. In Ex. 4:22 the word does not at all mean "sovereign," which would be quite out of place even apart from the prefixed "my," but "object of favour." In Ps. 88:28, again, the added words, if taken as an explanation of πρωτ. simply, would go too far; but it is the πρωτοτοκος of God, who is said to be "higher than the kings of the earth." θήσομαι αυτον πρ. is, "I will put him in the position of a firstborn," and the following words are not an explanation of πρ., but state the result of God's regarding him as such. Compare the English phrase, "making one an eldest son by will." By no means would the words of the psalm justify such an expression as πρωτοτοκος των βασιλεων, unless it were intended to include the πρ amongst the βασιλεις. As the context forbids our including the πρωτοτοκος here amongst the κτισις, the interpretation leaves the genitive inexplicable. It is called "the genitive of reference"; but this is too vague to explain anything, as will appear by substituting either κοσμου for κτισεως, or μεγας for πρωτ. Thus πρωτοτοκος του κοσμον for "sovereign in relation to the world," and μεγας πασης κτισεως are equally impossible. If by "genitive of reference" is meant "genitive of comparison," then we come back to the relation of priority in πρωτος. In fact, the genitive after πρ. must be 1st, genitive of possession, as "my firstborn," 2nd, partitive, "firstborn" of the class, or 3rd, of comparison, as in John 1:15, πρωτος μου ην. A moment's reflection will show that Isa. 14:30 is not parallel, for there "the firstborn of the poor". is included in the class. In Job 18:13 (which, moreover, is poetical) the genitive is possessive, "death's chief instrument." Rom. 8:29, there is no genitive, but πρ is included εν πολλοις αδελφοις.
Rabbi Bechai's designation of God as "firstborn of the world" is a fanciful interpretation of Ex. 13:2. R. Bechai probably meant by the expression "priority," not "supremacy." The firstborn were to be consecrated to God because He was the First of all. But it must be remembered that the Hebrew word is not etymologically parallel to πρωτοτοκος.
Hence the only tenable interpretation of the words before us is "begotten before πασα κτισις, " the genitive being like that in John 1:15, πρωτοτοκον του Θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων, Justin M. Dial. § 100. The only ideas involved are priority in time and distinction from the genus κτισις. ουχ ως αδελφην εχων την κτισιν, αλλα ως προ πασης κτισεως Tγεννηθεις, Theodoret; and so Chrysostom: ουχι αξιας κ. τιμης αλλα χρονου μονον εστι σημαντικον. Compare Rev. 3:14, η αρχη της κτισεως του Θεου. πρωτοκτιστος or πρωτοπλαστος would have implied that Christ was created like πασα κτισις.
Isidore of Pelusium, in the interests of orthodoxy, assigns an active meaning to πρωτοτόκος (to be in that case thus accented), not, however, a meaning corresponding to the signification of πρωτοτοκος in classical writers, which is "primipara," and could yield no tolerable sense, but as "primus auctor." His words are: ου πρωτον της κτισεως … αλλα πρωτον αυτον τετοκεναι τουτω εστι πεποιηκεναι την κτισιν ινα η τριτης συλλαβης οξυμενης, ως πρωτοκτιστος (EP. iii. 31). Basil seems to adopt the same view, for, comparing ver. 19, he says: ει δε πρωτοτοκος νεκρων ειρηται, δια το αιτιος ειναι της εν νεκρων αναστασεως, ουτω και πρωτοτοκος κτισεως, δια το αιτιος ειναι του εξ ουκ οντων εις το ειναι παραγαγειν την κτισιν (Contra Eunom. lib. iv. p. 292 D). (The true reading in ver. 19 is πρ. εκ των νεκρων, but πρ. των ν. is in Rev. 1:5.)
This interpretation is followed by Michaelis and some others. In addition, however, to the unsuitableness of τίκτειν in this connexion, πρῶτος is unsuitable, since there would be no possibility of a δευτεροτόκος.
(Abbott, T. K., A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, p. 211, New York: C. Scribner's sons., 1909)
【摘錄4】J.H. Thayer
Πρωτοτοκος
a. prop.:… Mt. i. 25;… Lk. ii. 7;… , the first-born whether of man of beast, Heb. xi. 28…
b. trop. Christ is called πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως( partiti. gen. [see below], as in …Gen. iv. 4;…Deut. xii. 17;…Ex. xxii. 29), who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things…, Col. i. 15;-this passage does not with certainty prove that Paul reckoned the λογος in the number of the created things…
(Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament, 20th Zondervan Printing, 1979, p. 555)
（未完待續）20090119
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（十）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（十）
八、M.R.Vincent西一15、18的註解
15. The first-born of every creature (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως)
Rev., the first-born of all creation. For first-born, see on Apoc. i. 5; for creation, on 2Cor. v.17. As image points to revelation, so first-born points to eternal preexistence. Even the Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created. The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, ver. 17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εις) Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Ps. lxxxix. 27; Heb. i. 2.
（M.R.Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, Vol. III, pp.468-69, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980”）
【中譯】
西一15「每一造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，按是「欽定本」）
修定本作「一切造物的首生」。首生，參啟一5；造物，參林後五17。正如「像」是指啟示，「首生」則指永遠先存。即便是修訂本都有點含糊不清，因為我們必須小心避免任何暗示基督是受造之物的第一個的話，這是和以下的話相牴觸，就是「萬有都是靠他造的」。真正的涵義是「生在造物之前」，對照第十七節的「在萬有之先」。這個居先的事實表明主權。祂被高舉在所有寶座之上等等，而萬有都是「歸於」祂，正如在別處宣告他們歸於神。參詩八十九27，來一2。
18. The first-born from the dead (πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων)
...There is a parallelism between first-born of the creation and first-born from the dead as regards the relation of headship in which Christ stands to creation and to the Church alike; but the parallelism is not complete. “He is the first-born from the dead as having been Himself one of the dead. He is not the first-born of all creation as being himself created” (Dwight).
（M.R.Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, Vol. III, pp.472, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980”）
西一18「從死裡首先復生的」
…關於基督向著造物與教會有同樣作頭的關係，「造物的首生」與「死人中的首生」二者為對句，然而卻不盡然是對句。「他是死人中復活的首生者，正如他曾是死人中的一個。他不是造物中的第一個，好像他是個造物似的。」(Dwight)。
九、K.S. Wuest
The word “firstborn” is prototokos. The Greek word implied two things, Priority to all creation and Sovereignty over all creation. In the first meaning we see the absolute pre-existence of the Logos. Since our Lord existed before all created things, He must be uncreated. Since He is uncreated, he is eternal. Since He is eternal, He is God. Since He is God, He cannot be one of the emanations from deity of which the Gnostic speaks, even though He proceeds from God the Father as the Son. In the second meaning we see that He is the eternal ruler, the acknowledged head of God’s household. Thus again, He cannot be one of the emanations from the deity in whom the divine essence is present but diffused. He is the Lord of creation.
（Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Vol. I, Ephesians and Colossians, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973, p.183）
「首生」這詞是prototokos。希臘文暗示兩件事：在所有造物之先和對所有造物之主權。在第一個意思裡，我們看見道的絕對先存。既然我們的主在一切造物之先已存，祂必定不是被造的。既然祂不是被造的，祂就是永遠的。既然祂是永遠的，祂就是神。既然祂是神，雖說祂是從父神而出的子，祂就不是如諾斯底派所說的是出於神祇的一個分身（emanation，或譯發散、流出、放射，下同）。在第二個意思裡，我們看見祂是永遠的統治者，是神的家人所公認的頭。因此再一次，祂不是神祇的分身之一，雖然具有神聖的本質，卻是零散的。祂乃是造物的主。
十、W.W. Wiersbe 西一15、16的註解
He existed before Creation (v. 15).
The term firstborn does not refer to time, but to place or status. Jesus Christ was not the first being created, since He Himself is the Creator of all things. Firstborn simply means “of first importance, of first rank.” Solomon was certainly not the first of all David’s son, yet he was named the firstborn (Ps. 89:27). Firstborn of all creation means “prior to all Creation.” Jesus Christ is not a created being; He is eternal God.
He created all things (v. 16)
Since Christ created all things, He Himself is uncreated. The word for that introduces this verse could be translated “because.” Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of all because He created all things. It is not wonder that the winds and waves obeyed Him, and diseases and death fled from Him, for He is the Master over all. “All things were made by Him” (John1:3). This includes all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible. All things are under His command.
（W.W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, New Testament Vol. 2, Cook Communications Ministries, 2001, P.115）
【中譯】
祂在萬有之先已存（15節）
「首生」一詞不是指時間，而是指地位和身份。耶穌基督不是第一個被造物，因為祂自己是萬有的創造主。「首生」不過就是「第一重要」、「首位」的意思。所羅門當然不是大衛的第一個兒子，但他被稱為長子（詩八十九27）。「一切造物的首生」意思是「在一切造物以先」。耶穌基督不是一個造物；祂乃是神。
祂創造萬有（16節）
因為基督創造了萬有，祂自己就不是被造的。帶進本節的「因為」一字可以翻成「由於」。耶穌基督是一切的首生，是由於祂創造了萬有。難怪風浪聽祂，疾病死亡從祂面前逃離，因為祂是萬有的主宰。「萬物是藉著他造的」（約一3），包括所有天上的和地上的，能看見的和不能看見的。萬有都服在祂的命令底下。
十一、Peter T. O’Brien
About prototokos of Col.1:15
…Stripped from its context and from other Pauline statements about Christ this phrase might be understood to include him among created things (as simply the “eldest” of the “family”: at Rom 8:29 “prototokos” appears to be used in this inclusive sense).
But the context makes it plain that the title cannot refer to him as the first of all created beings since the immediately following words, which provide a commentary on the title (oti), emphasize the point that he is the one by whom the whole creation came into being. Further, apart from the incompatibility of this thought with the teaching of Paul in general about the person and work of Christ, such an understanding is not required by the word “ prototokos” (“firstborn”) itself.
(Peter T. O’Brien, Word Biblical commentary)
【中譯】
關於西一15的「首生」
…脫離上下文，也脫離保羅其他關於基督的聲明，這個詞應當被領會為他是造物之一（正如一個「家」的「長子」，羅八29「長子」是用作包含的意思）。
但是上下文清楚表明這個頭銜不是指明他是一切造物之第一個，因為緊接在後的話給了這個頭銜一個註解（oti，按因為），強調一個重點，就是藉他所有的造物才得以產生。進一步說，除了與保羅關於基督的身位和工作一般的教訓不一致之外,這樣領會無法從「首生」這個字本身而來。
（未完待續）20090104
八、M.R.Vincent西一15、18的註解
15. The first-born of every creature (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως)
Rev., the first-born of all creation. For first-born, see on Apoc. i. 5; for creation, on 2Cor. v.17. As image points to revelation, so first-born points to eternal preexistence. Even the Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created. The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, ver. 17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εις) Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Ps. lxxxix. 27; Heb. i. 2.
（M.R.Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, Vol. III, pp.468-69, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980”）
【中譯】
西一15「每一造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，按是「欽定本」）
修定本作「一切造物的首生」。首生，參啟一5；造物，參林後五17。正如「像」是指啟示，「首生」則指永遠先存。即便是修訂本都有點含糊不清，因為我們必須小心避免任何暗示基督是受造之物的第一個的話，這是和以下的話相牴觸，就是「萬有都是靠他造的」。真正的涵義是「生在造物之前」，對照第十七節的「在萬有之先」。這個居先的事實表明主權。祂被高舉在所有寶座之上等等，而萬有都是「歸於」祂，正如在別處宣告他們歸於神。參詩八十九27，來一2。
18. The first-born from the dead (πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων)
...There is a parallelism between first-born of the creation and first-born from the dead as regards the relation of headship in which Christ stands to creation and to the Church alike; but the parallelism is not complete. “He is the first-born from the dead as having been Himself one of the dead. He is not the first-born of all creation as being himself created” (Dwight).
（M.R.Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, Vol. III, pp.472, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980”）
西一18「從死裡首先復生的」
…關於基督向著造物與教會有同樣作頭的關係，「造物的首生」與「死人中的首生」二者為對句，然而卻不盡然是對句。「他是死人中復活的首生者，正如他曾是死人中的一個。他不是造物中的第一個，好像他是個造物似的。」(Dwight)。
九、K.S. Wuest
The word “firstborn” is prototokos. The Greek word implied two things, Priority to all creation and Sovereignty over all creation. In the first meaning we see the absolute pre-existence of the Logos. Since our Lord existed before all created things, He must be uncreated. Since He is uncreated, he is eternal. Since He is eternal, He is God. Since He is God, He cannot be one of the emanations from deity of which the Gnostic speaks, even though He proceeds from God the Father as the Son. In the second meaning we see that He is the eternal ruler, the acknowledged head of God’s household. Thus again, He cannot be one of the emanations from the deity in whom the divine essence is present but diffused. He is the Lord of creation.
（Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament For the English Reader, Vol. I, Ephesians and Colossians, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973, p.183）
「首生」這詞是prototokos。希臘文暗示兩件事：在所有造物之先和對所有造物之主權。在第一個意思裡，我們看見道的絕對先存。既然我們的主在一切造物之先已存，祂必定不是被造的。既然祂不是被造的，祂就是永遠的。既然祂是永遠的，祂就是神。既然祂是神，雖說祂是從父神而出的子，祂就不是如諾斯底派所說的是出於神祇的一個分身（emanation，或譯發散、流出、放射，下同）。在第二個意思裡，我們看見祂是永遠的統治者，是神的家人所公認的頭。因此再一次，祂不是神祇的分身之一，雖然具有神聖的本質，卻是零散的。祂乃是造物的主。
十、W.W. Wiersbe 西一15、16的註解
He existed before Creation (v. 15).
The term firstborn does not refer to time, but to place or status. Jesus Christ was not the first being created, since He Himself is the Creator of all things. Firstborn simply means “of first importance, of first rank.” Solomon was certainly not the first of all David’s son, yet he was named the firstborn (Ps. 89:27). Firstborn of all creation means “prior to all Creation.” Jesus Christ is not a created being; He is eternal God.
He created all things (v. 16)
Since Christ created all things, He Himself is uncreated. The word for that introduces this verse could be translated “because.” Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of all because He created all things. It is not wonder that the winds and waves obeyed Him, and diseases and death fled from Him, for He is the Master over all. “All things were made by Him” (John1:3). This includes all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible. All things are under His command.
（W.W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, New Testament Vol. 2, Cook Communications Ministries, 2001, P.115）
【中譯】
祂在萬有之先已存（15節）
「首生」一詞不是指時間，而是指地位和身份。耶穌基督不是第一個被造物，因為祂自己是萬有的創造主。「首生」不過就是「第一重要」、「首位」的意思。所羅門當然不是大衛的第一個兒子，但他被稱為長子（詩八十九27）。「一切造物的首生」意思是「在一切造物以先」。耶穌基督不是一個造物；祂乃是神。
祂創造萬有（16節）
因為基督創造了萬有，祂自己就不是被造的。帶進本節的「因為」一字可以翻成「由於」。耶穌基督是一切的首生，是由於祂創造了萬有。難怪風浪聽祂，疾病死亡從祂面前逃離，因為祂是萬有的主宰。「萬物是藉著他造的」（約一3），包括所有天上的和地上的，能看見的和不能看見的。萬有都服在祂的命令底下。
十一、Peter T. O’Brien
About prototokos of Col.1:15
…Stripped from its context and from other Pauline statements about Christ this phrase might be understood to include him among created things (as simply the “eldest” of the “family”: at Rom 8:29 “prototokos” appears to be used in this inclusive sense).
But the context makes it plain that the title cannot refer to him as the first of all created beings since the immediately following words, which provide a commentary on the title (oti), emphasize the point that he is the one by whom the whole creation came into being. Further, apart from the incompatibility of this thought with the teaching of Paul in general about the person and work of Christ, such an understanding is not required by the word “ prototokos” (“firstborn”) itself.
(Peter T. O’Brien, Word Biblical commentary)
【中譯】
關於西一15的「首生」
…脫離上下文，也脫離保羅其他關於基督的聲明，這個詞應當被領會為他是造物之一（正如一個「家」的「長子」，羅八29「長子」是用作包含的意思）。
但是上下文清楚表明這個頭銜不是指明他是一切造物之第一個，因為緊接在後的話給了這個頭銜一個註解（oti，按因為），強調一個重點，就是藉他所有的造物才得以產生。進一步說，除了與保羅關於基督的身位和工作一般的教訓不一致之外,這樣領會無法從「首生」這個字本身而來。
（未完待續）20090104
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（九）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（九）
七、William Barclay（1907-1978）
THE MISTAKEN THINKERS Col 1:15-23
(1) THE MISTAKEN THINKERS (Col 1:15-23 continued)
It is one of the facts of the human mind that a man thinks only as much as he has to. It is not until a man finds his faith opposed and attacked that he really begins to think out its implications. It is not until the Church is confronted with some dangerous heresy that she begins to realize the riches of orthodoxy. It is characteristic of Christianity that it can always produce new riches to meet a new situation.
When Paul wrote Colossians, he was not writing in a vacuum. He was writing, as we have already seen in the introduction, to meet a very definite situation. There was a tendency of thought in the early Church called Gnosticism. Its devotees were called Gnostics, which more or less means the intellectual ones. These men were dissatisfied with what they considered the rude simplicity of Christianity and wished to turn it into a philosophy and to align it with the other philosophies which held the field at that time.
The Gnostics began with the basic assumption that matter was altogether evil and spirit altogether good. They further held that matter was eternal and that it was out of this evil matter that the world was created. The Christian, to use the technical phrase, believes in creation out of nothing; the Gnostic believed in creation out of evil matter.
Now God was spirit and if spirit was altogether good and matter essentially evil, it followed, as the Gnostic saw it, that the true God could not touch matter and, therefore, could not himself be the agent of creation. So the Gnostics believed that God put forth a series of emanations, each a little further away from God until at last there was one so distant from God, that it could handle matter and create the world.
The Gnostics went further. As the emanations went further and further from God, they became more and more ignorant of him. And in the very distant emanations there was not only ignorance of God, but also hostility to him. The Gnostics came to the conclusion that the emanation who created the world was both ignorant of and hostile to the true God; and sometimes they identified that emanation with the God of the Old Testament.
This has certain logical consequences.
(i) As the Gnostics saw it, the creator was not God but someone hostile to him; and the world was not God's world but that of a power hostile to him. That is why Paul insists that God did create the world, and that his agent in creation was no ignorant and hostile emanation but Jesus Christ, his Son (Col 1:16).
(ii) As the Gnostics saw it, Jesus Christ was by no means unique. We have seen how they postulated a whole series of emanations between the world and God. They insisted that Jesus was merely one of these emanations. He might stand high in the series; he might even stand highest; but he was only one of many. Paul meets this by insisting that in Jesus Christ all fullness dwells (Col 1:19); that in him there is the fullness of the godhead in bodily form (Col 2:9). One of the supreme objects of Colossians is to insist that Jesus is utterly unique and that in him there is the whole of God.
(iii) As the Gnostics saw it, this had another consequence with regard to Jesus. If matter was altogether evil, it followed that the body was altogether evil. It followed further that he who was the revelation of God, could not have had a real body. He could have been nothing more than a spiritual phantom in bodily form. The Gnostics completely denied the real manhood of Jesus. In their own writings they, for instance, set it down that when Jesus walked, he left no footprints on the ground. That is why Paul uses such startling phraseology in Colossians. He speaks of Jesus reconciling man to God in his body of flesh (Col 1:22); he says that the fullness of the godhead dwelt in him bodily. In opposition to the Gnostics, Paul insisted on the flesh and blood manhood of Jesus.
(iv) The task of man is to find his way to God. As the Gnostics saw it, that way was barred. Between this world and God there was this vast series of emanations. Before the soul could rise to God, it had to get past the barrier of each of these emanations. To pass each barrier special knowledge and special passwords were needed; it was these passwords and that knowledge that the Gnostics claimed to give. This meant two things.
(a) It meant that salvation was intellectual knowledge. To meet that Paul insists that salvation is not knowledge; it is redemption and the forgiveness of sins. The Gnostic teachers held that the so-called simple truths of the gospel were not nearly enough. To find its way to God the soul needed far more than that; it needed the elaborate knowledge and the secret passwords which Gnosticism alone could give. So Paul insists that nothing more is needed than the saving truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
(b) If salvation depended on this elaborate knowledge, it was clearly not for every man but only for the intellectual. So the Gnostics divided mankind into the spiritual and the earthly; and only the spiritual could be truly saved. Full salvation was beyond the scope of the ordinary man. It is with that in mind that Paul wrote the great verse Col 1:28. It was his aim to warn every man and to teach every man, and so to present every man mature in Christ Jesus. Against a salvation possible for only a limited intellectual minority, Paul presents a gospel which is for every man, however simple and unlettered or however wise and learned he may be.
These, then, were the great Gnostic doctrines; and all the time we are studying this passage, and indeed the whole letter, we must have them in our mind, for only against them does Paul's language become intelligible and relevant.
(2) WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS IN HIMSELF (Col 1:15-23 continued)
In this passage Paul says two great things about Jesus, both of which are in answer to the Gnostics. The Gnostics had said that Jesus was merely one among many intermediaries and that, however great he might be, he was only a partial revelation of God.
(i) Paul says that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). Here he uses a word and a picture which would waken all kinds of memories in the minds of those who heard it. The word is eikon (), and image is its correct translation. Now, as Lightfoot points out, an image can be two things which merge into each other. It can be a representation; but a representation, if it is perfect enough, can become a manifestation. When Paul uses this word, he lays it down that Jesus is the perfect manifestation of God. To see what God is like, we must look at Jesus. He perfectly represents God to men in a form which they can see and know and understand. But it is what is behind this word that is of entrancing interest.
(a) The Old Testament and the inter-testamental books have a great deal to say about Wisdom. In Proverbs the great passages on Wisdom are in Prov 2 and Prov 8 . There Wisdom is said to be co-eternal with God and to have been with God when he created the world. Now in the Wis 7:26, eikon () is used of Wisdom; Wisdom is the image of the goodness of God. It is as if Paul turned to the Jews and said, "All your lives you have been thinking and dreaming and writing about this divine Wisdom, which is as old as God, which made the world and which gives wisdom to men. In Jesus Christ this Wisdom has come to men in bodily form for all to see." Jesus is the fulfilment of the dreams of Jewish thought.
(b) The Greeks were haunted by the thought of the Logos (), the word, the reason of God. It was that Logos which created the world, which put sense into the universe, which kept the stars in their courses, which made this a dependable world, which put a thinking mind into man. This very word eikon () is used again and again by Philo of the Logos of God. "He calls the invisible and divine Logos, which only the mind can perceive, the image (eikon, ) of God" (Philo: Concerning the Creator of the World: 8). It is as if Paul said to the Greeks: "For the last six hundred years you have dreamed and thought and written about the reason, the mind, the word, the Logos of God; you called it God's eikon (); in Jesus Christ that Logos has come plain for all to see. Your dreams and philosophies are all come true in him."
(c) In these connections of the word eikon () we have been moving in the highest realms of thought, where only the philosophers can move familiarly. But there are two much simpler connections which would immediately flash across the minds of those who heard or read this for the first time. Their minds would at once go back to the creation story. There the old story tells of the culminating act of creation. "God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him" (Gen 1:26-27). Here indeed is illumination. Man was made that he might be nothing less than the eikon () of God, for the word in the Genesis story is the same. That is what man was meant to be, but sin came in and man never achieved his destiny. By using this word of Jesus, Paul in effect says, "Look at this Jesus. He shows you not only what God is; he also shows you what man was meant to be. Here is manhood as God designed it. Jesus is the perfect manifestation of God and the perfect manifestation of man." There is in Jesus Christ the revelation of godhead and the revelation of manhood.
(d) But we come at last to something much simpler than any of these things. And there is no doubt that many of the simpler of Paul's readers would think of this. Even if they knew nothing of the Wisdom Literature and nothing of Philo and nothing of the Genesis story they would know this.
Eikon ()--sometimes in its diminutive form eikonion--was the word which was used for a portrait in Greek. There is a papyrus letter from a soldier lad called Apion to his father Epimachus. Near the end he writes: "I send you a little portrait (eikonion) of myself painted by Euctemon." It is the nearest equivalent in ancient Greek to our word photograph. But this word had still another use. When a legal document was drawn up, such as a receipt or an IOU, it always included a description of the chief characteristics and distinguishing marks of the contracting parties, so that there could be no mistake. The Greek word for such a description is eikon (). The eikon (), therefore, was a kind of brief summary of the personal characteristics and distinguishing marks of the contracting parties. So, then, to the very simplest Paul is saying, "You know how if you enter into a legal agreement, there is included an eikon (), a description by which you may be recognized. Jesus is the portrait of God. In him you see the personal characteristics and the distinguishing marks of God. If you want to see what God is like, look at Jesus."
(ii) The other word Paul uses is in Col 1:19. He says that Jesus is the pleroma () of God. Pleroma () means fullness, completeness. This is the word which is needed to complete the picture. Jesus is not simply a sketch of God or a summary and more than a lifeless portrait of him. In him there is nothing left out; he is the full revelation of God, and nothing more is necessary.
(3) WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS TO CREATION (Col 1:15-23 continued)
We will remember that according to the Gnostics the work of creation was carried out by an inferior god, ignorant of and hostile to the true God. It is Paul's teaching that God's agent in creation is the Son and in this passage he has four things to say of the Son in regard to creation.
(i) He is the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15). We must be very careful to attach the right meaning to this phrase. As it stands in English it might well mean the Son was the first person to be created, but in Hebrew and Greek thought the word firstborn (prototokos,) has only very indirectly a time significance. There are two things to note. Firstborn is very commonly a title of honour. Israel, for instance, as a nation is the firstborn son of God (Exo 4:22). The meaning is that the nation of Israel is the most favoured child of God. Second, we must note that firstborn is a title of the Messiah. In Ps 89:27, as the Jews themselves interpreted it, the promise regarding the Messiah is "I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth." Clearly firstborn is not used in a time sense at all, but in the sense of special honour. So when Paul says of the Son that he is the firstborn of all creation, he means that the highest honour which creation holds belongs to him. If we wish to keep the time sense and the honour sense combined, we may translate the phrase: "He was begotten before all creation."
(ii) It was by the Son that all things were created (Col 1:16). This is true of things in heaven and things in earth, of things seen and unseen. The Jews themselves, and even more the Gnostics, had a highly-developed system of angels. With the Gnostics that was only to be expected with their long series of intermediaries between man and God. Thrones, lordships, powers and authorities were different grades of angels having their places in different spheres of the seven heavens. Paul dismisses them all with complete indifference. He is in effect saying to the Gnostics, "You give a great place in your thinking to angels. You rate Jesus Christ merely as one of them. So far from that, he created them." Paul lays it down that the agent of God in creation is no inferior, ignorant and hostile secondary god, but the Son himself.
(iii) It was for the Son that all things were created (Col 1:17). The Son is not only the agent of creation, he is also the goat of creation. That is to say, creation was created to be his and that in its worship and its love he might find his honour and his joy.
(iv) Paul uses the strange phrase: "In him all things hold together." This means that not only is the Son the agent of creation in the beginning and the goat of creation in the end, but between the beginning and the end, during time as we know it, it is he who holds the world together. That is to say, all the laws by which this world is order and not chaos are an expression of the mind of the Son. The law of gravity and the rest, the laws by which the universe hangs together, are not only scientific laws but also divine.
So, then, the Son is the beginning of creation, and the end of creation, and the power who holds creation together, the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal of the world.
(William Barclay, Daily Bible Study)
【中譯】
錯誤的思考者，西一15～23（William Barclay，每日研經）
1. 錯誤的思考者（西一15～23，下接）
人類心思諸多的現象之一，就是一個人所想的只和他必須想的一樣多。只有等到一個人發現了他的信仰受到反對和攻擊時，他才真正開始仔細思考它的涵義。直到教會面對一些危險的異端時，她才開始了解正統的豐富。這是基督教的特徵，就是它總能產生新的豐富來應付新的處境。
當保羅寫歌羅西書時，他不是在真空中寫作。我們在簡介裡已經看見了，他所寫的是要應付一個特定的處境。在早期的教會裡有著一個思想的趨勢被稱為諾斯底主義，它的熱中者被稱為諾斯底主義者，這多少意味著他們是智者。這些人並不滿意於他們所認為粗糙簡單的基督教，他們盼望將之轉為哲學而使之與當時風行的其他哲學相連。
諾斯底主義者起源於基本的假設，就是物質是全然邪惡的，而靈是全然美善的。他們進一步持說物質是永遠的，而從這個邪惡的物質造出了世界。用專門的用詞來說，基督徒相信創造是從無而出，而諾斯底主義者相信創造是從邪惡的物質而出。
諾斯底主義者的看法是這樣，既然神是靈，而靈是全然美善的，物質是全然邪惡的，那麼真神必不會接觸到物質，因此祂自己就不是創造的媒介。所以諾斯底主義者相信神發出一系列的分身（emanations，或發散、流出、放射，下同），每一個都與神漸遠，直到至少與神相距甚遠一位，由他來接觸物質並創造世界。
諾斯底主義者走得更遠了，他們說當分身從神不斷往前再往前時，他們就越來越不認識神了。而且這些遙遠的分身不僅使對神無知，也與神相敵。諾斯底主義者最後下了一個結論，就是創造這世界的分身不僅對真神無知，也與之相敵。有時候他們將這分身等同於舊約的神。
這就有些邏輯的結果：
(1)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，創造者非神，而是與之敵對的一位；世界並不是神的世界，而是與之敵對的力量。難怪保羅堅稱神的確創造了世界，而且它創造的媒介不是對祂無知且敵對的分身，而是耶穌基督祂的兒子（西一16）。
(2)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，耶穌基督絕不是獨一無二的。我們已經看過了他們如何設想在世界與神之間一整系列的分身。他們堅稱耶穌不過是分身之一，他可能佔系列中的高位，甚至可能位居最高，但他只是許多（分身）中的一個。對付這個，保羅堅稱一切的豐滿都居住在耶穌基督裡（西一19），神格一切的豐滿都有形有體的居住在他裡面（西二9）。歌羅西書最重要的目的之一，就是堅稱耶穌是全然獨一無二的，在他裡面的是完整的神。
(3)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，關於耶穌有另一個結論，就是若是物質是全然邪惡的，那麼身體也就是全然邪惡的，接著那是神啟示的一位不會有一個真實的身體，他只能有一個具身體形狀的屬靈幻影。諾斯底主義者完全否認耶穌真實的人性。例如，在他們的著作裡，他們斷言當耶穌行走時，地上並不留他的腳印。難怪保羅在歌羅西書裡用了這麼令人震驚的用詞。他說耶穌藉他肉體的受死，使人與神和好（西一27）。他說神格一切的豐滿都有形有體的居住在基督裡。與諾斯底主義者相反的，保羅堅稱耶穌血肉的人性。
(4)人的任務是找到通往神的路，正如諾斯底主義者的看法，那條路是被擋著的。在這世界和神之間有著一系列為數繁多的分身。在靈魂能覺醒回到神那裡之前，它需要通過所有分身所造成的層層障礙。要通過每一障礙需要特別的知識和密碼，而這些密碼和知識是諾斯底主義者才能提供的。這意味著兩件事：
(a)救恩是心智的知識。為了對付這個，保羅堅稱救恩不是知識，而是救贖和罪得赦免。諾斯底派教師認為所謂簡單的福音根本是不夠的。靈魂為了找出回去神的路所需要的遠多於這些，它需要神妙的知識和神祕的密碼，而這些只有諾斯底主義能給。所以保羅堅稱只需要耶穌基督福音拯救的真理。
(b)若是救恩需要依靠這種神妙的知識，顯然它就不是為著每一個人的，而是為著智者。所以諾斯底派把人分為屬靈和屬地的，而只有屬靈的人才能真正得救。完全的拯救遠超凡人的視野所能及。也就是有這一個在保羅的心裡，他才寫出西一28這麼偉大的經文來。他的目的就是要勸戒每一個人，教導每一個人，把每一個人在基督裡成熟的獻上。保羅反對救恩只能為著某些少數的智者，他呈現的福音是為著人人的，無論智愚賢不肖都可以得著。
這些就是諾斯底主義主要的道理，而每次我們讀這些經文，甚且是整卷書信時，我們都要把這些放在心裡，因為只有為著反對這些論調，保羅的話才成為可以理解且富含意義。
2. 耶穌基督之所是為何（西一15～23後續）
在這經文裡保羅說了兩件關於耶穌的大事，而這兩件都是在回答諾斯底派。諾斯底派說無論耶穌多偉大，他只是許多居間中的一個，他只是神的部份啟示。
保羅說耶穌基督是不能看見之神的像（西一15），…Lightfoot點出…可以是代表，若是夠完全，代表可以成為彰顯。當保羅用這個字時，他下的斷言是耶穌是神完全的彰顯。…
3. 耶穌之於造物為何（西一15～23，下接）
我們記得根據諾斯底主義者的說法，創造是出於次等的神祇，對於神是無知的也是敵對的。保羅的教訓則是神創造的媒介是子，並且在這經文裡他說到子與造物的關係有四：
(1)他是一切造物的首生（西一15）。我們必須非常小心地賦予這個詞正確的意思。在英文裡很可能子被領會為是第一個被造的，但在希伯來和希臘文的意思裡，首生（或長子，中文可互用，下同）一字只是非常間接地有著時間的意義。有兩件事必須知道，首生通常是尊榮的一個頭銜。例如，以色列作為一個國家是神的長子（出四22），這意思是以色列這個國家是神所鍾愛的兒子。第二，我們必須知道，長子是彌賽亞的一個頭銜。正如猶太人自己詮釋的，詩八十九27關於彌賽亞的應許是：「我也要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」 清楚地，首生一點不是用於時間上的意思，而是特別尊榮的意思。所以當保羅說，子是一切造物的首生時，他的意思是一切造物所擁有最高的尊榮都屬於他。我們若要把時間的意思和尊榮的意思擺在一起，那麼我們可以譯之為「他在一切造物之先被生」。
(2)萬有是藉子而造的（西一16）。…
(3)萬有是為子而造的（西一17）。…
(4)保羅用了奇怪的詞：「萬有在他裡面得以維繫」（另譯）。…
所以，子是造物的起源，是造物的終結，也是造物得以維繫的力量，是世界的創造者、維繫者，也是其最終的目標。
(William Barclay，每日研經)
評論：William Barclay是著名的新約希臘文學者，他對原文的字義、背景、文法、語文學瞭若指掌。他所寫的新約各卷「每日研經」（Daily Bible Study），在英語世界著稱，整套中文譯文由基督教文藝出版社出版，讀者若有興趣不妨買來讀讀。
關於西一15～23，William Barclay把諾斯底主義錯誤的假說、推論、結論和保羅針對他們的駁斥說得非常清楚，使讀者完全掌握其來龍去脈。他的文章清晰、簡單、易懂，讀來全不費力氣。我在這裡只挑出與西一15相關的部份譯出，其他部分就請讀者自己研讀了。這一部分關於「首生」的內容，讀者讀過就應該清楚，不必我在此再贅述。
八、F. F. Bruce（1910 – 1990）
1:15 Christ the Firstborn?
We read in Colossians that Christ is “the firstborn over all creation.” What does this mean? If Christ is eternal, how can he be firstborn? Does this mean that he was simply the first thing that God created?
The term “firstborn” appears 107 times in the NIV, but only two passages create difficulties, this one and Hebrews 1:6: “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” Most of the other passages are in the Old Testament and refer to firstborn children of human beings. Two passages refer to Jesus as Mary’s firstborn (Lk 2:7, 23), which is like the normal Old Testament use. Two refer to Christ as the firstborn from the dead (Rev 1:5) or the firstborn of many siblings (Rom 8:29).
Colossians 1:15–20 is a poem (or at least poetic prose) about Christ, which many scholars believe to be a hymn of the early church. This poem appears to revolve around the first word of the Hebrew Bible, “in the beginning” (one word in Hebrew), which contains within it the words for “first” and “head.” The poem divides into two sections. In the first (Col 1:15–17) Christ is presented as the source of creation. In the second section (Col 1:18–20) he is presented as the source of new creation or redemption. Even a quick reading will reveal that the two sections are rough parallels of each other, like two stanzas of a hymn.
In the first stanza Christ is presented as the visible presence (“image”) of the invisible God and the agent of the whole of creation. What is more, he sustains creation. Likewise in the second stanza he is presented as the One through whom reconciliation came to humankind. He is therefore the source of the church, the One who brought it into being. In both cases Christ stands apart. He is not part of the creation, but the One who made it. He is not part of the church, but the One who brought her into being. It is clear in this passage that Christ is being viewed as God (Col 1:15, 19), exercising the creative and redemptive prerogatives of God.
How, then, can Paul use “firstborn” language? Generally in the Old Testament “firstborn” means the son who was born first (daughters were not counted if there was a son born after them). That child had a leading place in the family and normally took over as head of the family upon his father’s death. However, even in the Old Testament this is more a right conferred by the father than a place in the birth order. For example, in Genesis 25:29–34 Esau can sell his birthright, his place as the firstborn, to Jacob, although this sale was apparently not recognized by their father, for Jacob later has to trick Isaac into giving him Esau’s blessing as the firstborn (Gen 27:19). A generation later Jacob makes it clear that it is not the son born first (Reuben) whom he considers to have the rights of the firstborn, but Joseph, the one born to his favorite wife. He demonstrates this by having a special garment made for his heir designate (Gen 37:3–4). In this case a younger son is designated as firstborn, arousing the jealousy of the others, especially when he exercises his designated leadership. Even later Joseph brings his own sons to Jacob, who puts the one born second before the one born first (Gen 48:13–20). Again “firstborn” will not mean the one born first, but the one who will be the leader or the greatest. Even when talking about literal families, then, “firstborn” can indicate a favorite son rather than the one born first. So in Micah 6:7 and Zechariah 12:10 the “firstborn” is the most loved child, the one the parent is most loath to give up.
In Exodus 4:22 we find another meaning of “firstborn” when God calls Israel his “firstborn son.” This is taken up in Jeremiah 31:9. In neither of these passages (nor anywhere else in the Old Testament) is there even a hint that God in some way gave birth to Israel. What he is saying is that he has designated this nation as his number one nation, the one closest to his heart. To injure this nation is to injure God and to feel the consequences. The symbolic consequence in Exodus is that Pharaoh loses his own literal firstborn son. Thus we see that a nation put in the number one place can also be called a “firstborn.”
Finally, in Psalm 89:27 we discover that the Davidic king will be appointed God’s “firstborn.” Again there is no hint that God actually has a hand in this man’s procreation. What is meant is that God symbolically adopts him and places him in the number one position in his family. “Firstborn” is thus the place of honor and leadership which the Davidic king is said to occupy.
Now we see why a poetic person steeped in the Old Testament might use the term “firstborn.” He was already thinking in terms of “heads” and “beginnings” or, in other words, of the number one place in the universe and in redemption. Drawing on the language of Psalm 89:27, he points to Christ as the one who is number one in God’s family, God’s designated “heir” and the ruler next to God. Of course it is also true, as the poem points out, that Christ was before any other parts of creation, although the use is still metaphorical, for a firstborn son does not procreate the rest of the family, while Jesus is said to create all that is created.
The term “firstborn” is flexible enough that it can also be used of Christ as the firstborn from the dead, for he is the first to rise to unending life (although others before him were raised from the dead to temporal life) and also the chief or leader of all those who will rise from the dead.
So Paul is using the language about a firstborn son metaphorically, as the Old Testament does. Jesus is not presented as a creation of God or as a child of God born through some goddess (as was common in pagan mythology), but as the chief of God’s family, whether the old family of creation or the new family of redemption. He is before it. He is the cause of the family. He is the leader of the whole family. In every way he is first. Yet he is not part of the creation, nor even one of the redeemed, for he is the image of God and the One in whom all the fullness of God dwelt.
(Manfred Brauch, F.F. Bruce, Peter Davids, Walter Kaiser Jr., Hard Sayings of the Bible, Page 651. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1997, c1996.)
【中譯】
西一15基督是首生者？
我們讀到歌羅西書說基督是「一切造物的首生」，這是甚麼意思呢？如果基督是永遠的，那麼何以他是首「生」的？這意思是不是他不過是神造物的第一個呢？
…西一15～20是關於基督的一首詩（或至少是詩體散文），許多學者相信這是早期教會的一首詩歌。…這首詩章分為二部份，第一部份（西一15～17）呈現基督是造物的來源，第二部份（西一18～20）呈現基督是新造或救贖的來源。…像一首詩歌的兩節。
在第一節，基督被呈現為不能看見之神看得見的同在（「像」）和整個創造的媒介，並且他維繫著創造。同樣的在第二節，他被呈現為帶給人類（與神）和好的那一位，因此他是教會的來源，使之產生的那一位。在這二個情況裡，基督都是分別出來的。他不是造物的一部分，而是創造的那一位；他不是教會的一部分，而是使之產生的那一位。清楚的，在這個段落裡，基督被稱為神（西一15，19），運用了神創造和救贖的特權。
為甚麼保羅能使用「長子」（首生）的語言呢？通常在舊約聖經裡，「長子」意思是第一個出生的兒子（只要女兒的後面有兒子出生，她們就不被計算）。這個兒子在家裡有領導的地位，而且通常父親死後就由他接續作家裡的頭。然而，即便在舊約，這更是父親所賞賜的特權，甚於其出生次序裡的地位。例如創二十五29～34，以掃能出賣他長子的名分、長子的地位給雅各，雖然這個交易顯然不被他們的父親所認同，因為後來雅各要欺騙以撒才能得到給以掃長子的祝福（創二十七19）。過了一代，雅各清楚表明，不是他認為的第一個出生的（流便）就得長子的名分，而是他所愛的妻子生的約瑟（得了）。他表明這事，是藉著他給指定繼承人做了一件特別的衣服（創三十七3～4）。在這個案例裡，一個較年幼的兒子被指定為長子，這激起別人的忌妒，特別是當他運用他被指定的領導權時。甚至後來約瑟領自己的孩子到雅各的面前時，他立了第二個出生的在第一個出生的之上（創四十八13～20）。再次，「長子」不表示就是第一個出生的，而是作領袖的或是最大的那一位。即便那時論及真正的家庭，「長子」可以表明最疼愛的一個兒子，過於那一個頭生的。所以在彌六7和亞十二10，「長子」是最摯愛的兒子，是父母最不願意獻上的。
出四22當神稱以色列為祂的「長子」時，我們發現「長子」的另一個意思，而這個意思被用在耶三十一9。在這些經文（或舊約其他經文）裡，我們根本找不到任何暗示說神生了以色列。祂所說的乃是，祂把這個國家標出為第一的國家，為最貼近祂心的。而傷害這個國家就等於傷害神，並會感受到其重要性。在出埃及記裡這象徵性的重要地位，使法老失去了他真正的長子。因此我們看見，一個國家被置於首位也可以稱之為「長子」。
最後，在詩八十九27我們發現大衛統緒的王要被立為神的「長子」。再次，這裡也沒有暗示這個人的出生與神有關。這裡的意思乃是神象徵性的收養他並置他於家庭中的首位。因此「長子」是大衛統緒的王所擁有的尊榮地位和領導權。
現在我們就知道，為甚麼一個沈浸在舊約的詩人會用「長子」一詞了。他早已一直想著「頭」、「起源」等詞，或換言之，他早已一直想著在宇宙中和救贖裡首位的詞。他引用詩八十九27的語言，指出基督是神家中的首位，神標出的「後嗣」和在神旁邊的統治者。當然這也是真的，正如這首詩所指出的，就是基督是在任何其他造物之先，雖然用法是隱喻的，因為一個長子並不生出家中其餘的成員，但耶穌卻是創造所有的造物。
「長子」一詞是極富彈性的，它可以用於基督作為從死人中的首生者，因為他是第一個從死復活且活到永遠的（雖然有其他在他之前的人也從死裡復活，卻是暫時活著），也是所有將來從死裡復活者的首領或領袖。
所以保羅所用關於長子的語言是隱喻的，正如舊約那樣。耶穌不是被呈現為神的一個造物，或神藉某些女神所生的一個兒子（正如外邦神話中常見的），而是神家的首領，或是在創造的舊家，或是在救贖的新家。他在它之前。他是這個家的起因。他是整個家的領袖。在每一面他都是第一。然而他不是受造的一部分，也不是蒙救贖中的一個，因為他是神的像，且是神一切的豐滿都居住在他裡面的那一位。
評論：
一、本文是摘自「聖經難解之言」（Hard Sayings of the Bible），該書著者都是赫赫有名的學者。例如，F. F. Bruce在二十世紀聖經學者中的份量就如同十九世紀的 J.B. Lightfoot，他們合著一書，表示其正確性與公認性。所以他們的斷案是眾所公認，眾所信服的。像Bruce這樣的學者對聖經是非常熟稔，無論是原文、字義、字源、文法、聖經主線啟示、時代背景、史地、人文…他都是瞭如指掌。若有人根據西一15的「首生」一字斷定基督是「神造物中的一個，且是第一個，或是第一項」，他是永遠不會服氣的！因為根據他那扎實的聖經基礎，不可能會同意這樣的說法。這樣的錯誤解經只能欺騙年幼無知的信徒，也只有執迷不悟、不願深究的人會繼續教導。碰到這樣錯誤的說法，像Bruce這樣的聖經教師絕不會坐壁上觀，他一定會跳出來反對。
二、論到「長子」，文中已經點出：「即便在舊約，這更是父親所賞賜的特權，甚於其出生次序裡的地位。」又說「長子」：「不表示就是第一個出生的，而是作領袖的或是最大的那一位。」然後他說，即便在舊約的時代，當論到真正的家庭時，「長子」一詞「可以表明最疼愛的一個兒子，過於那一個頭生的。」
本文認為西一15的作者之所以會用「長子」一詞，乃是說明他是「一個沈浸在舊約的詩人。」他在心中老早就一直想著「頭」、「起源」這類的用詞和他所帶著的豐富、特殊的意義，也就是說，「他早已一直想著在宇宙中和救贖裡首位的詞。」然後當他下筆的時候，不是另造「首造」的一個新詞來用，而是用了舊約已有的「首生」（或「長子」）一詞，以表明基督的超越、居先、居上、統治、主宰的身份和地位。本文說：「正如這首詩所指出的，就是基督是在任何其他造物之先，雖然用法是隱喻的，因為一個長子並不生出家中其餘的成員，但耶穌卻是創造所有的造物。」
這個詞不僅用於團體的以色列國，表明她是神所心愛，列於地上所有萬國之上，也用於個人，如大衛和他所預表的基督身上。「長子」一詞如何用於大衛身上，而與其出生次序無關，只表明他為神所愛，從萬人中被分別出來，作為居先、領袖；照樣「長子」（「首生」）亦用於基督身上，而與其被造全然無關，乃表明他在萬有之先、之上，居領導地位！本文說： 「在每一面他都是第一。然而他不是受造的一部分，也不是蒙救贖中的一個，因為他是神的像，且是神一切的豐滿都居住在他裡面的那一位。」誠哉斯言！
（未完待續）20090101
七、William Barclay（1907-1978）
THE MISTAKEN THINKERS Col 1:15-23
(1) THE MISTAKEN THINKERS (Col 1:15-23 continued)
It is one of the facts of the human mind that a man thinks only as much as he has to. It is not until a man finds his faith opposed and attacked that he really begins to think out its implications. It is not until the Church is confronted with some dangerous heresy that she begins to realize the riches of orthodoxy. It is characteristic of Christianity that it can always produce new riches to meet a new situation.
When Paul wrote Colossians, he was not writing in a vacuum. He was writing, as we have already seen in the introduction, to meet a very definite situation. There was a tendency of thought in the early Church called Gnosticism. Its devotees were called Gnostics, which more or less means the intellectual ones. These men were dissatisfied with what they considered the rude simplicity of Christianity and wished to turn it into a philosophy and to align it with the other philosophies which held the field at that time.
The Gnostics began with the basic assumption that matter was altogether evil and spirit altogether good. They further held that matter was eternal and that it was out of this evil matter that the world was created. The Christian, to use the technical phrase, believes in creation out of nothing; the Gnostic believed in creation out of evil matter.
Now God was spirit and if spirit was altogether good and matter essentially evil, it followed, as the Gnostic saw it, that the true God could not touch matter and, therefore, could not himself be the agent of creation. So the Gnostics believed that God put forth a series of emanations, each a little further away from God until at last there was one so distant from God, that it could handle matter and create the world.
The Gnostics went further. As the emanations went further and further from God, they became more and more ignorant of him. And in the very distant emanations there was not only ignorance of God, but also hostility to him. The Gnostics came to the conclusion that the emanation who created the world was both ignorant of and hostile to the true God; and sometimes they identified that emanation with the God of the Old Testament.
This has certain logical consequences.
(i) As the Gnostics saw it, the creator was not God but someone hostile to him; and the world was not God's world but that of a power hostile to him. That is why Paul insists that God did create the world, and that his agent in creation was no ignorant and hostile emanation but Jesus Christ, his Son (Col 1:16).
(ii) As the Gnostics saw it, Jesus Christ was by no means unique. We have seen how they postulated a whole series of emanations between the world and God. They insisted that Jesus was merely one of these emanations. He might stand high in the series; he might even stand highest; but he was only one of many. Paul meets this by insisting that in Jesus Christ all fullness dwells (Col 1:19); that in him there is the fullness of the godhead in bodily form (Col 2:9). One of the supreme objects of Colossians is to insist that Jesus is utterly unique and that in him there is the whole of God.
(iii) As the Gnostics saw it, this had another consequence with regard to Jesus. If matter was altogether evil, it followed that the body was altogether evil. It followed further that he who was the revelation of God, could not have had a real body. He could have been nothing more than a spiritual phantom in bodily form. The Gnostics completely denied the real manhood of Jesus. In their own writings they, for instance, set it down that when Jesus walked, he left no footprints on the ground. That is why Paul uses such startling phraseology in Colossians. He speaks of Jesus reconciling man to God in his body of flesh (Col 1:22); he says that the fullness of the godhead dwelt in him bodily. In opposition to the Gnostics, Paul insisted on the flesh and blood manhood of Jesus.
(iv) The task of man is to find his way to God. As the Gnostics saw it, that way was barred. Between this world and God there was this vast series of emanations. Before the soul could rise to God, it had to get past the barrier of each of these emanations. To pass each barrier special knowledge and special passwords were needed; it was these passwords and that knowledge that the Gnostics claimed to give. This meant two things.
(a) It meant that salvation was intellectual knowledge. To meet that Paul insists that salvation is not knowledge; it is redemption and the forgiveness of sins. The Gnostic teachers held that the so-called simple truths of the gospel were not nearly enough. To find its way to God the soul needed far more than that; it needed the elaborate knowledge and the secret passwords which Gnosticism alone could give. So Paul insists that nothing more is needed than the saving truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
(b) If salvation depended on this elaborate knowledge, it was clearly not for every man but only for the intellectual. So the Gnostics divided mankind into the spiritual and the earthly; and only the spiritual could be truly saved. Full salvation was beyond the scope of the ordinary man. It is with that in mind that Paul wrote the great verse Col 1:28. It was his aim to warn every man and to teach every man, and so to present every man mature in Christ Jesus. Against a salvation possible for only a limited intellectual minority, Paul presents a gospel which is for every man, however simple and unlettered or however wise and learned he may be.
These, then, were the great Gnostic doctrines; and all the time we are studying this passage, and indeed the whole letter, we must have them in our mind, for only against them does Paul's language become intelligible and relevant.
(2) WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS IN HIMSELF (Col 1:15-23 continued)
In this passage Paul says two great things about Jesus, both of which are in answer to the Gnostics. The Gnostics had said that Jesus was merely one among many intermediaries and that, however great he might be, he was only a partial revelation of God.
(i) Paul says that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). Here he uses a word and a picture which would waken all kinds of memories in the minds of those who heard it. The word is eikon (
(a) The Old Testament and the inter-testamental books have a great deal to say about Wisdom. In Proverbs the great passages on Wisdom are in Prov 2 and Prov 8 . There Wisdom is said to be co-eternal with God and to have been with God when he created the world. Now in the Wis 7:26, eikon (
(b) The Greeks were haunted by the thought of the Logos (
(c) In these connections of the word eikon (
(d) But we come at last to something much simpler than any of these things. And there is no doubt that many of the simpler of Paul's readers would think of this. Even if they knew nothing of the Wisdom Literature and nothing of Philo and nothing of the Genesis story they would know this.
Eikon (
(ii) The other word Paul uses is in Col 1:19. He says that Jesus is the pleroma (
(3) WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS TO CREATION (Col 1:15-23 continued)
We will remember that according to the Gnostics the work of creation was carried out by an inferior god, ignorant of and hostile to the true God. It is Paul's teaching that God's agent in creation is the Son and in this passage he has four things to say of the Son in regard to creation.
(i) He is the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15). We must be very careful to attach the right meaning to this phrase. As it stands in English it might well mean the Son was the first person to be created, but in Hebrew and Greek thought the word firstborn (prototokos,
(ii) It was by the Son that all things were created (Col 1:16). This is true of things in heaven and things in earth, of things seen and unseen. The Jews themselves, and even more the Gnostics, had a highly-developed system of angels. With the Gnostics that was only to be expected with their long series of intermediaries between man and God. Thrones, lordships, powers and authorities were different grades of angels having their places in different spheres of the seven heavens. Paul dismisses them all with complete indifference. He is in effect saying to the Gnostics, "You give a great place in your thinking to angels. You rate Jesus Christ merely as one of them. So far from that, he created them." Paul lays it down that the agent of God in creation is no inferior, ignorant and hostile secondary god, but the Son himself.
(iii) It was for the Son that all things were created (Col 1:17). The Son is not only the agent of creation, he is also the goat of creation. That is to say, creation was created to be his and that in its worship and its love he might find his honour and his joy.
(iv) Paul uses the strange phrase: "In him all things hold together." This means that not only is the Son the agent of creation in the beginning and the goat of creation in the end, but between the beginning and the end, during time as we know it, it is he who holds the world together. That is to say, all the laws by which this world is order and not chaos are an expression of the mind of the Son. The law of gravity and the rest, the laws by which the universe hangs together, are not only scientific laws but also divine.
So, then, the Son is the beginning of creation, and the end of creation, and the power who holds creation together, the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Final Goal of the world.
(William Barclay, Daily Bible Study)
【中譯】
錯誤的思考者，西一15～23（William Barclay，每日研經）
1. 錯誤的思考者（西一15～23，下接）
人類心思諸多的現象之一，就是一個人所想的只和他必須想的一樣多。只有等到一個人發現了他的信仰受到反對和攻擊時，他才真正開始仔細思考它的涵義。直到教會面對一些危險的異端時，她才開始了解正統的豐富。這是基督教的特徵，就是它總能產生新的豐富來應付新的處境。
當保羅寫歌羅西書時，他不是在真空中寫作。我們在簡介裡已經看見了，他所寫的是要應付一個特定的處境。在早期的教會裡有著一個思想的趨勢被稱為諾斯底主義，它的熱中者被稱為諾斯底主義者，這多少意味著他們是智者。這些人並不滿意於他們所認為粗糙簡單的基督教，他們盼望將之轉為哲學而使之與當時風行的其他哲學相連。
諾斯底主義者起源於基本的假設，就是物質是全然邪惡的，而靈是全然美善的。他們進一步持說物質是永遠的，而從這個邪惡的物質造出了世界。用專門的用詞來說，基督徒相信創造是從無而出，而諾斯底主義者相信創造是從邪惡的物質而出。
諾斯底主義者的看法是這樣，既然神是靈，而靈是全然美善的，物質是全然邪惡的，那麼真神必不會接觸到物質，因此祂自己就不是創造的媒介。所以諾斯底主義者相信神發出一系列的分身（emanations，或發散、流出、放射，下同），每一個都與神漸遠，直到至少與神相距甚遠一位，由他來接觸物質並創造世界。
諾斯底主義者走得更遠了，他們說當分身從神不斷往前再往前時，他們就越來越不認識神了。而且這些遙遠的分身不僅使對神無知，也與神相敵。諾斯底主義者最後下了一個結論，就是創造這世界的分身不僅對真神無知，也與之相敵。有時候他們將這分身等同於舊約的神。
這就有些邏輯的結果：
(1)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，創造者非神，而是與之敵對的一位；世界並不是神的世界，而是與之敵對的力量。難怪保羅堅稱神的確創造了世界，而且它創造的媒介不是對祂無知且敵對的分身，而是耶穌基督祂的兒子（西一16）。
(2)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，耶穌基督絕不是獨一無二的。我們已經看過了他們如何設想在世界與神之間一整系列的分身。他們堅稱耶穌不過是分身之一，他可能佔系列中的高位，甚至可能位居最高，但他只是許多（分身）中的一個。對付這個，保羅堅稱一切的豐滿都居住在耶穌基督裡（西一19），神格一切的豐滿都有形有體的居住在他裡面（西二9）。歌羅西書最重要的目的之一，就是堅稱耶穌是全然獨一無二的，在他裡面的是完整的神。
(3)正如諾斯底主義者的看法，關於耶穌有另一個結論，就是若是物質是全然邪惡的，那麼身體也就是全然邪惡的，接著那是神啟示的一位不會有一個真實的身體，他只能有一個具身體形狀的屬靈幻影。諾斯底主義者完全否認耶穌真實的人性。例如，在他們的著作裡，他們斷言當耶穌行走時，地上並不留他的腳印。難怪保羅在歌羅西書裡用了這麼令人震驚的用詞。他說耶穌藉他肉體的受死，使人與神和好（西一27）。他說神格一切的豐滿都有形有體的居住在基督裡。與諾斯底主義者相反的，保羅堅稱耶穌血肉的人性。
(4)人的任務是找到通往神的路，正如諾斯底主義者的看法，那條路是被擋著的。在這世界和神之間有著一系列為數繁多的分身。在靈魂能覺醒回到神那裡之前，它需要通過所有分身所造成的層層障礙。要通過每一障礙需要特別的知識和密碼，而這些密碼和知識是諾斯底主義者才能提供的。這意味著兩件事：
(a)救恩是心智的知識。為了對付這個，保羅堅稱救恩不是知識，而是救贖和罪得赦免。諾斯底派教師認為所謂簡單的福音根本是不夠的。靈魂為了找出回去神的路所需要的遠多於這些，它需要神妙的知識和神祕的密碼，而這些只有諾斯底主義能給。所以保羅堅稱只需要耶穌基督福音拯救的真理。
(b)若是救恩需要依靠這種神妙的知識，顯然它就不是為著每一個人的，而是為著智者。所以諾斯底派把人分為屬靈和屬地的，而只有屬靈的人才能真正得救。完全的拯救遠超凡人的視野所能及。也就是有這一個在保羅的心裡，他才寫出西一28這麼偉大的經文來。他的目的就是要勸戒每一個人，教導每一個人，把每一個人在基督裡成熟的獻上。保羅反對救恩只能為著某些少數的智者，他呈現的福音是為著人人的，無論智愚賢不肖都可以得著。
這些就是諾斯底主義主要的道理，而每次我們讀這些經文，甚且是整卷書信時，我們都要把這些放在心裡，因為只有為著反對這些論調，保羅的話才成為可以理解且富含意義。
2. 耶穌基督之所是為何（西一15～23後續）
在這經文裡保羅說了兩件關於耶穌的大事，而這兩件都是在回答諾斯底派。諾斯底派說無論耶穌多偉大，他只是許多居間中的一個，他只是神的部份啟示。
保羅說耶穌基督是不能看見之神的像（西一15），…Lightfoot點出…可以是代表，若是夠完全，代表可以成為彰顯。當保羅用這個字時，他下的斷言是耶穌是神完全的彰顯。…
3. 耶穌之於造物為何（西一15～23，下接）
我們記得根據諾斯底主義者的說法，創造是出於次等的神祇，對於神是無知的也是敵對的。保羅的教訓則是神創造的媒介是子，並且在這經文裡他說到子與造物的關係有四：
(1)他是一切造物的首生（西一15）。我們必須非常小心地賦予這個詞正確的意思。在英文裡很可能子被領會為是第一個被造的，但在希伯來和希臘文的意思裡，首生（或長子，中文可互用，下同）一字只是非常間接地有著時間的意義。有兩件事必須知道，首生通常是尊榮的一個頭銜。例如，以色列作為一個國家是神的長子（出四22），這意思是以色列這個國家是神所鍾愛的兒子。第二，我們必須知道，長子是彌賽亞的一個頭銜。正如猶太人自己詮釋的，詩八十九27關於彌賽亞的應許是：「我也要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」 清楚地，首生一點不是用於時間上的意思，而是特別尊榮的意思。所以當保羅說，子是一切造物的首生時，他的意思是一切造物所擁有最高的尊榮都屬於他。我們若要把時間的意思和尊榮的意思擺在一起，那麼我們可以譯之為「他在一切造物之先被生」。
(2)萬有是藉子而造的（西一16）。…
(3)萬有是為子而造的（西一17）。…
(4)保羅用了奇怪的詞：「萬有在他裡面得以維繫」（另譯）。…
所以，子是造物的起源，是造物的終結，也是造物得以維繫的力量，是世界的創造者、維繫者，也是其最終的目標。
(William Barclay，每日研經)
評論：William Barclay是著名的新約希臘文學者，他對原文的字義、背景、文法、語文學瞭若指掌。他所寫的新約各卷「每日研經」（Daily Bible Study），在英語世界著稱，整套中文譯文由基督教文藝出版社出版，讀者若有興趣不妨買來讀讀。
關於西一15～23，William Barclay把諾斯底主義錯誤的假說、推論、結論和保羅針對他們的駁斥說得非常清楚，使讀者完全掌握其來龍去脈。他的文章清晰、簡單、易懂，讀來全不費力氣。我在這裡只挑出與西一15相關的部份譯出，其他部分就請讀者自己研讀了。這一部分關於「首生」的內容，讀者讀過就應該清楚，不必我在此再贅述。
八、F. F. Bruce（1910 – 1990）
1:15 Christ the Firstborn?
We read in Colossians that Christ is “the firstborn over all creation.” What does this mean? If Christ is eternal, how can he be firstborn? Does this mean that he was simply the first thing that God created?
The term “firstborn” appears 107 times in the NIV, but only two passages create difficulties, this one and Hebrews 1:6: “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” Most of the other passages are in the Old Testament and refer to firstborn children of human beings. Two passages refer to Jesus as Mary’s firstborn (Lk 2:7, 23), which is like the normal Old Testament use. Two refer to Christ as the firstborn from the dead (Rev 1:5) or the firstborn of many siblings (Rom 8:29).
Colossians 1:15–20 is a poem (or at least poetic prose) about Christ, which many scholars believe to be a hymn of the early church. This poem appears to revolve around the first word of the Hebrew Bible, “in the beginning” (one word in Hebrew), which contains within it the words for “first” and “head.” The poem divides into two sections. In the first (Col 1:15–17) Christ is presented as the source of creation. In the second section (Col 1:18–20) he is presented as the source of new creation or redemption. Even a quick reading will reveal that the two sections are rough parallels of each other, like two stanzas of a hymn.
In the first stanza Christ is presented as the visible presence (“image”) of the invisible God and the agent of the whole of creation. What is more, he sustains creation. Likewise in the second stanza he is presented as the One through whom reconciliation came to humankind. He is therefore the source of the church, the One who brought it into being. In both cases Christ stands apart. He is not part of the creation, but the One who made it. He is not part of the church, but the One who brought her into being. It is clear in this passage that Christ is being viewed as God (Col 1:15, 19), exercising the creative and redemptive prerogatives of God.
How, then, can Paul use “firstborn” language? Generally in the Old Testament “firstborn” means the son who was born first (daughters were not counted if there was a son born after them). That child had a leading place in the family and normally took over as head of the family upon his father’s death. However, even in the Old Testament this is more a right conferred by the father than a place in the birth order. For example, in Genesis 25:29–34 Esau can sell his birthright, his place as the firstborn, to Jacob, although this sale was apparently not recognized by their father, for Jacob later has to trick Isaac into giving him Esau’s blessing as the firstborn (Gen 27:19). A generation later Jacob makes it clear that it is not the son born first (Reuben) whom he considers to have the rights of the firstborn, but Joseph, the one born to his favorite wife. He demonstrates this by having a special garment made for his heir designate (Gen 37:3–4). In this case a younger son is designated as firstborn, arousing the jealousy of the others, especially when he exercises his designated leadership. Even later Joseph brings his own sons to Jacob, who puts the one born second before the one born first (Gen 48:13–20). Again “firstborn” will not mean the one born first, but the one who will be the leader or the greatest. Even when talking about literal families, then, “firstborn” can indicate a favorite son rather than the one born first. So in Micah 6:7 and Zechariah 12:10 the “firstborn” is the most loved child, the one the parent is most loath to give up.
In Exodus 4:22 we find another meaning of “firstborn” when God calls Israel his “firstborn son.” This is taken up in Jeremiah 31:9. In neither of these passages (nor anywhere else in the Old Testament) is there even a hint that God in some way gave birth to Israel. What he is saying is that he has designated this nation as his number one nation, the one closest to his heart. To injure this nation is to injure God and to feel the consequences. The symbolic consequence in Exodus is that Pharaoh loses his own literal firstborn son. Thus we see that a nation put in the number one place can also be called a “firstborn.”
Finally, in Psalm 89:27 we discover that the Davidic king will be appointed God’s “firstborn.” Again there is no hint that God actually has a hand in this man’s procreation. What is meant is that God symbolically adopts him and places him in the number one position in his family. “Firstborn” is thus the place of honor and leadership which the Davidic king is said to occupy.
Now we see why a poetic person steeped in the Old Testament might use the term “firstborn.” He was already thinking in terms of “heads” and “beginnings” or, in other words, of the number one place in the universe and in redemption. Drawing on the language of Psalm 89:27, he points to Christ as the one who is number one in God’s family, God’s designated “heir” and the ruler next to God. Of course it is also true, as the poem points out, that Christ was before any other parts of creation, although the use is still metaphorical, for a firstborn son does not procreate the rest of the family, while Jesus is said to create all that is created.
The term “firstborn” is flexible enough that it can also be used of Christ as the firstborn from the dead, for he is the first to rise to unending life (although others before him were raised from the dead to temporal life) and also the chief or leader of all those who will rise from the dead.
So Paul is using the language about a firstborn son metaphorically, as the Old Testament does. Jesus is not presented as a creation of God or as a child of God born through some goddess (as was common in pagan mythology), but as the chief of God’s family, whether the old family of creation or the new family of redemption. He is before it. He is the cause of the family. He is the leader of the whole family. In every way he is first. Yet he is not part of the creation, nor even one of the redeemed, for he is the image of God and the One in whom all the fullness of God dwelt.
(Manfred Brauch, F.F. Bruce, Peter Davids, Walter Kaiser Jr., Hard Sayings of the Bible, Page 651. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1997, c1996.)
【中譯】
西一15基督是首生者？
我們讀到歌羅西書說基督是「一切造物的首生」，這是甚麼意思呢？如果基督是永遠的，那麼何以他是首「生」的？這意思是不是他不過是神造物的第一個呢？
…西一15～20是關於基督的一首詩（或至少是詩體散文），許多學者相信這是早期教會的一首詩歌。…這首詩章分為二部份，第一部份（西一15～17）呈現基督是造物的來源，第二部份（西一18～20）呈現基督是新造或救贖的來源。…像一首詩歌的兩節。
在第一節，基督被呈現為不能看見之神看得見的同在（「像」）和整個創造的媒介，並且他維繫著創造。同樣的在第二節，他被呈現為帶給人類（與神）和好的那一位，因此他是教會的來源，使之產生的那一位。在這二個情況裡，基督都是分別出來的。他不是造物的一部分，而是創造的那一位；他不是教會的一部分，而是使之產生的那一位。清楚的，在這個段落裡，基督被稱為神（西一15，19），運用了神創造和救贖的特權。
為甚麼保羅能使用「長子」（首生）的語言呢？通常在舊約聖經裡，「長子」意思是第一個出生的兒子（只要女兒的後面有兒子出生，她們就不被計算）。這個兒子在家裡有領導的地位，而且通常父親死後就由他接續作家裡的頭。然而，即便在舊約，這更是父親所賞賜的特權，甚於其出生次序裡的地位。例如創二十五29～34，以掃能出賣他長子的名分、長子的地位給雅各，雖然這個交易顯然不被他們的父親所認同，因為後來雅各要欺騙以撒才能得到給以掃長子的祝福（創二十七19）。過了一代，雅各清楚表明，不是他認為的第一個出生的（流便）就得長子的名分，而是他所愛的妻子生的約瑟（得了）。他表明這事，是藉著他給指定繼承人做了一件特別的衣服（創三十七3～4）。在這個案例裡，一個較年幼的兒子被指定為長子，這激起別人的忌妒，特別是當他運用他被指定的領導權時。甚至後來約瑟領自己的孩子到雅各的面前時，他立了第二個出生的在第一個出生的之上（創四十八13～20）。再次，「長子」不表示就是第一個出生的，而是作領袖的或是最大的那一位。即便那時論及真正的家庭，「長子」可以表明最疼愛的一個兒子，過於那一個頭生的。所以在彌六7和亞十二10，「長子」是最摯愛的兒子，是父母最不願意獻上的。
出四22當神稱以色列為祂的「長子」時，我們發現「長子」的另一個意思，而這個意思被用在耶三十一9。在這些經文（或舊約其他經文）裡，我們根本找不到任何暗示說神生了以色列。祂所說的乃是，祂把這個國家標出為第一的國家，為最貼近祂心的。而傷害這個國家就等於傷害神，並會感受到其重要性。在出埃及記裡這象徵性的重要地位，使法老失去了他真正的長子。因此我們看見，一個國家被置於首位也可以稱之為「長子」。
最後，在詩八十九27我們發現大衛統緒的王要被立為神的「長子」。再次，這裡也沒有暗示這個人的出生與神有關。這裡的意思乃是神象徵性的收養他並置他於家庭中的首位。因此「長子」是大衛統緒的王所擁有的尊榮地位和領導權。
現在我們就知道，為甚麼一個沈浸在舊約的詩人會用「長子」一詞了。他早已一直想著「頭」、「起源」等詞，或換言之，他早已一直想著在宇宙中和救贖裡首位的詞。他引用詩八十九27的語言，指出基督是神家中的首位，神標出的「後嗣」和在神旁邊的統治者。當然這也是真的，正如這首詩所指出的，就是基督是在任何其他造物之先，雖然用法是隱喻的，因為一個長子並不生出家中其餘的成員，但耶穌卻是創造所有的造物。
「長子」一詞是極富彈性的，它可以用於基督作為從死人中的首生者，因為他是第一個從死復活且活到永遠的（雖然有其他在他之前的人也從死裡復活，卻是暫時活著），也是所有將來從死裡復活者的首領或領袖。
所以保羅所用關於長子的語言是隱喻的，正如舊約那樣。耶穌不是被呈現為神的一個造物，或神藉某些女神所生的一個兒子（正如外邦神話中常見的），而是神家的首領，或是在創造的舊家，或是在救贖的新家。他在它之前。他是這個家的起因。他是整個家的領袖。在每一面他都是第一。然而他不是受造的一部分，也不是蒙救贖中的一個，因為他是神的像，且是神一切的豐滿都居住在他裡面的那一位。
評論：
一、本文是摘自「聖經難解之言」（Hard Sayings of the Bible），該書著者都是赫赫有名的學者。例如，F. F. Bruce在二十世紀聖經學者中的份量就如同十九世紀的 J.B. Lightfoot，他們合著一書，表示其正確性與公認性。所以他們的斷案是眾所公認，眾所信服的。像Bruce這樣的學者對聖經是非常熟稔，無論是原文、字義、字源、文法、聖經主線啟示、時代背景、史地、人文…他都是瞭如指掌。若有人根據西一15的「首生」一字斷定基督是「神造物中的一個，且是第一個，或是第一項」，他是永遠不會服氣的！因為根據他那扎實的聖經基礎，不可能會同意這樣的說法。這樣的錯誤解經只能欺騙年幼無知的信徒，也只有執迷不悟、不願深究的人會繼續教導。碰到這樣錯誤的說法，像Bruce這樣的聖經教師絕不會坐壁上觀，他一定會跳出來反對。
二、論到「長子」，文中已經點出：「即便在舊約，這更是父親所賞賜的特權，甚於其出生次序裡的地位。」又說「長子」：「不表示就是第一個出生的，而是作領袖的或是最大的那一位。」然後他說，即便在舊約的時代，當論到真正的家庭時，「長子」一詞「可以表明最疼愛的一個兒子，過於那一個頭生的。」
本文認為西一15的作者之所以會用「長子」一詞，乃是說明他是「一個沈浸在舊約的詩人。」他在心中老早就一直想著「頭」、「起源」這類的用詞和他所帶著的豐富、特殊的意義，也就是說，「他早已一直想著在宇宙中和救贖裡首位的詞。」然後當他下筆的時候，不是另造「首造」的一個新詞來用，而是用了舊約已有的「首生」（或「長子」）一詞，以表明基督的超越、居先、居上、統治、主宰的身份和地位。本文說：「正如這首詩所指出的，就是基督是在任何其他造物之先，雖然用法是隱喻的，因為一個長子並不生出家中其餘的成員，但耶穌卻是創造所有的造物。」
這個詞不僅用於團體的以色列國，表明她是神所心愛，列於地上所有萬國之上，也用於個人，如大衛和他所預表的基督身上。「長子」一詞如何用於大衛身上，而與其出生次序無關，只表明他為神所愛，從萬人中被分別出來，作為居先、領袖；照樣「長子」（「首生」）亦用於基督身上，而與其被造全然無關，乃表明他在萬有之先、之上，居領導地位！本文說： 「在每一面他都是第一。然而他不是受造的一部分，也不是蒙救贖中的一個，因為他是神的像，且是神一切的豐滿都居住在他裡面的那一位。」誠哉斯言！
（未完待續）20090101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
