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
Friday, February 13, 2009
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
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（八）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（八）
五、W.E. Vine（1873-1949）
PROTOTOKOS (πρωτοτοκος) , firstborn (from protos, first, and tikto, to beget), is used of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, Luke 2:7; further, in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used occasionally of superiority of position in the OT; see Ex. 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of thefirstborn to one born subsequently to the first child.
The five passages in the NT relating to Christ may be set forth chronologically thus:
(a) Col 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the Firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as Col 1:16 makes clear);
(b) Col 1:18; Rev 1:5, in reference to His resurrection;
(c) Rom 8:29, His position in relationship to the church;
(d) Heb 1:6, RV, His Second Advent (the RV “when He again bringeth in,” puts “again” in the right place, the contrast to His First Advent, at His birth, being implied); cp. Psalm 89:27. The word is used in the plural, in Heb 11:28, of the firstborn sons in the families of the Egyptians, and in Psalm 12:23, of the members of the Church.
Note: With (a) cp. John 1:30, “He was before me,” lit., “He was first (protos) of me,” i.e., “in regard to me,” expressing all that is involved in His pre-existence and priority.
【中譯】：
πρωτοτοκος, 首生 ( 從protos「首」 + tikto「生」而來 )，用於基督為馬利亞所生（路二7），進一步，用於祂與父的關係，表明其先於且超越造物，意思不是祂是第一個生的。在舊約有時用於地位上的優越，見於出四22；禁止指定長子之特權地位給在長子之後生者的罪惡，見於申二十一16～17。
在新約裡五處關於基督的經節可以依序列之如下：
1.西一15，這裡表明祂與父永遠的關係，而這個子句意思是，祂是在所有造物之先的首生（或長子），祂也創造了萬有（是受詞所有格，如16節所明證的）。
2.西一18和啟一5，關於祂的復活。
3.羅八29，祂與教會關係上的地位。
4.來一6（修定本），祂的再臨…。比較詩八十九27。
本字複數則用於希十一28埃及家的眾長子和十二23教會的眾成員。
（註：第1點，比較約一30「祂在我以前」，原文是「祂是我的第一」，亦即「關於我」祂是第一，表明他的先存和優先）
（W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pp.434-435, second printing, Thomas Nelson）
評論：W.E. Vine是弟兄會中傑出的聖經教師之一，他的「An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words」在西方英語世界極受推崇、歷久不衰，在聖經原文字義方面解析清楚，而且同義詞分析、字詞格類排比等都非常清楚、豐富。我個人認為，其所下的斷言不能等閒視之，應尊重採納。
六、A.C. Gaebelein（1861 - 1945）
…Arianism, Socianism, Unitarianism, Russellism, Christian Science and other “isms” which rob the Lord Jesus Christ of His full glory and deny His Deity, are completely answered in the brief words which unfold His glory. It was Arius of Alexandria who taught in the beginning of the fourth century that the Lord Jesus was a creature, the first of all created things, though super-angelic, yet not eternal in His being nor a partaker of the divine essence. The council of Nice (325 A.D.) condemned the wicked theory of Arius. Socinus in the Reformation period revived this error, as did Priestly and Martineau in England and Channing and others in America. It remained for one Charles T. Russel, whose system is known by different names, to popularized these false and corrupt views and spread them throughout Christendom. Russell with Arius asserts that in His pre-existent state Jesus was a pure spirit, higher than the angels, yet only a creature. When born of Virgin Mary, He dropped His spirit nature while on earth. He teaches that the atonement offered by our Lord was only human, having nothing divine about it. Russellism also denies that the human body of our Lord was raised from the dead. The whole system is a conglomerate of Arianism，Ebioniteism and Rationalism….
2. “Firstborn of all creation”-not as the authorized version has it “the firstborn of every creature.” It is here where the false teaching originates, which claims that our Lord was after all only a creature, called into existence by God, and not very God. This passage teaches no such thing. The title “ Firstborn” denotes His priority to creation, for He is the creation’s Head; the Headship of all creation belongs to Him. When He who is the image of the invisible God takes His place in creation, as He did in incarnation, it can only be as the Firstborn, as the Beginning of the Creation of God, the Head of all. He, who became man, under whose feet as the second Man all things will be put in subjection (Ps. Viii, Heb. ii), is the Lord from Heaven, the Creator of all things.
3. That He is not a creature, though He took on the creature’s form, is at once demonstrated by the words which follow. The Holy Spirit anticipated the errors which would deny His glory and therefore we read of Him as the creator. “ For by Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by Him and for Him.” It is therefore absolutely certain that the “Firstborn” does not mean that our Lord is a creature, but the Creator. These words which were written by the Apostle are revelation. Nor is Paul the only instrument through whom the Spirit of God makes known His glory. John wrote in the beginning of his gospel the same truth. “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” (John i:2)
The Son of God is therefore the Creator, yet not to the exclusion of the power of the Father, nor the operation of the Spirit. The three are one, in character and in their work; in creation and in redemption the three persons of the Godhead are active….
【中譯】：
…亞流主義、動力神格唯一論、索西奴主義、羅素主義（按羅素，耶和華見證人會的創始人）、基督教科學會（按為艾迪女士所創始），還有其他的「主義」，這些掠奪了主耶穌基督完全的榮耀並拒絕祂的神性，在這短短揭示祂榮耀的話裡完全回應了他們。亞歷山大的亞流在第四世紀初教導主耶穌是一個造物，一切造物的第一個，雖然超越天使，就其本身而言卻不是永遠的，也不能有分神聖的本質。尼西亞大會（主後325年）定罪了亞流邪惡的學說。索西奴在改教時期復燃其錯誤，…，直到有一個名叫羅素的（Charles T. Russell），他的系統有著許多不同的名稱，將這些錯誤和敗壞的觀點流傳出去，使之散佈在基督教世界中。
羅素跟著亞流，主張在耶穌存在之前，祂純是一個靈，高於天使，卻仍是個受造物。當祂在地為馬利亞所生時，祂降下祂的靈質。他教導我們的主所給的贖罪只是屬人的，並不是神聖的。羅素主義又否認我們的主屬人的身體從死裡復活。這整個系統是亞流主義、以便俄尼主義和理性主義的大雜燴。基督教科學會也是否認基督的神性，它裡面全是歌羅西人當時所面對的諾斯底主義致死的錯誤。…
2.「一切受造之物的首生者」，不是欽定本的「每一造物的首生」。錯誤的教訓就是從這裡產生的，這個教訓聲稱我們的主終究不過是個造物，是神使祂存在，祂不是神。這個經文教導的絕不是這樣。「首生」的頭銜表明祂之於造物的居先，因為祂是造物的頭，所有屬祂之造物的首領。當祂作為不能看見之神的像來道成肉身，在造物中有其位時，祂只能是首生、神造物的元始、一切的頭。祂來成為人，作為第二個人，萬有都要服在祂的腳下（詩八，來二），祂是天來的主、萬有的創造者。
3.這個－祂雖然取了造物的樣式，卻不是一個造物－立刻從後面的話表露出來。聖靈預料到會有否認祂榮耀的錯誤，因此我們讀關於祂是創造主的話：「因為萬有都是靠祂造的，無論是天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的；或是有位的，主治的，執政的，掌權的；一概都是藉著祂造的，又是為祂造的。」因此絕對確定的，「首生」的意思不是我們的主是一個造物，而是創造主。使徒所寫的這些話是啟示。神的靈使人知道祂的榮耀並不是只有藉著由保羅一個器皿，約翰在祂的福音書開頭寫了一樣的真理：「萬物是藉著祂造的；凡被造的，沒有一樣不是藉著祂造的。」（約一2）
因此神的兒子是創造主。然而卻不能排除父的能力，也不能排除聖靈的運行。祂們三者在性質和工作上是一，神格中的三個人位在創造和救贖的事上都是活躍的。…
（A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible, Vol. IV, Loizeaux Brothers, 1970, 3rd printing, Dec. 1979, pp.51-53 ）
評論：A.C. Gaebelein也是弟兄會中傑出的聖經教師之一，他的「The Annotated Bible」在西方英語世界裡是一套非常經典的著作，備受推崇、值得信賴。著名的「司可福參考聖經」（The New Scofield Reference Bible）亦列他為諮詢學者之一，可見其份量。
Gaebelein的文章不僅解經正確、滿了亮光、文筆流暢、絕無贅句，而且駁斥異端教訓更是不遺餘力，使仇敵一切的謊言被拆穿，無所遁形。他在他所處的時代裡是捍衛真理的勇士。
讀者讀讀他所寫關於西一15的評註就可以知道，他在那裡所下的斷言何等地清晰正確，所有關乎亞流的錯誤、遺毒在這樣的評註前完全站不住腳。讀者當以其人之斷言為斷言，不當輕信錯誤的教訓，被其如風帶走！
五、W.E. Vine（1873-1949）
PROTOTOKOS (πρωτοτοκος) , firstborn (from protos, first, and tikto, to beget), is used of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, Luke 2:7; further, in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used occasionally of superiority of position in the OT; see Ex. 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of thefirstborn to one born subsequently to the first child.
The five passages in the NT relating to Christ may be set forth chronologically thus:
(a) Col 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the Firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as Col 1:16 makes clear);
(b) Col 1:18; Rev 1:5, in reference to His resurrection;
(c) Rom 8:29, His position in relationship to the church;
(d) Heb 1:6, RV, His Second Advent (the RV “when He again bringeth in,” puts “again” in the right place, the contrast to His First Advent, at His birth, being implied); cp. Psalm 89:27. The word is used in the plural, in Heb 11:28, of the firstborn sons in the families of the Egyptians, and in Psalm 12:23, of the members of the Church.
Note: With (a) cp. John 1:30, “He was before me,” lit., “He was first (protos) of me,” i.e., “in regard to me,” expressing all that is involved in His pre-existence and priority.
【中譯】：
πρωτοτοκος, 首生 ( 從protos「首」 + tikto「生」而來 )，用於基督為馬利亞所生（路二7），進一步，用於祂與父的關係，表明其先於且超越造物，意思不是祂是第一個生的。在舊約有時用於地位上的優越，見於出四22；禁止指定長子之特權地位給在長子之後生者的罪惡，見於申二十一16～17。
在新約裡五處關於基督的經節可以依序列之如下：
1.西一15，這裡表明祂與父永遠的關係，而這個子句意思是，祂是在所有造物之先的首生（或長子），祂也創造了萬有（是受詞所有格，如16節所明證的）。
2.西一18和啟一5，關於祂的復活。
3.羅八29，祂與教會關係上的地位。
4.來一6（修定本），祂的再臨…。比較詩八十九27。
本字複數則用於希十一28埃及家的眾長子和十二23教會的眾成員。
（註：第1點，比較約一30「祂在我以前」，原文是「祂是我的第一」，亦即「關於我」祂是第一，表明他的先存和優先）
（W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pp.434-435, second printing, Thomas Nelson）
評論：W.E. Vine是弟兄會中傑出的聖經教師之一，他的「An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words」在西方英語世界極受推崇、歷久不衰，在聖經原文字義方面解析清楚，而且同義詞分析、字詞格類排比等都非常清楚、豐富。我個人認為，其所下的斷言不能等閒視之，應尊重採納。
六、A.C. Gaebelein（1861 - 1945）
…Arianism, Socianism, Unitarianism, Russellism, Christian Science and other “isms” which rob the Lord Jesus Christ of His full glory and deny His Deity, are completely answered in the brief words which unfold His glory. It was Arius of Alexandria who taught in the beginning of the fourth century that the Lord Jesus was a creature, the first of all created things, though super-angelic, yet not eternal in His being nor a partaker of the divine essence. The council of Nice (325 A.D.) condemned the wicked theory of Arius. Socinus in the Reformation period revived this error, as did Priestly and Martineau in England and Channing and others in America. It remained for one Charles T. Russel, whose system is known by different names, to popularized these false and corrupt views and spread them throughout Christendom. Russell with Arius asserts that in His pre-existent state Jesus was a pure spirit, higher than the angels, yet only a creature. When born of Virgin Mary, He dropped His spirit nature while on earth. He teaches that the atonement offered by our Lord was only human, having nothing divine about it. Russellism also denies that the human body of our Lord was raised from the dead. The whole system is a conglomerate of Arianism，Ebioniteism and Rationalism….
2. “Firstborn of all creation”-not as the authorized version has it “the firstborn of every creature.” It is here where the false teaching originates, which claims that our Lord was after all only a creature, called into existence by God, and not very God. This passage teaches no such thing. The title “ Firstborn” denotes His priority to creation, for He is the creation’s Head; the Headship of all creation belongs to Him. When He who is the image of the invisible God takes His place in creation, as He did in incarnation, it can only be as the Firstborn, as the Beginning of the Creation of God, the Head of all. He, who became man, under whose feet as the second Man all things will be put in subjection (Ps. Viii, Heb. ii), is the Lord from Heaven, the Creator of all things.
3. That He is not a creature, though He took on the creature’s form, is at once demonstrated by the words which follow. The Holy Spirit anticipated the errors which would deny His glory and therefore we read of Him as the creator. “ For by Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by Him and for Him.” It is therefore absolutely certain that the “Firstborn” does not mean that our Lord is a creature, but the Creator. These words which were written by the Apostle are revelation. Nor is Paul the only instrument through whom the Spirit of God makes known His glory. John wrote in the beginning of his gospel the same truth. “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” (John i:2)
The Son of God is therefore the Creator, yet not to the exclusion of the power of the Father, nor the operation of the Spirit. The three are one, in character and in their work; in creation and in redemption the three persons of the Godhead are active….
【中譯】：
…亞流主義、動力神格唯一論、索西奴主義、羅素主義（按羅素，耶和華見證人會的創始人）、基督教科學會（按為艾迪女士所創始），還有其他的「主義」，這些掠奪了主耶穌基督完全的榮耀並拒絕祂的神性，在這短短揭示祂榮耀的話裡完全回應了他們。亞歷山大的亞流在第四世紀初教導主耶穌是一個造物，一切造物的第一個，雖然超越天使，就其本身而言卻不是永遠的，也不能有分神聖的本質。尼西亞大會（主後325年）定罪了亞流邪惡的學說。索西奴在改教時期復燃其錯誤，…，直到有一個名叫羅素的（Charles T. Russell），他的系統有著許多不同的名稱，將這些錯誤和敗壞的觀點流傳出去，使之散佈在基督教世界中。
羅素跟著亞流，主張在耶穌存在之前，祂純是一個靈，高於天使，卻仍是個受造物。當祂在地為馬利亞所生時，祂降下祂的靈質。他教導我們的主所給的贖罪只是屬人的，並不是神聖的。羅素主義又否認我們的主屬人的身體從死裡復活。這整個系統是亞流主義、以便俄尼主義和理性主義的大雜燴。基督教科學會也是否認基督的神性，它裡面全是歌羅西人當時所面對的諾斯底主義致死的錯誤。…
2.「一切受造之物的首生者」，不是欽定本的「每一造物的首生」。錯誤的教訓就是從這裡產生的，這個教訓聲稱我們的主終究不過是個造物，是神使祂存在，祂不是神。這個經文教導的絕不是這樣。「首生」的頭銜表明祂之於造物的居先，因為祂是造物的頭，所有屬祂之造物的首領。當祂作為不能看見之神的像來道成肉身，在造物中有其位時，祂只能是首生、神造物的元始、一切的頭。祂來成為人，作為第二個人，萬有都要服在祂的腳下（詩八，來二），祂是天來的主、萬有的創造者。
3.這個－祂雖然取了造物的樣式，卻不是一個造物－立刻從後面的話表露出來。聖靈預料到會有否認祂榮耀的錯誤，因此我們讀關於祂是創造主的話：「因為萬有都是靠祂造的，無論是天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的；或是有位的，主治的，執政的，掌權的；一概都是藉著祂造的，又是為祂造的。」因此絕對確定的，「首生」的意思不是我們的主是一個造物，而是創造主。使徒所寫的這些話是啟示。神的靈使人知道祂的榮耀並不是只有藉著由保羅一個器皿，約翰在祂的福音書開頭寫了一樣的真理：「萬物是藉著祂造的；凡被造的，沒有一樣不是藉著祂造的。」（約一2）
因此神的兒子是創造主。然而卻不能排除父的能力，也不能排除聖靈的運行。祂們三者在性質和工作上是一，神格中的三個人位在創造和救贖的事上都是活躍的。…
（A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible, Vol. IV, Loizeaux Brothers, 1970, 3rd printing, Dec. 1979, pp.51-53 ）
評論：A.C. Gaebelein也是弟兄會中傑出的聖經教師之一，他的「The Annotated Bible」在西方英語世界裡是一套非常經典的著作，備受推崇、值得信賴。著名的「司可福參考聖經」（The New Scofield Reference Bible）亦列他為諮詢學者之一，可見其份量。
Gaebelein的文章不僅解經正確、滿了亮光、文筆流暢、絕無贅句，而且駁斥異端教訓更是不遺餘力，使仇敵一切的謊言被拆穿，無所遁形。他在他所處的時代裡是捍衛真理的勇士。
讀者讀讀他所寫關於西一15的評註就可以知道，他在那裡所下的斷言何等地清晰正確，所有關乎亞流的錯誤、遺毒在這樣的評註前完全站不住腳。讀者當以其人之斷言為斷言，不當輕信錯誤的教訓，被其如風帶走！
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（七）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（七）
四、J.B. Lightfoot（1828 –1889）
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως] ‘the First-born of all creation.’ The word πρωτοτοκος has twofold parentage:
（I）Like εικων it is closely connected with and taken from the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo applies to the λογος is not πρωτοτοκος but πρωτογονος… and this designation…is several times applies to the λογος. Again in...the language of Exod. xiii. 2...is so interpreted as to apply to the Divine Word. These appellations, ‘the first-begotten, the eldest son,’ are given to the Logos by Philo, because in his philosphy it includes the oroginal conception, the archytype idea, of creation, which was afterward realised in the material world. Among the early Christian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the application of the term πρωτοτοκος to the Word;…So too Theophilus …
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，「一切造物的首生」，πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）「首生」一字有雙重的來源：
1.就如「像」（εικων）一字，它（「按「首生」」一字）是緊連並從亞歷山大的「道」（Logos）的辭彙而來。然而斐羅（Philo）所用於「道」的字不是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）而是πρωτογονος （protogonos），…而這個稱謂…有幾次用於「道」。再者在…出十三2的話…當被用於「聖道」，也是這樣詮釋的。「頭生」、「長子」這些稱號是斐羅（Philo）用於稱呼「道」的，因為在他的哲學裡含有最初創造的概念，就是原型（archytype）的觀念，後來這都實化在物質的世界裡。在早期的基督徒教父中，殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）一再地確認πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一詞是用於「道」，…提阿非羅（Theophilus）亦然。…
（2）The word πρωτοτοκος had also another not less important link of connexion with the past. The Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix 28, εγο πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον κ.τ.λ., seems to have been generally allowed. So at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan… ‘God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make king Messiah a first-born (Ps. lxxxix. 28).’ Hence ‘the first-born’ ο πρωτοτοκος（בכור）used absolutely, because a recognised title of Messiah. The way had been paved for this Massianic reference of πρωτοτοκος by its prior application to the Israelites, as the prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘Israel is my son, my first-born ’ : comp. Pslm. Salom. xviii. 4 η παιδεια σου εφ ημας ως υιον πρωτοτοκον μονογενη… where the combination of the two titles applied in the New Testament to the Son is striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the note on Gal. iii 16…), the terms are transferred from the race to the Messiah, as the representative, the embodiment, of the race.
2.πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一字也有另一個也是很重要的關連，就是與過去的連結。詩八十九28（按中文聖經是27節，下同）「我也要立他為長子…」，作為彌賽亞的引證（Messianic reference），似乎是眾所公認的。所以至少拿單（R. Nathan）… 詮釋之為：「神說，我立雅各為長子（出四22），所以我也立彌賽亞君王為長子（八十九27）。」
因此，「長子」（ο πρωτοτοκος，בכור）的用法絕對，因為是認定彌賽亞的一個頭銜。先前出四22「以色列是我的兒子，我的長子」，用於作為特權族類的以色列人的方式，已為πρωτοτοκος （prototokos）一字作為這個彌賽亞的引證先鋪好了路。比較所羅門詩歌十八4…，那裡把兩個用於新約的頭銜（按是πρωτοτοκον μονογενη，prototokon monogene）合併在一起是叫人稀奇的。這裡，就如別處（見加三16註），這詞從族類轉到作為族類代表和體現的彌賽亞身上。
As the Person of Christ was the Divine response alike to the philosophical questionings of the Alexandrian Jew and to the patriotic hopes of the Palestinian, these two currents of thought meet in the term πρωτοτοκος as applied to our Lord, who is both the true Logos and the true Messiah. For this reason, we may suppose, as well as for others, the Christian Apostles preferred πρωτοτοκος to πρωτογονος, which (as we may infer from Philo) was the favourite term with the Alexandrians, because the former alone would include the Messianic reference as well.
當基督這個人位，同時作為亞歷山大猶太人的哲學問題，和在巴勒斯坦人愛國主義者的神聖回應時，這兩道思想的水流相遇於用在主身上的πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）這個字上。他是真道，也是真彌賽亞。因這理由，我們可以假設，同樣的別的理由也可以，就是基督的眾使徒喜用πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）勝於用πρωτογονος（protogonos），因為只有前者可以包含彌賽亞的引證，而後者是亞歷山大的人所喜用的（這我們可從Philo得知）。
The main idea then which the word involves are twofold; the one more directly connected with the Alexandrian conception of the Logos, the other more nearly allied to the Palestinian conception of the Messiah.
（1）Priority to all creation.
In other words it declares the absolute pre-existence of the Son. At first sight it might seem that Christ is here regarded as one, though the earliest, of created beings. This interpretation is not required by the expression itself. The fathers of the fourth century rightly called attention to the fact that the Apotle writes not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος; e.g. Basil… Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. …, though without any direct reference to this passage, the μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος is contrasted with the πρωτοκτιστοι, the highest order of angelic beings; and the word πρωτοκτιστος occurs more than once elsewhere in his writings(e.g. Strom. v. 14, 699). Nor again does the genitive case necessarily imply that the πρωτοτοκος Himself belonged to the κτισις , as will be shown presently. And if this sense is not required by the words themselves, it is directly excluded by the context. It is inconsistent alike with the universal agency in creation which is ascribed to Him in the words following, εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα, and with absolute pre-existence and self-existence which is claimed for Him just below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων. We may add also that it is irreconcilable with other passages in the Apostolic writings, while it contradicts the fundamental idea of the Christian consciousness. More especially the description πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως must be interpreted in such a way that it is not inconsistent with His other title of μονογενης, unicus, alone of His kind and therefore distinct from created things. The two words express the same eternal fact; but while μονογενης states it in itself, πρωτοτοκος places it in relation to the Universe. The correct interpretation is supplied by Justin Martyr,…πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων. He does not indeed mention this passage, but it was doubtless in his mind, for he elsewhere uses the very expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως…comp. also…, where the words πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων occur.
因此這個字所含有的主要意思有雙重，其一是與亞歷山大「道」的觀念有著更為直接的關連，另一是與巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」的觀念有著更近的相連。
1.「先於」一切造物。
換言之，表示子的絕對先存。乍看之下，似乎這裡是說基督是最早的，但也被看為是造物之一，然而這樣的詮釋並不需要這個字來表達。第四世紀的教父們注意到一個事實，就是使徒們所寫的不是πρωτοκτιστος （protoktistos）而是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）。例如巴西流（Basil）…，再早一點亞歷山大的革利免（Clem. Alex.），雖無直接引此處經文，把「獨生和首生」（μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος）與作為天使之最高階的「首造」（πρωτοκτιστοι）相比較。而且「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）之一字不只一次出現在他其他的著作中。
再者，所有格不需要表示「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）是屬於「造物」（κτισις），正如待會兒所要說的。而且如果這個意思不從這些話的本身來得著（按意即該字在舊約裡的轉意特殊用法），上下文就直接把這個意思排除了。這樣也與接著描述他做萬有創造的憑藉的話－「萬有都是靠他造的」（或直譯「萬有都是在他裡面造的」）－不一致，也與下面緊接著宣稱他是絕對先存和自存的話－「他在萬有之先」－不一致。我們還可以加上一個，就是與使徒著作中其他的經文不相合，也與基督徒良心的基本思想相牴觸。甚且「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）必須在一種與「獨生」（μονογενη，unicus）不能不一致的方式裡來詮釋。「獨生」是獨自一類的，因此與造物迥別。
這兩個字同樣表明永恆的事實，然而「獨生」（μονογενης）用於陳述字的本身，「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）則把它擺在與宇宙的關係上。正確的詮釋乃是殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）…所提供的：「神的首生和一切被造的以先」（πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων）。雖然他沒有真正提到這經文（按指西一15下），但是無疑地這是在他的心中的，因為在別處他用了「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）這個特殊的發表。…也可比較…，那裡出現「一切工作品的首生」（πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων）這樣的話。
（2）Sovereignty over all creation.
God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler, the acknowledged head, of God’s household. The right of primogeniture appertains to Messiah over all created things. Thus in Ps. Ps. Lxxxix. 28 after πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον the explanation is added, υψηλον παρα τοις βασιλευδιν της γης, i.e. (as the oroginal implies) ‘above all the kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic refernece this secondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word πρωτοτοκος, so that from this point of view πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως would mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture.’ The εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων of the Apostolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly corresponds to the θησομαι πρωτοτοκος of the psalmist (lxxxix. 28), and doubtless was tacitly intended as a paraphrase and application of this Messianic passage. So again in Heb. xii. 23, εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων, the most probable explanation of the word is that which makes it equivalent to ‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful Christians being ipso factor πρωτοτοκοι, because all are kings. Nay, so completely might this idea of dominion by virtue of priority eclipse the primary sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some of its uses, that it is given as a title to God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pentateuch, fol. 124. 4,…For other instances of secondary uses of בכור in the Old Testament, where the idea of ‘priority of birth’ is over-shadowed by and lost in the idea of “pre-emience,’ see Job xviii. 13 ‘the first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the first-born of the poor.’
2.「統管」萬有。
神的「長子」是神家裡理所當然的管理者、眾所公認的頭。統管所有造物的長子繼承權歸屬於彌賽亞。因此，詩八十九27在「立他為長子」之後，加了解釋的話：「為世上最高的君王」。在彌賽亞的引經裡，πρωτοτοκος這個字重在統治權的第二個思想，所以從這個觀點來看，πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（按是西一15下）意思是「由於長子名分而為統管萬有的主」。使徒著作的εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων（萬有的承受者，來一2）完全等同於詩篇作者的θησομαι πρωτοτοκος（立為長子，詩八十九27），而且無疑的是心照不宣地故意作為這個彌賽亞經文的釋意和運用。
所以，再一次在來十二23的εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων（眾長子的教會），這個字最可能的解釋是等同於「國度的繼承者」，就是根據事實，所有的基督徒都是長子（πρωτοτοκοι），因為都是王。不，所以完整的應該是由於居先而為掌權的意思，在有些用法裡脫離了「長子」這個詞的第一個意思，而用於神的本身…。在舊約裡，另一些בכור（prototokos，「長子」）作為第二種用法的例子裡，「頭生」的意思被「超越」的意思所遮蓋而失去，這見於伯十八13「死亡的長子」、賽十四30「貧寒人的長子」。
πασης κτισεως] ‘of all creation,’ rather than ‘of every created thing.’… The genitive case must be interpreted so as to include the full meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as already explained. It will therefore signify: ‘He stands in the relation of πρωτοτοκος to all creation,’ i.e. ‘ He is the Firstborn , and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.’ …Another explanation which would connect the genitive with the first part of the compound alone (πρωτο-), comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, πρωτος μου ην, unduly strains the grammar, while it excludes the idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’
πασης κτισεως]：「一切造物」比「每一造物」佳。…正如所已經解釋的，所有格的詮釋必須涵蓋到πρωτοτοκος（首生）完整的意思。因此表明「他與一切造物的關係是站在πρωτοτοκος（首生）的地位上」，亦即「他是首生，而作為首生，他是一切造物絕對的繼承者和統管的主。」
另一種解釋只將所有格連於複合字的第一部分(πρωτο-，proto-)，比較約一15、30「他本來在我以前」（πρωτος μου ην）。這是文法過度的曲解，這樣解就把「繼承權」、「統治權」的意思排除了。
The history of the patristic exegesis of this expression is not without a painful interest. All the fathers of the second and third centuries without exception, so far as I have noticed, correctly refer it to the Eternal Word and not to the Incarnated Christ, to the Deity and not to the humanity of our Lord. So Justin, … Theophilus, … Clement of Alexandria, … Tertullian, … Hippolytus, … Origon, …Cyprian, … Novatian, …and the Synod of Antioch….The Arian controversy however gave a different turn to the exegesis of the passage. The Arians fastened upon the expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως, and drew from it the inference that the Son was a created being. …Many orthodox fathers howevere, not satisfied with this, transferred the expression into a new sphere, and maintained that πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως describes the Incarnated Christ. By so doing they thought to cut up the Arian argument by the roots. As consequence of this interpretation, they were obliged to understand the κτισις and the κτιζεσθαι in the context of the new spiritual creation, the καινη κτισις of 2 Cor. V. 17, Gal. vi. 15. Thus interpreted πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως here becomes nearly equivalent to πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις in Rom. viii. 29.
教父解釋這個發表的歷史也是令人頭痛又有興趣的。就我所知，所有第二、三世紀的教父無一例外的，都正確的指向永恆的道，而不是成為肉身的基督；都指向我們主的神性，而非其人性。所以猶斯丁（Justin）、…提阿非羅（Theophilus）、…亞歷山太的革利免（Clement of Alexandria）、…特土良（Tertullian）、…希波律陀（Hippolytus）、…俄利根（Origen）、…居普良（Cyprian）、…諾窪天（Novatian）以及安提阿信條（the Synod of Antioch）。（按都是這樣認為）。然而因著亞流的爭議，使得這個經文的釋經轉了一個不同的方向。亞流者緊抓πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）的發表不放，從這裡推論生出子是一個受造物。…然而許多正統的教父並不滿意於此，將這發表轉到另一個新的領域裡去，主張πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）是描繪成為肉身的基督。他們認為這樣做可以斬斷亞流者論辯的根，豈知這樣詮釋的結果，他們只好被迫將經文中的「造物」（κτισις，按是西一15）和「創造」（κτιζεσθαι，按是西一16）領會為屬靈的新造，就是林後五17和加六15的「新造」（καινη κτισις）。因此詮釋這裡的「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως），幾乎把它等同於羅八29的「在許多弟兄中作長子」。
The arguments alleged in favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold:
(1) That, if applied to the Divine nature, πρωτοτοκος would contradict μονογενης which elsewhere describes the nature of the Eternal Son. But those who maintained, and rightly maintained, that πρωτοτοκος (Luke ii 7) did not necessarily imply that the Lord’s mother had other sons, ought not to have been led away by this fallacy.
(2) That πρωτοτοκος in other passages (e.g. Rom.viii. 29, Rev. i. 5, and just below, ver. 18) is applied to the humanity of Christ. But elsewhere, in Heb. i. 6 οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον κ.τ.λ., the term must almost necessarily refer to the pre-existence of the Son; and moreover the very point of the Apostle’s language in the text ( as will be seen presently) is the parallelism in the two relations of our Lord- His relation to the natural creation, as the Eternal Word, and His relation to the spiritual creation, as the Head of the Church- so that the same word (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως ver. 15, πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων ver. 18) is studiously used both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a nemesis on itself. Logical consistency required that this interpretation should be carried farther; and Marcellus, who was never deterred by any considerations of prudence, took this bold step. He extended the principle to the whole context, including even ικων του αορατου θεου, which likewise he interpreted of our Lord’s humanity. In this way a most important Christological passage was transferred into alien sphere; and the strongest argument against Arianism melted away in the attempt to combat Arianism on false grounds.
爭論裡把它說成傾向這樣的解釋的主因有二：
(1).若是用於神聖的性情（按即神性，下同），那麼「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）將與別處用來描繪永恆之子的性情：「獨生」（μονογενης）相牴觸。但那些主張，且是正確主張「首生」（路二7）並不須要含有主的母親有其他的兒子們的意思的，不應該被這謬論帶走了。
(2).「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）在別處經文（如羅八29，啟一5，18）用於基督的人性。然而在別處（來一6「神再使長子到世上來的時候…」，οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον κ.τ.λ.），這詞必須幾乎全然指先存的子，更有甚者是，使徒在上下文裡用語主要的點（正如待會兒所要說的）是兩個關乎我們的主的對句：作為永恆的道，是他與自然造物（按即一切舊造）的關係；作為教會的頭，是他與屬靈創造（按即一切新造）的關係。所以同樣一個字（15節「一切受造的首生」πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，18節「死人中的首生」πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων）是精心設計地用於二者。錯誤的解經當然給自己招來報應。邏輯的一致性要求（按迫使、逼著）這樣的解釋被帶往前去，而馬西流（Marcellus）從來沒有被深思熟慮所阻止，他走了大膽的一步。他擴展這個原則到整個上下文，甚至包括了「不能看見之神的像」，也把它解釋為主的人性。如此一來，一個關於基督論最為重要的經文，被轉到另一個全然不同的領域裡去了，而（本來）最強而有力反對亞流主義的論據，反而因為在錯誤的基礎上試圖與亞流主義爭戰時流失了。
The criticism of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly just… The objection to this interpretation are threefold :
(1) It disregards the history of the terms in the connexion with the pre-Christain speculations of Alexandrian Judaism.These however, though directly or indirectly they were preset to the minds of the earlier fathers and kept them in the right exegetical path, might very easily have escaped a writer in the fourth century.
(2) It shatters the context.To suppose that such expressions as εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης, or τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται, or τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν, refer to the work of the Incarnation, is to strains language in a way which would reduce all theological exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as Marcellus truly saw, is a strictly logical consequence of the interpretation which refers πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως to Christ’s humanity.
(3) It takes no account of the cosmogony and angelology of the false teachers against which the Apostle’s exposition here is directed…
優西比烏對於馬西流（Marcellus）的評語是公正的…。反對這樣的詮釋有三重：
(1) 它忽略了這些用詞與在基督徒之前的亞歷山大猶太教思想相關連的歷史。這些雖然直接或間接地預置於早期教父們的心裡，也保守他們在正確釋經的路上，然而，卻可能非常輕易地就從第四世紀的作者身上失去了。
(2)它忽略了上下文。假設諸如：「萬有都是在他裡面造的，無論是天上的，地上的」（εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης），或「一概都是藉著他造的」（τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται），或「萬有也靠他而立」（τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν），都指道成肉身的工作，那麼這是曲解文義到一個地步，使一切神學上的釋經降到一堆混亂裡去。
(3)它沒有考慮到與使徒這裡所闡述的相對立之假教師的宇宙起源論和天使學…。
This interpretation is given by St. Athanasius….and appears again in Greg. Nyss.…Cyril Alex…. St. Athanasius indeed does not confine the expression to the condescension…of the Word in the Incarnation, but includes also prior condescension in the Creation of the world….This double reference however only confuses the exegesis of the passage still further, while theologically it might lead to very serious difficulties…St. Basil,..himslef prefers explaining it of the Eternal word…Of the Greek commentators on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is not clear; Severianus… and Theodoret …understand it rightly of the Eternal Word; while Theodoro of Mopsuestia…expresses himself very strongly on the opposite side. Like Marcellus, he carries the interpretation consistently into the whole context, explaining εν αυτω to refer not to the original creation（κτισις）but to the moral re-creation（ανακτισις）, and referring εικων to the Incarnation in the same way. At a later date, when the pressure of an immediate controversy has passed away, the Greek writers generally concur in the earlier and truer interpretation of the expression. Thus John Damascene,…Theophylact,…CEcumenius, all explain it of Christ’s Divine Nature. Among Latin writers there is more diversity of interpretation. While Marius Victorinus,…Hilary of Poictiers,…Hilary the commentator, take it of the Divine Nature, Augustine,…Pelagius…understand it of the Incarnate Christ.
這樣的詮釋是亞他那修（Athanasuis）所給的，…且出現在尼撒的貴格利（Greg. Nyssa）…、亞歷山大的區利羅（Cyril Alex.）…。聖亞他那修的確不是把這個發表侷限在「道」的成為肉身時的紓尊降貴，也包括在創造世界前的紓尊降貴…。然而，這種雙重的旁註只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。…聖巴西流…較喜解釋之為永恆的道…。這經文，希臘的註釋者中屈梭多模（Chrysostom）的觀點不清，塞凡流斯（Serverianus）…和狄奧多勒（Theodoret）…確定領會為永恆的道。然而摩普妥提亞的狄奧多若（Theodoro of Mopsuestia）強烈表達他是站在另一邊。就像馬西流（Marcellus），他將整個上下文作一致的詮釋，他解釋「在他裡面」（εν αυτω，按和合本「靠他」）不是指原先的創造（κτισις），而是指道德的複造（ανακτισις，按指新造），而同樣將「像」（εικων）解為道成肉身者。
稍後，當直接爭論的壓力過了之後，整體來說希臘的作者們與較早期、較正確的詮釋看法一致。（按指「首生」是指永恆的道，而不是他的人性）。因此，達馬新約翰（John Damascene）、…狄奧非拉（Theophylact）、…色克曼紐斯（CEcumenius），都將其解釋為基督的神聖性情。拉丁的作者們在詮釋上則較為多樣。維克多林納斯馬流（Marius Victorinus）、波依克提爾的希勒立（Hilary of Poictiers）…、解經家希勒立（Hilary the commentator）等，將其解釋為基督的神聖性情；奧古斯丁（Augustine），…伯拉糾（Pelagius）…，將其認為是成為肉身的基督。
（J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes and Dissertations, pp.146-150, Repr. Ed. Of 1879 edition, Zondervan Publishing House）
評論：
一、之所以列出幾乎J.B. Lightfoot西一15下整段的評文，目的是要讀者知道其內容，不讓任何人有異想天開的空間曲解其意，引之往自己「錯誤」的臉上貼金。請讀者不殫其煩地讀完它，相信必有斬穫。J.B. Lightfoot的著作具足份量、權威，原則上討論西一15及其上下文的著作，聖經學者幾無不引用其評註做為佐證、加強。同樣的，他的加、腓、西、門四卷書的註解也是經典之作，至今仍為聖經學者、神學家、解經家所津津樂道。此君的解經嚴謹、學識淵博、眼光銳利、思想宏大、思路清楚，所寫文章引經據典，精闢深入，點點中肯，點點命中要害。
Lightfoot不僅詳述西一15「prototokos」一字在舊約聖經裡的特殊用法、亞歷山大猶太教哲學家（如Philo）「道」觀念的闡述和巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」觀念的思想、文法分析，同時也詳細追查第二至第五世紀教父們關於此處經文的解釋。關於教父，他清楚講述亞流異端前（第四世紀以前）教父們的「正確」詮釋，也講明因應亞流異端時，當代教父（第四、五世紀）所採「轉彎」的詮釋時所帶給他們自己的困擾，也講明亞流事件趨緩之後，回歸正確詮釋的情形。Lightfoot的贊同具足理由，他的反對也同樣具足理由。讀者若詳讀其文，且清楚其意，必會珍賞如此經典權威之詮釋，且以其斷案為斷案。
二、西一15「首生」之意有二，一為「先於」一切造物，一為「統管」萬有，這是夠清楚的了。讀者不必遷就第四、五世紀教父的說法，正如他們為了起來反對亞流的異端，也採了一個遷就的辦法來詮釋西一15的「首生」。這樣的詮釋，正如Lightfoot所說的：「只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。」當時他們以為這樣做可以徹底斬斷亞流異端論辯的根，誰知這樣詮釋的結果，使他們被迫將經文中的西一15「一切造物」和西一16的「萬有」的創造領會為屬靈的「新造」（林後五17，加六15）。這樣的詮釋把原本「首生」與「一切造物」關係的居先、居上、居首，等同於基督在他復活之後才帶進的新造，就是他「在許多弟兄中作長子」（羅八29）的關係。這樣的詮釋把自己鎖死了，無法正確合宜的顧到西一15的上下文。
西一15的「像」是論愛子與父神的關係，「首生」是論他與一切造物的關係，16至17節是他與一切造物的關係進一步的說明和解釋（以上均指基督未成肉身前的神性，即他是永恆的道），18節才是講他與新造教會的關係，這是他的復活所帶進來的，而20至22節才回頭講他所成就的救贖，因為藉著救贖才能帶進和好、新造。15節的「首生」的確是指「永恆的道」，就是父的愛子，他在創世前已存，他在萬有之先、之上，且統管這一切。15節的「首生」不應該解為「成為肉身的基督」，藉復活產生新造，使他在許多弟兄中作長子。這樣的解釋的確是牽強，不是上下文所要表達的。
三、我們當注意的是，並不因為是第四、五世紀的教父，他們在解經上就不會有錯誤和偏差。當然亞流是全然錯誤的，然而當時的教父在對付這異端時卻也矯枉過正地產生了偏差（其中以馬西流Marcellus最甚）。對於他們的解經我們不可盡信，但也當知道他們這樣做乃是時代背景所使然。
一件非常重要的事讀者當知道的，就是即便如亞他那修所採牽強的雙重解釋（「永恆的道」或「基督的神性」與「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」）或其他一些教父所採的偏差單一的解釋（「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」），他們卻從無一人說基督乃「神的造物」，是「神造物的第一項（個）」。這樣說不啻與保羅當時的諾斯底派所說的相同，也與他們當時亞流的錯謬同流，這是他們不能苟同的。他們不會離譜到一個地步，把基督說成是「神造物的第一項（個）」，這樣的說法正是他們當時所攻擊和極力反對的！因著亞流，才有尼西亞的信經；因著亞流，才有亞他那修的被逐。套一句保羅的話：「我素來所拆毀的，若重新建造，這就證明自己是犯罪的人。」（加二18）若正統的教父大力反對亞流的「基督受造論」，卻又高舉「基督乃為神的造物，且是第一項（個）」，這不是天底下最大的笑話麼？這不是天底下最大的矛盾麼？
四、既是這樣，凡根據西一15主張「基督是受造之物」，是「神的第一個造物」的是嚴重錯解聖經，是異端教訓。凡引述第四、五世紀教父著作，以其解釋「首生」為「道成肉身的基督」、「基督的人性」，而為「基督是受造之物」、「基督是神的第一個造物」做佐證的，不啻拉著教父們往自己錯誤的臉上貼金，甚至可以說是故意忽略當時的時空背景，置教會歷史的史實於不顧！不幸的是，前者出現在李常受許多解釋西一15的文字信息裡，也出現在「水流職事站」出版的刊物「肯定與否定」，第一卷、第一期「正統與異端的仲裁者－聖經」一文中之「異端中正端之處－基督是受造之物」一段中（該刊物第77～78頁）。讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/1-1/07heresy.htm
亦見於「肯定與否定」，第三卷、第一期「基督－受造之物的首生者」一文中（該刊物第56～64頁），讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/3-1/3105.htm
亦見於「水流職事站」網站「真理論壇」：「辯明基督身位的純正信仰」的第四章「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://defenseoftruth.tychurch.org.tw/christ_person/chapter4.htm
後者則出現在「水流職事站」網站「真裡辯正」中：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」，第二篇 關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
稀奇的是，該文宣稱：「十九世紀解經家雷德福（J B Lightfoot，1828 -1889）在其解經書中，詳細整理了從教會初期至第四世紀，歷代教父在此題上的不同見地。一般聖經學者公認，雷德福所作的歸納，是解釋此一歷史之爭的最好說明。」既是這樣，我們不禁要問，為甚麼不願接受其所敲定的斷案？該文大量引述Lightfoot文章的內容，卻未完整忠實的譯出全部或主要的部份。不但如此，Lightfoot清楚表明西一15的「首生」（prototokos）應指基督之神性，宣示他是先於一切造物、統管萬有，他強烈反對將之解為基督的人性，因為連帶的帶進後面經文錯誤勉強的解經，在對付亞流異端時反而自陷解經的泥沼裡。關於這一個，「真裡辯正」中的「回」一文，竟把他的斷案削弱為：「雷德福顯然傾向支持二、三世紀教父的觀點…」。這樣做，間接地使沒有讀過Lightfoot文章的讀者被誤導，也使他們產生誤判，這是筆者不能同意的。這種錯誤的信仰內容－「基督受造論」是被普世所有神的兒女、基督的教會所棄絕的。關於基督身位的詮釋是一件嚴肅的事，所有的論述、傳講都得謹慎小心！
四、J.B. Lightfoot（1828 –1889）
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως] ‘the First-born of all creation.’ The word πρωτοτοκος has twofold parentage:
（I）Like εικων it is closely connected with and taken from the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo applies to the λογος is not πρωτοτοκος but πρωτογονος… and this designation…is several times applies to the λογος. Again in...the language of Exod. xiii. 2...is so interpreted as to apply to the Divine Word. These appellations, ‘the first-begotten, the eldest son,’ are given to the Logos by Philo, because in his philosphy it includes the oroginal conception, the archytype idea, of creation, which was afterward realised in the material world. Among the early Christian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the application of the term πρωτοτοκος to the Word;…So too Theophilus …
πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，「一切造物的首生」，πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）「首生」一字有雙重的來源：
1.就如「像」（εικων）一字，它（「按「首生」」一字）是緊連並從亞歷山大的「道」（Logos）的辭彙而來。然而斐羅（Philo）所用於「道」的字不是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）而是πρωτογονος （protogonos），…而這個稱謂…有幾次用於「道」。再者在…出十三2的話…當被用於「聖道」，也是這樣詮釋的。「頭生」、「長子」這些稱號是斐羅（Philo）用於稱呼「道」的，因為在他的哲學裡含有最初創造的概念，就是原型（archytype）的觀念，後來這都實化在物質的世界裡。在早期的基督徒教父中，殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）一再地確認πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一詞是用於「道」，…提阿非羅（Theophilus）亦然。…
（2）The word πρωτοτοκος had also another not less important link of connexion with the past. The Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix 28, εγο πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον κ.τ.λ., seems to have been generally allowed. So at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan… ‘God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make king Messiah a first-born (Ps. lxxxix. 28).’ Hence ‘the first-born’ ο πρωτοτοκος（בכור）used absolutely, because a recognised title of Messiah. The way had been paved for this Massianic reference of πρωτοτοκος by its prior application to the Israelites, as the prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘Israel is my son, my first-born ’ : comp. Pslm. Salom. xviii. 4 η παιδεια σου εφ ημας ως υιον πρωτοτοκον μονογενη… where the combination of the two titles applied in the New Testament to the Son is striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the note on Gal. iii 16…), the terms are transferred from the race to the Messiah, as the representative, the embodiment, of the race.
2.πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）一字也有另一個也是很重要的關連，就是與過去的連結。詩八十九28（按中文聖經是27節，下同）「我也要立他為長子…」，作為彌賽亞的引證（Messianic reference），似乎是眾所公認的。所以至少拿單（R. Nathan）… 詮釋之為：「神說，我立雅各為長子（出四22），所以我也立彌賽亞君王為長子（八十九27）。」
因此，「長子」（ο πρωτοτοκος，בכור）的用法絕對，因為是認定彌賽亞的一個頭銜。先前出四22「以色列是我的兒子，我的長子」，用於作為特權族類的以色列人的方式，已為πρωτοτοκος （prototokos）一字作為這個彌賽亞的引證先鋪好了路。比較所羅門詩歌十八4…，那裡把兩個用於新約的頭銜（按是πρωτοτοκον μονογενη，prototokon monogene）合併在一起是叫人稀奇的。這裡，就如別處（見加三16註），這詞從族類轉到作為族類代表和體現的彌賽亞身上。
As the Person of Christ was the Divine response alike to the philosophical questionings of the Alexandrian Jew and to the patriotic hopes of the Palestinian, these two currents of thought meet in the term πρωτοτοκος as applied to our Lord, who is both the true Logos and the true Messiah. For this reason, we may suppose, as well as for others, the Christian Apostles preferred πρωτοτοκος to πρωτογονος, which (as we may infer from Philo) was the favourite term with the Alexandrians, because the former alone would include the Messianic reference as well.
當基督這個人位，同時作為亞歷山大猶太人的哲學問題，和在巴勒斯坦人愛國主義者的神聖回應時，這兩道思想的水流相遇於用在主身上的πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）這個字上。他是真道，也是真彌賽亞。因這理由，我們可以假設，同樣的別的理由也可以，就是基督的眾使徒喜用πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）勝於用πρωτογονος（protogonos），因為只有前者可以包含彌賽亞的引證，而後者是亞歷山大的人所喜用的（這我們可從Philo得知）。
The main idea then which the word involves are twofold; the one more directly connected with the Alexandrian conception of the Logos, the other more nearly allied to the Palestinian conception of the Messiah.
（1）Priority to all creation.
In other words it declares the absolute pre-existence of the Son. At first sight it might seem that Christ is here regarded as one, though the earliest, of created beings. This interpretation is not required by the expression itself. The fathers of the fourth century rightly called attention to the fact that the Apotle writes not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος; e.g. Basil… Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. …, though without any direct reference to this passage, the μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος is contrasted with the πρωτοκτιστοι, the highest order of angelic beings; and the word πρωτοκτιστος occurs more than once elsewhere in his writings(e.g. Strom. v. 14, 699). Nor again does the genitive case necessarily imply that the πρωτοτοκος Himself belonged to the κτισις , as will be shown presently. And if this sense is not required by the words themselves, it is directly excluded by the context. It is inconsistent alike with the universal agency in creation which is ascribed to Him in the words following, εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα, and with absolute pre-existence and self-existence which is claimed for Him just below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων. We may add also that it is irreconcilable with other passages in the Apostolic writings, while it contradicts the fundamental idea of the Christian consciousness. More especially the description πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως must be interpreted in such a way that it is not inconsistent with His other title of μονογενης, unicus, alone of His kind and therefore distinct from created things. The two words express the same eternal fact; but while μονογενης states it in itself, πρωτοτοκος places it in relation to the Universe. The correct interpretation is supplied by Justin Martyr,…πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων. He does not indeed mention this passage, but it was doubtless in his mind, for he elsewhere uses the very expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως…comp. also…, where the words πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων occur.
因此這個字所含有的主要意思有雙重，其一是與亞歷山大「道」的觀念有著更為直接的關連，另一是與巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」的觀念有著更近的相連。
1.「先於」一切造物。
換言之，表示子的絕對先存。乍看之下，似乎這裡是說基督是最早的，但也被看為是造物之一，然而這樣的詮釋並不需要這個字來表達。第四世紀的教父們注意到一個事實，就是使徒們所寫的不是πρωτοκτιστος （protoktistos）而是πρωτοτοκος（prototokos）。例如巴西流（Basil）…，再早一點亞歷山大的革利免（Clem. Alex.），雖無直接引此處經文，把「獨生和首生」（μονογενης και πρωτοτοκος）與作為天使之最高階的「首造」（πρωτοκτιστοι）相比較。而且「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）之一字不只一次出現在他其他的著作中。
再者，所有格不需要表示「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）是屬於「造物」（κτισις），正如待會兒所要說的。而且如果這個意思不從這些話的本身來得著（按意即該字在舊約裡的轉意特殊用法），上下文就直接把這個意思排除了。這樣也與接著描述他做萬有創造的憑藉的話－「萬有都是靠他造的」（或直譯「萬有都是在他裡面造的」）－不一致，也與下面緊接著宣稱他是絕對先存和自存的話－「他在萬有之先」－不一致。我們還可以加上一個，就是與使徒著作中其他的經文不相合，也與基督徒良心的基本思想相牴觸。甚且「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）必須在一種與「獨生」（μονογενη，unicus）不能不一致的方式裡來詮釋。「獨生」是獨自一類的，因此與造物迥別。
這兩個字同樣表明永恆的事實，然而「獨生」（μονογενης）用於陳述字的本身，「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）則把它擺在與宇宙的關係上。正確的詮釋乃是殉道者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）…所提供的：「神的首生和一切被造的以先」（πρωτοτοκον του θεου και προ παντων των κτισματων）。雖然他沒有真正提到這經文（按指西一15下），但是無疑地這是在他的心中的，因為在別處他用了「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως）這個特殊的發表。…也可比較…，那裡出現「一切工作品的首生」（πρωτοτοκος των παντων ποιηματων）這樣的話。
（2）Sovereignty over all creation.
God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler, the acknowledged head, of God’s household. The right of primogeniture appertains to Messiah over all created things. Thus in Ps. Ps. Lxxxix. 28 after πρωτοτοκος θησομαι αυτον the explanation is added, υψηλον παρα τοις βασιλευδιν της γης, i.e. (as the oroginal implies) ‘above all the kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic refernece this secondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word πρωτοτοκος, so that from this point of view πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως would mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture.’ The εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων of the Apostolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly corresponds to the θησομαι πρωτοτοκος of the psalmist (lxxxix. 28), and doubtless was tacitly intended as a paraphrase and application of this Messianic passage. So again in Heb. xii. 23, εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων, the most probable explanation of the word is that which makes it equivalent to ‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful Christians being ipso factor πρωτοτοκοι, because all are kings. Nay, so completely might this idea of dominion by virtue of priority eclipse the primary sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some of its uses, that it is given as a title to God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pentateuch, fol. 124. 4,…For other instances of secondary uses of בכור in the Old Testament, where the idea of ‘priority of birth’ is over-shadowed by and lost in the idea of “pre-emience,’ see Job xviii. 13 ‘the first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the first-born of the poor.’
2.「統管」萬有。
神的「長子」是神家裡理所當然的管理者、眾所公認的頭。統管所有造物的長子繼承權歸屬於彌賽亞。因此，詩八十九27在「立他為長子」之後，加了解釋的話：「為世上最高的君王」。在彌賽亞的引經裡，πρωτοτοκος這個字重在統治權的第二個思想，所以從這個觀點來看，πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（按是西一15下）意思是「由於長子名分而為統管萬有的主」。使徒著作的εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων（萬有的承受者，來一2）完全等同於詩篇作者的θησομαι πρωτοτοκος（立為長子，詩八十九27），而且無疑的是心照不宣地故意作為這個彌賽亞經文的釋意和運用。
所以，再一次在來十二23的εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων（眾長子的教會），這個字最可能的解釋是等同於「國度的繼承者」，就是根據事實，所有的基督徒都是長子（πρωτοτοκοι），因為都是王。不，所以完整的應該是由於居先而為掌權的意思，在有些用法裡脫離了「長子」這個詞的第一個意思，而用於神的本身…。在舊約裡，另一些בכור（prototokos，「長子」）作為第二種用法的例子裡，「頭生」的意思被「超越」的意思所遮蓋而失去，這見於伯十八13「死亡的長子」、賽十四30「貧寒人的長子」。
πασης κτισεως] ‘of all creation,’ rather than ‘of every created thing.’… The genitive case must be interpreted so as to include the full meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as already explained. It will therefore signify: ‘He stands in the relation of πρωτοτοκος to all creation,’ i.e. ‘ He is the Firstborn , and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.’ …Another explanation which would connect the genitive with the first part of the compound alone (πρωτο-), comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, πρωτος μου ην, unduly strains the grammar, while it excludes the idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’
πασης κτισεως]：「一切造物」比「每一造物」佳。…正如所已經解釋的，所有格的詮釋必須涵蓋到πρωτοτοκος（首生）完整的意思。因此表明「他與一切造物的關係是站在πρωτοτοκος（首生）的地位上」，亦即「他是首生，而作為首生，他是一切造物絕對的繼承者和統管的主。」
另一種解釋只將所有格連於複合字的第一部分(πρωτο-，proto-)，比較約一15、30「他本來在我以前」（πρωτος μου ην）。這是文法過度的曲解，這樣解就把「繼承權」、「統治權」的意思排除了。
The history of the patristic exegesis of this expression is not without a painful interest. All the fathers of the second and third centuries without exception, so far as I have noticed, correctly refer it to the Eternal Word and not to the Incarnated Christ, to the Deity and not to the humanity of our Lord. So Justin, … Theophilus, … Clement of Alexandria, … Tertullian, … Hippolytus, … Origon, …Cyprian, … Novatian, …and the Synod of Antioch….The Arian controversy however gave a different turn to the exegesis of the passage. The Arians fastened upon the expression πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως, and drew from it the inference that the Son was a created being. …Many orthodox fathers howevere, not satisfied with this, transferred the expression into a new sphere, and maintained that πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως describes the Incarnated Christ. By so doing they thought to cut up the Arian argument by the roots. As consequence of this interpretation, they were obliged to understand the κτισις and the κτιζεσθαι in the context of the new spiritual creation, the καινη κτισις of 2 Cor. V. 17, Gal. vi. 15. Thus interpreted πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως here becomes nearly equivalent to πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις in Rom. viii. 29.
教父解釋這個發表的歷史也是令人頭痛又有興趣的。就我所知，所有第二、三世紀的教父無一例外的，都正確的指向永恆的道，而不是成為肉身的基督；都指向我們主的神性，而非其人性。所以猶斯丁（Justin）、…提阿非羅（Theophilus）、…亞歷山太的革利免（Clement of Alexandria）、…特土良（Tertullian）、…希波律陀（Hippolytus）、…俄利根（Origen）、…居普良（Cyprian）、…諾窪天（Novatian）以及安提阿信條（the Synod of Antioch）。（按都是這樣認為）。然而因著亞流的爭議，使得這個經文的釋經轉了一個不同的方向。亞流者緊抓πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）的發表不放，從這裡推論生出子是一個受造物。…然而許多正統的教父並不滿意於此，將這發表轉到另一個新的領域裡去，主張πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως（一切造物的首生）是描繪成為肉身的基督。他們認為這樣做可以斬斷亞流者論辯的根，豈知這樣詮釋的結果，他們只好被迫將經文中的「造物」（κτισις，按是西一15）和「創造」（κτιζεσθαι，按是西一16）領會為屬靈的新造，就是林後五17和加六15的「新造」（καινη κτισις）。因此詮釋這裡的「一切造物的首生」（πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως），幾乎把它等同於羅八29的「在許多弟兄中作長子」。
The arguments alleged in favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold:
(1) That, if applied to the Divine nature, πρωτοτοκος would contradict μονογενης which elsewhere describes the nature of the Eternal Son. But those who maintained, and rightly maintained, that πρωτοτοκος (Luke ii 7) did not necessarily imply that the Lord’s mother had other sons, ought not to have been led away by this fallacy.
(2) That πρωτοτοκος in other passages (e.g. Rom.viii. 29, Rev. i. 5, and just below, ver. 18) is applied to the humanity of Christ. But elsewhere, in Heb. i. 6 οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον κ.τ.λ., the term must almost necessarily refer to the pre-existence of the Son; and moreover the very point of the Apostle’s language in the text ( as will be seen presently) is the parallelism in the two relations of our Lord- His relation to the natural creation, as the Eternal Word, and His relation to the spiritual creation, as the Head of the Church- so that the same word (πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως ver. 15, πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων ver. 18) is studiously used both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a nemesis on itself. Logical consistency required that this interpretation should be carried farther; and Marcellus, who was never deterred by any considerations of prudence, took this bold step. He extended the principle to the whole context, including even ικων του αορατου θεου, which likewise he interpreted of our Lord’s humanity. In this way a most important Christological passage was transferred into alien sphere; and the strongest argument against Arianism melted away in the attempt to combat Arianism on false grounds.
爭論裡把它說成傾向這樣的解釋的主因有二：
(1).若是用於神聖的性情（按即神性，下同），那麼「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）將與別處用來描繪永恆之子的性情：「獨生」（μονογενης）相牴觸。但那些主張，且是正確主張「首生」（路二7）並不須要含有主的母親有其他的兒子們的意思的，不應該被這謬論帶走了。
(2).「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）在別處經文（如羅八29，啟一5，18）用於基督的人性。然而在別處（來一6「神再使長子到世上來的時候…」，οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον κ.τ.λ.），這詞必須幾乎全然指先存的子，更有甚者是，使徒在上下文裡用語主要的點（正如待會兒所要說的）是兩個關乎我們的主的對句：作為永恆的道，是他與自然造物（按即一切舊造）的關係；作為教會的頭，是他與屬靈創造（按即一切新造）的關係。所以同樣一個字（15節「一切受造的首生」πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，18節「死人中的首生」πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων）是精心設計地用於二者。錯誤的解經當然給自己招來報應。邏輯的一致性要求（按迫使、逼著）這樣的解釋被帶往前去，而馬西流（Marcellus）從來沒有被深思熟慮所阻止，他走了大膽的一步。他擴展這個原則到整個上下文，甚至包括了「不能看見之神的像」，也把它解釋為主的人性。如此一來，一個關於基督論最為重要的經文，被轉到另一個全然不同的領域裡去了，而（本來）最強而有力反對亞流主義的論據，反而因為在錯誤的基礎上試圖與亞流主義爭戰時流失了。
The criticism of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly just… The objection to this interpretation are threefold :
(1) It disregards the history of the terms in the connexion with the pre-Christain speculations of Alexandrian Judaism.These however, though directly or indirectly they were preset to the minds of the earlier fathers and kept them in the right exegetical path, might very easily have escaped a writer in the fourth century.
(2) It shatters the context.To suppose that such expressions as εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης, or τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται, or τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν, refer to the work of the Incarnation, is to strains language in a way which would reduce all theological exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as Marcellus truly saw, is a strictly logical consequence of the interpretation which refers πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως to Christ’s humanity.
(3) It takes no account of the cosmogony and angelology of the false teachers against which the Apostle’s exposition here is directed…
優西比烏對於馬西流（Marcellus）的評語是公正的…。反對這樣的詮釋有三重：
(1) 它忽略了這些用詞與在基督徒之前的亞歷山大猶太教思想相關連的歷史。這些雖然直接或間接地預置於早期教父們的心裡，也保守他們在正確釋經的路上，然而，卻可能非常輕易地就從第四世紀的作者身上失去了。
(2)它忽略了上下文。假設諸如：「萬有都是在他裡面造的，無論是天上的，地上的」（εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα [τα] εν τοις ουρανοις και [τα] επι της γης），或「一概都是藉著他造的」（τα παντα δι αυτου…εκτισται），或「萬有也靠他而立」（τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν），都指道成肉身的工作，那麼這是曲解文義到一個地步，使一切神學上的釋經降到一堆混亂裡去。
(3)它沒有考慮到與使徒這裡所闡述的相對立之假教師的宇宙起源論和天使學…。
This interpretation is given by St. Athanasius….and appears again in Greg. Nyss.…Cyril Alex…. St. Athanasius indeed does not confine the expression to the condescension…of the Word in the Incarnation, but includes also prior condescension in the Creation of the world….This double reference however only confuses the exegesis of the passage still further, while theologically it might lead to very serious difficulties…St. Basil,..himslef prefers explaining it of the Eternal word…Of the Greek commentators on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is not clear; Severianus… and Theodoret …understand it rightly of the Eternal Word; while Theodoro of Mopsuestia…expresses himself very strongly on the opposite side. Like Marcellus, he carries the interpretation consistently into the whole context, explaining εν αυτω to refer not to the original creation（κτισις）but to the moral re-creation（ανακτισις）, and referring εικων to the Incarnation in the same way. At a later date, when the pressure of an immediate controversy has passed away, the Greek writers generally concur in the earlier and truer interpretation of the expression. Thus John Damascene,…Theophylact,…CEcumenius, all explain it of Christ’s Divine Nature. Among Latin writers there is more diversity of interpretation. While Marius Victorinus,…Hilary of Poictiers,…Hilary the commentator, take it of the Divine Nature, Augustine,…Pelagius…understand it of the Incarnate Christ.
這樣的詮釋是亞他那修（Athanasuis）所給的，…且出現在尼撒的貴格利（Greg. Nyssa）…、亞歷山大的區利羅（Cyril Alex.）…。聖亞他那修的確不是把這個發表侷限在「道」的成為肉身時的紓尊降貴，也包括在創造世界前的紓尊降貴…。然而，這種雙重的旁註只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。…聖巴西流…較喜解釋之為永恆的道…。這經文，希臘的註釋者中屈梭多模（Chrysostom）的觀點不清，塞凡流斯（Serverianus）…和狄奧多勒（Theodoret）…確定領會為永恆的道。然而摩普妥提亞的狄奧多若（Theodoro of Mopsuestia）強烈表達他是站在另一邊。就像馬西流（Marcellus），他將整個上下文作一致的詮釋，他解釋「在他裡面」（εν αυτω，按和合本「靠他」）不是指原先的創造（κτισις），而是指道德的複造（ανακτισις，按指新造），而同樣將「像」（εικων）解為道成肉身者。
稍後，當直接爭論的壓力過了之後，整體來說希臘的作者們與較早期、較正確的詮釋看法一致。（按指「首生」是指永恆的道，而不是他的人性）。因此，達馬新約翰（John Damascene）、…狄奧非拉（Theophylact）、…色克曼紐斯（CEcumenius），都將其解釋為基督的神聖性情。拉丁的作者們在詮釋上則較為多樣。維克多林納斯馬流（Marius Victorinus）、波依克提爾的希勒立（Hilary of Poictiers）…、解經家希勒立（Hilary the commentator）等，將其解釋為基督的神聖性情；奧古斯丁（Augustine），…伯拉糾（Pelagius）…，將其認為是成為肉身的基督。
（J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes and Dissertations, pp.146-150, Repr. Ed. Of 1879 edition, Zondervan Publishing House）
評論：
一、之所以列出幾乎J.B. Lightfoot西一15下整段的評文，目的是要讀者知道其內容，不讓任何人有異想天開的空間曲解其意，引之往自己「錯誤」的臉上貼金。請讀者不殫其煩地讀完它，相信必有斬穫。J.B. Lightfoot的著作具足份量、權威，原則上討論西一15及其上下文的著作，聖經學者幾無不引用其評註做為佐證、加強。同樣的，他的加、腓、西、門四卷書的註解也是經典之作，至今仍為聖經學者、神學家、解經家所津津樂道。此君的解經嚴謹、學識淵博、眼光銳利、思想宏大、思路清楚，所寫文章引經據典，精闢深入，點點中肯，點點命中要害。
Lightfoot不僅詳述西一15「prototokos」一字在舊約聖經裡的特殊用法、亞歷山大猶太教哲學家（如Philo）「道」觀念的闡述和巴勒斯坦「彌賽亞」觀念的思想、文法分析，同時也詳細追查第二至第五世紀教父們關於此處經文的解釋。關於教父，他清楚講述亞流異端前（第四世紀以前）教父們的「正確」詮釋，也講明因應亞流異端時，當代教父（第四、五世紀）所採「轉彎」的詮釋時所帶給他們自己的困擾，也講明亞流事件趨緩之後，回歸正確詮釋的情形。Lightfoot的贊同具足理由，他的反對也同樣具足理由。讀者若詳讀其文，且清楚其意，必會珍賞如此經典權威之詮釋，且以其斷案為斷案。
二、西一15「首生」之意有二，一為「先於」一切造物，一為「統管」萬有，這是夠清楚的了。讀者不必遷就第四、五世紀教父的說法，正如他們為了起來反對亞流的異端，也採了一個遷就的辦法來詮釋西一15的「首生」。這樣的詮釋，正如Lightfoot所說的：「只會更進一步混淆這經文的解釋，且在神學上把它帶往嚴重的難題。」當時他們以為這樣做可以徹底斬斷亞流異端論辯的根，誰知這樣詮釋的結果，使他們被迫將經文中的西一15「一切造物」和西一16的「萬有」的創造領會為屬靈的「新造」（林後五17，加六15）。這樣的詮釋把原本「首生」與「一切造物」關係的居先、居上、居首，等同於基督在他復活之後才帶進的新造，就是他「在許多弟兄中作長子」（羅八29）的關係。這樣的詮釋把自己鎖死了，無法正確合宜的顧到西一15的上下文。
西一15的「像」是論愛子與父神的關係，「首生」是論他與一切造物的關係，16至17節是他與一切造物的關係進一步的說明和解釋（以上均指基督未成肉身前的神性，即他是永恆的道），18節才是講他與新造教會的關係，這是他的復活所帶進來的，而20至22節才回頭講他所成就的救贖，因為藉著救贖才能帶進和好、新造。15節的「首生」的確是指「永恆的道」，就是父的愛子，他在創世前已存，他在萬有之先、之上，且統管這一切。15節的「首生」不應該解為「成為肉身的基督」，藉復活產生新造，使他在許多弟兄中作長子。這樣的解釋的確是牽強，不是上下文所要表達的。
三、我們當注意的是，並不因為是第四、五世紀的教父，他們在解經上就不會有錯誤和偏差。當然亞流是全然錯誤的，然而當時的教父在對付這異端時卻也矯枉過正地產生了偏差（其中以馬西流Marcellus最甚）。對於他們的解經我們不可盡信，但也當知道他們這樣做乃是時代背景所使然。
一件非常重要的事讀者當知道的，就是即便如亞他那修所採牽強的雙重解釋（「永恆的道」或「基督的神性」與「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」）或其他一些教父所採的偏差單一的解釋（「道成肉身的基督」或「基督的人性」），他們卻從無一人說基督乃「神的造物」，是「神造物的第一項（個）」。這樣說不啻與保羅當時的諾斯底派所說的相同，也與他們當時亞流的錯謬同流，這是他們不能苟同的。他們不會離譜到一個地步，把基督說成是「神造物的第一項（個）」，這樣的說法正是他們當時所攻擊和極力反對的！因著亞流，才有尼西亞的信經；因著亞流，才有亞他那修的被逐。套一句保羅的話：「我素來所拆毀的，若重新建造，這就證明自己是犯罪的人。」（加二18）若正統的教父大力反對亞流的「基督受造論」，卻又高舉「基督乃為神的造物，且是第一項（個）」，這不是天底下最大的笑話麼？這不是天底下最大的矛盾麼？
四、既是這樣，凡根據西一15主張「基督是受造之物」，是「神的第一個造物」的是嚴重錯解聖經，是異端教訓。凡引述第四、五世紀教父著作，以其解釋「首生」為「道成肉身的基督」、「基督的人性」，而為「基督是受造之物」、「基督是神的第一個造物」做佐證的，不啻拉著教父們往自己錯誤的臉上貼金，甚至可以說是故意忽略當時的時空背景，置教會歷史的史實於不顧！不幸的是，前者出現在李常受許多解釋西一15的文字信息裡，也出現在「水流職事站」出版的刊物「肯定與否定」，第一卷、第一期「正統與異端的仲裁者－聖經」一文中之「異端中正端之處－基督是受造之物」一段中（該刊物第77～78頁）。讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/1-1/07heresy.htm
亦見於「肯定與否定」，第三卷、第一期「基督－受造之物的首生者」一文中（該刊物第56～64頁），讀者或可上網閱讀：
http://www.lsmchinese.org/big5/07online_reading/a&c/issues/3-1/3105.htm
亦見於「水流職事站」網站「真理論壇」：「辯明基督身位的純正信仰」的第四章「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://defenseoftruth.tychurch.org.tw/christ_person/chapter4.htm
後者則出現在「水流職事站」網站「真裡辯正」中：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」，第二篇 關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以自行上網瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
稀奇的是，該文宣稱：「十九世紀解經家雷德福（J B Lightfoot，1828 -1889）在其解經書中，詳細整理了從教會初期至第四世紀，歷代教父在此題上的不同見地。一般聖經學者公認，雷德福所作的歸納，是解釋此一歷史之爭的最好說明。」既是這樣，我們不禁要問，為甚麼不願接受其所敲定的斷案？該文大量引述Lightfoot文章的內容，卻未完整忠實的譯出全部或主要的部份。不但如此，Lightfoot清楚表明西一15的「首生」（prototokos）應指基督之神性，宣示他是先於一切造物、統管萬有，他強烈反對將之解為基督的人性，因為連帶的帶進後面經文錯誤勉強的解經，在對付亞流異端時反而自陷解經的泥沼裡。關於這一個，「真裡辯正」中的「回」一文，竟把他的斷案削弱為：「雷德福顯然傾向支持二、三世紀教父的觀點…」。這樣做，間接地使沒有讀過Lightfoot文章的讀者被誤導，也使他們產生誤判，這是筆者不能同意的。這種錯誤的信仰內容－「基督受造論」是被普世所有神的兒女、基督的教會所棄絕的。關於基督身位的詮釋是一件嚴肅的事，所有的論述、傳講都得謹慎小心！
Friday, December 5, 2008
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（六）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（六）
柒、聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案
以下摘錄一些聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案，有些譯自英文原著，有些是中文的著作，「參考聖經」（Reference Bible）的註解則置於最後。讀者若覺得研讀英文吃力，可以直接跳讀中文譯文。之所以同時將英文原著放進來，沒有別的用意，只為取信於眾。每段之後若有評論，是我個人下的。
一、Matthew Henry（1662-1714）
In the early ages the firstborn son possessed extra-ordinary privilege and honors. Hence the Hebrew term, and its correspondent word in other languages, acquired the secondary meaning of that which is chief and most excellent. Of these there are many examples in the Scripture, and in Jewish phraseology, the Holy and blessed God is called the Firstborn of the world, to signify his supremacy over all created beings. The just inference from what follows there is, that Christ is superior to all creatures, and that subsequently, in his proper and original nature, he cannot be a creature.- J.P. Smith
在早代長子擁有特權和尊榮。因此，在希伯來用詞和其他語言中對等的詞，產生了第二個意思，就是首領和最卓越的。這個在聖經中有許多例子，在猶太人的用詞裡，那聖潔可稱頌的神被稱為世界的「首生」，表明祂在造物之上的主權。從後面接著的話公正的推論，基督是優於一切造物，因此，就祂的本性而言，祂不會是個造物。（引J.P. Smith的話）
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.240）
Christ is the first-born of every creature. Not that he is himself a creature; he was born or begotten before all the creation, or any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us. It signifies his dominion over all things; as the first-born in a family is heir and lord of all, so he is the Heir of all things, Heb 1:2…Christ is so far from being himself a creature, that he is the Creator. For by him were all things created,…
基督是每一造物的首生（筆者按，是英文「欽定本」的翻譯），不是說祂是一個造物。祂是在所有造物之先被生。這是聖經表明永恆的方式，藉此神的永恆向我們表明。這表徵祂在上統管萬有。就如家中的長子繼承並統管一切，照樣，祂是萬有的承受者（來一2）。基督根本不是一個受造之物，祂是造物主，因為萬有都是被祂所造的…
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.241）
二、J.N. Darby（1800-1882）
But then what place can He have in creation when He has come into it according to the eternal counsels of a God? He could have but one, namely, that of supremacy without contestation and without controversy. He is the firstborn of all creation, that is a relative name, not one of date with regard to time. It is said of Solomon, “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Thus the Creator, when He takes a place in creation, is necessarily its Head….
那麼，當祂照著神永遠的定旨來到造物中時，祂在其中的地位為何？祂只能有一個，意即祂是至高無上、天下無匹的。祂是一切造物的首生，而首生是一個相對的名字，不是時間裡的一個日子。論到所羅門，「我要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」因此造物主，當祂來到造物中有其位時，祂必然是它的頭。…
He is then the image of the invisible God, and, when He takes His place in it, the firstborn of all creation. The reason of this is worthy of our attention-simple, yet marvelous: He created it. It was in the Person of the Son that God acted, when by His power He created all things, whether in heaven or in the earth, visible and invisible. All that is great and exalted is but the work of His hand; all has been created by Him (the Son) and for Him. Thus, when He takes possession of it, He takes it as His inheritance by right. Wonderful truth, that He who has redeemed us, who made Himself man, one of us as to nature, in order to do so, is the Creator. But such is the truth.
祂是不能看見之神的像，當祂在造物中有其位時，是一切受造之物的首生。這個的理由值得我們的注意－簡單卻是稀奇：祂創造了它。當神用祂的大能創造萬有（無論天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的）時，祂是在子的人位裡行動。一切偉大和崇高的乃是祂手的工作，一切都是藉著祂（子）造的，又是為祂造的。因此，當祂擁有它時，祂是有權利得它為產業。奇妙的真理就是，那救贖我們的是創造主。為了要這樣做，祂使自己成為人，成為就本質說是我們中間的一個人。而這是真理。
（J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Vol. 5, Bible Truth Publishers, 1980, Col. pp.12-13）
（達秘，聖經略解，第五冊，「歌羅西」，第12-13頁）
評論：達秘的話，第一段清楚強調基督首生的地位，就是作頭、居先的地位；第二段強調這樣的一位，為了救贖的緣故，來成為一個與我們一樣的人。這是福音叫人稀奇的地方，但這是聖經的真理！
若有人引達秘的話，說基督道成肉身，來成為與我們屬性相同的人，就將西一15的「首生」解為「造物中的第一個」，是明顯錯解了他的話。他從來沒有說過這樣的話！他在「聖經略解」西一15這裡所說的是：基督是造物主，祂是萬有的頭，為了救贖的工作，祂來成為一個人。
達秘在他的時代被譽為解經之王，這個封號絕非過獎。讀他的著作就知道他的解經是非常嚴謹、謹慎的。在西一15這麼重要的地方，他絕不會出差錯，叫人對他所說的起質疑。
人並不能因為基督為了救贖的工作來成為人，有了人性，就說基督是「受造之物，且是第一個」，這是錯誤的解經。基督來成為人，與基督是受造之物，是兩件大不同的事！
這種錯誤的「牽線」出現在「水流職事站」的網站「真裡辯正」：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」的第二篇：關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以上網自行瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
三、Henry Alford（1810-1871）
The first and simplest meaning is that of priority of birth. But this, if insisted on, in its limited temporal sense, must apply to our Lord’s birth from his human mother, and could have reference only to those brothers and sisters who were born of her afterward; a reference clearly excluded here. But a second and derived meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as a designation of dignity and precedence, implied by priority, cannot be denied. Cf. Ps. 89:27…, Exo.4:22…, Rom.8:29…, Heb.12:23…It would be obviously wrong here to limited the sense entirely to this reference, as the very expression below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων, shews, in which his priority is distinctly predicated. The safe method of interpretation therefore will be, to take into account two ideas manifestly included in the word, and here distinctly refer to – priority, and dignity, and to regard the technical term πρωτοτοκος as used rather with reference to both these, than in strict construction where it stands.“First-born of every creature” will then imply, that Christ was not only first-born of His mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father, before the worlds,- and that He holds the rank, as compared with every created thing, of first-born in dignity.
第一和最簡單的意思是第一個出生的，然而若這樣堅持，在它受限的時間意思裡，必須用於我們的主從祂肉身的母親而有的出生上，也只能與後來從她而生做祂弟妹的有關係。顯然地，這個關係在這裡是被排除掉的。然而πρωτοτοκος第二個和衍生出來的意思，是優越所表明的尊貴和領先的一個稱號，這是不能否認的。參考詩八十九27…，出四22…，羅八29…，來十二23…。
這裡若完全侷限於這種關係是明顯的錯誤，正如後面的發表「αυτος εστιν προ παντων」（祂在萬有之先）所表明的，清楚斷言祂在其中的優越。
安全詮釋的方法，乃是考慮包含在這字裡的二個思想，無疑的是：優越和尊貴。…因此「一切造物的首生」指明基督不僅是祂母親在世上所頭生的，也是在諸世界以前祂的父所獨生的。當祂與一切受造物相比時，祂擁有尊貴的首生地位。
...The Arians maintained that Christ is thus Himself declared to be a κτισις of God. It might have been enough to guard them from this, that as Chr. remarks, not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος advisedly used by the Apostle.
亞流主義者堅持…基督是神的一個造物（κτισις），…正如屈梭多模（Chrysostom）注意到的，使徒深思熟慮的用了「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）一字，而不是「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）。
(Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. III, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ, 1:15 notes, pp.202-203)
評論：保羅在西一15下的用詞非常謹慎，正如Henry Alford所說的，是經過深思熟慮的。他所要表達的乃是基督的超越和尊貴。若他所要表達的是基督乃受造之物的第一個，他的寫法應該是：「一切造物的首造」（ the first-created of all the created things）。這樣的寫法把基督貶低了，正和諾斯底異端的講法。若他所要表達的是所有受造之物也是神生的，正如基督是神生的，且是第一位，那麼他的寫法會是：「一切所生的首生者」（ the first-born of all born）。但這是泛神論，無法被接受。保羅寫的是：「一切造物的首生」（the first-born of all created things），因此他所表達的是一切都是被造的，唯基督是被生的，他之於萬物是居先、居首、居上的！
（未完待續）
柒、聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案
以下摘錄一些聖經教師（學者）的看法和斷案，有些譯自英文原著，有些是中文的著作，「參考聖經」（Reference Bible）的註解則置於最後。讀者若覺得研讀英文吃力，可以直接跳讀中文譯文。之所以同時將英文原著放進來，沒有別的用意，只為取信於眾。每段之後若有評論，是我個人下的。
一、Matthew Henry（1662-1714）
In the early ages the firstborn son possessed extra-ordinary privilege and honors. Hence the Hebrew term, and its correspondent word in other languages, acquired the secondary meaning of that which is chief and most excellent. Of these there are many examples in the Scripture, and in Jewish phraseology, the Holy and blessed God is called the Firstborn of the world, to signify his supremacy over all created beings. The just inference from what follows there is, that Christ is superior to all creatures, and that subsequently, in his proper and original nature, he cannot be a creature.- J.P. Smith
在早代長子擁有特權和尊榮。因此，在希伯來用詞和其他語言中對等的詞，產生了第二個意思，就是首領和最卓越的。這個在聖經中有許多例子，在猶太人的用詞裡，那聖潔可稱頌的神被稱為世界的「首生」，表明祂在造物之上的主權。從後面接著的話公正的推論，基督是優於一切造物，因此，就祂的本性而言，祂不會是個造物。（引J.P. Smith的話）
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.240）
Christ is the first-born of every creature. Not that he is himself a creature; he was born or begotten before all the creation, or any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us. It signifies his dominion over all things; as the first-born in a family is heir and lord of all, so he is the Heir of all things, Heb 1:2…Christ is so far from being himself a creature, that he is the Creator. For by him were all things created,…
基督是每一造物的首生（筆者按，是英文「欽定本」的翻譯），不是說祂是一個造物。祂是在所有造物之先被生。這是聖經表明永恆的方式，藉此神的永恆向我們表明。這表徵祂在上統管萬有。就如家中的長子繼承並統管一切，照樣，祂是萬有的承受者（來一2）。基督根本不是一個受造之物，祂是造物主，因為萬有都是被祂所造的…
（Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew to Revelation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, p.241）
二、J.N. Darby（1800-1882）
But then what place can He have in creation when He has come into it according to the eternal counsels of a God? He could have but one, namely, that of supremacy without contestation and without controversy. He is the firstborn of all creation, that is a relative name, not one of date with regard to time. It is said of Solomon, “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Thus the Creator, when He takes a place in creation, is necessarily its Head….
那麼，當祂照著神永遠的定旨來到造物中時，祂在其中的地位為何？祂只能有一個，意即祂是至高無上、天下無匹的。祂是一切造物的首生，而首生是一個相對的名字，不是時間裡的一個日子。論到所羅門，「我要立他為長子，為世上最高的君王。」因此造物主，當祂來到造物中有其位時，祂必然是它的頭。…
He is then the image of the invisible God, and, when He takes His place in it, the firstborn of all creation. The reason of this is worthy of our attention-simple, yet marvelous: He created it. It was in the Person of the Son that God acted, when by His power He created all things, whether in heaven or in the earth, visible and invisible. All that is great and exalted is but the work of His hand; all has been created by Him (the Son) and for Him. Thus, when He takes possession of it, He takes it as His inheritance by right. Wonderful truth, that He who has redeemed us, who made Himself man, one of us as to nature, in order to do so, is the Creator. But such is the truth.
祂是不能看見之神的像，當祂在造物中有其位時，是一切受造之物的首生。這個的理由值得我們的注意－簡單卻是稀奇：祂創造了它。當神用祂的大能創造萬有（無論天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的）時，祂是在子的人位裡行動。一切偉大和崇高的乃是祂手的工作，一切都是藉著祂（子）造的，又是為祂造的。因此，當祂擁有它時，祂是有權利得它為產業。奇妙的真理就是，那救贖我們的是創造主。為了要這樣做，祂使自己成為人，成為就本質說是我們中間的一個人。而這是真理。
（J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Vol. 5, Bible Truth Publishers, 1980, Col. pp.12-13）
（達秘，聖經略解，第五冊，「歌羅西」，第12-13頁）
評論：達秘的話，第一段清楚強調基督首生的地位，就是作頭、居先的地位；第二段強調這樣的一位，為了救贖的緣故，來成為一個與我們一樣的人。這是福音叫人稀奇的地方，但這是聖經的真理！
若有人引達秘的話，說基督道成肉身，來成為與我們屬性相同的人，就將西一15的「首生」解為「造物中的第一個」，是明顯錯解了他的話。他從來沒有說過這樣的話！他在「聖經略解」西一15這裡所說的是：基督是造物主，祂是萬有的頭，為了救贖的工作，祂來成為一個人。
達秘在他的時代被譽為解經之王，這個封號絕非過獎。讀他的著作就知道他的解經是非常嚴謹、謹慎的。在西一15這麼重要的地方，他絕不會出差錯，叫人對他所說的起質疑。
人並不能因為基督為了救贖的工作來成為人，有了人性，就說基督是「受造之物，且是第一個」，這是錯誤的解經。基督來成為人，與基督是受造之物，是兩件大不同的事！
這種錯誤的「牽線」出現在「水流職事站」的網站「真裡辯正」：「回覆唐守臨、任鍾祥《為真道竭力爭辯》之十點爭議」的第二篇：關於「基督是受造之物的首生者」一文中。讀者可以上網自行瀏覽：
http://www.cftfc.com/com_chinese/apologetics/reading.asp?title_no=4-19#2
三、Henry Alford（1810-1871）
The first and simplest meaning is that of priority of birth. But this, if insisted on, in its limited temporal sense, must apply to our Lord’s birth from his human mother, and could have reference only to those brothers and sisters who were born of her afterward; a reference clearly excluded here. But a second and derived meaning of πρωτοτοκος, as a designation of dignity and precedence, implied by priority, cannot be denied. Cf. Ps. 89:27…, Exo.4:22…, Rom.8:29…, Heb.12:23…It would be obviously wrong here to limited the sense entirely to this reference, as the very expression below, αυτος εστιν προ παντων, shews, in which his priority is distinctly predicated. The safe method of interpretation therefore will be, to take into account two ideas manifestly included in the word, and here distinctly refer to – priority, and dignity, and to regard the technical term πρωτοτοκος as used rather with reference to both these, than in strict construction where it stands.“First-born of every creature” will then imply, that Christ was not only first-born of His mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father, before the worlds,- and that He holds the rank, as compared with every created thing, of first-born in dignity.
第一和最簡單的意思是第一個出生的，然而若這樣堅持，在它受限的時間意思裡，必須用於我們的主從祂肉身的母親而有的出生上，也只能與後來從她而生做祂弟妹的有關係。顯然地，這個關係在這裡是被排除掉的。然而πρωτοτοκος第二個和衍生出來的意思，是優越所表明的尊貴和領先的一個稱號，這是不能否認的。參考詩八十九27…，出四22…，羅八29…，來十二23…。
這裡若完全侷限於這種關係是明顯的錯誤，正如後面的發表「αυτος εστιν προ παντων」（祂在萬有之先）所表明的，清楚斷言祂在其中的優越。
安全詮釋的方法，乃是考慮包含在這字裡的二個思想，無疑的是：優越和尊貴。…因此「一切造物的首生」指明基督不僅是祂母親在世上所頭生的，也是在諸世界以前祂的父所獨生的。當祂與一切受造物相比時，祂擁有尊貴的首生地位。
...The Arians maintained that Christ is thus Himself declared to be a κτισις of God. It might have been enough to guard them from this, that as Chr. remarks, not πρωτοκτιστος, but πρωτοτοκος advisedly used by the Apostle.
亞流主義者堅持…基督是神的一個造物（κτισις），…正如屈梭多模（Chrysostom）注意到的，使徒深思熟慮的用了「首生」（πρωτοτοκος）一字，而不是「首造」（πρωτοκτιστος）。
(Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. III, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ, 1:15 notes, pp.202-203)
評論：保羅在西一15下的用詞非常謹慎，正如Henry Alford所說的，是經過深思熟慮的。他所要表達的乃是基督的超越和尊貴。若他所要表達的是基督乃受造之物的第一個，他的寫法應該是：「一切造物的首造」（ the first-created of all the created things）。這樣的寫法把基督貶低了，正和諾斯底異端的講法。若他所要表達的是所有受造之物也是神生的，正如基督是神生的，且是第一位，那麼他的寫法會是：「一切所生的首生者」（ the first-born of all born）。但這是泛神論，無法被接受。保羅寫的是：「一切造物的首生」（the first-born of all created things），因此他所表達的是一切都是被造的，唯基督是被生的，他之於萬物是居先、居首、居上的！
（未完待續）
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（五）
關於西一15：基督是受造之物的第一個麼？（五）
陸、西一15下的文法
西一15下的原文是πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，英文直譯為「firstborn of all creation」，中文直譯為「一切受造之物的首生」。
Πρωτοτοκος（首生者）的後面πασης κτισεως（一切受造之物的）是所有格（genitive）不錯，但讀者不能因為它是所有格，就作「屬於」（possession）或「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）解，把它領會成首生者是一切受造之物中的一個，內含其中。這樣的領會、解釋和後面的經文是相衝突的，因為後面立刻說：「萬有都是靠他造的」（16），又說：「他在萬有之先；萬有也靠他而立。」（17）
希臘文中的所有格，必須根據上下文定其含意，不是一慨都是作「屬於」（possession）或「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）解，若是這樣，許多地方的領會、解釋、翻譯會錯得離譜，令人啼笑皆非。以下舉些實例作說明：
1. 「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive）：
這種所有格做主詞用，其所相連之名詞因它產生或因它而有。如「του εργου της πιστεως και του κοπου της αγαπης και της υπομονης της ελπιδος …」（帖前一3），直譯為「信心的工作，和愛心的勞苦，並盼望…的忍耐」。這裡的「信心」雖是所有格，但前面的「工作」是因它而出，因此文法上稱它為「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive），所以是「信心所產生的工作」或「從信心所生出來的工作」。照樣「愛心」、「盼望」也都是「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive），表明「勞苦由愛心而出」、「勞苦因愛心而有」，「忍耐由盼望而出」、「忍耐因盼望而有」。中文和合本聖經譯之為：「信心所做的工夫，因愛心所受的勞苦，因盼望…所存的忍耐」是正確的翻譯，也是不錯的翻譯。其他如「肉體的情慾（心思）」、「眼目的情慾」、「今生的驕傲」（約壹二16）
2. 「受詞所有格」（objective genitive）
這種的所有格作受詞用，為其相連名詞之動作的接受者，而該名詞非出於它。如「του πνευματος βλασφημια」（太十二31），直譯為「聖靈的褻瀆」。但真正的含意是「褻瀆聖靈」，而不是「聖靈的褻瀆」，因為所有格「聖靈的」在文法上是「受詞」，是「褻瀆」這名詞之動作的接受者或對象。因此若判之為「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），則「褻瀆」變成是聖靈的一部份，是屬於聖靈的，這是錯誤的。若判之為「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive），則「褻瀆」是從聖靈而出的，這也是不能成立的。因此譯為「聖靈的褻瀆」是錯誤的，正確的翻譯應該是「褻瀆聖靈」，就是聖靈是「褻瀆」這個名詞之動作的接受者或對象。
又如「εχετε πιστιν θεου」（可十一22），直譯為「（你們）要有神的信心」。但真正的含意是「你們當信神」，而不是「你們要有神的信心」，因為所有格「神的」在文法上是「受詞」，是「信」這名詞之動作的接受者或對象。因此中文和合本聖經譯之為：「你們當信服神」是正確的。
3. 「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）
非指「所有格」本身是部份的，而是指相連於所有格所的名詞是其中的一部份，至於所有格本身所代表的乃是全部。這個很容易判斷。如「αρχην των σημειων」（約二11），直譯為「神蹟的第一個」。這裡的所有格「神蹟」是指「所有的神蹟」，而這裡的「第一個」是指所有神蹟中的第一個，是內含在所有的神蹟中，因此是「頭一件神蹟」。又如「τους πτωχους των αγιων των」（羅十五26），直譯為「聖徒中的窮人」。這裡的所有格「聖徒」是指「所有在耶路撒冷的聖徒」，而這裡的「窮人」是指在這些聖徒中的窮人，因此是「聖徒中的窮人」。
4. 「比較所有格」（genitive of comparison）
這種所有格與相連的名詞彼此成比較的關係，產生高低、大小、先後。如「οτι πρωτος μου ην」（約一15，30），直譯為「因為他是第一（於）我的」。這裡的「第一」和所有格「我的」做比較，意思是他是「比我更第一」，因此整段是「因他本來在我以前」。再如「μη συ μειζων ει του πατρος ημων ιακωβ」（約四12），直譯為「你不大（於）我們的祖宗雅各」。這裡的「你」和所有格「我們的祖宗雅各」做比較，看何者為大。因此譯為「難道你比我們的祖宗雅各還大麼？」又如「ο πατηρ μειζων μου εστιν」（約十四28），直譯為「父是大我」。這裡的「父」和所有格「我」做比較，論誰為大。因此譯為「父是比我大的」。
從上下文看來，西一15的「πασης κτισεως」（「一切受造的」），較不可能作「主詞所有格」或「部分所有格」用，因為若是這樣，神的愛子只能是被造之物中的一部份，他只屬於被造之物，而所有的被造之物不會屬於他，也不歸他管轄統治！這樣看來它與「πρωτοτοκος」（「首生者」）的關係，較合適的是作「受詞所有格」或「比較所有格」用。若是前者則「一切受造的」是來自這位「首生者」，因此他是超越一切被造之物，在這一切之上。若是後者，則「首生者」是在一切被造之物以先。
西一15前半表達神的愛子基督之於父，是「那不能看見之神的像」，是父神的表明和顯出；後半表達神的愛子基督之於一切造物，是「首生的」，在這一切以先、以上。然後16～17節作為15節下半的解釋或補述，因為後面緊接著連接詞「因為」，表明後面的話是前面的解釋或補述。那裡說：「因為萬有都是靠他造的，無論是天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的；或是有位的，主治的，執政的，掌權的；一概都是藉著他造的，又是為他造的。他在萬有之先；萬有也靠他而立。」這樣解釋、補述的話就叫我們更有把握說西一15不是說：「基督是受造之物的第一個」，而是說：「萬有是出於基督，藉他而造。他在一切之先，也在一切之上」！我們這樣的解釋，就不致於曲解保羅的話，也不致於錯解神的話了。
（未完待續）
陸、西一15下的文法
西一15下的原文是πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως，英文直譯為「firstborn of all creation」，中文直譯為「一切受造之物的首生」。
Πρωτοτοκος（首生者）的後面πασης κτισεως（一切受造之物的）是所有格（genitive）不錯，但讀者不能因為它是所有格，就作「屬於」（possession）或「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）解，把它領會成首生者是一切受造之物中的一個，內含其中。這樣的領會、解釋和後面的經文是相衝突的，因為後面立刻說：「萬有都是靠他造的」（16），又說：「他在萬有之先；萬有也靠他而立。」（17）
希臘文中的所有格，必須根據上下文定其含意，不是一慨都是作「屬於」（possession）或「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）解，若是這樣，許多地方的領會、解釋、翻譯會錯得離譜，令人啼笑皆非。以下舉些實例作說明：
1. 「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive）：
這種所有格做主詞用，其所相連之名詞因它產生或因它而有。如「του εργου της πιστεως και του κοπου της αγαπης και της υπομονης της ελπιδος …」（帖前一3），直譯為「信心的工作，和愛心的勞苦，並盼望…的忍耐」。這裡的「信心」雖是所有格，但前面的「工作」是因它而出，因此文法上稱它為「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive），所以是「信心所產生的工作」或「從信心所生出來的工作」。照樣「愛心」、「盼望」也都是「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive），表明「勞苦由愛心而出」、「勞苦因愛心而有」，「忍耐由盼望而出」、「忍耐因盼望而有」。中文和合本聖經譯之為：「信心所做的工夫，因愛心所受的勞苦，因盼望…所存的忍耐」是正確的翻譯，也是不錯的翻譯。其他如「肉體的情慾（心思）」、「眼目的情慾」、「今生的驕傲」（約壹二16）
2. 「受詞所有格」（objective genitive）
這種的所有格作受詞用，為其相連名詞之動作的接受者，而該名詞非出於它。如「του πνευματος βλασφημια」（太十二31），直譯為「聖靈的褻瀆」。但真正的含意是「褻瀆聖靈」，而不是「聖靈的褻瀆」，因為所有格「聖靈的」在文法上是「受詞」，是「褻瀆」這名詞之動作的接受者或對象。因此若判之為「部分所有格」（partiative genitive），則「褻瀆」變成是聖靈的一部份，是屬於聖靈的，這是錯誤的。若判之為「主詞所有格」（subjective genitive），則「褻瀆」是從聖靈而出的，這也是不能成立的。因此譯為「聖靈的褻瀆」是錯誤的，正確的翻譯應該是「褻瀆聖靈」，就是聖靈是「褻瀆」這個名詞之動作的接受者或對象。
又如「εχετε πιστιν θεου」（可十一22），直譯為「（你們）要有神的信心」。但真正的含意是「你們當信神」，而不是「你們要有神的信心」，因為所有格「神的」在文法上是「受詞」，是「信」這名詞之動作的接受者或對象。因此中文和合本聖經譯之為：「你們當信服神」是正確的。
3. 「部分所有格」（partiative genitive）
非指「所有格」本身是部份的，而是指相連於所有格所的名詞是其中的一部份，至於所有格本身所代表的乃是全部。這個很容易判斷。如「αρχην των σημειων」（約二11），直譯為「神蹟的第一個」。這裡的所有格「神蹟」是指「所有的神蹟」，而這裡的「第一個」是指所有神蹟中的第一個，是內含在所有的神蹟中，因此是「頭一件神蹟」。又如「τους πτωχους των αγιων των」（羅十五26），直譯為「聖徒中的窮人」。這裡的所有格「聖徒」是指「所有在耶路撒冷的聖徒」，而這裡的「窮人」是指在這些聖徒中的窮人，因此是「聖徒中的窮人」。
4. 「比較所有格」（genitive of comparison）
這種所有格與相連的名詞彼此成比較的關係，產生高低、大小、先後。如「οτι πρωτος μου ην」（約一15，30），直譯為「因為他是第一（於）我的」。這裡的「第一」和所有格「我的」做比較，意思是他是「比我更第一」，因此整段是「因他本來在我以前」。再如「μη συ μειζων ει του πατρος ημων ιακωβ」（約四12），直譯為「你不大（於）我們的祖宗雅各」。這裡的「你」和所有格「我們的祖宗雅各」做比較，看何者為大。因此譯為「難道你比我們的祖宗雅各還大麼？」又如「ο πατηρ μειζων μου εστιν」（約十四28），直譯為「父是大我」。這裡的「父」和所有格「我」做比較，論誰為大。因此譯為「父是比我大的」。
從上下文看來，西一15的「πασης κτισεως」（「一切受造的」），較不可能作「主詞所有格」或「部分所有格」用，因為若是這樣，神的愛子只能是被造之物中的一部份，他只屬於被造之物，而所有的被造之物不會屬於他，也不歸他管轄統治！這樣看來它與「πρωτοτοκος」（「首生者」）的關係，較合適的是作「受詞所有格」或「比較所有格」用。若是前者則「一切受造的」是來自這位「首生者」，因此他是超越一切被造之物，在這一切之上。若是後者，則「首生者」是在一切被造之物以先。
西一15前半表達神的愛子基督之於父，是「那不能看見之神的像」，是父神的表明和顯出；後半表達神的愛子基督之於一切造物，是「首生的」，在這一切以先、以上。然後16～17節作為15節下半的解釋或補述，因為後面緊接著連接詞「因為」，表明後面的話是前面的解釋或補述。那裡說：「因為萬有都是靠他造的，無論是天上的，地上的；能看見的，不能看見的；或是有位的，主治的，執政的，掌權的；一概都是藉著他造的，又是為他造的。他在萬有之先；萬有也靠他而立。」這樣解釋、補述的話就叫我們更有把握說西一15不是說：「基督是受造之物的第一個」，而是說：「萬有是出於基督，藉他而造。他在一切之先，也在一切之上」！我們這樣的解釋，就不致於曲解保羅的話，也不致於錯解神的話了。
（未完待續）
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
