Notes on Col. i. 15. The phrase here used is susceptible, properly, of only one of the following significations, viz.: either (a) that he was the beginning of the creation in the sense that he caused the universe to begin to exist――that is, that he was the author of all things; or (b) that he was the first created being; or (c) that he holds the primacy over all, and is at the head of the universe. It is not necessary to examine any other proposed interpretations, for the only other senses supposed to be conveyed by the words, that he is the beginning of the creation in the sense that he rose from the dead as the first-fruits of them that sleep, or that he is the head of the _spiritual_ creation of God, are so foreign to the natural meaning of the words as to need no special refutation. As to the three significations suggested above, it may be observed, that the _first_ one――that he is the _author_ of the creation, and in that sense the _beginning_――though expressing a scriptural doctrine (Jn. i. 3; Ep. iii. 9; Col. i. 16), is not in accordance with the proper meaning of the word here used――ἀρχὴ. The word properly refers to the _commencement_ of a thing, not its _authorship_, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. The two ideas which run through the word as it is used in the New Testament are those just suggested. For the former――primacy in regard to time――that is properly the commencement of a thing, see the following passages where the word occurs: Mat. xix. 4, 8; xxiv. 8, 21; Mar. i. 1; x. 6; xiii. 8, 19; Lu. i. 2; Jn. i. 1, 2; ii. 11; vi. 64; viii. 25, 44; xv. 27; xvi. 4; Ac. xi. 15; 1 Jn. i. 1; ii. 7, 13, 14, 24; iii. 8, 11; 2 Jn. 5, 6. For the latter signification, primacy of rank or authority, see the following places: Lu. xii. 11; xx. 20; Ro. viii. 38; 1 Co. xv. 24; Ep. i. 21; iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16, 18; ii. 10, 15; Tit. iii. 1. The word is not, therefore, found in the sense of _authorship_, as denoting that one is the _beginning_ of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence. As to the _second_ of the significations suggested, that it means that he was the _first created being_, it may be observed (a) that this is not a _necessary_ signification of the phrase, since no one can show that this is the _only_ proper meaning which could be given to the words, and therefore the phrase cannot be adduced to prove that he is himself a created being. If it _were_ demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately _express_ that fact. But it cannot be made out from the mere use of the language here; and as the language is susceptible of other interpretations, it cannot be employed to prove that Christ is a created being. (b) Such an interpretation would be at variance with