anyone among you who, when cornered, seeks to shore up his case by citing the servitude you yourselves admit for Christ, let him consider that Matthew joined “Messiah,” which encompasses both the human and divine natures, to the name “Jesus,” which according to you designates the human nature. What clearer proof could there be for the invalidity of your interpretation?

A further confirmation of our position is the angel Gabriel’s words to Mary when he addressed her: “He shall be the son of David,” as is solidly attested in the Gospel.

He went on: We have also found that your Creed of Faith states, “Jesus the Messiah is the first-born of all creation.” If by “first-born” you simply mean what people ordinarily call the eldest and foremost of a man’s children, that is permissible and actually corroborates our claim regarding his servitude. But if by that term you intend the first of the eternal beings, we know of no language in which “first-born” denotes anything other than the eldest among siblings, the very first of one’s offspring; and the first-born of creation must, by definition, belong to creation.

Just as the first-born of a man and a woman must be of their own species, and the firstfruits of a crop can only be fruit, so it is impossible for anyone to assert that the first-born of Adam’s children is an angel. Equally impossible is the notion that the first of manufactured things was not manufactured, or that the first of creatures was not created.

And God the Exalted has said in the Torah: