Colossians 1:15 - Exposition

Who is Image of God the invisible ( Colossians 2:9 ; Philippians 2:6 ; 2 Corinthians 4:4 ; Hebrews 1:1-3 ; Hebrews 11:27 ; John 1:1-3 , John 1:18 ; John 5:37 , John 5:38 ; 1 Timothy 1:17 ; Exodus 33:20 ; Job 23:1-17 . 8, 9). On "image" (Elsie), see Lightfoot's full discussion; and Trench's 'Synonyms.' The word is well defined by Philo ('On Dreams,' 1. § 40): "The image—no imitation, but the very archetypal representation itself ( αὐτὸ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον εἷδος )." This title the apostle had before conferred on Christ in 2 Corinthians 4:4 . There it is in the moral and redemptional attributes of the Godhead, manifest in "the illumination of the gospel," that Jesus Christ ( 2 Corinthians 4:6 ), the incarnate Redeemer, appears as "the Image of God:" hero the title is put upon him as representing the invisible God in all that pertains to nature and creation. The Colossian error rested on a philosophical dualism. It assumed an absolute separation between the infinite God and the finite, material world, which was viewed as the work of lower and more or less evil powers. To counteract it, therefore, the apostle's argument must go down to the foundation of things, and seeks for a true conception of the universe on which to ground itself. Accordingly, in this and the following verses, he bases the redeeming work of "the Word made flesh who dwelt among us," set forth in his previous Epistles, upon that of "the Word who was with God in the beginning, who was God, and through whom all things were made." He avoids, however, the term Loges, which must have been perfectly familiar to him in this connection—possibly to prevent misunderstanding (see Introduction, §§ 4, 7). Firstborn of all creation ( Romans 8:29 ; Hebrews 1:2 , Hebrews 1:6 ; John 1:18 ; Psalms 89:27 ). (On "firstborn," see again Lightfoot's invaluable note.) Primogeniture in early ages carried with it the rights of full heirship, involving representation of the father both in his religious and civil capacity, and in his sovereignty within the house ( Genesis 25:31 ; Genesis 27:29 ; Genesis 49:3 ; Deuteronomy 21:17 ; 1 Chronicles 5:1 ). But natural precedence, as in the ease of Esau and Jacob, may yield to Divine election, which gives a unique sacredness and separateness to the position and title of the firstborn. So Israel is Jehovah's firstborn among the nations ( Exodus 4:22 , Exodus 4:23 ; Jeremiah 31:9 ). What belonged to the chosen people under this title is, in the language of Psalms 89:27 , concentrated on the person of the Messianic King, the elect Son of David; and firstborn became a standing designation of the Messiah. The apostle has already applied it to Christ in his relation to the Church ( Romans 8:29 ; see below, Romans 8:18 ), as being not the eldest simply, but one intrinsically superior to and sovereign over those whom he claims for his brethren (comp. Romans 14:9 ). Here the historical birthright and actual sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ within the Church are affirmed to rest upon an original primacy over the universe itself. He is not the Church's only, but "all creation's Firstborn" (comp. Hebrews 3:3 - 6, "Son over his own house"—the house of him "who built all things'). The phrase is synonymous with the "Heir of all things" of Hebrews 1:2 , and the "Only-begotten" of John 1:18 . So far were the titles Firstborn and Only-begotten from excluding each other in Jewish thought that Israel is designated "God's firstborn, only-begotten," in the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon ( Psalms 18:4 ; also 4 Esdr. 6:58); and so entirely had the former become a title of sovereignty that God himself is called "Firstborn of the world" (Rabbi Bechai: see Lightfoot). Philo uses the equivalent πρωτόγονος of the Divine Word as the seat of the archetypal ideas after which creation was framed. This phrase has been a famous battle-ground of controversy. It was a chief stronghold of the Arians, who read "of (out of) all creation" as partitive genitive. This interpretation, while grammatically allowable, is exegetically and historically impossible. For verses 16 and 17 expressly and emphatically distinguish between "him" and "the all things" of creation. The idea of the Son of God being part of creation was foreign to St. Paul's mind ( Colossians 2:9 ; 1 Corinthians 8:6 ; Philippians 2:6-8 ), and to the thought of his day. Had such a misunderstanding occurred to him as possible, he would, perhaps, have expressed himself differently. Some of the early opponents of Arius gave to πρωτότοκος , against all usage, an active sense—"First-begetter of all creation." Athanasius, with ether Greek Fathers of the fourth century, in the stress of the same controversy, were led to propose whatsubsequently became the standard Socinian interpretation, understanding "creation" to mean "the new (moral) creation" (so also Schleiermacher)—against the whole scope of the context, and cutting the very nerve of the apostle's argument. The Jewish theosophy of the day distributed the offices of representing God, and of mediating between him and the creatures, amongst a variable and nebulous crowd of agencies—angels, words, powers— neither human nor strictly Divine. The apostle gathers all these mediatorial and administrative functions into one, and places them in the hands of "the Son of his love." Looking up to God, he is his Image: looking down on creation, he is its primal Head and Lord. "Creation," standing collectively without the article in antithesis to "Firstborn," is used qualitatively, or (as the logicians would say) intensively . This is better than making κτίσις a quasi-proper noun (Winer, Lightfoot), or rendering distributively, "every creature" (Meyer, Ellicott). (On this occasional collective use of πᾶς without article, see Kruger's 'Griech. Sprachlehre,' 1:50. 11.9.)