Jesus was the image of god

JESUS WAS THE IMAGE OF GOD
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
2 Corinthians4:4 4The god of this age has blinded the
minds of unbelievers,so that they cannotsee the light
of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is
the image of God.
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
Christ As The Image Of God
2 Corinthians 4:4
R. Tuck
The glorious gospelof Christ, who is the Image of God. From 1 Corinthians
11:7 we learn that there is a sense in which man is the "image and glory of
God." In Colossians1:15 the Son of God is spokenofas the "Image of the
invisible God, the Firstborn of every creature." The word used in our text is
exactly equivalent to our word "likeness.""An image, or likeness, is a visible
representationof an object. So Christ, in his humanity, is a visible
representationof the unseenGod life revelationof the wisdom and powerof
God that man has receivedcan compare with that made in the life, death, and
resurrectionof the incarnate Son." The point to which we ask attention is this
- the gospelsets forth the glory of Christ. But, when it is rightly viewed, this is
found to be the setting forth of the glory of God. For God canonly be known
in image and symbol; and this is the perfectand wholly satisfactoryimage,
preciselyadapted to our human faculties and necessities.Jesus Christis the
"Brightness ofthe Father's glory, and the express Image of his person." His

sonship is the earthly presentation of the Divine fatherhood. The Son is the
very image of the Father. Philips Brooks wellsays, "This is the sum of the
work of the Incarnation. A hundred other statements regarding it, regarding
him who was incarnate, are true; but all statements concerning him hold their
truth within this truth - that Jesus came to restore the fact of God's
fatherhood to man's knowledge, and to its central place of power over man's
life. Jesus is mysteriously the Word of God made flesh. He is the Workerof
amazing miracles upon the bodies and the souls of men. He is the Convincer of
sin. He is the Saviour by suffering. But, behind all these, as the purpose for
which be is all these, he is the Redeemerof man into the fatherhood of God."
Christ brings the light of God's fatherly love to shine on prodigal and sinful
sons;that light wakens the old son spirit in their hearts, and wins them home,
in penitence and faith, to their heavenly Father. And just this is the mission of
Christ and his gospel - to shine God's light into men's souls. - R.T.
Biblical Hermeneutics
Home
Questions
Tags
Users
Unanswered
In 2 Corinthians 4:4 why does Paul call Jesus the “image of God”?
Ask Question
Asked1 year ago
Active 11 months ago
Viewed 192 times

2
1
2 Corinthians 4:4 ... in whose casethe god of this world has blinded the minds
of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospelofthe glory
of Christ, who is the image of God. (NASB)
Why does Paul refer to Jesus as the "image of" God in this context? Is Paul
being careful so that those who see the glory of Godin the face of Jesus Christ
know that they are not actually seeing God but rather God's reflection
revealedin the face of Jesus Christ, his "image"? And being only an image,
there is no dangerof death by seeing so no veil is required?
2-corinthians
share
improve this question
edited Sep 15 '18 at 15:40
Constantin Jinga
8192
2 silver badges
12
12 bronze badges
askedSep15 '18 at 12:06

Ruminator
3,8713
3 gold badges
11
11 silver badges
46
46 bronze badges
We can't imagine an image being bearable to mean it isn't personally God you
are seeing, becauseScripture says Moses sawGodunder a visible form that
didn't kill Him, likewise Isaiah, and so on. 'You cannot see my face and live'
clearly therefore means you cannot see the unveiled nature of God as He is,
but only a manifestationvisibly of one or more of His attributes. – Sola Gratia
Sep 15 '18 at 12:59
So by Paul saying that Jesus is the "image of God" and since he canbe gazed
upon, then Jesus must be "only a manifestationvisibly of one or more of His
attributes"? – Ruminator Sep 15 '18 at 13:05
I don't believe I conflatedwhat Paul intends by the word 'image' and what the
Prophets saw when they "saw God." – Sola Gratia Sep15 '18 at 13:09

So why can one stare into the face of the risen, glorified Jesus Christbut not
God? – Ruminator Sep 15 '18 at 13:17
2
Becauseit is a glorified human nature that you are seeing. God's divine nature
isn't glorified. No one will eversee God exceptthose in heaven. They can't. –
Sola Gratia Sep 15 '18 at 13:19
show 7 more comments
3 Answers
active
oldest
votes
4
First, the subtle paradox is to be recognizedin the words, "image of the
invisible [i.e. not having a visible element] God." Immediately one considers
that something else is meant by 'image.' A representationor display for sure,
but not merely visual. An intimation of what God is, but not visibly.. but
rather personally.
I'm reminded of a passage inWisdom 7 which appears to have been in the
author of Hebrews'mind in chapter 1:
Wisdom 7:24-27 (DRB)
For wisdom is more active than all active things: and reacheth everywhere by
reasonof her purity. 25 For she is a vapour of the powerof God, and a certain
pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God: and therefore no defiled
thing cometh into her. 26 For she is the brightness* of eternallight, and the
unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness.

Hebrews 1:3 (DRB)
[The Son] Who being the brightness* of his glory, and the figure of his
substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making
purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.
* The Greek wordἀπαύγασμα translated"brightness" (but which more
accuratelymeans 'effulgence')appears only here and in Wisdom in all of the
Bible. Couple this with the unity of subject matter and we have a solid case for
this being in the mind of the writer.
Wisdom is personified to a greatextent in this Book (and indeed the other
wisdom literature) in preparation for themes takenup and developedfurther
in the New Testament(cf. 1 Cor1:24). Notably, Wisdom is deified quite
unhesitatingly, and without scruple: intended to show that Wisdom is spoken
of as distinct from God more or less as a rhetoricaldevice—Godhas never
been without Wisdom (Jn 1:1; cf. Lk 7:35); and how could He have been?
God is invisible because aninfinite and ineffable Being cannot have a literal
shape or dimension by definition, and thus no 'appearance'that isn't
percievedpurely by other means than what we would consider'vision.' The
image of this God must therefore 'relate'or otherwise 'show forth' the nature
of God, much like an icon relates doctrine by visible image yet doesn'tpretend
to comprehensively suffice as a representationof the figures (i.e. be the thing
represented).
A very striking passageis found in John, where we read that the Apostles ask
to be shownthe Father. Note Jesus'response:
John 14:8 (DRB) Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is
enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and
have you not known me? Philip, he that seethme seeththe Father also. How
sayestthou, Shew us the Father?
Cf. John 14:7.
This is so interesting. Jesus is not the Father (Jn 15:26;Mt 3:17) but:
John 1:18 (DRB)

No man hath seenGod at any time: the only begottenSon who is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared him.
The word translated 'declared'is perhaps closerto 'explain' or 'reveal' or
'relate faithfully.' This passageexplicitly precludes the notion that those that
saw God in the Old Testamentwere seeing the Father, and that rather they
saw the Son:
John 12:37-41 (DRB)
And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in
him: 38 That the saying of Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said:
Lord, who hath believed our hearing? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord
been revealed?
39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias saidagain:
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not
see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I
should healthem.
41 These things said Isaias, whenhe saw his glory, and spoke of him.
Isaiah6:1-10 LXX (Brenton)
And it came to pass in the year in which king Ozias died, that I saw the Lord
sitting on a high and exaltedthrone, and the house was full of his glory. ... For
the heart of this people has become gross, andtheir ears are dull of hearing,
and their eyes have they closed;lest they should see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I
should healthem.
Cf. 1 Corinthians 2:8; Isaiah44:6/Revelation2:8.
The Son is God the Father to His creation. His Word. His manifest intent and
communication otherwise unknowable (Mt 11:27). This is how we deal with
the paradoxical'image of [something invisible].' When God makes Himself
known, that is the Son.

share
improve this answer
answeredSep15 '18 at 21:59
Sola Gratia
4,7495
5 silver badges
21
21 bronze badges
Intuitive and informative. (+1). – Nigel J Sep15 '18 at 22:40
God is "invisible" only in that we can't see him from where we are. He is
invisible to us because if we see him we die. But why does Paul mention that
Jesus is God's image in this context? What is his point? – Ruminator Sep 16
'18 at 10:55
@ Sola Nice insight into the "image of the invisible" +1 – alb Sep 16 '18 at
14:05

John 1:18 is interesting: often translated as 'only begottenSon', the Greek
words literally translate in this case as 'only begottenGod'... – Possibility Oct
11 '18 at 4:32
add a comment
0
The point of using “image” in 2 Cor 4:4 is another reference to Christ’s deity.
2 points relative to your questioning Paul's usage of the word “image”.
There is a very interesting usage of the same word EIKON (image) in
Hebrews 10:1 (AKJV)
For the law having a shadow of goodthings to come, and not the very image of
the things, cannever with those sacrificeswhichthey offered year by year
continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
In this verse, the writer is pointing out that the law is only a metaphor for the
true spiritual reality. He says the law is a shadow and not the very image of
the heavenly things. In this usage the word “image” represents the actual
reality.
Hebrews 1:1-3 (AKJV)
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spokenunto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself
purged our sins, satdown on the right hand of the Majestyon high;
“Express Image”:
Strongs:Greek CHARAKTER: exactcopy;

Vines: “In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3 of the Son of God as
‘the very image’(marg ‘the impress’) of His substance. The phrase expresses
the factthat the Sonis both personallydistinct from and yet literally equal to,
Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint (Liddon). The Son of God in
not merely his image (His CHARAKETER). He is the image or impress of his
substance or essence. Itis the fact of complete similarity which this word
stressesin comparisonwith those mentioned at the end of No 1. (EIKON).”
“In John 1:1-3, Col1:15-17 and Heb 1:2-3, the specialfunction of creating and
upholding the universe in ascribedto Christ under His titles of Word, Image
and Son, respectively. The kind of Creatorshipso predicated of Him is not
that of a mere instrument or artificer in the formation of the world, but the
One by whom, in whom and for whom all things were made and through
whom they subsist. This implies the assertionofHis true and absolute
Godhead(Laidlaw, in Hastings’Bib. Dic).”
share
improve this answer
answeredSep16 '18 at 13:34
alb
1,7742
2 silver badges
14
14 bronze badges

To say that something is an image of something else is to say that it is not the
thing itself. At leastin the normal use of language. So if he wanted to say
"Jesus is Almighty God" why doesn't he say so? Why not say, "Godis a
Trinity - eternally existing in 3 co-equalpersons? Insteadhe says the father
alone is God and Jesus is the image of God(as was Adam). What's his point?
If, as you say, his point is that Jesus is eternally co-equalto God then he's
doing a really lousy job. – Ruminator Sep 16 '18 at 14:20
Well, I would remember that it's the Holy Spirit who chose the words leaving
room for faith. BTW, did you not read Hebrews 10:1? The verse says the
image is the thing! "The law is only a shadow of the goodthings that are
coming—notthe realities themselves." (NIV) – alb Sep16 '18 at 15:32
And Christ is only the image of God, not God himself. See Hebrews 1:1-3. –
Ruminator Sep 16 '18 at 17:26
Hebrews 10:1 is not saying that the law and Jesus'work were both the same
thing only one was real. What it is actually saying is that the law did NOT
provide the form of the goodthings to come, only the "shadow". Theyhad the
generaloutline of a propitiatory death but the details were different. Jesus'
death was the ratifying death of the new covenant with the houses of Israel
and Judah. So while the law containedsacrifices it did not contain a ratifying
death. Jesus'actualwork included that. – Ruminator Sep17 '18 at 11:59
"Express image" is Trinitarian corruption. If you look at the lexicon it gives
the words actualusage in extant Greek but when it comes to the scriptures it
creates a bogus meaning of "exactrepresentation" which, even in its
corrupted form shows that Jesus is a copy, not the original but gives a false
impression. The point is that Jesus is not "the same substance" with the

Father (who alone is God) but rather he's a reflection, like the moon is of the
sunlight, only 20% of the light. – Ruminator Sep 17 '18 at 12:08
show 1 more comment
BecauseJesus is, to coin a phrase, he was, the living image (copy) of his Father
(creator).
Jesus saidat:-
John 14:9 "Whoeverhas seenme has seenthe Fatheralso. . . ."
To put it another way, he was just like Jehovahin that he reflectedpersonality
perfectly. ethos
◄ Colossians 1:15 ►
The Son is the image of the invisibleGod, the firstborn
over all creation.
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
Christ's Headship Over Nature
Colossians 1:15-17
T. Croskery
The Gnostic errorists at Colossae taughtthat the gulf betweenthe infinite God
and finite man was bridged acrossby subordinate angelic agencies.The
apostle teaches thatthe gulf is bridged by Jesus Christ, who, being both God
and Man, touches both and is the ReconcilerofGod and man. He shows that
Christ has a double sovereignty, a twofold mediatorial function - in relation to
the universe and in relation to the Church. Thus we have a most pregnant

statementconcerning the doctrine of the personof Christ with the view of
showing that there is a real mediation betweenGodand creation.
I. HIS RELATION TO THE INVISIBLE FATHER. "Who is the Image of the
invisible God." Christ is likewise called"the Brightness of the Father's glory,
the express Image of his person" (Hebrews 1:3).
1. The meaning of this image.
(1) Christ is not a mere likeness ofthe Father, like the head of a sovereign
stamped on a coin, or as a sonhears the features of his father.
(2) But he is an essentialmanifestationand embodiment of the Father. Thus
the invisible God becomes visible to man, according to our Lord's own words,
"No man hath seenGod at any time; the only begottenSon, who is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath revealedhim" (John 1:18). "He that hath seen
me hath seenthe Father" (John 14:9).
(3) It implies his perfectequality with the Father in respectto substance,
nature, and eternity. The Son is the Father's Image except in respectthat he is
not the Father.
2. Lessons to be drawn from this representationof Christ's glory.
(1) If we would know the Father, we must get into Christ by faith (2
Corinthians 4:4).
(2) As it is Christ's glory to be God's Image, be it our honour to be Christ's
image, in knowledge (Colossians3:10), in holiness, in righteousness
(Ephesians 4:21). We are "predestinatedto be conformed to the image of his
Son" (Romans 8:29).
(3) How great a sin it is to turn the glory of the incorruptible Godinto the
image of corruptible creatures" (Romans 1:23)!
II. CHRIST'S RELATION TO THE UNIVERSE. He is "the Firstborn of all
creation." As his being God's Image implies his eternal unity with God, so his
being the only begottenSon of God implies the distinctness of his Person. The

apostle thus guards the truth on one side againstArianism, on the other side
againstSabellianism. There are two ideas involved in this statement.
1. Christ has a priority to all creation. Arians refer to the passage as implying
that he is only one, though the very first, of createdbeings. But
(1) he is said here to be begotten, not created.
(2) He is declaredin the context to be "before all things," and therefore he is
no part of them.
(3) "All things" are declaredto be "made by him," but he is himself
necessarilyexceptedfrom the number of the things he created.
(4) The Scriptures elsewhere declarehis eternalpreexistence and Godhead.
2. Christ is sovereignLord of creationby right of primogeniture. The word
"Firstborn" is used of the Messiahalmostas his technical designation(Psalm
2:7), as we see by Hebrews 1:6, "Whenhe bringeth the First-begotteninto the
world." As such he is "Heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2: Romans 4:14). There
is thus implied a mediatorial function in the world as well as in the Church.
3. Christ is the actualCreatorof all things. "Forin him were all things
created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and invisible,
whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers." Thesewords
justify the title of "Firstborn of all creation." They were all created"in him,"
not merely "by him" - as if the germ of all creative powerand wisdom lay in
his infinite mind, as the sphere of their operation. The words impliedly
exclude the Gnostic idea that Christ was an inferior agentof the infinite God.
He was the creative centre of the universe. Mark:
(1) The extent of creation - "things in the heavens and things upon the earth."
This includes all creationas describedby locality.
(2) The variety of the creation - "whetherthings visible or invisible." This
division would include the sun, moon, stars, the earth with all its visible
glories, in one class;the angels and the souls of men in the other class.

(3) The orders of creation, "whetherthrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers." As Gnosticismplaced Christ among the higher intelligences, the
apostle places him far above all angelic intelligences ofevery order. It is not
possible to say whether these names represent various grades ofa celestial
hierarchy, but it is probable that they do; "thrones and dominions" belonging
to the first order, "principalities and powers" standing next, as including
spirits both good and evil. Christ made the angels.
4. Christ is himself the End or final Cause ofcreation. "All things have been
createdthrough him and for him." All things were createdby him as well as
for him - for the manifestation of his glory. "He that was the first Cause must
be the last End." The final destination of the universe is referred to the Son,
just as it is elsewhere ascribedto the Father(Romans 11:36). The Son is the
Centre of the world's final unity.
5. Christ is the Sustainerof the universe. "And by him all things consist." The
continued existence, as wellas the creation, of all things, depends upon him.
"My Father workethhitherto, and I work" (John 5:17). He "upholds all
things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). The sustaining unity of the
creationis in him
(1) because he maintains its order, appointing all things to their respective
ends;
(2) because he sustains the operation of all things, correlating means with
ends;
(3) because he secures the cooperationofall things, so that all things work
togetherfor his glory;
(4) because he maintains the perpetuity of all things. Thus Christ maintains
the cohesionofthe universe.
III. LESSONS TO BE DRAWN FROM CHRIST'S RELATION TO HIS
FATHER AND TO THE UNIVERSE.
1. We delight in the doctrine of Christ's divinity, which is the doctrine of
Christendom.

2. If he made angels and men, they may well worship him.
3. His relation to creationencourages us to hope that he will overrule all the
powerof nature for the growth of his Church. Even wickedmen will have no
powerto destroyhis Church. The creationproves his power, and his love
proves his goodwill.
4. The knowledge ofhis glory ought to deter from all creature worship.
5. We should ever pray that he would direct the work of our hands
continually. (Psalm90:7.)
6. We ought not to fret at Divine providence. (Psalm 37:2, 3.) The creative and
administrative work of Christ, in the natural order of things, is the comfort of
all believers. - T. C.
Biblical Illustrator
Christ the Image of the invisible God.
Colossians 1:15

The image of God
T. Guthrie, D. D.
We believe in many things we never saw, on the evidence of other senses than
sight. We believe in music, invisible odours, nay, in what we can neither hear,
taste, smell, nor touch — our own life, our soul. Thus it were irrational to
disbelieve in God because He is invisible. Still we are tempted to forgetHis
existence, and as for the ungodly "Godis not in all their thoughts."
I. I WOULD WARN YOU AGAINST ALLOWING GOD TO BE OUT OF
MIND BECAUSE HE IS OUT OF SIGHT.
1. This is a dangerto which our very constitution exposes us. Hence the
necessityof striving to walk by faith, not by sight. This is difficult because we
are creatures ofsense. The dead are out of sight and so often forgotten, the
eternal world, the devil, and so God.
2. Why should the invisibility of God be turned into a temptation to sin? It
should rather minister to holy care. How solemn the thought that an unseen
Being is ever at our side! Were this realized, then bad thoughts would be
banished, and unholy deeds crushed, and purity and heavenliness imparted to
the life and conduct.
II. THE VISIBLE REVELATIONS OF THE INVISIBLE IN THE OLD
TESTAMENTWERE MOST PROBABLYMANIFESTATIONSOF THE
SON OF GOD. To Jacobat Peniel, to Joshua at Jericho, to Manoah, to Isaiah
(chap. Isaiah6.), and to others God appeared. How are we to reoncile this
with "No man hath seenGod at any time"? Only by regarding these
appearances as manifestations ofHim who is "the image of the invisible God."
This is in perfect harmony with other passagesin the history of redemption.
We know for certain that the fruits of the incarnation were anticipated, and
the fruits of His death enjoyed before He died. Why not, then, the fact of the
incarnation? Viewed in this light, these Old Testamentstories acquire a
deeper and more enduring interest. In the guide of Abraham's pilgrimage I
see the guide of my own. Jacob's success inwrestling imparts vigour to my
prayers.

III. THE GREATNESSOF THE WORKER CORRESPONDS WITHTHE
GREATNESSOF THE WORK. It is not always so. Sometimes God
accomplishes mighty ends by feeble instruments in both nature and grace. But
redemption is differentiated in greatness,grandeur, and difficulty from all the
other works of God. It costmore love, labour, and wisdom than all yon starry
universe. But greatas is the work the Workeris greater — the visible Image
of the invisible God.
IV. GOD AS REVEALED VISIBLY IN JESUS MEETS AND SATISFIES
ONE OF OUR STRONGESTWANTS,
1. The secondcommandment runs more counter to our nature than any
other.(1) Look at the heathen world. Forlong ages the world was given up to
idolatry with the exception of a single people. To fix the mind on an invisible
Being seemedlike attempting to anchor a vesselona flowing tide. And as a
climbing plant, for lack of a better stay, will throw its arms round a rotting
tree; rather than want something palpable to which their thoughts might
cling, men have worshipped the Divine Being through the most hideous
forms.(2) Look at the proneness to sensuous worshipamong the Jews.(3)We
find the evidence of this prosperity in the Christian Church. Fancysome old
Roman rising from his grave on the banks of the Tiber, what could he suppose
but that the "EternalCity" had changedher idols, and by some strange turn
of fortune had given to one Jesus the old throne of Jupiter and assignedthe
crownwhich Juno wore in his days to another queen of heaven?
2. In what way are we to accountfor this universal tendency? It is not enough
to call it folly; the feelings from which it springs are deeply rooted in our
nature. You tell me that God is infinite, incomprehensible; but it is as difficult
for me to make such a Being the object of my affections as to graspa Sound or
detain a shadow. This heart craves something more congenialto my nature,
and seeksin God a palpable object for its affections to cling to.
3. Now see how this want is met in the Gospelby Him who "knowethour
frame." In His incarnate Son the Infinite is brought within the limits of my
understanding, the Invisible is revealed to my sight. In that eye bent upon me
I see Divine love in a form I can feel. God addresses me in human tones, and

stands before me in the fashion of a man; and when I fall at His feet with
Thomas I am an image worshipper but no idolater, for I bend to the "image of
the invisible God."
V. IN WHAT SENSE IS CHRIST THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD?
1. It means much more than mere resemblance;it conveys the idea of shadow
less than of substance. I have known an infant bear such a resemblance to his
father that what his tongue could not tell his face did, and people struck by
the likeness exclaimed, "He is the very image of his father." Such was Adam
in his state of innocence. Now it may be said that as our Lord, like the first
Adam, was holy, he is therefore called the image of God; yet that does not
exhaust the meaning, nor is it on that accountthat Paul calls Him the second
Adam. Nor have they sounded the depths who say He was so calledbecause
He was endowedwith power to do the works of God. For many others have
been in that sense equally images of God. But where are they representedas
"Godmanifest in the flesh"?
2. In Christ's characterand works we have a living, visible, perfect image of
the invisible God.(1)In Him we see the powerof God, and notably at the
grave of Lazarus. To make something out of nothing is a work more visibly
stamped with divinity than to make one thing out of another — a living man
out of lifeless dust, and then on that mountain side the bread multiplies.(2) In
Christ we have the image of a holy God.(3)In Christ we have the image of a
God willing and waiting to save.
(T. Guthrie, D. D.)
The image of the invisible God
H. W. Beecher.
I draw out from my pocketa little miniature, and look upon it and tears drop
from my eyes. Whatis it? A piece of ivory. What is on it? A face that some
artist has painted there. It is a radiant face. My history is connectedwith it.
When I look upon it tides of feeling swellin me. Some one comes to me, and

says:"What is that?" I say, "It is my mother." "Your mother" "I should call
it a piece of ivory with water-colourson it." To me it is my mother. When you
come to scratchit, and analyze it, and scrutinize the elements of it, to be sure
it is only a sign or dumb show, but it brings to me that which is no sign nor
dumb show. According to the law of my mind, through it I have brought back,
interpreted, refreshed, revived, made patent in me, all the sense of what a
loving mother was. So I take my conceptionof Christ as He is painted in dead
letters on dead paper, and to me is interpreted the glory, the sweetness, the
patience, the love, the joy-inspiring nature of God; and I do not hesitate to
say, "Christ is my God," just as I would not hesitate to say of that picture, "It
is my mother." "But," says a man, "you do not mean that you really suckedat
the breastof that picture?" No. I did not; but I will not allow any one to drive
me into any such minute analysis as that. Now I hold that the Lord Jesus
Christ, as represented in the New Testament, brings to my mind all the
effluence of brightness and beauty which I am capable of understanding. I can
take in no more. He is said to be the express image of God's glory. He reveals
to us a Godwhose interest in man is inherent, and who through His mercy
and goodnessmade sacrifices forit. God so loved the world that He gave His
only begottenSon to die for it. What is the only begottenSon of God? Who
knows? Who can know? ThatHis only begottenSon is precious to Him we
may know, judging from the experience of an earthly father; and we cannot
doubt that when He gave Christ to come into life, and humble Himself to
man's condition, and take upon Himself an ignominious death, He sacrificed
that which was exceedinglydear to Him. And this act is a revelation of the
feeling of God towardthe human race.
(H. W. Beecher.)
Christ the image of God
There is in Rome an elegantfresco by Guido — "The Aurora." It covers a
lofty ceiling. Looking up at it from the pavement your neck grows stiff, your
head dizzy, and the figures indistinct. You soontire and turn away. The
ownerof the palace has placed a broad mirror near the floor. You may now

sit down before it as at a table, and at your leisure look into the mirror, and
enjoy the fresco that is above you. There is no more weariness,nor
indistinctness, nor dizziness. Like the Rosplglioso mirror beneath "The
Aurora," Christ reflects the glory of the Divine nature to the eye of man.
Christ is intended to be familiarly known
The whole value of the gospels to Erasmus lay in the vividness with which they
brought home to their readers the personalimpression of Christ Himself.
"Were we to have seenHim with our own eyes, we should not have so intimate
a knowledge as they give us of Christ, speaking, healing, dying, rising again,
as it were in our very presence... If the footprints of Christ are shownus in
any place, we kneeldown and adore them. Why do we not rather venerate the
living and breathing picture of Him in these books?... "Itmay be the safer
course," he goes on, with characteristic irony, "to concealthe state mysteries
of kings, but Christ desires His mysteries to be spreadabroad as openly as
was possible." (Little's "HistoricalLights.)
The firstborn
J. Morison, D. D.
The expressionas it stands is somewhatambiguous.
1. Does it imply that all creatures have been born, but that Jesus was born
before them? Impossible. All human creatures have been born, all at leastbut
the first; and even he was "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). We are all "God's
offspring." But, exceptin poetry, we can scarcelyspeakofthe birth of the
earth, ocean, stars, etc. Theyhave been created, not born; they are the
creatures rather than the children of God.
2. Norcan the meaning be firstborn within the circle of all creation; for the
higher nature of Jesus is not within that circle:it is far above it; before
Abraham, and sun, moon, and stars, He was and is.

3. The apostle's idea is that Jesus is the hereditary Lord of the whole creation.
The representationis basedon the prerogative that is still attachedin many
lands to primogeniture. That prerogative is great. In virtue of it the first-born
of the Queenis Prince of Wales;of the Emperor of Germany, Crown Prince;
of the late Emperor Napoleon, Prince Imperial. In ancienttimes and among
the apostle's people, in the days of their national grandeur, there was a
corresponding privilege attachedto the royal firstborn. And hence in the
course of time the word came to be so employed that the ideas of birth and
priority of birth got sometimes to be merged out of sight, while the ideas of
specialhereditary privilege, prerogative, and honour stood prominently forth.
Hence God said to Pharaoh, "Israelis My son, My firstborn," because they
were in distinction from other peoples the recipients of the advantages which
were the natural prerequisites of primogeniture. Again in Jeremiah 31:9 the
idea of priority in birth is entirely shaded off, for that priority could not be
affirmed of Ephraim — the reference is to peculiarity of prerogative and
honour. Take againHebrews 12:22, 23. Here Christians are called the
firstborn, and not Christians in heaven, for they are distinguished from the
"spirits of just men made perfect," but Christians on earth. All such
Christians, though scattered, and variously denominated, are "the one general
assemblyand Church of the firstborn." This shows that the term may be and
is used without priority of birth, and in the sense ofbeing God's very highly-
favoured children. All the blessings of primogeniture are theirs because they
are Christ's, the Firstborn. As He is the Crown Prince of the universe, the
Prince Imperial and hereditary Lord of the whole creation, they are
constituted joint heirs with Him of the "inheritance incorruptible," etc. Again,
this interpretation is supported by Romans 8:29. "Firstborn among many
brethren" is a notable expression. We cannotsuppose that God desired to
secure the Saviour a relation of chronologicalpriority. Jesus was already
before all. The idea is that it was the aim of Godto remove from the peerless
Son the condition of solitariness in the parental and heavenly home. This aim
was accomplishedby surrounding Him with a circle of multitudinous
brethren, bearing the familiar family likeness, who might be sharers with Him
in His inheritance of glory.
(J. Morison, D. D.)

Christ is one of us
On the centenary of the birth of RobertStephenson, there was a very large
demonstration at Newcastle. The townwas paraded by a vast processionwho
carried banners in honour of the distinguished engineer. In the procession
there was a band of peasants, who carried a little banner of very ordinary
appearance, but bearing the words, "He was one of us." They were
inhabitants of the small village in which Robert Stephensonhad been born,
and had come to do him honour. They had a right to a prominent position in
that day's proceedings, becausehe to whom so many thousands did honour
was one of them. Even so, whateverpraise the thrones, dominions,
principalities, and powers canascribe to Christ in that grand celebration
when time shall be no more, we from earth can wave our banners with the
words written on them, "He was one of us."
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(15) The image of the invisible God.—This all important clause needs the most
careful examination. We note accordingly(1) that the word “image” (like the
word “form,” Philippians 2:6-7) is used in the New Testamentfor real and
essentialembodiment, as distinguished from mere likeness. Thus in Hebrews
10:1 we read, “The law, having a shadow of goodthings to come, and not the
very image of the things;” we note also in Romans 1:23 the distinction
betweenthe mere outward “likeness” andthe “image” whichit represented;
we find in 1Corinthians 15:49 that the “image of the earthy” and “the image
of the heavenly” Adam denote actual identity of nature with both; and in
2Corinthians 3:18 the actualwork of the Spirit in the heart is describedas
“changing us from glory to glory” into “the image” of the glorified Christ. (2)
Next we observe that although, speaking popularly, St. Paul in 1Corinthians
11:7 calls man “the image and glory of God,” yet the allusion is to Genesis
1:26; Genesis 1:28, where man is said, with stricteraccuracy, to be made

“afterthe image of God” (as in Ephesians 4:24, “createdafterGod”), and this
more accurate expressionis used in Colossians3:10 of this Epistle, “renewed
after the image of Him that createdhim.” Who then, or what, is the “image of
God,” after which man is created? St. Paul here emphatically (as in
2Corinthians 4:4 parenthetically) answers “Christ,” as the Son of God, “first-
born before all creation.” The same truth is conveyedin a different form,
clearer(if possible)even than this, in Hebrews 1:3, where “the Son” is said to
be not only “the brightness of the glory of the Father,” but “the express image
of His Person.” Forthe word “express image” is characterin the original,
used here (as when we speak of the alphabetical“characters”)to signify the
visible drawn image, and the word “Person”is substance or essence. (3)It is
not to be forgottenthat at this time in the Platonising Judaism of Philo, “the
Word” was calledthe eternal “image of God.” (See passagesquoted in Dr.
Light-foot’s note on this passage.)This expressionwas not peculiar to him; it
was but a working out of that personificationof the “wisdomof God,” of
which we have a magnificent example in Proverbs 8:22-30, and of which we
trace the effectin the Alexandrine Book of“Wisdom” (Wisdom Of Solomon
7:25-26). “Wisdomis the breath of the power of God, and a pure stream from
the glory of the MostHigh—the brightness of the everlasting light, the
unspotted mirror of the powerof God, and the image of His goodness.”It
seems to have representedin the Jewishschools the idea complementary to
the ordinary idea of the Messiahin the Jewishworld. Just as St. John took up
the vague idea of “the Word,” and gave it a cleardivine personality in Christ,
so St. Paul seems to acthere in relation to the other phrase, used as a
description of the Word. In Christ he fixes in solid reality the floating vision of
the “image of God.” (4) There is an emphasis on the words “ofthe invisible
God.” Now, since the whole contextshows that the reference is to the eternal
pre-existence of Christ, ancient interpreters (of whom Chrysostommay be
takenas the type) argued that the image of the invisible must be also invisible.
But this seems opposedto the whole idea of the word “image,” andto its use in
the New Testamentand elsewhere.The true keyto this passage is in our
Lord’s own words in John 1:8, “No man hath seenGod at any time, the only
begottenSon” (here is the remarkable reading, “the only begotten God”),
“who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath revealedHim.” In anticipation of

the future revelation of Godhead, Christ, even as pre-existent, is called“The
image of the invisible God.”
The firstborn of every creature (of all creation).—(1)As to the sense ofthis
clause. The grammaticalconstructionhere will bear either the rendering of
our version, or the rendering “begottenbefore all creation,” whence comesthe
“begottenbefore all worlds “of the Nicene creed. But the whole context shows
that the latter is unquestionably the true rendering. For, as has been
remarkedfrom ancienttimes, He is said to be “begotten” and not “created;”
next, he is emphatically spokenof below as He “by whom all things were
created,” who is “before all things,” and in whom all things consist.” (2)As to
the order of idea. In Himself He is “the image of God” from all eternity. From
this essentialconception, by a natural contrast, the thought immediately
passes onto distinction from, and priority to, all createdbeing. Exactly in this
same order of idea, we have in Hebrews 1:2-3, “By whom also He made the
worlds . . . upholding all things by the word of His power;” and in John 1:3,
“All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made
which was made. Here St. Paul indicates this idea in the words “firstborn
before all creation,” and works it out in the verses following. (3)As to the
name “firstborn” itself. It is used of the Messiahas an almosttechnicalname
(derived from Psalm 2:7; Psalm 89:28), as is shown in Hebrews 1:6, “whenHe
bringeth the first begotteninto the world.” In tracing the Messianic line of
promise we notice that; while the Messiahis always true man, “the seedof
Abraham,” “the son of David,” yet on him are accumulatedattributes too
high for any createdbeing (as in Isaiah9:6). He is declared to be an
“Emmanuel” Godwith us; and His kingdom a visible manifestation of God.
Hence the idea containedin the word “firstborn” is not only sovereignty
“above all the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:28;comp. Daniel 8:13-14), but
also likeness to God and priority to all createdbeing. (4) As to the union of the
two clauses.In the first we have the declarationof His eternalunity with
God—allthat was completely embodied in the declarationof the “Wordwho
is God,” up to which all the higher Jewishspeculations hadled; in the second
we trace the distinctness of His Person, as the “begottenof the Father,” the
true MessiahofJewishhopes, and the subordination of the co-eternalSonto
the Father. The union of the two marks the assertionofChristian mystery, as

againstrationalising systems, of the type of Arianism on one side, of
Sabellianismon the other.
BensonCommentary
Colossians 1:15. Who — That is, the Son of God, in whose blood we have
redemption; is the image of the invisible God — By the description here given
of the glory of Christ, and his pre-eminence over the highestangels, the
apostle lays a foundation for the reproof of all worshippers of angels. The
Socinians contendthat Christ is here styled the image of the invisible God,
merely because he made known to men the will of God; and that in this sense
only Christ said to Philip, (John 14:9,) He that hath seenme hath seenthe
Father. But it should be considered, that in other passagesin Scripture, the
word image denotes likeness,if not samenessofnature and properties, as 1
Corinthians 15:49 : As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly. Certainly, as Dr. Whitby observes, the more
natural import of the phrase is, that Christ is therefore called the image of
God, because he made him, who is invisible in his essence, conspicuousto us
by the divine works he wrought, they being such as plainly showedthat in him
dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily; for the invisible God can only be seen
by the effects of his power, wisdom, and goodness, andof his other attributes.
He who, by the works both of the old and new creation, hath given such clear
demonstrations of the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, is, upon this
account, as much the image of God as it is possible any person or thing should
be; and to this sense the expressionseems here necessarilyrestrainedby the
connective particle οτι, for. He is the image of God, for by him all things were
created. Moreover, this passage inexactly parallel to that in the beginning of
the epistle to the Hebrews, as will evidently appear on a comparison of the
two. Here he is said to be the image of God; there, the brightness (απαυγασμα,
effulgence)of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, or
substance, as υποστασεως more properly signifies:here he is called the
firstborn, or Lord, of every creature; there, the heir of all things: here it is
said that all things were createdby him; there, that he made the worlds:here,
that by him all things do consist;and there, that he upholdeth all things by the

word of his power. Now, that he is there styled the image of God’s glory, and
the express image or characterof his person, or substance, by reasonof that
divine power, wisdom, and majesty, which shone forth in his actions, some
Socinians are forced to confess.It is not, therefore, to be doubted that he is
here styled the image of God in the same sense. And it is highly probable that
he is called the image of the invisible God, as appearing to the patriarchs, and
representing to them the Father, who dwells in light inaccessible;(1 Timothy
6:16;) according to what is frequently observedby the ante-Nicene fathers,
that God the Father being invisible, and one whom no man hath seenor can
see, appearedto the patriarchs by his Son. Add to this, that the Son is likewise
calledthe image of God, because he manifested the divine perfections in the
flesh visibly, by that fulness of grace and truth which shone in him during his
abode on earth. This St. John’s words evidently imply: No man hath seenGod
at any time; the only-begottenSon, who is in the bosomof the Father, he hath
declaredhim. See the notes on John 1:14; John 1:18. In which sense Christ’s
words to Philip also (John 14:9) are to be understood: He that hath seenme
hath seenthe Father, as our Lord manifestly shows, when he adds, I am in the
Father, and the Fatherin me: the Fatherthat dwelleth in me, he doeth the
works. And 2 Corinthians 4:4, he is plainly styled the image of God, for the
like reason, because(Colossians1:6) the light of the knowledge ofthe glory of
God is reflectedfrom his face, or person, as προσωπω signifies. See the notes
there.
The firstborn — Or first-begotten, (πρωτοτοκος,)ofevery creature — Or
rather, of the whole creation, as πασα κτισις is translatedRomans 8:22,
existing before it, and the heir and Lord of it. “According to the Arians, the
firstborn of the whole creationis the first-made creature. But the reason
advancedto prove the Sonthe firstborn of the whole creationoverturns that
sense ofthis passage;for surely the Son’s creating all things doth not prove
him to be the first-made creature;unless his powerof creating all things
originated from his being the first-made creature;which no one will affirm.
As little does the Son’s creating all things prove that he createdhimself. Yet
these absurdities will be establishedby the apostle’s reasoning, ifthe firstborn
of the whole creationsignifies the first-made creature. But it is proper to

observe, that πρωτοτοκος,the firstborn, or first-begotten, in this passage, may
signify the heir, or Lord: of the whole creation. For, anciently, the firstborn
was entitled to possesshis father’s estate, 2 Chronicles 21:3. The firstborn was
likewise lord of his brethren, who were all his servants. This appears from
what Isaac saidto Esau, after he had bestowedthe rights of primogeniture on
Jacob, Genesis27:37. Hence, among the Hebrews and other nations, firstborn,
heir, and lord, were synonymous terms. See Galatians 4:1. According to this
interpretation of the terms firstborn and heir, the apostle’s reasoning is
perfectly just: for the creationof all things, (Colossians1:16,)and the making
of the world, (Hebrews 1:3,) through the Son, is a direct proof that he is the
firstborn, heir, or Lord of the whole.” See Whitby and Macknight.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
1:15-23 Christ in his human nature, is the visible discovery of the invisible
God, and he that hath seenHim hath seenthe Father. Let us adore these
mysteries in humble faith, and behold the glory of the Lord in Christ Jesus.
He was born or begottenbefore all the creation, before any creature was
made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the
eternity of God is representedto us. All things being createdby Him, were
createdfor him; being made by his power, they were made according to his
pleasure, and for his praise and glory. He not only createdthem all at first,
but it is by the word of his powerthat they are upheld. Christ as Mediatoris
the Head of the body, the church; all grace and strength are from him; and
the church is his body. All fulness dwells in him; a fulness of merit and
righteousness, ofstrength and grace for us. God showedhis justice in
requiring full satisfaction. This mode of redeeming mankind by the death of
Christ was mostsuitable. Here is presented to our view the method of being
reconciled. And that, notwithstanding the hatred of sin on God's part, it
pleasedGod to reconcile fallenman to himself. If convinced that we were
enemies in our minds by wickedworks, andthat we are now reconciledto
God by the sacrifice and death of Christ in our nature, we shall not attempt to
explain away, nor yet think fully to comprehend these mysteries;but we shall
see the glory of this plan of redemption, and rejoice in the hope set before us.
If this be so, that God's love is so greatto us, what shall we do now for God?
Be frequent in prayer, and abound in holy duties; and live no more to

yourselves, but to Christ. Christ died for us. But wherefore? Thatwe should
still live in sin? No; but that we should die to sin, and live henceforth not to
ourselves, but to Him.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
Who is the image of the invisible God - εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου eikōntou
Theou tou aoratou. The objects. here, as it is in the parallel place in Ephesians
1:20-23, is to give a just view of the exaltation of the Redeemer. It is probable
that, in both cases, the design is to meet some erroneous opinion on this
subject that prevailed in those churches, or among those that claimed to be
teachers there. See the Introduction to this Epistle, and compare the notes at
Ephesians 1:20-23. Forthe meaning of the phrase occurring here, "the image
of the invisible God," see the Hebrews 1:3, note, and 2 Corinthians 4:4, note.
The meaning is, that he represents to mankind the perfections of God, as an
image, figure, or drawing does the objectwhich it is made to resemble. See the
word "image" - εἰκὼν eikōn- explained in the notes at Hebrews 10:1. It
properly denotes that which is a copy or delineation of a thing; which
accuratelyand fully represents it, in contradistinction from a rough sketch, or
outline; compare Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Corinthians 15:49.
The meaning here is, that the being and perfections of God are accuratelyand
fully representedby Christ. In what respects particularly he was thus a
representative of God, the apostle proceeds to state in the following verses, to
wit, in his creative power, in his eternalexistence, in his heirship over the
universe, in the fulness that dwelt in him. This cannot refer to him merely as
incarnate, for some of the things affirmed of him pertained to him before his
incarnation; and the idea is, that in all things Christ fairly represents to us the
divine nature and perfections. Godis manifest to us through him; 1 Timothy
3:16. We see God in him as we see an object in that which is in all respects an
exactcopy of it. God is invisible. No eye has seenhim, or can see him; but in
what Christ is, and has done in the works ofcreationand redemption, we
have a fair and full representationof what God is; see the notes at John 1:18;
John 14:9, note.

The first-born of every creature - Among all the creatures of God, or over all
his creation, occupying the rank and pro-eminence of the first-born. The first-
born, or the oldestson, among the Hebrews as elsewhere,had special
privileges. He was entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. It has been,
also, and especiallyin oriental countries, a common thing for the oldest sonto
succeedto the estate and the title of his father. In early times, the first-born
son was the officiating priest in the family, in the absence oron the death of
the father. There can be no doubt that the apostle here has reference to the
usual distinctions and honors conferredon the first-born, and means to say
that, among all the creatures of God, Christ occupieda pre-eminence similar
to that. He does not saythat, in all respects,he resembled the first-born in a
family; nor does he saythat he himself was a creature, for the point of his
comparisondoes not turn on these things, and what he proceeds to affirm
respecting him is inconsistentwith the idea of his being a createdbeing
himself.
He that "createdall things that are in heaven and that are in earth," was not
himself created. Thatthe apostle did not mean to represent him as a creature,
is also manifest from the reasonwhich he assigns why he is calledthe first-
born. "He is the image of God, and the first-born of every creature, for - ὅτι
hoti - by him were all things created." Thatis, he sustains the elevatedrank of
the first-born, or a high eminence over the creation, because by him "all
things were createdin heaven and in earth." The language used here, also,
does not fairly imply that he was a creature, or that he was in nature and rank
one of those in relation to whom it is said he was the first-born. It is true that
the word "first-born" - πρωτότοκος prōtotokos - properly means the first-
born child of a father or mother, Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; or the first-born of
animals. But two things are also to be remarked in regard to the use of the
word:
(1) It does not necessarilyimply that anyone is born afterward in the family,
for it would be used of the first-born, though an only child; and,
(2) it is used to denote one who is chief, or who is highly distinguished and pre-
eminent. Thus, it is employed in Romans 8:29, "Thathe might be the first-
born among many brethren." So, in Colossians 1:18, it is said that he was "the

first-born from the dead;" not that he was literally the first that was raised
from the dead, which was not the fact, but that he might be pre-eminent
among those that are raised; compare Exodus 4:22. The meaning, then, is,
that Christ sustains the most exalted rank in the universe; he is pre-eminent
above all others;he is at the head of all things. The expressiondoes not mean
that he was "begottenbefore all creatures," as it is often explained, but refers
to the simple fact that he sustains the highest rank over the creation. He is the
Son of God. He is the heir of all things. All other creatures are also the
"offspring of God;" but he is exaltedas the Son of God above all.
(This clause has been variously explained. The most commonly received, and,
as we think, bestsupported opinion, is that which renders πρωτοτοκος πασης
κτισεως prōtotokos pasēsktiseōs;"begottenbefore all creation." This most
natural and obvious sense wouldhave been more readily admitted, had it not
been supposedhostile to certain views on the sonship of Christ. Some explain
πρωτότοκος prōtotokosactively, and render "first begetteror producer of all
things," which gives, at all events, a sense consistentwith truth and with the
context, which immediately assigns as the reasonofChrist being styled
πρωτότοκος prōtotokos, the clause beginning ὁτι εν αυτω εκτισθη hoti en autō
ektisthē, "Forby him were all things created." Others, with the author
explain the word figuratively, of pre-eminence or lordship. To this view
however, there are serious objections.
It seems not supported by sufficient evidence. No argument can be drawn
from Colossians 1:18 until it is proved that "firstborn from the dead," does
not mean the first that was raisedto die no more, which Doddridge affirms to
be "the easiest, surest, mostnatural sense, in which the best commentators are
agreed." Noris the argument from Romans 8:29 satisfactory. "Πρωτότοκος
Prōtotokos,"says Bloomfield, atthe close ofan admirable note on this verse,
"is not well takenby Whitby and others, in a figurative sense, to denote 'Lord
of all things, since the word is never so used, exceptin reference to
primogeniture. And although, in Romans 8:29, we have τον ρωτοτοκος εν
πολλοις αδελφοις ton prōtotokos enpollois adelphois, yet there his followers
are representednot as his creatures, but as his brethren. On which, and other
accounts, the interpretation, according to which we have here a strong
testimony to the eternal filiation of our Saviour is greatlypreferable; and it is

clearthat Colossians 1:15, Colossians1:18 are illustrative of the nature, as
Colossians 1:16-17 are an evidence of the pre-existence and divinity of
Christ.")
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
15. They who have experiencedin themselves "redemption" (Col 1:14), know
Christ in the glorious characterhere described, as above the highest angels to
whom the false teachers (Col2:18) taught worship was to be paid. Paul
describes Him: (1) in relation to God and creation(Col 1:15-17);(2) in
relation to the Church (Col1:18-20). As the former regards Him as the
Creator(Col 1:15, 16) and the Sustainer (Col 1:17) of the natural world; so
the latter, as the source and stayof the new moral creation.
image—exactlikenessandperfect Representative. Adam was made "in the
image of God" (Ge 1:27). But Christ, the secondAdam, perfectly reflected
visibly "the invisible God" (1Ti 1:17), whose glories the first Adam only in
part represented. "Image" (eicon)involves "likeness"(homoiosis);but
"likeness"does notinvolve "image." "Image"always supposesa prototype,
which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn: the exact
counterpart, as the reflectionof the sun in the water: the child the living
image of the parent. "Likeness" implies mere resemblance, not the exact
counterpart and derivation as "image" expresses;hence it is nowhere applied
to the Son, while "image" is here, compare 1Co 11:7 [Trench]. (Joh 1:18;
14:9; 2Co 4:4; 1Ti3:16; Heb 1:3). Even before His incarnation He was the
image of the invisible God, as the Word (Joh 1:1-3) by whom God createdthe
worlds, and by whom God appearedto the patriarchs. Thus His essential
characteras always "the image of God," (1) before the incarnation, (2) in the
days of His flesh, and (3) now in His glorified state, is, I think, contemplated
here by the verb "is."
first-born of every creature—(Heb1:6), "the first-begotten": "begottenofHis
Father before all worlds" [Nicene Creed]. Priority and superlative dignity is
implied (Ps 89:27). EnglishVersion might seemto favor Arianism, as if Christ
were a creature. Translate, "Begotten(literally, 'born') before every
creature," as the context shows, whichgives the reasonwhy He is so

designated. "For," &c. (Col1:16, 17) [Trench]. This expressionis understood
by Origen (so far is the Greek from favoring Socinian or Arian views) as
declaring the Godheadof Christ, and is used by Him as a phrase to mark that
Godhead, in contrastwith His manhood [Book 2, sec. AgainstCelsus]. The
Greek does not strictly admit Alford's translation, "the first-born of all
creation."
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Having touched on the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice, whichimplies his human
nature, he doth here rise higher, to setforth the dignity of his person, (which
made it satisfactory), both with respectto his Fatherand the creature. As to
the former, he styles him his image, which is not to be understood of an
artificial, accidental, orimperfect image, as that of the king on his coin, or as
man was the feeble image of God, Genesis 9:6 1 Corinthians 11:7 Colossians
3:10; for the apostle’s arguing Christ’s dignity to redeem, would have no force
in it, if Christ were no more than a mere man; but of a natural, substantial,
and perfectimage: as Seth was the natural image of his father Adam, of the
same substance with him, Genesis 5:3; so Christ, the eternalWord, the only
begottenSon of God by nature, John 1:1,18, (See Poole on"Philippians 2:6"),
very God of very God, John 17:3,5, doth exactly resemble, perfectly and
adequately represent, his Father, of whose personhe is the express character,
or perfect image, Hebrews 1:3. Yet more distinctly Christ is the image of God,
either:
1. As he is the SecondPersonin the blessedTrinity, from an intrinsical
relation to the Father, in regard of the same essencewithhim by eternal
generationbefore the world was made. He being eternally in the Father, and
the Fatherin him, John 14:10;so he is in respectof his Fatherhis essential
image, and in regard to us as invisible as the Father himself; no creature could
be the eternal image of the Creator, as that Son of the only true God, the
living God, was, and is, Matthew 16:16 John 6:69, in respectof his Father.

2. As he is God-man, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9, whereby he doth infinitely exceedand surpass angels and men
at first, Hebrews 1:5,6 2:5. The apostle in this place doth not say simply Christ
the image of God, but of the invisible God, ( consideredpersonally), i.e. the
Father; because the Father cannot be known to us but in his Son, as in an
image, in which he would representor manifest himself to be seenor known,
John 1:14,18 Joh14:8,9 2 Corinthians 4:4. And in this latter respect(which
imports the manifestative, not essentialimage)is Christ the image of his
invisible Father unto us; unto whom, in all his offices and works ofmediation,
the attributes, affections, and excellenciesofGod clearlyshine forth, they
being otherwise incomprehensible and invisible by a creature:but Christ is
the complete image of them, in a transcendent way; for as they are in him,
they are incommunicable to any mere creature, and therefore he is the image
of the invisible God, in that he makes him visible unto us. God is a pure Spirit,
without body, or bodily parts, but yet was clearly manifested in Christ
tabernacling amongstus, John 1:14 1 Timothy 3:16: he represents him to us
in his understanding and wisdom, Proverbs 8:14,15;almightiness and
eternity, Isaiah9:6 John 1:1 8:58, permanency and unchangeableness,
Hebrews 1:11,12 13:8, omnipresence and omnisciency, John 2:24,25 13:18
Revelation2:13. Not (as the Lutherans strangelyimagine) that Christ is
omnipotent with the omnipotency of the Divine nature, or omniscient with
that omnisciency, as if the manhood did instrumentally use the attributes of
the Godhead;but such perfections are really inherent in and appertaining to
the manhood, by virtue of its union with the Divine nature in the Second
Personof the Trinity, that though they are vastly short of the attributes which
are essentialto the Godhead, yet they are the completestimage of them, and
such as no mere creature is capable of. Hence it is said, we beheld his glory,
the glory of the only begotten Sonof God, who did further represent and
manifest his Fatherto us, in the works of creationand preservationwhich he
did, John 1:3 5:19 Hebrews 1:10. Hence the apostle in this verse considers the
dignity of Christ, with respectto the creature, adding to the forementioned
intrinsic, an extrinsic royalty, the first-born of every creature, which a learned
man would render, begottenbefore all the creation, or born before every
creature, which is a Hebrew phrase. The Greek scholiastand severalof the
Greek fathers go this way; not as if the ineffable generationof Christ had any

beginning, as some falselyconceitedChrist to be made in time, just in the
beginning before the world, by whom as an instrument all the rest were
created;but the apostle doth not sayhe was first made, or first created;but,
Colossians 1:17, was, ordid exist, before all things besides;(as John Baptist
said, he was before me, John 1:15); and therefore none of the rank of all them,
but of another, viz. equal with his Father, whose image he was, above all that
was made or created:he was not createdat all, though first-born, or first-
begotten, yet not first-created, (being distinguished here from created, as the
cause from the effect), as it refers to him that begets, so it may to only
begotten, Christ being so begottenas no other was or could be, Proverbs 8:22
Micah5:2 Hebrews 1:5,6, evenfrom eternity. The word first may either
respectwhat follows, and so notes order in the things spokenof, he who is first
being one of them, 1 Corinthians 15:47; or things going before, in which sense
it denies all order or series of things in the same kind: as God is first before
whom none, Isaiah 41:4 43:11 Revelation21:6; so Christ may be said to be
first-born because the only begottenSon of his Father, John 1:14: so the
apostle may considerhim here in order to establishthe considerationof him
as Mediator and Head of his church, Colossians 1:18;he speaking before,
Colossians 1:16, of those things more generally whose creationare assignedto
him, in contradistinctionto those of the church or new creation, Colossians
1:18. Agreeablyto our translation, first-born of every creature, ( note, here is
a difference in the Greek, betweenfirst-born of and for, Colossians1:18), we
may consider:
1. Negatively. It is not to be understood properly for the first in order, so as to
be one of them, in reference to whom he is said to be the first-born. But:
2. Positively, yet figuratively in a borrowedspeech:so primacy and
primogeniture may be attributed to him in regard of the creatures:

a) By a metonymy of the antecedentfor the consequent;he who hath the
privileges of enjoying and disposing of his father’s goods and inheritance, is
accountedthe first-born, Genesis 27:29 Galatians 4:1; so is Christ, being
Owner, Lord, and Prince of every creature, as he is God-man, or ordained to
human nature, he hath the preeminence of the whole creation, and is the chief,
Psalm2:7,8Hebrews 1:2,6. The heir amongst the Hebrews was reckonedthe
prince of the family, and so amongstthe Romans the heir was takenfor the
lord: so God said he would make David his first-born, Psalm 89:27, compared
with Job 18:13 Isaiah14:30Jeremiah31:9. This sovereignempire which
Christ hath overall the creation, and the parts of it, is by his primogeniture,
or that he is first-born, since there is left nothing that is not under him,
Hebrews 2:8, (as Adam in this lower world, in regardof his dominion, the
state of innocency, might be first-born of them createdfor him), for the
apostle brings in the next verse as the fundamental reasonof this assertion.
b) By a considerationof Christ in God’s eternaldecree and purpose, as the
common womb of him who is God-man, and all creatures;being fore-
ordained before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter1:20, he may be looked
upon as the first-born amongst those who are predestinated to be conformed
to his image, Romans 8:29, with Ephesians 1:4,5; for upon this accounthe is
the first-born of the first-born creatures or church, (but this, as hinted before,
is consideredmore specially, Colossians 1:18), Hebrews 12:23, therefore the
first-born of all others: and this may be one respectin which he is before
them, Colossians 1:17, with Proverbs 8:22; yea, all of them of the old, as well
as the new creation. The Socinians are so daringly bold as to restrain this
extensive expressionof
every creature, or all the creation, to the new creationof men or the faithtful
only, by perverting some texts of Scripture to strain them that way; when it is
plain by what follows, the Spirit of God means all createdbeings, either in the
first or secondworld, Christ being the principal cause both of the one and the
other; the apostle, by the generalterm every creature simply, without any

additament, doth import all createdthings, viz. the heavens and the earth,
with all that is made in them: neither angels, nor inanimate and irrational
creatures, are excluded; as in the apostle’s reasonimmediately following this
expression.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Who is the image of the invisible God,.... Notof deity, though the fulness of it
dwells in him; nor of himself, though he is the true God, and eternal life; nor
of the Spirit, who also is God, and the Spirit of the Son; but the Father, called
"God", not to the exclusionof the Son or Spirit, who are with him the one
God: "and he is invisible"; not to the Son who lay in his bosom, and had
perfect and infinite knowledge ofhim; nor, in some sense, to angels, who
always behold his face, but to men: no man hath seenhim corporeallywith the
eyes of his body, though intellectually with the eyes of the understanding,
when enlightened; not in his essenceandnature, which is infinite and
incomprehensible, but in his works of creation, providence, and grace;nor
immediately, but mediately, in and through Christ, in whom he gives the light
of the knowledge ofthe glory of his person and perfections;and this not
perfectly now, but in the other state, when the saints shall see him face to face.
But chiefly the Fatheris saidto be invisible, because he did not appear to Old
Testamentsaints;as his voice was never heard, so his shape was never seen;
he never assumedany visible form; but wheneverany voice was heard, or
shape seen, it was the secondperson that appeared, the Son of God, who is
here said to be his "image", andthat, as he is the Son of God; in which sense
he is the natural, essential, andeternal image of his Father, an eternalone,
perfect and complete, and in which he takes infinite complacencyand delight:
this designs more than a shadow and representation, or than bare similitude
and likeness;it includes sameness ofnature and perfections;ascertains the
personality of the Son, his distinction from the Father, whose image he is; and
yet implies no inferiority, as the following verses clearlyshow, since all that
the Fatherhath are his. Philo, the Jew (f), often speaks ofthe or Word of God,
as the image of God. Also, this may be understood of him as Mediator, in
whom, as such, is a most glorious display of the love, grace, and mercy of God,
of his holiness and righteousness, ofhis truth and faithfulness, and of his
powerand wisdom:

the firstborn of every creature; not the first of the creation, or the first
creature God made; for all things in Colossians 1:16 are said to be createdby
him, and therefore he himself cannever be a creature;nor is he the first in the
new creation, for the apostle in the context is speaking ofthe old creation, and
not the new: but the sense either is, that he was begottenof the Fatherin a
manner inconceivable and inexpressible by men, before any creatures were in
being; or that he is the "first Parent", or bringer forth of every creature into
being, as the word will bear to be rendered, if instead of we read which is no
more than changing the place of the accent, and may be very easilyventured
upon, as is done by an ancient writer (g), who observes, that the word is used
in this sense by Homer, and is the same as "first Parent", and "first Creator";
and the rather this may be done, seeing the accents were alladded since the
apostle's days, and especiallyseeing it makes his reasoning, in the following
verses, appearwith much more beauty, strength, and force:he is the first
Parent of every creature, "for by him were all things created", &c. Colossians
1:16, or it may be understood of Christ, as the King, Lord, and Governorof
all creatures;being God's firstborn, he is heir of all things, the right of
government belongs to him; he is higher than the kings of the earth, or the
angels in heaven, the highestrank of creatures, being the Creatorand
upholder of all, as the following words show; so the Jews make the word
"firstborn" to be synonymous with the word "king", and explain it by , "a
greatone", and "a prince" (h); see Psalm89:27.
(f) De Mund. Opific. p. 6. de Plant. Noe, p. 216, 217. de Coufus. Ling. p. 341.
de Somniis, p. 600. de Monarch. p. 823. (g) Isidior. Pelusiot. l. 3. Ep. 31. (h) R.
Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 50. 1.
Geneva Study Bible
{7} Who is the image of the invisible God, {i} the firstborn of every creature:
(7) A graphic description of the person of Christ, by which we understand,
that in him alone God shows himself to be seen:who was begottenof the
Father before anything was made, that is, from everlasting. And by him also
all things that are made, were made without any exception, by whom also they
continue to exist, and whose glorythey serve.

(i) Begottenbefore anything was made: and therefore the everlasting Son of
the everlasting Father.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Colossians 1:15. As to Colossians 1:15-20,see Schleiermacherin the Stud. u.
Krit. 1832, p. 497 ff. (Werke z. Theol. II. p. 321 ff.), and, in oppositionto his
ethical interpretation (of Christ as the moral Reformer of the world),
Holzhausen in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 236 ff.; Osiander, ibid. 1833, 1, 2;
Bähr, appendix to Komment. p. 321 ff.; Bleek on Hebrews 1:2. See generally
also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 153 ff., II. 1, p. 357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud.
u. Krit. 1860, p. 446 f.
After having stated, in Colossians1:14, what we have in Christ (whose state of
exaltation he has in view, see Colossians 1:13, τὴνβασιλείαν), Paul now,
continuing his discourse by an epexegeticalrelative clause, depicts what
Christ is, namely, as regards His divine dignity—having in view the influences
of the false teachers, who with Gnostic tendencies depreciatedthis dignity.
The plan of the discourse is not tripartite (originator of the physical creation,
Colossians 1:15 f.; maintainer of everything created, Colossians 1:17;relation
to the new moral creation, Colossians 1:18 ff.,—so Bähr, while others divide
differently[23]), but bipartite, in such a way that Colossians1:15-17 setforth
the exaltedmetaphysical relation of Christ to God and the world, and then
Colossians 1:18 ff., His historicalrelation of dignity to the church.[24]This
division, which in itself is logically correct(whereas Colossians 1:17 is not
suited, either as regards contents or form, to be a separate, co-ordinate part),
is also externally indicated by the two confirmatory clauses ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κ.τ.λ.
in Colossians1:16 and Colossians 1:19, by which the two preceding[25]
affirmations in Colossians 1:15 and Colossians 1:18 are shown to be the
proper parts of the discourse. Others (see especiallyBengel, Schleiermacher,
Hofmann, comp. also Gess, Pers.Chr. p. 77) have lookedupon the twice-
expressedὅς ἐστιν in Colossians1:15 and Colossians 1:18 as marking the
beginning of the two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the

secondὍς ἘΣΤΙΝ; for the main idea, which governs the whole effusion,
Colossians 1:15-20, is the glory of the dominion of the Son of God, in the
description of which Paul evidently begins the secondpart with the words καὶ
αὐτός, Colossians1:18, passing overfrom the generalto the special, namely,
to His government over the church to which He has attained by His
resurrection. On the details, see below.
ὅς ἐστιν κ.τ.λ.]It is to be observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His
present existence, consequentlyas regards the presence and continuance of
His state of exaltation(comp. on. Colossians 1:13-14);hence he affirms, not
what Christ was, but what He is. On this ἐστίν, comp. Colossians 1:17-18, and
2 Corinthians 4:4. Therefore not only the reference to Christ’s temporal
manifestation (Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others),
but also the limitation to Christ’s divine nature or the Logos (Calovius, Estius,
Wolf, and many others, including Bähr, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther) is
incorrect. The only correctreference is to His whole person, which, in the
divine-human state of its present heavenly existence, is continually that which
its divine nature—this nature consideredin and by itself—was before the
incarnation; so that, in virtue of the identity of His divine nature, the same
predicates belong to the exalted Christ as to the Logos. See Php 2:6; John
17:5.
εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου]image of God the invisible. Comp. on 2
Corinthians 4:4. As, namely, Christ in His pre-existence[26]downto His
incarnation already possessedthe essentialdivine glory, so that He was as to
nature ἴσα Θεῷ, and as to form of appearance ἘΝ ΜΟΡΦῇ ΘΕΟῦ
ὙΠΆΡΧΩΝ (see on Php 2:6); so, after He had by means of the incarnation
divested Himself, not indeed of His God-equalnature, but of His divine
ΔΌΞΑ, and had humbled Himself, and had in obedience towards Goddied
even the death of the cross, He has been exaltedagain by God to His original
glory (Php 2:9; John 17:5), so that the divine ΔΌΞΑnow exists (comp. on
Colossians 2:9) in His glorified corporealmanifestation(Php 3:21); and He—

the exaltedChrist—in this His glory, which is that of His Father, represents
and brings to view by exactimage God, who is in Himself invisible. He is
ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς ΚΑῚ ΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡ Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς ΘΕΙῦ
(Hebrews 1:3),[27] and, in this majesty, in which He is the exactlysimilar
visible revelationof God, He will present Himself to all the world at the
Parousia (Matthew 16:27;Matthew 25:31; Php 3:20; 2 Thessalonians 1:7;1
Peter4:13; Titus 2:13, et al.). The predicate τοῦ ἀοράτου, placedas it is in its
characteristicallysignificantattributive position (Bornemann, Schol. in Luc.
p. xxxvi.; Bernhardy, p. 322 f.) behind the emphatic τοῦ Θεοῦ, posits for the
conceptionof the exactimage visibility (Hebrews 12:14;2 Corinthians 3:18;
Acts 22:11); but the assumption that Paul had thus in view the Alexandrian
doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and manifest God (see Usteri,
Lehrbegr. p. 308;comp. Bähr, Olshausen, Steiger, Huther), the less admits of
proof, because he is not speaking here of the pre-existence, but of the exalted
Christ, including, therefore, His human nature; hence, also, the comparison
with the angelMetatronof Jewishtheology(comp. Hengstenberg, Christol.
III. 2, p. 67)is irrelevant. The Fathers, moreover, have, in oppositionto the
Arians, rightly laid stress upon the fact(see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 415)that,
according to the entire context, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant in the eminent sense,
namely of the adequate, and consequently consubstantial, image of God
(μόνος … καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως εἰκών, Theophylact), and not as man (Genesis
1:26; comp. also 1 Corinthians 11:7; Colossians3:10)or the creation(Romans
1:20) is God’s image. In that case, however,the invisibility of the εἰκών is not
at all to be consideredas presupposed (Chrysostom, Calovius, and others);
this, on the contrary, pertains to the Godheadin itself (1 Timothy 1:17;
Expositor's Greek Testament
Colossians 1:15-21. THIS SON IN WHOM WE HAVE OUR DELIVERANCE
IS THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD, THE LORD OF THE UNIVERSE,
THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH,
INCLUDING THE ANGELIC POWERS,AND HE IS THE GOAL FOR
WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED. AND AS HE IS THE FIRST IN
THE UNIVERSE, SO ALSO HE IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH, WHO HAS
PASSED TO HIS DOMINION FROM THE REALM OF THE DEAD, THAT
HE MIGHT BECOME FIRSTIN ALL THINGS. FOR THE FATHER

WILLED THAT IN HIM ALL THE FULNESS OF DIVINE GRACE
SHOULD DWELL, AND THUS THAT HE SHOULD RECONCILE TO
HIM THROUGH HIS BLOOD ALL THINGS NOT ON EARTH ONLY BUT
ALSO IN THE HEAVENS, IN WHICH RECONCILIATION THE
COLOSSIANS HAVE THEIR PART.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
15–17.the thought continued: greatness ofthe redeemer as head of creation
15. who is] Here opens, in closestconnexionwith the preceding matter, a
confessionoftruth and faith about the Personof the Redeeming Son of God,
the King of the redeemed. He appears in His relation to (a) the Eternal
Father, (b) the createdUniverse, especiallythe Universe of spirits, (c) the
Church of redeemed men. Every clause is pregnant of Divine truth, and the
whole teaches with majestic emphasis the greatlessonthat the Personis all-
important to the Work, the true Christ to the true salvation.
the image]So 2 Corinthians 4:4. The Greek word(eicôn) occurs often in
Biblical Greek, mostfrequently (in O.T.)as a translation of the Hebrew
tselem. Usage shews that on the whole it connotes not only similarity but also
“representation(as a derived likeness)andmanifestation” (Grimm’s N. T.
Lexicon, ed. Thayer; and see Lightfoot’s note, or rather essay, here). An
instructive passageforstudy of the word is Hebrews 10:1, where it is opposed
to “shadow,” andplainly means “the things themselves, as seen.” Thus the
Lord Christ, the mystery of His Personand Natures, is not only a Being
resembling God, but God Manifest. Cp. John 14:9, and Hebrews 1:3.
“Christian antiquity has ever regardedthe expression‘image of God’ as
denoting the eternalSon’s perfectequality with the Fatherin respectof His
substance, power, and eternity … The Son is the Father’s Image in all things

save only in being the Father” (Ellicott; with reff. inter alia to Hilary de
Synodis, § 73;Athan. contra Arian. i. 20, 21).
the invisible God] Forthe same word see 1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27. And
cp. Deuteronomy 4:12; John 1:18; John 5:37; 1 Timothy 6:16; 1 John 4:20.
This assertionofthe Invisibility of the Fatherhas regardto the manifesting
function of the Image, the Son. See Lightfoot here. The Christian Fathers
generally(not universally) took it otherwise, holding that the “Image” here
refers wholly to the Sonin His Godhead, which is as invisible as that of the
Father, being indeed the same. But the word “Image” by usage tends to the
thought of vision, in some sort; and the collocationofit here with “the
Invisible” brings this out with a certain emphasis. Not that the reference of
the “Image” here is directly or primarily to our Lord’s visible Body of the
Incarnation, but to His being, in all ages and spheres of createdexistence, the
Manifesterof the Fatherto createdintelligences. His being this was, so to
speak, the basis and antecedentof His gracious coming in the flesh, to be
“seenwith the eyes” ofmen on earth (1 John 1:1). In the words of St Basil
(Epist. xxxviii. 8, quoted by Lightfoot) the creature “views the Unbegotten
Beauty in the Begotten.”
the firstborn of every creature] Betterperhaps, Firstborn of all creation
(Lightfoot and R.V.), or, with a very slight paraphrase, Firstborn over all
creation;standing to it in the relationof priority of existence and supremacy
of inherited right. So, to borrow a most inadequate analogy, the heir of an
hereditary throne might be describedas “firstborn to, or over, all the realm.”
The word “creature” (from the (late) Latin creatura)here probably, as
certainly in Romans 8, means “creation” as a whole;a meaning to which the
Greek word inclines in usage, ratherthan to that of “a creature” (which latter
Ellicott and Alford howeveradopt). See Lightfoot’s note.

“Firstborn:”—cp. Psalm 89:27;and the PalestinianJewishapplication, thence
derived, of the title “Firstborn” to the Messiah. A similar word was usedof
the mysterious “Logos” among the Alexandrian Jews, as shewnin the writings
of St Paul’s contemporary, Philo. Studied in its usage, andin these
connexions, the word thus denotes (a) Priority of existence, so that the Son
appears as antecedentto the createdUniverse, and therefore as belonging to
the eternalOrder of being (see the following context); (b) Lordship over “all
creation,” by this right of eternal primogeniture. See Psalm89:27, and cp.
Hebrews 1:2.
“Of all creation:”—so lit. The force of the Greek genitive, in connexionwith
the word “first” (as here “firstborn”), may be either partitive, so that the Son
would be describedas first of createdthings, or so to speak comparative (see a
case exactlyin point, John 1:15, Greek), so that He would be describedas
first, or antecedent, in regard of createdthings. And the whole following
context, as well as the previous clause, decides forthis latter explanation of the
grammar.
On the theologicalimportance of the passageseefurther Appendix C.
Bengel's Gnomen
Colossians 1:15. Ὅς ἐστιν, who is) He describes the glory and excellence of
Christ as even above the highestangels, and hereby scatters those seeds by
which he will prove, next in order, the folly of the worshippers of angels. [He
teaches believers to make application to Christ Himself, as their Saviour, and
at the same time the head of all.—V. g.]Those, in short, obtain this full
knowledge concerning Christ, who have experiencedthe mystery of
redemption.—εἰκὼντοῦ Θεοῦ, the image of God) 2 Corinthians 4:4, note.—
τοῦ ἀοράτου, ofthe invisible) A most glorious epithet of God, 1 Timothy 1:17.
The only begottenSon alone represents the invisible God, and is Himself His
image, invisible, according to the Divine nature; visible, according to the
human nature [John 14:9], visible even before the incarnation, inasmuch as

the invisible things of God [Romans 1:20] beganto be seenfrom the creation,
which was accomplishedthrough Him [by Him as the instrument]. To this
refer Colossians 1:16, things visible and invisible.—πρωτότοκος πάσης
κτίσεως, the first-begotten of every creature) He was begotten;and that, too,
before the creationof all things. The πρὸ, which is contained in πρωτότοκος,
governs the genitive κτίσεως. Time is an accidentof the creature. Therefore
the origin of the Son of God precedes alltime.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 15.
(a) Who is Image of God the invisible, Firstborn of all creation:
Vincent's Word Studies
The image (εἰκών)
See on Revelation13:14. Forthe Logos (Word) underlying the passage,see on
John 1:1. Image is more than likeness whichmay be superficialand
incidental. It implies a prototype, and embodies the essentialverity of its
prototype. Compare in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 (note), and the
effulgence of the Father's glory, Hebrews 1:3. Also 1 John 1:1.
Of the invisible God (τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου)
Lit., of the God, the invisible. Thus is brought out the idea of manifestation
which lies in image. See on Revelation13:14.
The first born of every creature (πρωτότοκος πασῆς κτίσεως)
Rev., the first-born of all creation. Forfirst-born, see on Revelation1:5; for
creation, see on 2 Corinthians 5:17. As image points to revelation, so first-
born points to eternalpreexistence. Eventhe Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we
must carefully avoid any suggestionthat Christ was the first of createdthings,
which is contradictedby the following words: in Him were all things created.
The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things,
Colossians 1:17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above

all thrones, etc., and all things are unto (εἰς) Him, as they are elsewhere
declaredto be unto God. Compare Psalm89:27; Hebrews 1:2.
What Does it Mean that Jesus Is in the Image of God?
Biblical Authority Devotional:Authority of the Son, Part 9
by Jeremy Ham on September16, 2010
Share:
Did Jesus have God’s authority during His earthly ministry?
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
(Colossians1:15)
Today’s big question: what does Jesus being the image of God mean?
During creation, “Godsaid, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to
Our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26). We were createdin God’s image—afterHis
likeness. We were made to be like God in certain respects, but not to be God.
He gave us dominion over all of the earth, and createdus with a mind capable
of creative thought and the ability to know Him. Today’s passagestates that
Jesus “is the image of the invisible God,” but this is a different conceptin
comparisonto Genesis 1:26.
Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 1:1), and He came to earth with the Father’s
authority. Furthermore, Jesus is God (Titus 2:13) and “the firstborn over all
creation.” “Firstborn” oftenrefers to the first one born. However, in this case,
it is not stating that Jesus was created;if this was the case, then He would not
be God. For example, David was calledthe firstborn, yet he was not the first
one born: the word is referring to the idea that David was prominently
favored and to his kingship (Psalm89:20, 27). Moreover, through David's

lineage came the King of kings—the Lord Jesus Christ, “the firstborn over all
creation.”
Jesus is perfect, and was able to present Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for
our sins, because He is the image of God. Paul wrote, “And walk in love, as
Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice
to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Ephesians 5:2). Becauseofthe Father’s
greatlove for us, He sent His Son (John 3:16; cf. 1 John 4:8–9), and Jesus’
love for us was demonstratedby His sacrifice on the Cross.
Through Christ’s work on the Cross, we have access to the Father through the
Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:18). Believers “have put off the old man with
his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewedin knowledge
according to the image of Him who createdhim” (Colossians 3:9–10).Man
has fallen, but believers have been made alive through Jesus Christ, and
therefore strive to be more Christ-like.
When we think of Jesus being the image of God, we should remember that He
is our heavenly King and Savior, and “that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the
earth, and that every tongue should confess thatJesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10).
Today’s big idea: Jesus is our God, our heavenly King, and our Savior.
What to pray: thank God for His love and the ultimate sacrifice He provided
for us.
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/biblical-authority-devotional/what-does-
it-mean-that-jesus-is-in-the-image-of-god/
Colossians 1:15-17 -Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of
every creature: (ReadMore...)

John 5:19 - Then answeredJesus andsaid unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeththe Father do: for
what things soeverhe doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 8:28 - Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of
man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but
as my Fatherhath taught me, I speak these things.
John 10:30 - I and [my] Father are one.
2 Corinthians 4:4 - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of
them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospelof Christ, who is
the image of God, should shine unto them.
Hebrews 1:3 - Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image
of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had
by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majestyon
high;
John 1:18 - No man hath seenGod at any time; the only begottenSon, which
is in the bosomof the Father, he hath declared[him].
The Image of God
An Approach from Biblical and Systematic Theology
Published in Studia Biblica et Theologica, March1971

March 1, 1971
Article by John Piper
Founder & Teacher, desiringGod.org
Systematic theologyis not biblical theology; but if it would be Christian, it
necessarilymust rest upon biblical theology. Therefore, this paper, aiming
primarily to determine a Christian belief, will have the following structure:
First, I will examine the Old Testamentteaching on the image of God; then, I
will examine the New Testamentteaching about the image; and third, through
an interaction with severalcontemporary scholars, Iwill work out a
systematic, theologicaldefinition of the imago Dei.
The Image of God in the Old Testament
The explicit theme of the image of God appears in three texts in the Old
Testament:Genesis 1:26–27;5:1–2;and 9:6. I am excluding from the
discussionsuch important texts as Psalm17:15 and Ecclesiastes7:20 because,
although these texts bear upon the essenceofman as such, they are not part of
the Old Testament’s ownteaching about the image of God. Given this
limitation, intrinsic to the Old Testamentitself, we readily see that among the
ancient writers there is not a greatinterest in describing man in terms of the
image of God. This cautions us, perhaps, that we should measure our
emphasis accordingly.
The first text, Genesis 1:26–27, records the final creative actof the sixth day
of creation:
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens
and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing

that creeps on the earth.” So God createdman in his own image, in the image
of God he createdhim; male and female he createdthem.1
The fifth chapter of Genesis contains the genealogyfrom Adam to Noah. It
begins:
This is the book of the generations ofAdam. When God createdman, he made
him in the likeness ofGod. Male and female he createdthem, and he blessed
them and named them Man when they were created. (Genesis 5:1–2)
Our third text falls within the contextof God’s blessing upon Noah
immediately after the flood. God says to Noah, “Whoeversheds the blood of
man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”
In these texts, the English word image translates the Hebrew word tselem;
and the English likeness translates the Hebrew demuth (except in Genesis 5:1,
where likeness translates tselem). Our first task, then, is to find out the
meanings of these words from their usage in the whole Old Testament.
In the remainder of the Old Testament, tselemis used, but for the two
exceptions, to refer to the physical likeness of a personor thing, and almost
uniformly these images are abominable.2 The two exceptions ofthis usage,
however, broaden the possibilities of the meaning of this important word. We
should, therefore, considerthese texts more closely. In Psalm 39:5–6 we read:
Behold, you have made my days a few handbreadths,
and my lifetime is as nothing before you.
Surely all mankind stands as a mere breath!
Surely a man goes aboutas a tselem!
The ESV renders tselemshadow, which points to its meaning as a
resemblance or reflectionof something greater. It certainly is not a material
idol or the like. Thus we have some evidence that tselemis not bound to
denote a physical image. Similarly, in Psalm73:20 Asaph, speaking ofthe rich
heathen, says,
Like a dream when one awakes,

O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as tsalmam.
Here the ESV renders tsalmam phantoms. Thus we are not dealing with a
concrete, tangible image, but again, a more abstractlikeness.With von Rad, I
conclude from the above evidence that tselem “means predominantly an
actualplastic work, a duplicate, sometimes an idol . . . only on occasiondoes it
mean a duplicate in the diminished sense of a semblance when comparedwith
the original.”3
The secondimportant word, demuth, apart from the Genesis texts, has a
greaterflexibility than tselem. It is used in a concrete sensealmost
synonymously with tselem,4 and in the abstractsense ofresemblance.5
Although the abstractquality is there, demuth is used uniformly in connection
with a tangible or visual reproduction of something else. So again, as with
tselem, the usage ofdemuth urges us very strongly in the direction of a
physical likeness.
The next question we ask is whether or not a substantial distinction is meant
betweenthese two words when the writer says, “Letus make man in our
image, after our likeness”(Genesis1:26). The evidence is againstany serious
distinction. If the author conceivedofan important distinction between
tselem*and*demuth in verse 26, which is God’s resolutionto create, then why
did he omit demuth in verse 27, the recordof the very act of creation? The
most obvious explanation for the oversight, either by God to create man in his
likeness, orby the author to recordit, is that there really was no oversightby
either and that nothing is lost either from man or from the meaning of the text
by the omissionof demuth. Another bit of evidence which points to the
interchangeability of these two words is that in Genesis 5:1 and 9:6, only one
word is used to denote the image, demuth, in 5:1 and tselemin 9:6. The
Septuagint translators perceivedwhat was happening here and accordingly
translated both demuth and tselem in the texts by the one word eikōn. Finally,
with regard to Genesis 1:26 we must recallthe repetitions for the sake of
emphasis, variety, and rhythm, are common in Hebrew poetry (e.g., Psalms
59:1–2;104). This passage (Genesis 1:26–27)is poetic, and the repetitions of
verse 27 are obvious. “So Godcreatedman in his own image / in the image of
God he createdhim / male and female he createdthem.” It is understandable

in this context that the author would use two different words with no
fundamental distinction intended.
We must ask now what role the prepositions play in the phrase “in our image,
after our likeness”(betsalmenukidhmuthenu). Do they imply that man is not
the image of God, but is only in the image? That is, does man image God or is
he twice removed, the image of an image? Karl Barth follows the latter
possibility.
Man is not createdto be the image of God but — as is saidin vv. 26 and 27,
but also Genesis 5:1 (and againin the command not to shed human blood,
Genesis 9:6) — he is createdin correspondence with the image of God.6
This looks very much like theologicalexpediency, however. It is likely that the
prepositions should not be pressedfor such a meaning. My main reasonfor
saying this is found in Genesis 5:3: “WhenAdam had lived 130 years, he
fathered a son in his ownlikeness, afterhis image, and named him Seth.”
Obviously the author does not mean that there was an image of Adam
according to which Seth was fashioned. The conclusionthat emerges from the
comparisonof these two texts is that when the author employs this kind of
phrasing, he simply means that in some sense the one person is like the other;
man is at some level a copy of his Maker. As H.C. Leupold remarks, “The
double modifying phrase, ‘in our image, after our likeness,’is in the last
analysis nothing more than a phrase which aims to assertwith emphasis the
idea that man is to be closelypatterned after his Maker.”7
We are now in a position to ask whatthe author of Genesis 1:26–27;5:1–2;
and 9:6 really intended to convey about the image of God in man. To answer
this, let us observe more closelythe context of Genesis 1. What features of the
creationnarrative are unique to man? 1) Man is the final creation;2) only
man is statedas being in the image of God; 3) only man is given dominion
over all the earth; 4) prior to the creationof man alone was there divine
counsel;and 5) only man is explicitly stated as being createdmale and female.
Now what, if anything, does eachof these features contribute to our
understanding of God’s image in man?

Jesus was the image of god

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was the image of god

Similar to Jesus was the image of god (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was the image of god