Jesus was the firstborn over all creation

JESUS WAS THE FIRSTBORN OVER ALL CREATION
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Colossians1:15 15The Son is the image of the invisible
God, the firstbornoverall creation.
Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation"
by Matt Slick
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;because by
means of him all [other] things were createdin the heavens and upon the
earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are
thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have
been createdthrough him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and
by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, for
context. The New World Translation--Emphasis added. Note the NWT's
addition of 'other' into the text four times. This is discussedhere).
The Jehovah's Witnessesinterpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first
created" becauseit is consistentwith their theologicalpresuppositionthat
Jesus is a createdthing. Of course, Jesus,the Word become flesh (John 1:1,
14), is not a createdthing; but that hasn't stopped the Watchtower
organizationfrom claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for
"first created," and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the
Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with
tikto which would give us "firstborn," and that is what we find here in

Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo, and
it is not used here.
Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can
mean the first-born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it canalso mean "pre-
eminence." In Psalm89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with
My holy oil I have anointed him . . . I also shall make him My first-born."
(NASB). As you cansee, David, who was the last one born in his family, was
calledthe firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.
Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:
Gen. 41:51-52, "And Josephcalledthe name of the first-born Manasseh:For,
said he, God hath made me forgetall my toil, and all my fatherï's house. And
the name of the secondcalledhe Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in
the land of my affliction." (NASB)
Jer. 31:9, " . . . for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn."
(NASB)
Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of
first createdas the Jehovah's Witnesses sayit means here. "Firstborn" can
mean the first born personin a family, and it canalso be a title of
preeminence which is transferable. Thatis obvious since Jesus is God in flesh
(John 1:1, 14)and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the
pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses shouldconsiderthis
when they examine Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower
which guides them in their thinking and believing.
STUDYLIGHT RESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary

Who is the image of the invisible God - The counterpart of God Almighty, and
if the image of the invisible God, consequently nothing that appearedin him
could be that image; for if it could be visible in the Son, it could also be visible
in the Father; but if the Father be invisible, consequentlyhis image in the Son
must be invisible also. This is that form of God of which he divested himself;
the ineffable glory in which he not only did not appear, as to its splendor and
accompaniments, but concealedalso its essentialnature; that inaccessible light
which no man, no createdbeing, canpossibly see. This was that Divine nature,
the fullness of the Godhead bodily, which dwelt in him.
The first-born of every creature - I suppose this phrase to mean the same as
that, Philippians 2:9; : God hath given him a name which is above every
name; he is as man at the head of all the creationof God; nor can he with any
propriety be consideredas a creature, having himself createdall things, and
existed before any thing was made. If it be said that God createdhim first,
and that he, by a delegatedpowerfrom God, createdall things, this is most
flatly contradictedby the apostle's reasoning in the 16th and 17th verses. As
the Jews term Jehovah‫םלוע‬ ‫לש‬ ‫ורוכב‬ becoro shel olam, the first-born of all
the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having createdor produced all
things; (see Wolfius in loc.)so Christ is here termed, and the words which
follow in the 16th and 17th verses are the proof of this. The phraseologyis
Jewish;and as they apply it to the supreme Being merely to denote his eternal
pre-existence, and to point him out as the cause ofall things; it is most evident
that St. Paul uses it in the same way, and illustrates his meaning in the
following words, which would be absolutAlbert Barnes'Notes on the Whole
Bible
Who is the image of the invisible God - εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου eikōntou
Theou tou aoratouThe 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 usedhere, 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 exalted as 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, andrender “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 prōtotokosthe clausebeginning 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
PrōtotokossaysBloomfield, at the close of an admirable note on this verse, “is
not welltaken by 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 adelphoisyetthere 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.”)
The Biblical Illustrator
Colossians 1:15
Christ the Image of the invisible God.
I. Christ is the image of God. Image signifies that which represents another,
and as things are variously represented, so there is a greatvariety of images.
1. Some are imperfect, and express but some particular, and that defectively.

2. Some are perfect. We call a child the image of his father, inasmuch as he
has not merely the colour or figure of his parent, but his nature and
properties, soul, body, life, etc. So a prince has not only the appearance ofhis
predecessor’s power, but its substance (Genesis 5:3).
3. In which of these two senses is the figure true of Christ? Surely not in the
sense that man is the image of God. For intending to exalt Christ and to show
that His dignity is so greatas to capacitate Him to save us, it would ill suit his
design if the apostle attributed no more to Him than what holds good for any
man. Readour Lord’s own testimony (John 14:9; John 12:45). Now where is
the portrait of which it may be said that he who has seenit has seenhim
whom it represents? This canonly be found in one which contains the nature
of the original (Hebrews 1:3).
4. Now no child perfectly represents is father; there are differences of manner,
disposition, feature: but Christ represents the Fatherin everything.
5. This sacredtruth overthrows two heresies--the Sabellianand the Arian.
The former confounded the Son with the Father, the latter rent them asunder.
Those took from the Son His person, these His nature. Paul demonstrates the
Sabellianerror here, for no one is the image of himself; and the Arian, for
Christ could not be a perfectimage unless He had the same nature as the
Father.
II. God, whose image Jesus is, is invisible.
1. The Divine nature is spiritual, and hence invisible, inasmuch as the eye sees
only corporealobjects. Forthis cause, Moses,in teaching that there is nothing
material in the Divine essence thatmight be representedby pencil or chisel,
remonstrates to them that when God manifested Himself they “saw no
similitude” (Deuteronomy 4:12; Deuteronomy4:15). Whence He infers they
must make no gravenimage.
2. But the meaning here is also that God is incomprehensible. Seeing is often
put for knowing. The Seraphim cover their faces to embody this truth (Isaiah
6:2). Through His grace indeed we may know something of His nature

(Hebrews 1:1); but howeverclearit does not amount to a seeing, i.e., an
apprehension which conceives the proper form of the subject.
3. Why is this quality mentioned here? To show us that God has manifested
Himself to us by His Son. There is a secretoppositionbetweenimage and
invisible. God has a nature so impenetrable that without this His Image men
would not have known Him.
The image of God
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 againstallowing 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
necessityofstriving 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 testament were most
probably manifestations of the Son of God. To Jacobat Peniel, to Joshua at
Jericho, to Manoah, to Isaiah(chap. 6.), and to others God appeared. How are

we to reoncile this with “No man hath seenGod at any time”? Only by
regarding these appearancesas manifestations ofHim who is “the image of
the invisible God.” This is in perfect harmony with other passages inthe
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 Testament
stories acquire a deeper and more enduring interest. In the guide of
Abraham’s pilgrimage I see the guide of my own. Jacob’s successin wrestling
imparts vigour to my prayers.
III. The greatness ofthe workercorresponds with the greatnessofthe work. It
is not always so. Sometimes Godaccomplishes mighty ends by feeble
instruments in both nature and grace. Butredemption is differentiated in
greatness,grandeur, and difficulty from all the other works of God. It cost
more 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 revealedvisibly in Jesus meets and satisfies one of our strongest
wants,
1. The secondcommandment runs more counter to our nature than any other.
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.
The image of the invisible God
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-colours onit.” 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 sayof 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 placeda 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, norindistinctness, 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 shown us 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
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 CrownPrince 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.”

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Image of the invisible God ... The first impressionof reading this verse is that
the terms "image" and "firstborn" accordJesus Christa status below that of
absolute deity; but the very next verse emphatically forbids any such
inadequate interpretation of this verse.
Image of the invisible God ... John B. Nielsonis absolutelycorrectin the
declarationthat in these words, "Paul is saying that Jesus Christ is none other
than God Himself."[27]He even went further and said that "'firstborn' is
equivalent to `only begotten,'and is a Jewishtechnicalterm meaning
`uncreated'[28]Why, then did Paul use these particular words here?
Image ... God createdAdam in his own image (Genesis 1:27); but Adam
promptly sinned and fell from that image; but, by these words here, Paul
compels us to see in Jesus a secondAdam who was indeed God's image. Christ
was man as God createdhim to be in the personof Adam. Christ was (and IS)
also God, but the emphasis here is upon his perfectmanhood. Again, there is
in this passagea strong suggestionlinking Paul with the authorship of
Hebrews where Hebrews 1:3 corresponds exactlyto what is said here. Paul
applied the same title to Christ in 2Â Corinthians 4:4. Barclayalso stressed
the connectionthis passagehas with the creationnarrative. By using the word
"image," whichis the same as that in Genesis, Paulin effectsays,
Look at Jesus. He shows you not only what Godis; he also shows you what
man was meant to be. Here is manhood as God designedit. Jesus is the perfect
manifestation of God and the perfect manifestationof man.[29]
Firstborn of all creation... Of course, this verse was the major platform of
Arianism, the greatheresythat denied the deity of Christ. From this they
allegedthat Jesus Christwas only a creature, understanding "firstborn" in
the sense ofbeing first in a temporal sequence;but there is overwhelming

evidence that Paul did not so use that word in this passage. As Guthrie said,
"Firstborn must be understood in the sense ofsupreme rather than in the
temporal sense of born before."[30]Barclayaffirmed that the time sense in
this world is hardly in the Greek wordat all, and that here, "It is not used in a
time sense atall, but in the sense ofspecialhonor. Firstborn is a title of the
Messiah."[31]Dummelow pointed out that, just as so frequently in the
English, words have different meanings, firstborn has two, that of time
sequence and that of supremacy over.[32]Obviously it is the latter meaning
which Paul meant here. As a matter of fact, the other meaning was by far the
most unusual. David Lipscomb interpreted the word to mean in this place
"Overall creation, Christ occupies the relation of supremacy such as is
accordedthe firstborn; and such is preeminently due to the `firstborn of all
creation'."[33]Thus, the two words, image and firstborn, stand for Christ's
perfect manhood and perfectdeity.
This verse (Colossians1:15)is the beginning of one of the most important
paragraphs in the New Testament;and, as Hendriksen said, "Before
attempting a study of the separate parts, the passage shouldbe seenin its
entirety."[34]We are further indebted to Hendriksen for the following
parallel arrangementwhich enables the reader, at a glance to see the
correspondence betweenthe two major sections:
THE SUPREMACYOF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
THE SUPREMACYOF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
A. IN CREATION
B. IN REDEMPTION
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
18 He is the head of the body, the church; Who is the beginning, the firstborn
from the dead, That in all things he might have the pre-eminence,
16 For in him were createdall things in the heavens and on the earth,
Whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities, All things
through him and with a view to him have been created;

19 For in him he (God) was pleasedto have all the fullness dwell. The visible
and the invisible,
17 And he is before all things and all things hold togetherin him.
20 And through him to reconcile all things to himself, Having made peace
through the blood of his cross, Throughhim, whether the things on the earth
or the things in the heavens.
Now, admittedly, this is a very carefully thought-out paragraph, or sentence
of 137 words, and the organization of it is obvious; but for another Pauline
paragraph manifesting these same qualities see Paul's long salutation in
Romans and the analysis and discussionof it in my Commentary on Romans,
Romans 1:8ff. We reject out of hand the allegationthat this marvelous
paragraph is some kind of hymn or liturgical chant used in worship services
of the early church. Such a view is not supported by any evidence whatever
exceptin the imagination of scholars;and it is basedupon severalvery
tenuous and unsure premises: (1) that Paul would need to reachinto the
current hymnology of his day for accurate expressionof the nature and
essenceofthe being of Christ Jesus;(2) that the greatChristologyof this
passagehad "developed" in the early church. On the contrary, far from
having developedany such exalted conceptionof Christ, those early churches
were in danger of being carried awayinto the worship of angels, etc. If the
brethren at Colossaewere singing these words already when Paul wrote, there
would have been no temptation to gnosticism, and no need for Paul to have
written them. Of course, whatsome have in mind, through making a hymn
out of this passage,is to make it easierfor them to deny that Paul wrote it, or
that it is indeed authoritative Scripture.
This remarkable paragraph has every mark of Pauline authorship, being a
similar carefulwork, comparable to Romans 1:1-7. As G. Campbell Morgan
expressedit:
It is here that Paul setforth the glories of the personof the Redeemerin a
passagethat is unique for its revealing beauty. He summarized the whole

truth concerning the glories ofthe person of Christ in his declarationthat "It
was the goodpleasure of the Father that in him should all the fullness
dwell."[35]
Before leaving Colossians1:15, one other expressionshould be noted:
Who is ... not "who was" etc. Three times in these verses (Colossians
1:15,17,18), this imperative IS used with reference to Christ, strongly
suggesting the great"I AM's" of the Gospels and of Exodus 3:6,14. See the
comment in my Commentary on Mark 6:50.
[27] G. Campbell Morgan, An Exposition of the Holy Bible (Old Tappan, New
Jersey:Fleming H. RevellCompany, 1959), p. 379.
[28] Ibid.
[29] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 118.
[30] Donald Guthrie, op. cit., p. 1144.
[31] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 118.
[32] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 981.
[33] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 259.
[34] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 70.
[35] G. Campbell Morgan, An Exposition of the Holy Bible (Old Tappan, New
Jersey:Fleming H. RevellCompany, 1959), p. 496.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole 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 JewF6, oftenspeaks ofthe λογος, 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, andmercy 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 πρωτοτοκος,we read
πρωτοτοκος;which is no more than changing the place of the accent, and may

be very easily ventured upon, as is done by an ancient writerF7, who observes,
that the word is used in this sense by Homer, and is the same as πρωτογονος,
"first Parent", and πρωτοκτιστης, "firstCreator";and the rather this may be
done, seeing the accents were alladded since the apostle's days, and especially
seeing 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, orit may be understood of
Christ, as the King, Lord, and Governor of 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 ‫לודג‬ ‫,רשו‬ "a greatone", and "a prince"F8;see Psalm
89:27.
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.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

They who have experiencedin themselves “redemption” (Colossians 1:14),
know Christ in the glorious characterhere described, as above the highest
angels to whom the false teachers (Colossians 2:18)taught worship was to be
paid. Paul describes Him: (1) in relation to God and creation(Colossians 1:15-
17); (2) in relation to the Church (Colossians1:18-20). As the former regards
Him as the Creator(Colossians 1:15, Colossians1:16)and the Sustainer
(Colossians1:17)of the natural world; so the latter, as the source and stay of
the new moral creation.
image — exactlikeness and perfectRepresentative. Adam was made “in the
image of God” (Genesis 1:27). But Christ, the secondAdam, perfectly
reflectedvisibly “the invisible God” (1 Timothy 1:17), whose glories the first
Adam only in part represented. “Image” ({(eicon})involves “likeness”
({(homoiosis}); but “likeness” does notinvolve “image.” “Image”always
supposes a prototype, which it not merely resembles, but from which it is
drawn: the exactcounterpart, as the reflectionof the sun in the water:the
child the living image of the parent. “Likeness” implies mere resemblance, not
the exactcounterpart and derivation as “image” expresses;hence it is
nowhere applied to the Son, while “image” is here, compare 1 Corinthians
11:7 [Trench]. (John 1:18; John 14:9; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Timothy 3:16;
Hebrews 1:3). Even before His incarnation He was the image of the invisible
God, as the Word (John 1:1-3) by whom God createdthe worlds, and by
whom God appeared to the patriarchs. Thus His essentialcharacteras 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, contemplatedhere by the verb “is.”
)
first-born of every creature — ({Heb_1:6}), “the first-begotten”:“begottenof
His Fatherbefore all worlds” [Nicene Creed]. Priority and superlative dignity
is implied (Psalm 89:27). English Version 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,” etc. (Colossians 1:16, Colossians1:17)[Trench]. This
expressionis understood by Origen (so far is the Greek from favoring
Socinianor Arian views)as declaring the Godhead of 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.”
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
The image (εικων — eikōn). In predicate and no article. On εικων — eikōn
see 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:29; Colossians 3:10.
Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation
(John 17:5) and is now (Philemon 2:5-11; Hebrews 1:3).
Of the invisible God (του τεου του αορατου — tou theou tou aoratou). But the
one who sees Jesus has seenGod(John 14:9). See this verbal adjective (α — a
privative and οραω — horaō) in Romans 1:20.
The first born (πρωτοτοκος — prōtotokos). Predicate adjective againand
anarthrous. This passage is parallelto the Λογος — Logos passage inJohn
1:1-18 and to Hebrews 1:1-4 as well as Philemon 2:5-11 in which these three
writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conceptionof the
Personof Christ (both Sonof God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic
Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.)can no
longerbe consideredpurely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In
inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and
Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luke 2:7 and Aleph for Matthew
1:25; Romans 8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued
that Paul regardedChrist as a creature like “allcreation” (πασης κτισεως —
pāsēs ktiseōsby metonomy the act regardedas result). It is rather the
comparative (superlative) force of πρωτος — prōtos that is used (first-born of
all creation) as in Colossians1:18;Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews
12:23;Revelation1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ
as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men).
Like εικων — eikōnwe find πρωτοτοκος — prōtotokos in the Alexandrian
vocabulary of the Λογος — Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul

takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the
Father as εικων — eikōn(Image) and to the universe as πρωτοτοκος—
prōtotokos (First-born).
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, Philemon 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 ( πρωτότοκοςπασῆς 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.
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Who is — By describing the glory of Christ, and his pre-eminence over the
highest angels, the apostle here lays a foundation for the reproof of all
worshippers of angels.
The image of the invisible God — Whom none can represent, but his only
begottenSon; in his divine nature the invisible image, in his human the visible
image, of the Father.
The first begottenof every creature — That is, begotten before every
creature;subsisting before all worlds, before all time, from all eternity.
Abbott's Illustrated New Testament
The image of the invisible God; imbodying, and manifesting to men, the
attributes and characteristicsofGod; or, as it is expressedin 1 Timothy 3:16,
God manifest in the flesh.--The first-born of every creature, the head of the
whole creation; the expression"the first-born" denoting the chief or head.
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
15.Who is the image of the invisible God. He mounts up higher in discoursing
as to the glory of Christ. He calls him the image of the invisible God, meaning
by this, that it is in him alone that God, who is otherwise invisible, is
manifested to us, in accordance withwhat is said in John 1:18,
— No man hath ever seenGod: the only begottenSon, who is in the bosomof
the Father, hath himself manifestedhim to us.
I am wellaware in what manner the ancients were accustomedto explain this;
for having a contestto maintain with Arians, they insist upon the equality of
the Sonwith the Father, and his ( ὁμοουσίαν)identity of essence, (303)while
in the mean time they make no mention of what is the chief point — in what
manner the Father makes himself known to us in Christ. As to Chrysostom’s
laying the whole stress of his defense on the termimage, by contending that the

creature cannot be said to be the image of the Creator, it is excessivelyweak;
nay more, it is setaside by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:7, whose words are —
The man is the IMAGE and glory of God
That, therefore, we may not receive anything but what is solid, let us take
notice, that the term image is not made use of in reference to essence,but has
a reference to us; for Christ is called the image of God on this ground — that
he makes God in a manner visible to us. At the same time, we gatheralso from
this his ( ὁμοουσία)identity of essence, forChrist would not truly represent
God, if he were not the essentialWord of God, inasmuch as the question here
is not as to those things which by communication are suitable also to
creatures, but the question is as to the perfectwisdom, goodness,
righteousness, andpowerof God, for the representing of which no creature
were competent. We shall have, therefore, in this term, a powerful weaponin
opposition to the Arians, but, notwithstanding, we must begin with that
reference (304)that I have mentioned; we must not insist upon the essence
alone. The sum is this — that God in himself, that is, in his nakedmajesty, is
invisible, and that not to the eyes of the body merely, but also to the
understandings of men, and that he is revealedto us in Christ alone, that we
may behold him as in a mirror. For in Christ he shews us his righteousness,
goodness,wisdom, power, in short, his entire self. We must, therefore, beware
of seeking him elsewhere,foreverything that would set itself off as a
representationof God, apart from Christ, will be an idol.
The first-born of every creature. The reasonof this appellation is immediately
added — For in him all things are created, as he is, three verses afterwards,
calledthe first-begottenfrom the dead, because by him we all rise again.
Hence, he is not called the first-born, simply on the ground of his having
precededall creatures in point of time, but because he was begottenby the
Father, that they might be createdby him, and that he might be, as it were,
the substance orfoundation of all things. It was then a foolishpart that the
Arians acted, who argued from this that he was, consequently, a creature. For
what is here treated of is, not what he is in himself, but what he accomplishes
in others.

John Trapp Complete Commentary
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Ver. 15. Who is the image] The express image of his person, Hebrews 1:2.
Milk is not so like milk as this Son is like the Father. By whom also God
(otherwise invisible) is manifested to us. And here, he that would see God
must set the eyes of faith upon the manhood of Christ; for he "that seeththe
Son, seeth the Father." When a man lookethinto a crystalglass, it castethno
reflex to him; but put steelupon the back of it, it will casta reflex. So put the
humanity (as a back of steel)to the glass ofthe Godhead, and it castetha
comfortable reflex to us. As without this, if we look upon God, we see indeed
some small sparks of his glory to terrify and amaze us; but in Christ (God and
man) we behold the lively and express face of God; not any more as a fearful
and terrible Judge, but a most gracious and loving Fatherto comfortand
refresh us.
The firstborn of every creature] As being begotten of the substance of the
Father, after a wonderful manner, before all beginnings, and as being the heir
of all his Father’s goods. And so this text is parallel to that Hebrews 1:2.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography

Trapp, John. "Commentary on Colossians1:15". JohnTrapp Complete
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/colossians-
1.html. 1865-1868.
return to 'Jump List'
Greek TestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentary
15.](The last verse has been a sort of introduction, through our own part in
Him, to the Personof the Redeemer, whichis now directly treated of, as
againstthe teachers of error at Colossæ. He is described, in His relation 1) to
God and His Creation (Colossians 1:15-17):2) to the Church (18–20).This
arrangement, which is Meyer’s, is far more exactthan the triple division of
Bähr,—‘Source ofcreation(15, 16): upholder of creation(17): relation to the
new moral creation18–20)’), who is (now—in His glorified state—essentially
and permanently: therefore not to be understood, as De W. after Erasm.,
Calv., Beza, Grot., Beng., al., of the historical Christ, God manifested in our
flesh on earth: nor againwith Olsh., Bleek on Hebrews 1 al., of the eternal
Word: but of Christ’s present glorified state, in which He is exalted in our
humanity, but exalted to that glory which He had with the Father before the
world was. So that the following description applies to Christ’s whole Person
in its essentialglory,—now however,by His assumption of humanity,
necessarilyotherwise conditionedthan before that assumption. See for the
whole, notes on Philippians 2:6, and Hebrews 1:2 ff.; and Usteri, Paulinisches
Lehrbegriff, ii. § 4, p. 286 ff.) image (= the image) of the invisible God (the
adjunct τοῦ ἀοράτου is of the utmost weight to the understanding of the
expression. The same fact being the foundation of the whole as in Philippians
2:6 ff., that the Son ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπῆρχεν, that side of the factis brought out
here, which points to His being the visible manifestationof that in Godwhich
is invisible: the λόγος of the eternal silence, the ἀπαύγασμα ofthe δόξα which
no creature can bear, the χαρακτήρofthat ὑπόστασις which is
incommunicably God’s: in one word the ἐξηγητής of the Fatherwhom none
hath seen. So that while ἀόρατος includes in it not only the invisibility, but the
incommunicability of God, εἰκών also must not be restrictedto Christ
corporeallyvisible in the Incarnation, but understood of Him as the
manifestation of God in His whole Personand work—præ-existentand

incarnate. It is obvious, that in this expression, the Apostle approaches very
near to the Alexandrian doctrine of the λόγος:how near, may be seenfrom
the extracts from Philo in Usteri: e.g. de somniis, 41, vol. i. p. 656, καθάπερ
τὴν ἀνθήλιον αὐγὴνὡς ἥλιον οἱ μὴ δυνάμενοι τὸν ἥλιον αὐτὸνἰδεῖν ὁρῶσι, κ.
τὰς περὶ τὴν σελήνην ἀλλοιώσεις ὡς αὐτὴνἐκείνην· οὕτως καὶ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ
εἰκόνα, τὸν ἄγγελοναὐτοῦ λόγον, ὡς αὐτὸνκατανοοῦσι:and de Monarch. ii. 5,
vol. ii. p. 225, λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν θεοῦ, διʼ οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος
ἐδημιουργεῖτο. Seeother passagesin Bleek onHebrews 1:2. He is, in fact, as
St. John afterwards did, adopting the language ofthat lore as far as it
representeddivine truth, and rescuing it from being used in the service of
error. (This last sentence might have prevented the misunderstanding of this
part of my note by Ellic. in loc.:shewing, as it does, that the inspiration of St.
Paul and the non-inspiration of Philo, are as fully recognizedby me as by
himself)), the first-born of all creation(such, and not ‘every creature,’is the
meaning (so I still hold againstEllic. But see his whole note on this passage, as
well worth study): nor canthe strict usage of the article be allegedas an
objection: cf. below, Colossians1:23, and Ephesians 2:21 note: the solution
being, that κτίσις, as our word ‘creation,’may be used anarthrous, in its
collective sense.
Christ is ὁ πρωτότοκος, THE FIRST-BORN,Hebrews 1:6. The idea was well
known in the Alexandrian terminology: τοῦτονμὲν γάρ,—viz. τὸν ἀσώματον
ἐκεῖνον, θείας ἀδιαφοροῦντα εἰκόνος— πρεσβύτατονυἱὸνὁ τῶν ὄντων
ἀνέτειλε πατήρ, ὃν ἑτέρωθι πρωτόγονονὠνόμασε, καὶ ὁ γεννηθεὶς μέντοι
μιμούμενος τὰς τοῦ πατρὸς ὁδούς, πρὸς παραδείγματα ἀρχέτυπαἐκείνου
βλέπων, ἐμόρφου εἴδη. Philo, de Confus. Ling. 14, vol. i. p. 414. Thatthe word
is used as one whose meaning and reference was alreadyknown to the
readers, is shewnby its being predicated of Christ as comparedwith two
classesso different, the creatures, and the dead (ver.18).
The first and simplest meaning is that of priority of birth. But this, if insisted
on, in its limited temporal sense, must apply to our Lord’s birth from his
human mother, and could have reference only to those brothers and sisters
who were born of her afterwards;a reference clearlyexcluded here. But a
secondaryand derived meaning of πρωτότοκος, as a designationof dignity
and precedence, implied by priority, cannot be denied. Cf. Ps. 88:27, κἀγὼ

πρωτότοκονθήσομαι αὐτόν, ὑψηλὸνπαρὰ τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τῆς γῆς:—Exodus
4:22, υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου ἰσραήλ:—Romans 8:29, and Hebrews 12:23,
ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκωνἀπογεγραμμένωνἐν οὐρανοῖς, where see Bleek’s note.
Similarly πρωτόγονος is used in Soph. Phil. 180, οὗτος πρωτογόνωνἴσως
οἴκωνοὐδενὸς ὕστερος. It would be obviously wrong here to limit the sense
entirely to this reference, as the very expressionbelow, αὐτὸς ἐστὶνπρὸ
πάντων, shews, in which his priority is distinctly predicated. The safe method
of interpretation therefore will be, to take into accountthe two ideas
manifestly included in the word, and here distinctly referred to—priority, and
dignity, and to regard the technicalterm πρωτότοκος as usedrather with
reference to both these, than in strict constructionwhere it stands. “First-born
of every creature” will then imply, that Christ was not only first-born of His
mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father, before the worlds,—and
that He holds the rank, as compared with every createdthing, of first-born in
dignity: FOR, &c., Colossians 1:16, where this assertionis justified. Cf. below
on Colossians1:18.
It may be well to notice other interpretations: 1) Meyer, after Tert., Chr.,
Thdrt., al., Bengel, al., would restrictthe term to its temporal sense:
‘primogenitus, ut ante omnia genitus:’ on this, sec above. 2) The Arians
maintained that Christ is thus Himself declaredto be a κτίσις of God. It might
have been enough to guard them from this, that as Chr. remarks, not
πρωτόκτιστος,but πρωτότοκος is advisedly used by the Apostle. 3) The
Socinians (also Grot., Wetst., Schleierm., al., after Theod. Mops.)holding the
mistakenview of the necessityofthe strict interpretation of πρωτότοκος—
maintain, that Christ must be one of those among whom He is πρωτότοκος—
and that consequentlyκτίσις must be the new spiritual creation—whichit
certainly cannot mean without a qualifying adjective to indicate such
meaning—and leastof all here, where the physical κτίσις is so specifically
broken up into its parts in the next verse.
4) Worst of all is the rendering proposed by Isidore of Pelusium and adopted
by Erasm. and Er.-Schmidt, ‘first bringer forth’ ( πρωτοτόκος, but used only
of a mother). See on the whole, De W.: and a long note in Bleek on the
Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 43–48):

Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
Colossians 1:15. Who is the image— Adam is said to have been made in the
image of God, and dominion given him over the creatures ofthe earth; by
which he became Lord of this lowerworld. St. Paul, in Philippians 2:6 tells us,
that Christ was in the form of God, which gave him dominion over the works
of nature, which had their being from, and owe their preservation to his
power. Moses gives us an accounthow Adam fell from the dignity in which he
was created, and entailed misery upon his descendants, through his
disobedience and vain ambition. St. Paul says, that Christ, through obedience
and submission to the will of his Father, has made an atonement, and has set
us an example, by which, if the same mind be in us, through his grace, we may
recoverwhat is lost. Moses tells us, that Adam was tempted to eatthe
forbidden fruit, upon the hopes which the tempter gave him, that it would
make him like to God. He thought it such an advantageous proposal, that he
catchedat the opportunity, and eagerlyembracedthe offer. St. Paul's account
is, that Christ, who had a right by nature to appearin the majesty and glory
of God, yet voluntarily laid it aside, and lived and died upon earth, in fashion
as a man. What Adam gotby his bold attempt, we all know; but Christ, for a
recompence ofhis obedience, was highly exalted in his glorified humanity.
Adam was, at best, a faint image of God; but Christ was a true, faithful, and
infinitely complete image of the wisdom, power, and goodness ofhis Father.
Adam was such an image of God, as the reflectionof the sun is, when seenin
the water;but Christ was such an image of the sun, as another sun would be,
adorned with equal lustre and radiance. The Apostle describes our Redeemer
in this and the following verses, in such lofty terms, as evidently bespeak him
to be a Divine Person, truly and really God; and consequentlythe fittest, the
only person to undertake so greatand glorious a work as the redemption of a
perishing world. The Father is always representedin the New Testamentas
invisible: but Christ is representedas visible; since he actually took upon him
flesh, and was seenin the world. Indeed, his being calledthe image of God, in
this place, and 2 Corinthians 4:4 implies his being visible, and that the
perfections of the whole Godheaddo most eminently shine in him. It is

remarkable how expresslyPhilo, the Jew, in more places than one, calls the
Logos, orWord, of which he speaks, the image of God.
Dr. Hammond observes, that the word πρωτοτοκος,besides the ordinary
notion of first-born, is used sometimes in scripture for a Lord, or personin
power; who hath the privilege of the first-born, dominion over all his
brethren; and according to this notion it is used commonly in scripture for a
prince, or principal person; (see Psalms 68:27.)and among the civilians, the
heir and the lord are synonimous terms. That this is the true sense ofthe word
in this place, appears probable, for the following reasons:
1. Becausethe Apostle immediately adds, for by him were all things created;
so that the creationof all things by him is given as a reasonfor his being
πρωτοτοκος, orthe first-born. Now it is not a good argument, that, because he
createdall things, he was therefore himself produced before them; it is
sufficient for that purpose, that he had almighty power, and was before them:
but it is a very goodargument, that, because he createdall things, he should
therefore be Lord, or Heir of all things. 2nd, Becausethe same Apostle,
Hebrews 1:2 hath stiled the same personHeir of all things; and probably
alluded to the same reason, whenhe added, by whom also he made the worlds.
Thirdly, Becausethe prophesy in Psalms 89:26-27 confirms this
interpretation, and shews the true meaning of the word. He shall cry unto me,
Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation;also I will make
him my first-born,— (in the 70: πρωτοτοκος,)higherthan the kings of the
earth; but, according to the Arian notion, this should have been, He is or was
my first-born. See Hebrews 1:6. Revelation3:14. It may not be amiss to
observe, that the word πρωτοτοκοςhath yet another signification;and is
applied by Homer, Il. P. to an animal that hath brought forth its first young;
in which sense it might be applied, without any greatimpropriety, to the
Creatorof all things; to Him, who, as it were at the first birth, by the exertion
of his creating power, brought forth all things. The words πασης κτισεως, so
naturally signifying the whole creation, [as they are translated in Romans
8:22.] (a version which gives a much nobler and more determinate sense than
every creature), at leastrender this interpretation very remarkable. Some
translate it the first-born before, or born before all the creation. See
Blackwall, S.C. vol. ii, p. 173. Sherlock,vol. 4: dis. 1. Scott's Christian Life,

vol. 3: p. 559. Wallis's Sermonon the Resurrection,Tillotson, vol. 1: serm. 43
and "The Doctrine of the Trinity," &c. p. 16.
According to the Arians, the first-born of the whole creation, is the first-made
creature. But the reasonadvancedto prove the Son the first-born of the whole
creation, overturns that sense ofthis passage. Forsurely the Son's creating all
things, does not prove him to be the first-made creature, unless his power of
creating all things originatedfrom his being the first-made creature;which no
one I think will affirm. As little does the Son's creating all things, prove that
he first of all createdhimself. Yet these absurdities will be establishedby the
Apostle's reasoning, if the first-born of the whole creationsignifies the first-
made creature.
Expository Notes with PracticalObservations onthe New Testament
The apostle having mentioned our redemption in the former verse, describes
the personof our Redeemerin this and the following verses, in such lofty
characters, as evidently bespeak him to be a divine person, truly and really
God, and consequently the fittest personto undertake so great and glorious a
work, as the redemption and salvation of a lost and perishing world.
Note here, 1. The Redeemerdescribedby his eternal relation to God, he is the
image of the invisible God, that is, his natural and essentialimage;thus he is,
in respectof his eternalgenerationas God; as a child whom we callthe
express image of the father, is of the same nature with his father, so is Christ
of the same essenceandnature with God; his nature is the same, his attributes
are the same, his works the same, the worship given him the same; faith and
affiance in him the same:Ye believe in God, believe also in me John 14:1.
Again, Christ is the image of the invisible God, as God-man; by him, as a
lively image, did God the Father setforth unto us his glorious attributes of
wisdom, mercy, righteousness,and power. The first person in the God-headis
calledinvisible to the patriarchs; but the Son frequently apperared, as a
preludium to his incarnation, in which he appeared visibly to all.

Note, 2. Christ is here described, as by his eternal relation to God, so by his
eternal relation to the creatures;He is the first born of every creature; that is,
1. He was before every creature, and therefore he himself cannotbe a
creature:The apostle says expressly, That he is before all things, Colossians
1:17 that is, Christ had a being before there was any created;he was before all
creature, both in point of dignity, and in point of duration.
Thus, Chirst calls himself the beginning of the creationof God, Revelation
3:14 that is, the principal and efficient cause of the creation, and so could not
be a creature himself, but consequentlymust of necessityhave been Godfrom
all eternity with the Father:
Or else, 2. By the first-born of every creature, may be understood, that he was
the Lord and heir of all the creatures;in allusion to the first born among the
Jews ofold, who were Lords over their brethren, BeholdI have made him thy
Lord Genesis 27:37;the first-born is natural heir, and heir did anciently
signify Lord.
Now Christ is saidin to be Lord of all Acts 10:36, and He is called heir of all
things Romans 4:14 : Now, how well may Christ be said to be the Lord and
heir of all things, when all things were made by him, and without him was not
anything made that was made!
Learn hence, That the Socinians have no ground from this text to reckon
Christ amongstthe number of creatures, he having a being antecedentto all
creatures;yea, being Lord of the whole creation; and accordinglythe apostle
styling him here the first born of every creature, never designedto insinuate,
that the Son of God is a creature, as most evidently appears by the next verses.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
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 Colossians1:17 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 observedthat Paul has in view Christ as regards
His presentexistence, 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 Philippians 2:6;
John 17:5.
εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου]image ofGod 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 ΄ορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων(see on
Philippians 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 exaltedagainby God to His original glory (Philippians
2:9; John 17:5), so that the divine δόξα now exists (comp. on Colossians 2:9)in
His glorified corporealmanifestation(Philippians 3:21); and He—the exalted
Christ—in this His glory, which is that of His Father, represents and brings to
view by exact image God, who is in Himself invisible. He is ἀπαύγασ΄α τῆς
δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρτῆς ὑποστάσεως θειῦ (Hebrews 1:3),(27) and, in this
majesty, in which He is the exactly similar visible revelation of God, He will
present Himself to all the world at the Parousia (Matthew 16:27;Matthew
25:31;Philippians 3:20; 2 Thessalonians 1:7;1 Peter4:13; Titus 2:13, et al.).
The predicate τοῦ ἀοράτου, placedas it is in its characteristicallysignificant
attributive 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 comparisonwith the angel

Metatronof Jewishtheology (comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is
irrelevant. The Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to 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, namelyof the
adequate, and consequentlyconsubstantial, 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 εἰκώνis not at all to be
consideredas presupposed(Chrysostom, Calovius, and others); this, on the
contrary, pertains to the Godheadin itself (1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27),
so far as it does not present itself in its εἰκών; whereas the notion of εἰκών
necessarilyinvolves perceptibility (see above); “Deiinaspectiaspectabilis
imago,” Grotius. This visibility—and that not merely mental (Romans 1:20)—
had been experiencedby Paul himself at his conversion, and at Christ’s
Parousia will be fully experiencedby all the world. Different from this is the
(discursive) cognoscibility of God, which Christ has brought about by His
appearance and working. John 1:18; John 14:9. This applies againstthe view
of Calvin, Clericus, and many others, including de Wette: “in His person,
appearance, andoperation … God has made Himself as it were visible;”
comp. Grotius: “Adam imago Dei fuit, sed valde tenuis; in Christo
perfectissime apparuit, quam Deus essetsapiens, potens, bonus;”
Baumgarten-Crusius:“the affinity to God (which is held to consistin the
destination of ruling overthe spirit-world) as Christ showedit upon earth.”
Thus the substantiality of the exactimage is more or less turned into a quasi
or quodammodo, and the text is thus laid open to every kind of rationalizing
caprice. We may add that Christ was already, as λόγος ἄσαρκος, necessarily
the image of God, but ἐν ΄ορφῇ θεοῦ, in purely divine glory; not, as after His
exaltation, in divine-human δόξα; consequently, the doctrine of an eternal
humanity of Christ (Beyschlag)is not to be basedon εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ. Comp.
Wisdom of Solomon 7:26, and Grimm, Handb. p. 161 f. The idea, also, of the
prototype of humanity, which is held by Beyschlag here to underlie that of the
image of God (comp. his Christol. p. 227), is foreign to the context. Certainly
God has in eternity thought of the humanity which in the fulness of time was
to be assumedby His Son (Acts 15:18);but this is simply an ideal pre-
existence (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 41 ff.), such as belongs to the entire

history of salvation, very different from the realantemundane existence ofthe
personalLogos.
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως]After the relation of Christ to God now follows
His relation to what is created, in an apologetic interestof oppositionto the
Gnostic false teachers;βούλεται δεῖξαι, ὅτι πρὸ πάσης τῆς κτίσεώς ἐστιν ὁ
υἱός· πῶς ὤν; διὰ γενήσεως· οὐκοῦνκαὶ τῶν ἀγγέλωνπρότερος, καὶ οὕτως
ὥστε καὶ αὐτὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτούς, Theophylact. The false teachers deniedto
Christ the supreme unique rank in the order of spirits. But he is first-born of
every creature, that is, born before every creature—having come to personal
existence,(28)enteredupon subsistent being, ere yet anything createdwas
extant (Romans 1:25; Romans 8:39; Hebrews 4:13). Analogous, but not
equivalent, is Proverbs 8:22 f. It is to be observedthat this predicate also
belongs to the entire Christ, inasmuch as by His exaltationHis entire person is
raisedto that state in which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed
before the creationof the world, corresponding to the Johannine expressionἐν
ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, which in substance, although not in form, is also Pauline;
comp. Philippians 2:6. Philo’s term πρωτόγονος, usedof the Logos, denotes
the same relation; but it is not necessaryto suppose that Paul appropriated
from him this expression, whichis also current among classicalauthors, or
that the apostle was at all dependent on the Alexandrian philosophic view.
The mode in which he conceivedof the personalpre-existence of Christ before
the world as regards (timeless)origin, is not defined by the figurative
πρωτότοκος more preciselythan as processionfrom the divine nature (Philo
illustrates the relation of the origin of the Logos, by saying that the Father
ἀνέτειλεν Him), whereby the premundane Christ became subsistentἐν μορφῇ
θεοῦ and ἴσα θεῷ (Philippians 2:6). The genitive πάσης κτίσεως, moreover, is
not the partitive genitive (although de Wette still, with Usteri, Reuss, and
Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because the anarthrous πᾶσα κτίσις does
not mean the whole creation, or everything which is created(Hofmann), and
consequentlycannot affirm the categoryor collective whole(29)to which
Christ belongs as its first-born individual (it means: every creature; comp. on
πᾶσα οἰκοδομή, Ephesians2:21(30));but it is the genitive of comparison,
corresponding to the superlative expression:“the first-born in comparison
with every creature” (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that is, born earlierthan every

creature. Comp. Bähr and Bleek, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 241;Weiss,
Bibl. Theol. p. 424;Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2. In Revelation1:5,
πρωτότοκ. τῶννεκρῶν, the relation is different, τ. νεκρῶν pointing out the
category;comp. πρωτότοκ. ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδ., Romans 8:29. The genitive here is
to be takenquite as the comparative genitive with πρῶτος; see onJohn 1:15,
and generally, Kühner, II. 1, p. 335 f. The element of comparisonis the
relation of time ( πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμονεἶναι, John 17:5), and that in respectof
origin. But because the latter in the case ofevery κτίσις is different from what
it is in the case ofChrist, neither πρωτόκτιστος norπρωτόπλαστος is made
use of,(31)—terms whichwould indicate for Christ, who is withal Son of God,
a similar mode of origin as for the creature—but the term πρωτότοκος is
chosen, which, in the comparisonas to time of origin, points to the peculiar
nature of the origination in the case ofChrist, namely, that He was not
createdby God, like the other beings in whom this is implied in the
designationκτίσις, but born, having come forth homogeneous from the nature
of God. And by this is expressed, not a relation homogeneous withthe κτίσις
(Holtzmann), a relation kindred to the world (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 227), but
that which is absolutely exalted above the world and unique. Theodoretjustly
observes:οὐχ ὡς ἀδελφὴνἔχων τὴν κτίσιν, ἀλλʼ ὡς πρὸ πᾶσης κτίσεως
γεννηθείς. At variance with the words, therefore, is the Arian interpretation,
that Christ is designatedas the first creature;so also Usteri, p. 315,
Schwegler, Baur, Reuss.With this view the sequelalso conflicts, which
describes Christ as the accomplisherand aim of creation;hence in His case a
mode of origin higher and different from the being createdmust be
presupposed, which is, in fact, characteristicallyindicated in the purposely-
chosenword πρωτότοκος. The Socinianinterpretation is also incorrect(32)
(Grotius, Wetstein, Nösselt, Heinrichs, and others), that κτίσις denotes the
new ethicalcreation, along with which there is, for the most part, associated
the reference ofπρωτότοκ. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanchthon,
Cameron, Hammond, Zachariae, and others, including Storr and Flatt; comp.
de Wette), which is assumedalso by many who understand it of the physical
creation. It is decisive againstthis interpretation, that κτίσις would
necessarilyrequire for the moral notion a more precise definition, either by a
predicate ( καινή, 2 Corinthians 5:17; comp. Barnabas, ep. c. xvi.: λαβόντες
τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶνκαὶ ἐλπίσαντες ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου,

ἐγενόμεθα καινοὶ, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτιζόμενοι), orat leastby a context which
admitted of no doubt; also, that πρωτότοκος nevermeans the most excellent,
and canonly have this sense ex adjuncto (as at Psalms 89:28;Romans 8:29),
which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the context(see
Colossians 1:16, and πρὸ πάντων in Colossians 1:17;comp. also πρωτότοκος
ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν in Colossians 1:18) brings prominently forward the relation of
time. Chrysostomjustly says:οὐχὶ ἀξίας κ. τιμῆς, ἀλλὰ χρόνου μόνον ἐστὶ
σημαντικόν, and already Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 31, p. 172:ὅποτε δὲ
ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτοντὸνλόγονἐγέννησε
προφορικόν, πρωτότοκονπάσης κτίσεως. This πρωτότοκονεἶναι belongs to
the high dignity of Christ (comp. Revelation3:14 : ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ
θεοῦ), but it does not signify it. Comp. Justin, c. Tr. 100:πρωτότοκονμὲν τοῦ
θεοῦ κ. πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων. The ethical(33)interpretation of the
passageappears allthe more mistaken, since according to it, even if
πρωτότοκ. is understood temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius: “ κτίσις is that
which is remodelled, and πρωτότοκος, He who has come first under this
category, has first receivedthis higher spiritual dignity”), Christ is made to be
included under the κτίσις, which is at variance both with the context in
Colossians 1:16 f., and with the whole N. T. Christology, especiallythe
sinlessnessofChrist. If, however, in order to obviate this ground of objection,
πρωτότοκος is combined as an adjective with εἰκών, we not only geta
complicatedconstruction, since both words have their genitival definition, but
πρωτότοκος (insteadof πρωτότυπος)would be an inappropriate predicate for
εἰκών. This applies againstSchleiermacher, who, taking κτίσις as “disposition
and arrangementof human things,” educes the rationalizing interpretation,
that Christ is in the whole compass ofthe spiritual world of man the first-born
image, the original copy of God; that all believers ought to be formed in the
image of Christ, and thence the image of God would likewise necessarilyarise
in them—an image of the secondorder. In the interest of opposition to heresy,
some, following Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. iii. 31, p. 237, and Basilthe Great, c.
Eunom. iv. p. 104, have made the first-born even into the first-bringer-forth (
πρωτοτόκος, as paroxytone, according to the classicalusage,Hom. Il. xvii. 5;
Plat. Theaet. p. 161 A, 151C Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 389), as, with Erasmus
in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus Schmid and Michaelis did,
although πρωτοτόκος in an active sense occurs only of the female sex, and the

very πρωτότοκος ἐκ τ. νεκρ. of Colossians1:18 ought to have dissuaded from
such an idea, to say nothing of the unfitness and want of delicacyof the
figure(34)as relating to Christ’s agencyin the creationof the world, and of
the want of reference in the πρῶτον to the idea of a δεύτερον—anidea which,
with the usual interpretation, is implied in κτίσεως.
Colossians 1:15 f. is, moreover, strikingly opposedto that assumption of a
world without beginning (Schleiermacher, Rothe).
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament
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.— εἰκὼν τοῦ 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.
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible
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 strangely imagine) 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,
Psalms 2:7,8
Hebrews 1:2,6. The heir amongstthe 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, Psalms 89:27, comparedwith Job
18:13 Isaiah 14:30
Jeremiah31:9. This sovereignempire which Christ hath over all 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 regard of 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, Col 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.
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
The image of the invisible God; the invisible God made manifest. Christ is the
image of God, as possessingperfectequality with the Father in substance and
divine perfections. Compare his own words:"He that hath seenme, hath seen
the Father." John14:9.
The first-born of every creature;or, the first-born of all creation. Since Christ
is the creatorof all things, verse Colossians1:16, he is not himself one of the
creation. But he is the first-born of all creation, as being before all things,
verse Colossians1:17, and above them as their supreme head, verse
Colossians 1:20.
Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges

15. The student should not neglectthe exposition of Colossians 1:15-17 given
by Bp Pearson, Creed, pp. 114–116.
ὅς. Probably not so much giving a reasonfor the preceding statement(P.
Ewald) as expanding the meaning of it, showing Who and What He is into
whose Kingdom we have been brought.
ἐστιν. The repetition of ἐστιν in Colossians 1:17-18bis suggests thatthis is
more than the mere copula, and has at leastsome connotationof present time.
St Paul is not speaking only of the pre-incarnate Son, but of Him as He is,
including necessarilyall that He ever was.
εἰκὼν. The omissionof the article identifies the predicate more completely
with the subject. The English idiom does not allow of this, but requires “who
is the image.” So also with the following πρωτότοκος. ContrastColossians
1:18 a.
On the meaning of εἰκώνhere much has been written. The more important
points to notice are perhaps the following. In the N.T. it means
[1] The effigies on a coin, Matthew 22:20 || Mark 12:16 and Luke 20:24.
[2] A statue or other representation; so of the Beastin the Apocalypse, esp.
Revelation13:15 ter; cf. Revelation13:14, Revelation14:9;Revelation14:11,
Revelation15:2, Revelation16:2, Revelation19:20, Revelation20:4. So often
in the LXX. it=idol. Thus too probably Romans 1:23.
Similarly also in the metaphor of the solid reality of a statue in contrastto the
shadow that it throws, Hebrews 10:1 (see Westcott).
[3] From this material sense ofεἰκών, the essentialpart of which is that εἰκών
means no accidentalsimilarity but true representation, and representationof
that which is, at leastfor a time, absent from sight, the transition to higher
meanings is easy.
(a) Thus it is used of the likeness, primarily, but not wholly, physical, of men
to Adam, and of glorified men to Christ, 1 Corinthians 15:49, and of a man
being in some sense a visible representationof God, 1 Corinthians 11:7, ἀνήρ
… εἰκὼν κ. δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. Compare of men Genesis 1:26;Genesis 5:3;

Sirach 17:3, and especiallyWisdomof Solomon2:23. So too it is used of the
representationof God in the new creation, Colossians3:10.
(b) But if a man, as embodying Divine principles, and as being the outcome of
the Divine characterin a degree that is not predicated of lowerstages of
creation, canbe said to be εἰκὼν θεοῦ, much more may εἰκὼν be used of
Christ in relation to God. So 2 Corinthians 4:4, and our present passage.
[4] Thus the thought here is that Christ is the external expression, if the
phrase may be allowed, of God. In this connexion, therefore, εἰκὼνis a
metaphor closelyakin to λόγος, save that the Word appeals to the mind
through the ear, the Image through the eye. In either case Christ is regarded
as being
(a) the outcome of the Father’s nature, and hence related to Him in a wholly
unique way; and especially
(b) the means by which the Father manifests Himself to all that is without.
Compare the title given in the Midrash to the Logos, “the light of the raiment
of the Holy One” (quoted in J. Liechtenstein’s Hebrew Commentary on our
passage, Leipzig, 1901). Suchrevelation beganat the first moment when
things external to God came into being, and will continue for ever, though the
Incarnation as such centred it in human nature and focussedit there for the
human eye.
τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. The slightly emphatic position of ἀοράτου draws
attention to the meaning of εἰκών here as the representationof God to created
beings. God is invisible. His εἰκώνmay be seen. Observe that of course “the
epithet must not be confined to the apprehensionof the bodily senses, but will
include the cognisanceofthe inward eye also” (Lightfoot).
From another point of view creationitself is the means by which τὰ ἀόρατα
θεοῦ are seen, Romans 1:20. For ἀόρατος ofGod cf. 1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews
11:27. In our Colossians 1:16 it is used generally, in contrastto ὁρατά, of
things invisible to men.
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “the Firstborn of all creation.” Onthe absence of
the article before πρωτ. see note on εἰκων.

Jesus was the firstborn over all creation

Jesus was the firstborn over all creation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was the firstborn over all creation

Similar to Jesus was the firstborn over all creation (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was the firstborn over all creation