John Chrysostom, on Col 1:15

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:”

“Paul, discoursing as we showed of the dignity of the Son, says these words: "Who is the Image of the invisible God." Whose image then wilt thou have Him be? God's? Then he is exactly like the one to whom you assign Him. For if as a man's image, say so, and I will have done with you as a madman. But if as God and God's Son, God's image, he shows the exact likeness. Wherefore hath no Angel anywhere been called either "image" or "son," but man both? Wherefore? Because in the former case indeed the exaltedness of their nature might presently have thrust the many into this impiety; but in the other case the mean and low nature is a pledge of security against this, and will not allow any, even should they desire it, to suspect anything of the kind, nor to bring down the Word so low. For this cause, where the meanness is great, the Scripture boldly asserts the honor, but where the nature is higher, it forbears. "The Image of the Invisible" is itself also invisible, and invisible in like manner, for otherwise it would not be an image. For an image, so far as it is an image, even amongst us, ought to be exactly similar, as, for example, in respect of the features and the likeness. But here indeed amongst us, this is by no means possible; for human art fails in many respects, or rather fails in all, if you examine with accuracy. But where God is, there is no error, no failure. But if a creature: how is He the Image of the Creator? For neither is a horse the image of a man. If "the Image" mean not exact likeness to the Invisible, what hinders the Angels also from being His Image? for they too are invisible; but not to one another: but the soul is invisible: but because it is invisible, it is simply on that account an image, and not in such sort as he and angels are images. "The Firstborn of all creation." "What then," saith one, "Lo, He is a creature." Whence? tell me. "Because he said Firstborn." However, he said not "first created," but "firstborn." Then it is reasonable that he should be called many things. For he must also be called a brother "in all things." And we must take from Him His being Creator; and insist that neither in dignity nor in any other thing is He superior to us? And who that hath understanding would say this? For the word "firstborn" is not expressive of dignity and honor, nor of anything else, but of time only. What does "the firstborn" signify? That he is created, is the answer. Well. If then this be so, it has also kindred expressions. But otherwise the firstborn is of the same essence with those of whom he is firstborn. Therefore he will be the firstborn son of all things-for it said "of every creature"; therefore of stones also, and of me, is God the Word firstborn. But again, of what, tell me, are the words "firstborn from the dead" declaratory? Not that He first rose; for he said not simply, "of the dead," but "firstborn from the dead," nor yet, "that He died first," but that He rose the firstborn from the dead. So that they declare nothing else than this, that He is the Firstfruits of the Resurrection.”

Imported from an open dataset — not yet checked against the printed edition.

This page is the stable address of one quotation — verbatim, dated, attributed, with its edition. Cite it freely.