Theophylact of Ohrid, on Col 1:15

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

“The Apostle sets forth here the glory of nature and the greatness of the dignity of the Only-Begotten. "Who," he says, "is the image of God"; consequently, exactly alike, differing in nothing. There is no measure for the greatness of Him, so that, having measured, you could say how much He falls short in comparison with the Father. If He were an image as a man, then you would have something to say in this regard, because the image of a man never reaches the Prototype. But since He is an image as God and the Son of God, that is, the image of the invisible God, perfectly alike, evidently an invisible image. For among us, when human art, which often errs, makes a representation, it does not have full likeness; but where God is, there is no error, no deviation — therefore there is also full likeness. But if the Son did not have full likeness to the invisible God, then what prevents the angels also from being the image of God? For they too are invisible. Yet angels are never called the image of God. And note the precision of Holy Scripture: it calls man the image of God and a son, but never an angel; because in that case those hearing of the loftiness of angelic nature could easily fall into impiety, thinking that an angel has equal dignity with God. But as for man, his insignificance and lowliness guards us from thinking anything of the sort. So then, consider: the Only-Begotten, being both — image and invisible — by being "image" differs from the angels, who, although invisible, are not images; and by being "invisible" differs from men, who, although they themselves are called the image of God, are not invisible. Thus He alone is the perfect "image" of God, free from all dissimilarity. And if the Arians still object that an image is not consubstantial with the prototype, let them listen to Scripture, which says that Seth is the image of Adam. Is he then not consubstantial with Adam? Thus, although artificial images are not identical in essence, natural ones have entirely the same essence. Having said that He is the image of the invisible God, he adds this as well. Here is a great stumbling block for the Arians. Since, they say, He is called "born before all creation," He is therefore the first of creatures. But the apostle did not say "first-created," but "firstborn." Either you will give Him brothers, and He will be the firstborn in relation to me, a frog, a stone, and other such worthless things, and will share one essence with all of this? For the Firstborn, of course, shares one essence with those in relation to whom He is called the Firstborn. But this blasphemy falls upon your own head. For it is ungodly to think this way about the incomparable glory of the Creator. Moreover, the word "firstborn" is used in Scripture not at all in contrast to subsequent children, but absolutely, and means simply — firstborn. So also from the Theotokos Mary He was born as firstborn according to the flesh, though He had no brothers after Him at all; for He is the Only-begotten even by birth from Her. In the same way, by birth from the Father He is the Firstborn not in contrast to other creatures, but absolutely; for He is the Only-begotten by His heavenly birth as well. So then, what should now be said in refutation of the question at hand and in exposure of the opinion of the Colossians? Lest they think that He is younger than the angels, since the ancients were led to God through them, and now it is said that He leads to God, he wants to show that the Son exists before all creation. In what way? Through birth. Therefore, He exists even before the angels, and moreover in such a way that He Himself also created them. So if the angels also served in the Old Testament, this is His arrangement. And note the wisdom of the apostle: lest you, having heard that He is before all creation, consider Him without a beginning, he instructs you that He has a Father and is born from Him. And since both He and all things are from God, this very fact shows that it is one thing that the One came forth as a Son from the Father, and another that the others, as creatures, were created by this very Son. Therefore he adds.”

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.