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

“Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and "the first-born of every creature," but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.”

“For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.”

“For since of the doctrine, which lately has been set on foot at Ptolemais, a city of Pentapolis, implores and full of blasphemy against Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; full of unbelief and perfidy towards His only begotten Son and the first-born of every creature, the Word made man, and which takes away the perception of the Holy Spirit,-on either side both letters were brought to me, and brethren had come to discuss it, setting forth more plainly as much as by God's gift I was able,-I wrote certain letters, copies of which I have sent to thee.”

“But, as it is, neither did the Lord leave us in doubt: "He who hath seen Me, hath seen the Father also;" nor was the Apostle silent as to His nature, "Who is the image of the invisible God." For the Lord had said, "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not," teaching them to see the Father in Himself in that He did the works of the Father; that through perceiving the power of His nature they might understand the nature of that power which they perceived. Wherefore the Apostle proclaiming that this is the image of God, says, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in Him were all things made in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and for Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell, and through Him all things should be reconciled to Him." So through the power of these works He is the image of God. For assuredly the Creator of things invisible is not compelled by any necessity inherent in His nature to be the visible image of the invisible God. And lest He should be regarded as the likeness of the form and not of the nature, He is styled the likeness of the invisible God in order that we may understand by His exercise of the powers (not the invisible attributes) of the Divine nature, that that nature is in Him.”

“Not then because He was from the Father was He called `First-born,' but because in Him the creation came to be; and as before the creation He was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before He was called the First-born of the whole creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God and the Word was God. But this also not understanding, these irreligious men go about saying, `If He is First-born of all creation, it is plain that He too is one of the creation.' Senseless men! if He is simply `First-born of the whole creation,' then He is other than the whole creation; for he says not, `He is First-born above the rest of the creatures,' lest He be reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is written, `of the whole creation,' that He may appear other than the creation. Reuben, for instance, is not said to be first-born of all the children of Jacob, but of Jacob himself and his brethren; lest he should be thought to be some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay, even concerning the Lord Himself the Apostle says not, `that He may become First-born of all,' lest He be thought to bear a body other than ours, but `among many brethren,' because of the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of Him also that He was First-born of other creatures; but in fact, the saints saying that He is `First-born of the whole creation,' the Son of God is plainly shewn to be other than the whole creation and not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be First-born of Himself. How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to be before and after Himself? next, if He is a creature, and the whole creation through Him came to be, and in Him consists, how can He both create the creation and be one of the things which consist in Him? Since then such a notion is in itself unseemly, it is proved against them by the truth, that He is called `First-born among many brethren' because of the relationship of the flesh, and `First-born from the dead,' because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him; and `First-born of the whole creation,' because of the Father's love to man, which brought it to pass that in His Word not only `all things consist,' but the creation itself, of which the Apostle speaks, `waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, shall be delivered' one time `from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.' Of this creation thus delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of it and of all those who are made children, that by His being called first, those that come after Him may abide, as depending on the Word as a beginning.”

“Listen to the continuation. "In our image." What have you to reply? Is there one image of God and the angels? Father and Son have by absolute necessity the same form, but the form is here understood as becomes the divine, not in bodily shape, but in the proper qualities of Godhead. Hear also, you who belong to the new concision and who, under the appearance of Christianity, strengthen the error of the Jews. To Whom does He say, "in our image," to whom if it is not to Him who is "the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person," "the image of the invisible God"? It is then to His living image, to Him Who has said "I and my Father are one," "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," that God says "Let us make man in our image." Where is the unlikeness in these Beings who have only one image?”

“Do you therefore, who attend to the laws of God, esteem those laws more honourable than the necessities of this life, and pay a greater respect to them, and run together to the Church of the Lord, "which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature." For this Church is the daughter of the Highest, which has been in travail of you by the word of grace, and has "formed Christ in you," of whom you are made partakers, and thereby become His holy and chosen members, "not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but as being holy and unspotted in the faith, ye are complete in Him, after the image of God that created you."”

“And the Image as of one substance with Him, and because He is of the Father, and not the Father of Him. For this is of the Nature of an Image, to be the reproduction of its Archetype, and of that whose name it bears; only that there is more here. For in ordinary language an image is a motionless representation of that which has motion; but in this case it is the living reproduction of the Living One, and is more exactly like than was Seth to Adam, or any son to his father. For such is the nature of simple Existences, that it is not correct to say of them that they are Like in one particular and Unlike in another; but they are a complete resemblance, and should rather be called Identical than Like.”

“If these passages, then, have been rightly understood, neither will the signification of the "creation," of which He is first-born, be unknown to us. For we recognize a twofold creation of our nature, the first that whereby we were made, the second that whereby we were made anew. But there would have been no need of the second creation had we not made the first unavailing by our disobedience. Accordingly, when the first creation had waxed old and vanished away, it was needful that there should be a new creation in Christ, (as the Apostle says, who asserts that we should no longer see in the second creation any trace of that which has waxed old, saying, "Having put off the old man with his deeds and his lusts, put on the new man which is created according to God," and "If any man be in Christ," he says, "he is a new creature: the old things are passed away, behold all things are become new:") — for the maker of human nature at the first and afterwards is one and the same. Then He took dust from the earth and formed man: again, He took dust from the Virgin, and did not merely form man, but formed man about Himself: then, He created; afterwards, He was created: then, the Word made flesh; afterwards, the Word became flesh, that He might change our flesh to spirit, by being made partaker with us in flesh and blood. Of this new creation therefore in Christ, which He Himself began, He was called the first-born, being the first-fruits of all, both of those begotten into life, and of those quickened by resurrection of the dead, "that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living," and might sanctify the whole lump by means of its first-fruits in Himself.”

“For, according to the form of God, He is the beginning, that also speaketh unto us, in which "beginning" God created the heaven and the earth; but according to the form of a servant, "He is a bridegroom coming out of His chamber." According to the form of God, "He is the first-born of every creature, and He is before all things and by Him all things consist;" according to the form of a servant, "He is the head of the body, the Church." According to the form of God, "He is the Lord of glory."”

“They then who "are born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God," must offer to the Father the unanimity of peace-loving sons, and all the members of adoption must meet in the First-begotten of the new creation, Who came to do not His own Will but His that sent Him; inasmuch as the Father in His gracious favour has adopted as His heirs not those that are discordant nor those that are unlike Him, but those that are in feeling and affection one. They that are re-modelled after one pattern must have a spirit like the model. The birthday of the Lord is the birthday of peace: for thus says the Apostle, "He is our peace, who made both one;" since whether we be Jew or Gentile, "through Him we have access in one Spirit to the Father."”

“Adam also was the first who had the honour to be, and to be called, the image of God, but with respect to the Lord Christ, this is in a still higher degree the case, as the Apostle says: Who is the image of the invisible God. Adam again was the first and only one of men who from his side, through God, produced the female without seed, and the Lord Christ according to the flesh was, as a male, produced from the female without seed, thus preserving the equality of privilege and satisfying the debt of nature.”

“He who is first begotten is called first-born, whether he is only-begotten or the first of a number of brothers. If then the Son of God was called first-born, but was not called Only-begotten, we could imagine that He was the first-born of creatures, as being a creature. But since He is called both first-born and Only-begotten, both senses must be preserved in His case. We say that He is first-born of all creation since both He Himself is of God and creation is of God, but as He Himself is born alone and timelessly of the essence of God the Father, He may with reason be called Only-begotten Son, first-born and not first-created. For the creation was not brought into being out of the essence of the Father, but by His will out of nothing. And He is called First-born among many brethren, for although being Only-begotten, He was also born of a mother. Since, indeed, He participated just as we ourselves do in blood and flesh and became man, while we too through Him became sons of God, being adopted through the baptism, He Who is by nature Son of God became first-born amongst us who were made by adoption and grace sons of God, and stand to Him in the relation of brothers.”

“After he has mentioned above the special and universal benefits of grace, here he commends the author of this grace, namely Christ. And first by comparison to God; second, generally by comparison to the whole of creation, at the firstborn ; third, specifically by comparison to the Church, at and he himself is the head . Concerning the first, it must be noted that God is called invisible because he exceeds the capacity of the vision of any created intellect, so that no created intellect by natural knowledge can attain to his essence. Job XXXVI, 26: behold, God is great, surpassing our knowledge . I Tim., last chapter: he dwells in inaccessible light . He is therefore seen by the blessed from grace, not from nature. The reason for this is assigned by Dionysius, because every cognition terminates at something existing, that is, at some nature participating in being. But God is being itself, not participated; therefore he is unknown. Of this invisible God, therefore, the Son is the image. But it must be seen how he is called the image of God, and why he is called invisible. And indeed of the nature of an image there are three things, namely that there be likeness there, that it be drawn out or expressed from that with which it has the likeness, and that it be drawn out in something pertaining to the species or a sign of the species. For if there are two similar things, of which one is not derived from the other, we call neither the image of the other, just as an egg is not called the image of an egg. And therefore it is called an image from imitating. Likewise if it is similar, but not as to species, or a sign of the species, then it is not called an image either: just as in man there are many accidents, such as color, quantity, and things of this kind, and according to none of these is he called an image. But if one takes his figure, thus it can be an image, because figure is a sign of the species; but the son is like the father, and the father like the son, but the son has this from the father, while the father does not have it from the son. And therefore, properly speaking, we say that the son is the image of the father, and not the reverse, because this likeness is drawn out and derived from the father. Likewise this likeness is according to species, because the son is in some way represented among us, though deficiently, through the word of our mind. Now the word of our mind occurs when we actually form the form of the thing of which we have knowledge, and this we signify by an exterior word. And this word thus conceived is a certain likeness of the thing which we hold in the mind, and like it according to species. And therefore the Word of God is called the image of God. As to the second point, it must be known that the Arians understood this word badly, judging concerning the image of God according to the images which were made by the ancients, so that they might see in them their dear ones taken away from them, just as we also make images of the saints, so that those whom we do not see in substance, we may see in image. And therefore they say that being invisible is proper to the Father, but the Son is the first visible thing, in which the goodness of the Father is manifested, as though the Father were truly invisible, and the Son visible, and thus they would be of a different nature. But the Apostle excludes this at Hebr. I, 3, saying: who, since he is the splendor of glory, and the figure of his substance , etc. And thus he is the image not only of the invisible God, but he himself is also invisible like the Father. Who is the image of the invisible God . Then, when he says firstborn , etc., he commends Christ by comparison to creation. And first he does this, second he explains it, at because in him . Concerning the first it must be known that the Arians understand it thus, as though it were said "firstborn" because he is the first creature: but this is not the sense, as will be shown. And therefore two things must be seen, namely how this image is begotten, and how it is firstborn of creation. As to the first, then, it must be known that in each thing generation is according to the mode of its being and its nature. For the mode of generation is one thing in men, and another in plants, and so of other things. Now the nature of God is being itself understanding, and thus it is necessary that his generation, or intellectual conception, be the generation or conception of his nature. But in us, intelligible conception is not the conception of our nature, because in us understanding and our nature are different things. And therefore, since this image is the word and conception of the intellect, one must say that it is the offspring of nature, and thus of necessity begotten, because it receives nature from another. Second, it must be seen how he is called firstborn. For God does not know himself and creation by another thing, but knows all things in his essence, as in the first effective cause. Now the Son is the intellectual conception of God according as he knows himself, and consequently every creature. Insofar as he is begotten, therefore, he appears as a certain word representing the whole of creation, and he himself is the principle of all creation. For if he were not thus begotten, the word would be only the firstborn of the Father, but not of creation. Eccli. XXIV, 5: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before all creation , etc. Then, when he says because in him , etc., he explains what he had said, namely that he is firstborn, because he is begotten as the principle of creation. And this as to three things: first as to the creation of things; second as to their distinction, at in the heavens ; third as to their conservation in being, at and all things in him , etc. He says therefore: he is the firstborn of creation, because he is begotten as the principle of all creation. And therefore he says because in him , etc. Concerning this it must be known that the Platonists posited ideas, saying that any thing came to be from the fact that it participated in an idea, for instance of man or of some other species. In place of these ideas, we have one, namely the Son, the Word of God. For the craftsman makes the artifact from this, that he makes it participate in the form conceived within himself, as it were enfolding it into exterior matter: as if it were said that the craftsman makes a house through the form of the thing which he has conceived within himself. And thus God is said to make all things in his wisdom, because the wisdom of God is related to created things as the art of the builder to the house made. Now this form and wisdom is the Word, and therefore all things are founded in him, as in a certain exemplar, Gen. I: he said, and they were made , because in his eternal Word he created all things that they might come to be. As to the distinction of things, it must be known that some, such as the Manichees, erred, saying that these earthly bodies, because corruptible, were made by an evil god, but the heavenly ones, because incorruptible, by a good god, namely the father of Christ. But they lie, because both are created by the same one. Therefore he says in the heavens , etc. And this is the distinction according to the parts of corporeal nature. Gen. I, 1: in the beginning , that is, in the Son, God created , etc. The Platonists also say that God through himself created the invisible creatures, namely the angels, and through the angels created corporeal natures. But this is excluded here, because it says visible and invisible . Concerning the first, Hebr. XI, 3: by faith we understand that the ages were fitted together, that from invisible things visible things might be made . Concerning the second, Eccli. XLIII, 36 and following: we have seen few of his works, but the Lord made all things , etc. Now this distinction is according to the nature of created things. The third distinction is of order and rank among the invisible things, when he says whether thrones , etc. The Platonists err here too. For they said that there are diverse perfections in things, and they attributed each to one first principle, and according to the orders of those perfections, they posited orders of principles, just as they posited a first being, from which all things participate being, and a principle other than this, namely the first intellect, from which all things participate understanding, and another principle, life, from which all things participate living. But we do not posit it thus, but from one principle things have whatever perfection is in them. And therefore he says whether thrones , etc., as if to say: they do not depend on other, ordered principles, but on that one Word of God alone. But what of what he says Eph. I, 22: he gave him as head , etc., where there seems to be some diversity from these? Solution. Here he enumerates descending, because he shows the progression of creation from God; there, ascending, because he shows that the Son of God, according as he is man, is above all creatures. But nevertheless there principalities are placed under powers, and virtues between dominations and powers, here principalities above powers, and principalities midway between dominations and powers. And according to this the opinions of Gregory and Dionysius differ. For Dionysius orders them according to what is said to the Ephesians, because in the second hierarchy he places dominations, virtues, and powers. Gregory, however, orders them as is held here, because in the second hierarchy he places dominations, principalities, and powers, and in the third, virtues, archangels, and angels. But it must be known that, as Gregory and Dionysius say, these spiritual gifts, from which these orders are named, are common to all, yet some are named from some of them, others from others, the reason for which is taken from the sayings of the Platonists, because everything that belongs to something belongs in three ways, namely either essentially, or by participation, or causally. Essentially, indeed, what belongs to a thing according to the proportion of its nature, as the rational to man. By participation, however, what exceeds its nature, but nevertheless it participates something of that, though imperfectly, as the intellectual to man, which is above the rational and is essential to angels, and man participates something of the same. Causally, however, what belongs to a thing in a supervening way, as artificial things to man, because they are not in him as in matter, but by way of art. Now each thing is named only from that which belongs to it essentially. Hence man is called neither intellectual nor artificial, but rational. Now concerning the said gifts in the angels, those things which belong to the higher ones essentially, belong to the lower ones by participation; and those which belong to the lower ones essentially, belong to the higher ones causally. And therefore the higher are named from the higher gifts. Now the highest thing in a spiritual creature is that it attains to God, and in some way participates him. And therefore the higher ones are named from this, that they attain to God. Seraphim, as it were burning toward God or setting on fire; Cherubim, as it were knowing God; thrones, as it were having God seated in themselves. For in three ways can something participate from another: in one way, by receiving a property of its nature; in another way, that it receive it by way of cognitive intention; in another way, that it in some way serve its power, just as someone participates the medical art from a physician either because he receives in himself the art of medicine, or he receives knowledge of the medical art, or because he serves the art of medicine. The first is greater than the second, and the second than the third. Now in Sacred Scripture something divine is signified through fire. Deut. IV, 24: the Lord your God is a consuming fire , etc. And therefore the supreme order is called Seraphim, as it were burning toward God, and containing some divine property. The second order is Cherubim, following him cognitively. And the third, thrones, serving his power. But the other orders are not named from attaining to God, but through some operation of his. And some as directing, and thus they are dominations. Others executing, and of these indeed as more principal, as principalities, Ps. LXVII, 26: princes went before , etc. Others according to execution, and thus they are executing over spiritual creatures, as are the powers which restrain demons; if over natural things, they are virtues, which work miracles; if over men, they are archangels for great things; if angels, for the least things. And so, concluding, he says all things through him , as through the effective cause, and in him , as through the exemplar cause. Jo. I, 3: all things were made through him , etc. But because someone could say: are not all things eternal? Therefore the Apostle, as it were responding to this, says that they are not, but he himself is before all things , namely times and other things. Prov. VIII, 22: the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning , etc. Or before in dignity. Ps. LXXXVIII, 7: who is like God , etc. As to conservation he says and all things hold together in him , that is, are conserved. For God is related to things thus, as the sun to the moon, which, when it withdraws, the light of the moon fails. And thus if God were to withdraw his power from us, in a moment all things would fail. Hebr. c. I, 3: bearing all things by the word of his power .”

“Who is the image of the invisible God,.... Not of 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 exclusion of 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 of him; nor, in some sense, to angels, who always behold his face, but to men: no man hath seen him corporeally with the eyes of his body, though intellectually with the eyes of the understanding, when enlightened; not in his essence and nature, 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 of the 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 Father is said to be invisible, because he did not appear to Old Testament saints; as his voice was never heard, so his shape was never seen; he never assumed any visible form; but whenever any voice was heard, or shape seen, it was the second person that appeared, the Son of God, who is here said to be his "image", and that, as he is the Son of God; in which sense he is the natural, essential, and eternal image of his Father, an eternal one, perfect and complete, and in which he takes infinite complacency and delight: this designs more than a shadow and representation, or than bare similitude and likeness; it includes sameness of nature 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 clearly show, since all that the Father hath are his. Philo, the Jew (f), often speaks of the or Word of God, as the image of God. Also, this may be understood of him as Mediator, in whom, as such, is a most glorious display of the love, grace, and mercy of God, of his holiness and righteousness, of his truth and faithfulness, and of his power and wisdom: the firstborn of every creature; not the first of the creation, or the first creature God made; for all things in Col 1:16 are said to be created by him, and therefore he himself can never be a creature; nor is he the first in the new creation, for the apostle in the context is speaking of the old creation, and not the new: but the sense either is, that he was begotten of the Father in a manner inconceivable and inexpressible by men, before any creatures were in being; or that he is the "first Parent", or bringer forth of every creature into being, as the word will bear to be rendered, if instead of we read which is no more than changing the place of the accent, and may be very easily ventured upon, as is done by an ancient writer (g), who observes, that the word is used in this sense by Homer, and is the same as "first Parent", and "first Creator"; and the rather this may be done, seeing the accents were all added since the apostle's days, and especially seeing it makes his reasoning, in the following verses, appear with much more beauty, strength, and force: he is the first Parent of every creature, "for by him were all things created", &c. Col 1:16, or it 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 highest rank of creatures, being the Creator and upholder of all, as the following words show; so the Jews make the word "firstborn" to be synonymous with the word "king", and explain it by , "a great one", and "a prince" (h); see Psa 89:27. (f) De Mund. Opific. p. 6. de Plant. Noe, p. 216, 217. de Coufus. Ling. p. 341. de Somniis, p. 600. de Monarch. p. 823. (g) Isidior. Pelusiot. l. 3. Ep. 31. (h) R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 50. 1.”

“Who is the image of the invisible God - The counterpart of God Almighty, and if the image of the invisible God, consequently nothing that appeared in 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, consequently his 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 concealed also its essential nature; that inaccessible light which no man, no created being, can possibly 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, Phi 2:9 : God hath given him a name which is above every name; he is as man at the head of all the creation of God; nor can he with any propriety be considered as a creature, having himself created all things, and existed before any thing was made. If it be said that God created him first, and that he, by a delegated power from God, created all things, this is most flatly contradicted by the apostle's reasoning in the 16th and 17th verses. As the Jews term Jehovah בכורו של עולם becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or 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 phraseology is 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 of all 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 absolutely absurd if we could suppose that by the former he intended to convey any idea of the inferiority of Jesus Christ.”

“The first [2] born of every creature. St. Chrysostom takes notice against the Arians, that the apostle calls Christ the first-begotten, or first-born, not the first created, because he was not created at all. And the sense is, that he was before all creatures, proceeding from all eternity from the Father; though some expound the words of Christ as man, and that he was greater in dignity. See Romans viii. 29. (Witham)”

“They who have experienced in themselves "redemption" (Col 1:14), know Christ in the glorious character here described, as above the highest angels to whom the false teachers (Col 2:18) taught worship was to be paid. Paul describes Him: (1) in relation to God and creation (Col 1:15-17); (2) in relation to the Church (Col 1:18-20). As the former regards Him as the Creator (Col 1:15-16) and the Sustainer (Col 1:17) of the natural world; so the latter, as the source and stay of the new moral creation. image--exact likeness and perfect Representative. Adam was made "in the image of God" (Gen 1:27). But Christ, the second Adam, perfectly reflected visibly "the invisible God" (Ti1 1:17), whose glories the first Adam only in part represented. "Image" (eicon) involves "likeness" (homoiosis); but "likeness" does not involve "image." "Image" always supposes a prototype, which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn: the exact counterpart, as the reflection of the sun in the water: the child the living image of the parent. "Likeness" implies mere resemblance, not the exact counterpart and derivation as "image" expresses; hence it is nowhere applied to the Son, while "image" is here, compare Co1 11:7 [TRENCH]. (Joh 1:18; Joh 14:9; Co2 4:4; Ti1 3:16; Heb 1:3). Even before His incarnation He was the image of the invisible God, as the Word (Joh 1:1-3) by whom God created the worlds, and by whom God appeared to the patriarchs. Thus His essential character as always "the image of God," (1) before the incarnation, (2) in the days of His flesh, and (3) now in His glorified state, is, I think, contemplated here by the verb "is." first-born of every creature-- (Heb 1:6), "the first-begotten": "begotten of His Father before all worlds" [Nicene Creed]. Priority and superlative dignity is implied (Psa 89:27). English Version might seem to favor Arianism, as if Christ were a creature. Translate, "Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature," as the context shows, which gives the reason why He is so designated. "For," &c. (Col 1:16-17) [TRENCH]. This expression is understood by ORIGEN (so far is the Greek from favoring Socinian or Arian views) as declaring the Godhead of Christ, and is used by Him as a phrase to mark that Godhead, in contrast with His manhood [Book 2, sec. Against Celsus]. The Greek does not strictly admit ALFORD'S translation, "the first-born of all creation."”