only : 1, In vers. 15-17, Christ is delineated without reference to his
incarnation ; 2, in vers. 18-20 with that reference.

First, Christ is called ekwv TOV Qeov TOV dope-row, image of the
invisible God. Paul had already at 2 Cor. iv. 4 called Christ elicuv
TOV Qeov (dopdrov is there spurious) ; it is a question what the ex-
pression, when used of Christ, means, for the image of God is attrib-
uted to man too (see iii. 19). But as everything is created through
Christ (ver. 16), so is man too ; he, consequently, has the image of
God in a derivative manner only, he is the image of the image,
Christ is the original image of God. It must not be concluded from
the absence of the article that we must translate in this passage, " an
image of God ;" on the contrary, the article is wanting because ekwv
r. 6. is a familiar collective idea, like TTVEVHO, r. 0., vlb$ T. 0. ; in 2
Cor. iv. 4 the article is wanting in the same manner, and even Philo
uses dicvv r. 0. without the article. It wouM be altogether a mis-
take to refer this expression, " Christ is the original image of God,"
to the human nature of Christ along with the Divine one, as do
Junker and Schleiermacher ; for here the Son of God, still purely
in his eternal Divine being, is set on a par with the Father. It
would be just as wrong 1o attribute to the term duuv the idea of
" the designedly-made or formed ;" Christ would thus be degraded
into a creature. The meaning of the term is here made completely
plain by the epithet doparog (1 Tim. i. 17). Christ is not called im-
age of God as a being formed after God, but as he who manifests, so
that they can be seen in him, the fulness of the essence and of the
Divine attributes, which are hidden in the Father. (So correctly,
besides Biihr, Steiger, and Bohmer, Usteri also, on Paul's doctrinal
system, p. 308.) As, therefore, it is said, John i. 18, Qeov ovdelg
eupane TrwTore (1 Tim. vi. 16, <wc okwv dirpomrov, bv elder ovdelc dvdpu-

, ovde Idtlv SvvaroL), but it is added afterwards, 6 novo-yevfjg vlb$
e^rryrjoaro, so Paul designates the Father as not to be viewed
(for there is manifestly no question here as to material vision), but
as manifesting himself in the reflection of his essence (Heb. i. 3) the
Sou. Accordingly, then, our Lord says too, John xiv. 9 : "he that
sees me sees the Father, for the Father manifests himself through
the Son," who bears his form (ev popffi Qeov vrrdp^ei, Phil. ii. 6). Thus
taken, then, the essential equality is expressed in the name duuv r.
0., but, as being begotten is implied in the name vlog, so is the radi-
ation of the Divine glory in ekwv. The Father is the source, the
eternal and original cause, of light, from whom the Son, as image of
the Divine nature, proceeds. (Even Philo had this view of the rela-
tion of the Son to the Father correctly in the essential points. Com-
pare some passages from him belonging to this subject in Usteri



COLOSSIANS I. 15. 179

ubi supra; they are fully collected in Grossmann, Qucestiones Phi-
lonece, Lips. 1829. The idea of a nsiBin, in which God manifests
himself, is found even in the Old Testament [see Numb. xii. 8 ; Ps.
xvii. 15] j and from those intimations it passed over to the Cabal-
ists, who describe the Metatron [comp. on John i. 1] as God's image
or countenance.)

The second phrase, by which Christ's nature is described, is Trpw-
ToroKog Trdowg icriasG)^. That nag stands here without an article, as
already observed at Eph. ii. 21, for totus, according to later usage,
Bahr has already correctly remarked. The Krioig is the whole of the
creation, not the creation in its individual parts. But the term rrpw-
ToroKog is difficult, and one cannot but think it very intelligible that,
from the first, Arians, Socinians, and other impugners of the Divine
nature of Christ, strove to found their views on this passage. For
it must be granted that the words -n-pwroroKOf Trdarjs /maewf, viewed
purely grammatically, can be so understood that Christ himself is
reckoned in the Krimg, and is only placed at the summit of the whole
KTioig. The possibility of such an explanation of the words is suffi-
ciently proved by the following TrpwrdroKoc r&v veitp&v, which cannot
be understood otherwise than that Christ himself was dead too. But
the entire context is so decisive against this explanation, that
we cannot hesitate to assign to the phrase -npuroroKo^ rrjg KT'KJEUS
another sense. For, in vers. 16, 17, all created things are repre-
sented as in absolute dependency on him, the Son of God, who
cannot, therefore, possibly be designated as himself belonging to
the rank of creatures. The appeal to the passages of the books
of wisdom (Prov. viii. 22, Kuriai fie dp%rjv ddtiv, LXX., Sir. i. 4. 9,
Trporepa Trdvruv SKTIOTCU cofyia, nvpiog avrbg KKTIOEV avrrfv) can there-
fore prove nothing, for in the latter KTI&IV is merely used in a more
extended sense = yevvav. The ao<f>ia is by no means represented as
itself Kriofia. To interpret the passage by altering the accent, with
Erasmus, J. D. Michaelis, and others, will at the present day hardly
suggest itself to any. For Trpwroro/eof is used as feminine only,
f\ TTpwrug Te%aaa, as Thomas Magister explains it. But even apart
from this, the creative agency of the Adyof can never be designated
by riKreiVj and indeed such a combination with -np&roq would make
but an unfitting sense ; for, if Christ were called primus genitor
totius creatures, it would seem that there were several more, without
and after him. But just as little can Schleiermacher's proposition
claim approval. He unites Trpwroro/cof with eluuv (as he in verse 18
joins also dp%rj npwrorono^ together, but just as unsuitably), in the
sense : " Christ is, in the collective compass of the spiritual world of
men, the first-born image of God." The interpretation of the term
of the world of men is, it is true, not impossible in itself, for



180 COLOSSIANS I. 15.

mankind can certainly, as an essential part of the creation, be desig-
nated by the term Kriaig. (See on Kom. viii. 19, and on Col. i.
23.) But -rrdaa i] Kriatg without any further limitation never does
and never can so occur, nor does the context here permit that
signification. Ta -ndvra in ver. 16 plainly interprets rrdaa /matf,
which precedes, as the entire creation. But, even apart from this,
Schleiermacher's interpretation is totally inadmissible. For, first,
TrpwroTOKof seems an unsuitable epithet for elicuv. Bohmer has
already justly remarked that we should rather have expected npw-
TOTVTTog. But, secondly, grammar necessarily requires the article
before TrpwrdroKof as connected with ekwv, as Matth. i. 25, TOV
vlbv av-iK rbv TT/WTOTOKOV, shews. (See Winer's Gr. 20. 1.) The
omission of the article is only explained by the supposition that
TrpwroTOKof is treated as a well-known idea, which, besides, in the
connexion with -ndoTjg /m'aewf, cannot belong to any other. The
use of this phrase had, no doubt, its origin in the Old Testament,
where it is said, Ps. Ixxxix. 27, pya> TrporrdroKov (vss)
avrov. (See Heb. i. 6.) Philo calls the A,6yo$- both ekwv and
yovog (see Bahr on this passage, p. 61), a name near akin to the
yfivrfc of John. In the same way Jehovah is called in the Cabala
the first-born, as the original manifestation of the infinite, through
whom the creation is effected. Accordingly the name rrpwroroKof T^J-
Kriaeug can only, with the oldest Fathers, be taken so that the genitive
ip dependent on the nptirog in the signification of prior (see at John
i, 15), in the sense, TrpwroTo/tof rrpb navruv T&V /mor/ua-rwv, as Justin
Martyr calls the ^dyof, in perfect accordance with the phrase in ver.
17, avros ion Trpo -rrdvruv. It is then implied in the name that the
Son of God is born of God in the beginning before every creature.

That Paul then represents Christ as elicuv r. 6., as Trpwrdro/cof TJJ$
KTwrewf, had doubtless its origin in the circumstance that the heretics
in ColossaB called in question the Divine dignity of Christ. In all
probability they saw in Christ a mere man (like Cerinthus and his
disciples) with whom at his baptism a higher Mon had united itself,
but which again left him after the completion of the work of re-
demption. The supposition of Steiger and others (p. 139) that the
Colossian false teachers themselves employed the terms ekwv and
TTpuroTOKos of Christ, only in another sense, is extremely improbable.
Had that been the case, Paul would have defined these terms more
accurately that it might be perceived wherein the genuine apostoli-
cal use of them differed from the false one of those false teachers.
But such exact limitations are wholly wanting. On the contrary,
Paul uses the name Trpwrdro/co^ Trdarjs Kriaeug with so little re-
serve that it might be understood in a sense derogatory to Christ,
which surely would have been avoided, if the heretics, whom Paul
means to combat, had applied the word in an exactly similar way.



COLOSSIANS I. 16. 181

But the apostle's mode of expression seems appropriate, if the here-
tics, in like manner as Cerinthus and his school, proclaimed Christ
directly an ordinary man, and merely supposed an .ZEon to have been
united to him during his Messianic ministry ; Paul's argument lies
in the idea, not the words.

Ver. 16. With all the difference in the expressions there still
appears in the thing the completest agreement between the Chris-
tologies of John and Paul. The names dnuv r. 0., Trpwroro/cof TraoT/c;
/maewf, John is a stranger to, but, on the other hand, he likewise de-
clares that we see in the Son the invisible Father in all his glory,
that the Son is the only-begotten of the Father. So now verse 16
too corresponds perfectly with the description in John i. 3, navra Si'
avrov eyevero, teal %(Jplg avrov eyevero ovde v b yeyove. (Compare also
Heb. i. 4, xi. 3.) But the idea that all is created in Christ is joined
by Paul with what precedes by cm, and by that means the sense
which we obtained of Trpuroroieog Trdorjg icriaevg is established. " He
(the Son of God) must have been bom of the substance of the
Father before all the creation, for all things are created in him."
Considering the accurate distinction drawn afterwards between the
prepositions did, elg, ev, it is extremely improbable that KV stands here
instead of Sid; iv rather denotes here very comprehensively the con-
nexion of the Son with the creation, which is afterwards divided
into its individual relations. " In him are all things created, i. e.,
the Son of God is the intelligible world, the Koapog vorjrog, i. e. }
things themselves in their idea ; he carries their essentiality in him-
self ;" in the creation they come forth from him to an independent
existence, in the completion of all things they return to him. The re-
ferring of T<Z Trdvra merely to the collective body of the regenerate, and
of Kri&iv to the transforming energy in regeneration, is quite in-
admissible, as the following development of the purport of -rrdvra
shews. It is incomprehensible how Schleierrnacher could say (ubi
supra, p. 507) KT'I&IV is not used for toa of creating, as it often occurs
so, Deut. iv. 32 ; Ps. L. 11 ; Isaiah xlv. 7, and elsewhere. (Cf.
Schleusn. Lex. in LXX. vol. iii. p. 402.) The import of rrdvra is
now carried out by two antitheses, ra iv rolg ovoavolg icdi ra em T%
y?7<;, things in heaven and things on earth (cf. Eph. i. 10 ; Rev. x.
6), rd board /cat ra dopara, things visible and invisible, which express
the ideal and material elements of the creation, and consequently
its totality. Then, in continuation, the highest forms of these two
departments of the creation are named separately, dre dpovoi, dre.
Kvptorrjre^, dre dp%al, dre K^ovaiai, whether thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers, in which there is the assumption that, if
the highest is created in Christ, it is self-evident that the low and
insignificant is so too. From Col. ii. 10, 15, and the remarks on
Eph. i. 21, it cannot be doubtful that Paul means by these four



182 COLOSSI ANS I. 17.

synonymous expressions particularly to designate powers of the
spiritual world, angels and angel-princes, without making a more
definite distinction between good and bad angels. On the impos-
sibility of defining more accurately the differences between the
separate expressions we have already explained ourselves at Eph.
i. 21.

But the question may arise whether, in the connexion with the
foregoing antitheses, heaven and earth, visible and invisible, we are
not in the four names of governors and powers, at the same time
with heavenly powers, kings, princes, magistrates, to suppose earthly
ones also to be meant, who indeed, as administering their offices in
the name of God, are even called Elohiin in the Old Testament.
For the assumption, that reference is here made only to earthly re-
lations, which even Schleiermacher has propounded, is at all events
inadmissible. That divine would even understand the antitheses rd
KV role; ovpavols, K. r. A., thus : " everything that refers to heavenly,
i. e., religious, relations, and which refers to political, legal condi-
tions." This is decidedly inadmissible, because, no doubt, in Paul's
declaration that everything on high was created in Christ, conse-
quently he is higher than all high things, is couched an antithesis
against the view of the Colossian heretics as to the dignity of the
angels, whom they, according to the Gnostic idea of the ^Eons, even
adored with invocation and worship (cf on Col. ii. 18), and with the
greatest probability named by these and similar names. (See Steiger
and Ba'hr in their Coinms. on this passage, where passages of the
later Gnostics are collected.) Paul, however, did not borrow them
from the language of the Gnostics ; they were familiar to him al-
ready from the general sphere of Jewish ideas in which he had grown
up. But certainly the notion that Paul had in mind earthly powers
along with the heavenly ones, is not without plausibility, as directly
after, in ver. 17, rd ndvra appears again, and Paul manifestly intends
to represent the absolute totality of the creation as determined in
its existence by Christ. Still we find no trustworthy passage else-
where, in which these expressions, used altogether commonly of
angels, are employed of earthly powers. If we would lay stress on
the fact that Christ is elsewhere with reference to earthly powers
called King of kings, Lord of lords (1 Tim. vi. 15 ; Rev. i. 5, xvii.
15, xix. 16), it seems more reasonable to find this dominion of Christ's
over every earthly greatness in the words rd trrt rijg y?fr, than in the
names dpovoi, K. r. A. *

Ver. 17. After this partition of the universe Paul again takes
up the opening words of verse 16, KV avrti t/merfty rd ndvra, in him
all things were created, and shews how the creation in its totality
sustains in all the dimensions of time, the present, the past, and the
future, a relation of absolute dependence on Christ, who t's, as the



COLOSSIANS I. 18. 183

Eternal One, before everything that was created, whereas everything
in the 'nature of a creature ivas made. (See on John i. 3.) The
various relations of the creature to the Eternal are expressed by the
prepositions did, elg, and KV. Am refers to the origin of the creature,
which proceeds from the Father through the Sou ; elg refers to its
end, as all is created to or for him as the final goal of things (see
verse 20) ; on the other hand KV points, as awearyns unmistakeably
shews,* to the present existence of the world, which is always in the
Son, inasmuch as he supports and upholds the world with his word
(Heb. i. 3), and the upholding may also be considered as a continu-
ous creation. There is but one difficult point in this description,
which sets forth Christ's Divine nature in the most distinct manner;
and that is that elsewhere the relation of the Holy Ghost to the
creature is usually expressed by the prepositions elg and KV (see on
Eom. xi. 36), but here the Son is exclusively the subject. In other
passages, e. g., 1 Cor. viii. 6, el$ is also used of the Father. How-
ever, this difficulty is satisfactorily explained by the fact, that to
each single one of the three Divine persons, just because they are
real persons, and bear life in themselves, all relations of the Trinity
can be attributed. Still, the prepositions e and VTTO, by which
the relation of the creature to the Father is usually designated, are
never assigned to the Son and the Spirit, but those usual with the
Son and the Spirit are certainly found attributed to the Father, and
those used with the* Spirit are found given to the Son. ' Again, it is
never said, " the Son has created the world," but constantly " it is
created through him." The absoluteness of the Father, as the
foundation also of the Son and of the Spirit, comes out unmistake-
ably in this mode of speech.

Ver. 18. After this there follows in this outline of the apostolic
Christology the especial relation of Christ to the church, which sup-
poses his incarnation. He, the eternal Son of Grod, who is infinitely
exalted above every creature, he himself has even entered into the
life of a creature, and has himself tasted death ; but even in this
relation to the creature and its sufferings he is the leader and guide
of all. Paul designates the Lord first as the ne^a/tr) rov o6fj,arog }
head of the body (see Eph. i. 22), in which is involved the exhortation
to allow ourselves to be controlled by him who is the head ; this
those false teachers did not do, and it was for this reason they
were so blameable. Secondly, Christ is called dp%fj, TrpuroTOKog KK
To3v ve/cpwv. Here the connecting of dp^i) npc^roroKog is certainly
more explicable ; for dp%7J without an article seems scarcely natural
beside the substantive-like Trpwroro/co^. In some MSS. we find 77
dpx,^, in others d-napx^ in others iv ap%^, but in such unimportant
ones, that these readings can make no claim to reception into
* See Bahr, p. 82, and the passages cited there.



184 COLOSSIANS I. 18.

the text. But the combination " first-born beginning" seems also
incongruous ; an adjective like TrpcororoKOf, which must refer to a con-
crete, does not accord with dpxn as an abstract. For to take ap%^
outright for arrap^T/, " first-fruits/' is in itself of doubtful possibility,
and the expression thus taken coincides with Trpw-oTo/eo^, which is
used as = Vsa. The two must therefore be separated, and rrpwro-
Tonoq IK. T&V veicptiv be taken as limiting more exactly the more gen-
eral ap^T?. The absence of the article with apxfi is explained by the
abstract form of the word (see Winer's Gr. 19, 1). Christ, how-
ever, is not called " beginning" in the sense in which he is above
called TrpwTOTOKOf ri/g /cr/aeo^, i. e., not as he in whom the creature,
as such, has its beginning, but as he who in the life of the creature,
which was fallen under the power of death, himself established a new
beginning through his victory over death. Christ is called in the
same sense (fp^yof, Heb. ii. 10, xii. 2. This reference must be ad-
hered to, because Christ is here absolutely represented as the incar-
nate man. How far Christ is precisely called " the beginning," is
more accurately determined by the addition npiJTOTOKog t TWV ve-
Kpwv. Christ himself was dead, and, as such, among the dead in
Hades, but he was the first of them, who by resurrection unto life
was born in the glorified body, and thus became the beginning of
a new series of developments. In his unglorified humanity he was
through Mary IK oTrepfiarog Ao/3f, therefore ranked among man-
kind as such ; but when glorified he was an absolutely new man, the
(In Rev. i. 5 tic is wanting, and Christ is called merely 6 Trpo>-
TGJV venptiv. On the other hand, in Rom. viii. 29 we find the
expression -npuroroKog t'v TroAAotf ddeA^otf.)

His raising of many from the dead cannot be adduced against
Christ's being called TrpuroroKog ix. TWV ve/cpwv, for those were raised
with their mortal bodies, and died again at a later day. Enoch
and Elias did not taste death at all, and neither can they be
cited against Christ as the first-born of the dead. In general, the
corporeal glorification of the body in those Old Testament worthies
seems to have been a preliminary one only, which cannot be com-
pared with Christ's glorification. Nor, certainly, is a reference of
the words dpx^ Trpwroro/cof, to the customary language of the Gnostic
false teachers to be looked for here ; had the latter employed those
expressions in another sense, Paul would have defined more accu-
rately the true sense in which they must be used. An antithesis
could be couched in Paul's words only so far as they seem to
assert the reality of the resurrection against spiritualistic false doc-
trines. But this epistle contains no definite declaration of any do-
cetic tendency in the false teachers, as will be detailed farther on
(see at ver. 22); Paul seems to have intended to designate Christ
only as the beginner of the glorification. According to the theologi-



COLOSSIANS I. 19. 185

cal conception of the life of Jesus, Paul sees in it a special Divine
design ; Christ was necessarily thus the first-born of the dead under
God's direction, in order to have in all things the pre-eminence ; he,
the Lord of all things, was necessarily to have the first place in all
earthly relations also. 'Ev ndatv is not, with Beza, Flatt, Heinrichs,
and others, to be taken as masculine, " among all men," for then
ndvTcjv would certainly have stood, but as neuter, " in all points, in
every respect." Excellently says Chrysostom : -navraxov np&ro<;'
aw TTp&rog, iv ry KKK^rjoia Trpwrof, sv ry avaaraKsei Trpwrof, everywhere
first : first on high, first in the church, first in the resurrection.
(The verb Trpwrevw is not found in the New Testament except here.
In the LXX., it is found Esther v. 11. It also occurs 2 Mace. vi.
18, xiii. 15.)

Yer. 19. Christ's precedence in all respects is grounded on the
relation of the Divine to the human nature ; by God's good pleas-
ure there resided in him the whole fulness of the Divinity. He was
therefore no mere man, like the rest, but the God-Man ; humanity
was the residence, the temple, for the Divinity which filled him.
Thus it is said of the faithful too (John xiv. 21) that Father and
Son will come to them and take up their abode (jiovrjv) with them.
But while in Christ the whole fulness dwells, i. e., permanently
manifests itself as active, the individual believer receives but a ray of
the Divine light. The import of nav TO Trkrjpufj,a, all fulness, is authori-
tatively explained at ii. 9 by -n-A^pw/za rrjg deorrirog, fulness of the God-
head. It is, therefore, the Divine essence itself, inasmuch as it is con-
ceived as comprehending in itself a fulness of vital powers ; with this
the abstract form deorrjg accords better than Qeog . But, as the Divine
essence can manifest itself in an all-embracing (central), or partial,
manner, nav is added to express that in Christ the former is the
case. But here again it may be asked, whether in the selection of
the expression TrAr/pw^o. we may not suppose an allusion to the cus-
tomary language of the Gnostics. For the Gnostics used, as is well
known, the word Tr/lr/payta to denote the kingdom of light, the world
of JEons, in opposition to /cevwjua. Now, as the Colossian false teach-
ers devoted a worship to the individual angels or JBons, Paul's de-
sign might have been to oppose the truth to those erroneous notions
by describing Christ as the only object of adoration, in whom more
than one -ZEon resided, that is to say, the whole nXijp^a. But we
have already detailed at Eph. i. 23 the reasons which determine us
not to suppose such an allusion to Gnostic language in the word
TrA^pWjua. We cannot prove that the false teachers in the time of
the apostles used the word Tr/b/pwjua as did the latter Gnostics. But,
even were that demonstrable, Paul, if he had had in view an antithesis
in the word Tr/lTypc^ua, would have more strictly defined the sense
which he attached to it, in opposition to the Gnostic usage. We may



186 COLOSSIANS I. 20.



rather admit in the expression Ka-oiniiaai, a controversial reference to
such Gnostic views as look upon Jesus' animation by a higher .ZEon as
only temporary, from his baptism till his death. (See the remarks
on ii. 9.) Nevertheless, we must adhere to the principle of regard-
ing this whole passage as only a controversy with the heretical
teachers in the mass and on the whole, and not against their special
modes of expression, as Steiger and Biihr particularly have assumed