The Pulpit Commentary — Colossians — Section 59

1.. t.. nut Wf' have t-l1c frcli11g of emancipation. We have the first and cbamcteristio hl<'ssin~ 0f rcd?~ptiL,n, viz. the forgiven_css of our sins. We fuel happy in the enjoy- 1~ient 01_ the Dmne fa:"our. A:nd that 1s only pa~t. of the redemption we have here, I· 0r, ns 1s brought out m Ephesians, we have the Spmt as the Earnest of the inheritance. We have thm,, under all circumstances, causes for thankfulness to God• and therefore prayer rn!ly always go up for this. ' II. 'l'BE PERSON OF CHRIST. 1. In relation to the universe. His having the pre- cminenc-e. (1) As a,1~ing out of his relation to the Father. "Who [i.e. the Son of his love] is the Image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of a.II creation." First part of the d.esigna.tion. Image is to be distinguished from mere likeness. There is a like- ness between members of the same family, but the parental features are imaged in the child. In "image" thC're is the idea of derivation from an original, So it is not mere likeness that is prooicated of the First and Second Persons of the Godhead· but God is represented (imperfectly, we may believe) as the original, and Christ as'the copy. In 1 Cor. xi. 7 man is said to be the image of God, so that this way of desicrnating the Second Person does not necessarily imply his divinity. At the same time: it may be C'mployed in consistency with his divinity, if (admitting the mystery of the relation- ,ship, ,iz. that one should be original or prototype, and another copy or impress) we think of him as the perfect Image of God. The designation "invisible" is here applied to God, and when Christ is said to be the Image of the invisible God, the apparent meaning is that the essential idea of his existence is that he is God manifest, and that antecedent to his being God ma,,iifest in the flesh, From all eternity he manifests, is in l"isible form, that God whom no man bath seen nor can see, And this, as we shall presently see, accounts for his connection with the work of creation. Second part of the designation. He is "the Firstborn of all creation." As we must first think of original and then of copy, so we must first think of Father and then of Son. The Father is imaged in the Son. In relation to the Father, the Second Person is strictly the Only-begott,en,. The :firstbom has always reference to some coming after. Christ is the "Firstbom" among many brethren, i.e. Brother leading others after him. He is ~tyled in this passage" the Firstbom from the dead," i.e. the first to rise from the dead himself, and bringing others after him. If the expression had been "the first-created of creation," the Arian interpretation (Christ's creatureliness) might have been pressed, But there is an expression used which seems to make Christ stand out from all creation, as not created himself, but born. If it had been Christ's relation to the Father that had been solely in question, the expression would probably have been not "born," but "begotten" (only begotten). But it is rather Christ's relation to all that might be thought of as in the family. And therefore the ordinary word in such a relation is used. ":firstbom" ( as distinguished from after-born by same mother). And it is intended to bring out emphatically the thought that he has the rights of the :firstbom. Philo had applied the name "First-begotten n (relative to Father) to the Logos. But the Messianic name was "Firstbom" (relative to other members of a family). "I will make him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth" (Ps. lxxxix. 27). Kings of the earth, by virtue of primogeniture, are placed over their portions of the earth. As God's Firstborn, Christ is higher, as absolutely placed over a.ll creation. (2) .dB arising out of hi.Ii causal relation to the wniverse. (a,) Conditional cause. "For in him wero all t:iings created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or power~." We are taught here, in opposition to the .Arian idea, that Christ stood out from all things created as their Cause. He is thus placed in a different category from creation. As Cause, he was very closely connected with creation. '!'here seems to be a catching up of the thought that J,e is essentially the Manifester of God. In him, as such, creation.had its origin. God is manifested ( comes out of invisibility) in creation.. "!<'or t~e invisiLle things of ~im Hnce the creation of the world are clearly seen, bemg percmved through tho tlnngs that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity." If, then, it was to be mado to appear (outside of Godhead) what God was in his wisdom, power, goodness, to whom di<i. tLis Ldong but to the Second Person? It was in him as Manifestcr that it lltC<:Ssarily illhered. There was an emphatic universality connected with his work of creatiug. In Lim were all things (equivalent to the universe) created. But, as if that Y. ere uot ei..ough, a comprehensive divi.;;ion hi added: "in the heavens and upon the CU, I. 1-20.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GOLOSSIAN3.