Colossians 1:15Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

What are you saying? He Himself forgave you your sins. Therefore He Himself also brought you. Here the root of the teaching has already been laid beforehand.

Today I must pay you the debt I took upon myself yesterday, to offer it when your attention has revived. Speaking of the dignity of the Son, Paul, as we said, says this: Who is the image of the invisible God.

Whose image do you think he calls Him? If God's, well said, because He is God and the Son of God. The image of God means immutability. Therefore He too is immutable.

But if you say that he calls Him a human image, I withdraw from you as from a madman. Yet why is no angel anywhere called either image or son, while man is called both? Why is this so?

Because there, given the lofty nature of the angels, this would have served many as an occasion for impiety, that is, for divinizing the creature. Here, however, the nothingness and abasement of our nature give complete security.

They do not allow even one who wished it to suspect anything of the kind, and therefore to use more restrained expressions. Thus, where there was deep abasement, Scripture boldly points to honor. But where the nature is higher, it does not.

But he says, the image of the invisible. Therefore, if He is invisible, His image is also invisible. Otherwise it would not be an image. An image, insofar as it is an image, must among us be unchangeable in properties and likeness.

But among us this cannot happen at all. Here there is human art, which often fails, and even never succeeds if you examine carefully. But where God is, there is never error. There no failure occurs.

If the Son is a creature, how is He the image of the Creator? A horse cannot be the image of a man. If the image does not present the immutability of the Invisible One, what prevents the angels also from being an image?

They too are invisible, although not to themselves. The soul also is invisible. But because it is invisible, is it then an image? Even if it is an image, it is not such as He is.

Born before every creature. What then, he says? Does this mean He was created? Show me why this is so. Because he called Him firstborn. But he did not say first-created, but firstborn.

Then, if you call Him made because the Apostle called Him firstborn, what will you say when you hear that He is called brother? Scripture indeed also calls Him brother, made like us in all things.

Shall we therefore deny even that He is the Creator, and assert that He has no advantage over us either in dignity or in anything else? Who with a mind could say this?

The word firstborn does not show dignity and honor, but only expresses time. But if He has no advantage over us, then in this sense He is firstborn in relation to everything.

In that case, God the Word will be like in essence even to stones, trees, and the rest.

Born before every creature, he says. But you will say, He is called firstborn, therefore He was created. Yes, if it were so, and if other similar properties were not also ascribed to Him.

For example, He is called the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have preeminence. Tell me, what do the words firstborn from the dead show?

Certainly not that He was the first to rise. The Apostle did not simply say that He was first from the dead, but that He was firstborn from the dead. Nor did he say that He was the first to die.

Rather, he says that He rose as firstborn from the dead. By these words, therefore, he shows only that Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection. Thus he says nothing different in the present place.

Then he at last approaches the dogma itself. Since in ancient times He was brought by angels, but now comes Himself, the Apostle prevents anyone from thinking that He is younger than the angels.

First he shows that they had no power at all. Otherwise He would not have delivered us from darkness. Then he affirms that He existed before them. As proof that He existed before them, he offers that they were created by Him.

He is perfectly like Him, and therefore, clearly, an invisible image. Among us, when human art, which often errs, makes an image, it does not possess complete likeness. But where God is, there is no error and no deviation. Therefore there is complete likeness there.

If the Son did not possess complete likeness to the invisible God, what prevents the angels also from being the image of God? They too are invisible. Yet angels are never called the image of God.

And note the precision of Holy Scripture. It calls man both the image of God and a son, but never an angel. For in that case, those who hear of the height of angelic nature could easily fall into impiety.

They might think that an angel has equal dignity with God. But in man's case, his lowliness and nothingness guard us from thinking anything of the kind.

Therefore make the comparison. The Only-begotten is both image and invisible. By being the image, He differs from the angels, who are invisible but are not images. By being invisible, He differs from men, who are called the image of God but are not invisible.

Thus He alone is the perfect image of God, foreign to every dissimilarity. And if the Arians still object that an image is not consubstantial with its archetype, let them hear Scripture saying that Seth is the image of Adam.

Is he not consubstantial with Adam? Thus artificial images are not identical in essence, but natural images possess entirely the same essence.

Born before every creature. Having said that He is the image of the invisible God, he adds this also. Here lies a great stumbling block for the Arians. Since, they say, He is called born before every creature, He is the first of creatures.

But the Apostle did not say first-created, but firstborn. Or will you give Him brothers, so that He is firstborn in relation to me, to a frog, to a stone, and to such worthless things, and has one essence with all these?

For the Firstborn surely has one essence with those in relation to whom He is called Firstborn. But this blasphemy turns back upon your own head. It is impious to think so about the incomparable glory of the Creator.

Besides, the word firstborn is used in Scripture not at all in contrast to later children, but absolutely, and it means one born first. Thus He was born firstborn according to the flesh from the Theotokos Mary, although He had no brothers after Him.

For He is Only-begotten also in His origin from her. In the same way, according to His birth from the Father, He is Firstborn not in contrast to the other creatures, but absolutely. For He is Only-begotten also according to the birth from above.

What then shall we now say to refute the question at hand and expose the opinion of the Colossians? Lest they think Him younger than the angels, because the ancients were brought to God through them, while now He is said to bring men to God, he wishes to show that the Son is before every creature.

In what way? Through birth. Therefore He exists before the angels, and in such a way that He Himself also created them. Thus, if angels served in the Old Testament, this is His ordering.

And note the Apostle's wisdom. Lest, when you hear that He is before every creation, you should consider Him without beginning, he teaches you that He has a Father and is begotten of Him.

And since both He and all things are from God, this very fact shows the difference. The one came forth as Son from the Father. The others, as creatures, were made by this very Son. Therefore he adds the following.

But by saying, "And He is before all things" (Col 1:17), the Apostle showed that He always abides, while creation came into being. For the word "is" expresses the same as "In the beginning was the Word" (Jn 1:1).

They say, "If the Son is firstborn, then He is not Only-begotten. There must be another in relation to whom He would be called firstborn."

Yet, most wise one, even the One born of the Virgin Mary alone is called her firstborn. For it is said, "until she had borne her firstborn Son" (Mt 1:25).

Therefore it is not necessary for one called firstborn to have a brother. One might also say that He is called firstborn as existing before every birth.

He is also so called in relation to those born of God through adoption by the Holy Spirit, as Paul says: "Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom 8:29).

Consider also the words that follow: "according to Our image" (Gen 1:26). What will you say to this? Is there one image for God and the angels?

Of the Son and the Father there is necessarily the same image, if one understands image in a fitting way. It consists not in bodily outline, but in divine property.

To whom does God say, "according to Our image"? To whom else, if not to "the Radiance of His glory and the Image of His hypostasis" (Heb 1:3)?

Whoever has not examined, by experience and contemplation, all the names and powers of Christ, both the highest and first, and the lower and last, which belong to Christ according to His humanity, has not yet understood.

These names are that He is God, Son, Image, Word, Sacrifice, born before every creature, and Firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18).

Whoever hears these names and realities without profit, does not enter into communion with the Word, and does not understand in what relation He is and is named by each of them.

Whoever is still an infant, fed with milk, not numbered with Israel, not enrolled in the army of God, will he receive with honor and joy being placed at the head of the fullness of Christ?

But being the Word, He is not composed of syllables like a human word, as has been said. He is the immutable image of His Father. Men are composed of parts and created out of nothing.

Their word also is composed and dissolved. But God is the Existing One and is not composite. Therefore His Word also is Existing. He is not composite, but is the one Only-begotten God and Good One.

He proceeds from the Father as from a good spring. He brings all things into order and sustains them.

Therefore the Lord is named firstborn not because He is from the Father, but because creation received being through Him. Before creation He was Son, through whom creation came into being.

So also, before being named firstborn of every creature, the Word Himself was nevertheless with God, and the Word was God. But the impious, not understanding even this, go about and say, If He is firstborn of every creature, it is clear that He Himself is one of the creatures.

Senseless men! If He is firstborn of every creature in general, it follows that He is other than the whole creation. The Apostle did not say firstborn of other creatures, lest He be considered one of the creatures.

Rather, he wrote firstborn of every creature, so that it might be clear that He is other than creation. Reuben is called the firstborn not of all the children of Jacob, but of Jacob himself and of his brothers (Gen 35:23).

This is so that he may not be considered other than the children of Jacob. And concerning the Lord Himself, the Apostle did not say that He might be firstborn among all.

This was so that no one might think He bears upon Himself a body different from ours. Rather, he said firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29), according to the likeness of the flesh.

Therefore, if the Word were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of Him, firstborn of other creatures. But now, since the saints say firstborn of every creature, this plainly shows that the Son of God is other than all creation.

He is not a creature. For if He is a creature, He will be firstborn of Himself also. How is it possible, Arians, to be both prior to oneself and later than oneself?

Moreover, if He is a creature, and every creature received being through Him and consists in Him, how can He both create creation and be one of those who consist in Him?

Since the absurdity of this Arian invention is self-evident, the truth exposes them. The Son is called firstborn among many brethren because of His kinship in the flesh.

He is called firstborn from the dead because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him. He is called firstborn of every creature because of the Father's love for mankind.

According to this love, not only do all things consist by His Word, but creation itself, as the Apostle said of it, awaits the revelation of the sons of God. It will one day be freed from bondage to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom 8:19, 21).

After such liberation of creation, the Lord will be its firstborn also, as He is of all who have been made children. Thus, with His being named first, what comes after Him also abides, depending on the Word as on a kind of beginning.

Therefore He is "firstborn of creation" not because creation is His sister, but because He was begotten before every creature.

For is it possible to be both brother and creator of creation? If, according to the heretics' teaching, He is a creature, then creation is His sister.

But it is impossible to be at once brother and creator of creation. Divine Scripture calls Him Creator. If He is Creator, He is not brother. If He is not brother, He is not a creature.

Moreover, the divine Apostle did not call Him first-created, but firstborn, that is, first. Thus He is also "firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18), because He rose first.

So the divine Apostle also called the assembly of the saints "the Church of the firstborn" (Heb 12:23). This is not because all of them by nature first opened their mothers' birth pangs.

Rather, since the law assigns a greater honor to the firstborn, the Apostle expressed their venerability by this name.

That the Only-begotten is not brother of creation, but Creator, the following words also make clear.

He who calls Him the radiance of glory and the image of the Father's hypostasis teaches the opposite (Heb 1:3). He teaches that He first gave birth, that is, created the creature.

Thus, if the accent is kept on the third syllable, He will be πρωτογόνος, the one who first brought forth, and not πρωτογενής, firstborn. He will be πρωτοκτίστος, first-creator, and not πρωτόκτιστος, first-created.

If the word birth is taken here in place of the word creature, let no one marvel at this. Elsewhere it is said, You forsook God who begot you (Deut 32:18). And again, I said, You are gods and sons of the Most High (Ps 82:6).

For God, in begetting, begets without passion. In creating, He makes without passion, in a manner befitting God and without weariness. Scripture uses these names not so that we should take birth for creation, and creation for birth.

Malicious heretics think they can assert this. Rather, Scripture does this to show how easy this is for God, and to show His impassibility. See further verses 16 and 17.

But why do they reject the thought of those who affirm that the Son is Only-begotten according to the Godhead, and firstborn of the new creation according to His humanity?

For if we do not understand it so, and do not call the firstborn the First-Creator, then firstbornness, joined with the concept Only-begotten, can indicate preeminence of birth. One may be both firstborn and only-begotten Son.

But joined with the concept creature, this has no place. A creature is either created together with another or firstborn. One destroys the other.

And what prevented the Apostle from saying clearly, first-created of every creature? If He is understood as first-created, how is He Only-begotten? What is one does not admit another. But the concept first excludes oneness.

And in what respect does He differ from creatures if He Himself is created? How are they not ashamed, worshiping a creature and contradicting their own assertions? They do not notice themselves doing what they forbid.

They forbid worshiping a creature, because this is proper to the pagans, and yet they do this themselves.

One must also know that the same names do not always signify the same thing. One name does not necessarily show identity of things. The word birth is used in its proper sense with regard to the Son, but improperly with regard to creatures.

It is said of the Son because of His truth and consubstantiality. It is said of creatures because of honor and adoption. For of His own will He begot us by the word of truth (Jas 1:18).

Therefore let the identity of name here not suggest equality of honor. Let what is said in an improper sense not be regarded as said in the proper sense.

For no right-minded man will say that fury, wrath, and everything else unbecoming to God's nature, though said of Him improperly, are attributed to God in the proper sense.

It is self-evident that in every place and every saying, only a fitting and appropriate interpretation gives birth to the truth.

For creation was not born of God, but made and created by His divine command. One ought to say first-created of every creature, not firstborn.

Therefore the meaning of the Apostle's present words is different, and not what those two leaders of heresy understood when they said that the Son is a creature.

Their cunning and impiety are evident. They took only one expression from divine Scripture and forcibly adapted it to their heretical teaching. They cared nothing for interpreting it and harmonizing it with the other words of God that speak of the same subject.

For if image of the invisible God means a creature, then how did the Evangelist John say directly and clearly, And the Word was God (Jn 1:1)?

If firstborn is taken according to the meaning of the expression, then how did the same John say, The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father (Jn 1:18)?

Can the same one be both creature and God, that is, both creature and Creator? This is impossible. Can the same one be both firstborn and only-begotten? These words are directly opposed.

But why did Paul say that the Son is the image of the invisible God and firstborn of every creature? See Theodoret on this passage.

He said image in order to show that the Son has the features of the Father. Therefore He said to Philip, He who has seen Me has seen the Father (Jn 14:9).

He also said this to show that He is consubstantial with the Father, according to the word He spoke: All that the Father has is Mine (Jn 16:15).

He said it also to distinguish the hypostasis of the Father from the hypostasis of the Son. Thus no one should think there is a confusion or fusion of the divine hypostases, as the mad Sabellius imagined.

He said that the Son is the image of the invisible God. But in further explanation of this image, he also wrote of the Son: Who, being the radiance of His glory and the express image of His hypostasis, upholding all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3).

Firstborn of every creature refers to the man Jesus Christ, just as firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18) and firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29) do.

He is firstborn from the dead because, first of all who had fallen asleep, He came forth from the womb of Hades and rose from the dead. Henceforth He dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him (Rom 6:9).

Therefore Paul said of this: But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor 15:20).

He is firstborn among many brethren because He was the first of all Christians to be born righteous and holy from the baptismal waters of Jordan, as from spiritual wombs.

Therefore He called those who believed in Him His brethren, saying, I will declare Your name to My brethren (Heb 2:12).

He is firstborn of every creature, not of the old and material creation, but of the new and spiritual one. This is the assembly of those who have believed in Him and been justified.

Concerning this creation Paul preached, saying, Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new (2 Cor 5:17).

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation (Gal 6:15).

Jesus Christ is the firstborn of this spiritual creation. In it He was the first to be born righteous and holy, and by Himself renewed corrupted human nature.

Hear then how Paul, in the following words, proclaims the Son whom he called image and firstborn to be the Maker and Creator of all visible and invisible creation. Thus he stops the mouths of the heretics who deny His divinity.

In other words, an image is not the very same object appearing to us a second time or in another form. It is an object of the same kind, having one and the same essence, the same properties, and producing the same actions.

Sometimes, however, objects are compared by an accidental likeness of properties and positions. In this sense they may be called images of one another. But then image is understood improperly.

Thus, man is called the image of God only according to his accidental position on earth, according to dominion, as Chrysostom says. But Jesus Christ is here called the image of the invisible God perfectly and essentially.

So He is also called elsewhere by the Apostle (Phil 2:6; Heb 1:3). This is confirmed by the subsequent depiction of the divine properties of this image of God.

These are His creative omnipotence, His eternity, and His highest appointment as the goal of all being. Therefore in Him we see the true and complete image of the invisible God.

Looking more closely into the meaning of the Apostle's expression, the image of the invisible God, we find in it full correspondence with John's expression: No one has ever seen God.

The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (Jn 1:18). Being inaccessible and incomprehensible to every creature, the Father has manifested Himself essentially in the Son.

Therefore the Son is called the image of the invisible God. He who sees Me sees Him who sent Me (Jn 12:45; Jn 14:9).

Further, the Apostle calls Him firstborn of every creature, πρωτότοκος πάσης κυίσεως. This expression can be understood in two ways. Either Jesus Christ is the first of creatures, a creature like the others, only first in time.

Or He is more excellent than all creatures, begotten of God before every creature. If we align the expression under consideration, firstborn of every creature, with the Apostle's following words, By Him all things were created, we naturally come to the latter thought.

There all kinds of the highest creatures are enumerated. The firstborn Son of God cannot stand in one rank with other creatures already made through Him. Nor can He have the same properties and nature as they do.

God the Creator cannot be one with creation. Therefore the word firstborn must be understood as the Apostle explains further in Col 1:17, in the sense of before all things, προ πάντων.

It therefore means above all things. In the Russian translation: born before every creature. In the same sense the Apostle Paul calls Jesus Christ πρωτότοκος ε̉κ τω̃ν νεκρω̃ν.

There the word firstborn is clearly taken in a figurative sense, as the first and firstfruits of those risen, not as the first to have undergone death.

Now joining both expressions, image of God and firstborn, we may present the Apostle's thought as follows. God once created the first man, Adam, according to His image, κατ' ει̉κόνα, and set him above all earthly creatures.

The Hebrews expressed this concept by the word bechur, πρωτότοκος, as in Deut 33:17 and Ps 89:27. God was pleased to recreate man through Jesus Christ, the second Adam.

Among the Hebrews, the Messiah is the second Adam. He was in the proper sense the image of the invisible God and became the Firstborn, the Firstling from all creation.

If Christians are called a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), then Christ Himself is Firstborn of creatures not in the sense of being created, but in the sense of preeminence or love.

He is πρω̃τος, the Son of love, Col 1:13. For by His blood He obtained redemption for all and became Head of the Church.

As a sign of its preeminence, the Apostle calls the Church the Church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23).

He himself ascended to this contemplation and raised us to it when he said above that in the Lord Jesus we always have redemption and the forgiveness of sins.

The cause of this, expressed by him elsewhere, is that He sits at the right hand of God the Father and intercedes for us, Rom 8:34.

Therefore, at those words, our thought naturally rises to this height. Together with the Apostle, we fix the gaze of the mind on the divine countenance of Christ the Savior.

Thus we attend to his words concerning the Godhead of Jesus Christ the Lord.

Saint Paul depicts the divine majesty of Christ the Savior, unreachable and incomprehensible to any creature, by presenting what the Lord Jesus is as God in Himself, apart from the Incarnation, Col 1:15-17.

Then he presents what He is as God-man, according to the incarnate divine economy of our salvation, Col 1:18-20.

This division, determined by the flow of the thought, is visible even outwardly in the form of speech: “who is,” 1:15, and “He is,” Col 1:18.

According to His Godhead, the Lord Jesus Christ is, first, the consubstantial Son of God the Father, begotten before the ages, Col 1:15.

Second, He is the Creator of all that exists, Col 1:16. Third, He is the Almighty, Col 1:17.

“Image” points to consubstantiality with the Father. By virtue of what? By virtue of the fact that He is begotten.

Because He is begotten, He is consubstantial. Being consubstantial, He is the image. “Who is the image of God,” the essential image, exactly alike, differing in nothing.

What the Father is, He also is. Look to the Father, look to the Son. There is no difference except begetting.

Saint Chrysostom says: “The word ‘image’ points to απαραλλακτον, exact likeness, and to being in no way different. Therefore He, the Lord, is απαραλλακτος, exactly like the Father and in no way different from Him.”

Blessed Theodoret writes: “Image signifies consubstantiality. Lifeless images do not have in themselves the essence of that of which they are images.

But a living image, differing in nothing, has one nature with its prototype.”

The same is read in Oecumenius: “The Apostle calls the Son the image of the Father because He differs from Him in nothing, and because of His complete likeness and equality, as an εκμαγιον.”

In present terms, this is like a photographic imprint of the original beauty.

Let us add Theophylact’s word: “When the Apostle says, ‘who is the image of God,’ he presents here the divine glory and majesty of the Only-begotten.

He is the image, he says, that is, exactly alike and in no way different. There is no measure for His greatness, so that, after measuring, you could say how much He lacks in comparison with the Father.

If He were an image as a man is, then you would have something to say in this respect. For this human image never reaches the prototype.

But since He is image as God and Son of God, He is the image of God in perfect likeness.”

The following passages of Scripture may lead to a clearer understanding of how God the Son is the image of God the Father: “who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” cf. Phil 2:6.

And: “who, being the radiance of His glory and the image of His hypostasis,” Heb 1:3.

The latter passage gives the thought that God the Father sees in God the Son the reflection of the glory of His Godhead. Therefore He is the image of His hypostasis.

Let us use a human comparison. In a mirror, the one looking into it is reflected with complete exactness, whole as he is.

So the Father, whole as He is, essentially and with all His Godhead, is reflected in the Son.

The former passage teaches that God the Son, eternally being in the form of God, or being the essential image of God, is equal to God the Father.

If one may speak this way of the divine Persons, He stands on the same line of divine majesty with God the Father. This is impossible otherwise than by consubstantiality.

“Who is the image of the invisible God.” This expression gives rise to the thought that the invisible divine nature becomes visible in the Son, in His pre-eternal coming forth.

But one should not think this. If the Son is the exact image of the invisible God, then He too is invisible. Otherwise He would not be the exact image.

He is the image of the invisible God, but an invisible image. God, worshiped in the Trinity, is invisible.

The Father is invisible, the Son is invisible, and the Holy Spirit is invisible. Saint Chrysostom says: “If He, God, is invisible, then His image is likewise invisible. Otherwise it would not be an image.”

Blessed Theophylact concludes: “Therefore join both things together, holding that the Only-begotten is both image and invisible.”

Even in the Incarnation of God the Word, the invisible Godhead did not become visible. Rather, His presence became known as though handled, yet still by the mind, not by sight.

Thus the holy Apostles beheld with the mind the invisible Godhead in the Lord the Savior and confessed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” cf. Mt 16:16.

Thus, after the Resurrection, Saint Thomas, as though handling the invisible Godhead, yet beholding Him with the mind, cried out: “My Lord and my God!” Jn 20:28.

Thus, when the Lord visibly ascended into heaven, the angels worshiped the invisible Godhead in Him. They still worship Him in Christ the Savior, seated at the right hand of God, Heb 1:6; 1 Pet 3:22.

And again the invisible Godhead will be seen in the Visible One, who comes to judge the living and the dead.

Ambrosiaster writes: “The Lord said to Philip: ‘He who has seen Me has seen the Father. How do you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?’ cf. Jn 14:9-10.

The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is this: They are one, so that he who sees the Son sees the Father.

But how could Philip, seeing the Son, see the Father? With the eyes of the mind, by seeing the divine works of the Son.

What the Son did, He said belonged to the Father, showing the unity of divine power.

In the same way Jacob also saw God. Therefore he was called Israel, that is, a man who sees God, Gen 32:28.

Thus the Lord is called the image of the invisible God in order to make it understood that He Himself is God, who is seen with the mind in Him.

The Father has never in any way appeared visibly, as it is said in the Gospel: ‘No one has ever seen God,’ Jn 1:18.”

“The firstborn of all creation,” that is, “begotten before every creature,” says blessed Theodoret.

If He is begotten, then He is from the essence and nature of the Father. Consequently, He is consubstantial with Him.

In this lies the direct foundation also of the fact that He is His image. “The firstborn of all creation.”

By these words two relations of the Son are defined: toward God the Father, that He is begotten of Him, and toward creatures, that before all of them He was not created, but begotten.

This signifies the infinite distance of creation from Him. Blessed Theophylact writes: “The Apostle shows that the Son is before every creature.

How is He before it? Through begetting. See the Apostle’s wisdom. He did not simply say that He is before every creature, lest, hearing this, you should think that He exists separately from God the Father.

Instead he said, ‘begotten before every creature,’ teaching you that He has a Father and is begotten from Him.

By this he also showed that He is one thing and all else is another. He is the Son from the Father, and everything else is creation, created precisely by Him.”

The Arians thought they had great support for their false teaching in this passage. They interpreted “firstborn of all creation” to mean that He stands at the head of creatures and, as first among them, is Himself a creature.

But in that case the Apostle would not have said “firstborn,” but “first-created,” as Saint Chrysostom says.

“And if you consider the word ‘firstborn’ to be equal in meaning to ‘first-created,’ the Apostle would have said ‘firstborn,’ in the sense of first-created, of other creatures besides Him, before whom He was born, in the sense of created,” says Athanasius the Great.

But the Apostle says “firstborn.” He is begotten. Therefore He is of one nature with God the Father who begot Him, and thereby infinitely distant from creation.

He is begotten before every creature. Therefore He is eternal, for time, as an inseparable form of created being, came into existence together with creation.

Before creation there is eternity. The One begotten before creation is eternal. By this again the infinite distance of the Son of God from creation is established.

Moreover, the firstborn of all creation is immediately afterward called the Creator of all things. But when something is created, it is created from nothing.

Only He who Himself is the One who Is can create from nothing. Whoever himself is from nothing, as a creature is, cannot create.

Therefore, if the firstborn of all creation created all things, then He Himself cannot be a creature.