Colossians 1:15-17 — Image of the invisible God and Firstborn of the new creation

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Colossians 1:15-17

Context: The Colossian hymn as christological answer to the Colossian heresy

According to the dominant scholarly opinion the Letter to the Colossians is written against an early syncretistic movement in Colossae that mixed Jewish-mystical, Hellenistic-philosophical and proto-gnostic elements. Paul (or a Pauline disciple) warns against “philosophy and empty deceit” (Col 2:8), against the worship of angels and of the “elements of the world” (stoicheia tou kosmou, Col 2:8.20), against ascetic and calendar regulations (Col 2:16-23). The hymn in Col 1:15-20 is the theological point of the letter: it sets Christ’s unique primacy against all competing powers of salvation.

Structurally the hymn is in two parts. The first strophe (vv. 15-17) deals with Christ’s relation to creation: he is image of God, firstborn of all creation, in him and through him all things are created, he is before all things and in him all things hold together. The second strophe (vv. 18-20) deals with Christ’s relation to the church and to reconciliation: he is head of the body (the church), beginning, firstborn from the dead, in him dwells the fullness, through him God reconciles all things. The second strophe is the key to the first: it shows that the “creation” of which the first strophe speaks stands in close relation to redemption.

Precisely this connection is decisive for the Socinians. The Racovian Catechism reads the “creation” in v. 16 as the new creation — the reality renewed through the Gospel, in which Christ is beginning and head. This reading is no late stop-gap. It has strong New Testament anchors: Paul himself speaks in 2 Cor 5:17 of the “new creation” in Christ; in Eph 2:15 of the “one new man”; in Gal 6:15 again of the “new creation.” Christ is beginning and head of this new creation — not of a second creative act on the old world.

Patristic theology has read the hymn predominantly in a cosmological and ontological way: Christ as second divine hypostasis, through whom the Father created the world, consubstantial with the Father. This reading is suggested if one isolates the first strophe; but it becomes visibly narrow through the second strophe and through the Pauline theology of the new creation. Nicaea (325) and especially the subsequent trinitarian controversies made the hymn into the locus classicus for the doctrine of eternal pre-existence and consubstantiality.

Socinian reception. The Racovian Catechism (1605) devotes several sections to Col 1:15-17; Fausto Sozzini discusses the passage in On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore) and in his letters. The Socinian interpretation combines three movements: (1) philological precision on the key terms eikon, prôtotôkos, en autôi ektisthê; (2) reading the “creation” in the light of the second strophe and of the Pauline “new creation”; (3) linking with John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6 and 1 Tim 2:5 as hermeneutical lead-verses for the New Testament doctrine of God.

Socinian core thesis

The titles “image of the invisible God” and “firstborn of all creation” are language of rank and mission, not ontological statements of essence. Both titles presuppose the distinction of God and Christ, rather than abolishing it. An image is not the original; a firstborn is one from out of the same kind. For the Socinians, Christ is thereby described as the unique mediator authorised by God — not as a second co-eternal divine person.

The word eikon (image) denotes in biblical usage a representation. Adam is created in Gen 1:26-27 “after the image of God” — that does not make Adam to be God. The addition “of the invisible God” in Col 1:15 is not incidental but decisive: God is invisible (cf. 1 Tim 1:17; 6:16; John 1:18: “no one has ever seen God”); Christ is visible — the distinction is structurally embedded. Whoever would be of the same essence as the invisible original could not possibly be his visible image.

The word prôtotôkos (firstborn) is in biblical usage a title of rank and election. Ps 89:28 LXX calls David God’s “firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth,” although David was the youngest of his brothers. Israel is called in Ex 4:22 God’s “firstborn” — not because it would be the oldest people in the world, but because it is the chosen one. Firstborn of all creation means accordingly: the one with primacy, the heir, the one authorised by God — and at the same time, as the Racovian Catechism formulates with great sharpness, one out of the number of creatures: for the firstborn must always belong to the same kind whose firstborn he is.

The “creation” (ktisis) whose firstborn Christ is, is for the Socinians not the old world-creation of Gen 1, but the new creation (Eph 2:15; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15): the reality renewed through the Gospel, in which Christ is head and beginning. The second strophe of the hymn (v. 18) confirms this: Christ is “firstborn from the dead” and “beginning” — unambiguously salvation-historical, not protological, predicates. Whoever reads v. 15 differently from v. 18 tears the unity of the hymn apart.

Key terms

Five Greek expressions decide the interpretation of Colossians 1:15-17 linguistically and philologically:

eikôn tou theou tou aoratou — “image of the invisible God”

The Greek eikôn denotes a representation or copy. In LXX usage it translates the Hebrew tselem (image, likeness). Adam in Gen 1:26-27 LXX is created “after our image” (kat’ eikona hêmeteran), without thereby being God himself. In 2 Cor 4:4 Paul calls Christ “image of God” (eikôn tou theou) in the context of his salvation-historical mission; in Heb 1:3 he is called “the exact imprint of his nature” (charaktêr tês hypostaseôs). This whole language designates that Christ visibly represents the invisible God.

The addition tou aoratou — “of the invisible” — is the theologically sharpest qualification of the verse. According to Pauline and Johannine usage God is invisible (1 Tim 1:17: “to the immortal, invisible, only God”; 1 Tim 6:16: “whom no one has ever seen or can see”; John 1:18: “no one has ever seen God”). Christ on the other hand is visible — he was seen, touched, heard (1 John 1:1-3). The distinction between invisible original and visible image is structurally embedded in the text; it cannot be dissolved into a sameness of essence without abolishing the sense of the genitive tou aoratou.

Sozzini argues precisely: Christ is called the image of the invisible God because he “has made God, whom no one has ever seen, visible and knowable to us in all that lay open for us to see and to know in the interest of our salvation” (Racovian Catechism). That is the language of revelation, not a statement of essence. The image-concept functions here like the Johannine logos-predicate: Christ makes the invisible God accessible; he is not himself the invisible God.

prôtotôkos pasês ktiseôs — “firstborn of all creation”

The genitive pasês ktiseôs is in Greek just as ambiguous as in English: it can be read partitively (“firstborn out of creation”) or comparatively (“firstborn before creation”). Trinitarian exegesis prefers the comparative genitive: Christ is before creation, hence not part of it. But that is linguistically a special reading. The natural reading of a genitive following prôtotôkos is partitive: firstborn of Israel = out of Israel; firstborn of the dead (Col 1:18!) = out of the dead; firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:29) = out of the brothers.

The Racovian Catechism formulates the argument with great sharpness: “The firstborn must be one out of the same kind whose firstborn he is, and indeed, as the word itself shows, the first.” Whoever makes Christ firstborn of all creation either says: he is one out of the number of creatures (that would be the Arian position, against which the Catechism distances itself), or by “creation” he means something other than the old world-creation of Gen 1. For the Socinians it is the second option: the “creation” is the new creation, whose beginning and head Christ is.

The evidence for this reading is dense within the same hymn: v. 18 calls Christ “beginning, firstborn from the dead” (archê, prôtotôkos ek tôn nekrôn); v. 20 speaks of the reconciliation “of all things”; v. 13, immediately before the hymn, of the transferring “into the kingdom of his beloved Son.” The whole pericope speaks salvation-historically, not protologically. Christ is firstborn of the reality renewed through him; all primacy belongs to him in this new creation. The Pauline language is consistent: 2 Cor 5:17 (kainê ktisis), Gal 6:15 (kainê ktisis), Eph 2:15 (heis kainos anthrôpos).

en autôi ektisthê ta panta — “in him all things were created”

The preposition en + dative designates in Greek primarily a sphere, a space, a domain. En autôi — “in him” — means within his sphere, in his domain, with reference to him. Trinitarian exegesis gladly reads instrumentally: “through him.” But Paul himself makes the difference in v. 16: he first writes en autôi, later di’ autou kai eis auton. Had he meant a purely instrumental sense, he would have written di’ autou both times. The variation is deliberate: in him (as sphere/domain/realm), through him (as means), for him (as goal) all things are created.

This threefold sequence of prepositions fits the Socinian reading of the new creation: everything that God works in the salvation-historical renewal happens in the sphere of Christ, through Christ as mediator, with Christ as goal. Christ is not the first creator of the old world — that is the Father alone (Gen 1:1; Ps 33:6; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Eph 4:6). Christ is sphere, means and goal of the new creation. Paul himself makes this precise in 1 Cor 8:6: one God, the Father, from whom (ex hou) are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (di hou) are all things. The Father remains origin; Christ is mediator.

thronoi, kyriotêtes, archai, exousiai — thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities

The enumeration of the spiritual powers in v. 16 is no protological catalogue of divine works of creation, but a polemical answer to the Colossian angel-worship. The addressees in Colossae worshipped “the elements of the world” (Col 2:8.20) and “the angels” (Col 2:18); Paul makes plain that these beings too are subject to Christ — they are in his sphere, through him, for him. That is the polemical point of the hymn: not the question whether Christ has co-created the old world, but the question to whom in the event of salvation all primacy belongs.

Exactly the same enumeration is found in Eph 1:21 (“far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”) and Eph 6:12 (“we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities”). This language is in Pauline theology consistently salvation-historical: it concerns Christ’s victory over competing spiritual powers, not his ontological participation in the protological world-creation. Whoever reads Col 1:16 without this context overstretches the statement.

pro pantôn and ta panta en autôi synestêken — “before all things” and “in him all things hold together”

Pro pantôn in v. 17a can be read temporally (“before all things in time”) or in rank (“over all things”). The second reading is good Pauline: in 1 Cor 15:28 God is “all in all”; in Eph 1:22 Christ is “head over all things”; in Col 2:10 he is “head of every rule and authority.” If v. 17a means primacy of rank, it fits seamlessly the Socinian reading: Christ has the highest rank in the new creation — not a temporal pre-existence before everything created in the old world.

Ta panta en autôi synestêken — “in him all things hold together” (v. 17b) is salvation-historically congruent with Eph 1:10: God wills “to unite all things in Christ.” Christ is the centre in which the new creation has its standing — not a metaphysical preserver of the natural world-order. The Pauline statement is soteriological, not cosmological. Whoever reads here a philosophical theory of preservation of the natural world projects late-antique and scholastic metaphysics into a salvation-historical hymn.

Historical background: “firstborn” in Old Testament and New Testament usage

Firstborn as rank, not chronology. In the Old Testament bekhor (firstborn) is a term of rank and inheritance, not primarily a chronological one. God often does not choose precisely the biologically eldest: Isaac before Ishmael (Gen 21), Jacob before Esau (Gen 25; 27), Joseph and his son Ephraim before Manasseh (Gen 48), David as the youngest before his seven older brothers (1 Sam 16). In Ps 89:28 LXX David is explicitly called prôtotôkon…hypsêlon pará tois basileusin tês gês — “firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” That is language of election and rank.

Israel as God’s firstborn. In Ex 4:22 YHWH calls Israel hyios mou prôtotôkos — “my firstborn son.” Israel is not the oldest people in the world; it is the one chosen by God. Jer 31:9 calls Ephraim God’s firstborn, although Ephraim was biologically the younger. The Old Testament linguistic field is unambiguous: firstborn-ship is election, primacy, inheritance — not temporal priority.

Pauline use in the other letters. Paul calls Christ in Rom 8:29 prôtotôkon en pollois adelphois — “firstborn among many brothers.” Here the genitive is clearly partitive: Christ is out of the brothers, the one with primacy among them. In Heb 1:6 Christ is introduced as “firstborn” into the world; Heb 12:23 speaks of the “assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (in the plural!). The whole New Testament usage of prôtotôkos is salvation-historical and relational. Col 1:15 is no exception.

The second use in the same hymn. Col 1:18 calls Christ prôtotôkos ek tôn nekrôn — “firstborn from the dead.” The genitive is partitive: Christ is out of the dead, the first who has risen. Whoever reads v. 15 ontologically (Christ over/before creation) and v. 18 salvation-historically (Christ out of the dead) tears the unity of the two-strophe composition apart. Only the salvation-historical reading is consistent in both verses: firstborn of the new creation (v. 15) and firstborn from the dead (v. 18).

The Colossian heresy. The addressees worshipped angels and “elements of the world” (Col 2:8.18.20). Paul answers polemically: Christ is superior to all spiritual powers; they are in his sphere, through him, for him. This polemical function explains why the hymn takes up the language of cosmic primacy — not in order to teach a second divine person, but to secure the absolute primacy of Christ against all competing powers of salvation.

Sozzini in the original: second cause and image

What the catechism summarizes in doctrinal form, Fausto Sozzini himself worked out — and precisely at the point where the interpretation of the hymn is decided: at the expression “through him.” In his polemical treatise on the invocation of Christ the opposing side confronts him with the creation statements. Sozzini does not answer evasively, but explains what “to create” means in these texts:

“For God the Father has accomplished the new creation no less than the old; and it is said that God created all things through Christ, but not Christ himself. In creating, too, the meaning is not altered, but a particular manner is expressed of which God made use in creating; in that it is said that he created, that is, transformed and renewed, all things through Christ. This manner does not show that Christ accomplishes that creation in a different way than the Father; but that he does it indeed in the same way, yet not as the first cause like the Father, but as the second cause.”

Fausto Sozzini, On the Non-Invocation of Jesus Christ in Holy Prayer — Creation through the Father and through Christ

Two determinations in one stroke, and both bear on Col 1:16. First: “created” here means “transformed and renewed” — what is at issue is the new creation, whose author is the Father just as much as in the old. Second: the preposition assigns the roles. The Father works as the first cause, Christ as the second; not in a different way, but in a different position. With that the alternative on which the interpretation of the hymn turns is cleanly named — and it is no makeshift solution, but a distinction which the school of the sixteenth century handled with precision.

How little this subordination diminishes the rank of Christ, Sozzini makes clear by an image which follows in the same section:

“Thus, for example, God illuminates the earth; and the sun does the same — not in a different way, to be sure, since there is one single common manner of illuminating for both. But God as the first cause; the sun, on the other hand, as the second. And in the same measure in which God is to be preferred to the sun in illuminating the earth, although the sun carries the power to do so within itself, in that same measure he is also to be preferred to Christ in transforming and renewing the world, although it is established that Christ carries the power to do so within himself.”

Fausto Sozzini, On the Non-Invocation of Jesus Christ in Holy Prayer — The simile of the sun

The sun really does illuminate; its power is its own and not merely borrowed light. And yet it remains the means through which God makes the earth bright. It is in exactly this way that Sozzini reads the creation statements about Christ: nothing in them is weakened, no authority disputed — only the place is determined at which Christ stands in the sentence. Whoever makes out of di' autou a creator beside the Father destroys not only the grammar, but also what makes the hymn great: that God brings up his new world through a human being.

On the second great predicate of the verse — “image of the invisible God” — Sozzini expresses himself in his principal work on Christ as Saviour. There he shows that Christ was the first and the only one who made known the previously hidden will of God, and it is precisely to this that he ties the title:

“It was therefore Christ himself who revealed to us what previously lay hidden in God on both sides. … Therefore he is called by the apostle Paul the image of the invisible God, 2 Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15. And Christ himself says of himself: Whoever sees me sees the Father, John 14:9.”

Fausto Sozzini, On Jesus Christ the Saviour — Liberation from death

The “therefore” carries the whole argument. Christ is called the image of the invisible God because he has made God known — the title follows from the act of revelation, not from a determination of essence. And Sozzini at once sets John 14:9 beside it, the verse which the opposing side likes to adduce for identity of essence: whoever sees Christ sees the Father — namely in what Christ shows of him. An image is not devalued by being an image; it is devalued when one confuses it with the one depicted and so takes away its task.

How far this authority of revelation reaches, Sozzini states in the antitheses which he set against the theses of the Transylvanian reformer Francis David. David had denied that every word of Jesus must be held to be spoken from the mouth of God. Sozzini’s counter-statement takes precisely the predicate of the image as its proof:

“That man Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, spoke not only through the prophetic Spirit, but through one more than prophetic, since he was the express image of God and in him the whole fullness of the godhead dwelt bodily, so that in his teaching he spoke not a single word that is not to be regarded as spoken by God himself with his own mouth.”

Fausto Sozzini, On the Honour of Christ — Antitheses to the Theses of Francis David on the office of Christ

Note the direction of the argument. From “image of God” and “fullness of the godhead” Sozzini draws not a statement about essence, but a statement about authority — and he draws it with the utmost sharpness: not a single word of Jesus that is not to be taken as God’s own word. That is no devaluation of the predicate, but its strongest interpretation. Whoever wishes to downgrade the sentence is, in this dispute, not Sozzini but his Unitarian opponent.

Why the image is nevertheless not the original is stated by a further antithesis of the same text, this time in terms of the relation of honour and worship:

“Christ is subordinate to God, not God to Christ. And therefore whoever worships Christ worships above all God himself. But not the reverse. Just as one who honours a governor honours above all the prince — but not the reverse.”

Fausto Sozzini, On the Honour of Christ — Antitheses on the question of the invocation of Christ

In that small “but not the reverse” lies the whole logic of the concept of the image. A relation that held equally in both directions would no longer be a relation of image, but identity. Whoever honours the governor honours the prince; whoever honours the prince does not thereby honour the governor. Likewise: whoever sees the image sees the one whom it shows — but the image is not the one shown. Col 1:15 states exactly this relation and does not abolish it.

The Racovian Catechism on Colossians 1:15

The Racovian Catechism discusses Colossians 1:15-17 in several sections. Three core passages may be reproduced here — they document the exegetical level and theological sharpness of the Polish Brethren.

1. In the main chapter on Christ as firstborn of all creation. The Catechism asks whether the designation “firstborn of all creation” proves a divine nature in Christ. The answer runs:

“Nor can it be inferred from this that Christ possesses that divine nature. For since Christ is firstborn of all creation, he must necessarily be one out of the number of creatures. The meaning of the word ‘firstborn’ in Scripture is this (Col 1:18; Rom 8:29; Rev 1:5): that the firstborn must be one out of the same kind whose firstborn he is, and indeed, as the word itself shows, the first. But that the Lord Jesus should be the first among the things of the old creation, not even our opponents will concede, unless they would be Arians. They must therefore admit that the Lord Jesus is one out of the kind of the new creation. From this, not only can that divine nature of Christ not be proven, but it is also incontrovertibly proven that Christ does not possess that divine nature. That he is, however, called by this name by the Apostle, happens because he far surpasses all things of the new creation in time and excellence.”

Racovian Catechism, on Christ as firstborn of all creation

The chain of argument is sharp: If Christ is firstborn of something, he must be out of this kind. The old creation is ruled out, because no one outside the Arians (whom the Catechism itself rejects) will concede that Christ is one of the creatures of the old world. Consequently the creation, whose firstborn Christ is, must be the new creation — and exactly this is permitted by the Pauline linguistic field of kainê ktisis (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:15).

2. On the designation of Christ as image of the invisible God. The Catechism devotes a separate section to this predicate:

“From the fact that Christ is the Word of God, that divine nature in Christ cannot be proven; rather the opposite is to be concluded from it. For since he is the Word of that one God, it is plain that he is not that one God. The same may also be answered to those testimonies in which Christ is called image of the invisible God and the exact imprint of his being. For God, whom no one has ever seen, he has made visible and knowable to us in all that lay open for us to see and to know in the interest of our salvation.”

Racovian Catechism, on Christ as image of the invisible God

The decisive step: the predicates “Word of God” and “image of the invisible God” structurally prove the distinction of God and Christ — a word has a speaker; an image has an original. Whoever dissolves both predicates into a sameness of essence abolishes the very sense of the predicates. For the Socinians Christ is uniquely so by virtue of being God’s Word and image — not in spite of these predicates.

3. On the fullness of the godhead in Christ (Col 2:9). Since v. 19 of the hymn thematises the fullness and Col 2:9 takes up the same language, the Catechism comments on this passage too:

“Nor is that divine nature proven through those words that the fullness of the godhead dwells bodily in him (Col 2:9). For first, since the Apostle sets Christ over against philosophy and the law, it follows that he speaks of that godhead or divinity of Christ which is transferred to us from him himself through his teaching and his Spirit. But this is the true and heavenly wisdom and the firm knowledge of God’s will, as all the terms also teach, in particular fullness; for these indicate that here a kind of divinity is spoken of which elsewhere cannot be present in fullness or at least not full in every respect — which does not apply to the divine essence.”

Racovian Catechism, on the fullness of the godhead in Christ

The argument is subtle: the “fullness” (plêrôma) of the godhead is a participatable magnitude (cf. John 1:16: “from his fullness we have all received”; Eph 3:19: “that you may be filled with all the fullness of God”). The divine essence itself is not participatable. Consequently the “fullness of the godhead” in Christ cannot mean the divine essence — but God’s wisdom, will, power, which are concentrated in Christ and passed on by him to believers.

To the writings of Sozzini and the Polish Brethren.

Logical arguments

From Colossians 1:15-17 the following linguistic-exegetical and systematic arguments follow against the ontological-trinitarian and for the Socinian rank-related reading:

1. Argument from the “image.” An image is not the original. If Christ is “image of the invisible God,” he is structurally distinguished from the invisible God. The addition tou aoratou — “of the invisible” — is not incidental: it drives the distinction into the verse itself. Whoever reads Christ as image and at the same time as the invisible original abolishes the sense of the predicate.
2. Argument from Adam. Adam too is “image of God” (Gen 1:26-27); that does not make him God. The image-language is consistently representation-language in the biblical linguistic field, not sameness of essence. The identifying reading of Col 1:15 must argue against the whole biblical usage of the eikôn-concept.
3. Argument from the “firstborn” as a generic concept. The firstborn must be out of the same kind as the whole whose firstborn he is. Firstborn of Israel = out of Israel; firstborn among brothers (Rom 8:29) = out of the brothers; firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18) = out of the dead. Whoever constructs v. 15 differently creates a linguistic special reading that stands against New Testament usage.
4. Argument from the unity of the hymn. V. 18 calls Christ “firstborn from the dead” in a salvation-historical sense. Whoever reads v. 15 ontologically-protologically tears apart the unity of the two-strophe composition. Only the salvation-historical reading is consistent in both verses.
5. Argument from the “new creation.” Paul speaks in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15 and Eph 2:15 of the “new creation” (kainê ktisis) in Christ. The ktisis whose firstborn Christ is, is for the Socinians exactly this new creation — not the old world-creation of Gen 1. This reading has strong Pauline anchors and avoids the difficulties of the ontological interpretation.
6. Argument from the Colossian context. The polemical enumeration “thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities” (v. 16) targets the Colossian angel-worship (Col 2:18). That is salvation-historical polemic against competing spiritual powers, not protological cosmogony. Whoever reads v. 16 cosmologically in isolation overlooks the polemical function of the hymn.
7. Argument from the preposition-difference. Paul writes in v. 16 both en autôi and di’ autou kai eis auton. Had he meant a purely instrumental sense, the variation would be superfluous. The threefold sequence of prepositions designates sphere, means and goal of the new creation — all within the realm of Christ, but origin remains the Father (1 Cor 8:6).
8. Argument from 1 Cor 8:6. Paul himself formulates the difference of origin and means precisely: one God, the Father, from whom (ex hou) are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (di hou) are all things. The Father is origin; Christ is means. Whoever makes of Col 1:16 a second origin of creation abolishes the Pauline preposition-precision.
9. Argument from John 17:3. Christ himself in the High Priestly Prayer calls the Father monon alêthinon theon — the only true God; himself he calls the one sent by the Father. This Johannine self-definition is the hermeneutical lead-word which interprets the predications in Col 1:15-17. Whoever plays the predicates against John 17:3 leaves the New Testament linguistic horizon.
10. Argument from 1 Tim 2:5. Paul formulates the christological basic structure tersely: one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. The mediator is man, not a second co-eternal divine person. This statement is linguistically clear and systematically central; it must interpret the fluid hymn-language of Col 1:15-17, not the other way round.
11. Argument from Christ’s praying. Christ prays to the Father (John 17; Matt 26:39; Luke 23:46), subordinates himself to him (John 14:28: “the Father is greater than I”), confesses his sending (John 5:30; John 6:38). A second co-eternal divine person could not coherently pray to himself; for the Socinians the subordination structure explains itself without remaining contradictions.
12. Argument from the fullness. Col 1:19 speaks of the fullness that dwells in Christ; Col 2:9 repeats this. The fullness (plêrôma) is participatable (John 1:16; Eph 3:19) — the divine essence, however, is not participatable. Consequently the fullness does not mean the divine essence, but God’s concentrated presence, power, wisdom, teaching — full in Christ and flowing from him into the church.

Objections and Socinian replies

Objection 1: “‘In him all things were created’ means the old world-creation.”

Reply: The scope of the ta panta is in Pauline usage consistently contextualised salvation-historically. 1 Cor 15:28: God will be “all in all” — an eschatological-soteriological statement. Eph 1:10: God wills “to unite all things in Christ” — that is the aim of the plan of salvation, not a statement about the ontological preservation of the universe. Likewise in Col 1:20 the reconciliation “of all things” is proclaimed through Christ — this must be soteriological, for reconciliation does not concern stones and planets.

The angelic powers in v. 16 are in Pauline usage often precisely the spiritual powers that in the event of salvation either stand with Christ or resist him (Eph 1:21; 6:12; Col 2:15). Their mention in the hymn does not aim at a cosmogonic creation, but at their subordination under Christ in the plan of salvation. The polemical function against the Colossian angel-worship explains the enumeration: all spiritual powers are subject to Christ; their worship alongside Christ is idolatry.

Add to this: the preposition-difference en autôi / di’ autou / eis auton is difficult to understand in a protological sense. How should the old world at once be “in Christ” and “for Christ” created? The soteriological reading explains the sequence of prepositions seamlessly: in the sphere of Christ (as beginning and head of the new creation), through Christ (as mediator), for Christ (as goal) the new creation is worked. That is the consistent Pauline usage.

Objection 2: “‘Before all things’ (v. 17) teaches temporal pre-existence.”

Reply: The preposition pro with genitive can be used both temporally (“before in time”) and in rank (“over,” “ahead of”). In Pauline usage the rank-reading is in many cases the more fitting: in Eph 1:22 Christ is “head over all things”; in Col 2:10 “head of every rule and authority”; in Phil 2:9 the name “above every name” is given to him. If v. 17a is read in the sense of rank, it fits seamlessly the whole Pauline theology of the exalted Christ.

But even if one reads v. 17a temporally, the Socinian reading is coherent: Christ is pro pantôn in God’s plan and foreordination, foreordained from the foundation of the world for the mediation of salvation (cf. 1 Pet 1:20: “foreknown before the foundation of the world”; Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9: “the grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the ages began”). An ideal, plan-bound pre-existence of Christ in God’s counsel is for the Socinians uncontested — it is to be distinguished from a personal, pre-temporal existence of a second divinity.

The Racovian Catechism makes this precise in connection with John 17:5: “That someone can have something — and consequently also glory — with the Father, before the world was created, and yet it does not follow from this that he then really existed, much less that he possesses the same nature as the Father, is shown by 2 Tim 1:9, where the Apostle says of believers that grace was given to them before times eternal.” Pre-existence in the plan is not pre-existence as a person.

Objection 3: “‘In him all things hold together’ (v. 17b) teaches a cosmic preserving function.”

Reply: The verb synistêmi means in the perfect synestêken “to stand together, to subsist, to hold together.” The sense in Pauline usage is not philosophical-metaphysical but relational-soteriological. Eph 1:10 uses a related image: God wills “to unite all things in Christ.” That is the aim of the plan of salvation, not a philosophical doctrine of preservation of the universe.

Whoever reads v. 17b as a doctrine of cosmic preservation transfers the patristic-scholastic doctrine of the concursus divinus into the text. This doctrine is a late construction; it is not contained in the Pauline text. Paul speaks relationally: everything that belongs to the plan of salvation has its standing in Christ — because Christ is head and centre of the new creation. That is the salvation-historical point.

For the Socinians God — the Father — is the preserver of the universe (Acts 17:28: “in him we live and move and have our being”; Heb 1:3 is likewise read by the Socinians salvation-historically as referring to Christ’s working during his earthly course and his exaltation). Christ is the exalted Lord, to whom all power in heaven and on earth has been given (Matt 28:18) — but this is given, transferred power, not ontologically immanent creative potency.

Objection 4: “The fullness of the godhead (Col 1:19; 2:9) proves the essential godhead of Christ.”

Reply: The Pauline use of fullness-language is relatively consistent: it designates a participatable magnitude. John 1:16: “from his fullness we have all received”; Eph 3:19: “that you may be filled with all the fullness of God”; Eph 4:13: “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” What is participatable is not the divine essence itself — for the divine essence is indivisible and non-transferable.

The Racovian Catechism establishes this: “This fullness is the true and heavenly wisdom and the firm knowledge of God’s will… a kind of divinity which elsewhere cannot be present in fullness or at least not full in every respect — which does not apply to the divine essence.” To put it differently: the fullness of the godhead in Christ is God’s concentrated presence in teaching, Spirit, power and authority — not a numerically second substance of the godhead.

That this fullness dwells “bodily” (sômatikôs) in Christ is said against the Colossian shadow (Col 2:17): in Christ is the reality, in the law only the shadow. Sômatikôs is reality-language, not a statement of essence. Christ is the concrete, historical, “bodily” presence of the divine fullness — and passes it on to the church (Col 2:10: “and you have been filled in him”).

Objection 5: “Whoever does not read the hymn ontologically devalues Christ.”

Reply: Socinian Christology is anything but flat. It calls Christ the uniquely chosen one, the image of God, the firstborn of the new creation, the head of the church, the firstborn from the dead, the exalted Lord to whom all power in heaven and on earth has been given. It calls him the mediator between God and men, through whom alone the Father is accessible. It confesses that in him the fullness of God dwells and flows from him into the church. That is high Christology — without breaking the New Testament monotheism.

The ontological reading, by contrast, has a price. It compels the statement that God has a second eternal God beside himself. It compels the statement that the one and only true God (John 17:3) is not the one Father. It compels philosophical constructions (una substantia tres personae) which do not stand in New Testament usage and cannot be formulated without post-Christian metaphysics. For the Socinians the non-trinitarian high Christology is more consistent with the Shema (Deut 6:4), with Christ’s own self-confession (John 17:3) and with the Pauline mediator-formula (1 Tim 2:5).

The hymn itself is not devalued by the salvation-historical reading, but recovers its proper point. It praises Christ’s unique standing in God’s plan of salvation: he is image, firstborn, head, beginning. Nothing in this language is small-minded. It is the expression of the highest honour that a man can hold in God’s plan of salvation — appointed Lord of all spiritual powers and mediator of all reconciliation.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages deepen the interpretation in the light of the whole biblical witness:

Psalm 89:28 LXX — David as firstborn

“I will also make him firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” David was biologically the youngest of his brothers; God installs him as “firstborn.” The term is here unambiguously language of rank and election, not chronological. This is the key to the biblical usage of prôtotôkos — and thereby to the understanding of Col 1:15.

Genesis 1:26-27 — Adam as image of God

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image.” Adam too is image of God without thereby being God. The eikôn-language is in the biblical linguistic field representation-language, not sameness of essence. Col 1:15 stands in exactly this Old Testament tradition: image of God is the one through whom God works visibly in the world — in unique fullness, Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6 — Origin and means of creation

“For us there is one God, the Father, from whom (ex hou) are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (di hou) are all things.” Paul himself makes the christological language precise: the Father is origin (ex), Christ is means (diá). This preposition-difference is the hermeneutical key to Col 1:16. More on 1 Corinthians 8:6.

John 17:3 — The Father alone as the true God

“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Christ’s own self-confession in the High Priestly Prayer is the hermeneutical lead-word: the Father alone is the true God; Christ is his envoy. Col 1:15-17 must be read in the light of this clear self-definition. More on John 17:3.

1 Timothy 2:5 — One God, one mediator, the man Jesus

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The Pauline mediator-formula is linguistically precise: one God (the Father), one mediator (Christ), and this mediator is man. That is consistent with Socinianism; a second co-eternal divine person would break the formula. More on 1 Timothy 2:5.

2 Corinthians 5:17 — The new creation in Christ

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (kainê ktisis); the old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” The Pauline language of the new creation is the hermeneutical key to the “ktisis” in Col 1:15: not the old world of Gen 1, but the salvation-historical renewal through the Gospel. Christ is firstborn of this new creation.

Romans 8:29 — Firstborn among many brothers

“That he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Here the genitive is unambiguously partitive: Christ is out of the brothers, the one with primacy among them, the eldest member of a community to which he himself belongs. Just so is Col 1:15 to be read: Christ is, out of the (new) creation, the one with primacy, the head, the beginning.

Hebrews 1:1-2 — God’s last word through the Son

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the ages.” The Son is mediator of the salvation-historical renewal (“the ages” = aiones = ages of salvation, not protological cosmos); he is appointed heir, not eternal co-creator. More on Hebrews 1:1-2.

Philippians 2:6-9 — Humiliation and exaltation

“Who, though he was in the form of God… humbled himself… Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name.” The parallel Christ-hymn reads, for the Socinians, not as pre-existent person but as salvation-historical mission; Christ’s unique primacy is given primacy — exalted by the Father to the highest name. More on Philippians 2:6-7.

Theological consequences

Related verses

The following passages support, deepen or contrast the interpretation set out here:

• John 1:1-3 — The Logos as God’s eternal Word, which has become flesh in Christ; parallel concept to the image-term of Col 1:15.
• John 17:3 — The Father alone as the true God; hermeneutical lead-word against the identifying reading of Col 1:15.
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 — Origin and means: the Father source, Christ mediator; preposition-difference that explains Col 1:16.
• 1 Timothy 2:5 — One God, one mediator, the man Christ; Pauline mediator-formula.
• Philippians 2:6-9 — Humiliation and exaltation; given primacy of Christ.
• Hebrews 1:1-2 — God’s last word through the Son; appointed heir of the ages of salvation.
• John 17:5 — Pre-existence in the plan, not as person.
• John 8:58 — “Before Abraham was, I am” in the Socinian way as plan-bound pre-existence.

Summary

Colossians 1:15-17 is linguistically, theologically and salvation-historically a hymn to Christ’s unique standing as image of the invisible God and firstborn of the new creation. Both titles structurally presuppose the distinction of God and Christ: an image is not the original; a firstborn is one out of the same kind. The addition “of the invisible” in eikôn tou theou is the theologically sharpest qualification of the verse — God is invisible, Christ is visible; an image and its original are not identical.

The “creation” whose firstborn Christ is, is for the Socinians the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:15) — not the old world-creation of Gen 1. The second strophe of the hymn (v. 18) confirms this with the salvation-historical predicate “firstborn from the dead.” The sequence of prepositions en autôi / di’ autou / eis auton describes sphere, means and goal of this new creation; the Father remains origin (1 Cor 8:6: ex hou). The polemical enumeration of the spiritual powers targets the Colossian angel-worship, not a protological cosmogony.

The Racovian Catechism puts the exegetical point in a nutshell: the firstborn must be out of the same kind whose firstborn he is; the old creation is ruled out (except for the Arians); consequently Christ is firstborn of the new creation. Understood in the Socinian way, Col 1:15-17 is a key text of a monadic-monotheistic high Christology: Christ is visible image of God, head and beginning of the new creation, firstborn from the dead, in whom the fullness of God dwells and flows from him onto the church — without there being any need to derive from this hymn a second co-eternal divine person.