KJV: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
YLT: who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,
Darby: who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;
ASV: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
| εἰκὼν | [the] image |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: εἰκών Sense: an image, figure, likeness. |
|
| τοῦ | of the |
|
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| Θεοῦ | God |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: θεός Sense: a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. |
|
| τοῦ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| ἀοράτου | invisible |
|
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: ἀόρατος Sense: unseen, or that which can not be seen, e. |
|
| πρωτότοκος | [the] firstborn |
|
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: πρωτότοκος Sense: the firstborn. |
|
| πάσης | over all |
|
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: πᾶς Sense: individually. |
|
| κτίσεως | creation |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Feminine Singular Root: κτίσις Sense: the act of founding, establishing, building etc. |
|
Greek Commentary for Colossians 1:15
In predicate and no article. On εικων eikōn see 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:29; Colossians 3:10. Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation (John 17:5) and is now (Philemon 2:5-11; Hebrews 1:3). [source]
But the one who sees Jesus has seen God (John 14:9). See this verbal adjective Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Λογος Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Hebrews 1:1-4 as well as Philemon 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luke 2:7 and Aleph for Matthew 1:25; Romans 8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (πασης κτισεως pāsēs ktiseōs by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of πρωτος prōtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like εικων eikōn we find πρωτοτοκος prōtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Λογος Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as εικων eikōn (Image) and to the universe as πρωτοτοκος prōtotokos (First-born). [source]
Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Λογος Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Hebrews 1:1-4 as well as Philemon 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luke 2:7 and Aleph for Matthew 1:25; Romans 8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of πρωτος prōtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like εικων eikōn we find πρωτοτοκος prōtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Λογος Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as εικων eikōn (Image) and to the universe as πρωτοτοκος prōtotokos (First-born). [source]
See on Revelation 13:14. For the Logos (Word) underlying the passage, see on John 1:1. Image is more than likeness which may be superficial and incidental. It implies a prototype, and embodies the essential verity of its prototype. Compare in the form of God, Philemon 2:6(note), and the effulgence of the Father's glory, Hebrews 1:3. Also 1 John 1:1. [source]
Lit., of the God, the invisible. Thus is brought out the idea of manifestation which lies in image. See on Revelation 13:14. [source]
Rev., the first-born of all creation. For first-born, see on Revelation 1:5; for creation, see on 2 Corinthians 5:17. As image points to revelation, so first-born points to eternal preexistence. Even the Rev. is a little ambiguous, for we must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: in Him were all things created. The true sense is, born before the creation. Compare before all things, Colossians 1:17. This fact of priority implies sovereignty. He is exalted above all thrones, etc., and all things are unto ( εἰς ) Him, as they are elsewhere declared to be unto God. Compare Psalm 89:27; Hebrews 1:2. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Colossians 1:15
The word τέκνον (child ) is often used interchangeably with υἱός (son )but is never applied to Christ. (For τέκνον , see on 1 John 3:1.) While in τέκνον there is commonly implied the passive or dependent relation of the children to the parents, υἱός fixes the thought on the person himself rather than on the dependence upon his parents. It suggests individuality rather than descent; or, if descent, mainly to bring out the fact that the son was worthy of his parent. Hence the word marks the filial relation as carrying with it privilege, dignity, and freedom, and is, therefore, the only appropriate term to express Christ's sonship. (See John 1:18; John 3:16; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:13, Colossians 1:15.) Through Christ the dignity of sons is bestowed on believers, so that the same word is appropriate to Christians, sons of God. (See Romans 8:14; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5, Galatians 4:6, Galatians 4:7.) [source]
Matthew proceeds to explain his statement in Matthew 1:16 which implied that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus in the royal line, was not the actual father of Mary‘s Son. Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Genesis 29:21; Deuteronomy 22:23.) and “an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible” (McNeile). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death. The New Testament in Braid Scots actually has “mairry‘t till Joseph” for “betrothed to Joseph.” Matthew uses the genitive absolute construction here, a very common Greek idiom.Of the Holy Ghost (ek pneumatos hagiou). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She “was found with child” (heurethē en gastri echousa). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philemon 2:5-11; and involved in Colossians 1:15-19) and by John (John 1:14; John 17:5). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though John 1:14 seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world‘s Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God‘s will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. John 3:16 is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us. [source]
The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She “was found with child” This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philemon 2:5-11; and involved in Colossians 1:15-19) and by John (John 1:14; John 17:5). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though John 1:14 seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world‘s Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God‘s will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. John 3:16 is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us. [source]
“Recline,” of course, the word means, first aorist passive infinitive. A beautiful picture in the afternoon sun on the grass on the mountain side that sloped westward. The orderly arrangement (Mark) made it easy to count them and to feed them. Jesus stood where all could see him “break” (κλασας klasas) the thin Jewish cakes of bread and give to the disciples and they to the multitudes. This is a nature miracle that some men find it hard to believe, but it is recorded by all four Gospels and the only one told by all four. It was impossible for the crowds to misunderstand and to be deceived. If Jesus is in reality Lord of the universe as John tells us (John 1:1-18) and Paul holds (Colossians 1:15-20), why should we balk at this miracle? He who created the universe surely has power to go on creating what he wills to do. [source]
Rev., “from the Father.” The glory was like, corresponds in nature to, the glory of an only Son sent from a Father. It was the glory of one who partook of His divine Father's essence; on whom the Father's love was visibly lavished, and who represented the Father as His ambassador. The word μονογενής , only begotten (De Wette and Westcott, “only born ”) is used in the New Testament of a human relationship (Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38). In the Septuagint it answers to darling, Hebrew, only one, in Psalm href="/desk/?q=ps+22:20&sr=1">Psalm 22:20; and to desolate in Psalm href="/desk/?q=ps+25:16&sr=1">Psalm 25:16. With the exception of the passages cited above, and Hebrews 11:17, it occurs in the New Testament only in the writings of John, and is used only of Christ. With this word should be compared Paul's πρωτότοκος , first born (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18), which occurs but once in John (Revelation 1:5), and in Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews 11:28; Hebrews 12:23. John's word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Paul's word places the eternal Son in relation to the universe. Paul's word emphasizes His existence before created things; John's His distinctness from created things. Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children ( τέκνα ) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become ( γενέσθαι ) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was ( ἦν ) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation. Of the Father is properly rendered by Rev., “from the Father,” thus giving the force of παρά (see on from God, John 1:6). The preposition does not express the idea of generation, which would be given by ἐκ or by the simple genitive, but of mission - sent from the Father, as John from God (see John 6:46; John 7:29; John 16:27; John 17:8). The correlative of this is John 1:18, “who is in the bosom ( εἰς τὸν κόλπον ) of the Father;” literally, “into the bosom,” the preposition εἰς signifying who has gone into and is there; thus viewing the Son as having returned to the Father (but see on John 1:18). [source]
With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until John 1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare John 1:3; John 17:5; 1 John 1:1; Ephesians 1:4; Proverbs 8:23; Psalm 90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή , beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν , was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί , I am, John 8:58) instead of ἐγένετο , came into being, or began to be, which is used in John 1:3, John 1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή , in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ ' ἀρχῆς , from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (John 8:44; 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. “In Genesis 1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time” (Milligan and Moulton). See on Colossians 1:15. This notion of “beginning” is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation - the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was, then he belonged to the order of eternity. “The Logos was not merely existent, however, in the beginning, but was also the efficient principle, the beginning of the beginning. The ἀρχή (beginning ), in itself and in its operation dark, chaotic, was, in its idea and its principle, comprised in one single luminous word, which was the Logos. And when it is said the Logos was in this beginning, His eternal existence is already expressed, and His eternal position in the Godhead already indicated thereby” (Lange). “Eight times in the narrative of creation (in Genesis) there occur, like the refrain of a hymn, the words, And God said. John gathers up all those sayings of God into a single saying, living and endowed with activity and intelligence, from which all divine orders emanate: he finds as the basis of all spoken words, the speaking Word ” (Godet). [source]
“God no one has ever seen.” Perfect active indicative of οραω horaō Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God αορατος aoratos (Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. The only begotten Son This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after ως μονογενους παρα πατρος hōs monogenous para patros in John 1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read μονογενης τεος monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ο μονογενης υιος ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called τεος theos in John 1:1. The Incarnation is stated in John 1:14, where he is also termed μονογενης monogenēs He was that before the Incarnation. So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen‘s phrase. Which is in the bosom of the Father The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like προς τον τεον pros ton theon in John 1:1. In John 3:13 there is some evidence for ο ων εν τωι ουρανωι ho ōn en tōi ouranōi used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. He Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son. Hath declared him First aorist (effective) middle indicative of εχηγεομαι exēgeomai old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke‘s Gospel (Luke 24:35) and four times in Acts (Acts 10:8; Acts 15:12, Acts 15:14; Acts 21:19). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is. [source]
Through the agency of (του τεου dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philemon 2:5-11. [source]
Contracted form of ποιμενιον ποιμνη poimenion ̂ poimnē (John 10:16) already in Luke 12:32 and also in Acts 20:29; 1 Peter 5:2, 1 Peter 5:3. Common in old Greek. Hath made (ετετο etheto). Did make, second aorist middle indicative of τιτημι tithēmi did appoint. Paul evidently believed that the Holy Spirit calls and appoints ministers. Bishops The same men termed elders in Acts 20:17 which see. To shepherd (ποιμαινειν poimainein). Present active infinitive of purpose of ποιμαινω poimainō old verb to feed or tend the flock (ποιμνη ποιμνιον poimnēποιμην poimnion), to act as shepherd (βοσκε poimēn). These ministers are thus in Paul‘s speech called elders (Acts 20:17), bishops (Acts 20:28), and shepherds (Acts 20:28). Jesus had used this very word to Peter (John 21:16, twice την εκκλησιαν του τεου boske feed, Acts 21:15, Acts 21:17) and Peter will use it in addressing fellow-elders (1 Peter 5:2) with memories, no doubt of the words of Jesus to him. The “elders” were to watch over as “bishops” and “tend and feed as shepherds” the flock. Jesus is termed “the shepherd and bishop of your souls” in 1 Peter 2:25 and “the great Shepherd of the sheep” in Hebrews 13:20. Jesus called himself “the good Shepherd” in John 10:11. The church of God The correct text, not “the church of the Lord” or “the church of the Lord and God” (Robertson, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the N.T., p. 189). He purchased (περιποιεω periepoiēsato). First aorist middle of περιποιησιν peripoieō old verb to reserve, to preserve (for or by oneself, in the middle). In the N.T. only in Luke Luke 17:33; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:13. The substantive δια του αιματος του ιδιου peripoiēsin (preservation, possession) occurs in 1 Peter 2:9 (“a peculiar people” = a people for a possession) and in Ephesians 1:14. With his own blood Through the agency of (του τεου dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philemon 2:5-11. [source]
The same men termed elders in Acts 20:17 which see. To shepherd (ποιμαινειν poimainein). Present active infinitive of purpose of ποιμαινω poimainō old verb to feed or tend the flock (ποιμνη ποιμνιον poimnēποιμην poimnion), to act as shepherd (βοσκε poimēn). These ministers are thus in Paul‘s speech called elders (Acts 20:17), bishops (Acts 20:28), and shepherds (Acts 20:28). Jesus had used this very word to Peter (John 21:16, twice την εκκλησιαν του τεου boske feed, Acts 21:15, Acts 21:17) and Peter will use it in addressing fellow-elders (1 Peter 5:2) with memories, no doubt of the words of Jesus to him. The “elders” were to watch over as “bishops” and “tend and feed as shepherds” the flock. Jesus is termed “the shepherd and bishop of your souls” in 1 Peter 2:25 and “the great Shepherd of the sheep” in Hebrews 13:20. Jesus called himself “the good Shepherd” in John 10:11. The church of God The correct text, not “the church of the Lord” or “the church of the Lord and God” (Robertson, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the N.T., p. 189). He purchased (περιποιεω periepoiēsato). First aorist middle of περιποιησιν peripoieō old verb to reserve, to preserve (for or by oneself, in the middle). In the N.T. only in Luke Luke 17:33; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:13. The substantive δια του αιματος του ιδιου peripoiēsin (preservation, possession) occurs in 1 Peter 2:9 (“a peculiar people” = a people for a possession) and in Ephesians 1:14. With his own blood Through the agency of (του τεου dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philemon 2:5-11. [source]
The correct text, not “the church of the Lord” or “the church of the Lord and God” (Robertson, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the N.T., p. 189). He purchased (περιποιεω periepoiēsato). First aorist middle of περιποιησιν peripoieō old verb to reserve, to preserve (for or by oneself, in the middle). In the N.T. only in Luke Luke 17:33; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:13. The substantive δια του αιματος του ιδιου peripoiēsin (preservation, possession) occurs in 1 Peter 2:9 (“a peculiar people” = a people for a possession) and in Ephesians 1:14. With his own blood Through the agency of (του τεου dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philemon 2:5-11. [source]
Both words, “a likeness which consists in an image or copy” (Lightfoot). See note on Philemon 2:7 for “likeness of men” and Colossians 1:15 for “image of God.” Paul shows indignant contempt for these grotesque efforts to present pictures of a deity that had been lost (Denney). Why is it that heathen images of gods in the form of men and beasts are so horrible to look upon? [source]
Late adjective from συν sun and μορπη morphē and so an inward and not merely superficial conformity. Εικων Eikōn is used of Christ as the very image of the Father (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15). See note on Philemon 2:6. for μορπη morphē Here we have both μορπη morphē and εικων eikōn to express the gradual change in us till we acquire the likeness of Christ the Son of God so that we ourselves shall ultimately have the family likeness of sons of God. Glorious destiny. [source]
Common idiom for purpose. First born among many brethren (πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελποις prōtotokon en pollois adelphois). Christ is “first born” of all creation (Colossians 1:15), but here he is “first born from the dead” (Colossians 1:18), the Eldest Brother in this family of God‘s sons, though “Son” in a sense not true of us. [source]
Christ is “first born” of all creation (Colossians 1:15), but here he is “first born from the dead” (Colossians 1:18), the Eldest Brother in this family of God‘s sons, though “Son” in a sense not true of us. [source]
He means by God and unto God as antecedent to and superior to the world (cf. Colossians 1:15. about Christ). Are clearly seen (κατοραται kathoratai). Present passive indicative of κατοραω kathoraō (perfective use of κατα katȧ), old word, only here in N.T., with direct reference to αορατα aorata Being perceived Present passive participle of νοεω noeō to use the νους nous (intellect). That they may be without excuse (εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους eis to einai autous anapologētous). More likely, “so that they are without excuse.” The use of εις το eis to and the infinitive (with accusative of general reference) for result like ωστε hōste is reasonably clear in the N.T. (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 219; Robertson, Grammar, p. 1003). Αναπολογητους Anapologētous is another verbal with αν an from απολογεομαι apologeomai Old word, in N.T. only here and Romans 2:1 (“inexcusable” here). [source]
Ingressive first aorist passive indicative of ματαιοω mataioō from ματαιος mataios (empty). Empty reasonings as often today. Became fools (εμωραντησαν emōranthēsan). Ingressive first aorist passive of μωραινω mōrainō to be a fool, old word from μωρος mōros a fool. An oxymoron or sharp saying, true and one that cuts to the bone. For the likeness of an image Both words, “a likeness which consists in an image or copy” (Lightfoot). See note on Philemon 2:7 for “likeness of men” and Colossians 1:15 for “image of God.” Paul shows indignant contempt for these grotesque efforts to present pictures of a deity that had been lost (Denney). Why is it that heathen images of gods in the form of men and beasts are so horrible to look upon? [source]
First aorist active indicative of προοριζω proorizō late verb to appoint beforehand as in Acts 4:28; 1 Corinthians 2:7. Another compound with προ prȯ (for eternity). Conformed to the image (συμμορπους της εικονος summorphous tēs eikonos). Late adjective from συν sun and μορπη morphē and so an inward and not merely superficial conformity. Εικων Eikōn is used of Christ as the very image of the Father (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15). See note on Philemon 2:6. for μορπη morphē Here we have both μορπη morphē and εικων eikōn to express the gradual change in us till we acquire the likeness of Christ the Son of God so that we ourselves shall ultimately have the family likeness of sons of God. Glorious destiny. That he might be Common idiom for purpose. First born among many brethren (πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελποις prōtotokon en pollois adelphois). Christ is “first born” of all creation (Colossians 1:15), but here he is “first born from the dead” (Colossians 1:18), the Eldest Brother in this family of God‘s sons, though “Son” in a sense not true of us. [source]
As the source (εχ ex) of the universe (τα παντα ta panta as in Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16.) and also our goal is God (εις αυτον eis auton) as in Romans 11:36 where δι αυτου di' autou is added whereas here δι ου di' hou (through whom) and δι αυτου di' autou (through him) point to Jesus Christ as the intermediate agent in creation as in Colossians 1:15-20; John 1:3. Here Paul calls Jesus Lord (Κυριος Kurios) and not God (τεος theos), though he does apply that word to him in Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Colossians 2:9; Acts 20:28. [source]
Compare Colossians 1:15; John 17:5; Philemon 2:6; Philemon 3:21. Christ's light is also God's. Compare Hebrews 1:3, Rev., effulgence ( ἀπαύγασμα , compare αὐγάσαι shinein this passage). Theodoret says: “The effulgence is both from the fire and with the fire, and has the fire as its cause, yet is not divided from the fire; for whence comes the fire, thence also comes the effulgence.” [source]
Compare Colossians 1:15-18; Psalm 8:5-8. [source]
Purpose clause (amounting to result) with first aorist middle infinitive of ανακεπαλαιοω anakephalaioō late compound verb ανα ana and κεπαλαιοω kephalaioō (from κεπαλαιον kephalaion Hebrews 8:1, and that from κεπαλη kephalē head), to head up all things in Christ, a literary word. In N.T. only here and Romans 13:9. For the headship of Christ in nature and grace see notes on Colossians 1:15-20. [source]
So without article Aleph B D G K L. Οικοδομη Oikodomē is a late word from οικος oikos and δεμω demō to build for building up (edification) as in Ephesians 4:29, then for the building itself as here (Mark 13:1.). Ordinary Greek idiom here calls for “every building,” not for “all the building” (Robertson, Grammar, p. 772), though it is not perfectly clear what that means. Each believer is called a ναος τεου naos theou (1 Corinthians 3:16). One may note the plural in Mark 13:1 (οικοδομαι oikodomai) of the various parts of the temple. Perhaps that is the idea here without precise definition of each οικοδομη oikodomē But there are examples of πας pās without the article where “all” is the idea as in πασης κτισεως pāsēs ktiseōs (all creation) in Colossians 1:15. [source]
Lit., becoming in, etc. Notice the choice of the verb, not was, but became: entered into a new state. Likeness. The word does not imply the reality of our Lord's humanity, μορφή formimplied the reality of His deity. That fact is stated in the form of a servant. Neither is εἰκών imageemployed, which, for our purposes, implies substantially the same as μορφή . See on Colossians 1:15. As form of a servant exhibits the inmost reality of Christ's condition as a servant - that He became really and essentially the servant of men (Luke 22:27) - so likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature - the divine - in the likeness of which He did not appear. As He appealed to men, He was like themselves, with a real likeness; but this likeness to men did not express His whole self. The totality of His being could not appear to men, for that involved the form of God. Hence the apostle views Him solely as He could appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete likeness to humanity. What He was essentially and eternally could not enter into His human mode of existence. Humanly He was like men, but regarded with reference to His whole self, He was not identical with man, because there was an element of His personality which did not dwell in them - equality with God. Hence the statement of His human manifestation is necessarily limited by this fact, and is confined to likeness and does not extend to identity. “To affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness ” (Dickson). See on Romans 8:3. [source]
Rev, correctly, in all creation. See on 2 Corinthians 5:17, and compare Colossians 1:15. [source]
In bodily fashion or bodily-wise. The verse contains two distinct assertions: 1. That the fullness of the Godhead eternally dwells in Christ. The present tense κατοικεῖ dwellethis used like ἐστιν is(the image), Colossians 1:15, to denote an eternal and essential characteristic of Christ's being. The indwelling of the divine fullness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ, from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was “in the form of God” (Philemon 2:6). The Word in the beginning, was with God and was God (John 1:1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father (John 1:14; compare 1 John 1:1-3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven. 2. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way, clothed the body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His preincarnate state, when He was “in the form of God,” for the human body was taken on by Him in the fullness of time, when “He became in the likeness of men” (Philemon 2:7), when the Word became flesh. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fullness of the Godhead.“O, for a sight, a blissful sightOf our Almighty Father's throne!There sits the Savior crowned with light,Clothed in a body like our own.“Adoring saints around Him stand,And thrones and powers before Him fall;The God shines gracious through the man,And sheds sweet glories on them all.”Watts“What a contrast to the human tradition and the rudiments of the world” (Meyer). What a contrast to the spiritual agencies conceived as intermediate between God and men, in each of which the divine fullness was abridged and the divine glory shaded, in proportion to the remoteness from God in successive emanation. [source]
In Christ as in Ephesians 1:7. This great sentence about Christ carries on by means of three relatives (εν ωι en hōi Colossians 1:14, ος hos Colossians 1:15, ος hos Colossians 1:18) and repeated personal pronoun (αυτος autos), twice with οτι hoti (Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:19), thrice with και kai (Colossians 1:17, Colossians 1:18, Colossians 1:20), twice alone (Colossians 1:16, Colossians 1:20). [source]
Εὐδοκέω tothink it good, to be well pleased is used in the New Testament, both of divine and of human good-pleasure; but, in the former case, always of God the Father. So Matthew 3:17; Luke 12:32; 1 Corinthians 1:21. The subject of was well pleased, God, is omitted as in James 1:12, and must be supplied; so that, literally, the passage would read, God was well pleased that in Him, etc. Rev., it was the good pleasure of the Father. Fullness, Rev, correctly, the fullness. See on Romans 11:12; see on John 1:16. The word must be taken in its passive sense - that with which a thing is filled, not that which fills. The fullness denotes the sum-total of the divine powers and attributes. In Christ dwelt all the fullness of God as deity. The relation of essential deity to creation and redemption alike, is exhibited by John in the very beginning of his gospel, with which this passage should be compared. In John the order is: 1. The essential nature of Christ; 2. Creation; 3. Redemption. Here it is: 1. Redemption (Colossians 1:13); 2. Essential being of the Son (Colossians 1:15); 3. The Son as Creator (Colossians 1:16); 4. The Church, with Christ as its head (Colossians 1:18). Compare 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 1:19, Ephesians 1:20, Ephesians 1:23. Paul does not add of the Godhead to the fullness, as in Colossians 2:9since the word occurs in direct connection with those which describe Christ's essential nature, and it would seem not to have occurred to the apostle that it could be understood in any other sense than as an expression of the plenitude of the divine attributes and powers. Thus the phrase in Him should all the fullness dwell gathers into a grand climax the previous statements - image of God, first-born of all creation, Creator, the eternally preexistent, the Head of the Church, the victor over death, first in all things. On this summit we pause, looking, like John, from Christ in His fullness of deity to the exhibition of that divine fullness in redemption consummated in heaven (Colossians 1:20-22). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- There must also be taken into the account the selection of this word fullness with reference to the false teaching in the Colossian church, the errors which afterward were developed more distinctly in the Gnostic schools. Pleroma fullness was used by the Gnostic teachers in a technical sense, to express the sum-total of the divine powers and attributes. “From the pleroma they supposed that all those agencies issued through which God has at any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His will through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more or less of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage from it, or traced their descent through successive evolutions. But in all cases this pleroma was distributed, diluted, transformed, and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only partial and blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their original, broken lights of the great Central Light” (Lightfoot). Christ may have been ranked with these inferior images of the divine by the Colossian teachers. Hence the significance of the assertion that the totality of the divine dwells in Him. [source]
Not in Paul. See James 1:18; Revelation 5:13; Revelation 8:9. A created thing. For κτίσις creation or creature, frequent in Paul, see on Romans 8:19; see on 2 Corinthians 5:17; see on Colossians 1:15. Κτίσμα in lxx, Wisd. 9:2; 13:5; 14:11; 3 Maccabees 5:11. [source]
Applied to God, Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 11:27. [source]
As an epithet of God also in Romans 1:23. Invisible (αορατωι aoratōi). Epithet of God in Colossians 1:15. The only God So Romans 16:27; John 5:44; John 17:3. For ever and ever (εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn). “Unto the ages of ages.” Cf. Ephesians 3:21 “of the age of the ages.” [source]
Epithet of God in Colossians 1:15. [source]
See Psalm 104:2. Late compound verbal adjective Here only in N.T. Literary Koiné{[28928]}š word. Nor can see (αορατον oude idein dunatai). See aoraton in Colossians 1:15 and also John 1:18; Matthew 11:27. The “amen” marks the close of the doxology as in 1 Timothy 1:17. [source]
See aoraton in Colossians 1:15 and also John 1:18; Matthew 11:27. The “amen” marks the close of the doxology as in 1 Timothy 1:17. [source]
Better, received or taken up in glory. Ἁναλαμβάνειν is the formal term to describe the ascension of Christ (see Acts 1:2, Acts 1:22), and the reference is most probably to that event. Comp. lxx, 2 Kings 2:11, of Elijah, and Matthew href="/desk/?q=mt+16:27&sr=1">Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:31; Luke 12:27; 1 Corinthians 15:43; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 2 Corinthians 3:8, 2 Corinthians 3:11.Additional Note on 1 Timothy 3:16Christ's existence before his incarnation was purely spiritual ( ἐν πνεύματι ). He was in the form of God (Philemon 2:6): He was the effulgence of God's glory and the express image of his substance (Hebrews 1:3), and God is spirit (John 4:24). From this condition he came into manifestation in the flesh ( ἐν σαρκί ). He became man and entered into human conditions (Philemon 2:7, Philemon 2:8). Under these human conditions the attributes of his essential spiritual personality were veiled. He did not appear to men what he really was. He was not recognised by them as he who “was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1, John 1:2); as “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15); as one with God (John 10:30; John 14:9); as he who had all power in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18); who was “before all things and by whom all things consist” (Colossians 1:17); who was “the king of the ages” (1 Timothy 1:17). On the contrary, he was regarded as an impostor, a usurper, and a blasphemer. He was hated, persecuted, and finally murdered. He was poor, tempted, and tried, a man of sorrows. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The justification or vindication of what he really was did not therefore come out of the fleshly sphere. He was not justified in the flesh. It came out of the sphere of his spiritual being. Glimpses of this pneumatic life ( ἐν πνεύματι ) flashed out during his life in the flesh. By his exalted and spotless character, by his works of love and power, by his words of authority, in his baptism and transfiguration, he was vindicated as being what he essentially was and what he openly claimed to be. These justifications were revelations, expressions, and witnesses of his original, essential spiritual and divine quality; of the native glory which he had with the Father before the world was. It was the Spirit that publicly indorsed him (John 1:32, John 1:33): the words which he spake were spirit and life (John 6:63): he cast out demons in the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28): his whole earthly manifestation was in demonstration of the Spirit. These various demonstrations decisively justified his claims in the eyes of many. His disciples confessed him as the Christ of God (Luke 9:20) some of the people said “this is the Christ” (John 7:41): others suspected that he was such (John 4:29). Whether or not men acknowledged his claims, they felt the power of his unique personality. They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority (Matthew 7:28, Matthew 7:29). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Then followed the more decisive vindication in his resurrection from the dead. Here the work of the Spirit is distinctly recognised by Paul, Romans 1:4. See also Romans 8:11. In the period between his resurrection and ascension his pneumatic life came into clearer manifestation, and added to the vindication furnished in his life and resurrection. He seemed to live on the border-line between the natural and the spiritual world, and the powers of the spiritual world were continually crossing the line and revealing themselves in him. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In the apostolic preaching, the appeal to the vindication of Christ by the Spirit is clear and unequivocal. The spiritual nourishment of believers is “the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philemon 1:19): the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6): Paul identifies Christ personally with the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17); and in Romans 8:9, Romans 8:10, “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are used as convertible terms. The indwelling of the Spirit of Christ is the test and vindication of belonging to Christ (Romans 8:9). Thus, though put to death in the flesh, in the Spirit Christ is vindicated as the Son of God, the Christ of God, the manifestation of God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- [source]
For building rend. creation. See on Romans 8:19; see on 2 Corinthians 5:17; see on Colossians 1:15. The meaning is, not belonging to this natural creation either in its materials or its maker. [source]
See on Romans 8:19; see on 2 Corinthians 5:17; see on Colossians 1:15. Here in the sense of thing created. [source]
Since he saw, etc. The emphasis is on invisible, pointing back to the introductory definition of faith. The word is used of God, Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17. [source]
This forms a distinct clause; “and to the church,” etc. For ἐκκλησία assemblyor church, see on Matthew 16:18; see on 1 Thessalonians 1:1. The “myriads” embrace not only angels, but redeemed men, enrolled as citizens of the heavenly commonwealth, and entitled to the rights and privileges of first-born sons. Πρωτότοκος first-bornis applied mostly to Christ in N.T. See Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 1:5. Comp. Hebrews 11:28, and Luke 2:7. Properly applied to Christians by virtue of their union with Christ, “the first-born of all creation,” “the first-born from the dead,” as sharing his sonship and heirship. See Romans 8:14-17, Romans 8:29. The word also points to Christians as the true Israel of God. The analogy is suggested with the first-born of Israel, to whom peculiar sanctity attached, and whose consecration to himself God enjoined (Exodus 13:1, Exodus 13:11-16); and with the further application of the term first-born to Israel as a people, Exodus 4:22. The way was thus prepared for its application to the Messiah. There seems, moreover, to be a clear reference to the case of Esau (Hebrews 12:16). Esau was the first-born of the twin sons of Isaac (Genesis 25:25). He sold his birthright ( πρωτοτοκία ), and thus forfeited the privilege of the first-born. The assembly to which Christian believers are introduced is composed of those who have not thus parted with their birthright, but have retained the privileges of the first-born. The phrase “church of the first-born” includes all who have possessed and retained their heavenly birthright, living or dead, of both dispensations: the whole Israel of God, although it is quite likely that the Christian church may have been most prominent in the writer's thought. [source]
Mostly in Paul and Hebrews. Comp. Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5. Μονογενής only-begotten(John 1:14, John 1:18; John 3:16, John 3:18; 1 John 4:9, never by Paul) describes the unique relation of the Son to the Father in his divine nature: πρωτότοκος first-begottendescribes the relation of the risen Christ in his glorified humanity to man. The comparison implied in the word is not limited to angels. He is the first-born in relation to the creation, the dead, the new manhood, etc. See Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18. The rabbinical writers applied the title first-born even to God. Philo (De Confus. Ling. § 14) speaks of the Logos as πρωτόγονος or πρεσβύτατος thefirst-born or eldest son. [source]
Indefinite temporal clause with οταν hotan and second aorist active subjunctive of εισαγω eisagō If παλιν palin is taken with εισαγαγηι eisagagēi the reference is to the Second Coming as in Hebrews 9:28. If παλιν palin merely introduces another quotation (Psalm 97:7) parallel to και παλιν kai palin in Hebrews 1:5, the reference is to the incarnation when the angels did worship the Child Jesus (Luke 2:13.). There is no way to decide certainly about it. The first-born See Psalm 89:28. For this compound adjective applied to Christ in relation to the universe see Colossians 1:15, to other men, Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18, to the other children of Mary, Luke 2:7; here it is used absolutely. The world “The inhabited earth.” See Acts 17:6. Let worship Imperative first aorist active third plural of προσκυνεω proskuneō here in the full sense of worship, not mere reverence or courtesy. This quotation is from the lxx of Deut 32:43, but is not in the Hebrew, though most of the lxx MSS. (except F) have υιοι τεου huioi theou but the substance does occur also in Psalm 97:7 with οι αγγελοι αυτου hoi aggeloi autou f0). [source]
The contrast here between σκια skia (shadow, shade caused by interruption of light as by trees, Mark 4:32) and εικων eikōn (image or picture) is striking. Christ is the εικων eikōn of God (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15). In Colossians 2:17 Paul draws a distinction between σκια skia for the Jewish rites and ceremonies and σωμα sōma for the reality in Christ. Children are fond of shadow pictures. The law gives only a dim outline of the good things to come (Hebrews 9:11). Continually See this phrase also in Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:14. Nowhere else in N.T. From διηνεγκα diēnegka This reading leaves ο νομος ho nomos a nominativus pendens (an anacoluthon). But many MSS. read δυναται dunatai (it - the law - can). For the idea and use of τελειωσαι teleiōsai see Hebrews 9:9. [source]
Dative case of old and common word κτισις ktisis (from κτιζω ktizō to create, to found), act of creation (Romans 1:20), a creature or creation (Romans 1:25), all creation (Colossians 1:15), an institution as here (in Pindar so). For αντρωπινος anthrōpinos (human) see James 3:7. Peter here approves no special kind of government, but he supports law and order as Paul does (Romans 13:1-8) unless it steps in between God and man (Acts 4:20).For the Lord‘s sake (δια τον κυριον dia ton kurion). For Jesus‘ sake. That is reason enough for the Christian not to be an anarchist (Matthew 22:21). The heathen were keen to charge the Christians with any crime after Nero set the fashion. “It should not be forgotten that, in spite of the fine language of the philosophers, the really popular religions in Greece and Rome were forms of devil-worship, intimately blended with magic in all its grades” (Bigg).As supreme Dative singular of present active participle of υπερεχω huperechō old verb (intransitive), to stand out above (to have it over), as in Romans 13:1. It is not the divine right of kings, but the fact of the king as the outstanding ruler. [source]
The beginner, or author; not as Colossians 1:15, the first and most excellent creature of God's hands. “The stress laid in the Epistle to the Colossians on the inferiority of those to whom the self-same name of ἀρχαὶ , beginnings principalities was given … to the One who was the true beginning, or, if we might venture on an unfamiliar use of a familiar word, the true Principality of God's creation, may account for the prominence which the name had gained, and therefore for its use here in a message addressed to a church exposed, like that of Colossae, to the risks of angelolatry, of the substitution of lower principalities and created mediators for Him who was the Head over all things to His Church” (Plumptre). Compare Hebrews 12:2, ἀρχηγὸν leaderi0. [source]
Εἰκών is a figure or likeness. Thus Matthew 22:20, of the likeness of Caesar on the coin. Romans 1:24, an image of men, birds, beasts, etc. Colossians 3:10, “the image of Him that created him;” i.e., the moral likeness of renewed men to God. Christ is called the image of God (Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Besides the idea of likeness, the word involves the idea of representation, though not of perfect representation. Thus, man is said to be the image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7). In this it resembles χαρακτήρ imagein Hebrews 1:3. Caesar's image on the coin, the reflection of the sun in the water (Plato, “Phaedo,” 99); and the statue or image of the beast in this passage, are εἰκών . The word also involves the idea of manifestation. Thus, Colossians 1:15, where, in the image there is an implied contrast with the invisible God. Hence Philo applied the term to the Logos. See on John 1:1. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The word played an important part in the Arian controversy, in which the distinction was sharply emphasized between εἰκών imageas assuming a prototype, and therefore as properly representing the relation of the Son to the Father, and ὁμοίωμα likenessas implying mere similitude, and not embodying the essential verity of the prototype. The image involves the likeness, but the likeness does not involve the image. The latter may imply only an accidental resemblance, while the former is a veritable representation. Christ is therefore the εἰκών of God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The image of the beast occurs ten times in Revelation; four times in this chapter, and in Revelation 14:9, Revelation 14:11; Revelation 15:2; Revelation 16:2; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:4. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- [source]
Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works (Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18, a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2, as is made clear by Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 5:13). [source]
Personal (masculine article) name here alone, though in Isaiah 65:16 we have “the God of Amen” understood in the lxx as “the God of truth” Here applied to Christ. See Revelation 1:5 for ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ho martus ho pistos (the faithful witness) and Revelation 3:7 for ο αλητινος ho alēthinos (the genuine), “whose testimony never falls short of the truth” (Swete).The beginning of the creation of God (η αρχη της κτισεως του τεου hē archē tēs ktiseōs tou theou). Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works (Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18, a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2, as is made clear by Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 5:13). [source]