The response that came to mind when the question first occurred to me was "Perhaps the intended meaning of the clause is 'He is the image of the otherwise-invisible God'". This is similar to how one might say "the healthy boy with the sprained ankle" to refer to a single boy who is very healthy overall.

However, this explanation is ad-hoc, and it certainly isn't the literal meaning of the verse. Thus, in my opinion, this explanation bears the burden of proof--proof that the words or grammar are poorly translated, or that the verse isn't intended to be strictly literal, or something else.

I believe that I found the proof in a very observant answer to a tangential question about the same verse. Its author, Dottard, notes that the phrase "image of the invisible" is an oxymoron; invisible things don't have images. To me, this is sufficient evidence that Paul is using language loosely.

The response that came to mind when the question first occurred to me was "Perhaps the intended meaning of the clause is 'He is the image of the otherwise-invisible God'". This is similar to how one might say "the healthy boy with the sprained ankle" to refer to a single boy who is very healthy overall.

However, this explanation is ad-hoc, and it certainly isn't the literal meaning of the verse. Thus, in my opinion, this explanation bears the burden of proof--proof that the words or grammar are poorly translated, or that the verse isn't intended to be strictly literal, or something else.

I believe that I found the proof in a very observant answer to a tangential question about the same verse. Its author, Dottard, notes that the phrase "image of the invisible" is an oxymoron; invisible things don't have images. To me, this is sufficient evidence that Paul is using language loosely to grant credibility to the explanation above.