Does "He is the image of the invisible God" Imply that Jesus is not God?

Question

Colossians 1:15 [ESV]:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

I've heard both trinitarians and unitarians use this verse as support of their position. Usually, I see attention directed toward its second clause, but my question concerns the first clause.

The first clause appears to imply that Jesus is not God. By stating that Jesus is visible, whereas God is invisible, it implies that Jesus and God have attributes that are mutually exclusive from one-another.*

Secondarily, by saying that Jesus is "the image of [...] God", Paul is actually likening Jesus to humans instead of likening him to God. Paul uses the same Greek work, "eikōn", in Colossians 1:15 to say that Jesus is the image of God as he does in 1 Corinthians 11:7 to say that men are the image of God.

Given these points, is Colossians 1:15a best interpreted as evidence against Jesus's divinity?

---

*Edit: I'll elaborate on this point because most of the responses overlook it. Suppose that I said, "Michael is patient, and my brother is impatient". This statement implies that Michael is not my brother, because Michael and my brother are given opposing characterizations. The same reasoning holds for Colossians 1:15, given that Jesus is visible, but God is "invisible".

Answer 1

Unseen

He is the image of the ἀοράτου God, the firstborn of all creation.

The adjective ἀόρατος is from ἄλφα as a negative particle. ὁρατός, which is from the verb ὁράω. While invisible and unseen can be understood to describe the same thing, a more consistent theological rendering of ἀοράτου would be unseen.

No one has ever seen ἑώρακεν God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (John 1:18)

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
(John 14:9)

Paul is contrasting a Biblical truth, no one has seen God, with the eschatological reality Jesus came to physically manifest the Father.

Image of the God Unseen
Paul addresses the heresies about Jesus by pointing the Colossians to Genesis.

And God said Let us make man in our image and after our likeness... (Genesis 1:26)

By describing Jesus as the image of the unseen God the firstborn of creation Paul alludes to both aspects of man's creation. (1) Firstborn of creation alludes the passage in Genesis. This emphasizes the physical reality as if to say "Jesus is not a spirit person" as the first heretics claimed. (2) Image of the unseen God recalls and God said, let us make man... As firstborn He was present before the first humans were created: He is included in us and our because for by Him were all things created...

At the same time, Paul describes these truths using the present tense: He is the image of the unseen God... A few verses later Paul uses himself as an illustration.

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen ἑόρακαν me face to face (Colossians 2:1)

Just as Paul can say to the Colossians they have not seen him and so is unseen to them, Jesus is still the unseen image of God.

Paul also gives evidence which can be seen of who Jesus is.

¹⁵ He is the image of the unseen God, the firstborn of all creation ¹⁶ For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, seen and unseen whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Jesus currently is unseen, but all things which can be seen are proof of both His current existence and His pre-existence.

The cornerstone of Paul's Gospel is what was seen and what Paul claims may still be seen by all who believe: the crucified Christ.

You witless Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Messiah Jesus was portrayed on the cross before your very eyes! (Galatians 3:1 NTFE)

Conclusion
There is nothing in the passage which implies Jesus is not God. Exactly the opposite. When considered in the light of Genesis, the passage places Jesus as equal to God.

1. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, then He was present in the beginning.
2. Unseen alters Genesis 1:26 making the point Jesus was present in the beginning and when God says "Let us make God in our image..." What was unseen by the first man was actually seen when Jesus came to His own.

Those who believe Christ was crucified have "seen" the Father.

Answer 2

Does "He is the image of the invisible God" Imply that Jesus is not God?

Short Answer: It does not necessarily imply that Jesus is not God.

I will explain it in a way it has been explained to me.

Consider a poem by Christina Rossetti

Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you:
But when the leaves hang trembling,
The wind is passing through.

Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor I:
But when the trees bow down their heads,
The wind is passing by.

You can't see it, but you can see leaves rustling and feel its force.

It's true that God may be invisible, but that does not mean that His presence and impact can't be seen and felt in the world. From a trinitarian view, Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible qualities of God. Just like how wind manifests its presence through movement, Jesus manifests the essence of God.

Consider the verses:

Hebrews 1:3

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

John 14:9

Jesus *said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

We might write an argument like so:

1. Invisible entities can exert tangible influences on the world around us.
2. The wind, though not seen, can be felt and seen through its effects on the environment (rustling leaves).
3. God is described as invisible in scripture (Colossians 1:15).
4. Jesus is described as the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; John 1:18).
5. Therefore, Jesus, as the visible representation of God, can be considered as an invisible being having a visible effect on the world.

Answer 3

Note the deliberate irony in the phrase: "image of the invisible ...". This is literally impossible. So what does it mean?

The simplest answer is given by the simple but profound statement found in:

John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him.

Note the semantic parallels with Col 1:15 -

• The Father is invisible = no one has seen the Father
• Jesus has revealed the Father = Jesus is the image God.

However, I believe that much more is intended here by Col 1:15 and the text itself shows this. That is, the image of the invisible God is actually tabulated in what follows. Col 1:15-20 can be read as follows:

Jesus is the image of the invisible God:

• the firstborn over all creation.
• For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
• all things have been created through him and for him.
• He is before all things,
• and in him all things hold together.
• And he is the head of the body, the church;
• he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead,
• so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
• For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
• and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Thus, the image of God can be considered the sum of the ten things that follow as listed above. That is, Jesus was the greatest revelation of divinity that could possibly be given - in Jesus we have the best way of understanding the nature, character and love of God (1 John 4:8, 16), including the way He works.

Answer 4

There is no way I can come to the conclusion that the image of the invisible God implies Jesus is not God. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. Not only that but in logic you are "making an argument from silence.

That is, no one can prove a negative. You would have to present proof that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is not God. Only positive assertions can even possibly be proven and as such only positive assertions bear any burden of proof.

The Apostle Paul first described Christ as "the image of the invisible God." The Bible states on several locations that the essence or substance of God is invisible to human beings. (Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27).

It also states that no man can ever see God, an obvious reference to the Father, but Christ has made the Father known (John 1:18; 14;9). Plus, the fact that Jesus Himself stated at John 5:37, John 6:46 that the Father cannot be seen.

The word, "Image" expresses two crucial points. First, it suggest "representation, likeness." Hebrews 1:3, "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Paul also described Christ (Colossians 1:15), as "the firstborn of every creature." "Firstborn" (prototokos) does not imply that Jesus is part of creation, but rather indicates His priority and sovereignty over all creation.

Colossians 1:16 reinforces this interpretation by emphasizing that Christ's relationship to creation is not that of being part of it but that of bringing all things into existence. Let me close with the following statement. There are many other proofs in the Bible identifying Jesus Christ as God and by believing them you may have eternal life in His name.

Answer 5

What does it mean to be "the image of the invisible God"?

Human beings are the "image of God":

Genesis 1:27 (NLT):

So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

So obviously one can be the "image of God" without being God at the same time.

Jesus too was "the image of God" when he was incarnated: he "gave up his divine privileges", was "born as a human being", and "appeared in human form":

Philippians 2:6—8 (NLT):

⁶ Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. ⁷ Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, ⁸ he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.

One could argue that while incarnated, Jesus was temporarily no longer God, having given up "his divine privileges" ("emptied himself" (KJV)).

But whether or not he was still God while he was human, it's quite explicit in Philippians 2:6 that "he was God" and had "equality with God" before he was incarnated, and certainly was God after being born again as the firstborn son of God.

Three verses after Colossians 1:15, Jesus is called "the firstborn from the dead". Colossians 1:15 could mean that Jesus was not God, but only while he was incarnated as a human being. It certainly isn't proof that he wasn't previously, or isn't now, God.

Answer 6

In the immediate continuation of the same text we read that it was through Christ that all things visible and invisible were created, which necessarily means that Christ Himself is not a part of this “all things” and, thus, is uncreated, and as such He can be only God, for in the Biblical perspective only God is uncreated.

But, now, if all things were created through Christ, then, necessarily, Christ was Father’s image also before His, Christ’s, incarnation. Thus, invisible God had Christ as image and as, moreover, the invisible image, thus, Christ being invisible, eternal image of invisible, eternal God.

Now, the only reason why in the physical world an original is purer and better than its image is the interference of matter, but in the realm where there neither time, nor matter, nor any creation interferes, the image is fully equal to the archetype, and thus, Christ is equal to God, and equal to God is only God.

Yet, even if we take a lower level of interpretation, take an image of a Roman Emperor: where this image was present anywhere in Roman Empire, Britain, Gaul or Judaea, the full presence of Emperor was implied, so that had you insulted the image, you would be punished exactly with the same severity as had you insulted the Emperor Himself, thus to the image and statue of the Emperor the very same honor was due as to the Emperor himself.

Answer 7

Before His ascension, Jesus declares in Matthew 28:18, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." This raises questions: if Jesus was merely human, did God bestow His divine authority upon a human? And if a human received divine authority, does he remain human or become divine?

It is improper to rely on a single verse to draw a conclusion. The Gospel of John is rich in content affirming Jesus' divinity. In John 10:30, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one". Therefore, anyone attempting to reject Jesus' divinity must first provide evidence to refute the entirety of the Gospel of John.

Answer 8

The phrase in Colossians 1:15, where Paul states that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God,” indeed raises some deep questions about Jesus’ relationship to God, especially when considering the contrast between visibility and invisibility. To explore whether this phrase argues for or against the divinity of Jesus, let’s break down the two main points: (1) the meaning of Jesus being “the image of God,” and (2) the distinction between Jesus’ visibility and God’s invisibility.

1. “The Image of the Invisible God” When Paul calls Jesus “the image (eikōn) of the invisible God,” he uses a term that implies a faithful representation or visible expression of something that is, by nature, not visible. In other passages, such as 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul reaffirms that Christ is the "image of God." In the Judeo-Christian context, “image” can mean likeness to God (as in Genesis 1:26, where man is created in God’s image) or even the revelation of divine presence.

From a Trinitarian viewpoint, calling Jesus the “image of God” doesn’t mean He is inferior or distinct in essence. Instead, He fully expresses the divine nature in a visible form. Therefore, Jesus could be both the “image” and God in essence, revealing aspects of God accessible to human understanding. For Unitarians, this same phrase might suggest that Jesus is simply God’s representative, distinct from Him in both essence and function, and not literally God.

2. Visibility of Jesus vs. Invisibility of God The argument that God is “invisible” (as seen in 1 Timothy 1:17) while Jesus is “visible” is often understood differently by Trinitarians and Unitarians. 1 Timothy 1:17 describes God as “immortal, invisible, the only wise God,” which, for many Unitarians, indicates exclusive divine attributes in contrast to Jesus. If Jesus is visible while God is invisible, they argue, this implies an essential distinction.

However, for Trinitarians, the distinction between visible and invisible doesn’t negate Jesus’ divinity. Instead, they argue that Jesus, as the incarnate manifestation of the invisible God, makes what is essentially spiritual and transcendent accessible in the physical world. In John 1:18, we read: “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” This suggests that Jesus, while visible, serves as the perfect revelation of the invisible God, allowing humans to “see” God through Him.

Comparison to 1 Corinthians 11:7 In 1 Corinthians 11:7, Paul also uses “eikōn” (image) when he says man is “the image and glory of God.” Here, “image” reflects the likeness of humans to God in traits like rationality, morality, and authority over creation. This doesn’t imply divinity for humans, only a unique relationship with God.

However, the phrase in Colossians 1:15 seems to go beyond mere human likeness. The following phrase, “the firstborn of all creation,” has often been understood in Trinitarian contexts as a statement of supremacy, not creation. In other words, Jesus is “firstborn” in the sense of supreme status over creation, not as part of it.

Conclusion So, the phrase “the image of the invisible God” can be understood in multiple ways:

Unitarians may see this as affirming Jesus’ role as God’s representative—He reflects God but remains distinct, with attributes that include visibility and a derived rather than inherent immortality.

Trinitarians tend to interpret “image” as a declaration of Jesus’ divinity since He embodies God’s presence in the visible world without losing divine essence.

In this sense, the visibility versus invisibility question doesn’t necessarily imply a contradiction but suggests that Jesus makes God known and accessible.

Answer 9

There is a folly to interpreting scripture from one verse. This fact is readily verified by including other verses with a similar theme and then noting various faulty conclusions that were formed in isolation.

Let's note other verses that show Paul's understanding here. The words 'seeing' are used with little regard to sight of the eyes, but to know with the mind, to understand and apprehend who God is.

Is "He is the image of the invisible God" evidence against Jesus's divinity?

When we also consider other relevant scripture, Yes. This is but one of hundreds of verses should one carefully consider a reputable translation (not the NLT or MSG for eg.)

We can see a theme here in the following examples.

Colossians 1:15 The son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Hebrews 1:3 The son is the radiance of God's glory and the representation of His nature

Phil 2:6 though he was in the form of God

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Jesus as a mortal man prior to his death, represented God by 'form' 'image, 'glory', 'nature' etc. and are not relevant when considering God is invisible. God's nature for eg. is loving and gracious - as was Jesus in his dealings with people - to dying for all on a cross. We recognise his Godly actions not his appearance.

While many references are made to sight - it is referring to knowing and grasping with the heart and mind what and who God is, and what He is accomplishing amongst mankind. 'Seeing' with the eyes has little to do with anything - esp. with regard to 'seeing' aka knowing God.

Jesus showed miracles and works to help them, through seeing, they might then believe who he was and who he represented.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves John 14:11

In fact, Is 53:2 reminds us, he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, so what we saw in Jesus is little to so with the eyes, but everything to do with the nature he displayed on behalf of his Father and God.

Jesus as the 'image of God', is a way to realise the true nature of God - shown in His human son. A son without sin or any corruption of the world but heavenly in nature - even though Jesus had his own will which differed to the Father's - yet was always brought into subjection to his God.

"If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." John 14:7

Clearly, no one earthly literally 'sees' the Father for He is invisible and only displayed as visions etc. Stephen saw God's glory and Jesus beside Him.

John 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father except the One who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

No one has ever seen God. God's only Son, the one who is closest to the Father's heart, has made him known. John 1:18

When we see who Jesus is, what he did, how he did it, and come to know him, we know the Father also. Jesus was sent to reveal the Father in ways never before understood with deep knowing Jesus makes possible by his example.

Man, made in the image of God (Genesis) occurs only in (not by) Christ. Without Jesus - 'in the image of God', we cannot fulfil our destiny to be in God's image.

Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor 15:49

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers.

Conclusion. This verse on it's own proves nothing as some ambiguity may be perceived. But to derive some conclusion by guessing is not productive and only adds confusion. Amassing other relevant texts, of which the NT is replete, we see the consistent portrayal of Jesus who has the same God we do and as His holy sinless son, free of deception and corruption, he perfectly represents his God in all things.

If you can look in a mirror and state that the image is actually you then you have an image problem. Your image mimics you - your image doesn't direct you. Jesus was the image of his God and lived as he was directed to do - until death.

("I and the Father are one" has nothing to do with Jesus's alleged deity as one answer supposes. Jesus himself explains what he meant in John 17:11,21 and he wasn't pretending to be God)

Postscript.

The OP seems fixated on the visibility of Jesus who is supposed to be God who is INvisible - thus creating some apparent dichotomy. The invisibility of God is a fact scripture affirms - it does not say Father. To suggest Jesus is God is to pressure scripture to mean things it does not. Is this the example of sound exegesis or simply imposing random theology onto the text? If Jesus is God then he must be invisible. You can't have it both ways - either he is and scripture is contradicted or he isn't and scripture is in accord with itself.

As Jesus himself affirms that he has a God, then he cannot be the Almighty God because He is Jesus' God, making the quandary of visibility moot.

Answer 10

Answer

"He is the image of the invisible God” does not imply that Jesus is not God.

Explanation

The explanation will come about when I clarify certain statements from the OP, as follows.

• "By stating that Jesus is visible" - OP

The statement in Colossians 1:15 does not state that Jesus is visible.

Jesus is invisible today. Jesus was invisible when Paul wrote Colossians 1:15.

In fact, except during the earthly existence, Jesus, the Word of God, was or is invisible just as God is invisible.

So, reasoning #1:- Jesus is invisible.

“And the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17).

• "whereas God is invisible" - OP

It is true that God is invisible. But that does not mean that God has no “form” or “body”; on the contrary, God has a spiritual body.

“If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44).

(I am not talking about the New Age philosophical concept of God but the Scriptural concept of God).

Throughout the Scripture, the invisible God is shown to have body parts. God has “fingers” with which He wrote the Ten Commandments (Exo 31:18); He has “eyes” with “pupils” in them (Zech 2:8); God has a “right hand” (Psalms 137:5); He has a “voice” (Deut 4:12) and hence a “mouth” (Deut 8:3); He has “His feet” (Exo 24:10) etc.

If somebody would argue that all of the above are “figurative” language, then consider what Jesus Christ Himself has witnessed:

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in Heaven continually look on the FACE of My Father in Heaven” (Mat 18:10).

So, God has a face, though He is invisible!

Hence, reasoning #2:- God, though invisible, does possess a spiritual body.

“God is Spirit” (John 4:24).

• "it implies that Jesus and God have attributes that are mutually exclusive from one-another" - OP

This would be inaccurate in the backdrop of the above 2 reasonings.

When Colossians 1:15 was written, Jesus as the Lord was already Spirit and invisible. God the Father was invisible and Spirit.

So, Jesus and God cannot have attributes that are mutually exclusive from one another.

“I and the Father are One!” (John 10:30).

• “_Secondarily, by saying that Jesus is "the image of [...] God", Paul is actually likening Jesus to humans instead of likening him to God._” - OP

That doesn’t make good logic. Then Paul would have stated that actually Jesus is the image of Man or Adam; not God!

Case Study:

“And He (Jesus) said to them, Whose image (eikon) and inscription is this? They said to Him, Caesar's. Then He said to them, Then give to Caesar the things of Caesar” (Mat 22:20-21).

Neither Jesus nor the people around Him were confused about the “image” found on the denarius.

It was the “material” image of a “human” person, Caesar.

It clearly represented Caesar. It was not inaccurately representing the figure of Pompei or Mark Antony or Cleopatra!

So, again, remember our 2 earlier reasoning:

Jesus, at the time of Col 1:15 as invisible, is the “spiritual” image of the invisible “spiritual” God. There is no mutually exclusive attributes here!

Also notice that Jesus is contrasted with Adam in 1 Cor 15:45, 47 and with Moses in Heb 3:3

Thus, in a way, we can say that Jesus on one hand and Adam and Moses on the other hand “have attributes that are mutually exclusive from one another”!

• “.......as he does in 1 Corinthians 11:7 to say that men are the image of God.” – OP

Scripture is emphatic: Man, both male and female, is made in the “image” of God.

But there is a difference.

Man is a “physical” or “corruptible” image of the “spiritual” or “incorruptible” God (Rom 1:23 and 1 Cor 15:42).

(See, at the time of Col 1:15, Jesus was no longer “physical” or “corruptible” but was “spiritual”, “invisible” and “incorruptible” image of God!).

But, yes, man’s destiny is to become a “spiritual”, hence “invisible” and “incorruptible” image of God just as Jesus Christ our Lord is!

See, how beautifully and powerfully the Scripture describes this:

“So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. So also it has been written, "The" first "man", Adam, "became a living soul;" the last Adam a life-giving Spirit. But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual. The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven. Such as is the earthy man, such also are the earthy ones. And such as is the heavenly Man, such also are the heavenly ones. And as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man” (1 Cor 15:42-49).

Conclusion

Given these above points, Colossians 1:15a cannot be interpreted at all as evidence against Jesus’s divinity.

On the contrary, Jesus is likened to God alone and is contrasted with men like Adam (unholy) and Moses (holy).

Answer 11

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.

Answer 12

Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 : eimi vs. huparchó

Comparing Col 1:15 and 1 Cor 11:7, there is a notable difference in the verbs used in each. In Col 1:15, the verb is eimi (εἰμί Strong’s G1510 meaning I exist, I am), the “basic Greek word that expresses being” (HELPS). In 1 Cor 11:7, the verb is huparchó (ὑπάρχω G5225 meaning to begin, to be ready or at hand, to be), a compound of 5223 /hýparksis, "under," and 757/arxō, "begin, go first" (HELPS). Men are/huparchó the image of God, but Jesus is/eimi the image of God. Because of the differences in the meaning of the two verbs, the statements in Col 1:15 and 1 Cor 11:7 are not viewed as equivalent.

Colossians 1:15: image vs. reality

The OP asks, “Is Colossians 1:15a best interpreted as evidence against Jesus's divinity?” Rather than evidence to the contrary, Col 1:15 is understood to be an explicit statement of Jesus’ divinity. The distinction between visible and invisible is a false dichotomy. The relevant distinction in Col 1:15 is not between visible and invisible but between image and reality.

By definition, an image reflects a reality of which it is a visible or perceivable representation. The reality itself may or may not be visible. For instance, the fact that we can see an image of an object in a mirror does not necessarily mean that we can see the object itself. It could be that the object is hidden or it could simply be that the object is out of our range of vision. Furthermore, the relationship between an image and the reality it represents is such that though each can be viewed separately, at the same time, they are one.

In a similar way, although we may be able to see a person, that does not mean we can see or know who that person really is. That there is more to Jesus than meets the eye is one of the important themes of the NT (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Jn 1:10, 8:19, 14:9, 16:3; 1 Jn 3:2; Mt 8:27, 11:27). What Paul makes clear in Col 1:15 is that Jesus is the image, which we can see, of God, the reality that we cannot see. Of no one else is this particular phrasing ever used nor, I would argue, is it applicable to any other person.

Answer 13

The author to the Colossians is very cognizant of the OT and his words are a summation of the overall conclusion one is to draw from reading the text of the OT. He also quotes direct passages from the OT but when making remarks about Jesus Christ he is not departing from the OT passages but remains within the confines of the OT

Let’s consider some OT passages about God

““Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭15‬:‭11‬ ‭

Implied is that no one is like the Lord

“There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours.” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭86‬:‭8‬ ‭

This is further proving the point in the positive that there is no one like God

“For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him? O Lord God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O Lord, with your faithfulness all around you?” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭89‬:‭6‬-‭8‬ ‭

Not even the heavenly beings (think angels) are like God

So for Paul to say that Jesus Christ is the IMAGE εικων or the likeness of God means that He is like God. This contravenes the OT that states that no one is like God. This leaves only one possibility Jesus Christ is God which is why He is the image of God.

God is spirit and yet Jesus Christ is not exclusively in a spirit form, His spirit inhabits a glorified (supernatural) body. This is why there is a distinction between Jesus Christ the image of the invisible God who has no body.

Paul makes this argument even better in Hebrews 1 where he says

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1‬:‭3‬ ‭

It’s not possible to liken God to anyone. No heavenly being is like God and none compare to God unless the person being spoken of is God. Jesus steps down into Creation one day 1 of Creation and loses a glory He had prior to day 1 which He possessed in eternity past.

“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” ‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭5‬ ‭

And again

“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” ‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭24‬ ‭

He steps down even further and sheds His heavenly body of the Angel of the Lord and takes on a human body at incarnation. But at all times His spirit remains the same however He deliberately and voluntarily suppresses His divine attributes. So obviously by stepping down to be the firstborn πρωτοτοκος or the first in all Creation at second 1 of day 1 and again at incarnation He is not in His full divine glory, hence the image of God. But He is the only one that is able to be said about that is like God despite these voluntary step downs, first as the archon through which Creation visible and invisible are made and then in the incarnation as a human.

Conclusion

The good thing is that Paul did not write Colossians 1 v15 in isolation and emphasizes further who he understands Jesus to be in the letter to the Hebrews. And considering there is none like God but Jesus is likened to God, and it’s impossible to come close to anything resembling God much less be the image of God, it is very clear that Jesus has to be God which Paul explains further in Hebrews 1. But Paul goes on to say in Colossians 1:16 that ALL things were made for Jesus Christ. Whereas we know that all things were made for God and belong to Him

“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭24‬:‭1‬ ‭

This necessarily tells us that Jesus is the Lord of the OT.