Colossians 1:12–18

How can the apostle say: "Giving thanks to God the Father, who makes us suitable for a share of the lot of the saints in light, who has snatched us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved son," unless the will that liberates us is not ours but his? Letters.

See, then, how it can come to pass that a man may have the baptism of Christ and still not have the faith or the love of Christ; how it is that he may have the sacrament of holiness and still not be reckoned in the lot of the holy. With regard to the mere sacrament itself, it makes no difference whether someone receives the baptism of Christ where the unity of Christ is not.

The lament in the Psalms, indeed, is absolutely true: "Behold in iniquity was I conceived, and in sins did my mother nourish me in her womb." Again, there is what is written, that there is none clean in God's sight, not even an infant whose life has lasted but a day on the earth. So these are the exception, and it is to exceed our limited human measure to wish to inquire about the rank they may deserve in that "lot of the saints in light" which is promised for the future.

For he himself has bound the strong man and stolen his goods, that is, humanity itself, whom our enemy had abused in every evil activity. God has created "vessels fit for the Master's use," that is, us who have been perfected for every work through the preparation of that part of us which is in our own control. Thus we gained our approach to the Father through him, being translated from "the power of darkness to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light."

Moreover in writing to the Thessalonians he says: "Giving thanks to God the Father, who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light." Since we read that many things in the Old and New Testaments were divided by lots, none has dared to deny that the lot has been God's way of manifesting what devoted hearts sought with prayerful petition.

"Unto all patience and longsuffering," he saith, "with joy, giving thanks" unto God. Then being about to exhort them, he makes no mention of what by and by shall be laid up for them; he did hint at this however in the beginning of the Epistle, saying, "Because of the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens": but in this place he mentions the things which were already theirs, for these are the causes of the other. And he doth the same in many places. For that which hath already come to pass gains belief, and more carries the hearer along with it. "With joy," he saith, "giving thanks" to God. The connection is this. We cease not praying for you, and giving thanks for the benefits already received.

Seest thou how he bears himself along into speaking of the Son? For if "we give thanks with much joy," it is a great thing that is spoken of. For it is possible to give thanks only from fear, it is possible to give thanks even when in sorrow. For instance; Job gave thanks indeed, but in anguish; and he said, "The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away." For, let not any say that what had come to pass pained him not, nor clothed him with dejection of soul; nor let his great praise be taken away from that righteous one. But when it is thus, it is not for fear, nor because of His being Lord alone, but for the very nature of the things themselves, that we give thanks.

"To Him who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light." He hath said a great thing. What has been given, he saith, is of this nature; He hath not only given, but also made us strong to receive. Now by saying, "Who made us meet," he showed that the thing was one of great weight. For example, were some low person to have become a king, he hath it in his power to give a governorship to whom he will; and this is the extent of his power, to give the dignity: he cannot also make the person fit for the office, and oftentimes the honor makes one so preferred even ridiculous. If however he have both conferred on one the dignity, and also made him fit for the honor, and equal to the administration, then indeed the thing is an honor. This then is what he also saith here; that He hath not only given us the honor, but hath also made us strong enough to receive it.

For the honor here is twofold, the giving, and the making fit for the gift. He said not, gave, simply; but, "made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light," that is, who hath appointed us a place with the saints. But he did not say simply placed us, but hath given us to enjoy even the very same things, for "the portion" is that which each one receives. For it is possible to be in the same city, and yet not enjoy the same things; but to have the same "portion," and yet not enjoy the same, is impossible. It is possible to be in the same inheritance, and yet not to have the same portion; for instance, all we (clergy) are in the inheritance, but we have not all the same portion. But here he doth not say this, but with the inheritance adds the portion also. But why doth he call it inheritance (or lot)? To show that by his own achievements no one obtains the kingdom, but as a lot is rather the result of good luck, so in truth is it here also. For a life so good as to be counted worthy of the kingdom doth no one show forth, but the whole is of His free gift. Therefore He saith, "When ye have done all, say, We are unprofitable servants, for we have done that which was our duty to do." "To be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light,"-he means, both the future and the present light, -that is, in knowledge. He seems to me to be speaking at once of both the present and the future. Then he shows of what things we have been counted worthy. For this is not the only marvel, that we are counted worthy of the kingdom; but it should also be added who we are that are so counted; for it is not unimportant.

Having the intention to accuse them of acting incorrectly in the matter of teaching, he first speaks affectionately, so that it would not seem that he accuses them as an enemy. Therefore, having first said: I pray for you, that He may grant you such and such blessings (which is completely uncharacteristic of an enemy), he now says: with joy I give thanks for the blessings that you have. Therefore I accuse you not out of enmity, but out of love. I would even wish to constantly praise you, but necessity compels me to reproach. He does the same in the Epistles to the Corinthians. And he imperceptibly leads them to the word about the Son. For if I give thanks with joy, it means you possessed great blessings. But these were granted by the Master — the Son, and not by servants — the angels. Why did he say "I give thanks with joy"? Because it is possible to give thanks even in sorrow, as Job gave thanks, although he was in grief: "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away" (Job 1:21). And let no one say that he was not stung by sorrow, because in that case one would also destroy his praise, if he bore it without feeling. He grieved, but was not crushed.

How much, he says, is given, that you not only became rich, but also received the power and ability to appear worthy recipients of such gifts. For example: if a king entrusted some position of authority to a person of small talents, he would have given the dignity, but would not have made him capable of worthily carrying it out; in such a case, this honor would often subject him to ridicule. But God both honored us and made us capable of receiving it. And the double honor is that He made us capable of receiving the gift.

That is, the One who placed you with the saints — and not simply so, but who granted you to enjoy the same blessings, which is what is indicated by the word "participation." For it is possible to live in one and the same city but not have an equal share, and again: it is possible to partake in one and the same inheritance but not have the same portion, just as, for example, we all have one and the same inheritance of the Church, but one person has one portion and another has a different one. But here He granted both the same inheritance and the same portion. And everywhere he uses the word "inheritance" (κλήρος) in order to show that just as an inheritance depends not on human effort but rather, it seems, on fortune, so too we are not deemed worthy of the Kingdom for our virtues, but everything depends on the divine gift. Therefore, "when," he says, "you have done all things, say: we are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do" (Luke 17:10).

And future, and present, that is, in knowledge. For even now He has enlightened us, having revealed mysteries to us, and in the future He will reveal even more.

Then when he says, giving thanks to God the Father, he gives thanks for the favors granted to all of the faithful: first for the gift of grace, and then secondly for the fruit of grace (v. 13).

And so he says: We pray for you, giving thanks to God, as our Creator, and the Father, by adopting us, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. Some people have said that the gifts of grace are given because of a person's merit, and that God gives grace to those who are worthy, and does not give grace to those who are unworthy. But this view is rejected by the Apostle, because whatever worth and grace we have was given to us by God, and so also were the effects of grace. And so Paul says, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light: "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our sufficiency is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5). To share in the inheritance of the saints in light. All men are good in their very nature; consequently, they somehow partake of God. But those who are wicked take pleasure in temporal things as their portion: "This is our portion and this our lot" (Wis 2:9), while those who are holy have God himself as their portion: "The Lord is my portion" (Lam 3:24); "The Lord is my chosen portion" (Ps 16:5). And so he says, who has qualified us to share in the lot of the saints.

He says, in the lot of the saints, because there are two ways of apportioning things: sometimes it is done by choosing, as when a person selects this portion, and another one that portion; and sometimes apportionment is by lot: "The lot puts an end to disputes" (Pr 18:18). The saints have their portion not because they chose it: "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (Jn 15:16), but because God chose them. (A lot consists in entrusting something to God's judgment. And there are three types of lot: consultative, divining, and apportioning. The first is not evil when dealing in temporal matters; the second is useless and evil, and the third is sometimes allowed in cases of necessity.) The portion of the saints is the possession of the light: "He dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Tim 6:16); "In his hands he hides the light and commands it to come again" (Job 36:32), and from it there follows the effect of grace, i.e., our transference from darkness to light.

Freed thus from the condition of darkness, that is, plucked from the infernal place, in which we were held by the devil both because of our own and because of Adam's transgression, who is the father of sinners, we were translated by faith into the heavenly kingdom of the Son of God. This was so that he might show us by what love God loved us, when, raising us from deepest hell, he led us into heaven with his true Son. .

"And he threw him," says John, "into the abyss," meaning, clearly, that he cast the devil into the abyss, and the "abyss" symbolizes the innumerable multitude of the impious, in whose hearts there is a great depth of malignity against the church of God…. Now because he is bound and shut up by this ban, the devil is prohibited and inhibited from leading astray the nations which belonged to Christ but were in time past led astray by him or held in his grip. For God chose those nations before the foundation of the world, to "rescue them from the power of darkness and transfer them to the kingdom of his beloved Son," as the apostle says. .

Because in Greek "to suffer" is paschein, for this reason Pascha has been thought of as a passion, as though this name has been derived from "suffering." But in its own language, that is, in Hebrew, Pascha means a "passing over." For this reason the people of God celebrated the Pascha for the first time when, fleeing from Egypt, they passed over the Red Sea…. And we effect a most salutary passing over when we pass over from the devil to Christ, and from this tottering world to his most solidly established kingdom. And therefore we pass over to God who endures so that we may not pass over with the passing world. Concerning this grace conferred upon us, the apostle, praising God, says, "Who has rescued us from the power of darkness and has brought us over into the kingdom of the Son of his love."

From this power of evil angels nothing delivers man but the grace of God, of which the apostle speaks, "Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love." Israel's own story illustrates this figure, when they were delivered from the power of the Egyptians and translated into the kingdom of the land of promise flowing with milk and honey, which signifies the sweetness of grace.

"Who delivered us," he saith, "from the power of darkness."

The whole is of Him, the giving both of these things and those; for nowhere is any achievement of ours. "From the power of darkness," he saith, that is, of error, the dominion of the devil. He said not "darkness," but "power"; for it had great power over us, and held us fast. For it is grievous indeed even to be under the devil at all, but to be so "with power," this is far more grievous. "And translated us," he saith, "into the kingdom of the Son of His love." Not then so as to deliver man from darkness only, did He show His love toward him. A great thing indeed is it to have delivered from darkness even; but to have brought into a kingdom too, is a far greater. See then how manifold the gift, that he hath delivered us who lay in the pit; in the second place, that He hath not only delivered us, but also hath translated us into a kingdom. "Who delivered us." He said not, hath sent us forth, but "delivered": showing our great misery, and their capture of us. Then to show also the ease with which the power of God works, he saith, "And translated us," just as if one were to lead over a soldier from one position to another. And he said not, "hath led over"; nor yet "hath transposed," for so the whole would be of him who transposed, nothing of him who went over; but he said, "translated"; so that it is both of us and of Him.

"Into the kingdom of the Son of His love." He said not simply, "the kingdom of heaven," but gave a grandeur to his discourse by saying, "The kingdom of the Son," for no praise can be greater than this, as he saith elsewhere also: "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him." He hath counted us worthy of the same things with the Son; and not only so, but what gives it greater force, with His Beloved Son. Those that were enemies, those that were in darkness, as it were on a sudden he had translated to where the Son is, to the same honor with Him. Nor was he content with only this, in order to show the greatness of the gift; he was not content with saying, "kingdom," but he also added, "of the Son"; nor yet with this, but he added also "beloved"; nor yet with this, but he added yet, the dignity of His nature. For what saith he? "Who is the Image of the invisible God." But he proceeded not to say this immediately, but meanwhile inserted the benefit which He bestowed upon us. For lest, when thou hearest that the whole is of the Father, thou shouldest suppose the Son excluded, he ascribes the whole to the Son, and the whole to the Father.

"Snatched from the powers of darkness" at such a great "price," and by so great a "mystery," and loosed from the chains of the ancient captivity, make sure, dearly beloved, that the devil does not destroy the integrity of your souls with any stratagem. Whatever is forced on you contrary to the Christian faith, whatever is presented to you contrary to the commandments of God, it comes from the deceptions of the one who tries with many wiles to divert you from eternal life, and, by seizing certain occasions of human weakness, leads careless and negligent souls again into his snares of death. Let all those reborn through water and the Holy Spirit consider the one whom they have renounced. -.

Before the law and in the law the angels served God for our salvation, but God did not bring us to the kingdom through them. But now through our Lord, his only begotten Son, the kingdom is given to you. .

Not only is it important that He deemed us worthy of the Kingdom, but also what we were before this. For it is not the same thing to give something to the worthy and to the unworthy, as he also says in the Epistle to the Romans: "scarcely for a righteous man will one die" (Rom. 5:7). So then, He delivered us who were under the power of darkness, that is, of error and the tyranny of the devil. And he did not simply say "from darkness," but "from the power of darkness." For he had great power over us and ruled over us. Of course, it is grievous to be simply under the devil, but to be under the devil with power is even more grievous. And he did not say "led out," but "delivered," showing that we, like captives, were languishing.

It is a great thing to deliver from darkness, but to bring into the Kingdom besides — this is far greater. And not simply so, but so that we might reign together with the beloved Son — we who were enemies and dwelt in darkness. Of which he also speaks in another place: "if we endure, we shall also reign with Him" (2 Tim. 2:12). And he did not say "transferred" (for then everything would belong to the one who transferred), but "brought over" (translated), so that here something might belong to us as well. By this expression he shows that for the power of God this is as easy as for someone to move a soldier from one place to another.

First, he mentions this transference; and secondly, the way in which men are the slaves of sin before they receive grace. For since sin is a darkness, men before receiving grace are in the power of darkness, i.e., either of the evil spirits or of sins: "Against the world rulers of this present darkness" (Eph 6:12), "Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken" (Is 49:25). He has transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, i.e., that we might be the kingdom of God: "My kingdom is not of this world" (Jn 18:36). This happens when we are freed from our sins: "You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:10). Or literally, we are transferred to this kingdom so that we may obtain eternal life: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mt 3:2). And this is what he says: the kingdom of his beloved Son.

A more literal translation of this phrase would read: the kingdom of the Son of his love. As Augustine says in a Gloss, "love" is sometimes taken to mean the Holy Spirit, who is the love of the Father and the Son. But if "love" were always to mean this Person, then the Son would be the Son of the Holy Spirit. So at other times "love" is understood essentially, to indicate the divine essence. Thus the phrase, of the Son of his love, can be taken to mean either "of his beloved Son," or it could mean, "of the Son of his essence." But is it true to say that the Son is the Son of the essence of the Father? I answer that if the possessive case, "of the essence" is taken to indicate the relationship of an efficient cause, it is false; because the essence of the Father does not generate nor is it generated. Sometimes the possessive case indicates the possession of a form, as when we say a thing is "of an excellent form," that is, it has an excellent form. And if we understand "of the essence" in this way, then the statement is true, that is, the Son has the essence of the Father: "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand" (Jn 3:35).

And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption;" plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,-humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God.

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins." And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

For He indeed translated us, but the Son furnished the cause. For what saith he? "Who delivered us out of the power of darkness." But the same is, "In whom we have the full redemption, even the forgiveness of sins." For had we not been forgiven our sins, we should not have been "translated." So here again the words, "In whom." And he said not "redemption," but "full redemption," so that we shall not fall any more, nor become liable to death.

But if one ought to say anything more: the work of the Son is the greater. How? Because it were a thing impossible to give the kingdom to men whilst continuing in their sins; but thus it is an easier thing, so that He prepared the way for the gift. What sayest thou? He Himself loosed thee from thy sins: surely then He Himself also hath brought thee nigh; already he has laid by anticipation the foundation of his doctrine.

Lest you, having heard that the Father delivered us, should think that the Son showed nothing good, he says further that the Son granted us very much. For He is the source of our being brought into the Kingdom, since He granted us redemption, that is, the forgiveness of sins. For if we had not been redeemed and freed from them, we would not have been brought into the Kingdom. Thus He paved for us the way to the gift of the Father. He did not say λύτρωσιν, but ἀπολύτρωσιν, that is, He completely delivered us, so that we would not then fall and become mortal, as partakers of Adam's sin. Therefore, if the Son delivered us, then He also brought us into the Kingdom. How then do you drag angels into this? Note also that the expression "in Whom" refers to the Son.

Then when he says, in whom we have redemption, he shows the way we have been transferred. For humanity in sin was held down in two ways: first, as a slave: "Every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34), and secondly, as deserving punishment and as turned away from God: "Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear" (Is 59:2). But these two things are taken away by Christ, because, as man, he became a sacrifice for us and redeemed us in his blood; and so Paul says, in whom we have redemption: "You were bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:20); and from Christ, as God, we have the forgiveness of sins, because he took away our debt of punishment.

The Apostle saith that Christ is the image of the Father-for he calls Him the image of the invisible God, the first-begotten of all creation. First-begotten, mark you, not first-created, in order that He may be believed to be both begotten, in virtue of His nature, and first in virtue of His eternity.

Be like the image on the coin, unchangeable, keeping the same habits every day. When you see the coin, see the image; when you see the law, see Christ, the image of God, in the law. And because he himself is the image of the invisible and incorruptible God, let him shine for you as in the mirror of the law. Confess him in the law that you may acknowledge him in the gospel.

Do you therefore, who attend to the laws of God, esteem those laws more honourable than the necessities of this life, and pay a greater respect to them, and run together to the Church of the Lord, "which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature." For this Church is the daughter of the Highest, which has been in travail of you by the word of grace, and has "formed Christ in you," of whom you are made partakers, and thereby become His holy and chosen members, "not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but as being holy and unspotted in the faith, ye are complete in Him, after the image of God that created you."

For Thou art eternal knowledge, everlasting sight, unbegotten hearing, untaught wisdom, the first by nature, and the measure of being, and beyond all number; who didst bring all things out of nothing into being by Thy only begotten Son, but didst beget Him before all ages by Thy will, Thy power, and Thy goodness, without any instrument, the only begotten Son, God the Word, the living Wisdom, "the First-born of every creature, the angel of Thy Great Counsel," and Thy High Priest, but the King and Lord of every intellectual and sensible nature, who was before all things, by whom were all things.

Not then because he was from the Father was he called "Firstborn," but because in him the creation came to be; and as before the creation he was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before he was called the Firstborn of the whole creation, the Word himself was with God and the Word was God. … If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of him also that he was Firstborn of other creatures; but in fact, the saints' saying that he is "Firstborn of the whole creation" demonstrates that the Son of God is other than the whole creation and not a creature…. He is called "Firstborn among many brothers" because of the relationship of the flesh, and "Firstborn from the dead" because the resurrection of the dead is from him and after him.

But though he is Word, he is not, as we said, comparable to human words, composed of syllables; but he is the unchanging image of his own Father. For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing, speak in a composite and divisible fashion. But God possesses true existence and is not composite; hence his Word also has true existence and is not made of different parts or syllables. He is the one and onlybegotten God, who proceeds in his goodness from the Father as from a good Fountain, and orders all things and holds them together.

For according to the form of God he is "the beginning who also speaks to us," in which beginning God "made the heavens and the earth," but according to the form of a slave he is "the bridegroom coming out of his chamber." According to the form of God he is "the firstborn of every creature, and he himself is before all creatures, and in him all things hold together," and according to the form of a slave he is "the head of the body, the church." .

In parents and children there would be found an image and an equality and a likeness if the age difference were lacking. For the child's likeness has been derived from the parent, so that the likeness may rightly be called an image…. In God, however, the conditions of time do not obtain, for God cannot be thought of as having begotten in time the Son through whom he has created the times. Hence it follows that not only is [the Son] his image, because he is from [God], and the likeness, because the image, but also the equality is so great that there is not even a temporal distinction standing in the way between them.

Consider the following words also: "In our image." What do you say to this? Surely, the image of God and of the angels is not the same. Now it is absolutely necessary for the form of the Son and of the Father to be the same, the form being understood, of course, as becomes the divine, not in a bodily shape, but in the special properties of the Godhead…. To whom does he say: "In our image"? To whom else, I say, than to the "brightness of his glory and the image of his substance," who is "the image of the invisible God"? Homilies on the Hexameron

The second mode of generation is by means of expression: as in the case of the species coming out of the object, the imprint out of the seal, the speech out of the speaker, or the concept or thought out of the mind. And in these, there is deficiency. In the first, the reality of the object is lacking, for the species in the eye or in the soul is not the reality of the thing. In the second, simplicity is lacking, for the image or figure does not consist in a point or in something simple, but has parts. In the third, permanence is lacking, for speech passes away and does not remain. In the fourth, substance is lacking, for the concept of the mind is neither a substance nor a hypostasis. Take away such defects, and suppose an expression like the species deriving from the object but having reality, like the imprint produced by the seal but having simplicity, like the word coming forth from the speaker but having permanence, like the concept proceeding from the mind but having substance: and then you have the first part of the mirror.

The Psalm refers to the first manner of expression: "My heart overflows with a goodly theme." And there follows: "Fairer in beauty are you than the sons of men." Wisdom refers to the second: "For she is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of His goodness." And the Apostle: "He is the image of the invisible God." Job refers to the third: "God speaketh once, and repeateth not the selfsame thing the second time." Understand this as meaning "in the Son," in the sense that He always is, and will never cease to be nor even be changed. In the fourth manner of expression, suppose substantiality, for the concept of the eternal mind is a hypostasis, and this mental concept is most noble and perfect. Hence, in Proverbs: "When there were no depths I was brought forth." And so He is sometimes called the Word, the Species, the Image, the Word remaining forever, the Concept—not as existing within a mind, but as being substantial: a hypostasis. And in this way we have the other part of the mirror.

For since the apprehended species is a likeness generated in the medium and then impressed upon the organ itself, and through that impression leads to its principle, namely to the object to be known; it manifestly suggests that that eternal light generates from itself a likeness or splendor coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal; and that he who is the image of the invisible God and the splendor of glory and the figure of his substance, who is everywhere through his primary generation, just as an object generates its likeness throughout the entire medium, is united through the grace of union, as a species to a bodily organ, to an individual of rational nature, so that through that union he might lead us back to the Father as to the fontal principle and object. If therefore all knowable things have to generate a species of themselves, they manifestly proclaim that in them as in mirrors can be seen the eternal generation of the Word, the Image, and the Son, eternally emanating from God the Father.

In this consideration, moreover, lies the perfection of the mind's illumination, when, as on the sixth day, it sees man made in the image of God. For if an image is an expressive likeness, when our mind contemplates in Christ the Son of God, who is the image of the invisible God by nature, our humanity so wonderfully exalted, so ineffably united, seeing at once in one the first and the last, the highest and the lowest, the circumference and the center, the Alpha and the Omega, the caused and the cause, the Creator and the creature, the book, that is, written within and without: it has now arrived at a certain perfect reality, so that with God it may reach the perfection of its illuminations in the sixth stage, as on the sixth day; nor does anything further remain except the day of rest, in which through the ecstasy of the mind the keenness of the human mind may rest from every work which it had accomplished.

Adam also was the first who had the honour to be, and to be called, the image of God, but with respect to the Lord Christ, this is in a still higher degree the case, as the Apostle says: Who is the image of the invisible God. Adam again was the first and only one of men who from his side, through God, produced the female without seed, and the Lord Christ according to the flesh was, as a male, produced from the female without seed, thus preserving the equality of privilege and satisfying the debt of nature.

Also Paul to the Colossians: "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature."

For since of the doctrine, which lately has been set on foot at Ptolemais, a city of Pentapolis, implores and full of blasphemy against Almighty God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; full of unbelief and perfidy towards His only begotten Son and the first-born of every creature, the Word made man, and which takes away the perception of the Holy Spirit,-on either side both letters were brought to me, and brethren had come to discuss it, setting forth more plainly as much as by God's gift I was able,-I wrote certain letters, copies of which I have sent to thee.

He is called "image" because he is of one substance with the Father; he stems from the Father and not the Father from him, it being the nature of an image to copy the original and to be named after it. But there is more to it than this. The ordinary image is a motionless copy of a moving being. Here we have a living image of a living being, indistinguishable from its original to a higher degree than Seth from Adam and any earthly offspring from its parents. Beings with no complexity to their nature have no points of likeness or unlikeness. They are exact replicas, identical rather than like.

The meaning of the "creation," of which he is firstborn, is not unknown to us. For we recognize a twofold creation of our nature, the first that of our conception and birth, the second that of our new creation. But there would have been no need for the second creation had we not crippled the first by our disobedience. Accordingly, when the first creation had grown old and vanished away, it was necessary that there should be a new creation in Christ … for the maker of human nature at the first and afterwards is one and the same. Then he took dust from the earth and formed man: again he took dust from the Virgin and did not merely form man, but formed man about himself: then he created; afterwards, he was created: then the Word made flesh; afterwards, the Word became flesh, that he might change our flesh to spirit, through becoming a partaker with us in flesh and blood. Of this new creation therefore in Christ, which he himself began, he was called the firstborn.

The Lord has declared: "If I do not perform the works of my Father do not believe me." Hence, he teaches that the Father is seen in him because he performs his works so that the power of the nature that was perceived would reveal the nature of the power that was perceived, wherefore the apostle, indicating that this is the image of God, says: "Who is the image of the invisible God … that through him he should reconcile all things to himself." Accordingly, he is the image of God by the power of these works.

Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and "the first-born of every creature," but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.

I Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded, in very truth, with respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, "the first-born of every creature," God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. From whom we also derive our being, from His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for the ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation."

We light here upon a question of heresy. So it were well we should put it off to-day and proceed with it to-morrow, addressing it to your ears when they are fresh.

Paul, discoursing as we showed of the dignity of the Son, says these words: "Who is the Image of the invisible God." Whose image then wilt thou have Him be? God's? Then he is exactly like the one to whom you assign Him. For if as a man's image, say so, and I will have done with you as a madman. But if as God and God's Son, God's image, he shows the exact likeness. Wherefore hath no Angel anywhere been called either "image" or "son," but man both? Wherefore? Because in the former case indeed the exaltedness of their nature might presently have thrust the many into this impiety; but in the other case the mean and low nature is a pledge of security against this, and will not allow any, even should they desire it, to suspect anything of the kind, nor to bring down the Word so low. For this cause, where the meanness is great, the Scripture boldly asserts the honor, but where the nature is higher, it forbears. "The Image of the Invisible" is itself also invisible, and invisible in like manner, for otherwise it would not be an image. For an image, so far as it is an image, even amongst us, ought to be exactly similar, as, for example, in respect of the features and the likeness. But here indeed amongst us, this is by no means possible; for human art fails in many respects, or rather fails in all, if you examine with accuracy. But where God is, there is no error, no failure.

But if a creature: how is He the Image of the Creator? For neither is a horse the image of a man. If "the Image" mean not exact likeness to the Invisible, what hinders the Angels also from being His Image? for they too are invisible; but not to one another: but the soul is invisible: but because it is invisible, it is simply on that account an image, and not in such sort as he and angels are images. "The Firstborn of all creation." "What then," saith one, "Lo, He is a creature." Whence? tell me. "Because he said Firstborn." However, he said not "first created," but "firstborn." Then it is reasonable that he should be called many things. For he must also be called a brother "in all things." And we must take from Him His being Creator; and insist that neither in dignity nor in any other thing is He superior to us? And who that hath understanding would say this? For the word "firstborn" is not expressive of dignity and honor, nor of anything else, but of time only. What does "the firstborn" signify? That he is created, is the answer. Well. If then this be so, it has also kindred expressions. But otherwise the firstborn is of the same essence with those of whom he is firstborn. Therefore he will be the firstborn son of all things-for it said "of every creature"; therefore of stones also, and of me, is God the Word firstborn. But again, of what, tell me, are the words "firstborn from the dead" declaratory? Not that He first rose; for he said not simply, "of the dead," but "firstborn from the dead," nor yet, "that He died first," but that He rose the firstborn from the dead. So that they declare nothing else than this, that He is the Firstfruits of the Resurrection.

He who has been born first is firstborn, whether he is the only child or has preceded other brothers. So, if the Son of God were called "firstborn" without being called "onlybegotten," then we should understand him to be firstborn of creatures as being a creature. Since, however, he is called both firstborn and onlybegotten, we must maintain both of these as applying to him. Thus, we say that he is "the firstborn of every creature," since he is from God, and creation is also from God…. For this very reason, that he shared flesh and blood along with us and then, also, that we were made sons of God through him by being adopted through baptism. He who is by nature Son of God has become firstborn among us who have by adoption and grace become sons of God and are accounted as his brothers.

Let those then "who were born not from blood, nor from the will of the flesh, but from God" offer concord to God as peaceloving children. Let all the adopted members join together into that "firstborn" of new "creation" who came "not to do his own will, but that of the one who sent him." .

For how shall he be considered "the first-born of every creature"

Paul wishes to say and show that Christ is before all. For if he is not before all, how could all things be created in him? In him, Paul says, all things were created, so that denying that our hope is in angels, we may put our hope in Christ. .

The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father in His work of creation: for this reason is He old.

For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him.

He calls Christ "the image of the invisible God." We in like manner say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times (whenever any appearance was vouchsafed to men in the name of God) as the image of (the Father) Himself.

If Christ is not "the first-begotten before every creature," as that "Word of God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; " if "all things were" not "in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; "if "all things were" not "created by Him and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, that "He is before all.

It is well for us that in another passage (the apostle) calls Christ "the image of the invisible God." For will it not follow with equal force from that passage, that Christ is not truly God, because the apostle places Him in the image of God, if, (as Marcion contends, ) He is not truly man because of His having taken on Him the form or image of a man? For in both cases the true substance will have to be excluded, if image (or "fashion") and likeness and form shall be claimed for a phantom.

Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart-even as the Father Himself testifies: "My heart," says He, "hath emitted my most excellent Word.

The Apostle sets forth here the glory of nature and the greatness of the dignity of the Only-Begotten. "Who," he says, "is the image of God"; consequently, exactly alike, differing in nothing. There is no measure for the greatness of Him, so that, having measured, you could say how much He falls short in comparison with the Father. If He were an image as a man, then you would have something to say in this regard, because the image of a man never reaches the Prototype. But since He is an image as God and the Son of God, that is, the image of the invisible God, perfectly alike, evidently an invisible image. For among us, when human art, which often errs, makes a representation, it does not have full likeness; but where God is, there is no error, no deviation — therefore there is also full likeness. But if the Son did not have full likeness to the invisible God, then what prevents the angels also from being the image of God? For they too are invisible. Yet angels are never called the image of God. And note the precision of Holy Scripture: it calls man the image of God and a son, but never an angel; because in that case those hearing of the loftiness of angelic nature could easily fall into impiety, thinking that an angel has equal dignity with God. But as for man, his insignificance and lowliness guards us from thinking anything of the sort. So then, consider: the Only-Begotten, being both — image and invisible — by being "image" differs from the angels, who, although invisible, are not images; and by being "invisible" differs from men, who, although they themselves are called the image of God, are not invisible. Thus He alone is the perfect "image" of God, free from all dissimilarity. And if the Arians still object that an image is not consubstantial with the prototype, let them listen to Scripture, which says that Seth is the image of Adam. Is he then not consubstantial with Adam? Thus, although artificial images are not identical in essence, natural ones have entirely the same essence.

Having said that He is the image of the invisible God, he adds this as well. Here is a great stumbling block for the Arians. Since, they say, He is called "born before all creation," He is therefore the first of creatures. But the apostle did not say "first-created," but "firstborn." Either you will give Him brothers, and He will be the firstborn in relation to me, a frog, a stone, and other such worthless things, and will share one essence with all of this? For the Firstborn, of course, shares one essence with those in relation to whom He is called the Firstborn. But this blasphemy falls upon your own head. For it is ungodly to think this way about the incomparable glory of the Creator. Moreover, the word "firstborn" is used in Scripture not at all in contrast to subsequent children, but absolutely, and means simply — firstborn. So also from the Theotokos Mary He was born as firstborn according to the flesh, though He had no brothers after Him at all; for He is the Only-begotten even by birth from Her. In the same way, by birth from the Father He is the Firstborn not in contrast to other creatures, but absolutely; for He is the Only-begotten by His heavenly birth as well. So then, what should now be said in refutation of the question at hand and in exposure of the opinion of the Colossians? Lest they think that He is younger than the angels, since the ancients were led to God through them, and now it is said that He leads to God, he wants to show that the Son exists before all creation. In what way? Through birth. Therefore, He exists even before the angels, and moreover in such a way that He Himself also created them. So if the angels also served in the Old Testament, this is His arrangement. And note the wisdom of the apostle: lest you, having heard that He is before all creation, consider Him without a beginning, he instructs you that He has a Father and is born from Him. And since both He and all things are from God, this very fact shows that it is one thing that the One came forth as a Son from the Father, and another that the others, as creatures, were created by this very Son. Therefore he adds.

After Paul recalled for us the universal and special benefits of grace, he now commends the Author of this grace, that is, Christ. And he does this, first, in his relation to God; secondly, in relation to all of creation (1:15b), and thirdly, in relation to the Church (v. 18).

As to the first, we should note that God is said to be invisible because he exceeds the capacity of vision of any created intellect, so that no created intellect, by its natural knowledge, can attain His essence: "Behold, God is great, and we know him not" (Job 36:26); "He dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Tim 6:16). And therefore, he is seen by the blessed by means of grace, and not by reason of their natural capacity. Dionysius gives the reason for this: all knowledge terminates at something which exists, that is, at some nature that participates in the act of existence; but God is the very act of existence, not participating in the act of existence, but participated in; and thus he is not known. It is of this invisible God that the Son is the image.

Let us now see in what way the Son is called the image of God, and why he is said to be invisible. The notion of an image includes three things. First, an image must be a likeness; secondly, it must be derived or drawn from the thing of which it is a likeness; and thirdly, it must be derived with respect to something that pertains to the species or to a sign of the species. For if two things are alike, but neither is derived from the other, then neither one is the image of the other; thus one egg is not said to be the image of another. And so something is called an image because it imitates. Further, if there is a likeness between two things, but not according to species or a sign of the species, we do not speak of an image. Thus, a man has many accidents, such as color, size and so on; but they are not the reason for calling something an image of a man. But if something has the shape or figure of a man, then it can be called an image, because this shape is a sign of the species. Now the Son is like the Father, and the Father is like the Son. But because the Son has this likeness from the Father, and not the Father from the Son, we, properly speaking, say that the Son is the image of the Father, and not conversely: for this likeness is drawn and derived from the Father. Further, this likeness is according to species, because in divine matters the Son is somehow, although faintly, represented by our mental word. We have a mental word when we actually conceive the form of the thing of which we have knowledge; and then we signify this mental word by an external word. And this mental word we have conceived is a certain likeness, in our mind, of the thing, and it is like it in species. And so the Word of God is called the image of God.

As to our second question, we should note that the Arians misunderstood the text: for they thought about the image of God as they did of the images they made of their ancestors, so they could see in these images the loved ones no longer with them (just as we make images of the saints to see in these images those whom we cannot see in reality). And so they said that to be invisible was unique to the Father, and that the first visible reality was the Son, who manifested the goodness of the Father. They were saying that the Father was truly invisible, but the Son was visible, and thus their natures would be different. But the Apostle refutes this when he says: "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:3). And thus the Son is not only the image of the invisible God, but he himself is invisible like the Father: He is the image of the invisible God.

Then when he says, the first-born of all creation, he commends Christ in relation to creatures. First he does so; and secondly, he amplifies it (v. 16).

We should note, about the first point, that the Arians understood this to mean that Christ is called the first-born because he is the first creature. But this is not the meaning, as will be clear. So we have to understand two things: how this image is generated, and in what way it is the first-born of creatures. In regard to the first, we should note that things generate in various ways depending on their nature and manner of existence, for men generate in one way, and plants in another, and so on for other things. But the nature of God is his existence and his act of understanding and so it is necessary that his generating or intellectual conceiving is the generating or conceiving of his nature. (In us, however, our intellectual conceiving is not the conceiving of our nature, because our nature is not the same as our act of understanding). Therefore, since this image is a word and concept of an intellect, it is necessary to say that it is the offspring of the nature, so that the one receiving the nature from the other is generated by necessity.

Secondly, we have to understand in what way the Son is called the first-born. God does not know himself and creatures through two different sources; he knows all things in his own essence, as in the first efficient cause. The Son, however, is the intellectual concept or representation of God insofar as he knows himself, and as a consequence, every creature. Therefore, inasmuch as the Son is begotten, he is seen as a word representing every creature, and he is the principle of every creature. For if he were not begotten in that way, the Word of the Father would be the first-born of the Father only, and not of creatures: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before every creature" (Sir 24:5).

For according to them, the space of time in which they say that the Son had not yet been made by the Father, preceded the wisdom of God that fashioned all things, and the Scripture speaks falsely according to them, which calls Him "the First-born of every creature." Conformable to which, that which the majestically-speaking Paul says of Him: "Whom He hath appointed heir of all things. By whom also He made the worlds. But by Him also were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all things."

But let those who propound this difficulty and endeavour to enwrap the truth in a cloud tell us themselves whether the Father exerts His power of begetting within or without limits of time. If they say "within limits of time," then they will attribute to the Father what they object against the Son, so as to make the Father seem to have begun to be what He was not before. If their answer is "without such limits," then what is left them but to resolve for themselves the problem they have propounded, and acknowledge that the Son is not begotten under limits and conditions of time, since they deny that the Father so begets? If the Son, then, is not begotten within limits of time, we are free to judge that nothing can have existed before the Son, Whose being is not confined by time. If, indeed, there was anything in being before the Son, then it instantly follows that in Him were not created all things in heaven or in earth, and the Apostle is shown to have erred in so setting it down in his Epistle, whereas, if before He was begotten there was nothing, I see not wherefore He, before Whom none was, should be said to have been after any.

"Thou hast," it is said, "made them all in wisdom." Do we here understand that Wisdom was without a share in the things that were made? But "all things were made by Him." And David says: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established." So, then, he himself who calls the Son of God the maker even of heavenly things, has also plainly said that all things were made in the Son, that in the renewal of His works He might by no means separate the Son from the Father, but unite Him to the Father. Paul, too, says: "For in Him were all things created in the heavens and in the earth, Visible and invisible." Does he, then, when he says, "in Him," deny that they were made through Him? Certainly he did not deny but affirmed it. And further he says in another place: "One Lord Jesus, through Whom are all things." In saying, then, "through Him," has he denied that all things were made in Him, through Whom he says that all things exist? These words, "in Him" and "with Him," have this force, that by them is understood one and like in all respects, not contrary. Which he also made clear farther on, saying: "All things have been created through Him and in Him;" for, as we said above, Scripture witnesses that these three expressions, "with Him," and "through Him," and "in Him," are equivalent in Christ. For you read that all things were made through Him and in Him.

Before all things came to be, he was born. But Paul also says that all things were created "in him." He is saying that the potency of all things may be believed to be in him, and since in fact all things came into existence through him. This last means that he is the head of every creature, since they began to exist only by virtue of existing with respect to him. .

For the Word of God was not made for us but rather we for him, and "in him all things were created." For even if it had seemed good to God not to make things of determinate origin, still the Word would have been no less with God, and the Father in him. At the same time, things of determinate origin could not without the Word be brought to be; hence they were made through him—and with meaning and purpose. For since the Word is the Son of God by nature proper to his essence and is from him, as he said himself, the creatures could not have come to be, except through him. .

"Before Abraham I am"; that's what he said himself, the Gospel speaks. Listen to it, or read it. But that's little enough, being the creator before Abraham; he's the creator before Adam, creator before heaven and earth, before all the angels, and the whole spiritual creation, "thrones, dominions, principalities and powers," creator before all things whatsoever.

Very often, paradoxically, the first step is to banish the "bright blur"—or, in statelier language, to break the idol. Let's get back to what has at least some degree of resistant reality. Here are the four walls of the room. And here am I. But both terms are merely the façade of impenetrable mysteries.

The walls, they say, are matter. That is, as the physicists will try to tell me, something totally unimaginable, only mathematically describable, existing in a curved space, charged with appalling energies. If I could penetrate far enough into that mystery I should perhaps finally reach what is sheerly real.

And what am I? The façade is what I call consciousness. I am at least conscious of the colour of those walls. I am not, in the same way, or to the same degree, conscious of what I call my thoughts: for if I try to examine what happens when I am thinking, it stops happening. Yet even if I could examine my thinking, it would, I well know, turn out to be the thinnest possible film on the surface of a vast deep. The psychologists have taught us that. Their real error lies in underestimating the depth and the variety of its contents... And depths of time too. All my past; my ancestral past; perhaps my pre-human past.

Here again, if I could dive deeply enough, I might again reach at the bottom that which simply is.

And only now am I ready, in my own fashion, to "place myself in the presence of God." Either mystery, if I could follow it far enough, would lead me to the same point—the point where something, in each case unimaginable, leaps forth from God's naked hand. The Indian, looking at the material world, says, "I am that." I say, "That and I grow from one root." Verbum supernum prodiens, the Word coming forth from the Father, has made both, and brought them together in this subject-object embrace.

For the first time in my life I began to look at the question with both eyes open. In the world I know, the perfect produces the imperfect, which again becomes perfect — egg leads to bird and bird to egg — in endless succession. If there ever was a life which sprang of its own accord out of a purely inorganic universe, or a civilization which raised itself by its own shoulder-straps out of pure savagery, then this event was totally unlike the beginnings of every subsequent life and every subsequent civilization. The thing may have happened; but all its plausibility is gone. On any view, the first beginning must have been outside the ordinary processes of nature. An egg which came from no bird is no more 'natural' than a bird which had existed from all eternity. And since the egg-bird-egg sequence leads us to no plausible beginning, is it not reasonable to look for the real origin somewhere outside sequence altogether? You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?

Evidently, then, something beyond Nature exists. Man is on the border line between the Natural and the Supernatural. Material events cannot produce spiritual activity, but the latter can be responsible for many of our actions on Nature. Will and Reason cannot depend on anything but themselves, but Nature can depend on Will and Reason, or, in other words, God created Nature.

In the same way the Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became Man for no other purpose. It is even doubtful, you know, whether the whole universe was created for any other purpose. It says in the Bible that the whole universe was made for Christ and that everything is to be gathered together in Him.

Therefore Christ is the Onlybegotten Son of God and Maker of the World, for "he was in the world, and the world was made through him," and "he came unto his own," as the Gospel teaches us. But Christ is the Maker, at the bidding of the Father, not only of things visible but also things invisible. For, according to the apostle: "In him were created all things in the heavens or on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers. All things have been created through him and unto him, and he is before all creatures, and in him all things hold together." Though you mention the worlds, Jesus Christ, at the bidding of the Father, is Maker of these too.

We have said there are nine orders of angels, because we know from the testimony of sacred Scripture that there are angels, archangels, virtues, powers, principalities, dominations, thrones, cherubim, and seraphim. The apostle Paul also enumerates the names of four orders to the Ephesians, saying: "Above every principality, and power, and virtue, and domination." Writing again to the Colossians, he says: "Whether thrones, or powers, or principalities, or dominations." He had already described dominations, principalities, and powers when speaking to the Ephesians; but when about to say these things also to the Colossians, he added thrones, about which he had not yet said anything to the Ephesians. Therefore, when thrones are joined to those four which he mentioned to the Ephesians—that is, principalities, powers, virtues, and dominations—there are five orders that are specifically expressed. When angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim are added to these, without doubt nine orders of angels are found to exist.

There is no doubt that all things are through the Son, since, according to the apostle, "All things are through him and in him." If all things are through him, and all things are from nothing, and nothing is except through him, I ask in what way does he lack the true nature of God, since he is not lacking either in the nature or the power of God? For he used the power of his nature that these things should exist which had no existence, and that these things should exist which pleased him.

And [know ye, moreover], that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was "the first-born of every creature," and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, "There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." And again, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus;" and, "By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and on earth, visible and invisible; and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist."

The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth." And again, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,-He who formed the world (for the world is of all),-He who fashioned man,-He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,-He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.

They go on to state that, when the mother Achamoth had passed through all sorts of passion, and had with difficulty escaped from them, she turned herself to supplicate the light which had forsaken her, that is, Christ. He, however, having returned to the Pleroma, and being probably unwilling again to descend from it, sent forth to her the Paraclete, that is, the Saviour. This being was endowed with all power by the Father, who placed everything under his authority, the Aeons doing so likewise, so that "by him were all things, visible and invisible, created, thrones, divinities, dominions." He then was sent to her along with his contemporary angels.

[Daniel 7:9] "I beheld until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of days took His seat. His garment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was composed of fiery flames and its wheels were set on fire. From before His presence there issued forth a rushing, fiery stream." We read something similar in John's Apocalypse: "After these things I was immediately in the Spirit, and lo, a throne was set up in heaven, and one was seated upon the throne; and He who sat upon it had the likeness of jasper and sardine stone, and there was a rainbow round about the throne like the appearance of emerald. Around the throne there were twenty-four other thrones, and upon the twenty-four thrones there sat twenty-four elders, clothed in shining garments; upon their heads was a golden crown, and lightning flashes issued from the throne, and voices and thunder. And in front of the throne there were seven torches of burning fire, which were the seven spirits of God. And in front of the throne lay a glassy sea like unto crystal." (Revelation 4:2-6) And so the many thrones which Daniel saw seem to me to be what John called the twenty-four thrones. And the Ancient of days is the One who, according to John sits alone upon His throne. Likewise the Son of man, who came unto the Ancient of days, is the same as He who, according to John, is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, and the titles of that sort (Revelation 5:5). I imagine that these thrones are the ones of which the Apostle Paul says, "Whether thrones or dominions..." (Colossians 1:16). And in the Gospel we read, "Ye yourselves shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). And God is called the One who sits and who is the Ancient of days, in order that His character as eternal Judge might be indicated. His garment is shining white like the snow, and the hair of His head is like pure wool. The Savior also, when He was transfigured on the mount and assumed the glory of His divine majesty, appeared in shining white garments (Matthew 17:2). And as for the fact that His hair is compared to perfectly pure wool, the even-handedness and uprightness of His judgment is shown forth, a judgment which shows no partiality in its exercise. Moreover He is described as an elderly man, in order that the ripeness of His judgment may be established. His throne consists of fiery flames, in order that sinners may tremble before the severity of the torments, and also that the just may be saved, but so as by fire. The wheels of the throne are set aflame, or else it is the wheels of His chariot which are aflame. In Ezekiel also God is ushered on the scene seated in a four-horse chariot (Ezekiel 1:4-28), and everything pertaining to God is of a fiery consistency. In another place also a statement is made on this subject: "God is a consuming fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24), that we might know that wood, hay and stubble are going to burn up in the day of judgment. And in the Psalms we read: "Fire goeth before Him, and He shall set aflame all His enemies round about Him" (Psalm 97:3). A rushing, fiery stream proceeded from before Him in order that it might carry sinners to hell (Gehenna).

Next he proceeds to the doctrine itself. For that they may not think Him to be of more recent existence, because that in former times the approach was through Angels, but now through Him; he shows first, that they had no power (for else it had not been "out of darkness" that he brought), next, that He is also before them. And he uses as a proof of His being before them, this; that they were created by him. "For in Him," he saith, "were all things created." What say here the followers of Paul of Samosata? "The things in the heavens." What was in question, he has placed first; "and the things upon the earth." Then he says, "the visible and the invisible things"; invisible, such as soul, and all that has come to exist in heaven; visible, such as men, sun, sky. "Whether thrones." And what is granted, he lets alone, but what is doubted he asserts. "Whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers." The words "whether," "or," comprehend the whole of things; but by means of the greater things show it of the less also. But the Spirit is not amongst the "powers." "All things," he saith, "have been created through Him, and unto Him." Lo, "in Him," is "through Him," for having said "in Him," he added, "through Him." But what "unto Him"? It is this; the subsistence of all things depends on Him. Not only did He Himself bring them out of nothing into being, but Himself sustains them now, so that were they dissevered from His Providence, they were at once undone and destroyed. But He said not, "He continues them," which had been a grosser way of speaking, but what is more subtle, that "on" Him they depend. To have only a bearing on Him is enough to continue anything and bind it fast. So also the word "firstborn," in the sense of a foundation. But this doth not show the creatures to be consubstantial with Him; but that all things are through Him, and in Him are upheld. Since Paul also when he says elsewhere "I have laid a foundation," is speaking not concerning substance, but operation. For, that thou mayest not think Him to be a minister, he says that He continues them, which is not less than making them. Certainly, with us it is greater even: for to the former, art conducts us; but to the latter, not so, it does not even stay a thing in decay.

But who, except an heretical spirit, could ever bring his mind to believe that the invisible part of creation belongs to him who had previously displayed no visible thing, rather than to Him who, by His operation on the visible world, produced a belief in the invisible also, since it is far more reasonable to give one's assent after some samples (of a work) than after none? We shall see to what author even (your favourite) apostle attributes the invisible creation, when we come to examine him.

To her, therefore, he despatches Soter, (who must be the same as Jesus, to whom the Father imparted the supreme power over the whole body of the ¦ons, by subjecting them all to him, so that "by him," as the apostle says, "all things were created" ), with a retinue and cortege of contemporary angels, and (as one may suppose) with the dozen fasces.

"By Him" is said instead of "through Him," as he will show later. That which could be doubted, namely concerning heavenly things, he placed first. So then, if the angels were created through Him, how are they before Him?

Leaving without explanation the visible, since there was no doubt about it, he speaks in detail about what was doubted — the invisible. But he did not present all the heavenly ranks individually, as if indicating very little out of much. For invisible, of course, are also the archangels and our souls. What is said about those applies to these as well.

Here is what he expressed above by the word "in Him" (ἐν αὐτῷ), he now expresses by the word "through Him" (δι' αὐτοῦ), just as the Evangelist John says: "all things were made through Him" (δι' αὐτοῦ) (John 1:3). But having said "all things," he did not include the Spirit. For the Spirit is not one of all those things, but is one absolutely, just as there is one God and one Lord. So then, everything that has being was created through Him. Then, lest you consider Him a servant, he adds: "and for Him" (εἰς αὐτόν), that is, all things are held together in Him. He not only created, but He also sustains all things, so that if creation were deprived of His providence, it would perish. And he did not say "sustains," but much more subtly: "all things rest upon Him and are held together by Him." And this alone, namely that they (created things) rest upon Him, is sufficient for their support and preservation. But this means no less than to create, and even more — especially as it concerns us. For we too produce on occasion a garment or a dwelling, but we cannot preserve it from corruption; whereas He both created and preserves.

Then when he says, in him all things were created, he explains what he has just said, that is, that the Son is the first-born because he was generated as the principle of creatures; and this with respect to three things. First, with respect to the creation of things; in the second place, with respect to their distinction, in heaven and on earth, and thirdly, with respect to their preservation in existence, and in him all things hold together.

He says that the Son is the first-born of every creature because he is generated or begotten as the principle of every creature. And so he says, for in him all things were created. With respect to this, we should note that the Platonists affirmed the existence of Ideas, and said that each thing came to be by participating in an Idea, like the Idea of man, or an Idea of some other kind. Instead of all these we have one, that is, the Son, the Word of God. For an artisan makes an artifact by making it participate in the form he has conceived within himself, enveloping it, so to say, with external matter; for we say that the artisan makes a house through the form of the thing which he has conceived within himself. This is the way God is said to make all things in his wisdom, because the wisdom of God is related to his created works just as the art of the builder is to the house he has made. Now this form and wisdom is the Word; and thus in him all things were created, as in an exemplar: "He spoke and they were made" (Gen 1), because he created all things to come into existence in his eternal Word.

With respect to the differences among things, we should note that some, like the Manicheans, were mistaken in thinking that earthly bodies, since they are corruptible, were made by an evil god, while the heavenly bodies, because they are incorruptible, were made by the good God, that is, by the Father of Christ. This was an error, because both types of bodies were created in the same Word. And so he says, in heaven and on earth. This difference is based on the different parts of corporeal nature. "In the beginning," that is, in the Son, "God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1).

The Platonists also said that God created invisible creatures, that is, the angels, by himself, but created bodily natures by the angels. But this is refuted here, because Paul says, visible and invisible. As to the first he says: "By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made" (Heb 11:3). About the second we read: "We have seen but few of his works. For the Lord has made all things, and to the godly he has granted wisdom" (Sir 43:32-33). This difference in things is based on the nature of created things.

The third difference is concerned with the order and degrees found in invisible realities, when he says, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities. The Platonists were mistaken in this matter for they said that there are different perfections found in things, and attributed each of these to its own first principle. And they said there was an order of principles according to the orders of these perfections. Thus they affirmed a first being, from whom all things participate in existence; and another principle, distinct from this, a first intellect, from which all things participate in intelligence, and then another principle, life, from which all things participate in life. But we do not agree with this, for all the perfections found in things are from one principle. Thus he says, whether thrones or dominions..., and so on. As if to say: they do not depend on an array of principles, but on the one unique Word of God.

Why does Paul say in his letter to the Ephesians (1:22) "He has made him the head over all the Church"? For he does not seem to be saying the same thing there as here. I reply that here Paul is giving a descending list of such beings, because he is showing the procession of creatures from God; but in Ephesians he gives an ascending list, because he is showing that the Son of God, as man, is above all creatures. In Ephesians, the principalities are placed under the authorities (or powers), and the virtues are between the dominions and authorities; but here in our text, the principalities are placed above the authorities, and between the dominions and the authorities. This is the way the teaching of Gregory differs from that of Dionysius. For Dionysius arranges the spiritual beings as they are in Ephesians, because he puts the dominions, the virtues and authorities in the second hierarchy. But Gregory arranges them as Paul does here, because he puts the dominions, principalities and authorities in the second hierarchy; and the virtues, archangels and the angels in the third hierarchy. We should note, as Gregory and Dionysius say, that the spiritual gifts from which these different orders receive their names are common to all of them; yet some orders receive their name from certain of these gifts, and others receive their name from different gifts. The reason for this can be seen from the teachings of the Platonists: whatever belongs to something belongs to it in one of three ways: essentially, or by participation, or causally. A thing belongs essentially to another if it belongs to it according to a certain proportion to its nature; this is the way to be rational belongs to man. A thing belongs by participation to another if it surpasses the nature of the thing which has it, although the thing participates to a certain extent in it, although imperfectly; thus man is intellectual by participation, while to be intellectual, which is superior to being rational, is in the angels essentially. One thing belongs to another causally if it accrues to it, as artifacts belong to a person; for they do not exist in him as in matter, but exist in his artistic power. Now a thing is named only from what belongs to it essentially; thus we do not define man as an intellectual or artistic being, but as rational. In regard to the gifts present in the angels, those which belong to the higher angels essentially, belong to the lower ones by participation; and those which belong to the lower ones essentially, are present in the higher angels causally. Consequently, the higher angels receive their names from the higher gifts. But the highest thing in a spiritual creature is that it attain to God and somehow participate in him; and therefore the higher angels receive their name because they attain God: seraphim, as being fervent or on fire with God; the cherubim, as knowing God; and the thrones, as having God seated in them.

For one thing can participate in another in three ways: first, it can receive what is proper to the nature of what it is participating in; secondly, it can receive a thing insofar as it knows it; and thirdly, it can somehow serve the power of a thing. For example, a doctor participates in the art of medicine either because he possesses in himself the art of medicine, or because he has received a knowledge of the art, or because he serves or devotes himself to the medical art. The first way of participating is greater than the second, and the second way is greater than the third. In Sacred Scripture, what is divine is signified by fire: "The Lord your God is a devouring fire" (Deut 4:24). And so the highest order of angels is called the seraphim, as though on fire with God and having a divine property. The second order is the cherubim, who attain God by knowledge. And the third are the thrones, who serve or are devoted to his power. The other orders are not given their names because they attain God, but because of some activity of God. Some angels direct or command, and these are the dominions. Others accomplish and carry out what is commanded, the principal angels who do this are the principalities: "Princes went before, joined with singers" (Ps 68:27). Among the others who carry out commands, some act over spiritual creatures, such as the authorities (powers), who restrain the evil spirits. If some act over natural things, they are called virtues, and these perform miracles. If they act over human beings, they are called archangels if they are concerned with great matters, and angels if concerned with lesser things. And so Paul concludes, all things were created through him, as by an efficient cause, and in him, as in an exemplary cause: "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (Jn 1:3).

Now we come to that laughable method, attempted by some, of showing a difference of Power to subsist between Father and Son, on the strength of apostolic testimony, it being written "But for us there is One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him, and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him." It is urged that no small difference in degree of Divine Majesty is signified in the affirmation that all things are "of" the Father, and "through" the Son. Whereas nothing is clearer than that here a plain reason is given of the Omnipotence of the Son, inasmuch as whilst all things are "of" the Father, none the less are they all "through" the Son. The Father is not "amongst" all things, for to Him it is confessed that "all things serve Thee." Nor is the Son reckoned "amongst" all things, for "all things were made by Him," and "all things exist together in Him, and He is above all the heavens." The Son, therefore, exists not "amongst" but above all things, being, indeed, after the flesh, of the people, of the Jews, but yet at the same time God over all, blessed for ever, having a Name which is above every name, it being said of Him, "Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet." But in making all things subject to Him, He left nothing that is not subject, even as the Apostle hath said.

For after making mention of the creation, he naturally speaks of the Framer's power as seen in it, which power, I say, is the Word of God, by whom all things have been made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you don't err in thinking that without the Son it has come to be. For if through the Son it has come to be, and "in him all things consist," it must follow that he who contemplates the creation rightly is contemplating also the Word who framed it, and through him begins to apprehend the Father. .

All creatures, from the angel to the atom, are other than God; with an otherness to which there is no parallel: incommensurable. The very word "to be" cannot be applied to Him and to them in exactly the same sense. But also, no creature is other than He in the same way in which it is other than all the rest. He is in it as they can never be in one another. In each of them as the ground and root and continual supply of its reality. And also in good rational creatures as light; in bad ones as fire, as at first the smouldering unease, and later the flaming anguish, of an unwelcome and vainly resisted presence.

Therefore of each creature we can say, "This also is Thou: neither is this Thou."

Simple faith leaps to this with astonishing ease. I once talked to a Continental pastor who had seen Hitler, and had, by all human standards, good cause to hate him. "What did he look like?" I asked. "Like all men," he replied, "that is, like Christ."

One is always fighting on at least two fronts. When one is among Pantheists one must emphasise the distinctness, and relative independence, of the creatures. Among Deists--or perhaps in Woolwich, if the laity there really think God is to be sought in the sky--one must emphasise the divine presence in my neighbour, my dog, my cabbage-patch.

It is much wiser, I believe, to think of that presence in particular objects than just of "omnipresence". The latter gives very naïf people (Woolwich again, perhaps?) the idea of something spatially extended, like a gas. It also blurs the distinctions, the truth that God is present in each thing but not necessarily in the same mode; not in a man as in the consecrated bread and wine, nor in a bad man as in a good one, nor in a beast as in a man, nor in a tree as in a beast, nor in inanimate matter as in a tree. I take it there is a paradox here. The higher the creature, the more and also the less God is in it; the more present by grace, and the less present (by a sort of abdication) as mere power. By grace He gives the higher creatures power to will His will ("and wield their little tridents"): the lower ones simply execute it automatically.

It is well to have specifically holy places, and things, and days, for, without these focal points or reminders, the belief that all is holy and "big with God" will soon dwindle into a mere sentiment. But if these holy places, things, and days cease to remind us, if they obliterate our awareness that all ground is holy and every bush (could we but perceive it) a Burning Bush, then the hallows begin to do harm. Hence both the necessity, and the perennial danger, of "religion".

Boehme advises us once an hour "to fling ourselves beyond every creature." But in order to find God it is perhaps not always necessary to leave the creatures behind. We may ignore, but we can nowhere evade, the presence of God. The world is crowded with Him. He walks everywhere incognito. And the incognito is not always hard to penetrate. The real labour is to remember, to attend. In fact, to come awake. Still more, to remain awake.

Oddly enough, what corroborates me in this faith is the fact, otherwise so infinitely deplorable, that the awareness of this presence has so often been unwelcome. I call upon Him in prayer. Often He might reply--I think He does reply--"But you have been evading me for hours." For He comes not only to raise up but to cast down; to deny, to rebuke, to interrupt. The prayer "prevent us in all our doings" is often answered as if the word prevent had its modern meaning. The presence which we voluntarily evade is often, and we know it, His presence in wrath.

Where, then, do actual events come from? In one sense the answer is easy. Each event comes from a previous event. But what happens if you trace this process backwards?... Either the stream of events had a beginning or it had not. If it had, then we are faced with something like creation. If it had not (a supposition, by the way, which some physicists find difficult), then we are faced with an everlasting impulse which, by its very nature, is opaque to scientific thought. Science, when it becomes perfect, will have explained the connection between each link in the chain and the link before it. But the actual existence of the chain will remain wholly unaccountable. We learn more and more about the pattern. We learn nothing about that which "feeds" real events into the pattern. If it is not God, we must at the very least call it destiny—the immaterial, ultimate, one-way pressure which keeps the universe on the move.

The smallest event, then, if we face the fact that it occurs (instead of concentrating on the pattern into which, if it can be persuaded to occur, it must fit), leads us back to a mystery which lies outside natural science. It is certainly a possible supposition that behind this mystery some mighty will and life is at work. If so, any contrast between His acts and the Laws of Nature is out of the question. It is His act alone that gives the laws any events to apply to. The laws are an empty frame; It is He who fills that frame—not now and then on specially "providential" occasions, but at every moment.

"And He is before all things," he saith. This is befitting God. Where is Paul of Samosata? "And in Him all things consist," that is, they are created into Him. He repeats these expressions in close sequence; with their close succession, as it were with rapid strokes, tearing up the deadly doctrine by the roots. For, if even when such great things had been declared, still after so long a time Paul of Samosata sprung up, how much more [would such have been the case], had not these things been said before? "And in Him," he saith, "all things consist." How "consist" in one who was not? So that the things also done through Angels are of Him.

For God knows all things beforehand, both past and present at once, and everything which is going to happen in the future up to the end of the world. He sees them as already present, because in and through Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17). Indeed, just as today the emperor takes in with a glance those who race and who wrestle in the area, but does not thereby make himself responsible for the victory of the winners or the failure of the losers-the zeal, or in other cases the slackness, of the contestants being cause of their victory or defeat-understand with me that it is just so with God Himself. When He endowed us with free will, giving commandments to teach us instead how we must oppose our adversaries, He left it to the free choice of each either to oppose and vanquish the enemy, or to relax and be miserably defeated by him. Nor does He leave us entirely to ourselves-for He knows the weakness of human nature-but rather is present Himself with us and, indeed, allies Himself with those who choose to struggle, and mysteriously imbues us with strength, and Himself, not we, accomplishes the victory over the adversary. This the earthly emperor is unable to do, since he is himself also a man, and is rather in need himself of assistance, just as we require it, too.

God, on the other hand, Who is mighty and invincible, becomes, as we just said, an ally of those who willingly choose to do battle with the enemy, and He establishes them as victors over the cunning of the devil. He does not, however, compel any who do not so choose to this war, in order that He not destroy the power of choice which is proper to our reasoning nature, made according to His own image, and bring us down to the level of unreasoning brutes. Thus God, as we have explained, sees us all at once as if in an arena, just like the earthly emperor looks down on the athletes in competition. But, while the latter does not know who will lose and who will win until he sees the outcome of their contest and, though he may prepare the victors' crowns beforehand, he still does not know to whom he is going to present them; the King of Heaven, on the other hand, knows from before the ages exactly who the victors and vanquished are going to be. This is why He said to those who asked Him if they could sit at His right hand and His left in His glory: "It is not mine to give to you" [Matthew 20:23], but that it will be given instead to those for whom it was prepared. - "Second Ethical Discourse"

He constantly returns to the same thing, so that by unceasing words, as by frequent blows, he might uproot the pernicious teaching. And notice, he did not say that He came into being before all, but – "is," which is proper to God. Where then is Paul of Samosata, who says that He received His beginning from Mary? And all things stand upon Him, as upon a foundation; it is in this sense precisely, as a foundation, that He is the firstborn of creation. But this shows not His consubstantiality with creation, but that all things are held together by Him.

Since someone might ask: Are all things eternal? the Apostle says in answer: No! He is before all, that is, before all times and other things: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning" (Prov 8:22). Or, He is before all in dignity: "Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord?" (Ps 89:6).

As relating to the conservation of things he says, and in him all things hold together, that is, they are conserved. For God is to things as the sun is to the moon, which loses its light when the sun leaves. And so, if God took his power away from us, all things would immediately cease to exist: "Upholding the universe by his word of power" (Heb 1:3).

Christ is the head of the church, if things heavenly and earthly live together in him, such that if the whole body is ever deprived of its head, that is, separated from its Creator, there would be an insane and empty chaos. .

"If the spirit of him," he says, "that raised up Christ from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies, because of the spirit that dwells in you." Therefore, the universal church, which is now in the pilgrimage of mortal life, awaits at the end of time what was first shown in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is "the firstborn from the dead," because the church is his body, of which he is the head. .

This is also what is meant when it said, "he emptied himself," because he did not appear to men in that dignity which he had with the Father, but took into account the weakness of those who did not yet have a clean heart whereby they might see the Word in the beginning with the Father. What then do the words "he left the Father" mean? He left [the Father] to appear to men as he is with the Father. He likewise left his mother, that is, the old and carnal observance of the synagogue, which was a mother to him from the seed of David according to the flesh. And he clung to his wife, that is, the church, so that they might be two in one flesh. For the apostle says that he is the head of the church and the church is his body. .

For the resurrection we Christians know already has come to pass in our head, and in the members it is yet to be. The head of the church is Christ, the members of Christ are the church. That which has preceded in the head will follow in the body. This is our hope; for this we believe, for this we endure and persevere amid so great perverseness of this world, hope comforting us, before that hope becomes reality.

He, then, who is supremely alive, supremely luminous, and supremely warm, He alone is the First — He who is the principle of production, the means of government, and the end of beatification, having the first place in all things. But in order that He be a true Monarch, He must exert power to the supreme degree, preside with supreme fortitude, and guide His flock with supreme sweetness.

Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the resurrection which is at all times taking place. Day and night declare to us a resurrection. The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower [Luke 8:5] goes forth, and casts it into the ground, and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.

And he is also a "beginning." … But what benefits do we derive from believing that he is the beginning? We become ourselves what we believe our beginning to be. .

He calls Him, then, "the first-fruits of them that sleep," as the "first-begotten of the dead." For He, having risen, and being desirous to show that that same (body) had been raised which had also died, when His disciples were in doubt, called Thomas to Him, and said, "Reach hither; handle me, and see: for a spirit hath not bone and flesh, as ye see me have." In calling Him the first-fruits, he testified to that which we have said, viz., that the Saviour, taking to Himself the flesh out of the same lump, raised this same flesh, and made it the first-fruits of the flesh of the righteous, in order that all we who have believed in the hope of the Risen One may have the resurrection in expectation.

For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.

But in all things [it is implied that] nothing has been kept back [from Him], and for this reason the same person is the Judge of the living and the dead; "having the key of David: He shall Open, and no man shall shut: He shall shut, and no man shall open." For no one was able, either in heaven or in earth, or under the earth, to open the book of the Father, or to behold Him, with the exception of the Lamb who was slain, and who redeemed us with His own blood, receiving power over all things from the same God who made all things by the Word, and adorned them by [His] Wisdom, when "the Word was made flesh;" that even as the Word of God had the sovereignty in the heavens, so also might He have the sovereignty in earth, inasmuch as [He was] a righteous man, "who did no sin, neither was there found guile in His mouth;" and that He might have the pre-eminence over those things which are under the earth, He Himself being made "the first-begotten of the dead;" and that all things, as I have already said, might behold their King; and that the paternal light might meet with and rest upon the flesh of our Lord, and come to us from His resplendent flesh, and that thus man might attain to immortality, having been invested with the paternal light.

"And He is the head of the body, the Church."

Then having spoken of His dignity, he afterwards speaks of His love to man also. "He is," saith he, "the Head of the body, the Church." And he said not "of the fullness," (although this too is signified,) out of a wish to show His great friendliness to us, in that He who is thus above, and above all, connected Himself with those below. For everywhere He is first; above first; in the Church first, for He is the Head; in the Resurrection first. That is,

"That He might have the preeminence." So that in generation also He is first. And this is what Paul is chiefly endeavoring to show. For if this be made good, that He was before all the Angels; then there is brought in along with it this also as a consequence, that He did their works by commanding them. And what is indeed wonderful, he makes a point to show that He is first in the later generation. Although elsewhere he calls Adam first, as in truth he is; but here he takes the Church for the whole race of mankind. For He is first of the Church; and first of men after the flesh, like as of the Creation. And therefore he here uses the word "firstborn."

What is in this place the meaning of "the Firstborn"? Who was created first, or rose before all; as in the former place it means, Who was before all things. And here indeed he uses the word "firstfruits," saying, "Who is the Firstfruits, the Firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence," showing that the rest also are such as He; but in the former place it is not the "Firstfruits" of creation. And it is there, "The Image of the invisible God," and then, "Firstborn."

The prophet Elias also, in the third book of Kings: "I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts, because the children of Israel have forsaken Thee, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I only am left, and they seek my life to take it away." On account of these impieties of theirs He cast them off for ever; and so He ceased to send to them prophets. But He commanded His own Son, the first-begotten, the maker of all things, His own counsellor, to descend from heaven, that He might transfer the sacred religion of God to the Gentiles, that is, to those who were ignorant of God, and might teach them righteousness, which the perfidious people had cast aside.

"Firstborn of all creation" applied to his status before the emergence of the created order, whereas "firstborn from the dead" refers to the fact that he was raised first of all the brothers who will share in salvation. .

Having spoken of the dignity of the Son, he then speaks also of His love for mankind. For being above all, as Creator and Almighty, He united Himself with those below. And he did not say: the head "of the fullness of the church," but – "of the body," in order to show the reality of His kinship with us, that He took on the same flesh as ours, and did not bring it from heaven. For Paul used the word "Church" in the sense of the entire human race, as if saying: even by birth according to the flesh, He is the first among men, as the head.

"Firstfruits," he says, He is of the resurrection, as having risen before all. And since He loosed the pangs of death, naturally He is also called the firstborn. But as firstfruits, He also has followers after Him in the rest of mankind. For firstfruits are the firstfruits of something. And just as in one sheaf offered as firstfruits the entire harvest is blessed, so also we all through Him have been sanctified and brought to God, and in the resurrection of one body all of nature has been deemed worthy of resurrection.

"In all things," that is, in everything that we behold around Him. For He was both born from the Father before all, and is first among all as the Head of the Church, and rose before all as the firstfruits, having granted them incorruption. And there were those who rose before, but they died again. But He rose and does not die. And note, "firstborn" here is as the firstfruits of the resurrection, because this is the same as a new birth; but there it does not say "firstfruits of creation," although He is the firstborn. For the mode of existence is not the same: He was begotten, while the creature was created.

After the Apostle commended Christ in his relationship to God and to all creatures, he here commends him in his relationship to the Church: first, in a general way; secondly, in particular, in reference to the Colossians (v. 21); and thirdly, in reference to himself (v. 23b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions Christ's relationship to the entire Church; and secondly, he explains this relationship (v. 18b).

He says therefore that Christ, the first-born among creatures, is the one in whom we have our redemption. But because he has been made the head of the Church, two things have to be explained: first, in what way the Church is a body; and secondly, how Christ is its head. The Church is called a body because of its likeness to a single human being. This likeness is twofold: first, in that it has distinct members: "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11); secondly, because the members of the Church serve each other in ways that are different: "The members may have the same care for one another" (1 Cor 12:25); "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). Again, just as a body is one because its soul is one, so the Church is one because the Spirit is one: "There is one body and one Spirit" (Eph 4:4); "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor 10:17). Next we have to consider the relationship of the members to the head of the Church, i.e., to Christ. For Christ is the head of the Church. "But you, O Lord, are the lifter of my head" (Ps 3:3).

He explains what it means to be a head, saying, he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead. The head has three privileges over the other members of the body. First, it is superior in dignity, because it is a source and a ruler. Secondly, it has the fulness of the senses, which are all in the head. Thirdly, it is the source of an inflow of sense and movement to the members of the body. So first, Paul shows how Christ is head because of his dignity; secondly, because of the fulness of his grace (v. 19); and thirdly, because of an inflow from him (v. 20).

The Church exists in two states: the state of grace in the present time, and the state of glory in the future. But it is the same Church, and Christ is its head in both states, because he is the first in grace and the first in glory. With respect to the first he says, he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, because he is not only first in grace insofar as he is a man, but all men are justified by faith in Christ: "By one man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). So he says, he is the beginning, that is, the beginning or source of justification and grace in the entire Church; because even in the Old Testament some were justified by faith in Christ: "I am the beginning who am speaking to you" (Jn 8:25); "With you is the beginning" (Ps 110:3). Christ is also the beginning of the state of glory; and so he says, the first-born from the dead. The reason for this is that the resurrection from the dead is a kind of second birth, because it restores us to eternal life: "In the rebirth, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne" (Mt 19:28); but Christ is the first of all; and thus he is the first-born from the dead, that is, the first-born of those who are born by the resurrection.

But what about Lazarus (Jn 11)? I answer that he and some others did not rise to the above mentioned immortal life, but to a mortal life; but "Christ, having risen from the dead, will never die again" (Rom 6:9); "Jesus Christ, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth" (Rev 1:5); "Christ has risen from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor 15:20). And this is so that in everything he might be pre-eminent: pre-eminent in the gifts of grace, because he is the beginning; and pre-eminent in the gifts of glory, because he is the first-born: "In every nation I have had first place" (Sir 24:10).

This also confirms the truth of this confession of ours that, while it is the actual natural flesh and no other which will rise, yet it will rise purged from its faults and having laid aside its corruption, so that the saying of the apostle is true: "It is sown in corruption; it will be raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it will be raised in glory; it is sown a natural body, it will be raised a spiritual body." Inasmuch then as it is a spiritual body, and glorious, and incorruptible, it will be furnished and adorned with its own proper members, not with members taken from elsewhere, according to that glorious image of which Christ is set forth as the perpetual type…. [indeed] in reference to our hope of the resurrection, Christ is set forth all through as the archetype, since he is the firstborn of those who rise, and since he is the head of every creature.