The deceptive Trinitarian "fullness" of Col 2:9

[Magdalenbrother]

1. The word "Deity" or "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In a Greek English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it is translated "divinity, divine nature". In making their case, Liddel and Scott cite Greek authors Plutarch and Lucian and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase dia theotheta=for religious reasons. The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to try to build a case for it meaning "God" or "Godhread" (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture.There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting them to redefine the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit with no measure, and God gave him authority on earth to heal, cast demons, forgive sins, etc. Thus it makes perfect sense that Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the divine nature dwelling in him. In fact the same thing is said about every CHRISTIAN (2 Pe 3:14).



2. The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also just have a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about the "fullness of God the Father" because, by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore the verse is not talking about Christ being God, but about God in some way providing Christ with fullness. What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians : "God was pleased to have all his fulnes dwell in him." That is true. John 3:4 adds the clarification: "For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit."



3. The fact that Christ has "all the fullness" of God doesn't make him God. Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians should be filled with "all the fullness of God", and no orthodox Christian believes that would make each Christian God.



4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 1 Pe 1:4 says that by way of God's great and precious promises we may "partake of the divine nature" (consortes divinae naturae). Having a divine nature does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God.



5. If this verse were talking about the Incarnation, it would say something like "the Godhead assumed the fullness of the human nature in Jesus Christ", but the very wording of Col 2:9 shows that Paul's perspective is completely different: he is describing a man in whom God was pleased to dwell through his Spirit.

[themuzicman]

Your interpretation of Col 2:9 leaves much to be desired.

plhrow has the semantic meaning of "complete" or "fulfilled" or "filled".

qeotos like agaphtos forms what we might call an adjectival noun, adjective in form, but noun in force. The latter is "beloved", the former "God head" or "deity" or "divinity". Either way, they carry the force of their roots, "God" and "love".

Thus, what Col 2:9 is telling us is that in Christ dwelt the completeness of deity, fully God... more simply stated, He is wholly God, even as He is wholly man.

Michael

[Athanasius]

This verse is not telling us that the fullness of the Father and the Holy Spirit dwells in Jesus, although I believe that is true, too. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of deity is inbodied in Christ. This is an important distinction. In other words, He himself has all of the full attributes of deity in His very self. He is not a notch below complete Godhood in His nature, he is fully divine.

[Magdalenbrother]

This verse is not telling us that the fullness of the Father and the Holy Spirit dwells in Jesus, although I believe that is true, too. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of deity is inbodied in Christ. This is an important distinction. In other words, He himself has all of the full attributes of deity in His very self. He is not a notch below complete Godhood in His nature, he is fully divine.
The present tense of "kat-oikei" poses an interesting translation problem, which is also a theological problem: is it a descriptive present or a gnomic present? In other words should we translate Col 2:9 as

In him all the fullness of the divine nature is (presently) dwelling bodily (descriptive present)

or

All the fullness of the divine nature dwells in him (gnomic present)

Apparently Athanasius seems to think that it is a descriptive present, but I think that what we have here is a gnomic present: Paul tells us a general truth about JX: he is the one in whom the superabundance of divinity dwells bodily.

Obviously Paul knows nothing of a pre-incarnated Jesus. :sigh:

One wonders why Paul insists on the fact that the dwelling is somatikos: did people ignore that Jesus was a human being? But the context shows that some believers among the Colossians were beginning to revere angels, maybe some of them even thought that Jesus himself was an angel. So Paul had to remind his readers that Jesus was indeed a human, not a celestial, being. All this has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnation.

I strongly object to a translation like the one suggested by Athanasius:

In him the fullness of the Godhead is embodied presently (ascended form!!!).

Evidently, this an attempt to transform Col 2:9 into an echo of "kai Logos sarx egeneto" mistranslated as "the Word became flesh", but which should be rendered as "the Logos manifested itself in a human being".

"Kat-oikei(oikos=house)" is the verb and soma-tikos an adverb of manner: the dwelling is in a human form. There is no becoming or transformation involved. The presence of divinity in Jesus is comparable to the presence of God in the tabernacle in the Temple.

Which leads to the conclusion that we are not going to make sense of this passage unless we realize its real background: a comparison with (outdated?)modes of divine presence (Temple). To try to find an Incarnation theology here is as absurd as to try to find it in Philippians 2:6, the background of which is the tale of the temptation of Man in Genesis.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I think that what we have here is a gnomic present: Paul tells us a general truth about JX: he is the one in whom the superabundance of divinity dwells bodily.Well, that makes it a descriptive present, too! A general truth is true now, at this moment…

… the context shows that some believers among the Colossians were beginning to revere angels, maybe some of them even thought that Jesus himself was an angel. So Paul had to remind his readers that Jesus was indeed a human, not a celestial, being. All this has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnation.I think the mention of "bodily" does reference the Incarnation, though, how could it not bring this association to mind?

But the main point is that all the fullness of the godhead is in Jesus now, implying that he is indeed, God.

Blessings,
Lee

[Athanasius]

Hi everyone,

Well, that makes it a descriptive present, too! A general truth is true now, at this moment…

I think the mention of "bodily" does reference the Incarnation, though, how could it not bring this association to mind?

But the main point is that all the fullness of the godhead is in Jesus now, implying that he is indeed, God.

Blessings,
Lee
Sure, it could be a gnomic present, but as Lee pointed out, as a general truth, that would include not only the past, but the present, too. If so, Somatikos therefore must not be thought of as refering only to the incarnate fleshly human body of Jesus. It must include his exalted and ascended body, too.

Thayer's Lexicon tells us that this word denotes "his exalted and spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven." Thayer was a Unitarian, so you can't accuse him of exhibiting Trinitarian bias here. Perhaps Thayer did not realize the implications of this verse, for most scholars today believe that the word here translated Godhead in the AV should be translated divinity instead. The meaning of the verse therefore is striking: Christ has all of the fullness of divinity inbodied in his very self. (note that I am using the coined term "inbodied" rather than "embodied," since the sense of somatikos here is that divinity is fully manifested in the exalted body of Jesus.