I found that Matt Slick used Colossians 2:9 to support the doctrine that Jesus was God in flesh because it states that the fullness of the "deity" dwells in him, (B.B. Warfield) “that which makes God, God.” According to him Jesus was God in the flesh and this term(i.e. theotes) is proving he is the second person of the Tri-unity.[1] According to Thayer's Lexicon, the Greek word θεότης means "deity, i.e. the state of being God." The BAGD Lexicon defines this term "divine nature, deity, divinity" (pg. 358). And Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon also defines the·o′tes in basically the same way it does thei·o′tes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” p. 792 [2]
In the preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col 1:19) Thus, all the fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father.
Scholar A. T. Robertson says:
All the fulness (pan to pleroma). The same idea as in Col 2:9 pan to pleroma tes theotetos(all the fulness of the Godhead). “A recognized technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes” (Lightfoot)
1. Matt Slick is a President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988. He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991. He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family. He is ordained. Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet. See: Colossians 2:9 and the CARM
2. Thayer's Lexicon and Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon
3. Bible Translation and Study pages 69-70; Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pages 158-60.
4. Milton entitled his book, A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone. In its preface, he wrote: “Most authors who have dealt with this subject . . . have relegated to the margin, with brief reference to chapter and verse, the scriptural texts upon which all that they teach is utterly dependent. I, on the other hand, have striven to cram my pages even to overflowing, with quotations drawn from all parts of the Bible.” True to Milton’s word, On Christian Doctrine alludes to or quotes the Scriptures over 9,000 times.
In the preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col 1:19) Thus, all the fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father.
Is the "fullness" in this verse the same "fullness" mentioned in Colossians 2:9? Methodist commentator Adam Clarke believes so. Commenting on Colossians 1:19, he remarks:
"The πληρωμα, or fullness, must refer here to the divine nature dwelling in Jesus Christ."
"The πληρωμα, or fullness, must refer here to the divine nature dwelling in Jesus Christ."
All the fulness (pan to pleroma). The same idea as in Col 2:9 pan to pleroma tes theotetos(all the fulness of the Godhead). “A recognized technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes” (Lightfoot)
Greg Stafford makes a point:
The Scriptures will not sustain the view that Almighty God's powers and attributes are something contingent upon the "will" or "decree" of another. Such is the case, however, with the fullness belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. God "chose" (Goodspeed),"decided" (Beck), "willed" (Moffatt) to have all His attributes displayed in the person of His Son.
Stafford continues:
However, it is actually uncommon in reading through different commentaries and articles that discuss issues connected with 1:19 and 2:9 to find a scholar who tries to disconnect what is said in the two passages. This is likely because they do not see the problem involved in the use of eudokeo (the verb translated 'to please'). [3]
If Christ were God the same as the Father, he would have all the fullness of deity of his own right, not because of a decision taken by someone else. It would make no sense to say that Jesus is God, but it was the Father's decision that all the fullness of deity dwelt in him. And if he never ceased being God, he would always have the fullness of deity. Of course, regardless of whether we understand Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 to be talking about the same thing, Colossians 1:19 presents great difficulties for Trinitarians. Whatever the plerotes mentioned in that verse is, how come Christ received it? And what was his position before receiving it? How does that affect his supposed equality with God?
Milton makes this comment:
"These passages most clearly evince that Christ has received his fullness from God, in the sense in which we shall receive our fullness from Christ. It is of no weight in proving that Christ is of the same essence with God." —John Milton, On Christian Doctrine. [4]
_______________________________________________________________If Christ were God the same as the Father, he would have all the fullness of deity of his own right, not because of a decision taken by someone else. It would make no sense to say that Jesus is God, but it was the Father's decision that all the fullness of deity dwelt in him. And if he never ceased being God, he would always have the fullness of deity. Of course, regardless of whether we understand Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 to be talking about the same thing, Colossians 1:19 presents great difficulties for Trinitarians. Whatever the plerotes mentioned in that verse is, how come Christ received it? And what was his position before receiving it? How does that affect his supposed equality with God?
Milton makes this comment:
"These passages most clearly evince that Christ has received his fullness from God, in the sense in which we shall receive our fullness from Christ. It is of no weight in proving that Christ is of the same essence with God." —John Milton, On Christian Doctrine. [4]
1. Matt Slick is a President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988. He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991. He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family. He is ordained. Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet. See: Colossians 2:9 and the CARM
2. Thayer's Lexicon and Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon
3. Bible Translation and Study pages 69-70; Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pages 158-60.
4. Milton entitled his book, A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone. In its preface, he wrote: “Most authors who have dealt with this subject . . . have relegated to the margin, with brief reference to chapter and verse, the scriptural texts upon which all that they teach is utterly dependent. I, on the other hand, have striven to cram my pages even to overflowing, with quotations drawn from all parts of the Bible.” True to Milton’s word, On Christian Doctrine alludes to or quotes the Scriptures over 9,000 times.
https://www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col2_9.htm
ReplyDeleteThe argument made here claims that Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9 present a problem for the Trinitarian view because the fullness of deity in Christ is portrayed as something given to Him by the Father. If Christ were fully God by nature, the fullness of deity should be intrinsic to Him and not dependent on the Father’s will.
Response: This argument misunderstands the distinction between Christ’s eternal divinity and His incarnational role within the economy of salvation. In Colossians 1:19, Paul speaks of God’s pleasure that the fullness of divinity would dwell in Christ during His incarnation, a point which emphasizes that, in His human nature, Christ was the perfect revelation of God. This is not a statement of subordination in His divinity but refers to Christ’s mission as the incarnate Word.
Colossians 2:9, on the other hand, emphasizes that in Christ “the whole fullness of deity” (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) dwells bodily (σωματικῶς). The term THEOTĒS refers to the essence of divinity, which is permanent and complete in Christ. There is no notion here that this fullness was something externally added to Christ in His divine nature—it was always present, but its full revelation was made manifest in His incarnate form.
Moreover, the distinction between Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 can be understood in light of Christ’s dual nature:
Colossians 1:19 speaks of the fullness dwelling in Christ according to His human role as mediator.
Colossians 2:9 affirms the fullness of deity that inherently belongs to Christ and is fully present in Him bodily.
Thus, the Father’s “pleasure” in Colossians 1:19 refers to the divine economy—the way in which God chose to reveal Himself through Christ’s incarnation—not a statement about Christ’s inherent deity or essence.
The text argues that if the fullness of divinity in Christ depends on the Father’s will, then Christ cannot be God in the same way the Father is God, implying that His deity is somehow lesser or contingent.
Response: This argument fails to grasp the Trinitarian relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as the eternal begetting of the Son. In Trinitarian theology, the Father eternally generates the Son, meaning the Son’s divinity and fullness are eternally derived from the Father, but this does not imply subordination or inferiority. The Father and the Son share the same divine essence, and their relational distinctions do not compromise their equality in divinity.
When Colossians 1:19 speaks of the Father’s pleasure in having the fullness dwell in Christ, this is a statement about the divine economy, where the Father sends the Son in the incarnation. It reflects the role of the Son in His mission on earth, not His ontological status as God. The fullness of divinity always belonged to Christ (John 1:1), but in the incarnation, the fullness of deity is now expressed “bodily” (Colossians 2:9).
The argument cites Greg Stafford and John Milton, suggesting that THEOTĒS (θεότης) does not necessarily indicate equality with God because Christ's divinity is something He received from the Father. Moreover, it points to the fact that THEOTĒS is sometimes used in philosophical literature to refer to lesser beings like demons.
ReplyDeleteResponse: While it is true that THEOTĒS (θεότης) can have broader applications in Greek literature, including references to lesser beings or even demons, Paul’s use of the term in Colossians 2:9 is specific and theologically significant. In Colossians 2:9, Paul uses THEOTĒS to describe the divine essence—the state of being God. This interpretation is supported by Thayer’s Lexicon and BAGD Lexicon, which both define THEOTĒS as referring to the state of being God, not simply having divine qualities.
This is further evidenced by the fact that Paul uses “fullness” (πλήρωμα) to describe the totality of divinity present in Christ, not just divine attributes or qualities. The term πλήρωμα conveys that everything that makes God who He is dwells in Christ. Therefore, this verse affirms that Christ possesses the fullness of divinity in an essential, not derivative, sense.
The fact that THEOTĒS is used in non-Christian philosophical contexts for lesser beings is irrelevant to Paul’s usage here. Christian theology often re-appropriates Greek terms, imbuing them with new, precise meanings. Paul’s theological context is key to understanding THEOTĒS as referring to the full divine nature of God in Christ.
The text claims that if Christ were truly God, He would not need to receive the fullness of deity, and that Colossians 1:19 contradicts the idea of His inherent divinity.
Response: The reception of the fullness in Colossians 1:19 pertains to Christ’s role as the incarnate Son and mediator between God and humanity, not His eternal divine nature. As A.T. Robertson and Lightfoot explain, the term πλήρωμα refers to the totality of divine powers and attributes. While Christ possessed this fullness eternally as the second person of the Trinity, in His incarnation, this fullness is manifested for the purpose of redemption.
The distinction being made is between the eternal Son, who always possesses the fullness of deity, and the incarnate Son, through whom that fullness is displayed in His human nature. Colossians 2:9 affirms that the fullness of deity dwells bodily in Christ, emphasizing that His humanity is the vessel through which the divine nature is revealed.
John Milton’s interpretation, cited in support of this argument, aligns more closely with Arianism, the belief that Christ was subordinate to the Father and not of the same essence. Milton’s views were rejected by orthodox Christianity as heretical, and his argument that Christ “received” His fullness from God in the same way believers do from Christ misunderstands the distinction between Christ’s unique sonship and our adoption as sons.
The Nicene Creed and the majority of Christian theology affirm that Christ is HOMOOUSIOS (of the same essence) with the Father, not a created or subordinate being who received divinity at some point in time.
In conclusion, the argument presented in this text misunderstands the theological relationship between the Father and the Son, and it fails to grasp the significance of Colossians 2:9. Christ possesses the fullness of divinity inherently, and this fullness was manifested bodily in His incarnation for the sake of humanity. The interpretation that Christ received this fullness from the Father in a contingent or subordinate sense is inconsistent with orthodox Trinitarian theology and fails to account for the eternal, divine nature of Christ as fully God.