The Pleroma (21) - Charles H. Welch

No.21. “All the Fullness of the 

Godhead Bodily-wise.” 

Three Greek words are translated “Godhead” in the N.T., namely, To Theion that which is divine, the thing pertaining to Theos. Theiotes, divinity, the characteristic property of Theos. That which is discernible from the works of creation, thereby making idolatry “without excuse” (Rom. i. 20) and Theotes. 

Theotes, Deity, the being in Whom Theiotes of the highest order resides (Col.ii. 9). 

The above is partly quoted from Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s Lexicon, and it agrees with the definitions given by Trench, Cremer, Lightfoot and most commentators. 

Those of us who believe the doctrine of the Deity of Christ naturally turn to Col. ii. 9 as to a proof text, but this may not be the right attitude of heart and mind when dealing with the sacred Scriptures. We do no honour to the Lord, if we misuse a portion of Scripture, even to prove or to enforce the glorious doctrine of His Deity. Truth needs no bolster. One of the reasons that caused us to hesitate about this use of Col. ii. 9 is that when we apply the principle given in I Cor. ii. 13 namely, that we speak not in the words of man’s wisdom, “but which the Holy Ghost teacheth”, and that we then go on to compare spiritual things with spiritual, we come up against a doctrinal difficulty. If the words “all the fullness” of the Godhead, prove the Deity of Christ, what do they prove in Eph. iii. 19. There, the prayer of the apostle is for the believer, that Christ may dwell, katoikeo, in their hearts by faith, and as a consequence that they may be “filled with (eis unto, with a view to) all the fullness of God”. If “all the fullness of Theotes” proves the Deity of Christ, should not “all the fullness of Theos” prove the Deity of the Church? To express the thought is to refute it. Such cannot be the meaning. In Col. i. 19 we meet the expression “all the fullness”, but there it is not followed, either by “God” or “Godhead”, yet this first reference must have a definite bearing upon the second reference found in Col. ii. 9. 

“For it pleased the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell pan to pleroma katoikedai” (Col. i. 19). 

We cannot expect to understand the reference in Col. ii. 9 if we ignore the earlier reference in Col. i. 19. They go together and constitute a united testimony. The first passage opens with redemption (Col. i. 14) and closes with “peace through the blood of His cross” (Col. i. 20). He Who created “all things, that are in heaven and that are in earth” (Col. i. 16) reconciled “all things, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Col. i. 20). We move from Creation to Reconciliation via the headship of the church which is His body, and the blessed fact that He Who was in the beginning “the firstborn of every creature” is revealed as being Himself “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead”. While the triumph of His resurrection is the feature that is stressed here, we believe we shall never understand the reference to “fullness” in Col. ii. 9 if we do not know the corresponding “emptying” of Phil. ii. In order to illustrate this approach we use the figure of Jacob’s ladder, being fully justified so to do by the reference made to it by the Lord Himself. 

In Gen. xxviii. we have the record of Jacob’s dream, wherein he saw a ladder set up on earth, and the top of it reached to heaven, “and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it” (Gen. xxviii. 12). In John i., Nathaniel is referred to by the Lord as “an Israelite indeed, in Whom is no guile” (John i. 47). The word translated “guile” is dolos and is used in the LXX of Gen. xxvii. 35, where Isaac tells Esau, “Thy brother came with subtilty (dolos) guile, and hath taken away thy blessing”. One cannot avoid seeing an oblique reference in John i. 47 to Jacob, an Israelite who was most certainly not without “guile”. However, that is by the way, our interest is more directly concerned with verse 51. 

“Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the ANGELS of God ASCENDING and DESCENDING upon the Son of Man” (John i. 51). 

Now observe, “fullness” is associated with Christ, in the fact that in order that He might FILL ALL THINGS, He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all heavens” (Eph. iv. 10). 

Returning to John i., we observe the following sequences of thought: 

“In the beginning was the Word . . . . . the Word was God.” 

“All things were made by Him.” 

“The Word was made flesh and dwelt (tabernacled, skenoo, not the permanent ‘dwelling’ katoikeo of Col. ii. 9) among us.” 

“Of His FULNESS have all we received.” 

“The angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

So in Col. i. 15-20, He Who was the “Image of the Invisible God” (compare John i. 1 and 18), Who created all things (see John i. 3) Who became also the Firstborn from the dead, Who is before all things (even as John the Baptist acknowledged, John i. 30), in Him, in the capacity, not only as Creator but as the Firstborn from the dead (thereby assuming the death of the cross), in that capacity and in no other way, was it pleasing to the Father that “in Him should all the fullness dwell”. It is for this reason, we find the word somatikos “bodily” in Col. ii. 9. This word has been translated by several commentators “bodily-wise”, as though the fullness could not dwell in Him in any other way. 

We spoke a little while ago about the fact that if Colossians speaks of the Saviour’s “Fullness”, the Philippians speaks of His voluntary self-emptying. Phil. ii. 6-11 has been given a fairly full exposition in the book entitled The Prize of the High Calling, and the reader would be advised to consult pages 75-111 of that volume. Here, we can deal with one item only, the meaning of the words “He made Himself of no reputation” (Phil. ii. 7). First of all we give the structure of verses 6-9. 

Here it will be observed “things in heaven, and things in earth” occurs as in Col. i. 16. 

“He made Himself of no reputation.” The A.V. has used the word “reputation” twice in Philippians, the second occurrence being at ii. 29, “hold such in reputation”. The R.V. has wisely omitted the word “reputation” in both passages, reading in ii. 7 “but emptied Himself”, and in ii. 29 “hold such in honour”, for two different Greek words are used. 

The change, however, while it makes some aspects of the truth clearer, introduces other problems for, to a modern mind, there is something strange about the idea of anyone “emptying himself”. In modern usage, empty places foremost in the mind the idea of a “jug without water”, “a room without furniture” & “empty vessels” (II Ki. iv. 3). These come naturally to mind. In order to avoid too crude an application of the figure of “emptying a vessel” when speaking of the Saviour’s humiliation, most of us slip into paraphrase and say “He divested Himself” of His dignity and insignia of Deity, but this is confessedly an attempt to avoid a problem. The verb keno is cognate with kenos “vain” and means “empty”. That the word has a wider application than that of emptying a vessel, such expressions as “seven empty ears” (Gen. xli. 27), “the sword of Saul returned not empty” (II Sam. i. 22) will show. 

Where kenos is translated “empty” in the A.V. of the N.T. it refers in the parable to the treatment of the servant by the wicked husbandmen, who sent him “empty away” (Mark xii. 3; Luke xx. 10, 11), and to “the rich” who were “sent empty away” (Luke i. 53); in most cases, however, kenos is translated “vain”, as for example, in Philippians itself “run in vain” and “labour in vain”, where it is evident that “empty” would have no meaning (Phil. ii. 16). 

The verb keno translated “to make of no reputation”, occurs 5 times in the Greek N.T. and the four occurrences other than that of Phil. ii. 7, render the word “make void”, “make none effect” and “be in vain” (Rom. iv. 14; I Cor. i. 17; ix. 15; II Cor. ix. 3). In Phil. ii. 3 we find the word kenodoxia “vain glory”. We remember with adoring wonder that in the Psalm of the Cross, we read “I am poured out like water” (Psa. xxii. 14). He did indeed “empty Himself”. The word translated “offer” in Phil. ii. 17 is found in the LXX of Gen. xxxv. 14, where Jacob revisited the scene of the “ladder”, which he re-named “Bethel”, and following his Master’s footsteps, faintly adumbrates that awful condescension which, for our sakes, left behind the glory of heaven, for the deep, deep humiliation of “the death of the cross”. 

Above the ladder is intimated “the glory that He had” before the world was. This must not be confused with the glory that was “given” Him, as the Man Christ Jesus, the One Mediator. We may, in resurrection behold the one, but “the glory which thou gavest Me” the Saviour said “I have given them, that they may be one, EVEN AS we are one” (John xvii. 22). We do not pretend to understand this profound revelation. We would add not one syllable of our own lest we spoil and corrupt such unearthly beauty; but we can bow our heads and our hearts in adoring wonder, as we perceive that this is implied in the word “fullness”, for the church of the One Body is revealed to be, 

“The fullness of Him, that filleth all in all” (Eph. i. 23). 

Here the church is one with the Lord. We see the wondrous descent seven steps down to the death of the cross. Here at the foot, on the earth He is seen as Emmanuel “God with us”. Here, it was fulfilled “He was numbered with the transgressors”. And by virtue of that most wondrous “reckoning”, He became our Surety. The word translated “surety” in the O.T. is the Hebrew word arab, which in the form arrabon is brought over into N.T. Greek, occurring in Eph. i. 14 as “earnest”. This word corresponds with “pledge” in Gen. xxxviii. 17, 18 “Wilt thou give me a pledge till thou send it?” The root idea appears to be that of mixing or mingling: 

“A mixed multitude” (Margin a great mixture) (Exod. xii. 38). 

“The holy seed have mingled themselves” (Ezra ix. 2). 

“A stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy” (Prov. xiv. 10). 

“In the warp or woof” (Lev. xiii. 48). 

Arising out of the idea of this mixing and interweaving comes that of a surety, who is so intimately associated with the obligations laid upon the one for whom he acts, that he can be treated in his stead. So we get: 

“Thy servant became surety for the law” (Gen. xliv. 32). 
“He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it” (Prov. xi. 15). 
“We have mortgaged our lands” (Neh. v. 3). 
“Give pledges to my lord the king” (II Kings xviii. 23). 

In Ezek. xxvii. 9, 27 we find the word translated “occupy” in the sense of exchanging or bartering. In the same way we understand the expression, “Occupy, till I come”, and still speak of a man’s trade as his “occupation”. 

Such is the underlying meaning of the word “surety”, one who identifies himself with another in order to bring about deliverance from obligations. This is clearly seen in Prov. xxii. 26, 27: “Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee?”. It is evident from this passage that the surety was held liable for the debts of the one whose cause he had espoused, even to the loss of his bed and this meant practically his all, as may be seen by consulting Exod. xxii. 26, 27, “If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down; for that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep?” Judah who became Surety for his brother Benjamin, gives us a picture of Christ’s Suretyship, saying to Joseph: 

“How shall I go up (ascend) to my father, and the lad be not WITH ME?” (Gen. xliv. 34). 

If poor erring Judah could enter like this into the meaning of Suretyship, how much more must our Saviour have done so. At the foot of the ladder, the transfer is made, and the first of the seven steps up to the glory of the right hand of God is made. The self-emptying on the one hand is compensated by all the fullness on the other, but that fullness would never have been attained had the Saviour not become man, a Man of flesh and blood, all the fullness dwells in Him “bodily-wise”. The church is the fullness of Him that filleth all in all. The goal and standard of that church is the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. The personal experimental climax of the faith is that each member shall be filled with (or unto) all the fullness of God. It is difficult, with these features so clearly set forth in Ephesians, to think that the same word “fullness” when dealt with in Colossians, a confessedly parallel epistle, should suddenly swing over to the doctrine of the deity of Christ. 

It may be that our attempt to explain Col. ii. 9 is so defective that the gleam of truth we saw at the commencement of this article has already become dimmed by our very effort to explain it. Shall we then, writer and reader, pause, put aside our lexicons, our concordances, our interpretations and follow in the footsteps of Asaph, who tells us that not until he went into the Sanctuary of God, did he understand. 

------------

(From The Berean Expositor vol. 44, page 208).
http://charleswelch.net/BE%20Vol%2044%20Final.pdf

-----------