The encomium in Colossians 1:15–20 presents Christ Jesus as inaugurating a new political-religious order, reconciling God’s heavenly rule with earthly governance. Paul, writing to Gentiles from a Jewish-apostolic perspective, views Jesus’ resurrection as the start of this transformation, where Christ now reigns as king over both spiritual and earthly powers. The “fullness” dwelling in Christ signifies divine authority for reconciling all things through his death, anticipating a future unified kingdom. Believers share in this fullness and embody the new order. The warning against being robbed by “philosophy” critiques a Judaized tradition, not Greek thought, undermining the eschatological hope for gentile inclusion.
My argument about the other encomium, in Colossians 1:15-20, is that it makes Christ Jesus the beginning of a new political-religious order, in which government in heaven and government on earth have been reconciled.1
Hitherto the rule of God and rule over the nations of the Greek-Roman world have been in conflict, at odds with each other. God is king in heaven, but pagan kings rule on earth. That fundamental division will—sooner or later—be overcome in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom has been given the authority to rule over the kings of the earth from heaven. This will be such a far-reaching transformation of the ancient world that it is described as a new creation. We have come to know it as Christendom—for all the problems, historical and theological, which such a hermeneutical leap backwards produces.
The political context
What then does the author of Colossians (let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is Paul) mean, given this eschatological framework, when he says that “in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell” and “in him dwells all the fullness of what is divine bodily” (1:19; 2:9)?
As with the Philippians encomium, I think it is important to recognise that this is written from the perspective of the apostolic proclamation concerning the unseen heavenly Lord who will be judge and ruler of the pagan nations. That situational perspective has a bearing on how we reconstruct the christology of Colossians. The interpretive pressures that bear upon the text are historical, not theological.
I think that we should also assume that Paul is writing self-consciously as a Jewish apostle to a predominantly gentile community. This determines the “we” and “you” dynamic in the letter. So roughly speaking, we Jewish believers in Jesus have been delivered “out of the dominion of darkness and removed to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins”; and you gentile believers have been qualified unexpectedly (this is the “mystery”) and very controversially to share in this inheritance (Col. 1:12-14, 26-27).
The political theme—the argument about government and kingdom—runs through chapters one and two and is the ground for the practical teaching in chapters three and four.
- The believers have been relocated from the authority of darkness to the kingdom of the “beloved Son” (1:13).
- As “firstborn of every creature” and “firstborn from the dead” he is Israel’s king, the “ruler of kings on earth” (cf. Ps. 89:26-27; Rev. 1:5).
- At his resurrection, a whole new political order was created in him encompassing earth and heaven: “the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or sovereignties or authorities” (1:16*). This is not the “all things” of the original creation of the heavens and the earth; it is much more narrowly conceived in terms of kingdom.
- The formerly pagan Colossians have “received the Christ”—the Davidic messiah, the root of Jesse, who is Jesus the Lord (2:6; cf. Rom. 1:3-4; 15:12).
- This “Christ” is the king seated “at the right hand of God,” who is now hidden but who will in due course appear in glory—at the parousia, when he is finally confessed as Lord by the nations of the region encompassed by the apostolic mission.
In him all the fullness was pleased to dwell
Jesus will have this political-religious pre-eminence in the coming new world because “in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell and through him to reconcile all things to him, making peace through the blood of his cross, through him whether things on earth or things in the heavens” (1:19-20*).
This is the first statement about the indwelling of the fullness (plērōma). I take it that the reconciliation of “all things” and the “making peace” have to do with the political disunity, in the first place: through his execution by Rome, the divorce between rule in heaven and rule on earth has been overcome.
But the future reconciliation of authorities and powers, etc., has been concretely anticipated in the present in the reconciliation of once alienated and hostile gentiles “in the body of his flesh through death” (1:22*). Paul’s commission as an apostle is to teach these gentile believers how to fulfil this function (1:25-29). They are, therefore, to walk in Christ, be rooted and built up in him, etc. (2:6-7). They must learn how to be a prophetic embodiment of the sweeping political-religious reconciliation to come.
The “philosophy” of Judaism
The second plērōma statement is attached to a warning against being “robbed through philosophy and empty deceit according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ” (2:8*).
Take care lest anyone will rob you through philosophy and empty deceit according to the traditions of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ, because in him dwells all the fullness of what is divine bodily (pan to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs), and you have in him been filled, who is the head of all sovereignty and authority; in whom also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of the Christ, being buried together with him in the baptism, in which also you were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead; and you being dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive-together with him, having forgiven us all the trespasses; having wiped out the bond against us in decrees, which was opposed to us, and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross; having stripped the sovereignties and authorities, he exposed them publicly, leading them in triumph in him/it. (Col. 2:8-15*)
What they risk being robbed of is their inheritance in the future united kingdom, so to speak, of Jesus. I am inclined to agree with Barth and Blanke that it is not Greek philosophy that puts their inheritance at risk but Judaism presented to the Greeks as a philosophy.2 Eleazar says to Antiochus Epiphanes:
Therefore do not suppose that it would be a petty sin if we were to eat defiling food. To transgress the law in matters small or great is of equal seriousness, for in either case the law is equally despised. You scoff at our philosophy as though our living by it were not sensible. (4 Macc. 5:19-22)
Philo speaks of the “philosophy of the fathers,” the “Jewish philosophy,” the “philosophy according to Moses” (Embassy. 156; 245; Dreams 2 127; Names 223; cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.47). This “philosophy” finds expression in the Jewish practices, the “human instructions and doctrines,” deprecated in Colossians 2:16-23.
The churches are part of the solution
We have the thought again, in this passage, that the community has also been “filled” in Christ, who is “the head of all sovereignty and authority” (2:10*). So whatever it means exactly for the “fullness of what is divine” to dwell in Jesus, it is something that believers secondarily share in. It may consist in the being raised with him “through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead,” and in being “made alive together with him.” But presumably, too, it has something to do with their relation to Christ as the one through whom rule in heaven and rule on earth will be recombined. The churches are part of the solution to the long-standing political-religious schism.
We also have the prayer in Ephesians that the believers may be “strengthened with power through the Spirit,” so that “Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith…, that you may be filled with all the fullness (plērōma) of God” (Eph. 3:17-19). So the fullness of God dwells in Christ, who dwells in believers, who are thereby filled with the fullness of God; and the connection with the kingdom theme is easily established:
And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Eph. 1:22-23)
The fullness of what is divine
The precise sense of theotēs (“divinity”) is difficult to determine, to be sure. It is not part of the vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism. It is used in the early post-apostolic period seemingly to connote a sharable or communicable aspect or attribute of divinity rather than the being or person of God as such. It may characterise divine speech (Apoc. Sedr. 2:5; 7:10; 15:1), or divine matters generally, or divine spirit (Herm. Mand. 40:4-6; 43:5, 10, 14). It appears frequently in later patristic literature.
According to Plutarch (c. AD 40-120), however, some philosophers believed in a transmutation of persons: “from humans into heroes and from heroes into demi-gods the better souls undergo their transition; and from demi-gods, a few, after a long period of purification, share totally in divinity (theotētos)” (Mor. 415bc). And in Lucian’s satirical work Icaromenippus, or the Sky-Man, Menippus says that people have drawn distinctions between the gods, “calling one a first god and ascribing to others second and third rank in divinity (theiotētos)” (Lucian, Icaromenippus 9).
Basically, theotēs conveys a Greek notion of what is divine. Notice that Paul says that the Greeks should have perceived the “divine nature” (theiotēs) of the creator God, who the Davidic messiah from the dead, in “the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:20)..3
So I would give conceptual priority to the Jewish apocalyptic narrative about the eventual rule of a Davidic king over the nations, by which the fractured political sphere would be repaired. Jesus taught his disciples to pray that the fractured political sphere of the government of Israel would be repaired: “your kingdom come… on earth as in heaven.” Paul has extended this eschatological hope to the whole of the Greek-Roman world, and the phrase “all the fullness of what is divine” expresses just that extension.
Stauffer says that the one God of the Old Testament “has attracted to Himself all divine power in the cosmos, and on the early Christian view He has given this fulness of power to Christ as the Bearer of the divine office.”4
Yes and no. Yes, the myriad Greek notions of what constitutes the divine have been fully taken over by the God of Israel, who is God not of the Jews only but also of the gentiles (Rom. 3:29). But this fullness indwells the crucified and resurrected Christ for the limited purpose of rule over the nations in the midst of enemies, until the last enemy has been destroyed (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28).
Paul is saying that what is conceived in prodigious diversity by the Greeks as “divinity” is fully engaging, bodily, in the person of Jesus, in the eschatological reinvention of the Greek world. It is a very early step in the long journey from the Jewish apocalyptic story about Israel and the nations to the Greek reimagining of the eternal relation between the persons of the trinity.
- 1
Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God: The Pre-existence of the Exalted Christ in Paul. See chapter 9: “The Colossians Encomium and the Beginning of a New World Order.”
- 2
Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke. Colossians. Anchor Yale Bible (1974), 308-309.
- 3
Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (1971), 99, says that ‘The term “deity” (θεότης) should be distinguished from “divine nature” (θειότης). The term “divine nature” (θειότης) describes the character of God, divinity. The term “deity” (θεότης) describes the quality of being divine.’ I’m not sure that distinction can really be sustained.
- 4
TDNT 3.119 s.v. theotēs.
Nice article, which gives me some meat to chew on for a while:-)
You expressed doubt about whether Lohse’s distinction can be maintained, and I think you are wise to do so.
About a century ago, H.S. Nash addressed the supposed distinction, and said that “so far as regards philosophical usage, the two words are practically identical in meaning.” He also thoughtfully observed that, “If the two terms had ever divided the field of theological statement and definition between them, it would not have been possible for one of them [theotes] to practically drive the other [theiotes] out of use. The fact that this happened plainly suggests the conclusion that the two terms covered a common field, that they fought for existence, and that [theotes] triumphed.”. “(H. S. Nash, “θειότης”—θεότης”, Rom. i. 20; Col. ii. 9,” JBL 18 (1899), 1-34.
Thanks. Nash may be right, but in principle the two terms could have had different meanings in the first century when Judaism wasn’t much interested in either term, but then theotēs became the preferred term for trinitarian theorising and theiotēs went out out of fashion along with Greek paganism.
First, Nash himself acknowledges that theotēs became the dominant term precisely because of its closer etymological association with theos—God Himself—and not merely “divinity” as an abstract quality. Even if the initial philosophical usage exhibited some overlap between theiotēs and theotēs, the triumph of theotēs in Christian theological language was not arbitrary but reflected an increasing need for terminological precision in expressing the unique and essential deity of Christ. Nash’s observation that theotēs “drove out” theiotēs indicates not semantic redundancy but an organic development toward greater clarity: when the theological stakes were highest—especially in the formulation of Christological doctrine—the Church gravitated to the term that conveyed divine essence most unmistakably. This is precisely why Christian authors such as Paul would have selected theotēs for Colossians 2:9, where the fullness of deity, not merely divine attributes, must be confessed as dwelling bodily in Christ.
Moreover, contemporary scholarly authorities who are fully aware of Nash’s work—such as J. Stafford Wright (NIDNTT) and Gerhard Schneider (EDNT)—continue to affirm a meaningful distinction between theotēs and theiotēs. Lexicographical sources like BAGD and TDNT, while acknowledging overlap, still discern a semantic nuance: theiotēs pertains to “divinity” or “divine nature” as a quality, whereas theotēs indicates “deity” or “Godhead” in the stronger, essential sense. If Nash’s study had indeed conclusively demonstrated the absolute synonymy of the terms, it would be inexplicable why such distinguished modern lexicons, even after extensive review of philological data, persist in maintaining the distinction. It is not credible to dismiss the testimony of successive generations of Greek scholars, many of whom critically engage Nash’s material, in favor of an outdated and overly broad interpretation of philosophical usage.
Further, Nash’s occasional appeal to pagan usage, where theotēs might be applied even to lesser beings like demons, does nothing to diminish the theological significance of its Christian application. In pagan polytheism, theos itself was ascribed indiscriminately to many false deities; yet within the monotheistic framework of Jewish-Christian revelation, such linguistic promiscuity was purified and reoriented to express the exclusive and incommunicable divine being of the one true God. Therefore, the critical question is not how pagans used theotēs, but how inspired Christian authors, writing under the strict monotheistic presuppositions of Second Temple Judaism, employed the term. Within the canonical context of Colossians 2:9, theotēs unmistakably refers to the absolute deity of Christ, not merely to the possession of divine attributes.
It must also be stressed that even Nash, while challenging the degree of distinction made by some scholars, does not argue that theotēs in Colossians 2:9 signifies anything less than full deity. His contention pertains more to the supposed philosophical origins and their influence on Christian terminology, not to a reduction of Christ’s divine status. When pressed, Nash admits that theotēs carries a more logically precise connotation of deity proper, thus undermining any claim that Paul’s use of theotēs could be comfortably reconciled with a sub-divine Christology. Indeed, in the Christian context, Nash’s evidence supports, rather than weakens, the claim that theotēs communicates the full possession of the divine essence.
Finally, the theological reading of Colossians 2:9 must be governed by the immediate and broader context of Pauline theology. In Colossians itself, the same Christ who embodies the fullness of deity is the agent of cosmic reconciliation (Col. 1:19–20), the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), and the one in whom “all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). Such attributes are not fitting for a creature or even for a semi-divine being but belong solely to one who is fully consubstantial with God. The application of theotēs to Christ thus not only coheres with but demands a confession of his essential deity, consistent with the Trinitarian faith of the Church.
The attempt to reinterpret Colossians 2:9 within a merely political-eschatological framework fundamentally distorts both the lexical precision of the apostolic language and the theological force of Paul’s Christology. The reduction of the “fullness” (pleroma) to a symbol of political-religious reconciliation, rather than an assertion of Christ’s divine essence, collapses under closer exegetical, linguistic, and theological scrutiny.
First, the suggestion that Colossians 2:9 expresses only an eschatological anticipation of restored political unity overlooks the weight of the specific vocabulary employed by Paul. The apostle does not say merely that a fullness of authority or a fullness of office dwells in Christ. He states that the fullness of the θεότης—the full and undiminished divine being—dwells bodily in Him. It is a grave hermeneutical error to subordinate the clear metaphysical assertion of θεότης to an incidental political theme. Even if Paul engages with the theme of cosmic reconciliation, the means by which this reconciliation is achieved is by the indwelling of the entirety of God’s own being in Christ. Without the ontological reality of divine fullness, the political dimension has no eschatological efficacy; the reconciliation of heaven and earth can only proceed from one who is fully and essentially divine.
The argument that θεότης reflects only a “Greek notion” of divinity, a vague engagement with Hellenistic religious thought, fundamentally misrepresents the linguistic and theological precision of Paul’s choice of terms. Paul, a Pharisee educated under Gamaliel and steeped in Jewish monotheism, employs θεότης precisely because he intends to affirm the ontological divinity of Christ, not merely to echo pagan ideas of divine qualities. As Eduard Lohse and many others correctly observe, θεότης denotes “the quality of being divine,” and in the context of Second Temple Judaism—where Paul’s mind was deeply rooted—there was an absolute conceptual gap between creature and Creator. To ascribe θεότης bodily to a man would have been, in Jewish categories, blasphemous—unless that man truly shared in the one divine essence.
Furthermore, the claim that “fullness” here refers only to delegated power or function misconstrues both the broader context of Colossians and the theology of divine attributes. According to the great patristic and scholastic tradition God’s essence and attributes are identical (simplicitas Dei). Thus, if Christ possesses the fullness of divine attributes, He necessarily possesses the fullness of the divine essence itself. It is impossible, under a sound metaphysical account of divinity, to have the “fullness of deity” without possessing true and complete deity.
The reference to Ephesians 3:19, suggesting that believers “share” in this fullness, does not reduce Christ’s possession of θεότης to a mere participatory model. Believers are filled “with” the fullness of God derivatively, by grace and adoption. Christ, by contrast, possesses the fullness “in bodily form” as an intrinsic, essential reality. This distinction between communicatio gratiarum (communication of graces) and communicatio naturae (communication of nature) is essential: the faithful participate in divine life through grace; Christ possesses divine life by nature.
Moreover, the idea that θεότης is a late post-apostolic concept or that early usage implies a “shareable” divinity mischaracterizes the evidence. Plutarch’s usage of theotēs for the process of deification in Greek philosophy cannot be imposed onto Paul’s strict Jewish monotheistic theology. Paul’s usage must be interpreted against the backdrop of Jewish refusal to attribute divine nature to any creature. In this light, Colossians 2:9 represents a deliberate, startling affirmation that the fullness of what makes God God—His being, His life, His holiness, His authority—inhabits Christ bodily. No mere exalted creature could bear such a claim without blasphemy.
Finally, the attempt to historicize the theological development, portraying the Trinitarian understanding of θεότης as a “later Greek reimagining,” betrays a profound misunderstanding of the organic development of doctrine. The recognition of Christ’s full divinity in the post-apostolic age was not a deviation from apostolic teaching but its faithful explication under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church’s dogmatic formulations at Nicaea and Chalcedon were not inventions but necessary clarifications of the primitive apostolic witness, already latent in the New Testament and especially crystallized in high Christological passages like Colossians 2:9.
Therefore, the assertion that Paul’s use of θεότης in Colossians 2:9 simply denotes Christ’s political role, or that it reflects only a shareable “fullness of divinity” suitable for a created being, collapses under the combined weight of lexical evidence, Jewish theological context, and the historical witness of the Church. Paul proclaims Christ as fully God, dwelling bodily among us, inaugurating not merely a new political arrangement but the definitive manifestation of the divine presence in the incarnate Son, who remains consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit for all eternity.
To deny the full divinity of Christ in Colossians 2:9 is, therefore, not merely an exegetical error, but a radical departure from the apostolic faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
Recent comments