Full Text for What is Meant by "All Fulness," Col. 1, 19? (Text)

(!tnurnr~iu UJqrnlngirul flnutlJly Continuing LEHRE UND VVEHRE MAGAZIN FUER EV.-LuTH. HOMILETlK THEOLOGICAL QU A.RTERL Y -THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vo1. IV May, 1933 No.5 CONTENTS FUERBRINGER, L.: Die pel'soenliche Weisheit Got tes ... . l'aa:e 321 I GRAEBNER, THEODORE: Buchmanism ... . . . .... . 329V'i WOHLFEIL, L. T.: What is Meant by ".All Fulness." Col. 1, 19? 339 HEERBOTH. L. Aug.: Exodus 6, 3 h. W as God Kll O W ll to the Plltriarchs as Jehovnh~ ... . ... . . . . . . . . .. . 345 KRETZMANN, P. E.: Das Commll Iohanneum. 1 Joh. 5.7 349 XRETZMANN. P. E.: Die H nuptschriften L uthers in cbro- nologischer Reihenfolge .................. ...... ...... 354 FRITZ, J. H. C.: The Theme of the Sermon. . . . . . . . . .. . ... 355 Dispositionen ueber die altkirchliche Epistelreihe . . '" . . 361 Miscellanea. . . ... .......................... . .. .. . ....... 369 Theologicnl Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches ..... , 374 Book Review. - Literatur 389 £ 111 .Prf'di~er mU<:: 3 n icht allt!in welden.. r .. b t hE'in Din;.:. dQ.'· die L1..Ut4~ meh r 11 It ..1;1' t'r li ll Schafe wlI c""wpi,t'>. wit: 1ft'! del' Ki rehe Iwlt.wIt d l III tl il ~\lt, it! r. ,t'ht e Ch~ j- t t>n oIleli ·jll , somiern Pn . 1i:.{t. - .Jpo(f)!1ip . .. 4rt . ~~ . !'Oil· Ilil S C,' I;lte niC!itt .mgl~it '].I UIld ll1it I I t ll< I r 1111V· t Kh t ,I Tl unc·,rhin llmd. t~h('t.(>r L ·hr- ll'rfuehrlln und l rrtllll! eill· wilt) ,.:h:.Jl\ ph.'pan,' hilll ... elf tr) the battle;- til( hr,,". - -1 If 1 Cor. l~. S. Published for the Ev. Luth. Syn od of liIi.:i80tlri, Ohio, alld Ol-her States CONC ORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis. M o. I What is Meant by "All Fulness," Col. 1, 19? 339 and of a sound mind. For what, if not to develop spiritual se1£- control? In point of fact, the doctrine of 'guidance' has greater mean- ing and dignity when we accept our God-given responsibility for the day's work than when we find it necessary to ask for instructions at every turn." One critic, quoted in the Lutheran, lists six "harmful features": 1) Oentering the thought on sin; 2) inculcating morbid introspec- tion; 3) overemphasis of sex problems; 4) insistence on listening for divine "guidance"; 5) substituting for intelligence emotional subconscious urging in relationship with our environment; G) a warp- ing of the personality of the individual. He thinks the Group dis- parages by implication the entire Ohristian ministry. The universal acclaim which the movement has received in the United States and Oanada is a token that the modernistic phase of church-life has lost its appeal. In a way it is a parallel to the Theology of Orisis,2) which has come as a rebound from the theology of the higher criticism. In both cases the cure may turn out to be as bad as the disease. THEODORE GRAEBNER. What is Meant by HAll Fulness," Col. 1, 19? The verse in question reads in the original: ~OTt tV aV'f1{> ,I;VOO"'1(J8Y niiv ,0 nJ.'!!!OJpa "a,ol"ijOai. The Authorized Version trans- lates: "For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell," while the Revised Version renders it: "For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell." The Vulgate eN estle, 5): "Quia in ipso cornplacuit, omnem pZeni- tudinem inhabitctre." Luther: "Denn es ist das TV ohZgefaZZen ge- wesen, dass in ilirn aZZe Fuelle wohnen soZZte." Moffatt modernizes: "FOT it was in Him that the divine :Fulness willed to settle with- out limit." vVhom has "it pleased"? This is not expressly stated in this verse if one translates as does the Authorized Version, the Revised Version, the Vulgate, and Luther. Moffatt answers: "The Fulness." Four different answers have been given by various exegetes. Some supply "Father," others "the Son" or "Ohrist," still others "God," and eome finally take n;{il' ,0 nJ.,7!!OJpa as the subject with ::iIoffatt. Accepting the second view, one would be forced to intCl'pret "at aI' ,avrov cho"a,aU&$al of y, 20 as meaning that it pleased the Son, or Ohriet, to reconcile through the fulness. That would be strange, to say the least, in the light of 2 Oor. 5, 18, according to which God reconciles through Ohrist. To supply "God" or "the Father" may 2) Dr. Brunner, the famous expounder of Barth, has accepted the :Buchman movement. 340 What is Meant by "All Fuhless," Col. 1, 19? seem better at first sight if one accepts BVlio"''70EY as a technical term for the divine counsel. Taking exception to this, Abbott observes: "The verb BVOO",ttV is used by St. Paul even more frequently of men than of God (seven times to three). It cannot therefore be said that it was in any sense a technical term for the divine counsel, so as to render the express mention of () fho. as the subject unnecessary; nor is there any instance of its being used absolutely in this sense; see 1 001'. 1,21; Gal. 1, 15, where .) {fto. is expressed with the verb. Indeed, except in Luke 2, 14 even the substantive BVlio"'ia, when it refers to God, is always defined either by a genitive (Eph. 1, 5. 9) or by .) {ho" being the subject of the sentence, as in Phil. 2, 13, where the article with an abstract noun after a preposition 'neces- sarily brings in a rcflexive sense, to be referred to the subject of the sentence' (Alford). "Here there is nothing in the context from which.) {fEO. can be supplied, and clearness, especially in such an important passage, would require it to be expressed." Indeed, if any subject is to be supplied, the context would demand.) vfo!:, the antecedent of the relative in v.15, which, as we have seen, cannot be reconciled with 2001'.5,18. The only choice left is nay ~O n?"'/I;)())fla as subject, rathel', to let it stand as subject according to the well-Imown principle that nothing is to be supplied until all the syntactical possibilities are exhausted and the supplement is clearly indicated by the context. IIay 1:0 ;n;}.'ll!wfla as subject is not only syntactically possible, it also makes good sense and is dogmatically sound and tenable. It has been urged that, since v. 20 is also dependent upon BVOO""fJOtv, this construction would not make satisfactory sense. Yet this only seems so. We would have this idea: All the fulness was well pleased through Him (namely, the Son) to reconcile all things unto Him (namely, God). We are forced to ask the reader to permit an anticipation at this point. Taking :nay ,0 :n?.~(!O)fta in the same sense as it is used in 2,9, that is, in the sense of the fulness of the Godhead or Deity, this construction makes for the best sense possible. For what is the fulness of the Godhead? It is nothing else than the whole divine essence with all its attributes and perfections, in other words, God Himself, of course, not hypostatically, as God the Father, but oV(Ju/Jow., as Dei essentia. Thus the verse in question states the sublime truth that it has pleased God to become incarnate in the Son, and the following verse states the purpose of the incarnation. Thus Ewald, Ellicott, Soden, the Revised Version (margin), Moffatt, and others in as far as the subject is concerned. The objection has been raised that nay ~O nA~I!OJfla is a neuter, while st. aihov of the next verse is masculine. vVe answer: This epistle, though positively Pauline, is characterized by marvelous What is Meant by "AU Fulness," Col. 1, 191 341 brevity, compactness, and peculiarities in vocabulary and sentence structure. The heaping of sentence upon sentence, the easy gliding :fTom one into the other by means of 'va, participles, infinitives, and relatives (see 1,9-20), seem to indicate a wealth of thoughts im- portunate of expression, and we can well imagine St. Paul, intellec- tual giant that he was, laboring as the inspired instrument of God in the selection of words from his rich vocabulary as he perhaps dictated the inspired paragraphs to an assistant, his thoughts con- tinually outdistancing the actual expression, with the result that he uses a cons(j'uctio praegnnns. Thus it may be explained that, though he has used the abstract term nay TO nJ.~(!wftaJ a neuter, he 1'efers to it with the masculine aVTOY as if he had used ,$ {jso, instead, because it has the same meaning in this connection. And why should this be so peculiar? This explanation may be adopted without in any way detracting from the inspired character of this epistle, since the Holy Spirit did not use the inspired writers as mere machines, but made use of theiT talents, vocabulary, and their powers of expression. Does this constructio pmegnnns not rather go to show that the apostk uses the term nJ..~(!wfta in the same sense as in 2, 9 ~ Thus the only other objeetion also falls to the ground, namely, that sl(!'1yonol~ow;, another masculine, does not agree with the neuter nJ..~(!wftaJ for it is suggested by the preceding avrov. Briefly we have here a construction according to the sense, which is a frequent phenomenon in the New Testament and elsewhere. Thus we have nay 7,,, nJ.~(!wfta as the subject of v. 19 and, "gram- matically considered, also of v. 20, but, exegetically considered, the more definite,) {}so, involved and included in the abstract nJ..~(!w[la" (Ellicott). Who is not reminded of 2 001'. 5, 19 by this construction? There we have: DU {jso, i)Y BY X(!!fJT/p xoo[lov xawUcioowv eavup. The only real difference between this verse and 001. 1, 19. 20 is svf,ox1'jrJsv and nay ," nJ..~(!w[la. The former passage is very clear indeed, and in its light the latter becomes clear also. It may be urged, however, that XOOlwC; is not the equivalent of 1:(X ncivm as subiectum recon- cilintionis. This we deny on the following grounds: In 2 001'. 5,19 Paul purposes to state the universality of the reconciliation H13de in Ohrist. KO"lwc; denotes all that was to be reconciled, the whole human race, no more, no less. Tit. Jt(xv,a can mean no more and no less, for it is a plain doctrine of Scripture that mankind only is subiectum reconciliationis. Of. Rom. 3,23.24. Yet because Paul here purposes to teach the universality of reconciliation, evCTY part of which was performed by Ohrist Himself, angels being excluded even as partial mediators, he uses ,it. ncivm, the all. (On this matter see Pieper, Chr. Dog., II, 456, note 1064; Stoeckhardt, Epheserbrief, 66 ff.) Thus the verses in question, without the added modifie1', are indeed parallel to 2 001'. 5, 19, though differing in their phraseology. 342 "Vhat is :Meant by "All Fulness," Col. 1, 19? We have asked the reader to grant for a moment that nay nl nJ.~ewfla has the same meaning in v. 19 that it has in 2, 9. This we propose to prove now. "AccOTding to the double use of nJ.'7l!ovy, to 'fill' and to 'fulfil,' nJ.~(!Wfla may mean that which fills or that which fulfils, the fulness, or complement." (Exp. Gr. Test., in lac.) Of. also Pieper, OlM'. Dog., II, 189 f. ; Lightfoot's excursus in his commentary on this epistle; Stoeckhardt, Epheserbrief, 108 ft.; Kretzmann, LehTe u. Wehre, 1920, 125 ft. Exegetes generally, with few exceptions, agree that nJ..~(!wfla as used here signifies "that which fills," or "the fulness." But that does as yet not explain the meaning. "What is meant by nay TO nJ..,lewfla.'i' The difficulty is this, that Paul consistently uses nJ.~ewfla with a defining genitive in every instance except in our passage. Hence it has become a crux inter- pre tum and has suffered many interpretations. Severianus and Theodoret (apud Abbott and others) interpret nJ.~ewfla of the Ohurch and are followed by many modern, also Lutheran, exegetes. This view is based upon the preceding verse, which says that Ohrist is the Head of the body, the Church. The apparently insuperable objection against this view is that nilv TO nJ.~l!wfla refers to more than v. 18. Y. 19 states the reason for every- thing affirmed in vv.1;"-18 at least. To explain nay TO nJ.~ewrta of the Church or the elect is needlessly and Ullwarrantedly to restrict it in utter disregard of the qualifying adjective nay and the sig- nificant definite article, which, by the way, is not translated in the Authorized Yer8ion. Again, while the Scriptures speak of Christ as dwelling in the believers, they nowhere say that the elect dwell in Christ. (Zorn, in lac.) Abbott lists the view of Schleiermacher as similar, in the Intel'- national Oritical Oommentary, thus: "vVho, refening to nA')(!Wfla "roy U}yroy in Rom. 11, 12. 25. 26, explains the word here of the fulness of the Gentiles and the whole Israel, whose indwelling in Christ is the permanent state, which is necessarily preceded by the complete reconciliation of which the peacemaking was the condition," and refutes it by saying: "TIut there is nothing to support this either in the absolute use of n}"lewfla or ill the context here. It is clear that the xawtxijaw is stated as antecedent, not as consequent, of anoxauxUa~at, haec inhabitatio est fundamenturn reconciliationis (Bengel}." That the objections to the former view also apply here is apparent. Meyer lists and refutes Hofmann's "idea of the immanent in- dwelling of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of Christ's being the Archetype," as "entirely alien to the New Testament view of the relation of Christ to the world" and as "not indicated either at Eph. 1, 10 or here in the context by "Ii naVTa 8Y a1rdp (Jvv8a''7u8v. Christ is not the place for the w01'ld, so that ulti- What is Meant by "All Fulness," Col. 1, 19? 343 mately all comes to dwell in Him, as all has been created in Him and has in Him its subsistencc; but the world, originated and maintained through Him, which He was to redeem, is the place for Him." That silences Hofmann. Meyer, Eadie, and others "understand with Beza 'cumuZati..~sima omnium d'i'vinarum rerum copia, ... ex qua in Christo tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos . . . cZeri'ventur.'" JI.'ieyer explains: "What is meant, namely, is the whole charismatic riches of God, His whole gmciou8 fulness of eVAoyia :nvSVfww'~ (Eph. 1,3), of which Christ becomes permanent (uaTotuiiaat) Possessor and Bearer, who was thereby capable of fulfilling' the divine work of reconcilia- tion." But it was something much greater that made Christ capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation. According to this exegesis our verse asserts only that divine grace resided in Christ as the perfect Man, regardless of how many superlatives Beza and Meyer employ in setting forth their views. It does not surprise us that Beza, an ardent follower of Calvin, thus interprets this passage; for he is bound to do so by the false Reformed axiom: Finitum non est capax infiniti. Besides, this view forces us to supply wii {hoii or its equivalent. We maintain that no addition is called for by the context because the words make good sense without a modifier. Since Paul consistently uses a qualifying genitive in every other instance, he certainly would have done so here if he had thought it necessary. In the preceding context he is telling us that Christ is true God, born in eternity, that He is the Creator of all things, and that all things subsist in Him; that He is the Head of the Church, the First-born from among the dead, that He might become preeminent in all things. And v. 19 gives the reason for this. A reccnt commentator has interpreted :nA~eto,Ua of "all fulness of the eternal thoughts of God concerning the creature (ueber der Kreatur): those regarding creation, redemption, and deliverance and those regarding eternal salvation." Though this view correctly refers :n}.~etofla to the whole context, the context does not treat of thoughts, but of facts and acts. ~We reject this view 3S being too far-fetched and fanciful and ask: "Why has Paul not indicated this by a quali- fying genitive as he does in every other case~" and answer: "Simply because there is no need for one." Finally, most exegetes supply Tiic; {ieo7:Yjwc; from 2, 9. While this view assigns the correct meaning to :nil" ") :nA~eto,l(.a, one might say that it errs in excessu in that it operates with a superfluous modifier. We are in perfect agreement with the meaning, but we condeIllll the method by which these exegetes arrive at this meaning. Why should Paul expect his readers to supply a genitive from a passage which is as far removed as 2, 9? If we study the nuda ve1'ba in their glorious setting, it will be clear that Paul has stated exactly what he meant to state. Let us study the expression itself with an eye on the context. 344 Wllat is Meant by "All Fulness," Col. 1, 19? IIa'l' TO nJ.~l2wfta in and of itself can mean only: "all the fulness." But what is meant by these words in this context? ,'Ie have shown that na" 7:0 nJ.~l2wfta is the subject of our verse. Of this subject we are told that it was pleased, or decided, to dwell in Him (8'1' av-rq.,), namely, in Christ. This can properly be predicated only of an in- telligent being. Hence nay TO n}'~f2wfta must designate an intelligent being. Of what intelligent being can it be said that it decided or was pleased to dwell in Christ? There can be only one answer: God. God decided to dwell in Him. The whole fulness of the Deity, Dei essentia, was pleased to dwell in Christ, to make Him its perIna- nent abode. This interpretation is in keeping with the context, in fact, it is demanded by the context. According to the following verse all the fulness was pleased to reconcile all things through Christ unto itself. 2 Cor. 5,19 makes it plain that it is God who was in Christ, recon- ciling the world unto Himself. Thus the apostle here expresses the same truth which he state::; in the Corinthian passage, though the phraseology differs, as we have seen above. However, this iilterpretation is also in full agreement with the preceding context. In v. 15 we are told that Christ is "the Image of the invisible God." The Greek word translated "image" he1'e means far more than the English image. It connotes not only similarity, but also representation and manifestation. (Grimm-Thayer, Light- foot, Abbott, Maule, etc.) In Heb. 10,1 it is opposed to "shadow" (aula) "and plainly means 'the things themselves, as seen.' Thus the Lord Christ, in the mystery of His Person and natures, is not only a being resembling God, but God Manifest. Cpo John 14, 9 and Heb. 1,3." (Moule, in Cambridge Bible fOT Schools and Colleges.) Cp. also Col. 2, 16. 17, where "shadow" is contrasted with ''body.'' Ellicott remarks (in loc.) "that Christian antiquity has ever re- garded the expression 'image of God' as denoting the eternal Son's peTioct equality with the Father in respect of His substance, nature. and eternity," quoting Damascenus: "The Son is the Father's image in all things save only in being the Father." Pieper observes: "N ach diesen Stellen naemlich [K oZ. 1, 15,' H ebr. 1,3J ist Ch1·isht8 nach cler Gottheit nicht 'IN Gottes BilcZ: ... sonclern Gottes Bilcl SELBST •.• WId nicld 'in I Glanz cler H eiligkeit Gottes,' sondern Gottes Glanz selbst." (Chr. Dog .. II, 322.) Thus Quenstedt correctly says: "001. 1, 15 intelligit apostoll!s imaginem, non accidentalem et artifi,cialem, qlw,e non est eiusdem cum exempla1'i essentiae, sed naittralem sen substantialem et essen- tialem; vox Dei vero hie sumihtr non ovatw(Joc;, sed v:T&oaTauuoc;, scil. pro Deo Patre." (Syst., I, c. 9, s. 1.) Gerhard agrees: "Filius Dei est imago Patris wbstantialis; ergo ut Pater est aeternus, omn1:potens, iustus, perfect1tS, ita q1wque Filius Exodus 6,3 b. Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah? 345 est aeternlls, omnipotens, iuSt~lS, perfectus, nimirum, quia est sub- siantialis et perfecta Patris imago." (Loci, III, 1. 15, s.12, 206.) Moreover, Oluist is the "Image of the invisible God." In Him our great God has become visible, as it were; though GerhaTd COT- rectly says: "Dicilur a~dem Filius Dei imago Patris non solum 1'espectu nosfj'i, qllia Deivoluntatem nobis manifesiat, ef; De'um quasi visibilem noiJis j'aC'it;,llt Calvi/nlS supel' 1. 001. et 1. II ebl'. nimis ieitllW sCl'ibit, sed eliarn respect'u Patris, qu,ia est substantialis imago Patris, pel'fecte refcrens nahcram eills, quippe cui est of/.aavow,." (Loci, I, 1. 3, 162.) All d Quenstedt sums up: "Quia pel'fectissima i.mago invisibilis Dei est, ergo ipse ut Deus, invisibilis sit, oportet. Filius, qui est invisibilis Dei imago, non invisibiZis mansit, sed in carne manifesta.tus fuit." (Syst., I, 9, 384 b.) If Christ is the perfect and exact Image of the Father, of perfect equality with the Father in respect of His substance, nature, and eternity, it follows of necessity that all the fulness of the Deity dwells in Him, and it is quite natuTal for Paul simply to say in this context that all the fulness was pleased to dwell in Him, the teTm nay ';0 nU)(!wf'a being used absolute};\'. Thus it is seen that om interpreta- tion of the term in question is in admiTable agTeemcnt with both the preceding and the following context. Again, it must be granted that nay ';0 nA:r)(!wfla is a beautiful term to describe our great God, pointing as it does to His omnipresence and confirming the Scripture truth that He fills all things. ~"hat more fitting term could have been used in the context? We therefore maintain that the expression nay TO nkll(!l))f'a, with- out modifier, means the fulness of the Deity, "omne~ divitiae divinae nat1iTae ," in this context; indeed, that it cannot signify anything else in this setting and that any addition is superfluous. It is of this fulness that Bengel says: "Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum recon- ciliationis/' which we subscTibe unequivocally, accepting this gr-eat mystery by faith as does Bengel in the wOTds: "Quis exhauriat p1'ofundum hoc?" Hannover, N. Dak. L. T. WOHLFEIL. Exodus 6, 3 b. Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah? (Compare Salwift una Bekenntnis, 1931, p. 124.) "But by My name Jehovah was I not known to them." This statement, as it appears in our English and German Bibles, seems to contTadict other passages of Holy WTit. The context, vv.2-5, reads as follows: "And God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am the Lord [Jehovah]; and I appeared unto Abraham, unto