Colossians 1:19

For it pleasedthe Father, &c. "The Father" is supplied by the translators (A.V. and R.V., and the older versions from Tyndale (1534) downwards, except the Roman Catholic Rhemish (1582) which reads "in Him it hath well pleased al fulnes to inhabite." The Old Latin reads in ipso complacuit omnis plenitudo inhabitare;the Vulgate, in ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem inhabitare. Grammatically, the Greek admits three possible explanations: (a) "For in Him all the Plenitude was pleased to take up Its abode;" (b) "For He(the Son) was pleased that all the Plenitude should take up Its abode in Him;" (c) "For He(God, the Father) was pleased that all the Plenitude should take up Its abode in Him(the Son)." What decision does the context, or other side-evidence, indicate? The explanation (b) is discredited as assigning to the Son a determining choice which the whole context leads us to assign to the Father. The explanation (a), adopted and ably defended by Ellicott, is that of the Old Latin Version. It is grammatically simple, and it is capable of doctrinal defence; "the Plenitude" of the Divine Nature being taken to include the actings of the Divine Will as the expression of the Nature, and so to signifythe Divine Personality (here, of course, that of the Father). But it is in itself a surprising and extremely anomalous expression; and it becomes still more so when we read on, and see what are the actions attributed to the same Subject, and that the Subject appears in the masculine gender in the word rendered "having made peace" (see note below), while the word Plerôma(Plenitude) is neuter. On the whole we believe (c) to be the true explanation, with Alford, and Lightfoot, who compares James 1:12; James 4:6 (the better supported reading in each case); "the crown which He(unnamed) promised;" "the Spirit which He(unnamed) caused to dwell in us." He points out also that the noun (eudokia) kindred to the verb here is often, and almost as a habit, used of God's"good pleasure" where God is not named.

all fulness Lit. and better all the Fulness, all the Plenitude. Cp. below Colossians 2:9; "all the Fulness of the Godhead;" a phrase of course explanatory of this which is so nearly connected with it. Lightfoot (pp. 323 339) discusses the word with great care and clearness, and brings out the result that the true notion of it is the filled condition of a thing, as when a rent is mended, an idea realized, a prophecy fulfilled. He shews that the word had acquired a technical meaning in St Paul's time, in Jewish schools of thought, a meaning connected especially with the eternally realized Ideal of Godhead; the Divine Fulness; "the totality of the Divine Powers and Attributes." See further our note on Ephesians 1:22, where the Church is called "the Plenitude of" the Son.

dwell The verb denotes permanence; should take up its lasting abode. Does this "taking up the abode" refer to Eternity, or to Time? to the time-less communication of Godhead from the Father to the Son, or to a communication coincident with the completion of the Incarnate Son's redeeming work? We think the latter, in view of the following context. From eternity, eternally and necessarily, the Plenitude "took up," "takes up," Its abode in Him as to His blessed Person. But not till His Work of death and resurrection was accomplished was He, historically, so constituted as that It "took up Its abode" in Him as Head and Treasury for us of "all grace." This now He is, lastingly, everlastingly.