The objection
God's fullness can also dwell in believers. Colossians 2,9 could therefore mean only Jesus' particular closeness to God. And in 1. John 5,20, “the true God” could designate the Father rather than Jesus.
1. The reasoning in Colossians 2 is decisive
Paul warns against a teaching that does not hold fast to Christ. He grounds his warning in the fact that in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. He then says that believers have been brought to fullness in him. The two statements do not stand alongside one another like two examples of the same kind. Christ's fullness grounds his church's provision.[1]
Christ is therefore not one more recipient among others. He is the one in whom the church possesses what no competing power can give it.
2. Participation is not the same statement as full deity
Ephesians 3,19 asks for believers to be filled to all God's fullness. This describes their participation granted by God. Colossians 2,9, by contrast, explicitly specifies what dwells in Christ: the entire fullness of deity, and bodily. The expression belongs to the witness of incarnation and is explained by the preceding statements about creation in Colossians 1.
The similar word “fullness” does not make the statements identical. Source and reception, Christ and his members must not be exchanged. The conclusion that all Christians are therefore equally God arises only through leveling these differences.
3. The referent of “this one” must be examined separately
In 1. John 5,20, the name Jesus Christ stands immediately before “This one is the true God and eternal life.” This supports a reference to the Son. Moreover, 1,2 already connects the life that was with the Father and became manifest with Christ.
On the other hand, the Father was called the True One immediately before. Trinitarian interpreters therefore also advocate a reference back to him. The rule “a pronoun always means the nearest noun” would be too crude. Reymond discusses both readings and justifies his preference for the Son.[1]
4. Differing evidential strength is no contradiction
Colossians 2,9 expressly states Christ's full deity. In 1. John 5,20 the reference is more strongly disputed; the reference to Jesus can be well justified but is not decided by mere verbal proximity. Even a reference to the Father would not deny the Son's deity.
A sound defense therefore requires no artificially equal unambiguity of all verses. It shows what each text actually supports and thereby gains argumentative precision.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian FaithColossians 2,9, pp. 252–253; 1. John 5,20, pp. 306–308.