retations on some of the cases. The idea, however, that results from allowing πλήρωμα to have the active sense here is not germane to the general scope of the paragraph. That idea is that the Church is that which makes Christ Himself com- plete. A head, however perfect in itself, if it is without members, is something incomplete. So Christ, whois the Head of the Church, requires the Church to make His completeness, just as the
Church which is His body requires Him as the Head to make it a complete and living thing. But the main thought of the whole paragraph is what Christ is and does in relation to the universe and the Church, not what the Church is to Him or does for Him, and the πληρον- μένον cannot have the sense of “ Him who is being filled” without putting a forced meaning on the τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. Hence πλήρωμα is to be taken in the passive sense here, as is done by most commentators, and the idea is that the Church is not only Christ’s body but that which is filled by Him. In Col. i. 19, ii. g the whole πλήρωμα, or every plenitude of the Godhead, the very fulness of the Godhead, the totality of the Divine powers and qualities, is said to be in Christ, so that He alone is to be recog- nised as Framer and Governor of the world, and there is neither need nor place for any intermediate beings as agents in those works of creating, upholding and administering. Here the conception is that this plenitude of the Divine powers and qualities which is in Christ is im- parted by Him to His Church, so that the latter is pervaded by His presence, ani- mated by His life, filled with His gifts and energies and graces. He is the sole Head of the universe, which is supplied by Him with all that is needed foe its being and order. He is also the sole Head of the Church, which receives from Him what He Himself possesses and is endowed by Him with all that it requires for the realisation of its vocation. Cuaprer II. Vv. 1-10. A new para- graph begins at this point. This is denied indeed by some, who would connect the καὶ ὑμᾶς of ii. 1 immediately with the ἡμᾶς πιστεύοντας of i. 19 (Knatchbull), the ἐνήργησεν of i. 20 (Ben- gel), or the καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν, etc., of i. 22 (Lachm., Harl.). But none of these con- nections yields a sufficiently clear and harmonious sense. The last, indeed, which proposes to separate ii. 1 from i. 23 merely by a comma and which would make the καὶ .. . συνεζωοποίησεν a statement parallel to the αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν, etc., as well as continuous on it, would require ἡμᾶς rather than ὑμᾶς. All three, too, take seriously from the point and power of the closing verses of chapter i., which are given in a strain of lofty and majestic affirmation suitable to the wind- ing up of a great argument. We have, therefore, a new section here, in which a particular application is made of what has been affirmed in the preceding para- graph. These first ten verses speak of
I—z2.