.
Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF.Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus.As I understand the textual consideration, the issue centers around eudokew and is translated "pleased God that .." A rather poor translation , I think. J.B. Lightfoot gives the word a nominative apppliance and seems to argue for the omission of the word "God" while arguing FOR the absolute use of (God's good purpose.)John puts his thinking cap on and comes up with this: To insert " .. the Father's pleasure...." or ".....appeared good to God .." or any such addition gives one the opportunity to misunderstand the the reference to "himself" as in "... He reconciled all things unto Himself ..." and argue that it appeared good to the Father to use Christ to reconcile all things unto the Father.If we omit what is , in fact omitted -- a specific reference to the (a) personhood of deity, then the passage reads "...it was the divine pleasure that all the fulness centered in Him (Jesus) and that in Him all things are reconciled unto Himself (Jesus.)"cd: You seem to be correct John as both Adam Clark and The Interlinear Bible agrees with you . But as Adam Clark shows in the below "the Fullness" mentioned are Godly attributes as Christ is one with God.Adam Clark wrote: Col 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell - As the words, the Father are not in the text, some have translated the verse thus: For in him it seemed right that all fullness should dwell; that is, that the majesty, power, and goodness of God should be manifested in and by Christ Jesus, and thus by him the Father reconciles all things to himself. The p????µa, or fullness, must refer here to the Divine nature dwelling in the man Christ Jesus.
