Reply: It is not that Greek scholars universally reject "divine quality" (they don't), but more to the truth, it is that YOUR Greek apologists reject it.
From http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1999-06/31691.html
"deity" ought NOT, I think, to be categorized as a proper noun here, EVEN if one holds monotheistic assumptions; -THS nouns in Greek, like -TAS nouns in Latin, are abstracts based upon an adjective and refer to quality rather than entity; thus QEOTHS should be understood to mean "what it is be be a god" or "the quality of being a god." One may then go on, if one wishes, and apply that in monotheistic terms, as "what it is to be God" or "the quality of being God"--but it is still erroneous, in my opinion, to equate this with QEOS or KURIOS in the sense of a name. We tend in English to use the term "the Deity" as an equivalent of "God." I simply do not think that, even with the article, hH QEOTHS is used like that in Greek. Consequently I think that in Col 2:9 the
meaning is rather that "in him dwells bodily the entire fullness of 'what it is to be a god.'" One may then, if one chooses, understand that monotheistically, but even so, I think, one ought to realize that the Greek text is not talking about a divine person as a divine person but about the quality of being a god.
Carl W. Conrad-Department of Classics, Washington University
In line with this, we have other Bibles that do not use "Deity" or "Godhead" at Col. 2:9.
See also http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/fulness.html
The following works also have some interesting comments regarding Colossians 2:9:
"1. The word "Deity" or "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In A Greek English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it is translated as " divinity, divine nature. " In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase dia theoteta ="for religious reasons." The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to try to build a case for it meaning "God" or "Godhead" (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture. There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting them to "redefine" the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with holy spirit "without measure," and God him authority on earth to heal, cast out demons, forgive sins, etc. Thus, it makes perfect sense Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the "divine nature" dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Pet. 1:4).
2. The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about "the fullness of God the Father" because by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Christ being God, but about God in someway providing Christ with "fullness." What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" (Col. 1: 19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: "For the one whom God has speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit."
3. The fact that Christ has "all the fullness" of God does not make him God. Ephesians says that Christians should be filled with "all the fullness of God," and no one believes that would make each Christian God.
4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by of God's great and precious promises we "may participate in the divine nature." Having "divine nature" does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. The note on I Peter in the NIV Study Bible is almost correct when, referring to the divine nature, it states: " We are, indwelt by God through His Holy Spirit" (we would say "holy spirit, referring to God's gift. Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had the fullness of "Deity."), dwelling in him.
5. The context is a key to the proper interpretation of the verse. The Colossians had lost their focus on Christ (see Col. 1:15-20 above). Colossians 2:8 shows that the people were danger of turning to "hollow and deceptive philosophy" rather than being focused on Christ. What could philosophy and traditions offer that Christ could not? The next verse is a reminder that there is no better place to turn for answers and for truth than to Christ, in whom all fullness of God dwells. There is nothing in the context here that would warrant believing Paul is writing about the Trinity. He is simply saying that if you want to find God, look to Christ. , Christ himself had said he was "the Way" and "the Truth, " and that " no man comes to the Father, except through me." pp. 513, 514 One God & One Lord by Mark H. Graeser, John E. Less and John W. Schoenheit.
And from Jesus-God or the Son of God by Brian Holt:
"Trinitarians believe this verse means God came down and dwelled in a body, that is, Christ's body. The Twentieth Century New Testament says, "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate." Does Paul mean what these translations appear to say? Notice the next words from The Twentieth Century New Testament: "and, by your union with him, you also are filled with it." (Colossians 2:10) So we can see that, yes, the 'Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate' in Christ, but we also were filled with it too! Does this mean we are God in bodily form? The New World Translation reads "because it is in him that all the Fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily" signifying that it is not God that dwells in Christ but God's qualities. Jesus could then say, "he that has seen me has seen the Father " (See John 14:9.)
The reader might find it interesting to note this is not the first time Paul said someone was filled with 'all the fullness of God.' Notice Ephesians 3:19:
"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James Version
"and so be filled to the full with God himself"-Twentieth Century New Testament
"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-The New American Standard Bible
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"-New International Version
'And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself" -The Living Bible
Inasmuch as no one would argue Paul was saying we are God since 'all the fullness of God dwells in us,' why say Christ is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him? It seems Paul was stating Christ was full of God's divine qualities, of which he tells us we should be too.
The context around this verse, besides the fact verse 10 says Christians will also be filled with the fullness of God, also confirms this verse is not saying Jesus is God. For instance, Colossians 1:19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Christ)." Was Paul saying all of the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God (note: a separate person from Christ) to have His fullness dwell in Christ? The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" His fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we see all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased the Father to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God. Touted by some as the strongest evidence for Jesus being God, we find it is quite flimsy. This verse is not saying Christ is God." pp. 97, 98
From the New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 [A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New Testament, by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] adds at Colossians 2:9:
"All those blessings which proceed from the Godhead, and wherewith we are filled, dwell in Christ, truly and substantially."
Take the words of Erasmus, regarding Scripture, and apply it to God and Christ:
"These holy pages will sum up the living image of His mind. They will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before your eyes."
Jesus was not physically the Scriptures themselves, but they portrayed what he was. Jesus was not God Himself, but he gave God to us in an intimacy so close....
We miss the beauty of these words if we read a later theology into them.
Addendum:
H. V. Reed in the Restitution writes:
"The reader has been led to infer that this was among the most approved and clearly stated ideas of the original scriptures. Nothing can be more unfair. The word godhead is not good English: it means nothing in itself and conveys no idea to the reader. What is a godhead? The idea in the original is simple and beautiful. We will note the three texts wherein it occurs. Acts 17: 'Being, therefore, already offspring of God, we ought not to be supposing that which is Divine to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, etc. (Rotherham.) Rom. 1:20; 'For his unseen things from a world's creation are to be clearly seen by the things made being perceived, both his eternal power and divinity.' (Rotherham.) Col. 2:9: 'For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the completeness of the Divine nature in a body.' The word godhead like the word trinity, carries with it the idea of a society, which is not the idea of the original. Had the word been left out of the revised Testament it would have removed another impression from the 'three-in-one-God' theory. Modern criticism has forced certain interpretations from the sacred texts, and it will be a long time before doctrinal harmony and Biblical exegesis will expurge from the creed of man the theories of endless misery, the destruction of our globe, and the heathen dogma of the God society, or trinity. No effect on the part of authorized versions will succeed in bolstering up theories which are contrary alike to sound reason and the Scriptures of truth."
No comments:
Post a Comment