|
|
|
In several Gospel accounts the Jews ask this question in a setting where the Nazarene has said, "Your sins are forgiven." This has often been jumped upon to prove Jesus is God himself. Usually a Trinitarian who is smart enough will use Luke 7.47-49, for a very good reason as we shall see. There Jesus gives a most wonderful parable about forgiveness to a rabbi with a local woman who is known as the town sinner. Jesus tells her: "You sins are forgiven." The response is: "Who is this man who even forgives sin?" However, who are authorized to forgive sins?
The Synoptic accounts of the bed-ridden paralytic who was lowered through the roof to reach Jesus each contain this phrase, "Your sins are forgiven." (Mt 9.2; Mk 2.5; Lk 5.20) In each case it is the Jews who make the assertion that only God can forgive sins. Is it fair to base a Trinitarian argument on what the Nazarene’s opposers claim? In all of these Gospel accounts Jesus answers the same: ‘So that you will know the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins ... ‘ Note Jesus does not claim to be God as the Jews would assert but rather he has "authority" to forgive sins. Would God need authority from someone else to do this? It does not take much reasoning to understand that this authority comes from the God of Jesus, his Father.
Can anyone else forgive sins? Jesus symbolically breathes holy spirit on his apostles and then tells them: ‘If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain those of any persons, they stand retained.’ (Jn 20.23 NWT) Just as the Son of Man was authorized to forgive sins on earth, Christ gave such authority to his personally chosen apostles. All Christians can forgive those sins committed against them. (Mt 18.21, 35; Lk 17.3, 4)
This whole example of a Trinitarian argument illustrates the extent some must go to find an argument for the deity of Jesus in the Gospels.
‘The one who has seen me has seen the Father.’ This phrase of the Nazarene has been used to prove Trinity, though it clearly does not mention three persons; or, the deity of Christ, though the verse does not really say this either. What does the Trinitarian mean we he reads these words so literally: Jesus was the Father? The Father was Jesus? The Father and Jesus are one and the same? This could not be for then the Trinity would vanish without the person of Jesus, God the Son, leaving only the Father and the Holy Spirit.
In the previous context of this lengthy discussion with his disciples, the Nazarene has made many references to the Father and to himself as two different people just as he had made clear in John 8.17, 18 in the case of the "two witnesses." If Jesus and the Father are the same then there are not two witnesses and his argument in chapter eight makes him deceitful. Is it fair to ask an honest person to read this Passover evening discourse of Jesus to his disciples recorded in chapters thirteen to seventeen and note the numerous distinctgions he makes between himself and his Father? Compare some of the following.
John himself introduces this portion with the words: ‘His hour had come so that he might transfer out of this world toward the Father ... knowing that the Father had given him everything into his hands -- and that he came from God and was going toward The God -- ... ‘ (Jn 13.1, 3) Does John, writing his Gospel decades later, understand Jesus words in 14.9 to mean Jesus and the Father were the same person? John describes Jesus as about to move in a direction toward the Father and then he amplifies this further by adding that Jesus had come from God and was not returning to The God, thus making it clear the Father and ho theos are the same. Without elaborate explanation this makes no sense at all if Jesus is the Father.
There are a variety of phrases in chapter fourteen which make it seem obvious the Father is such and the Son is such and they are two distinctly different persons. Compare these phrases: ‘Believe in The God and believe in me. ... I am going toward the Father. ... we shall come and make our home beside him. ... The word you hear is not mine but of the Father who sent me. ... My Father is greater than me. ... I am doing as the Father has given me command. ... When the helper arrives which I will send from the Father, the spirit of the truth. ... They will do these things because they knew not the Father nor me. ... I came out of the Father . . . I am leaving the world and I am going toward the Father. ... Father, glorify your Son. ... The only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus. ... Father, glorify me beside yourself with the glory I had before the world existed. ... I am coming toward you, Holy Father. ... Father, I wish that where I am these may be with me, so they may behold my own glory which you gave to me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.’ (Jn 14.1, 11, 12, 23, 24, 28, 31; 15.26; 16.3, 28; 17.1, 3, 5, 11, 24) What kind of language or what combination of words would make it clearer that Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus?
Returning to 14.9, 10, what is the Son’s answer to Philip’s question? Jesus explains this ‘seeing the Father as seeing the Son’ in this way: ‘Are you not believing that I am in the Father and the Father in me. These sayings I speak are not from myself but the Father remaining within me is performing His own works.’ The Nazarene takes no credit for his teachings or works. It is the endwelling Father which resides in the heart of the Nazarene who receives all the credit. The words of this answer are similar to Jesus’ prayer regarding his disciples: ‘ So that everyone may be one -- you, Father, in me and I in you so they may be in us. ... I in them and You (Father) in me so they may be perfected into one.’ (Jn 17.21, 23) Just as one may look upon Jesus and see the Father, so one could look upon these disciples and see Jesus and the Father. (Mt 5.48; 1 Co 11.1; 2 Co 3.18; Ro 13.14)
One might wonder if any words from Doubting Thomas ought to be the basis of a Trinitarian "proof text" but such is the case with John 20.28. The apostle Thomas had missed an earlier manifestation of the Lord following his resurrection. Now upon seeing the proof he demanded, the Doubter burst forth in ecstacy: ‘My Lord and my God!’ Scholars are divided whether he addresses this to Jesus or The God of Jesus as the Greek is vocative. The phrase may be an exclamation addressed wholly to the Father, or, the "my Lord" part to Jesus and the "my God" part to the Father. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing both parts of the remark from applying to Jesus as the messianic Mighty God of Isaiah 9.6 now that he had been glorified. Once upon his throne King Messiah may also be addressed as the "God" of Psalm 45.7 whose own God annointed him.
The phrase, "and my God," may have been one Thomas had already heard when Mary Magelene came with the message to Jesus’ brothers: ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’ (Jn 20.17) We note Thomas did not say "my Father" in his exclamation. There are variety of ways this expression from Thomas may be viewed, none of them meeting with universal agreement. We see nothing out of harmony with the messianic prophecies which refer to the King as "god" (elohim; theos) had Thomas been aware of this. However, it is viewed as an excited exclamation by many and would therefore be wholly directed to God or divided between the Lord (Jesus) and The God, the Father and God of Jesus. (Ep 1.3, 17; Re 3.12)
In the King James Version this verse reads, ‘ ... the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.’ (Compare also JB, DY, NAB)This rendering might give the impression in was the literal blood of God himself and therefore Jesus was God. This would be a rare statement for Paul. Some render this differently: (RHM) which he acquired through means of the blood of his own, implying something like "the blood of His Own" and thus indicating the only-begotten Son. (Compare also TEV, DA, RSV1971)
Here we provide a commentary from the Kingdom Interlinear appendix:
1903 "with the blood of His own Son" The Holy Bible in Modern English, by
F. Fenton, London.1950 "with the blood of his own [Son]" New World Translation
of the Christian Greek
Scriptures, Brooklyn.1966 "through the death of his own Son" Today's English
Version, American Bible
Society, New York.
Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the King James Version and Douay Version, "with his own blood." That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (followed by Moffatt's translation) read "the congregation of the Lord," instead of "the congregation of God." When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, "with his own blood." However, BVg read "God" (articulate), and the usual translation would be 'God's blood.'
The Greek words tou i·di'ou follow the phrase "with the blood." The entire expression could be translated "with the blood of his own." A noun in the singular number would be understood after "his own," most likely God's closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: "Before leaving [i'di·os] something should be said about the use of [ho i'di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 'the blood of one who was his own.'"
Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that [hui·ou', "of the Son"] dropped out after tou i·di'ou, "of his own"] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind."
The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding "Son" in brackets after idiou to read: "with the blood of his own [Son]." [KIT App p 1160]
Regarding the above choices which would agree with 1 John 1.7: ‘The blood of Jesus (God’s) Son cleanses us from all sin.’ (See Re 1.4-6l Jn 3.16)
Paul uses the word "God" over 160 times in his letter to the Romans and never confuses Jesus with ho theos. However, 9.5 is often a verse pointed to by Trinitarians as proof that Paul considered Jesus to be God. The King James version and others render this verse: ‘Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ Since no punctuation existed in the original it becomes a matter of theological choice where to end the sentence with the word "all" and start a new one addressing God in a doxology. Translators vary in this distinction. Some of those who begin a new sentence regarding God alone are MOF, RSV, NEB, LB, TEV, NAB; and some who give the impression the "God" is referring to Christ are: WEY, ALF, KNX, MON. Is it fair to argue that a verse which may be questioned by punctuation ought not be the basis for a doctrine like the Trinity? Or, is the trinitarian evidence so slim one must resort to these quesionable methods?
We may examine those occurrences of "God" and "Christ" in the same breath and note Paul always distinguish between the two, most often excluding the holy spirit in the same context. For example, 1.7 reads: ‘Grace and peace to you from God our Father and (the) Lord Jesus Christ.’ Note those verses previous to 9.5 in which a clear distinction is made between The God (ho theos) and Christ: 2.16; 5.1, 8, 10, 11, 15; 6.11, 23; 7.25; 8.3, 17, 34, 39. If suddenly now with 9.5 Paul declares the Christ is God he has done so without any clarification or previous explanation. To Roman Jews reading his epistle this would have been received, whether or Christian or not, with extreme agitation unless the ground-work had been solidly laid somewhere else.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976, translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80) This later comment would allow the rendering "Christ who is a god over all" if one wished to bring Trinitarian wrath upon themselves.
We have before us a text, Philippians 2.6, which a dear friend has suggested proves the divinity of Jesus Christ. It reads: ‘(Christ Jesus), who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.’ (RSV) This later word is rendered by others: MON: forcibly retained; KNX: coveted; PME: cling to; TCNT: clung to. Of course, if some of these are correct, then Jesus was not equal to God when he walked the beaches of Galilee for he did not retain, cling to, or retain such equality when he ce to earth. This text is admitted by some schyolars to be difficult to translate. Therefore, renderings of some ofthe Greek words vary widely.
For example, the King James Version has it: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." If this be corect, then we ask: Who or what is "God" in this verse? The Father? The Trinity? The KJV would suggest the celesltial "Jesus" did not think it "robbery to be equal with God." This would imply Jesus was equal with God. If someone is in the "form of" of someone else, then that someone is not the other in whose form he is.
Is "God" in this verse limited to the Father? Or, is "God" in this verse the triune Godhead? So, that "Jesus" was equal to or in the form of the Trinity and thus a fourth person? Would a Trinitarian help us with this?
Let us suppose for a moment the King James is correct. What does it prove? It may prove that Christ in heaven was "equal to God" before he came to the earth. But, our friend is trying to prove the man who walked the dusty roads of Judea was "God." So, this verse, if rendered correclty, would only show that Christ was divine or God before he came to earth. For he next verse (7) says Christ "emptied himself having taken the form of a slave." Of what did he "empty himself"? His form or eqality with God? Additionally, verse 9 has The God (ho theos) ‘highly exalting’ Christ after his death and resurrection. "Highly exlated" above what Christ was on earth? If that be "God", how could Christ be exalted more? If that be "God" as in verse 5, after which Christ had been formed, how could he be exalted more than what he was previously, if he was equal to God?
We suspect something is amiss in this translation. Let us be honest: this text and others have been put through Trinitarian filters for hundreds of years. When a Trinitarian renders this verse the bias is there to make it lean toward the King James. When a modernist, who may even doubt the reality of the Nazarene as a historical person, renders the verse there is a different bias. We want to go into this area of the actual Greek wording and what meaning may be there.
However, before considering the Greek words at issue, we ponder 2.6 and its context. We note that Paul has beem making a singular appeal from 2.1 against vain-glory and for lowlimindedness. The former rabbi urges a certain "mind" or attitude: that of looking after the interests of others and not self. Then, with verse 5 he draws upon an illustration or example: ‘Let this mind/thinking be in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . . ‘ And, then (??), he launches into verse 6 where Christ "thought it not robery to be equal with God"! Something seems wrong to us. So, we check some other translations before we examine the actual Greek words.
The United Bible Societies interlinear renders the verse: "Who in the form of God existing did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." This would seem to mean Christ was in God’s form but did not "grasp" equality with God; and, therefore, was not equal to God though in His form.
The Watchtower Society’s Benjamin Wilson Diaglott reads: "Who, though being in God’s form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God." This phrasing reminds us of two cases: Satan’s offer to Eve at Genesis 3.5, and the case of Lucifer at Isaiah 14.14. Some scholars also note this similarity and suggest Paul is playing on these as Christ’s contrasting example.
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." Would this rule out completely any equality with God, before or after becoming a man?
The Amplified, of course, amplifies: "Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God (possessing the fulness of the attributes which make God God), did not think this equality with God was a thing to be grasped/retained." We suspect a strong Trinitarian filter here but that is fair enough. This would also prove Christ did not "retain" his equality when he became a man.
The New American Standard renders the verse: "Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." This rendering capitlizes "He" indicating a Trinitarian filter. But, this also indicates equality with God was something "not . . . to be grasped." Was it beyond his reach?
The popular New International Version: "Who, being in very nature (or, in the form of) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." Well, we would expect such a Trinitarian filter. The later phrase, however, is like others and its places "equality with God" beyond the "grasp" of Christ.
Well, that suffices, though there are many others which give a slightly diffrerent reading . Was there a problem in thetranslations? Could another translation fit the context and flow of Paul’s thought better? We decided to check the key Greek words and look for a better possibility. It did not take long to see that many scholars note some difficulty with Phillipians 2.6. (We understand this when such a verse is being forced through the Trinitarian filter.) The critical word at issue is harpagmon. According to B.A.G. the context would have to determine whether the meaing is grasp, rob, snatch violently, hold to the breast, and retain. We will let others do the research onthis rate Greek word and they will see some of the difficulties involved.
We thought: now Paul is showing that Christ is leaving one place and going to another. He is leaving one form for another. He is departing he celestial for the terrestial. No without argument, the celestial form is superior to the terrestial. Might their be the tendency on the part of any celestial being a certain reticense in leaving his life form for a lessor one? Say, for the purposes of illustration, you are asked to leave your human form to take on the form of a "worm"? Might you pause for a moment and want to "retain" or "grasp to your breast" what you are already? We suggest no one would volunteer to do this unless either God commanded it, or the reason was so overpowering a selfless person would be willing to do this. Indeed, celestial beings might line up for the honor. This act of perfect and absolute selflessness would become the arch-type of humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice. Does such a model lend itself to Paul’s appeal in 2.1-4?
Permit us to print out the literal Greek of Philippians 2.6, 7 with a literal rendering and the Strong’s numerical system: [Greek fonts omitted]
OS(3729 EN(1722) MORPHE(3444) THEOU(2316) OUKH(3756)
who in a/the form of (a) god not
HARPAGMON(725) EGESATO(2233) TO EINAI(1511) ISA(2470) THEO(2316)
snatching he considered the to be equal to/with (a) god
ALLA(235) EAUTON(1438) EKENOSEN(2758) MORPHE(3444) DOULOU(1401)
but himself he emptied a/the form of (a) slave
LABON(2983) EN HOMOIOMATI(3667) ANTHROPON(444)
having taken in likeness of men
GENOMENOS(1096)
having become
The word haragmon means literally to "snatch" or "grab." (The New Englishman’s Greek Condordance and Lexicon, page 726: "a thing to cling to, a prize, booty"; 2 Co 12.2, 4; 1 Th 4.16; Jude 23) Now why does someone sntach or grab something. It can be to steal something not his own. Or, it could be, as some translators feel, to "retain" or "to cling" to something already dear to oneself. With the thought of "retain" in focus, we looked anew at thise verse. Christ pre-existed in a heavenly or celestial life-form (divine, some would put it, in a limited fashion) and rather than clinging (grasping to his breast) his existence in this heavenly form, rather than trying to retain his personal glory there in the spiitual realms above, as if he was not willing to give it up, our Lord gladly "emptied" himself of this god-like form. He took upon himself the "form of a slave." This fits the context perfectly for it shows Christ not seeking his own self-interest but that of others even if it meant becoming a "worm." He willingly, of his own free will, let go of his celestial and divine "form" in all humility with only the interests of mankind at heart.
There is another word which throws a wrinkle into all of this. It is the word theo which, can, according to BAG " . . . serve as an adjective for ‘divine’." An example of this is Acts 7.20 where some translate theo as "divinely". If these be so, then the critical phrase in 2.6 might read: "he existed in a divine form." This would be like saying, "the food is divine." We do not believe it is god but of a marvelous charactestic. We began to wonder if this verse ought to rea quite differently. Since it has been uniquely exposed to hundreds of years of scrutinty, notwithout some trinitarian bias, perhaps a fresh look might be in order. We admit this would be through a Unitarian filter, for we have our own freedom to do so without fear of being burned at the stake by our Trinitarian brethren.
The Expositor's Greek Testament: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon'] has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.
With this in mind we remembered some footnotes suggesting 2.5-9 was part of an early Christian hymn. There is some good sense in this claim for there is something of a ryhme or metre. We note the phrase morphen doulou, which means literally "a/the form of a slave" (adding the articles where it seems necessary). We wondered why this was no also done with the earlier phrase which seems to rhyme with this one, morphe theou, which can be rendered, "a/the form of a god."
We are well aware of the prejudiced squeals which will result from such a suggestion. However, "the form of a slave" would seem to require an equal parallel in "the form of a god." Really, more like, "a form of a god" into "a form of a slave." Lierated from athousand years of Trinitarian bias we dare think this entrie section may read correctly:
‘This be the mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus who was existing in a form of a god (but) thought not equality with the divine as something to cling to but he emptied himself taking a form of a slave having been born in likeness of men and having been found in fashion as a man becoming obedient he humbled himself unto death (but death of a stake). And thus, also, The God exalted him and gave him the name above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend --- those in heaven and on earth and underground --- and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.’
Verse 9 has the Greek literally ho theos which means "the god" or "The God," much as the Moslems say Allah, the God. Now, this ho theos (the God) "exalted him." Verse 6 had not used ho theos. We would ask, Who is this ho theos that exalts another? Who is the one ho theos exalted? And, how can ho theos exalt someone who is already equal to Him? Now, we remember in Eusebeias and his Preparation of the Gospel that Athanasias refused to discuss 2.9 in his debate with Arias. Now we can understand why.
We reviewed the entire letter of Philippians and everywhere there is "God" and there is "Christ" and no where does Paul confuse or combine the two. (1.2, 8, 11; 2.9, 11; 3.14; 4.7, 19)
Now, here, we supply some comments on Philippians 2.5-11 as provided in The Formation of Christian Dogma by Martin Werner, D. D., Professor Ordinarious in the University of Bern, Germany: "The Pauline portrait of Christ coresponds in many respects to the apocalyptic concept of the heavenly Messiah as Prince of the Angels and an angelic being. ... The pre-existent Christ did indeed exist in ‘divine form’ (Phil ii, 6). ... (Paul) carefully expressed himself in the following manner: the super-terrestrial pre-existent Christ had divested himself of his ‘divine’ (i.e. heavenly) ‘form’ (morphe) he ‘substituted’ it for the ‘form of a slave . . . i.e. he appeared in a form like that of a man, he had ‘in his whole manner (schema) resembled a man’. . . (Phil ii,6 ff). (Paul) had consequently limited himself to the statement that Christ had simply divested himself of his heavenly ‘form’ in order to exchange it for the (external) ‘form’ of a man. ... Paul ‘s statement in Phil ii, 7 ‘as a man’ means the actual fleshly material of a human body. ... In this connection Phil. ii, 5-11 constituted for the Arians an important instance of scriptural evidence, which caused Athanasius considerable embarrassment. For (Athanasius), owing to the fact that he had to reject the transformation-thessi, could neither recognize a kenosis nor an exaltation of the Heavenly Christ in the Pauline sense . . . "
We conclude the above comments to our good friend to show that we are not alone in viewing the statement in 2.6, "the form of God," to simply mean, a "divine form" or "heavenly form." Our sincere friendis a saint indeed and we do not for a moment question his amazing faith in Jesus Christ. If he wishes to exalt Christ to the status of "God" in the sense of a triune participant, then we onlyh behold what might be called an over-zealous faith. We do not judge him in this matter. On the otherhand, we pray our good friend sees why we view 2.6 differently and at the same time hold Jesus Christ to be our Lord with all the intensity our friend has.
1869: "who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1965: "He-truly of divine nature!-never self-confidently made himself equal to God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.
1968: "who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.
1976: "He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God." Today's English Version.
1984: "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
1985: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.
We have before us a text, Colossians 2.9, which a genuine Christian friend has suggested offers proof ofthe divinity of Jesus Christ. The text reads: ‘Because in (Christ Jesus) dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’ (RSV) In Greek this phrase is:
OTI EN AUTO KATOIKEI PAN TO PLEROMA TES THEOTETOS(2320)
because in him dwells all the fulness of the god(ship/head)
SOMATIKO(4985)
bodily
We are not completely sure what our believing friend thinks this verse means. But, we pause at this word "Godhead." It is one of those words which can give pause for thought. So, we check a simple dictionary: "godhead. n. Goodhead; divinity. "Godhead" n. The essential nature of God." Right away we are in a quandary. Colossians 2.9 could read, "in him dwells all the fulness of the essential nature of God." Or, "in him dwells all the fulness of divinity." At best, it seems at first, this text proves the exalted celestial Christ at the time of Paul’s writing, was divine, or, embodies divine-like qualities and attributes. This is something we have no argument with as Unitarians. Certainly, the text does not prove the divinity of the Nazarene when he walked the earth "in the days of his flesh."
We wonder what the text as translated above means. Does it mean that all the fullness of the Godhed dwells or resides bodily in Christ? Does this mean Christ is the only one in whom "all" this "Godhead" fully resides? If it all resides in Christ what is left for others. There are several texts which have either Christ or God residing or dwelling in believers. We decide to compare the context and other translations of this verse.
Colossians 2.2 mentions ‘the knowledge ofthe mystery of The God, namely Christ.’ And, in Christ ‘are all the treasures of the hidden wisdom and knowledge.’ Paul warns in 2.8 that ‘no one takes you captive through philosphy and empty deceit, according to human tradition ... and not according to Christ.’ We noted Paul’s earlier discussion describes the relationship between God and Christ in 1.15, 19, 20: ‘(Christ) is THE IMAGE OF the invivislbe God, THE FIRSTBORN OF all creation. ... that(Christ) might be holding first place in everything, because (the God) was pleased for all the fulness to dwell in (Christ).’ Now, Christ is identified by Paul as the "image of" something and the image of something is not that thing itself. Also, the Christ is "the firstborfn of all creation" and therefore belongs to creation as a type or class. (A "creature" as the KJV has it.) It "pleased God" for "all the fulness to dwell/reside in Christ." It had not always resided in Christ and now because of God’s good pleasure it does reside in him. How far would Paul have to go to establish the different natures between The God and Christ? How can they b co-equal or co-eternal after such a description?
What, precisely,would this "fulness" include which was to reside in Christ? Wisdom, Paul states. As all says elsewhere, "the wisdom of God."
We decide to check the critical word in 2.9, theotetos. (S # 2320) According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, theotes (the nominative for, from which the-o’te-tos is derived) means ‘divinity, divine nature.’" (p 792) Also BAG (p 359) has it, "deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for theos ... the fulness of deity Col 2:9."
Thus, various translation render this: UBSInt: "for in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily"; NJB: "in him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fulness"; DIA: "For in him dwells all the ullness of the deity bodily."
Now, may we be so bold as to suggest another rendering which might just as well reflect Paul’s meaning: ‘For Christ is the full and complete embodiment of divine attributes.’ Or, ‘For embodied in Christ is the complete fulfillment of the divine quality (wisdom).’ The later consistent with Paul’stheme on worldly wisdom contrasted with godly wisdom. Weymouth seems to lean toward this bias: ‘For it is in Christ that the fulness of God’s nature dwells embodied.’ What is God’s "nature"? We may state firmly: love, justice, power and wisdom. Here Paul has focused particularly on the later attribute.
Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the·o'tes (the nominative form, from which the·o'te·tos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature." (Oxford, 1968, p. 792)
Our friend and we agree that the exalted heavenly Christ is "divine." We do not see Colossians 2.9 as an argument that Christ in the flesh was divine as part of a triune Godhead. Our friend has perhaps a loftier view of Christ than either the Scriptures or God warrants, for it is God who was pleased to have "all the fulness" reside in Christ. We do not criticize our friend, nor do we judge him, for having this heightened view of Christ. He is welcome, without hindrance, to what faith has called him. We are confident that his higher Christology will lead him to a pure and righteous course in his chosen lifestyle. We pray we both stand before the judgment of the Christ without any embarrassment, ble to spreak freely regarding our Christian course.
Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead."
Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for religious reasons" (page 792).
