For in Him all the fullness [Greek, pleroma, plenitude] of Deity [Greek, Theotes; Strong's #2320] dwells in bodily form and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power. -- Colossians 2:9,10, New American Standard Bible translation
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/2320.html
This form of THEOS, that is, THEOTES, appears only this one time in the Scriptures, thus we have a lack of scriptural comparison for its particular usage. We have, however, the Hebrew background of words that are translated into Greek as THEOS, that is, forms of EL and ELOHIM. We have given before the Hebriac usage of these words in the Hebrew scriptures, showing that when they are used of others than Jehovah (or idols of men), they take on a more general meaning of might, power, strength, etc, rather than of the Supreme Mighty One of the universe. Without assuming and adding to Colossians 2:9 the idea that Jesus is being spoken of here as the Supreme Being, it certainly can be seen that Paul would be using theotes to describe what God has given to Jesus as being power and might, not any idea that Jesus is Jehovah, or that Jesus is a person of Jehovah.
See our study:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
See our study:
Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"
The Greek form of the word often transliterated as Soma (body) that appears in Colossians 2:9, is often transliterated as Somatikos (adverb form of "Soma", bodily), which form likewise does not appear anywhere else in the Scriptures. Paul speaks of Jesus' spiritual, heavenly, body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:44), when he says that Jesus, the last Adam, "became a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45) Thus, he is speaking in Colossians 2:9 about that spiritual body, as can be seen from the context, and not the body of flesh and blood that Jesus had already given in sacrifice. -- Hebrews 10:10.
See:
Jesus Died a Human Being - Raised a Spirit Being
See:
Jesus Died a Human Being - Raised a Spirit Being
The plenitude of godship -- ruling might -- does dwell permanently in the mighty spiritual body of Jesus. It is not just an authority that is given to him, but his very being, after he became the life-giving spirit, now possesses all the power needed to carry out the works of his Father, thus "it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him," (Colossians 1:19, NAS) and so that now he "is the head of all principality and power." (Colossians 2:10; see also Ephesians 1:3,17-23) This might -- godhead, godship -- is given to Jesus from his God. -- Psalm 45:7; Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:2,6,9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:9; Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14. -- Ronald R. Day, Sr.
See also:
The Fullness of Deity
See also:
The Fullness of Deity
************
1 Corinthians 15:28 makes it very clear that Jesus and Jehovah are not the same person. This is after Jesus resurrection and he is now in heaven. At this point in time Jesus subjects himself to Jehovah, so JEHOVAH can be all things to everyone. Demonstrating that Jesus and Jehovah are not equal in power or position.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes it very clear that Jesus is not the "one God" from whom are the all. John 17:1,3 makes it clear that Jesus is not the only true God. Hebrews 1:1,2 makes it clear that Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament.
DeleteDon't forget that, according to Nicene theology, the Son received both his existence and his divinity from the Father, but not in time and not in a derivative, separable manner. Just a reminder: "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten." (Athanasian Creed)
ReplyDeleteCol 2:9 clearly proves that Jesus possessed the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes, and not theitotes), not just some kind of demigod, lesser god ("a god") "quality". Between theotes and theiotes, that certain letter i means the same thing as in the case of homoousios and homoiousios. The first means deity (godhead), the second means divinity, divine nature, godlike character. So without the "i" it means possessing the very same quality of God, thus being truly and fully God, with it a lesser, similar ("kind of") divine quality. The apostle uses the first in Colossians 2:9. Just like in 2 Peter 1:4: "theias koinōnoi physeōs". So it is correct to translate this as "divine nature", and theotes should have been 'deity', the WTS bias is obvious.
The 'theotes' used in Colossians 2:9 comes from the term 'theos' (=God), the "-tes" is the same adjectival suffix as -(i)ty,- ship in English. So 'theotes' means 'godship', 'being of god', 'deity', 'goodhead'. And 'theiotes' comes from the term 'theios', which means divine, godlike. The resulting 'theiotes' is therefore godlikeness, likeness to God. But this is not the only argument, but that the apostle Paul speaks not only of some kind of divinity, godlikenesss, but of "the fullness (pleroma) of the the deity", so that the Son did not only have some semi-divine nature, but the same divine reality as in the Father, moreover completely, since the The Father begot the Son from himself, from his own being (cf. Hebrews 1:3).
RE: "Don't forget that, according to Nicene theology, the Son received both his existence and his divinity from the Father, but not in time and not in a derivative, separable manner."
DeleteDespite whatever men have claimed beyond what is written, I have no scriptural reason to imagine, assume, add to and read into the scriptures that that Jesus received his existence outside of time, and thus that this would mean that Jesus has always existed, etc.
Re: ''Just a reminder: "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten." (Athanasian Creed)''
I have no scriptural reason to imagine and assume that begotten means never brought forth in existence, or uncreated.
Re: ''Col 2:9 clearly proves that Jesus possessed the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes, and not theitotes),''
Theotes is a form of theos, which, in the New Testament, corresponds with forms of the Hebrew EL of the Old Testament. The basic Hebraic meaning of EL relates to might, power, strength.
I would suggest an examination of the Hebraic usage in the study:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/hebraicusage.html
Of course, trinitarian authoritarians will endeavor to turn attention away from the Hebraic usage to make the scriptures appear to be referring to their added on trinitarian concepts and assumptions, which are no where to be found in the Bible.
The default scriptural reasoning should not be to imagine, assume, add to, and read into the scriptures that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The default reasoning should be that Jesus is not the God of Abraham.
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/jesusnotjah.html
Let's see the WTS' arguments you were refering to (Reasoning From the Scriptures)
ReplyDelete"Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”".
But the Greek text has no trace of it being the will of the Father, on the contrary, the Fullness wanted it that way: "hoti en autō eudokēsen pan to plērōma katoikēsai". This fullness is, according to the immediate precedent, the fullness of deity, not some vague, diffusive, and indistinct divine "nature" fullness. Your denomination is trying to restrict this to some undefined attributes, which the apostle does not do.
However, it is clear: you are trying desperately to plug in here this mistranslating divine "nature" so that you can then abruptly turn to the Peter letter, which you are desperately trying to flatten out the divine fullness dwelling in Jesus, stammering that according to Peter, believers also became partakers of the divine nature, and so the divine nature of Jesus is no more than this. These Watchtower struggles are transparent, and they can be nailed firmly to the ground here, where they may continue to wriggle to the great amusement of those who know the Bible.
"In him, and not in the creators or teachers of human philosophies, does this precious "fullness" dwell."
This is awkward, evasive sidetracking: a childish stirring of emotions with buzzwords against the doctrine of the Trinity, which also appeared in philosophical garb from the 4th century. But it took its essential content from the Bible, not from any philosophy.
"Is the Apostle Paul perhaps saying here that the "fullness" in Christ makes Christ himself God? According to Colossians 3:1, no, because here we read of Christ that he "sits at the right hand of God."
This is not a refutation, because here the word God refers to the Father (elsewhere it refers to Jesus). The believers in the Trinity never claimed that Jesus is identical with the Father, and thus sits at his own right hand.
"Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father"
But the fullness of deity does.
"Just as "humanity" or "human nature" does not mean that every human is equal or coeternal any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age."
Except that it does mean that in their humanity, all humans are equal, and so in parallel: in their deity, the Father and the Son are equal (Phil 2:6).
RE: ''Let's see the WTS' arguments you were refering to (Reasoning From the Scriptures)''
DeleteI don't know of any time I referred to the WTS' arguments, such as in their publication, Reasoning From the Scriptures.
RE: Colossians 1:19
For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him [Jesus] should all the fulness dwell; and through him [Jesus] to reconcile all things unto himself [the God and Father of Jesus], having made peace through the blood of his [Jesus] cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. -- Colossians 1:19,20.
and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. -- Romans 5:11.
But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. to wit, that God was in [by means of] Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. -- 2 Corinthians 5:18.
If in Colossians 1:19, the fullness wanted it that way, then we would have to believe that in Colossians 1:20, the reconcilation through the blood of the cross was made to the fullness, rather than to the God and Father of Jesus.
I have a study related Colossians 1:19 at:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2020/06/col1-19.html
RE: ''However, it is clear: you are trying desperately to plug in here this mistranslating divine "nature"''
This is apparently referring, not what I presented, but rather to what is presented in publications of the Jehovah's Witnesses. If you wish to discuss and/or endeavor to refute what is written in the publications of the Jehovah's Witnesses, this is not the place to do so.
The Greek word for diety in Colossians 2:9, however, is an abstract form of the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS or QEOS, which, in turn, in the New Testament is Greek form corresponding to Hebrew forms of the word often transliterated as EL, which has the basic meaning of might, power, strength. Since Jesus is definitely NOT the "one God" from whom are the all of 1 Corinthians 8:6, and since he is definitely NOT the God of the Old Testament who spoke through the prophets of old (Hebrews 1:1,2), and since Jesus is definitely not Jehovah, the only true God who anointed and sent Jesus (Isaiah 61:1,2; John 17:1,3), the default reasoning should be that theotes applied to Jesus in Colossians 2:9 is not referring to Jesus as having the Supreme Mightiness of the Universe, but simply as having the mightiness in his present spiritual body that he needs to perform the work that his God (Supreme Mighty One) has given to him to do.
RE: Philippians 2:6:
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. -- American Standard Version.
If Paul had been saying that Jesus was equal to his God, that would actually mean that Paul was saying that there are two Supreme Mighty Ones, to God from whom are the all. The trinitarian has to invent a a lot of extra-Biblical assumptions in order to make it appear that Paul was speaking of two different persons who are both equally the one Supreme Mighty One.
The reality is that Paul was showing the humility of Jesus who did not aspire to be equal to his God (unlike the one referred to in Isaiah 14:14). Indeed, if Jesus was already equal in being the Most High, then he could not have been exalted by the one person who is God in Philippians 2:9.
I have links to some of my studies related to Philippians 2:6 at
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/philippians.html#phil2-5