Here is something I wrote long ago, which may need to be amended in spots. In his capacity as a spirit creature, the πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος resides in Christ. The use of θεότητος, however, does not mean that Christ is ὁ παντοκράτωρ: he simply possesses "divinity" but not in the strict sense of the word like Almighty God does.
Trinitarians have doubted this understanding of θεότητος and have tried to draw a sharp line between θεότητος and "divinity" in the less strict sense. The fallacy of this argument is clearly demonstrated by a cursory perusal of Jerome's Latin Vulgate where the Vulgate at Col. 2:9 uses the Latin word dīvīnitātis (genitive singular of dīvīnitās) to render θεότητος. Dīvīnitās is the abstract Latin word for "divinity" as attested by the speeches and writings of Constantine (See Michael Grant's Constantine The Great).
Anointed Christians will one day possess the "divine nature"; they will see God and be like unto Him. (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 3:2). Therefore, divinity is not per se synonymous with or equivalent to being God. I thereby conclude that Col. 2:9 does not teach that Christ possesses a fleshly body now, nor is he coequal with God.
See also Nash, H. S. “Θειότης: Θεότης, Rom. 1. 20; Col. 2. 9.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 18, no. 1/2, 1899, pp. 1–34. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3268966. Accessed 3 Apr. 2024.
Tuesday, April 02, 2024
Colossians 2:9 and πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
The “see also” study is quite an interesting one it proves one thing: anyone that tries to argue the letter “I” makes a difference is being wilfully dishonest
I've written a bit about this.
Here's a snip (footnotes not included):
It seems as though Paul, in this verse, is referring back to verse 19 in the CSH. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the “fullness” of verse 19 is that of “divinity,” or “divine quality” (θεότητος); or, if Paul is marshalling a preexisting hymn, that is the way Paul seems to understand the pleroma that dwells in Christ in verse 19 of the CSH. The next question is, what is this fullness of divinity that dwells in Christ?
The LXX translation of the Hebrew bible, speaks of God dwelling (κατοικέω) in his mountain—mount Zion—various places; and speaks of him dwelling in other places, such as the heavens. Different forms of πλήρωμα (verbal and adjectival) are used in the LXX to denote the presence of God, especially in the temple. God is spoken of as filling the heaven and the earth, God’s spirit is spoken of as filling the world, and being everywhere. In a similar way, Philo of Alexandria uses similar language to speak of God’s omnipresence. In other Jewish literature God is spoken of as dwelling in a compassionate person, and a person with a good mind.
With this background information, it seems likely that verse 19 of the CSH is communicating that God was pleased to have all the fullness dwell in him in the same way as it did in the temple/mount Zion. This would have the implication of Christ being for the Colossian Christians what the temple was for Israel: the intersection between humans and the divine presence, just as all things were created in Christ, the fullness also dwells in him, making Christ the meeting point between God and creation.
However, the use of θεότητος in Colossians 2:9 complicates the issue, θεότητος only occurs here in the New Testament, and must be distinguished from Paul’s use of θειότης in Romans 1:20 to describe God’s divine essence or Godship. Θειότης is defined as the property which makes one a god. Θεότητος is defined as the state of being a god. If we include the context of the epistle, we see that Paul warns his audience in Colossians 2:8 against “the philosophy and empty seduction according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world, and not according to Christ;” and in verse 10 Paul reminds his audience that in Christ they have been filled, and that Christ is the head of all rulership and authority. The statement in Colossians 2:10—that in Christ the Colossians have been filled (καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι)—rules out the idea that the fullness dwelling in Christ implies ontological equality with the most-high God, since that would lead one to believe that this ontological equality would also apply to the Colossian community.
Given that, along with the temple/Zion parallels in the LXX; it seems as though, in Colossians 2:9, Paul is arguing to his audience that they ought not to search for access to the divine realm outside of Christ, because, the fullness of the divine quality dwells in Christ, God was well pleased to have the fullness dwell in Christ, and therefore, the only access to the divine is through Christ. One could therefore paraphrase verse 19 of the CSH as saying that God was well pleased to designate Christ as the one through whom mankind can fully access God, since the divine presence dwells in him just as it did the temple. The fullness dwelling in Christ, that God is pleased to have dwell in him, is the fullness of what it means to access the divine, and the audience of the Colossian epistle can have this same fullness in Christ.
Many trinitarians can't seem to distinguish between a defense of modalism and a defense of the claims of trinitarianism. If God's triunity is part of his essence then no person(divine or not) who is not triune is fully God.
This is a serious metaphysical problem, ESPECIALLY for social trinitarians. I've read many brilliant and serious attempts to deal with this, some better than others (best I've heard is Bruce McCormack's Kantzer lectures), but all have what are, in my view, serious and fatal problems.
Roman: thanks for posting some of what you've written about Colossians 2:9.
aservant: I think Trinitarians distinguish between person and essence such that they can preserve (in theory) the one substance/essence and three person credo. So "one" belongs to the divine essence but "three" to the tres personae.
Anonymous, that is a classical article well worth reading IMO.
It is the claim that each one is FULLY God that causes the slide into modalistic reasoning. That phraseology can only sensibly mean that everything essential to God's being God is true of the one being described as fully God. That can work to a degree for a modalist but for the trinitarian who insists that a triune nature is essential to God's being God ,not so much.
You cannot translate 'theotēs' in Col. 2:9 as 'divine nature' as in 2Pt. 1:4, as it is 'theia physis' there.
In Colossians 2:9, the term 'theotēs' (deity, the totality of divine attributes, see Romans 1:20) implies someone's Godhood, in contrast to "theiotēs" used elsewhere, which refers more to the attributes of God. However, the NWT oddly uses the term "Godship" in Romans 1:20, which actually corresponds to "theotēs", whereas here it speaks of "divine quality" dwelling in Christ. This deliberate mixing does not require refutation. The correct translation of the passage would indeed demolish the theology of the JWs, as it would force them to acknowledge not just the attributes of God but His entire being in Christ.
I also checked out this JW apologist article: http://jehovah.to/xlation/theotes.html
Sadly, I must say it's one of the most lackluster articles on that site. Instead of dealing with the essence, that is, examining how the Bible uses "theotēs" and "the*i*otēs," as well as "the*i*on", it interrogates various lexicons, which naturally start with the general meaning and only then mention the New Testament occurrences, and some even the patristic ones! Then, in a burst of zeal, it cites English dictionaries as if an English reader would be so limited as to only understand a Greek lexicon through Merriam-Webster! Obviously, the intention was to preclude objections, but chaining lexicons inevitably leads to a blurring of semantic fields, as one does not see the other, since they were not created with this purpose. It's not hard to conflate the two Greek words - which, after all, is the goal of the website author.
They argue that Trinitarians protest because the NWT takes away one of their "few" (?) proof texts. And it adds: there's no point in forcing a meaning onto the text that isn't there, or in restricting the meaning of a specific word to fit a certain conception of God. - But what purpose does it serve for the NWT to simply swap out two well-established Greek terms in the translation, if not to shake off the troublesome connotations attached to one of them in common and theological language? Thus struggles the shackled escapologist under water, but he has one advantage: he can eventually escape. The JWs, however, since it cannot yet free itself from the term "fullness," starts its escape with "divinity," morphing it into "divine quality" or "divine attribute," as used in previous terminology in the book 'Reasoning from the Scriptures'.
Moreover, this article provides a stinging refutation to one of JWs often used arguments, stating, "This is eisegesis, rather than exegesis - reading one's own ideas into the text, instead of letting the Bible speak, allowing it to be precise where it is precise and vague where it is vague." In other words, it would be better to maintain the ambiguity present in the Bible, and not to project our own ideas onto it.
The NWT renders it as "it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." The Greek text does not include any term like "quality." The word "deity" would be a perfect match for "theotēs" - although not for the "divine quality" term used in the NWT guidelines. Yet, the NWT prides itself on being "as literal as possible"; therefore, it is likely that they will find my modest proposal useful in the next edition and finally translate the term literally.
"Some English and German translations replace 'divinity' with 'divine nature'. Compare: 2 Peter 1:4." - But the Greek term there is not "theotēs" or "the*i*otēs," but "theia phyis," which is undoubtedly more flexible than the former. Yet, similar expressions will be used in the translations for both instances, leading nowhere but to the dilution of Colossians 2:9.
"Or was the 'fullness' that dwells in him made his own based on someone else's decision?" - If so, it did not happen after Jesus was born, since he was born as God, and it is not mentioned that a greater measure of deity was then imposed on him.
"the entire fullness dwelled in Christ because it 'pleased the Father'." - The Greek text (Col 1:19) uses an impersonal construction: neither Father nor God is mentioned, at most "the fullness" could be considered the subject: "oti en auto eudokesen pan to pleroma katoikēsai". Since this "pleroma" according to 2:9 is nothing other than the fullness of deity, it pleased God Himself (with the definite article) that it should dwell in Christ. This is another place that indicates Jesus "is God." The term "pleased" does not imply some revocable privilege, as it is written regarding Jesus (in the matter of priesthood) that the Father swore to him and would not change his mind. Therefore, he possesses the entire fullness of divinity not incidentally, but inalienably.
"Does Paul the Apostle perhaps say here that the 'fullness' in Christ makes Christ God himself? According to Colossians 3:1, no, because it says about Christ that 'he is sitting at the right hand of God'." - With this reference, you have once again only managed to refute modalism. You should finally come to terms with it: Colossians 2:9, with its strict and explicit terminology, by itself refutes all your implicit and read-in arguments about Jesus being "essentially inferior" in divinity to the Father. Because if Jesus is not of the same essence as the Father, then the fullness of deuty could not dwell in him. Something would have had to be left out.
"According to the Ancient Greek dictionary, the·o′tēs (nominative case, from which the·o′tē·tos originates) means: 'deity, divinity, divine nature'" - For "theiotēs," the dictionary mentions the same things, just in reverse order and with additional meanings. Thus, it's evident where your denomination intends to lean by trying to conflate the two terms in its argumentation. The goal is to analyze one term in place of the other - at least in its translations. Because "divine quality" or "divine character" is undoubtedly weaker and more flexible for subsequent commentary than "deity" or "divinity." And the book 'Reasoning from the Scriptures', also uses this term "divine attribute" to sidestep towards 2 Peter 1:4, thereby sneakily introducing the "divine nature" that can also be possessed by humans, i.e., the moral purity characteristic of God, originating from Him, into the picture. Behold, it becomes clear why the Watchtower has misinterpreted this text. But I am not blind, and my tongue has not been cut out.
@Mr. Foster
"So "one" belongs to the divine essence but "three" to the tres personae."
Talking about "tres personae" can be misleading if we take the concept of human person as a basis, so it is more correct to talk about "tres supposita" or "tres subsistentiae".
The word 'theotēs', which is derived from 'theos' (God). It means Deity, Divinity, Godhood, the essence or nature that makes a god what it is. 'Theotēs' appears in the New Testament only here. In classical Greek, it also denotes "divinity," that which makes a god a god, and not something else.
Another question is in what manner the fullness of divinity dwells in Christ? The term 'somatikos' is usually translated as "bodily" or "in a bodily way," although it does not refer to 'sarx' (flesh) but 'soma'. Its range of meaning extends from corpse to bodily presence, to nature, essence, form of being, shape, personality, essence, or body. It's not about the material, but about the form, as the expression of the inner essence. In 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, the heavenly, spiritual body (soma pneumatikos) speaks of a completely different, glorified form of being, not just a change of material or form.
Therefore, 'theotēs' (Deiry) points not to a characteristic or quality, but to the essence. Paul is not merely talking about God (theos) but about God's essence, which filled the Messiah. The term "somatikos" as an adverb answers the question of "how?" Therefore, the translation must capture how "the fullness of deity" dwells in Christ. Obviously not physically, because although the Resurrected body has physical properties, its form of being since the glorification is unimaginably more than physical. Rather, it means that in terms of his being, the fullness of Deury in its entirety dwells in him.
According to the JWs objections, the Son's "divinity" or "divine nature" does not make Him equal in rank and similarly eternal to the Father, just as humanity or human nature does not imply that all humans are equal in rank or age. However, anyone who proves to be human through their human nature, and whose humanity is clear, is human regardless of their rank or age, right?
The expression "divine nature" could only be a legitimate translation here if the text used 'the*i*otēs' instead of 'theotēs'. This is formed from the adjective 'theios' ("divine"), and indeed means a divine character or nature, a divine essence recognizable based on attribute(s) (cf. Romans 1:20). Thus, Paul had the word for it but did not use it for Christ. The difference between the two words is just an "iota," but it's crucial in meaning.
Paul was fighting against the Gnostic heresy emerging in Colossae, which proclaimed a mystical "Fullness" (pleroma) attainable through secret "Knowledge" (gnosis) as opposed to simple faith in Christ. Against this "knowledge," Paul proclaimed the complete redemption, sanctification, wisdom, hope, and the fullness of life in Christ. He did this by infusing Christian content into the words used by the Gnostics (fullness, knowledge). This way, wavering believers could understand that everything is in Christ's being, since in Him dwells all "Knowledge" (2:3), the "Fullness" (1:19), or the fullness of "Divinity" (2:9).
Westcott and Hort literal translation has not the word diety but divinity, the expression as found in the online etomology dictionay states quality or character of being divine "of a god" from divinus in latin. The best translation is divinity, not diety.
Ninc - you are being wilfully ignorant the article by Nash proves you 110% wrong
There is no evidence the words had any real difference in meaning…
Of course sites like that reference lexicons it’s the meaning to the word…
If we want to take an example try “firstborn” where the meaning you take is only used in the OT - how do you know the same sense is meant in the NT? ( this is literally a parallel to your theos - Elohim argument)
I still raise: why not both meanings?
Again your theologically motivated, not interested in what the text says only in philosophy which came later… Philosophy the apostles or OT writers didn’t need as they prove they couldn’t have described what you claim real easily- Paul 3 times uses modern day trinitarian language but never applies it to God - why? Because it wasn’t true
“ With this reference, you have once again only managed to refute modalism.” - actually he’s refuted Christ as equal to the father - you take the majesty in high as the father - why is Christ and the spirit not on the throne? God is on the throne but Christ is only ever in the midst - why?
So why are you deflecting?
JEHOVAH'S Priest is his subordinate not his equal . It is irrelevant that JEHOVAH's gift of Christ's priesthood was preceded by an oath,priesthood does not equal Godhood,also nothing received from outside of JEHOVAH Can be necessary to JEHOVAH'S Supremacy,the Bible is clear about that,Roman's ch.11:35NIV"“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?” " It is a rhetorical question no aspect of JEHOVAH'S Divinity was not received in any way from anyone. This why Christ has JEHOVAH as his God but JEHOVAH is Supreme. revelation ch.3:12NKJV"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name."
Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
Abraham's blessing was also preceded by an oath indicating immutability thus a la trinitarian logic Abraham must be equal to the giver of his gift. Or we can instead embrace the apostle Paul's superior logic ,Hebrews ch.7:7NIV"And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater."
From my blog, but tweaked:
I recently started pondering anew Paul’s delightfully quirky expression found at Col. 2:9. I say “quirky” because, let’s face it, none of us would ever be likely to say that “the fullness of humanness dwells in [someone]” as a roundabout way of saying that someone is human. I mean, who talks like that? If my dad had said, “Meet my son, the one in whom I was pleased to have the fullness of humanness dwell bodily,” then all within hearing distance would have wondered, “What did he just say? How very odd! Did that guy just escape from a mental ward?”
So, I set Col. 1:19 and 2:9 aside and took a look at the other texts in the New Testament in which κατοικεῖ appears, and I noticed something interesting, but not unexpected.
Matthew 12:45: Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell [κατοικεῖ] there.
Luke 11:26: Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell [κατοικεῖ] there.
Acts 7:48: However, the Most High does not dwell [κατοικεῖ] in temples made with hands
Acts 17:24: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell [κατοικεῖ] in temples made with hands.
2 Peter 3:13: Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells [κατοικεῖ].
Revelation 2:13: I know your works, and where you dwell [κατοικεῖς], where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells [κατοικεῖ].
Did you notice something interesting about every one of these uses of “dwells”? That which dwells in various places is never an inherent ontological property of those places.
You could express it this way:
A dwells in P, but A is not an inherent ontological property of P.
Or you could universalize it this way:
Whenever we see that A dwells in P, we can assume that A is not an inherent ontological property of P.
If Col. 2:9 is understood the same way as these other texts, then Col. 1:19 makes perfect sense, as does Eph. 3:19. On the other hand, if we assume, as most if not all Trinitarians seem to assume, that Col. 2:9 is speaking of inherent ontological properties, then it seems incompatible with Col. 1:19.
Well, then, you may ask, what DID Paul mean when he said that in Christ all the fullness of Godhood dwells bodily? I think Roman put it quite well (see his response above:
“Given that, along with the temple/Zion parallels in the LXX; it seems as though, in Colossians 2:9, Paul is arguing to his audience that they ought not to search for access to the divine realm outside of Christ, because, the fullness of the divine quality dwells in Christ, God was well pleased to have the fullness dwell in Christ, and therefore, the only access to the divine is through Christ. One could therefore paraphrase verse 19 of the CSH as saying that God was well pleased to designate Christ as the one through whom mankind can fully access God, since the divine presence dwells in him just as it did the temple. The fullness dwelling in Christ, that God is pleased to have dwell in him, is the fullness of what it means to access the divine, and the audience of the Colossian epistle can have this same fullness in Christ.”
Moses went to the mountain where God dwelt to experience the divine, just as Israelites went to the temple where God dwelt to experience the divine, yet neither the mountain nor the temple were themselves God. Jesus has replaced the mountain and the temple, and it is to him and his “body” that Christians go to experience the divine. Though he and his body also are not God, they are nevertheless the ‘place’ where we meet his God and our God.
At Col. 2:9 Dr. Goodspeed used the expression God's nature.
What God's qualities and Characteristics are will be fully in him(Jesus). A son can be just like his father, but the father existed before him. There was just the father and the very next thing the father brought forth the son.
Nincsnevem, yes I am familiar with the language that developed in the middle ages regarding the Trinity, but I'm sure you know that "one substance, three Persons" is common Trinitarian lingo too. I've read that Trinitarians mostly see the relationship between human and divine persons as being analogical and they're aware of the implications that arise from modern conceptions of personhood.
Pope Benedict XVI: "Three Persons who are one God because the Father is love, the Son is love, the Spirit is love. God is wholly and only love, the purest, infinite and eternal love."
Me being nit picky
“The Greek text does not include any term like "quality."“ - Ninc the Greek also doesn’t contain anything that say “bodily” either in fact, if you would be so kind as to provide the bible you use and how it translates this verse I bet I could find many places where there is “no word” corresponding to the Greek
Again your motives are showing and they aren’t looking good for you
Ephesians ch.3:19NKJV"to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God."
Post a Comment