| O
t
h
e
r
V
i
e
w
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
|
Jehovah's Witnesses
Latter Day Saints
Jehovah's Witnesses
Greg Stafford offers a comprehensive argument against the
traditional view of Colossians 2:9 (Stafford,
pp. 152-160). He suggests that Trinitarians read too much into this verse
- and the word theotes in particular - and that this verse need not
mean anything beyond the fullness of a divine quality dwelling in Christ -
not by Christ's inherent nature, but by the Father's decree. I shall
examine Mr. Stafford's key points, below:
objection: Mr.
Stafford writes:
Rhodes
also objects to the translation of Colossian's 2:9 in the NWT, stating:
"Colossians 2:9 is not saying that Jesus has mere divine
qualities. Rather, it is saying that the absolute 'fullness of
Deity' dwells in Christ in bodily form" (Rhodes,
p. 81). In support of his interpretation Rhodes cites several
scholars whose views are similar to his. For example, he says:
"Greek scholar J. H. Thayer - whose Greek lexicon is called
'comprehensive' by the Watchtower Society - says that the Greek word in
Colossians 2:9 refers to 'deity, that is the state of being God,
Godhead'" (IBID, pp. 81-82).
First, it should be noted that the words Rhodes attributes
to J. H. Thayer are not the words of J. H. Thayer! They are the
words of Karl Grimm, the Lutheran lexicographer whose work Thayer
translated from Latin to English...Of course, the reason our critics like
to attribute words to Thayer is because they operate under the
questionable assumption that Thayer was a Unitarian. Thus, they
argue, "Well, even this Unitarian, one who would tend to be
sympathetic to your view, argues for a Trinitarian understanding of
Colossians 2:9! [See Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 79 - note
75] (Stafford, pp. 152-153).
Response:
Rhodes, indeed, mentions several scholars who support the consensus view
of theotoes, including Lightfoot, ("The totality of the divine
powers and attributes"), Trench ("all the fullness of absolute
Godhead...He was, and is, absolute and perfect God"), Bengal
("not merely the Divine attributes, but the Divine Nature
itself"), Moule ("as strong as possible; Deity, not only
Divinity"), Reymond ("the being of the very essence of
deity"), Warfield ("the very deity of God, that which makes God
God, in all its completeness"), and Thayer. These scholars do
indeed support Rhodes' views and quite strongly.
Mr. Stafford is correct that the words Rhodes attributes
to Thayer were originally Grimm's. However, not only does Thayer
translate them without contradictory comment, he adds the following:
"Syn. qeothV,
qeiothV: qeot. deity differs from qeiot.
divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute"
He then refers the reader to two of the other scholars Rhodes lists:
Lightfoot and Trench. Thus, Thayer clearly believed Grimm's
definition to be correct. Rhodes fundamental point is that the
'comprehensive' Grimm-Thayer lexicon (in addition to the other scholars he
cites) provides strong support for the meaning of theotes he
advocates, a point which Mr. Stafford does not
contest.
objection: Mr.
Stafford writes:
Really,
though, considering the use of theotes in other Greek sources, one
would be justified in defining it as "the quality of being a
god" (Broyles, p.
224). Especially so in view of the OT concept of God...and in view
of the fact that God gives his Son a divine nature (Stafford,
p. 153, note 73).
Response:
One would be justified in defining theotes in this way if one were
referring to the pagan gods in classic Greek texts that Broyles was
writing about:
By
qeoV the Greeks always meant an individual
god - as qeoV zeuV- even if they were not
always careful to have in mind any particular god....The plural means
the individual gods taken collectively...In historical times the gods
were conceived in human form, having human natures and passions,
capricious and independent, not subject to old age and death, and
powerful to an enormous degree. qeoteV is
the quality of being such a god (Broyles,
pp. 223 - 224).
Broyles
then quotes the same passage in Plutarch which Lightfoot, Trench, and
others have used to illustrate the difference in semantic nuance between theotes
and theitoes, that is, between essence and attributes (see Thayer's
definition of theotes in the Grammatical Analysis, above, and the
discussion of theotes and theiotes, below).
We
may first note that Mr. Stafford's quotation omits the word
"such." Broyles no more says that theotes may be defined as "the quality of being a god" than
he says that theos may be defined as "a god having a human
nature." Broyles says that theos refers to pagan
gods when used by pagans, and that theotes is the quality of being
such a god. What type of god? A personal god. An
individual. Broyles argues that theotes emphasizes the individual personality, rather
than the "inscrutable Deity behind all gods" (IBID,
p. 225), which Broyles sees as the pagan usage of to theion.
However, when dealing with Paul's use of the term, Broyles
recognizes that Paul is not referring to pagan gods:
It
is qeoteV that Paul uses in Colossians
2:9..."In him the fulness of godhead dwells embodied."
Paul's diction specifies the divine personality as opposed to the divine
properties (IBID, p. 224).
Thus,
in this context, theotes refers to the quality of being the one
God. Broyles
concludes that centuries of development among Greeks made theotes, to
theion, and theiotes "suitable for expressing the
'god-ness' in Christ and the mystery of the infinite-personal God" (IBID,
p. 229). He does not define theotes as "the
quality of being a god" in the way Mr. Stafford implies; instead, he
notes that, like theos, theotes arose in a pagan culture and
was used to refer to "a god" in that context.
Broyles' article actually supports the argument Mr. Stafford is arguing
against - namely, that there is a distinction between theotes and theiotes,
and that in Paul's usage, the former signifies the full measure
"godhead" (which Broyles defines as "Deity,"
"Godhood," or "God-ness" - the quality of being the
one, true God) that dwells in Christ bodily.
objection: Mr.
Stafford writes:
The
term theotes (of which theotetos in Col 2:9 is a genitive
flexion) closely resembles, in spelling, the term Paul uses in Romans
1:20, namely theiotes (NWT: "Godship"). James White
asserts a distinction between these two terms (theotes and theiotes)
such that theotes (in Col 2:9) is "different from the weaker
term used at Romans 1:20" (theiotes) [White,
p. 85]. White is apparently not aware of the extensive study by H.S.
Nash, who a century ago
demonstrated quite convincingly that the two terms theiotes and theotes
do not have the distinction in meaning attributed to them by White (Stafford,
pp. 153-154).
Response:
White, like Rhodes, rests his argument on a number of scholarly sources,
including the Grimm-Thayer lexicon (White, by the way, makes the
distinction between Grimm's words and Thayer's, which Stafford demands of
Rhodes), Trench, and Warfield. White may well know of Nash's study,
as do J. Stafford Wright (NIDNTT)
and Gerhard Schneider (EDNT). Both Wright and Schneider reference
Nash's study, yet advocate the distinction in meaning argued by White and
others. The distinction may be inferred from BAGD,
which defines theiotes as "divinity, divine nature" but theotes
as "deity, divinity" (1); and also from the TDNT,
which defines theiotes as "divinity," but theotes
as "divinity, Godhead." Both lexicons refer to Nash's
study. Though they perhaps regard the two terms as more
synonymous than do Wright and Schneider, nonetheless, BAGD
and TDNT both suggest that the two
terms inhabit
somewhat different semantic ranges, with theotes shading more
towards "deity" (2). Thus, if modern
lexicographers who are familiar with Nash's work draw a semantic
distinction between theiotes and theotes, White cannot be
faulted (3).
We
may, however, fault Mr. Stafford for stacking the deck - resting his
entire response to White's point on Nash's article, while failing to
consider contrary evidence from the lexical sources mentioned. Mr.
Stafford might have at least mentioned EDNT,
since he quotes its definition of eudokeo just a few pages later (Stafford,
p. 160).
But
what of Nash's article? Does it prove that theotes and theiotes
are completely synonymous and that the former may convey nothing more than
a "divine quality" and not the essence of Godhood, as
Trinitarians argue?
Nash
argues that theiotes and theotes began life as completely
synonymous abstract nouns just prior to NT times. He provides examples
from various extra-Biblical texts which, he believes, demonstrate that the
two terms were used more or less interchangeably until several hundred
years after NT times, when theotes gradually superceded theiotes
because of it's etymological derivation from theos, which made it a
more suitable term in Christian usage.
It
should be emphasized that Nash does not suggest that theotes may
not signify deity in the traditional sense; he rather argues that theiotes
may also be used in this same sense (4).
Nash acknowledges that there is a subtle distinction between the terms,
with theotes being more logically precise (5), but he strenuously argues that
the theological distinction between natural and revealed religion which
some scholars - notably Trench - derive from the semantic distinction is
anachronistic when applied to Paul's usage (6).
Even
granting Nash his argument, it is clear from the examples he provides of
Christian usage, theiotes and theotes are used exclusively
to denote the deity/divinity of the true God, and never is used of
secondary "divine" beings (7). When Stafford quotes Nash
to suggest that theotes may simply signify a general sort of
"divinity" shared by lesser gods, he is doing so with Nash's
argument from pagan usage:
But
the reference to the "fullness" of divine attributes dwelling
in Christ does not necessarily make him equal with God, and certainly
does not imply a Trinitarian concept of deity. Nash points to
several uses of theotes in philosophical literature where theotes
is actually used of demons who mediate between gods and men. In
one of his citations, Nash notes that "the rank of the deities in
question, at the highest, is not above that of a demi-god, yet [theotes]
is the term used [Nash, p.
12]. So the term is not elsewhere restricted in its application to
the highest god or gods of pagan pantheons (Stafford,
p. 158, emphasis added).
Of
course pagan philosophers may ascribe deity to lesser gods or demons, but
they could also ascribe theos to these gods as well. The
issue is not what referents the words theotes and theiotes
may modify, but rather the sense the two words may convey - deity vs
divinity in the traditional view. In any event, Nash's examples of
Christian usage make it clear that when used by a Christian writer, theotes
refers to the deity belonging to the one God alone. The context of
Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that the one God is in view - as Mr.
Stafford himself argues: "For God to allow the fullness of His
divine attributes and qualities to reside in Christ fits perfectly with
Christ's mediatorial and reconciliatory role in God's purpose (Stafford,
p. 159). Thus, by Mr. Stafford's own argument, what resides in
Christ bodily is all the fullness of the "attributes and
qualities" of the one God.
There is nothing in Nash's article that suggests that theotes
in Colossians 2:9 has the lesser meaning for which Mr. Stafford argues.
It signifies deity - and all the fullness of it.
objection: Mr.
Stafford writes:
Those
who attempt to create a situation whereby Trinitarianism is made to agree
with Colossians 2:9 try to disassociate what is said in 2:9 from what is
said in 1:19. The reason for this is not hard to find.
Colossians 1:19 tells us, "For God was pleased to have all his
fullness dwell in him" (NIV). The Greek word translated
"pleased" is eudokew (eudokeo).
In the Word Biblical Commentary we are told that the verb 'be pleased (eudokew
) which often appears in the OT to denote the good pleasure of God (ps
44:3; 147:11; 149:4) is particularly used to denote divine election (O'Brien,
p. 52, emphasis added)....The
Scriptures will not sustain the view that Almighty God's powers and
attributes are something contingent upon the "will" or
"decree" of another (Stafford,
pp. 159-160).
Response:
I agree with Mr. Stafford on three points: 1) Colossians 1:19 and
2:9 are speaking about the same thing; 2) the implied subject of eudokeô
is "God" (NIV) or "the Father" (NASB); and 3) that
Almighty God's deity is not dependent upon the "will" or
"decree" of another. In reference to point 3, though, I
will note that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Father is seen as
the 'source' of deity for both the Son and Spirit, and this formulation is
considered to be orthodox, for the Son and Spirit share equally with the
Father in the divine nature (8). Thus, even if Mr.
Stafford is correct and we are to take Paul to be teaching that the Son
derives His deity from the Father, this does not - in and of itself -
present an insurmountable problem for the Trinity.
A
simpler solution to the problem Mr. Stafford raises, however, is found in
the context of Colossians 1:19 itself and the implications of it's
thematic link with 2:9. Paul moves from speaking about the
pre-existent Son of God in verses 15-17 to the incarnate and exalted Son
in verses 18 - 20. Thus, when Paul speaks of the fullness dwelling
in Christ, it is most natural to understand the reference to be to the
indwelling of God's fullness in Jesus of Nazareth, who - by divine
election and at the Father's good pleasure - was Emmanuel ("God with
us"). Mr. Stafford argues that we should understand the
fullness in verse 2:9 in light of the fullness in 1:19, and I agree with
him (9). But the opposite is also true: we
should understand the fullness in 1:19 in light of 2:9. In 2:9, the
fullness of deity dwells in Christ bodily. As Mr. Stafford
notes:
"It
is unclear whether we should take the references to the dwelling of the
'fullness' of theotes in Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 as referring to
the historical person of Christ while he lived on the earth, or after
his resurrection...It may be that we should take the references as
beginning with his sojourn in the flesh on earth and continuing after
his ascent to heaven" (Stafford,
pp. 154 - 155).
Thus,
even by Mr. Stafford's own reasoning, the good pleasure of the Father was
that His Son should dwell permanently in the physical body of Jesus of
Nazareth. Mr. Stafford suggests that commentators who see the link
between 1:19 and 2:9 probably do so "because they do not see the
problem involved with eudokeô" (Stafford,
p. 160). The more likely reason is that there is no problem
with eudokeô. When we understand Paul's reference to be to
the incarnation, there is no dichotomy between Paul's teaching and the
Trinity. O'Brien, whom Mr. Stafford quotes with regard to eudokeô,
says: "God in all his divine essence and power had taken up residence
in Christ" (O'Brien, Colossians Philemon, Word Biblical
Commentary, p. 53), with the clear implication that Christ's physical life
on earth is in view. He is more explicit elsewhere: "Colossians
2:9 applies the words of the hymn to the Colossian situation, making clear
how the entire fullness of deity dwells in Christ, that is, in bodily form
by his becoming incarnate" (O'Brien, "Letter to the
Colossians," Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 151).(10).
This view is echoed by a number of other commentators (11).
Colossians
2:9 presents one of the clearest declarations of Christ's deity in the New
Testament. Attempts to weaken the force of "deity" or to
argue for Christ as a "functional" manifestation of God's
attributes and power must contend with Paul's language - which, when read
in context and with an appreciation for the meaning of each key term -
exalts Christ as preeminent in all things, because in His physical body,
all the fullness of the nature of God made a permanent and congenial
home. I pray that all who read this will find Him.
Soli
Deo Gloria
_________________________________________
Notes
1.
The distinction is even clearer in the third edition of the Bauer, Danker,
Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG):
theiotes:
The quality or characteristic(s) pert. to deity, divinity, divine
nature, divineness
theotes:
The state of being God, divine character/nature, deity, divinity
See
also Bauer's Greek-German
lexicon (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Grieschish-deutsch Wörterbuch,
1958), which served as the basis of BAGD:
theiotes:
d. Göttlichkeit, d. göttliche Natur
theotes:
d. Gottheit, d. Gottsein
Göttlichkeit
means "divinity;" Gottheit means "deity, godhead." Gottsein is literally "God-Being,
God-Essence." The same definitions are repeated in the
most recent edition of Bauer's Wörterbuch (Bauer and Aland, Grieschish-deutsch Wörterbuch,
1988).
2.
Most lexicons define theiotes and theotes as meaning
"divinity," but recognize only theotes as meaning
"deity" or "godhead." While "deity"
and "divinity" are synonyms in English (just as theiotes
and theotes are in Greek), there is a difference in semantic
range. The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in demonstrating
both the overlap and the distinction in meaning between the two terms:
divinity
(1) Character or quality of being divine; (2) a divine being, a god; (3)
an object of adoration; (4) divine quality, virtue or power.
Godlikeness
deity
(1) The estate or rank of a god, Godhood, the personality of a god,
Godship; (2) the divine quality, character, or nature of God.
Godhood, divinity, the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead; (3)
the condition or state in which the Divine Being exists; (4) a divinity,
a divine being, a god; (4) an object of worship; (5) a supreme being as
creator of the universe.
Notice
that while each of the four definitions of "divinity" are also
present among the definitions of "deity," the same in not true
for "deity." "Deity" may signify the
"estate or rank" or "personality" or "Godship"
of a god. (#1). It may mean the "condition or state" of
divine existence (#3). It is precisely these senses that White
argues are contained within theotes and are lacking in theiotes,
with strong concurrence from the modern lexicons cited.
3.
Commentators who also acknowledge a distinction in meaning between the two
terms include O'Brien (Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical
Commentary, p. 111-112); Lohse (Colossians and Philemon, p. 100);
Boice (EBC); Wright (Colossians
and Philemon, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 103); Hendriksen
(Exposition
of Colossians and Philemon, New Testament Commentary, p. 111); Bruce (The
Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New
International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 101);and Dunn (The
Epsitles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Commentary on the Greek
Text, p. 151). Harris is more cautious, saying that "If there is
a valid distinction between the two words" theotes signifies
"deity;" theiotes "divinity" (Colossians,
p. 98). Elsewhere, he writes: "Nash has subjected [the]
traditional distinction to a penetrating analysis and concluded 'that the
two terms covered a common field, that they fought for existence, and that
theotes triumphed'" (Jesus
as God, p. 287, note 48). But in this view, Harris does
not regard theotes as signifying anything less that absolute deity;
he expresses the meaning of Col 2:9 as follows: "Jesus possesses all
the divine essence and attributes" (Ibid, p. 288).
4.
Nash notes that if the traditional view were correct, we should see it
evidenced in the works of the Greek Fathers. Instead, he finds that
Origen, Athanasius, Arius, Didymus, Eusebius, Theodore, and Chysostom all
used theiotes and theotes interchangeably to refer to the
deity of God the Father and of Christ (c.f., Nash,
pp. 17-25). We may note here that the NWT renders theiotes in
Rom 1:20 as "Godship" - clearly treating it as synonymous with
"deity" - though the translators rendered theotes in Col
2:9 as "the divine quality." If Mr. Stafford's assertion
is correct and there is no distinction in meaning between the terms, we
may ask why the NWTTC chose to translate the two terms differently.
5.
Nash says he "concedes" to the traditional view: "theotes
possessed an inherent capacity for the expression of religious emotion, as
well as logical precision, superior to the emotional and logical qualities
of theiotes" (Nash, p.
28).
6.
"The Rabbi in St. Paul was not at all likely to distinguish between
the Being or Personality or Nature of God on the one side, and His
attributes or majesty or glory on the other. And if the scholar in
Paul did not travel that way, certainly the prophet in him, the creative
Christian element, did not" (Nash, p. 5).
7.
Nash notes that even Arius is not said to have done so by his opponents:
"There is no hint that Arius drew any distinction between theotes
and theiotes, but rather plainly suggested that Arius applied the
word theiotes to the Father Himself. Asterius is soon after quoted
to the same effect" (Nash, p. 17).
8.
"Gregory of Nazianzus explains the position by saying, 'The Three
have one nature, viz. God, the ground of unity being the Father, out of
Whom and towards Whom the subsequent Persons are reckoned' (Or, 42,
15). While all subordinationism is excluded, the Father remains in
the eyes of the Cappadocians the source, fountain-head or principle of the
Godhead. Their thought (as we have already seen when discussing the
Holy Spirit) that He imparts His being to the two other Persons, and so
can be said to cause Them" (Kelly,
pp. 264-265).
9.
In response to James White's discussion of Mr. Stafford's view of Col 1:19
and 2:9 (White, p. 207, note
39), Mr. Stafford says: "There is nothing in the context of
these two texts that should make us think Paul is using the same word in
relation to Christ with two different senses (Stafford,
p. 155, note 79). White's point is that plêrôma tes theotikos
(fullness of deity) defines plêrôma, whereas the other
verses in which plêrôma appears, the fullness is not qualified by
a genitive adjunct - and thus is undefined. While I understand Mr.
White's point, I respectfully disagree with him (but per contra, in
support of White's view, see Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of
the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, p. 69). As Mr. Stafford
notes: "It is actually uncommon in reading through different
commentaries and articles that discuss issues connected with 1:19 and 2:9
to find a scholar who tries to disconnect what is said in the two
passages" (Stafford, p.
160).
10.
Even J.D.G. Dunn, who argues against the pre-existence of God's Son
in his Christology in the Making, sees the incarnation being
virtually implicit in 1:19: "The object here is simply to claim that divine
fullness is evident in Christ's ministry on earth, above all in his death
and resurrection, and that that is another way of explaining his
preeminence in all things (1:18). The thought is not yet of
incarnation, but it is more than inspiration; rather it is of an
inspiration (in Greek, "God-possessed" - entheos, enthousiasmos)
so complete ("all the fullness") as to be merging into the idea
of incarnation" (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and To
Philemon, A Commentary on the Greek Text, p. 102).
11.
E.g., Harris (Colossians,
p. 51); Matthew Henry (Concise
Commentary); Peake (Colossians, Expositor's Greek Testament, p. 508); Bruce sees it as a
reference to Christ's exaltation (The Epistles to the Colossians to
Philemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on
the New Testament, p. 72) as does MacArthur (Colossians &
Philemon, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, p. 52) and The
Bible Knowledge Commentary; H.C.G. Moule sees the immediate
reference to the incarnation, but with implications for a timeless
fullness (Colossians and Philemon Studies, p. 87).
Latter
Day Saints
In support of the LDS view of a corporate
"Godhead" comprised of three distinct Gods, Richard Hopkins
offers the following comments on Colossians 2:9:
objection: Mr.
Hopkins argues as follows:
The
word God in the New Testament comes from the Greek word theos,
which designates an "object of worship." No Biblical text
demands that this word refer to a singular Person or Being
except when the word is used to identify a specific individual who bears
that title. Thus, the Bible teaches that there are three entirely
separate individuals who are so perfectly organized and aligned in
will, purpose and thought that they may be referred to as
"One." They constitute a single, universal authority over
all things, a single "God."
The term "God," used of the Three collectively
in this manner, is best rendered Godhead. That term is
derived from Paul's writings. He referred to theios
("the godhead" or "that which is divine") in
Acts 17:29, theiotes ("divinity") in Rom 1:20, and theotes
("Deity") in Col 2:9. The KJV translators wisely rendered
all three of these words "Godhead," and thereby correctly
captured the sense of composite unity comprised in the Bible's teaching
about the oneness of God" (Hopkins,
pp. 93-940, emphasis in original).
Response:
Mr. Hopkins concludes that the Bible teaches a composite unity of the
"Godhead" ("Thus the Bible teaches...") on the basis
of an argument from silence ("No Biblical text
demands..."). The fact that no Bible text may demand that theos
refer to a single individual (which is itself a questionable assertion),
this is not positive evidence that theos does, in fact, refer to
the composite "Godhead," as Mr. Hopkins understands the
term. While theos may refer to any of the members of the
Trinity individually, it is questionable that any occurrence of theos
in the New Testament refers to "the Trinity" in either the
Trinitarian or LDS sense (1). To support his position, Mr. Hopkins
would need to provide examples of theos in classic or Koine
Greek in which it clearly refers to a collective of two or more
gods. The standard Geek lexicons - both classical and Biblical -
define theos as an individual God or god (2). As Stephen
Broyles notes:
"By qeoV the Greeks always
meant an individual god - as qeoV ZeuV - even
if they were not always careful to have in mind any particular god" (3).
When Mr. Hopkins says that "Godhead" is the best
definition of theios, theiotes, and theotes, (all
meaning "divinity" or "deity," as Mr. Hopkins correctly notes in his parenthetical
definitions), he commits what D.A. Carson has termed the fallacy of
"Semantic Anachronism" (4). The word "Godhead" is an
old Anglo-Saxon word meaning "deity" or "Godhood" (5). The suffix -head (frequently spelled in middle English -hede
or -hed) has been replaced in current English usage by -hood
or -ness (e.g., "manhede" = "manhood;" "boldhede"
= "boldness"). The older forms of these words slowly
became obsolete, with the exception of Godhead (= "Godhood") and
maidenhead (= "maidenhood"). The translators of the KJV
were actually using the same term that had been used by Wycliffe, Tyndale,
and other English Bibles for over 200 years. While the term
"Godhead" came to be virtually synonymous with "the
Trinity" (and so a "composite unity" in Mr. Hopkins'
understanding of the term), it did not have this meaning for the KJV
translators (let alone Wycliffe or Tyndale), and it is only in later
creedal statements and confessions that it began to take on the meaning it
has today. Mr. Hopkins has assumed the modern, technical definition
of "Godhead," rather than the definition it had at the time the
first English Bibles were translated. When the translators rendered
Colossians 2:9 as "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily," they meant "all the fullness of the Deity" - the
plenitude of the qualities or character of being God.
If we follow Mr. Hopkins exegesis to its logical
conclusion, Jesus would have all the fullness of the three Gods of the LDS
trinity in Him bodily - to paraphrase Joseph Smith: "a strange God
anyhow" (6).
_________________________________________
Notes
1.
So Harris: "In the NT qeoV regularly
refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity" (Jesus
as God, p. 47 n112); and Rahner: "Nowhere in the New
Testament is there to be found a text with ò qeoV
which unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitarian God as a whole
existing in three Persons. In by far the greater number of texts ò
qeoV refers to the Father as a Person of the Trinity" (Theological
Investigations, p. 143).
2.
c.f., BAGD, Louw
& Nida, Thayer, Moulton
& Milligan, LSJ.
3.
Broyles, "What Do We Mean by 'Godhead,'" Evangelical Quarterly,
50.4 [1978], pp. 223-224.
4.
"This fallacy occurs when a late use of a word is read back into
earlier literature" (Carson, Fallacies,
p. 33).
5.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Godhead" as:
"The character or quality of being God or a god;
divine nature or essence; deity." For a thorough discussion of
the term "Godhead," see Broyles (op. cit.).
6.
Joseph Smith, "Sermon by the Prophet - the Christian Godhead -
Plurality of Gods," History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp.
473-479).
|