The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in
question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that
word. That attachment is a personification and does not
actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons
for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow
for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul
could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is
less possibility for confusion.
Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says
when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke
on
marriage and it was his own thoughts he said
so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in
there
because it fits and is supposed to be there for
reasons of clarity. Your
logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that
adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit
that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and
therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You
simply do not follow your own rules .
Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of
"Father." A reasonable argument, by the
way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is
italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to
the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly
pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely
appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that
circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto
Himself from the foundations of the world meets
with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a
divinely appointment mission.
Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do
that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to
reconcile
ppl back to the Father which is the focus of
both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a
bias. Are you now saying
that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity
altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this
case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the
table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object
inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God..." When God
draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of
necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in
Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all
unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father
and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but
cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a
large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir..
In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at
the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that
it does not fully explain the Deity.
jd
