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
