Does any Nicene Father comment on the triple expression of 'Godhead' in scripture and the three individual words used to express it?

Upvote:0

Godhead= Divinity or Deity

The noun G2305 θειότης theiotes meaning divinity, and the adjective G2304 θεῖος theios are not remarkable, gem, enigma nor do they reveal a mystery. "Divinity" is a noun that refers to the quality of being divine or having divine nature. The words used for Godhead mean deity or divinity, state of being divine; godhead, godhood or god-ness. See Godhead on ISBE, and on A Dictionary of the Bible- Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, By John Alexander Selbie, 1899.

The three references (compare English and Latin), you have cited are derived from the same root word theos, synonyms and inflections. Inflection is the change of form a noun, adjective, verb, etc., undergoes to distinguish its case, gender, mood, number, voice, etc.

The Acts 17:29 ref Θεῖον (see theios) is an adjective, accusative; in Romans 1:20, it is a noun in nominative; and in Col 2:9, a similar word in genitive. One is adjective, two are synonymous abstract nouns. The two nouns are to be analysed.

Theotes and Theiotes

Theotes and Theiotes are abstract nouns. Theiotes is a noun derived by adding the tes suffix to the adjective theios; whereas the former, Theotes is an abstract noun derived by adding tes to the concrete noun Theos which is the root word for all 3 words. Abstract nouns are those which are intangible, describing a concept, as opposed to concrete or common nouns which refers to a particular object or person which is tangible and real. There is an excellent answer here with the lexical analysis Theotes, on the Colossians verse question.

Theotes and Theiotes are therefore synonyms, as listed in Thayer's lexicon:

θεότης, θεότητος, ἡ (deitas, Tertullian, Augustine (de 104: Dei 7, 1)), deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9. (Lucian, Icar. 9; Plutarch, de defect. orac. 10, p. 415 c.)
(Synonyms: θεότης, θειότης: θεότης deity differs from θειότης divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Trench, sec. ii.; Lightfoot or Meyer on Colossians, the passage cited; Fritzsche on Rom 1:20.)

To simplify, θεότης is the concrete noun based abstract noun; and θειότης theiotes with an i is the adjective based abstract noun; as the following describes, theiotes expresses a more general divine attributes as understood from Romans and Acts context; whereas theotes expresses a more essential divinity, it is focused towards a more definite sense, a concrete or proper God, as in Colossians. I searched the two words with "church fathers" on google books advanced search, and to quote from Synonyms of the New Testament, Fifth edition, revised By Richard Chenevix TRENCH (Archbishop of Dublin.) · 1871; which is actually available in digital format:

θεότης and θειότης: And that this distinction between ‘deity’ and ‘divinity,’ if I may use these words to represent severally θεότης and θειότης, is one which would be strongly felt, and which therefore would seek its utterance in Christian theology, of this we have signal proof in the fact that the Latin Christian writers were not satisfied with ‘divinitas,’ which they found ready to their hand in the writings of Cicero and others; and which they sometimes were content to use (see Piper, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1875, p. 79 sqq.); but themselves coined ‘deitas’ as the only adequate Latin representative of the Greek θεότης. We have Augustine’s express testimony to the fact (De Civ. Dei, vii. 1). ‘Hanc divinitatem, vel ut sic dixerim deitatem; nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant id quod illi θεότητα appellant, &c.;’ cf. x. 1, 2. But not to urge this, nor yet the different etymologies of the words, that one is τὸ εἰναί τινα θεόν, the other τὸ εἰναί τινα [or τι] θεῖον, which so clearly point to this difference in their meanings, examples, so far as they can be adduced, go to support the same. Both θεότης and θειότης, as in general the abstract words in every language, are of late introduction; and one of them, θεότης, is extremely rare. Indeed, only two examples of it from classical Greek have hitherto been brought, forward, one from Lucian (Icarom. 9); the other from Plutarch (De Def. Orac. 10): οὕτως ἐκ μὲν ἀνθρώπων εἰς ἥρωας, ἐκ δὲ ἡρώων εἰς δαίμονας, αἱ βελτίονες ψυχαὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν λαμβάνουσιν. ἐκ δὲ δαιμόνων ὀλίγαι μὲν ἔτι χρόνῳ πολλῷ δι᾽ ἀρετῆς καθαρθεῖσαι παντάπασι θεότητος μετέσχον: but to these a third, that also from Plutarch (De Isid. et Osir. 22), may be added. In all of these it expresses, in agreement with the view here asserted, Godhead in the absolute sense, or at all events in as absolute a sense as the heathen could conceive it. Θειότης is a very much commoner word; and its employment everywhere bears out the distinction here drawn. There is ever a manifestation of the divine, of some divine attributes, in that to which θειότης is attributed, but never absolute essential Deity. Thus Lucian (De Cal. 17) attributes θειότης to Hephaestion, when after his death Alexander would have raised him to the rank of a god; and Plutarch speaks of the θειότης τῆς ψυχῆς, De Plac. Phil. v. 1; cf. De Is. et Os. 2; Sull. 6; with various other passages to the like effect.

It may be observed, in conclusion, that whether this distinction was intended, as I am fully persuaded it was, by St. Paul or not, it established itself firmly in the later theological language of the Church—the Greek Fathers using never θειότης, but always θεότης, as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of the Three several Persons in the Holy Trinity.

Although not focused lexically, I'd still quote one of the Church fathers on Col 2:9, using the Catena Bible site.

Ambrose of Milan AD 397
The law has proved God’s oneness. It speaks of one God, as also the apostle when he says of Christ: “In whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” For if, as the apostle says, all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily, is in Christ, then must the Father and the Son be confessed to be of one Godhead. Or if one desired to sunder the Godhead of the Son from the Godhead of the Father, as long as the Son possesses all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, what is supposed to be further reserved, seeing that nothing remains over and above the fullness of perfection? Therefore the Godhead is one.

Michael16 1294

Upvote:1

I wonder if the Nicene Fathers (such as Athanasius) commented ...

In my search of ante-Nicene patristic commenters, I found:

1. On ACTS 17:29, none.

2. On ROM 1:20 --
        a. Clement;
        b. Tatian;
        c. Tertullian;
        d. Hippolytus of Rome;
        e. Origen, and
        f. Novatian.

3. On COL 2:9 --
        a. Irenaeus,
        b. Tertullian, and
        c. Hippolytus.

M. Wm. Ferguson 280

Upvote:1

Athanasius speaks directly about Romans 1:20 as God's "power and divinity".

For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His, that is, God’s, ‘own Power’ or ‘Wisdom,’ but without the article, ‘God’s Power and God’s Wisdom’ (1 Cor. i. 24), preaching that the own power of God Himself was distinct, which was con-natural and co-existent with Him unoriginately, generative indeed of Christ, creative of the whole world; concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans, thus, ‘The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and divinity’ (Rom. i. 20). For as no one would say that the Deity there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal power is also not the Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), but the Father who begat Him. History of Arian Opinions

And here.

‘Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wisdom of God,’ but without the addition of the article, ‘God’s power’ and ‘God’s wisdom2453,’ thus preaching that the proper Power of God Himself which is natural to Him, and co-existent in Him ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus,—‘The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead2454.’ For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, ‘His eternal Power and Godhead also is not the Only Begotten Son, but the Father who begat Him2455. Discourse II Chapter XVIII P 37

As to Colossians 2:9, Athanasius says this,

that whereas He was ever God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father’s will3020, afterwards for our sakes He became man, and ‘bodily3021,’ as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, ‘Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument3022, He became man for our sakes.’ And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body3023. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God’s3024 Discourse III Chapter XXVI P 31

He speaks of the Godhead here.

They, that they might transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words of the Law, and that they might deny the expected and then present Lord, were hypocritical with God’s name, and were convicted of blaspheming when they said, ‘Why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God,’ and sayest, ‘I and the Father are one1836?’ And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language1837, but is on all sides recognised as godless1838 Arius, denying the Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures. Against Arius

Here is the footnote 1838.

1838 And so godless or atheist Aetius, de Syn. 6, note 3, cf. note on de Decr. 1, for an explanation of the word. In like manner Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if a man says ‘that the Son is a creature, who is word and Wisdom, and the Expression, and the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,’ he falls under the text, ‘Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.’ ‘Such a one,’ he continues, ‘will in no long time say, as the fool, There is no God.’ In like manner he speaks of those who think the Son to be the Spirit as ‘without (ἔξω) the Holy Trinity, and atheists’ (Serap. iv. 6), because they really do not believe in the God that is, and there is none other but He. Cf. also Serap. i. 30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as ἀνθρώπους ἀθέους, who were attempting κρατῆσαι τοῦ θείου. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. p. 760. Naz. speaks of the heathen πολύθεος ἀθεΐα. Orat. 25. 15. and he calls faith and regeneration ‘a denial of atheism, ἀθεΐας, and a confession of godhead, θεότητος,’ Orat. 23. 12. He calls Lucius, the Alexandrian Anti-pope, on account of his cruelties, ‘this second Arius, the more copious river of the atheistic spring, τῆς ἀθέου πηγῆς.’ Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is ἀνὴρ ἄθεος. ibid. 12.

Athanasius is using the word to contrast Arius' belief in a created Christ, rather than Christ of the Godhead.