by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible
Narkissos,
Well I think we may come to a cross roads here, because I see the genitive being partitive, so I don't see how they can by synonymous.
With that said, verse 20 definitely would not include Satan and his demons, though they are part of "all creation." I have seen some take this only to refer to those within the church, but I don't see it that limited. Rather, it seems to be "all things" excluding the obvious and those that do not need to be reconciled (such as the holy angels).
Mondo
Thanks for your post, Mondo 1 and let me say how much it has helped in broading my understanding of Pauls argument in Colossians 1. If I understand your point of view please tell me if I am wrong in summarizing your viewpoint as follows:
You feel that the NWT is justified in applying the word "other" in the text at Col 1 because:
1 Other translations do so. I recall you mentioning two such versions, NIV and NASV
2 Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive, hence making Christ a part of the creation of which He is the prwtotokos - in fact you point out that prwtotokos is always so used
3 I am not sure about why the text at Jo 14:9 was used, except insofar as you are demonstating that word-for-word translations are impossible in converting one language to another, especially if the receptor language has a different cultural milleu
4 You suggest that Col 1:20 is exclusive rather than inclusive in its thrust, in other words, I gather that you understand this verse to refer to at least one thing being excluded from its meaning, Christ Himself
1 I am not aware of any translation ever using the word "other" as an insertion for the either the term "panta" or the even more emphatic "Ta Panta" indeed, the very nature of Ta panta can only refer to "every single thing". I am not saying that the translations you mention, NIV and NASV dont do this, I am merely saying that I am not aware of this. If you have examples of this please let us know. I am aware that the RSV uses "other" at Lu 13:2, but this is because it is contrasting "All Galileans'' - pantas tous Galillaious - with "the Galileans" in a complete context. The JB reads similarly.
A similar contrast is found in Phil 2:21, where "Timothy" is contarsted with "All" the ones Paul is discussing. Hence JB has "other'' here as well.
The proof you are going to have to provide for us, to justify the use of "other" at Col1:15, is to indicate that somehow Paul is contrasting Christ as "Prwtotokos paseis ktisews" to something else. To suggest that, because the RSV uses "other" at Lu 21:3 it therefore somehow justifies the NWT in insertng the word here is sloppy reasoning. You will need to show at least one translation that employs "Other'' here.
2 Is Col 1:15 a partive genitive? Or is it a genitive of comparison? Probably - to both questions. Prof A S Peake writing in the Expositor's Greek NT says: "Grammatically it is possible to make "Paseis ktisews" a partitive genitive, but this is excluded by the context which sharply distinguishes between the Son and "ta Panta" For Paul to have this idea [partitive genitive] he would have probably used "prwtoktistos" The genitive is therfore commonly explained as a genitive of comparison" [Vol 3, pg 503]
Further, the Partitive genitive would be possible if the Chronological view of "prwtotokos" was in effect here. As both Narkissos and Leolaia have pointed out, the idea of prwtotokos here is one of pre-eminence, not time. It is true that everywhere else "prwtotokos" may be considered patitive, but this is precisely because it is chronological. You need to the show this here, not assume it.
3 The interrogative of Jo 14:19, used as a present tense in the Greek, is in fact talking of an acommplished fact, hence effectively a historic present, which in English is correctly translated as a perfect, ie "have"
4 I tend to agree with Nark at Col 1:20, in that there is nothing in the context to suggest the loosening of the thrust of "ta panta" here. Is is far more probable that Paul was inferring that in Christ there is to be a reconciliation of "every single thing" rather than the exclusion of at least one ''thing'' Christ Himself
Thanks for the post, keep well
Cheers
Leolaia,
Good and valid example! As I said, I'd never come across one, but I wouldn't go so far and say it didn't exist.
With that said, that would invalid the matter of a different gender, but that would not necessarily mean that Jesus would be uncreated as he is not part of TA PANTA. It is normal within Scripture to refer to all of something relative to the one spoken of out of that group, who though is a part of it. In fact, it is normal to do so outside of Scripture as well. We must determine elsewhere whether or not Jesus is included within "all creation" and I believe verse 15 to point to that.
Mondo
verse 20 definitely would not include Satan and his demons, though they are part of "all creation." I have seen some take this only to refer to those within the church, but I don't see it that limited. Rather, it seems to be "all things" excluding the obvious and those that do not need to be reconciled (such as the holy angels).
That's where dogmatics interfere with contextual exegesis... there's neither "Satan" nor "demons" in Colossians -- instead, invisible/heavenly thrones and dominions and rulers and powers and authorities which are to be "conquered" (2:15) and "reconciled" (1:20).
If dogmatic synthesis chooses to identify those "thrones etc." to what other texts call "Satan and demons," then it has to explain what reconciliation means in the context of Colossians -- either the final absolute apokatastasis, à la Origen, or a restoration of order which doesn't rule out eternal punishment (so most of orthodoxy). In any case, the absolute cosmic scope of the reconciliation tôn pantôn in Colossians remains.
More generally, I think the central mediator figure (logos, Christ, Son of God) in Philo, in the NT "high christologies" and down to Justin Martyr is not clearly described as either outside or inside "creation," precisely because his function is to be between God and creation. Only with the settlement of the 2nd-century Gnostic-orthodox crisis did the border between "created" and "uncreated" become essential -- eventually leading to the Chalcedonian definition of a two-nature Christ, both uncreated and created. Of course the earlier texts were not designed to answer later questions.
Narkissos,
The text does not limit TA PANTA to "invisible/heavenly thrones and dominions and rulers and powers and authorities," but it includes them. If the text were limited to that there would be nothing to discuss to begin with. Because of this, the rest of your argument doesn't seem to follow. Either Satan is reconciled to God or he isn't. If he is, Scripture then doesn't make much sense, if he isn't, then TA PANTA cannot be absolute.
Mondo
The text does not limit TA PANTA to "invisible/heavenly thrones and dominions and rulers and powers and authorities," but it includes them. If the text were limited to that there would be nothing to discuss to begin with. Because of this, the rest of your argument doesn't seem to follow.
Sure. There are also the visible and the earthly (v. 16, 20). What have they got to do with the discussion? How do they modify my argument?
You have brought up "Satan and demons" which do not belong to the terminology of Colossians.
I ask you: sticking to the terminology of Colossians, what are the heavenly/invisible thrones, authorities etc. (explicitly belonging to ta panta) Christ conquers and reconciles?
Either you identify them, at least in part, with what other texts call "Satan and demons" (whatever your interpretation of "reconciliation"), or you identify them to something else -- but what? What else in the heavenly/invisible realm needed to be conquered and reconciled?
I remind you of your argument:
verse 20 definitely would not include Satan and his demons, though they are part of "all creation." I have seen some take this only to refer to those within the church, but I don't see it that limited. Rather, it seems to be "all things" excluding the obvious and those that do not need to be reconciled (such as the holy angels).
About the "invisible/heavenly things" which are conquered/reconciled, you also stated:
I have seen some take this only to refer to those within the church, but I don't see it that limited.
I agree with you on that, but note that we thus both disagree with the Watchtower 12/1 1985:
"GOD saw good for all fullness to dwell in him [Christ], and through him to reconcile again to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens." (Colossians 1:19, 20) This divine purpose of reconciliation is moving to its climax.2
"The things in the heavens" are not spirit creatures, for angels are not ransomed by Christ’s blood. Rather, they are the humans bought with the Lamb’s blood to be "a kingdom and priests" with Christ in the "new heavens." These have already been fully declared righteous through the blood of Christ. In addition, for some 50 years now, Jehovah has been making peace with "things upon the earth," those humans who will become a part of the righteous "new earth." (Revelation 5:9, 10; 2 Peter 3:13) This gathering of "all things together," both things earthly and things heavenly, "is according to his [Jehovah’s] good pleasure which he purposed in himself."—Ephesians 1:9, 10.
A quick review of the WT literature shows that Colossians 1:16,20; 2:15 are given three unrelated interpretations, respectively:
(1) heavenly beings
(2) the anointed on earth
(3) human governments.
I'll let you decide how likely that is from a simple reading of Colossians.
It seems that you are not reading the text closely. (Col 1:16) For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
All things
- in heaven
- on earth
- visible
- invisible
whether -
- thrones
- lordships
- rulers
- authorities
The text does not say "all things in these places... meaning these things." It says TA PANTA and then goes on to give more specific details, but it does not limit TA PANTA to those specific things.
Now would you argue that Satan is not in heaven or on earth? From Scripture we find that these are the two places that he is shown to be. The same with the demons. We find these same points to apply to verse 20. So I really can't see how are you trying to argue that Satan would be contextually expluded from TA PANTA, but I see that only by the action that takes place upon TA PANTA (being reconciled to God) are we able to know the qualification. Similarly then, by the action of TA PANTA being created EN AUTWi we know the qualification.
Mondo
So I really can't see how are you trying to argue that Satan would be contextually expluded from TA PANTA
"Excluded"? Only as a signifier: the word "Satan" (or "devil," or "demon" for that matter) doesn't occur in Colossians afaik.
As signified, otoh, I'd rather suggestit is included: iow (for the nth time), what other texts call Satan, devil, demons is probably among the "thrones, authorities" of Colossians which were made in-through-for Christ, somehow went astray, and henceforth needed to be conquered and (in some sense) reconciled.
Now would you mind finally answering the following questions?
1. What do you think the (a) heavenly things, (b) invisible things, (c) thrones, (d) lordships, (e) principleships, (f) authorities are which were createdin/through/for Christ 1:16?
2. What do you think the "heavenly things" are which are to be reconciled through Christ's blood in 1:20?
3. What do you think the (a) principleships and (b) authorities are which were stripped off, exposed and triumphed over in Christ in 2:15?
You may come up with any number of answers (from 1 to 8). Just, please, answer.
The word "Satan" does not need to be included in the text to be excluded. (cf. Heb. 2:8 for the Father as the exclusion though not specified)
Satan would definitely not be included within what is "reconiciled." If we follow the gloss provided by BDAG the impossibility of this clearly seen: "to cause a right or harmonious relationship, make peace."
1) Obviously everything other than Christ himself would have been made in him and through him. That seems to be a given to me.
2) The heavenly things would include the angels and the physical universe.
3) Some view them to be the angels, as the mediators of the law, others the demons. Per the context, I am included to go with the first of these views.
Mondo
