Thank you Mondo.
2) The heavenly things would include the angels and the physical universe.
By "angels" I assume (in view of your previous comments) you mean the "good" ones. Why would they, and the physical universe, need to be reconciled?
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Narkissos
-
Mondo1
Because all of these are forced to, in one way or another, suffer the effects of what Satan and his demons did, which resulted in the fall of man too.
-
Narkissos
Mondo,
Just 2 remarks:
Because all of these ("good" angels) are forced to, in one way or another, suffer the effects of what Satan and his demons did, which resulted in the fall of man too.
(1) I'm afraid you'd have a hard time showingthat "scripturally".
(2) a reconciliation is not the mere consolation of victims, but the resolution of an antagonism which must somehow include the "guilty" party as well. Excluding the "enemies" actually makes reconciliation impossible.
-
Leolaia
I would also note that "principalities and authorities and powers" that are conquered and humiliated in Christ's passion (Colossians 1:16, 2:14-15) are also called the "principles of the world" in 2:8, 20, whose rules are clearly the same as the commandments and decrees of the Law in 2:14-15 that Christ has abolished. Aside from the inherent meaning in the phrase (i.e. the world being counter to Christ), Paul uses this phrase in Galatians 4:3, 9 to refer to the beings, now made "weak and miserable," that have long enslaved man with the Law. The theological perspective in Romans is that the Law enslaves by allowing sin to become the the master of man, not God (ch. 6).
All this supports the conclusion that the cosmological "principalities and authorities and powers" are not necessarily "good" forces. At the same time, the eschatological perspective of the earlier Pauline letters does not yet have in view the complete defeat of Satan and the cosmological powers. In the language of Romans 6, those who have been set free from slavery to sin have the freedom to still elect to put themselves at the service of vice and immorality; the slavery has been abolished but sin can still continue (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5). The complete defeat of Satan is thus on the future horizon: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Romans 16:20). Similarly, Paul places the final subjection of the powers after the parousia:
"Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all principality and authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death, for he must put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, "All things are put in subjection," it clearly cannot include the One who put all things in subjection to him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).
The language and concept here is very close to Colossians 1:15-20, except the perspective is forward-looking whereas the Christ hymn looks back to the passion ("made peace by his blood of his cross") and the resurrection ("firstborn from the dead") as the pivotal moment of universal reconciliation. Thus we read in Colossians 2:9 that Christ is already "the head of all principalities and powers"; they are subject to his own full authority -- the authority of God himself ("the fullness of deity resides in him bodily"). For this reason, Colossians is usually regarded as having a more realized eschatology than the earlier Pauline letters and Philippians (which was written between them and Colossians) has a similar concept of Jesus' Lordship as involving the complete subjection of the created order: "God raised him on high and gave him the name that is above all other names, so that all beings in the heavens, on earth, and below the earth should bend at the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (2:9-11), tho this does not rule out the possibility that a universal recognition of Jesus' authority still lies in the future. The more realized situation in Colossians compares well with the perspective in John which also construes Satan's defeat and the judgment of the world as already accomplished in Christ's death and resurrection (3:16-19, 12:31-32, 12:47, 14:30, 16:11, 16:33). In Revelation, the Devil is described as defeated "by the blood of the Lamb and by the witness of their martyrdom" (12:11), yet there is still a future-oriented perspective of a final triumph of Satan (ch. 20). Most interesting is the tension between the two in Ephesians, which is the earliest extant interpretation of Colossians. On the one hand, the forces of evil still exist, there is still "the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now (nun) at work in the rebellious" (2:2), and refers to an on-going struggle with the Devil (6:11) and his "principalities, authorities, the powers of the darkness of this age, and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (6:12). Here the "principalities, authorities, and powers" are clearly posited as in league with the Devil and they still exert influence. And yet, the same author says this about them:
"And he [God] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, namely, Christ ... when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all things in every way" (Ephesians 1:9-20, 22-23).
Note especially that already "God placed all things under his feet," whereas in 1 Corinthians 15 this still lies in the future. The forces of evil in the heavens that are still working "now" are nevertheless already subjected to Christ "under his feet," and Christ is already appointed as "head over all things," such that "all things in heaven and on earth are brought together under one head". Thus, it is "through the church that the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the principalities and authorities in the heavenly places" (3:10). In other words, their present struggle against the church is the means through which they learn that they have lost their authority and power.
-
Mondo1
Nakrissos,
Many Bible commentators hold to such a view, and they would justify it by their view of "the creation" within Romans 8. So one might appeal to that for justification of what I have set forth, though I don't think it is necessary.
I would further note that no reconciliation ever takes place with Satan. He is thrown into the lake of fire and punished forever, but no peace is made with him.
Mondo
-
Mondo1
Leolaia,
I really don't see how what you said has much impact on the overall point. Indeed, Satan is subject to God and Christ, but to use eirhnopoiew to describe it is simply not proper. It simply does not describe the entering of a state that God and Satan ever are shown to enter. He is always at war with God, right to the end and then that still doesn't happen, but he is then thrown into the lake of fire.
Mondo
-
Narkissos
Mondo,
As I said above (cf. my post # 6064), that's where I believe your approach suffers from dogmatic, or synthetic, interference.
To put it bluntly, I for one do not expect Bible texts to be consistent in any way (either in form or meaning) -- and they never disappointed me from this perspective.
From the reading of Colossians I understand that the author has a deep interest in cosmology, and that his cosmology (which needs not be identical or even similar to other NT texts') doesn't need, or even have room for, a ultimately unredeemable archenemy character like Satan as other texts do. I think the absence of "Satan," the "devil" or "demons" in this epistle is characteristic in this regard: he simply has another way of describing the cause of disorder and enmity in the cosmos, i.e. the autonomy of the "authorities" (thrones etc.), which are also responsible for the Jewish Torah and the subsequent separation of Jews and Gentiles, but are fooled and subdued at the cross. While he is clearly building on some (earlier) Pauline insights (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:8), as Leolaia pointed out, he goes further, not only in the direction of realised eschatology (where he meets the Johannine corpus) but also on the ultimate universality of reconciliation (note that he uses, and perhaps forges, apokatallassô which is absent from [earlier] Pauline letters). Such universalism may lie in the horizon of (earlier) Pauline thought (cf. Romans 11:32ff) but is not the focus of the Pauline "gospel" as in Colossians. It is also noteworthy that the most direct reworking of Colossians, i.e. Ephesians which may be assessed as the first post-Pauline church synthesis, reintroduces the traditional figure of the devil (4:27; 6:11) and in many ways tones down the main characteristics of Colossians. Iow, I think Colossians represents an early version of Christian Gnosticism which is impossible to reconcile (!) with other sections of the NT.
The problem for dogmatic readers when they approach such a text is that they can't really read it as it is without getting rid of what they "know otherwise"... In your cosmology heavenly beings either do not really need "reconciliation" or they cannot be "reconciled".
(This being said not to convince you, only that you might understand my perspective better.)
-
Mondo1
I can understand what you are saying, from your perspective. One thing I would note about Paul is that he seems to acknowledge that in certain statements of his somethings are obvious in their exclusion. (cf. 1cor 15:27)
-
Borgia
Narkissos, Narkissos,
You rock man. You show some real clarity of reasoning. Superb! I enjoyed that very much.
But to pick up on a loose end....Mondo 1, you mentioned John 14:9: eimi being translated with have been in one translation and others with am.
Nice example.
LITV: Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father?
ISV:Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
NWT:John 14:9 Jesus said to him: “Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
I checked on other languages also and there are reputed translations which render the text in present tense. Others render it in the perfect tense.
What bearing have these two different renderings on the meaning? I fail to see it but maybe you can pint out the "dishonesty", as you phrased it, in either of them. How about the insertion, excuse me, interpolation of the word [also].
Clearly, this word needed to be added to clarify the meaning. Now, tell me what in your view is dishonest...
Cheers
Borgia
-
Mondo1
My point was only that comparing an interlinear to a translation is not very wise unless you understand a little bit about what is going on. If you don't understand anything one can come away saying something is "mistranslated" when it really isn't.