A question that arises when reading this verse concerns the referent of τὰ πάντα . . . τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Do these words refer to:
A) persons who have the hope of living forever on a paradise earth, and also persons who will live immortally and incorruptibly in the heavens of God's presence?
B) redeemed humans in general and also the holy angels?
C) all creation as a whole instead of understanding "all things" in a distributive sense (Alford)?
Meyer's NT Commentary:
The considerations which regulate the correct understanding of the passage are: (1) that τὰ πάντα may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropriately urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther); that it consequently cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings generally (the usual view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), especially the Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the “universam ecclesiam” (Beza), but is, according to the context (see Colossians 1:16 ff.), simply to be taken as quite general: the whole of that which exists (has been created); (2) that the reconciling subject is here not Christ (Hofmann, in accordance with his incorrect reference of εὐδόκησε in Colossians 1:19), but God, who through Christ (διʼ αὐτοῦ) reconciled all things; (3) that consequently ἀποκαταλλάξαι cannot be meant of the transforming of the misrelation between the world and Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just as little of the reconciliation of all things with one another, of the removal of mutual hostility among the constituent elements composing τὰ πάντα, but only of the universal reconciliation with the God who is hostile to sin,[50] as is clearly evident from the application to the readers in Colossians 1:21. The only correct sense therefore is, that the entire universe has been reconciled with God through Christ.
28 comments:
Colossians 3:8?
Isn't context going to determine how we understand "all things"? See also Philippians 3:8 where you have πάντα without the article, but it's still qualified by the context. Or what about 1 John 2:20? Also, what about 1 John 2:27 with its use of περὶ πάντων?
Yes context does determine that which would be obvious if translated in a compatible tone to 3:8. "All these things" or all of this just spoken about or that follows. Ta pants is almost exclusively Pauline and would appear to be some kind of idiom & therefore context is not nessacarily going to provide all the answers.
We've been down this road before, but scholars tend to believe it's shorthand for "the universe as a whole" (in certain contexts) or as we find in 3:8, "all these things" (we could understand the saying demonstratively in this case). There might not be a whole lot of difference between using the adjective with and without the article in some contexts.
It reminds me of Paul's words in Eph 4:6:
hEIS QEOS KAI PATHR PANTWN hO EPI PANTWN KAI DIA PANTWN KAI EN PASIN.
In this verse, PAS is not used in an absolute or unqualified sense; it is utilized relatively. The
apostle has the congregation in mind, for it is the ecclesia that God especially rules "over," works
"through"(Eph 3:10-11) and is "in" via His holy spirit
(2 Cor 6:14-18; Eph 2:19-22). Paul is not espousing pantheism or panentheism. His counsel to the Ephesians strictly applies to the Christian assembly.
scholars tend to believe it's shorthand for "the universe as a whole" - based on?
To quote :-
1 Cor. 15:27,28. Here we have a passage in which panta is found three times, ta panta three times, and en pasin once. I would translate this as follows: "For He has subjected all (panta) under His feet. But when it says All (panta) is subject, it is evident that this does not include Him who subjects all these (ta panta) to Him. Now, whenever all these (ta panta) are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be subject to Him who subjected all these (ta panta) to Him that God may be everything (panta) in everyone (en pasin)." When this passage is examined with care, it provides an excellent demonstration that ta panta is a demonstrative term, idiomatic in character, referring to something which has just been mentioned.
Do you not think that Colossians 1:23 has some bearing on the understanding of Pauline scope?
1) pas/panta can be used in an absolute sense, or in a relative sense. It's obvious that the Apostle is employing the expression "all things" relatively in 1 Cor 15:24-28, but it's not so obvious in other texts although it might be the case that Col 1:18-20 utilizes "all things" relatively (not in an absolute sense). The determination that ta panta can be a reference to the universe is based on studying multiple examples of the usage in varied contexts.
2) Col 1:23 might have some bearing on 1:18-20, but I'm inclined to believe that Paul's focus has shifted by that point. Furthermore, to speak of "all creation that is under heaven" does not appear to be the same as saying, "all things in heaven and on earth" (or vice versa).
Henry Alford points to 1 Chron 29:11 in order to support the absolute use of ta panta in Col 1:16. That LXX verse reads: σοί, κύριε, ἡ μεγαλωσύνη καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ τὸ καύχημα καὶ ἡ νίκη καὶ ἡ ἰσχύς, ὅτι σὺ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς δεσπόζεις, ἀπὸ προσώπου σου ταράσσεται πᾶς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἔθνος.
See Plato's Phaedo 79A.
An interesting quote from Plato, thank you.
My point on item 2 was the obvious conclusion that all creation under heaven is not in fact all creation under heaven.
You're welcome, Duncan. The scripture at Col 1:23 doesn't clash with the seeming fact that pas/ta paanta can be used absolutely or relatively (per its senses). So, it's relatively all of creation in 1:23, but Alford and others want to argue that ta panta is used absolutely in Col 1:16-17.
I agree and understood that 1:23 should be taken as meaning "all of the world known in the first century," but not all the world in an absolute sense.
Before 80ce I would take col 1:23 as a metaphors more than a fact.
Apologies - I meant hyperbole instead of metaphor.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_UBa_tSC0sgC&pg=PA76&dq=colossians+1:23+hyperbole&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qA85Vf7NFtDUaveTgYgC&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=1%3A23%20hyperbole&f=fals
Agreed. Metaphor or hyperbole, maybe.
I commented before I saw your post, but you can see that I'm inclined to agree. Surprise! :)
Mulling over the quote for Plato - Should a more localized context be taken into consideration before spreading the net so wide?
2 Corinthians 3:17-4:4
You might have to clarify what problem that you see with using Plato in this way. I don't believe there is much debate over the absolute and (conversely) the relative use of ta panta. Scholars usually agree that context helps us to parse the difference. The common wisdom one finds in commentaries and lexicons is also that ta panta is shorthand and commonly used to denote "the universe" (all things absolutely). So the quote from Plato only demonstrates one way that panta can be used. It must be read in context (cotext) liek any other text.
But I'm not sure how Corinthians apples in this case or how the net is being spread too wide.
Thanks in advance.
I am referring to the things seen and unseen, not ta panta.
Okay, now I'm following you. That language explicitly appears in Col 1:16, but we can apply it to 1:20 since the verse mentions things in heaven and things on earth.
So, to be clear, Col 1:16 qualifies what is meant by things seen and unseen (things in earth and things in heaven) whereas Plato is speaking about δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων or two different kinds of worlds (entities). IMO, the references are not exactly the same. But Plato helps us to understand the possible range of meaning for "things seen and unseen."
Let me frame this. I see all this creation dialogue hinging on the words of Jesus at Mat 19:28. From that fulcrum going forward a new Genesis, not going backward, but the play on the earlier language is clear as is the Beginning in John 1:1 in relation the the Beginning in 1 John & the beginnings in the synoptic gospels.
Mark 1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου Ιησου Χριστου
Luke 1:2 αρχης...του λογου. Reiterated in verse 3. (John 1:2)
1 John 1:1 ο ην απ αρχης...του λογου της ζωης (John 1:4)
The similarities are numerous & IMO fairly obvious.
Who created "all things" in the re-creation?
Old Genesis:-
In the beginning.
Spirit moving upon the water.
All through the (spoken) word.
Light shines in the darkness.
New Genesis:-
In the beginning.
John baptizing in water.
All through the word.
Light shines in the darkness.
John 1:9 coming into the world. - Mark 16:15 -YLT and he said to them, 'Having gone to all the world, proclaim the good news to all the creation;
So ta panta is not about what but rather about when.
Also John 1:32, John 20:21.
ABP John 17:18 As you sent me into the world, I also send them into the world.
It still appears that what ta panta means is determined by context and the expression is qualified in Col 1:16. That verse and others that use the expression indicate we're talking about a relative or absolute what (as the case might be).
Acts 17:24?
So what does "in him" mean?
Quoting a different interpretation of "unseen"
We could expand Hebrews 11:1, using somewhat different vocabulary, as follows:
Now trust is having assurance that the things we expect (due to what the person said) will indeed happen.
Now trust is being convinced about things that have not happened yet, and therefore remain unseen.
So it appears that using Plato (according to Thompson 2008) is not the only way to go. It may be helpful or misleading.
Duncan, I don't want to suggest that Plato is the only way to go. The Phaedo is one text among many, which we can compare with Colossians 1:16-20, in order to learn how relevant Greek terms are used in the new testament.
Plato may also be helpful for understanding parts of Hebrews, but there's a world of difference between Plato and Hebrews.
Regarding Acts 17:24, I believe the usage is instrumental.
Ephesians 2:10 also has relevance to this discussion along with Corinthians 5:14-19, also Daniel 7:13,14,27.
Here's a thought from the IVP Commentary Series on Acts 17:28:
Paul goes on to reinforce human responsibility for failing to seek and find God. He asserts God's presence in terms of our dependence on him. For in him we live and move and have our being. This is the converse of the Stoic pantheistic assertion that the divine spark of Reason, God, is in us (compare Dio Chrysostom Discourses 12.27; Posidonius as quoted in Barrett 1961:65). Paul appeals to the fourth- and third-century Stoic philosopher Aratus for confirmation: We are his offspring (Aratus Phenomena 5). His introductory remark (not a quote as NIV) cleanses the Aratus quotation of both its reference to Zeus and its pantheistic metaphysic (compare Renehan 1979:347; Edwards 1992). What is left is some recognition of the true nature of God, especially what humankind's being made in his image says about the divine nature (Bruce 1988:339). Being his offspring refers only to creation, not salvation, as the subsequent call to repentance clearly shows (Bock 1991:119).
See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A28&version=NIV
Interesting and yet, in 17:25 the Hebraic comes through (Isaiah 42:5 LXX) and the ta panta here could be another Hebraism of reitteration. Being (nephesh) and spirit (ruach), being all (shalom). So there is a blending of cultural aproaches as would be expected from an educated Jew.
Post a Comment