Well…if the Zombie Apocalypse… is really the most probable, end-times tribulation model - as I propose. They are probably the SLOWEST and the LAST.
That says “now He has reconciled”, not “on the cross He reconciled”.
The “body of His flesh” could refer to 55 AD, 555 AD or 5555 AD.
The phrase “through death” could refer to a death related to the believer, e.g. the death of the old man, or that the “now” reconciliation required Christ’s death, not that it occurred at the moment of His death.
It seems we have clear evidence in Scripture that reconciliation & forgiveness of sins is conditional, not already accomplished on the cross:
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.
Lk.24:47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Well realistically… with all due respect to whoever instructed you in NT Greek, they would be turning in their grave at this blatant false claim regarding “the infinitive” relative to Col 1:19-20. NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE does “the infinitive” render “a process” as you wrongly claim. The infinitive is results orientated and speaks to PURPOSE and not process, i.e., definitive action. Example:
Mt 20:19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.”
To mock / to scourge / to crucify — all in the infinitive… indicative as to what was to occur or result (for the purpose of) Jesus being delivered up.
Had Paul wanted to say… “He is reconciling all things to Himself” as your theory suggests he would well have inserted the Greek ἐστιν <estin> = IS, and likewise used either the present or possibly the perfect tense throughout… he did neither; but employing rather the aorist which indicates an action as having occurred at one point in time, past with indefinite results, i.e., such was a set PURPOSE.
Let me quote with highlights…
Reconciliation is the word used in the NT to describe the changed relations between God and man which are the result of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To reconcile is the distinctive activity of God himself, and the world of man is the object of reconciliation. … As in other passages the source of reconciliation is the love of God,… Reconciliation is thus an act rather than a process by which men are delivered from a condition of estrangement and restored to fellowship with God; the act is accomplished by God through the power of the sacrificial death of Christ.
A Theological Word Book Of The Bible (1956 p.185) F.J. Taylor, M.A., Principle of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford
For your consideration…
The following link is to a master’s thesis written by an Ethiopian scholar, centering on understanding God’s reconciliation through an exhaustive exegesis of the 2 Cor. passages mentioned above.
The fascinating thing about it is the writer’s application of the truth of reconciliation to the various conflicts in Ethiopia between factions, tribes, church sects, which he knows by personal experience.
He is meticulous writer with a real understanding of the issues. This is a long, scholarly thesis.
I posted short commentary by IVP earlier today in a new thread. I think there is much more common ground than I thought on this subject.
From that post: "Two things need to be noted. First, the verb is passive. It is not that we must reconcile ourselves to God—as would be the case with the Greeks or Romans vis-à-vis their gods. Rather, we are to be reconciled, that is, to accept what God has already achieved. Second, the gospel minister’s job is not to bring about reconciliation but to announce what has already occurred. "
Well Davo, to quote an old hillbilly proverb, “You’re saying so don’t make it so.”
Here again is the verse in question:
… and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:20 ESV)
The verb in question, translated as “reconcile” is an infinitive. I’m sure we agree on that point.
Are you more knowledgeable concerning Greek than William D. Mounce? Dr. Mounce is the author of the first-year text book that I used at St. John’s College, University of Manitoba. The book is entitled, “Basics of Biblical Greek.”
Dr. Mounce states in “Chapter 32:Infinitive” (page 295)
"The infinitive based on the present stem indicates a continuous action."
So, as you can see, this statement directly contradicts your own dogmatic statement above.
Your insistence that the infinite “merely refers to a verb being put into its infinitive form,” (giving the example:“to be reconciled is a wonderful thing”) is a quite limited application of the Greek infinitive.
Dr. Mounce also writes:
"The infinitive based on the perfect stem indicates a completed action with ongoing implications."
Hmmm… maybe you could use this statement about the infinitive to prove your “completed reconciliation” theory
Looks like we need to ask ourselves which of the two is the case with respect to Colossians 1:20. The answer is neither! For it’s an infinitive based on neither the present stem nor the perfect stem. Rather, it is the infinitive based on the AORIST stem. Dr. Mounce states that such an infinitive indicates “an undefined action,” (that is, “undefined” in the sense that it defines neither a completed action nor an ongoing action, nor whether the action is past, present, or future).
In conclusion, I admit that I cannot use Colossians 1:20 as teaching ongoing reconciliation, nor can you use it as teaching completed reconciliation. However, there is another passage that I CAN quote that indicates ongoing reconciliation. I will do so in my next post.
It may be NEITHER of those two, Dave. It may be that God STARTED the process of reconciliation, and is still engaging in it. However, what He has begun can be completed only if we coöperate with the process.
There are always two sides to reconciliation.
The quote does show two sides, but not in the way you are stressing. The commentary I posted in a new thread earlier today might be worth a read.
Qaz, Orthodox Christians say things like, “whereas the saved will see the glory of God as sweetest light without evening, the damned will see the same glory of God as consuming fire, as fire that will burn them.”
I think they’re seeing part of the truth there, BUT in the lake of fire, the divine presence there is purgative and temporary. I think that our loving God, as a consuming “fire,” will fully purge out all lies, sin, and death from Creation.
I don’t know about you, Qaz, but I suffer a lot in this life, even though I am a Christian trying to be obedient to God. So, yes, first hell, and then afterwards the lake of fire, will both be excruciatingly painful for unbelievers, but from different sources, and for different reasons:
Hell (Hades): temporary POW camp after death, for unbelievers. As in life, people there will continue under demonic influence.
Lake of Fire: temporary place of divine (non-physical) correction. People there are under God’s remedial influence, in order to let go of lies, and become free to receive His love in Christ.
Then Death and [first 1] Hades were cast into [then 2] the lake of fire. This is the “second death.” Rev 20:14.
This is followed by death being destroyed; the lake of fire will have finished its purpose.
The last enemy that will be destroyed is death….Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, [finally 3] that God may be all in ALL.” 1 Cor. 15:26, 28.
For me, God was, is, and always will be, “Daddy.” Anything else, perceived at any time, by anyone else, is less than fully correct. But that correct perception of “Daddy” is where everyone is eventually going to end up!
Qaz, I don’t know if there will be a sensation of burning in Hades, or in the later lake of fire, either; but if there is, it could not be physical.
Sheol Hades vs Sheol Paradise:
“Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’” Luke 16:24.
Qaz, this passage may be some kind of allegorical warning for the Jews; we know it was shared by Jesus to them BEFORE he went to Sheol at his own death. For example, consider this excerpt of discussion from Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“that he may dip the tip of his finger in water; in allusion to the washings and purifications among the Jews, and the sprinkling of blood by the finger of the high priest; which were typical of cleansing, pardon, comfort, and refreshment, by the grace and blood of Christ:
and cool my tongue; which had spoken so many scurrilous and blasphemous things of Christ; saying that he was a sinner, a glutton, and a winebibber, a Samaritan, and had a devil; that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils; and that he was a seditious person, and guilty of blasphemy: so the Jews represent persons in hell, desirous of cooling water…”
The Lake of Fire:
“He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” Revelation 14:10.
Remember the positive, Qaz:
Of course I’m not. Mounce, however, wouldn’t raise a cavalier hand of dismissal in trumpeting his own Greek prowess as a means of deflecting and NOT dealing with an issue raised.
You’re unbelievable! Total red herring! As you and everybody else reading along fully knows… my statement above was specific to the verse under discussion, i.e., Col 1:20. It is quite juvenile of you to even try and use Mounce to say he contradicts me WHEN what he references (correctly) is the present stem — as you know full well <ἀποκαταλλάξαι> apokatallacai of Col 1:20 is the aorist stem to which Mounce obviously makes to such claim… BECAUSE it’s not relevant!
Umm yes… that’s what they do. By the very nature of things various parsings usually DO have specific and “limited application” — that limits such being hijacked and abused; said to mean one thing when indeed they mean another.
You are simply obfuscating… repeat a line and you think it gives credibility where in fact it just demonstrates your own lack. As I already agree… Mounce’s statement IS correct FOR the present OR perfect stem (as I ALSO noted in my previous post) — Col 1:20 is neither — it is the AORIST stem.
But this then takes the cake…
So you went through all that unnecessary BS palaver above, using Mounce to raise issues clearly not germane, to finally only then acknowledge Col 1:20 is in “the AORIST stem” — weird!
Finally… you should have put this at the start and left it at that BECAUSE that was my WHOLE point.
Rubbish!! Check out COMPLETELY-RECONCILE.
So now you’re accusing me of “trumpeting” my own Greek prowess; are we supposed to disregard the fact that you asked me for my qualifications?
You’re unbelievable! Total falsehood! You wrote:
Clearly that’s a MUCH broader scope than specifically Colossians 1:20
I showed you from Mounce that SOMEWHERE the infinitive WAS used to describe a process. As I suspected, you are unwiling to admit you were wrong. Have you EVER admitted you were wrong? Or do you claim never to have BEEN wrong?
I don’t doubt that your attack mode which is your only defense against those who have exposed your errors has been well demonstrated to the other readers of this thread. But unlike me, they are too courteous to say anything.
Fortunately EVERYTHING is up the page and IN CONTEXT for all to see…
I did not disregard your stated qualifications at all… in fact I thanked you for them. NO, your trumpeting was this stretch below where you sought to dodge the issue of the infinitive that YOU yourself raised in a vain attempt to disprove the point I’d made relative to Col 1:19-20 — this is what you actually said…
I simply demonstrated you were wrong on this matter.
Some honesty here would really be appreciated Paidion. Let me again quote you AND THEN my response showing the context from post 404 (post 391)… where it is clear both our statements were tied and directly related to Col 1:19-20…
As is CLEARLY seen… YOU yourself quoted Col 1:19-20 raising the infinitive as an apparent conquering issue to which I directly responded showing your blatant error. So my… “NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE does “the infinitive” render “a process” as you wrongly claim” statement was pertinent and specific TO Col 1:19-20 AND you know it!
You showed me nothing I hadn’t ALREADY myself plainly stated… read AGAIN the second last paragraph of post 404.
Yep of course I have… you however don’t afford me much opportunity.
You are just being sore and silly. It seems whenever I call you on something you inevitably turn it around to being a personal attack. Funny how you can be just as robust and yet you don’t hear me bleating about it.
When I’m trying to follow, the scholarly dialogue - between Davo and Paidion…I’m reminded of the poem When I Heard the Learned Astronomer
When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide,
and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with
much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
I like simplicity. While the scholars’ debate on what the book of Revelations REALLY means…I look at the Zombie Apocalypse (past or future)…as the most probable, end-times tribulation scenario.
“The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.”-- Mary Pettibone Poole
Greetings Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ. May the enabling grace of God be with us all!
I indicated that I would present a passage that more clearly indicates reconciliation as a process. Let’s first examine the following two verses. If I remember correctly, someone referred to these verses earlier in the thread:
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:18 ESV)
At first blush, that sounds a lot as if the reconciliation is a completed fact, doesn’t it? But it ain’t necessarily so! What is the parsing of the word “καταλλαξαντος” (katallaxantos), the word that it translated as “reconciled” above? It is an aorist active participle. Let’s see what William Mounce wrote about participles:
The present participle describes a continuous action and is formed from the present stem of the verb.
The aorist participle describes an action without commenting on the nature of the action (undefined) and is formed from the aorist stem of a verb
The perfect participle describes a completed action with present effects, and is formed from the perfect stem of a verb. (William D. Mounce "Basics of Biblical Greek,
Ch 26, Sec 26.8)
If it were only a present participle, verse 18 would support those like myself who hold that the reconciliation is a process.
If it were only a perfect participle, verse 18 would support those who hold the reconciliation to be a past event.
However, being an aorist participle it does not in itself, support either position.
BUT, the very next verse begins with that little Greek word “ως.” That word is translated as “that is” by the EMTV, the ESV, and the NRSV. Those two little words “That is” indicates that what follows is a restatement of that in verse 18, and so to be consistent, we ought to translate the word in verse 17 also as “was reconciling” as a process.
In verse 18, the Greek word is “καταλλασσων,” the present active participle, which, according to Mounce quoted above, “describes a continuous action.” The verb is also preceded by “ην” (was)—thus "was reconciling (continuous action).
So verse 18 doesn’t contradict verse 17, but further explains it. Since the word in verse 17 is an aorist, we would not know the time aspect, if it were not for verse 18.
However, if I am correct, then the question arises as why virtually all translators render the word in verse 17 as “reconciled,” a past action. My guess is that they associate the aorist with past action since the aorist was often used in writing of past events.
Brings to mind this song likewise of others who doubt the plain text.
That’s pretty much how the aorist works, as the example plastered in the rear of my lexicon reads… ‘Aorist — action as occurring — at one point in time, past indefinite, e.g., Jeff studied the bible.’
So the ONLY possible “process” if you will was that of God’s working in Christ in having established said reconciliation, i.e., it was ALL God and none of us; or as I’ve mentioned previously… the ONLY thing man contributed was the sin making it necessary.
A better song for me (NOT being a Greek scholar) - is this one. Out of curiosity, Davo - are you a Greek scholar like Paidion? If so, do you mind sharing - a bit of background?
“Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do.”-- Dr. Benjamin Spock
No I’m not… I know my limits. I have no formal training as such though some years of informal studies.
The following quote is from a site where Greek lessons are given:
Remember that Greek tenses indicate not only time of action, but more especially kind of action. The aorist tense is a secondary tense, and accordingly, in the indicative mood it indicates past action. In other moods, it does not indicate absolute time, and often does not even indicate relative time.
Randy, are you a Greek scholar?