I’ve tried reading that Jonathan Mitchell translation and pretty much given up. 
I can sympathize. It takes a lot of effort, and sometimes even THAT goes unrewarded. Do you have the Rotherham?
- “To what intent?”
Each of us can read the letter and discern the intent or rather, the number of intentions Paul had. It is letters like this that make me shake my head when skeptics belittle the Bible - the range of thought, the magnificence of the vision of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, the pastoral care that builds up the congregation and warns them about those trying to ‘spoil’ their faith, the Beginning and the Ending of ‘all things’ (which is the real Beginning), the rulers of the earth, the heavenly host, the final reconciliation of the ‘All Things’ - and more - in a few short chapters of a short letter from an apostle to a congregation. Those that are ‘against’ these things have only a paltry and impoverished nihilism to offer, IMO. (Hmm…how can nihilism be impoverished? An oxymoron, I think.)
As to 2:18 - Possibly the ‘messengers’ are angels, and Paul is warning , as he does in other letters, particularly Galatians, that his congregation not be moved from the faith delivered to them,
-by a cult of angel worship,
-or by some flash-in-the-pan ‘preachers’ who claim to have experiences or visions relating to angels,
-or by Jewish hyper-traditionalists who judge them as unfit believers because their faith is grounded in Christ, not the OT ceremonies as enlarged and decorated by those Jews.
The portrait Paul has painted of Christ pretty much eclipses the claims of those who build their faith on angels - or in fact, on Anything other than Christ. There is nothing lacking in Christ; everything gets its meaning from Him; everything holds together - the whole universe, what we can see and what is invisible. Angels - messengers only, and not really our concern (or our need) at all.
To the PIQ. 1:13-23
The OP made mention of Universalism in this passage.
The first thing I noticed, when going through the ‘with what words’ awareness, was the ubiquitous use of the words ‘All’ or ‘Everything’.
I don’t know that a greater vision can be had, even in imagination, than the vision of Christ Paul shares. Knowing that the subject of ‘angels’ will be coming up, it stands to reason that Paul would pave the way to that issue by stressing that all things, including the ‘invisible’ ‘the heavenly’ "all powers of mankind and of those heavenly hosts - everything is from, through and for Christ.
Also - GOD HAS NO OPPOSITE. Paul is clearly saying that. I bring that up because of other threads that have presented alternative theories.
The UNIVERSE begins and ends with Christ, not with bare chance, not from a ‘singularity’ arising out of absolutely nothing, not out of the clash of ‘gods’ fighting over a ‘chaos’. Paul is clearly inferring that.
verse 20: 'through Him to reconcile the ‘all things’ to Himself…whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens. And you…"
I don’t see anything in this letter that would lead me to believe otherwise than that Paul believed in universal reconciliation.
I’m aware that there is with this, as with everything, it seems - a brouhaha. But I think the ideas that make for the brouhaha must come from somewhere other than this letter.
No ego here! Open for suggestions! I realize this is only a layman doing a surface survey of Colossians.
I mainly get from this - don’t be easily moved from your faith. There will always be someone with a new vision, or a message from a spirit or an angel, or a new way to worship, or something to ‘add’ to Christian belief or …whatever.
What other things do you see here?
edited to clarify some of the language.
Michael Hardin has a bit to say on this. He feels Paul was greatly affected when he came to Ephesus and johns community. He counts Colossians as authentic Paul.
What keeps surfacing in my mind:
-
It is not just the physical universe that Paul is talking about, when he talks ‘reconciliation’, though it includes that - a careful look at all the ‘alls’ really makes it clear, IMO, that he really means the visible and the invisible, the earthly and the heavenly, EVERYTHING, every last thing and being, will be reconciled. Some already have been.
-
Discussion concerning Adam, evolution, inerrancy - all worth talking about - kind of fall into perspective when seen in the light of what Paul wrote here in Colossians. We certainly don’t know everything - but we do know Who created and sustains every single thing and being; we do know how it ‘all began’ and where it will all end, though its not really an ‘end’.
There’s a lot more of course, but these things have been on my mind since reading the little letter a number of times.
Just an additional comment -and I am not a Greek scholar but love to read…
The word for “all things” as found in our text, and in the Romans 8 text is also found in Revelation 21:5, where God says, “behold I make all things new.”
The Greek word is πάς (pas, Strong’s #3956) and, according to the Word Study NT,
(I) Includes the idea of oneness, a totality or the whole, the same as hólos (G3650), the whole.
It refers to all "Creation, in a passive sense, what has been created, the sum total of what has been created (Mar 10:6; Mar 13:19; Rom 1:20; Rom 8:19-22; Heb 9:11; 1Pe 2:13; 2Pe 3:4; Rev 3:14). Denotes a particular created thing (Rom 1:25; Rom 8:39; Col 1:15; Heb 4:13). Refers specifically to mankind as God’s creation (Mar 16:15; Col 1:23.
So I think it is clear that humanity and believers (sons of God) are included in the word, “pas” or “all things”. The whole of creation will be made new. Believers are already made new in the spirit, but we look forward with hope to being made new when our fleshly bodies are transformed and made new and immortal (1 Cor 15: 53-57).
The all things being made new is the New Creation. This isn’t referring to the reprobate. For It tells us in verse 8 after God makes all things new that they will have their portion in the Lake Of Fire. This is outside the gates of the city.
Hello all - and in particular Dave, Loren and Cole (re the recent discussion on the extent of ‘all things’)
I’m currently rereading Robin Parry’s The Evangelical Universalist. Robin has a whole section on the Universalist implications of Colossians 1. If you have a copy of the book it’s well worth revisiting in the light of our discussions here.
One thing Parry shows conclusively is that the passage we are looking at is “quite unambiguous about the extent of the reconciliation Christ has effected through his cross. The ‘all things’ that are reconciled in v20 are, without any doubt, the same ‘all things’ that are created in v16. In other words, every single created thing”. (TEU p45)
Cole’s valiant but vain attempt to bend this passage to fit the parameters of Calvinist exclusivism founders completely here. (And just in case you were wondering how the lake of fire passages in Revelation do fit into the reconciliation of all things, Robin deals with this in TEU as well.)
Cheers
Johnny
Thanks, and I have read and am re-reading RobIn’s book, The Evangelical Universalist, which I purchased several months back. He also refers to the fact that, in the Revelation passage, we are told that the city’s gates are never shut. In any event , and I am a novice in discussing this topic, it seems to me that the God who makes all things new is at work, outside those city gate, drawing all those “rebels” in hell to himself. The “fire” is the same fire that Jesus said we all would be salted with. By the way, in my previous post I was not arguing against the idea of some being put into hell. I was arguing that “all things” means every created thing, which includes humans, and that to me brings comfort, knowing that it opens the door of hope and eternal life to those who Dante and so many others have deemed hopeless.
The gates are open so that people can go out and look on the dead bodies:
Earlier, Dave asked for input on words, including "Firstborn, as used in Col 1 – 15. [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16* For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17* And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18* And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19* For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Seems to me this relate to Proverbs 8, speaking of Wisdom:
“The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so that the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind." (NIV)
God brought forth Wisdom. God “birthed” Wisdom. Wisdom was His “firstborn”. Does that mean wisdom didn’t exist before this time, or is it in fact saying that Wisdom, as it relates to all other creation, is the leader, the head, the predecessor. God manifested his wisdom to us first at the creation.
Thus Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, is our leader, the firstborn, the manifestation of the Wisdom of God who came before us and sustains us (and everything else.)
By the way, the psalmist in Ps 89 speaks of God appointing David as “his firstborn” - 27 “Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Seems to refer to his being made leader of all, not literally the first born son.
Those are excellent points!! It helps make the word ‘firstborn’ much more vivid. Thanks.
[The Son of God] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1:15)
Many people are puzzled by the statement that the Son is the firstborn of all creation. That is why some translators, such as those of the NKJV, attempt to make sense of it by changing the words to “the firstborn OVER all creation.” The Greek does not allow for that. Philips’ paraphrase gets closer to Paul’s actual thought, “He was born before creation began.” The early Catholic Church understood. The original Nicene Creed contained the phrase “begotten before all ages.” Even the early Trinitarians accepted the begetting or birth of the Son as a single act of God (though the later Trinitarians changed the Nicence phrase to "eternally begotten).
Also the first Christmas (Christ’s Mass) was celebrated in the fourth century by holding three masses in honour of Christ’s three births: (1) His birth before all ages, (2) His birth from Mary, and (3) His birth in the hearts of the faithful. Yes, the early Catholics understood what it meant to say that the Son was the firstborn of all creation.
The Father Himself gave birth to His Son. That’s why the Son is “the image of the invisible God”. Heb 1:3 reads that He is the exact imprint of the Father’s essence. He is the ONLY begotten Son of God. There is no other true “biological” Son of God. He is also called “The only begotten God” (John 1:18 in the earliest manuscripts). Second-century Christian writers compared this to the Father by referring to the Father as “the unbegotten God.”
However, one shouldn’t think of Christ as having been created (at least not in the Arian sense), just as a human baby has not been created by his mother (unless we are using “created” in an unusual sense). In the ancient Christmas Carol, “Adeste Fideles”, the second verse contains the words “begotten, not created.”
Beyond my comprehension!
What is at stake if someone understands ‘begotten’ in the temporal sense? First the Father , THEN the Son? Why would that be problematic? It seems to me that the words ‘eternally begotten’ are an attempt to clarify, but end up fogging, the issue of whether there was the Father, then the Son.
The Father Himself gave birth to His Son. That’s why the Son is “the image of the invisible God”. Heb 1:3 reads that He is the exact imprint of the Father’s essence. He is the ONLY begotten Son of God. There is no other true “biological” Son of God. He is also called “The only begotten God” (John 1:18 in the earliest manuscripts). Second-century Christian writers compared this to the Father by referring to the Father as “the unbegotten God.”
That’s how i see it too. If all three eternally existed then my math adds up to three gods. Perhaps the “of God” means something like “The Word of God” and “The Spirit of God.”
Heavenly entertainment? Perhaps not. I prefer the idea of a welcome from Christ to all outside to repent and come back home.
My buddy Lancia has cleared this up for me:
I can’t agree, I’ll stick to the ER perspective on Heaven’s gates: “Open! Come on in!”
Oh dear. Yes, it seems distressful and frankly odious. The lake of fire is a place of purification. Otherwise what do the Spirit and the Bride mean by saying, “Come and drink”? The saints have already drunk of the water of life and will never thirst again. At this point in the narrative who is left who has not drunk but those wallowing in the Lake of Fire?