The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Transferred from Darkness to Light

Theology Biblical Theology
#21

Hmm, good point, Steve7

I hadn’t thought about that, but now you mention it, reconcile has more meanings than just to restore a relationship. Reconcile also means to make two things agree completely with one another – like reconciling a cash register with the store accounts or reconciling your checkbook with your bank statement. Holy is a very important word to Cole, but I’m not sure exactly how he defines it. I would agree with you that it means “set apart” but I haven’t done any word studies on it. When you put it that way, we and the angels will all, always, be being reconciled to God. Thanks for pointing that out! I’m delighted to learn something new! :smiley:

Blessings, Cindy

#22

Cindy,

It won’t let me remove it. I don’t think it’s disrespectful. If you do then remove it. I’m sorry. Love you Cindy.

(from Cindy)
Sorry, Cole. I thought members could remove their own comments. It’s fine for you to disagree with anyone’s interpretation, but rude to state your disagreement in the way you did. Thanks for trying to cooperate. :slight_smile: Love you, too.

#23

The lengths you people will go to, to hold on to a false interpretation of the scriptures!!!

If the “you people” includes me then what is my false interpretation?

#24

Cindy,

I’m not sure it was rude. I do have a tendency though to say things unintentionally that make people mad sometimes. Although I think your Universalism is wrong I don’t think bad of you. In fact I would say you are a very kind person to me and I thank you for it. You reflect the glory of Christ in what you do and say. Except when you are making fun of Calvinists. :smiley: Besides that, I think you are a very lovely lady Cindy.

#25

Hello all

Great thread Cindy. The ‘creation hymn’ in Colossians 1 is one of my favourite passages in the whole Bible. And you’re right, it’s a bit of a spaniard in the works for infernalists :smiley: .

There’s a lot to unpack here, and between you all you’re doing a great job so far. Here’s a small spaniard in our works from me, to start with :smiley: :

'by whom’
Unless I’m being a complete dunce, Coverdale’s hermeneutical method doesn’t actually include a ‘by whom’. His ‘of whom’ surely refers to ‘who the author is talking about’, wouldn’t you say? And Dave has done an excellent analysis of that already. But as for by whom …

As with so much of the Bible, there is scholarly disagreement about the authorship of Colossians. A quick trawl through the Wikipedia article on Colossians tells us that its Pauline authorship is disputed by some scholars, mainly on the grounds of the ‘higher’ or ‘more advanced’ Christology described in the creation hymn. I think this is a very good point, and something that really struck me when I was re-reading the chapter in various translations. The way ‘Paul’ talks about Christ here is very similar to the way Chapter 1 of the Gospel of John talks about Christ, as the Logos and the agent of all creation. Indeed, there are strong parallels between the two books.

Of course, there is no way any of us (I assume :smiley: ) can be sure about the authorship of any book of the Bible. The big question here is ‘does it matter’? Does it matter if Colossians was written by somebody other than Paul - perhaps Tychicus or Onesimus? I don’t know. But my gut feeling is no, it doesn’t matter. It’s in the Bible, it seems clear that if it’s not actually by Paul, it’s by somebody who was very close to Paul, and perhaps represents his actual teachings. And with the reservations I have expressed elsewhere, I do believe the canon of Scripture is inspired. Plus it just ‘fits’ - as per the Johannine connections I mentioned earlier.

What do you guys think? Does it matter who wrote this book?

Cheers

Johnny

#26

What do you guys think? Does it matter who wrote this book?

Sure it matters, i hope Nero didn’t write it. But it also sounds similar to Ephesians except looking down from heaven instead of up to heaven.

#27

:laughing: Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with my question, Steve. Does it matter whether it was Paul, or a disciple of Paul, who wrote Colossians? Are we right simply to trust that it is inspired writing?

Cheers

J

#28

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with my question, Steve. Does it matter whether it was Paul, or a disciple of Paul, who wrote Colossians? Are we right simply to trust that it is inspired writing?

As long as Paul either wrote it or collaborated in some way i think it’s inspired, perhaps like Hebrews. But the differences in style (if any) can be due to a secretary writing Paul’s words and infusing some of his own linguistics.

#29

I think that sometimes it’s a consideration. We can read Colossians and see that it agrees significantly with Romans and with Ephesians and Galatians, so whether Paul or Timothy or some other associate actually dictated it doesn’t actually matter all that much. In fact, it could be one of those “with” scenarios.

Paul, sitting there in prison says to Tychicus, “Tell you what. I’m really exhausted from a day of fighting lions and tigers and bears. How about you write the letter and I’ll read it, make suggestions and so on, and then if you don’t think they’ll listen to you I’ll sign it. How’s that?”

Tychicus says, “Weeeeel, okay. If you think I’m ready . . .”

“Oy, kid. If I say you’re ready, you’re ready. Just do it.”

So later Tychicus brings his parchments in, Paul reads, and as parchments are really really expensive, he dismisses with the minor unnecessary style corrections and gives Ty the thumbs up. “Great work, Bro! I dunno whether I can let you go back to Colossae with you writin’ like that. I might have to keep you here so you can write ALL my stuff. You write it and I get the credit. Huh! I call that a good deal!”

So I guess the point is, no – probably it doesn’t matter, and as you say, Johnny, it’s hard to ever know for sure. That said, I think it’s interesting, and also it could be useful. If we know who the author is we may have more of an idea where he’s coming from and maybe even why he says some to the things he says. More important though, is probably the people to whom it’s written, and in what circumstances. As you point out though, the most important thing is the one I completely missed :blush: , which is ABOUT whom! (duh!)

Thanks for weighing in. :smiley: I’m glad you decided to drop by!

Love, Cindy

#30

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Clearly you’re a Wizard of Oz fan, Cindy :laughing: .

Quite possibly it was how you said it was. I really don’t think it matters too much in this particular case - because I believe the teaching is authentically Pauline, and if Paul didn’t actually write it, he almost certainly taught the person who did.

More soon. Bedways is rightways now :smiley: .

Love

Johnny

#31

Serious question here. It’s interesting you find praise and are thankful to Cindy for treating you kindly. I wonder, what would you think of her if she tied to you a stake and burned you alive? What would be your honest reaction if she claimed to be carrying out an act of God?

#32

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shocked/surprised-scream-smiley-emoticon.gif No worries, Cole. I’m a universalist. . . . but we should probably stay on topic. :wink:

#33

Haven’t had much time for a day or so. Here’s a tidbit:

  1. Still working on Coverdale’s “to whom?” awareness. We’ve gleaned a lot of what the letter says about the Colossians, Jesus Christ, and The Father. But I do find references to other ‘whoms’. I do underline phrases that catch my eye, or words that I need to look more closely at later on.

-those who would despoil through philosophy and empty seduction (interesting phrase)
-those who would judge you of those things that are only shadows of that which is impending
-those who arbitrate against you with ‘decrees’

I’m as anxious as anyone to get to the PIQ (Passage in question: 1:13-23) but want as many ducks in a row as I can get first.

  1. Next on the list: “using what words?” - I’m going to look at some of the unclear - to me- words - I think it is clear that Paul was using words and catch-phrases that the Colossians were familiar with - or why bother writing? I’ll try to get a little glossary going, for my use if noone else’s.

If you have a take on these words, please have a go: (I’m using the CLV, and Strong’s notes)

1:15 Firstborn - how was Christ 'Born?"
2:8 Philosophy - Strong’s: Jewish sophistry?
2:8 Elements - rudiments, Strongs: Jewish traiditionary law?
2:14 Handwriting of decrees - Strong’s: a law, ceremonial or ecclesiastical. HCSB: certificate of debt?
2:18 Arbitrating: umpiring. HSCB: disqualify?

The HCSB does a pretty good job on these, I think. 2:18 looks to be a core verse for what was troubling the Colossians, and the CLV is vague.?

Please chip in!!

Almost ready to get into the PIQ

#34

Paul, sitting there in prison says to Tychicus,

No one thinks much about poor Tychicus, but he delivered all of Paul’s letters to the various churches. :astonished:

#35

I’m not as good with Dave’s method as he is (understandably) . . . while we wait for him to direct us, I’d like to interject a question.

What does this passage teach us about human beings? About people?

Right off the top of my head, first verse, I think it tells us that we were part of the kingdom of darkness, but He has transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of His love. What does that mean? When does/did the transfer take place? Elsewhere we’re told that we’re in the world but not of the world, and there are other places I think, that identify “the world” as the place we WERE in – therefore plausibly aka the “kingdom of darkness.” The land of the blind perhaps? He (Jesus) was the light that was coming into the world, that lightened every person. (That’s in John 1 somewhere.) The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness can not comprehend, encompass, see, overcome it. But if the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness. Paul was sent as a light to the gentiles – to open their eyes. What is the significance of this? I’m still chewing on it; what do you think?

#36

:laughing: Steve7. No kidding! What a huge job that must have been – I mean, he could hardly rent a motor boat and/or hop on a bus . . . .

#37

I’m just clearing the brush before taking on 1:13-23. Right now it’s 2:14-18 that I’m wondering about. The literal translation, of course, seems to be a mess - I’ll probably just go with ‘worship of angels’ and ‘ascetic practices’ as being the problems Paul is writing about. I try my best to just go with the text, but some key passages have to be left to the experts, and this is one of those passages. It bears directly on the ‘upon what occasion’ part of Coverdale’s approach.

I’d like to draw up a little outline based on the three or four readings that have been done so far, that will cover the ‘what has come before and what follows’ part of the ‘method’.
There are so many other themes in this little letter, but I’m going to focus on the PIQ.

#38

Dave! Somehow I missed your post way up there. :blush: We must have been posting at the same time.

I think Firstborn is more a title and a job description than a birth order (but I could be wrong about that). Throughout scripture we see the second (or later) son being chosen – Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, David, Solomon, Jesus as the “second Adam;” none were chronologically first, but all ended up with the position of authority. What’s more, all are in some sense types of Christ.

Another title comes along later " . . . that in all He may be becoming first" or “the holder of the first place,” according to Ann Nyland (The Source New Testament). The “Holder of the First Place” referred to a high ranking public official and meant, basically, “head honcho.” :laughing: (She didn’t put it quite that way though.)

Here’s the Jonathan Mitchel NT translation for 2:18, in case you’re still interested in looking at that:

It’s a little hard for me to follow, though I suppose it would be better in context. I was pretty much concentrating on the middle of ch. 1 though, and haven’t looked at 2 closely. Granted the context for a letter is, at the least, the whole letter – but I thought it might be a bit much to take on in a forum. :wink:

#39

Steve7. No kidding! What a huge job that must have been – I mean, he could hardly rent a motor boat and/or hop on a bus . . . .

True but back in the day God made them donkeys to be pretty sturdy , even Jesus thought so.

#40

:laughing: Donkeys are ornery though. You gotta to know what’s what if you’re gonna ride one o’ them!

We have feral donkeys around here – in the Park. I took my daughter to see them long long long, long, long ago when she was barely walking, and brought along a box of crackers so we could feed them. She thought they were great until they started wondering whether she wasn’t just an exceptionally big cracker. I had to chuck the whole box at them and run (with her of course) for the truck. :unamused: Yeah . . . I’ll take a nice pick-up truck anytime – heck I’ll take a junky pick-up truck. :wink: