Colossians 1:16-20

[Seth]

Colossians 1:16-20
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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 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. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

In my experience with discussions and debates on UR, when this scripture comes up, here is what the ETer might say: When verse 20 says "reconcile all things unto himself" it says that about the church, not all people. The justification for that is how verse 20 follows "and he is the head of the body, the church." Therefore, they say, that the reconciliation "of all" applies to the narrowed focus of the church.

Here is what I say:

1. Compare verse 20 with 16. Verse 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" compare to verse 20: "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Paul starts big, then narrows to the church. Then expands the focus again leading up to "reconcile all things" whether "things in heaven and in earth." As he created all things, he also reconciled all things both in heaven and in the earth. According to Colossians: Which things in the earth did he not create? Which things in the earth did he not reconcile?

Do you see what I mean? Verse 16 is the parallel of 20.

2. Note this phrase: "that in all things he might have the preeminence." Here is where Paul expands the focus after his statement about the church, before making his statement about how it pleases him that in Him "all fullness dwell." Paul makes the statement about how God through Christ created all things in heaven and in the earth. Then he narrows his focus to the church. Then he says "that in all thing he might have the preeminence." ETers who force their doctrine into this incompatible scripture need to ask themselves "in which things does Christ NOT have the preeminence." It's pretty clear that Christ has the "name above ALL names" right? So the preeminence is that in all things he is preeminent, it makes further logical sense to say that the "all fullness" dwelling is the same "all in all" from 1 Cor 15, where Jesus delivers the kingdom to God to be such.

First comes the reconciliation of all through his death. Then comes the salvation of all through his life, as the scripture says. First the peace is made with all (though not all have made peace with him in their minds and are not reconciled to him in their minds) THEN the fullness of all in all to follow.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Another shady usage of a verse is the one that says Gods word will not return void,  but their explanation is as follows.

God is like a river and as the water flows out it will return to God and we have to choose to jump in because all the water returns to God and when it has all returned then there will never be any water for us to jump into again.

The problem of course here is how religion views man in relationship with God in the first place.  If mankind is actually spoken word from God, then that aspect of doctrine is false because how can we be spoken word and then fail to return?    We can't and that I believe is one key to study.

[legoman]

Yes this is the evil doctrine of "CONTEXT" rearing its ugly head again.

Essentially, "CONTEXT" allows the reader to change the meaning of a global description (ALL things) and instead apply its meaning to any subset that is described in the previous or immediate surrounding text.

It gives the reader a "fair pass" to ignore the plain text:  All things - in earth or in heaven.

I read it the same way you do Seth:  God created all things - in heaven and earth.  And God will reconcile all things - whether they be in heaven and in earth.

I suppose one might say, but look it doesn't include those things IN HELL!  Sheesh.  You really cannot corner a snake in a briar patch.

We must let the plain text speak.  Changing the meaning of "all", "every", "all things", etc. is nothing more than WORD TWISTING.

Peace...

[Seth]

Another shady usage of a verse is the one that says Gods word will not return void,  but their explanation is as follows.

God is like a river and as the water flows out it will return to God and we have to choose to jump in because all the water returns to God and when it has all returned then there will never be any water for us to jump into again.

The problem of course here is how religion views man in relationship with God in the first place.  If mankind is actually spoken word from God, then that aspect of doctrine is false because how can we be spoken word and then fail to return?    We can't and that I believe is one key to study.

LOL, wow. I never heard that before. God is like a river?

Isaiah 55:11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Period.

That is the meaning of "shall not return to me void." It is a emphatic statement of God's ability to accomplish His sovereign will. It means that the word (Jesus) that goes out of God's mouth (will), will accomplish all that he purposed and wanted.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

And there is another scripture that gets wrangled beyond recognition and beyond what it plainly says. It's at this point ETers must reason that God does not want ALL to be saved (which Calvinists are fine with, even though that directly brushes off a bulk of other scriptures.) Or the wider range of ETers will say that God wants all to be saved, but cannot use his Word to accomplish what he purposes....even though Isaiah leaves no room for such a possibility.

[Seth]

legoman,
and the problem is that they preach "context" then ignore their own rule when it suits them.

[legoman]

legoman,
and the problem is that they preach "context" then ignore their own rule when it suits them.

There is a correct way to use context.  Perhaps it is helpful to look at a (non-biblical) example of how we should use context in every day language.  Example:

1. I constructed five wooden chairs.
2. Two of them I painted pink and made for a special purpose - for my daughter's playroom.
3. All the chairs need a coat of varnish.

Before you read further, what do you think statement 3 is talking about.

--

OK Now what is statement 3 talking about?  ALL the chairs in the universe?  Only the 2 chairs that were painted pink?  No, and no.  The "ALL" here is refering to the 5 wooden chairs I constructed in statement 1.  It would be an abuse of context to say only the 2 pink chairs needed varnish, because statement 3 would make no sense.  There should be no question of this is.  It is not ambiguos at all.  If I meant only the 2 pink chairs, then statement 3 should have referenced "the 2 chairs" or "the pink chairs" or something like that.  This should be obvious right?

Now lets look at your scripture Seth, simplified a bit.

1.  Christ created all things in heaven and earth
2.  Christ will head up the church - who are the firstfruits
3.  Christ will reconcile all things in heaven and earth.

SOOO, same rules for context should apply.  Statement 3 has to be referring to the same things in statement 1.  Otherwise statement 3 was worded incorrectly.  Is "all things in heaven and earth" out of context for this passage?  Does it not have a plain meaning?  No, and no, and especially since the same phrasing was used at the beginning of the passage.  Therefore no need to change the MEANING!

WORDS mean SOMETHING people!  We can't just change what a word means due to "context".

I think that is the main issue.  When something is ambiguos, context is used to clarify.  If it is not ambiguous, DON'T ABUSE THE CONTEXT!

In my chair example clearly I wasn't referring to "ALL the chairs in the universe", because that would be out of scope of the context.  But when it is clear that all means all (within what was specified - all 5 chairs), then the meaning doesn't need to be changed.

Mind boggling stuff, I know.

Peace.

[Seth]

I was reading the chair example, and where it said "before you read any further" I stopped and considered the question. Naturally, meaning before my mind allowed for any twisting, to me the "all" was in reference to the 5 chairs. I would have had to UNnaturally twist the 3 point statement to reason that the "all" meant the 2 chairs. I would have had to actually re-evaluate and reconfigure the obvious to reach the conclusion that you had intended the "all" to be used in reference to 2 chairs rather than 5.

That's what happens to the Colossians verse as you are saying. The meaning is plain and simple, UNTIL one must decide that it doesn't jibe with their doctrine. So they must reconfigure the obvious to fit an incompatible scripture into their doctrine.

[Seth]

To be fair, what is "obvious" can be relative. I mean, what's obvious to me might not be obvious to someone else. But when you take a secular example, it would be interesting to see how an ETer reacts to the chair example, THEN to see how they react to the Colossians.

It's worth noting that when I read the New Testament as an ETer, the obvious meaning of certain scriptures rang clear to me....I just shrugged and moved on.

[Tim B]

Colossians 1:16-20
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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 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. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

The first time I read through I didn't realize what it was saying, but the second time I realized how obviously this verse says NOTHING ABOUT THE CHURCH BEING THE "ALL". In fact, it simply includes the Church IN the ALL.

[jabcat]

I think saying context is evil is drastically overstating.  Anyone can twist just about anything.  IMO, it's the heart, the understanding, and the twisting that's the problem, not PROPER context.  There are a lot of bad doctors...doesn't mean medicine is evil so I'll never go to a doctor again.  Word twisting and context are not necessarily the same things.  Just because it can be misused, doesn't mean it's bad.  People misuse the Word of God.  Does that make the Word evil?

As long as we're examining context, I'd suggest we keep things in their proper context;  and not espouse things that are not helpful to the other extreme.  NOT using PROPER context can be just as damaging as using IMPROPER context.  One can twist either way, and I've seen it done...both extremes.  Reminds me of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  As long as we're reasoning, let's be reasonable please.  My  .

[legoman]

jabcat,

The problem is this doctrine of CONTEXT, which has nothing to do with a proper understanding of the real context.  It is the word twisting and then calling it "context" which is the evil part.

What I find is many people use "CONTEXT" as a crutch.  You quote a verse like 1 Tim 2:4 or Col 1:20 and they say "You are taking that out of CONTEXT", as if that makes them right and you wrong.  Then they go through and "prove" that "all things" only means "Christ's church - the firstfruits".  That is the evil part.  It is word twisting.  Even calling it "context" is word twisting.  It makes the word of God of No effect, because words no longer have a proper meaning.

Hope you get what I meant.

Legoman

[jabcat]

THAT, I can agree with.  Again, IMO, it's the twisting that's the problem, WITH or WITHOUT context.

So are you making a distinction then between proper context and "the doctrine of context"?  Maybe that's something I'm not understanding, maybe something you see there that I'm missing, or we're using different terminology, etc?  Because I saw you make a comment about "the evil doctrine of context", yet then say something about reasonable or accurate context, so it does seem you're making some sort of distinction.  Maybe that's what needs to be clear, and perhaps what you're clarifying now.  Thanks.

[jabcat]

Or did I misunderstand and take what you said out of context? 

[legoman]

THAT, I can agree with.  Again, IMO, it's the twisting that's the problem, WITH or WITHOUT context.

So are you making a distinction then between proper context and "the doctrine of context"?  Maybe that's something I'm not understanding, maybe something you see there that I'm missing, or we're using different terminology, etc?  Because I saw you make a comment about "the evil doctrine of context", yet then say something about reasonable or accurate context, so it does seem you're making some sort of distinction.  Maybe that's what needs to be clear, and perhaps what you're clarifying now.  Thanks.

Yes I probably didn't make that clear, but I guess that is how I view it.  Some people turn "context" into a "doctrine", and basically reinterpret clear scripture that doesn't need to be reinterpreted.  That is word twisting plain and simple.  Calling it "context" doesn't make it right.

Peace...

[jabcat]

I agree.  But this is just my opinion...calling context wrong or evil (unless that's what one really believes) is overgeneralizing and can be confusing.  I do realize there are folks who will argue there is NO context of scripture, that we can basically use any verse or passage to make any point that suits our purposes.  However, IMO, you pin those people down with specific examples, and they don't have much to say.  For (a silly) example, I asked someone once  if when Jesus told the disciples to go get Him a donkey, does that mean he should go find a donkey for Jesus so He could ride it?  They really didn't address the question so much.

Another thing I've seen, is an argument that "Paul took things out of context" and that proves we should be able to do so as well.  Well, my opinion is, when Paul "took things out of context", that PUT things IN context for us...that became our context...we're not writing/re-writing the Word of God.  It is written. 

[legoman]

I agree.  But this is just my opinion...calling context wrong or evil (unless that's what one really believes) is overgeneralizing and can be confusing.

Good point.  I will be more careful in the future on that.

[legoman]

To be fair, what is "obvious" can be relative. I mean, what's obvious to me might not be obvious to someone else. But when you take a secular example, it would be interesting to see how an ETer reacts to the chair example, THEN to see how they react to the Colossians.

It's worth noting that when I read the New Testament as an ETer, the obvious meaning of certain scriptures rang clear to me....I just shrugged and moved on.

Yes what is obvious to us is not obvious to an ETer, because they have the larger "context" of the belief that many people will go to hell.  So every verse must be viewed with that in mind.  Thats part of the problem with Col 1:20.  Viewed by itself, it is as simple as the chair example.  But add in the preconceived "context" of an eternal hell, then obviously Col 1:20 cannot mean what it plainly says.

[jabcat]

I agree.  But this is just my opinion...calling context wrong or evil (unless that's what one really believes) is overgeneralizing and can be confusing.

Good point.  I will be more careful in the future on that.

Brother, we're all learning.  I've learned today just from these few minutes.  God's blessings to you and yours.

[WhiteWings]

Seperate verses and context is  a bit of a circular concept. Likely not the best way to call it......
Context doesn't exist without verses. Just like words don't exist without letters.
If the verses are misunderstood the context gets wrong too. Crap in crap out.
Then the verses are verified the wrong context that was based on wrong understanding of verses.

When reading things very often life experience is put in the mix.
If I write "Obama" I bet many instantly think about the president of the USA. But that's just an assumption you made from your experience. I was talking about an Eskimo girl called Obama.
Just by using that name you mind switches to a certain context.
The moment an ETer sees fire/punishment BBQ mindset kicks in and starts putting everything into context.

It's easier to learn something than to unlearn (a habit)

If the above doesn't make sense reread until you get the context right

[Seth]

 WW:  

[legoman]

Continuing on the theme of these verses: Col 1:16-20.

I have had people point out to me that verses 21-23 limit the "all things" that are reconciled to "only those who continue in faith":

Col 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

Does this indeed mean that all things are not reconciled?  I don't think so, here is how I explain it:

If you continue in faith, you will be be presented "holy in his sight" to God.  If you stray and take the wide path to destruction, you won't be reconciled (while on that path to destruction).  However God will lead you back to the faith eventually, and then you will eventually be reconciled (in the Lake of Fire).

Effectively it is saying what the ETers believe about UR:  "If everyone is saved, why do I need to repent (and keep the faith)?"  Well verse 23 tells you why.  If you don't repent and follow the faith, you won't be reconciled.  But God devises ways for each person to return to God, right (I know there is a scripture that says this, but can't find it right now - help me out)?

Comments?

[Seth]

Col 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

Hi legoman, here is my thoughts on that, and it sounds like it would be similar to what you have said. Verse 16-20 establish the (edit: I said salvation, but I meant "eventual salvation") of all mankind. 21-23 establishes how salvation is being initialized with those who believe today. The difference between reconciliation and salvation is this: reconciliation is a change in relationship, salvation is being rescued from sin. The Greek word for reconcile contains the concept of "change." By Christ's physical death on the cross, God changed the relationship between himself and man. He brought the world in harmony to himself by changing the means by which man can come to him. BECAUSE of this reconciliation (the change) salvation can be experienced by Christ's life, because the law does not stand in the way. So through faith, we have access to God, no longer needing the provisions of the law. This access to grace is where salvation from sin "by his life" occurs.

Reconciliation happened 2000 years ago and was global. However, while God reconciled the world to himself, other people are not reconciled to him in their minds. So they need to reconcile their minds to him, meaning they need a change of mind. But, salvation, in contrast to global reconciliation is something that Paul says is "your own" meaning that individual people are saved from whatever they were in slavery to, and therefore can work that salvation outwardly.

When Paul says: "now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation" he means that the peace created by Christ's death allows that access into grace so that we can be made holy and without blemish IF WE CONTINUE in the faith. In other words reconciliation of the world and the enmity of the law removed means that all can come to him and be saved from sin by grace through faith. But we have to continue in the faith so that grace will continue to save us from sin in our daily walk.

But as verses 16-20 show, global peace has been made 2000 years ago through the change God created in Christ and we wait for the glorious fulfillment of that:

Acts 3
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

[Seth]

That post was longer than I expected and not sure if I made it understandable, so I'll sum up as concisely as possible:

First comes reconciliation of the planet 2000 years ago. It is peace with the world, by dissolution of the Law of Moses, which kept man in emnity. It leads to salvation (a renewing of the mind) because without the law to keep man from God and in slavery to sin, man can access grace through faith and recieve the Spirit, unto the death of the old man.

Reconciliation is not salvation in itself which is why we must continue in the faith and not return to slavery in Egypt. Reconciliation of the planet LEADS to salvation of individual people until all are restored. We need to continue to lay hold of the promised land (God's rest) so that our minds may be renewed daily.

That is the point of the Colossians verse.

[Doc]

I can see that. Perhaps a good direction to take this in would be a discussion of the texts that speak of universal reconciliation vs. the ones that speak of universal salvation.

It appears that the universal reconciliation has already happened, and has laid the groundwork for universal salvation; but the two are not the same thing....

We probably need to be clear in our presentation, of the distinction between the two as well as how they go together.

[Seth]

I agree. In Romans 5 is where much of the confusion happens. It establishes that Jesus died for the ungodly, and that we are justified (righteous) by his blood.

Romans 5:8-10
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified (daikoo) by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Some of the confusion comes in the understanding of what it means to be "justified" by his blood. I used to think externally until I saw that scripture where Jesus says "You must EAT my flesh, and DRINK my blood." Then I knew that the justification is what happens on the inside, cleansing from the inside out.

Then I found out that justification is from the same word as "righteous." THEN I saw in Romans 6 where it says "whoever is dead is free (dikaioo) from sin" meaning when the old man is dead, that is when the blood makes man righteous. We are saved when we "drink" the blood. If we think "righteous by the blood" is external, that's when we will confuse reconciliation with salvation, even though the distinction there in that verse is clear.

Romans 5:16-19
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The free gift of reconciliation (God's peace made with the world by dissolution of the law necessary to come to him). DUE to that reconciliation, no need for circumcision and priests and counting of transgressions, we can now approach the throne for salvation. As it says those who receive the abundance of grace shall "reign in life" by Christ (who is IN them by that grace). But the reconciliation is that the free gift is for all and all SHALL be made righteous.

But remember what it says in 1 Corinthians 15? In Adam all die, even so IN CHRIST shall all be made alive...but each to their own order. That progression of salvation (to the end point of "the times of the restoration of all things") beginning among those who access the grace by faith now, that is the fulfillment of the global reconciliation made by God 2000 years ago.