But another situation is the occurrence of the singular verbs that correlate with the Greek phrase τα παντα here. This is to be expected since this often is taken as a collective plural. Here we need to discuss and give further consideration of the cosmological meaning of this pertinent Greek phrase. One such definition is “the universe.” There are several passages where this phrase has such a meaning. A number of these are listed in Greek-English Lexicons. Some of such passages are as follows: Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 1:10; 3:9; Hebrews 1:3; 2:20 (the longer reading of Revelation 4:11 also is found in the same list). But this meaning parallels that sometimes in the Greek τα παντα (from which English gets its word cosmos) that is seen in Acts 17:24. In such usage it refers to the material or observable universe as a whole. So it is with the Greek phrase κοσμος. To this list, based on textual and other evidence, the author feels that the passage at Colossians 1:16-20 should be added. (The following are also reasons why I think it would be so understood in Colossians 1:15-20.)
For instance, in the text of verse 20 Paul was not writing
that literally everything was to be reconciled to God, including all evil
angels and those who refuse to know Christ. Rather, he was arguing that God was
reconciling the material universe to himself. To understand τα παντα in verse 20 in any other way
is to introduce considerable confusion. We must take it either to mean that
literally everything will be reconciled to God through Christ, or to
mean that the material universe is to be reconciled to God through the Christ
(with the exception of certain other individuals, such as evil angels,
reprobates, etc.). This latter meaning and understanding makes far more sense
in relation to the entire teaching of the Bible, which also states that the
Devil himself definitely will not be reconciled to God (compare, for instance,
Revelation 20:10).
This further is solidified by giving consideration to how
Greek readers and hearers would have understood the above Colossians passage in
question, in hearing it read. The Greek dialect in which the Greek New
Testament is written was the common street language of the day in most
provinces of the Roman Empire. The cultural understanding underlying these
words also should be resorted to if we are to understand the cosmological sense
that the Greeks would see in this scripture passage. How would the ancient
Greeks have understood the meaning of the phrase, or its constituent words? How
would people in general have understood the meaning of the words all things in
a cosmological sense? The philosophers said that “The first cause of everything
is Zeus and also all things from Zeus.” (Greek: αρχη απαντων Ζευς τε και εκ Διος παντα [from Aelius Aristides]) Yet, what else do
we know about Zeus, the god of the Greeks? We also know that he not only had a
father, named Kronos, who also had a father named Ouranos, but he also had a
number of brothers and sisters who coexisted with him. And yet Zeus was known
to the Greeks as “the father of gods and men.” (“Then terribly thundered the father of gods and men
from on high” [Homer, Iliad 20.56-57]) This cosmological background of
the words most likely is that Greeks would have had in mind and understood upon
hearing that τα παντα was created by Christ.
In its cosmological meaning,
usage, and also background, as well as the fuller contexts of this passage (as
well as of other passages) the text here refers to the material or the
observable universe, as a whole, rather than speaking literally of each and
every single thing including all the individual elements used in the
universe’s organization. It becomes a case of missing the entire forest for the
trees to accept the latter meaning. But it cannot be used to attack the LDS
doctrine of creation using matter or element. If we did take this passage hyperliterally,
merely at its face value, to address in its meaning each and every single
thing, then the same has to be done with verse 20 of this passage. That
would make little to no sense in light of the Bible, when taken as a whole. The
same words occur in the same overall unit of thought, so it is extremely
unlikely that Paul suddenly would thus switch the meaning on his readers in
this selfsame sentence like that without some sort of clarification. An English
translation that takes into consideration all of the above could be rendered
similarly to what follows:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
of all creation: For by means of him the universe was created, the things in
the heavens and the things upon the earth, the things visible and the things
invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers: the
universe through him and for him was created: and he is before all else, and by
him the universe is constituted, and he is the head of the body of the Church:
he who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all he might be
preeminent; for it seemed good to God that in him should all the fulness
dwell, and through him to reconcile the universe to Himself, having made peace
through the blood of his cross; through him, whether the things upon the earth
or things in the heavens.
The translation is consistent,
true to the meaning of the Greek text, and eliminates potential pitfalls in
understanding. But in any case, the above passage in the Bible is not of
as great utility as the critics long have thought was the situation. It does
not even address the LDS doctrine of the creation! With all of the
passages that have the cosmological meaning the situation is similar, so long
as we all keep context and underlying meaning in mind while reading. None of
those passages address the situation either. None use the Greek word that in
texts more absolutely means everything, or the whole, neither απας
nor any of its forms. But even that word can have its own inherently limited
meaning in some passages where it is found.
D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye Are Gods:
Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic
Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and
Supplemented)
(North Charleston, S.C.: CreateSpace, 2018), 333-37
. . . in Colossians 1:16 the root word is κτιζω, and its most ancient usage means I
fabricate, or, I organize, or, I colonize, or, I found a
city or a colony. It is the action of a process of organization.
Assuming that angels are referred to here (and that is not yet a given herein),
did the writer intend to convey the thought that Jesus created all the angels
from scratch, or rather that he organized the angels into ranks and
orders? The actual meanings of the Greek words in Colossians 1:16 herein rendered
“thrones, dominions, principalities and powers,” due to the lack
of the article, are abstractive (this also is conducive to the idea of organizing
orders or ranks of angels), rather than absolute (which would refer
to the beings). It only is by metonymy (the substitution of the name of
an attribute for the thing meant) that most everyone else (excepting some
scholars and some few of the early Christian writers) assumed that these
classes of beings actually were certain types of angels. But does this passage
refer to angels at all? If it actually did, then why did it not specifically
name angels at all? If it actually did, then why did it not specially name
angels as being among the creations of Jesus? Again, let there be called to
mind the distinct absence in Colossians 1:16 of the mention of angels as being
created by Christ, as well as the fact that both Paul and Peter (in other
places in scripture cited above) make mention of principalities and powers,
with the addition of the angels as a separate class. Was this a simple
oversight of a sort on the part of Paul? Or, was it deliberate? Paul himself
elsewhere lists angels and those titles as separated classes. Colossians 1:16
mentions things in heaven and in earth but also does not differentiate or
specify.
So then, are the principalities and so forth, earthly things
and not heavenly, or vice versa? Or, do they dwell in both the realms of
heaven and earth? Or, are thrones and dominions paralleled with visible things,
and principalities and powers paralleled with invisible things? Or, are they
names of offices only? Which really is the case here? It also is worth noting,
in relation to the above line of questioning, that “it is disputed whether the authorities
esp[ecially] in the Pauline literature, . . . are supernatural powers . .
.” . (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:11) Origen casts
doubt upon this as well. While discussing these terms within another context,
he writes concerning them, that:
“Throne” is
not a species of living being, nor “dominion,” nor “principality,” nor “power”;
these are names of the businesses to which those clothed with the names have
been appointed; the subjects themselves are nothing but men, but the subject
has some to be a throne, or a dominion, or a principality, or a power. (Origen’s
Commentary on John II.17)
Indeed, if these subjects only are men, as Origen
suggested—and he would have recognized that those Greek terms actually are
abstractive—then, even if we took the passage the most literal way possible, it
could be set down as a correct view in the most literal of meanings, for the
creation of man on earth indeed was by means of Christ Jesus. If so, it does
not make any contact against the teachings of the LDS Christian faith, and
critics still cannot use this as a weapon against LDS views and doctrines on
the creation, or even in correlation with the critics’ ideation that this verse
somehow argues against the LDS idea that Lucifer is related to
all mankind, and to Christ.
Ibid., 344-46
