Help please

by jhine 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TD

  jhine,

  Would you believe that there are entire books about the use of this one word in the NT?
  

  Although the basic meaning of the word, πᾶς is, "all," there are plenty of instances where the usage is qualified in one way or another.

  Here's four quick examples:
  

  And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ (Luke 3:15)
  

  And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. (Luke 4:15)

  But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, all things are clean unto you. (Luke 11:41)
  

  And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. (John 8:2)

  In none of these instances does the word, "all" in a totally inclusive sense really work. And as the JWs are fond of pointing out, even mainstream translators have inserted the word, "other" at Luke 11:42 and 21:29.

  With deep respect, if we want to criticize the JWs for their doctrinal bias (Which I agree, is very noticeable) than we have to set our own aside.

  Is the insistence that the text has one very clear meaning really a matter of grammar or is it a matter of theology?

  
  
• 

  JoenB75

  jhine, well I did put the firebreathing part in brackets, just kidding.

  Let me make it clear I think the NWT rendering of John 1:1 makes no sense in light of what the Logos is. It is a very peculiar Arian understanding. But ok, both most Trinitarians and Arians believe John is telling us of a relationship between two divine persons rather than identifying the Logos with God.

  Tradtionally Evangelicals are very adamant that Colossians 1:16 is saying the Son created ALL THINGS. That is evident from any anti JW sites and any good conservative commentary as well. But do they believe the Son reconciled ALL THINGS on the Cross?

  William Barclay says in his commentary among other things:

  "We must note that Paul says that in Christ God was reconciling all things to himself. The Greek is a neuter (panta, Greek #3956). The point is that the reconciliation of God extends not only to all persons but to all creation, animate and inanimate. The vision of Paul was a universe in which not only the people but the very things were redeemed. This is an amazing thought. There is no doubt that Paul was thinking of the Gnostics. We will remember that they, regarding matter as essentially and incurably evil, therefore regarded the world as evil. But, as Paul sees it, the world is not evil. It is God's world and shares in the universal reconciliation."

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dsb/colossians-1.html
  
• 

  JoenB75

  We must look at the context. I am allowed to say I ate all in response to did you eat the cookies? Or say I greeted all in response to did you talk to the people in church today ☺️
• 

  jhine

  Just to get back quickly to JoenB75 as a Tinitarian who is part of a worldwide Trinitarian church , Anglican , our teaching is that The Word , Jesus , is God made man .

  This is taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia
  

  "and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men "

  So the same thing . l would say that in fact most Trinitarians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh .

  Jan
  
• 

  JoenB75

  Hi jhine, I am sorry if I am confusing. I know Trinitarians believe Jesus is God. I was just being critical of the view that all things mean all things in Colossians 1:16 but not in Colossians 1:20. Many years ago when I held jw like beliefs, Evangelical preaching put strong emphasis on what you yourself stated in your first post.
• 

  jhine

  No problem JoenB57 , and for the record l do see the all in Col 1:20 as all . Out of interest l will conduct a straw poll in my church on that one . I cannot remember it being discussed in Bible study .

  TD l have looked into Luke11:42 and 21:29 and yes my NIV does ad "other " in there , some translations don't . l can't see why for the life of me but it doesn't change the meaning of the teaching . Having looked at the rest of the examples and checking some commentaries l don't think that the "all " in them needs to be qualified and again the gist of the passages are not compromised anyway .

  In the case of John 1:3 the addition of " other " obviously does alter the meaning . The whole verse in the literal translation reads " All things through him came into being , and without him came into being not even one thing that has come into being " Doesn't the final part of the verse indicate that the " all " is meant to be all ? It seems so to me .

  When you add in other verses to get this into context , such as Col 1:15 " The Son is the image of the invisible God , the firstborn of all creation . Col 1 : 19 "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him " to me this backs up the belief that Jesus was not a created being , like MIchael the Archangel as the WT teaches .

  l realise that not everyone will see it like this , but l do think that this is a conversation worth having with JWs .

  Jan
  
• 

  JoenB75

  jhine,

  There are some that want "all things" or the "world" to be a few things and as we are told translation is complicated.

  But I think is a good thing to consider the context. Colossians 1:13-20 seems to speak of the relation of the Son to all things. Paul really seems to painstakingly say the Son is number one in ALL Things. It would be strange if all things were really a code for few defined things. But you will find people that really believe Colossians 1:13-20 speaks of Son's creation of the saints only in an exaggerated language. Calvinists often believe the world in John 3:16 is the elect saints:

  http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/45604

  In 1 Peter 4:7 we read the end of all things is near. That is a difficult text, but I dont believe it can mean a few things. It must be all things within a context. I believe the context is the old world. JWs believe that is just around the corner, as Preterist I believe the last days of the old world was about 30-70 AD.
  

  In Romans 8:19 we read that the creation eagerly awaits the manifestation of the sons of God. Many rationalize that into the saints eagerly await their glory. Not surprisingly we are some that disagree and take Paul on his word. The old Calvinist Charles Hodge saw this too in his amazing commentary that sadly did not include Colossians:

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hdg/romans-8.html

  I conclusion I will go very far to argue that all things mean all things within their context. So if I spoke to JWs concerning John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, I would not have an A Bomb for them but I would say that it would be very odd that they would be say that a) a creature is part of the creation and b) that the cause of all things, Logos, is a creature.

  Michael is "one of the chief princes" Daniel 10:13.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Absolutely, the context is paramount.

  You need to identify the groups that wrote each of these passages. In the case of John's Gospel, the anonymous writers were from a community of Jews who had a high Christology; hence they were ostracised from the conservative group.

  In the case of Colossians, they were a very spiritualising community, with strong ideas about a spirit world. BTW Ephesians is an expansion of Colossians. (Paul did not write either Colossians or the subsequent Ephesians.)

  Thirdly, I recommend that you identify the chiasms of each passage. These will reveal the key message.

  Finally, Michael was an invention of the latter Second Temple period, when they created a spirit world and gave names to these beings (Mastema, Michael, Gabriel, Azazel, Satan, etc.). Diabolos (Devil) was introduced from the Greek when they translated the LXX.

  The Book of Daniel was composed during that latter Second Temple period. In common with other writings of the 3rd and 2nd century BCE, they assigned the writings to past heroes (Enoch, Daniel, etc.)

  Yes, context, both in terms of grammatical structure (chiasms, particularly), the creating community's is vital -- not hanging onto a single word in isolation and ignoring their idiomatic meaning that they gave to concepts at their time (not in ours).

  Doug
• 

  TD

  jhine,
  

  Luke 3:15 cannot possibly be totally inclusive of all people. Judea was only one small corner of the world even at the time and there were other civilizations that were simply too far away to know or care.

  John 8:2 presents an identical problem. The temple complex could not have accommodated everyone in Jerusalem.
  

  Similarly, if you accept the gospel accounts, it is clear that there were some who did not accept Jesus' message and others who actively opposed it. Luke's assertion that "all praised him" (δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων) cannot possibly be totally inclusive. (Luke 4:15)

  I only gave a few examples of this usage, but there are plenty of others.

  Luke 11:41 is a different sort of qualification. Jesus did not wash his hands before dining like a good Pharisee should and responds to the surprise this causes by pointing out the superiority of charity over ritual cleanliness. Jesus' assertion that, "all [things] are clean to you" (πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστιν) needs to be understood in that context; otherwise it makes no sense.

  
  
• 

  JoenB75

  Luke 3:15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah.

  The context seems not to say "the people" were all Judea, but the people listening to John.

  John 8:2 the same, it even says "all the people gathered around him", not Judea or the universe. It is just like someone says to me "did you eat the apples" and I reply "I ate them all".

  Luke 4:1 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

  "everyone" was obviously everyone in the synagogues. Like "I went to meet all the people in the Kingdom Hall".

  Luke 11:37-41 While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you.

  If the pharisees where acting clean both inside and outside, they were clean all over. Everything is within context of the spoken subject.