Why Paul Links Peace to Blood in Colossians? | Diego dy Carlos

In this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, Daniel Mikkelsen is joined by Diego Dy Carlos—a researcher in New Testament at Martin Bucer Seminary in Brazil—for a theologically rich conversation on Colossians 1:20 and Paul’s language of peace-making through blood. 

Drawing on Roman political context, Paul’s Old Testament categories, and a careful reading of the Greek, Diego explains why Paul’s use of eirēnopoiēō (to make peace) is unique and deliberate—and how it helps clarify the nature of reconciliation in Colossians. Together, they explore how Christ’s death and resurrection disarm the powers, how peace through the cross subverts imperial ideas of domination, and why Paul’s theological precision still matters for our lives today. 

Whether you’re interested in biblical languages, Pauline theology, or the cosmic scope of reconciliation, this episode will sharpen your understanding of how Paul uses language to proclaim the supremacy of Christ. 

📢 Don’t Miss the Next Episode: 
In our next conversation, Daniel sits down with James Morgan to explore how Luke’s Gospel fits with ancient historiography—and what that means for reading Luke with historical integrity and theological depth. 

🎯 Chapters:
00:00 - Welcome and Introduction 
01:27 - Biblical Studies in Brazil: Meet Diego dy Carlos 
03:49 - How Biblical Languages Became a Lifelong Calling 
06:36 - Grammar Without the Text? A Common Pitfall 
09:33 - Seeing the Author's Hand: Rhetoric and Style in the Originals 
11:37 - When Translations Shape Theology: Romans Misread 
14:04 - Fulfil or Observe? The Debate over Paul’s Use of Language 
16:45 - Why Consistency in Translation Really Matters 
19:33 - Dynamite and Dunamis: Exegetical Fallacies in the Pulpit 
22:31 - Blood and Peace: Why Colossians is Unique 
31:37 - Subjugation and Shalom: Reconciliation Reimagined 
36:16 - Christ Over All: Creation, Sin, and New Beginnings 
43:22 - Who Are the Powers? Thrones, Rulers, and Cosmic Conflict 
50:33 - Real Flesh, Real Cross: Why Paul Emphasises Jesus’ Body 
01:04:13 - Be Reconciled: Why This Theology Matters for Your Life

🎵 Music Credits:
Music from #Uppbeat
🔗 https://uppbeat.io/t/all-good-folks/aspire

If you enjoyed this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, please consider becoming an Explorer! Your support helps keep the podcast ad-free, allows us to bring in more guests, and enhances the content we create. By joining our Explorer community, you’ll receive exclusive benefits, including Q&As, priority for Greek tutoring applications, and discounts on tutoring. Explore more and join the Explorer programme here: Become an Explorer. 

Podcast Keywords:
biblical languages, New Testament, Old Testament, Christ, bible study,  Relationship with God, learn biblical languages, Biblical Theology, Christianity, Covenants, New covenant, old covenant, language acquisition, Biblical Greek, Biblical Hebrew.

Transcript

0:00

So why is it important that is peace through blood in Colossians? they would have understood that Christ was making peace through violence similarly to what they were aware of in the Roman world. That's why I think making peace through the blood of his cross works as a kind of disambiguation here. It helps us to understand something that Paul will make plain in chapter 2 verse 15, which is that He extracts his main theological categories from the Old Testament. What he does very well though is contextualize the message with metaphors and the language that his audience in the first century would understand. What Paul is saying here is that in light of what Christ did on the cross, the powers are powerless. Believers have no need to fear. Welcome back to another episode of Exploring Your Language and Scripture, brought to you by NTGreek Tutoring, the place for personalized Greek learning in your spare time. I'm your host, Daniel Mikkelsen the founder of NTGreek Tutoring and a PhD candidate in New Testament and University of Edinburgh. And this podcast exists to make gems from biblical studies accessible to everyday Christians and show how the biblical languages opens up scripture. Our aim is to increase your love for God and His word, so you'll become a more joyful witness for His mission. And... Today I've been joined by Diego dy Carlos, who is a research professor at Martin Bucer Bucer I think it's Bucer Seminary in Brazil. And Diego, holds a PhD in New Testament from London School of Theology, where he studied Colossians, and particularly the relationship between blood and peacemaking, which has also actually been published in the very prestigious Mohr Seibeck's WUNT series. And we'll be talking lots more about that what does that mean in Colossians and also because it's very excited about this, because Colossians is actually quite unique in articulating this particular idea of blood and peacemaking. To my knowledge, it's only in Romans 5 that we have similar language, but it's still not quite the same as we have in Colossians. So that's the only two places Paul talks about this. So if you're interested to know more about that, then stick around for that. I also had the privilege to get to know Diego while he was working on this project at Tyndall House, where we overlapped for about two years while I was working in my MPhil in Cambridge and stayed on to apply for PhD programs. And we had many interesting conversations at the famous Tyndall House coffee breaks and for lunch there and in the very stimulating community there. And also for some reason, Diego always seemed to have the ability to take the books that I needed for my research. But it's a great honor to have you on my podcast, Diego. Welcome here. you very much for having me. Absolutely. Anything else you want to add before we jump into some questions? Well, it's just a pleasure for me to contribute to your podcast and to talk to you. And as I happen to remember, I think I already had the books when you got there, so I didn't get to take your books. But I also remember that I was glad to share sometimes with you. So that was good. That's right. That's right. It is very true. Apart from the time where he took my copy of Simon Gathercole's book, well that's another story. It's all good. all good. It's all good. All forgiven a long time ago. Yeah. You ready for some questions? Sure, yeah, let's talk. Yeah, so how did you get into the study of biblical languages? Yeah, Daniel, it was actually during my seminary days at that time, and I think that still in some seminaries in Brazil, we had compulsory classes in both Hebrew and Greek. And I remember at the time we had maybe three, four periods of semesters on Greek and Hebrew. And that's how I got into the biblical languages. Yeah, seminary as it should be. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah, so how did you find it sort of like learning the biblical languages? You see, that's a good question because I remember that at the time and I think it's still the case in Brazil and I think that it's the case in some of the parts of the world. I think that one of the struggles I had with the biblical languages was because the lecturers tended to focus on grammar most of the time. So I had two years of looking to aspects of grammar, syntax. And I think that I missed having more contact with the text of scriptures itself. And I wish I had had people who would walk through the text with me in the classroom. at the time where I was focused 100 % on learning the languages. And I think that it's by reading the text and applying the grammar as you read the text that you really get excited about them, about the languages. And you get to understand why you're doing that and you get to understand the value of doing that. You get to understand the devotional. aspect of reading scriptures in the original languages. And I think that that is still one of the struggles we find in our seminaries in Brazil. And I wish we had a change of method. And we started with the text and then made it more, let's say, made it easier and more excitable to our students. So I found it daunting at the time. I found it a little bit difficult. Although I like the languages, I thought it wasn't a very pleasant experience some of the times. Thanks for sharing that. I definitely understand the difficulty. Fortunately, I was taught a bit different and also what we apply in NT Greek Tutoring is a different method where there's text reading almost from day one. Like you would have with a modern learn, if you were to learn, if I ever want to learn Portuguese, that is how I would do it. I would learn how to say my name and stuff like that. Yeah. Yeah. we want to read a text in the language that's not spoken anymore, I think it's very important that we get to the texts very quickly. Also to keep the motivation just as you just articulated very well, think. And I really appreciate you articulating that because I think that it's not just a problem in Brazil. It's generally a problem, I think, in America. It's broadly a problem in the UK. I don't know exactly about like how they in Denmark, whether it's that the same where I'm from. It's not always that way, but it can be. I think that there's lots of, and I don't know when that occurred because that was not how people were taught Greek in the Middle Ages, I don't think. So we have in NT Greek Tutoring we have a three-step method that we work with, is, yeah, morphology and grammar learning on one hand, then text reading. which just has the primary focus of the way we do things here. And then tailored vocabulary learning so that you learn vocabulary in advance before you actually get to the text. So in theory, we will never see a text where you don't know the words. And I think that that is as close you can get to modern learning, or at least a very close way to... simulating modern language learning. Yeah, I'm with you. Yeah. Hmm. Yeah, yeah. So, I hope that you can change that in Brazil as well, too, and more sort of... Yeah. Yeah, because it... Yeah. But I just had a student who was taught in a seminary where they were being completely discouraged from reading the Bible in Greek. Which is... I think that's absurd, but that's completely a different story. Yeah, I keep telling my students that the languages, they should be taken as the most important. I would say that, let's say one of some of the most important. bits of training they would get from a seminary. It's something that they can take for life. It's not just the content, but it's the skills to interpret, to understand. And I think that we, can see, at least in Brazil, and I can speak for my country, I can see the reflection of not being able to read the text well in our pulpits. So in the quality of our preaching in this nation, I can see aspects of that lacking of proper training in the languages in our puppets. Hmm. Yeah, exactly. And it does affect the way we read scripture. Yeah. And could you kind of share your experience of how the biblical languages opened up scripture for you? Yeah, for me, I think that I like to see, I like to spot the... rhetoric and the style of the authors. So I'm reading and to compare the differences in their styles and rhetoric and the devices they use to communicate the truth that they want to communicate. And I find that very difficult. It is very difficult in a translation, although we do have great translations, both in Portuguese and even more so in English. I think that for us who work with scriptures, who work at teaching scriptures, we should be able to enjoy the style and the rhetoric and the construction. And I think that that is clearer in the original languages. We can see what the author is doing with the text, how he's playing with the words in the text through the reading of the original languages. We can also, in my experience, it was really interesting once I got into the languages to compare and see. the original text with the translations I had. Although they are good, it was good to see what was going on with my translation and at least to try and figure out why the translator got to that particular translation in those particular places and compare that with what was written in the original languages. And I think that that opens up a world of nuances at least of the message of scriptures. Yeah, that's very powerful. think that there's definitely the element of style and nuances which have been articulated by many people in this podcast and I'll also myself emphasize that a lot. But also what I actually discussed with one of your countrymen, Denis Salgado, is about how that also closes off interpretations or opens up interpretations. Yep. Yep. Yeah, so do you have any sort of specific examples of where you have seen something new or something in scripture that you didn't see before? yeah, I think that it touches on what you just said about opening up new levels of interpretation. think that a couple of examples, one of them is a more, it's a simpler example, but in Romans 12.7, we read, if it is service, Paul is listing some gifts and then he says, if it is service, then serve. If it is teaching, than teach. Alright, so most Portuguese versions translate this verse as something like, if it is service, then let us take great pains to serve. If it is teaching, let us take great pains to teach. This is quite similar to the ASV and King James Version, right? So they, I think that the translators found that something was missing. They wanted a verb here. So if it is service, then serve. They wanted something more, another verb. So let's be diligent in serving. So once I heard a sermon, then back in the day, I heard a sermon in which the preacher took great pains to elaborate on the idea of taking great pains to teach. So he focused on taking great pains as he encouraged preachers and Bible teachers to take their teaching duties seriously. So he went on and on elaborating on what Paul had said about taking great pains to teach. So how surprised I was to realize that the Greek only said, he who teaches in the teaching. And Paul's point It's not about our attitude towards the execution of our gifts, such as being conscientious teacher, as that preacher made it to be. But his point is rather that we should devote ourselves to the gifts we have received. So you can see that the preaching was conditioned by something in the translation who shouldn't be there. Right. And then it kind of missed the point Paul was trying to make. A second example is a more theological significant one because the Portuguese versions tend to translate the verb ποιέω (poieo) 'to do' or 'to make' depending on the context, to observe depending on the context in a construction with the accusative of νόμος (nomos) so to observe the law or to do the deeds of the law. Portuguese translators are not consistent in the way they translate ποιέω (poieo) in that construction. So we have different Portuguese verbs for that. But it is important to understand and to see what ποιέω (poieo) is doing in Greek because the discussion about ποιέω (poieo) and the problem of the law is an important one in Pauline studies, right? So how should we, Christians, how should we deal with the Mosaic law now? It is fascinating that Paul only uses the Mosaic law in an ethical kind of sense in relation to Christians a few times in his writings. However, every time he does so, he uses the verb πληρόω (plēroō), which means 'fulfill' the law. So it seems to me that Paul is making a difference between those Judaizers in Galatians, for example, who was trying to impose the law on Christians and the way we in the new covenant so people of the new people of God the way we fulfill the law by being in Christ the one who is the know the πλήρωμα(plērōma) the fulfillment of scriptures and the law so I think that's a very significant theological point that we miss at least in our Portuguese translations if we don't have access to the Greek text. Yeah, I think that's a very, very good example on why it's important because for various kinds of reasons sometimes you might as a translator choose to translate something in a certain way. Not necessarily inaccurately, but sometimes you might only have like have in your mind like one text and you think this is the text and then you come across a text where it's a similar context but you didn't remember the other text and therefore you can translate it differently. So it's not necessarily like conscientiously made that kind of like error so to speak or a lack of consistency. It might not even necessarily be an error but it may like make it difficult for the reader of the translation so they have to because the Bible is coming to them as as my friend Robert says, rather than going to the Bible themselves in the of going to the original. So in the sense that you get like that kind of like, this is what it meant and this was the style. so that relates to your first example as well is that it's very stylistically appropriate. Paul uses this very consistently that way. Yeah, so that data, I think, is very good example of why it's relevant to learning Greek and not just look in translations, although they're very good. Yeah, yeah, so... if I may, Daniel, I think that you, I think that is another good point. And I like to tell my students as well that we should know Greek and we should know Hebrew and we should, you know, take great pains to understanding grammar and syntax and do that. But at the same time, we should be able to value our translation, especially when we are preaching or teaching. lay people, for example. Sometimes I think that especially seminary students and some pastors as well, they tend to undermine the trust that our people, that the church has on our translations and consequently on the Bible because some of them constantly from the pulpit are saying that, okay, this was translated so and so, but that's a mistake. It should have been translated this. way in that way. And I think that we should be careful with that. We should understand the value of the original languages. We should be able to spot the nuances that we can only get through the original languages, but at the same time not undermine the trust of our churches in the good translations we have made by competent people, very well-intentioned people who's done a great job translating the Bible. Hmm. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, and I think it yeah, I should just point it out. I think it's very good because I think it's very unhelpful to say, this is a wrong translation. Let me give you the right one now. Then you're basically taking the Bible away from people. You're saying that you can't trust your translation. Which is the last thing you want to do as a pastor or preacher? You want people to read the Bibles. and trust him and to live for Christ by being engaged with his word. So I find it a lot more helpful in that context to say it more subtly. So if I feel like there's something in the translation that I'm not necessarily happy with or I feel like that we need to move forward a different nuance, I would say an alternative translation would be sound like this. Because then you're saying you're not saying that the translation they're reading is wrong, which probably is not. But you might want to draw attention to a particular nuance by translating it differently. yeah. So, and that we can we could move into like exegetical fallacies as well people saying, this word means this and this, because I have studied the root was like something like that was like, no, no. and recently even actually last week I heard someone from the pulpit using the classical lexical fallacy at least in Portuguese language when they were talking about the power of the Holy Spirit in acts or something and then they produced once again very famous one. So the word here for power is dunamis from where we get the word dynamite and then you can you see understand how powerful this power really is it's like a dynamite it was a bit painful to hear that Yeah, that's D. A. Carson goes over that in his book, Exegetical Fallacies. someone who was with me. Come on man, it's been ages since he wrote that thing. They should know it by now, not to make that same mistake. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So Paul didn't think of dynamite because it was invented in 1800s. I don't think he did, yeah, no. Yeah, because it was invented in the 1800s, literally 1700 years after. So yeah, But so yeah, that's that's dangerous when you when you make that mistake And by that and but it we obviously have to sometimes reiterate that kind of thing because It's the same thing as with the gospel as a Danish preacher has a good example is that he talks about That we are like the human we are humans we are like as we are like coffee filters We need to be poured the gospel all the time because otherwise we run empty. that. That's a good illustration. Yeah. And I think it's the same thing with like these things. And that makes it that makes our conversation valuable, but in itself, I is that these things needs to be addressed over and over again. And maybe maybe someone has to write a new book at some point about exegetical fallacies, just to reiterate that. Yeah, but let's move on to to Colossians. So as I said in the beginning, you have studied Colossians in your PhD. Why did you decide to study Colossians 1.20 through 22 and the language of peacemaking through blood of his cross? Yeah, that's a simple answer because my first attempt at a proposal, a PhD proposal failed miserably. So I originally intended to work on a larger piece of text in Colossians and then I worked on that for a year and realized I couldn't write a PhD on that. And then the thing that I thought it was my original contribution wasn't an original contribution at all. So I had to readjust my focus. And then during my readings, my supervisor and I, and I had a very good supervisor, I had a very good relationship with him. We were curious about this particular phrase in Colossians 1.20 when Paul talks about making peace through the blood of his cross. So when I did some digging, I was surprised to realize that Paul doesn't talk about blood as much as I would have thought because being so big in atonement theology I would have imagined that he would talk all right more about blood what he doesn't. And most of the time that he does mention the word blood, it's in the context of the Lord's Supper, which is not very helpful for this context here. So the idea of blood and making peace, although he mentions something similar in Ephesians chapter two, is not quite the same. So this, εἰρηνοποιέω 'making peace'. through the blood was very unique. So the question was, why is he using it here? And in a very similar text like in Ephesians 2, he doesn't use that structure. What does it mean to make peace through violence, through blood? So that's how I got into looking to it more carefully. And that's what I did for my PhD. Hmm, yeah, yeah, because As you mentioned, you just mentioned this also, that the only other place I think where Paul is relating blood to Atonement, I think, is in Romans 5. So why that the case why is this important, this language? think it's blood, if I remember correctly. Romans 5. Well, he does that in 3.25, doesn't he? Hmm. Yeah, it definitely talks about blood, cop locations in Romans, but yeah. Yeah, maybe it's wrath in... Because I think they are parallel texts, Romans 5 and 3.25. I think it's circling back to the same focus, but yeah, that's the only places where he also talks about this kind of peace Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. The four texts on reconciliation in Paul are Romans five, one through 11, and then second Corinthians five, 17 through 21. then Colossians and Ephesians 2. And yeah, they are parallel somehow. In Romans 3.25, it says that, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith. But again, the idea of peace is not here, atonement is, but not peace. And then we get to Romans 5, as we just said. Hmm. Yeah, so why is it important that it's peace through blood in Colossians? Sorry to interrupt the episode, but if you're enjoying the content, please consider subscribing and leaving a like. It really helps the algorithm and helps the podcast grow. Thank you for your support and now back to the episode. so why is it important that it's peace through blood in Colossians? Hmm. think, I think that, yeah, I have a whole book on that. that would be, let me try and synthesize at least something that, the entire phrase, making peace through the blood of his cross, I think could... have, could be construed as a tautology, right? Because, Well, something that is not very important. After all, Paul has just said that he reconciled all things to him. And I take αὐτός or αὐτόν there not as a reflexive, but as a personal pronoun to him, meaning to Jesus Christ, making peace through the blood of his cross. It could be a tautology in light of reconciling all things to him. If you reconcile two parties, you are making peace between them, you are achieving or bringing, reestablishing peace among them, right? So between them. But I believe that εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ making peace through the blood of his cross in Colossians 1.20, I'm thinking about Colossians 1.20 in particular here, is in a sense a disambiguator. It kind of... helps us to understand what Paul means by the reconciliation of all things, right? So making peace through the blood of his cross in Colossians [1.]20, 1.20b not only brings in the Jewish concept of peace, but it is in fact key to the Colossians message of cosmic reconciliation. Why, why is that? Because it already includes, that's what I would argue, it already includes in its frame the concept of pacification by subjugation. So what I argue in my thesis is that the metaphorical expression, making peace through the blood of his cross, would have evoked different frames of mind which were familiar to the original readers. So one of those frame of minds, is the Pax Romana, which was a peace achieved through violence. And crucification was one of the devices they would use to pacify, to subjugate their enemies, right? So if people were familiar with the idea of making peace through the blood of his cross, and here I'm applying a little bit of cognitive linguistics, particularly conceptual metaphor and frame semantics, they would have understood that Christ was making peace through violence similarly to what they were aware of in the Roman world. But this is a disambiguator here because... it helps us to understand that reconciliation means different things for human beings and for spiritual powers, well, especially evil spiritual powers, which Paul will develop in Colossians 2.15. Making peace through the blood of his cross combines with the metaphorical phrase or the metaphorical idea of triumph in 2.15 to amplify the idea of God as a military triumphant establishing cosmic peace by both pardoning human individuals, Colossians 1.21 through 23, and destroying or crushing or subjugating hostile enemies. as in Colossians 2.15. So basically, if you get reconciliation of all things to him by itself, you could be a little bit confused at some point. Well, does it mean universalism? Those spiritual powers who are included in the τὰ πάντα (ta panta) of Colossians 1.20 in all things, which are those in 1.16, Have they been reconciled to God? Have they had their relationship with God restored on the cross? Well, that's not what Paul is saying. He made peace through the blood of his cross. And then in this frame, you have subjugation. You've got that idea of bringing under control. That's what Christ did. So I think that it combines with the metaphor of triumph in 2.15 to amplify Paul's rhetoric. of the subjugation of the spiritual powers. That's one side. And then the other side is you've got the background of the Jewish background as well. And then it evokes other frames as well. And Paul combines all that, reconfigure all that in the light of Christ and the Christ event and puts forward his own version of reconciliation and making peace through violence. Hmm. Yeah. and somewhat cumbersome question. no, it's fine. It's very good. I actually quite like so I think it's interesting because I think it's more it might be for like a lot of people who are Christian background like they might have heard of that they have atonement and they have kind of like that idea that okay, there are the lambs that needs to be slaughtered and then but but it may be a little bit more foreign to people. with this idea of peace through violence in terms Pax Romana or the Roman peace that Octavian was caused through the Triumvirate and the chaos that happens just before Jesus was born or at the time there. Yeah, and because of what you just said, let me just clarify something. I'm not saying that the Greco-Roman context or background is the most important one for us to understand what's going on with post concept of blood and atonement and reconciliation. The way I see it, the Jewish scriptures are the source of the... main theological categories of Paul, right? So he extracts, that's the way I see it, he extracts his main theological categories from the Old Testament. What he does very well though is contextualize the message to his audience. So what he's doing is he is using, obviously he's writing in Greek, so there you go, he's already contextualizing here, right? So what he does is he gets those categories, he filters those categories through the lenses of Jesus Christ, so his death and resurrection, then he reinterprets the Old Testament. And the way he presents his theology is through Jesus Christ's, but contextualized with metaphors and the language that his audience in the first century would understand. So they had one understanding, say, of reconciliation from the political world, from the diplomacy practices of the Romans. But then Paul takes something from the Old Testament, and I believe that he is working with, say, Isaiah, especially Isaiah 42-55 here to conceptualize the idea of making peace. Between God and human beings but then he uses the language of reconciliation which is Greek and which is a Roman metaphor to communicate His theology now reconfigured through the events of Christ so Just to synthesize it in a nutshell The Old Testament is the main category when when Paul talks about blood he's thinking of all we know about the sacrificial system What he's doing is as a very good orator and writer, he is communicating to different audiences. That's what language he does. And that's one of the reasons, Daniel, I like some insights of cognitive linguistics because especially when you get frame semantics and conceptual metaphor, you, if you understand those things, you might avoid the fallacy of proposing only one possible background for something like this. no, when Paul talks about blood, he only has the Jewish background in mind. Language doesn't work like that. The idea of making peace through violence would evoke different frames of mind in different readers. If they were aware, familiar with both the Old Testament and the Roman practice, both frames would come to mind. But they wouldn't understand what Paul is saying. through what Paul is saying in his context. So the way he is structuring his message. Does that make sense what I'm saying? Yeah, it definitely does make sense. And actually, one of previous episodes actually just we went into something about conceptual metaphors. So, yeah, so if you haven't watched that, you can go back and watch that. but I think that's very interesting. And I think that that is exactly what happens in with languages that when the way we phrase it will pick up on things we already know. And then we try to explain what is going on and saying, no, no, I don't mean this, but I mean this. And then you use your metaphor to explain that. Yeah. And maybe in relation to that, it may be interesting to consider some of the context for this because Colossians 1.20 comes right after this long explanation or hymn. I think it's been categorized as Jesus' preeminence over creation. And how does that inform our understanding of this particular phrase? Yeah, Colossians 1.20 is still part of the hymn. So you've got the hymn from 15 through 20. And then 21 through 23 is the first application of the text by Paul. He's applying it to human beings and to the community at Colosse there. But The idea of creation is fundamental for us, it's key to understand what is going on in Colossians 1.20. Paul basically, that's a very well-known thing. The hymn or the poem or this poetic bit, because I'm not very comfortable with the idea that this is a Greek hymn, we don't have all the elements for that and we can't even make a judgment. uh on uh Greek hymns based on what we have here but uh this poetic section and this yeah it's a different uh kind of writing anyway that's true but what Paul does is he stretches it uh with the idea of creation and recreation so verses 16 or 15 through 16 he's got the idea of he presents Christ as uh supreme and core creator he is the being in the entire first creation. Everything was made by him, in him and for him. This is a very new statement in Paul. It's the first time in his letters, and by the way I believe Paul wrote all the 13 letters attributed to him, so that's why I'm saying Paul and I know I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the authorship of Colossians. I'm not just convinced by the arguments. put forward so far. So what Paul says here for the first time in his writings is that everything was created for Christ, for the purposes, for the purpose of Christ. That's new. So he was preeminent in the entire first creation. But something happened between verse 18, say, let me go back to Colossians. Colossians 1. Something happened, say, between verses 18 and 18 and 19 are kind of a bridge between the first strophe, let's say, and the second one, right? So something happened between 18, 19, and 20 that now we are in need, or the first creation are in need of reconciliation was... God created everything and everything was good, right? Something happened and we know that Paul doesn't state it, but the presupposition is that sin happened. Once sin happened, Genesis 3, that unity we had in the beginning, the harmony that was so important in the first creation, Genesis 1 and 2, and that unity and harmony in Jewish literature, was predicated of the uniqueness of God on the monotheism because God is the sole creator of everything, the source of everything, therefore there is order, there is harmony, there is unity. But sin breaks it in Genesis 3, right? So we have, we lose the essential, the fundamental relationship between Humanity and God that's broken now because of sin and as a result all other Dimensions and spheres of relationship are messed up as well. So now we have a conflict between man and woman We have conflict between humanity in nature so all this because the relationship between Humanity and God was broken by sin. So Paul presupposes that here and now we are in need of reconciliation. So the idea of reconciling all things and making peace with the blood of his cross is actually an act of recreation. So what we have in this poetic bit is a structure in which Jesus is preeminent in both the original creation and the recreation. And this is interesting because if you go back to 2 Corinthians 5, 17 through 21 where Paul talks about reconciliation. Basically, Greg Bill has a very good article on it and his thesis is that when Paul talks about reconciliation, he is invoking the idea of eschatological restoration of Isaiah, where redemption is an act of recreation. Paul begins the text in 2 Corinthians 5.17 quoting Isaiah saying that those who are in Christ are new creation, the old things have passed, new things, everything has been made new, which means what happens on the cross at the act of reconciliation is the inauguration of new creation promised by Isaiah. So that's what we have in this hymn here as well is what's I would say Paul would interpret again or anew in Ephesians 1, 9 and 10 when he says that in the fulfillment of times God made everything or reunified everything in Christ. That is a statement. That is an interpretation of this text here. So everything is being brought back together. in Christ, there is a cosmic reunification, there is a recreation. So that's why that dynamic of creation and recreation in this poetic bit of Colossians 1.15 through 20 is so important for our understanding of reconciliation and making peace through His blood. Hmm. Yeah. I think that's, that's, that's very helpful. Like, like bringing it all together in that way. And And maybe also kind of answered in some ways my next question. Because what does it mean that we've been rescued from powers of darkness and, and transferred into the kingdom of his beloved son? verse, that is in verse 13. So that's just before this, what we've just been talking about. Yeah. again, I worked a little bit on this text in my thesis as well. And what I would say is that Paul is setting the tone for the entire passage here. He's talking about reconciliation. He introduces what he will say in the poetic section of verses 15 through 20 with verses 12 through 14. And here Paul is evoking, he's alluding to Exodus imagery, right? Especially through three metaphors. He uses the idea of share of the inheritance in verse 12, deliverance, ῥύομαι (rhuomai) in verse 13, and the metaphor of redemption, ἀπολύτρωσις (apollutrosis) in verse 14. Those... metaphors, those ideas are present in the programmatic text of Exodus in Exodus 6, 6 through 6 to 8, right? However, way Paul, so Paul is conceptualizing the redemption that he's talking about in terms of a second Exodus, if you like. However, the way Paul structures his message in Colossians 1, evokes actually imagery more akin to the second Exodus imageries or eschatological Exodus of Isaiah 40 through 55. So I argue that this is what Paul has in mind when he structures, when he puts forward his message of reconciliation in this text, right? Hmm. basically what I would argue is that Paul is evoking the entire context of cosmic restoration, especially as seen through the work of the suffering servant of Isaiah in restoring everything through his offer of Asham, Isaiah 53 10. Asham was a sacrifice that involved blood. In verse 5 of Isaiah 53, the servant brings peace through his wounds, through his suffering, through his offering of himself, right? So I think Paul is situating the whole message of redemption in that context, that the substructure of his theologizing here. So the idea of being redeemed from one empire or one dominium, the darkness, and transferred into another one, it speaks of this eschatological last exodus, which was brought about by Christ. in his death and resurrection. So the old things have passed, we are now in the age of the Messiah, new creation, that's where we stand and when Paul talks about reconciliation and redemption he's talking about this inauguration of the new kingdom. Yeah, that makes a good sense. that is what he says that why he says Jesus had become the firstborn of this new creation, which is then fulfilled when he returns. That's the new Exodus in a sense, that when Jesus comes again, and then he will redo the whole creation so that there's no longer any problems. And I think that brings us into the next question is that What are these like thrones, rulers and dominions and powers referring to in verse 16? We just mentioned it briefly earlier on, but I've always understood it and I actually know from a conversation before all your answers to this is, but, but I actually always understood it that the thrones and rulers were like human powers and then dominion and power sort of. So we had like powers on earth that is against God and then powers within the spiritual realm that is against God. So what do you think is going on in the text here? yeah, I understand what you're saying and it might be right. I myself would interpret the four expressions here, the four terms used by Paul to refer to those powers as angelic powers, spiritual powers, θρόνοι (thronoi) and κυριότητες(kuriotēses, which he uses. here are sometimes used in Judaism to refer to beings or heavenly hosts of angels. ἐξουσίαι (exosiai) and ἀρχαὶ (archai) are also super mundane or super spiritual beings and powers in various contexts. So I would think of those expressions as four classes of angelic powers. is listing here evil, and this is based on the context of Colossians in Colossians 2, 15, which the whole text there from 13 through 15 kind of parallel Colossians 1, 12 through 20, especially 12 through 14. We've got parallel. So Paul is picking up the motif of redemption in 2.13 and through 15 and developing it further. So when he does so, it becomes clear to us that those spiritual powers are evil, spiritual powers who have been subjugated by Christ, right? So that's how I take them. If Paul lists them in kind of order of power or importance, I think this is beside the point. because at the end of the day, Paul will say that each one of them or all of them were subjugated by Christ. So I would take them as evil, spiritual, personalized, personal beings. Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense to me. And I'm not necessarily, I'm not opposed to that. I think that that's the point is the point that they are both being subjugated. Even if I was correct or your interpretation is correct, think it's the point is that they are all being put under the dominion of Christ. It's not like there is any like ranking in it. It's just that, or maybe there is in some sense of ranking it that some are more evil than others, but But the point is that these are oppositions to God, and as you said, like spiritual opposition to God, and Jesus dealt with that. And that's no longer a problem in new creation. Yeah. So. But why is it important? So we have been talking about blood and redemption, but why is it he also uses this very weird expression like Jesus' fleshly body. So how does that work? Because it's a very unusual language for Paul. He doesn't normally talk about it this way. Mm-hmm. Yeah, he also is very emphatic in verse 22 as well when he says that he reconciled you in the body of his flesh through death. So that's very emphatic. apparently doesn't want the Colossians to miss the point here. Well, I think that the phrase the blood of Jesus on the cross indicates that redemption and this is very important in the New Testament and for Paul as well of course. Redemption came about through a historical event. So the gospel is anchored. in history, something happened in time and space. So more importantly, it was achieved by a real person who lived in time and space, Jesus Christ. So Paul wanted to make sure that, listen, you understand that this is the gospel we preach. Whatever the false teaching or the false teachers are saying, our gospel is anchored in history. It was about a person. It's about Jesus Christ and reconciliation and fullness of Christian life you can only experience in this person, Jesus Christ. Yeah, exactly. I that's the interesting thing. think that there's other points and other parts of Paul that indicates that it was necessary to happen in the flesh and otherwise it would not have happened. I think that's also the point here. I think he states it clear in other places, but I think this is also one of the clear examples of that. That it was necessary to happen in the flesh or otherwise it would not have happened. He couldn't have done it elsewhere in other ways. Yeah, and It's also quite interesting the language of that he says everything, those things that are on or on things, however you interpret the τά (ta) in the Greek here, those things that is in upon the earth, and those things that is in heaven has been redeemed through Jesus' sacrifice. What does this actually mean? Yeah, just to be clear, Paul doesn't say that they all have been redeemed. He uses redemption only for human beings, right? So what he says that they were all reconciled. And this is, again, a development on the way Paul develops and presents reconciliation from 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 5. Now, both in Colossians and Ephesians, I believe Colossians came first. For the first time we have the idea of a cosmic reconciliation. When he says that he reconciled all things, Ta-Panta here most certainly refers to everything that he has presented before. So we go back to verse 16 when he talks about the first creation, things on earth and things in heaven. He will develop this in verse 20 when he says τὰ πάντα (ta panta), he will explain what τὰ πάντα (ta panta) means. things in heaven and things on earth and things in heaven. Which means that evil spiritual powers have also been reconciled somehow. And that's why, that's why I think making peace with the blood of his cross works as a kind of disambiguator here. It helps us to understand something that Paul will make plain in chapter 2 verse 15, which is... that Reconciliation, in a nutshell, means different things for different sets of relationships, right? So, reconciliation vis-a-vis humankind means the restoration of friendship, the restoration of a broken, fractured relationship. However, secondly, reconciliation vis-a-vis the powers means something different. First, Reconciliation between the powers and God means subjugation. Colossians 2.15, they've been subjugated by Christ on the cross. But then we also have the relationship between the powers and believers, because that was a big issue for Paul in Colossians. Apparently the Colossians were either fascinated by the powers, the powers featured certainly in the false teachers teaching here somehow. And we can deduce from what Paul wrote that the Colossians were either fascinated by the powers or frightened by the powers. I believe that they must have been both, both fascinated and frightened by them. But what Paul is saying here is that in light of what Christ did on the cross, the powers are powerless. Okay? Believers have no need to fear any influence from the powers or all the powers over them because... they are free from that. So basically, reconciliation towards human beings as Paul puts in verses 21 through 23 means a relationship has been restored. If you... coming to that relationship through faith. But what that reconciling all things means towards the powers is they've been pacified, right? So they've been pacified. And then the pacts from on a frame helps, especially those who are familiar with the practice or with the ideology, better saying. of being of pacification. They've been pacified. They've been put back into their place by Christ on the cross. Yeah, I think so I've been working lots of on resurrection stories in Greek mythology and and and on religion in general in that and people must have been terrified of these like powers that like these gods because they were absolutely like if you read Greek mythology, they are completely unreliable. You never know what they're going to do. They're literally terrifying because like you never know whether Zeus is in a good mood and he will not do anything or he's a bad mood and then he will ruin everything for you. And the same thing with like the revenge is that like Athena is wanting to like revenge just because of this and that and like these gods, they're powerful but they are like they're completely unreliable and they're tyrants in many ways. Yeah, and yeah. Sorry, go on. Yeah, and it's it's insane how we must have been living in those, and then there was like a couple of gods that was a little bit better than others, but they were all kind of unreliable, vengeanceful gods. And you have like Christian apologists in the second and third century, making mocking Greeks for having these gods that can't be trusted. Yeah, so it was part of the milieu of the first century world, especially the Mediterranean world. They call it δεισιδαιμονία (desidaimonia), this obsessive fear of the gods. So Plutarch talks about it in his book Δεισιδαιμονία (Desidaimonia). It wasn't the first one, but he talks about it. what he is doing is he is criticizing his He's criticizing society and people for being so afraid of the gods and according to him this was because they didn't understand the nature of the gods but the thing is as you just said they were capricious. You see you couldn't they couldn't be trusted they were just like pretty human in their behavior so they could change very quickly so this constant fear of fate constant fear of, you see, incurring the displeasure, the displeasure of those gods was permanent in the Mediterranean world. And so Colossians had a powerful message to them saying, listen, if you think they have, you know, if they have power over you, they've been conquered by Christ the reconciler and conqueror. Yeah, that's pretty powerful. Yeah. And maybe you should like, just touch the opponent on objection or things like, so does this actually mean universalism? You did touch a little bit about it, but does it actually mean that? Not at all. I don't think anybody seriously would seriously interpret the text that way these days. I think Paul is very clear in the whole context of Colossians that he's not advocating universalism. He's talking about their subjugation and their defeat. That's his message. And again, he elaborates on the concept and idea of reconciliation in different ways for different relationships. Now that would go against the evidence of context and everything else. Yeah, exactly. I agree. I just feel like it's an objection we needed to talk about. I think the point is that the daimonians or demons or these spiritual powers or the other gods, they have all been, they're now being chained and they will be judged. That's the point. And that must have a relief to these people because of these like... Maniacally like like gods like if you have read the Iliad you're like what is going on? Yeah, it's very human, isn't it? Yeah, it's the same thing if you read the poems like yeah, sorry go on. Yeah, you too sorry. Sorry, go on. Yeah. Yeah, and if you read the poetic Hesiod and the whole thing, Hesiod starts with Prometheus being punished for giving flames to, fire to people and then they sent this goddess that is going to destroy people. Yeah, yeah, I know. so if you read through like the corpus, these gods are not reliable at all. Yeah, they are very fickle. What I was going to say is that it's a powerful message because in Colossians 2, when Paul will talk about their defeat, he begins in verse... eight, Daniel, saying beware that someone kind of takes you as spoil right or prison or something through their vain philosophy and he goes on so συλαγωγῶν (sulagōgōn), συλαγωγέω sulagōgeō here is a military term it means like taking something or someone as spoil of war But then he finishes this in verse 15 with the metaphor of triumph, with the triumph metaphor here, which is again a military metaphor from the Roman world. And then what he's saying is, listen, you might be afraid. One of the messages that we can get out of this is Paul is saying, listen, you were afraid, you might be afraid that those spiritual powers that the false teachers are advocating or... that they are talking about will take you as prisoners. Right? So that's what their philosophy can do. You can be taken as a prisoner. But and then they would be triumphing over you. You would be one of those prisoners being led by those powers. But actually, what happened was on the cross, Christ has triumphant over them. So instead of thinking of them or conceptualizing them as triumphing over you, they've been triumphed over by Christ. They are now conceptualized as those prisoners being led in procession by Jesus, the conqueror and reconciler, and the believers are watching the parade. See, you don't need to fear them. And not only that, they are not only watching the parade, they are actually riding with Christ as he leads those powers as prisoners. you have overcome them, you've overcome them in Christ because you are in Christ. You have no fear, you shouldn't fear them. It's a powerful imagery. Most definitely. Most definitely. Yeah, it's a wonderful... I have a few more questions, but I think we come to the point in the podcast where we have a certain tradition, which is like, how can we apply what you've been talking about for the listeners and viewers of the podcast for their everyday lives and walks with Christ? Yeah, Paul talks about when he applies his message in Colossians 1.21 through 23, he says that he reconciled you, reconciled us through his sacrifice, and if we remain in the faith. So I think that I would like to say that we should always think of Jesus as the reconciler, right? So God was in Christ reconciling to himself the entire world. However, if you're not a believer, this does not apply to you automatically. Right. So he has reconciled all things. But the way this reality, this objective reality becomes our experience is through faith. So what I would like to tell you is be reconciled to God that's Paul's message he reconciled everything or the whole world to himself and the message is be reconciled to God experience this reconciliation the embrace of God and and and that is the most wonderful decision of my life and I'm sure would be the most important decision of your life. But if you are a believer, Paul says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and he has made us ambassadors for Christ, ambassadors of reconciliation in a way that we implore everyone on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God. So I would tell you if you are already a reconciled, a believer, be an ambassador of reconciliation, be an agent of peace, exhorting people, imploring people on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God. And lastly, on a more linguistic kind of note, The learning of the original language is key for all those who are called to be ministers of the word. I think that this is not only a exegetical and homiletical tool, something for you to write better. exegetical essays or better sermons. This is also a devotional attitude as well. We value God's Word when we are diligent, conscientious in the way we study it in the languages God has given the Scriptures. So enjoy it, see God in the nuances of style, of grammar, of syntax, of the way each author is very careful in the way they transmit, they communicate their message and God will be glorified through your efforts. Hmm. Yeah, think that's a wonderful application, Diego. And thank you for joining me on the podcast and God bless you in your ministry. Absolutely. And see you guys out there. I'll see you in the next one. But before you go, if you enjoyed this podcast and you want more people to see it, please subscribe and leave a like. It really helps us create more episodes like this one. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Have a great day and I'll see you in the next one.