Colossians Explained: Why It Matters Who Christ Is | Paul Foster

In this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture on Colossians, Daniel Mikkelsen is joined by Professor Paul Foster—New Testament scholar and Daniel’s PhD supervisor—for an in-depth conversation on the theology and message of Colossians, and why it matters who Christ is.

From the Christological poem in chapter 1 to warnings against false teachings, angel worship, and spiritual powers, Colossians insists on the supremacy of Christ in every area of life. Paul Foster shares insights from his own commentary, explores the historical and cultural background of the Colossian church, and reflects on the letter’s central themes of reconciliation, wisdom, and transformation. 

Whether you’re curious about why Christology is the heartbeat of Colossians, what “stoicheia tou kosmou” means, or how early Christian exclusivity stood out in a world of mixed religions, this episode offers a rich and thoughtful guide to one of the New Testament’s most theologically dense letters. 

Don’t Miss the Next Episode:

This episode features a conversation with Ian Paul on the imagery and theology of Revelation 12. 

Chapters:
00:00 – Why This Conversation on Colossians Matters
01:39 – Meet Paul Foster: Scholar, Teacher, Supervisor
03:37 – From Maths to Greek: An Unlikely Journey into Biblical Languages
06:06 – The Secret to Keeping Greek Alive
08:49 – What You Miss If You Only Read in Translation
10:35 – Colossians in Greek: Surprising Details
15:17 – Why Context is King for Interpretation
19:06 – The Story Behind Writing a Colossians Commentary
23:06 – How Teaching Shapes Research (and Vice Versa)
25:07 – What We Know About the Colossian Church
30:44 – Big Themes: Christology, Reconciliation, and the Church
36:06 – False Teachings and the Supremacy of Christ
38:08 – Where Does “With Joy” Belong? (Col 1.11–12)
42:31 – Angels, Powers, and Spiritual Beings in Colossians
46:10 – What Paul Meant by “Bearing Fruit”
49:15 – Why True Wisdom Is Only Found in Christ
53:25 – What Are the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (Col 2.8)?
58:46 – Did Colossians Warn Against Angel Worship?
01:06:15 – Why Early Christians Refused to Join Other Religions
01:10:02 – How the Second Half of Colossians Builds on the First
01:14:13 – Colossians for Today: Living Out Its Message 

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

This is a peacemaking between the divine and human realm there. So I think that's key. I mean, you asked me what are the themes. think obviously the central purpose or theme is its Christology. Once you have Christ, everything else becomes superfluous. These new believers do not need to fear the powers that they previously thought controlled their lives. It's a fascinating look into like your early Christian belief and how exclusive it was in a world where it was very normal to mix everything up. Christ's victory through the cross paradoxically, through the implement that was meant to defeat him, was actually inverted and turned into the implement of victory, which defeated the powers. Life in Christ is meant to a transformative experience. It doesn't leave us in the realm of darkness or despair. It's meant to give us a better way forward that is Welcome back to another episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, brought to you by NT Greek Tutoring, the place for personalized Greek studies in your spare time. My name is Daniel Mikkelsen. the host, and I'm the founder of NT Greek Tutoring and a PhD candidate at the New Testament at the 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 and for you to be more joyful witnesses for his mission. And today I'm honored to be joined by my supervisor, Paul Foster, who is the professor, New Testament and Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh. That fits with the place where I'm studying. He has published extensively on several areas of the New Testament and early Christianity, such as the Gospels. Paul. textual criticism, the non-canonical gospels, and the Apostolic Fathers. A few highlights would be his book, Community, Law, and Mission in Matthew's Gospel, a commentary on the Gospel of Peter, and a commentary on Colossians in the Black New Testament series. And he also has a forthcoming book on the Apostolic Fathers. And later on, we will be talking much more about the content of Paul's letters to the Colossians and the commentary he wrote on that, but also looking at the theology of that letter, which will be very interesting. I'm looking very much forward to that. So stick around for that. I'm sure it will be exciting. And as mentioned, Paul is my supervisor and I deeply appreciate your guidance in my studies and that you're also willing to read my drafts, whether they're insightful or not. Always. Always. Thank you. And I wanted to that you accept the invitation to join me on the podcast. Well, thank you to you for inviting me and a special thanks to the listeners and viewers. I hope this is of value to you. And I'd like to say how privileged I feel I am to have the job I have and to be able to study the texts I study and the history of the period I look at. Please don't tell the University of Edinburgh, I probably do this job for nothing. I am glad they pay me nonetheless. So it's a privilege to be here with you today. Thank you for joining me. Anything else you want to add? No, I think... Wonderful. So how did you get into the study of the biblical languages? Well, by being naughty perhaps, I was meant to be studying my degree in maths and physics, which I did do, but just through church and Christian groups at university, I was aware the Bible was not written in English originally, that it was written in Greek and Hebrew mainly, and I had a fascination with the original languages and There was a book sale on at the University of Western Australia where I was studying and on the last day I went along and I saw a Greek textbook, a classic one in Britain and Australia by John Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek. It's been updated by Jeremy Duff now and it was on sale with a battered cover for 50 cents. but being the last day, I got it for 25 cents. So for about the equivalent of 10p, I got into learning New Testament Greek, just working through the book by myself. So, you know, I'm actually a fraud. I've never had a Greek lesson in my life. I've given some, but I've never had one. So it was just that fascination and enjoyment of studying at my own pace. But I guess we're fortunate these days there are a lot more resources out there to help people along, such as your own business and platform there. yeah, lots more books. it was an investment of 25 Australian cents that got me into New Testament Greek. That's a good investment. That's very good bargain I think you got there. Yeah, and I mean, with the Hebrew, I guess I did that more formally. um I worked as a school teacher in Australia, not teaching New Testament Greek, teaching maths. And while I was doing that, I started learning biblical Hebrew at Murdoch University. again, greatly enjoyed that. Probably haven't kept up the Hebrew quite as much as the Greek. I can still get my way around, but like all languages, it's important to keep practicing. Read some every day, as I often say to people. We don't save our eating up just for a big Sunday lunch. We eat steadily, or we should eat steadily throughout the week. And the same with Greek. If you're learning or you've learned in the past, maybe read a verse or two a week. day and that will just keep it fresh in your mind. So regular practice. Yeah, it's like riding your bike. Indeed, something I don't do but I know you do. yes, but the point was the skill of like just continuing progress, so just echoing what you just said. And it can be frustrating because you might know a lot of Greek, you might tackle a sentence, and you might know 70 % of the words, but if the 30 % you don't know, can just make an obstacle to getting the meaning. So I think it is good to use tools alongside that. Don't turn to them straight away, but... You can use online tools very easily these days. again, the regularity increases the vocab. And I even recommend going over the same passages maybe a week or two apart and seeing what you've retained, just that reinforcement. I also recommend, in my course, we do tailored vocabulary training so that the text we read in the course, you have the vocabulary before you the text, which at least ideally should make it a lot less frustrating in terms of... Because you'll feel like, I actually know these words. I might not recognize the form, but then you actually feel... a little bit more sort of like, this is actually, I can read this. And I think that's an important experience. It makes you feel like you're making progress because it is a steep learning curve and I think people can get discouraged in the initial stages or first year of learning Greek. I still don't think there too many shortcuts. think sometimes you just have to memorize vocab lists and paradigms for verbs. you need quite a bit of knowledge before you can start translating fluently. Yes, I agree very much. So how have you experienced knowing the biblical languages have opened up scripture for you? Yeah, I mean in general terms very much because, you know, we're reading the words that someone like Paul wrote or maybe spoken had someone write down for him. So they take us closer to the thought of the author and we read the forms of expression the author used and with the gospels while Jesus probably gave his teaching an Aramaic, it's the earliest form of preservation we have. So it takes us closer to that first century culture. So that's helpful. And I sometimes think the fact that the language is not as familiar as reading in German or Danish or English. It makes us realize more that we're entering into a world that's 2,000 years earlier than ours. That's not to say they're not things we can learn and take away from that, but it maybe at least jolts us to realizing that it is different, that we need to work hard to understand the meaning and the context in which these things were said. Yeah, it's that the New Testament or the Bible is not written in a vacuum. Indeed, indeed, that it comes out of its context and the lived experience of real believers and authors. Yeah, exactly. That's helpful. Do you have any specific examples on how the original... You've seen something in the original that you didn't see, like translation? Yeah, I mean, I thought about a couple from Colossians and the first one is from Colossians 1.13, which talks about people being rescued from the domain of darkness and typically the English translations say and transferred into the kingdom of his beloved son. But the Greek at the end says something slightly different. It says, into the kingdom of the son of his love. Now, I find that it's a minor detail, but I don't think it's unimportant that this is the kingdom, not just of his beloved son, but the son of his love. It's almost as if that relationship is so grounded in love and that it is a son. whom God loves. And as we go on in the epistle, we can see the way there's that son gives himself, you know, through the cross and to understand more of the divine sense of giving there through the son. So that would be, I guess, a minor point or detail. I guess on a bigger scope, if you read something like the household code, in about Colossians 3.18 to 4.1, you'll see there that, I mean, it runs for a few verses, but often reading in the original language can slow you down a bit. It can make you a more reflective reader. And you can see there instructions given to wives, to children, to slaves. I mean, first of all, reading slowly, one thing I noticed in comparison with some of the household codes in Aristotle or those authors is where often the masters are addressed first, there's a privileging of those who are often in subservient or minoritized positions. So I find that interesting that wives are told to before husband, children before parents. And then most of that household code, about five verses, is addressed to slaves. And just by going through that slowly, it makes me think or suspect that maybe the majority of people that were being addressed may have been slaves, and that might have been a significant proportion of early believers in Christ in Colossae. and that they found freedom in this movement that they didn't have in their everyday lives. So I guess again being attentive to the grammatical constructions in the first example, but sometimes just slowing down and letting our emphasis fall at the points where the author seems to be emphasizing things is another helpful reflection. That's very helpful. think it also gets, it's not just about what you gain grammatically or like the differences that don't make it across in translation. It's also the more careful attention to what is actually written. Yeah, indeed. And I mean, one can do that in English. mean, so I'm not saying that, you know, that you can only read the scriptures as scriptures in the original language. That's not the Christian position. You know, if you read the Bible in any language, you are still reading the scriptures. But there is something about reading in the original. that maybe takes you closer. Sometimes even seeing alliteration or structures is more obvious in the original. So all those things can come out a little more. Yes, also my experience that like attention to the details and sometimes you say, oh, is this really what it says? Yeah. Yeah. Do you have one more example? I guess in general one thing I thought about in Colossians is how do we know what certain words mean and occasionally I think with rare words we have more confidence that we know what these words mean and often at least in English we can think these words mean whatever Wycliffe or Tyndale first thought they, and there's even a train of tradition in English, but if you really get into lexical matters and trace how these words may have been used in Greek, sometimes this can open up fresh meaning. So I still think there's detailed lexical work to be done. Our body of evidence has increased to some extent. since those early English translations were made. yeah, I think there's a need to, for more detailed work, to read a greater range of Greek literature of the period, Koine Greek, maybe from the time of Alexander the Great, even beyond the New Testament. That's why I look at the Apostolic Fathers and... texts into the third and fourth century because it gives you a greater understanding of how readers of the texts which were to become the New Testament were understood in the first generations. And while I might like to think my Greek is reasonable, I suspect that a native Greek speaker in the late first century or early second century probably had a better grasp of these words. if I can draw on their insights as well, that enriches my understanding. I think that's a very good point that we can learn from the really early readers of the New Testament and that they also had insights and they understood things that we didn't because they were much closer to the period than we are. Yeah, but we also need to be attuned. They had their biases as well. I'm sure no one today wants to make the biblical text say just what they want it to mean. I'm sure that never happens. But it happened in the second and third century as well. Or they came looking to prove an idea and they found the evidence sometimes they need or read with a certain hermeneutic. lens. Yeah, we need to draw on their insights but also be, I guess, least a little hesitant not to leap too totally into what they're saying. We need to judge it a little. Yes, yeah, guess it's with everything we need to like, like have it not critical in the sense of like, it's all wrong, but like, yeah, assess. We need to assess, we need to look at interpretations and things like that. Yeah, and also our own biases sometimes we need to look at them and see. Indeed, more often than not. Yeah Are they valid or not? That's an important thing to like question. Because we actually believe that we are dealing with the Word of God, then that makes that even more important. So, as I mentioned at the beginning of the episode, you wrote a commentary on Colossians. Why did you decide to do that? Because the series editor, um I think I had emailed Morna Hooker and said, um would you like a commentary written on Matthew? And she said, no, but I'd like one written on Colossians. so again, it's one of those things you fall into. So I had not written anything directly on Colossians prior... I think I may have referenced it in sections of articles, but it wasn't a major research interest. And in a way, I found that quite liberating in that I wasn't trying to show that a commentary backed up what I might have said in a PhD thesis or a previous study. So. It was by invitation. um It was also quite an attractive prospect because Colossians only has 95 verses. So I didn't think that would be too big a project. As it turned out, it took over 500 pages. um So I don't know why we need nearly half a page for every verse of the text. But there you go. That's the genre of commentaries. And yeah. I guess in terms of my approach, I wrote bits of the introduction and bits of the commentary alongside of each other. With the commentary, I tended to start with the Greek text, sometimes with grammatical guides, but not so much with commentaries. So I would... write my commentary on each verse or each pericope and then I would often be amazed at what wonderful original ideas I'd had. Then I'd go and look at some of the commentaries and find out that Lightfoot had said it better than I had 150 years earlier. But not bad company to be in. Or sometimes my wonderful new ideas. I would read the commentaries and think it wasn't that wonderful and I needed to nuance it a bit. But I tried to write a lot of my comments independently just based on the Greek text and grammatical books and grammatical guides to begin with. But then I definitely interacted with, I mean, no one does this in a vacuum. There was no way I could come to the text of Colossians. totally fresh. I'd read commentaries on Colossians in the past. Some of that I'd obviously was ingrained in me, but I didn't start each verse reading 10 commentaries and writing my own. I wrote what I thought were my own perspectives. And in many ways, I guess, due to training in, you know, close reading, historiocritical method. What I was saying was, on the whole, aligned with previous commentators. Occasionally I might have said something a little different or in a slightly different way, but yeah, I mean that was the approach. I enjoyed it greatly coming to a text that in some ways was not a previous center of research. It opened up new opportunities for me, so that's how it came up. Yeah, that's fascinating that you were sort of like given this opportunity and then said, okay, fair enough. I try it, although I have not done too much on Paul before. um And on the corpus paulus, if you want to speak more fancy. And that's actually, I think it's a good way of like, it's like trying to like get to your own position first and then see if it aligned with what has been said before. I mean, the other thing that I found very helpful was I taught as part of the process. I taught a lecture course on Colossians two or three times. It's a good way to make students proofreader worker. No, no. So, I mean, it's good to test out ideas. And I often think having to verbalize what you're thinking helps you sharpen up the actual basis of your thoughts. And I know there's a bit of a mantra in the university that we should do research-led teaching, that what we're researching should guide what we teach in the classroom. I sometimes think I do teaching-led research. I think the act of teaching and having to communicate often guides my research. It's probably a very productive symbiotic relationship. I'm really privileged to be in the classroom and share ideas with students. And I'd like them to come with opposite point of views where there's contested interpretation and sometimes the evidence for either alternative is not particularly strong. could be one or the other. So I think that's important to acknowledge as well. Exactly. I wanted to ask a little bit, you talked about the slaves earlier. So I wanted to know if there anything about the context, we know anything about the context of Colossian Church that actually does shape the reading of the text. 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 I wanted to know if there anything about the context, we know anything about the context of Colossian Church that actually does shape the reading of the text. Well, earlier this year in February, I was on a study trip with the Church of Scotland candidates, those who training for ministry in the Church of Scotland. And we went to Turkey or Türkiye, if I'm being correct these days. on the, we arrived, think, the Saturday, on the Monday, we were going around the churches of the Lycus Valley. Laodicea, Herapolis and Colosse and the tour guide came up to my colleague and said, oh, do really want to go to Colosse? There's nothing there. And I sort of knew that. And she came up to me and said, what do you think? I I don't want to force everyone, but I have written a commentary on Colossians. It would be quite meaningful for me to go there. And We went and in some ways, I think for the group, it was a very meaningful experience. The site has not been excavated. It's a grassy mound. You know, it's quite steep in places getting up there. But to stand on top of that mound and maybe see the Lycus River in the distance and to understand that maybe by the 60s, if not earlier, that the message of Christ had got to this place. you know, we were very lucky. We had a bus ride there and, you know, but within maybe 30 years of the death of Christ, that the gospel had got into this, not totally out of the way place. It was on a river. It was a trading place. But Yeah, I found that quite moving. So it was a settlement by the looks of the site, which hasn't been excavated. It was probably smaller than Laodicea and Herapolis at the time. um The typical mantra has been that, you know, the site was devastated by an earthquake in the early 60s and left uninhabited. But um I suspect that's not true. I mean, the other cities in the Lycus Valley, Hierapolis and Laodicea, were affected but also recovered. Also, there seems to have been a few recent archaeological finds that have suggested settlement in the second century and an inscription that praises a certain Corumbus who rebuilt the baths and it looks like maybe this was a wealthy individual in the city who maybe donated money for the restoration of a structure that may have been destroyed in the 60s. I guess it was a typical inland settlement in the eastern Mediterranean, you know, so there's an urban center maybe bigger than what we would think. as a village but maybe not much bigger, a surrounding agricultural hinterland, lots of masters or heads of households, and the household might have been double digit number of figures, so you could have had a spouse, children, some people who were hangers-on, maybe paid, others who were slaves, so I... I mean at one level it's a typical settlement but because we haven't done the archaeology, when I say we, because some people haven't done the archaeology yet, we don't know as much about it as some sites. But the good thing is it's a site that people are trying to raise funds for to excavate. Yeah, this will be exciting to see if we find something interesting there. Yeah, because haven't I found some interesting things in Pompeii recently? Indeed, mean, and Herculaneum, maybe some scrolls that have been carbonized and things like that. Yeah, and early Christian evidence of maybe early Christians in Pompii at the time. But, that's not the topic of the day. I couldn't help thinking about it. Well, very good. In a recent episode we actually did focus on the phrase making peace through the blood of his cross em and how central that phrase is to the letter of Colossians. What are the key theological and pastoral themes to stand out in the letter? Yeah, I mean, I do think that is important. It comes at the end of that poetic section in 1.15–20. I mean, some people will characterize it as a Christological hymn. I'm not sure if it was sung or not. I mean, in our Greek New Testament, it's set out in stanzas and some very clever people say it. it fits perfectly in a hymnic structure as long as you realize clause 3b was an addition that you need to take out, that you need to supply. And I think I just think the author gets caught up in the moment of reflecting on Christ and the language becomes poetic or lyrical. Maybe some of the phrases were phrases that were familiar. I guess later in Colossians, we hear in chapter three that they're to sing songs, hymns, psalms to God. So it does seem like the early Christians were singing. I think in that making peace through the blood of the cross, that verse starts with the phrase, and through him to reconcile all things to him. So that theme of reconciliation. is really important. There's some debate about the to him at the end. Who is the person to whom all things are being reconciled? Is it God or is it Christ? And I think if you to look at a text like 2 Corinthians 5.19, Paul says God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Even there it's maybe a little, but it seems it was God reconciliation But I think in Colossians maybe Christ is not just the agent or sorry, not just the instrument of reconciliation, he's also the agent. And two verses later in 1.22 it says, he reconciled you. in the body of his flesh through death. So it does seem it's a reconciliation to Christ a bit there. So I think that verse is key in that it shows that the sacrificial death of Jesus is making reconciliation with people who were alienated or formerly estranged or that they are you know, receiving peace. This is a peacemaking between the divine and human realm there. So I think that's key. I mean, you asked me what other themes. I think obviously the central purpose or theme is its Christology. mean, the author is most keen to give readers a correct understanding of the identity of Jesus. This is not just so that they might pass systematic theology one in their exam. The author believes that if the readers fully understand who Christ is, then they will begin to both understand the abundance, the fullness they've received in Christ, but also they will reorient their lives to live ethically in the correct way. I think often people will talk about Paul's teaching section in the first part of an epistle and his pastoral sections later on. And there's definitely some truth in that. But I think we maybe separate the two more than Paul does, that it's the understanding and key belief commitments that are the basis. of the correct behaviors. So I think that Christology is key. I also think ecclesiology is important in the letter. But again, it's a very Christologically focused ecclesiology. We remember that Christ is the head of the body, which is the church, which again is a phrase which occurs in the poetic section 1.18 and then a few verses later in one of the trickiest verses 1.24 is related or is stated again that Christ is the head of the body which is the church. So again I think the fact that Christ initiates and is prominent prior, first in that body is an important theme in the epistle as well. Yeah, how does that sort of like manifest? made a couple of like examples, you can like, if you want to like, like hit down on another couple maybe. Well, I think in terms of... You're asking about the church, are you? Well, think, I mean, I think it, the author is concerned about some tendencies if we're reading the letter right, where maybe the beliefs are going a little off track or the Colossians or some of them may think they need to supplement. those beliefs with other belief systems. know, and this is, know, Christ has triumphed over every authority and power. They don't need to feel they're still subjected to the rulers and the dominions and the principalities. As we heard in 1.13, they have been transferred out of that realm of darkness into the kingdom of the son of his love. I mean, It seems maybe I think that some of them thought they had to have an each way bet that believing in Christ was a good add-on. Maybe the best extra belief you can have. But for the author, the reality is that once you have Christ, everything else becomes superfluous. I think part of this is to produce correct ethical behaviors, but it's also to show that these new believers do not need to fear the powers that they previously thought controlled their lives and had dominion over them and which they might have needed to placate. Yeah, yeah. We'll come back to the powers in a minute. But I actually have, like, we're now in the sort of like in beginning of the letter, I'd like to hear your thoughts on on a structural detail in Colossians 1, 11 and 12. So we have this phrase, μετὰ χαρᾶς (meta karas), which means like 'with joy'. Yeah. So If you look in the Greek New Testament and you find that phrase, it's kind of, at the Nestle–Aland, it's like mixed in sort of like between the two verses and almost made its own sentence. Obviously that doesn't make sense. But that's, it's just to show the exegetical problem here is that which verse does, which phrase does it actually go with? Yes, I mean, the versification of the New Testament is a relatively late phenomenon. um I'm quite a fan of a set of novels by Christopher Sansom, who recently died the Shardlake series, and in the first novel, Dissolution, I think, which is set in 1537. the hero, the hunchback lawyer, is sent to a monastery to dissolve it ah and he's sent by um Thomas Cromwell and when he gets there he hears the monks reading, I forget from which, chapter 22 verse 30 something of Matthew and I wanted to write to him and say, know, I love your books but the verse numbers hadn't been put in the Bibles by then, so he definitely wasn't listed, but I thought that might make me look a bit of, as we would say in Anorak, a bit too much. so the verses came in in about 1551 in Stephanus's, I think, third or fourth printing of the Greek New Testament. So, and they were printer's aids, really, and they were done quite quickly. So, often quite well, but sometimes not. So where we break the verses, verses or even chapter divisions are not always in the right place. Now, we've got a similar problem, I think, in Philippians 1.4, with this same phrase, μετὰ χαρᾶς (meta charas), which, again, does it go with a proceeding or following phrase? Again, we're not discussing that. But in Colossians, we've got, I think, probably belongs with what follows. That's the giving thanks to the Father rather than what proceeds it. I guess persevering in all steadfastness and long-suffering with joy. In all of the Pauline letters, I don't think believers are ever told to be steadfast or long-suffering with joy. We get something similar in Romans 5.3 where they're to exalt in tribulations. I mean, some people have noted that syntactically in 1.11, two preceding participles or participle phrases or clauses both commence with a prepositional phrase. So we've got a preposition and an adjective or noun. than a participle. So this may suggest the μετὰ χαρᾶς goes with what comes after it. I mean, some people have still found that a strange way to begin what follows with joy, giving thanks to foreground the with joy. we do in the end. I sometimes wonder. If we can come to a. decision. I think there is such a joyful or doxological outpouring of praise of God that the author's language runs away. So I think how much thought do we give to how we structure sentences? I think in the letter the sense is that what believers have received is so joyful that all their expressions in the face of tribulation, long suffering, should be expressed with gratefulness or as they thank the Father, this must be an expression. I think, I wonder exegetically if we should decide so quickly or just see it as a flow of thought. If I were pressed, I would think it's more likely it comes with what follows. But I mean, I think we can be at times overly clinical and not just see this almost as a gushing expression of language and of joy itself. Yeah, it's the joy over what he's expressing in form that he like being removed from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of Christ or the son, not beloved son but the son of his love as you pointed out earlier. Yeah. Yeah. I think it is a tough one, maybe even more so than the one in Philippians you mentioned. Yeah. Because like in the Pauline Corpus, do have em like two Corinthians talks about, 'as sorrowful yet always rejoicing'. So that kind of like language goes together. So it's not that it's like excludes it, but I see that there is like some exegetical things, like decisions to be made. and it depends whether you place more weight on the structuring of the clauses or if you think foregrounding the clause that begins verse 12 with μετὰ χαρᾶς if that is it's definitely grammatically possible but is it so rough that you think it's unlikely I mean I don't think these authors were trying to win a competition in fine prose. They wanted to instill faith and belief. So I don't think we always need to expect the highest syntactical felicitous among them. Yeah, and I think it also depends on which edition you read. If I remember correctly, the Tyndale House Greek New Testament does render it with the previous cloth. When Nestle Allen is keeping it, you make your own mind up when you read it through. oh I mean what I would, I haven't, I don't remember doing, what I would maybe like to do is look in manuscripts like Codex Claramontanus, which is written in sense lines, and see where that might break it. So again, we'd have evidence maybe from the sixth century that, I don't know if there's any spacing in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. I just can't remember, again, not decisive, but it's an indication of how early readers were understanding it. Then you'd have someone like Theodore of Mopshuesta's early commentary on the shorter Pauline letters. So he might make... Sometimes when you want grammatical help from him, he's often interested in the theology more and he doesn't answer the question I want him to answer. because it probably didn't... for him it was obvious. Whereas maybe not as obvious to him. not the main point. True, it could be either. I think that, yeah, I think we could talk a lot about that, but I think there's also many other interesting things to talk about in the letter. The idea of bearing fruits of καρπο (karpo) καρποφ (karpof) if I can read what I'm writing here. καρποφορέω (karpoforeō) Yeah, καρποφορέω (karpoforeō) As mentioned, twice in the letter opening, how does Paul expounded this concept in the letter. Yeah, I mean it's mentioned in 1.6 and 1.10 and it in both places it's a metaphor for abundance. I think it's slightly different in both those verses. In the first one Paul says that the gospel has come to you and it's bearing fruit among you just as it is in the rest of the world. So there, the abundance that Paul is speaking of or the author is the fact that the gospel is achieving its purpose, that the Colossians are not isolated, but they're part of an extraordinary phenomenon from his perspective, an unexpected one, that the gospel is reaching out into the whole world and is bearing fruit. So this is a comment on the mission and the success of his and others preaching, where in 1.10, I guess it's slightly different in that it's describing the desire for Colossian believers to grow in their own spiritual maturity and to express ethical behaviors that reflect that faith in Christ and in that sense it's similar to the idea or the hope expressed in 2 Corinthians 9.8 that believers might abound in every good work and so I mean it's not so much about the outward working of the gospel among in the whole world but the inward working that Christ being in Christ and then being in Christ is transformative. And the end of that verse, which is a prayer, says that such fruit bearing, such bearing of fruit should be demonstrated by an increase in the knowledge of God. So I think this is that interweaving again of correct belief and right behavior, being married together. And I think This comes up again in chapter two where the author starts to express some concerns about maybe false ideas or maybe syncretistic practices they may be engaging in. Yeah, which like leads into like wisdom and understanding. Which also is prevalent in the introduction. Yeah. And so maybe I would ask about that as that kind of follows up on the question. Yeah, I mean, again, wisdom was a quality highly prized in much Hellenistic thought and among philosophers who we might describe. mean, πληροφορία (plēroforia) is love of wisdom. So again, this wisdom for the author is found in Christ. So I guess this knowledge, these are a concatenation of ideas that what they might be seeking is not to be found in a sort of pick-a-mix choice of lots of different religious elements. But the author just finds the fullness of life and all the assurances needed to be in Christ. So true wisdom is knowledge that's centered on God and Christ. Yeah, and that's also what he picks up on in 2.8, where he talks about that you're not to be misled. You don't remember the exact structure of the Greek there, but by philosophy and human traditions. What is it he actually is warning against and how would we maybe avoid a misreading of today? We don't fully know the background. mean, we should not understand this to mean that contemporary Christians can't study philosophy in a university. I don't think that is what the author's talking about in that sense. It's a kind of philosophy or almost a theory of knowledge. that I think is not giving an absolute position to Christ. you know, they are wanting in some ways to keep hold of things that the author feels might or should be part of their past that they haven't maybe fully let themselves enter into that kingdom of the Son So I think the philosophy. that's being spoken about there is a misalignment of commitments, not just a desire to increase in understanding of the world, not our sense of philosophy, but maybe aligning with a philosophical or a religious school of thought alongside the commitment to being in Christ. I think that makes good sense, example, I think Kavin Rowe makes a very good point, like in his book, I'll forget the title. on the shelf somewhere. I've read them all of course. Yeah, and his book on where he's talking about the tradition, so yeah, One True Life, that's the title. He actually makes a point out of that we don't like modern way of like looking at philosophy is not what ancient people were thinking. And his point is that it was a way of life. And therefore he's making the point. I think that's kind of what you're saying that that Paul is saying here. eh That's... don't follow other ways of life. There's only one way of life, that's in Christ. And that's the point made in Colossians here. Yeah, indeed. Yeah, so that is human traditions are following a philosophical trend that is not, as a way of life, that is not aligned with like exclusive subordination to Christ. Yeah. And that may lead into the more dubious phrase, στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (stoicheia tou kosmou) I know that is very widely contested. And I just want to hear your thoughts on it because I think it is a very interesting phrase, although it is a complicated phrase. It is, I mean, let's go through it, τὰ στοιχεῖα (ta stoicheia) I mean, it's a neuter plural, the, the elements, the building blocks, maybe powers in some sense, of the world, τοῦ κόσμου (tou kosmou) or of the cosmos. I mean, in some sense, what we can say, is that this is not a positive description, that they've allowed themselves or are continuing to allow themselves to be enslaved in some sense to Stoichia. Now, what does it mean? Again, Stoichia could describe the physical elements, earth, wind, fire, water, you know, and so on. So it can be quite a neutral word. So it can mean the physical elements of which the universe is made. But, I mean, alongside that, there is a sense that these elements, although impersonal, might still have ruling powers. There might be powers associated with them that govern people's lives. It could also... be a reference to a more personal type of element. We've heard about all the rulers and the powers earlier on and you know. So I would think maybe in the context of the letter, it might be another way of expressing that thought. it could be, I mean, some people have wanted to see it. specifically related to teachings, the elemental teachings of the world, I think it's more perhaps personal than that, that the author is talking about elemental spirits that govern the cosmos or the world, and sometimes this could be made with reference to celestial bodies that these, I mean, people still read their horoscopes or think the stars might govern their life. I mean, this could be a belief that there are forces above us that control our way of life. And this you see in Greek plays. It doesn't just have to be in Greek philosophy, that the gods intervene in human and you have to placate them in some ways. So I mean, the phrase also comes up in Galatians. So I mean, it may mean exactly the same thing. It may not. I would say you need to read the context and see how. But in this letter with the concerns expressed here, I think it's more a reference to governing powers. And maybe some of the believers in Colosse still think they may need to placate those powers or that their lives may still be controlled by them. But again, you're quite right, it's contested. That's what would make me lean in that direction is I think that might provide a more consistent reading of the letter. But other commentators would see it differently. So it's still an open issue. The other thing is that Paul is definitely not all... The Colossians is definitely not using it positively. It's a negative phrase here. So he's definitely referring to something that is hostile, whether it is impersonal or personal. em So I think it's a very hard phrase, personally. I mean it's back to the philosophy. I mean it's empty, it's vain deceit, it's not according to Christ and this phrase is broadly in the same context. These are things that are deflecting people from their wholehearted commitment to Christ. So the author is trying to refocus that and to assure them that they are beyond that. They're not governed by these things. be they personal or impersonal, or be they a set of teachings. while we might, you know, unfortunately we can't go and interview a first century Colossian and say, what were you up to? And we haven't even excavated the site. But what we can be sure of is aligning oneself with either this vain or empty philosophy or with these elemental stoichia. is not what the author feels they should be doing. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, maybe that will lead into so that some commentators actually think that there were problems with angel worship within the Colossian congregation. And that's part of the reason why the letter was written in the first place. What have your research let you to know about this I mean, I'm open to that suggestion. I think the key verse is verse 18 in chapter two, where again, there's a Greek word which is very rare, καταβραβεύω (katabrabeuō). And I mean, many people have translated this as to disqualify you, let no one disqualify you. I think it has a stronger meaning of condemn, abuse, mistreat you. I mean, again, if we look at some of the archaeological evidence from around the area, there were lots of syncretistic cults, mystery cults, where people maybe had initiation rights, you know, and that verse has upon entering in, it's almost as you've got to enter into this way of thinking. the key phrase, with the worship of angels, some people have argued this means thinking they're elevated and worshipping alongside angels. So it's worshipping with angels and they point to texts from Qumran where the community of the pure are elevated up into heavenly worship with the angels. I mean, one issue is often we know Jewish texts understandably quite better than wider Hellenistic religious texts and angels definitely occur in Judaism, but Angelos is in that form a Greek word. had Angelos or Angeloi in Greek literature and, you know, as divine heavenly messengers. I think there is evidence in this region of the Lycus Valley that there was a practice of angel worship. Clint Arnold in his excellent monograph, The Colossian Syncretism, lays out a lot of the primary evidence. He's also written a good commentary on Colossians, which has recently been published. other good commentaries of Colossians are also available, no, his is very good. And, you know, he develops that a bit more there. So I think, again, the Colossians are allowing themselves or subjecting themselves to abuse. They're allowing people to say, unless you go in and participate, you won't have the proper heightened spiritual experiences. that the mystery cults can afford you. And the author's response is, you know, we have direct access in Christ to the divine. We do not need this. you know, so yes, but again, that's hanging quite a lot on one verse and we're trying and there is a danger in trying to mirror read the situation. But I mean, this is what we have. This is Maybe if we excavate Colosse we might find a cultic space with lots of people on their knees looking up at figures with, I don't know if they drew them with wings on and holding hearts, but figures we can identify. But I doubt we'll get that level of evidence. Yeah, yeah, that's helpful. It is definitely these powers seem to be big problem for them that they either feared them. I think that was Diego's point in early episode that they probably feared these powers. Paul, the author, I know we disagree on that point, but. ehh All right, I'm open. I mean, we've got 95 verses. I would maybe think there are some expressions of theology which seem a little different. Now, authors can have expressed different things. you know, the one thing I know is there are many things I could be wrong about. I... I actually don't think the most interesting thing about the letter is its authorship. It's important. But yeah, it could be by Paul. For me, it might not be, but you know, that's not, it's the message which. Exactly. And that's what our conversation is focused on as well and what we can learn from the letter. But it seems to be like a very problematic. And is that maybe one of the reasons why the Christology is so high? Yes, I think because isn't it there very few references to the Holy Spirit, maybe one, um you know, but is it because the author wants to downplay a certain ecstatic kind of spirituality and ground everything in Christological beliefs? know, I've just, you know, I've got some of the inscriptions, Arnold's found in the area to illustrate the veneration of angels. To Zeus most high and to the good angel, Claudia, Sicily and Galatia, with all their household, make a thanks offering. So they're venerating these figures. just to give a short, we give thanks to the angelic divinity for deliverance. So again, in this context, I think there is a belief in some kind of angelic divinity. And I think maybe the Colossians are joining together elements of their previous folk religions or local religions with their newfound faith in Christ. And the author's saying from his book, you can't do that, you know, it's a more discreet decision you've got to make. Yeah, exactly. it definitely was something that, like, the Daimonion worship was very prevalent in the Roman Empire at the time. Yeah, I mean there lots of different expressions of these mystery cults and gaining access to the gods. I guess when you feel other beings are controlling your life, you want to get them on side. Yes, yeah, and the point is, Colossians is that you don't need that because Christ has already won. Indeed, indeed. mean, this is right. And, you know, all these things have been nailed to the cross. You know, it was in the cross that he defeated the powers and, you know, he nailed the charge against him to the cross. So again, I think some of this is the language of triumphal processions. You know, he led forward a host of captives. He defeated them in his cross. You know, so and often in Roman triumphal processions, someone would carry a placard with the charge against these defeated powers. So, I mean, after the Gallic Wars, Caesar leads one of the Gallic chiefs forward. You know, someone's carrying a titliss saying basically Caesar triumphed over these things. He defeated them and. in good barbaric fashion, they're executed in front of us to see the full part, you know, so I mean, I think that people would understand that the language in the letter is saying Christ's victory through the cross paradoxically, through the implement that was meant to defeat him was actually inverted and turned into the implement of victory, which defeated the powers. So I think there's That's the kind of cosmology that stands behind this. Yeah, it's a fascinating look into like yeah early Christian belief in how exclusive it was in a world where it was very normal to mix everything up. And you know, from what we find as normative, obviously for the Colossians, they didn't think it had to be as exclusive. And you might see some similar things maybe in some of the Nag Hammadi documents that there is some sense that Christian beliefs references to Jesus or Christ are there among other figures like Barbello and other of the Archons there and you get the Archons or Contae mentioned in Colossians. So these beliefs in controlling powers were quite widespread in the Mediterranean world of the first century and for centuries before and after. Yeah, yeah, I remember, is it MacMullen, who mentions in his book that it is actually, if you think about it, it's quite extraordinary that paganism fell apart because it was so deeply ingrained within like the culture and the way people lived. And you had even into the fifth and sixth century where it was illegal to be pagan, so to speak, using dubious term for historical. work was still there were still towns and even in in ancient Palestine that was fully pagan which is like tells how deeply ingrained it was into people's mind and even you can think about like what we call superstitions today is very much what they believed back then as well yeah so it's it's quite a Yeah, clear that this was a struggle for people back then and therefore it needed to be addressed. So in the first half of the letter we have this great focus on Jesus redeeming actions and the cosmic powers which we've been talking a great deal about. And then we have this in the other half more or less we have a more focus on like of the life with Christ, both morally but also more practically and even we can say missiologically It's not that the divide is unusual, but how do these two halves relate more specifically? Yeah, I mean, I think it is that the author sees the beliefs that are being expressed must be transformative for the lives that believers that live. So in some ways, he's wanting a holistic system of belief in life that you can't say, this is what I believe, but it's not how I live. So there's a call for consistency. I mean, I think the household code is interesting. I mean, is it radical enough somewhat, know, slaves are told to obey their masters in all things. I mean, in some ways we would perhaps have liked the author to have said slavery is terrible, which it was. I mean, you know, it's not some vision of Downton Abbey with servants living downstairs, quite nice lives. I mean, the slaves were abused, they were property, they could be abused physically or sexually. It was horrendous. But again, I guess maybe both because of the author's key belief in Christ, but also maybe not feeling it was in the author's power to overturn the institution of slavery. What the author gives to those people is a sense of their worth, that this is not their ultimate reality. They actually have freedom in Christ and that there is no distinction between slave and free, that all at so I mean, in our context, we would maybe articulate things differently, but we don't live in a society where slavery is ubiquitous. Although it's not that many centuries ago, there were some horrendous things happening. So I guess the author sees the beliefs and the commitment to Christ as reshaping behavior, but also reorienting. how people understand this sense of place and significance, not just in this world, but in the one to come. Yeah, yeah, that's both morally, like how you live, like don't be like an eye servant. Indeed. exactly in the household code. Don't make it look nice, but do that which is nice. em And then even the call to use the opportunity when you have it to preach Christ, which is one of the last points in the letter, which is not unusual, but it's in the Pauline Corpus. is quite... It's not like the actual... wording of like talking about direct mission is actually not very prevalent. We might think that that's the case, but the active thing, go do it. It's almost implicit within Pauline theology. But here it becomes like very active. oh right. Yeah, and even the salt metaphor, which is quite an interesting metaphor, I think. Yeah. But we maybe reached a point in the podcast where we have a tradition for asking a question. How can each listener or viewer of this, apply this conversation to their everyday life with Christ? First of all, by buying my comment, no. I mean, I think it's by, well, I think Colossians is an incredibly short letter, but it's immensely beautiful. It's theologically rich, and the fact that the author has said so much of enduring significance in 95 verses means, You know, please don't buy the commentary. Instead, read the letter. I mean, if you do only one thing after this, read Colossians, it won't take you long, except you'll have to keep rereading it to get all the fullness of its riches out because it's so full. But I guess it is that central message that life in Christ is meant to be a transformative experience. It doesn't leave us in the place where we started. It doesn't leave us in the realm of darkness or despair. It's meant to give us a better way forward that is... focused on Christ. And as we focus on Christ, we begin to value other people more and more. So I would say it's message is about realigning our values. And, you know, what are the vain philosophies and empty deceits of our world? Well, I sometimes hear people talking about these self-help books. Put yourself first, be the best person you can be, you know, live for yourself, not for others. And I just think that selfish attitude might be one of the popular prevailing philosophies that the author of Colossians would want to undercut for us today and say, you know, put Christ first, maybe put fellow believers second, and then surprisingly, you might find you're not in last place after all. Yeah, I think that's a wonderful application. Thank you for joining me on the podcast. Thank you. Thank you. And to you guys out there, 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.