Theology in the Raw - Hercules, Jesus, 4 Maccabees, Tupac, the Stoics, and the Colossian Heresy: Dr. Joey Dodson

Episode Date: October 14, 2024

Joey is my brotha from another motha. He also has a Ph.D. in New Testament from Aberdeen University, is the Dr. Craig L. Blomberg Endowed Chair of New Testament at Denver Seminary, and is the author of several scholarly books and peer reviewed articles. His latest book is excellent: Conquerers Not Captives: Reframing Romans 7 for the Christian Life. In this conversation, we go all over the place. If you like New Testament scholarly stuff, especially the Jewish and Greco-Roman context of the NT, you'll enjoy our nerdy banter. Oh, and we do talk quite a bit about Colossians in the last half of the episode.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of theology in the raw. My guest today is my very good friend, Joey Dotson, who, when he filled out the bio for the podcast, he simply put Preston's brother from another mother. Joey is also a, has a PhD in new Testament from Aberdeen university. He is also the Dr. Craig L Blomberg endowed chair of new Testament at Denver seminary. He's been a professor for many years. He's the author of several scholarly books and articles, including his most recent book, the things I want to do. Romans seven revisited. And among his many other scholarly projects is a commentary on the books of Colossians

and Philemon, which he is currently working on, which becomes a, a big part of our conversation. We talk about lots of things related to Colossians, but we also talk about all kinds of different scholarly issues related to the Jewish and Greco-Roman context of the new Testament. So this is a free flowing conversation with my brother from another mother and a hold on tight folks. Cause you're going for a ride. Please welcome back to the show for the, I don't know, while we were banding around. So I, I, I, I talked to my, my eye doctor, my, I go to every couple of years ago and asked him about the blue light glasses and he was like, ah, I don't know. I don't know if it's right. Like is it psychosomatic? Yeah.

But it works either way. Okay. Like what do you mean? Like your mind's telling me. Psychosomatic, yeah. My mind has tricked my body that it works. It makes it better. Like a sugar, like a placebo? That's right.

Yeah. So it could be a placebo effect. Did I get that right? Not placebo. You did. Placebo. Placebo. Yeah. Placebo. Placebo. Yeah.

So tell us how many of your writing projects do you have on your desk at the moment that you're under contract for, not that you're actively working on? I don't know. Really? I'm a handful. Oh my gosh. Yeah. So currently I'm working on Paul, it's supposed to be titled The Rabbi Philosopher, but I'm

wanting to change the title to The Man of Twists and Turns. Polytrophos, this is the very first nickname that Homer gives to Odysseus in The Odyssey. He calls Odysseus Polytrophos, The Man of Twists and Turns, because he's able to become all things to all people according to the occasion at hand. So, I'm trying to change the title, but it's looking at Paul as being a man of both worlds. And so, doing that, I'm doing a Paul in Hercules while Jesus, Hercules in the gospel truth. I think I talked about that on a previous podcast. That's a book? I thought that's an article. It's a book. Yeah. Well, I have an article in CBQ That deals with Hercules as a background and in Noam testamentum. I think that looks at Hebrews and Hercules, but anyway those have spurned on a book. So that's pretty fun

I just finished a project on four Maccabees, which is really cool Kind of four back Maccabees in the New Testament and yeah And this Colossians commentary and a Romans commentary and some more format. What does four Maccabees that first century probably, yeah. As early as probably around 20 AD. So similar to wisdom, wisdom of Solomon. Yeah. Yeah. Very similar. Are there like as Colossians and Ephesians, which we'll get into that close. No, not that close. So, you know, for Maccabees draws upon the noble nine. So you have the Elie's are

the priest who is tortured the seven brothers and the mom. So it takes what second Maccabees does and glorifies them even more. Most people probably have no clue what we're talking about. It's a famous scene. A second Maccabees. Well, let's just start, just get a running start. So these are early Jewish works written around the time of the New Testament, give or take 100 years here and there. Some of these books are included in the so-called Apocrypha. So some, I think Catholic and Orthodox churches would include this as deuterocanonical, like in the Bible, but still secondary status. Is that correct? But these are not just to clarify. Most people probably know this by now, but like they're not, it's not like they're written by Catholics or even cat. They're, they're Jewish. These

are Jewish books. So some people are like, Oh, I don't know. Is that like a Catholic book? It's like, well, you know, it's in the Catholic Bible, but it's not a Catholic book. It's, it's, these are very interesting books for understanding the new Testament anyway. So that's so yeah. Second Maccabees. Yeah. The fame I spent years since I read it, but that, that a mother and her seven sons, seven sons. Yeah. And they were told to sacrifice a pig or eat pork or something and they eat pork. So bacon tastes good, pork chop sticks tastes good. Wanted them to become Greeks and they resisted and went through great torture because of it.

And in four Maccabees, they continue to warn the Antiochus Epiphanes, the king, how he's going to be tortured on the other side of that. But Tabarra from Hemingway, kind of the thesis is a man can be destroyed and still not defeated is kind of the idea. And if an old man and a Hebrew youth, then a woman by the law can overcome their passions and the king, how much more can everyone else is kind of the thesis that the author is making. Wow. I remember the mother in Second Maccabees was watching her sons get killed one by one and encouraging them to be a martyr, right? Like she was actually saying, yeah. She's turning them on. Yeah. Holy. And tort, I mean, like freaky, creepy stuff, right? Like frying of tongues or something.

Their fingers are lying on the ground and pouring hot. Yeah, I mean, it's really, is it torture porn? Is that the phrase? And so in this, I have to like give a warning, a trigger warning, because it is very grisly the details that's happening. And something that for Maccabees was written to commemorate a festival in Antioch. And of course, it's all about the importance of not eating with Gentiles, not being with foreigners and how circumcision matters. And this could really show why there's such a brouhaha when Paul and Peter and Barnabas and all that happens.

I was going to ask you the background, like why, so what's the significance for understanding for Maccabees and to Maccabees for the new Testament, but you kind of, yeah, also like, you know, I think it's like background, like why, so what's the significance for understanding for Maccabees and two Maccabees for the new Testament. But you kind of, yeah, also like in you mentioned revelation earlier, before we hit record, uh, the, the picture of, uh, the woman in revelation 12 looks a lot, looks a lot like the mother. I'm some of the same imagery that's happening there. Um, yeah. So stuff. But as in Galatians, maybe as the

other side of Galatians, where Paul's going to say that, and even in Romans as well, where the law is weak and sin manipulates the law. For the author, poor Maccabees, that's not the case at all. The law is actually what helps you overcome your sinful passions. So it just shows how radical the message it was for Paul to say Gentiles don't need to be circumcised. They can actually eat pork and not observe the dietary codes and still be a son of Abraham on par with that. Yeah. The altar for Maccabees would probably lose his scubilla when Paul says that neither circumcision

nor uncircumcision matters. Wow. Wow. Okay. And the Herculean, you mentioned Hercules. What in the world does Hercules have to do with the new Testament? And that might, might be, I don't know. I really don't know. It might be a segue into a Colossians. Yeah. Well, we actually have talked about the apocryphal on this podcast before. I don't know how long I've been on it, but one of my first times with you, we talked about the Apocrypha and I think we brought in Hercules before.

You mentioned it before. I didn't, I do remember, but it's been, even if people remember the episode, I doubt they remember what you said. Yeah. So Hercules was the, the, the hero of the day. They would know Hercules like we would know Superman and Batman and Hercules was referred to as the Lagos. He was the one who brought peace to the world. He's the one who overcame death in Hades twice. And just like we might have, you know, in game, for example, with Marvel in the first century, they had two blockbuster hits about Hercules, Hercules, Furans and Hercules on the mountain. The second one, Hercules is depicted as this great stoic. He is betrayed and ends up going on the funeral pyre,

where it leads to this earthquake. He, as he gets ready to die, he cries out, it is finished. The- Really? It's really cool. It's almost like Chuck Norris type stuff too, because you have the fire, doesn't want to burn Hercules,

Hercules has to like plunge himself into the fire when he does, the flames start crying out in pain as well. So it's like early Chuck Norris stories, but his mom and women are around the funeral pyre and they're weeping. He goes down to Hades to death and to give death the finger, if you will. Then he comes back up and he says to his mom, hey, stop worrying about me.

Stop weeping because I'm going up to my father. And he goes up and sits at the right hand of Jupiter. Zeus, Zeus gives him, welcomes him into heaven and gives him his thunderbolt. And so Hercules becomes the ever-present help in times of trouble. And again, kind of that Lagos who sustains the world, who drives out the monsters and who brings peace. And so when you hear phrases about these, the powers being stripped and made fun of and mockery of and overcoming death and bringing peace to the world, these are all terms that people would hear, Hercules, Hercules, Hercules, Hercules.

And so a lot of work has been done comparing Hebrews and Hercules. And I have extended that to Colossians chapter two where Paul is going to talk about how Christ strips down the rulers and marches them in this triumphal procession. So what's the, I guess, say it out loud. What's the point you're trying to make that that the new Testament authors are speaking of the Christ event, death, burial, resurrection, even other things around the story in a way that is deliberately like interacting with

Hercules story. I think so. And one thing that we do that we see with Hercules is that the Roman emperors, they portrayed themselves as Hercules. Nero, for example, starred in that first play. He was Hercules and he had Hercules mask made to look like him. And so Hercules as a son of God and all this. And so I think there's probably some pure critical stuff that happens as well. Similar to what we see in Hebrews, how Jesus, and from the deep south where I'm from,

we would use the word mo-bet-ah. So like Jesus is mo-bet-ah than Moses. He's mo-bet-ah than Makil Zedek. He's mo-bet-ah than the angels. He's mo-bet-ah than the priest. Same thing that we would have that in Jewish terminology. We would have this kind of in Hercules. Jesus is more Hercules than Hercules. He is the one who brought true peace to the world. He is the one who really overcame death. He is the one who is our true ever-present help in time of trouble. And so, we hear things and they're not as familiar to us because we're not in that first century. Let's see, three years ago, I took a German and an African to a baseball game.

And I'm familiar with baseball and they had no idea. I mean, they didn't even know like three strikes and you're out. And I was joking with a friend. We were making fun of the Astros about how the Astros stole signs. And we're using phrases like beating bats and trash cans. And my German friend and my African friend, they looked at me like, what in the world are you talking about? Astros

stealing signs, trash cans beating. And so what was foreign to them just made sense to us because we're in that baseball culture. It's kind of the inside baseball type idea. And so a lot of these phrases that are being bandied about in the first century and in the New Testament has a lot of resonances with Hercules. And we see this as early as the second century. A lot of the early Christian apologists and writers are comparing Jesus and Hercules. In fact, I'm going to Rome next month and we're hoping to go to one of the catacombs. One of the earliest catacombs, it has the picture of Hercules up there with the Christian

paintings. Some Christians adopted Hercules earlier as this prefiguring of the person of Jesus Christ who would bring peace to the world, who would be our ever present help in time of trouble, who would be the Lagos who sustains the world, who does bring us out of darkness into light, rescue us so on and so forth. I'll make one more point.

Just like the Jewish people would have the Shema on their doorframe, the pagans would have references to Hercules on theirs. Hercules protects this house. If you mess with us, Hercules will mess with you in no uncertain terms. So what was it more of a, were the new Testament writers like, what were they, were they trying to wean their audience off of maybe some residue of their pagan background where they might be, you know, committed to Jesus, but then kind of like still believing in a Hercules Smith or like, what, what's

the, it's a super interesting parallel. I'm just trying to think like, what's the, what's the goal? I think there's probably, I think there's probably three strands that are happening. One is I kind of already mentioned, you know, Paul talks about how God did not leave the pagan world, the secular world without a witness. And so I think for some, they would look at Hercules as kind of the candlelight that would lead to the sunshine, the eclipse of Jesus Christ. And this is how C.S.

Lewis takes it. You know, C.S. Lewis becomes a believer because he realized that the myth of Bacchus and the myth of Dionysus and the myth of Hercules, that Jesus Christ is the true myth. And so it was actually his studies and classics that helped lead him to what he considered the true myth, the story of Jesus Christ. And so I think for some, there's an evangelistic idea where they're finding, hey, you believe

in this Hercules, let me show you one who's even greater, who's far superior than Hercules. And yeah, yeah, you're Roman emperors. They consider themselves the son of God and they dress themselves like Hercules as they do their triumphal possessions. But let me tell you about the true son of God, who is going to bring creation into full redemption. So I think there's an evangelistic aspect of it. I think there's apologetic aspects of it as well. We see this even in the reverse. So your audience is probably familiar with Constantine and some of them may be familiar that after Constantine tried to make Rome a Christian nation, right after him is Julian the Apostate and he wants

to make Rome pagan again. And how does he make Rome pagan again? As he does the apologetics the other way. And so now Hercules is considered to be a part of Holy Trinity, Hercules walks on water. And so he is, the way that he tries to make Rome pagan again is by bringing in Hercules as a Hercules is greater than Jesus. And so I think there's some apologetic aspect of it as well.

And then maybe some polemical idea where the authors are sticking it to the pagan religion who goes after Hercules. And we have different stories of Hercules. Some of you have seen the Barbie movie and there's like all these different types of Barbies. There's also different types of Hercules, but in the first century Hercules became like the hero, especially like the Roman stoic ideals and virtues. Really? Okay. Who was the original author who talked about Hercules? Was it way back in the… We're not quite sure. So actually it was Heracles back in the Greek world. And I think

even the last time I was on your podcast, I talked about one of the earliest stories that we have of Heracles is when he's coming around the mountain and he hears this noise, he climbs up the mountain and it's a dad trying to sacrifice his son. And Hercules is like, what the food, man, what's happening? And the dad's like, yeah, I'm sacrificing my son to Zeus. And Hercules is like, Heracles is like, my dad doesn't do that. Instead they look and there's a golden ram and he sacrifices the ram and then fleeces the ram and that becomes the golden fleece that later on Jason and the Argonauts. So, Heracles goes way, way back. So, guys like Josephus in the first century are even going to make comparisons to Heracles and Samson. So, depending on the dating of Judges

and the final redaction, a lot of people think that the author of Judges is making Samson. So depending on the dating of Judges and the final redaction, a lot of people think that the author of Judges is making Samson kind of the Jewish Heracles story. But Josephus is going to even take it all the way back, if I remember correctly, to Genesis chapter six in the Nephilim and the heroes of old. So those heroes of old is taking us back to Heracles and Achilles and company. Wow. What would you say to either somebody who's now on the verge of losing their faith or a critic who's listening in both are saying, wait, wait, wait, this just sounds like, so the stuff the Bible's talking about isn't real because it just, it just sounds like they're

just like talking about these events and dressing them up in like ancient Greek mythology and just putting different characters in. Does this, does this, there's a Hercules myth discredit and all the many parallels discredit the historicity of the biblical events? Yeah. I don't think so, obviously. I'm still a Christ follower. And neither did the early Christians. So the early Christians, I think they knew that they were doing this.

But even if it wasn't intentional, there's those echoes that are there. But our early Christian writers post New Testament, they didn't balk at this. They didn't see this as something to be afraid of. So I'm afraid some of our hand wringing about that is kind of post-enlightenment rather than understanding the first century. So just like there are so many parallels and similarities with Moses and Jesus, especially in Matthew's gospel, I think we've talked about that before as well, that doesn't discount Jesus as the greater Moses. And so I think we've talked about that before as well. That doesn't discount Jesus as the greater Moses. And so, I think it's a way that they are, the Holy Spirit is inspiring them to use these things. It's kind of already baked in the cake to point to Jesus Christ. And so,

I grew up Baptist, as you know. I was Baptist like the Olive Garden. I was a really bad Baptist. But we love Spurgeon. And Spurgeon made this comment that, you know, drop me anywhere in the Old Testament and I'll get you to Jesus. And I like that idea. Although of course that can be abused as well. But it's almost like for the New Testament writers, drop them anywhere in the pagan world. Whether in Lycia and Derby, where Paul's going to draw on metamorphosis there, or whether you're in Acts 17, where Paul's going to draw on Soamorphosis there, or whether you're in Acts 17, where Paul's going to draw on Socrates and even quote Socrates as he begins that. It's almost like you drop Paul anywhere in the Jewish world, the Hebrew Bible, Jewish

literature, or in the pagan world, and he's going to get you to Jesus Christ. And so I don't think it was something that they were afraid of, and they tried to iron out and explain away, but instead they use it as an opportunity to proclaim the supremacy of Jesus Christ. And yeah, Hercules may be a myth, but Jesus Christ, he overcame on a real Roman cross and had a real bodily resurrection. And so the historicity of the life of Jesus Christ gave validity to it for the early Christian writers.

I mean, from another angle, kind of what you're hinting at, it could reinforce the historicity. It shows that these stories were told and retold and retold in a way that was deeply embedded in very much the first century world. Yeah. And as much as the Hercules myth was widespread and people, you know, just like a Marvel movie or something, it's hard for a lot of people to even, it's just so embedded in how we understand the world and communication and heroism and stuff that, that doesn't mean, yeah. So yeah.

And it may be part of that Imago Dei that's just kind of inside of us, that desire for that Redeemer story. I'm a big Superman fan and there's a lot of Superman that's derivative of Jesus Christ as well. And so, yeah, it's part of that which draws us, but I don't think it's meant to make us doubt the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but instead to enlighten and underscore it. One of the highest values I have in life is living in, learning from, and experiencing other cultures.

There's no better way to think globally, and every Christian should think globally, than to actually experience the globe. This is why you need to check out the English Language Institute in China, or it's called ELIC. Okay, so ELIC is an organization that specializes in helping people fulfill their calling to live with purpose overseas. Through partnerships with the government

and educational institutions in the hardest to access countries in the world, ELIC places teachers on campuses where you have the opportunity to build authentic friendships with students, colleagues, and with neighbors. They've been doing this for more than 40 years and more than a dozen countries, not just China, all throughout Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, with programs ranging from two to four weeks to nine months to even more than a year. I didn't even know this at the

time, but I actually had a former ELIC teacher, Dr. Brad Vaughn, as a guest on the podcast back in June, 2023. It's episode 1083 if you want to check it out and hear more. So if you want to explore a very meaningful overseas experience, then go to ELIC.org forward slash TITR. So they even created a special landing page for our listeners. Again, that's E L I C dot org forward slash T I T R. Check it out. Let's get the Colossians. So you're working on a commentary on Colossians. Yeah. Give us maybe just some key background things we should like, if somebody wants to study Colossians,

what are some, you know, I felt like sometimes there's not essential background stuff that all the commentary is always talk about stuff. And then, but there's other things. It's like, no, this actually really helps you understand the letter. So what are some of the big picture stuff with Colossians that we need to understand before we dive in? I need to go back and read what I wrote for the upside down Bible. I think I wrote the introduction for that. Yes. so we don't know it until the very end, but Paul's in prison. His last words for Colossians is, remember my chains. And so probably around 60 AD, probably in Rome, getting ready to face execution

under Nero. So Paul is writing this. He writes it with Timothy. So he tells at the very beginning that he and Timothy are writing it. They're writing it to the Colossians. We're not as familiar with Colossae, but it's close to Laodicea. It's close to Hierapolis. By the first entry, it's not a big city. And he even tells the authors, hey, I wrote a letter to Laodicea. You read their letter and you let them read yours. And so there's a conversation that's happening here. And Ephesus is close by too. You know, Ephesus is south of Colossae.

And there's a lot of similarities. So if you like Ephesians, you'll like Colossians as well. So a lot of overlap between those two. They're kind of twin letters. But yeah, so Paul's writing it. This is not a church that he established, so a guy named Epaphras is the one who established it. Also associated with this church is a dude named Anisimus, who is probably the guy that

Paul is talking about in Philemon. And so it's healthy to read Philemon and Colossians together, as well as Ephesians and Colossians together. And this is, he's a runaway slave? Yeah, yeah, who is helpful. So Paul mentions him at the end of this letter. You also have like the household codes, and it's a bit shorter than what we see in Ephesians five and six, and it's some difference there. The biggest issue for scholars with respect to Colossians is the so-called Colossian heresy. What's happening

in Colossians with those who are worshipping angels, with angels, invoking angels, the traditions of men, those who are deceiving with these fine sounding words and philosophies. And so that's usually where most of the energy is expelled by scholars and Macaulashians. What are the most likely candidates for the Colossian heresy? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's funny. That's 170 year old question at least. Really?

Okay. year old question at least. Yeah, there's a saying that a puzzle with a solution is a game. A puzzle without a solution. Ha ha ha ha. That's a work of art. And when it comes to the puzzle, I love the Colossian heresy. Ha ha ha ha. I mean, it's a work of art of Banksy size. And so we're not quite sure Banksy size. And so we're not quite sure what exactly is happening here. So Paul doesn't really like jump in like in Galatians where, you know, Galatians is right off the front. He's swinging, throwing haymakers. He doesn't really get into a debate until we get to Colossians too, that we realize that Paul's even in the ring. And so some even say that there's no real opponent here. So Warner Hooker, Coppin Haven, they're going to say that these are just a foil that Paul is using.

And so it's like Phantom of the Opera. Paul puts on a mask here that just represents the Jewish and pagan religions, but it's either just using it as a foil to show that Jesus Christ is, to go back to what I said earlier, mo-mo-mo-mo-better than any religion, or it could be like a preemptive strike. So, Paul knows what's about to happen that's there. So, Morgana Hooker is the one who has popularized kind of that there's no real enemy that's there.

And it helps for her explain why Paul seems to be much more calm and chill than in Galatians because it's not a real threat. It's just this hypothetical or possible threat down the way. Jimmy Dunn, James Dunn, our gross Dr. Fatah, he's going to argue that it's a Jewish opponent and specifically outside of the church. So the reason that Paul is much more chill and calm is because this is the threat from the Jerusalem synagogue in the Colossian community. And so he's going to say that it's very Jewish and very similar to what we see happening

in Galatia as well. And so Paul's going to have the words like stoicaea that's going to be important there. He's going to deal with circumcision like Galatians. And so there's some that think this is particularly Jewish, patently Jewish. So I'm going to say like Ian Smith argues that it's like Merkabah, kind of like the roots of what Merkabah religion will be and how this chariot, this ecstatic idea that's connected to mystery.

So in Ephesians and Colossians especially, Paul really likes the word mystery. So what do we do with this mystery? To borrow from Shabouzi, what is it? Someone pour me up another shot of mystery. You know that me and Jesus got a history. And so this mystery, mystery, mystery, how do we define it? And does Paul define it the same way here?

But he's gonna say that it's kind of like a mystery type religion of being able to worship, not angels, but worship with the angels in heaven, having this ecstatic type of experience. And which leads to kind of maybe some super apostles are like what we see in first John, a division where this proto-protonosicism leads to where Jesus is not enough. And yeah, so in all that goes, my two-year-old granddaughter, she mixes the word busy and dizzy up. So like like she spins around in circles, she's like, oh, pop, I'm getting really busy.

So it gets busy. Clint Arnold would be another major one to just bring up. And he's coming out with the word Bible commentary on Colossians. And he thinks it's more like shaman like. And so very similar to what we see in Ephesus. So it's dealing with magic. And magic was much more syncretic in Judaism. And so he thinks it's not worshiping angels.

It's not worshiping with the angels, but instead it is appealing to angels. It is having this aesthetic practices that lead to ecstatic shaman type experiences where you could call out the angels to fight for you. Wow, that's a lot. It gets be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going scholar, you know, just so fair. So what, where do you lead? Do you, if you had a gun to your head? Yeah, it's, it's tough, man. It's so hard. Cause when I'm reading done, I'm like, Oh, it's done. You know, done such a great arguer. I presented a paper in South Africa last summer on this. Seneca's epistle 95, it seems to combine Judaism and Greco-Roman idolatry as a foil for what he considered the true philosophy that is Stoicism. And so we have this in the mix that is being written the same time that Paul is writing. And so at the end of the day, at this point, it may be different when the book finally

comes out. I probably would side with Morna Hooker. And some people will be like, what does it really matter? Does it really matter to me? I think so. I think one sense is that, as you know, what was it, Karl Barth, as he was being dragged out by the Nazis, he cries out to his students these last words, exegesis, exegesis, exegesis And so, I think that's important for us, just exegesis. And of course, we're talking about exegesis, it's context, context, context. And so, understanding the context helps us have better exegesis, which leads to better

theology. And there's some type of deconstruction that's happening here. The people are being disconnected from the head. And so, we have that in our world today. And so understanding the different fine sounding, seemingly reasonable philosophies, old and new, that are dragging away believers back then can help inform what we're doing today as well. It's mainly chapter two, right?

Where he's addressing some kind of, what, asceticism? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So some, some again, like Hooker would see this almost as an aside, uh, guys like Don and Wright actually think some, if I remember correctly, that it's actually inside the church, but, um, uh, see that, uh, even, uh, there are seeds of it that's leading to chapter two and even beyond. And so this idea that Christ is your life. And when he's revealed, that's where you'll be revealed. Christ is at the right hand of heaven.

You don't have to go there because you're already in Christ. And they see Christ as the one who's rescued us out of darkness. You don't have to cry out for the angels. He's the one who redeemed or he brought peace. You don't have to be you don't have to be scared of the powers anymore.. You don't have to be scurred of the powers anymore. So you don't have to appeal to a shaman. So they actually see that there's seeds of it throughout Colossians, but really chapter two

is where Paul even says, I am in this battle for you. He uses the word agon, the agony word for battle and struggle and suffering. And so some are gonna see it as just this preemptive strike or a foil to exalt Jesus Christ. Others see this as a real and present danger inside of the church where people are saying Jesus plus, and Paul's coming and saying, no, Jesus alone. Okay. Well, and that, that, I guess chapter one, that makes sense of chapter one, that makes sense. A chapter one, why he would begin with this, this him in one, what one 15 and following about the supremacy of Christ over all things. Is that, do you

think that him is interacting with some of these themes as well? Like he's, I think so. Yeah. So again, whether it's real or present, I'm not, not positive at this point, but either way here, the ham just says that Jesus is the greatest. He is the firstborn. He has supremacy. The fullness of God dwells in Jesus Christ. And if the fullness of the deity dwells in Jesus Christ and the fullness of Christ dwells in you, then what do you need with the Stoicae, this old Jewish religion, according to the author of Colossians? And what do you need with Zeus or Hercules? You have the fullness of Jesus Christ. Did you see a critique of the Hercules myth in Colossians,

in Colossians one? Like other- I don't know if there's a critique there. And it depends on how much you get into the anti-imperial and puro-critical- I was gonna ask you that next. Yeah, so Scott McKnight, he has a new commentary out in the NIGTC, and he's going to see some

more like supra-criticism, where the author of Colossians is not being anti-critical. He's just saying that Christ is just so supreme over the Roman Empire. I think, and we may have talked about this, I'm having like a bunch of deja vu moments, I've been on here so much, that there a spectrum of, an empirical spectrum. You know, the one end maybe like Revelation, the other end is like pro Rome. And so I do think that the author is somewhere on that spectrum. And if he's drawing on these phrases that are connected to Hercules, drawing on these phrases that are connected to Hercules. It could be punching up or kicking under the table, these statements about Nero and Caesar.

So yeah, okay. So Caesar would use Hercules, yeah. Real quick, you said author. Do you not take it Pauline? No, no, I take it Paul, sorry. Oh, okay, okay. No, I take it Paul. We're so used to it.

It's a business scholar. In scholarship, you know, at SBL, I would say the author of, but, you know, I was, did, when you lived in Aberdeen, did you fly through Amsterdam to go to Aberdeen or did you just go to London and up? I usually went through, yeah, we, cause we threw a, flew KLM a lot. So yeah, we went there. Yeah. So you go through Amsterdam.

So that, it was cheaper for us, these poor guys. So we'd fly from Houston, I'd fly over the UK, like there's everything down there, and I'd have to go all the way to Amsterdam to come back. It saved us like $200 a ticket or something. And we had long, long layovers. And one time I was in a layover, I was by myself for some reason,

and they had a Rembrandt museum inside of the airport. It was like a traveling museum. And I love Rembrandt. inside of the airport. It was like a traveling museum and I love Rembrandt. So I go and I'm looking and the curator is there and starts talking to me and I'm like, yeah, I love Rembrandt and she says, I'm not sure these are actually Rembrandt. I was like, what do you mean? She's like, well, these are those who are possible,

there are that's possibly Rembrandt, but the best Rembrandt scholars in the world can't tell you whether it's Rembrandt or if it's someone posing as Rembrandt. And that's how it is with Colossians as well. So if Paul didn't write it, man, it is so, so close to it. And so especially bringing in scribes and things like Randy Richards. But yeah, in the upper level, ivory tower scholarship, Colossians is doubted whether it's Paul. Is this still like in, in mainstream New Testament scholarship? Is it still the seven, you know, accepted letters and the rest of us has Ephesians and Colossians not wiggled its way back? Because

I mean, I remember Tom Wright years ago saying, I think Paul wrote these letters and stuff and it hasn't kind of snowballed other people saying, yeah, come on these do feel quite different, but for the clashes and Ephesians just feels so alive. We're showing our conservative roots. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love.

I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love.

I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's love. I just think it's Ephesians just feels so Paulite. We're showing our conservative roots. I just think it's a lot. I just, yeah, I don't know, man. Yeah. Well, Randy Richards, his work on scribes seems to really just change the entire tone of that discussion. Does that explain why there's unique wording and stuff? Because it's a scribe taking what Paul's saying and putting it. Right. Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, you know, Paul didn't write Romans, Tertius wrote Romans. And the pastorals could be different because Luke is there. So, whoever the scribe is can make a

huge difference. And Randy Richardson's book, he actually talks about the different ways that scribes would work. And so, maybe that, like you and I, we're kindred spirits. And so, that like you and I were kindred spirits. And so if I were to say, Preston, write me something on Christ's hymn and Colossians. And then you would write it as if it was me and I would look at it and I might approve it and do it like that. But it would still be your words. And then there would be times where you'd have formal dictation depending on what it would be. And so it'd be like, hey, yo, Preston, write this down.

It's like this and like that and like this and that. And you would write that. And so that would just be more my words than your words. You'd probably use more like Coldplay than Dr. Dre. But anyway, so yeah, so I think that helps us understand a lot. But yeah, Colossians I would say is Pauline. Dr. Dre or Tupac. You're, you're, you're a Dre fan, right? I like to park as well. I've been listening to a lot of Tupac recently. Yeah. Yeah. I love Tupac has, and both of them great, uh, uh, anti-metabolism. So, uh, I guess that like this and like that and like this and I would be a ABCBA, uh, but, but you have Tupac, uh, live by the gun, die by the gun sun. Yeah. So yeah, they're

fantastic. I think, I think poets and stand-up comedians and rappers could really help us be better communicators. If we listen more to them. Yeah. I listened to a lot of comedians these days. I mean, some of the best ones are, you know, pretty foul, but, but yeah, the artists, their ability, they they've taught me to be when I'm speaking to try to be as concise as I can. Like a joke is funny when it's concise. But if it's like, if you take too many words to tell it, it just waters down the punch of it, And like they, to trim out the fat of just your communication is just huge.

Would you, you told me this years ago, that's why you hold a bike, not a headset, right? Because comedians keeps your hands from flying around or something? Yeah, they use it as a prompt and it communicates with the people. But even at the beginning, Paul is going to use the similar type structures.

We know them, but we don't study them. But in the first century, they study them. And so Paul, when he went to Tarsus High School or wherever, he would know these things. So like an AABA pattern. If I say that to you, now your audience is asleep. But if I would say, free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I'm free at last, that's an AABA pattern. And it sticks, it stands. Even who people don't know anything else about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. knows that phrase

because it's an AABA pattern. And so I think Dr. King, because of his culture, intentionally writes it that way. I mean, you could just say we're free, but it doesn't have the same rhetorical effect. And Shakespeare does it too, right? A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse. Again, you may not have no Shakespeare, but you probably know this line because it sticks. Bond, James Bond. He could have just said, yeah, my name's Bond. But so these type of things. So how does Paul begin Colossians? Paul, the apostle in Christ Jesus, by the will of God, Timothy, our brother, A, B, B, A pattern.

What happens next? next. He comes and says, to those of you in Colossians, faithful and blameless in Christ. So in Colossians in Christ, faithful and holy is going to be the phrase here. It's sometimes translated as saints, but it's an A, B, B, A pattern. The idea of being faithful and holy is very important. Whatever that mystery is, the Colossian heresy, Paul says that it does not lead to holiness. Yeah, it sounds great, but it still doesn't call the sinful passions. And so, Paul's going to emphasize the holy and blameless aspect, which is even connected to the will of God. Paul talks about the will of God in Galatians the very first time, how it's to rescue us from this

present evil age. And then later in Thessalonians, his next letter, the will of God is for us to be holy, abstaining from sexual morality. And then what's the other will of God later on in 1 Thessalonians that you give thanks always, that you pray without ceasing and you rejoice always. All three of these are going to manifest in Colossians as well. And so, yeah, I think Paul is getting his Tupac on from the very beginning, if you will, with this structure. And so, we miss it because we've only studied poetry by people who are not poets, and we're not as fascinated by it.

But when we do hear something like, if mankind doesn't destroy war, war will destroy mankind, JFK. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. It's an anti-metaboly. We love those. We're drawn to them, but we don't study them. Sometimes we kind of brush them aside. In the original Greek text, Paul has all of these poetic, um, rap type, um,

phrases that bring emphasis and would resonate. And I think, uh, emotionally move, uh, the audience. You think Paul would be into hip hop now? I think so. Maybe more like the Cray. Yeah. No big deal. Yeah. Oh man. The Thrones powers, rulers or authorities in one 16. Have you looked into that yet? Like what's your, I know there's debates of, is he talking about demonic powers, government powers, demonically empowered governmental powers or something else? Is that basically the kind of debate or, um,

yeah. Well, you know, my underwear is a apocalyptic Judaism. I think Paul is an apocalyptic Jew, apocalyptic mystic Jew. And so I think that's a false dichotomy to say, is it just government powers or is it demonic powers? I think for Paul, he's going to see all of that. Crossman has a book called The Emergence of Sin. Have you read it? No. It's fantastic. Very sophisticated. But he would say that there's kind of three understandings of sin in the first century that all interrelate. One would be sin as this demonic power that we would see like in Romans chapter five and

chapter six and seven. And so the demonic cosmological beings that are out there. But then the second one would be sin as an activity that we do, a little bitty sin. So cosmic bully, to borrow from Beverly Juventa's phrase, and then the sin as a deed that we do. But the other one, which both of those actually lead into is this systemic oppression of the government. And so our produce, our little sin participates in the power of the big sin that leads to the, the governmental powers and Thrones that are known for violence and for oppression and marginalization and

so on and so forth. And so it's, it's Romans 12 and 13, right? I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's dragon and power and the beast. And that would be both that. That is revelation. Yeah. Revelation in that. And then, you know, those participating in the synagogue of Satan, like what we see in the first part of revelation are throwing we see in the first part of Revelation, jumping in the bed with Jezebel, those deeds actually empower the cosmological powers that are working through the government. And so it's called the emergence of sin.

It's really sophisticated in the philosophy, but that's my best take on it. And so I think for Paul, he's going to see that as well, but Christ has come and is superior and has redeemed us from all three of those already not fully. I mentioned this in my latest book. I can't bow to Romans 13, but then I say, again, the idea that the dragon is empowering the beast. The beast is clearly the Roman Empire. But as Richard Bachman, others argue, it's the Roman Empire is the first century manifestation of Babylon, but Babylon can be manifested in, in, you know, kind of all throughout history, really, if the cap fits Babylon must wear it or how are he words it there. So, but then

you have that, I mean, you have all the way back to goodness in the book of Daniel, um, where you have the spirit, you know, Michael, the archangel, right? Going and fighting the spirit of, uh, Persia. And then, you know, the race over here and fight the spirit. Like you have these demonic powers behind these empires. And then, oh, even in the temptation narrative, when, when Satan offers Jesus, all the kingdoms of the earth, the people assume that it's an invalid offer, but there's nothing in the text. Like Jesus doesn't say, you don't have power over, you know, he's like, no, he like resists it, you know, which assumes that Satan does have power over the kingdom. Yeah. Yeah. So this one, I, so, and I, I, in, in passing, I kind of mentioned, you know, many scholars take Thrones, dominions, authorities, and rulers as kind of the same

thing that the fusion of, uh, Satan and government powers, would you, uh, just maybe dabble a little bit in the political theology here? Would you say that, uh, that's your realm, man. Let's go back to Hercules. Would you, would you say that it is a particular kind of government power, perhaps an Imperial power and abuse of authority or simply just any kind of government ruler? Um, do you have an opinion on that? And not, yeah, you don't need to write. Well, in Colossians, it's going to be neuronic. So you're going to have Nero that's there. In Romans 13, it's probably Claudius that's in charge and maybe even like what we see in

second Thessalonians. And it probably comes into that spectrum as well. You know, if you're Joseph, it may look a little bit different than if you're Daniel. And if you're John on the island of Patmos, it may be looking a little bit different than Paul when he's writing from Roman Corliss. Roman's 13 isn't, it's not Nero in the background? I thought it was Nero. It's Claudius? Well, Nero is a young punk at this point. And so Burris and Seneca are actually in charge while Nero is chasing skirts or whatever the metaphor is. And so, yeah, things are okay right now. The fit hasn't hit the Shan in Rome

when Paul's in Rome and Corinth. But anyway, the point is, it probably depends on what's happening. But at this point, Paul's in chains as he's writing it. And he's like, yeah, peace of Rome, peace of Rome, peace of Rome, son of God, son of God, son of God. And we know what the peace of Christ is and what it looks like. And yeah, so I think context probably matters. Do you see any other allusions to the Roman imperial cult in Colossians explicitly that you can think of? I mean, you might say

it's lingering behind the Christ hymn in chapter one, which is- Yeah, definitely in the Christ hymn, the moving from darkness into the kingdom of light is going to be part of that. I think even the, I remember my chains is probably a parting blow to the Roman empire that's there. The phrase the gospel is going to… actually, there's probably even used gospel here inside of it. But yeah, some things along those lines, the growing and increasing throughout the world possibly? I'm not quite sure. Maybe, yeah, in Christ there's neither Greek nor Jew, Scythian, barbarian, slave or free. And you have this type of propaganda in Rome where in Rome you're not going to have these different things, but instead they're

all Roman. But here, rather than being all Roman, they're going to be in Christ. And so, the Romans would have similar type of freezing to say that no longer are you a barbarian, but now you have put on the new man that is Rome. And so, some of the old, and we haven't looked at Colossae yet. I think they've just been approved to excavate it. But in the surrounding areas, we found these reliefs and paintings where the Romans come in and you have the barbarians that the Romans have brought peace to, peace with the sword, of course. And it shows them going from their barbarian attire to being nude, to being put

on to the sophistication of the Roman Empire. And so the Romans are coming to take the Scythians and the barbarians and to bring them together as the Roman citizen. And so some possible connections along those lines. I haven't gotten that far in my commentary yet, but since this is theology in the raw, I will say that that where you can tease out. That's possibly got some things. Yeah. So some of your audience may be like, you're stretching their dots.

We still have an exit. I was there in... I was at Clausay in fall of 1999, and it was a big dirt mound. Hadn't been touched yet. It still hasn't been excavated. I think they've just approved it. So you and I need to go over there. The baby for our 50th birthdays. Yeah. Celebrate digging around. First is Rico. You're about to turn 50. What do you want to do? I want to excavate. Give me a shovel. What a. Forget Disney world. I was Bob. We went to Laos and see up and they had just outlawed, you know, the, has all those, the thermal pools, you know, you probably see pictures of the white cathedral

almost. And they had just maybe a few years earlier said they now no longer allow people to swim in them. Oh gosh. Yeah. Well, actually, so this is the same area as Colossi, as you know, and another connection back to maybe three connections back to Hercules. One is that according to Greek myth, these hot springs were made for Hercules. And so this area, so if you see hot springs, it's connected Hercules. I forget who it was. One of the goddesses brought it up to heal him after his great light labors. But also during that time, when one of the foreign invaders were coming in, the people of that area, the river valley, they hid into a cave

because Hercules appeared to them and said, you can hide in here. And so they were saved. And so there's a cave of Hercules that's around there. And also like the Scythians, if you remember the story, this is the only time Paul uses Scythians. And it's a bit weird, quite opposite to what we see and it's not brought into the baptismal formula in Galatians, but he uses the word Scythians. So Hercules was in the area and he falls asleep and he wakes up and his horses are gone. Do you remember this story in Greek mythology? I know. Where the Hades are my horses?

So he goes and there's like this woman who has stolen his horses and she's half woman, half snake. And she was like, I tell you what, you can have your horses back if you serve me, if you Netflix and chill with me, if you hook up with me. And so, her he's just like, okay, I guess I got to do what I got to do to save my horse. And so, he sleeps with the snake woman, and she gives birth to three sons, if I remember correctly, but the firstborn, his name is Scythia, and he becomes the king of the Scythians. And so the Scythians were heirs of Hercules.

So I don't want to read too much Hercules into the story. If you have a hammer, everything is a knell. But there may be more of those allusions to the first century that they would have gotten. Just like if I were to say something to the effect up, up and away. Or if in Kansas, if you were to say faster than a speeding bullet, it may resonate even more so than someone in Colorado or Boise. How do you keep all this stuff in your head? All these myths and stuff?

I think it's the ADHD. Yeah, Sadie, every time I tell her I'm gonna be on the podcast, she gets nervous because it's unscripted. So we liked, she's like, yeah, we like our does. He's going to edit it, right? He's probably not. You should listen to the McKnight one that just came out today. I mean, we wandered all over the place, man. Yeah, that was fun. That was a fun one. Okay. Household codes. So when we say household code, the, the, this was kind of a, a pretty standard genre beginning with Aristotle, where he would kind of instruct households to manage themselves well, because a household is a microcosm of the state.

I mean, I think Aristotle was the original focus in the family guy. It really was. The family, if you have a breakdown in the family, then all hell breaks loose. And so what Aristotle advocate for is this kind of hierarchical ruler. The husband rules over the wife and his children and the slaves. And he has a breakdown and it, it's interesting. I mean, if you look at the way Aristotle framed it and his, his formula kind of was repeated over and over by later authors, even all into the first century, Paul kind of, he kind of mimics the same formula, a husband's wives, master slaves, children, parents, or children, you know, not, not order. But he, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a,

he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's a, he's the inside out. That's mixing metaphors, but you get what I'm saying. I'm not as poetic as you, Joe. Go back to quoting Snoop Dogg. So, so that's, so you see these household codes pop up in the, in Colossians briefly, first Peter three, and especially Ephesians five and six. Anyway, anything you want to be, because I want to ask like your thoughts on the function here. I would say that since you brought up first Peter, there are, there's overlap between

first Peter and Colossians as far as like this stuff being stored up in heaven for you. Whereas in Paul's other letters, it's going to be more temporal than spatial. The perusia of Jesus Christ, Christ is coming back soon, more eschatological in that sense. But Colossians seems to be more heaven above and that's kept in heaven, similar to what we see in 1 Peter. It's not to relegate Paul,

understanding that Christ is coming back, but the emphasis, the accent is placed on the different syllable that's there. And so there are some connections there. And yeah, I want to say that, I need to go back and look at 1 Peter, but my gut is that Colossians is shorter like 1 Peter than longer like Ephesians that's there, that Paul seems to get more into it in Ephesians. Yeah, so-

Peter has a lot more on wives, if I remember correctly. Yeah. Whereas Colossians only has that one, well, wives in the one line for husbands. Yeah. Submit to your husband as is fitting to the Lord. Hubertasso word that we probably have used and abused, it probably didn't have the same teeth that it has now because of the way that men have misused and abused this word submit that's there. How do you as an egalitarian read and apply Ephesians 3.18, wife submit to your husband's?

Do you see that as just, well, that was just Paul conceding to the culture or was he correcting an abuse or is it good for back then, but today we need to just submission? Yeah. Right. Well, usually when you and I talk about egalitarian, we're talking about women in the ministry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So Paul's a first century Jew.

He not only is first century Jew, but he's had some Greek training. And so it makes sense that he would think in this way. I do think that in Ephesians, there is that idea of submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. And in Ephesians five, he doesn't even bring this verb in for it. But I've been greatly, rather than me just kind of raw, I would say, make sure you read Lynn Koik's work on the house top fold, the household codes. In her new Ephesians commentary, she does an amazing job to show that even while Paul

is using the similar format, he is doing subversive things, like commanding the husband to do this. Or in this case, his phrase to the master is like, hey, remember you have a Lord in heaven too, who's gonna bring the boom that's here. And so, Lynn also brings up a great point that, because there's more to women and slaves, it probably helps us understand the makeup

of these congregations as well. But her new NIG commentary, new international commentary of the New Testament on Ephesians does an amazing job. It's really good. I did a bit of work on this a while back and her commentary is excellent. I think she was, I've just gotten so used to when people are writing on egalitarian

versus complementary and stuff. I'm not going to name any names here, but some authors, one might say many authors who are in that space become more activists and exegetes. It gets kind of annoying actually. Lynn doesn't, Lynn's egalitarian, but I mean, she's, I think she's very, she's careful with the texts. Very honest with the texts. Very careful. And she knows the culture. You know, I'm quoting Hercules hooking up with the snake woman.

You know, she knows so much of the culture around there. So as we talked about the inside baseball discussion with the Astro-Steeling signs, she knows that culture so well. And, you know, I think one thing with that culture so well. And, you know, I think one, one thing with Paul, when it comes to his, uh, since insensibilities is that he may not be as far as where we would like for him to be, but he's so much further than everyone else in the first century. So is that how you, is that how you would, yeah, these kinds of passages would you say he's still reflecting his culture, but he's, he's on a trajectory. If you will. Yeah.

Like, yeah, I do. Right. I mean, within that trajectory, we see exceptions that prove the rule as well. And so I think with the house staff, it's, it's a general rule. It's not being specific in every case. And so generally in the Colossian community, this is the case. Most women weren't educated during that time. They didn't have the power structures. But there were those who were educated. There were those who were noble. There were those who were single. And so, yeah, so I think these are, these are the rules, but there are also exceptions. And I think that those exceptions, Lin way for the trajectory. Yeah. I mean, the tough, if, if Ephesians is way more thorough and the husband wife, I mean, it's way, you know, so there's a lot more going on there. As you said, as, and

as Lin and many have argued, you know, there's clear subversion going on here. You don't have anything in the ancient world, in the household codes where husbands were commanded to love their wives in the self-sacrificial way. You just see the Stoics were a lot more mutual. were a lot more mutual. I mean, I'm talking to almost a literal Stoic here. Have you given your life to Seneca yet, Joe? Jesus Christ is Lord and Seneca is his prophet. The Stoics, at least some, I think, Musonius and some of the first century Stoics, when they talked about husband-wife relationships, it was way more mutual than typical Greek writers. Is that correct? Yeah.

Plutarch and... With Seneca, he's going to emphasize the spirit that's both in men and women. And so the power of the spirit over genitalia, if you will, but also education. So a woman who is walking the tradition of Stoicism is closer to the sage, the perfect male than the most masculine man who is an Epicurean or who is a cynic or a Platonist. And so walking towards the tradition of Stoicism is that which makes you look like God. And since, uh, we all have the spirit of God, uh, then men and women can become like God as well.

Wow. Okay. Yeah. But he also reflects his first century, uh, sometimes some misogyny that comes into, but, um, yeah, more general, the Stoics are further ahead than a lot Right. Right. Right. Yeah. I remember reading Plutarch, I think is a advice for the bride and groom or whatever. Um, and yeah, it was way more me, you know, this idea that every single first century man or leader or philosopher was just as misogynistic as it was, you know, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was way more me, you know, this idea that every single first century man or leader or philosopher was just as misogynistic as Aristotle. I mean, you just don't see that

in this stuff. I still think Paul, nobody, this, this is part of my argument is that nobody goes as far as Paul does in the fusions five. Nobody. I have nothing comes close to him defining, not just saying husbands, you're the ruler, you're the head and Oh, also be gentle with that. He defines headship as self-sacrifice when he later on in that, in that passage. Yeah. I think with Ephesians five, that you need to go back up where he talks about being filled with the Spirit and what the Spirit does. So, also before the codes in Colossians, he talks about the peace of Christ reigning in you, the word of Christ dwelling in you, and putting on the new man where

it's, kind love and tenderness. And so, yeah, I think all of those are, need to be read in conjunction with the codes as well. That's right. Cause the passage before the Colossian code is very similar to the passage right before the Ephesian code. That's interesting. Yeah, that's right. It's Logos and Colossians and spirit and Ephesians, but yeah. I wonder why Paul doesn't, whenever you begin a sentence like that, you're not going to probably have a good answer, but like why in, you know, Ephesians is the, of all the letters and Paul correct, correct. If I'm wrong, just comes

from Tim Gombis. Well, I mean, I think everybody says it as a circular letter. It's the least contextualize in a sense that there's a specific kind of situation at a particular church that he's addressing. Whereas Colossians has a little bit more of that. It depends what you do with the Colossian heresy. So it could be in general as well, or it could be specific. I just wonder why, why, why in a fees in Ephesians, does he go out of his way to have this extended a picture of, you know, Christ in the church and husband, wife, and all these things. Like,

is there, is he addressing something or, or is that the generic picture that he lays out or as everything other household code sort of assumes that kind of picture. I don't know. I'm thinking I'm literally never thought about this, but maybe similar to what we do with first Timothy and Titus, you know, where Titus is going to be shorter, kind of it's seeming a seemingly a shorter version of first Timothy or first Timothy could be an extended version. And some of our Ephesians texts we actually don't have in Ephesus. And so some think that that was a secular letter that you would write in Ephesus. I've heard it. I don't remember who says it.

Circular letter, just so you sound like you said secular. Circular, sorry. My southern accent comes out sometimes and I don't enunciate very good. Yeah, a circular letter. Some think that actually Ephesians could be the lost letter to the Laodiceans. So when he says, hey, you read their letter, let us read yours, that that could be referring to the circular letter that we also see as Ephesians. And so in that case, one buttresses the other. Could we assume, okay, so that's one possibility. Even if that's not the case, can we assume that the Ephesians letter would have, it would

have been, it's circular, right? It would have been read by the Colossians. You would think so. So this abbreviated household code, is it possible that he's assuming the Colossian believers will be familiar with the expanded version in Ephesians? Is that legitimate? I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question.

I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question.

I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question.

I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. right. It's been an hour. Any last words about Colossians or anything else? Anything else you want to talk about? Yeah, I would say this. One thing that I want to do in the commentary is take what is really normal to people and bring in some possible new interpretations of it. And even the phrase grace and peace, you know, I grew up hearing that grace is the Greek word and peace is the Jewish word, and Paul's trying to bring those two together. I'm not opposed to that. But I'm, I wonder if, I was reading Tertullian who argues that this is actually, both of these are Jewish. And like in Second Baruch, he's going to use grace and peace together. But I wonder if this goes back, and so this may be me stretching,

but it's a great way to end as well. If this goes back to the Aaronic blessing, where you have grace and peace inside of that as well. And so is this Paul, when Paul begins all of his letters with grace and peace, is this a reference back to may the grace of God and the peace of God be with you? So, just kind of some fun things like that, that I'm trying to bring in. What's the ironic blessing again? I think we just said it at church on Sunday. Yeah. I just went mentally blank when I brought it up. Number six, right? Is it number six? Yeah, it's number six. May the Lord bless you and keep you may his face shine upon you. That one. Yeah, exactly. It's grace. May the peace of God be with you. Oh, okay. So in the Septuagint.

So maybe that Paul is not just doing well, cause caretta was how you would greet people in Greek and Shalom, but it could be that here he's referring to both the grace. Tertullian is going to say that it's actually referring to Isaiah 52, where how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news, who bring the word of peace to the house. And so he's going to say the good news is actually the word grace. And so his argument to Marcion is that here Paul is drawing on Isaiah 52 for it So just kind of here's two words that we just often kind of quickly go past But it may be that if you put this in stereo you hear once again Paul drawing upon the Jewish scriptures

for his church Wow, that's cool, man. Yeah, so may the Lord bless you and keep you Joey you peace There it is. Always a pleasure, man. Always a pleasure. Yeah. Thanks for coming out the algebra yet again. I don't know what number this is, but it's a, I think you have the record. So all right, man. I love you, man. Peace. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network. Greetings and God bless. This is Tyler Burns. And this is Dr. Jamar Tisby. And we want to invite you to check out our podcast, Pass the Mic, Dynamic Voices for

a Diverse Church. Pass the Mic has been speaking directly to the core concerns of black Christians for over a decade. On our show, we've got interviews from theologians, historians, actors, activists, and so much more. Not to mention heartfelt, open dialogue on some of the heaviest issues facing the church in the United States. Be sure to subscribe to the show on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your

podcast. We'll see you there on the next Pass the Mic. Hi, I'm Haven. And as long as I can remember, I have had different curiosities and thoughts and ideas that I like to explore, usually with a girlfriend over a matcha latte. But then when I had kids, I just didn't have the same time that I did before for the one-on-ones that I crave. So I started Haven the Podcast. It's a safe space for curiosity and conversation,

and we talk about everything from relationships to parenting to friendships to even your view of yourself, and we don't have answers or solutions, but I think the power is actually in the questions. So I'd love for you to join me, Haven, the podcast.