Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

quote:

---

... It gives the letter an air of legitimacy. ...

---

These personal notes may be 'a technique of forgery' or an evidence of legitimacy. I guess it is a matter of faith which alternative you choose.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

I have not seen anyone suggest that those are the sole indicators of forgery. There are other better indicators for forgery after which one has to say, "well what about these verses where he asks for his martini shaken and not stirred?" It is not a matter of faith. There is other evidence of forgery and this technique is known abundantly in other forgeries. What this is is much simpler than faith. This is a simple recognition that the evidences, including these personal verses, are consistent with the hypothesis of forgery.If it turns out the Ephesians is not a forgery, my faith will remain unchanged because I have not based my faith on the survival of a book throughout the ravages of history.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

There is no conclusive proof - only some suppositions and hypotheses by some who hold a certain view.For example, personal verses could just as easily prove authenticity. They are certainly not inconsistent with that. Such notes are common in many Epistles.But if it is authentic, the next question is, 'Is it the word of God?' That is the bigger question. If it is, it raises many serious issues about man - both about Christians and about men who do not have a relationship with God. If it is authentic, but Paul does not speak for God’s Word, it can be safely ignored.

quote:

---

But if a name and an identity be demanded for the author of Ephesians, the name of Onesimus of Ephesus comes at once to the mind. (from Goodspeed)

​

Passion and inspiration are powerful tools. Just because Paul may not have written it, doesn't mean it wasn't inspired.

---

I wanted to add some additional paragraphs from Farrar's book. It brings in another line of reasoning based on the similarities of Ephesians and Colossians (along with the dissimilarities). I think this has bearing on the authorship of Ephesians. It is likely that both were written by the same person.F.W. Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul starting at p. 485, Vol. 2.

quote:

---

This is a technique that we often see in undisputed forgeries of the time.

---

I wanted to add some more of a quote from Farrar's book, F.W. Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol. 2 starting at p. 486. It bears on the possibility of such an Epistle being a forgery. The definition of esemplastic is shaping or having the power to shape disparate things into a unified whole (as per Merriam-Webster Free Online Dictionary.

This whole quote is nothing more than an editorial. This is simply, "I can't believe it to be so therefore it couldn't be" kind of reasoning.Moreover, it does so based on a WAY over inflated valuation of things. These writings are only so gloriously "pure and profound" when you contrast them against the barbarism that was those barely civilized societies. Paul's true writings are quaint and can be somewhat appreciated given the context. His disputed works range from the boring and barely scratching the surface of human dignity such as Ephesians to the downright atrocious, backwards, and damaging such as the books of Timothy.Spare us the idea that Ephesians can't be a forgery because it is too "good" and "passionate". Nobody has claimed that the forger could not have been pious, some even claim that he could have been inspiried!

I agree with Richh, even though his cut and paste may have been an editorial. Words and ideas have meaning...and the meaning that i get from reading scripture is that...even though as jar says...Paul may have been starting a franchise and that it was a human reaction to the barbarism of those times---I disagree that civilized man can even hold a candle to the conversation, motive, and above all love found in NT scripture. But why should I argue? It only makes me look arrogant as well...thus I feel that I am basically through talking about Ephesians unless anyone has any questions relating to the scripture itself. Opinions and intellect are examples of "private" interpretation of reality and are unprofitable to me at this time.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

That is a fine opinion for someone to have, but my point is that you cannot extrapolate from your opinion about how awesome it is to convincing evidence that it is legitimate.A forgery could have been made with passion and pious intent, perhaps even inspiration as PD seems to think.It is just a lazy argument, to say that we can either ignore evidence or ignore the call for evidence because we can't imagine such beauty (gag me) coming from a lie.

quote:

---

I keep going back to Acts and I don't think anyone has adequately responded to this point.

​

The apostles were absolutely not shy about how bold they were in asking people to do things, to change their lives dramatically.

---

I just noticed that I did not reply to this commendable post of yours. I think it is hard to reply some posts and because of that the response gets put off. Then eventually it never happens. I don't think I can do it justice in this short post, but I will at least make a start.I don't know if it is crucial to your argument (maybe it is), but - I don't see the Apostles asking anyone to do anything in Acts except repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. What happened after the day of Pentecost was the result of the spontaneous move of the Spirit of God. I am not saying that that spontaneous response was not amazing and wonderful. It was and there is certainly a need for more filling of the Holy Spirit and more manifestation of fruit of the Spirit. It does mention that those who believed continued in the Apostles fellowship teaching and fellowship, but it doesn’t say what that teaching was.You also overlooked some of the words in the verse from Philemon. It says ‘no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother’. The thought is that in the past Onesimus was not a ‘beloved brother’, but he had become one through Paul’s preaching the gospel to him. If it was only about slavery and nothing else Paul wouldn’t have spoken like this. He wouldn’t have spoken of Onesimus as ‘more than a slave’. He would have said something different. If the sole issue was slavery, Paul would not have spoken about something ‘more’, but about something being taken away.I don’t agree that Paul’s word to slaves in Ephesians is uninspiring. I think it is radical. I think it is humanly impossible to behave as Paul charges in that situation. But I know you and I do disagree on this topic.I don’t think I have adequately responded to your observation of the events in Acts. I hope to add more later.

Paul suggests in Philemon that he could order Philemon to do the "right thing". There is a sense of the authority of the apostles to require certain things both from Paul and from acts. You are correct in saying that nowhere does it say that they required people to sell all their belongings. But when someone hesitated, the authority of the apostles was on deadly display: And they do the same to his poor wife in the next verses. Now you can somewhat weasel out of this by saying that this is an issue of lying but I think the point I was trying to make remains that the apostles claim, both in Acts and in Philemon, to have authority over the deeds of their followers.
Is Philemon not "keeping back" something against the example set in Acts by maintaining his lifestyle that requires slaves? Is it not MORE revealing to the truth of the common Christian experience of the time to note that Onesimus was a fellow Christian? Your right. It could be that Paul thinks it is ONLY bad to own other Christians as slaves. I think it is clear though that he is asking for Onesimus' status as slave to be lifted. I think you have rightly abandoned that non-starter of an interpretation of those words. But this new diminished inspiration of Philemon STILL conflicts with Ephesians which makes it clear that situations of both master and slave being Christian is somehow compatible with moral living. Again, I cannot understand how you maintain these two conflicting ideas in your argument or how you can seemingly justify diminishing the moral relevance of these two situations, one by claiming that Paul was not demanding that Onesimus be free or that it only applied once Onesimus was saved and the other by claiming that Acts was just some brief spontaneous outburst of asceticism, in order for them to be slightly more harmonious with the mundane and worldly commands from Ephesians.You are lessening their scope in order to arrive at a lesser yet harmonious moral, all the while claiming that such behavior is "radical" and "humanly impossible". I know that you limited your description to the Ephesians advice to the slaves but lets just look at the few verses around it as we have thus far in this thread. It is not radical and humanly impossible to "not threaten" your slaves. It is not radical to tell women to obey their husbands. Its NOT EVEN radical to suggest that women are fully equal members of society. Its NOT EVEN radical to suggest that that slavery in its entirety is immoral. These are some of the barest, simplest ideas of morality that you could possibly form in the modern world even if they were hard fought to achieve NO THANKS to the Bible.I find it totally and bewilderingly bizarre that you can zero in on that verse that is basically telling slaves to stay in line, a VERY worldly consideration playing dress up as a high minded ideal similar to the asceticism of Acts, while at the same time ignoring the remaining context of the obviously morally backward verses that surround it.Telling slaves to be good slaves, masters to be good masters, wives to be good wives, is NOT inspiring and radical. It is mundane and primitive if not totally immoral. I genuinely look forward to it as I have enjoyed our discussions so far.

quote:

---

Paul suggests in Philemon that he could order Philemon to do the "right thing". There is a sense of the authority of the apostles to require certain things both from Paul and from acts. You are correct in saying that nowhere does it say that they required people to sell all their belongings. But when someone hesitated, the authority of the apostles was on deadly display:

​

But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife's knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him.

​

And they do the same to his poor wife in the next verses. ...

---

Does not the part of your quote I bolded indicate that the apostles had no expectation or requirement either of Ananias or of Saphira. The issue was not that they failed to give, but that they lied!

Right, I talk about that right below the quote.

Testing. What is "radical" in the sense of really "going to the ROOT" is that all the exhortations of Ephesians are for Christians to live in oneness with a resurrected and available Christ. I think critics here are simply subtracting the indwelling Christ from the picture and seeing only mundane ethical instructions which any unbeliever could request of any other unbeliever.Before you get to chapter 5 it seems little appreciation is given by skeptics to Paul laying the ground work of the resurrected Christ being able to indwell men and women such that He lives in them. They are no longer "alienated from the life of God" (4:18) Maybe to your priorities that means nothing. But to God's priorities and the believers' priorities it means everything. It is not "What would Jesus do?" But is "Allow Jesus to Live again, this time within you."The total divorcing of the exhortations from the previous teachings in Ephesians is very shallow apprehension of this book.Christ was subject to men and women for 30 years. And He was God become a man.Christ was subject to his mother Mary - while He was God become a man. Christ was subject to Joseph the husband of Mary - while He [Jesus] was God incarnate. Christ was subject to learn a trade as an apprentice from Joseph - while He was God incarnate Who created TREES.In fact for 30 years Christ blended in with all the neighbors and family relatives in Nazareth, apparently making no major stir. And He was subject to family, employers, and probably elders of all types. And He was God Himself become a man.At the age of 30 He commences His history shattering ministry. He begins to open His mouth and teach. He speaks of what He IS. He teaches out of what He has LIVED. His description of the perfect human life is a description of what He has been doing quietly for 30 years blending in with the people all around Him.Now on this side of His resurrection He is able to impart His Spirit into His followers. From this side of His death and rising from the dead Christ is able to dispense Himself into wives, husbands, slaves, slave masters, politicians, tax collectors, merchants, zealots, fishermen, soldiers, jailors, guards, even members of Caesar's household.The exhortations of chapter five follow Paul's expounding of how this Christ lives within the disciples to empower them, live out from within them. This is "radical" in the sense that Richh means I think.It is not radical for a husband to love his wife in his old nature, if he can. It is radical for a Christian husband to be "filled in spirit" and love his wife as Christ loved the church - laying down his life for his wife.The natural unregenerated man is without the Spirit of Christ. It is radical to receive God into our being. And it is radical to live a life blending with His empowering as in a kind of divine "power steering" that enables Jesus Christ to live again on the earth from within those who have received Him.

quote:

---

And what is the surpassing greatnes of His power TOWARD US who believe, according to the operation of the might of His strength, Which He caused to operate in Christ Jesus in raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavenlies far above all rule and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come. (1:19-21)

---

You see, the Christian wife has within her a Divine One who is above her husband above, in fact, all rule and authority and power and lordship. As God become a man can be subject to Joseph as guardian and teacher, so now the believing wife has the same power operating in her to live a life which calls for subjection.The believer found in a master / servant situation also has this Ultimately subject one Christ within him, empowering him also to obey his earthly master.Conversly the ancient slave master has the empowering from the indwelling Christ to render to his slave what is "just and equal" . "Masters, grant to your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Colossians 4:1)You are honing in only on the ethical command, divorcing it from the context of God in Christ living in the Christians. You're missing more than half of the importance of the book. It is WHO is doing the loving of the wife from within the husband. And it is WHO is doing the obeying the husband from within the wife.These are exhortations to allow the Christ who has been dispensed into their beings to live again on the earth from within them - mingled and blended with them.They are no more "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) . While that is perhaps no big deal for the world it is tremendous and "radical" news for the kingdom of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Again, I cannot understand how you maintain these two conflicting ideas in your argument or how you can seemingly justify diminishing the moral relevance of these two situations, one by claiming that Paul was not demanding that Onesimus be free or that it only applied once Onesimus was saved and the other by claiming that Acts was just some brief spontaneous outburst of asceticism, in order for them to be slightly more harmonious with the mundane and worldly commands from Ephesians.

​

You are lessening their scope in order to arrive at a lesser yet harmonious moral, all the while claiming that such behavior is "radical" and "humanly impossible". I know that you limited your description to the Ephesians advice to the slaves but lets just look at the few verses around it as we have thus far in this thread. It is not radical and humanly impossible to "not threaten" your slaves. It is not radical to tell women to obey their husbands. Its NOT EVEN radical to suggest that women are fully equal members of society. Its NOT EVEN radical to suggest that that slavery in its entirety is immoral. These are some of the barest, simplest ideas of morality that you could possibly form in the modern world even if they were hard fought to achieve NO THANKS to the Bible.

---

That is a mouthful, but let me take a crack at it. I have to do this in drips and drabs as I mentioned before due to time limitations.I will try to give the reason why I 'diminish the moral relevance' (to use your term) of Acts and 'claim' the behavior mentioned in Ephesians is radical. I'll address the second first. I agree that most of the charges in Ephesians are not that radical (although it is pretty radical if you believe in Christ to charge someone to love their wife as Christ loved the church). We both know that you and I differ on the question of whether such charges could be of God or not, i.e., on what is the deep motivation of the writer (in deference to you, but who I believe to be Paul) of Ephesians. But the charge that was on my mind when I wrote that post is the one to slaves. That one seems pretty radical to me. I have highlighted the radical parts in bold. The writer asks slaves to serve ‘as to Christ’. Again, if you believe in Christ, to ask someone to serve someone else (possibly evil but maybe even not particularly evil) as to Christ - that is asking a lot. So, again, if you believe in Christ, the charge is radical in its scope. The writer adds in the next verse ‘as slaves to Christ’. That is kind of a reiteration of the previous verse - so it is not just a slip of the tongue. It is emphatic.Then the writer says that the ‘slavery service’ of the slave is the will of God! In Ephesians 1:1 the writer says, ‘Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God’ He is an apostle by the will of God and you are a slave by the will of God! That is pretty radical! I have never been that radical to say that to anyone.Then the writer says that the slave, for every ‘whatever good thing’ done by him, he will receive back from the Lord! Even that is radical. For good but mundane things I do in my slave service I will receive a reward from the Lord - that is too good to be true. Those good, but mundane, things (again if you believe in Christ) have eternal value! That is radical.Then the writer adds that this promise is not just for slaves, but also for free men. That means that the good things I do, even if I am free, have eternal value. This is confirmed by the next verse which seems really strange - ‘and masters, do the same things toward them’. How could masters do the same things toward slaves as slaves towards them unless there is an eternal, impartial Judge over all?As for why I seem to ‘diminish the moral relevance’ of Acts, I guess what I am saying is that, although there is what I called a spontaneous manifestation in Acts, there is no teaching in the epistles charging such practices as are seen in Acts. I do not diminish the ‘wonderfulness’ of it. But the absence of teachings and charges makes me think of it in the way I do.

Someone may be joining in shortly to talk about the Body of Christ and the Wife and Bride. This poster wants to talk about the Wife being only Israel. So maybe a few of us may look into another aspect of the epistle besides the arguments on who wrote it or why it speaks to wives and slaves the way it does.Stick around a bit for this new poster.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.