Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

I'll go further than that. I'll suggest Ephesians chapter 5 in its entirety is absolutely wonderful.Now of course people can and always will sit down to a turkey feast only to hunt for a bone to choke on. Afterall the Bible even says "Money solves everything" in Ecclesiastes. Why not forget the whole thing?Why not blame all the greed and economic problems of the world history on Judeo / Christian tradition - they're the ones who said "Money solves everything" (Ecc. 10:19) So I guess for a few posts we are going to have to wrestle with the gender equality issue.Now Paul's instruction in Ephesians 5 has a crucial component which most people ignore. His exhortation before his instructions to wives, husbands, children, slaves, and masters is this: "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissolution, but be filled in spirit ... (v.18) As Christ is doing the sometimes "painful" process of transformation (only painful in that we LOVE ourselves so much) He can only do so by us being saturated, permeated and steeped in the Holy Spirit. To be filled in spirit means to be permeated within with the Spirit of the One who knew HOW to deny Himself, go through death, and come out in resurrection.The husbands, in order to love their wives so as to LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES for them, cannot do so apart from being filled in spirit .The wives, to be submissive to their husbands, also need to be filled in spirit with the most subject One Christ. Both husbands and wives require the saturation with the Spirit of the same Jesus.Some have tried to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Without being filled in spirit it is hard. It may last some of the morning. The same is true of wives living with husbands, Christian children to parents, Christian slaves to masters, Christian masters towards slaves.Please remember that Ephesians 5 is instructions to the regenerated churching people who have the Spirit of Christ. These are not general instructions for the world to make it a "better place."Now, granted, if I were a Christian sister, I also probably would not like the verse saying "For a husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church, ..." (v.23) . How ever the next part, as Richh suggested, may not be too bad (from the woman's point of view ) - "He Himself is the Savior of the Body ... Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (v.25) I've been married about 36 years. Quite a few times I found it hard to give up myself for my beloved wife as Christ did for the church. However, being "filled in spirit" has tremendously helped us. For only Christ is absolute for the will of God.Incidently, the Apostle Paul speaks of the church as the "one new man". And in this "one new man" old patterns of social oppression are to be nullified. Male oppression of female is nullified as well as master oppression of slave. This is seen in Galatians - "For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew and Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ" (Galatians 3:27,28) Now this is not a magnanimus instruction. This is not a liberal minded word saying "You SHOULD NOT act that way." This is a command that "there CANNOT BE". If you want the rich reality of the church life there CANNOT BE and there is no possibility that there can be oppression of Greek upon Jew, or oppression of slave under free man, or oppression of female under male. For the Christian church to be healthy and normal there cannot be old practices of social oppression as occur in the fallen Godless culture.In this kingdom there cannot be the oppressive patterns of stratification involving one group oppressing another.This may explain why, when the NT mentions the couple in whose home the church in Ephesus met, it sometimes mention the wife's name first - Prisca and Acquilla. It is not alway the husband first and then the wife - Acquilla and Prisca as we might expect.I will have to continue latter. But the important thing in this post to me is that being FILLED in spirit with the resurrected Christ is the key to the harmonious relationships needed in verses 5:22 - 6:9.All has not been discussed by any means.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My comments on Ephesians would be the same whether or not I included the verse from I Peter. I still maintain that Peter's word in get general statement of policy on interpretation as prophecy is a larger subject. That is, prophesy includes many prophesies spoken at many times by many different prophets. So I don't think I took the meaning out of context. Anything that broadens our view of the scriptures is good.But please note that Paul mentions slaves, for example, in some of his earlier epsitles. I don't know what your position on Colossians is, but Paul's statement there is about the same as his statement in Galatians. I don't see Paul trying to destroy the earthly institution of slavery in these verses, but directing those who happen to be in the condition of slavery how to behave in a way that is pleasing to God.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.Edited by Richh, : Rephrasing

quote:

---

Who wrote Ephesians:

​

Much like Colossians, and for the same reasons, the authorship of Ephesians is controversial. While Paul is the most likely author, many scholars have a difficult time explaining the unique writing style, tone, and message of Ephesians and Colossians. Generally the letters of Paul address specific areas of concern; inconsistent with the generalities of Ephesians and Colossians. The depth of the theology found in Ephesians and Colossians is inconsistent with the theology found within the letters of Paul. Even the language and linguistic style of Ephesians and Colossians differs slightly from the known letters of Paul.

​

However, when one considers the condition and circumstances of Paul at the time he would have authored Ephesians and Colossians, the change in tone and message makes sense. Many scholars believe Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossians while in prison. In the case of Ephesians, Paul would have written the letter while imprisoned in either Caesarea Maritima in the late 50s or Rome in the early 60s. Paul’s imprisonment and the likelihood he would be executed probably encouraged him to reflect deeply upon his ministry, the new church, and the nature of Christ. [jaywill's emphasis]

​

The conclusion of Colossians resembles the conclusion of Ephesians. Leading nearly all scholars to agree the author of Ephesians was also the author of Colossians, whether it was Paul or not:

​

Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. I am send him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our circumstances and that he may encourage you hearts.

​

Colossians 4: 7-8

​

Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing.

​

Ephesians 6: 21

​

The author of Ephesians, if not Paul, attempted to impersonate Paul. The difficulty in impersonating someone as well known and respected as Paul makes an anonymous author doubtful. The intelligence required to pass Ephesians as a letter of Paul is certainly not reflected in the alleged anonymous author’s ability to impersonate Paul’s writing style.

​

Aside from the change in tone and message, we have no good reason to believe anyone other than Paul wrote Ephesians. Most likely, Ephesians is the reflections of a man certain his life was over.

---

Copied without permission from: "New Apologia" athttp://newapologia.com/who-wrote-ephesians/ The comment you wrote about the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ the chief cornerstone in Ephesians verses Christ as the foundation in First Corinthians, is interesting.I don't think the variation should alarm anyone that Paul is not the writer of Ephesians.Paul says in First Corinthians that he laid the one foundation for the church in Corinth.
Paul was an apostle.
Paul was not the only apostle of course.
Other apostles and prophets laid the unique foundation for other churches.Therefore the foundation OF the apostles and prophets means the apostles' and prophets' revelation of Christ was the foundation of the churches and of the church universal.As Paul could speak of "my gospel" in an effectionate way - (Romans 2:16) he might also speak of "his foundation." Or "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" - the revelation of Christ.Christ is so much to the church He, of course, can be the foundation and the cornerstone too. He fills all and all.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As you get into the disputed epistles, such as Ephesians, and then into the garbage that is the Pastoral epistles, you are looking at a very different Paul. This Paul is more concerned with durable institutions and the day to day mundane issues of life as a Christian. This Paul also just seems to have it in for women and really goes out of his way to make sure that their inferiority is established.

---

I agree the author is more concerned with durable institution and day to day issues, but I don't agree the author has it in for women.Greek and Roman women were already part of a society that deemed men more valuable than women. Women in the Greek and Roman PerspectiveAccording to Rodney Stark's research in "The Rise of Christianity", women fared better within Christianity than the pagan religions. Ephesians 5:21 says "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."I can understand a writer who doesn't want to rock the cultural boat too much, so to speak.I agree that it is inappropriate for churches today. It was meant for an ancient audience. In it's time it was a step up apparently, but today it is a step backwards as some use it.It sounds as though Christianity would have died out if women hadn't embraced it. IMO, gender roles are always going to be a point of contention for those who need to dominate with or without religion. A battle through the ages. Gender Roles in ChristianityIn reality, I don't see that Ephesians 5:22 adversely impacted women in the gender battle. If it had, I would think women would have rejected Christianity instead of embracing it.Those that abused these verses for their own purposes, seem to be the exception and not the rule.Edited by purpledawn, : Added link for "The Rise of Christianity"

You are welcome to your opinion. I think your opinion is incongruent with modern morals. Why should you ever be capable of using the word "Christian" to refer to the word "master" and have ANY credibility in this discussion? I would hope, that the moment you become a Christian, you would cease to be anybody's master. Oh I agree! Paul's true message is not intended to improve the world. Paul thinks that the woes of the world are incurable. The problem is that most Christians don't really understand that and they use verses like Ephesians 5 over the years to justify misogyny and slavery for their worldly purpose. If this was not God's intent, we can be sure that he COULD have said things in a way that we people didn't continue to erroneously enslave our fellow men and treat women as subordinate. It would have been as simple as not saying the things that were said!

I really don't think that is true. It think the words have an intent and our purpose for studying them it to attempt to discover that intent. I think that the FULL quote from Peter II speaks exactly to that which why I thought it was ironic that you choose that quote.You said specifically in the post I responded to that the situation he describes is "balanced" and: I am not sure if you consider your other quotes from Paul as adequately responding to the fact that there is nothing balanced at all. Nothing in the other quotes speaks to that point at all. Ephesians 5 is retrenching the existing IMBALANCE that existed at the time. Paul is essentially saying, "accept the imbalance and look to different things." I cannot possibly fathom how you can interpret those words in a different way. Its pleasing to God for slaves to obey their slave masters? It is pleasing to God for slave masters to continue to have slaves as long as they are "nice" to them?Thankfully the world has for the most part moved beyond these backwards sensibilities. Painfully and slowly it has moved on. But it has done so in spite of, and against the push back from, those who have used the words from Paul among other as justification.

The New Testament teaches the highest morality on earth.You cannot get any higher morality then denying yourself, dying to self and allowing the Spirit of Jesus Christ to transform your soul. For this reason many, men and women, shudder at the high demand of Christ's words - "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens." (Matt. 5:20)

​

You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48) We may think today of the scribes and Pharisees as villians of the NT. Actually Christ was talking about the people who were highly regarded as being the most moral, upstanding, straight, and ethical.
That is one reason they hated Jesus so much. He exposed their hypocrisy and then told the crowd that entering into the kingdom of God required much more genuine reality.Verses like Matt. 5:20 and 5:48 are just a small sample Jesus teaching in Matthew. The morality taught by Christ in Matthew is really a discription of Jesus Christ of Himself. And without Christ coming into us and transforming us we cannot qualify for the millennial kingdom which occupies this earth immediately following His second coming.To repeat myself again - Paul begins his practical instructions for the disciples to be filled in spirit. Now he says "dissolution" from wine or drunkeness is the goal but overflowing joy in the Holy Spirit.You know people drink wine to dull their senses. People drink wine to make their problems in their souls go away. Paul's seems to realize the the process of being transformed in personality for the building of the church will sometimes ache. Afterall, both husbands and wives, both employer and employee, both master and slave, have to deny themselves, pick up their cross and follow the Lord Jesus - "Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyuone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his soul-life shall lose it; but whoever loses his soul-life for My sake shall find it." (Matt. 16:25,26) The Christian must enjoy Christ. She must enjoy Christ to the point that she can lay down her soul life and live a supernatural life blended with the resurrected Christ. The same is true of every Christian in whatever walk of life they find themselves when they begin to follow Jesus.To achieve this highest level of morality on the earth requires that we receive Christ and allow Him to fill us from our spirit into our soul and personality. It is the same challenge to everyone. There is no shortcut to anyone. The gladiator, the master, the tax collector, the prostitute, the thief -- all may find they want to turn their lives over to Christ.History says so. And fiction exploits the theme - Ben Hur, The Robe, Chariots of Fire and other stories tried to capture this dilimma. A person becomes a Christ lover in any and all kinds of life endeavors.You should not take that fact that Paul realized people from many environments were responding to the preaching of Christ to mean God or Paul was necessarily endorsing those social systems per se.I read it as "Christ, in this situation, can prevail and save also." He looks to the second coming of Christ for the establishment of the kingdom of God on the globe. That is the age of the millennial kingdom and the following new heaven and new earth.In the church age, as an apostle, he establishes these "counter testimonies" if you will. That is the called out ones. That is the EKKLESIA as a kind of counter culture testament of the power of Christ's salvation to liberate, establish a just and righteous "city on a hill" . These communities are the churches. They are the local expression of the universal church.They are undergoing the process of growing Christ within people. That is they are like farms cultivating and growing God within people - "For we [apostles] are God's fellow workers; you are God's cultivated land [or farm], God's building Please notice here in 1 Corithians as well as in Ephesians, the linkage between Divine Growing and Divine Building. For the God to GROW in the Christians is for God to BUILD them up into His building. The building goes up and together as Christ is grown in the disciples, encreasing in them, transforming them, uniting them together in divine love. "You are God's farm, God's building" . And I say for the building of God's house there must be the transformation from denying the old adamic self and enjoying the fullness of Christ.The unbeliever denies himself and has NOTHING left over. The believer has an unsearchably rich Son of God living in him. When she denies herself she is not left with nothing. She is left with an unsearchably rich Person - a Godman. That isolate passages of the Bible have been exploited, I cannot possibly deny. You won that argument.Some of us hear Christ's call to overcome the surrounding degradation. It is not as if He gave the disciples no heads up. He taught us that the tares and the wheat would grow together in the world until the angels separated them at the end of the age.If you say "There are tares out there in the world." I can only respond - "Yes, the Lord warned us." But you and I do not have to be like that. As a Christian I have always asked God to lead me to Christians who would help my faith rather than discourage my faith. He has been faithful in doing that.We can get deeper into the matter of authority and submission perhaps latter. But the Bible steps on somebody's toes somewhere. There is always a verse in the Bible that someone wishes were not there.If I were a Old Testament reader and a modern day slave holder in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, I would hate to hear the kidnapping people was crime to the Israelites punishable by death. I also would hate to hear that runaway slaves were not to be returned to their masters.As a New Testament reader, and a slave holder, Trans Atlantic Slave Trade style I would hate several passages in the New Testament too. The entire book of Philemon I would wish was not in the Bible.So let's try to take in a balanced "holistic" view, so to speak.
Isn't it the case that everyone should be subject to one another in the Christian church in humility - " ... and all of you gird yourselves with humility toward one another, because God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter. 5:5) Much instruction in Ephesians and Colossians also has this tone of mutual humility. Me and my Christian wife have been married for about 36 years. If I did not submit to her many times we would not now be together. And many a time her fellowship and wisdom saved me from serious errors.Also if I did not learn to lay down my life sometimes for the sake of my wife and children, as Christ laid down His life for the church, we could not have such a blessed family life.Lastly, Women's Suffrage movements were largly fueled by Christian's deriving their social activism from the Bible. This is especially in the basics of all men and women being equally created in the image of God.And one of the oldest examples of an ancient man expressing concern for justice for his servants comes from the Bible's oldest book Job. "If I have despised the cause of my servant por my maid when they contended with me, what then will I do when God rises up?

​

And when He who visits me, what will I answer Him? Did not He who made me in the womb make him?

​

And was it not One who fashioned us in the womb?" (Job 31:13-15) This was written about 500 years before Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That is around 2000 BC.Can you show us another example of ancient writing around this time expressing fear before God about mistreating one's male or female servants ? Can you find another ancient writing so succintly expressing the thought that slave and master are both equal as being humans created by God ?Consider these things too. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I appreciate your mention of your own experience.The responsibility (dare I use that word or shall I say demand), on the part of the husband is to love. If I don't love I don't have any peace. I believe my experiences of being filled in spirit impell me this this direction. Love has to find a way. Probably I would lose my fellowship with the Lord if I demanded anything.There are verses in Romans and II Corinthians which say God reconciles us to Himself. I believe this is a reference to God's love fining a way. God has done a lot to woo us to Himself. And we are to love 'as Christ loved the church'. Man needs divine empowerment for this.But, nevertheless, there is a divine order too.

I don't think our morality should include having slaves.I don't think we should look to ancient writing for morality.Even assuming for the moment that the Bible is a better prescription for treating women or slaves than anything that existed 2000 years ago...the point is that it is still backward thinking morality.

I don't think it was with malice of course. But it does have that effect. I think you are making a different point. I don't have any problem accepting that Paul's treatment of women was better than the surrounding culture. But whatever marginal improvement that was over the existing culture, modern culture has surpassed that greatly in spite of those who used these verses in the Bible to hold it back.I think there is a divide between someone like you and others. Some see Ephesians more for what it is, the opinions of a pious Christian cultured by his surroundings, informing us about opinions of the time. Others see Ephesians as the holy word of God delivered through his divinely inspired apostle who's scripture shall ring true and endure until the end of days.I don't have a problem with the former.

I agree. However, don't we have to take the emotionally charged word SLAVE and ascertain exactly what is being talked about?Indentured servitude is an old institution in which people sold themselves into employment to pay off a debt. It was not ideal. It was not always a picnic. And indentured servitude in American history could be a hell.Now kidnapping to make slaves, both the Old and New Testament condemn. Kidnapping is one of the acts of lawlessnes which Paul condemns -

"And know this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for ungodly and sinners,

​

for the unholy and profane,
for those who strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers,
for murderers,
for fornicators,
for homosexuals,
KIDNAPPERS,
liars,
perjurers,
and whatever other thing that is opposed to healthy teaching according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted." (1 Timothy 1:9-11 my emphasis) Wouldn't you agree that the Apostle Paul counts "kidnapping" with many other offensive evils as opposed to the healthy teaching of the Gospel entrusted to Paul ?Paul probably had in his mind the death penalty commanded against kidnappers in the theocratic Old Testament Israel.

quote:

---

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exo. 21:16)

​

"If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then the thief shall die, so you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 24:7)

---

The prohibition NT (1 Tim. 1:10) and OT (Exo. 21:16) on kidnapping is ignored or a lost point any many readers. The English word "slave" in envokes in me the repulsive antebellum Sourthern Slavery that my African ancestors endured.When I read "servant" or "slave" in the Bible it is important for me not to be governed by a knee-jerk reaction but to ascertain what is being talked about.The 21rst Century man may be very proud that slavery has been largely eradicated in modern cultures, due of course to a large degree on Abolitionists likes the Quakers, the Mennonites, and the Methodists. And some may see the word slave in the New Testament used in such a way as to give the appearance of God's tolerance or endorcement of the evil antibellum kidnapping and slavery most familiar to the modern mind.I think the passages that Richh refered to were enough to get a fuller picture of Paul's word to those found in the slavery of the Roman Empire who became brothers in Christ. In the New Testament God is taking men and women and endowing them with the divine nature - " ... He has granted to us precious and exceedingly great promises that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature ..." ( 2 Peter 1:4a) In a very real special sense God is making followers of Christ God in life and nature but not in His Godhead. "Partakers of the divine nature" is a very very high calling. I think it exceeds any honor that the world can bestow.So we preach that God is more than taking the oppressed women to be liberated. He is taking them to be partakers of the divine nature - to be God in life and nature in His communicable attributes.That is not simply "admires" of the divine nature.
That is not merely "observers" of the divine nature.
That is not only "spectators" of the divine nature.
That is PARTAKERS of this divine nature.
That is PARTICIPANTS in God's nature.This is beyond only being rescued or liberated by God. This is being a partaker of God as a son of God. This is very high and honorable. And it is wrought into man from the inside out.The in working process begins as soon as one receives Christ. And at that time the person may be in any manner of worldly societal situation, including the legalized Roman slavery.I think what you underestimate is the radical nature of Christ's salvation. I mean radical in the sense of going to the root of man's problem.I am a black man. My ancestors were African slaves. I think I know something about the evils of slavery. Yet I have known many freed black men and women who are still slaves within. They need a deeper freeing along with a outward institutional liberation.I'm for both. But for a space of history I am glad that God demonstrated that Christ could empower and uphold people in such an evil system. He would not be much of Savior if He could not empower the gladiator in his bondage, or the slave in his bondage, or the soldier in his kind of bondage. His life had to be demonstrated as all fitting and able to flourish in any kind of negative environment.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't think it was with malice of course. But it does have that effect.

---

The point is, it didn't in his time. Blaming the author for what later men do is incorrect. Note that the author says wives are to submit to their husbands, not just any man.The instruction to husbands was probably a great help for women in a time when they were property and didn't get to choose their mate.

quote:

---

Others see Ephesians as the holy word of God delivered through his divinely inspired apostle who's scripture shall ring true and endure until the end of days.

---

That is their mistake, not the author's. How can one help someone see their error by falsely blaming the author?From what I've read, the Protestant Reformation was detrimental to the status of women. The Protestant Reformation and WomenThe Reformation saw no need for convents. Apparently Luther felt that women just needed to stay home and have babies. I agree that clergy should update and make it clear that in today's society, in the US at least, women are no longer property and the words of the Ephesians' author should be understood as mutual love and respect between spouses.They have no problem equating the slave obey master to employee obey employer. (I know slavery is different than employment.) The point is they updated the message to fit the current time and they should do the same concerning women.IMO, men who need to oppress women will do so by whatever means available. Why Men Oppress Women

Philemon is really a continuation of Colossians. Paul's vision of "the new man" is a new humanity where "there cannot be slave, freeman" - "And having put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him Who created him; where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barabarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, but Christ is all and in all." (Col. 3:10,11) In Colossians 4 we see the fellowship within this new man. A slave and a freeman (in the eyes of the world in which it was legal to own a bondservant) are in the Christian church of equal status.Verse 9 speaks of Onesimus who we see in the book of Philemon was the runaway slave. But in reading Colossians you do not detect that -

Colossians 4:9 - " ... Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you." This means that Onesimus is one of the Christian brothers in the church in Colossi. Paul did not refer to Onesimus as "Philemon's slave" but as a faithful and beloved brother.Also mentioned in Colossians for is the physical child of Philemon, Archippus -

4:17 - "And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which you have recieved in the Lord, that you fulfill it." How do I know Archippus is a son of Philemon the slave master of Onesimus? I strongly suspect so because Archippus is mentioned as belonging to the household of Philemon - Philemon 1,2 - "Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy the brother, to Philemon our beloved and fellow worker and to Apphia the sister and to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church, which is in your house ..."
Archippus in Easton's Bible Dictionary master of the horse, a "fellow-soldier" of Paul's (Philemon 1:2), whom he exhorts to renewed activity (Col. 4:17). He was a member of Philemon's family, probably his son.
Archippus - Bible HistorySo we see that the son of Philemon, Archippus, Onesimus the runaway slave of the legalized slavery and Philemon were of equal status in the "new man" - the Christian church-============================
Compare:Slave master -
"Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker" (Philemon 1:1) Runaway slave -

"Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you ..."( Col. 4:9) Physical son of slave master -

"Archippus our fellow soldier" (Col. 1:2) W also could mention Aphia the sister (Philemon 2)
=======================================
The social rank is put aside. Paul pointedly emphasizes that Philemon is now above a slave, but a beloved brother. Furthermore Philemon is as much an associate co-worker with the apostle as his other fellow workers.Philemon is a book which especially shows us the equality in eternal life and divine love of all the members in the Body of Christ. The distinction of social rank and status among the believers is nullified not by an outward legal act, but by an inward changed of constitution. Ranks have been abolished because the believers have been constituted of Christ's Spirit and His life.In the legalized master / bondservant custom of ancient Rome Philemon was a master and was free, and Onesimus was a slave and was not free. But according to the inner constitution, both were the same. The divine birth makes all believers in Christ in that age and in any age of world history of equal status in the "one new man" with no discrimination between free and bond.

It doesn't really matter what KIND of slavery you are talking about. People as property or people as debt still makes the message, that slave masters should stop malice toward their slaves, completely incongruent with the message from Jesus and the early Apostles in Acts that the rich should sell their property and share their resources. This would include presumably freeing your slaves regardless if it was physical bondage or debt bondage.The value of their debt owed to the master would BETTER be spent working on the great commission. Keeping a slave after becoming a Christian is very similar to the husband and wife who kept back a portion of their land in Acts.The rest of your post is a tangent that I dont' care to get into. I am sorry. I don't feel like playing the equivocation game in order to rescue Paul here.

I am not blaming the "someguy" who wrote Ephesians. Obviously the blame for the persecution lies at the feet of the people who used it for those ends.What I am trying to say, is that on the issue of the inspiration of this text, the fact that it is both of questionable origins and of questionable ENDURING morals, that it should be rejected. It should hold nothing more than a historical curiosity of what we have advanced beyond.Perhaps it is even notable as a valid and important step along that way as you seem to be suggesting. We today look back at the inability of women to vote as barbarism in comparision to modern equality issues. "Paul" may have been a revolutionary in terms of women's rights in his time. But this advice does not apply today and the only beef I have is with people who try to claim that it does due to magical thinking. That doesn't seem to be your positions so it seems we are arguing over superficialities.