Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but I believe much suffering has been cause over the years by people taking a verse here and a verse there out of context as it suits them.II Peter 1:20 says, One application of that is that all scripture must be taken in the light of the whole. The section in Ephesians 5 has these sections: If the section is taken as a whole, it is very balanced. I don't think, or at least I'd hope, that you would not deprecate the section as a whole. There are requirements for all parties. If all these injunctions are kept, there will be a sweet harmony among all parties with the rights of all respected and the needs of all met.By the way, this is in perfect harmony with what Paul wrote in Romans 13:1Edited by Richh, : More material

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

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.

Do you actually reject the entire section? Should not children obey their parents (even if you leave off 'in the Lord')? And should fathers exasperate their children? Do you actually reject the entire section?Do you believe there is a divine order? Paul does: If some abuse or misuse their position, God does not condone that. In fact that provokes His wrath: But I think it is true that Paul was not a social activist. He plainly stated his calling in a number of places, and that vocation (social activist) was not on the list. He had a higher calling. For example: Yet we have verses like these in Ephesians and Galatians that show God's life in man issuing in good works: It is not God’s order but man’s behavior within what God ordained that is evil.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

I don't think anyone replied to this, but I agree. This is the consistent word of the New Testament, starting with John the Baptist: I think the last 3 chanpters of Ephesians are somewhat the practical application of Eph 2:8-10: I like Darby's translation of this verse - maybe because I am more used to translations like this. The good works are not just any good works, but good works prepared by God for us, and that we might walk in them. There should be the presence of God, the element of God in these good works.

Every word is significant in Ephesians 2:8-10, but the phrase 'For we are his workmanship' is pregnant with meaning. The word translated 'workmanship' or 'act' in the NIV is he Greek poiema. One lexicon I use has these definitions: Something made, a work, workpiece, workmanship. The Recovery Version translation has the word 'masterpiece' in verse 10, For we are His masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared forehand in order that we would walk in them.God is still working! He was working in the Ephesians and in Paul and He is still working today. The works of God did not end with creation. Let me mention a few other verses. The building of the city, the building of the whole building and the building of the church are all taking place today. Paul's word in chapters 4 - 6 is for this building. I believe those words build up the church in Ephesus and they also build us up.I remember how surprised I was when I learned that God is still working today. I had come into contact with a missionary organization to whom God had given a ship (to use for evangelism) in answer to prayer.But it is closer to home than even things like this. Again I will quote the Recovery Version translation for the verses in Eph 4,When God works in my heart lowliness or meekness or long-suffering (or humility, gentleness and patience as translated in the NIV) I believe this is part of God's building - it counts. And it also contributes to the dwelling place of God mentioned in 2:22. This building is both individual and corporate. God is working on us individually and on the church corporate to make it and us His workpiece, His masterpiece. I think this is the thought of Ephesians 1 - 3 and some of the details and application are covered in chapters 4 - 6.

I'll need to take some of these bit by bit as I have some time contraints, but, yes, God is saving His wrath. There are many verses that confirm this. For example, Romans 2:5 uses those exact words. Ecclesiastes also alludes to this. The coming judgment of God is mentioned throughout the New Testament. There will be judgments prior to the second advent of Christ, judgements at His return and a final judgement after the millenial kingdom. Death is not the end.

I am somewhat replying to two posts. I think the verses below are to the point. Are you objecting to oppression (so easily accompanying slavery in the past) or involuntary servitude? Oppression does not require slavery to express itself and oppression is still taking place today in our environment of 'modern morals'. The abolition of slavery has not solved the worlds problems is this regard. Just like Prohibition did not solve the problem of substance abuse. I guess all people (except the oppressors) generally condemn oppression.And there are many ways in which people are in involuntary servitude. I have to work for a living when many times I can think of other things I'd rather be doing. I think mankind as a whole is subject to involuntary servitude in this way. Genesis 3 says God imposed this upon us after the fall.I think the first verse below shows the Christian 'career path'. It goes from something not specified --> servant --> slave. I confess I am not sure where I am on this 'career path', but I think about it. Christ Himself preached here what He practiced, as the second verses show. The third verse shows that Paul was advanced in this 'career path'. The fourth section shows that there is something worse than slavery - not keeping God's commandments*.To free one's slaves is indeed a sign of moral quality, but one mandated to free them may retain the same oppressive attitudes entertained during the slave ownership times. This is evident in the resurgence of 'Jim Crow' laws in the south after reconstruction ended and the difficult progress of the civil rights movement. Aren't the attitudes the real issue? I am not giving up on 'harmony' and 'balance'. Not yet... And I am sure I have not addressed all of your contentions either.P.S. * Yes PD - God has commandments. The difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant is more a question of how, not what. How, as Phat says, is ‘by the Spirit.’Edited by Richh, : No reason given.Edited by Richh, : Corrected 'abolition' to 'Prohibition' in one place.

But these have everything to do with master - and with my contention that the behavior one's position is more important to the final outcome than the position occupied. How different is a CEO, a President or a general different from a slaveholder? They are all masters with considerable power over human beings. There are good masters and bad masters. Should all masters abdicate then?The balance I spoke of is that masters are to be good, considerate masters and bondslaves are to be good, diligent bondsalves. The lists of vices are largely the same in Galatians, Romans and I Timothy. I don't see much change in Paul's attitude here. Are these included in the 'modern' list of what is not morally right? I think many are omitted. Is that an improvement? If you read all the correspondence over many years of someone who had a position of responsibility, a fruitful mind and a forceful personality, I think you might find the same evolution of thought and differences in content, subject matter, and emphasis, etc., that you find in Paul's epistles.As far as 'maintaining earthly order', you impute different motives to Paul than I do, and I think my quotes show this too. His view was to the kingdom of God - currently a hidden, heavenly kingdom and later a visible earthly kingdom but ultimately an eternal kingdom. If we differ on our assessment of Paul's motives and goals, so be it.

I find it hard to apply these words to the epistle to the Ephesians. I noticed a list of some of the leading words in Ephesians in an introduction to the book:1. Grace - used 13 times
2. Spiritual and spirit - used 13 times
3. Heavenlies - used 13 times
4. Glory - used 9 times
5. Mystery - used 6 times.I don't know of any 'purely human writing' where these are leading words. When I read a statement like that I get the feeling that the person never read the book. It is hard to classify something like that 'purely human' unless the same classification applies to everything writted in any book.The subject of the book is heavenly things. I quote examples of each word.

I guess then it is not ok to be a slave in an earthly sense, but only in reality, in a spiritual sense. However, it is never ok to be a master. In a way that doesn't seem entirely self-consistent.So one difference between you and I is that you say:1. Nothing is morally worse than being a master, owning another man, and nothing that is happening today is comparable to that. You say this is a consummate evil and that fact that that does not happen overtly today means that we are morally superior to those of Paul's day.I say (with Paul) that:1. There are some things worse than being a master, for example, being a evil master, and some things worse than being a slave, for example, being an evil slave.I also say that there are things going on today that are comparable in many ways to the worst evils manifested in the slave culture in America in the last century. It does not take 'legalized slavery' to give manifestation to evil. Evil is evil whenever and wherever it is manifested. And there are equivalent relationships today where some exploit and some are exploited.Is not exploitation the thing that should be exposed and judged? Exploitation on one side and (I don't know how to term the other thing but I'll call it) 'lack of faithful service' on the other side. These are moral issues that span all ages.

I would love to answer this question in detail. I did quote 7 verses in the previous post. I'd like to comment on each one in that sample of 7 verses or on all 54 verses, but I'm not sure you are asking for that. But that is how to ascertain the value of a book. So, I guess it is not just the words, but also the sentences, that are important. The Gospel of Truth, the Gnostic writing that you mentioned, has a different theology than the New Testament. The different theology is the reason Gnosticism has been labeled a heresy. Neither of us were there when the writer penned the epistle. I believe the words, the sentences, the high revelation, the testimony of church history, the other writings of Paul, the book of Acts are all among the evidences as to the authorship of this book. I find enough evidence for my faith.Edited by Richh, : Change the title

Paul didn't condemn slavery in Philemon. He spent a lot of words asking Philemon to receive Onesimus (as per the synopsis below from Fausset's Bible Dictionary and the shot epistle itself). It is not clear to me that he even asked Philemon to free him. Onesimus is a slave name that means 'profitable'. Paul indicates his hope that Onesimus would 'live up to his name' and be profitable both the Philemon and to Paul himself. It seems if Paul were so violently opposed to slavery he might have recommended a new name. It also appears that you don't set much store by Paul's words in I Cor.

I will use Phat's original quote on this section with a section bolded by me. This one new man here seems to be something entirely corporate and the NIV and NASB translate it as 'one new man'. But in Ephesians 4 the context begins with references about our 'manner of life' goes on at the end to 'speaking truthfully to' our neighbor. These seem to be about our practices and not about a corporate entity. Therefore I think some translators translate the Greek work for man here into self. Colossians seems to begin with things relating to our practices and end with something manifestly corporate. I will add the Darby version of Colossians because I like it better. Romans mentions 'our old man' and this seems to be individual. The NIV and NASB translate it to self here too. Surely it is a matter of critical importance - the question of which 'man' we are living in - both for a Christian and for an unbeliever. The wrath of God comesHow do the living of a person and the 'entity' of the one new man intersect?Edited by Richh, : Corrected a referenceEdited by Richh, : Fixed a typo

If someone is hypothesizing that Ephesians is not what it purports to be, I wonder if 'conclusion' is not more reasonable hypothesis than 'introduction'. The reason I say this is because it seems to me that the revelation in Ephesians is higher than the revelation Paul's other epistles on things like the will of God and the aspects of the church. Why would someone put some superior as an introduction to a set of epistles that have have less revelation on certain topics.I found the following quote in Marvin Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament. He in turn quotes Dean Alford in his introduction to this epistle. I agree with his assessment. Also time would be available to develop such a summarizing statement during the period of reduced activity which Paul's imprisonment imposed on him.Edited by Richh, : Fixed a typo