|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Have You Ever Read Ephesians? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
You aren't dealing with the contradiction AND you aren't dealing with the immorality. I don't think Paul contradicts himself. I don't believe he was immoral either, but that is not my subject here and I have said quite a bit about that previously. Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians look like they were all written about the same time based on the notices at the end of each. Also Colossians and Ephesians are clearly sister books - they complement each other and amplify each other. I think Paul's attitude in each was the same. The epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon were both sent to the church in Colossae where Philemon lived and whence Onesimus fled and was returning. Paul gives the same charge in Colossians regarding slaves and masters as he give in Ephesians. But since we are talking about masters here...
Colossians 4:1 Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. What do the words "but more than a slave, a beloved brother" mean to you. I contend that slave and brother are not mutually exclusive. That is in essence what Paul says in the verses in Galatians below. I don't see how you can say Paul's instruction for slaves has no bearing on his instruction for masters. One needs the other; otherwise there is no issue. Maybe you think Paul's instruction to slaves was solely because (as you say) the anticipation of the immenent return of the Lord made it not worth doing anything about.
Paul really believes the whole, "this generation shall not pass away" stuff. Too bad he was disappointed. You infer Paul's motive for writing I Cor 7. Paul did not state his motive and it can equally be taken as a general 'rule of action'. Your inference may be wrong. What in this section gives you the idea that this is a temporary injunction? It sounds like a general rule to me. 1 Corinthians 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised... ALso, Paul maintains the same position on what behavior is fitting for Christian slaves in Galatians, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Titus and I Timothy - see several quotes below. Some Bible students consider Galatians to be one of Paul's earliest epistles. His position in Galatians is probably most unique. He says that there is a place where the human distinction between slave and free man does not exist. The place is "in Christ Jesus". The Recovery version gives the subject of Philemon as "An Illustration of the Believers’ Equal Status in the New Man." That is an enlightened assessment of the significance of this epistle.
Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Titus 2:9 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.
I Timothy 6:1 As many as are slaves under the yoke should regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, lest the name of God and our teaching be blasphemed.
Perhaps, as with you and Jaywill, we must agree to disagree.6:2 And those who have believing masters should not despise them, because they are brothers; but rather they should serve them, because those who recompense them for the kindly service received are believers and beloved. These things teach and exhort. Edited by Richh, : Minor additions Edited by Richh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
Richh, how would you distinguish the difference between all things being headed up "in Christ" from the believers being "in Christ"?
First let me say I will begin an answer but I'm not sure how completely I can answer this. Compare for example these two "in Christ" passages: 1.) "But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have become near in the blood of Christ." (Eph. 2:13)2.) "Unto the fullness of the economy of the times, to head up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and things on the earth, in Him." (Eph. 1:10) Phrases like 'in Christ' and 'through Christ' are used extensively in Paul's epistles. I'll have to see if I can do a frequency chart in my Bible tool. I haven't tried this, but I believe it can do this. I think it would be useful to look at. To start, the word anakephalaiosasthai in Greek, translated 'to head up', has the prefix 'ana', meaning 'again'. I think that is sweet. At one time all things were all 'headed up' in Christ, then something happened in the universe and things got out of whack, but eventually all things in the heavens and on the earth will again be 'headed up' in Christ. Paul notes this to be the destination - 'Unto the economy of the fullness of the times', God's destination I found the following quote from the Weymouth translation in the 26 Translation NT. I think it actually captures some of the meanings of this passage that are hard to understand in other translations. It also has the idea of 'restoring' implied by the prefix 'ava'. For a government of the world when the times are ripe for it - the purpose of which He cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ...
It is hard to translate the Greek word which is translated 'economy'. Economy is actually a transliteration of the Greek word. 'Government' seems reasonable here in Weymouth's translation. I like Westcott's note:
The exact meaning which it (oikonomiav) conveys appears to be in each case (Lk 16:2; I Cor 9:17; Col 1:25; I Tim 1:4; Eph 3:2,9) that of a distribution of divine treasures, which have been committed to chosen representatives, that they may be faithfully administrated by them...The act of dispensation passes naturally into the scheme of dispensation.
I also like going into passages like this word by word. The phrase 'fullness of the times' is interesting. It is different from 'the fullness of time' in Gal 4:4. I will forego a comment on that here. There are two occurrences of 'economy' the noun in Ephesians. The first is in Eph 1:10 and the second is:
Eph3:9 And to enlighten all that they may see what the economy of the mystery is, which throughout the ages has been chidden in God, who created all things,
This verse speaks of 'the economy of the mystery' not of 'the economy of the fullness of the times'. I believe this is the present dispensation, distribution and administration of the 'divine treasures'. I believe this economy takes place in Christ. See my post EvC Forum: Have You Ever Read Ephesians?. The result, the issue of 'the economy of the mystery' for us today is that we are gradually 'headed up in Christ' experientially, and more and more in reality. This would take a lot more space to cover. And 'in Christ' does not end. Perhaps this is part of 'the economy of the fullness of the times'.
Ephesians2:7 That He might display in the ages to come the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Edited by Richh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
Sorry- I'm not near my computer today. Maybe I'll put quotes in later. But regarding your comments on Galatians, I wanted to mention the following, also in Colossians, where Paul uses almost the same words, or perhaps even stronger than in Galatians. But a few verses later he gives the exhortations to masters and slaves. That shows that the slaves and masters still exist but have an equal status in the new man. The same thing is implied in I Cor 7: -'the slave is the Lord's freeman'.
If Colossians is a forgery, it is a masterful one, well done, as good as the original.
Col.3:8 But now, you also, put away all these things: wrath, anger, malice, blasphemy, afoul abusive language out of your mouth.
3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the cold man with his practices 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 3:11 Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
Good to hear from you again (on your topic).
I i don't remember much written on why God allowed Lucifer to fall (although the possibility is inherent in free will), but it does say how or why he fell. I haven't read much about this, so these are my thoughts. But i agree with you in this sense. God is in a long term business. He gives eternal life. I see the tendencies in myself that caused Lucifer to fall. I would like to be eternally immune from such a fall myself. On earth under Satan's temptation, I am (hopefully) developing an abhorence of sin and a love for God and the things of God. There is a verse in Romans that says 'the Lord is making a short work on the earth and cutting it short in righteousness.' It seems in some sense even Satan serves God's purpose. He is not destroyed, cast into the lake of fire, when Christ returns, but only bound 1000 years. But, James speaks of temptation in no uncertain terms and not in a good light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
From what I've read, they don't feel this type of evidence is in Ephesians. That extra personal touch that is Paul. Goodspeed stated in his introduction to Ephesians that the letter provides no definite historical situation that the letter is supposed to address. He feels that Paul clearly divulges under what conditions he wrote his letters and the purpose on his mind.
I don't have any books by Goodspeed so I cannot review his lines of reasoning other than what you mentioned. I had mentioned in a previous post that I do not agree with the lines of reasoning of modern scholars in determining some books are 'authentic' or not. I think they are arbitrary and unjustified. I wanted to produce another quote that echoes the feeling I have regarding Ephesians and Colossians. It is from F. W. Farrar from The Life and Work of St. Paul. The first two sentences deal with the early acceptance of Pauline authorship.
quote:The bold is mine. I guess my comparison to the authorship of the works of the works of Plato in a former post was mentioned by others many years before I was born. I mentioned in another post that if this were written to be an introduction to Paul's epistles, the introduction has more revelation than the epistles it introduces. I believe those who 'tear it apart' have not seen these things. But my main goal here is to show that there are cogent and compelling arguments in favor of Pauline authorship of this Epistle and to make it clear that the case is not closed on the subject. Edited by Richh, : Changed the tile Edited by Richh, : Added a conclusion Edited by Richh, : Corrected the first reason for editing - Changed the title Edited by Richh, : Better 'quoting' Edited by Richh, : Improved reference Edited by Richh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
That's why I provided a link in Message 99. You can read exactly the words I read.
I checked out that link. It went to Wikipedia. I didn't see anything there that looked like a link to his introduction to the NT. Let me know if I missed something.
Why assume that God did not provide any more revelation to Christians after Paul died. New revelation or inspiration needs to happen for religion to adjust to the needs of the people. That's why we have to understand the point of the lesson or argument to the audience of the time.
I think the force of Farrar's argument regarding the writings subsequent to the New Testament writings, especially, those of Paul, is that none were up to the standard of Paul's writing and no one emerged with the same repute as Paul. You may cite the Epistle to the Hebrews as an example of a high quality anonymous Epistle. I don't believe there are any others subsequent to the New Testament writings. Certainly there are no additional books considered canonical.
Case not closed among scholars or this thread? It has already been mentioned that scholars are about equally divided on the issue.
Agreed. I just wanted to list some arguments in favor of Pauline authorship to underline the open nature of the case and to balance what I perceived as an imbalance in arguments in favor of modern skeptical opinion. I'll look again at the commentary on Ignatius. P.S. I like your 'quoting' style and will try to emulate it next time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
I hope Jazzns is not offended if I do not consider you offensive. You bring out some of the exact points that I have mentioned in previous posts - that there are underlying issues and that these issues are still present today whether or not we have an institution of slavery.
Not that I don't condemn the slave trade and the practices of slavery in this country in the past. Kidnapping and inhumane treatment of fellow human beings is wrong at all times and in all places. But I think the same tendencies to racial discrimination and bias exist today that existed 150 years. I call that evil. The Bible calls it sin (and visa versa). It is hard to maintain the balance between labor and 'management', between entitlement programs and a 'work ethic', and things like that. The Bible always advocates care for the fatherless, the widows and the foreigners. There is actually a law of slavery in the Pentateuch where the slave goes free on the seventh (Sabbatical) year. It addresses the case where someone loses everything and must sell himself into service. The service must continue 6 years, but on the seventh the bondslave goes free. I don't know if this was ever practiced in Israel (but it is 'on the books'). Furthermore, sold property of one's portion of the land went back on the 50th year. But the slave might opt to serve the master forever.
Exodus 21:1 Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free without payment to you. 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 21:4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 21:5 But if the servant plainly says, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; 21:6 Then his master shall bring him to God and shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his bear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
A wise Christian friend, a Christian leader, said he disburses church funds 'to the emergency' but not 'to the life style'. I fear some today in America are taking advantage of our generous policy of unemployment benefits. This is not to say we should withhold, but to freeload is wrong. America often errs on the side of generosity and she gives the benefit of the doubt legally. They say you shouldn't talk about religion or politics. I don't consider this either. It is morality. I hope we will have moral men as politicians...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote:I happened to be reading further in Farrar (see post 225), on the Epistle to Philemon, and found this in The Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol 2, p. 480, 481 quote:That made me think maybe I was not the only one who did not see a request for 'manumission' in Paul's works to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus. I checked some verse by verse commentaries on Philemon and could not find one that took Paul's words as a request for release. For example, Alford, Gill, MacArthur (in his study Bible), and Jamieson, Faussett and Brown all do not see a request for freedom in Paul's word's. That does not mean that one does not exist, but it does mean I am not the only one who has this view. I post this as an FYI. Let me quote a little more from page 472:quote:I generally agree with Farrar's statements and certainly with the over tenor of his thoughts. P.S. Pliny wrote an epistle to Sabiniaus on behalf of an offending freedman. Edited by Richh, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote: Regarding Ignatius, Farrar says in a footnote in The Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol 2, p. 480: The Epistle is by no means deficient of external evidence. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Tertulian, and perhaps even Ignatius (ad Eph vi), have either quoted or alluded to it;...
Alford also mentions Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp and Tertulian as 'ancient testimonies to the Apostle Paul having been the author of the Epistle and quotes the passages. He puts Ignatius in a separate section and mentions two recensions, one of which he calls 'the longer recension.' In the first he produces a quote which may allude to Paul's authorship and in the later, the quote undoubtedly imputes the authorship to Paul. I have never read any of 'the fathers' myself. I can give the quotes if you'd like. I checked your reference on textual criticism. It looks pretty informative. But also, regarding the aspect of 'criticism', at some point one needs to 'take' the words, to take it in. If you spend your life 'criticizing' food without eating any, you miss the point of the food (and there are food critics). I have only gradually become aware of the process of textual criticism. But I have been reading and 'taking in' the Bible for many years - since I was 20. Before that I tried to read the Bible but I didn't get much out of it. Then I had an experience where I cried out to God and experienced that he was real. After that I started reading the Bible again and it started speaking to me. That experience was a turning point in my life.
KJV Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote: I agree as noted below that Polycarp's statement cannot be conclusive evidence of authorship but I believe it is circumstantial evidence. I'd like to correct my post in which I mistakenly lumped together two categories in Alford's section on the authorship of Ephesians.
quote: Alford quotes Irenaeus, Polycarp and Tertulian under the description: 2. Further we have testimonies to the Epistle being received as canonical Scripture, and therefore, by implication, of its being regarded as written by him whose name it bears:... Alford quotes Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria under the description: 1. The ancient testimonies to the Apostle Paul having been the author of this Epistle, are the following:... Again I offer to reproduce the quotes, but your quotes above have covered what I would have typed from Alford - both from Ignatius and from Polycarp. The only difference I found was that in Alford and in another book on the writings of the Fathers that I found on my shelf, I found the singular 'epistle' in the quote of Ignatius, not the plural 'epistles'. Alford quotes the same passage you quoted - about 'initiated into the mysteries' - with only minor differences and the same passage from Polycarp about not letting the sun go down on your wrath. I found the first two of the links in your post helpful. I didn't get to the others yet. I agree with your statements that the quotes from Ignatius and Polycarp are not 'conclusive evidence', but perhaps circumstantial evidence.
quote:It is hard to make assumptions about what other people assume. I don't know how to say this in a way that is non-threatening and not self-justifying either. But although I posted that statement in a reply to you and can't deny that I am not concerned about the subject, I don't think I have the right to assume that you haven't eaten. I tried beginning the statement it in a general way, but reverted to colloquial English. Even if I had continued with 'one' instead of 'you', you might have taken my statement personally. I have not read all of your posts, and even if I had, they still may not express the depths of your heart. I accept your statement that you have eaten the food. But I wanted to post that as a general statement. I wanted to post that because there are certain things that are not conducive to my 'eating' and I can comment on those things with authority. I must confess that the conviction that Paul was indeed the author of this Epistle assists my 'eating' of it. And I believe that one's attitude toward the Epistle can even be a pitfall for Bible scholars. Here is another quote from Alford regarding this pitfall from his section on the language and style of Ephesians. This is the beginning of a sub-section but it continues the thought of the section. The New Testament for English Readers, Introduction to Ephesians, Section v., P 51 (Unfortunately, this is only a photo reproduction of the book, not the actual text.)
quote: I think sublime content of this Epsitle is another piece of circumstantial evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
I checked out the link to Goodspeed and will peruse it as I get a time. I did want to reply to one post, but I can't find it. I thought it was yours - about the writer of Ephesians being Greek and quoting from Goodspeed, the following, I believe.
quote:I don't agree with his conclusion here. There is an interplay of the pronouns 'you' and 'we', and words like 'both', etc. in chapters 1 - 3 that clearly indicate to me that the writer (Paul I say...) had two groups in mind - the Jews and the Gentiles, and that he grouped himself with the Jews. I think quotes like the following clinch it that the writer is Jewish. The pronouns would have been different if the writer was speaking as a Gentile. NIV Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote: Let me pose a dilemma: If I cite differences between Ephesians and Paul's other writings, that can't be used as evidence of Pauline authorship, and if I cite similarities between Ephesians and Paul's other writings that can't be used as evidence either. Then is there any evidence that I can cite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
I agree with your sentiments. It is hard to imagine something knowingly and falsely attributed to someone else being of high moral value.
As I have implied in posts above, I do believe that Paul lived and taught the highest morality. Jazzns may not agree, but that is my conviction regarding Paul. The book of Hebrews is a bit different. It was preserved and knowingly transmitted with the author's identity shrouded in secrecy. It is clear from the end of the Epistle that the recipients knew who the author was. I don't think there is any 'falsifying' implied here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote: I'd say something like this. It is likely that there were not many persons in the early Christian church who could have written like Paul or like the Epistle to the Ephesians. If there were others, their other writings and their identity would have been preserved. But since there is nothing that matches Ephesians, who else could have written such an Epistle. Perhaps that is the reason that the Epistle to the Hebrews is assigned to the Apostle Paul too. P.S. I corrected my quote (of myself) from last night...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3769 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote:An amanuesis is not the same as a ghostwriter.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024