Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

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... 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. 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. 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. Perhaps, as with you and Jaywill, we must agree to disagree.Edited by Richh, : Minor additionsEdited by Richh, : No reason given.

First let me say I will begin an answer but I'm not sure how completely I can answer this.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 destinationI 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'. 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: 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: 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'. Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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 Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol 2, p. 483, 484

...Impugners of its authenticity must account for its wide and early acceptance, no less than the difficulty of its forgery. It is a simple fact that the Epistle was accepted as unquestionably Pauline from the days of Ingatius to those of Schleiermacher.

​

...If the arguments against its (Ephesians') Pauline authorship appeared valid, I am aware of no prepossessions which would lead me to struggle against their force, nor would the deepest truths of the Epistle appear to me less profound or sacred from the fact that tradition had erred in assigning its authorship.

​

To the arguments which endeavored to show that the Phaedo had not been written by Plato it was thought almost sufficient to reply -

If not Plato who wrote it, there must be two Platos.

​

Certainly if St. Paul did not write the Epistle to "the Ephesians," there must have been two St. Pauls. Baur speaks contemptuously of such an objection; but can any one seriously believe that a forger capable of producing the Epistle to the Ephesians could have lived an died unheard of among the holy, but otherwise very ordinary, men and mediocre writers who attracted notice in the Church of the first century? It is true that De Wette, and his followers, treat the Epistle de haut en bas as a verbose and colourless reproduction, quite inferior to St. Paul's genuine writings, and marked by poverty of ideas and redundance of words. We can only reply that this is a matter of taste. The colour red makes no impression on the colour-blind; and to some readers this Epistle has seemed as litttle colourless as is the body of heaven in its clearness. Chrysostom - no bad judge surely of style and rhetoric - spoke of the lofty sublimity of its sentiments. Theophylact dwells on the same characteristics as suitable to the Ephesians. Grotius says St. Paul here equals the sublimity of his thoughts with words more sublime than any human tongue has ever uttered. Luther reckoned it among the noblest books of the New Testament. Witsius calls it a divine Epistle glowing with the flame of Christian love, and the splendour of holy light, and flowing with fountains of living water. Coleridge said of it, "In this, the divinest composition of man, is every doctrine of Christianity: first those doctrines peculiar to Christianly; and secondly, those precepts common to natural religion." Lastly, Alford calls it "the grandest and most heavenly work of one whose very imagination is peopled with things in the heavens, and even his fancy rapt into the visions of God."

---

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 tileEdited by Richh, : Added a conclusionEdited by Richh, : Corrected the first reason for editing - Changed the titleEdited by Richh, : Better 'quoting'Edited by Richh, : Improved referenceEdited by Richh, : No reason given.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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...

quote:

---

It is not clear to me that he even asked Philemon to free him.

​

What? Really?

​

Paul in Philemon writes:
Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother

​

What do the words "no longer a slave" mean to you?

---

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:

---

What was the issue of St. Paul's letter we are not told, but we may feel quite sure that the confidence of one who was so skillful a reader of human character was not misplaced; that Philemon received his slave as kindly as Sabiniaus received his freedman; that he forgave him, and not merely took him into favour, but did what St. Paul does not ask, but evidently desired, namely, set him free.

---

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:

---

From the very nature of the Christian Church - from the fact that it was "a kingdom not of this world" - it could not be revolutionary. It was never meant to prevail by physical violence, or to be promulgated by the sword. It was the revelation of eternal principles, the elaboration of practical details. It did not interfere, or attempt to interfere, with the established order. Had it done so it must have perished in the storm of excitement which would have inevitably been raised. In revealing truth, in protesting against crime, it insured its own ultimate yet silent victory. It knew that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. It was loyal to the powers that be. It raised no voice, and refused no tribute even to a Gaius or a Nero. It did not denounce slavery, and preached no fatal and futile servile war. It did not inflame its Onesimi to play the parts of an Eunus or an Artemio. Yet it inspired a sense of freedom which has been in all ages the most invincible foe to tyranny, and it proclaimed a divine equality and brotherhood, which while it left untouched the ordinary social distinctions, left slavery impossible to the enlightened Christian lands.

---

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.

quote:

---

Find any support for the idea that Ignatius supported Paul's authorship of Ephesians?

---

Regarding Ignatius, Farrar says in a footnote in The Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol 2, p. 480: 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.

quote:

---

Given the timeframe of Polycarp's writing it is possible that he was influenced by Ephesians and quoted one line from it; but it isn't evidence of who wrote the letter.

---

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 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.

---

Alford quotes Irenaeus, Polycarp and Tertulian under the description: Alford quotes Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria under the description: 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:

---

You're making an assumption that I haven't eaten the food because my view is different than yours. I've provided support from Bible Scholars, not religion free scholars. Edgar Goodspeed is also one who has tasted the food.

---

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:

---

4. And as the wonderful effect of the Spirit of inspiration on the mind of man is nowhere in Scripture more evident that in this Epistle, so, to discern those things of the Spirit, is the spiritual mind here more than any required. We may shew this by reference to De Wette, one of the ablest of Commentators. I have mentioned above, pp i.6, that he approaches this Epistle with an unfortunate and unworthy prejudgment of its spuriousness. He never thinks of applying to it that humble laborious endeavor which rendered his commentary on the Romans among the most valuable in existence. It is not too much to say, that on this account he has missed almost every point in the Epistle: that his Handbuch, in this par of it, is hardly better than works of third-rate or fourth-rate men: just for the reason - that he has never come to it with any view of learning from it, but with the averted eyes of a prejudiced man. Take, as a contrast, the two laborious volumes of Steir. Here, I would not deny, we have the opposite course carried to the extreme: but with all Steir’s faults of too minute classification, - of wearisome length in exegesis, - of unwillingness to lose, and attempts to combine, every divergent sense of the same passage, - we have the precious and most necessary endowment of spiritual discernment, - acquaintance with the analogy of the faith. And in consequence, the acquisition to the Church of Christ from his minute dissection of this Epistle has been most valuable; and sets future students, with regard to it, on higher spiritual ground that they ever occupied before.

---

I think sublime content of this Epsitle is another piece of circumstantial evidence.

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:

---

5. The church has become Greek; for the whole body of Christians addressed in 1:1 were once physically heathen, 2:2, 11. There is no room for any Jewish Christianity in the picture.

​

6. The writer himself had been in the same condition, 2:3, and hence is a gentile Christian. Paul scrupulously distinguished between the sins of the Jews and the grosser ones of the heathen, Romans, chapters 1, 2. It is these grosser ones which the writer now confesses for himself and his readers. Both he and they are Greek; compare II Cor. 11:22; Gal. 2:15; Phil. 3:4.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

​

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.

​

The early church father's wrote many well written letters. The assumption that no one could write better than Paul or as good as Paul is a weak argument.

---

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?

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.

quote:

---

I think the sublime content of this Epistle is another piece of circumstantial evidence.

​

How is that evidence for Paul?

---

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...

quote:

---

Amanuensis ... a person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another; secretary.

---

An amanuesis is not the same as a ghostwriter.