Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/18/2003 7:43 AM (GMT -6)

Hello,

In my opinion, the KJV distorts Ephesians 1:12-13 beyond recognition ("... we ... first trusted ... ye also trusted ..."), allowing proponents of remnant theology to cite this distorted rendering in support of their view that Paul emphasizes the identity of the flesh in his Gospel, which is the opposite of what Paul plainly, explicitly and repeatedly teaches throughout his epistles. Paul’s teaching that the flesh doesn’t matter is a fundamental tenet of his Gospel. Paul no more says “we” and “you also” in Ephesians 1:11-13 than he says “we” and “we also” in 1:7-11, or than he says “every building” and “you also” in 2:21-22. Rather, Paul says “in whom” (en w) and “in whom also” (en w kai) in 1:7-13 and 2:21-22, Paul’s doctrinal position regarding the entire Church (we) being this: “IN WHOM WE have redemption … IN WHOM ALSO WE were made a heritage … IN WHOM ALSO WE, having heard … the Gospel of OUR salvation, IN WHOM ALSO having believed, were sealed with the Holy Spirit … IN WHOM EVERY BUILDING (WE) … is growing into a holy temple … IN WHOM ALSO WE are being built together into a habitation of God ….” Since “we” refers to the entire Church and “you” refers to the portion of the Church to whom Paul is writing the epistle, “you” being included in “we,” Paul is able to insert “you” where he would normally say “we” in statements that describe what is true of the entire Church in order to emphasize the Ephesians’ membership in the Church, which is what I think Paul does in verses 1:13 and 2:22 (as well as in verses 2:5 and 2:8). Therefore, Paul says this: “IN WHOM WE have redemption … IN WHOM ALSO WE were made a heritage … IN WHOM ALSO YOU, having heard … the Gospel of YOUR salvation, IN WHOM ALSO having believed, were sealed with the Holy Spirit … IN WHOM EVERY BUILDING (WE) … is growing into a holy temple … IN WHOM ALSO YOU are being built together into a habitation of God ….” In verse 1:12, Paul says this regarding the entire Church: “so that we [the entire Church] would be to the praise of His glory, having before hoped in Christ.” Paul is not saying that one group of believers hopes in Christ before another group of believers hopes in Him. Rather, he is saying that “we” (the entire Church) hope in Christ before and until we are to the praise of God’s glory, which he says in verse 1:14 occurs at the redemption (the resurrection): “until the redemption [the resurrection] of the possession [the entire Church], to the praise of His glory.” Paul consistently teaches this throughout his epistles. In Romans 5:1-2, Paul says that we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. In Romans 8:16-25, Paul says that we wait for the redemption of the body (the resurrection), hoping for what we do not yet see and patiently waiting for it. In Romans 9:23-24, Paul says that God’s purpose is to make known the riches of His glory on us, having before ordained us to glory. In 1 Corinthians 15:19-23, Paul says that we hope in Christ until the resurrection. In Ephesians 1:11-14, Paul says that we were made a heritage in Christ so that we, having before hoped in Christ, would be to the praise of God’s glory at the redemption, we having hoped in Christ before and until the redemption (the resurrection).

Please proceed to part two.

Edited by - Jim on 01/18/2003 12:50:29 PM

Edited by - Jim on 01/18/2003 1:01:41 PM

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/18/2003 7:44 AM (GMT -6)

Part Two

In Ephesians 1:18, Paul speaks of the hope of God’s calling and the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints. In Ephesians 4:4, Paul says that there is one body, one Spirit and one hope of our calling. In Colossians 1:22-23, Paul says that we will be presented holy and without blemish if we do not abandon the hope of the Gospel. In Colossians 1:27, Paul says that Christ in us is our hope of glory. When Paul wishes to differentiate two mutually exclusive categories of believers, he does not use first person (we) and second person (you) to do so. Rather, he uses second person (you) and third person (them) to do so, reserving first person (we) for reference to the entire Church, as in Ephesians 2:17-18: "and He came and preached peace to YOU that were far and peace to THEM that were near; for through Him WE both have access to the Father in one Spirit."

Sincerely,
Jim

Edited by - Jim on 01/18/2003 12:53:49 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/19/2003 12:08 PM (GMT -6)

Hello Jim, I'm afraid I'm not clear on the theology you are arguing against so forcefully. Could you flesh out what this "remnant theology" is?

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/19/2003 4:01 PM (GMT -6)

Dear GregBoyd,

GregBoyd:

Could you flesh out what this "remnant theology" is?

Jim:

I’m referring to the view that Paul emphasized the flesh in his doctrine, teaching that the identity of the flesh (whether one is outwardly Jewish or Gentile) mattered in God’s eyes (and in Paul’s) in the New Covenant, so much so that Paul conceived of the Church not as “we” the saints of God in Christ Jesus but as “we” the Jewish remnant (the essence of the Church) and “you” the Gentile supplement. The following two web pages reflect this view. The authors of both pages conclude that the referent of "we” in Ephesians 1:3-12 is not the entire Church but only the Jewish aspect.

http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/eph1.html

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T228

Sincerely,
Jim

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/20/2003 12:34 AM (GMT -6)

Jim-

I’m not too clear either on what you’re arguing against. Paul clearly saw Jews and Gentiles in Christ as one body equally sharing together the blessings of salvation. At the same time he constantly dealt with Jewish and Gentile issues (historical and cultural) that affected the one church. So, I don’t see how, for example, believing that the “we” in Eph. 1.12 refers to Jewish believers while the “you” in v. 13 refers to Gentile believers entails the belief that Paul viewed the Church as other than fundamentally one in Christ (and that on the basis of faith, irrespective of their being either Jew or Gentile).

Without going into much detail, I for one do view the “we” in v. 12 as a reference Jewish believers (referring to the fact that they were the first to come Christ) and the “you” in v. 13 as a reference to the Ephesian Gentile believers who heard the word of truth later. Now, does this mean that what Paul says about Jewish believers in v. 12 (viz., that they exist “for the praise of his glory”) is not also true of Gentile believers? Or that what he says about Gentiles in v. 13 (viz., that they were included “in Christ” and were “sealed with the Spirit”) is not also true of Jews? Or does it mean that Paul believed God is dealing with people on the basis of flesh, with Jews one way and with Gentiles another? We can hardly believe this, and I don’t see that believing there to be here a reference to one particular group over against the other requires us to conclude this. So, it looks to me like Paul is simply pointing out that the one body of Christ, all members of which exist for the praise of his glory and all of whom are sealed with the Spirit, is constituted by two groups of people who outside of Christ have irreconcilable differences, essentially what he argues in the next chapter.

Tom

Love never ends

Edited by - TGB on 01/20/2003 05:35:29 AM

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/20/2003 11:39 AM (GMT -6)

Dear TGB,

TGB:

So, it looks to me like Paul is simply pointing out that the one body of Christ, all members of which exist for the praise of his glory and all of whom are sealed with the Spirit, is constituted by two groups of people who outside of Christ have irreconcilable differences, essentially what he argues in the next chapter.

Jim:

That is not Paul’s doctrine. Paul’s doctrine is not that the body of Christ is comprised of two that used to be enemies but now live in harmony. His doctrine in Ephesians 2 is that the body of Christ is one new man that has been created through Christ out of what used to be two. It is one new man. It is a new, third entity whose identity is taken not from either of the old two but from its creator, who is Christ. That’s why Paul says in Galatians 3:26-29 that whoever has been baptized into Christ has put on Christ, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, but where all are one in Christ. According to Paul, the heirs are not heirs because they are descended from or associated with a certain lineage of the flesh but because they are Christ’s. Thus, Paul does not define the Church according to anyone’s flesh but according to Christ Himself. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16-17 (ASV), “Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know [him so] no more. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, [he is] a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.” In Colossians 3:9-11, Paul says that the members of the Church have put on a new identity; they have put on the new man, which is created according to the image of its maker, who is Christ, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, but where Christ is all and in all. This is a new, third identity. In the flesh, there is Jew and Gentile. In Christ, there is only Christ. In Ephesians 1:3-12, Paul is describing those who have received “spiritual blessings,” and he repeatedly says that these people are “in Christ.”

The problem is the flesh. In Romans 7:18, Paul says (ASV), “For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing ….” According to Paul, we (the Church) must no longer identify ourselves according to the flesh, because nothing good can come from that, because the flesh is the problem, not the solution. In Colossians 3:5-11, Paul identifies sinful behavior with the old man of the flesh and righteous behavior with the new man of the spirit, which is Christ. We put on Christ as we would new clothes. We see ourselves in terms of Him, not in terms of the old man, which is identified with the flesh. Thus, according to Paul, the body of Christ is not identified according to the flesh (Greek or Jew, slave or free) but according to Christ. Christ is the identity of the Church, according to Paul. To identify the body of Christ according to the flesh (Jew and Greek) instead of according to Christ is like slipping back into the law. Nothing good can come from either the works of the law or the identity of the flesh, according to Paul, because the flesh is the problem, and the law focuses on the flesh. Christ is our way out of the problem.

End of part one. Please proceed to part two.

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/20/2003 11:42 AM (GMT -6)

Part Two

In Ephesians 1:3-12, Paul describes “every spiritual blessing” with which God has blessed “us” in the heavens “in Christ.” These blessings are associated with Christ, not with the flesh. They are not given to us because of the flesh (because “we” are Jews in the flesh) but because of Christ (because “we” are Christ’s). Therefore, to identify the recipients of these spiritual blessings according to the flesh is to identify these spiritual blessings with the problem (the flesh) instead of the solution (Christ). According to Paul, we are heirs of these spiritual blessings not because we are Jews in the flesh but because we are Christ’s (Galatians 3:26-29), the flesh being irrelevant: “neither Jew nor Greek.” Paul repeatedly states in Ephesians 1:3-12 that these “spiritual blessing” are “in Christ.” They are “in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption … in whom also we were made a heritage … so that we would be to the praise of His glory, having before hoped in Christ [having hoped in Christ before and until being to the praise of His glory at the redemption].”

In Ephesians 1:19, Paul identifies “us” simply as those “who believe.” In verse 2:11, he shows his disregard for the identity of the flesh, referring to Gentile believers as the so-called uncircumcision (the true circumcision, as are all believers) and to Jewish unbelievers as the so-called circumcision (the true uncircumcision, as are all unbelievers). In verses 2:17-18, Paul explicitly shows his use of pronouns, referring to Gentiles and Jews as “you” and “them” and to the Church as “we,” the new, third entity (the new man). There is no evidence that Paul’s use of “we” differs from this in the first chapter. It is not “we” the Jews but “we” the “new man” who are reconciled to God and who have access to the Father, according to Ephesians 2:14-18. Nowhere does Paul ever say in his epistles that either the Jews or the Jewish aspect of the Church hopes in Christ. On the other hand, as shown in my previous post, he consistently says that the Church hopes in Christ until the resurrection.

Those who conclude that “we” refers to Jews in the flesh in the first chapter must account for an evolution of the referent of “we” between the first chapter and verses 2:17-18. In his article which I linked in my previous post, Dr. McRay attempts to do this through his analysis of the “sun” (together with) prefix verbs in verses 2:5-6, whereby he asserts that the “sun” (together with) prefix refers to the uniting of different aspects (Jew and Gentile) of the direct object (us) with one another instead of referring to the uniting of the direct object (us, the Church) with the indirect object (Christ). Dr. McRay’s analysis is incorrect. This becomes clear when we compare what Paul says in Ephesians 2:5-6 with what he says in Colossians 2:12-13 and Romans 6:3-8. In all three passages, Paul describes the identification of the believer in baptism with the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Each of the “sun” (together with) prefix verbs which Paul uses in these passages unites either the subject (we/you) or the direct object (us/you) “together with” the indirect object (Christ) in an action (death, burial, resurrection, ascension). That is how the dynamic of these kinds of verbs works. None of these verbs unites different aspects (Jew and Gentile) of either the subject (we/you) or the direct object (us/you) “together with” one another.

End of part two. Please proceed to part three.

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/20/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

Part Three

In Ephesians 2:5 (ASV), Paul says, “even when we were dead through our trespasses, [HE] MADE US ALIVE TOGETHER WITH CHRIST ….” In Colossians 2:13 (ASV), he says the same thing this way: “And YOU, being dead through your trespasses and THE UNCIRCUMCISION OF YOUR FLESH, YOU, [I say], DID HE MAKE ALIVE TOGETHER WITH HIM ….” The same verb, “sunezwopoihsen” (He made alive together with) expresses the same dynamic in both verses: it unites the direct object (us/you) “together with” the indirect object (Christ/Him) in an action (He made alive). This verb no more unites different aspects of the direct object (us) together with one another in Ephesians 2:5 than it unites different aspects of the direct object (you) together with one another in Colossians 2:13, the referent of “you” in Colossians 2:13 being the Gentile believers at Colosse (“the uncircumcision of your flesh”). There isn’t even an opportunity in Colossians 2:13 for this verb to do what Dr. McRay says this verb does in Ephesians 2:5.

Likewise, in Romans 6:6, Paul says, “our old man was crucified with [Him].” Here, the verb “sunestaurwqh” (he was crucified together with) unites the singular subject (our old man) “together with” the understood indirect object (Him) in an action (being crucified). In 2 Corinthians 8:18, Paul says, “And we have sent together with him the brother.” Here, the verb “sunepemyamen” (we sent together with) unites the singular direct object (the brother) “together with” the indirect object (him) in an action (being sent). In Galatians 2:20, Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ.” Here, the verb “sunestaurwmai” (I have been crucified together with) unites the singular subject (I) “together with” the indirect object (Christ) in an action (being crucified).

That’s how these “sun” (together with) prefix verbs work. They do not do what Dr. McRay claims they do. Thus, in Ephesians 2:5-6, these verbs unite “us” (the Church) “together with” Christ in His death, resurrection and ascension. They do not unite the Jewish and Gentile aspects of “us” together with one another. Thus, Ephesians 2:5-6 does not mark a transition in the referent of “we/us/our.” There is no transition. It’s the same referent throughout chapters 1 and 2. In verse 1:19, Paul identifies “us” simply as those “who believe,” and throughout verses 1:3-12, Paul identifies the referent of “we/us/our” as those who are “in Christ.” In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul says that those who are “in Christ” are “one” in Him, where there is “neither Jew nor Greek.” Thus, there is no scriptural basis either for including any unbelievers in the referent of “we/us/our” in Ephesians 1:3-12 or for excluding any believers from that referent.

Sincerely,
Jim

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/21/2003 1:27 AM (GMT -6)

Jim-

Well, you’re passionate, and that’s good!

I of course agree with what you have to say about there being no Gentile or Jew in Christ, about Jewish and Gentile believers being ‘one new creation’, and about this one new creation not having come about ‘because’ we are either Jew or Gentile, etc.. I don’t see at all that affirming these truths requires that “we who first believed” in 1.12 not refer specifically to Jewish believers (who historically believed before Gentiles) or that the “you” of v. 13 not refer to the Ephesian believers (who as Gentiles “also” heard). In fact, I find this rather self-evident and am struggling to understand why you feel so much rides on this.

Jim: Paul’s doctrine in Ephesians 2 is that the body of Christ is one new man that has been created through Christ out of what used to be two.

Tom: Right.

Jim: According to Paul, the heirs are not heirs because they are descended from or associated with a certain lineage of the flesh but because they are Christ’s.

Tom: Right. I don’t suggest that they’re heirs “because” they are either Jews or Gentiles.

Jim: Thus, according to Paul, the body of Christ is not identified according to the flesh (Greek or Jew, slave or free) but according to Christ. Christ is the identity of the Church, according to Paul. To identify the body of Christ according to the flesh (Jew and Greek) instead of according to Christ is like slipping back into the law.

Tom: Paul certainly doesn’t define the body of Christ in terms of its being Jewish or Gentile, but he doesn’t pretend that “Jew” and “Gentile,” or “male” and “female” for that matter, are categories that no longer exist or that we don’t have to live as the Church with what it means to be a Jew or a Gentile. These categories are real. They are what we are. Jews ARE Jewish. Gentiles ARE Gentile. If these were not abiding realities in some real sense of the word, Paul wouldn’t be writing chapter two to remind his readers that our being “in Christ” transcends them. Granted, these categories don’t “define” the living reality that is the Church, and yes, the living reality transcends such categories; certainly. But one hardly denies this living reality by recognizing that the categories are real and that they are a source of both blessing (diversity can be wonderfully celebrated) and headaches (diversity can be problematic).

Jim: In Ephesians 1:3-12, Paul describes “every spiritual blessing” with which God has blessed “us” in the heavens “in Christ.” These blessings are associated with Christ, not with the flesh.

Tom: Certainly. To see 1.12 and 1.13 as a reference to Jewish and Gentile believers respectively is not to associate these blessings with the flesh.

Jim: They [these blessings] are not given to us because of the flesh (because “we” are Jews in the flesh) but because of Christ (because “we” are Christ’s).

Tom: I wasn’t suggesting that these blessings are given to us “because” we are either Jewish or Gentiles.

Jim: Those who conclude that “we” refers to Jews in the flesh in the first chapter must account for an evolution of the referent of “we” between the first chapter and verses 2:17-18.

Tom: I didn’t conclude that “we” refers specifically to Jews in the flesh throughout the first chapter. I maintain this only for v. 12. Nobody speaks so uniformly that pronouns can’t sometimes be inclusive and sometimes exclusive, especially if the writer qualifies the “we,” as he does in v. 12, to set it apart from the “you” he introduces immediately following (and which is also qualified). The “our” of 1.14 is obviously inclusive of both Jew and Gentile again, as are the references to “we” that precede 1.12.

Gotta run.

Blessings,
Tom

Love never ends

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/21/2003 3:47 AM (GMT -6)

Jim, what you've written reminds me of those who call themselves "Acts-Nine Dispensationalists." They posit two Gospels--one to Jews and one to Gentles, but one salvation in Christ. They diferentiate between the "Body" and the "Kingdom"; and the differentiate between some of the NT books that do apply to the Church, and some that they call "Circumcision Epistles"--like James that supposedly is not for us Gentiles.

Flies in the face of what Paul wrote to the Galatians. So I'ld probably say the same of what you've posted.

Interestingly, the Patriarchs (Abraham, Joseph, etc.) were always hoping for something beyond the historcity that the land offered. They were buried without receiving the Promise, but had that Promise only by faith. And for Paul, the Jews made themselves slaves, becoming the children of slavery to the law (Children of Hagar) instead of--as the Gentile Church he preached to--becoming children of freedom in faith (children of Sarah). The irony is that in Paul's declarations those who disrgarded Jerusalems's decree and tried to impose Law on the Galatians Paul pronounced a curse. And he called those content to be saved by faith truly "Children of Abraham."

You are standing alone, and not with Paul.

Al

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/21/2003 4:46 AM (GMT -6)

Dear TGB,

Ephesians 1:12 is not a digression from verse 1:11. Ephesians 1:11-12 is all one thought. The action of “being” to the praise of God’s glory in 1:12 is expressed by an infinitive (an infinitive of purpose) that explains the purpose of the preceding action of being “made a heritage” in 1:11. WE were made a heritage in Christ so that WE would one day be to the praise of God’s glory. Paul then adds a relative clause that provides additional information: “who before hoped in Christ.” Thus, WE (the Church) were made a heritage in Christ so that WE (the Church), having before hoped in Christ (the Church hopes in Christ until the redemption), would one day be to the praise of God’s glory (at the redemption). There’s no reason to think that the referent of “we” changes in the middle of this statement.

Why would Paul say that we (the Church) were made a heritage in Christ so that we (the Jewish aspect of the Church), having before hoped in Christ (having hoped in Christ before the Gentile aspect of the Church did), would one day be to the praise of God’s glory (at the redemption, the Gentile aspect of the Church either being excluded from this or being unimportant)? Or why would Paul say that we (the Jewish aspect of the Church) were made a heritage in Christ so that we (the Jewish aspect of the Church), having before hoped in Christ (having hoped in Christ before the Gentile aspect of the Church did), would one day be to the praise of God’s glory (at the redemption, the Gentile aspect of the Church either being excluded from this or being unimportant)?

What Paul says in 1:11-12 is not a history lesson that calls attention to the historical fact that the Jews heard the Gospel before the Gentiles did. It is a doctrinal statement regarding the “spiritual blessings” that “we” (the Church) have received “in Christ” (1:3). IN CHRIST, WE were made a heritage. The purpose of this is that WE, after hoping in Christ, shall one day be to the praise of God’s glory. In 1:14, Paul goes on to say that our being to the praise of God’s glory will occur at the redemption (the resurrection), the Holy Spirit being an earnest of OUR (the Church’s) inheritance (while we, the Church, hope in Christ) until the redemption (the resurrection) of the possession (the Church), at which point we shall be to the praise of God’s glory: “which is an earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of His glory.” If Paul had excluded the Gentile aspect of the Church from any part of this doctrinal statement, he would have been in violation of his own doctrinal position that in Christ neither circumcision (being Jewish in the flesh) nor uncircumcision (being Gentile in the flesh) matters, the only thing that matters being faith (Galatians 5:6) and a new creation (Galatians 6:15).

End of part one. Please proceed to part two.

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/21/2003 4:47 AM (GMT -6)

Part Two

Paul uses a “pro” (before) prefixed perfect participle in Ephesians 1:12 to express the idea that before and until being to the praise of God’s glory, we (the Church) hope in Christ. Grammatically, it’s no different than Acts 21:29, in which Luke uses a “pro” (before) prefixed perfect participle to express the idea that the same people that “had before seen” (perfect participle with a “pro” prefix) Trophimus with Paul in the city subsequently “supposed” that Paul brought Trophimus into the temple. Luke is not saying that these people saw Paul and Trophimus in the city before other people saw them in the city. He is saying that after “seeing” Paul and Trophimus together in the city, they “assumed” that Paul and Trophimus were still together in the temple. Likewise, in Ephesians 1:12, Paul is not saying that “we” hope in Christ before others hope in Him. He is saying that after “hoping” in Christ, we shall “be” to the praise of God’s glory at the redemption.

Just as Paul uses poetic repetition in Ephesians 1:7-13, saying “in whom, in whom also, in whom also, in whom also,” likewise he uses poetic repetition in Ephesians 1:4-6 and 1:11-12, saying the same thing in the active voice in 1:4-6 (God did this for us) that he says in 1:11-12 in the passive voice (this was done for us). In 1:4-6, Paul says, “… He chose us in Him … SO THAT WE WOULD BE HOLY AND WITHOUT BLEMISH BEFORE HIM … having foreordained us … TO THE PRAISE OF THE GLORY OF HIS GRACE ….” In 1:11-12, he says, “in whom we were made a heritage, having been foreordained … SO THAT WE WOULD BE TO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY ….” Just as Paul goes on to say in verse 1:14 that it is at the redemption (the resurrection) that we shall be to the praise of God’s glory, likewise Paul’s use of the phrase “holy and without blemish” is consistent with the future redemption (the resurrection). In Ephesians 5:27, Paul says, “that he might PRESENT THE CHURCH TO HIMSELF A GLORIOUS [CHURCH], not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but THAT IT SHOULD BE HOLY AND WITHOUT BLEMISH.” In Colossians 1:22-23, Paul says, “yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, TO PRESENT YOU HOLY AND WITHOUT BLEMISH and unreproveable BEFORE HIM: if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel ….” When does this presenting the Church holy and without blemish occur? In 2 Corinthians 4:14, Paul says, “knowing that he that raised up the Lord Jesus SHALL RAISE UP US ALSO WITH JESUS, AND SHALL PRESENT US WITH YOU.” Thus, what leads to the praise of God’s glory, to the praise of the glory of His grace, is the resurrection of the saints, and what leads to the resurrection of the saints is hoping in Christ, the hope of the Gospel.

Sincerely,
Jim

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/21/2003 5:10 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Al,

Al:

Jim, what you've written reminds me of those who call themselves "Acts-Nine Dispensationalists." They posit two Gospels--one to Jews and one to Gentles, but one salvation in Christ. They diferentiate between the "Body" and the "Kingdom"; and the differentiate between some of the NT books that do apply to the Church, and some that they call "Circumcision Epistles"--like James that supposedly is not for us Gentiles. Flies in the face of what Paul wrote to the Galatians. So I'd probably say the same of what you've posted.

Jim:

I must be the world’s worst writer for you to infer from what I wrote the exact opposite of what I meant. My point was that Paul made NO DIFFERENTIATION between the saints, and that the pronoun “we/us/our” refers to the same people (the entire Church) throughout the first two chapters of Ephesians, which is consistent with Galatians, where Paul says that the members of the Church are all ONE in Christ Jesus, where there is NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK, where NEITHER CIRCUMCISION NOR UNCIRCUMCISION matters, the only thing that matters being faith and the new creation that is in Christ.

I offered those two links to those two web pages as a description of that with which I DISAGREE as an explanation (as was requested of me) of what I meant by the phrase “remnant theology,” a view with which I DISAGREE. The authors of those two web pages believe that the referent of “we/us/our” in Ephesians 1:3-12 is not the entire Church but only the Jewish aspect of the Church. I DISAGREE WITH THAT VIEW. In my opinion, Paul ALWAYS means THE ENTIRE CHURCH when he says “we” or “us” or “our.”

Sincerely,
Jim

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/21/2003 5:44 AM (GMT -6)

Jim: I DISAGREE WITH THAT VIEW.

I asmumed that you and Tom were disagreeing. Tom is so kind. his kindness was no indication to me that you two were coming from similar viewpoints. Scanning, I just took what you were posting to be your own view. Ooooops.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/21/2003 10:41 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
11 In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance…12 so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, might live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14 this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God's own people, to the praise of his glory.

Jim: Ephesians 1:12 is not a digression from verse 1:11.

Tom: Right. My view doesn’t require that v. 12 “digress” from v. 11.

Jim: Ephesians 1:11-12 is all one thought. The action of “being” to the praise of God’s glory in 1:12 is expressed by an infinitive (an infinitive of purpose) that explains the purpose of the preceding action of being “made a heritage” in 1:11. WE were made a heritage in Christ so that WE would one day be to the praise of God’s glory.

Tom: Yes, one thought. There’s one church in Christ. But it’s OK to refer to the groups that constitute this one body without destroying it’s unity. This won’t throw us into the remnant theology you want to avoid. I don’t think all of 1.3-12 refers to Jewish believers, but I do think Paul here in vv. 12-13 anticipates what he more fully discusses in ch. 2. I would paraphrase (mind you, just a paraphrase, filling it out a bit): “11 In Christ we all, Jew and Gentile alike, have obtained an inheritance… 12 so that we Jews who were the first to believe in Christ might live for the praise of his glory [why think this a reference to the resurrection?]. 13 And you Gentile Ephesians as well! Having heard the word...and believed…you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the pledge of our inheritance…as God’s people.”

Paul tends to be wordy, take off on tangents (sometimes coming back to his main point, sometimes not), and run on and on in long complicated sentences that don’t always fit together well. That’s Paul. If the sentence flow doesn’t lay out as nicely as we like, or if it permits different takes, I’m not surprised. Several items in this passage admit more than one interpretation. But none mess with the main point. So though I find some of your points a bit forced (as you do mine), we do agree that believing Jews and Gentiles constitute in Christ one body and together enjoy the blessings of Christ, in whom being a Jew or a Gentile, or even a man or a woman, mean nothing. We agree on what matters! Who cares about what doesn’t matter. If I believe Paul in vv. 12-13 to be anticipating the fuller discussion of ch. 2, then I do so without undermining the doctrine of one church, which is what you’re concerned about isn’t it?

Tom

And Al-

quote:

I asmumed that you and Tom were disagreeing. Tom is so kind. his kindness was no indication to me that you two were coming from similar viewpoints. Scanning, I just took what you were posting to be your own view. Ooooops.

Hmmm. Now I’m confused. Jim and I are both agreeing and disagreeing. We agree that there is one church and that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female. We disagree about whether Paul sometimes refers to Jews and Gentiles as Jewish or Gentile Christians who make up the one Church (and specifically whether or not 1.12 and 1.13 are references to Jewish and Gentile believers respectively). Jim appears to think that one cannot believe in one Church in Christ, in whom the categories of Jew and Gentile are transcended, if one also thinks these verses refer to Jews and Gentiles.

Tom

Love never ends

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/22/2003 6:48 AM (GMT -6)

Dear TGB,

TGB:

There’s one church in Christ. But it’s OK to refer to the groups that constitute this one body without destroying it’s unity. This won’t throw us into the remnant theology you want to avoid.

Jim:

It’s logical to conclude that none of the first person plural pronouns in Ephesians 1:3-12 refer to the entire Church once one assumes that the pronoun in verse 1:12 doesn’t refer to the entire Church, as there is no grammatical opportunity for the referent to change between verses 1:3-9 and 1:11 and verse 1:12.

The conclusion that a new referent is introduced by Paul in the infinitive clause in verse 1:12 is not grammatically feasible. An adverbial infinitive clause, as in Ephesians 1:12, is dependent, not independent. It modifies and completes the thought that precedes it. The time in which the action of the infinitive occurs is completely dependent on and relative to the action of the controlling verb that precedes it. Likewise, the identity of the referent of a pronoun serving as the subject of the infinitive is determined by a pronoun (explicit or inflection derived) or noun associated with the preceding, controlling verb. I have never seen an example in which a new referent was introduced in an infinitive clause. Whenever a pronoun serves as the subject of an infinitive, its referent is always previously established in the text in association with the controlling verb.

For example (ASV), in Romans 19:19-20, Paul says, “is manifest in them … manifested it unto them … that they may be.” In Romans 3:25-26, Paul says, “God set forth … that he might himself be.” In Romans 7:4, Paul says, “ye also were made dead … that ye should be.” In Romans 8:29, Paul says, “conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be.” In Romans 12:2, Paul says, “be ye transformed … that ye may prove.” In Romans 15:13, Paul says, “the God of hope fill you … that ye may abound.” In Romans 15:15-16, Paul says, “was given me … that I should be.” In 1 Corinthians 10:6, Paul says, “were our examples, to the intent we should not be.” In Ephesians 1:4, Paul says, “he chose us … that we should be.” In Ephesians 1:11-12, Paul says, “we were made a heritage … that we should be.” In Ephesians 1:17-18, Paul says, “may give unto you … the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know.” In Philippians 1:9-10, Paul says, “I pray that your love may abound … that ye may prove.” In 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5, Paul says, “ye endure … that ye may be counted worthy.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, Paul says, “we beseech you … that ye be not quickly shaken.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Paul says, “they received not … that they might be saved.”

In all of these passages, the referent of the pronoun functioning as the subject of the infinitive is previously established in the text. An infinitive is not where a writer introduces a new subject.

End of part one. Please proceed to part two.

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/22/2003 6:50 AM (GMT -6)

Part Two

TGB:

… so that we Jews who were the first to believe in Christ might live for the praise of his glory [why think this a reference to the resurrection?].

Jim:

Although it is true that believers live for the praise of God’s glory, that is not what Paul writes here. Paul says in Ephesians 1:11-12, “in whom we were made a heritage … that we should be unto the praise of his glory.” In verses 1:13-14, he says that we/you were sealed with the Holy Spirit, “which is an earnest of our inheritance until the redemption (the resurrection) of the possession (the Church), unto the praise of his glory.” Here, we see that our being to the praise of God’s glory is not something that we do but something that God does at the redemption (the resurrection of the saints), fulfilling His goal in making us a heritage in Christ.

Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 1:4-6. He says, “he chose us in him … that we should be holy and without blemish before him … unto the praise of the glory of his grace.” Our being holy and without blemish before Him in not something that happens now. It happens at the redemption (the resurrection).

(ASV) 1 Corinthians 15:19 If we have only HOPED IN CHRIST in this life, we are of all men most pitiable. 20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then THEY THAT ARE CHRIST'S, AT HIS COMING.

(ASV) 2 Corinthians 4:14 knowing that he that raised up the Lord Jesus SHALL RAISE UP US ALSO with Jesus, AND SHALL PRESENT US WITH YOU.

(ASV) Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be HOLY AND WITHOUT BLEMISH BEFORE HIM in love: 5 having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 TO THE PRAISE OF THE GLORY OF HIS GRACE, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:

(ASV) Ephesians 1:11 in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will; 12 to the end THAT WE SHOULD BE UNTO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY, we WHO HAD BEFORE HOPED IN CHRIST [before being to the praise of His glory at the redemption]: 13 in whom [also we], having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of [our] salvation, in whom [also having] believed, [ ] were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is an earnest of our inheritance, UNTO THE REDEMPTION of [the] possession, UNTO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY. [mine is encased in brackets, inserting we/our where Paul wrote ye/your in verse 1:13]

(ASV) Ephesians 5:27 that he might PRESENT THE CHURCH TO HIMSELF A GLORIOUS [CHURCH], not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be HOLY AND WITHOUT BLEMISH.

(ASV) Colossians 1:22 yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, TO PRESENT YOU HOLY AND WITHOUT BLEMISH AND UNREPROVEABLE BEFORE HIM: 23 if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and NOT MOVED AWAY FROM THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.

End of part two. Please proceed to part three.

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/22/2003 6:51 AM (GMT -6)

Part Three

Thus, we (the Church), having before hoped in Christ (having hoped in Christ before and until being to the praise of God’s glory at the redemption), are sealed with the earnest of the Holy Spirit until the redemption of the possession (the resurrection of the saints), unto the praise of God’s glory, God’s purpose in making us a heritage in Christ thus being fulfilled at the resurrection.

Sincerely,
Jim

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/22/2003 12:42 PM (GMT -6)

Dear TGB,

In Ephesians 1:11, Paul uses an aorist indicative (past tense) verb to say that we were made a heritage in Christ. Then, in the first half of verse 1:12, he uses an present infinitive of purpose to say that we are going to be to the praise of God’s glory one day, which will fulfill God’s purpose in making us a heritage in Christ. The present tense of the infinitive does not refer to time of action but to quality of action; it denotes a continuous action. One day we will continuously be to the praise of God’s glory. The fact that it is an infinitive of purpose means that it will occur after the action of the verb whose purpose the action of the infinitive fulfills. Then, in the second half of verse 1:12, Paul uses a perfect participle that serves as an adjective describing the action of the subject of the infinitive of purpose. The perfect tense of the participle means that the time of the action of the participle occurs in the past (with a continuing result) relative to the time of the action of the infinitive, whose subject the participle modifies. Thus, we know from all of this that the sequence of action is: (1) we were made a heritage in Christ in the past and (2) we before hope in Christ (we hope in Christ before and) until the day that (3) we come to be to the praise of God’s glory. Although this tells us the relative sequence of the respective actions, it still does not tell us when we will come to be the praise of God’s glory. That information is provided in verse 1:14, where Paul says that the Holy Spirit, with which we are sealed in Christ (1:13), is an earnest of our inheritance until the redemption (the resurrection) of the possession (the Church), after which he says, “to the praise of His glory.” Thus, we know that it is the redemption of the possession (the resurrection of the saints) that leads “to the praise of His glory,” which is the fulfillment of God’s purpose in making us a heritage in Christ. So when we put all of this information provided in Ephesians 1:11-14 together, we can correctly conclude this: having been made a heritage in Christ, and being sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit, we hope in Christ before and until the day of redemption (the resurrection), at which time God’s purpose in making us a heritage in Christ will be fulfilled, from which point forward we shall continuously be to the praise of God’s glory, God being glorified by our glorification.

Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 1:4-6. He says that God chose us in Christ (aorist indicative / past tense) so that we would one day be (infinitive of purpose) holy and without blemish before Him, after which he says, “to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Our being holy and without blemish before Him is what leads “to the praise of the glory of His grace,” the phrase “holy and without blemish before Him” referring to what occurs at the day of redemption. In 2 Corinthians 4:14, Paul says that God will “present” the Church at the resurrection. In Ephesians 5:27, regarding this presentation, Paul says that Christ will present the Church to Himself holy and without blemish. In Colossians 1:22-23, Paul says that the purpose of our reconciliation to God is for Christ to present us holy and without blemish before Him, which He will do if we do not turn away from the hope of the Gospel.

End of part one. Please proceed to part two.

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/22/2003 12:43 PM (GMT -6)

Part Two

Thus, God’s purpose in choosing us in Christ and making us a heritage in Him is that we shall be to the praise of His glory, to the glory of His grace, at the resurrection (the redemption), God being glorified by our glorification. Until then, we are sealed in Christ with the earnest of the Holy Spirit, and we hope in Christ until that Day, persevering in the hope of the Gospel. The resurrection is the focal point of our hope (Romans 8:23-25). As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19-23, if there were no resurrection, and if it were only in this life that we hoped in Christ, we would be more pitiable than others would be. However, Paul says that Christ has been raised, and he says that we shall be raised as well when He returns. In 1 John 3:3, John says that everyone who has this hope purifies himself in anticipation of that Day. In Christ’s terminology, we watch.

Thus, the perfect participle “before hoped” in Ephesians 1:12 does not mean that two separate groups of believers hope in Christ at different times. Paul is not differentiating two separate categories of believers. Rather, he is stating that we, the Church, hope in Christ before and until we come to be to the praise of God’s glory at the redemption. Paul does not say “we” and “you also” in Ephesians 1:12-13, just as he does not say “we” and “we also” (two different we’s) in verses 1:7-11, and just as he does not say “every building / each several building / all the building” (except “you”) and “you also” in verses 2:21-22. Rather, he says “in whom” (en w) and “in whom also” (en w kai) in verses 1:7-13 and 2:21-22, inserting “you” where he would normally say “we” in verses 1:13, 2:5, 2:8 and 2:22, not to differentiate two separate categories of believers, but to emphasize the Ephesians’ membership in the Church, “you” (the portion of the Church to whom Paul is writing the epistle) being included in “we” (the entire Church). When Paul wishes to differentiate the Gentile and Jewish aspects of the Church, he uses second person (you) and third person (them) to do so, reserving first person (we) for reference to the entire Church, as explicitly expressed in Ephesians 2:17-18. If Paul had been referring exclusively to Jewish believers instead of the entire Church in Ephesians 1:12, he would have said “they” (the Jewish aspect of the Church) instead of “we” (the entire Church), just as he does in verses 2:17-18.

Sincerely,
Jim

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2003 4:47 PM (GMT -6)

Jim-

I appreciate all the time you...

End of part one. Please procede to part two.

Love never ends

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2003 4:48 PM (GMT -6)

Part Two

...put into your replies. You obviously are passionate about this. I think there is...

End of part two. Please procede to part three.

Tom

Love never ends

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2003 4:51 PM (GMT -6)

Part Three

...a bit more give in the text than you believe. But that's not too important right now!

Take care!

Tom

End of part three.

Love never ends

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/22/2003 4:53 PM (GMT -6)

I was gonna do a part four but thought it'd be pushing it.

Blessings,
Tom

Love never ends

Jim
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 20

Posted 1/22/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6)

Dear TGB,

Paul says, “… WE were made a heritage … SO THAT WE WOULD BE [infinitive] to the praise of His glory ….”

You are saying that these are two different we’s. Whereas you would have no problem finding a hundred examples in the New Testament in which the referent of a pronoun serving as the subject of an infinitive was derived from the preceding text, the infinitive clause completing the thought initiated in the preceding text, I don’t think that you could find one example showing the grammatical flexibility that you are saying the above passage has. If you could show me that one example, I would be likely to believe that the above passage might be as flexible as you are saying it is.

If someone said, WE’re leaving early so that WE can beat the traffic, and someone else concluded from that statement that those were two different we’s, wouldn’t you wonder how that person came to that conclusion?

Likewise, if you could show me an example of a pro-prefix participle that expressed the idea that one group of people engaged in an action “before” another group of people engaged in it instead of expressing the idea that the action of the pro-prefix participle precedes the action of its controlling verb, I would be likely to believe that the King James Version’s rendering of Ephesians 1:12-13 might be possible.

Either of these two single examples would be helpful. However, I haven’t been able to find either one. So until someone can provide me actual evidence that the KJV rendering might be possible, I see no reason to change my opinion. As far as I can see, people tend to accept the KJV rendering in spite of the facts for no particular reason other than simply accepting the KJV out of habit.

Sincerely,
Jim

Edited by - Jim on 01/23/2003 07:53:47 AM

Edited by - Jim on 01/23/2003 07:54:58 AM

27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual