Scripture… As We Live It #227
This is the 227th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands bowing their heads and closing their eyes without anger or quarreling agreeing with the pastoral prayer… (1 Timothy 2:8 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
The family of God in Ephesians
In my previous post on Ephesians 1:3-14 (“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…“), I examined the structure of that long sentence and concluded that the spiritual blessings that Paul discusses are based on the fact that God has chosen us for adoption as his children. Because we are adopted by God in Jesus Christ, 1) we have redemption through his blood, 2) we have received an inheritance, and 3) we were sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Within that long sentence (Ephesians 1:3-14), Paul uses several terms to refer to our relationship as children of God: “adoption as sons,” “inheritance” (twice), and perhaps “guarantee.” But, these are not the only references in the Book of Ephesians as our status as children in God’s family.
For example, consider these passages:
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God… (Ephesians 2:19 ESV)
This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (Ephesians 3:6 ESV)
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family [the whole family] in heaven and on earth is named… (Ephesians 3:14-15 ESV)
…one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:6 ESV)
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. (Ephesians 5:1 ESV)
There are other passages in Ephesians that I could point out, such as other places where Paul refers to God as Father or when he refers to others as “brothers” or “sisters.” But, even from the passages above, it is clear that our relationship with God with him as father and with us as his children is very important to Paul and important to the point(s) that he wants to make in this letter.
I think it’s important for us to realize how fundamental this is to Paul (and, I would suggest, for the other authors of the New Testament as well). Of course, this idea didn’t originate with Paul or with Peter or with James or with any of the the other early followers of Jesus.
No, the importance of recognizing one another as God’s family originated with Jesus himself. Here is just one passage in which Jesus explains this to his followers:
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV)
Perhaps one of the most amazing (to me) passages related to our relationship with God as his children is found in the book of Hebrews:
For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them brothers… (Hebrews 2:11 ESV)
God deals with us as his children, and he expects us to interact with one another as brothers and sisters. This relationship was foundational for Paul, and if we live with one another recognizing God as our common Father and recognizing all in his family as our brothers and sisters, it would change the way we interact with one another.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places
As you probably know, the title of this post comes from Ephesians 1:3. Also, if you’ve been following this blog for a few weeks (or if you read my post from yesterday called “A typical atypical gathering with the church“), then you also know that we are getting ready to study Ephesians weekly when we gather together with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Next Sunday, we’re planning to study Ephesians 1:1-14, which includes Paul’s address, as well as a long section that begins with the title of this post. Some people know that this long section (Ephesians 1:3-14) is actually one long sentence in Greek, although it’s usually broken up into smaller sections in our English translations to make it more readable.
Before we can begin to understand what Paul meant by this passage, we need to first understand how the words and phrases within the paragraph relate to one another grammatically and syntactically. I’m not going to attempt to analyze the grammar and syntax of each word and phrase. Instead, I’m simply laying out the main structure of the paragraph.
Paul begins by explaining that God is “blessed” (or perhaps “praised” or “praiseworthy”), and he describes God as “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” and the one who “blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (‘heavenlies’).” He uses that entire phrase to describe God, and he doesn’t end there.
The next phrase is parallel to the previous one, and also describes God:
…even as [just as] he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us [“has given us grace”] in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6 ESV)
Like I said, there is no sentence break between verses 4 and 5, so it could be translated as “in love having predestined us for adoption as sons…” While this translation makes the sentence harder to read (and probably explains why it is broken up in English translations), it also shows the relationship between the participle “having predestined” and the previous subject/verb/object “he chose us.”
The final parts of this long section probably follow from the word “the Beloved” and describe how God “has given us grace” in the Beloved. (I say “probably” because it is grammatically possible that each “in whom” relative clause actually refer back to God. But, more likely, the relative pronoun “whom” refers back to the noun “the Beloved.”)
… he has given us grace in the Beloved:
In him [whom] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
In him [whom] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
In him [whom] you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:7-14 ESV)
So, we can see that Paul’s main points in the last part of this long paragraph is that God has given us grace in the Beloved (Jesus Christ), because of three things that we have in Christ: 1) we have redemption through his blood, 2) we have received an inheritance, and 3) we were sealed with the Holy Spirit. Why? Because God chose us to be his adopted children in Jesus Christ. And because of all this, God is blessed (by us) (i.e., he is worthy of praise).
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Scripture… As We Live It #226
This is the 226th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. However, for any other convictions besides this trivial one of eating meat sacrificed to idols, make sure that you demand that other people conform to your beliefs. (1 Corinthians 8:8-9 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Replay: And they devoted themselves
Three years ago, I wrote a post called “And they devoted themselves.” The post is an examination of that phrase (the title of the post) in Acts 2:42. What did Luke mean when he wrote, “They devoted themselves…” and specifically what did it mean for those early Christians to devote themselves to “the apostles’ teaching”? By studying this important passage (Acts 2:42-47), I think we can learn alot about the life of the church immediately after Pentecost.
——————————
And they devoted themselves
Acts 2:42 is often called a summary verse concerning the early followers of Jesus Christ. Luke records:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42 ESV)
I think the ESV missed something in the translation here. The phrase “they devoted themselves” is a translation of the Greek verb phrase “ἠσαν προσκαρτεροῦντες” (esan proskarterountes). For those who are familiar with Greek grammar, this is a periphrastic participial construction – a verb of being along with a participle. According to several Greek grammars, the periphrastic participle is the most marked verb form when it comes to verbal aspect. Thus, this verb phrase focuses on the continuous aspect of the verb. The NASB translation tries to bring out this continuous aspect by translating the phrase as “They were continually devoting themselves…”
Lexically, the verb προσκαρτερέω (proskartereo) can mean “devoted to” which we see in both the ESV and NASB translations. According to BDAG (the standard Greek lexicon), in Acts 2:42 it carries a meaning of “hold fast to, continue or persevere in”. The context should help us understand what Luke is communicating to us about these early followers of Jesus Christ.
Luke says that the believers were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. This does not mean that they were “devoted” to listening to what the apostles were teaching. Instead, it means that these early Christians were continually persevering in living according to the message that the apostles taught, as well as continuing to fellowship (share life) break bread (eat together), and pray.
Think about it this way: If the phrase “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” conjures up an image of people sitting around listening to the apostles teach, then the translation is NOT communicating the image to you properly.
On the other hand, if you read that phrase and picture the early believers attempting to live their lives in accordance with the message that the apostles taught, then you’re understanding what Luke wrote.
We see that Luke helps us understand what he means in the following verses:
And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:43-47 ESV)
This passage demonstrates how those early believers lived according to the gospel (the apostles’ teaching), and how they shared their lives and their meals with one another. On the day of Pentecost, God did not create individuals who loved to sit and listen to teaching. Instead, God created a new community who now lived new lives – lives that were not lived for themselves any longer. Instead, they lived their lives for God by sharing their lives with one another and with the world around them.
The world noticed… and the world found favor on this new community and new way of life. (2:47)
Because Paul did not consult with others about his own service, right?
Over the next few days, I’m going to examine a few statements made by Paul that I think are taken out of context in the way the statements are often applied today. This is not really a series, because the posts won’t really build on one another. Each post will cover a different statement.
For example, in this post I’d like to consider another statement made by Paul that I think is often misunderstood and/or misapplied today. The statement is, “I did not receive it [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12 ESV), and the related statement that follows soon afterwards, “I did not immediately consult with anyone” (Galatians 1:16b ESV).
Again, I don’t intend to interpret these statements. Instead, I hope to show how these statements are often exaggerated and misinterpreted. Here are the statements in context:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Galatians 1:11-17 ESV)
I’ve heard these statements taken to two different extremes: 1) That Paul never consulted with anyone else and was never taught by anyone else, only Jesus, or 2) that these statements demonstrate a rift between Paul and the other apostles. Unfortunately, both of these extremes lead to the justification of “lone ranger” type Christians who do not feel others have the right to examine or question what they are teaching.
Again, reading further in Paul’s letters or in Acts demonstrate that neither of these extremes is true.
For the first extreme, Paul could not have meant that he never consulted anyone else about the gospel or that he was never taught by anyone else (only Jesus). In the very next passage (in Galatians 2:1-2), we find that Paul DID compare the gospel that he was proclaiming with the gospel proclaimed by others to make sure they were all proclaiming the same gospel. Plus, most of the “one another” statements in Scripture come from Paul. It would be difficult to believe that he would think “teach one another,” “admonish one another,” etc. applies to everyone except him. Also, he told the Romans (in Romans 1:11-12) that he not only expected to serve them through the spiritual gifts that God gave him, he also recognized that he needed the service of their spiritual gifts as well. (And, as he would tell them later, that would include the spiritual gift of teaching.) Finally, we must consider Paul’s decision to consult with the apostles, elders, and others in Jerusalem concerning those who claimed that their teaching about salvation through keeping the law was coming from the Jerusalem church (Acts 15).
For the second extreme, Paul could not have meant that there was a rift between himself and the other apostles, especially Peter. These statements are often combined the Paul’s confrontation of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 to indicate this schism. But, we also see in this same passage that Paul speaks positively of Peter and others (and in a comparative sense with himself) in Galatians 2:7-10. In other passages we see Paul speaking positively of Peter and the apostles and caring for other believers in Jerusalem.
Paul could not have meant either of these extremes when he said, “I did not receive it [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” and “I did not immediately consult with anyone.” Therefore, these statements are not justifications for “lone ranger” type Christians who refuse to allow others to question what they are teaching. Nor are these statements justifications for those who believe that they cannot (or should not) be taught by others. Nor are the statements justification for living with schisms between different groups of believers.
Because Paul only preached the gospel where Christ was not already named, right?
Over the next few days, I’m going to examine a few statements made by Paul that I think are taken out of context in the way the statements are often applied today. This is not really a series, because the posts won’t really build on one another. Each post will cover a different statement.
For example, in this post I’d like to consider another statement made by Paul that I think is often misunderstood and/or misapplied today. The statement is, “I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation.” (Romans 15:20 ESV)
Again, it’s not my intention to interpret what Paul is saying. Instead, I want to look at a few ways this passage is often used. First, here is the passage in context:
In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation, but as it is written,
“Those who have never been told of him will see,
and those who have never heard will understand.”This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you. But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while. At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. (Romans 17:20-25 ESV)
Now, I’ve heard this passage used to justify only serving people in one way, perhaps only in evangelism or perhaps only in teaching or some other type of service. The justification? Well, Paul only proclaimed the gospel (evangelized).
Also, I’ve heard this passage used to justify separating areas of service, especially when used by various missions organizations. The justification? Well, Paul did not want to build on anyone else’s foundation.
But, this statement could not have meant these things to Paul. How do we know?
1) Paul could not have meant that he ONLY evangelized. While Paul definitely proclaimed the gospel and wanted to go to other places (such as Spain) to proclaim the gospel, that is definitely NOT all that he did. Even in this passage we see that Paul had put off traveling to Rome (and then Spain) because he was working with other believers in Macedonia and Achaia (Romans 15:26) to help out some brothers and sisters in Christ in Judea. We find several other examples in Acts and in his letters where Paul spent extended time teaching and encouraging people who were already believers.
2) Paul could not have meant that he did not serve where other believers had evangelized. The most obvious evidence that this could not have been Paul’s intention is that Paul was planning to go to Rome, where there were already several thriving groups of Christians. Who evangelized these people? We don’t know, but it was not Paul, because he had never visited Rome. In Acts and in Paul’s letters, we see several other examples of Paul working in areas where others had proclaimed the gospel first. (For example, consider Damascus, Antioch, Colossae, and even Ephesus.)
So, when Paul said, “I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation,” he could not have meant that he only evangelized, and he could not have meant that he never worked in the same area where someone else had already evangelized.
Because Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, right?
Over the next few days, I’m going to examine a few statements made by Paul that I think are taken out of context in the way the statements are often applied today. This is not really a series, because the posts won’t really build on one another. Each post will cover a different statement.
For example, in this post I’d like to consider the statement that Paul was an “apostle to the Gentiles.”
Paul made this statement twice, writing to two different groups of Christians: those in Rome and those in Galatia:
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. (Romans 11:13-14 ESV)
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)… (Galatians 2:7-8 ESV)
I’ve heard Paul’s statement used as justification for only serving certain people (perhaps people groups) or certain types of people (age groups, vocations, hobbies, etc.). Unfortunately, I’ve also heard this statement used as justification for NOT serving other people because they are not called to those people.
I think this is a misunderstanding and a misapplication of Paul’s statement.
Now, in this post I do not intend to work through exactly what Paul meant when he referred to himself as “an apostle to the Gentiles.” In this case, it’s much easier to recognize what Paul did not mean: Paul could not have meant that God had called him to serve the Gentiles and ONLY the Gentiles.
In both letters in which Paul referred to himself as an apostle to the Gentiles, he was writing to mixed groups of both Jews and Gentiles. Paul often served Jews both through evangelism and through various types of service to help Jewish Christians growing in their faith and maturity in Jesus Christ.
In fact, in the book of Acts we find that when Paul entered a city, he usually began by going to Jews, spending time with Jews specifically when they gathered in their synagogues. Only if the Jews rejected him (and that happened often) did Paul then turn to the Gentiles. However, even when Paul turned to the Gentiles, he did not ignore or neglect the Jews.
(By the way, the same could be said of Peter, who Paul refers to as an apostle to the circumcised. But, it was Peter who God first used to bring the good news to Gentiles.)
When Paul referred to himself as “an apostle to the Gentiles,” he did not mean that God only wanted him to serve Gentiles. As we see through Scripture, God often wanted Paul to serve Jews as well as Gentiles.
God may choose to use us primarily to serve a certain sector of society. But, we should never use this statement (“apostle to the Gentiles”) as a justification to ONLY serve those to whom we think God has called us. If God brings someone into our life, then God intends for us to serve that person (even if that person is not part of the sector of society to whom we are “called”).
Scripture… As We Live It #225
This is the 225th passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you change the way you are thinking. Only let us hold true to what we have attained everyone hold to what I have told you. (Philippians 3:15-16 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
What about Paul’s authority?
In doing research for my previous series on the terms that Paul used to refer to other Christians (and whether or not those terms indicate a superior/subordinate relationship), I ran across a passage in 2 Corinthians in which Paul mentions his authority. I’ve come across this passage before, but I had not stopped to consider it in detail.
The statement itself is fairly short: “For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.” (2 Corinthians 13:10 ESV)
What is this “authority” that Paul is talking about? Apparently, he does believe that he has authority, and that this authority was given to him by the Lord for Paul to use to build up other brothers and sisters in Christ.
But, the question is, why does Paul have this authority? Is it special to Paul as an individual? Is it special to Paul as an apostle?
To begin with, notice that there is a particular reason that is causing Paul to use this authority. What is “this reason” that Paul plans to come and be severe in his authority? Well, apparently, there is some sin among the brothers and sisters in Corinth. Paul began talking about this sin earlier in chapter 13, and it is this sin (“this reason”) that is causing him to plan to use authority.
But, it is not only the existence of sin among the Corinthians that is causing him to plan to use authority. The main problem is that the Corinthians have not dealt with this sin on their own.
That’s right, the only reason that Paul is planning to “use authority” in this situation is that the Corinthians have not used the same authority themselves. In fact, Paul is almost incredulous that the Corinthians have not realized that they have the authority to deal with this sin because Jesus Christ dwells in them in power – just as he dwells in Paul in power.
Paul’s desire is that when he comes to Corinth for the third time, he finds that the Corinthians have found that Jesus Christ truly does dwell among them and that they have dealt with the issues of sin among them in the same authority that Paul himself would use otherwise.
So, the authority is not something that Paul has because he is Paul, and it’s not an authority that Paul has because he is an apostle. The authority is something Paul has because Jesus Christ dwells in him through the Holy Spirit.
But, guess what?!? All followers of Jesus Christ have the same authority because Jesus Christ also dwells in them through the Holy Spirit.
The Corinthians are not speaking and living according to the authority because they are not living in the power of Jesus Christ who dwells in them. But, the same authority that Paul plans to use is available to the Corinthians – and, in fact, to all believers.
What kind of authority does Paul plan to use (if necessary) when he comes to Corinth again? The same authority that every believer has – the authority of Jesus Christ who dwells in those who follow him.