Same drill. If you're in the class, 100 word initial response, 2 more substantial responses to other comments that ensue. Outsiders are also welcome to participate. Happy Thanksgiving!
_______
4:1 Therefore, I urge you, I the prisoner in the Lord, to walk worthily of the call with which you were called,
Here seems to begin a new major unit in Ephesians. The idea of living worthily also appears in Philippians 1:27. The idea of calling reappears, as we saw so strongly in Ephesians 1.
4:2-3 ... with all humility and meekness, with patience, being patient with one another in love, being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the common bond of peace:
The importance of unity will now appear in its strongest form. Presumably the original nature of the unity in mind was the unity between Jew and Gentile, but certainly the idea applies as forcefully as ever in the fragmentation of the modern church. We may disagree on things like doctrine and even to an extent on practice, but we are to be at peace with each other. Humility, meekness, patience, love, peace--these are obvious fundamentals of Christian faith... and just as obviously missing in the church today.
4:4-6 ... one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all things, who is over all things and through all things and in all things.
The "body" here is much broader than in 1 Corinthians, where the body of Christ and the body as the temple of the Spirit is localized to the Corinthian congregation. But Ephesians now sees the entirety of Christendom as one body with one Spirit enlivening it.
We might today extend the image over time to say that the entire "communion of the saints" across the ages, all who have been filled with the Holy Spirit and thus who have been children of God, are the body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the life force within that body.
Ephesians, as 1 Corinthians 8:6, distinguishes Jesus the one Lord from the one God and Father of all things. We are thus on a trajectory to the later Trinity but apparently not there yet. I'm sure Bauckham has an ingenious explanation for how this verse can fit with his thesis.
The content of the one faith is not unpacked here. 1:15 could speak of the audience's faith in the Lord Jesus, but the expression is a little odd. It could refer to the faith they have through the Lord Jesus or the faith they have as they are in the Lord Jesus. Certainly the Pauline letters as a whole lead us to see this as a faith toward God, particularly for what He has done in Christ.
The one baptism probably refers to water baptism. It does not preclude the Spirit baptism of Acts, since Ephesians is probably only thinking about one water baptism. Of course this verse also should not be taken as an argument against ever being baptized a second time. These sorts of later debates are completely foreign to Ephesians.
4:7 And to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of the Christ.
This sense of the Messiah measuring out various giftings or gracings continues through 4:16. The style and vocabulary in this and the next paragraph is very unusual for Paul, one of the primary arguments that Ephesians was written by a secretary or heir of Paul. It differs even from that of Colossians, which has several parallels to this section (cmp. Eph. 4:16 to Col. 2:19).
I personally think that at the very least we need to think of a Pauline secretary having more to do with the composition of Ephesians than Paul, likely using Colossians as a starting point. If Paul were in serious hardship at the time or somewhat inaccessible in prison, such a process would be perfectly understandable. I also do not think it hinders the authority or truthfulness of Ephesians to picture a Pauline heir representing his message to a later generation, presuming that no deception was involved. Each will have to decide.
In any case, it is deeply ironic to me that John McRay, emeritus professor at Wheaton, uses Ephesians as the starting point for understanding Paul's theology. Ephesians may be, as I think Snodgrass implies, the most influential lens through which Paul has been read in Christian history (cf. 17). Perhaps you could therefore make a case for reading Paul's other letters in that way. From the standpoint of what those other letters actually meant originally, however, to read the rest of Paul through the lens of Ephesians is to skew your understanding of those earlier letters ever so slightly.
4:8-10 Therefore it says, "Having ascended to the height he took captive captivity, he gave gifts to mortals." And what is the "He ascended," except that he also descended to the lower parts of the earth? The one who descended himself is also the one who ascended above all the heavens so that he might fill all things.
This statement is not about the incarnation, but about Christ's death and resurrection. "He descended to the dead. On the third day he ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of God the Father Almighty."
4:11-12 And he himself gave on the one hand apostles, and then prophets, and then evangelists, and then pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the holy ones for the work of ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,
This is not a formula or a prescription for how we should structure the church today. This is simply the way it played out in the early church. If we go with the criterion of Acts 1, even Paul himself was not an apostle. If we go with Paul's apparent criteria (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1), an apostle needed to see the risen Lord and receive a commission to go preach the gospel from him. Paul, however, views himself as "untimely born" as an apostle even some 3 years after the resurrection. That would seem to close the book on there having been any apostles since that time.
The early church had prophets, and 1 Corinthians 14 presumes that they were still around in the local church. Matthew 7:21-23 seems to be a thinly veiled critique of prophets in Matthew's day, but there is no place in the NT where the door is closed on such prophets in the church (No, 1 Cor. 13:8 doesn't count). I will say, however, that Ephesians probably does see the foundational prophets as past tense. So we would say that no prophet today has the authority of a New Testament author.
We notice that the function of these individuals is not to glorify themselves but to equip the "saints," the common Christian made holy by the Spirit within them. Everyone apparently is to do the work of the ministry. These individuals do not build up themselves but the body of Christ.
4:13-14 ... until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of maturity of the fullness of the Christ, so that we are no longer babies, driven and tossed by every wind of teaching with the cunning of mortals with trickery for the trickery of error,
These verses are about the church growing up even more than we as individuals growing up. Each image has to do with a full grown person who can tell the difference between sound teaching and erroneous teaching.
4:15-16 ... but that, speaking the truth in love, we might grow into him in all things, who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, being joined and held together through every ligament of the support according to the working in the measure of each part for the increase of the body, it makes itself increase for its own edification in love.
This verse is very similar to Colossians 2:19. Christ as the head here is the nourisher of the body. It is a quite fantastic image. We should probably keep the nature of headship language here in mind when we get to 5:23.
Speaking the truth in love in context here seems to connect to true teaching in the previous verses, which probably as much involved teaching on living as teaching on belief. Certainly we should tell our spouse how they look "with love" too. But Ephesians seems rather to have in mind addressing those whose are inappropriate in practice with love. Applying this verse today requires great caution, for we are probably far less "right" than we think about our own understandings. The verses that follow perhaps push us toward seeing sexual immorality as what is primarily in view.
4:17-19 Therefore, I say this and witness in the Lord [that you are] no longer to walk as the Gentiles walk in the foolishness of their mind, since they have been darkened in thought, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, through the hardness of their heart, who, having lost their feeling, they have delivered themselves to sensuality leading to the working of every uncleanness in covetousness.
Even though the audience used to be Gentile, it is no longer like the Gentiles. The foolishness Ephesians seems to have primarily in mind is that of sexual immorality. The other stock foolishness of the Gentiles from a Jewish perspective was that of idolatry, but I don't see that here.
4:20-24 But you did not learn the Christ in this way, if indeed you heard him and were taught in him, just as truth is in Jesus, for you--in terms of [your] previous conduct--to put off in terms of the desires of deceit, the old person that is being destroyed, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind and to put on the new person that was created according to God in righteousness and the holiness of the truth.
This is similar to Colossians 3:10 and Romans 6:6. Ephesians sees a person becoming righteous and holy in life living because we are a new person. We don't live the way we used to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
Becca Mathews said...
It would be very interesting to be able to see how Paul's message affected the churches back when they were originally written. I often wonder if the people that heard the "sermon" were changed from within or if they were like most of our congregations today who hear it but do not listen.
When thinking about your last comment, that because of the knowledge that is now known to the Gentiles, they are to change their ways and live differently because of it. It would be so interesting to be able to follow some of those people home and see if they implement truth any better than the church does today.
Growing up in the Wesleyan Church, I often thought that the Wesleyan Church was the body of Christ. However, after a certain age I learned that the Church and the Body of Christ was a much more than just the Wesleyan Church. Not only is it the local church, but it is the entire Church scattered across time, languages, and nations. How often is Christ referred to as the head of the Church? How did Paul’s theology on the Body of Christ change from his earliest letter to the latest letter? Why did the theology change so much, is there any specific reason or did it just change overtime as he taught and founded more and more churches?
I often appreciate Paul’s way of laying out how we are too live. Do this, this, and this, get rid of such-and-such, don’t do this, or that—definitely not that—and so forth. He takes a little bit of this approach in the second half of chapter 4, pretty clear-cut, but it’s the groundwork he lays beforehand that interests me. Whoever he is writing to, for instance, if it is a circular letter to people he doesn’t know personally perhaps, he sets the basis before he makes his commands. To say to a group of Gentiles, quit living like Gentiles, quit living the way you always have, is a strong request. He starts with being chosen by God, and exalting Christ in his prayer. He tells of how they were “dead in transgressions and sins,” but now they are “made alive in Christ,” by grace. He draws upon their inclusion and now citizenship in heaven with unity to the Jews. He hits on where he’s at, his service to them, and his prayer for these “Ephesians.” It’s at chapter 4 where the rubber meets the road: “… I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.” He builds the foundations for his requests. What I’m getting at here in well over my 100 words is that, just as Paul doesn’t condemn and command without a basis, neither should we. We should approach with love. As we’ve probably all heard before, people aren’t going to care what we know, until they know that we care.
When I look at this chapter of Ephesians it is impossible for me to NOT pick up on the energy and enthusiasm written into its words. It is like a mini pep-talk that is designed to bring the people together while also reminding them that they, as individuals, need to take action. I can picture Paul, or someone else writing for him, pleading with the people to realize just how blessed they are to be a part of this body; this unified body with one Spirit and one Lord. Then, once he has gotten them excited with this picture of one body completely unified by love he reminds them that action must be taken.
For me, this translates into the idea that if you truly desire THAT unity, THAT love, then you have to do something! You can't expect to continue in your old gentile habits and desires if you want to see that kind of body form and flourish.
I agree with you Becca, I want to be able to follow them home and see if any of the message actually sunk in. I mean, how many times have we heard messages similar to this one and walked away without a second thought? Does that say something about the church as we know it today, or is it a larger description of humanity as a whole?
This chapter is packed full of good stuff and very interesting things. The first thing that caught my eye was verses 10 and 11. Whenever i read this i am so fascinated by it and i want to dig deeper and try to find out more. The verse that i was in deep thought about was verse 17. Here Paul tells the reader not to be like the Gentiles but if i remember right, the readers were Gentiles. This is really interesting because in a way Paul is telling them to not be like themselves. In a way this good for the reader because it shows them who not to be like even though it is there own culture. I know this is confusing but it is a great way to encourage the readers of this letter to be different and to be one in Christ.
In looking at what Becca wrote about the knowledge that the Gentiles have is very interesting. The reason being is because we in a way are in the same boat. We know most of the ways of right living through the scriptures but we continually sin. I know that this is because of our human nature but it kind of feels like a broken record. Am i wrong in thinking this? Would the Gentiles back at that time look much different than we do right now??
Everytime I read this chapter in Ephesians, I see a huge descrepancy between what Paul is illustrating as a true believer and the body of Christ and how Christians (especially in America) live their lives. American Christians tend to be convinced that their salvation is about their benefit instead of living for the benefit of the body. We don't put off the way we used to live in exchange for living like Christ, as Paul discusses in this chapter. The unity of the body that Paul refers to here is the means for preserving the body. Christianity lived in isolation leads to trouble. Accountability and edification is the whole purpose of the unity of the body that Paul is talking about. It seems that the modern church needs to reread and live out what Paul says in this chapter of Ephesians.
Katy- I love how you brought up the enthusiasm and energy present in this passage. I think that reveals the importance of what is being said. Paul seems to be trying desperately to emphasize the importance of putting off the old life and the importance of Christian unity. It makes me wonder if Paul thinks there is somehow a connection between the two.
Chris- I love what you said about Paul telling Gentiles not to be like Gentiles. I think it's so easy for Christians to justify certain behaviors that are contrary to what Christ calls us to simply because it's apart of culture. I think we need to pay more attention to instances in Scripture like this that point out the fact that culture cannot be an excuse for not "walking worthy to our call".
Chris, I think one big difference between then and now is that today it is pretty convenient to be a Christian. It really doesn't require too much commitment on our part. I wonder if they sinned less than us because they counted the cost more before saying they believed Jesus is Lord.
We also probably know more about some of the things they struggled with. In that case some aspects of their lives, especially sexual ones, might have looked more immoral than ours do. Just thinking out loud here.
What do you think?
Becca Mathews said...
Katy -
I love how you said, "They, as indivuduals, need to take action." This is such a great reminder that we do have jobs that we are to perform individually WITHIN the body. Some are arms, legs...but without the indivual operation of all the parts, the body as a whole wouldn't function. Thanks for that reminder!
Becca Mathews said...
Evan-
I completely agree with you. It is so nice to hear clear-cut, black and white, no gray area limitations sometimes. I, also, appreciate Paul's lists of "do's and don'ts" because it almost helps me picture my faith as something a little more tangible. Not sure if that makes sense, but thanks for pointing that out...I'm not sure I've ever looked at it quite like that before.
You know Becca, that's an interesting thought. I wonder too how Paul's audience received this letter. But not only that, I wonder how his other audiences received their letters. Most of them probably were changed from the inside out, but there were some, no doubt that just listened and went away saying that was a good "sermon". I wonder how our culture would take a letter from Paul today, especially if it was addressed to us, in our day and age, dealing with the issues that are plaguing our churches today? Would we take it and be changed from what was written, would we be offened and walk away from the Church, would we just listen intently and do nothing with what we just heard? I am just wondering aloud. Sorry. My mind works in weird ways.
Good thought, Chris. Are we any different from the Gentile of Paul's day? I realize that for the most part you can't tell who's a Christian and who isn't just by looking at them. We, as Christians today, blend in too much. It's like we're chameleons in the world, trying to hide ourselves from others. I mean, that's okay to a point, but what kind of witness are we showing those who do not know Christ? Probably not a very good witness at all.
Chapter 4 of Ephesians is a scary chapter, in that it is hard to live up to. Snodgrass believes that verse 7 means that we each have an assigned ministry. That is an awesome responsibility. It’s easy to volunteer someplace, but when the tough questions are asked finding the correct response is difficult. But we have the assurance of growing up. In v. 17 Paul does not merely ask us to live better lives, he insists on it! It isn’t too hard not to steal (v. 28) earthly possessions, but I worry about stealing time from IWU when I stop and discuss a class with someone in the Student Center. And as we all post comments to our classmates blogs are our responses “helpful for building others up” (v. 29)? It is so hard to live in the world today and not be bitter and angry (v. 31) when the news shows us pictures from India where innocent people are being gunned down. But we are told to forgive (v. 32).
Chris and Angela-
I love that both of you pointed out that this passage is calling the Gentiles to act in a manner contrary to their own culture despite the fact that their culture is always surrounding them. It seems like here in the U.S. it is really hard to distingush Christian from nonchristian, but it makes me wonder about other places in the world.
For example, in a Muslim context would this idea of living contrary to your old life mean more than it does to us here in this so called "Christian nation?" Is it possible that Christians in Uganda, or the Middle East, or in India understand just how difficult it can be to shed the contraints of an old life? Do we miss the true depth of these instructions because we are not daily endangered because of our faith?
Joel, I liked what you had to say about Ephesians 4 being hard to live up to. Do you think the "Ephesians" would have thought so too? I sure bet they did. Lots of things change over time, but many remain quite the same. Seeing that Paul needed to remind them of these actions, comforts me when I struggle to keep my talk uplifting and wholesome, or forgive people like terrorists. We're not alone in our struggles. People dealt with it then and people deal with it now, so why don't we deal with it together and spur each other on? That's one thing I've been learning through living in a dorm with a bunch of guys. Let's work through our struggles together .... sounds like that unity word that keeps coming up.
Well, I think we are all in agreement that Paul loves unity. Not only in Philippians is unity a theme, but here in Ephesians, we see Paul professing unity through all weakness. I wish I could here Paul on a pulpit talking about his passion for church unity. We always talk about how to get the church "back on track" How do we increase numbers? How do we see growth? Well, the philosophy for a healthier church, the ingredients for a church centered around the hear of Christ, we see abundantly in Paul's writings. Paul knows how to do church. He has his own podcast right there in the prison. Paul knows how to do church. Therefore, when we are planting churches, when we are taking jobs, internships, preaching on sunday's, holding small groups, we must think back the heart of Paul and take his passion of unity and USE it. How many times do we just read the letters of Paul? However, How many times are we sitting at the edge of our seat listening to a preacher showing his passion through images, stories, scripture, and intellectual thoughts? Paul is on the pulpit. Although his pulpit is a jail cell, you can still imagine his passion through his words. (Although, maybe not written directly by Paul, his heart is in these words) Unity. Building each other. humility. meekness. patience. diligent. UNITY
Preaching Moment by Dr. Paul Nieman: P-A-U-L: The meaning of being United with Christ.
Well, in answer to your question, Ken, since Chris was so rude to not respond. I think the Gentiles are like us...But as for the sinning part of their lives. I actually don't understand what you're trying to say about "us knowing more about their sin." Do you think they don't know really know what's a sin and what isn't a sin? Or, because we have been around it more, we have a better perspective of what "sin" really is?
I maybe think that sin is cultural? Would sin be different for them, although held in the same law? I don't know..IS SIN DIFFERENT THEN FROM NOW? Because of our culture, now?
Not that I always love to argue about things (Maybe that's why my mother said I would be a good lawyer.....) but i really like to point out both sides of every single arguement...Maybe sinning isn't cultural...but what i'm trying to point out, that it's important to bring both sides of any issue
In many ways, Chris, I believe that you're right.. We are like the Gentiles, but how are we different? Well, for one, we (Many parts of the world) have always had access to the word of God. The gentiles no...We also have been part of God's entire universe since we were born. The Gentiles...well, they got "accepted" sometime after..anyone get that? We are but we aren't...We have no excuses for the sins we posess, not that the Gentiles do, but do you see how we different a little bit?
"Just thinking out loud here" :)
I was very interested to see that you (Schenck) said that the verse mentioning one baptism isn't a verse suggesting that there should only be one baptism but only referring to the baptism of water. When I took Theo. I Bounds used that verse to argue that you should only have one baptism, not multiple ones. If the repetition of "one" doesn't literally mean one, then what are is the implication for the interpretation of the rest of the verse. If you don't believe that this verse means only participating in one baptism, do you agree with the idea of only having one baptism. And if not, how many times can you be baptized?
Paul -
I agree. That is a pretty hard ideal to live up to. I wonder how the church would be transformed if people really thought that they had their own ministry instead of religating ministry to the pastor. I would love to see a church where the people took the initiative in ministry and the pastor was able to guide and direct. So many times I have seen pastors plead to get people involved.
Bello -
I felt the same way when I read 17. If we had a preacher get up and tell us to stop living like Americans, heads would role. But I love that Paul doesn't just say not to live like this or tthat but founds it on the fact that as children of God we have a higher calling. It is less of a condemnation, a looking down upon, and more of a upward calling, pulling people up to the higher standard.
I have a question about verse 7. It says that grace has been given to each of us according to how Christ apportioned it... What exactly does this mean? Are there some of us who require more grace than others? Is it possible that the grace that was given to me would not cover the sins of someone else? I have always had an understanding that Christ's death was sufficient for all who called upon his name. Are there different levels of grace that God gives?
I agree with Hofer in the question with v 7. It seems like with God's character he would want to give us all the grace he could to bring us in relation with him. Maybe that would be a little too Calvinism. I would also like to talk about v 11. It seems like in todays time we blend all these offices together and call them pastor. I haven't met an apostle in a while and was just curious how these ministries fit into todays church.
I can't really see sin as being cultural. I think that culture can dummy down sin to where we don't recognize it, but I think sin is sin whether then or now. We know God never changes, He's always been the same, so it is us that changes.
I have to say that i have always liked this chapter. Like all of Pauls writings he is not afraid to step on toes, and simply says what needs to be said. I like the verse about being of one spirit and one mind. I like that Paul gives us the picture of the unity which must exist in the body of Christ not only in the local church but also the unity that must exist in the broader spectrum of the universal or "catholic" Church. Especially in Western Christianity I feel like we have gotten the idea that Christianity is an american thing only but that is by no means scriptural.
In Response to Paul. I do think that in some ways sin can be cultural as far as the specific sins, For example we don't necesarrily struggle with sacrifices of children and things like that but instead we struggle with other things, such as allowing our focus to be taken from God.
I am also confused as RJ is. I dont understand completely how verse 4 could mean that more than one baptism is allowed.
This unity that is talked about in vv. 2-3 and your comments about it ("We may disagree on things like doctrine and even to an extent on practice, but we are to be at peace with each other") really needs to be flushed out more in the church. How do we do this? How can we bring this to our churches? Unity is something that has been laid on my heart for ministry. I see our church now and (i may be wrong here, tell me if i am) all i see is bickering and arguing, even to the point that (even if the ministers know it) the congregations start hating other congregations and beget an attitude amongst themselves that fosters the idea that one denomination is the only one going to heaven and all other denominations are so far off that there is no way for them to make it to heaven. I saw this throughout my high school career amongst my church, my friends and their churches, and some churches near mine. it got to a point that some were trying to evangelize to the others and it was all based on minor points of doctrine that now i have seen don't matter much more than the dirt on my shoes.
hofer,
your questions are quite intriguing. i wish i had an answer for you. i guess i might say that the grace being sufficient for all does not exclude the idea that more is given to some and less to others. The nature of grace makes me question this though. I don't know how grace can be measured as less or more. the fact that God given grace is present would be sufficent for all no matter what, but from out perspective it seems that more grace is given to the ones who sin more.
Does sin change over time and across culturals? That is a good question. I think we would agree that the basic, black and white sins, say murder or stealing are basically not time and culture sensitive except in some extreme examples. Moses murdered the Egyptian, and it was still wrong back then as it would be today. As far as the less blatant ones go, could it be that their foundations remain the same, but their form might shift slightly? For instance, when I think of idolatry in the OT and so forth, I think, man, these people were crazy, worshipping this wooden Asherah pole (or whatever form that exactly took), or some golden something-or-other. But look at what we value, what we worship today: money and clothes-are they not just made of plants, cars made of our precious metals or coins and jewelry likewise, jobs or status like how the Pharisees were so proud of their position, and so forth. Child sacrifice? ... Well we sure have abortion. I don't know if you get the picture I'm saying, but no I don't go bowing to my stone little idol-lady with 22 breasts, but maybe my stone is the brick in the wall of my dream house I want. I don't think sins' foundation changes, the intention and heart of it is the same, but its form might shift to what is most appealing to that generation or people.
Evan, your first comment is so well put. I think Dr. Schenk pointed out that most of paul's letters do the Intro--Theology/Philosophical--Practicality built off of the Theology--Conclusion kind of thing. The application you have at the end is an important one to keep in mind. too often we lose focus as to the humanity and faility of the people we encounter and just try to 'fix' them without showing them the importance of the fixing.
i shall continue to say that Ephesians is my favorite book. looking at the post for stating the church is continuing to change and grow, what offices would you say have in sense replaced the ones which we deem incorrect over time. i mean looking at the criteria for apostleship looking through history it seems that the fathers took their place early on but who has taken the fathers' place. if prophets are no longer considered to accurate then what can we say has replaced that office as well.
Darren i do not think that it addresses what we consider as baptism. i believe that it is more on the understanding that there is one true purpose baptism. it is about what the baptism means not what the act as we think of it.
in a world where individualism reigns supreme, the word of paul strikes great contrast. Darren could you imagine a world where all the churches and denominations and sects were united under a single banner and would not allow other things to discourage or disunite. it would be a world where you could literally walk around coming to a church and not having to be afraid of that the congregatoin believed and would gladly move from pastor to pastor without a second thought. pretty much i would say that we might be out of a job as ministers.
Whenever I read passages like this, the tendency for me is often to individualize and personalize it as if it were written just for me. This mindset is not necessarily bad, for scripture can and often does have that effect, but often in doing this, it is very easy to miss the full picture of what is being taught in these passages. I was a bit stopped in my tracks reading the commentary on verses 13-14. The concept that this was written for a body of people to be acted out as a body of people finally clicked, and I loved it. There's so much beauty in the concept of a church growing together from infancy into adulthood. My generation talks a lot about churches being born and dying, but we rarely discuss churches growing up together. Once a church is started, programming tends to become individualized and the concept of a "personal Lord and Savior" is emphasized. Maybe that's why churches we see so many churches either on the verge of birth or the verge of death. If we could communalize, rather than individualize our growth in the church, we might see a change in that. Just a thought.
If sin is cultural, then what is our basis for a definition of sin? Are we basing it off of the "mind of God" (if that can even be proved) or off of what is currently acceptable? In that case, would our environment define our sins? If it is cultural, does that make sin relative? And if sin is relative, does that mean that God has different standards of waywardness given one's environment and culture? Could one man's sin be another man's worship? Sorry, I'm just hopping down the rabbit trail, and my head's about to explode. That's all I've got.
Angela - I really appreciate your comments from your original post. The concept of accountability and community within the Church is certainly one which I am passionate about. I was wondering if you had any ideas or were going anywhere with your comments. It seemed that you were leading into ideas of new monasticism and intentional Christian communities. I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything, but I think that you had some really good thoughts. Keep digging as to what exactly that might look like when put into practice!
I enjoy the reminder from 4:4-6 where the body referred to is something more than just one individual body. I know I struggle with this wider image. I often use to view the body of Christ as those individuals in my church, my friends whom were Christians, etc. However, college has helped this view point and I now embrace that the body referred to is the entire body of Christians: from Brazil, to China, to Africa, and even in North America. It is one body powered by one Spirit. This is encouraging and brings us back to what is important, who our focus should be, and what should drive us through life. Great way to keep unity.
Becca,
Great train of thought in the difference between the Word of God is perceived. I know there have been so many time when I hear a message which is convicting and gives me this desire to change. Yet, I get up and leave the building never giving it thought again throughout the week. Why is this? However, I know people who have been touched and do implement the knowledge, especially of Christ, into their lifestyles, bringing about an amazing change. I wonder what the result of Paul's words were as well...
Evan,
I enjoy your post and note that from sermons I have heard pastors tend to focus on the clear cut, list type form, of Ephesians 4. We focus on what no to do. You can't do that, or this, but do this and do it the right way. I once heard someone say that instead of just going down the check list of what NOT to do, we should focus on what has been done. The fact that we are no longer the creature we once were, we are to be made new. If we are to focus on this statement and ones similar like the ones in the beginning of Ephesians 4 then our live will be made into the perfection we are to be striving for.
Hmmm, Michelle, wonder when you posted these :-)
Paul states in verse 17 that we must not live any longer as Gentiles, in the futility of their thinking. There have been some comments made about living in our culture and not conforming to its ways. In my Bible there is a comment about Paul's statement, "futility of their thinking." The author of my Bible says that Paul is refering to the tendency of people to think their way away from God. Intellectual pride,rationalizations, excuses and so on... What type of Gentiles is this refering to? Common everyday people or people who hide behind their intelligence?
My pastor at home spoke this past summer on Ephesians 4 and he made an interesting connection between verses 3 and 13. I'm trying to remember what he said and I could be completely wrong, but I think he made the point that we need to keep the "unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (v3) in order to become "mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (v13). It's almost like Paul is stating that in order to receive our ultimate maturity in Christ, we need to be unified in the Spirit. I totally agree with this, and I think it needs to be enforced more in our churches. This goes back to the simple tasks such as loving your neighbor. When we are unified in Christ, we build each other up in order to fulfill a greater purpose. I love Paul! He always makes so much sense to me.
To Katy and Becca: You guys captured the essence of this passage so well! What a blessing to know that God has prepared each of us for a certain task, but that if we live in unity, those tasks (aka the people doing them) begin to build off one another to create something even greater for the kingdom. Paul goes even further to say that once we attain that maturity as a body in Him, we will not longer be "tossed back and forth" by the waves of evil in the world. What a great promise! That makes me want to fulfill my calling from God even more!
Katy- What you said about Ephesians 4 being a mini-pep talk made me laugh because that's exactly how I think of it. I have always loved this chapter for its practicality and everyday application.
Utnil now i had never realized that paul spent so much time talking about being united in CHrist and have all things work together for the spirit of God which is what keeps us in common bond with one another. 4:2-3 ... with all humility and meekness, with patience, being patient with one another in love, being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the common bond of peace: Once again, this is a verse that i have overlooked so many tiems reading this passage, but it really stuck out to me this time.
Haha i think that is true to Katy. This chapter is full of things that very practical for out daily living as Christ followers. I think often times we overlook these chapters in scripture because we would rather talka bout others people and how they are or are not living there lives then focus on the fact that we need to live our lives the way that paul depicts for us here in ephesians.
JE i like your argument for sin being cultural and how we are able to define sin if it seems to change with each passing generation and culture. i do not think that sin is curltural, however, i do believe that things that we sins to the early church may not necassarily be sins to you or I.
The first section of this chapter seems to center on the idea of unity. Paul states, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace.” This unity refers to the “unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God.” He goes on to say that when unity is reached, we “become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” I understand that total unity within the church will never occur until we reach heaven. This doesn't downplay the need for unity though. I think that unity can occur in both large and small ways. We can choose to be united in the little disputes that come up by acknowledging and respecting other people's views and choosing to unite in the things we have in common. In a larger context, churches can choose to be united in the common beliefs and doctrine they have and leave the differences behind.
I love the outline of this section. It starts by saying that we need to be unified then it talks about the church growing. We cannot grow without unity. When i hear someone bash the church i just cringe. Yes the church sometimes can be messed up, but it is where knowledge comes from and maturity. I hate it when some people think that they are to spirtual to even be around church, but i have to also recognize that i am to be unified with the person that is bashing the church or else i would not be practicing the very thing i preach.
The Christian church is at odds within itself, and it can be very frustrating. One example that comes to mind is the debate over Eternal Security or the ability to fall away from Grace. I think that handling things with humility, meekness, and patience displays itself with the humble admission that we are on the same side, working towards a common goal, and we do not know all the answers.
In verses 11-12, Dr. Schenck said this is not a blueprint for structuring a the church today. I feel like there is an emphasis on certain gifts and others are de-emphasized. Are some offices of the church better than others?
Addressing errors with a heart of love will make or break a relationship, but I agree with Dr. Schenck when he says that we are probably far less ‘right’ about our own understandings and it applies to speaking the truth to one another in love. Do we err too much on the side of loving other people? Should we attempt to correct them or be more harsh with those who go on sinning?
Amber Rae said something that just hit me, the church is spread over languages. I was in Mexico this summer and it was the first time going to a church service where i didn't speak the language. The worship was amazing and even though i had no clue what they were saying i could still very much feel the presence of God in a whole new way. If anyone hasn't experienced a worship service where you don't speak the language i would highly recomend it.
Dan, I agree with you that unity among Chrisitans is an important thing. What does unity promoting Christian maturity look like? We need to establish which matters are little disputes or which matters we are willing to go seperate ways with. Also, can we be fully united here, why do you think we will only be fully united in the next life?
JE, I see what you are saying when you refer to churches being mentioned only when they are being planted or dying. Do you think an emphasis on Jesus being our Lord and Saviour "personally" is a bad thing? Maybe the solution is to press people in church to act out on their personal faith-- when it is lived out publicly, it thrives in private. The question then is, what is a healthy balance of a public and private faith?
Chris i love the point you make in Paul saying that he wants the gentiles not to be themselves. I think that has something to say about the transforming power of Christ in your life. When we receive Christ we are no longer to be "ourselves" but now "ourselves" is defined with Christ. We are to think differently, to act differently, and to be different.
I absolutely love verses 13 and 14. I think that is great verses that needed to be taught in our church. I think that we just can't always grasp the idea of growing in unity in Christ. It's something that we all need to do together. It's by us growing together that we will be able to see what is true and false teaching. A group of people that our close together and grow in God together as one body will be able to tell a false teaching. When they hear something that they are unsure about they will be able to go to each other and sort it out together as one group. I think if we keep that in mind our churches will be stronger then we can ever imagine.
Jon I do agree that we are so afraid of hurting people we seem to let it go. I have been thinking about that alot lately. I think that we can show people love but if it is a leader in the church we have to be very careful with how much we let them go. I feel when people are leading then they need to be held to a high standard and sometimes I think we need to address that even if it means making them or even us uncomfortable in the process.
Yes, Jeff I totally agree with everything that you are saying about unity. I am so glad that I'm not the only one that feels this way about the church. It's the spiritual snobs in our church that makes our job so hard when we want to show others how much joy and potential the American church has.
RJ discussed the idea of one baptism and what it meant. To Quakers this has come to mean that since Christ took all our sins onto himself the baptism he received (The one baptism) covered all believers.
i really enjoyed verses 13-14. Schenck's thought of how Paul was talking about the church growing up as more than just individuals. It is a neat thought to look at the body of Christ as made up of indivivuals but yet it so much more than just that. It is amazing that even when one person comes to know Christ as their personal savior, how much stronger the body as a whole becomes.
along with many others, what does it really mean by one baptism?
Jon B wrote:
“Do you think an emphasis on Jesus being our Lord and Savior "personally" is a bad thing? Maybe the solution is to press people in church to act out on their personal faith-- when it is lived out publicly, it thrives in private. The question then is, what is a healthy balance of a public and private faith?”
Well said. It has been my experience that the concern here is when a person does not act out his faith, use his faith to build up the church, or share his faith with others. However, I think you are implying that there is some balance of both “private” and public faith. What do you mean by “private faith?”
Snodgrass seems to see speaking the truth in love in this context as “speaking and living the truth of the gospel […] opposite the deceitful teachings that carry away the immature” (206). Perhaps an example of this was sexual immorality (according to Dr. Schenck). So what are other “deceitful teachings that carry away the immature?” What issue(s) is(are) worth “speaking the truth in love” for?
Dr. Schenck, Jon, etc.
Jon wrote: “Addressing errors with a heart of love will make or break a relationship, but I agree with Dr. Schenck when he says that we are probably far less ‘right’ about our own understandings and it applies to speaking the truth to one another in love. Do we err too much on the side of loving other people? Should we attempt to correct them or be more harsh with those who go on sinning?”
I agree that “we are probably far less ‘right’ about our own understandings,” and this has implications of how we speak the truth in love. I see both extremes: “nit-picker” and the “anything goes.”
I am in constant tension with determining how to interact with others in a way that encourages them to serve God more fully. I would expect others to encourage and challenge me to grow in my relationship with God…
I think it often takes a gentle spirit, a will aligned with God, and a relationship with the person in question to “speak the truth in love” effectively. (The “relationship” part helps because you often get a clearer perspective of what’s really going on.) And of course, this works best when the one to whom the truth is being spoken in love to is humble enough to accept it. :-)
Post a Comment