Ephesians: An Exegetical Journey

[Larry Siegle]

FOR those interested, I have posted the beginnings of an exegetical commentary of the book of Ephesians at Victory Words online. (www.victorywordsonline.com). [For whatever reason, I cannot seem to get the link from here to work properly]

The Internet does not afford one the opportunity to make sure a study exhaustive in scope, however, this study plans to be faithful to the proposition that Paul's discussion is in the context of the revealed "mystery of God" in connection with Jews and Gentiles being brought together into "one body"--the glorious church for which Jesus shed His own blood (Acts. 20:28).

Topical discussions of "predestination" and the theological impact surrounding the traditional controversies seen in connection with this subject will be mentioned, but not developed fully since I believe it is outside the scope of the basic intent of the message Paul seeks to convey to the Ephesian believers. The "community" aspect of redemption will be discussed and the relational nature of what God was seeking to accomplish during the first-century takes center stage.

Much of the work in this commentary is based on previous notes and the writer's own rendering of the text that was for the purpose of enhancement of his personal study of the book for presentation in a Bible class setting many years ago.

I encourage your comments, suggestions and disagreements with the approach taken, as the comments made in the actual commentary and will consider any corrections, thoughts or additional insights for inclusion into the work itself. My desire in creating this "exegetical" section is to promote deeper thought about what the text actually says and what it implies for those believers to whom it was addressed and for those of us now living beyond the "end of the age" and the "consummation" of God's glorious plan and purpose.

[thomas greenlee]

Hi Larry,

I understand the antecedent of the first person singular to be Paul the apostle of Christ Jesus and the antecedent of the second person plural to be all of those to whom he was writing at Ephesus. Paul divides the whole group in Ephesus into two groups in his salutation. Group 1 was the saints and group 2 were the faithful in Christ Jesus. These two groups are mutually exclusive of each other.

I understand the antecedent of the first person plural to also be the apostle Paul and much of the description in 3-12 is Paul's personal testimony and explanation of his ministry and calling by Christ to be an apostle.

"In whom you also" of verse 13 is the same second person plural with the same continuing antecedent being those at Ephesus. Paul now explains that some of the things he had explained about himself (we) he was now explaining applied to them also (which is evidence those at Ephesus were not included in the pronoun we) after they had heard the gospel he had preached to them.

Begining in Ch 3 Paul goes into more detail about his calling as an apostle and calls them to remember what he had already explained in ch 1:8-12. Paul's inclusion of his divine calling and ministry, to Christ's holy apostles and prophets in verse 5, precludes any antecedent other than Paul, the apostle of Christ Jesus, or Paul and this identified group of Christ's holy apostles and prophets of which Paul was a member, as the antecedent to the pronoun we in ch 1.

I think you are correct in what is implied by the text is the text itself and what is inferred is that conclusion that necessarily follows from the text with only the text as the necessary cause of the conclusion. To draw an inferrence based upon something in some other text that is not in this text would be a fallacy.

As an example, we may not impose or insert into the Ephesian letter something that Paul may have said to the Corinthian church, that we understand to be addressing the same subject. What is said in Ephesus implies what is said in Ephesus and what is said in Corinth implies what is said in Corinth. What we may validly infer is that Paul did not contradict himself by teaching one thing in Ephesus and something contradictory in Corinth. This would be consistent with the logical maxim that two things (Corinth and Ephesus) both of which are the same with a third thing (what Paul taught) are the same with each other (not contradictory)

Again i repeat, my comments are motivated by a desire to be helpful to you in your difficult and admirable work of writing a book.
Tom

[Kenny Plummer]

Larry....

I will be following your writings on Ephesians As I am undertaking A study of Ephesians in the group study in my home. I have went through this book many times and am going to do it once more because some of the people in our group need to reach an understanding of many things in this book. So with the help of God I am undertaking this once again.

Blessings Kenny

[Larry Siegle]

Perhaps I misspoke.

The Law of Identity certainly does say that "A thing is a thing" and a "proposition is a proposition" It is what it is--I agree with that, absolutely.

To say otherwise creates a logical contradiction. Every precisely stated proposition is either true or false. A cannot be both A and not A in the same way with the same characteristics. The Law of Contradiction (Excluded Middle) also comes into play. I agree with everything you have stated. You are absolutely correct.

Implication and inference are a related, but different matter. We infer (from the text) what God implies by what He said (explicitly, or in so many words).

Relative to the context in which Paul writes the letter to the Ephesians (which is the specific thing under discussion), who do you understand Paul to have been addressing through his use of "we" and later "you also" in the context?

[thomas greenlee]

Larry, I also apologize if you have uderstood my cpmment to be an objection. I have no desire or right to object to what you desire to do. As a matter of fact I greatly admire anyone who has the intellectual discipline and work ethic to write a book. I sadly recognize that I do not.

If you view the comments about the new book "House divided", which would include yours, you will see that they concentrate on exposing the false reasoning and contradictions tha are pointed out concerning WSTTB. My comment was motivated by the desire to help prevent your book from the same criticism. If friends can recognize logical and grmmatical fallacies and contradictions in your proposed book, it is certain that those who are of a different opinion will be willing and eager to critically point them out as well.

Every proposition in scripture by its very nature of being a declarative statement of truth or falsity implies nothing other than itself. This is the definition of the law of identity that A is A. and cannot be non A. No proposition in scripture implies any other proposition in scripture.

To claim that some A implies B is the contradiction of the law of identity that proposition A implies proposition A with the cotradictory proposition that some proposition A does not imply proposition A. The same is true of pronouns by claiming that the definition of some pronouns is not their antecedent.

If you recall, the contradictions founded upon these laws was the source of the cognitive dissonance that Orwell was expressing in his book "1984". "Double Think" and "Double Speak" were both designed to convince the people that they could believe that a thing and its contradiction were both true "Big brother loves us"

We, who believe the scripture is inerrant, do not believe that A implies B but that A implies A and B implies B and they are not contradictory one to the other. I hope that helps.

Tom

[Larry Siegle]

Tom

I apologize if I have misunderstood your objection.

In the context of Ephesians 1, the apostle Paul makes use of several different pronouns in reference to his audience. My point is that if you follow the pronouns down through the verses there is clearly more than one group being referred to in the context. He discusses God's eternal purpose in the context of "we" which appears to be a references inclusive of himself and Jewish believers. When he nears the conclusion of his argument, he changes pronouns and addresses "you also" which I believe is a reference, in the context to the Gentile believers. He concludes with "our" which appears to be inclusive of both groups being "one body" in the sense that God was bringing together both Jews and Gentiles into that same body of believers without distinction.

He talks of the children of wrath "even as the rest" which clearly references another group of people. I am just trying to follow the flow and train of thought Paul is using. He also says, "among whom you also walk" which is also a reference to the Gentile Christians. I do not believe, based on the contextual usage, that you can understand the message of Ephesians without calling attention to whom Paul is addressing specifically.

With reference to the two groups he contrasts "them are near" (Jews), and those who were "you were afar off" (Gentiles). He talks about the Gentiles having been separated from the covenant promises of God in contrast with the promises made to Israel.

Does this make sense?

[thomas greenlee]

Thanks Larry,

I'll have to beg off I just don't know how to deal with A implying both A and not A and with pronouns that are not defined by their antecedent and do mot agree with their antecedent in gender and number. Good luck with your book.

Tom.

[Larry Siegle]

Thanks Curtis, it never seems to work properly when I try to add the proper link. Thank you for your help....

[Curtis Sibbit]

Larry,

Are you including "http://" with your www.address when you post a link? Here is my attempt: Ephesians: An Exegitical Journey by Larry Siegle.

Curtis

[Larry Siegle]

Sometimes A implies B. The text always says what is says, but in some cases there are direct implications of things that necessarily follow. If A then B.

Regarding the textual use of "pronouns" scholars have observed that in the Pauline epistles especially that in some instances the pronouns call attention to one group or another. If you follow the pronouns in Ephesians 1, you will discover that when Paul refers to "we" he is referring to "we" [Jews] in contrast with "you also" [Gentiles] to show the end-time work of the Holy Spirit in bringing to two groups (Jew and Gentile) into the "one body." It is a subtle, but important distinction in using what the text says. This does not violate the concept that he is addressing "we" and "you" in a particular historic context and timeframe (e.g "we who are alive and remain" refers to those living at the time of the parousia.

[thomas greenlee]

Larry,

As a suggestion you might want to rethink the use of the term "exegetical" in this work. I for one have a tendency to raise a red flag when I see "exegesis" associated with "deeper thought about what the text actually says and what it implies". A implies A, What the actual text says implies what the actual text says.

Also, you might want to reconsider the violating of the grammatical rules for the use of the personal pronouns. Particularly since the foundation of preterism is the insistance that the correct grammatical definition of the pronoun "you" is a major reason for our claim that the parousia occurred in 70AD.

If preterism does not adhere to the same grammatical rules that we require of others how can we be taken seriously?

Thanks,
Tom