Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Ephesians 1 | Condensed Version
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- For those that just want to get straight to the point without all the extra explanation…this one’s for you!
Reduces the watch time from 1 hr and 8 minutes down to 27 minutes. If you just want to hear the main points this video shares that…if you want the cross references and all the extra commentary that aids in the overall understanding, watch the original longer version!
You are right that once you see this you can't un-see it. Thank you! I reread Ephesians to get a better handle on the context and have a better perspective now.
Wow, this is really well laid out and explained. Brought a lot of clarity. Thank you!
Finally! A rational and thoughtful interpretation of Eph 1 without the tainting of an overlay of one doctrine or another.
Thanks for taking us (21st-century Christians) out of the discussion about who was chosen and predestined before the foundation of the world.
(BTW - I presented the same argument - though not as thoroughly- in my book, "God's Elect: The Chosen Generation").
I would love for more eyes to be open to the truth that Eph 1 is not about us.
Thanks again!
I’m so glad I found this information. Paul is so misunderstood, and Ephesians 1 and 2 certainly do sound Calvinistic. This is exactly what I needed to move away from Calvinism.
I would love to know your understanding of Romans chapter 7. Reconsidering this chapter is what started my move away from Calvinism. Blessings on you Brother.
Thank you brother . GOD bless
Same to you brother
I am enjoying your work, but I find the music so annoying and distracting! What's the point? Maybe it's just me, but I have a very difficult time focusing on your words when the music is playing. Thanks.
After a detailed reading of Ephesians 1 (in the non-calvinists RV60 and DHH spanish translations), I can't understand the text in the way this video says.
The natural way seems to understand Paul and the Ephesians are the "us" in verses 3-10, and the division is made in verses 11-12 (jews) and 13 (gentiles).
I'm not a Greek expert nor a Calvinist, but this argument seems weak.
You claimed that there was not an antecedent in Gal 1 when Paul switched to we in verse 8. However there is. It is found in verse 2: “all the brethren who are with me”.
Yes. I really like this shorter video. I rarely have 1-2 hrs to dedicate to watching videos.
Excellent
As I showed in another video, your interpretation is in error.
Paul’s use of the “us,” “we,” and “our” up through verse 12 does not merely refer to Paul and the Apostles to the exclusion of all others. If this were the case, then it would exempt saints from the phrase “our Lord Jesus Christ” in verse 3; this would limit Jesus to being the Lord of only Paul and the Apostles. Also, in verse 13-14, Paul refers specifically to the saints in Ephesus who, through their faith, are included in “our inheritance.” Since they are included, Paul’s use of “our inheritance” in verse 11 is not something only possessed by Apostles, but is rather something possessed by all saints. Furthermore, if one is to limit the "us" and the "we" to merely Paul and the Apostles, then it would exclude the saints from all of the blessings through verse 12 that we know from other scriptures are indeed possessed by all the saints - things such as spiritual blessings, election, predestination to adoption as sons, redemption through His blood, forgiveness of sins, the inheritance, and so on.
The book is written by Paul and addressed “to the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1) therefore this “us” refers to all of the saints; all of those who submit to and are obedient to “the faith” (Cf. Acts 6:7) and are represented and justified by Christ (Romans 5:18).
@lawrencestanley no that would not be true of what you said about limiting Jesus to only being the Lord of Paul and the Apostles.
You’re guilty of and in error for committing the negative inference fallacy.
Just because Paul says something about a specific group does NOT now automatically mean it does not apply to anyone else.
By that logic we would conclude that Jesus only died for the Apostle Paul and no one else because in Galatians 2:20 Paul says that Christ gave Himself for him.
So does that mean Jesus never died for anyone else?
Of course not.
GALATIANS 2:20
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and GAVE HIMSELF FOR ME.
NEGATIVE INFERENCE FALLACY
Simply put, the negative inference fallacy says if a proposition is true, it does not follow that a negative inference from that proposition is also true.
It may or may not be true, but if it is true, it is not so by inference from the original proposition.
In conditional format, "If A, then B," does NOT imply the negation, "If not A, then not B."
For example, "if a man is a resident of Oregon, then he is a resident of the United States," does NOT imply "if a man is not a resident of Oregon, then he is not a resident of the United States."
@@apilkey
All of that is nice, but it doesn't change the point that Paul’s use of the “us,” “we,” and “our” up through verse 12 does not merely refer to Paul and the Apostles to the exclusion of all others.
I left Calvinism about 2-3 years ago. I was easily swayed to John MacArthur’s lordship/Calvinism after having left a legalistic Pentecostalism. (Pentecostalism was easily recognized as wrong however the lordship was not as easy)
Since then, I have decided to be a bit more daring in my studies of what the Bible actually says.
My core beliefs of Jesus being the Son of God and scripture being God-breathed and the trinity, and pretrib rapture have only been more solidified once I quit listening to only one side. (My brand of Pentecostalism, my brand of Calvinism, etc)
I am enjoying all of your studies, along with others who might have disagreements, but are also not Calvinistic….all that to say….
Instead of Paul incorporating the other Apostles as part of the “we”, could he instead, be referring to Jews? (Believing Jews, of course). We know that the OT refers to Israel as “My chosen” and “Mine elect”.
I ran across this reasoning from scripture in what is called “rightly dividing”, or negatively called “hyper dispensationalists”.
US IN THE BEGINNING: I don’t see how this fits well as including the Ephesians since Paul visited them in his 3rd missionary journey.
This does not fit with his traveling companions at the time either. The people he was with at his beginning, are not even detailed in scripture, and after a brief outburst of preaching, he goes into relative isolation for years until Barnabus tracks him down. Paul’s second journey begins with a different set of companions, which seems to change and shift throughout the remainder of his missionary ministry.
The clearest picture of US IN THE BEGINNING I can draw, is FISRT TO THE JEW. Until Cornelius, the church was all Jews. Oddly enough, Paul is responsible for dispersing most them around the Roman world. Outside of Antioch, there was no concerted outreach to the gentiles until Paul started his journeys. The missions begin with a team of Jews (often those that were around Jesus’s ministry), and in each city, starts with Jews if there are any there.
Wow, brutal interpretation. Way to ignore vs 1-2 that clearly shows who the us and we are - Believers in Ephesus.
Where in those verses is this connection made? I do not see a clear inclusion there, but there are 3 or 4 clear distinctions made between US/WE and the Ephesians within the first chapter.
This first time I heard this interpretation was from Shawn McCrany five years ago. James White did a radio free geneva where he quite thoroughly refuted it. There is a reason why even some of the most vicious anti Calvinist won't even go this far. Even Kevin Thompson of beyond the fundamentals doesn't go this far.
At 13:00, no sir. In verses 8-9, Paul is making mention of that which belongs to the saints "in all wisdom and insight," and in verses 16ff, he is praying for the Ephesians, that God will give them the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the full knowledge of Him. The Ephesians were saved (the eyes of your heart having been enlightened), but apparently, they did not have "all wisdom and insight;" they were missing a complete understanding of what is theirs in Christ. Since God condescends to carry out His will through means, Paul is praying for their understanding.
You seem to have presuppositions that you are bringing to the table when you read this text, and the necessary results of your assertions strips the saints of what is mentioned in the previous verses, including redemption.
Hey brother, I am not opposed to Ephesians 1:3-12 including the Ephesian believers and from a general sense all future believers as well. I just think the case is strong considering contextually how Paul writes his other letters. I am not removing spiritual blessings from believers or the Ephesians by believing 1:3-12 speak only to Paul and the Apostles. It’s obviously a big topic as this has been an ever on going exploration and not as clear as other passages. Appreciate your comments!
@@GoodBerean
But sir, the problem with your manner of exegesis is that you take Paul's use of the word "we" elsewhere in his letters, and assume that it means the same every time he uses the word. The meaning of "we" is determined by its immediate context, and sometimes it can even refer to different groups in the same passage. All that "we" means is that he includes himself in whatever group he is referring to.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Exactly. Jason is taking a clearly worded passage, and assumes it lacks clarity, thus allowing him to find "we" outside of Ephesians so he can make it say something different. But there is no ambiguity in Ephesians 1.
Well done.🎯 John MacArthur will be surprised to get to heaven and discover what a poor Calvinist John was, as Dr. Sproul already knows.
That they were not the elect Paul is referring to?
@@robinq5511 That the scripture never says anyone was "elected/chosen/created' "To Be" saved and 'In Christ" from before the foundation of the world. Biblical 'election' is always to perform a service in God's plan. And nobody is "born" unable to respond positively to God or the Gospel of Christ.
The elect to which Paul refers are believers who God has saved because he promised to save whosoever will believe. It is not their belief which saves them, it is God being faithful to his promise. Some will believe, some will not... but anyone can.
And that is Good News for everyone.
I’m enjoying your content on Ephesians1, but have a few questions:
Who is the “our” in V2- grace to you and peace from “our” Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…
Who is the “our” in V14 - who is the guarantee of “our” inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession…
Who is the “us” in V19- and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe….
So, are you saying that the “us” and “we” are always Paul and the other apostles throughout Ephesians? Just trying to get some clarification.
Fantastic!
No, The “us” and “we” in the beginning of Ephesians 1 is the stated and much more natural “Paul and the mostly Gentile Ephesian Christians”, as stated in verse 1. In Paul’s mind he is describing a Gentile group. The Ephesians are Gentiles and Paul puts himself in with that group. Paul signifies his change of the pronoun use in verse 12 but before verse 12 it is “we-Gentiles.”
I have been puzzling through the interpretation given in the video. Here is the verse you brought out WITH the very next one, “to the end that we who were THE FIRST to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, YOU ALSO, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,”
US in the BEGINNING, compared to YOU ALSO down the road, does not seem to make your point solidly.
There was no US, or Gentile US, from the time Paul came to faith and years latter began ministering. Those he was with when he encounter Jesus are never even specified, and were all Jews. He immediately started preaching, but quickly ended up in isolation for a while before Barnabas got him involved in the first serious outreach to gentiles, which was again led by a bunch of Jews.
The only hole I see is that Paul did not believe in the beginning during Jesus’s ministry or around Pentecost. Is the begging Paul refers to FIRST TO THE JEW?
Did you watch the whole video? He does give plenty of contextual clues in from Ephesians to establish a division between US/WE and the Ephesians.
@@jeffreybomba Hi Jeffrey, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I did listen to all of this video. In the 15th minute, when he's addressing Eph 1:12 he demonstrates some poor reading comprehension. He expresses that his belief is Paul is telling the Gentiles they had no hope because they weren't the predestined ones Paul was talking about earlier in the chapter. This is an unfortunate reading, because the syntax of the sentence Paul says, is that BEFORE you were in the flesh, and AT THAT TIME you were without hope. Paul is recounting that now they have come to realize the true God and the true Christ and they now have hope, but that they were always part of the predestined, loved, chosen ones of God, whether they knew it or not. Much of the rest of this speaker's understanding of the context of Ephesians is similarly misguided, unfortunately.
Regarding the US in Ephesians 1, you are right to point out verse 12, although I do not think you see the importance of it.
After establishing the I (Paul, an apostle) and the you (God's holy people in Ephesus) in verses 1 and 2, Paul uses the collective "we" and "us" pronouns 9 times in verses 3-11. And the simplest, and correct view, of what he means is I, Paul, and you, Gentile Ephesian believers.
Then, in verse 12, halfway through a sentence that begins in verse 11 and has the last of the 9 collective pronouns, Paul now uses a 12th collective, "we" but this time he annotates it. Why is he annotating it? The speaker in this video explains it as Paul re-clarifying what the collective pronouns have meant all along, which is an entirely possible use of language.
My view, as I've stated, is that until verse 12 the pronouns meant something else and Paul is now moving to talk about a different group of people in verse 12, so he is signaling that he is changing the collective pronoun's reference for the immediate verse.
Which seems more correct? My explanation is certainly more simple and follows the plain language more simply, and Paul's signposting of the change in collective pronoun use is certainly evident and obvious if you wanted to support the rationale of my hypothesis. But that's not the only reason to side with my explanation. Which fits better in the context?
This video's argument is that Paul as an apostle, a preacher to the foreign Ephesian people would be starting off a letter to them, extolling all of the wonderful virtues that he and his fellow early believers had been granted by Christ. Can you imagine being a missionary to a foreign people, let's say Lithuania (I'm guessing you're not Lithuanian?) and starting your letter to them with 11 verses about how great it is to be an American and how special you are? No one in their right mind would do that naturally, and Paul was no moron. Plus, this logic would go against what Paul says in Ephesians 2 and 3, and throughout Romans and Galatians, and against what Jesus taught in Matthew 22, etc.
@@TheRomans9Guy Just taking on the first paragraph of your response. I agree that his mention of FOREKNOWN is weird there. I believe you are making the same mistake Calvinism makes in Romans 8:28. This is another foundational passage for the Calvinist systematic, and is the historical genesis of Reformed theology, and yet it can’t be plainly read by Calvinists, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love (Calvinists must stop and insert that God it is not possible to love God unless first regenerated) to those who are called (all are not call because all/world does not mean all/world because of another misinterpreted text use to disarm the dozens of all/worlds used) according to His purpose. (as opposed to those called and refuse His purpose).
In Ephesians, Paul can be so emphatic about the WE in the beginning because tJesus flat out said THESE 11 and PAUL ARE MY GUYS. When he later refers to the Ephesians he prays that they come to this same level of knowledge and certainty because ultimately he does not know who really is and is not saved.
Jesus flat out told the APOSTLES not to rip out the tares because they would mess it up. John writes about people he ministered to leaving the faith, not because they were not elected, but because they were never saved, and that was evident because they did not come to love and obey as God promised/predestined for those He foreknew would come to true faith.
@@jeffreybomba I don't agree much with Calvinists, and much less so with Calvinism. Romans and Ephesians present the same message, ALL people are called and chosen by God. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Jewish theology, but a big component of it is the idea that God elected just the Jews, and he did not choose the Gentiles. There had been hundreds, if not thousands of years of struggle and debate with why/how this was the case, why would God do this? Turns out, as revealed through Christ, he didn't. God chose all people. He chose the Jews first, but he chose the Gentiles too.
The PURPOSE for why God chose the Jews, as Paul reiterates in Romans 9, was so that they would be his example on Earth. They thought they were special and that other humans were not special, and Paul is teaching, no you were dumb and God had patience with you to show that he is the hero. For all people. So you weren't more special than other humans, you were the guinea pigs.
In Ephesians, Paul isn't praying for them in verses 18 and 19 because they're not saved, he's praying that they'll come to fully understand all these Jewish mysteries that have now been solved so that they can see the majesty of God through these revelations as he did. The Gentiles were just mostly unaware of all the Jewish drama that Christ magically resolved. That's why he's praying for their further knowledge. They were saved.
@@TheRomans9Guy The idea that anyone being written to must be saved is something I call brethren theology, or because they are feted to as brethren, it is a statement that the writer was assuming/knew they were all saved. All anyone knows is that people profess faith. We do know their hearts, only God does.
The apostles were shocked about Judas, Paul speaks of those he ministered with that departed, and John makes it clear that those who departed, from even his own ministry, were never saved.
This is why the even Paul tells his readers to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.
If God judges your heart as true, and He saves you, He predestines you to continued sanctification and ultimate glorification.
10:18 “The Ephesians we’re not the first ones to have this mystery revealed to them.” But in a very real sense they absolutely were. To this day if you go into the Jewish community and try to explain to them that they are NOT the only chosen people of God, that in fact all people are chosen, the Jews aren’t really God’s special children any more than the rest of us, you’ll be laughed at, ridiculed, or much worse. Paul and the apostles realized this and taught their new, burgeoning church, and they all accepted this truth far faster than the majority of the Jews did. So yes, the apostles and the early mostly Gentile churches were absolutely the first to realize and understand this mystery revealed.
Appstleship isnt The Office of Apostleship. It just means *sent' unless there is an agenda. Paul is bragging about being chosen to be an apostle and lording it over them? Quite a stretch. There are much easier plain readings.
I appreciate that you are contending with Calvinism and thanks for the video, but you should have credited John17apologetics. He is the first person I’ve ever heard make this point, and his video was out 2 months ago. Please, give credit where it is due. It doesn’t diminish you when you say I got this insight from so and so.
I don’t mean this to put you down. We are all brothers in the Lord.
Your not serious are you 🤔
@@markshaneh Dead serious! It is a sign of dishonesty to take someone’s work and pass it off as your own. It is nigh impossible for someone who is contending against Calvinism not to be aware of others who are doing the same. It is not a crowded field.
John17apologetics brought out this perspective. All of a sudden this guy brings out the same thing, even using the same phraseology and the same sequence of passages? Common! Who is he kidding?
Do not steal the guy’s work. Give credit where it is due. It is absolutely alright to take the idea and give your own take on it, but don’t pretend it is original with you when it is not.
@Yarison hey brother, sorry if this has caused you problems or doubting in me in any way. I want to clear the air… I am aware of J17 apologetics and have listened to his video on the topic. I was asked by another person if I’m in line with J17 apologetics after posting my first video on Ephesians and I said yes. I want to be clear that I have heard of this interpretation awhile ago and didn’t give much weight to it. Having went through studies of working through Paul’s letters, I’ve heard of the “we” and”I” argument before. After leaving Calvinism my view on Ephesians 1 obviously changed. But when I watched J17, that position I heard of before caught my attention and brought me to study it again to verify if I was seeing the same thing with fresh eyes (as a non Calvinist). I think there’s a strong case for it. I am not sure if I’m 100% convinced to be honest…still wrestling with it and have thought about making a third video on the subject. But hopefully knowing I’ve heard this interpretation before helps.
You mention my presentation is similar. I have some comments about that:
I did reference and use many of the cross references when I did my studies on it. But, the cross references are basically Paul’s letters and portions of Acts, which any one studying the Bible would use. Im not going to go to a book that doesn’t support anything I’m drawing out. So, as a result of those cross references being similar, the video probably seems similar.
I am in agreement that this is a compelling argument. But J17 did not come up with it and is not the only one who believes it. I know this is not the popular view on Ephesians 1, but just because one person put it out there does not mean he is the only one with that interpretation. I’ve had around a dozen other people send me messages telling me that they have believed this interpretation for years, clearly they didn’t learn it from J17 as his video is not that old.
I’m happy to give him credit to J17 for peaking my interest to go back and study. But he went to Paul’s letters to show the similarities…I too in order to make the point also went to Paul’s letters to show the similarities. Others have went to Paul’s letters to make and contrast other similarities. If I am remembering correctly, he does not cover Galatians in his video, which I brought out in my video.
As I mentioned already I am more than happy to give him credit for bringing up an interpretation that I heard before that I needed to better vet out. Please know I did my own studying to prepare for these videos.
I do want to say that I greatly appreciate your heart to give credit where credit is due. This is greatly lacking in our culture. And with all the concerns over the past few years of plagiarism, and now the new threat of AI created sermons, it is good to have people like you keeping an eye on things in this way.
I would like to make several more points:
many Calvinist, who hold to the same position of Ephesians 1 as other Calvinist do have probably learned from a variety of other Calvinist theologians or seminary teachers teaching how to read and interpret Ephesians 1 from a Calvinistic perspective. RC Sproul, for example espouses what he was taught in hope to interpret the Bible, but does not give credit to his seminary teachers. In another example, Pastors may have gathered an interpretation of a portion of Scripture from a variety of different sources throughout their years, but only give reference to one (that being the most recent commentary, they perhaps used to prepare for their message) while leaving all of the other sources out. Are they wrong to not give credit to the those who helped them see the Bible or understand portions of Scripture? Do we need to list everyone that has helped us through our journey of Biblical interpretation?
Let’s be honest...J17 is not the originator of this position. If anyone has a new interpretation of Scripture, we should be very leery and discerning over that. J17 did not create this interpretation.
One last note, I don’t know J 17 or everything that he believes so just because I may be in alignment with him in one way it does not make me want to endorse him from his Ephesians video. He seems like a wonderful guy, but I don’t know all of what he believes and I don’t want to make recommendations about anyone if I don’t know them that well. I felt in good conscience to take a position I’ve heard before that was reintroduced to me by J17, then went to the Scriptures to study for myself and provide a presentation and share on TH-cam.
Since you have brought up the concern…I’m happy to say everything that I have above and give J17 credit for inspiring me to go back to the Scriptures and Study Ephesians again!
Please know nothing I wrote is meant to be read in any condescending way. Tone is very hard to read through text. Please know I appreciate you for bringing this up. Teachers should be held accountable. I’m hoping my response gives you comfort and peace.
Blessings brother
@@GoodBerean Thank you for taking time to respond. You make a good point about when and when not one should give credit on general knowledge.
I am not affiliated with John 17 Apologetics and do not speak on his behalf. It is just that this position is so unique and so simple that once one hears it, it seems compelling. I have not heard it before and thought that if anyone who contends with Calvinism knew about it, surely they’d have stated it before.
People do, of course, often arrive at a given truth independently. (Two people invented Calculus independently.) I have often come up with things on my own only to see that someone else has come to the same conclusion. It gives me joy to see it. All I need do is say I arrived at this conclusion on my own but I have since found that so and so came to the same conclusion. Or that I wasn’t aware that others had already arrived at the same conclusion but have since, which strengthens my conviction.
When I first ran into you, I gave thanks for you, because I am absolutely convinced that Calvinism is an error but it’s everywhere and the more people who combat it the better. It was thus a disappointment for me to see that you missed the opportunity to give a shout out to someone I thought had received a unique insight on this issue. To be clear, all that is needed is a shout out, not an endorsement.
On this issue, I think John 17 Apologetics has done well since he has submitted his work to a number of people to test and vet it. All I desire is a complementary community of those in the same camp, not necessarily a hundred percent agreement. Surely, one is bound to see minor disagreements here and there, but as long as there is agreement on the major substance we should all be pulling together.
You say, J17 reminded you of it but that you were aware of it. Whereas J17 does say he has heard of something similar before not necessarily particularly the way he presented it, you sound in your own presentation as though you are presenting something completely new. You give no indication that this is not unique with you. This is where a red light went off for me. There are some people contending with Calvinism on TH-cam who left comments for J17 commending him, and I know that these people at not biblical newbie’s-this thus confirms to me that it is a unique view, which may or may not in the end be correct. Biblical scholars can vet that.
I do not want to sound like a broken record. You know the truth about where you heard the idea from. All I will encourage people to do including yourself is give shout outs when it is necessary. I want J17 to do the same for you if you present something that is unique and insightful, which helps him and others to see things with a new and fresh perspective.
@@GoodBerean Here we have another presentation where someone thought you were presenting something as your own, that it's unique to you. Additionally, you claimed in the video that when people see this presentation, they'll never look at Ephesians 1 the same, but your comment above says you're not 100% sold on this interpretation. I find this troubling. Why would you try to convince your audience of things you are not convinced of?
22:30 or thereabouts, we’re talking again about the great mystery revealed that the Gentiles are no longer left out of the kingdom of God…and you turn this into a message that Paul was especially chosen for his office of apostle?? No, this is all about fixing the ancient dilemma that was thought to exist of how could a god create all men and love only some of them. It turned out this was a false dilemma. This has nothing to do with Paul proclaiming he had a special office.
My question is… why did God choose Abram? Isn’t that arbitrary? In choosing Abram, he did NOT choose a bunch of other people. Isn’t that basically election?
The election of Abram was for a particular service not salvation… the election was so that the whole world through him would be blessed by his offspring…namely Jesus. This is the covenant that God made with Abram. When you see election in the Bible, it is not referring to salvation, but to a service for God or to God. Paul explains that he was set apart in the book of Galatians for the service and office of apostleship.
@@GoodBerean that is a really helpful distinction to emphasize, thank you. So did God love Israel more than other nations? If so, was that special love conditional on them following his commands?
@ConciseCabbage to my best understanding, God set His affections on Israel for them to be the ones who He would choose to give the Savior of the world through. He also gave them His covenants and commandments to which He would use Israel to be a light to the nations. Numerous accounts God revealed His power to other nations and pagan kings changed their position on the One true God and called all people to worship the One true God. Daniel is a good example of this.
@@ConciseCabbageNo, i don't believe God loved Israel more than other nations; it was simply his choice to make His covenant with them and reveal the promise of Jesus through their lineage. The only condition, was that they were "predestined" to Glory should they believe and obey in the Messiah.
15:00 “the Ephesians were not foreknown by God.” Wait, what??? That’s a total fabrication.
@TheRomans9Guy you clearly don’t know what is meant by being foreknown by God.
It has nothing to do about God knowing about them or knowing them as in simple foreknowledge.
It’s an intimate knowledge as in a relationship.
24:56 actually the shift comes in verse 12, not 13.
9:29 “Who did God make known the mystery of his will?” Jesus of course. Peter was probably second in Acts when he has the dream about the sheet and calling nothing unclean. But Paul was likely also one of the earliest ones and also likely the most ardent believer of it. He spread the message everywhere he went, it’s in most of letters. If this letter was written to the Ephesians and if Paul had visited them before writing this letter then they would have had first hand knowledge of his teaching in the mystery of the inclusion of the Gentiles. But even if neither of those are true, this teaching was the second biggest point of the gospel message for Paul so he talked about it everywhere and it would be fair to assume the church at Ephesus knew of his teaching on it.
@TheRomans9Guy the question was not who did God make known the mystery of His will to, but rather who did Jesus make known the mystery of His will to.
Jesus knew His will it wasn’t a mystery to Him, and He didn’t make it known to Himself.
Paul tells us pretty clearly in Ephesians 3:2-9 that this mystery was made known to him:
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
@@apilkey “the question was not who did God make known the mystery of His will to, but rather who did Jesus make known the mystery of His will to.”
Oh I know, but I chose not to point out the reading comprehension error, it was probably unintentional. No one who reads verses 1:7-10 would mistake the “he” in verse 9 as Jesus. It’s clearly God. So I ignored the simple error and answered the underlying question.
You move on to say that the mystery was also made clear to Paul, which I mentioned as well. No disagreement there.
@@apilkeyPaul makes it clear that he heard this mystery apart from the other 11 apostles.
It is also shown a multitude of times through the Gospels and Acts that this MYSTERY was made known to the other 11 and the entire church. Much like the suffering Messiah, the inclusion the Gentiles ran so contradictory to Jewish MAN MADE TRADITION, that many Jewish converts struggled to accept it. Peter himself has to explain to everyone after Cornelius that DUH! Jesus said this was going to happen, and here is the proof it was of God.
@@jeffreybombaThe mystery was not Calvinist Gnostic election.
The mystery was that the Gentiles were fellow heirs through faith.
That salvation was through faith not election.
@@apilkey Not sure what I said to make you think I was making a Case for Calvinism, which I completely agree is rooted in Gnosticism/Stoicism.
8:00 “verse 3 down to verse 12, why would that be about the Ephesians…” it’s not, it’s only through verse 11 that the “we” is Paul & the Gentiles. In verse 12 Paul wants to separate out his “we” so he changes it here to Paul & the early (mostly Jewish) Christians.
2:30 Galatians is from Paul and the brethren who are with him (vv 1-2). He doesn't tell us that these brethren are apostles or not.
So, how do we figure out who the "us" is in Ephesians 1:3-12? We just look at verse 1: _"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:"_
Does Paul say anything else that indicates he's talking about the saints in Ephesus? Look at verse 2: _"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."_ "Our" is a first person plural possessive pronoun. God is our Father. Every believer can say this. It is not relegated to apostles alone. All Christians can say God is our Father.
Paul goes on in verse 3: _"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ."_ Now "our" is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. All Christians can say that Jesus Christ is our Lord. This is not for apostles alone.
Now, there is no indication between the phrases "our Lord Jesus Christ" and "who has blessed us" that Paul has switched from speaking of himself and the saints at Ephesus to speaking of just the apostles...unless you impose that on the text.
But you seem to want to replace those pronouns thusly:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of *[Paul and the saints at Ephesus's]* Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed *[Paul and the apostles]* with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose *[Paul and the apostles]* in Him before the foundation of the world, that *[Paul and the apostles]* should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined *[Paul and the apostles]* to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made *[Paul and the apostles]* accepted in the Beloved.
7 In Him *[Paul and the apostles]* have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward *[Paul and the apostles]* in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to *[Paul and the apostles]* the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth-in Him. 11 In Him also *[Paul and the apostles]* have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that *[Paul and the apostles]* who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
You would go from including the saints at Ephesus to excluding them in one sentence. Why would Paul need to tell the saints at Ephesus how great it is to be an apostle, something they can't have? Rather, these blessings are understood to apply to all believers. Your interpretation is novel, and doesn't work with the grammar. We don't need to go to other passages to figure out who "we" are if it is plainly stated in the text itself. And it is plainly stated, in verse 1.
*First Trusted*
You assumed the meaning of "first trusted". But you assume it means those who believed before anybody else believed, and that this can only mean the apostles. The grammar already plainly says Paul is speaking of himself and the saints in Ephesus, his audience. Again, that's found in verse 1.
Frankly, I see no need to force the grammar to say something it is not plainly saying unless you need it to say something different.
12:54 No, just because Paul explains the mystery that has been revealed to him and the Ephesians in verses 8 & 9 doesn’t mean he can’t also pray for them to have knowledge, wisdom and understanding in verses 16-18. The Ephesians like any church are not a homogeneous group. Nor do people stay confident in a piece of knowledge once gained, they sometimes vacillate in their opinion of the truth and need reassurance.
As a counter argument, what sense would it make for Paul to start this letter off with 10 verses extolling all of the great blessings he and the other apostles had received? What a weird way to start a letter that would be! Would a missionary from the USA wrote a letter to strangers in El Salvador and start off with 10 lines of how great it is to be blessed as he is as an American? Of course not. That’s no way to win over a audience foreign to you.
@TheRonans9Guy huh?
Paul literally tells us in Ephesians 1:
13 In whom YE ALSO trusted…
And in verse 15 Wherefore I ALSO, after I heard of YOUR faith in the Lord Jesus…
So this group is clearly not the same people to be included in what Paul is saying in verse 8.
@@apilkey and that’s the point I make. In verses 1-11 Paul is staying with his earlier identified plural group, himself and the Ephesians. In verse 12 he decides to change the group and accurately give us the sign-posting of who he is now changing to: “we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ…”
15:24 “if election to salvation is true I would argue that there would be hope.” Of course there is and that’s what Paul is teaching, but nobody knew that until just then. Did you miss the part about that it was a great mystery that had just now been revealed?? No one knew that the Gentiles were going to be included into the kingdom of God. That’s a huge part of what all this is about. No, they had no hope because the Jewish leaders taught the God of the Hebrew’s hated the Gentiles and so they had no hope and everyone in the world believed them. How could God create all mankind and hate most of them you ask? Aha! The great mystery that has now been revealed is that HE DIDN’T!
@TheRomans9Guy the mystery that was revealed was not about unconditional election to salvation.
You won’t find that anywhere.
You’re correct in saying the mystery was that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs (Ephesians 3:6), but it was through FAITH and not election.