Ephesians 1

[Butch5]

Here's another problem with the typical understanding. Paul said of the group in which he includes himself, the "us" group, that God had abounded towards them in all wisdom and prudence.

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (Eph 1:8-9 KJV)

Is there any record of God having abounded in wisdom to the Gentiles? Did God previously reveal the mystery of His will to the Gentiles? As far as I know the answer is no.

However, if that was case and God did somehow give the Gentiles the mystery of His will one wonders why Paul would pray that they God would reveal it to them. Why pray for God to reveal something to someone who already knows it? Just a few verses later Paul said,

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, (Eph 1:15-19 KJV)

It doesn't make any sense for Paul say that God had abounded to them in all wisdom and prudence and then pray that God would give them what he just said God had already given them.

 

[Butch5]

Paul revels that the seed of Abraham is not in the plural as seeds, as is one Seed. That being Christ.
Rom_9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom_9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The NT is the reveling OT. The OT, the Torah and the prophets are the witnesses to Christ as the Messiah.

That's true, however, as I said, they didn't have Paul. God didn't say, the believers in Israel are my son, He said, Israel is my son. That meant something when it was written. When God said to Moses, Israel is my son, they had not yet even come out of Egypt. They didn't have a the Law yet, they were just a group of people descended from Abraham. But God still called Israel His son. He didn't qualify the statement. God adopted Israel. We learn later that many were disinherited but that doesn't change what God said to Moses, Israel is my son.

 

[Deborah13]

If the "We" is the Jews who first came Christ and the Gentiles were included in this can you show where Scripture says that the Gentiles were chosen to be a holy and blameless before the Lord?

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Hos 2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

 

[Butch5]

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Hos 2:23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

HI Deb,

The passage from 1 Peter is written to Jewish believers and the Romans passage is a quote from Hosea which is speaking of the Jews.

YLT 1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1Pe 1:1 YLT)

KJV Hosea 1:1 The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.
6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel. (Hos 1:1-11 KJV)

That passage in Romans is addressing Jewish believers.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Ok, one of the blessings is eternal life, can I assume you won't die? On of the blessings is a resurrected body do you possess that now? You spoke of having received future blessings in the past. That seems to be a contradiction in terms, if it a future blessing how is it received in the past? Wouldn't that make it a past blessing?

What is Eternal Life?

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

Eternal Life is a quality of life, particularly referring to life in the age to come. That we will indeed live forever in the New Creation, but we come to be apart of that in a sense when we come to faith in Christ.

Through faith the same way they are now.

Explain to me how Jesus was the Messiah prior to the incarnation.

That may be but that doesn't mean that that is what Paul is talking about. Also the word places isn't in the text.

The rest of the context of Ephesians 1-3 supports my conclusion.

And the word ἐπουρανίοις can be translated in many ways, I am just going off of the ESV which is "heavenly places." The preposition of location "in" with the article "the" demonstrates that these blessings reside in the heavenly realms/places/whatever you want to call it.

OK, should we assume that prior to that that Jesus wasn't loved by God?

No. That's not important though, what's important about the use of the perfect tense is that it shows a current status from the author's perspective. Yes, Jesus was loved in the past and has always been beloved by the Father, but he is also currently beloved.

If the "We" is the Jews who first came Christ and the Gentiles were included in this can you show where Scripture says that the Gentiles were chosen to be a holy and blameless before the Lord?

I can't stand these kinds of questions... Scripture isn't a systematic theology, and asking for something like this is the wrong way to go about things.

1) Even if I couldn't find a Scripture that doesn't mean it isn't true, as this text could very much so indicate that.
2) By your standard we would have to validate every piece of doctrine by having multiple occurrences, which isn't the case.
3) The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, this is a logical fallacy.

Believers are called the elect, we are the chosen people of God, so it would not be an unnatural interpretation.

 

[Deborah13]

That's true, however, as I said, they didn't have Paul. God didn't say, the believers in Israel are my son, He said, Israel is my son. That meant something when it was written. When God said to Moses, Israel is my son, they had not yet even come out of Egypt. They didn't have a the Law yet, they were just a group of people descended from Abraham. But God still called Israel His son. He didn't qualify the statement. God adopted Israel. We learn later that many were disinherited but that doesn't change what God said to Moses, Israel is my son.

Yes it meant something...
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Mat 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Here's another problem with the typical understanding. Paul said of the group in which he includes himself, the "us" group, that God had abounded towards them in all wisdom and prudence.

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (Eph 1:8-9 KJV)

Is there any record of God having abounded in wisdom to the Gentiles? Did God previously reveal the mystery of His will to the Gentiles? As far as I know the answer is no.

However, if that was case and God did somehow give the Gentiles the mystery of His will one wonders why Paul would pray that they God would reveal it to them. Why pray for God to reveal something to someone who already knows it? Just a few verses later Paul said,

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, (Eph 1:15-19 KJV)

It doesn't make any sense for Paul say that God had abounded to them in all wisdom and prudence and then pray that God would give them what he just said God had already given them.

Let's read those two verses in context.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ [1]

You asked? "Is there any record of God having abounded in wisdom to the Gentiles?"

Yes, how about when Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the forgiveness of all humanity, which he did according to the riches of his grace.... which he lavished upon us in all wisdom and insight.

If you don't read it on context, or with a better translation, you miss the point. He is saying that his actions were done in all wisdom and insight, not that we have been given all wisdom and insight. The mystery of his will that is revealed in Christ is that all men, Gentiles and Jews are fellow heirs. As these are Gentile believers, I think they know a little bit about God's love for all mankind..


[1] Ephesians 1:7-9 (ESV)

 

[Deborah13]

HI Deb,

The passage from 1 Peter is written to Jewish believers and the Romans passage is a quote from Hosea which is speaking of the Jews.

YLT 1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1Pe 1:1 YLT)

KJV Hosea 1:1 The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.
6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel. (Hos 1:1-11 KJV)

That passage in Romans is addressing Jewish believers.

Was the nation of Israel God's people? Yes, they were.
The ones who were not God's people were the other nations.
Hosea is all about the marrying of a Jew to a harlot.

 

[Butch5]

Let's read those two verses in context.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ [1]

You asked? "Is there any record of God having abounded in wisdom to the Gentiles?"

Yes, how about when Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the forgiveness of all humanity, which he did according to the riches of his grace.... which he lavished upon us in all wisdom and insight.

If you don't read it on context, or with a better translation, you miss the point. He is saying that his actions were done in all wisdom and insight, not that we have been given all wisdom and insight. The mystery of his will that is revealed in Christ is that all men, Gentiles and Jews are fellow heirs. As these are Gentile believers, I think they know a little bit about God's love for all mankind..


[1] Ephesians 1:7-9 (ESV)

That doesn't address the question. Why would Paul pray that the Ephesians receive from God what He just said they received from God.

 

[Butch5]

Yes it meant something...
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Mat 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Ok, So, Mathew applies that event to Christ, how does that address what was said the Moses?

 

[Butch5]

What is Eternal Life?

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

Eternal Life is a quality of life, particularly referring to life in the age to come. That we will indeed live forever in the New Creation, but we come to be apart of that in a sense when we come to faith in Christ.

How does John's abstract use of the word change it's meaning. Is death life? Paul contrasts death and eternal life. Is eternal life one quality of life and death another quality of life?

Explain to me how Jesus was the Messiah prior to the incarnation.

Why assume He would have to be the Messiah before the incarnation? Abraham wasn't told to believe in the Christ and you will be saved.

The rest of the context of Ephesians 1-3 supports my conclusion.

And the word ἐπουρανίοις can be translated in many ways, I am just going off of the ESV which is "heavenly places." The preposition of location "in" with the article "the" demonstrates that these blessings reside in the heavenly realms/places/whatever you want to call it

In the heavenly things? Isn't heavenly an adjective?
.

No. That's not important though, what's important about the use of the perfect tense is that it shows a current status from the author's perspective. Yes, Jesus was loved in the past and has always been beloved by the Father, but he is also currently beloved.

That's my point, the love began at some point in the past. At what point did God start loving Jesus?


[/quote]I can't stand these kinds of questions... Scripture isn't a systematic theology, and asking for something like this is the wrong way to go about things.

1) Even if I couldn't find a Scripture that doesn't mean it isn't true, as this text could very much so indicate that.
2) By your standard we would have to validate every piece of doctrine by having multiple occurrences, which isn't the case.
3) The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, this is a logical fallacy.

Believers are called the elect, we are the chosen people of God, so it would not be an unnatural interpretation.[/quote]

I didn't say anything about the absence of evidence, however, an argument from silence is also a logical fallacy. You said, "Even if I couldn't find a Scripture that doesn't mean it isn't true, as this text could very much so indicate that." If that is the case then aren't you imposing something on the Scriptures that is not stated? Doesn't that make it an opinion?

I don't argue based on the absence of evidence, I argue one what is plainly stated in the Scriptures. To say this passage could mean this and therefore that's how I'm going to understand it doesn't work for me. If something is not explicitly stated then at best it's an inference. I don't form doctrine on inference or assumptions. That's how the Church has gotten into the mess it's in.

 

[Butch5]

Was the nation of Israel God's people? Yes, they were.
The ones who were not God's people were the other nations.
Hosea is all about the marrying of a Jew to a harlot.

Yes, but verse 10 clearly states who is being discussed.

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That doesn't address the question. Why would Paul pray that the Ephesians receive from God what He just said they received from God.

I just refuted your point that they received "all wisdom and insight," that isn't what Paul was saying. Rather he was saying that the action of lavishing all the riches of his grace was done with all wisdom and insight.

 

[Deborah13]

Ok, So, Mathew applies that event to Christ, how does that address what was said the Moses?

Who does God say is His first born? Jesus
The whole OT is about the coming of Christ and how that came about.
So many types and shadows of Christ.
So I believe that when He said, Israel is my son, even my firstborn. He is talking about Jesus.
Where did the man in the flesh Jesus come from but the people of Israel, He was a Jew, Judah.

 

[Butch5]

Who does God say is His first born? Jesus
The whole OT is about the coming of Christ and how that came about.
So many types and shadows of Christ.
So I believe that when He said, Israel is my son, even my firstborn. He is talking about Jesus.
Where did the man in the flesh Jesus come from but the people of Israel, He was a Jew, Judah.

I think you're missing my point. Moses didn't have the book of Mathew. When God said to Moses, "Israel is My son" it meant something to Moses that day. I don't think Moses thought this must be speaking of Jesus who comes in the future. God has revealed his plan to mankind over time. He started in the garden when He said, He would put enmity between the seed of man and the seed of the serpent. So, for us to understand what God was saying to Moses we must understand it with the understanding that Moses had, not with the revelation that Mathew was given later on. Moses didn't have the revelation that Mathew did, therefore Moses had to understand God with the revelation that God had given to him.

 

[Butch5]

I just refuted your point that they received "all wisdom and insight," that isn't what Paul was saying. Rather he was saying that the action of lavishing all the riches of his grace was done with all wisdom and insight.

OK, I'll give you that argument. However, my point about the passage still stands that it is speaking of the Jews. I'll just claim it minus one piece of evidence.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

How does John's abstract use of the word change it's meaning. Is death life? Paul contrasts death and eternal life. Is eternal life one quality of life and death another quality of life?

I think he is referring to life in the age to come, which is contrasted with the punishment for the wicked which is death. We have eternal life now, because believers are in a sense apart of that New Creation, in that we are born anew of the Spirit, though it's only as Paul calls it, a down payment.

Why assume He would have to be the Messiah before the incarnation? Abraham wasn't told to believe in the Christ and you will be saved.

Christ means the anointed one, and it is the person who would take up the throne of Israel and restore peace and save God's people (among other things). Which had an earthly lineage that Jesus took up when he was incarnated.

Why would he consistently be referencing the fact that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah, and that these people have these blessings "in Him." Or why would he reference both and leave the matter in utter ambiguity, making it seem like the first Covenant was just as good as the new.

In the heavenly things? Isn't heavenly an adjective?

Yes, yet you have as I have already said.. a preposition of location, which makes clear that the blessings are contained "in the heavenly." To make things more clear, translators add the words "realm" or "places."

If you want to doubt just about every Bible scholar who knows the Greek far better than you or I, then that's up to you!

That's my point, the love began at some point in the past. At what point did God start loving Jesus?

The act having a beginning is not important, it is its completion or accomplishment that matters with the perfect tense. It is something that has happened in the past, which is demonstrated with the indicative verb that accompanies it. And it is clear that of course the Father still loves Jesus.

I didn't say anything about the absence of evidence, however, an argument from silence is also a logical fallacy.

Except I am not making an argument from silence. I am arguing for a correct understanding of a particular passage, which is consistent with the rest of NT theology and is a historical and orthodox interpretation that fits the context and purpose of Paul's Epistle.

You said, "Even if I couldn't find a Scripture that doesn't mean it isn't true, as this text could very much so indicate that." If that is the case then aren't you imposing something on the Scriptures that is not stated? Doesn't that make it an opinion?

No, that would mean that this is the only reference to the NT Elect being chosen to this specific purpose. However, it would be for the purpose of demonstrating that they have received the original blessings of Israel in the Messiah, which makes loads of sense because of the text's context.

I don't argue based on the absence of evidence, I argue one what is plainly stated in the Scriptures. To say this passage could mean this and therefore that's how I'm going to understand it doesn't work for me. If something is not explicitly stated then at best it's an inference. I don't form doctrine on inference or assumptions. That's how the Church has gotten into the mess it's in.

I am making my interpretation based upon a detailed exegesis of the passage, which considers the author's intent and message conveyed in the context of the given statement. Which takes into consideration the OT passages that you noted, but makes more sense within the context.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

OK, I'll give you that argument. However, my point about the passage still stands that it is speaking of the Jews. I'll just claim it minus one piece of evidence.

I'm curious, why do you think it is important to see verses 3-10 as referring to the ancient Jews, and not either 1) all believers in Christ, or 2) the first Jewish believers in Christ. It just doesn't make sense to me, and that is probably the biggest problem that I have with the test. In regards to a reader being able to extract that meaning, it seems like it would be a very complicated and convoluted way to state something with little relevance to the topic.

How about you give me the reader's digest version of the text in your own words.

 

[Butch5]

I think he is referring to life in the age to come, which is contrasted with the punishment for the wicked which is death. We have eternal life now, because believers are in a sense apart of that New Creation, in that we are born anew of the Spirit, though it's only as Paul calls it, a down payment.

I agree that he’s referring to the age to come. My question is how does one have that life today. Paul said the believer has the down payment on the inheritance, which is the Spirit. He also said in Romans 8 that it is the Spirit that will raise the believer from the dead. This seem to me to be the connection between John’s saying the believer has eternal life in the present. Not that the believer will never die but rather that he has the means of life in him.

Christ means the anointed one, and it is the person who would take up the throne of Israel and restore peace and save God's people (among other things). Which had an earthly lineage that Jesus took up when he was incarnated.

Why would he consistently be referencing the fact that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah, and that these people have these blessings "in Him." Or why would he reference both and leave the matter in utter ambiguity, making it seem like the first Covenant was just as good as the new.

He doesn’t mention the Messiah in that passage so I’m not quite sure what the point is that you’re trying to make. How are tying together the adoption and the Messiah?

Yes, yet you have as I have already said.. a preposition of location, which makes clear that the blessings are contained "in the heavenly." To make things more clear, translators add the words "realm" or "places."

If you want to doubt just about every Bible scholar who knows the Greek far better than you or I, then that's up to you!

Ok, if it can be things then it doesn’t have to be places right? Places is a noun, correct and heavenly an adjective that describes a noun, correct? Heavenly is in the neuter gender, correct? Why would you add the word places rather than things?

The act having a beginning is not important, it is its completion or accomplishment that matters with the perfect tense. It is something that has happened in the past, which is demonstrated with the indicative verb that accompanies it. And it is clear that of course the Father still loves Jesus.

I understand that, however, the act having a beginning does matter to my argument. If the act of God loving Jesus had a beginning and if Christ is eternal as most believe that means there was a time prior to act that God didn’t love Christ. That would indicate that the passage is not speaking of Christ. One could argue a different understanding of Christ’s eternity, however, what is considered as the Trinity by most Christians today this passage cannot speaking of Christ

Except I am not making an argument from silence. I am arguing for a correct understanding of a particular passage, which is consistent with the rest of NT theology and is a historical and orthodox interpretation that fits the context and purpose of Paul's Epistle.

You said if something isn’t in the Scriptures that doesn’t mean it’s not true. I agree with that statement. On the other hand it cannot be said that it is true since it not in the Scriptures.

I hear Christians speak of what is orthodox quite often. I don’t see how an appeal to what is orthodox is any defense of a position. The Catholic Church had control of the Scriptures for 1000 years. During that time Purgatory was orthodox, was it correct? All of the doctrines that the Reformers rebelled against were orthodox, were they right or were the Reformers right or were they both wrong. What is orthodox one day is heresy the next

No, that would mean that this is the only reference to the NT Elect being chosen to this specific purpose. However, it would be for the purpose of demonstrating that they have received the original blessings of Israel in the Messiah, which makes loads of sense because of the text's context.

But, isn’t that you’re opinion of what the text is saying? It’s not mine. I don’t look at the text that way. You’re saying it’s the only NT passage that references the NT elect being chosen and I’m saying it’s reference to many OT passages. My understanding fits the context nicely also. The difference is I’m not making my claim without any evidence. If this is the only passage that references NT elect being chosen then there is no support for the claim. However, if it’s speaking of the Jews as I suggest there are many passages to support the idea. It’s all over the OT.

I am making my interpretation based upon a detailed exegesis of the passage, which considers the author's intent and message conveyed in the context of the given statement. Which takes into consideration the OT passages that you noted, but makes more sense within the context.

How is it in the context to apply future events to the past?

 

[gr8grace3]

I did read both of the links.

This is just my opinion and what I read "between the Lines." I could be wrong though.

It seems to me that this is a stretched teaching to try to explain away the reformed doctrines of election and predestination for the individual. I believe that these links have it wrong and It came about because of the very popular reformed theology doctrines of election and predestination. And someone somewhere had to come up with something to refute it. Noble in its cause, but went outside of the word to try to refute something else(Reformed election and predestination) that is outside of the word of God.

If this isn't the case, why is it important for believers to read Eph like the links describe?

.