Week one: 1.1-14
Rev.
COPYRIGHT 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the
prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.
We are about to be given a grand tour of theology by the
apostle Paul. We will see some of the great things that God has done for us.
Ray Stedman introduced these things as follows in one of his sermons.
"Obviously, all of this, as we saw last week, comes to us in one great
package "in Christ." If you are not a Christian, you cannot possibly
claim these benefits. They are not yours; they don't belong to you. You cannot
buy them, you cannot discover them, and you cannot sign up for a course about
them in a university. You can't send away ten dollars in the mail and get a
pamphlet that will lead you to them. There is no way you can appropriate them
unless you are in Christ. But if you are "in Christ" there is nothing
to keep you from having all of them, every moment of every day. That is why it
is so important that we discover what they are."
Let's begin our tour.
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to
the saints which are at
Paul, the "not so nice" Saul of the early part
of Acts was well known in
What a wonderful thing to get a letter from this man that
had been such a part of the church’s beginnings and growth. What a treat to
hear more of his great teaching as well. I suspect there was a lot of
excitement in the church when it was received and read.
When he tells them he is an apostle by the will of God I would
guess there were a lot of amens in the congregation. They knew who he was, as
well as what he was. He was an apostle, but prior to this life he had
persecuted believers. His past life had to have had some impact as they viewed
his overall character.
Recently I was in a church service where the preacher was
downplaying the testimonies of people that have been in the dregs of sin, but
washed in the blood of the lamb. He thought that they were braggarts to discuss
their former life, yet it is part of their life, of their overall testimony, so
why would someone with a life of sin behind him try to cover it up by not
mentioning it when giving a testimony for the Lord and what He has done in the
life?
The pastor mentioned that he was more excited to see a
young child come to the Lord because they haven't gone through all that sin. I
am not sure why we should dismiss one person's salvation for another’s, since
we are all saved by grace and we all come to the Lord with nothing but filthy
rags. Indeed, I am not sure, but it runs in my mind, all are totally depraved
and all are totally without excuse before God - how can we devalue one person's
experience over another’s? Indeed, all come to Christ with a totally sinful
nature and they are spiritually dead, be they a child or a drunk of old age -
all lost are just as lost as another.
Paul knew he was what he was because of God's will. We
can also know the same in our lives if we are on communicating ground with the
Lord.
I trust that you have considered what God's will is for
your life. Even children can start looking into this area of their spiritual
life. Some know when they are yet very young that God wants them in the field
of missions, while others know that they are to be preachers, or mothers, or firemen.
Note, that God's will does not mean the ministry, but may. Keep that
"may" in your thinking as you seek God's will for your life and
future.
The fact that Paul addresses this to "the saints
which are at
Paul uses the following description of his readers,
"...to the saints which are at
"Paul" means short or little, thus descriptive
of the apostle’s stature, yet God used him anyway - he can, and will use anyone
of any type, of any shape, and of any stature if they are open to His leading.
Don't ever allow some limitation to hinder your openness to God to serve Him in
His way. Moses in the Old Testament used his lack of eloquence to try to excuse
himself from God's calling - don't you allow anything to stand between what God
wants you to do and your doing it. Ex. 4.10 "And Moses said unto the LORD,
O my Lord, I [am] not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken
unto thy servant: but I [am] slow of speech, and of a slow tongue."
The better example of a willing participant in God's will
is Isaiah. He was willing to answer the call. Isa. 6.8 "Also I heard the
voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said
I, Here [am] I; send me."
The term "saint" is the normal term for
holiness. Now, that speaks volumes about what we are supposed to be like. When
you walk into the break room at work, do people envision you in their minds as
holiness walking into the room? Does anyone call you holy? Do your friends view
you as a holy one? I trust this term brings you up short in your life, as this
is God's standard.
So many people in churches across the country feel good
about themselves, but are never told that God holds them to a holy standard
rather than a feel good standard. Many are going to be surprised at the
judgment seat of Christ.
I rather think this is one of the things that helped
spawn the false teaching currently circulating that the Millennium is a time of
reigning with Christ for the faithful, while being a time of purification for
those that aren't faithful. A protestant purgatory as some are calling the
teaching. Some have seen the lack of holiness so have seen benefit in this
false teaching to encourage people to live holy lives.
I suspect some would suggest that the holy ones and the
faithful are two different groups of people. This may be true to a point. The
saints at
Darby translates it in a way which seems to equate the
two terms to the same people. 1:1 "Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ by God's
will, to the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus who are at
A note in the Net Bible states that the Greek
construction is typical of Paul, and that the two terms are speaking of the
same people. It states that the two are identical.
Just a little more relating to how people view you. Not
only should they see you as holy, but they should see you as faithful. How
faithful are you at the break table when someone begins to demean God/Christ by
their verbiage? How faithful are you to your belief system when at work? How
faithful are you to your belief system when you are out with your friends?
2 Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and
[from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
Grace and peace are the request of the apostle. He asks
for these items to be extended from two sources - both the Father and the Son.
Rather well speaks to the truth of the trinity, that the members of the trinity
act independently and that they are separate, yet God. Only God can extend
grace and peace.
Ought we to refer back to what people think of you? How
do they see you as a believer? Do they consider you full of grace? Do they
consider you at peace?
How often I've seen believers falling apart over minor
occurrences in their life - how do the unsaved see this type of action? I
rather expect they see a person that believes in a very small God - one that
can't help them through the difficulties of life - so why should they listen to
you when you tell them that your God can help them through the hard times?
Since Paul asked God and Christ to shed forth grace and
peace upon the believers at Ephesus, might we not have an example that we
should, in our prayer meetings/times, be asking for grace and peace upon those
we pray for, our missionaries, our pastors, our teachers, our children, our
EVERYONE? I think this is an excellent addition to anyone’s prayer list. Help
those you pray for along by asking God to give them grace and peace.
Know, on the other hand, that if they don't have grace
and peace, that God may bring trials into their lives so that they can learn
grace and peace. This might be something to consider as it relates to this
passage - maybe Paul knew they were facing some times where they would need
grace and peace and he was asking God to bring into their lives those things
that would give them grace and peace.
The term peace is related to that which is opposed to
war. If you have war, you have conflict and you need to work at finding peace.
Peace is not a given, it is a sought after and found item that is not all that
easy to gain.
Imagine also the person in
My goodness, what an encouragement we should be to our
missionaries and pastors. Pray for them as often as you can. I was going to say
as often as you think of them, but that may not be adequate.
Now, to the question that I am sure has come to some of
those logical minds reading this. Why would Paul seek grace and peace from both
members of the Trinity? Let's observe.
a. There must be a reason for this request - it isn't
just an introduction to a letter that he uses as part of a template in his Word
processor - something he says anytime he sends a letter to someone. It was
something he had thought out and that he wanted to say.
b. Both members of the Trinity must be able to extend
both items requested.
c. God the Father is the Father, while Christ the Son is
our brother. There may be a truth in the thought that a father's grace and
peace might be different than a Brothers grace and peace. You might consider
this for further study; we won't delve into it here.
If both members of the Trinity can extend the items, then
Paul must have thought the Ephesian believers needed a double dose of them. On
the same plain, why not give the people every benefit that he can, relating to
grace and peace.
d. Though there is subservience in the Trinity, it might
be possible that the Father must authorize the extension of grace and peace,
while the Son would be the source and delivery system. I doubt that this is the
case.
e. Since one of the fruits of the Spirit is peace, then
it would seem that all members of the Trinity can extend peace. So, why didn't
Paul include the Spirit in his introduction? Is there something different
between the peace of the Spirit and the peace of the Father and of the Son? I
rather doubt it. (Gal. 5.22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance:
against such there is no law.")
I am not sure that the doctrine of the Spirit was really
developed in the mind of the church at this point in time. This doctrine wasn't
discussed till much later in the early church's life. Paul may have just been
using terms and concepts that he knew the believers could understand and grasp.
I suspect he just wanted to gain grace and peace for the
believers so requested it from the Lord in a general way.
This passage also points up the thought of praying to
Christ as well as to the Father. There is nothing wrong in praying to Christ,
but our primary prayers should be aimed toward the Father as is in keeping with
the "Lord's Prayer," "Our Father which art in heaven...."
I might make mention of the idea of praying to Jesus.
Again, nothing wrong about it but the example is "Our Father" thus
should be our focus. To use the earthly name of Christ, Jesus, as your focus in
life to me is rather inconsistent with the Word. The term Jesus is seldom used
alone in the New Testament epistles; it is normally linked to "Lord"
or "Christ" which tends to relegate the earthly name of our Lord to a
subservient position. He is God first and completely, "Jesus" only
relates to thirty some years of His eternal existence - seems incorrect to
dwell on the minor when there is so much major to concentrate on.
By way of application, I would encourage you to consider
your ways if you are one that uses this sort of introduction to your personal
letters. Doing this is not wrong, nor do I demean those that do it, but I would
encourage you to give serious thought each time you use such a greeting. Be
sure you are being serious and thoughtful in your words, rather than just
jotting down a greeting to be spiritual or to satisfy a habit.
3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places]
in Christ:
"Blessed be the God and Father..." is the
introduction to a sentence that ends in verse twelve. My goodness isn’t you
glad Paul didn't write sentence for your English teacher to teach diagramming
with! This is one long verse and I want to tell you it is one huge theological
gold mine for those that care to take time to look.
Here, specifically we see a doctrine introduced that is
seldom talked about any more. God is the Father of the Son. Fact, not open for
discussion. I suspect this is one of those doctrines that were included in the
"Ephesians is the
There is a related issue, in that some wonder if the Son
has always been the Son, or if there was a change in relationship, or if the
Son precedes the Father in existence. NOT, the Son is eternally the Son and
eternally God, never having not existed as the Father, has never not existed.
Others suggest that Christ was not the Son until He was born of Mary. The
common sense thinking here would say no because the Word says that Mary was
with child via the Spirit, not the Father.
At any rate, I am including a portion from my theology at
the end of this file concerning the Sonship of Christ.
One thing we need to discuss is that if the Father and
the Son have always been, then is there a Mother? No, but that is a needed
discussion. The Son is not a Son born from God, though the word does say that
He is begotten.
It seems that there has always been this Father Son
relation amongst the two members of the Trinity, just as there has always been
a Spirit within the relationship. The relationship has always existed; it did
not begin. The Trinity has always existed; it did not have a beginning.
Why is there a Father Son relationship? Probably to show
the closeness of the relationship, possibly to be a model for earthly father
son relationships, possibly to show and pattern the closeness of the
relationship toward earthly fathers. It further is an example to man that there
is always a subservience of some to others, and that this relationship is good.
In short you can also say, because it is and it will
always be - it was also part of God's eternal, overall plan for the ages.
Some might suggest, and it might be a possibility, that
God in eternity past before the decrees determined to have this relationship
for the purpose of the decrees. Since most suggest that the decrees are eternal
they would probably reject this out of hand, however anyone with a logical mind
might seize upon this as a distinct possibility, in that if God is eternal, and
He is, then the decrees are something that He decided to do, thus requiring a
tad of time between His eternality and His decrees. From our view the decrees
are eternal, but when compared to God they might be a tad later.
Remember, time is a medium designed for man and has
little meaning to God. He has submitted Himself to it for a little while for
the purpose of relating to man, but this too will end and time will become
irrelevant once more. "When we've been there ten thousand years,"
well it sings nice but we won't be keeping track.
One more major doctrine here is to be found. "Hath
blessed" is an aorist tense indicating that He blessed us, every one of
us, at a point in time - He did it and it was done, nothing further was needed
on Christ's part.
This brings up two thoughts.
1. This is speaking of salvation and it is finished, how
can it be redone - it can't - eternal security in a nutshell. Also, it is
finished; it is not a process of us getting better and better till we are saved
- not a valid teaching.
2. The other thought is when did this happen. Is this the
act of the cross, or is this the saving of the soul as it comes to Christ in
faith and belief?
I would suggest that since He did this in heavenly places
(the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle mentioned in Hebrews) and that it is
in Him, that this speaks to the work of the cross and offering of the blood in
the heavenly tabernacle for the final step in providing salvation.
If this be true, and I think it is quite possible, then
that all is done for our salvation at a point in the past - in the heavenly
tabernacle - it is done - all that is left is the faith/belief of the
individual. This points up to me the universal atonement that is offered to
every man, that is only to be received. Indeed, wrapped up in this is the
thought that all mankind gained eternal existence at that point in time, it is
just that some reject the work so are eternally without God, and those that
believe are eternally with God.
There is a lot more to this but we don't have time to
delve into it further, just think about it for a while. If you want to dig
further, my theology has a lot more about salvation and man. Also the book on
my website entitled Mr. D's Notes on Regeneration might be of help as well.
I might clarify slightly - the blessing was from Christ's
work, however it seems to me that the verse is showing that this blessing was
ultimately from the Father - it was His plan that was enacted, it was His plan
that set Jesus on the cross. The overall salvation that we enjoy is from the
Father via Christ.
We also have the doctrine of our being in heavenly
places. This should be our attitude, this should be our mind set, this should
be our testimony, this should be our life.
We also have the doctrine of our being in Christ. What
does it mean to be "in Christ" - what truth do we have in these two
words? In very brief terms, we are baptized into His body when we are saved, we
are in His body, which by the way is the church, and thus we are within Him and
part of His being, the church. We are an integrated part of who He is.
Does that give you the creeps to think about being part
of Christ and living the way we do - we ought to be ashamed of our living, of
our detractions from who Christ is before mankind.
There is also the truth that when the Devil casts his
accusations about us before God, God can figuratively point to us and say they
are pure, they are in my Son who died for them. There is no accusation that
will stand before that answer.
We also have the doctrine of our being able to bless God.
Wow, think on that for a while. Paul called God blessed, or declared his belief
that God was a total blessing to us - giving him recognition for whom and what
He is - giving worship if you will.
We must move on. This book is full of doctrine and it is
a book to study over and over because of its depth, I trust that you will come
to it often to study.
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in
love:
According as he [God the Father] hath chosen us in him
[God the Son, refers back to us being in Christ] before the foundation of the
world [before creation], that we should be holy and without blame before him in
love:
Okay, here we have some more doctrine - chosen - decrees
- holiness - all sorts of side studies that you can do if you really want to
dig. We have already mentioned the decrees briefly and with them are a number
of controversies relating to the when of, the order of and the content of, but
we won't go into them here. If you want further information my theology deals
with them, as do most any systematic theology books. The information you find
will vary with the theological position of the writer so beware which theology
you choose.
At any rate God chose the elect before the foundation of
the world, indeed, most agree that somewhere in the far eternity past, if not
as far as God Himself, He chose which people would be part of His kingdom in
eternity future. I am vague on the when of the decrees in that they have to precede
God in that God cannot decree before He is, but then God has always been so
have the decrees always been? We don't know for positive I don't think but we
do know they are eternal.
How He chose, in my mind is based on foreknowledge,
though the reform camp would bristle at the suggestion. They pretty much ignore
foreknowledge and hope it will go away, however foreknowledge, in my
understanding, is in the Word and must be integrated into the scheme of the
whole. My view on foreknowledge and free will do no damage to God's
sovereignty, nor to any of the other attributes and doctrines that the reform
feel it destroys.
This was done before time began, before creation, thus it
was set and going to happen in time. The doctrine of choosing is not all that
shallow but we can't delve into it here. Let it suffice that He chose. He did
not choose some for hell as many would suggest, He merely chose some to be
saved. The salvation had a purpose and that was to bring them to holiness.
Now, to apply that for a moment. We can be holy. We ought
to be holy. God expects us to be holy. So, how can we justify the life that we
often lead - a life of unholiness? We cannot justify it; we can only answer for
it when we stand before God in the end.
Holiness is the standard, not the fifth choice in a list
of things we can do if and when we get time; it is top option in a list of
things we are supposed to do. Remember that verse that is quoted three times in
the Word, "be ye holy for I am holy?" It isn't there three times for
nothing; He must want us to be holy - especially if He chose us before the
foundation of the world to be so! (Lev. 11.44 and 45; 19.2; - guess it was more
than three times - 20.26; 21.8; I Pet. 1.16 and many other places tell us to be
holy.)
And, by the way being holy is in the present tense - a
continuing action. Being holy in the aorist tense won't do at all; that is
being holy at one point in time. Holy is a life style, not an option for one
part of the day or one part of the week.
And on top of all that He expects us to be without blame!
The idea is that we are to live our lives so that no person can lay accusation
against us and make it stick. It isn't that we are so slick that the accusation
slides off, but we are so holy that there is no basis for accusation. No one
could dare to accuse you of doing something wrong.
The Net Bible points out that this word translated
"without blame" is used of the Pascal lamb that is without blemish.
One that is pure enough to be offered in sacrifice. This is God's goal for us
not only in this life, but it will be totally that way in the next.
And on top of this we are to live before Him in love.
This is the deep love, the "agape" love that causes one to give of
yourself for the other.
Note it isn't that we are to be holy and blameless and
then before Him in love, we are to be before him holy and blameless in love.
All three should be part of the desired condition as we are before Him. This is
not just in prayer; it is to be our overall condition of life.
I might make a little observation about God's choosing. I
eat half a pear for a snack every day to keep my sugar levels in balance. I do
not like the juicy messy pears so I pick Anjou pears and when I go to pick them
off the counter there are some characteristics that I look for. I like nice
bright green ones because they aren't juicy and messy, and I like them green
because they are still hard like an apple. I also like the bigger ones - if I'm
going to snack I'm going to get as much as possible.
The word used in the verse has the idea of selecting for
an office or selecting for one's own use. This wasn't a random, you, you, and
you picking, it was a selection of some out of a group.
Often I have heard that God didn't pick us because of
anything we can do or be, but I think this word indicates differently. There is
nothing in me that could help me find God, there is nothing I can do to bring
God to save me, but there may have been characteristics within me that He
desired to use in His overall work. Much as a golfer chooses his clubs for a
particular purpose (I assume that is why they carry so many different clubs :-)
God looked at the multitudes of people that would populate the earth and he
chose those that He wanted to use in His work of redemption through the ages.
Now, that should give your self image a boost - it should
make you realize your worth is in Him not in your peers! This verse kind of
makes I Co. 1.26ff jump up and become alive doesn't it! 26 "For ye see
your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble, [are called]: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the
world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world,
and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are
not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his
presence."
God chose YOU! Think on that awhile and not only thank
Him for including you, but get on your knees and ask Him what He wants to use
you for in this life, because there is a purpose! If you aren't busy for Him
you are in trouble - He picked you to use in a specific purpose. If you are not
being useful, you are being useless. When you stand before Him what's it going
to be?
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Upppps, more theology, sorry all you pastors that can't
stand theology - just skip over this book would you. I trust that those that
demean theology will soon rethink their lack of thought. Theology is throughout
the Word of God,
In the newspaper recently people have been writing to the
editor complaining that their political signs are being stolen from their front
lawns. The next statement is usually that Bush is spreading fear and hate
throughout the country with such tactics. They then of course suggest that
voting for Bush is spreading hate and fear as well.
I have been tempted to write a letter myself, something
along the line of - well I would like to use the same logic that these people
use in relation to an incident in my life. Recently I found a twenty-dollar
bill on the sidewalk. Bush is spreading twenty dollar bills across the nation
to cause peace, joy and happiness across the country. If you want to have money
and be at peace, vote for Bush. Humm, don't think there is much thinking going
on in our country this election season.
Back to the theology - predestination - adoption - a
couple of big doctrines that we want to take a look at.
Predestination, a term that predominates many internet
forums, while it appears in Scripture twice - it is a part of a whole, not the
predominant entity that is so often made out to be. It is a simple statement of
something that God did. It also appears in verse eleven, where we are told
basically the same thing as we are told in verse five. It is by His will for
his purpose and it is a predestination to sonship which brings with it
inheritance.
Now, be sure you understand that this is the whole of the
teaching on the word itself. Beware any other passage that is used in relation
to it and be sure that the context supports its being used in relation to
predestination.
First of all this is an aorist tense, so it is a one time
action. The word itself, according to the Lexicon, is to predestinate,
determine before, ordain, predetermine, decide beforehand and they mention that
God decreed from eternity. It was an act that was done at a point in time; most
would agree that it was part of the decrees. It is something that God did - He
determined beforehand that we would be sons and enjoy an inheritance.
That is the crux and total of the specific teaching. Now,
because we know that this is part of salvation we can relate it to all that is
contained in salvation, the regeneration, the justification and all those other
items, but specifically we are predestined to be sons in the context of
Ephesians.
I might make a statement concerning the decrees. Some
suggest that there was only one decree, while others say there were multiple
decrees. Whether one or several, most agree on the content of whatever they
hold to. The content is normally about the same, though the order is not always
the same. As things relate to order, take some time to logically think through
the sequence that was needed. Most systematic theologies cover this, including
my own.
We are adopted, based on the good pleasure of His will.
Rather simple isn't it. He did it based on his own desire and will. Not on our
good looks, not on our good works, not on our anything - nothing we are or can
do is related in any way to this decision of the will of God - and it was done
long before creation in eternity past. Just what God's choice was based on, I
feel there was good reason for His choice - something other than you, you and
you but not you. There was a rational reason why He chose each and every one of
us. This was indicated earlier in the meaning of the words used.
Romans 8.29 relates to our discussion. "For whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Here we see that
the term is related specifically to our being conformed to the image of Christ.
Now, specifically the usages relate to results of
salvation, not salvation itself. Thus, beware how writers use the term and
where they go with it.
It is of great note to me that this adoption and our
conforming are pleasurable to God - that is impressive. He found pleasure in
making us sons! Again, we see something more than just a cold choosing of some.
There was thought and there was pleasure in what He did.
The second usage is of concern to anyone that is not
walking with God. He determined before hand that we would be conformed to His
Son's image. Now, I assume that the completion of this is in the end when we
are changed and are prepared for eternity, but surely there is the thought that
we ought to be bringing ourselves into conformity with His image as we walk
with Him. Our walk should reflect that which we will one day be.
All of this heavy doctrine is part of that phrase back in
verse three where Paul tells us God " blessed us with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:" All this heavy stuff is a
blessing and part and parcel with all that God wants to do for us, and all that
He has done for us. And this isn't all - it continues in the next few verses.
He didn't just zap us into the kingdom, He provided all
sorts of benefits and blessings for us - now, hate to say it, but just have to
- if we don't study theology, we can't know all of what God has done for us.
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he
hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Paul is praising the glory of God's grace. God acted on
our behalf in grace, and that exhibits glory of its own in some manner, so Paul
praises that glory. Glory can speak to the "glory" as we understand
it, but it is also the thought of opinion of something. Paul is giving high
regard, or commendation, or praise to our opinion or estimation of the
"grace" of God in our salvation.
We know how great a salvation God has brought to our
lives, and we know it is because of Him and nothing that we have done, so we
really honor and respect the "grace" which He showed in our lives -
it is natural to have a high opinion of God's grace, thus we should "praise"
or give high regard to all that He has done.
How can we do this aside from verbal praise? By sharing
that message of grace with all that we meet. By living a life that is honoring
to a God that has done so much for us. Be thankful for all that God has done for
us in salvation and our everyday life.
There is a significance in the verbs "accepted"
which is an aorist, or one time occurrence, and "in" which is a
perfect tense, something that has continuing action to a future culmination. We
were accepted at a point in time - we are in the beloved now, and will continue
in the beloved until eternity when all things are culminated. It is also of
note that the construction of "in the beloved" is such that we are
not involved in the action - it is something that is done from without our
being.
We are accepted, but due to no action of our own.
Now, there is an application that I should really not
have to make but the idea of "accepted in the beloved" needs some of
our attention. Just how accepted is the believer in the church today? I know
some believe this relates to the beloved as in Christ, but even if that is the
thought of the text, it has the overall thought of the believer being accepted.
In Christ we are one - His body and we certainly should be accepted as part of
the body.
Are we really accepting of other believers in our
churches? We visited one church recently and as we sat down we were given a
doctrinal statement by the pastor - "This is what we believe." was
his comment. In our time there we were not greeted, other than by the pastor,
and we felt as though we were totally outside the fellowship and further more,
we felt that the exclusion was on purpose, until they could determine whether
we agreed with them or not. This was in a fundamental church.
Also recently we have visited another fundamental church
and our presence is kind of acknowledged with a faint hello by the pastor's
wife, and later by the pastor, as he finalizes all of his wanderings around and
shuffling of papers. The people of the church made little effort to acknowledge
us - of course until the greeting time, when we were actually greeted by a few
of the people. As we left the church, the pastor did come over and say hello
again, but I had the feeling it was more out of "I really should say
something to them." than a desire to accept us as fellow believers - well
since there was no opportunity for them to know this of us, why would they
accept us :-(
Even in churches where we have been members for a long
time there is a real lack of acceptance. We do little to promote unity among
believers in this day. What are some things we might do to promote unity and
acceptance between believers?
1. Set up settings where they can spend time with one
another to get to know one another. In most of our churches we are total
strangers, we know nothing of the others, and even if we know some, we do not
share our needs and accomplishments with them.
a. How about pot lucks, how about small group dinners or
deserts before or after church. Coffee times before or after Sunday school
class - include foods all can eat. We have many people on special diets today
and coffee and donuts won't draw some into fellowship, they will avoid it so
they don't have to say no to something they dearly desire to eat.
b. Small groups during prayer times. This develops
closeness that may foster openness.
c. Small Bible study groups also will bring closeness.
Maybe even have them during Sunday school now and then, for the entire hour -
maybe have a few minutes of conclusion at the end.
2. The pastor needs to set the example. If he gets to
know people then others may catch the interest. I don't mean the surface news,
weather and sports - where do you work stuff, though that is a good place to
start, but I mean a getting to know some of the church folks. Finding out their
dreams, finding out their ministry, their spiritual gift, and maybe even their
problems, and maybe praying with some of them.
We tend to not want to get to know in the church today -
partly because we know we will be the pastor’s illustrations in his next
pastorate if we have problems and talk to him. The same goes for the
congregation - few want to open up to others due to the knowledge that
spreading of information is the next step in many cases.
3. Assure confidentiality when you start getting closer
to someone. This will be the best key to building unity.
4. Sermons on the subject as well as studies on the how
and why of unity. People can't always build unity without some know-how.
Much unity comes automatically when we love one another.
Realization of this might go far in bringing closeness to a group. I suspect
this was one of the reasons Christ said what He said about loving one another.
He mentioned in John 15.14 in the context of loving one another, "Ye are
my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."
Now, that is a promise we ought to want to make use of -
if we love one another we can know that we are "friends" of Christ.
What a deal and love doesn't even cost, nor is it fattening. Verse seventeen
mentions that we are to love one another. Love brings unity and closeness.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
In whom - in Christ, we have redemption.
"Redemption" is a word that relates to the paying of a ransom for
release. A buying back of someone for a price. Whatever the price, Christ paid
it on the cross, no other price is pending, He did all that was required, else
wise we would not yet have redemption.
We were redeemed from death, we were redeemed from our
old nature, and we are redeemed from all that Adam brought upon us.
In Adam we received spiritual death and a sin nature,
both of which are now removed from our beings. He also incurred physical death
because he was isolated from the tree of life. We still must go through
physical death for the same reason, but we are fully prepared for the next life
by Christ's blood and work on the cross.
We also received forgiveness of all sins to that point in
time when we responded to the Gospel. Why were we forgiven? Because of His rich
grace.
This word translated "sins" is different from
the normal word for sin; it is the thought of trespass or failing. This clearly
would picture that our sins of action are forgiven, rather than our sin nature.
Our sin nature was carried away when we were given a new nature at salvation.
It is of note that the verb "have" is a present
tense, it is something that continues on - we
It is also clear that all of this is THROUGH His blood.
Some have suggested the blood is of no consequence, that it didn't relate to
anything, that it wasn't really the blood itself. Now, I am not sure what they
mean. If by saying this they say that the blood, the substance itself, did not
have any importance, they might be correct. However, the shedding of that blood
is of great significance.
I myself am not convinced the liquid itself did anything,
but the fact that it was given for us is of great importance. It was the
shedding of innocent blood for the guilty; it was the work of Christ for the
likes of us. I suspect this is what the people are suggesting, and they have
been taken just a little incorrectly. At any rate it is through this sacrifice,
it is through this act, it is through this work that we enjoy the fruits of
Christ's work.
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and
prudence;
Now, if you want to know about wisdom, see my study on
wisdom - the question here is whether the verse speaks of wisdom given us or
wisdom in which He abounded to us.
Prudence can be translated understanding as well as
wisdom. I think it speaks to His abounding to us in all of His wisdom and
understanding. The abounding, speaks to those items mentioned previously. Our
salvation and all its benefits come directly from HIS understanding and wisdom
- He knows best for us. Thus, how dare we question His saving us? We ought not
ever question His wisdom in saving us, we are chosen by Him for His purpose and
for His good will.
9. Having made known unto us the mystery of his will,
according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
This thought of "good pleasure" is something to
contemplate. Just what pleasures an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent God? He knows all there is to know so pleasure reading is out, He
is everywhere so speed is out, He can do anything He wants so sports are out,
what's left? I don't mean at all to be sacrilegious, just wonder how God can
gain pleasure from anything to do with man. Man has spit in His face from the
beginning and has made it rather clear that he doesn't want anything to do with
God, yet God finds pleasure in making provision for us.
The only logical conclusion I can find is that He finds
pleasure in "doing" for man. Now, this "doing" is not only
for the saved, but is for all mankind. John 3.16 "For God so loved the
world...." thus the whole of mankind has to be in view, even though some
reformed would probably scoff at the thought. The fact that He has provided a
beautiful earth for us to enjoy is proof that He loves all, but especially the
believer. (Acts 14.17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that
he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our
hearts with food and gladness.)
I also see in the Word that He can do special, over and
above things, for the Christian in that we are His sons. This "doing"
of providing not only salvation, but wisdom, strength peace and all those items
come from His great love of His creatures, especially those that have a Father
Son relationship with Him.
I suspicion that "love" is the basis for this
desire to "do for" the person - seems about the only logical
deduction.
Another aspect of this love and desire to do is the
concept that when we ask, we are asking things of, not an old meany in the sky,
but we are asking of a God that loves us on an individual basis and a God that
DESIRES TO DO for us. That puts a neat prospective to prayer for me. This also
relates to those answers of "no" and "wait" that we often
get. These answers are not due to His lack of caring for us, nor due to His
disinterest, nor His desire to hurt or hinder us - these answers are from a God
that Loves us and wants to do the very best for us.
I suspect that He derives His good pleasure from His
doing, as He is not dependant on us for that pleasure, however I have to think
that there is pleasure when He sees us appreciating what He has done, and I
suspect He appreciates our thanks for all answered prayer - even the
"no" and "wait" type answers.
So often in prayer meetings we hear request after request
after request, but seldom do we hear of any answers. Thus most prayer meetings
are asking meetings with a little "general" thanksgiving added on for
the basics of what we know of His provision - light, air, etc.
Missionaries, pastors, people - share your prayer answers
with others. It is not only a joy for others to hear of God's work in your
life, it is a joy to Him when He hears a thank you.
The "mystery of his will" is not a who dunit,
but rather it is something that is hidden from view. Now, we know what that
mystery is, but previous to the cross no man knew of God's will in the way we
do now. Barnes explains the word, "something into which one must be
initiated before it is fully known (from muew, to initiate, to instruct;) and
then anything which is concealed or hidden."
Some might wonder what was hidden and what all we know of
His will now. I suspect we know very little of His will, for it includes
desires for every man, woman, and child throughout all time, but we do know His
will in the area of this context. And to the other part of the question, all we
now know of this specific context was not known prior to the cross.
So, what is in the context that we now know that the
people previous to the cross did not know? I think that the previous context is
related, but specifically the following context (which some is mentioned
previously). This would include the fact that all things are going to be
gathered together in Christ - this being to bring praise to His name - in the end
of time - at the final judgment when all is being taken care of, all will know
that God is, and that He loved, and that He desired to do for us. It will also
be quite evident that His desire to do was aimed at all mankind, not just the
believer.
He has "purposed in Himself" shows not only
that He desired to do, but He also at some point committed Himself to action on
that desire.
By way of application, we often desire to do, but we not
always follow through with action to fulfill our desires. Now, if we desire a
new flat screen television, we will purpose in our heart to get it. We will
think of ways to pay for it, we will plan on where we will put it, we will plan
on what we will do with the old television and we will assure that the new
television comes into our home.
However, we might desire to help someone in the church
that is hurting or needing, but do we use the same strength of character to
assist that person as we would to gain our beloved television set?
In God's case, He committed Himself to "do" by
making and setting in motion the plan of the ages to provide redemption for
sinful man, before Adam was even created. The plan was set; the plan was
complete in God's mind long before Adam was given his first breath.
Might we take that purpose as an example for our own
purpose and planning for God's work in and through us as we live through this
life?
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he
might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven,
and which are on earth; [even] in him:
Dispensation is a word to describe management of a
household, or taking care of the affairs of a household. It would be a word
descriptive of a trusted assistant or servant taking care of the business of a
large house with a family and possibly servants. It would involve being a
manager of all that goes on in the home. Not unlike the job of a housewife and
husband that care for their own home's business.
It would include paying bills, investments, caring for
property etc. We use the term to describe the management or care that God
provides over the realm of mankind. We divide God's dealings with man into
seven dispensations. During each dispensation God deals with man a little
differently. This is not to say, as many nondispensationalists assert, that
dispensationalists believe in multiple methods of salvation. God deals with man
in different ways, though salvation is always through the work of Christ on the
cross.
In this verse Paul is using the term to designate a time
in which certain things are happening. I don't know that he had any idea of how
the church would use the term dispensations for he had no idea of the
dispensational teaching. He however did know the difference between law and the
church age. He also might have known of the differences between the ages in the
Old Testament, though he would probably not have thought much about classifying
them into distinct ages or dispensations.
Here, we see Paul mentioning that in the oversight of God
there was the present, to him, economy in which certain things are happening.
He calls it the fullness of times. He was looking for an immediate kingdom here
on earth - the culmination of all the Old Testament prophetic literature.
It seems to me that this is looking toward a time when
God will bring all the loose ends of creation together and finalize all of his
plans. It will be a time of revealing all that is, and was, in that plan, and
it is a time to bring all those things to a close.
The Net Bible translates it this way, "toward the
administration of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ
the things in heaven and the things on earth." indicating that all things
will be set to order with Christ as the head over all - that nothing will not
be under His headship.
The fact that he was looking for the physical kingdom
here on earth is clear from the book of Acts. It mentions that he was
continually preaching the kingdom, and this was mentioned in relation to his
later life. Acts 28.30-31
Paul declares that
1. All that is, proceeds from God, including the lost and
their place of eternal dwelling. To remove this from the statement "both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth, would be a bit illogical.
2. There is a passage in the Old Testament that seems to
indicate that the elect will be able to view the damned in the eternal state.
Isa. 66.22 "For as the new heavens and the new
earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your
seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new
moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to
worship before me, saith the LORD. 24 And they shall go forth, and look upon
the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall
not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring
unto all flesh."
The context clearly identifies the passage as the eternal
state and it is clear that God's people will be capable of seeing the
transgressors.
All this will take place and seemingly, based on "in
him," be culminated in Christ. Since we are now in Christ, as a part of
His body, the church, I would guess this verse is speaking of an extension or
expansion of the concept of "in Him."
Colossians speaks to this as well. Col. 1.13 "Who
hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the
kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood,
[even] the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and
for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And
he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn
from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. 19 For it
pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made
peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto
himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in
heaven."
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will:
We obtained an inheritance (in the past) based on being
predestinated (in the past) according to the purpose of him who worketh
(continuing action on our behalf) due to it being a part of His will. Again,
the plan of God dictated events future in each individual elect person's life.
We are enjoying the fruit of the work of Christ on the cross. Our salvation is
from Him, our life is from Him, and our future is from Him. So, how come we
serve ourselves so often rather than Him that has provided all that we are and
have?
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who
first trusted in Christ.
This verse has a very interesting tense usage. "Who
first trusted in Christ" is in the perfect tense. It is an act of our mind
that is bringing about and will bring about until the completion of our act.
There is not allowance in the tense and text for anything but eternal security.
If we once trust Christ then we will continue on to the ultimate complete
fulfillment of that trust in our eternal life with Him.
A pastor recently asked what "glory" was in
relationship to God. His conclusion incorrectly was that His glory is His
perfection. I would suggest that perfection is only one aspect of His glory. It
is but one of His many attributes. His glory is more correctly, in my mind, all
that He is. The substance and compilation of each and every one of His
attributes, His entire being and character.
We, according to the verse are the praise of that glory.
Our redemption brings praise to all that God is. What a thought. Think of all
that God is and then consider that we, by our lives, are praising that glory.
Realizing that, how have you been doing? Are you praise to Him or yourself of
late?
The thought of "first" trusted might be of
interest to some. Why does Paul use that term? The term can also be translated
"hope before in Christ" thus indicating not the ranking of first of
many, but indicating only that they had trusted before the point in time that
he was writing.
The American Standard Version translates it this way.
"we who had before hoped in Christ:" This specifically speaks of the
apostles it would seem from the next verse where it says "In whom ye also
[trusted]."
13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye
believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Note, "after that ye believed, ye were sealed with
that holy Spirit." There is a sequence to this whole salvation thing.
Belief or faith (the term translated belief is closely related to the word
normally translated faith) comes first and then the person is sealed. Now, that
time gap is like a nano second or less, if there is an actual time lapse, but
there is a sequence to all the grand things that occur at our salvation.
Indeed, if you take all those wonderful doctrines that
relate to salvation and really consider them and what they are and how they are
accomplished and why they are accomplished, you will find that there is a
definite sequence of events, all of which are about instantaneous, though the sequence
does exist.
We are sealed. How? With the Holy Spirit. We are given
the Spirit, the Spirit baptizes us into Christ and we are sealed by Him. He is
actually our seal. God sent Him as our seal. The word seal relates to something
being sealed by someone. The seal designates ownership; it designates
retribution if you mess with that owner’s property.
When I was teaching, we had a missionary from Europe that
had joined the faculty. He had sent all of his belongings in a large shipping
container. The truck arrived and the faculty had gathered to move his
belongings from the container to a storage spot until the missionary arrived.
As we neared the back of the trailer upon which the
container rested we noticed a metal band that enclosed the latches along with
the padlock. The container had been sealed when the missionary was finished
loading it and the shipping company picked it up in Europe. That seal being
intact as we looked at it, guaranteed that the container had not been opened
between the missionaries home and that point in time.
This spiritual seal is to guarantee that the new believer
is God's property and in essence, if anyone messes with this child, God will
intervene. The seal is the Spirit Himself within us rather than a mark or a physical
seal upon our person.
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the
redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Paul continues to expand the truth of the Spirit within
us. He is not only our seal, but he is the earnest of our inheritance, or the
guarantee to us from God that our inheritance is sure and safe. The Spirit will
be with us until our redemption is complete in eternity.
This, by the way is a basis for the teaching that the
Spirit is withdrawn with the Church at the rapture. He is the guarantee that
the taking away of the believers will happen and that we will enter into our
eternal state.
Other truth is set forth here. We see that we are
purchased, and we are also HIS possession - we are not our own.
Talk about theology, Paul crammed at least a semesters
worth into the first fourteen verses of this little book.
"Earnest" relates to the same thought we have
in real estate today, when we promise to buy a house, we put down some earnest
money. It is money that we place with the owner that is a guarantee that we
will follow through with the purchase sometime yet in the future.
The Spirit is God's earnest money to guarantee that the
purchase will be complete in eternity. It cannot be stopped.
Did you notice that phrase again? "Praise of his
glory" - that phrase that has appeared three times in this section. In
verse six we see "To the praise of the glory of his grace" and in
verse twelve and fourteen we see "praise of his glory" - do you get
the feeling that praising His glory and who He is might be a very important
thing to do in our worship service?
Do we see this in the hand shaking time that interrupts
most services?
Do we see this in many of the specials where glory is
brought upon the performer?
Do we see this in the announcements?
Do we see this in the singing?
Do we see this in the preaching?
Some considerations when you want to plan some Scriptural
worship services in the future.
APPLICATION:
1. We have noted that this letter may have been to
Ephesus as well as to others in the area. Consider for a moment - Paul sends a
letter to your church, First Bible church of Anytown, World, but he addresses
it to the churches around you as well. Some observations: a. He had something
to say to all the churches, but especially to First Bible church because it is
the one named. Had he wanted to especially say something to First Bible church
of Second town, World he would have addressed it to them. b. All the
surrounding churches know two things. They have the same problem as First Bible
church, but they also know that First Bible church has a bigger problem with it
than they. c. Would this not focus all eyes on First Bible church to get their
act together in a big hurry? In fact I think logically we might draw two more
conclusions. c. He wanted First Bible church to take the lead in this problem,
and he also wanted the other churches to follow that lead and maybe even
support First Bible church in their struggle.
Some suggest that the letter is not to dispel problems. I
would suggest that Paul may have known of some under the surface problems that
he wanted to blast before they gained a foothold.
2. We have seen God's plan mentioned as well as his
purpose and will. Barnes points out that many in his day felt that this was a
dark teaching, that God's will for mankind was somehow sinister and surrounded
in trouble. On the opposite end of the spectrum we see people that look under
every rock in their path to seek God's will. They act as if nothing in the
Scripture is His will but that He will reveal it elsewhere.
Let me tell you clearly, there is not one word in His
Word that is not related to His will for us and our lives. All of it is there
for our learning of what He wants and wills for us. We don't need to look under
rocks, around corners, or in other people's business, we have only to look into
the Word. Yes, there are times when He will reveal some of His will in a
special way such as a call to the mission field or a call to minister to the
Lord's people, but for the most part the Word is His will for our lives.
Since Paul makes such a big deal of it in these few
verses maybe we should make it a big deal in our lives. Many believers today
have never given a thought to what God might want them to do in this life. They
live their life as if it were their own to live. Remember those terms
redemption and purchase - seems we are His and not our own. It is not up to us
to run our lives as we wish, rather we are His to lead, and we ought to live
our lives for Him.
We don't want to discount another portion of His will,
that portion which pertains to the nations and time. He specifically has a plan
for each nation that He raises up and each nation that He puts down. The book
of Daniel is clear that He raises up and that He puts down.
In an election, such as when President Clinton ran and
now when Senator Kerry is running, the only solace I have is, this teaching
that God is in complete control of all that goes on within the nations. If
Senator Kerry should get in, it is God's will. If President Bush gets another
four years, it is God's will. This can be a grand comfort for those that are in
countries where there are dictators and people that are subjugating the
populous. It is God that deals with these governments and leaders. He will deal
one day with Hitler and men like him that totally abused their power over man.
He will deal with every leader in relation to how they used their power in this
life.
God will also deal with those responsible for the
falsehoods perpetuated upon the American public in this recent campaign. There
have been lies and innuendo to the maximum this time around and some will
certainly be held responsible for their treatment of the truth and of God's will.
3. Just a bit of a side note, we know that Christ's blood
saves us and we know that His blood was offered by the Lord Himself in the Holy
of Holies in heaven (Well that is what many of us have been taught, we will see
what we shall see). The question to ponder is how was His blood collected at
the cross to be offered in the Heavenly holy of holies? Or is it as some might
suggest a picture of His offering that pictures that completed one time
sacrifice on the altar in heaven?
Hebrews 9.22ff speaks of the offering or the purification
of things in the heavenly tabernacle. It is in contrast to the offerings of
blood of animals in the Old Testament, so it would be assumed that there would
be a physical purification of the heavenly things. Or would it? Might it not be
a spiritual purification of spiritual things?
Since the heavens are for the spirit world, it would make
sense that there was some spiritual offering by Christ in this spiritual
tabernacle. The how and why of this offering would be of great contemplation if
this be true.
There is another aspect. If Christ had to die in the
physical realm then there might have to be some physical purification of the
heavenly tabernacle. Just how did this offering of physical blood occur in a
heavenly tabernacle - if it occurred?
It is not impossible that the spiritual and physical
worlds are intermingled in some way. The angels, for example, are primarily of
the spirit world, yet they are allowed to appear in the physical world at times
thus a physical offering in a spiritual setting would not be impossible.
Some things that relate:
a. The fact that Christ told one of the women not to
touch Him shortly after the resurrection and then later told Thomas to touch
Him, would indicate that there might be a purity issue to be considered until
He had ascended unto the Father. (Jn. 20.17; Jn. 20.27)
b. The Word tells us that Christ, after the resurrection
sat down beside the father. Heb. 10.12 "But this man, after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;"
To contemplate. Could this be speaking of Christ/God
offering Jesus/man on the cross for the sins of the world? God did not die on
the cross. Jesus did die on the cross. The terminology of the above text rather
indicates this very thing.
c. Hebrews seven through ten is key to understanding
this. Take time to read it. It relates that the sacrifices of the Old Testament
were not adequate to the need for our final salvation, but that the death of
Christ was that final needed sacrifice that is sufficient for all needs of man.
Make note as you read, that there is an earthly
tabernacle made with hands and a heavenly tabernacle after which the earthly
was patterned. This heavenly tabernacle actually seems to be the throne of God
Himself - the heavenly mercy seat if you will. I say this in light of the
creatures around the throne of God having the faces that were carried on the
standards of the four tribes that surrounded the earthly tabernacle, and the
glassy sea of the throne scene relates to the lavor of the Old Testament (I
believe it is called a sea).
Heb. 9.12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption [for us]." This on the other hand seems to indicate
that He entered the Holy of Holies with his literal blood. Heb. 9.23 tells us
that the heavenly tabernacle needed to be purified with better sacrifices than
that of the blood of animals. However, keep a thought in mind - "but by
his own blood" does not require that He took His blood into the holy
place.
d. The above passage mentions that He entered into the
holy of holies - does this maybe relate to the rent curtain in the earthly
temple of His own time. That entering into the heavenly tabernacle (God's
throne)? I must wonder if the reason He did not want to be touched before He
ascended was that He was to present his bloodied garments as proof to the
Father of His Sacrifice once for all for all of mankind.
Indeed, was the actual blood necessary? He offered
Himself a perfect sacrifice, and He died for us - He shed His blood for us as
an atonement for our sin. Was the actual blood necessary to cleanse the
heavenly tabernacle? No, for the heavenly tabernacle was not unclean, how could
it be. The cleansing is of the sin of man, not the tabernacle.
Heb. 9.23 "[It was] therefore necessary that the
patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the
heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is
not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of
the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for
us:" Note, that the sacrifice was needed but the passage does not say blood.
Indeed, the thought seems to be that like the Old Testament priest entered into
the earthly, so Christ entered into the heavenly, both after offering
sacrifices.
Let's go to the Old Testament and see what significance
the blood being sprinkled had once a year on the mercy seat in that earthly
tabernacle.
Lev. 16.1ff speaks of the yearly atonement for all the
children of
There is no clear reason for the sprinkling of blood on
and before the mercy seat. One might assume that it was to signify the
cleansing or purification of the place, though this probably wasn't necessary
for it was the dwelling place of God and already pure and holy. (Ex. 25.22
"And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above
the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which [are] upon the ark of the
testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the
children of
Heb. 9.8 "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the
way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first
tabernacle was yet standing:" seems to indicate that a similar occasion
was required in the heavenly tabernacle. Heb. 8.11 "But Christ being come
an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in
once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]."
makes it clear that this occurred, thus there must be some methodology for that
blood having been offered. However, again note that the passage does not
require the blood be taken in, only that it was shed and that by that act He
had access to the holy of holies.
Did you catch that? He entered into the holy place by his
own blood - the blood allowed Him entrance into the area, it was not to purify
or anything of that sort, it was only for the purification of the person
entering the holy of holies. The shedding of blood was to allow for the bearer
forgiveness and allow him entrance. Christ shed His blood on the cross - plus
the fact that He had no sin so had no need of His own blood for entrance into
the holy place - He was pure already, thus the thought that His sitting down at
the right hand of God is that entrance into the holy place which Hebrews 8.12
mentions.
There was thus no need to collect the blood nor offer it
in the Holy of holies in the heavenlies - He needed no blood sacrifice for His
own sin, He needed no blood to enter into the holy of holies in heaven. Had
Aaron and the others been perfect, they would not have had to take the blood
into the holy of holies either, but since they were men and sinners then they
needed that blood of purification for themselves to enter in to minister to
God.
The sprinkling of blood in the holy of holies by the
priest seems to be an act to purify the area as you read Leviticus sixteen,
however since all is holy and pure in the heavenlies; there is no need for the
blood sprinkling in the heavenlies.
In proofing the above I struggled with whether I had been
sufficiently confusing. I think I was. I have done some further thinking and
come up with the following:
FACTS:
1. Heavenly tabernacle is/was pure/holy. (However Heb
says 9.23 "[It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with
better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places
made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself,
now to appear in the presence of God for us:") The heavenly tabernacle
needed no cleansing or sprinkling of blood. Yet, the verse indicates there was
need of purifying.
2. Christ was pure/holy
3. Christ's blood was pure/holy
4. His sacrifice was much different from the Old
Testament system. He was hung on the cross. In the Old Testament the offering
was placed on the altar and the throat cut to allow the blood to flow.
QUESTIONS:
1. What specifically was Christ's blood needed for?
The sacrifice of a pure and holy sacrifice was needed.
The Old Testament sacrificial system required the blood
to be shed.
2. Was the blood needed/required for some purpose, or was
that just the method of killing of the sacrifice in that system?
When the Word speaks of "by his blood" is it
saying the blood shedding was required, or is it another way of speaking of the
sacrifice that was required?
3. Since the Exodus pictures this whole process, the
blood was placed on the door so that the angel would know God's people from the
Egyptians. Is this the only need of the blood in Christ's case?
The blood that He shed was to identify those that were
trusting in His sacrifice for salvation.
4. Does the methodology of question four matter?
I cannot imagine why, as long as there was the letting of
blood and the death of the sacrifice.
CONCLUSIONS:
To tie this up, let me say that I am still thinking on
this one, but here is where I am at this point in time.
1. The Exodus sacrificial lamb was a picture of what
Christ was to do. The blood was placed on the door post to identify God's
people. The blood of Christ, in some manner identifies believers today.
2. Christ, the perfect Lamb of God was offered in a
different manner than the Old Testament sacrifices, but the result was the
same. A shedding of blood and death of the sacrifice.
3. Christ wanted to remain pure until He sat down beside
the Father in that heavenly tabernacle.
4. That sitting down with the Father fulfilled the
comments of Hebrews when speaking of a better sacrifice. He did, in that act,
all that was mentioned in Hebrews.
5. The heavenly throne cannot need purifying in any
manner for God is sitting there and there is no impurity in or around Him.
6. Christ/God may have offered up Jesus/man in some
manner as that perfect sacrifice.
7. God planned it and got it done even if we are a little
fuzzy on the details due to our limited understanding.
Just a few more thought to get your minds eye working
overtime.
1. The word used of the heavenly tabernacle needing to be
purified, means just that - to clean or purify. If we take this literally and I
am tempted to do so because there is no evidence to do otherwise; and assume
that there was need of purification in some manner.
How would it become less than pure? Since Christ's work
on the cross was related to man's salvation, it would seem that impurity would
relate to sin - most likely Adam's sin. How, I have no idea, but this would be
the logical conclusion.
If this is so, then one might wonder if God vacated his
Throne area immediately upon the sin of Adam. If this is so, might the Genesis
account of the cherubim guarding the gate to the garden have been that new
dwelling place of God - that place where Adam and his descendants offered their
sacrifices? Then one might conclude that God shifted his dwelling place to the
earthly tabernacle followed by the temple many years later.
Ultimately the work of Christ purified the heavenly so
that God could return there to sit with Christ.
This might also relate to the fact that in the first part
of Job, the Devil had access to the throne of God. Later, there does not seem
to be that access, in fact the devil is cast down to the earth. Might there be
a whole lot of items that we are not given in the Word about the heavenly challenges
to God's power and character?
If you hold to my concept of where the Garden of Eden was
- that it was at
Now, I want to be sure
With this I will stop and allow someone else to develop
the more detailed doctrine, but suffice it to say that some of the teaching on
this subject in the past has been shallow and very inadequate.
4. In verse ten it mentions, "he might gather
together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are
on earth; [even] in him:" We have discussed this before but I ran across
an interesting comment by Barnes. He seems to indicate a belief in life on
other planets. "The more simple and obvious interpretation is however,
without doubt, the correct one, and this is to suppose that it refers to the
holy inhabitants of other worlds. The object of the plan of salvation is to
produce a harmony between them and the redeemed on earth, or to produce, out of
all, one great and
Not that I believe this line of thought but it is
certainly a possibility, though not supported by anything in Scripture that I
can put my finger on.
5. When commenting on "in Christ" Constable
quotes August Van Ryn "Thus our being in Christ means that the Lord Jesus
surrounds and embraces the believer in His own life, and separates him at the
same time from all outside and hostile influences. He protects the believer
from all perils and foes, and supplies him with all that is necessary."
How do you react to this statement? Do you believe it is true?
I have read and heard many similar statements. I have
heard people tell new Christians that now they have a new life and Christ will
take care of everything. That He will supply everything they need and protect
them.
I have to wonder how a martyr of the first century that
was looking eye to eye with a hungry lion would feel about such a comment. I
wonder how some of those that have been killed and that have starved to death
in
Being in Christ only means that we are part of His body
the church and that we will enjoy that relationship to Him and other believers
forever.
6. In verse two we looked at the peace that God gives. I
receive many emails from people around the world that have happened onto my
website. Many of those letters relate to the lack of peace, that aspect of the
spiritual life that comes with teaching and knowing the Word. Often the writers’
lack of peace relates to poor teaching relating to the Spirit or to the
security of the believer. Many have sinned and feel they have ruined their
entire life and that God will have nothing to do with them from that point
forward.
The believer is not destined for this sort of upheaval in
their life. The believer is to be at peace with God. If there is sin, then I
John 1.9 is there for the person to gain back the relationship that they need
with God - one of fellowship not salvation. Sin breaks fellowship only; it can
never break your bond of sonship with the Father.
This is the peace that Paul speaks of, not that
superficial peace that comes from "feeling" good about how excited
you get about God. Peace is that which the Spirit fills you with when you are
walking with the Father correctly.
I mentioned letters from folks around the world. Many of
them, for some reason, are charismatic. They all have one thing in common. Lack
of peace. They operate in the land of feeling and when they feel down, they
have no idea what is going on, they feel they have offended the Holy Spirit and
may be lost forever.
That is NOT the peace that God offers. His peace is based
on the surety of Scripture and His promise, not the slippery slope of feelings.
I mentioned this to one of these folks recently, and there was out of hand
rejection of my comments because they KNEW from their teachers (false teachers
from my viewpoint) that they were on the right track when they seek the gifts
and side track themselves from all their efforts for God while seeking - that
which they won't find, but they don't know that.
I worked with a woman many years ago that was stuck on
seeking the baptism of the Spirit. She sought long and hard. One day she called
and wanted to tell us something. We drove down to her home and she informed us
that she had been saved - she knew immediately that her seeking had been in
vain, that what she had sought was the Lord - she just didn't know that until
He ushered her into the fold.
7. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown mention of verse one where
Paul tells the reader that he is an apostle by the will of the Father, that
this is the same will that is mentioned in verse five and verse eleven which
speak to the saving of man through the will of God. It is by the same will of
God that we are saved, that same will that called Paul to be an apostle, that
same will that called the church, the body of Christ into existence.
Does that not give you a little more feeling of
importance when you consider who and what you are in Christ? You are a part of
this "WHOLE" called the church, because of God's will - if that is
the same will that called the church into business, then you must - YOU MUST -
have an important role to play in that "whole" and it is your responsibility
to get busy and fulfill that role as soon as possible.
If you don't know what that role is, take some time to
read the Word, pray asking for God to reveal the role to you, and maybe after
doing this for awhile see your pastor and ask him if he has noticed anything in
your life that might indicate what the role might be. (Pastors often see things
that others do not because they are tuned into spiritual things more than
others.)
8. Paul seems to be heavy on talking about grace. There
is a group in evangelicalism called Sovereign Grace. They talk about grace a
lot as well. Basically the two, Paul and the group, talk about grace, in my
mind, because they know what grace is. They have experienced this grace in
their lives and know the effects and meaning of grace to the spiritual life.
I do not agree with all that the sovereign grace folks
believe (not sure Paul would either :-) but they realize where they were as a
lost person and they know how far down into the depths of sin God had to reach
to touch their lives and pull them up out of that sin into newness of life.
In a sloppy theological sense grace is kind of like our
being lucky (not that grace has to do with luck) to have been chosen by
almighty God to be brought to salvation in Christ. Do you really know how lucky
you are to be saved? Out of the millions that have walked the earth as lost
mankind, you were lucky enough to have been picked to be saved. Don't
misunderstand me - luck has nothing to do with it, but if you view it as the lucky
person that won the twenty-three million dollar lottery - think of their
excitement, their luck, their new life - like I said in a sloppy sense, even a
perverted sense does this not give us an idea of how we should feel about the
grace of God touching our lives. Shouldn't we find some excitement in this
grace that God gave to us? Shouldn't we be overjoyed to have been made a part
of His family?
Grace in our life should be the most exciting thing that
you can imagine, it should cause you to shudder with delight over what God has
handed you on the proverbial silver platter.
Be excited about God's grace and do something about it.
He didn't shed it upon you for you to sit and glory in your own illustrious
life, but He saved you to do a work that He has planned for you to do.
9. In reading through Deffenbach's work I ran across a
good distinction between election and predestination. He said that if he wanted
to enrich the lives of some youth in the city he could choose ten women and ten
men to go to college on his bank account. That would be election, while going
to the universities and writing checks for each student and making all the
arrangements would be predestination. He made a plan and then made full
provision for it to come to pass.
I think this is a good picture of what God did, he chose
some, then planned their lives accordingly. Now, some might want to hide behind
this truth and live their lives in a poor manner and then claim that it was
God's plan that was in error. Not so. His plan would be perfect for you; it is
the person that steps out of that path to go their own way. If we walk with Him
we will fulfill all that He has planned or predestined us to.
In reality Predestination itself may be a little more
limited than this, but in generalities this is true. His will is integrated
into the above paragraph as well. The predestination is literally to the
adoption that the text mentions.
You might find a good study for yourself in the following
thoughts. Paul mentions election and predestination but does not explain either
doctrine. Indeed, he mentions a number of doctrines here but does not define,
nor explain them. He has assumed or rather knows that his readers know what he
is talking about. He must have taught these doctrines while he was at the
church or else there is teaching in the Old Testament that would indicate to
the knowledgeable Jew the truth of these teachings.
Take some of your spare time and see if you cannot find
an Old Testament basis for these doctrines. At the least there are precursors
or hints at the truth of these doctrines.
10. Deffenbach's Calvinism shows quite clearly. He goes
to great length to redefine "foreknow" to mean, not to know before as
the lexicon shows, but he defines it as chosen, thus completely leaving out the
foreknowledge aspect of these discussions.
He mentions "If God were to have looked down the
corridors of time, to see all those who were to choose Him, He would see no
one." This leaves out much of what most declare of foreknowledge. He
forgets to mention that God looked down the corridors of time to see all those
who WOULD BE DRAWN TO HIM and would choose Him; they are many for He chose
many. To disallow God foreknowledge as His word says He has is not the answer
to uncomfortable theology.
When Deffenbach states, "If God were to have looked
down the corridors of time, to see all those who were to choose Him, He would
see no one." he speaks from within his doctrinal system not from an
objective vantage point. He assumes God sees what his personal theological
system requires God to see. The Scriptures do not tell us what God saw, only
that in foreknowledge he did some things.
Yes, God is Sovereign, yes God can do whatever He wants
to do, yes, there are none that will choose Him out of their own understanding,
but if He work in their lives, and purposes to draw them to Himself as He says
He does, surely they will respond to Him, not of their own ability but due to
His working and moving in their life.
At least Deffenbach makes an attempt to do away with
foreknowledge, many just don't talk about it as if it were not there in the
Word as plain as day. They feel if they ignore it, one day He will remove it
from the word from non-use I guess.
He then goes on to list passages that prove that man
won't seek God on his own. He has set up a straw man to shoot down. Most
realize that lost man is corrupt and unable to seek God on His own, but there
is nothing to keep that SOVEREIGN God from working in that lost person's life
to draw them to him.
At least he makes an attempt to dispel that which he
doesn't want to deal with, but Stedman just makes a statement as if fact and
goes on with his message without a line to prove what he says. "Some say,
"Well, God can foresee the future, so he looks down and sees that we are
going to make a choice, and on the basis of seeing what we will determine to do
he then says, 'All right, I'll elect them to be part of my process.'" That
sounds very simplistic, and it is, because it is not what the Scriptures say.
You see, to be as the Calvinist believes we are - unable
to do anything, unable to respond, unable to do any good works etc. - is absurd
if you look at the human condition. Many people do good things, many people
respond to God, many people seek God - look at most lost people in our country,
they seek God. They seek the God of their own making at times, they seek the
God of the false prophets at times, and they seek the God of this world, but in
all, they are seeking that which almighty God can supply. Is this not what
Romans one speaks to - it is built in?
The ancient heathen Egyptians sought God, sought an after
life, they just sought Him in all the wrong places and ideas. All through
history we see man seeking God in some manner. They may pollute all their
efforts, but they do seek God.
He continues "The ultimate choice of those who will
be blessed with eternal salvation is God's choice. This does not mean that men
have no choice." I suggest that I agree with this statement, but I doubt
that I agree in the same way he does. He would say that man must choose if he
is chosen, I would say that he will choose because he was chosen. He was chosen
because God knew he would choose. The Calvinist would say that the chosen must
chose because they were chosen.
I want to make one further distinction and clarification.
The strong comments of the Calvinist usually require that the chosen are chosen
to glorification and the rest are condemned to hell. Gill mentions
"Predestination, taken in a large sense, includes both election and
reprobation...."
In my thinking if we are chosen, and we later choose God,
then those that are not chosen chose to reject God and choose unto themselves
damnation. The choice is theirs and they make it, not God. There is also the
possibility that in God's foreknowledge He saw that they would reject Him even
though he was to draw them toward Himself. No, that does not thwart the
sovereignty of God, He could force all to choose Him if He so desired but He
did not.
11. Gill has a quote that caught my interest. In relation
to redemption he says "God's elect by nature are in bondage to sin, Satan,
and the law; through the grace of Christ, they are redeemed from all iniquity;
ransomed out of the hands of him that is stronger than they; and are freed from
the law, its bondage, curse, and condemnation, and from every other enemy: and
this benefit Christ is the author of;" To which I would add amen. However,
my thoughts went one step further - that step that few Calvinists take, that step
that clears us of our sin nature. Most hold that we are still in lock step with
our sin nature if we aren't walking with God. How can this be if we are
redeemed from the Devil and his powers over us? Their answer would be that it
is us not the Devil and I would label that a sidestepping of the issue. If
Christ redeemed us, and He did, and if Christ made all things new, which He
did, then how can we still be plagued by a sin nature that is left over from
our pre-redemption lives? Sounds very illogical to me.
12. Stedman makes a great point that gives a little
balance to this passage. "We don't like to be called saints because we
have such a plaster idea of what a saint is. We think of them as being unreal -
so beatific, so holier-than-we, so unlike ordinary human beings. But the saints
of the New Testament are not that way; they are people like us. Saints are
people who are beset with struggles and difficulties, which have disturbances
at home, and problems at work, and troubles everywhere else. They're normal
people, in other words!"
In all the pomp and circumstance of choosing, elections,
predestination and adoption, we are still only human beings that are making our
way through this life. The thought of holiness requires of us a higher standard
of life, and a cleaner standard of thought, but we are still in this life to
navigate through the rigors of said life.
Do it as graciously and righteously as you can.
He continues his thought in a most plain, yet powerful
way. "That's what a Christian is - a person who can't quit being a
Christian. A true Christian just can't stop! A young man called me this past
week to tell me how discouraged he was, how he'd lost his confidence in prayer
because he felt that no answer was coming, and how ready he was to quit. So I
said to him, "Well, why don't you just quit, then? Give up. Stop being a
Christian. Try it." - because I knew that if he did, the first thing he
would have discovered is that he couldn't quit. And he knew it, too. The minute
I said that, he acknowledged it: "You're right. I can't quit." That
is because, as Paul will describe in this letter, there is imparted to us the
Holy Spirit of God, and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit so that we can't quit!
That is a mark of a believer in Christ."
13. Stedman says "We all have learned that God is to
be praised. We are to give thanks in all circumstances, etc. But most of us
think of that as something we must make ourselves do. We have to do this
because God needs it, his ego needs to be massaged every now and then by our
praise, and unless we praise him he won't operate. He gets upset and mad at us
and doesn't run things right, and we have to butter him up a little bit to get
him to work. That is really the basis upon which most of us act, at least much
of the time, isn't it?"
Think about that and see if there isn't a lot of truth in
his observation.
He goes on to conclude "But that isn't what this is
talking about at all! It is saying that God has done such remarkable deeds
that, if we once understand them, if it once breaks upon our dull intellects
what it is that God has already done for us, what is already true of us right
now, there will be nothing that we can do but stand in absolute awe and
amazement, and say, "You mean that is true of me, Lord? I am overwhelmed!
My God, how great thou art!" That is what God is after. That is what he
wants to produce - that sense of awe and amazement which causes us to stop and
give thanks to a great and glorious God who has given us every spiritual blessing."
Praising God has nothing to do with His needs, but all to
do with His being and of it.
14. I have spent a good part of my life being rejected
for one reason or another. Many because I was a little ahead of my time, others
because they disagreed with me, and others because they viewed me as a
conservative nut. In doing this study I was struck with the thought - God chose
me to be a part of His family. He asked that I be included. He chose me for
inclusion. He prepared the way for my inclusion. He took steps to assure my
inclusion.
Wow, He wanted me in His family, even though so many of
his sons didn't want anything to do with me in this life. Makes one wonder how
easy our regathering as brothers and sisters will be - how comfortable will we
be when face to face in the next life with those we have ignored and rejected
in this life.
Maybe this study should move us to consider how we relate
to other FAMILY MEMBERS in this life. We should treat all believers as brothers
or sisters in the Lord, not just those we like or can get along with.
15. Stedman suggests that the reference to the heavenlies
in verse three etc. may not relate to the throne of God in Heaven but rather to
the general thought of our being in this life surrounded with spiritual goings
on. He refers to the time when Elisha and his man were in the city and the man
was worried, but Elisha asked God to open his eyes to the Lord's armies around
the city (2 Ki
It is true, much of what Paul is talking about relates in
the competed end with heaven proper, but we are all these things now, in this
world scene where unseen are the armies of God arrayed to do battle at His
bidding.
I have been very concerned at the length of this study.
It is over twice as long as most of my study files. I was wondering if I had
been straining at a gnat or something, when today I saw an ad for an
eight-volume study of Ephesians - guess I'm not so far off as I had thought.
---------
From Mr. D's Notes on Theology<