Ephesians 2:1-10, Exegetical Discussion

[His clay]

The goal of this thread is to have an exegetical discussion over Ephesians 2:1-10. For those of you who may be unaware, an exegetical discussion is one where the main focus is upon the book itself, and in particular the passage is the main focus. Often, Ephesians 2:8 is brought up and debated; but I'm seeking for a discussion that deals with the context of the verse. What context surrounds 2:8? This is probably the most critical question. Are verses 2:1-10 the unit of though that contains 2:8? If yes, then how does the surrounding context inform our understanding of 2:8? Since 2:1-10 is obviously in chapter 2, then does any of the prior content (ch1) give significant help in properly understanding 2:1-10 and 2:8 in particular?

In case you have missed an impossible to miss point, CONTEXT IS CRITICAL!

Do you see section breaks or breaks in thought through the course of 2:1-10? Are there any relevant historical details from the time that Paul wrote the book, which may impact our understanding of 2:1-10?

For those of you who may possess some knowledge of Greek. What conjunctions and transition words are in play that mark the boundaries and flow of thought? What role do the opening participles play before arriving at the main verbs? What rules are there regarding antecedents of pronouns?

Is there repetition? (compare verse 5 with verse 8) If there is repetition, then how does this impact one's understanding? Why repeat? How is deadness described, and how does this deadness impact our understanding of God's grace?

==================

Some struggle with the idea that context shapes meaning, so I'll give a few illustrations that will help us see how context shapes meaning.

Trunk Illustration
The word "trunk" is the focus.

If I take you over to my driveway and point to the back of my car, and I talk to you about the item that I have placed in the trunk of the car. You begin to understand what I mean by "trunk."

If I take you to the zoo, and I point out the elephant standing in front of us. I begin speaking to you about the "trunk" of the elephant, and you see the trunk wrap around a tree branch, to pull off edible greenery, and you see the elephant place the food in its mouth by means of the trunk. Then you begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

If I take you to the upstairs attic, and I point to you an old trunk. This trunk has a padlock on the front of it, and it stores items of nostalgic significance. You then begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

If I take you out to the yard, and we walk over to the tree. I'll point out the trunk of the tree. It is hard, has bark around it, and it is a critical foundational element of the tree. Upon this trunk, the rest of the branches, limbs, leaves, and any fruit or seeds rest upon it. Again, you then begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

The point . . . Context shapes meaning. It is a critical element of interpretation.

Breaking into a home illustration
I still remember, long ago, taking a literature class. One of our reading assignments involves a short story, where a person breaks into a home. He walks about quietly, so as not to be heard. And I must abbreviate it significantly. I came away from the reading thinking that I was reading about a thief breaking into a home. But the teacher the next day pointed out that the story was about a person who was locked out of their own home. The person was forced to break in, and the person was quiet so as not to wake any of the others in the home. The point . . . a little bit of context radically changed the perception of what one was reading.

==============

Coming full circle. How does the context surrounding verse 2:8 shape the meaning of 2:8?

While an exegetical study does not ignore the rest of scripture, it is important to first (greatest priority) seek the immediate context. Outside of the book, then Paul's other writings may shed light upon the book of Ephesians. But please, let us keep the external (outside of the book of Eph) context to a minimum. The reason, too often people immediately jump to contexts outside of the most immediate context, and in so doing they subvert the very meaning of the passage itself. Let the external context be kept to a minimum and mentioned last.

With the rules and boundaries of the thread in place, I would love to see other's thoughts. Obviously, I've already done a significant amount of work. But I would like to see others' thoughts.

 

[Eleanor]

The goal of this thread is to have an exegetical discussion over Ephesians 2:1-10. For those of you who may be unaware, an exegetical discussion is one where the main focus is upon the book itself, and in particular the passage is the main focus. Often, Ephesians 2:8 is brought up and debated; but I'm seeking for a discussion that deals with the context of the verse. What context surrounds 2:8? This is probably the most critical question. Are verses 2:1-10 the unit of though that contains 2:8? If yes, then how does the surrounding context inform our understanding of 2:8? Since 2:1-10 is obviously in chapter 2, then does any of the prior content (ch1) give significant help in properly understanding 2:1-10 and 2:8 in particular?

In case you have missed an impossible to miss point, CONTEXT IS CRITICAL!

Do you see section breaks or breaks in thought through the course of 2:1-10? Are there any relevant historical details from the time that Paul wrote the book, which may impact our understanding of 2:1-10?

For those of you who may possess some knowledge of Greek. What conjunctions and transition words are in play that mark the boundaries and flow of thought? What role do the opening participles play before arriving at the main verbs? What rules are there regarding antecedents of pronouns?

Is there repetition? (compare verse 5 with verse 8) If there is repetition, then how does this impact one's understanding? Why repeat? How is deadness described, and how does this deadness impact our understanding of God's grace?

==================

Some struggle with the idea that context shapes meaning, so I'll give a few illustrations that will help us see how context shapes meaning.

Trunk Illustration
The word "trunk" is the focus.

If I take you over to my driveway and point to the back of my car, and I talk to you about the item that I have placed in the trunk of the car. You begin to understand what I mean by "trunk."

If I take you to the zoo, and I point out the elephant standing in front of us. I begin speaking to you about the "trunk" of the elephant, and you see the trunk wrap around a tree branch, to pull off edible greenery, and you see the elephant place the food in its mouth by means of the trunk. Then you begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

If I take you to the upstairs attic, and I point to you an old trunk. This trunk has a padlock on the front of it, and it stores items of nostalgic significance. You then begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

If I take you out to the yard, and we walk over to the tree. I'll point out the trunk of the tree. It is hard, has bark around it, and it is a critical foundational element of the tree. Upon this trunk, the rest of the branches, limbs, leaves, and any fruit or seeds rest upon it. Again, you then begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

The point . . . Context shapes meaning. It is a critical element of interpretation.

Breaking into a home illustration
I still remember, long ago, taking a literature class. One of our reading assignments involves a short story, where a person breaks into a home. He walks about quietly, so as not to be heard. And I must abbreviate it significantly. I came away from the reading thinking that I was reading about a thief breaking into a home. But the teacher the next day pointed out that the story was about a person who was locked out of their own home. The person was forced to break in, and the person was quiet so as not to wake any of the others in the home. The point . . . a little bit of context radically changed the perception of what one was reading.

==============

Coming full circle. How does the context surrounding verse 2:8 shape the meaning of 2:8?

While an exegetical study does not ignore the rest of scripture, it is important to first (greatest priority) seek the immediate context. Outside of the book, then Paul's other writings may shed light upon the book of Ephesians. But please, let us keep the external (outside of the book of Eph) context to a minimum. The reason, too often people immediately jump to contexts outside of the most immediate context, and in so doing they subvert the very meaning of the passage itself. Let the external context be kept to a minimum and mentioned last.

With the rules and boundaries of the thread in place, I would love to see other's thoughts. Obviously, I've already done a significant amount of work. But I would like to see others' thoughts.

I see Eph as about the glory and headship of Christ; i.e., the mystery of Christ (1:9, 3:4).

Chp 1: Divine Purpose. . . . . . . . . . .Glory of God (6, 12, 14) through Mercy (Grace) and Justice (the Cross)

(Means to Glory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Glory and headship of Christ for sake of New Creation, the Church (10, 22)
through Mercy).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Blessing and Provision in Christ (4-13)

Chp 2-3: 4 STEPS to the above (in descending order)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4) God's workmanship in Christ prepared in advance for good works (2:10)
(Means to Glory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3) CHURCH-->showcase of God's wisdom in the cross (3:1-21)
through Justice). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Creation/Kingdom/Bride/Body of Christ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Man (15), One Body (16), God's household (19), Temple of God (21)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2) Jews reconciled to God (16-18)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1) Jews reconciled to Gentiles (13-15)

Chp 4-6: Proof of the work of the cross:
Unity (4:1-6)
Maturity (4:7-16)
Renewal of mind, self and one's nature (4:17-5:20)
Submission in relationships (5:2-6:9)
Strength in spiritual conflict (6:10-20)

 

[Binyawmene]

Do you see section breaks or breaks in thought through the course of 2:1-10? Are there any relevant historical details from the time that Paul wrote the book, which may impact our understanding of 2:1-10?

Paul is the author but Acts 19 might give us from insight about the audiences.

Acts 19:8-10 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.​

1. There was a Jewish synagogue.
2. The Christians was called "the Way."
3. There is a place called "Hall of Tyrannus."

1. Paul argued about "the Kingdom of God." (for three months)
2. Paul has discussions daily. (for two years)

If you think there are chop sections, then it could be previous discussions that the audiences were aware of. There were demonic possessions there Ephesus (11-16), people have practiced sorcery and burning of scrolls (19), there was a silversmith who business declined and caused riots (23-41), a temple of a non-existing goddess Artemis (27 and 35), there was a theater (31), and Revelations 2:1-7 say there was false apostles and the Way hate the practices of the Nicolaitans. What can you draw from this for Ephesians 2?

 

[atpollard]

One observation, Ephesians 2:1 starts with the word “And” in most translations and the word “kai” in Greek [which means … “and”]. I think it safe to assume that a sentence beginning with “And” is probably continuing a thought from the previous sentence (Ephesians 1).

 

[atpollard]

Ephesians 1:3-14 [NASB]

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He favored us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our wrongdoings, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He set forth in Him, 10 regarding His plan of the fullness of the times, to bring all things together in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. 11 In Him we also have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things in accordance with the plan of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in the Christ would be to the praise of His glory.13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise, 14 who is a first installment of our inheritance, in regard to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.​

I think this opening (following the greeting) sets the tone for WHAT Paul intends to talk about. Ephesians 2:1-10 would seem to be getting more into the details of HOW this all happened (happens).

 

[Josheb]

Wellll....

Let's start with a couple of basic observations. The letter in which the Ephesians 2:1-10 text occurs explicitly states it was written to "the saints... who are faithful to in Christ Jesus." Therefore, all the personal pronouns in chapter 2 refer to the saints, unless otherwise noted by Paul. Chapter 2 begins with a conjunction, the "kai," or "And" of verse one, which indicates what we call chapter to is part of an already existing commentary that begins earlier in the letter. Therefore, in order to establish the context of that portion of Paul's letter it is necessary to find that in the preceding verses. I will suggest that commentary begins in verse 1:18 where Paul states his prayer for his audience. After stating the content of his prayer for them he explains that content.

Ephesians 1:18-21
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of his calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Paul then continues on explaining the "the working of his [God's] strength." The established contexts at this point are the audience of saints, and the subject of God's work in Christ in those saints. After stating God put all things under Christ's feet and giving Jesus as head of the Church, the ecclesia, Paul begins what we call chapter 2 with the "And....."

Ephesians 2:1
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins...

So, with that transition another context is established: the saints' previously being dead in sin. At this point Paul also mentions another group, the "sons of disobedience" and he them includes himself along with his saintly readers as having "formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." The word, "formerly" indicating a state or condition that no longer exists for Paul and his readers....... which again means the letter up to this point is not about anyone but the saints he identified at the beginning of the epistle. Paul then returns to citing all the work that God had done in his love for the saints. That list of things God had done continues on through verse 10 at which point there is a new clause established with the "Therefore..." of verse 11. Paul has provided a predicate list of God's works so that his original audience might understand the hope of God's calling and riches of God's inheritance in the saints.

As to the frequently proof-texted verse(s) 8, or 8-10, that is part of a clause that begins with verse 5 (which is often neglected). However, before I dive into that, I will pause here for feedback.

 

[atpollard]

I will pause here for feedback.

Yup. (not much feedback, but I agree with what you wrote up to that point).

 

[His clay]

Thank you for your thoughts everyone.

 

[Mr GLee]

Some struggle with the idea that context shapes meaning, so I'll give a few illustrations that will help us see how context shapes meaning.

Trunk Illustration
The word "trunk" is the focus.

If I take you over to my driveway and point to the back of my car, and I talk to you about the item that I have placed in the trunk of the car. You begin to understand what I mean by "trunk."

If I take you to the zoo, and I point out the elephant standing in front of us. I begin speaking to you about the "trunk" of the elephant, and you see the trunk wrap around a tree branch, to pull off edible greenery, and you see the elephant place the food in its mouth by means of the trunk. Then you begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

If I take you to the upstairs attic, and I point to you an old trunk. This trunk has a padlock on the front of it, and it stores items of nostalgic significance. You then begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

If I take you out to the yard, and we walk over to the tree. I'll point out the trunk of the tree. It is hard, has bark around it, and it is a critical foundational element of the tree. Upon this trunk, the rest of the branches, limbs, leaves, and any fruit or seeds rest upon it. Again, you then begin to understand what I mean by "trunk" in a different context.

The point . . . Context shapes meaning. It is a critical element of interpretation.

I would offer

The mysterious word faith??????

Faith the power to believe as a living work . . . ."Let there be" the unseen faith . . . . and it became the good thing seen . Creative faith a work or labor of Christ. Yoked with him our daily load can be lighter. .

In that way we are saved by His powerful faith (belief) that is not alone, not without a and it was a good testimony

I would offer a powerful fire demonstration. Using fireworks. No fire no works. Duds . . Let there be and no glory . . . nothing changing nothing .(human faith/understanding. . dead)

The loving commandment not to have the let there be works of Christ in respect to dying mankind seen (beleivers)

James 2:1My brethren, have not the (powerful creative) faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

You could say our new born again faith. . . his let there be power mixed with ours .

Mix Ephesian 2 with James2. It would seem work faithfully in both work as one" Let there be" labor

 

[Josheb]

Picking up where I left off......

Paul has just declared his readers to have previously been dead in trespasses and sin. This sentence is a curious one because it is either unnecessarily redundant or there is a difference between trespasses and sin. Without going too far afield of the Ephesians text, I'll say the Bible provides at least four definitions of sin, one of which is the often proof-texted 1 John 3:4, which defines sins as any act of lawlessness. Elsewhere the definitions are less behavioral. Atop of these distinctions, the Bible asserts an act of disobedience (sin) has an effect on the person's constitution and their relationship with God. There is, therefore, an act of sin and a condition of sin or sinfulness. Paul has covered both, the conduct and the disposition.

Paul then proceeds to connect this sinful death to "walking" according to the world, the "prince of the air," the spirit that is at work in "the sons of disobedience," and indulging fleshly desires and/or lusts. Lengthy posts could be written about each one of those conditions so for the sake of brevity I'll speak to only one because it has proven to be the most confusing and dividing among Christians: the "prince of the air." Many people believe this is a reference to Satan, and therefore Satan still remained a prince with authority after his defeat at Calvary. That interpretation of the title conflicts with the many verses found elsewhere in the New Testament that uniformly and decidedly declared Jesus and Jesus alone the King of all kings, Lord of all Lords, and rule above all other rules. Therefore, this phrase "prince of the air" is likely an idiom, possibly one of mockery, because there is only one ruler of everything, and that ruler is Jesus Christ the resurrected and ascendant Son of the Almighty God to whom all power and authority has been given (Mt. 28:18). Satan, therefore, is not literally "prince" of anything. I can expound more on these matter (any of the conditions upon which Paul has predicated his readers' death, not just the prince of the air.

Paul then proceeds to include himself among those who were formerly dead in trespasses and sin. This, of course reconciles perfectly with Paul's statements in Romans about everyone having sinned. Paul is included in the "we" of verse 3. Paul and his readers previously walked according to the flesh (see Romans 7-8), and they were, therefore, previously objects of wrath. Paul then segues away from God's wrath to God's mercy. Because of God's great love, He has had mercy on Paul and his readers even while they were still dead in their transgressions. This mercy is manifested by God when he made Paul and his readers alive while they were still dead in sin. The implication being Paul and his readers did not first have to rid themselves of sin before being made alive by God. This is an implicit repudiation of works as a means of obtaining relief from wrath and any belief good behavior was a predicate to God making the sinfully dead Christologically alive (remember the audience affiliation of the letter's introduction = faith in Christ).

God having had mercy on Paul's readers, and making them alive, has (past tense) raised up his readers and seated them with Jesus in heavenly places. The reason this making alive, raising, and seating has occurred is God's glorification and a witness of God's glorification for ages to come. God's surpassing riches of grace in kindness toward those in Christ Jesus would show for ages to come. The Greek transliteration is "ages that are coming," so there is an indication Paul is implying some eschatological significance to this love and mercy and all that came with it. More importantly, Paul has created another segue. He's moved from love and mercy to grace. What follows is the infamous and often proof-texted statement,

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I read the "by grace through faith" as a single clause, not as two separate conditions and only one of them is gifted. There are two reasons in the verse itself for my doing so. The first is that grace is, by definition a gift and salvific faith is also described, elsewhere in the NT, as a gift. Second, the Ephesians 8 text itself states the "by grace through faith," is not of ourselves. It would be unnecessarily redundant to say grace is a gift so Paul must mean something else. In addition to the two conditions inherent in the verse, everything Paul has described leading up to this verse (as well as that which follows) is all conditions given to Paul and his readers by God. It would be inconsistent to read the great love, the mercy, the being made alive, the raising up, the seating, the Self-glorification, the riches, the kindness and the grace all as things given to his readers by God but then separate the mention of faith as something completely separate, especially since the verse explicitly states, "and this not of yourselves of God the gift." Paul then adds the explicit statement "not as a result of works." Notice the transliteration of the Greek does not contain the clause "it is." Furthermore, righteousness is a gift that comes from faith (Rom. 5:5-9), so if faith were not gifted then neither would be the ensuing righteousness. That righteousness would be earned (Rom. 4:4; Gal. 3:21), not gifted. Righteousness cannot logically be "credited" if it is earned. Later in the letter to the Ephesians Paul wrote, "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift" Eph. 4:7). Notice also, that nowhere does Paul write "saved by faith." That phrase is nowhere to be found anywhere in the entirety of the Bible. It's not taught in scripture.

Furthermore, what follows verse 9 is another act of God. Paul tells his readers he and his readers were 1) God's workmanship, and 2) created in Christ. This "work" of God is juxtaposed against the earlier mentioned "work," that of the spirit at work in the sons of disobedience. The implication being one group has one spirit working in them and the other group has a different Spirit working within them. Lastly, Paul assigns the purpose of salvation: performing good works, and those good works his readers are to perform are works God planned from them to perform "beforehand." That is to say before Paul or any of his readers were saved by grace through faith, God had a plan for them a plan that entailed them performing good works and not just any good works, but the good works that were planned, good works that were specifically part of plan for which they'd been created in Christ.

As I have often posted, the three points made in Ephesians 2:8-10 are...

• Saved by grace,
• Saved through faith,
• Saved for good works.

All of it gifted to the saved by God..... along with all the stuff Paul had previously listed in the preceding chapter (blessing, chosen-ness, blamelessness, destiny, adoption, redemption and more all due to "the kind intention of His will" and the grace He had "lavished" on Paul and his readers.

 

[Eleanor]

I would offer

The mysterious word faith??????

Faith the power to believe as a living work . . . ."Let there be" the unseen faith . . . . and it became the good thing seen . Creative faith a work or labor of Christ. Yoked with him our daily load can be lighter. .

In that way we are saved by His powerful faith (belief) that is not alone, not without a and it was a good testimony

I would offer a powerful fire demonstration. Using fireworks. No fire no works. Duds . . Let there be and no glory . . . nothing changing nothing .(human faith/understanding. . dead)

The loving commandment not to have the let there be works of Christ in respect to dying mankind seen (beleivers)

James 2:1My brethren, have not the (powerful creative) faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

You could say our new born again faith. . . his let there be power mixed with ours .

Mix Ephesian 2 with James2. It would seem work faithfully in both work as one" Let there be" labor

Faith in the NT means belief and trust in as true.

 

[Mr GLee]

Faith in the NT means belief and trust in as true.

Both testaments. Christ's powerful faith "Let there be" as a labor of His love. . . . it moves us

.It was the kind of spiritual food the other knew not of

Power to believe by trusting the living word working with us. Emmanuel

John 4:33-35Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?;Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Without the father Jesus the Son of man could do nothing that could please Him.

 

[Eleanor]

Both testaments. Christ's powerful faith "Let there be" as a labor of His love. . . . it moves us

.It was the kind of spiritual food the other knew not of

Power to believe by trusting the living word working with us. Emmanuel

Power to believe by the sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit in regeneration (Jn 3:3-5) wherein he is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

John 4:33-35Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?;Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Without the father Jesus the Son of man could do nothing that could please Him.

 

[makesends]

Picking up where I left off......

Paul has just declared his readers to have previously been dead in trespasses and sin. This sentence is a curious one because it is either unnecessarily redundant or there is a difference between trespasses and sin. Without going too far afield of the Ephesians text, I'll say the Bible provides at least four definitions of sin, one of which is the often proof-texted 1 John 3:4, which defines sins as any act of lawlessness. Elsewhere the definitions are less behavioral. Atop of these distinctions, the Bible asserts an act of disobedience (sin) has an effect on the person's constitution and their relationship with God. There is, therefore, an act of sin and a condition of sin or sinfulness. Paul has covered both, the conduct and the disposition.

Paul then proceeds to connect this sinful death to "walking" according to the world, the "prince of the air," the spirit that is at work in "the sons of disobedience," and indulging fleshly desires and/or lusts. Lengthy posts could be written about each one of those conditions so for the sake of brevity I'll speak to only one because it has proven to be the most confusing and dividing among Christians: the "prince of the air." Many people believe this is a reference to Satan, and therefore Satan still remained a prince with authority after his defeat at Calvary. That interpretation of the title conflicts with the many verses found elsewhere in the New Testament that uniformly and decidedly declared Jesus and Jesus alone the King of all kings, Lord of all Lords, and rule above all other rules. Therefore, this phrase "prince of the air" is likely an idiom, possibly one of mockery, because there is only one ruler of everything, and that ruler is Jesus Christ the resurrected and ascendant Son of the Almighty God to whom all power and authority has been given (Mt. 28:18). Satan, therefore, is not literally "prince" of anything. I can expound more on these matter (any of the conditions upon which Paul has predicated his readers' death, not just the prince of the air.

Paul then proceeds to include himself among those who were formerly dead in trespasses and sin. This, of course reconciles perfectly with Paul's statements in Romans about everyone having sinned. Paul is included in the "we" of verse 3. Paul and his readers previously walked according to the flesh (see Romans 7-8), and they were, therefore, previously objects of wrath. Paul then segues away from God's wrath to God's mercy. Because of God's great love, He has had mercy on Paul and his readers even while they were still dead in their transgressions. This mercy is manifested by God when he made Paul and his readers alive while they were still dead in sin. The implication being Paul and his readers did not first have to rid themselves of sin before being made alive by God. This is an implicit repudiation of works as a means of obtaining relief from wrath and any belief good behavior was a predicate to God making the sinfully dead Christologically alive (remember the audience affiliation of the letter's introduction = faith in Christ).

God having had mercy on Paul's readers, and making them alive, has (past tense) raised up his readers and seated them with Jesus in heavenly places. The reason this making alive, raising, and seating has occurred is God's glorification and a witness of God's glorification for ages to come. God's surpassing riches of grace in kindness toward those in Christ Jesus would show for ages to come. The Greek transliteration is "ages that are coming," so there is an indication Paul is implying some eschatological significance to this love and mercy and all that came with it. More importantly, Paul has created another segue. He's moved from love and mercy to grace. What follows is the infamous and often proof-texted statement,

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I read the "by grace through faith" as a single clause, not as two separate conditions and only one of them is gifted. There are two reasons in the verse itself for my doing so. The first is that grace is, by definition a gift and salvific faith is also described, elsewhere in the NT, as a gift. Second, the Ephesians 8 text itself states the "by grace through faith," is not of ourselves. It would be unnecessarily redundant to say grace is a gift so Paul must mean something else. In addition to the two conditions inherent in the verse, everything Paul has described leading up to this verse (as well as that which follows) is all conditions given to Paul and his readers by God. It would be inconsistent to read the great love, the mercy, the being made alive, the raising up, the seating, the Self-glorification, the riches, the kindness and the grace all as things given to his readers by God but then separate the mention of faith as something completely separate, especially since the verse explicitly states, "and this not of yourselves of God the gift." Paul then adds the explicit statement "not as a result of works." Notice the transliteration of the Greek does not contain the clause "it is." Furthermore, righteousness is a gift that comes from faith (Rom. 5:5-9), so if faith were not gifted then neither would be the ensuing righteousness. That righteousness would be earned (Rom. 4:4; Gal. 3:21), not gifted. Righteousness cannot logically be "credited" if it is earned. Later in the letter to the Ephesians Paul wrote, "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift" Eph. 4:7). Notice also, that nowhere does Paul write "saved by faith." That phrase is nowhere to be found anywhere in the entirety of the Bible. It's not taught in scripture.

Furthermore, what follows verse 9 is another act of God. Paul tells his readers he and his readers were 1) God's workmanship, and 2) created in Christ. This "work" of God is juxtaposed against the earlier mentioned "work," that of the spirit at work in the sons of disobedience. The implication being one group has one spirit working in them and the other group has a different Spirit working within them. Lastly, Paul assigns the purpose of salvation: performing good works, and those good works his readers are to perform are works God planned from them to perform "beforehand." That is to say before Paul or any of his readers were saved by grace through faith, God had a plan for them a plan that entailed them performing good works and not just any good works, but the good works that were planned, good works that were specifically part of plan for which they'd been created in Christ.

As I have often posted, the three points made in Ephesians 2:8-10 are...

• Saved by grace,
• Saved through faith,
• Saved for good works.

All of it gifted to the saved by God..... along with all the stuff Paul had previously listed in the preceding chapter (blessing, chosen-ness, blamelessness, destiny, adoption, redemption and more all due to "the kind intention of His will" and the grace He had "lavished" on Paul and his readers.

Even for those who want to say that the Salvation is the gift, and grammatically not the grace nor the faith, they are logically wrong. If the faith is the means of the grace which is the means of the Salvation, it necessarily implies that those, too, and whatever else may have caused them, is gift of God. There is, as you have aptly shown, no room to suppose that the faith is generated by the will or choice of the person.

 

[Josheb]

Even for those who want to say that the Salvation is the gift, and grammatically not the grace nor the faith, they are logically wrong. If the faith is the means of the grace which is the means of the Salvation, it necessarily implies that those, too, and whatever else may have caused them, is gift of God. There is, as you have aptly shown, no room to suppose that the faith is generated by the will or choice of the person.

Yep. There are many ways to reason through that but if those cases are logical then they all end in the conclusion grace, faith, and the resulting salvation are gifts, along with everything else Paul had written in that letter up to that point. In doctrinal terms it is monergistic, monergistic, monergistic, monergistic time and time again and again, example after example. Paul never once attributes anything to the readers while in their still sinful, lustful state. Every aspect is assigned to God.

BUT..... this op asks for us to stick to the text of Ephesians 2, so I didn't post doctrinal aspects. Exegetically speaking, we cannot stick rigidly to the first ten verses of chapter 2 because Paul's commentary begins a few verses earlier in chapter 1. More could be said, working the "hermeneutical spiral" outward from that letter to Paul's epistolary, to the epistolary as a whole and then the NT and then the Bible as a whole but that would be outside the requested scope of the op.

 

[Mr GLee]

Power to believe by the sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit in regeneration (Jn 3:3-5) wherein he is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

Hi Thanks

Nicodemus, a sign and lying wonder seeker of those who made Jesus into a circus seal. . . "perform some magic create a miracle then if we see it with our own eyed the, we will believe for a twinkling of the eye John 4:48 John 6:30

The Tather giving powerful words to his prophet apostle Jesus, the father lovingly commanding Nicodemus marvel, wonder not after lying sign to wonder after as if true prophecy

Marveling in wonder shadow land is not exercising the faith\power that does comes from hearing God as it is written (sola scriptura)

 

[Josheb]

What context surrounds 2:8?

The Christological or salvific work of God in the lives of Paul's readers, those who are faithful in Christ. The Christological theocentrism is found stated in the greeting, the doxology that follows the greeting, and the subsequent exposition of God's work in the readers through Christ.

Are verses 2:1-10 the unit of though that contains 2:8?

The "unit" could be considered to begin with the "and" of verse 2:1, but that "and" is part of a larger commentary that is preceded by the "and" of verse 1:22, the "These..." of 1:19, the "For..." of verse 1:15, and the list of "In him" that precedes all of that. There is, likewise, a similar flow of thought in the first 10 verses of chapter two.

If yes, then how does the surrounding context inform our understanding of 2:8?

Not sure what's being asked here but the most obvious way the surrounding text defines the context is the repeated, constant list of what Gd has done in the lives of Paul's readers as it pertains to their faithfulness to Christ and their salvation from wrath and sin.

Since 2:1-10 is obviously in chapter 2, then does any of the prior content (ch1) give significant help in properly understanding 2:1-10 and 2:8 in particular?

The chapter and verse numbers do not exist in the original letter. The numbering of the Bible was added centuries later. Were I to set chapter and verse numbers, they would not be the same as currently exist. It is, in fact, a useful (but time consuming) exercise to type up any of the books of the Bible without all the numbering and apply your own numbering to the text as you see the flow of thought and recording of events to set those divisions. An even more detailed exercise is to leave out the punctuation. I participated in a small group that did this with Matthew.

Do you see section breaks or breaks in thought through the course of 2:1-10?

No, but I do read a flow of thought that moves the commentary through several specified points. I'd also observe the "Therefore" of verse 2:11 indicates Paul's commentary proceeds after verse 10 and his conclusions are found in verse 19's "So then...."

Are there any relevant historical details from the time that Paul wrote the book, which may impact our understanding of 2:1-10?

Yes, but they're not found in the text itself. Some historical/cultural context can be found in Acts 18-20. Paul was originally well received, and he taught in the synagogue there. He was asked to stay but left for Caesaria. Apollos visited Ephesus where his preaching was corrected by Priscilla and Aquilla because Apollos knew only the baptism of John. Apollos then went to Achaia, where it is Acts reports, "...he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ." This comment "believed through grace" parallels Paul's greeting in the Ephesians epistle. It was also in Ephesus. Paul returned to Ephesus and address the matter of their knowing only John's baptism. He was there for two years and eventually dissent within the synagogue caused Paul and the disciples to leave. At this point Christians were still called followers of The Way (the way of the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth). A smaller version of the Pentecost experience occurred in Ephesus among the Jews who believed in Jesus but it was also in Ephesus where the silversmiths appealed to the city rulers to expel Paul because of his preaching against idols and the subsequent impact it had on the attached economies. Paul left and returned a third time, the last time calling the Church elders to the city where he was prayed over and the text foreshadows his death in Rome. "

Acts 20:25
And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.

Younger apostles, or disciples who ministered with Paul as he traveled stayed in Ephesus, among them were Timothy and Onesiphorus. It was also in Ephesus where some converts were reported to have fallen away from Paul (Phygelus and Hermogenes).

Extra-biblically, several Greek/Roman gods had temples in Ephesus, the most prominent of which was Artemis (Roman = Diana), the goddess of the hunt. She was also associated with fertility and the worship of her fell into the harvest religions common in the pagan world. Artemis was also the sister of Apollo, the sun god, and lesser gods that were worshiped in Ephesus including Hecate, the moon goddess (also associated with witchcraft). The temple of Artemis was considered one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. Although the temple of Apollo was about 75 km away, there was an annual ritual in Ephesus in which the men marched banging shields to distract Hera from seeing Zeus's infidelity. These religions were not just harvest religions, they also contained rituals and celebrations that included lavish feasts and, therefore, gluttony. Atypically, because of Artemis' affiliation with chastity and fidelity, there were no temple prostitutes. They'd been abolished when Rome captured the city. That's not to say prostitution didn't exist in Ephesus, only that it was not associated with the Ephesian temple (unlike those of Aphrodite and Dionysus in the surrounding region).

Paul's letter to the Ephesians can therefore be understood to have occurred in the context of his repeated and enduring relationship with the believers in that city, and his letter addresses some of the concerns that arose due to the influence of pagan religions. Think, for example, what it might have been like to have a priestess of Artemis converted to Christ. These women were experienced with power and very ritualized worship, not to mention the problem of polytheism and the belief God is/could be female. Quite a lot could be said about the historical/cultural contexts.

Lastly, the church at Ephesus was one of the seven churches mention in Revelation. Paul's epistle was written before Revelation but it's worth noting that congregation was commended for its perseverance and intolerance of false prophets that included the Nicolaitans. It was also said that despite their perseverance and pursuit of purity, truth, or orthodoxy, they'd lost their first love and were in danger of having their "lampstand" removed.

For those of you who may possess some knowledge of Greek. What conjunctions and transition words are in play that mark the boundaries and flow of thought? What role do the opening participles play before arriving at the main verbs? What rules are there regarding antecedents of pronouns?

That will require a separate post and probably someone better informed about koine Greek than me.

Is there repetition? (compare verse 5 with verse 8) If there is repetition, then how does this impact one's understanding? Why repeat? How is deadness described, and how does this deadness impact our understanding of God's grace?

Three thoughts on that. One, there is repetition. Two, repetition in scripture is typically used for emphasis, but..... Three, unnecessary redundancy is not the same as repetition and that usually indicates a distinction in thought, some juxtaposition, or contrast is implied. Four, there are several literary devices use in Ephesians 1-2 (like the aforementioned contrast between the spirit at work in the disobedient and the God at work in the faithful in Christ. An example of repetition would be the repeated mention of God's work. The diversity of the work overshadows the fact it is all from God. God, God, God, God..... ad nauseam . Paul repeats the phrase "in praise of His glory" thrice in chapter one, and various wordings of "in Christ" and "in whom" are found repeated throughout the text.

 

[makesends]

His clay said:
Do you see section breaks or breaks in thought through the course of 2:1-10?

No, but I do read a flow of thought that moves the commentary through several specified points. I'd also observe the "Therefore" of verse 2:11 indicates Paul's commentary proceeds after verse 10 and his conclusions are found in verse 19's "So then...."

Paul has a very methodical progression of thought in all his letters, seems to me. It is said that the book of Romans was used to teach logic in Harvard Law School, way back when.

 

[Josheb]

His clay said:
Do you see section breaks or breaks in thought through the course of 2:1-10?

Paul has a very methodical progression of thought in all his letters, seems to me. It is said that the book of Romans was used to teach logic in Harvard Law School, way back when.

He is the greatest theologian God has inspired, Christian or otherwise. All the Christian theologians are working from him . He was, imo, prepared prior to his birth and over the course of his entire life to write what he wrote. he could speak to the diversity of Greek culture and all the associated mythologies because he was raised in the Greek city of Tarsus. When sent to Jerusalem to study and become a teacher of Jewish Law he chose the sect of the Pharisees, preparing to speak to the matter of life after death (which the Sadducees denied). Nowadays we might call him "progressive" . His having a father who was Roman entitled him to take the gospel all the way to Rome and the halls of Caesar.

Logic would be the call of the day.

Every day.

 

[makesends]

Hi Thanks

Nicodemus, a sign and lying wonder seeker of those who made Jesus into a circus seal. . . "perform some magic create a miracle then if we see it with our own eyed the, we will believe for a twinkling of the eye John 4:48 John 6:30

The Tather giving powerful words to his prophet apostle Jesus, the father lovingly commanding Nicodemus marvel, wonder not after lying sign to wonder after as if true prophecy

Marveling in wonder shadow land is not exercising the faith\power that does comes from hearing God as it is written (sola scriptura)

'Are' Jesus Christ and the Son of God, two different beings? What's going on here, calling Jesus an apostle and prophet? Was Jesus a different person from the Son of God?