Notes on the Book of Ephesians
Taken at a Bible Study Led by Walt Henrichsen
In San Francisco, 19-23 March 2007
Table of Contents
Chapter 3 1
Chapter overview 1
The mystery of the Church, a metaphysical entity separate from Israel 1
Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, interrupts himself before he prays (3:1-14) 5
The Church, a mystery not conceived in the OT 5
What happened to the Jewish church after 70AD? 5
Promises for Israel and the Church 7
Why Paul’s tribulations were for the readers’ glory (3:13) 8
The mystery of 3:6 8
The wisdom of God vs. the wisdom of man (3:10) 8
The danger of defining or fixing form and structure in the Church 9
Paul’s progressive thinking about his depravity (3:8) 10
Unavoidable hypocrisy as we confront sin 10
Knowing our depravity should help us better help others 10
Limits of authority regarding expectations for behavior 11
Limits of authority regarding conscience and convictions 11
Decision-making authority and responsibility 12
Conscience and convictions 12
Foreknowledge and God’s eternal purpose (3:11) 13
Faith, the great equalizing aspect of the Gospel 13
The dichotomy of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man 14
The manifold wisdom of God is displayed in all He does (3:10) 14
Boldness and access with confidence through faith (3:12) 14
Win-win situation of Paul’s tribulations (3:13) 14
Three-part and two-part views of the “inner man” (3:16) 15
Chapter 3
Chapter overview
· Four important words in this chapter: Gentile, grace, mystery and Christ
· These 4 words are weaved together to form 3 divisions:
· 1-6 Mystery
· 7-9 Messenger
· 10-19 Manifestation
The mystery of the Church, a metaphysical entity separate from Israel
· God’s eternal purpose of uniting the Jew and the Gentile finds its fulfillment in Christ and its expression in His Church.
· The fact that the Gentiles were included in the eternal plan of God was not new.
· That was not the mystery. This was discussed often in the Old Testament, but it was always assumed that their absorption into the plan of God would be through Judaism. In short, the Jews would proselytize them, so that they would become rightly related to God by becoming Jews themselves.
· The mystery revealed through Paul was that God’s plan was entirely different
in that He was going to take something from the two – the Jew and the Gentile –
and make something entirely new, the Church.
· The Church was not conceived in the Old Testament.
Q: Why should the institution of the nation of Israel still exist or happen in eternity?
· That is precisely the argument of the amillennialist.
· There’s no reason for it to exist, because Eph. 2 says you’ve got something new, so it’s unnecessary.
Q: So why would God still want to keep the institution of Israel in eternity?
· The question, ‘why did God commit Himself to an institution in the first place?’ He never discusses.
· My sense is – and this is simply supposition on my part – that God’s commitment to the nation of Israel is a more pure and clean expression of the grace of God than found in any other relationship, because in God’s gracious commitment to you reciprocity is required. You must believe.
· [For] Israel there was no reciprocity required.
· Now, granted, a generation or two or three might receive the wrath/indignation of God,
but His promise throughout the OT scriptures is that His commitment to Israel is inviolable,
so much so that He uses Hosea’s ungodly, nonsensical of marriage to Gomer as an illustration of the fact that Israel has always been a whore. She’s never been anything but a whore.
Nevertheless, God is committed to her in marriage, and that will never be broken.
· So, it [Israel] is a magnificent expression of the grace of God.
· So, Israel never had to make its election and calling sure. You and I do.
· Israel never had to demonstrate that it was one of the elect through a life of obedience.
· Now, granted, Israel was required to obey, and God roughed Israel up [brought hard times] quite a bit when she refused to obey.
· Nevertheless, the OT scriptures communicate that God would never for any reason rescind [take back] His commitment to the nation of Israel. Period.
· There are a number of promises that are made to the nation of Israel that either have to be allegorized, or they wait for their fulfillment.
· For example, in the book of Amos 9:13-15: “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When the plowman will overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; when the mountains will drip sweet wine and all the hills will be dissolved. “Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; they will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, and make gardens and eat their fruit. “I will also plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them,” says the LORD your God. (NASB)
· My sense is that that is yet to be fulfilled.
· God promises through the later prophets a material recreation.
· The lion will lie down with the lamb; peace will be over the earth.
· If Israel and then church are the same metaphysical entity, then you have to allegorize these promises and say that they are all pictures of the Church.
· My hermeneutic says you only consider a passage or word figurative if the context demands it.
· That’s why I would not be surprised if Jesus says to me in eternity, “You know when I said, ‘unless you eat My flesh and drink my blood’ in John 6, I really meant that. Henrichsen, you’re the one who said you should not allegorize the scriptures. Why did you make that a figurative phrase?”
· I don’t anticipate that, but I would not be surprised either.
· Remember, gentlemen, it is in the nature of the case that when you form an argument, you do so to the neglect of material that would support the opposite. It’s in the nature of the case,
so that when we argue for a particular view or a particular interpretation, our tendency is to ignore those portions of scripture that would call that interpretation into question, but unless the guy is really way, way out [in error], if he believes something, he’s got a reason, and there are some very good reasons that the amillennialist offers, so make no mistake about it; it’s not a thoughtless conclusion.
Q: So, in terms of 1948 Israel, they just dismiss it as just something God wants to do and not relating to the promises?
· When 1948 took place, nobody knew how to look at Israel.
· Even the staunchest dispensationalist would say, “I don’t know what to do with it.”
· I don’t think I would feel comfortable suggesting that this is the promised restoration of, for example, Amos chapter 9.
· So, Israel remains an enigma. It is not a God-fearing, God seeking, law-abiding nation.
· Granted, there is a strong Hassidic orthodox element in Israel that makes a huge emphasis on the keeping of the law, and so forth, but the nation is socialistic and secular.
Q: Aren’t the borders also not yet the same as the Promised Land?
· That is the reason why men like [Menachem] Begin, who was orthodox and took the Bible literally said, “We’ve just begun to take the land. All of that is ours.”
· So there is no pragmatism in that worldview – not of the orthodox Jewish view. “They’re living on our land.”
Q: So prior to 1948 when the nation of Israel was established by the United Nations, how were the people anticipating it?
· Nobody knew what it would look like, but it was obvious that in the Book of Revelation if you take that literally, there is the presence of a temple, but nobody is willing to go in the middle of the night and bulldoze the mosque off the rock. At least up to now nobody’s been willing to go and do that. That’s why I say it’s a pragmatic nation. It’s not trying to fulfill the OT promises.
· There are plans to build a new temple, and they recently found the cistern that supposedly identifies the exact site next to the Dome of the Rock.
· [But] those kinds of articles and rumblings have been present from Israel’s conception.
· Nevertheless, is what we see in Israel the beginning of the end in the fulfillment of God’s promises to the nation?
· I’ve never heard anybody say ‘yes’ to that definitively; ‘maybe’, but not dogmatically, ‘yes.’
Q: Regarding the anticipation of the second coming of Christ, how did the 1948 event alter people’s view?
· Nobody’s ever known what to do with it. Those who were pro-Israel rejoiced.
· The U.S. was the first nation to recognize Israel.
· Before that time, prophetic conferences were very popular in the U.S., but not so much any more.
Q: [Is it] because they don’t know what to do with it?
· I think so. I think so.
Q: Then even today, for example, the dispensationalists in Dallas talk very little about the modern nation of Israel?
· That’s a true statement. At least I have not read or heard them talk about it.
· I’ve talked with men like Howard Hendricks about it, but everybody seems to be rather tentative
– not tentative regarding God’s fulfillment of the promises
– but tentative regarding that being part of that fulfillment.
Q: Are you saying that when everything gets fulfilled, the Church is a new creation, and you’re saying that the remnant of Israel will have its own specific promises that will be fulfilled, separate from the Gentiles and the Church?
· Again – speculation – my sense is ‘yes.’
· God said to Abraham, “I’ll give you the land, and I'll give it to you forever.”
· The Bible talks about, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” [Mt. 5:5]
· I suggest to you that for most of you sitting here, the thought of inheriting the earth does not really motivate you. Now I may be wrong, but I think that has significance to the Jew in a way that it does not to the Gentile.
Q: But could you say that if that’s true, it doesn’t mean necessarily that there’s a commitment to the nation and not to the individual. It doesn’t necessarily mean salvation. It’s just basically God fulfilling His promises.
· Yes. It assumes that there are two programs of God – one for the individual and one for the nation.
· But as we’ve talked about in the past, the OT is strangely silent regarding the commitment to the individual.
· When Paul says [in Rom. 4:3], “Abraham believe God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness,” he’s quoting Genesis 15:6, but it’s interesting to note that none of the OT writers went back and grabbed that and talked about it.
· None of them talked about the imputed righteousness of faith that I’m aware of.
· You certainly don’t find it in the Law of Moses.
· So he says [in Gal. 3:29] that, “If you are of Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
· But what is the promise? That I’ll impute righteousness to you if you believe.
· But if there was an eternal hope in the OT, then why didn’t that verse become an anchor for the prophets, for example, like it is for the Apostle Paul?
· When people ask, “How were people in the OT saved?” We say, “Theologically, through Christ. No man comes to the Father but by Me [Jn. 14:6].”
· But it wasn’t an issue. It wasn’t a question in the OT.
· The only question was, “How do we get along with God?” and the answer is, “keep the law.”
Q: You said that most Christians are not motivated by the inheritance in the land, but how about the inheritance outside the land? In 1:18 Paul’s prayer is for them to see the riches of the glory of their inheritance.
· I would suggest that most Christians see this inheritance as a rich, exciting entity of some kind that they will eventually inherit, but it’s all very, very vague in our minds.
· We talk about ruling, as God said we will do. We don’t think about ruling portions of the earth – at least I never have – maybe an asteroid or two out there.
· In Revelation, it’s a new earth we’re inheriting, not the old earth with all the global warming and garbage.
· Agreed, but does that fill you with expectation – inheriting a recreated earth?
· It’s more perfected, and then there’s that big temple, like 4000 miles wide and high and talking to animals, etc.
· Some brother wants to rule Causeway Bay, because it has lots of good restaurants.
Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, interrupts himself before he prays (3:1-14)
Q: Why did Paul write “for this cause” in both 3:1 and 3:14?
· Some people think he meant to start in verse 14 but got interrupted and inserted 1-13.
· I.e., because of chapter 2 [Gentiles brought into God’s program], I pray 3:14-21.
Q: In 3:1, he word is not doulos (slave) but desmios (prisoner), so whose prisoner was Paul?
· Christ’s. Christ caused Rome to put Paul in prison to help the Gentiles.
· How did it help? 3:13 his tribulations were for the Gentiles’ glory
· Note: Paul didn’t view himself as a victim.