"IT WAS GOOD" (GENESIS 1; I TIMOTHY 4:1-5)

To introduce this subject, I will quote Gordon: “At six points in Gen 1 God reviews what he has created and finds it 'good' (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), and then characterizes the completed work of creation as 'very good' (v. 31). This is the 'craftsman God' who, in the way of the human artificer, stands back to look at what he has made and declares his satisfaction with it (cf. Isa 41:7...).”

At this point it should be noted that any of the many times in the Bible when the number seven is mentioned or a key word or phrase appears exactly seven times in a passage, it symbolically indicates perfection or completion.

It is easy for us to understand why God would declare His work to be complete at that point, but there would be many critics and skeptics who would raise some questions as to how perfect that creation actually was. For example, if the original creation was perfect, why was their an evil serpent in it; why would God put a tree in the garden of Eden and then forbid Adam and Eve to eat of it; why wouldn't the first human couple obey God if they were perfect; what kind of perfect paradise would require its inhabitants to work, etc.? To understand those questions, I will rely on a host of scholarly commentators to put in their two cents worth.

Ross: “After the creation of light God announced his evaluation: it was good. The idea of the word 'good' (tob) is that the light is useful, fitting, and healthy. That which is good is conducive for and enhances life...” Hamilton translates tob as “beautiful.”

Wenham: “God the great artist is portrayed admiring his handiwork...This very common Hebrew adjective ['good'] has a broad range of meaning, as does the English term. Primarily, it draws attention to an object's quality and fitness for its purpose. But the Hebrew term as used by the Israelites is more closely related to the mind and opinion of God than is the English word. God is preeminently the one who is good and his goodness is reflected in his works.” And then regarding Genesis 1:31 specifically, Wenham says, “The harmony and perfection of the completed heavens and earth express more adequately the character of their creator than any of the separate components can.”

Collins: “This pericope has God seeing what he made, that it was 'good' – that is , pleasing to him, answering his purpose...the fact that 2:18 has God saying that something [namely, Adam's aloneness] is 'not good' therefore stands out.” Note the emphasis on how God views the situation rather than how man, with his imperfect understanding of the situation views it. We see the same thing in reverse elsewhere in the Old Testament when it is said that God brings about evil. In that case, it means evil in man's eyes even though it might eventually bring about good from God's viewpoint. One prime example would be the death of Christ on the cross. Or we might remember what Joseph said to his brothers after he had revealed himself to them: “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”

Barker: “God declares in Genesis 1:31 that the creation is very good. There is no strife, enmity or sin in the creation, hence there is rest.”

Osborne: “This does not mean that creation is good in itself; rather it is a divine judgment about creation. The creature is good by virtue of its standing in appropriate relationship to its creator. Thus the divine perspective which enables God to make this judgment is not that of detached contemplation but that of active engagement.”

Merrill: “The statement that summarizes the creative work of God – including the creation of humans, declares that 'God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31). Though the Heb. phrase tob me'od, very good, does not inherently convey the idea of sinlessness, its use in a creation prior to the first temptation and disobedient act distinctly favors such a conclusion...”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “The fact that God personally brings the material world into being and labels it 'good' and 'very good' stands in marked contrast to later Greek and other philosophical and theological perspectives, which view the material realm as intrinsically evil and morally suspect. But that simple observation hardly does justice to the enthusiasm with which God views the work he has done. God's declaration is both a benediction and an expression of joy. Good means 'It's wonderful!' Very good is equivalent to saying, 'It's perfect!”

Ellison says that “when it is applied to God's judgment, it means conformity to His will.”

Carr: “Where individual elements of creation were 'good' (v. 4, 10, etc.), the whole is very good, perfectly corresponding to God's intention.”

And looking forward instead of backwards here, McMickle says, “One could argue that what God is seeking to accomplish in salvation history is to return the whole of creation to the place where God can look at it, both in terms of the environment and in terms of human relationships with God and with each other, and once again say, 'It is very good.'”

I Timothy 4:1-5

Paul in the New Testament picks up on this OT theme and utilizes it to make a particular ethical point to his audience. As Collins states, “Paul uses the term good, found in the Septuagint of Genesis 1, and seems to have thought that the creation retains its goodness even after man's fall into sin...To affirm that the creation is 'good'...is to affirm that God takes delight in it and that man at his best will do so as well.” He notes that the phrase 'and behold' in Genesis 1:31 “invites one to see the scene from a participant's perspective.The reader is to experience something of God's own delight in 'everything he had made.'”

Thus in this specific instance, Towner notes how Paul in vv. 3-4 utilizes the principle of the goodness of God's creation to counter those leaders who would prohibit the eating of certain foods. Similarly, Knight says, “Paul asserts of these created things the verdict given by God himself in Gn. 1:31, i.e., that every one of them is 'good.'”

Hendricksen even points out: “Of late, science is beginning to discover that what used to be regarded as of no direct value to man many prove to be a source of blessing; may, in fact, help solve the food-problem of future generations; think, for example, of plant-food from the ocean.'” Or in my own field of organic chemistry, I could point out the many times natural products extracted from plants have given rise to the development of a host of new useful pharmaceutical products.

Guthrie: “The false teaching comprised two prohibitions: marriage and the eating of certain foods. There is no doubt that these point to an incipient gnosticism with its dualistic view of matter...The apostle's strong opposition to these practices is due to their dangerous implications. He argues that prohibitions such as these are in conflict with the divine ordinance. Here he strikes at the roots of dualistic gnosticism, which denied that God created matter.”

And for the sake of completeness, one could cite the number of other possible interpretations proposed for the I Timothy passage and cited by Hanson, including an intended reference to saying grace before meals or to the communion elements. Both of these interpretations are highly unlikely to reflect the context of Paul's thinking here.

Application

John Swinton recently wrote an article starting out with a consideration of the definition of “good” in Genesis 2 and then applied it to how Christians should view those with physical or mental disabilities. He writes, “Let's begin with the suggestion that the original state of the world was one of perfection...the text itself never uses this term. While Eden was originally untainted by sin, the Bible does not suggest that creation was perfect in the sense of flawlessness or static idealism. Instead, the divine pronouncement is that the creation is good (tov in Hebrew). This word, in its biblical and theological context, does not imply perfection or uniformity but denotes relational integrity, aesthetic richness, diversity, and the capacity for fruitful, dynamic life and connection. The theological grammar of Genesis is thus relational rather than idealistic. The goodness of creation is not grounded in metaphysical perfection but in the dynamics between Creator and creation, and among created beings themselves. Eden is a world of movement, interdependence, vulnerability, and growth. It is, in short, a world that includes the possibility of difference and dependence as intrinsic to its goodness. If Eden's goodness lies in its interrelational depth rather than its metaphysical flawlessness, then the human vocation must likewise be understood in relational rather than idealized terms.”

 

WHAT IS THE 'ROYAL LAW' IN JAMES 2:8?

In this verse, James says, “If you really fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well.” (RSV) But that gives rise to the question as to what the “royal law” really is.

McKnight provides what is perhaps the most comprehensive answer to that question after giving his reasons: “I suggest then that 'royal law' refers (1) to Jesus' highlighting of Lev 19:18 as the preeminent command of all commands, alongside loving God, (2) to this interpretation of the Torah bringing Torah to its destined completion (1:25), (3) to this law of love actually creating freedom for the messianic community, and (4) to the empowering implanted presence of word and Spirit in the messianic community.” He feels that all of these aspects are covered by the phrase and that there is no need to choose between them. Most other commentators in their writings tend to stress one or more possibilities to the near exclusion of the others. Below are some of these scholars' thoughts on this subject:

The reference is to the love command of Leviticus 19:18.

One problem faces us immediately in considering this view, namely, why is only the second part of this command given? Kistemaker answers that objection by saying, “James calls attention to only the second part of the summary [in Matthew 22:37-29], 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' He stresses this part, just as Paul does in his epistles (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; and compare Matt. 19:19). But the implication is the same: the entire law is summarized in expressing love for one's neighbor. Keeping the second part of the summary means fulfilling the first part as well. The two parts are inseparably connected (I John 4:20-21).”

Felder states: “The royal law [is] a designation of Lev 19:18 that is unique to James. He attributes prominence to this precept because of its elevated status in the teachings of Jesus (Mt 22.39; Mk 12.31; Lk 10.27; cf. John 13.34 and Gal 5.14; Rom 13.9).”

And Vine calls it “the law of love, royal in the majesty of its power, the law upon which all others hang, Matt. 22:34-40; Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14.”

A rather weak argument in favor of this interpretation can be seen from the literary structure of the context. The common theme of partiality is pursued in James 1:1-13. Although Johnson divides this section into two parts (2:1-7 and 2:8-13), he gives abundant evidence that they are closely linked. My alternative structure for this sub-section is shown below:

        1. Rhetorical question beginning “my brothers” (v. 1)

                2. Favoring the rich over the poor (vv. 2-3)

                        3. You have become evil judges (v. 4)

        1'. Rhetorical question beginning “my beloved brothers” (v. 5)

                2'. Dishonoring the poor (vv. 6-11)

                        3'. Proper judgment (vv. 12-13)

If this arrangement means anything at all, it my indicate the parallelism between the specific teaching regarding the poor in verses 2-3 and the immediate context in which our problem phrase appears.

Now for some negative indications regarding this interpretation of “royal law:”

“Although a number of commentators think that James restricts the 'royal law' to Lev 19:18..., those who think that James means all of the law (given explicit expression by Lev 19:18) are probably correct...” (Johnson)

Davids starts out by presenting the case of those who believe this view: “It is a 'sovereign law,' i.e. it has royal authority (Dibelius), but more than that the anarchrous nomos indicates a particular law with, as Mayer argues, a stress on its character.” Davids' rejoinder is “Is it not most natural to see a reference to the whole law as interpreted and handed over to the church in the teaching of Jesus, i.e. the sovereign rule of God's kingdom (cf. Matthew 5)?...The use of nomos instead of 'entole ['commandment'] makes it appear decisive that the whole law rather than a single command is intended...”

It is royal because it refers to the teachings of Jesus the King.

After discussing several possibilities for the term, Adamson concludes, “For the most part these interpretations are merely derivative; we prefer: From a king, namely, Christ.”

Quanbeck simply says, “James uses a variety of expressions for the gospel: perfect law (v. 1:25), law of liberty (v. 1:25; 2:12), royal law (2::8).”

“The argument from beginning to end [James 2:1-26]...concerns the necessity of living out the faith of Jesus in appropriate deeds...The adjective basilikos can refer to that which is 'kingly' in character or excellence...or simply because the 'king' does it, as in the 'royal custom.' The adjective can also be attached to that which belongs to the king in any fashion...In the present case, the close proximity to basileia in 2:5 suggests a reading like 'law of the kingdom...meaning the law articulated or ratified by Jesus 'the glorious Lord,' whose name 'is invoked over them' (2:7).” (Johnson) As you can see, the author feels that a number of different interpretations may apply here.

Esser similarly hedges his bet by saying that “the combination 'law of liberty' [1:25; 2:12] in Gk. has a mainly Stoic origin. The phrase probably comes from the Jewish-Christian diaspora and refers chiefly to those collections of Christ's sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) and the Discourse on the Plain (Lk 6:20ff.), which were regarded as the rule of life. Anyone putting them into practice was thereby set free from a literal observance of the OT law...Jas. also calls this law the 'royal law [nomos basilikos]' (2:8), which can be summarized in the command to love one's neighbor. ('Royal' need not necessarily refer to Jesus the King; it may equally refer simply to the grandeur of this commandment.)”

A variation on this view is that it refers the law as laid down from God the Father, not Jesus. Thus, Ward says, “The royal law (cf. Lv. 19:18) is 'kingly' as coming from God the King, to be observed by the subjects of His kingdom; and it has royal rank over the other commandments.”

It refers to the new law which fulfills the old one.

“The term 'synagogue' in James 2:2 “probably means no more than an assembly in context, but an assembly for the purpose of discerning and keeping the true, 'royal law' (Jas 2:8) represents an implicit challenge to other congregations which claim to uphold the Torah.” (Chilton)

It is the law of God's new kingdom on earth.

Tasker considers this view in conjunction with others. “This law is called royal, partly because it is the law of the kingdom of God, given by the supreme King Himself, and partly because, in its very comprehensiveness, it is the law that governs all other laws concerning human relationships”

In summary, the expression “royal law” may encompass a number of related concepts.

GREETINGS IN COLOSSIANS 1:1-2 AND 4:7-18

According to the conventions of early letter writing in ancient Greece, greetings were generally found in two places, the opening and closing verses. And the epistles of Paul are no exception to this rule. But his writings elevate the form to new heights, including even this usually mundane portion of a letter. Often the beginning and conclusion in Paul's hands become a matched pair in which opening phrases and concepts are repeated at the end. A prime example of this literary technique, called an inclusion or inclusio. is seen in the Epistle to the Colossians.

For one thing, Paul begins with a rather general greeting to his audience in Colossians 1:1-2 but then concludes his letter with a more extended set of greetings to specific people in that congregation. And the parallels between these two bookend sections are enhanced by specific verbal repetitions, enumerated below:

Parallel Wording                                          Opening Greeting        Closing Greeting

Paul                                                                 1:1a                                 4:18a

Christ Jesu                                                      1:1b                                 4:12a

will of God                                                     1:1c                                  4:12b

brother                                                            1:1d                                  4:7,9

faithful brethren/brother                                 1:2a                                   4:7,9

to the brethren...at Colossae/Laodicea           1:2b                                   4:15

in Christ/the Lord                                           1:2c                                   4:17

grace                                                               1:2d                                  4:18b

Note that the opening words begin with “Paul” and end in “grace.” In the same sort of manner, the closing verse of the letter contains these same two elements in the same order, serving to tie together the whole epistle.

There is one other possible parallel between these two passages. In 1:1, Paul calls himself an apostle, and in 4:8, Paul says that he has sent Tychicus to the church to encourage them. Vine explains that apostello literally means “to send on service, or with a commission.” The verb in 4:8, on the other hand, is pempo. “Pempo is a more general term than apostello; apostello usually 'suggests official or authoritative sending' (Thayer). A comparison of the usages...shows how nearly (in some cases practically quite) interchangeably they are used, and yet on close consideration the distinction just mentioned is discernible.” Thus, we could say that Paul was given a more authoritative role by Jesus Christ than Tychicus was given by Paul, but both were “sent” on important missions.

Below are some comments relating to the key terms above in their parallel contexts:

“Paul”

In Acts, he is sometimes called Saul, but in his role as apostle to the Gentiles he always refers to himself as Paul instead. Tellingly, he only identifies himself by name at the start and conclusion of his letter.

“Christ Jesus”

This simple designation has been the center of controversy among Bible scholars. For example, James Dunn says that “it may be relevant to note that in Colossians the word order is consistently 'Christ Jesus,' rather than 'Jesus Christ'...” This is in contrast to the reversed order Christ Jesus being the more usual order in his other letters. But it should be noted that those two designations only appear alone together three places in this epistle: 1:1,4 and 4:12. And although all three have 'Christ Jesus,' the reverse order appears (with 'Lord') in v. 3. This is really too small a data sample in which to make any hard-and-fast conclusions regarding the authenticity of Paul as its author. This especially true since (1) Paul does utilize “Christ Jesus” on occasion in his other letter and (2) there are textual variations in his epistles which cause uncertainties to arise as to which was the original wording. As an example of the latter complicating factor, in Colossians 4:12 we have ancient manuscripts reading either “Christ,” “Christ Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ.”

“will of God”

Ashby: “Introducing himself as an apostle 'by the will of God' he acknowledges his call as an act of unmerited divine grace. If he does stress his authority here it is not because it has been challenged as in Galatia, but because he is presenting his credentials to Christians unknown to him personally...”

But Guthrie sees “this as a reflection of his deep awareness of his high calling.”

“Paul's apostleship... was 'by the will of God.' The phrase was to remind the readers of the divine call on his life. His was an apostleship by God's initiative, not by his own efforts. Thus two ideas converge in this designation. First, Paul's apostleship contained all the elements associated with the office. Second, God called him to the office. The first description, therefore, combines both authority and humility.” (Melick)

Wright states: “The supporting claim, that this apostleship came about by (literally 'through') the will of God, is not merely an indication of the ultimate source of the authority, but a linking of Paul's task to the over-ordering divine plan of salvation...”

As to the nature of that plan, McKnight says, “The will of God is God's holistic redemptive plan to include Gentiles in the people of God...”

“brother(s)”

“To avoid the gender-specific 'brothers,' NRSV translates such references as 'brothers and sisters.' In a historic text, however, it is better to retain the original usage, while noting that women within these congregations would have understood that the term included them: to that extent it was not gender specific.” (Dunn)

“The term 'brother' here indicates spiritual or fictive kinship in the church-as-family...We see here not a hierarchy but coordination in a mutual calling to the gospel; if anything, calling him 'brother' elevates Timothy to Paul's status...Paul used only the generic 'brothers,' though the context makes clear he's writing to all the Christians, men and women and children and slaves, in the church at Colossae.” (McKnight)

At this point, there may be some who would argue that Paul was only addressing the men in the congregation, but not the women. In the first place, that would be a misunderstanding of how the word was utilized during that time period. Secondly, there is a real possibility that specific women are addressed at the end of the letter. As one example, the obviously female name Apphia appears in 4:17. In addition, the church leader Nympha in 4:15 not only has a feminine name but the church is said to have met in her house.

But despite those facts, there are still some scholars who opt for her being a man. As Seitz states, “a text-critical variant makes the female Nympha a man instead. This is the more difficult reading and so now widely preferred in modern translations.” I find it very hard to understand where Seitz came up with that last statement since a review of modern translations such as NRSV, AB, NEB and JB as well as the consensus of textual scholars such as Comfort and Metzger shows complete agreement in considering Nympha to be a woman.

“faithful (brethren/brother)”

Guthrie says, “Paul's high opinion of Tychicus [in 4:7] is reflected in the adjectives used here (beloved and faithful, the same used of Onesimus in v. 9 and of Epaphras in 1:7), obviously a favorite expression with the apostle.”

“The parallel term, 'faithful,' stressed their consistency in spite of the heresy that threatened. The term may suggest that the heresy was impending rather than actually present in the church.” (Melick)

And Wright explains, “The word 'faithful' is probably not to be taken in the sense of 'having Christian faith' – one could have deduced that from the fact that Paul calls them 'brothers' – but in the sense of 'firmly committed', 'steadfast.'”

“in Christ”

“Their brotherhood was not one of blood relationship, but rather the spiritual bond of the shared experience of believing in Christ Jesus and knowing that they were accepted by and through him...at the root of the phrase there seems to be a sense of intimate and existential relationship with Christ.” (Dunn)

“Their spiritual location, 'in Christ,' demonstrated a tie to a higher society, the Christian community...The Colossian church should have been beyond the heresy that threatened them since they were 'in Christ.'” (Melick)

“Paul's commission to be an apostle of King Jesus comes about 'by [or through] the will of God,' which signaled God's providential shaping of history and appointment of Paul to a designated task in God's purposes...God's will can be more general as well, which is seen at 1:9 and 4:12...One can say that all of Paul's theology is contained in this expression, and within that very circle of 'in Christ' we can locate even the doctrine of justification.”

“to the brethren...at Colossae/Laodicea”

It was perhaps the reference to the nearby sister church at Laodicea at the end of this epistle that prompted an unknown author to years later pen the Epistle to the Laodiceans, not accepted as part of the canon by any church denomination.

“grace to/(be with) you”

In regard to the final verse in the letter, Martin states: “With extreme brevity and economy of words he expresses the confidence that God's grace will sustain and defend his church.”

At the end of the letter Paul will use the more mundane word for greetings – aspazomai (4:10, 12, 14, 15)...But what makes me think that these terms have more than ordinary weight is that Paul shifts this greeting significantly by adding 'from God our Father.' In doing so, Paul turns himself and Timothy into mediators of God's grace and peace, and these terms are no longer simply a human greeting one to another but divine greetings.” (McKnight)

Seitz says in conclusion, “Paul's final 'grace be with you' will of course have in view the Colossian Christians he has been addressing. It will be a grace heard and received by the Christians at Laodicea when they hear the letter read to them. But it will also reach...the present reader, you and me, and every reader in every church throughout the world in time and space.”

And Wright summarizes the letter by stating that “the greetings remind us that we are dealing not with an abstract theological treatise but with a real letter to real people...From one point of view, grace has been the subject of the whole letter. Paul has written in order to emphasize the undeserved love of God in Christ, and all that follows from it. From another point of view, grace has been the object of the letter: Paul has written in order to be a means of grace, not merely to describe it. The letter closes as it began, in grateful prayer.”

Melick similarly closes with these words: “Paul reminded them of God's grace. He ended where he began. In a sense, the entire epistle argues for the principle of grace, that God supplies his salvation freely, that he requires nothing but a trust in the work of his Son, Jesus, and that grace sustains the Christians' lives. If God's grace is with them, they need nothing else.”

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF SIRACH

If you look in Scripture for this particular book, chances are that you won't find it. In the first place, the only Protestant Bibles including it will probably be ecumenical editions such as NEB or some editions of KJV, RSV and NRSV. This is because this book is part of what is called the Apocrypha, not accepted as part of the canon by the majority of Protestant churches. And even if you do have a Roman Catholic or ecumenical version, you may not find it under the name Sirach. The full title of the book is actually Wisdom of Joshua ben-Sira, but it became more popularly known as Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with either Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiastes). That strange Greek title translates into English as “The Church-Book,” so-called due to the honor it held in the early church. Further complicating the issue of the title is the fact that “Joshua” may also be rendered Jeshua or Jesus. The situation can be summarized as follows: “'Sirach' is the Greek name, 'ben Sira' the Hebrew, and 'Ecclesiasticus' the Latin.”

In terms of contents and style of writing, this very long book (51 chapters) most closely resembles the canonical Book of Proverbs and is written mainly in poetic couplets although Dentan notes that “for the most part, the discussions take the form of of essays of considerable length rather than brief apothegms.” Most modern editions come with an ancient prose preface, which is generally not numbered as to chapter and verses. It contains valuable background information concerning the composition of the book, written originally in Hebrew between 200-175 BC (Some pinpoint it to about 180 BC). Ben-Sira's grandson took this book with him to Egypt around 132 BC and proceeded to translate it, as best he could, into Greek for the benefit of his Jewish compatriots there.

We do not possess today full copies of the Hebrew original. And so establishing the text to any certainty is not really possible, especially since there are also independent versions in Syriac known as well as several old Hebrew manuscripts containing about 2/3 of the whole work discovered in an old synagogue in Cairo. At first it was felt that these latter documents must have been an attempt at a back-translation into Hebrew from the Greek. But later fragments in Hebrew located in Masada in pre-Christian Israel appear to confirm the readings of the Cairo manuscripts. All of these editions differ in one respect or another. Thus, it is hard to definitively pin down how the original text read. As Phua summarizes the situation: “The textual history of the book is...notoriously complex.”

This book was not part of the Hebrew canon, which is one of the reasons Protestant groups generally exclude it from the canon. As to the teachings in the book, there are a number of places where they appear to differ from those found in the canonical Bible. And this is another reason most modern Bible translations will either not include it at all or perhaps relegate it to the category of those writings which may be useful to read for instructions in living but not for establishing any doctrinal points. Such departures from Scriptural teaching include those identified by Phua:

    A pronounced negative opinion toward women

    Abraham as an example of a keeper of the law

    Aaron stressed over Moses

    The body of Elisha continuing to prophesy after death

    The bones of the twelve prophets coming back to life in order to strengthen Jacob

    Correlation taught between Wisdom and the Torah

In addition, DiLella notes that there are extended sections regarding practical issues such as the importance of doctors and maintaining good health as well as on proper table etiquette. As D.G. Clark says, “The wide range of subjects discussed by ben Sirach indicates that he wished to provide authoritative instructions for every circumstance of life.”

One of my personal tests as to whether an ancient Jewish writing should be included in the canon involves a study of the literary structure of the whole work as well as the individual sections. Because of the uncertainties in establishing the original text, such an analysis cannot be easily carried out on such a massive book. However, scholars have provided hints indicating that at least a portion of the book contains literary clues that point to the sort of symmetrical elements present in authentic OT and NT books. That does not, of course, mean that it should automatically be added to the canon, merely that its writing style was heavily influenced by the sort of literary techniques found in inspired Scripture.

First, we must consider in broad brushstrokes how the contents of this book are organized, according to various scholars:

I. Introductory Poem (1:1-10)

        II. Alphabetic acrostic (1:11-30)

                III. Wisdom sayings (12:1-43:33)

                III'. Praise of the fathers (44:1-49:16)

I'. Appendix (50:1-51:12)

        II'. Alphabetic acrostic (51:13-30)                     (Phua)

I. Proverbs of Ben Sira (1:1-42:14)

        II. Works of God in Nature (42:15-43:33)

        III. Works of God in History (44:1-49:16)

        IV. Appendix (chs. 50-51)                                  (Dentan)

Introduction (1:1-10)

        I. Non-alphabetic poem (1:11-30)

                II. Wisdom sayings (12:1-51:12)

        I'. Alphabetic poem (51:13-30)                         (Di Lella)

The ways of wisdom (1:1-10:3)

Man's life under God's protection (10:4-18:29)

Prudence and self-discipline (18:30-23:27)

The praise of wisdom (24:1-34:12)

True piety and the mercy of God (33:13-36:17)

Man in society (36:18-42:14)

The wonders of creation (42:15-43:33)

Heroes of Israel's past (44:1-50:29)

Epilogue (51:1-30)                                                     (NEB)

Collection of Sayings (1:1-42:14)

        The Glory of God in Nature (42:15-43:33)

        The Glory of God in History (44:1-50:29)

Appendices (51:1-30) (JB)

As you can see from the above attempts to find order in this massive book, scholars can't even agree on where the historical review beginning with 44:1 truly ends, with opinions divided equally between 49:16 and 50:29. And that is perhaps the most clear-cut individual section in the whole of Sirach. And there is similar confusion regarding the limits of the beginning and closing sections of the book, generally one of the easiest things to determine.

The closest of the above proposals to the sort of symmetry which occurs in the canonical books is that of Phua. But when he attempts to delve deeper in the order in the book, he inexplicably switches gears by combining sections I, II, and the first part of III into one literary unit in order to show that it has parallels in the second part of III. Thus, he discovers the following identical or near-identical sayings or concepts:

Subject                                              Verses 1:1-23:38         Verses 24:1-43:33

Wisdom coming from the Lord                 1:1                                 24:3

Depth of the abyss                                    1:3                                  24:5

Wisdom created by God                           1:4                                  24:9

Application of wisdom                             1:11-2:17                        25:1-11

Wisdom as a tree                                      1:20                                24:16

As a third 'proof' that there is an overall organization to the book of Sirach, Phua offers the fact that it is just like canonical OT wisdom books in containing poems called alphabetic acrostics of 22-23 verses. However, the Hebrew alphabet never contained 23 different letters in its long existence, only 22. And since there are no obvious divisions given in the text of Sirach, unlike Proverbs, that also leaves a lot of leeway to achieve the magic number of 22 by simply dividing the text wherever you choose.

Even when one looks at individual units, the intended structure, assuming there is one, is not always clear. For example, Phua states, “Enoch, the ideal wisdom figure, is the first and last person mentioned [in the section on praise of the fathers].” But that is not really true since (1) Enoch does not appear in the poem until 16 verses into the section and (2) at the conclusion, Joseph, Shem, Seth, and Adam are all mentioned after Enoch.

The other problem with the “Praise of the Fathers” section is that introductory words in 44:1-15 are echoed best in the obvious summary to the first half of the overall unit at 45:26, not in the final conclusion in 49:14-16.

“their/all generations”                                         44:1,7         45:26g

“glory                                                                  44:2,7,13     45:26f

“righteous(ness)                                                  44:10           45:26c

“their prosperity will remain”                             44:11           45:26d

“their glory will remain/not be blotted out"        44:1            45:26e

“people”                                                              44:15          45:26b

“wisdom                                                             44:15           45:26a

As you can see, the concepts in ch. 44 reappear in roughly reverse order in 45:26. But if Phua's section III' is divided into two equal parts, as he himself proposes (with 44:16-45:26 discussing the characters in the Pentateuch and 46:1-49:16 dealing with the former prophets) then the overall symmetry he proposes to begin with for the whole book is lost.

The end result is that, as with claims of symmetry supposedly located in The Book of Mormon, such symmetries evaporate when closely examined.

I PETER 3:18b-20

 

I Peter 3:18b-20

Luther: “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the NT. I still do not know for sure what the apostle means.” Luther is not alone. Bauckham says, “One of the most puzzling passages in the letter is 3:19, and no agreement exists as to its precise meaning.” Polkinghorne states, “Doctrinally and linguistically, this is the most difficult and debated passage in the letter.” For this reason, I will not even attempt to be complete in my treatment of this subject. As Carson once wrote in an article on these verses, “This is not the place to undertake a detailed exegesis of this passage, as that would immediately double the length of the...essay...”

Elaborating further on this confusion, Boring explains: “The interpretation of this text involves making decisions on a number of overlapping and interlocking issues [some of which he proceeds to list]...The combinations of the variables listed above produce a large number of possible interpretations. Even to list them all, identified with their major components, is a labyrinthine project...”

I certainly won't attempt to deal with all of the possibilities, but below are some comments on a few of them.

View 1: Christ announced his victory to imprisoned evil spiritual beings (fallen angels) referred to in Genesis 6. Peter Davids ably defends this possibility with a number of persuasive arguments. Thus, “preach” can mean proclaim or even denounce, without an idea of possible repentance. Peter does not use the common Greek word from which we get “evangelism,” employed by him elsewhere four times. Also in favor of this view is that “spirit” never refers to a dead human being in the Bible without clearly identifying it as such. In the apocryphal writing I Enoch, the fallen angels are said to be in prison (see chapters 10-16; 21). This is not the same as Hell at all, but a special holding area. Thus, Jesus pronounces the final judgment on them.

Stibbs echoes David's contention regarding the meaning of “spirits” and notes as an example Hebrews 12:23 which discusses “the spirits of just men.” However, when “spirit “ appears by itself it refers to good or bad supernatural beings, as in Hebrews 1:14 and Luke 10:20.

Davids also points out, “While the New Testament does not speak anywhere of preaching the gospel to spirits, it does speak of the victory of Christ over the spiritual world (for example, 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 6:11-12; Col 2:15; Rev 12:7-11). Thus a reference in this passage to the proclamation of that victory fits right in with the tone of both the passage and the New Testament in general.”

Polkinghorne also takes this view and gives as additional reasons for this stance (1) the fact that 2 Peter 2:4-5 appears to identify these beings as angelic beings and (2) 1 Peter 3:22 states that the angels are subjected to Christ.

For a dissenting voice, Raymer says, “Though much commends this view as a possible interpretation, the context seems more likely to be referring to humans rather than angels.”

View 2: That last comment leads into views 2 and 3. The first is a slight variation on the above possibility. However, according to this view, the spirits are the Nephalim, offspring of the fallen angels of Genesis 6 and human women.

View 3: And to complete the possible variations on the “proclamation theme,” F.F. Bruce says, “To these spirits [of the flood generation] Christ is said to have made proclamation – proclamation, it may be inferred, of his triumph which finally sealed their doom.”

Reicke appears to subscribe to a combination of views 1-3 when he states: “This undoubtedly refers to the angels mentioned in Gen v. 1-4...Probably the people who perished in the flood are also numbered with these 'spirits.' They were the descendants of the fallen angels...” Note that without true biblical mandate he conflates the Nephalim and the people of the flood generation as if they were one and the same group.

View 4: It refers to the preincarnate Jesus preaching (in his spirit through Noah) to those who would later die in the flood. Prison = flesh.

This was the way Augustine understood this passage. Raymer criticizes it by saying, “This interpretation does not seem to fit the general theme of this section (I Peter 3:13-22).” In other words, it seems to have nothing to do with Christ's death and resurrection. Goppelt agrees with this criticism: “But this allegorization is contrary to the scope of the context...”

View 5: It refers to Christ after his death preaching to spirits of human beings who died in the flood (examples of a particularly evil generation) in order to give the m a possible chance of repentance. Working against this view, is the undoubted fact pointed out by Raymer and many others that such second chances are not mentioned anywhere else in Bible. And why only give this one group the chance of repentance after death and no one else?

Boring notes that this interpretation was adopted by Clement and Origen and was influential in affecting the wording of the Apostles' Creed. Some early theologians even took this thought one step further and taught a belief in universal salvation.

View 6: This is the same as the preceding possibility with, however, the preaching only being done to announce judgment on them. The question then arises as to why only this particular group of evildoers were chosen to get their eternal fate rubbed in their faces.

Commenting on both views 5 and 6, Goppelt asks, “Can pneumata [spirits] have this meaning? The souls of the departed are, of course, usually called psyche in the NT. But I Peter, like Hebrews [12:23] and Luke [24:37,39], tries always to present biblical concepts in Greek terms, and pneuma is an ancient Greek synonym for psyche.”

View 7: From Calvin we get the rather strange interpretation which teaches that (1) 'the spirits in prison' actually refers to Jews who had looked for Christ's appearing, and (2) 'the prison' was the Old Testament law.

Polkinghorne points out one glaring contradiction in this interpretation, namely, that the Flood came before the law had even been given to the Israelites. I am not aware of any modern scholars ascribing to Calvin's view.

View 8

Goppelt says that “many representatives of the angelological interpretation of the passage assume that though Enoch preached judgment, Christ preached salvation. In the New Testament, however, it is never suggested that Christ redeemed fallen angels. Indeed, Heb. 2:16 comments expressly: 'Surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.' He also points to the fact that the angels were disobedient long before the days of Noah.

View 8: Verse 19 does not belong in the original text.

Reicke explains this easy way out of the quandary: “Some scholars have found this verse so difficult to explain and so strange in the context that they regard it as an interpolation or a somewhat irrelevant digression.”

Conclusion

“Whether they [whoever 'they' are] heard a message of freedom or of eternal judgment at the occasion mentioned is not stated. In either case they learned the secret of Christ and his suffering which was to lead to his eternal exaltation.” (Reicke)

I am not sure if any definitive conclusion can be made out of the above array of opinions. However, to my own mind, Keener has made an important contribution to the discussion on this quite disputed subject by showing the literary arrangement of ideas presented in I Peter 3:16-4:5. His proposal is given in Figure 1 below:

                                               Symmetrical Structure of I Peter 3:16-4:5

A. Your slanderers will be ashamed (3:16)

        B. Suffer though innocent, in God's will (3:17)

                C. Christ suffered for the unjust (3:18)

                        D. He triumphed over hostile spirits (3:19)

                                E. Noah was saved through water (3:20)

                                E'. You are saved through baptism (3:21)

                        D'. Christ triumphed over hostile spirits (3:22)

                C'. Christ suffered (4:1a)

        B'. Suffer in God's will (4:1b-2)

A'. Your slanderers will be ashamed (4:3-5)

I Peter 3:18b-20

Luther: “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the NT. I still do not know for sure what the apostle means.” Luther is not alone. Bauckham says, “One of the most puzzling passages in the letter is 3:19, and no agreement exists as to its precise meaning.” Polkinghorne states, “Doctrinally and linguistically, this is the most difficult and debated passage in the letter.” For this reason, I will not even attempt to be complete in my treatment of this subject. As Carson once wrote in an article on these verses, “This is not the place to undertake a detailed exegesis of this passage, as that would immediately double the length of the...essay...”

Elaborating further on this confusion, Boring explains: “The interpretation of this text involves making decisions on a number of overlapping and interlocking issues [some of which he proceeds to list]...The combinations of the variables listed above produce a large number of possible interpretations. Even to list them all, identified with their major components, is a labyrinthine project...”

I certainly won't attempt to deal with all of the possibilities, but below are some comments on a few of them.

View 1: Christ announced his victory to imprisoned evil spiritual beings (fallen angels) referred to in Genesis 6. Peter Davids ably defends this possibility with a number of persuasive arguments. Thus, “preach” can mean proclaim or even denounce, without an idea of possible repentance. Peter does not use the common Greek word from which we get “evangelism,” employed by him elsewhere four times. Also in favor of this view is that “spirit” never refers to a dead human being in the Bible without clearly identifying it as such. In the apocryphal writing I Enoch, the fallen angels are said to be in prison (see chapters 10-16; 21). This is not the same as Hell at all, but a special holding area. Thus, Jesus pronounces the final judgment on them.

Stibbs echoes David's contention regarding the meaning of “spirits” and notes as an example Hebrews 12:23 which discusses “the spirits of just men.” However, when “spirit “ appears by itself it refers to good or bad supernatural beings, as in Hebrews 1:14 and Luke 10:20.

Davids also points out, “While the New Testament does not speak anywhere of preaching the gospel to spirits, it does speak of the victory of Christ over the spiritual world (for example, 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 6:11-12; Col 2:15; Rev 12:7-11). Thus a reference in this passage to the proclamation of that victory fits right in with the tone of both the passage and the New Testament in general.”

Polkinghorne also takes this view and gives as additional reasons for this stance (1) the fact that 2 Peter 2:4-5 appears to identify these beings as angelic beings and (2) 1 Peter 3:22 states that the angels are subjected to Christ.

For a dissenting voice, Raymer says, “Though much commends this view as a possible interpretation, the context seems more likely to be referring to humans rather than angels.”

View 2: That last comment leads into views 2 and 3. The first is a slight variation on the above possibility. However, according to this view, the spirits are the Nephalim, offspring of the fallen angels of Genesis 6 and human women.

View 3: And to complete the possible variations on the “proclamation theme,” F.F. Bruce says, “To these spirits [of the flood generation] Christ is said to have made proclamation – proclamation, it may be inferred, of his triumph which finally sealed their doom.”

Reicke appears to subscribe to a combination of views 1-3 when he states: “This undoubtedly refers to the angels mentioned in Gen v. 1-4...Probably the people who perished in the flood are also numbered with these 'spirits.' They were the descendents of the fallen angels...” Note that without true biblical mandate he conflates the Nephalim and the people of the flood generation as if they were one and the same group.

View 4: It refers to the preincarnate Jesus preaching (in his spirit through Noah) to those who would later die in the flood. Prison = flesh.

This was the way Augustine understood this passage. Raymer citciticizes it by saying, “This interpretation does not seem to fit the general theme of this section (I Peter 3:13-22).” In other words, it seems to have nothing to do with Christ's death and resurrection. Goppelt agrees with this criticism: “But this allegorization is contrary to the scope of the context...”

View 5: It refers to Christ after his death preaching to spirits of human beings who died in the flood (examples of a particularly evil generation) in order to give tham a possible chance of repentance. Working against this view, is the undoubted fact pointed out by Raymer and many others that such second chances are not mentioned anywhere else in Bible. And why only give this one group the chance of repentance after death and no one else?

Boring notes that this interpretation was adopted by Clement and Origen and was influential in affecting the wording of the Apostles' Creed. Some early theologians even took this thought one step further and taught a belief in universal salvation.

View 6: This is the same as the preceding possibility with, however, the preaching only being done to announce judgment on them. The question then arises as to why only this particular group of evildoers were chosen to get their eternal fate rubbed in their faces.

Commenting on both views 5 and 6, Goppelt asks, “Can pneumata [spirits] have this meaning? The souls of the departed are, of course, usually called psyche in the NT. But I Peter, like Hebrews [12:23] and Luke [24:37,39], tries always to present biblical concepts in Greek terms, and pneuma is an ancient Greek synonym for psyche.”

View 7: From Calvin we get the rather strange interpretation which teaches that (1) 'the spirits in prison' actually refers to Jews who had looked for Christ's appearing, and (2) 'the prison' was the Old Testament law.

Polkinghorne points out one glaring contradiction in this interpretation, namely, that the Flood came before the law had even been given to the Israelites. I am not aware of any modern scholars ascribing to Calvin's view.

View 8

Goppelt says that “many representatives of the angelological interpretation of the passage assume that though Enoch preached judgment, Christ preached salvation. In the New Testament, however, it is never suggested that Christ redeemed fallen angels. Indeed, Heb. 2:16 comments expressly: 'Surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.' He also points to the fact that the angels were disobedient long before the days of Noah.

View 8: Verse 19 does not belong in the original text.

Reicke explains this easy way out of the quandary: “Some scholars have found this verse so difficult to explain and so strange in the context that they regard it as an interpolation or a somewhat irrelevant digression.”

Conclusion

“Whether they [whoever 'they' are] heard a message of freedom or of eternal judgment at the occasion mentioned is not stated. In either case they learned the secret of Christ and his suffering which was to lead to his eternal exaltation.” (Reicke)

I am not sure if any definitive conclusion can be made out of the above array of opinions. However, to my own mind, Keener has made an important contribution to the discussion on this quite disputed subject by showing the literary arrangement of ideas presented in I Peter 3:16-4:5. His proposal is given in Figure 1 below:

                                                Symmetrical Structure of I Peter 3:16-4:5

A. Your slanderers will be ashamed (3:16)

        B. Suffer though innocent, in God's will (3:17)

                C. Christ suffered for the unjust (3:18)

                        D. He triumphed over hostile spirits (3:19)

                                E. Noah was saved through water (3:20)

                                E'. You are saved through baptism (3:21)

                        D'. Christ triumphed over hostile spirits (3:22)

                C'. Christ suffered (4:1a)

        B'. Suffer in God's will (4:1b-2)

A'. Your slanderers will be ashamed (4:3-5)

The parallel between verses 19 and 22 demonstrated above would seem to point to View 1 as the intended interpretation for I Peter 3:19.

"LIFE" IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS (PROVERBS 4:4; 7:2)

Among the opening discourses of Proverbs are several occurrences of the concept of living or life. You wouldn't think that the idea of life could be much of a controversial subject since we would probably define it today as still breathing and having a heartbeat. Or we might extend the definition a bit and include the presence of brain activity. It is self obvious that the Teacher of Proverbs was not addressing his words to disembodied spirits or dead bodies when he gave his advice as to how they could “live”even if the Anchor Bible translates Proverbs 4:4b as “if you would find life,” and NEB words 7:2b as “if you would live.” There is something deeper at issue in these places.

As we shall see below, the ancient Israelites (1) did not tend to think in such scientific terms, and (2) there are three other possibilities for the use of the concept in the Old Testament. Thus, “living” or “having life” could also refer specifically to (a) the quality and well-being of existence, (b) living to a long age, and/or (c) possessing eternal life. In Proverbs, there are two identical and especially germane statements given by the father: “Keep my commandments, and live.” (Proverbs 4:4b; 7:2).

One other possibility must be firmly eliminated from discussion at this point: reincarnation. From the discussions in the Gospels regarding the identity of Jesus and of John the Baptist, it seems as if this Eastern concept may have been taken up as a possibility by some of the populace in Israel during this later date. But Jesus rejects any such talk.

The first thing to note regarding these two passages is that they seem to occur in significant locations within Proverbs. My own previous analysis of the structure of this book indicates that they appear in parallel sub-sections A and A' in the three-part arrangement shown below:

        A. Seek Lady Wisdom (4:1-6:15)

                B. Numerical Proverb (6:16-19)

        A'. Avoid the Loose Woman (6:20-7:27)

But others look at the opening discourses of the book in a different manner. For example, Walls defines the overall section as consisting of 1:8-9:18 instead and divides it into thirteen lessons. According to this scheme the two passages are found in lessons 6 and 12. But more popular is the form-critical analysis of 1:8-7:27 into ten sub-sections. According to this scheme, the two key passages above would then mark the endings of the fifth and tenth discourses, effectively dividing the whole section into two halves.

With that out of the way, we can now examine what various scholars have to say regarding which of the three definitions of “live” and “living” apply best to Proverbs 4:4 and 7:2. And keep in mind that it is highly doubtful that the mere presence of biological life is what the author is driving at. His audience is obviously already living at the time they read his words, and so promising them that they will have or get life when they already have it makes little sense.

“Life” means the quality and well-being of existence.

Bullock: From the statement of purpose the author provides in 1:2-6, Bullock deduces that “the book then purports to be a primer of right conduct and essential attitudes toward life, aimed at producing lives in conformity to the divine will...it is inappropriate to treat the proverbs of this book as promises. They are theological and pragmatic principles.” Note that from this definition, our well-being is not to be derived from what we think will be good for us, but from what God knows will best produce that result (in general, but not necessarily guaranteed for all individuals, at least in this life).

“Proverbs is about life and living it the sensible way.” (C.G. Martin)

“The confusion of order, which has been introduced because of human sin, has not been allowed to assume catastrophic proportions. Chaos does not reign, and a (natural) law of retribution exists. Thus, in normal daily experience the predictable relationship between deeds and their outcomes remains the principle way in which to learn about life, and to determine how to pursue the good life.” Goldsworthy calls this one of the “theological presuppositions of the book of Proverbs.”

Brensinger states, “While it is true that Prov[erbs] regularly suggests that the exercising of sound judgment and the heeding of discipline greatly enhance the living of one's life, it also maintains a strong connection between obedience and life (10:16; 11:19; 12:28; 21:21). Life in Prov is more than good, old-fashioned common sense. Indeed, fearing the Lord leads to life (19:23; 22:4).”

McKane: “It may be that such a reference to 'life' in Proverbs always has some distant connection with the mythological concepts of the 'tree of life' (3:18) or 'the fountain of life' (10:11), just as 'death' is related, however remotely, to the Canaanite god Mot with his gaping throat...At any rate, it is evident that life is more than breath and that death is not just when the heart stops and the pulse ceases to beat. There is a living death, and so 'life' in the fuller sense has qualitative aspects, and it is this more abounding vitality which is said to be consequential on keeping the commandments.”

“At issue is whether 'life' (hayyim) refers to eternal life or temporal life terminating in clinical death. To put it another way, Is the threatened death of the wicked in Proverbs an eternal death of the wicked an eternal death or a premature death?...Most often...hayyim is unqualified and refers to 'life' that is added to clinical life, apparently an abundant life of health, prosperity, and social esteem (3:21-22; 4:13; 8:35; 16:15; 21:21; 22:4).” (Waltke)

“Life” refers to the length of one's years on earth

This view, when adopted by scholars, is generally done in conjunction with a good quality of existence as well. Witness the following comments:

Aitken: “As Wisdom's fruit, life means both length of days and richness and fullness of life.”

“The Israelites in the OT viewed life as something thoroughly natural, vital and pertaining to this world...The Israelites thought of life not as a natural or scientific phenomenon, but primarily of duration, the days of a man's life which are granted him by Yahweh, the Lord of life...To the Israelites, as to orientals in general, the sheer vitality, completeness and diversity of life were a source of utmost delight (1 Ki. 3:11ff.; Prov. 2:19; Ps. 56:13; Eccles. 9:9).” (Link)

Long life seems to be specifically promised as a blessing in Proverbs 3:2; 4:10; and 9:11. And The Living Bible paraphrase renders 4:4 and 7:2 with the words: “You will have a long and happy life.”

“Life” denotes eternal life.

This is the most controversial of the three possibilities by far and one in which scholars such as Pope and Dahood have taken great interest. But their ideas have not been adopted by many subsequent Bible commentators. Actually, many such scholars deny that there are any unambiguous Old Testament references to immortality for human beings.

There is no space to go into all the the arguments pro and con concerning this theological issue, but here are a few comments by scholars who are open to this aspect of Proverb's view of “life.”

Waltke states, “In Prov. 12:28 the righteous are rewarded with 'immortality' ('al mewet). Prov. 14:32 says, 'Even in death the righteous seek a refuge in God,' and 23:17 asserts that their future hope will not be disappointed...Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Proverbs and the Egyptian instructions focus on health, prosperity, and social honor in this life, in contrast to the Christian's focus on resurrection. Perhaps this is due to the opaqueness of the hope before the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave.”

In summary, Brensinger says, “Among the Wisdom writings, hyh appears in Prov in a range of contexts. The majority of references pertain to a quality of life that is contrasted to trouble, punishment, and death; and compared to honor, prosperity, and arguably immortality.”

"IN CHRIST" IN EPHESIANS

One of the main themes in Paul's writings, and especially in his Epistle to the Ephesians is the concept of being “in Christ,” also expressed by equivalent terminology. But before investigating it in any further detail, it is perhaps best if I start with a broad overview of how that letter is organized, at least according to the reasoning I presented in an earlier posting (see “Ephesians: Introduction to the Literary Structure”).

                                                 Figure 1: Literary Structure of Ephesians

I. Introduction (1:1-2)

II. Position with God through Christ (1:3-14)

III. Power in Christ (1:15-23)

IV. Gentiles’ Past and Present Position Contrasted (2:1-22)

V. The Mystery of Christ: Position and Power (3:1-21)

IV'. Gentiles’ Past and Present Behavior Contrasted (4:1-5:20)

II'. Position with Others through Christ (5:21-6:9)

III'. Power in Christ (6:10-20)

I'. Conclusion (6:21-24)

Statistics involving the occurrence of these key phrases are somewhat helpful at this point. However, a caveat is in order first: (1) The numbers below will vary according to which English translation you look at (Those below are based on the fairly literal NRSV translation), and (2) There is always some ambiguity as to the best Greek text, especially when considering such a large chunk of writing as this whole epistle. Fortunately, there are textual and translation notes given to the text in any good study Bible to indicate when there may be some question as to how to translate a passage. As examples of these two possibilities, consider the following notes found in the NRSV:

        1:4 – The Greek reads “in him.”

        2:5 – Other manuscripts read “in Christ” instead of “in him.”

        2:16 – “through it” may be alternately translated as “in him.”

        2:22 – “spiritually” in the literal Greek is “in the Spirit.”

        3:12 – “faith in him” may also be translated as “faith of him.”

        6:1 – Other manuscripts lack ”in the Lord.”

Thus, in the statistics below, I have gone with the Greek text and put ranges in those cases where a reading may be in doubt.

                                Figure 2: Objects of the “in X.” Constructions in Ephesians

Section  Christ Jesus Christ  him  Lord  Christ Jesus our Lord  Lord Jesus (Christ)   Jesus/Son

I                  1          0             0         0                  0                                  0                          0

II                0          4-5          3-5      0                  0                                  0                           0

III              0           1             0         0                  0                                  1                           0

IV             4           0              2        1                  0                                   0                           1

V              0-1       0              0-1   0-1                 1                                   0                           0

IV'             0          2              1        1                  0                                   1                           1

II'              0          0               0     1-2                 0                                   0                           0

III'            0          0               0        1                  0                                   0                           0

I'               0          0               0       1                   0                                   0                           0

About the only significant fact I can glean from these numbers is that by far the fullest expression of Christ in the letter, “Christ Jesus our Lord,” appears in only one place (Ephesians 3:11), which happens to be the center of the center section of the epistle according to the structure proposed in Figure 1.

The other two Persons of the Trinity also appear in structurally prominent spots in Ephesians as the objects of this sort of prepositional phrase. Thus, “in God” is seen in 3:9 (the center of the letter), and “in the Spirit” in 6:18 (at its end).

Perhaps even more important to consider is the larger context in which all these related phrases occur. In other words – What results from being in Christ or what is required to be in Christ?

                                            Figure 3: Contexts of the “in X” Sayings

Section                            Contexts

I                                      are faithful

II                                     has blessed us, chose us, we have redemption, gather, obtained inheritance, set                                         our hope upon, believed in, sealed

III                                   your faith, power for us

IV                                  seated with him, grace toward us, created for good works, brought near, access                                       to, built into a temple

V                                  sharers in the promise, see the mystery of God's plan, his eternal purpose, faith                                         in him, strengthened with power, to him be the glory

IV'                                a prisoner, we must grow up, truth is in, give thanks

II'                                 obey your parents

III'                                be strong, pray

I'                                   faithful minister

There are, generally speaking, three types of contexts associated with these “in X” statements. The majority relate to what blessings God in His grace has bestowed on believers. But also included are both the prior (in italics) and subsequent expected (in bold) actions on our part. Three points stand out by consideration of Figure 3.

In the first place, you can clearly see the typical progression found in almost all of Paul's correspondence. It starts out by showing the mysterious working together of our faith with God's grace, but then in the second half of the letter Paul moves on to discussing our proper response to God's grace in our actions.

Secondly, the importance of our faith in, and faithfulness to, God in Christ is stressed in that this fact appears in the opening and closing sections of the letter as well as in the central section.

Thirdly, also symmetrically located are words of power given to the believer. These can be seen in sections III, III' and the central section V.

These last two observations help to confirm the validity of Figure 1 as a useful model for studying this letter.