Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians part four and wrap up.

We are now at chapter 20 of Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians. Ignatius tells them that he will write again telling them a story about the "new man Jesus" if they are good little girls and boys and obey their bishop. I suspect that "new man" is a reference to a symbolic new Adam, rebooting creation so that humanity no longer has to die because of Adam's sin. It just *looks* like they are still dying, but really they aren't. Ignatius is going to tell the Ephesians about Jesus's dispensation, his faith, love, suffering and resurrection. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much of anything about those things in this letter.

How do the Ephesians  get immortality? Besides obeying the church leadership with unity of mind, they must together take the medicine of immortality, the bread. This bread is most likely referring to the communion bread, but it could also be a metaphor for Jesus who supposedly called himself the bread of life. Ignatius calls this bread  the "antidote to death."

The letter ends with Ignatius saying that he is writing from Smyrna and is bound for Rome. He is from the church in Syria. He says he is "the last of the faithful there." It is unclear to me whether "there" is Syria or Rome.  Ignatius is grateful for the people the Ephesians sent to him, and he loves Polycarp, who was the bishop of Smyrna.

--------------------------------

Now, what did we find out about Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians? In common with many of the New Testament epistles, Ignatius stressed faith, unity, and obedience to church authority, specifically bishops. Bishops are Jesus's representatives on earth. Ignatius himself was bishop of Antioch (before 155 CE) on his way to Rome to be imprisoned for some unspecified crime. While in Smyrna, on his way to Rome, the leaders of the Ephesian church visited him and he sings their praises. Ignatius appears to be familiar with a few of Paul's letters, using similar language multiple times, but not referring to the source.

In this letter, the Jews and the Jewish scriptures are not mentioned at all, except for saying that Jesus was of the "seed of David according to the flesh." This appears to me to be a reference to his ethnicity/nationality, not a claim to Judaic kingship. The new testament places mentioned are Antioch, Syria, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Rome. He mentions Satan but not angels, demons or a judgement day. Purveyors and listeners of false doctrine  are going to be thrown into a lake of fire instead of recieving eternal life. There is no mention of where they will go or what they will be doing for eternity.

The only New Testament person mentioned, besides Jesus, is Mary as Jesus's virgin mother. Ignatius's Jesus is literally god in  human form, born of a virgin, by the holy spirit. His presence in the world and his death were two of the three mysteries "wrought in silence" by god, to hide them from "the prince of this world." His mother's virginity was the first mystery. The  sign of Jesus's "manifestation" was a super bright stellar event. Jesus was born, baptized, annointed, suffered, was crucified, died, and was resurrected. There is no mention of his childhood, teachings, travels, miracles, or trial. There are no statements that anchor Jesus in time.

Ignatius tells the Ephesians that in order to thwart Satan, they must meet together frequently in the same location. They must be of one mind with their bishop, and they must eat the bread that is the "medicine of immortality" and the "antidote to death." There are no commands to preach or teach the gospel, or to be baptised.

Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians, part three.

Sorry it's been a while since my last post. I dealt with an episode of grief and I also accidentally deleted everything I had written for this post. Not fun.

Now we are at chapter 15 of Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians, which is summed up in the first sentence. "It is better to be silent and be a christian than to talk and not be one." In other words, practice what you preach. Chapter 16 says that anyone who corrupts the faithful with "wicked doctrine" will be bound for everlasting fire. Chapter 17 says the doctrine of "the prince of the world" has a bad odor.

Chapter 18 appears to have been influenced by 1 Corinthians, referring to the cross as a stumbling block to those who don't believe, but eternal life to those who do. It also has another doctrinal type statement. "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." Notice that Jesus is called god and so is god. Two gods? Somehow the holy ghost planted the seed of David in Mary. Inconceivable. ;) 

Chapter 19 claims that three mysteries were hidden from the prince of the world. 1. Mary's virginity. 2. Her offspring. 3. Jesus's death. Presuming the prince of the world was Satan. How did they keep those things hidden? Angels supposedly announced his birth in one gospel. In another, Herod killed a bunch of babies to try to kill Jesus. Not only that, Satan supposedly tempted Jesus in person. Plus, jesus supposedly jad a public trial and crucifixion. Ignatius goes on to say these three mysteries were wrought in silence. That seems to mean they happened without anyone knowing about them. 

So, if all this happened in silence, how was Jesus "manifested?" According to Ignatius, by a super bright star that shone brighter than all the others. It sounds like a super nova or maybe a comet or some other celestial explosion? The problem is there is no extrabiblical record of such an event around the time Jesus was supposed to have been conceived. (This one doesn't count because it is not an eye witness.) We definitely would have heard about it by now.  According to Ignatius, that is when god manifested in human form for the "renewal of eternal life." This leads me to think that Ignatius believed that there was a period of time when there was no eternal life expected. This would be a logical inference from reading the Old Testament. 


This manifestation of Jesus is also supposed to have destroyed every kind of magic and the bonds of wickedness, removed ignorance, and abolished the old kingdom. I don't see that that actually happened. It was supposedly a new beginning because god "meditated the abolition of death." He was seriously thinking about it. Ignatius is sounding like a bit of a whackadoodle to me.

More next time.

Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians part two.

After reading the Wikipedia article on Ignatius and reading some of his letter to the Ephesians, I have a lot of questions about how anyone could know if he was real or fiction. As far as I know there are no originals of Ignatius's letters. He would have been writing on or about the first century mark, if his letters are genuine. Why was he imprisoned? We are not told. Yet it can't have been just for being a a Christian or preaching christianity, because others were doing that freely. He was even supposedly permitted to fraternize with christians while he was in chains. Why was he being taken to Rome? The authorities could have dealt with him right where he lived. Why did he expect to be martyred? That early on, martyrdom didn't necessarily mean death.

We are now at the 8th chapter of Ignatius's letter. Let's see what else he has to say. Ignatius appears to be buttering up the Ephesians , telling them they are living according to god's will, being faithful, spiritual, and doing all things in Jesus. They don't listen to false teachers, no siree. They are the cream of the crop, the tippety top, when it comes to loving god and obeying the commandments of Jesus. We aren't told what those commandments are.

The Ephesians are to pray for the poor deluded souls who are not followers of the lord. They are to be meek and humble in the face of insults, boasting, and cruelties. After all, no people are more unjustly treated than the followers of the lord. The Ephesians are to stay holy and not let the devil plant any false ideas in their minds.

Next, the author says they are in the "last times." Sound familiar? It's been the last times for a long time. In spite of the fact that Ignatius thinks the Ephesians are already the greatest, he feels it is necessary to tell them how to live, as if they didn't know. They must do one of two things: "Either stand in awe of of the wrath to come or or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed." When the end comes, he wants to be on the same team as the Ephesians.

Ignatius is a condemned man, but the Ephesians live in safety and appear to be a refuge for refugees of the gospel. They were mentioned by Paul "in all his epistles." (That isn't actually true.) They were initiated into the mysteries of the gospel with "Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy." Ignatius wants to find himself at the feet of Paul when he dies. At the writing of this letter, Paul should not have been dead more than about 50 years, yet he is being venerated as something of a saint.

The Ephesians are to meet regularly in the same place. That destroys the power of Satan. (Wouldn't they have already been doing that?) None of the things in this letter are hid from them if they perfectly possess faith and love. (If these things are not hidden and the Ephesians are as wonderful as Ignatius says, why does he need to tell them all this stuff. Isn't he preaching to the choir?) A person who makes a declaration of faith does not sin. A person who loves does not hate. How the Ephesians behave matters, not just "mere profession." They must be faithful to the end. I hope they had good lives, in spite of never getting to see the end they were hoping for.

More next time.

Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians

I thought we would take a quick break from the bible and look at something written by Ignatius of Antioch, one of the so called "apostolic church fathers." I've done this before with the letter of 1 Clement to the Corinthians. Today we will look at Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians. I'm not going to give you a complete blow by blow break down of the letter, but a quicker overview and opinion instead. You can read the letter for your self at the link provided above. It's not very long.

Where there is a scripture cross reference in blue, that was not in the original letter, that is where it is assumed scripture supports or influenced what Ignatius wrote. It by no means proves that Ignatius had access to the scriptures he is not directly quoting. Just as today, religions tend to create their own traditional language that gets perpetuated by repetition, often without conscious thought, or even without concrete knowledge of where the ideas and words originated from. Today it would be called Christianese. I will try to take notice of when there appears to be a legitimate quote, not a loose paraphrase that might imply a quote.

Ignatius lived some time between 50 and 140 CE. Seven of his letters are usually considered authentic. Protestants aren't too thrilled with them because they show an early system of single bishops being in charge of individual churches, which is very similar to Catholicism. This particular letter seems to me to be saying Ignatius has never been to Ephesus. However, He has met Onesimus, their Bishop; Burrhus, their deacon; plus Crocus, Euplus, and Fronto, all upstanding members of the Ephesian congregation, possibly also deacons. These apparently provided Ignatius with some kind of help on behalf of the Ephesians, during his imprisonment. He was bound in Syria and transported to Rome, where he claims he hopes to be martyred. To me this sounds like an echo of Paul.

Ignatius abundantly praises the leadership of the Ephesians' church and expresses his wish for the members to be unanimously obedient to their authorities. He's not Ordering them to obey, like he has any influence over them. He's  just Exhorting them do do the will of God. After all, Bishops exist by the will of Jesus. According to Ignatius, the leadership of the Ephesians works especially well together, like the strings of a harp or a harmonious choir. The Ephesians need to be in unison with the leaders, one of mind, judgment, and speech. Ignatius himself has come to adore their bishop in a short period of time and thinks the Ephesians should always be careful never to set themselves in opposition to him.

In chapter 6, things get very cult-y. The bishop is to be esteemed as though he were Jesus himself. He just wants the Ephesians to live according to the truth, exactly like Jesus. They don't need to listen to anyone else. Some people, says Ignatius, use the name of Jesus but don't practice the truth. The Ephesians need to keep away from them. They are like rabid dogs that can't be cured.  However, "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord." The part in quotes must have been some kind of early doctrinal staement. It seems to point obliquely to the type of heresy the Ephesians are to avoid, one that would deny either the humanity or godhood of Jesus. (Passible means capable of suffering).

More next time. 

Heaven part eleven

Are you getting tired of heaven? We aren't done yet but it should go faster because I don't think there is much left that is not redundant. One thing I have noticed is that heaven is thoroughly populated with angels. Angels are not discussed much in the churches of Christ, the faith tradition I came from.
Galations 1:8 says that if an angel from heaven, or anyone else, teaches you a gospel other than the one you learned from Paul, he will be eternally condemned!

Ephesians 3:15 says that god's whole family on earth and in heaven derives its name from him. Ephesians 6:9 says god is everyone's master in heaven. Philippians 3:20 says that a Christ believer's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. Colossians 1:5 says that hope is stored up in heaven for believers. 1Thessalonians tells us believers are waiting for god's son from heaven.

In Hebrews chapter 9, we are introduce to the idea that some earthly things are copies of heavenly things. The copies of the heavenly things were purified with blood sacrifices in an earthly sanctuary, which is a copy of the true heavenly one, by earthly priests. Christ entered the true sanctuary as the heavenly high priest to appear once and for all before god and offer himself as a sacrifice instead of an animal. Basically, everything on earth is supposed to be a kind of analogy, symbol, or shadow of the "real" things, which are in heaven. Believing this could lead to mental problems, in my opinion.

In 1 Peter 1:4, the reader is told an inheritance waits for him in heaven. In 3:22, Jesus is at god's right hand in heaven, with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

At last we move on to Revelation. We should learn some good stuff about heaven there. Maybe? In Rev. 3:12 a new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Chapter 4 has a description of heaven, with a throne, a person on the throne who looked like he was made of jewels, with a jeweled rainbow encircling him. There were also 24 other thrones with 24 elders, dressed in white with crowns on their heads. Lightening and thunder came from the main throne. Seven lamps were burning in front of the throne, these were the seven spirits of god. Whoa! God has seven spirits? That's interesting. Not something you hear every day. There was also a sea of glass in front of the throne. "Around the throne were four living creatures" all covered with eyes. (Heaven is getting crowded) They looked like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle. They each had six wings and the never stopped praising the god who lives forever. Whenever the god was praised the 24 elders fall before the guy on the throne and lay their crowns in front  of him. Monotonous.

The description of what goes on in heaven continues on through chapter 5, where we see a scroll, angels, and a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.(The seven eyes are also the seven spirits, just like the lamps.) There is more praising, worshipping, and falling down. In chapter six the lamb does stuff with the seals on the scroll from chapter six. It releases four horsemen, War, famine, Death, and Hades. Under an altar were some dead martyrs who complained they wanted to be avenged. They were given white robes and told to wait a bit. In chapter seven, more stuff happens with angels and people wearing white robes. In chapter 8, there was silence in heaven for half an hour. Then we get more angels, trumpets, thunder, lightening, fire, destruction of earth from heaven. Things go on in this vein until chapter 12 when a woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and 12 stars on her head. A dragon also appears in heaven. He wants to eat the child the woman is about to have. The child was snatched up to god and his throne. Then there was a war in heaven between the angels and the dragon! It turns out the dragon was Satan! He is thrown to earth. As we go on, there are more angels, the lamb, more voices and signs from heaven, more symbolism, chapter after chapter. One thing is clear. We don't learn much, if anything about what heaven will be like for the multitudes of believers after all the battles are over. Yet.

More to come.

Ephesians 6 wrap up

After reading Ephesians, I have noticed that, as I mentioned before, it contains very little information that is concrete. It mentions "spiritual" blessings but not material ones. It talks of faith in Jesus, but gives us little to no information about Jesus, his life, and his teachings. It talks of how the gentiles and the jews are no longer separated, but are now fellow citizens of god's household, sharing in the promise of christ.  This was supposedly once a great mystery that has now been revealed through Paul. It is also a direct contradiction of Paul's statements concerning the Jews in the letter to the Galatians, chapter 4.

Saints are mentioned and are presumably referring to believers. Unity of all believers is stressed in a kind of creedal statement."There is one body, and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one lord, one god and father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Another famous passage is found in 6:10-18, referring to the "armor of god." This invisible armor is to be used to fight against an invisible enemy.

There is mention of the devil/Satan, but not hell or specifics about any punishments for disobedience. There are vague references to heaven as the place where Jesus and god live, but no specifics. Forces of evil are also said to reside in the heavenly realms. (6:12) I don't remember any mention of angels.
A day of evil is coming (6:13), but again no specifics. There is no mention of any old testament characters, places,  or events, not even Moses or Abraham, just the phrase "men in other generations." (3:5) The law with its commandments and regulations is said to have been abolished. (2:15)

The submission/obedience of women to husbands and slaves to masters is actively promoted and encouraged.

There are two old testament passages supposedly quoted, but when we look back at the Old Testa,ent, the passages read differently and mean something else in their particular context. The first is Eph. 4:8- "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." This is different in Psalm 68:18, which reads-"When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train and you recieved gifts from men." The second is found in Eph. 5:14- "Wake up o sleeper, rise from the dead, and christ will shine on you." The closest scripture to that is found in Isaiah 60:1-"Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the lord rises upon you." These are obviously not the same, but no other passage is either. Theses passages don't appear to actually have anything to do with Jesus.

There is also no mention of any other New Testament characters, places, and events, except Jesus's death and resurrection. One exception is the mention of Tychicus at the closing of the letter. Tychicus is mentioned in almost exactly similar wording at the closing of Colossians. His name is also found in Titus 3:12 and Acts 20:4.

All in all, this is an extraordinarily ambiguous and generic letter. It could have been written to anyone at any time in the first century church. It is assumed to be written near the end of Paul's life when he was supposedly in prison. This is assumed from the passages where the author calls himself an "ambassador in chains" (6:20) and a "prisoner for the lord" (4:1), a "prisoner for Jesus christ" (3:1). However, these could all be metaphors, because they do not come right out and say he is actually imprisoned.

Ephesians chapter 6, part 3

Starting in verse 10, this section is subtitled "the armor of god " in my bible. It is the beginning of the end of the chapter and the letter. The christians addressed in this letter are told to be strong in the lord and in his mighty power. But what is his mighty power? So far it seems to be only abstract ideas. There are no concrete acts that this god does, that I can recall being mentioned in this letter. Instead, all the real action is to be done by the readers/hearers. Everything else is couched in metaphors and the language of "spiritual" philosophy. We have been told about grace, redemption, salvation, etc.. All words that have ambiguous meanings and purpose. What good is this god in the present tense, here on earth, besides making sure his commands are followed correctly? To what earthly end?

This armor that the readers are to put on is another metaphor and it is supposed to be for protection against the schemes of the devil. Is he also a metaphor? The passage tells us he is not flesh and blood, but he has something to do with rulers, authorities, and powers in this dark world, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. He is a Sith Lord? Now that humans have actually explored the heavens with spacecraft and telescopes, it is quite obvious there are no spiritual forces of evil messing around up there. Where are these heavenly realms any way?

This armor of god is for fighting a spiritual battle on an evil day that is supposedly coming. When? Is the battle just as imaginary as the armor? The armor consists of 1. The belt of truth. 2. The breastplate of righteousness. 3. Shoes of readiness 4. A shield of faith. (To extinguish the devil's flaming darts) 5. The helmet of salvation 6. The sword of the spirit, aka the word of god. Add all kinds of prayers and requests. What practical good is any of that? The armor sounds a bit like it belongs on Wonder Woman. At least you can see hers. The christian's armor is invisible and just about as powerful as any other invisible armor.

Lastly, Paul asks the readers to pray for him that he can continue to propagate this drivel fearlessly. Why does he need prayers? Isn't he wearing his armor? I am impressed with how much a waste Paul's life was, earnestly suffering and toiling for nothing, not to mention teaching others to do the same.

*Today many christians interpret the fiery darts to be the persecution and opposition of nonbelievers, which they see in the most innocuous places. The sword of the spirit is interpreted to be the bible, even though the bible did not exist in its present form then, and the only New Testament writings that existed were possibly a few of Paul's letters. Even the author of Ephesians has not been bold enough to call his own writings the word of god.

Ephesians chapter 6, part 2

We are at verse 5. In my bible, this next section has a subtitle of "Slaves and Masters." Verse five says, "Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey christ." We are going to go through this word by word, so it is clear what the author intends to convey.

The word translated slave here is also translated as servant or bond-servant in other translations. If you think servant in this context could mean someone who chose to serve someone else as a paying job, like a servant in Downton Abbey, you would be wrong. The greek word clearly refers to someone who is legally bound to another person and has no personal freedom or rights. (Link)  The word obey in this passage clearly means to do what the master says. (Link) The phrase "respect and fear"  in this passage is literally "fear (link) and trembling (link)" in the greek. It seems the authors of the NIV tried to soften the meaning. Not only must the slaves obey with fear, they must obey sincerely. What good is sincerity, if you are afraid? Isn't sincerity of more value if it is under no compulsion? What are they to be afraid of? The consequences of disobedience?

The next verse says,"Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of christ, doing the will of god from your heart." Here is a common refrain in christianity, "hearts" will be judged. It is not enough to obey, you must do it from the heart. An insincere heart nullifies obedience. How does one person tell if another is sincere or not? How do you measure sincerity?

Verse 7, "Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the lord, not men,(But they are serving men.) because you know that the lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." No, we don't know that. When do slaves get this nebulous reward and what exactly is it? Paul has not told us in this letter. He has mentioned slavation, inheritance, redemption, and power for those who believe. But what does that actually mean? And why must our hearts be sincere as long as we are doing  "good"?

Verse 8, "And masters treat your slaves in the same way." Yeah, right. Masters are to serve their slaves wholeheartedly as though they were obeying christ? Since when? Why aren't they just told to give the slaves their freedom and hire them for reasonable wages? Why aren't they told it is wrong to own another person? Why does god not promote personal autonomy? Could it be because the god of the bible is a product of that era and had the same values that the people of that time held?

Last, masters are told not to threaten their slaves, because he who is in heaven is the master of them both and he shows no favoritism. So, all christians are Jesus's slaves. They are to sincerely obey him with fear and trembling. But what has he commanded that must be obeyed? Back in Ephesians 2:15, the author says Jesus abolished in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. So far, all the commands in this letter have come from the author. None have been claimed to come from Jesus or god. Does one obey Jesus by doing what Paul says? Why should anyone do what Paul says? Again, what is the consequence of disobedience? Why must they fear and tremble? Also, how can god have no favoritism and still allow the inequity of the master/slave relationship to exist?

Ephesians chapter 6, part 1

We have reached the last chapter of Ephesians. This begins with a command to children to obey their parents in the lord. The readers are told to "honor their mother and father." It was commanded in the Old Testament as part of the 10 commandments. It is supposedly the first command with a promise. The promise claims that if you do this it will go well with you and you will enjoy a long life. What it doesn't say is that you will enjoy a long life because you won't be stoned to death, which was the penalty for disobedient children. (Deuteronomy  21:18-21) The penalty for dishonoring parents was to be cursed, as opposed to blessed. (Deut. 27:16) So, this is not just a sweet promise that obedience brings good things.  This is a veiled threat. As we see from the Deuteronomy passages, even adult children are considered to be under their parents' authority.

Also, is this a universal command? There have been some pretty despicable parents throughout history, asking children to do despicable things. Should those parents also be obeyed? This question is usually side stepped by saying the phrase "in the lord" covers that. For some christians, it is only necessary to obey in god approved ways. Plus, also leaves a loophole for  christian children of atheist parents to refuse to obey even benign requests.

Verse 4 command fathers to not exasperate their children. What exactly does that mean? Other translations say do not make them angry, provoke them to wrath, or irritate them. Any one who has had children could tell you that it practically impossible to not exasperate a child at some point in its life. Children are not famous for their reasoning abilities. In place of the exasperation, the parent is to provide the training and instruction of the lord. This will keep the child from being exasperated? I have yet to hear anyone explain this passage in a clear way, and I have seen plenty of children irritated by the church's teachings.

 A reminder here: Paul was not a parent, but he is giving advice to parents? He also was never a husband or a wife, yet he gave advice to them, as we saw in the last chapter. He set himself up as an authority on how to properly do life. Did no one question his authority? If he actually went around the middle east telling people how to live and telling them he was sent from god, he had some hubris. (He may not have even written this letter.)  It seems to have been convincing enough to thousands of people because some form of Pauline inspired christianity has lasted almost 2,000 years. If it is true that he landed in jail for what he taught, it's not hard to see why he was considered disruptive.

Submission, respect, and the study of theology part 2

Last time, I talked about how when we do a bible word study, the average person does not have a masters degree in theology, nor a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, unless they want to rely on what someone else tells them a text means, they must take the translated text at face value, or use the tools available to the general public. Since I do not want to place my eternal fate in another person's hands, I prefer to use the latter methods of bible study. That is what most protestant christians do and what I, as an atheist, do in my writings here on this blog.

Thankfully, the internet gives us many bible study tools that were not always readily available to the masses in the past.  I do not accept that there are people who have more authority when it comes to bible interpretation than I do. Mostly because I believe that the bible is a human product, not divine in any way. It only matters what you believe it says, if you think you have an interest in it being truly the work of a god with some kind of power over your life. Even when that is the case, how do so many different versions of christianity have different answers to the same questions?

The person with whom  I was discussing Ephesians 5 not only said I was committing "root fallacy" when it came to the translation of phobetai as a cousin to fear. They also said that submission in this passage did not mean obedience or subjection as to a king or god.

According to this person:
"And from my study of the Greek text regarding "submission" it s not about rote obedience, but "to lovingly yield ones own interest in behalf of another" - and is implied from the mutual submission in 5:20. . . it's more about not seeking one's own way to the detriment of the other person than anything else, and not a complete abdication of will."

My response:
"How do you know what the usage and meaning of the time were? Source that supports this assertion, without biased interpretation? And how do you explain the clear statement for the wife to submit to the husband in Everything, if not a complete abdication of the will? Those words submit/submission are translated as obedience in other passages. Frankly, to me, you are reading the passage through rose colored glasses."

Lets look at the Greek interlinear for Ephesians 5 (link). Go to the end of the chapter and read from about verse 20. In the Greek there appears to be only two places with a word that actually means submission (verse 21) or subjection (verse 24). My NIV uses the English word submit four times. Verse 21 has the Greek "hypotassomenoi." Here is the Strong's concordance entry for that word. (Link) When I click on the word itself (link), I find that this form of the word only appears in the NT twice. The other time refers to servants being in subjection to masters. 

The word in verse 24, "hypotassetai." has the same Strong's entry as the previous word.  When I click on the word itself (link), I  find a total of five occurances. Not one appears to have a connotation of "lovingly yielding ones interests on behalf of another." I maintain that the person with whom I was discussing this passage was looking at it with rose colored glasses--they saw what they wanted to see. 

Both of the words appear to mean subjection with an implication of obedience, as to a higher authority. I am convinced that this passage means exactly what it appears to mean: Paul is telling wives to obey their husbands in everything. Christian wives do not have personal autonomy. That is unacceptable.

More on Ephesians 5, submission, respect, and the study of theology.

Yesterday, in an online discussion, I mentioned my study of the submission passage in Ephesians 5. I told how I had done word study of "submit" and "respect" and how they appeared to actually mean, obey and fear. One person, who had a masters degree in theology and had studied Greek and Hebrew, said that I had committed a fallacy called "root fallacy" by assuming that the Greek words had a strong connection to their roots.

Let's take a look at root fallacies here and here. Basically, the idea of a root fallacy is in the assumption that a person studying scriptures can look up a Greek or Hebrew word in a book like Strong's Concordance and determine the original meaning of a word by learning its roots. This can be problematic because word usage changes over time and there are idioms, nuances, and plays on words that make interpretation more difficult. I can see how that might apply to my conclusions on the words submit and respect. But I am not convinced that it does.

What I found interesting when looking into the phrase "root fallacy" is that it is used, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively within the context of christianity and the study of the bible. It is said to be a kind of etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy says that the present meaning of a word should rely on its historical meaning. It's a fallacy because present meaning has often changed so much from the historical that there is little correlation.  The problem in bible word study is we are not looking for present usage and meaning, we are looking for historical meaning and connotation to begin with. We are not living in those times or speaking those languages any more. So, we must use the tools we have on hand.

The online bible study tool I use the most is Bible Hub. It has multiple bible versions, interlinear texts, concordances, and dictionaries. When I want to find the meaning  of a NT word  I click on the passage and first view the interlinear text. Then I click on the specific word in the text. Then I will see word roots, definitions, and how often the word is used in the bible, etc. when I click on the interlinear Ephesians 5:33, this is what I get (link). It says "she might respect" under the Greek word phobetai. If I click on the number above the Greek word, I get Strong's concordance reference for the word (link). That page gives me word origins, and definitions. Phobetai has a close word cognate of phobeo which means to fear, withraw from, avoid. The root of phobeo is phobos, which is given three definitions/usages. 1. To flee 2. To fear or be afraid 3. To reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience.

 On the side of the page is a list of 95 times the root phobos appears in a NT word. Every single one of those words that I looked up has been translated across versions to mean some form of fear or fright.  The word phobetai occurs only once in the entire New Testament. In my NIV it has been translated into the English word respect. What does it look like in other versions?  (Link)  On the left side of the page we see that some versions translate the word as respect, others translate it as reverence, others as fear. How are we, ordinary people, to know which is the correct approximation to the modern meaning of the historical word?

Let's say that this word uses the third meaning of the root phobos, so it has been translated "respect." Does that first century respect look the same as our 21st century respect? Are there any 21st century Christian women in the western world who venerate their husbands and treat them with deference or reverential obedience? These are words that have been applied to gods and kings, are modern women to apply them to their husbands? Are they truly following the scriptures if they don't? Doesn't reverential obedience come from a position of subjection and possibly fear?

Ephesians chapter 5, part 2

*We start at verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence to christ." What does that mean exactly? Constant submission to others is not  healthy. It opens the avenue for abuse by those who are willing to use the command to submit to manipulate those around them. Paul is going to get specific.

*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.

*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary.  What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?

*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.

*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church.  It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church."  This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.

*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves,  and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)

*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect"  would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?

Ephesians chapter 5, part 1

*The author begins this chapter by telling the readers to be imitators of god. I find this an odd thing to tell anyone. After all, this is the god that supposedly destroyed every living thing in a great flood. This is a god who told his people to take over a land that was not theirs and kill any resistors. This is a god who created a legal system that punished infractions with death. This is a god who condoned enslavement of people who were not his people. This is a god who told priests to indiscriminately slaughter their closest friend and relatives. (Exodus 32)

*Next, the readers are told to live a life of love, "just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to god." Lets unpack that metaphor for a minute. It is equating Christ's death to the traditional sacrifice of atonement which god ordered in the levitical law. There a lamb was slaughtered and various things done to its carcass and blood, then portions were burned/cooked, and then eaten by the priests and/or people who brought the sacrifice. The burning meat was said to be emit a pleasing fragrance to god. The god who doesn't actually have sense organs to smell with. All this bloody business, including christ's death, was required because of god's insistence on a standard of morality that was impossible for humans to achieve, even though his omnipotence had forseen it.

*The next paragraph tells what is improper for god's holy people. This includes sexual immorality, impurity (exactly what is that?), greed, obscenity, foolish talk, and  coarse joking. It seems to me that these things can vary in their personal and societal impact, some being merely innocuous to downright harmful. Nevertheless we are then told that no immoral, greedy, or impure person has an inheritance in the kingdom of god. (What is the kingdom of god?) In fact, they are labelled as idolaters and disobedient. God's wrath will come on them. Believers should have nothing to do with them. Aha! Here we do not have a case of love the sinner hate the sin. The sinner and his sin are inseparable. What happened to "live a life of love" from verse 2?

*Next, the readers are told to live as children of light, not darkness. They are to find out what pleases the lord and having nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. The fruit of light consists of all goodness, righteousness, and truth. However, we are not told what those are in concrete terms.  We are also not told what the light refers to. We are to live as wise, not unwise. Again, how? By not being foolish and understanding what the lord's will is. How? By not getting drunk. Instead we are to be filled with the spirit. Is this an ancient pun? Apparently being filled with  that spirit makes you sing and recite scripture. (Remember that the only scripture at that time was what we now call the Old Testament.) They are also to spend a lot of time giving thanks to god for everything.

*Next time we take a look at submission. Oh, joy.

Ephesians chapter 4, part 2

*Starting at verse 17: Now, the author, who is writing this letter to gentiles, tells these gentiles not to act like gentiles. Gentiles, he says, are futile in their thinking, darkened in their understanding, sparated from god, ignorant in understanding, and hard hearted. They have given themselves over to sensuality with a continual lust for more. (I wonder if any were offended by this letter.)

*These particular gentiles know better, because they were taught in accordance with the truth in Jesus. They were taught to put off their old selves, to take on new mental attitudes, and to put on a new self, created to be like god, in true righteousness and holiness. The way to do this is to stop lying and speak truthfully. (So far, so good.) They are to practice self control when angry. (Not bad.) They are to not go to bed angry because the devil will get a foothold. (Wackadoodle. The devil has feet?) They are to give up stealing(Good) and work with their own hands so they can share with those in need. (Admirable) So far, all these things are basic "do unto others" morality, which probably already existed in that society.

*Next they are told not to let unwholesome talk cone out of their mouths, but only that which is helpful for building other up, to their benefit. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable standard of conduct, if you are interested in the wellbeing of all humanity. After that, they are told not to "grieve the Holy Spirit with whom you are sealed for the day of redemption." What that actually means is a mystery. My study bible says this proves the holy spirit is a person, because only people can be grieved.  Finally, they are told to get rid of bitterness, rage, anger, brawling, slander, and malice. They are to be kind and compassionate. All these positive qualities are not exclusive to christianity. They also have not been  universally practiced by all christians everywhere. The internet alone is full of christians who daily prove they do not adhere to these principles.

*Very last they are told to forgive each other, just as in christ god forgave them. This is a sticky topic. Are there no limits to forgiveness? How is that accomplished in a practical sense? What does it mean to forgive a murderer or an abuser? Vile people can just claim god's forgiveness? What is the proof that they have actually been forgiven by a god? In my experience as a former christian, it means I have to be civil, accept the society of that person without public drama, and not carry on a personal feud or vendetta. I'm not so sure that is always the best course of action. Sometimes people need to be called out, avoided, or punished by humanity for their horrible deeds.

Ephesians chapter 4

*This chapter is often called the unity chapter. After having told the readers that the Jews and Gentiles are now one family in christ Jesus, Paul asks that they act like it. They are to be humble, patient, and loving, making every effort to be peacefully united.

*Verses 4-6 are often repeated as a doctrinal statement. There is one body, not two. There is one spirit, one hope, one lord, one faith, one baptism, one god and father. There are not separate versions of these for Jews and Gentiles.

*Next we are told grace has been gven to us as christ apportioned it. (But what exactly is grace?) This is why it (?) says "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." This  is said refer to the ascension of Christ and his gift of spiritual gifts, such as gifts of apostleship, prophecy, evangelism, and teaching ability. The author is quoting Psalm 68:16 but rewording it. That verse in Psalms says,"When YOU ascended on high, YOU led captives in YOUR train; YOU RECEIVED gifts FROM men." (Capitals to stress the differences in the two passages.) In Psalms, this verse is directed to Yahweh and refers to Yahweh ascending to his mountaintop sanctuary in the land of Canaan, supposedly where the temple in Jerusalem was eventually situated, on Mount Zion. There, gifts were not given to men but received from men. The passage in Psalms originally had nothing whatever to do with Jesus.

*The aforementioned gifts were supposedly given to prepare god's people for works of service "so that the body of christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the son of god and become mature." Well. It's been two thousand years and unity still hasn't been accomplished. There are still separations between Jews and Gentiles, not to mention the thousands of christian denominations that exist, each thinking it is the one true church.

*Verse 14. On this amazing day of unity we will be grown up christians, each part of the body of christ doing the work it is supposed to do. Not like infants who are decieved by the teachings of cunning, crafty, and deceitful men. We will all speak the truth in love. Does that mean telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe all this stuff?

Ephesians chapter 3

*Paul begins this section by talking about himself. He calls himself a prisoner of Jesus Christ for the sake of the Gentiles to whom he is writing. It is unclear if prisoner here is literal or figurative, but most of Christendom assumes it to mean Paul is literally a prisoner at this time. He goes on to say God's grace was given to him for them. As in Ephesians, Paul mentions the revelation he recieved. This means he has a special insight into what he calls "the mystery of christ." The mystery can be summed up by saying that through the gospel, the Jews and gentiles are actually members of one body and share in the promise of Jesus Christ.

*God has given Paul, in spite of his unworthiness,  the special job of making the mystery plainly known to everyone. In the past this mystery was hidden. God had a plan to make his wisdom known to all the powers on earth and in heaven, through the church. He accomplished his plan through Jesus.  
Now anyone who has faith in him can approach god with freedom and confidence.

*This is why Paul prays that the readers might strengthened by the power of the spirit and have christ living in their hearts through faith. He wants them all to know how very much christ loves them. God is able do far more than the could ever ask or imagine and his power is at work in them. To him be the glory forever, Amen.

*Does all this actually mean anything? Not really. Does it change anything? Yes, if you believe it. Then you will have a different attitude regarding your status with Yahweh as compared to the Jews. Now you are supposedly part of the family of Yahweh. That was god's plan all along. Yahweh is no longer an ethnic god or a national god, now he is a universal god. The mystery that he always was a universal god has been revealed through Paul.

*It is very interesting that this letter makes gentile believers equal to Jews and co-heirs. There is no superiority to Jews and no replacing Jews in the Yahweh's affections. They are now one big happy family. Again, this is in direct contrast to the Galatian letter, where the mystery was that the Gentiles were the true heirs of Yahweh and the Jews were his illegitimate children. There the gentiles had the superior position and were not going to share their inheritance with the Jews. Which one is the true doctrine of christianity? There can't have been more than one version of christianity, can there?

Ephesians chapter 2, part 2

We pick back up at 2:11.

*Paul now talks about the previous difference between gentiles and jews. The gentiles being uncircumcised, were excluded from citzenship in Israel and the covenants of the promise, without hope, and without god. Interestingly, the phrase "without god" is translated from the greek atheoi, which makes it seem that Paul is saying they were basically atheists when it came to the god of Israel.
He also says they were separated from Christ. That is even more interesting. Did Christ not preach salvation of/to the gentiles?

*That doesn't matter now, according to the author. The blood of christ on the cross destroyed the invisible  barrier between the two peoples by abolishing  the law in his flesh, so both Jews and gentiles could be united. Now everyone has access to the father by one spirit. Now they are all members of god's  household, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. Together they are a holy temple, a dwelling in which god lives.

*This  is somewhat different than what Paul said in Galatians. In chapters 4 and 5, Paul comes down hard in favor of the gentiles being the children of the promise. He calls them "the children of the free woman" and the Jews "the  children of the slave woman." Then he goes on to say "the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."  That is in direct contrast to chapter two of Ephesians, which has the Jews and gentiles sharing god as their father in one big happy family. 

Ephesians chapter 1, part 4, and chapter 2

*As we have seen, Paul should have been very familiar with the church in Ephesus and in Asia Minor. He was there for at least two years, according to Acts. Yet, verse fifteen of Ephesians chapter one sounds as though Paul's knowledge of the recipients of this letter is from hearsay. We will be on the lookout for any internal evidence that this letter was written to people with whom Paul had previous associations.

*The rest of the chapter is exhortations, Paul's "prayers" for the recipients of the letter, and a bit of christological mumbo jumbo. Stuff about God's power displayed in raising christ from the dead, putting him in dominion over all other authorities and titles, not only in the present, but the future as well. Paul covers all the bases, preemptively discounting any other messiahs or spiritual and earthly authority figures that may arise. Jesus is it. He's the big boss and the church is his henchman, um body.

*Moving on to chapter 2. Now Paul says that the readers were once dead in their sins and transgressions, because they followed the ways of the world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air. Say what? What is the kingdom of the air? This phrase is not found anywhere else in the Bible, but you can believe there is plenty of speculation by people who act like they know what they are talking about. This being is also called the spirit who is at work in those who are disobedient. (Disobedient to whom?) Therefore, the claim made by commentators is this must be referring to Satan. A quick scan of the rest of Ephesians shows that Paul does refer to the devil in chapter six, but Satan is not named.

*Paul goes on to say that "we" were by nature objects of wrath. Speak for yourself dear Paul. God, being so wonderful, and rich in mercy and love, has saved us. God raised the readers up and seated them with christ in the heavenly realms. This is obviously metaphorical. I haven't seen any christians rise up to heavenly realms, yet. This is so that in the coming age (which hasn't come yet) "God can show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in christ jesus." what does this mean in practical earthly terms? Not much. It basically boils down to some people believing a dead dude was resurrected by a god, so that one nebulous day in the nebulous future, that invisible god won't get angry at them for being the sorry creatures they were born to be. Then they will someday get to sit with the dead dude in the sky. What fun.

*How do the readers get this priveledge? Not because they deserve it or earned it by doing anything, but because god gave it to them. It was a present called "grace." Don't know what grace is? That's okay, neither does anyone else, even though they like to think they do. Sometimes it is defined as unmerited favor, but that is not very concrete either. This wonderful gift has a catch-- faith. You gotta believe that god and jesus actually exist or you are out of luck. Oh yeah, even though you can't earn this gift by doing anything, you totally got stuff to do. God has some chores he needs done and he prepared them just for those who have faith. Aren't they blessed?

Edited

Ephesians chapter 1, part three

We will continue reading about Paul's associations with Ephesus, found in Acts and other writings, before we finish Ephesians chapter one.

*Starting in Acts 19:21, we see that after the scroll burnings, Paul decided to travel back through the region we know of as Turkey, to Jerusalem. He is said to have wanted to go to Rome from there. Before he left, there was a rabid protest against Paul by crafstmen whose businesses were linked to idol worship. They said they were losing business because of Paul's teachings. Paul was encouraged by his friends to not interact with the protesters. The city clerk quelled the uprising by telling the protesters that Paul and his disciples did not appear to have broken any laws. If there was a claim aganst him, it was to be made through proper channels. Again, none of this appears in extrabiblical contemporary histories.

*In Acts 20, Paul travelled  around Macedonia and Greece for a while. Before he finally set sail for Jerusalem, he stopped in Miletus and sent a message to the elders of the church in Ephesus to meet with him. When they came, he made a farewell speech full of pathos, saying he will never see them again because prison and hardships await him. He warns them of wolves among the sheep who would  distort the truth and draw away disciples. After an emotional scene, he leaves.

*What does Paul say about Ephesus in the letters attributed to him? In first Corinthians 15:32, Paul says, "If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for human motives,  what did I gain if the dead are not raised." This is part of a passage which is declaring that if the message about Jesus and the resurrection of the baptized is false, baptism is useless and Paul's risking death to promote it has been in vain. Who knows what this sentence about Ephesus means, probably not real wild beasts but metaphorical ones, referring to Paul's opponents.

*First Corinthians 16 ends that book. It refers to Paul being in Ephesus at the time. It also mentions his travels in Asia Minor plus Pricilla and Aquila. Presumably, First Corinthians was written in Ephesus. However, Paul also says he is staying there till Pentecost. Acts 20 has Paul eager to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost.

*First and second Timothy are supposedly written from Paul imprisoned in Rome, as the book of Ephesians is supposed to have been. They also mention Ephesus and refer to particular people there, namely Pricilla and Aquila. (1 Tim. 1:3, 2Tim. 4) The Timothy books have many exhortations against false teachers.

Ephesians chapter 1, part 2

Starting at verse 15:

*Paul tells the recipients of the letter that he gives thanks for them continually because of the faith he heard they have. If this is a chain letter, how does he know what churches will be reading it and what their faith level is? Why does he say he "heard" about their faith, when he is supposed to have lived in Ephesus?

*Let's look at the scriptures that mention Paul in Ephesus (in Turkey). First, Acts 18: There Paul is said to have arrived in Ephesus with Pricilla and Aquila. He went to a Jewish synagogue to reason (argue?) with the Jews. He was asked to stay but left, saying he would be back, if it was God's will. He sailed back to Caesarea, which is in Israel, then travelled from there to Antioch, Galatia and Phrygia, and made his way back to Ephesus. It appeared to be in God's (Paul's ) will after all.

*While Paul was gone, a Jew named Apollos, from Alexandria (in Egypt), who knew only the baptism of John, arrived in Ephesus.  He was very knowledgable in the scriptures and began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Pricilla and Aquila were still in Ephesus and took Apollos to their home to "teach him the way of God more adequately." I find it interesting that Apollos seems to have had no idea about Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection, just John the baptist and his practice of baptism. This would be at least two decades (NT timeline) after the death of Jesus. Why hadn't Apollos heard "the good news" before?

*Apollos went to Corinth, which is in Greece. Meanwhile, Paul took the road through Turkey and arrived back in Ephesus. There he found some disciples. These disciples had not been there his first visit? Disciples of whom? These disciples had never heard of recieving the holy spirit and the had been baptised with John's baptism for repentence, not the baptism into the lord Jesus. Okay, what is the difference between one dunking in water and another? -Belief in Jesus and the magic words recited when it is performed. Plus, it helps if Paul puts his hands on you so you can get the elusive Holy Spirit along with the ability to speak in tongues. Twelve men recieved the spirit this way. Ooh. Do you suppose that the number twelve is significant here? There were twelve tribes of Israel after all.

*According to Acts, Paul spent three months in Ephesus speaking in the synogogue, arguing about the kingdom of god. Some of them (Jews) refused to believe him. Good for them. So, Paul left with his disciples and had daily discussions 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." However, not one of them wrote a single word about Paul or the new teachings. There are no contemporaneous writings about this revolution in religious thought, from that time or region That seems a little odd to me.

*It is even more odd that there are no extrabiblical records, when Acts says that extraordinary miracles were performed through Paul. (Acts19:11-12). Some Jews tried to exorcise evil spirits by invoking the name of Jesus. The evil spirits knew the difference between them and Paul and beat the Jews up. Naturally, this caused some consternation among the inhabitants of Ephesus, not to mention terror. Believers came out of the woodwork and confessed their past associations with sorcery. Then there was a public scroll burning of extremely valuable magic texts. Too bad Paul didn't just simply tell them their magic books had no power to do anything, evil or good. But he couldn't do that, could he? He had set himself up as having powers greater than  theirs.

To be continued.