Eph 1:1

[Notrash]

Been thinking about JdS's emphasis on pronoun usage in Eph and to try to see if there is any basis for focusing on their use.

In Eph 1:1 we read,

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to thesaints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

I guess I'm wondering if some dispy's would see this as a the saints being jewish converts and the faithful in Jesus Christ as being 'gentile' converts. ? Or is Paul using the word "and to" to modify and describe the "saints at Ephesus"??? Wondering about what Dispy's have been taught?

Not rash

 

[BereanTodd]

Well there is not hard and fast "dispys believe only X about pasage Y". There are a range of beliefs acceptable within dispensationalism on most topics. So I don't think you can find "THE" dispensational view on this topic. I would say that mid-acts dispensationalists might well try to make the distinction, but I believe that would amount to eisogeting this text.

Just quickly grabbing my Greek NT and looking at the text the word "pistois" (translated faithful) is grammatically and adjective. It is not articular here, and I am no Greek expert, but my understanding is that if an adjective is meant to be substantival then it is usually articular. Since the word is in agreement with "hagiois" (i.e. saints), in my understanding it seems to more be modifying the word saints. A better translation might then be "to the saints who are in Ephesus and are faitful in Christ Jesus." The two underlined sections then both modifying the word saints.

Now I just took a moment to check the various Bible versions currently within my reach, and the NASB, NET and NIV all translated it with the same meaning as what I just gave to it, so I am even more comfortable in that translation.

 

[zeke37]

IMO, (if I may) it's kinda like saying.....in America, and the world too!

 

[JDS]

One thing is for sure, it was not just the gentiles at Ephesus that he was addressing but gentiles in general.

However, throughout this epistle he is careful to distinguish between the two entities, Jews and gentiles, that make up the church, the body of Christ because this is the thrust of the doctrine he is revealing that has been hidden, that is, the TWO will be made one in the body. This is called the "mystery of Christ" and is the theme of the epistle.

Here is proof of my first point:

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

This was not just true of the Ephesian gentiles but all gentiles.

The Jews was of course, the "firstfruits" of the gospel age and the historical book, Acts, bears this out. And then the gentiles were made partakers, not to fulfill any covenant promise made to them, as did the Jews, but by the grace and mercy of God only.

That is all I will say about this now but I will mention that anti-dispensationalists always pervert or misrepresent the church, what it is and what the purpose of God is in its establishment. None of them have any confidence or knowledge of God's covenant relationship with Israel and because of this they mix the two together and render much of God's word to allegory and unbelievable. These are just harsh but real facts.

 

[marke]

Talk about getting lost in nonsense.

The teachings of Jesus are the basis of Christianity. You don't get to pick and choose what part you want to believe. There is just ONE WAY for ANYONE who wants to follow the teachings.

The NT is just how God wanted it to be. Our job is to follow the teachings. Not just those lines of scripture that appeal to us or we will take our place with the unbelievers in hell.

This dispensationalism is not a thing of God, but something made up by man that further divides the unity of the church.

Have you ever noticed when the Holy Spirit shows up in scripture everyone is of "one mind"? Read the early parts of Acts.

Christianity today seems to have lost it's mind with this anything goes attitude. It doesn't matter if it is this dispensation or that dispensation. What does the NT say? That is what matters.

Grace?
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Dispensationalism will not save your soul. Following the teachings of Jesus will.

I would urge you to study the NT rather than to spend all your time trying to defend your views on dispensationalism and what specific words mean.

The tree is not the forest. Focus on what the forest in total looks like, not a one liner that can lead you astray.

Be aware the evil one wants to cause fragmentation of THE WORD. Your soul is at risk. Don't be confused. Don't be misled following nonsense. Don't be deceived.

Everything you need is in the NT, but you need to search it out. No one can save your soul, but yourself. If you follow wrong teaching you won't make it in the narrow gate. That's the scripture. Like it or not.

God bless.

 

[BereanTodd]

Talk about getting lost in nonsense.

The teachings of Jesus are the basis of Christianity. You don't get to pick and choose what part you want to believe. There is just ONE WAY for ANYONE who wants to follow the teachings.

Who says that there is more than one way? Who says that there is salvation apart from Christ? Who says that any part of the Bible is not "God-breathed" (1 Tim 3)? Certainly no dispensationalist that I know of teaches that.

The NT is just how God wanted it to be. Our job is to follow the teachings. Not just those lines of scripture that appeal to us or we will take our place with the unbelievers in hell.

This dispensationalism is not a thing of God, but something made up by man that further divides the unity of the church.

What the heck are you even talking about? Who says that the NT is not "how God wanted it to be"? Again, no dispensationalist that I know of says that. You are making a huge straw man and banging away at it, but you are making no coherant points.

Have you ever noticed when the Holy Spirit shows up in scripture everyone is of "one mind"? Read the early parts of Acts.

Christianity today seems to have lost it's mind with this anything goes attitude. It doesn't matter if it is this dispensation or that dispensation. What does the NT say? That is what matters.

First off, you seem to think that dispensationalism is the only group with any divisions. Heck, we are much more unified than the covenental or mainline segments are. There are divisions in all branches of CHristianity. Thank God that in Christ we are ONE body.

Dispensationalism will not save your soul. Following the teachings of Jesus will.

No, actually placing our faith and trust in Christ will. We can follow His teachings every day of our lives - if we don't place our whole trust and faith in His atoning work upon the cross then we will be hell-bound and lost.

I would urge you to study the NT rather than to spend all your time trying to defend your views on dispensationalism and what specific words mean.

Straw man number 103. What? Because we are dispensationalists we don't read the NT??? That's news to me, who has spent the last 6 years of my life in school, spending thousands of dollars, and thousands of hours studying the Scriptures. And I have another 6-10 years left before I finish my doctorate.

Everything you need is in the NT, but you need to search it out. No one can save your soul, but yourself. If you follow wrong teaching you won't make it in the narrow gate. That's the scripture. Like it or not.

God bless.

Correction - everything we need is in the BIBLE. The NT alone is not complete, the OT also was Godbreathed and much of the NT is merely quoting and confirming that which came before. The ENTIRE Bible, from Genesis to Revelation is God-breathed.

 

[JDS]

To Marke:

I am sorry sir but your entire post was colossal nonsense in my opinion.

If you disagree with the points we make, simply correct them Scripturally and in context and we will adjust our thinking but at least be dispensational enough to agree that there is an OT and a NT or you will have no credibility.

 

[Notrash]

IMO, (if I may) it's kinda like saying.....in America, and the world too!

Sure you may, and thanks. I dont' know if this perspective would be more accurate or Berean Todds' though? I seem to support Todds perspective at this point. To use your analogy with Todd's perspective Eph 1:1 would be more like saying:

In America; and those of the Declaration of Independance.

See the difference between what your saying and what I just said? Americans and those of the Declaration (in theory if no longer in practice anyhow) would be identicle groups. Your example of in America and in the world too is saying something different.

Your example would have Paul saying something just a little different. It would have to do with weather Paul was using a conjuctive use of the word "and" and a descriptive writing technique; or a narrative writing technique and a inclusive use of the word 'and'.

Since Paul doesn't offer any other destinations or geographic hints for "the faithful in Christ Jesus" we have no grounds to interpret "the faithful in Christ Jesus as if Paul was intending his letter to be circulated among all the churches (although I'm sure it did not matter to him if it was).

 

[Notrash]

One thing is for sure, it was not just the gentiles at Ephesus that he was addressing but gentiles in general.

However, throughout this epistle he is careful to distinguish between the two entities, Jews and gentiles, that make up the church, the body of Christ because this is the thrust of the doctrine he is revealing that has been hidden, that is, the TWO will be made one in the body. This is called the "mystery of Christ" and is the theme of the epistle.

Here is proof of my first point:

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

This was not just true of the Ephesian gentiles but all gentiles.

The Jews was of course, the "firstfruits" of the gospel age and the historical book, Acts, bears this out. And then the gentiles were made partakers, not to fulfill any covenant promise made to them, as did the Jews, but by the grace and mercy of God only.

That is all I will say about this now but I will mention that anti-dispensationalists always pervert or misrepresent the church, what it is and what the purpose of God is in its establishment. None of them have any confidence or knowledge of God's covenant relationship with Israel and because of this they mix the two together and render much of God's word to allegory and unbelievable. These are just harsh but real facts.

To re-iterate your perspective in another thread back to you; you make broad and general statements that are full of misconceptions, misinformation, and half truths. Some of these were countered in other posts, but you said that you would not address them unless I answered your questions with your right answers. LOL.


As mentioned before, Paul clarifies who he is referring to as 'we' during the first 11 verses in verse 12. And that is "we who first believed in the gospel". Verse 13 In whom ye also [trusted], and 19 us-ward who believe, Paul begins the process of joining those who first believed with those who believed later and who were Gentiles. The joining process is continued in 2:14 and 2:18.


I think it's very possible to misinterpret and misrepresent the 2 or 3 verses that you quoted above. In doing so, some actually seem to continue the seperation of Jew/Gentile when perhaps Paul is saying that there was formerly a alienation of the Gentiles by the Jews 'of the flesh'. (which he of course was one)

It's important to not read into the passage what it does not say, just as attempting to understand what it does say. In the KJV and NKJV the wording is "being alienated from the covenants of Isreal" as if there were a semi-colon after Christ, in which case that phrase would directly define being without Christ, as being outside the commonwealth of Israel (of the flesh) How and where one puts the commas (or removes them) has an affect on the meaning of these verses.


You continue to use the phrase "anti-dispensational" which in my case is a 'straw-man' accusation as I seek to be pro-truth rather than pro-dispensational.


If God's promise to Abraham was that through him would ALL Nations of the earth be blessed, and Paul himself refers to this phrase as "the Gospel" in Gal 3:8. How is it that dispys say (just as you did in the underlined part above) that God had no covenant promise to save 'gentiles'.???

Rather than Branch off the topic of Eph 1:1 and if it refers to jew and Gentile believersa as seperate; please keep further comments to that verse in particular. Answer the other comments in the previous thread where they were brought up.
Thanks.

 

[Notrash]

Well there is not hard and fast "dispys believe only X about pasage Y". There are a range of beliefs acceptable within dispensationalism on most topics. So I don't think you can find "THE" dispensational view on this topic. I would say that mid-acts dispensationalists might well try to make the distinction, but I believe that would amount to eisogeting this text.

Just quickly grabbing my Greek NT and looking at the text the word "pistois" (translated faithful) is grammatically and adjective. It is not articular here, and I am no Greek expert, but my understanding is that if an adjective is meant to be substantival then it is usually articular. Since the word is in agreement with "hagiois" (i.e. saints), in my understanding it seems to more be modifying the word saints. A better translation might then be "to the saints who are in Ephesus and are faitful in Christ Jesus." The two underlined sections then both modifying the word saints.

Now I just took a moment to check the various Bible versions currently within my reach, and the NASB, NET and NIV all translated it with the same meaning as what I just gave to it, so I am even more comfortable in that translation.

Thanks,
This is the perspective that I read Eph 1:1. The 'faithful' in Christ Jesus is describing the 'saints' and not refering to the greater international body of Christ, as Paul does not offer any other Geographic words other than "in Ephesus". That is not to say that the principles are not applicable to those saints outside of Ephesus, but they are not neccessarily being incorporated in the group to whom he is writing.

This perspective is supported by Pauls understanding and sometimes use of Hebrew Parallelism in his letters. In a few words on can elaborate on and describe what might take several sentences.

 

[Notrash]

Lets keep in mind that the topic of the thread is interpreting Eph 1:1 as to weather or not the "saints" could be considered jewish converts (or Pauls "we" of the first 11 verses) and the faithful in Jesus Christ as referring to Gentile converts. This interpretation would support JDS's ephasis that the we and you pronouns of the letter refer to jewish converts first and then gentile converts later. But I dont' think that perspective is neccessarily supported in Eph 1:1.

Secondarily, if as Todd has susinctly pointed out, the phrase "the faithful in Christ Jesus" is describing the saints in Ephesus or if it is referring to believers who are outside of Ephesus as a secondary addresee group.

 

[JDS]

you make broad and general statements that are full of misconceptions, misinformation, and half truths.

That, of course, is a matter of your opinion and is what we are trying to determine now, Isn't it?

As mentioned before, Paul clarifies who he is referring to as 'we' during the first 11 verses in verse 12. And that is "we who first believed in the gospel". Verse 13 In whom ye also [trusted], and 19 us-ward who believe, Paul begins the process of joining those who first believed with those who believed later and who were Gentiles. The joining process is continued in 2:14 and 2:18.

I don't really understand your point here and don't see where we disagree.

I think it's very possible to misinterpret and misrepresent the 2 or 3 verses that you quoted above. In doing so, some actually seem to continue the seperation of Jew/Gentile when perhaps Paul is saying that there was formerly a alienation of the Gentiles by the Jews 'of the flesh'. (which he of course was one)

There can be no doubt that he is adressing an alienation between the two that lasted for as long as the Law of Moses was the operative principle of God's dealing with Israel.

It's important to not read into the passage what it does not say, just as attempting to understand what it does say. In the KJV and NKJV the wording is "being alienated from the covenants of Isreal" as if there were a semi-colon after Christ, in which case that phrase would directly define being without Christ, as being outside the commonwealth of Israel (of the flesh) How and where one puts the commas (or removes them) has an affect on the meaning of these verses.

Here is a very important point that you must live with if you are going to discourse with me. I accept the KJV as the only reliable English translation of Scripture. It is important from the standpoint that God has preserved his truth in WORDS. He says so in 1 Co 2 and Jn 12. Thoughts are conveyed through words and no one can convince me that 100 translations with enough different words to warrant copyrights can possibly say and mean the same things. If you want to believe they can, by all means knock yourself out, but I will take a pass. Therefore, when I quote the KJV, I am quoting the words that the Holy Spirit uses to teach truth as far as I am concerned. If other gods cannot get it right in 100 translations and a few paraphrases, I don't think I really need to know much more about them.

1 Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But, to answer your point, lets assume from the context that he means they were in the predicament described "in time past" meant all the time while the Law of Moses was in effect until it was done away and they were actually invited to be partakers in covenant (New Covenant) relations along with the Jews. The historical book, Acts, says it was in chapter 10 which my study reveals was about AD 40.

It is my view that there is no understanding Christianity, or the Scriptures for that matter, without some knowledge of the covenants. God does everything according to his covenant promises. That is why I am a dispensationalist.

You continue to use the phrase "anti-dispensational" which in my case is a 'straw-man' accusation as I seek to be pro-truth rather than pro-dispensational.

I have read many of your comments and I am not sure I believe that statement.

If God's promise to Abraham was that through him would ALL Nations of the earth be blessed, and Paul himself refers to this phrase as "the Gospel" in Gal 3:8. How is it that dispys say (just as you did in the underlined part above) that God had no covenant promise to save 'gentiles'.???

This was a national promise but I am glad to see you looking at the covenant that literally. I think it is important to do so. I also think it is important to have a single hermeneutic relative to any passage. Therefore considering that the Abrahamic Covenant had 12 stipulations and all of them were regarding Abraham and his offspring, later confirmed to Isaac and then to Jacob, it is important to understand that salvation would come from a particular seed of Abraham through this nation. This is not a promise to the nations but to Abraham. The nations were not required to believe this when God gave the promise to Abraham but Abraham was required to believe it.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

What did Abraham believe?

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 ¶ (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
I hope you can believe that the promise in this covenant that God would give the land to Abraham's physical seed and they would be a perpetual nation for ever just as literally as you have your other point.

Rather than Branch off the topic of Eph 1:1 and if it refers to jew and Gentile believersa as seperate; please keep further comments to that verse in particular. Answer the other comments in the previous thread where they were brought up.
Thanks.

I am sorry, I do not understand your request here.

 

[Notrash]

<clipped off topic; although enticing to debate statements and commentary>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notrash;
Rather than Branch off the topic of Eph 1:1 and if it refers to jew and Gentile believersa as seperate; please keep further comments to that verse in particular. Answer the other comments in the previous thread where they were brought up.
Thanks.

I am sorry, I do not understand your request here.

Then you would not refer to "the saints" as jewish converts and the faithful in Christ Jesus as Gentile converts in Eph 1:1?

But would you think that Paul is addressing Gentile converts in Ephesus as 'the saints" and gentile converts throughout the rest of the world as " the faithful in Christ Jesus". ?

Or would you agree that as Todd has outlined, that the phrase "the faithful in Christ Jesus" is refering to the saints whom Paul is addressing in Ephesus. ?

 

[JDS]

<clipped off topic; although enticing to debate statements and commentary>


Then you would not refer to "the saints" as jewish converts and the faithful in Christ Jesus as Gentile converts in Eph 1:1?

But would you think that Paul is addressing Gentile converts in Ephesus as 'the saints" and gentile converts throughout the rest of the world as " the faithful in Christ Jesus". ?

Or would you agree that as Todd has outlined, that the phrase "the faithful in Christ Jesus" is refering to the saints whom Paul is addressing in Ephesus. ?

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Why in the world is this a mystery? He is addressing the saints in Ephesus, but that is not all. He is also addressing the faithful in Christ Jesus. He did not say "the saints in Ephesus, who are the faithful in Christ Jesus".

I will quote what someone wrote to me one time. You may know him.

"It's important to not read into the passage what it does not say, just as attempting to understand what it does say."

I can see this discussion getting silly. Lets move on or I am out.

 

[BereanTodd]

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Why in the world is this a mystery? He is addressing the saints in Ephesus, but that is not all. He is also addressing the faithful in Christ Jesus. He did not say "the saints in Ephesus, who are the faithful in Christ Jesus".

I will quote what someone wrote to me one time. You may know him.

"It's important to not read into the passage what it does not say, just as attempting to understand what it does say."

I can see this discussion getting silly. Lets move on or I am out.

JDS, I am a dispensationalist, and a staunch one, but please refer to my post (#2) in this thread. There is not more than one group being addressed in Eph 1:1, it is one and only one group. Accepting this does no dammage to the dispensational views or theology overall, it merely means that in this particular instance Paul is referring to one and only one group.

 

[Notrash]

I don't really understand your point here and don't see where we disagree.



There can be no doubt that he is adressing an alienation between the two that lasted for as long as the Law of Moses was the operative principle of God's dealing with Israel.



Here is a very important point that you must live with if you are going to discourse with me. I accept the KJV as the only reliable English translation of Scripture. It is important from the standpoint that God has preserved his truth in WORDS. He says so in 1 Co 2 and Jn 12. Thoughts are conveyed through words and no one can convince me that 100 translations with enough different words to warrant copyrights can possibly say and mean the same things. If you want to believe they can, by all means knock yourself out, but I will take a pass. Therefore, when I quote the KJV, I am quoting the words that the Holy Spirit uses to teach truth as far as I am concerned. If other gods cannot get it right in 100 translations and a few paraphrases, I don't think I really need to know much more about them.

Well I apreciate the emphasis of the KJV in its usage of the Majority text, but I dont' at all hold that the KJV tranlation in itself is God breathed. The KJV was after all a re-translation of (was it?) the Geneva Bible or the Bishops bible. I also, like you, feel that other translations who use the Hort/Wescott texts and rely on human methods to determine which texts should be included are erroneous in some points.

I expected this Inspired KJV perspective from you due to your reverence of specific words such as "dispensation" and other words that only occur in the KJV.

Although I support the KJV also, I research the greek and Hebrew to help determine if there are possible errors of interpretation or period phrases that the KJV translators would have used, but that have different connotations from the original Languages.

1 Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man&#8217;s wisdom teacheth, but (words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

This is a good verse, but it does not refer to the KJV, it refers to the OT and the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The canon wasn't completed by the time of the writing of 1st corinthians, let alone the translation of the KJV.

Take note that the verse does not say, "not the words which man's wisdom teaches, but the words which the Holy Spirit teaches through the King James Version.

Words and ideas that would be spirtual would be exemplified by the word "propitiation"; atonement, etc.

The KJV writers choice of the word 'dispensation' in some instances and administration in other instances leaves some questions.

What is interesting is that Scofield used and consulted with Hort/Westcott and used their new testament even interjecting many notes into the footnotes that support the H/W version.

But, to answer your point, lets assume from the context that he means they were in the predicament described "in time past" meant all the time while the Law of Moses was in effect until it was done away and they were actually invited to be partakers in covenant (New Covenant) relations along with the Jews. The historical book, Acts, says it was in chapter 10 which my study reveals was about AD 40.

It is my view that there is no understanding Christianity, or the Scriptures for that matter, without some knowledge of the covenants. God does everything according to his covenant promises. That is why I am a dispensationalist.



I have read many of your comments and I am not sure I believe that statement.





This was a national promise but I am glad to see you looking at the covenant that literally. I think it is important to do so. I also think it is important to have a single hermeneutic relative to any passage. Therefore considering that the Abrahamic Covenant had 12 stipulations and all of them were regarding Abraham and his offspring, later confirmed to Isaac and then to Jacob, it is important to understand that salvation would come from a particular seed of Abraham through this nation. This is not a promise to the nations but to Abraham. The nations were not required to believe this when God gave the promise to Abraham but Abraham was required to believe it.

In refering to it in Gal 3:8, Paul imply's that it was a covenant to the nations through the single seed (Christ) of Jesus. Over and over Paul says that it is not the physical seed that inheirits the blessing, but the spiritual seed of faith. Yes, Isaac and Jacob were also called in Faith as was Joseph etc..etc..but "all Israel is not "OF" Israel".

Was Abraham the first Jew? Is there a difference between Jew and Israelite? When were the Israelites first called "a people"? (answer: not before their crossing of the Jordan and leaving the wilderness).

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

What did Abraham believe?

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 ¶ (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara&#8217;s womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.


I hope you can believe that the promise in this covenant that God would give the land to Abraham's physical seed and they would be a perpetual nation for ever just as literally as you have your other point.

If God promised that they would be a PERPETUAL NATION for ever, through these promises, then obviously that promise had failed for the last 1900 years. The jews and Isreal was not a nation for at least that time period. If your refering to the genetic lineage being perpetual, then it would be pretty obvious that the jewish seed of one form or another has continued on past the desolation of Jerusalem and the end of geneological records. But that seed has been intermingled through the ages.

If the promise to Abraham was to his physical seed and that promise was a perpetual "for ever" promise... then from the time of Joshua through the present day, that land should not have left the possession of those descendants. But Paul instructs us in these questions saying:

Gal 3:16: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And other scriptures in Romans 9, Romans 3-5, Gal 3,4 that have been mentioned before. Thus, no, I cannot see the interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant that promises a perpetual physical land to physical descendants of Abraham through Sara (whomever they may be)

 

[JDS]

JDS, I am a dispensationalist, and a staunch one, but please refer to my post (#2) in this thread. There is not more than one group being addressed in Eph 1:1, it is one and only one group. Accepting this does no dammage to the dispensational views or theology overall, it merely means that in this particular instance Paul is referring to one and only one group.

I do not think so unless you are saying the church is being addressed which is composed of all believers, Jews and gentiles. I might accept that broad designation but the letter was addressed to the church at Ephesus. The church was a gentile church and Paul designated it as such. Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

He ends the letter thusly: Eph 6:23 Peace [be] to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.

So then, I conclude it is addressed to the Ephesian church primarily but is intended for instruction for all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ during the whole church age and that is also the faithful in Christ Jesus.

This letter reveals the eternal purposes of those "in Christ", the church. It must be explained or we could never understand it because it was a mystery and hidden from former generations.

Could we know these things if he had not revealed them?

Could we have learned them some way?

 

[JDS]

Well I apreciate the emphasis of the KJV in its usage of the Majority text, but I dont' at all hold that the KJV tranlation in itself is God breathed. The KJV was after all a re-translation of (was it?) the Geneva Bible or the Bishops bible. I also, like you, feel that other translations who use the Hort/Wescott texts and rely on human methods to determine which texts should be included are erroneous in some points.

I expected this Inspired KJV perspective from you due to your reverence of specific words such as "dispensation" and other words that only occur in the KJV.

Although I support the KJV also, I research the greek and Hebrew to help determine if there are possible errors of interpretation or period phrases that the KJV translators would have used, but that have different connotations from the original Languages.

You surely missed my point and actually misrepresented it. I did not say I believe the KJV to be inspired. Here is what I said;
"I accept the KJV as the only reliable English translation of Scripture." You may note that I said it is a translation. I also said it is the only reliable translation in English. That means that I will accept that God has the power and authority to give us a translation in which he has chosen the words that will be used to convey his thoughts to us. You say he hasn't and it is of so little importance that he has chosen men in the last couple hundred years to translate it 100 times using different words each time. I am sorry, but leaving such important truths up to the whims of men is not how I think God has revealed himself. If you do, it is fine with me.

You also made this incredible statement:

"Although I support the KJV also, I research the greek and Hebrew to help determine if there are possible errors of interpretation or period phrases that the KJV translators would have used, but that have different connotations from the original Languages."

Errors of interpretation??? How would you know that? It is a translation, not a commentary!!!

I too research the words from the Hebrew and Greek but not for correction purposes but so as to gain a better understanding of the meaning in those languages and to attempt to determine why God chose the particular English word to translate it. I also look for consistency which I always find.

This is a good verse, but it does not refer to the KJV, it refers to the OT and the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The canon wasn't completed by the time of the writing of 1st corinthians, let alone the translation of the KJV.

You were responding to my reference of 1 Co 12,13.

I nowhere said 1 Co 2:12,13 is referring to the KJV. I pointed out that God's thoughts are conveyed to us by revelation through WORDS and ones the Holy Spirit has chosen. That is a truth whether speaking of OT or NT words. It must refer to all of them if the words are his revelation of himself to us. They are his thoughts. In 1 Co 2 he is speaking specifically about the "mystery" which is the church of Jesus Christ composed of Jews and gentiles. (We learn later).

Take note that the verse does not say, "not the words which man's wisdom teaches, but the words which the Holy Spirit teaches through the King James Version.

What about this;

"but the words which the Holy Spirit teaches through English."

Words and ideas that would be spirtual would be exemplified by the word "propitiation"; atonement, etc.

I am sorry, I do not understand this point.

The KJV writers choice of the word 'dispensation' in some instances and administration in other instances leaves some questions.

This is very wrong. You would have a better understanding of this PRINCIPLE in Scripture if you had ever done any studying in the numbering framework of the Bible. And it is a principle indeed. I have proven that to myself through study.

I will not deal with it here but very briefly. the word "dispensation" and the word "stewardship" is translated from the Greek word "oikonomia". It is used 7 times in Scripture and 7 is the established number for complete things in the economy of God. No one disagrees with that. This word is used 3 time in the gospel accounts and each time is translated with the English word "stewardship". It is used 4 times in the Pauline epistles and is always translated with the English word "dispensation". The number 7 in Scripture when it is divided is always divided into 3 and 4 as is this case or 4 and 3. I could give many instances of this and it would illustrate Gods consistency in his numbers. An instance of 4 and 3 is 4000 years of human history before the cross and 3 thousand years after the cross. Consider the 7 churches of Asia in Re 2 and 3. In Chapter 2 he deals with 4 churches, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, and Thyatira. Then in chapter 3, he deals with Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.

What is interesting is that Scofield used and consulted with Hort/Westcott and used their new testament even interjecting many notes into the footnotes that support the H/W version.

And I should care about this? Why?

In refering to it in Gal 3:8, Paul imply's that it was a covenant to the nations through the single seed (Christ) of Jesus. Over and over Paul says that it is not the physical seed that inheirits the blessing, but the spiritual seed of faith. Yes, Isaac and Jacob were also called in Faith as was Joseph etc..etc..but "all Israel is not "OF" Israel".

Was Abraham the first Jew? Is there a difference between Jew and Israelite? When were the Israelites first called "a people"? (answer: not before their crossing of the Jordan and leaving the wilderness).

The contrast in the chapter is between the works of the law and the hearing of faith. Abraham is set forth as the example of the blessings coming by faith, not by works. The Spirit is given to those who believe as did Abraham. In that way they have the faith of Abraham although they believed different things to be justified and received the Spirit that Abraham never received. Their faith made them the children of Abraham and the Spirit they received made them children of God. Even the children of Abraham concerning the flesh must have the Spirit to be the children of God.
Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not THE CHILDREN OF GOD: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Now this is speaking only of the time period in which we are currently living. This letter was written in 58 AD, long after the church had been established and during the time God is forming his church by giving believers his Spirit which at once gives them the new birth and immerses them into the body he is forming called the body of Christ. No one before the cross had the indwelling Holy Spirit in regeneration and no one after the church will be so blessed, with the exception of Israel.
This in no way suggests there is no longer a physical Israel with whom God will keep his covenants he has made with them.

Concerning the term Jew. If God uses the term Jew as a designation for israel, I can too.

If God promised that they would be a PERPETUAL NATION for ever, through these promises, then obviously that promise had failed for the last 1900 years. The jews and Isreal was not a nation for at least that time period. If your refering to the genetic lineage being perpetual, then it would be pretty obvious that the jewish seed of one form or another has continued on past the desolation of Jerusalem and the end of geneological records. But that seed has been intermingled through the ages.

If the promise to Abraham was to his physical seed and that promise was a perpetual "for ever" promise... then from the time of Joshua through the present day, that land should not have left the possession of those descendants. But Paul instructs us in these questions saying:

Gal 3:16: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And other scriptures in Romans 9, Romans 3-5, Gal 3,4 that have been mentioned before. Thus, no, I cannot see the interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant that promises a perpetual physical land to physical descendants of Abraham through Sara (whomever they may be)

Now, Notrash, I will not permit a double hermeneutic for the same passage like you are trying to get away with in the Abrahamic covenant. If you are wanting a literal seed in the blessing of the nations, the remainder of the covenant will have to be literal. I am going to call you on this every single time!

Try commentary on this again and try to do better!

 

[Notrash]

You surely missed my point and actually misrepresented it. I did not say I believe the KJV to be inspired. <clip> I also said it is the only reliable translation in English. That means that I will accept that God has the power and authority to give us a translation in which he has chosen the words that will be used to convey his thoughts to us.
You also made this incredible statement:

"Although I support the KJV also, I research the greek and Hebrew to help determine if there are possible errors of interpretation or period phrases that the KJV translators would have used, but that have different connotations from the original Languages."

Errors of interpretation??? How would you know that? It is a translation, not a commentary!!!

Let me rephrase that as 'errors of translation due possibly to subjective interpretations and perspectives".
Although it is a translation, the translators were also subject to perspectives and interpretations that varied even from each other. Thus the choice of some words could have been as influential as a commentary, just as they are in other translations. Again remember that the KJV was a retranslation of the Bishops Bible and was said to be the Geneva Bible without sidenotes. The KJV was to take the Church of Englands' position on the church.

From Wikipedia:
King James gave the translators instructions, which were designed to discourage polemical notes, and to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.






King James' instructions included requirements that:

1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit....
2. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.
3. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith....
4. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
5. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another....
6. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz. Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible. (Influence from Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douai-Rheims Bible can also be detected, but the Douai Old Testament was published too late to have any effect.

I too research the words from the Hebrew and Greek but not for correction purposes but so as to gain a better understanding of the meaning in those languages and to attempt to determine why God chose the particular English word to translate it. I also look for consistency which I always find.​

Did God choose the particular word, or did men choose some of them? Why are their differences in the KJV from Tyndale? etc etc. Why does Tyndale render a word meaning assembly; "ecclesia" and the KJV renders it "church". Answer: Because the KJV was to support the institutionary church of England. This is just a minor example of the idea of subjective choices of words, how they influence peoples thinking and their presence in even the KJV translation.

What about this;

"but the words which the Holy Spirit teaches through English."

This is simply re-stating the the Holy Spirit has spoken in the English language only through the King James Version.?? Through this comment above and the comment "a translation in which he has chosen the words that will be used to convey his thoughts to us.", it appears that although you deny in words the KJV inspiration and infallibility, (I did not say I believe the KJV to be inspired.) in practice, belief and in statements, you uphold that very idea. [/quote]

I will not deal with it here but very briefly. the word "dispensation" and the word "stewardship" is translated from the Greek word "oikonomia". It is used 7 times in Scripture and 7 is the established number for complete things in the economy of God. No one disagrees with that. This word is used 3 time in the gospel accounts and each time is translated with the English word "stewardship". It is used 4 times in the Pauline epistles and is always translated with the English word "dispensation". The number 7 in Scripture when it is divided is always divided into 3 and 4 as is this case or 4 and 3. I could give many instances of this and it would illustrate Gods consistency in his numbers. An instance of 4 and 3 is 4000 years of human history before the cross and 3 thousand years after the cross. Consider the 7 churches of Asia in Re 2 and 3. In Chapter 2 he deals with 4 churches, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, and Thyatira. Then in chapter 3, he deals with Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.

If what your saying had any substance, the word oikonomia would have had a different word or tense or associated adjective in the Gospels as compared with in the Epistles in the original languages and not just in some of the translations. But making this emphasis, your actually putting the KJV on pedestal above the original languages.

This idea of dividing 7 as 4 and 3 with reference to oikonomia has no support in the original languages and I personally put little emphasis other than a passing consideration on its being used 7 times in the NT.

Again, not all translations translate it 'dispensation", but some translate it "administration'.

One then needs to find a 1550 Websters and other English dictionaries to determine the meaning of the word 'dispensation' as the English translators intended it's readers to understand. Most importantly, one needs to find a koinia greek dictionary from about 50 bc to 50 AD to obtain the correct translation of 'oikonomia'.

http://www.godseconomy.org/definition/index.html

Most people, including many Christians, are unfamiliar with the application of the word economy in relation to God. Economy is the anglicized form of the Greek word oikonomia, which occurs throughout the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:4; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; 3:9; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Colossians 1:25). Oikonomia is a compound of two nouns:
oikos, which means house, and nomos, which means law.
Hence, economy denotes a household administration, management, or arrangement.
More generally, an economy is a plan to carry out a certain purpose. Webster&#8217;s New Collegiate Dictionary offers the following definition of economy:
6. Theol. a. The Creator&#8217;s plan;
the design of Providence. (emphases added)
God is like an immensely wealthy householder who desires to dispense His unsearchable riches (Ephesians 3:8) to all of His people, the members of His household. However, to accomplish this enormous task He needs a plan, an arrangement, an economy.

 

[Notrash]

This letter reveals the eternal purposes of those "in Christ", the church. It must be explained or we could never understand it because it was a mystery and hidden from former generations.

In your above statement, you refer to Eph 3:5 which reads.

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Some dispys stop after the word men and infer that the mystery (That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel) was completely unknown to any other people before it was revealed to Paul. This is incorrect. The word AS, is a comparative word meaning "in the same manner" or to the same extent" that compares the depth or method of understanding between former peoples and the present day apostles and prophets. The phrase "as it is now" in the sentence does not mean "since" or "because" it has only now been revealed to his apostles adn prophets, but that it was not known in the same detail and understanding that it is now known.

Just wanted to make that point.

I believe the mystery was first revealed to the disciples when Jesus opened the scripture to them in Luke 24.
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, [fn8] and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The 'mystery' of salvation and promises in Christ woudl be available to people of all nations and a undivided body of Christ was also given to Paul directly through revelation and directly from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, just as it was given to the other disciples in Luke above.

Some dispy's inply that this was a message that Paul was the first to understand or even that he was the only one to understand it.