Pronoun use in the Epistles

[All Becomes New]

Hi.

I'd like to offer up a possible reading of the epistles in the NT and have it vetted by the community.

There are different pronouns used throughout the epistles. Examples of this are "You," "We," "Our," "I," etc.

This might shed some light on how we read the epistles to have an idea of a bigger picture of a doctrine in the Bible. Allow me to give a few examples.

I will first go to the, IMO, clearest example, found in Ephesians.

The pronoun usage in Ephesians 1:3-12 is "Us" and "We."
Then in verse 13 we read, "In Him you also" (emphasis mine).
So Paul is making a difference in groups between the "We" and "You."
So if that is all it was it would be nothing and just a way Paul talked.
But Paul tells us who the "Us" and "We" is in Ephesians 2:20 where it says, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets."
This tells us nothing. But in verse 2:22, we see the same exact phrasing, "In Him you also."
So Paul is connecting the "We" and "Us" in Ephesians 1:3-12 and Ephesians 2:20 and contrasting that with this second group, "You" in Ephesians 1:13 and Ephesians 2:22 respectively.
Alright, so what does this mean? Well, given Paul tells us the foundation is the "apostles and prophets" who is the "we" and "us" from Ephesians 1:3-12 we should keep in mind what it says in that passages.
One notable thing it says in Ephesians 1:3-12 is that "He made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he purposed in Christ," and that, "he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in love before him."
So the apostles and prophets were chosen "before the foundation of the world" and God "Made known the mystery of his will."

But maybe I am just being selective in seeing something in just one epistle?
I'd argue I can find this in nearly every epistle.
Take 1 Corinthians, for example.
In 1 Corinthians 1:3–15, 30; 2:1–3 the pronouns used are "you"
In 2 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 30; 2:6–7 the pronouns used are "we" and "us."
Notice where they are both present in 1 Corinthians 1:30 "It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption," (emphasis mine).
God became "wisdome from God" for "us" Paul says. Much like "made known to 'us' the mystery of his will," from Ephesians.

Here is another example from 1 John.
In 1 John 1:1-10 the pronouns that are used are "us" and "we" (mostly). Take note of the beginning where it says, "what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us."

Are you getting the picture yet?
Do I need to go on?
I can do this same thing for nearly every epistle.

So the question is, how does this affect the kingdom of heaven?
My understanding is that this demonstrates that the kingdom of heaven, here on earth, works more or less as a hierarchy. But the catch is that those at the top are people who God has revealed some mystery to.
Now, some might say, "Oh, yes, that would be the apostolic traditions!" But I am not inclined to agree. Why? Because in apostolic traditions it is based on the "laying on of hands" or put to a vote rather than a "mystery revealed."
So then the Potestants who believe in Sola Scriptura will say, "See, special revelation has ceased!" I'm not inclined to agree with them either. Why? I will give you one reason.
"And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness." (Ephesians 4:11–13) (emphasis mine). The italics clearly has not happened yet. As such, if pastors are still around today, as well as teachers, as well as evangelists, then there is no reason to rule out "apostles and prophets."

I hope you can see where I am coming from. But if you can't, could you please show me where I am wrong?

Thank you.

 

[Clare73]

Hi.

I'd like to offer up a possible reading of the epistles in the NT and have it vetted by the community.

There are different pronouns used throughout the epistles. Examples of this are "You," "We," "Our," "I," etc.

This might shed some light on how we read the epistles to have an idea of a bigger picture of a doctrine in the Bible. Allow me to give a few examples.

I will first go to the, IMO, clearest example, found in Ephesians.

The pronoun usage in Ephesians 1:3-12 is "Us" and "We."
Then in verse 13 we read, "In Him you also" (emphasis mine).
So Paul is making a difference in groups between the "We" and "You."
So if that is all it was it would be nothing and just a way Paul talked.
But Paul tells us who the "Us" and "We" is in Ephesians 2:20 where it says, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets."
This tells us nothing. But in verse 2:22, we see the same exact phrasing, "In Him you also."
So Paul is connecting the "We" and "Us" in Ephesians 1:3-12 and Ephesians 2:20 and contrasting that with this second group, "You" in Ephesians 1:13 and Ephesians 2:22 respectively.
Alright, so what does this mean? Well, given Paul tells us the foundation is the "apostles and prophets" who is the "we" and "us" from Ephesians 1:3-12 we should keep in mind what it says in that passages.
One notable thing it says in Ephesians 1:3-12 is that "He made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he purposed in Christ," and that, "he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in love before him."
So the apostles and prophets were chosen "before the foundation of the world" and God "Made known the mystery of his will."

But maybe I am just being selective in seeing something in just one epistle?
I'd argue I can find this in nearly every epistle.
Take 1 Corinthians, for example.
In 1 Corinthians 1:3–15, 30; 2:1–3 the pronouns used are "you"
In 2 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 30; 2:6–7 the pronouns used are "we" and "us."
Notice where they are both present in 1 Corinthians 1:30 "It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption," (emphasis mine).
God became "wisdome from God" for "us" Paul says. Much like "made known to 'us' the mystery of his will," from Ephesians.

Here is another example from 1 John.
In 1 John 1:1-10 the pronouns that are used are "us" and "we" (mostly). Take note of the beginning where it says, "what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us."

Are you getting the picture yet?
Do I need to go on?
I can do this same thing for nearly every epistle.

So the question is, how does this affect the kingdom of heaven?
My understanding is that this demonstrates that the kingdom of heaven, here on earth, works more or less as a hierarchy. But the catch is that those at the top are people who God has revealed some mystery to.
Now, some might say, "Oh, yes, that would be the apostolic traditions!" But I am not inclined to agree. Why? Because in apostolic traditions it is based on the "laying on of hands" or put to a vote rather than a "mystery revealed."
So then the Potestants who believe in Sola Scriptura will say, "See, special revelation has ceased!" I'm not inclined to agree with them either. Why? I will give you one reason.
"And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness." (Ephesians 4:11–13) (emphasis mine). The italics clearly has not happened yet. As such, if pastors are still around today, as well as teachers, as well as evangelists, then there is no reason to rule out "apostles and prophets."

I hope you can see where I am coming from. But if you can't, could you please show me where I am wrong?

Thank you.

The pronouns ,You," "We," "Our," "I," etc., refer to the born again.
The "heirarchy" is simply the distinction between the born again who are all in the kingdom of God now (Lk 11:20, Mt 12:28), and all others who are necessarily outside the kingdom of God.

 

[All Becomes New]

The pronouns ,You," "We," "Our," "I," etc., refer to the born again.

If that was the case, there would be no need to use the pronoun, "You."

It's not about whether they are born again. We all agree that it is talking about those who are born again.

 

[Clare73]

If that was the case, there would be no need to use the pronoun, "You."

It's not about whether they are born again. We all agree that it is talking about those who are born again.

There would be such need in the presentation of what "we, our, I" have in the gospel, and its particular application to "you."

Your distinction between first- and second-person pronouns in the NT allows for your creative eisegesis of a spiritual heirarchy in the body of Chritst, where those at the top have received special revelation of some mystery (= secret, simply a revelation not given before), but it does not allow for the fact that the NT presents at least five mysteries revealed to all Christians in the NT, not just those at "the top" of some proposed spiritual hierarchy in the body of Christ, when all the born again are sanctified by the same Holy Spirit.

 

[All Becomes New]

There would be such need in the presentation of what "we, our, I" have in the gospel, and its particular application to "you."

Your distinction between first- and second-person pronouns in the NT allows for your creative eisegesis of a spiritual heirarchy in the body of Chritst, where those at the top have received special revelation of some mystery (= secret, simply a revelation not given before), does not allow for the fact that the NT presents at least five mysteries revealed to all Christians in the NT, not just those at "the top" of some proposed spiritual hierarchy in the body of Christ, when all the born again are sanctified by the same Holy Spirit.

The mysteries were revealed to the prophets and apostles so that they could tell everyone else about them. That's how the rest of the Christians came to know about the mysteries.

 

[Clare73]

The mysteries were revealed to the prophets and apostles so that they could tell everyone else about them. That's how the rest of the Christians came to know about the mysteries.

Everything in Christianity was revealed, not just the five mysteries presented in the NT.

And of course the apostles enjoyed a higher position as teachers, but not in spiritual terms.

There are two groups of believers. Those who God ensures they will be saved (they are God's anointed: Romans 8:30) and those who become saved from a message or messenger (Romans 10:14).

There are no "annointed" in Ro 8:30. You are reading into the Scriptures (eisegesis) again.

And those of Ro 10:14 are the same as those of Ro 8:30, where Ro 10:14 describes the process of faith whereby those of Ro 8:30 are called, justified and glorified.

 

[All Becomes New]

Everything in Christianity was revealed, not just the five mysteries presented in the NT.

And of course the apostles enjoyed a higher position as teachers, but not in spiritual terms.

There are no "annointed" in Ro 8:30. You are reading into the Scriptures (eisegesis) again.

And those of Ro 10:14 are the same as those of Ro 8:30, where Ro 10:14 describes the process of faith whereby those of Ro 8:30 are called, justified and glorified.

Let me try and ask the question this way:
Do you believe that angels and demons operate in terms of hierarchical systems? In other words, do you think Michael the Archangel is on the same level as any other angel? If you do believe that these spiritual beings operate based on a hierarchy, then explain to me why the kingdom of God on earth doesn't.

I don't think you have actually delt with my exegesis from the OP. You started by asserting I am wrong and have not made any arguments on how my OP is wrong, only that it is.

 

[Clare73]

Let me try and ask the question this way:
Do you believe that angels and demons operate in terms of hierarchical systems? In other words, do you think Michael the Archangel is on the same level as any other angel? If you do believe that these spiritual beings operate based on a hierarchy, then explain to me why the kingdom of God on earth doesn't.

We not being angels, and Scripture presenting no such notion, you explain to me why it does.

I don't think you have actually delt with my exegesis from the OP. You started by asserting I am wrong and have not made any arguments on how my OP is wrong, only that it is.

Your OP is not exegesis, it is eisegesis.

Knowing the mysteries isn't a consistent measure for the superiority of the apostles unless all revelation makes them superior, for everything they revealed to us was unknown, not just the mysteries. Why single out the mysteries as the basis for "heirarchy" when all their revelation likewise qualifies.
It's an inconsistent measure.

And then, yes, I agree that they enjoy a higher position as teachers, but not in the spiritual realm.
NOWHERE is a superiority of the apostles in the spiritual realm presented in the NT.

The OP does not present a Biblical demonstration of your assertion, because there is none, leaving your assertion without Biblical merit.

There is no Biblical argument there for me to deal with.

 

[All Becomes New]

We not being angels, and Scripture presenting no such notion, you explain to me why it does.

Your OP does not present a Biblical demonstration of your assertion, leaving your assertion without Biblical merit.

Correct, we are not angels. But if the unseen realm has structure and order, why should we think this would doesn't? And I would assume you would actually agree with me that this world does function with structure and order. To demonstrate my point, I will ask you a question. Ready? Do you think you are under the authority of your pastor/elders? If you think that lay people are under the authority of pastors/elders, then our position is the same. The only difference is that I think it is God who chooses who is an authority rather than graduating from seminary.

And I'm not entirely sure you even understand my Biblical argument. So please repeat back to me what you think my argument is and we will go from there. My OP certainly does make an argument. You are either insisting that the points I have made do not allow me to draw the conclusion I have or, more likely, you dismiss it outright and think my conclusion cannot be true ipso facto. In either case, you need to show me where I am wrong.

 

[All Becomes New]

Knowing the mysteries isn't a consistent measure for the superiority of the apostles unless all revelation makes them superior, for everything they revealed to us was unknown, not just the mysteries.

How do you figure?

Why single out the mysteries as the basis for "heirarchy" when all their revelation likewise qualifies.

I'm not sure what you are asking. It's that things were revealed to them. That the mysteries had long been hidden have been revealed. That's the position I have.

We can see this all through the Bible, not just the NT. How about Abraham, or Moses, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel or Jonah, or take your pick.

 

[Clare73]

Correct, we are not angels. But if the unseen realm has structure and order, why should we think this would doesn't?

We have no Biblical warrant for your assumption regarding the earthly order.

And I would assume you would actually agree with me that this world does function with structure and order. To demonstrate my point, I will ask you a question. Ready? Do you think you are under the authority of your pastor/elders? If you think that lay people are under the authority of pastors/elders, then our position is the same. The only difference is that I think it is God who chooses who is an authority rather than graduating from seminary.

The pastors and elders are chosen by the assembly in Protestantism.

And I'm not entirely sure you even understand my Biblical argument. So please repeat back to me what you think my argument is and we will go from there. My OP certainly does make an argument. You are either insisting that the points I have made do not allow me to draw the conclusion I have or, more likely, you dismiss it outright and think my conclusion cannot be true ipso facto. In either case, you need to show me where I am wrong.

"And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness." (Ephesians 4:11–13) (emphasis mine). The italics clearly has not happened yet. As such, if pastors are still around today, as well as teachers, as well as evangelists, then there is no reason to rule out "apostles and prophets."

The basis of your assertion is that since we have not reached unity, etc. yet, then apostles and prophets are still around.

And that is based on the word "until," which has two meanings:
mechris = until (duration),
mechri = toward (purpose).

The word in Eph 4:13 is mechri, "for a purpose."

The meaning of Eph 4:13 is these ministries were given for a purpose, not given til the purpose was accomplished.

Your assertion being (grammatically) incorrect, its conclusion is likewise incorrect.

Ergo: there is no reason not to rule out apostles and prophets.


TheThe texgte
The textThet
oward a p

 

[All Becomes New]

We have no Biblical warrant for your assumption regarding the earthly order.

The pastors and elders are chosen by the assembly in Protestantism.

"And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness." (Ephesians 4:11–13) (emphasis mine). The italics clearly has not happened yet. As such, if pastors are still around today, as well as teachers, as well as evangelists, then there is no reason to rule out "apostles and prophets."

The basis of your assertion is that since we have not reached unity, etc. yet, then apostles and prophets are still around.

And that is based on the word "until," which has two meanings:
mechris = until (duration),
mechri = toward (purpose).

The word in Eph 4:13 is mechri, "for a purpose."

The meaning of Eph 4:13 is these ministries were given for a purpose, not given til the purpose was accomplished.

Your assertion being (grammatically) incorrect, its conclusion is likewise incorrect.

Ergo: there is no reason not to rule out apostles and prophets.


TheThe texgte
The textThet
oward a p

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. What is written in our English Bibles is in fact correct that the word does mean "Until."

Spoiler: μέχρι

(link not working. Trying this instead

 

[Clare73]

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. What is written in our English Bibles is in fact correct that the word does mean "Until."

Being a conjunction does not make it mean duration.

 

[All Becomes New]

Being a conjunction does not make it mean duration.

But that is what my lexicon says it is. Do you say you know better than the BDAG, which states, "2. marker of continuance in time up to a point, until"?

 

[All Becomes New]

We have no Biblical warrant for your assumption regarding the earthly order.

I mean, that's why I made a Biblical argument that we do.

The pastors and elders are chosen by the assembly in Protestantism.

Okay, I'm not sure how that helps your cause here. The Pope is chosen in a very similar manner.

 

[All Becomes New]

@tonychanyt, I would be interested in what you would have to say about my theory as I understand Biblical exegesis is something you concern yourself with.

 

[tonychanyt]

@tonychanyt, I would be interested in what you would have to say about my theory

Sure. What is your theory?

 

[All Becomes New]

Sure. What is your theory?

You can read the OP to see the details, but basically the theory is that God gives certain authority to people based on the degree of revelation they receive. There are many examples in the Bible (including Jesus).

One mistake people can make is that I am not saying there is an ontological difference between a person who has more authority compared to someone who has less. That is not the argument I am making. The argument I am making is that God, more or less, "hand picks" some people for a specific purpose (think of Apostle Paul, for example). Now, some might say, "That does not happen anymore," but I think there is clearly evidence that it does still happen today. For example, there are many people in Muslim countries that see a vision or dream of Christ and then end up getting saved and end up being some of the strongest believers there are.

I give my Biblical case for this in the OP, if you are interested.

 

[tonychanyt]

You can read the OP to see the details,

Where is the OP?

 

[All Becomes New]

Where is the OP?

OP = Original Post.