What is Distinct About the Theology of Ephesians?
Written by Benjamin L. Merkle |
Friday, September 2, 2022
The unity of the church is based on the sevenfold unity of one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:4–6). Such unity, however, does not mean uniformity since Christ has gifted each individual uniquely (Eph. 4:7–16). A diversity of leaders are given to the church so that every member will become mature and Christlike in how they think and how they live.
The Theology of Ephesians
In one sense, there is nothing distinct about the theology of Ephesians. It is a New Testament letter written by the apostle Paul that conforms to the message of the rest of the Bible—a message about how the God of the universe rescues sinners through the work of his Son, Jesus Christ. And yet, the book of Ephesians adds unique tones to the symphony of music that sounds forth from Scripture.
For its size (six chapters and 155 verses), Ephesians has had a profound impact on the life and theology of the church. Harold Hoehner declares, “The Letter to the Ephesians is one of the most influential documents in the Christian church.”1 But why has this small letter had such a big impact on the church? The answer, at least in part, is due to the depth and diversity of topics emphasized in the letter. Paul addresses topics such as the plan of God in salvation, union with Christ, walking according to the Spirit, the unity of the church, and spiritual warfare.
The Plan of God in Salvation
Although Paul explains God’s plan to redeem a people for himself elsewhere, Ephesians 1:3–14 is perhaps the most detailed passage in the Bible related to this topic. In this passage (which is one long sentence of 202 words in the original Greek), Paul speaks about election, redemption, adoption/inheritance, perseverance, and regeneration. Additionally, several aspects of God’s sovereign election are emphasized such as the threefold repetition of God’s purpose (Eph. 1:5, 9, 11) and the threefold repetition of “to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14), which demonstrates the significance of each member of the Trinity in relation to our salvation: God the Father (Eph. 1:3–6), the Son (Eph. 1:7–12), and the Spirit (Eph. 1:13–14). Paul also includes four key concepts which form the foundation or basis of our praise to God: he chose us (Eph. 1:4), he redeems us (Eph. 1:7), he provides us an inheritance (Eph. 1:11), and he seals us with his Spirit (Eph. 1:13). While meditating on God’s grace, Paul erupts with praises to his God. Paul is not merely stating that God is worthy of our praise. Rather, he is actually praising God for his glorious salvation—and in doing so inviting his readers to do the same.
Union with Christ
Although Paul references union with Christ nearly 200 times in his writings, about forty of those occurrences are found in Ephesians. This amounts to about twenty percent of all the uses in Paul’s epistles, although Ephesians contains less than seven percent of the Pauline content.2 Indeed, Ephesians 1 has the highest concentration of “in Christ” language in the letter, especially Ephesians 1:3–14 which has eleven occurrences. Every spiritual blessing that Christians possess is due to their relationship and union with Christ (Eph. 1:3). Specifically, we are chosen “in him” (Eph. 1:4), predestined “in him” (Eph. 1:5), blessed “in the beloved” (Eph. 1:6), redeemed “in him” (Eph. 1:7), united “in him” (Eph. 1:10), granted an inheritance “in him” (Eph. 1:11), and sealed with the Spirit “in him” (Eph. 1:13). The frequency of union with Christ language in Ephesians demonstrates that it is a central theme in this epistle. Although Paul’s theology cannot be reduced to union with Christ, union with Christ is often the Christological anchor that grounds his theology and ethic, and there’s no clearer place that this concept is demonstrated than Ephesians.
Walking according to the Spirit
Before Paul provides instructions for how believers are to live, he first reminds us of our former condition.
-
Is Nation Building Possible?
How did things in Afghanistan change so dramatically, seemingly overnight? How did a decades-long, frustrating stalemate become the greatest American foreign policy debacle in 50 years? A nation is left asking, “What went wrong?”
The most immediate explanation is the way the withdrawal was handled, from pulling out troops before evacuating citizens and allies, to abandoning the Bagram Air Base. These details and others are hard to explain.
A common, longer-view explanation is that the War in Afghanistan ultimately failed because the United States shifted focus from fighting terrorism to nation-building. Nation-building can be formally defined as “the process through which the boundaries of the modern state and those of the national community become congruent.” In practice, nation-building is far more complicated. Attempting to rebuild essential cultural and institutional elements of another country rarely goes well.
America’s view of nation-building tends to change. In defending his recent decisions, President Biden has spoken derisively of nation-building, even saying that it “never made sense” to him. Yet, that claim was fact-checked by the Washington Post: apparently, he was for it until he was against it.
Many condemn nation-building, not so much because it’s wrong as because it’s impossible. Cultures run too deep, they say, to change from the outside. No weapon or army is stronger than a people’s will to resist. Just consider Afghanistan (twice), Vietnam, or the collapse of European empires.
On the other hand, it’s also true that national borders can change, languages do shift, religions reform, and whole civilizations rise and fall. In recent years, powerhouses like Germany and Japan each went from global menace to responsible neighbor. India, Korea, Taiwan, Dubai, and Singapore have changed dramatically in just a few generations. Cultures do change. Not always and not easily, but they can and do change.
Read More -
Are People Basically Good?
The fall is not simply a question of rational deduction. It is a point of divine revelation. It refers to what we call original sin. Original sin does not refer primarily to the first or original sin committed by Adam and Eve. Original sin refers to the result of the first sin—the corruption of the human race. Original sin refers to the fallen condition in which we are born.
It is commonplace to hear the statement, “people are basically good.” Though it is admitted that no one is perfect, human wickedness is minimized. Yet if people are basically good, why is sin so universal?
It is often suggested that everybody sins because society has such a negative influence upon us. The problem is seen with our environment, not with our nature. This explanation for the universality of sin raises the question, how did society become corrupt in the first place? If people are born good or innocent, we would expect at least a percentage of them to remain good and sinless. We should be able to find societies that are not corrupt, where the environment has been conditioned by sinlessness rather than sinfulness. Yet the most dedicated-to-righteousness communes we can find still have provisions for dealing with the guilt of sin.
Since the fruit is universally corrupt we look for the root of the problem in the tree. Jesus indicated that a good tree does not produce corrupt fruit. The Bible clearly teaches that our original parents, Adam and Eve, fell in sin. Subsequently, every human being has been born with a sinful and corrupt nature. If the Bible didn’t explicitly teach this, we would have to deduce it rationally from the bare fact of the universality of sin.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Free Church General Assembly – Has the Free Church Plateaued?
The whole Western world is going through a civilisational moment – as for example the Roman Empire did at the time of Augustine, or Europe did at the time of the Reformation. Scotland is going through a civilisational moment. The question is whether the Free Church just goes with the tide; or seeks to turn it back and is overwhelmed; or learns to surf the cultural waves and seek a renewed Scotland, through a renewed church.
After my recent posts assessing the situation in the Church of Scotland, some have been keen to know how the Free Church is going. Not having been part of it for the past three years – and bearing in mind Thomas Chalmers statement “who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland” – I thought it would be interesting to take a fresh look at where the Free Church is going. I hope no one would be naïve enough to think that the Free Church is the answer for the dire needs of the Church in Scotland – but perhaps it could be part of the answer?
With the caveat that I was not at the General Assembly of the Free Church, and was only able to watch some of it online, nonetheless on the basis of that, reports of friends and written reports, it appears to me that there was much to give thanks for at the FC assembly. The motto of “a healthy gospel church for every community in Scotland’ is a fine aspiration.
One minister wrote: “I have loved this week. It’s been in person. There has been great fellowship. Friendships have been renewed & made. It’s been forward looking. There is a sense that the church of Jesus, the part of that of which we are, is in the hands of good people, by the grace of God. It’s been harmonious…I cherish our present unity of heart & purpose, our mutual respect, our love for each other. As Paul says: ‘let us strive to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace’.”
It was interesting to observe the new faces, increased diversity and general sense of unity. I found the Missions report of particular encouragement. What really struck me was a comment from Neil MacMillan suggesting that the Free Church had plateaued. There are areas where the church is growing – and it is now significantly engaging in church planting – but there are also areas of decline. Only the Seventh day Adventists and the Free Church of the denominations that were founded pre 1900 are growing in the UK today. See John Hayward’s fascinating research – https://churchmodel.org.uk/2022/05/15/growth-decline-and-extinction-of-uk-churches/
And yet this is not enough. There are some major areas which the Free Church needs to address immediately, if it is to move on from just maintaining itself, to being a major force for the Kingdom of Christ in Scotland. The Free Church will not survive by planting 30 new churches by 2030. Our vision should be much bigger than that. We need to plant new churches, revitalise old ones and even close some. We have to rethink our approach to education, the poor, the culture and other churches. Unless we engage with these issues, I suspect that the plateau will soon turn to decline.
Evangelism
Some of our growth is coming from other churches – especially the Church of Scotland. How many Free Church congregations are seeing growth through conversions – especially from ‘the world’? There is no use training lots of chiefs if there are no Indians.
Neil MacMillian pointed out that in his 12 years in Edinburgh there had been such a fundamental shift in the culture that Edinburgh looks different and sounds different. The question is what are we doing to reach the lost?
Read More
Related Posts:
