MSB Notes on Ephesians
Addressed to the church at Ephesus, capital of the Roman province of Asia.  Not all manuscripts mention Ephesus, so some believe the letter was an "encyclical" intended for all the churches in Asia Minor.

Most accept Paul as the author, and that the letter was written between 60-62 AD.  It is a "prison epistle" since Paul was a prisoner in Rome when he wrote it.  As seen in the Colossians notes, this letter, the letter to Colosse, and the letter to Philemon may have all been brought together by Tychicus directly from Paul in Rome.  MSB says the note at the beginning of Phillippians discusses in detail the city from which Paul wrote these letters.

Likely the gospel was brought to Ephesus by Priscilla and Aquila.  This is the home of the famous Temple of Artemis, or Diana.  We've seen much about this place in Acts.  It was a very important - huge - commercial center, ranked up there with Alexandria and Antioch.  Paul visits Ephesus on his third missionary journey and stays with them, teaching and preaching, for 3 years.  Then Timothy preached there for about a year and a half to counter false teaching - some from Hymenaeus and Alexander.  Because of these two, who were possibly elders, the church was plagued with "myths and endless genealogies".  Also asceticism was practiced to the point of forbidding some to marry and forbidding certain foods.  False teachers here were wrong, but they taught with confidence, leading to much speculation instead of the administration of God by faith.  30 years on, John would include the church at Ephesus as one of the seven churches, and tell them they had left their first love. 

As an outline, the first three chapters are theological, emphasizing NT doctrine.  The last three are practical and focus on Christian behavior. 

Chapter 1
A familiar introduction.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, [Eph 1:3 ESV]  Looked this up in the interlinear.  The definite article is there, before God.  It feels like heresy to ask, but is there a whole theology that surrounds the fact that God is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ?  I have seen this phrasing in many books.  This exact phrasing shows up 5 times.  Rom 15:6; 2Cor 1:3, 11:31; Eph 1:3, 1 Pet 1:3.  This is kind of an "aside" kind of question, and there is no comment in MSB about it at all.
2021 - It is also interesting that these blessings are "in the heavenly places".  This sort of compresses all of time into a point.  "has blessed", the past, "with blessing", the present, "in the heavenly places" where we will someday reside.  

2022 - "Father" is the Greek "pater".  It is just plain father.  It is about the relationship of The Father to The Son.  I think you have to see this as "independent" of each other.  This has to be true if Jesus made a choice to be crucified.  He had to be able to say no, but chose to go ahead.  To be submissive to the Father's plan, in full agreement, even at such a great cost to himself.  What is important is that we see this as about the relationship of Father to Son, not about the biology of Father and Son.  There is nothing here that references any kind of physical relationship.  God is spirit.  Spirits don't reproduce - the angels don't!  This just isn't what is in view.

This verse:
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, [Eph 1:4-5 ESV]
Unconditional election.  Paul was big on this.  How can anyone not be the way this is worded.  The MSB note on 1:4 has a whole long lists of references about "the doctrine of election".  Would be worth putting them all together in one place.  They start in Deuteronomy.
2021 - Interesting that the last two words of vs 4 are actually the first two words of vs 5.  At least according to the ESV and the NASB.  In the KJV, NKJV, and the ASV, there is a period in vs 4 AFTER the word love.  In those it reads "...we should be holy and blameless before him in love."  So are we the ones who love Him, or is - as the ESV implies - His love for us that is in view.  Seems like another trivial question that I have this morning.  I keep going down rabbit trails with 6 chapters to read...The depth of this passage is found in its use as a proof text for what many call "predestination", what Calvin called Unconditional Election.  It is most certainly about election and the time of election.  The unconditional part is implied in that we were chosen by God before we had done anything at all to deserve that election.  We never do deserve it, and the timing of God's choice highlights that part.  If I was going to argue this, I would say that God also knew what our every action would be even before he started creating the world - since His will is determinative - and so He elected only those He knew would make the right choice about Him.  In fact...you don't even have to make his will determinative, you can just say He knows beforehand who will choose Him.  And He does know that, He must know that, or He is no longer omniscient.  So we have election, irresistible grace, and then to all that, we add adoption.

2022 - I can see vs 4 as being about God's plan for the redemption of man without being specific as to individual cases.  I can see making the argument - if I am Armenian - that this is not even about limited vs unlimited atonement but the foresight and plan of God for all history.  In fact, this goes on al the way through vs 10.  Surely vs 10 implies that the whole long sentence is about God's eternal plan for mankind through Christ to bring all created things - corrupt man and corrupt planet - back into harmony with Him.
2022 - I might even go further and say that vs 11 shows that Paul is speaking of his experience separately from the experience of the saved in Ephesus.  The "we" in vs 11 could be understood as referencing the apostles - Paul and the 12 - and not rank and file Christians.  We see him make this contrast in vs 12, where he says "we who were the first", and vs 13 where he says "you also".  You can take it generically, but you can also "divide" it to specifically referencing predestination of the apostles as the first proclaimers with the position of the first hearers.  I don't think it means this...but how do you argue against it?

2022 - Observations - vss 7-10 are a single sentence.  Vss 15-21 are a single sentence.  It is very very long.  Maybe some kind of record!

In vs 7, through Jesus we have redemption through his blood and forgiveness of our trespasses.  Two very different things.  Debt paid, sins forgiven.  So justice was done, because God is just, and then the "bill" was wiped clean.  God does not remember our sins.  BUT, MSB says otherwise.  Says the word used for redemption is the word that relates to "paying the required ransom" to God for the release of a person from bondage.  MSB goes on to say that Christ's sacrifice paid that price for every elect person enslaved by sin...that is a statement of limited atonement.  We were the slaves, and the saved are bought out of iniquity.  The price was death, Jesus paid it.  2021 - Unlike the conviction of a thief, who must still repay what he stole, unlike today's US version of justice where the convicted must make some sort of monetary reparations for damage done and so on, Jesus served the required sentence for the crime - death on the cross - and also paid the agreed on "settlement" that was required by the (victim does not seem like a good word to use here, nor does injured party, nor does the one harmed by the crime, yet each of these is true in its own way.  2023 - the one offended works.) one against whom the crime was perpetrated.  The way to see this, maybe, is that if our house is broken into, we suffer loss of material things, but we ourselves are likely not personally harmed.  Our sins against God can only be "property crimes".  We can never "harm" God by our actions.  2023 - Terrible analogy.  Property crimes are not capital crimes.

As to the forgiveness of sin, MSB says redemption brings limitless grace and forgiveness.  It also brings divinely bestowed understanding.  

This verse:
9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ [Eph 1:9 ESV]
Paul again uses this word, separating the supernatural will, predetermination, justice, and forbearance of God from "natural", man-determined arguments.  If this is truly the order that these letters were written, then we say yesterday, in Colossians, and in fact all the way back to Romans, that Paul's strategy for defeating the skilled rhetorician's arguments is to say that God's work is a mystery - not a traceable, logical, completely discoverable sequence within the grasp of man's intellect.

2023 - I think there is a bigger point in verse 9.  "making known to us the mystery of his will" is another way of saying "divine revelation".  The "us" to whom Paul refers is himself.  He is not saying that all Christians receive divine revelation.  Now, what is to say that he isn't referencing the gospel itself, which we could think of as mysterious throughout the OT times, only to be revealed to all in the NT?  And I think the answer to that is in this verse, where we change from we/us/our to YOU:  13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, [Eph 1:13 ESV].  For Paul, the mystery was "made known" but the Ephesians "heard" the mystery.  This equates "the mystery of his will" with "the word of truth, the gospel".  I would need to look up all uses of mystery and make sure this equivalence holds up.  BUT, at this time, I am convinced that verses 3-12 are Paul speaking of HIMSELF, and then in 13 he talks about what he has in common with the hearers.   What are the implications of looking at it this way?
1. The blessings in the heavenly places go to Paul, not to the hearers.
2. Paul was chosen before the foundation of the world.
3. Paul is to be adopted as a son.
4. Paul is blessed in the Beloved. (what does that even mean.  I've never noticed that before..)
Hmm...I notice that vs 7 changes from US to WE.  What is included there?
1. We have redemption through his blood
2. We have the forgiveness of our trespasses.
And then in vs 9 we go back to "us" for the revelation of the mystery of his will.  And then in 11, it is again about "we".
I worry that I am making too much of this.  If I was Arminian, though, I would point out that the whole predestination idea might be about the apostles or the writers of the scriptures in general, but NOT about every person in every time.  And therefore, the responsibility for saying yes to salvation is up to US, rather than being some irresistible requirement of God.  I would only go there if I was an Armenian.  The differentiation between "us" and "we" is real, not just a matter of which one "flows" the best in the translation.  They ARE different words.  I think Paul is contrasting himself and his experience of salvation by the direct action of the Son on the road to Damascus, with that of those who receive salvation by hearing and believing.  

This verse:
10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. [Eph 1:10 ESV]
The wedding feast perhaps, where all will be together at the marriage supper of the Lamb.
2021 - No, more than that.  ALL things.  The earth itself and all that God ever created - even to the angels - will be one in Christ, as it was ever meant to be, and in fact was so at the very beginning.

vs. 11 repeats the theme of predestination.  

2021 - Remember too that this is all by way of introduction to the book.  Perhaps it would have been better to read through this introduction, understand it as opening remarks, and then look to the body of the letter - or at least to the three theological chapters - for the explanation, expansion, amplification of the general principles now laid out.

I was afraid of this...every single verse needs it's own paragraph of explanation.  (Same thing happened in 2021.)  Even so, these two verses:
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. [Eph 1:13-14 ESV]
Sealed with the Holy Spirit.  Sealed.  Seals can't be broken except by a higher power.  There is no higher power than God.  The seal is a guarantee - not a conditional covenant.  Once sealed, we are forever sealed.  2023 - And so we add perseverance of the saints to this first chapter also.  That's three of the five.

Later, 2022 - In these first 14 verses we need to pay a lot of attention to the pronouns, because there are a number of implications here that never occurred to me before.  (The point is made again, and I think even more clearly, in Eph. 3:5.  I think this whole pronoun idea is corroborated there.).  Here is how I'm seeing it...Vs 1, 2 Paul established that the letter is from him.  From Paul.  Only from Paul.  Vs 2 tells whom he is addressing.  Then beginning in vs 3, we find the pronoun "us".  Ask yourself who "us" might be?  The letter is only from Paul.  He didn't mention any others that were with him as he often does, but only himself.  So let's assume that Paul is using "us" to refer to himself in the plural.  A lot of people do that.  "We are not amused" comes to mind.  He uses "us" six times, "we" four times, and "our" once in vss 3-12.  Always, the pronoun is plural.  Then in vs 13, we find this phrase:  "In him you also...".  Paul is contrasting the plural pronouns with "you", which is also plural, but is clearly a switch from talking about "we/us/our" to "you guys".  Paul seems to be contrasting his experience of receiving the gospel and salvation to that of those to whom he writes.  Paul is much more elaborate about the implications of his salvation than he goes into about the salvation of the Ephesians.  And then in vs 14, he uses "our" again, this time in a very inclusive sense, to say that the Ephesians received the Holy Spirit JUST AS PAUL did, and that they all together stand to receive an inheritance some day.  My point is that Paul is separating himself from the rank and file Ephesians based on his revelation (as in Eph 3:3)- not on intense reading and study but revelation.  The Ephesians, on the other hand, only know about these things because Paul and certain chosen prophets of the time have told them what God revealed to them.  See more in Chapter 3...

Then we get Paul's familiar recounting of his prayers for the recipients of the letter, conveying his love and care for them in prayer, even while he is away.  They are out of sight but not out of mind.  In this case, he prays that they be given the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him.  Probably should be a capital H there.  That Paul prays this for them indicates that he thinks they are lacking, that they need more of this.  They were being led astray by false teachers.  Paul wants them to be wise as to what is true and what is not.  Remember that this was before the NT, and before these letters were considered scripture at all.  Paul is a "former pastor" urging this flock to mature in their learning and knowledge.  Why don't preachers do that today?  

2021 - vs 17 again uses the phrase "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ".  This has to be important.  This has to be trinitarian.  It must be understood positionally, not hierarchically.  No...not positional...but wrt the role played by each in the plan of the One God.  Jesus submitted.  Jesus prayed to God.  As examples.  Can we understand this "dialogue" as a way for God to reveal His will to man, to show us how He also will reveal His will for our own lives to us?    Look  at the whole of vs 17:
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, [Eph 1:17 ESV]  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all together, named separately, in a single verse.  

Paul makes much of the work and position of Christ starting in vs 20.  God raised Christ from the dead, seated him at His right hand, far above any rule, authority, power, and dominion - we are likely talking about the spheres of demonic power on earth being placed under him - for this time and all eternity to come.  Christ has all under his feet, and is head of the church - his body.  The phrase "until he makes his enemies his footstool" comes to mind.  This might be a good study.  In fact, this whole paragraph would be a good study.  TCR has a ton of lines to be followed.  Make this a priority.  (2021 - Still haven't even attempted this.)(Nor in 2022 either..., and not in 2023.).

Chapter 2
2021 - I have to speed up some...
2021-2, Long morning on Isa 7,8.  Looks like somewhere I found time to do notes on Eph. 2, so I will read through it pretty fast again this time.

Paul reminds the Ephesians of their former condition - dead in trespasses and sins.  Followers of the prince of the power of the air, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind.  Children of wrath - that is, destined for wrath.  He includes himself with them in this saying "among whom we all once lived".  
2021-2, Vss 1-3 are a single, very long sentence.

The concept of our being "in Christ" and so vicarious participants with him of all that he has done, shows up here again.  In Colossians we were shown to be circumcised because Christ is circumcised, raised to a new life - made new - as he was when he rose from the dead.  Now, in Ephesians, since Christ is seated next to God in the heavenlies, we too are seated there.  We are where Christ is, we are what Christ is in God's sight.  Think of the implications!  What can Christ not ask the Father?  When we ask it is Jesus asking!  This is that same theme.  In Christ is another good study.
2023 - I have remained convinced that this term "in Christ" is profoundly important to understand.  It is treated in great depth in Grudem's Systematic Theology Chapter 43.  See the notes there for confirmation of how important is this little phrase - "in Christ".

Grace.  By grace you have been saved.  Nothing we did accomplished it because it was done before the foundation of the world.  A gift not a paycheck!

2022 - We did nothing to earn salvation in the first place, yet we are in the heavenlies with Christ.  Why in the world would we have to pay the rent of good works to remain there when it was a gift in the first place?  You don't continue to pay for what someone gives you as a gift!

2022 - This verse:
12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [Eph 2:12 ESV].  As I read it, this says that Gentiles, prior to the New Covenant - and that is a LOT of Gentiles - were only very rarely saved, and that was if they adopted the Law as practiced by the Jews.  God wasn't saving Gentiles at that time, because the Law was the way.  All those pre-history Gentiles went to hell, despite the revelation of God in the stars, because they didn't have the Law, they were not circumcised BY HANDS to show they physically belonged to God, and they did not know Jesus, even in prophecy.  What it comes down to is that they went to hell.  This says a lot about dispensationalism also, I believe.  The dispensation of the Law meant that only through the Law - with its physical requirements - could one come to saving knowledge.  Under the NC, all can do so.

2023 - If God dealt with Israel and everyone else as two separate groups then, why would we not expect him to deal separately in the rest of history?  Jew and Gentile are the cultivated vine meant to produce cultured grapes and the wild vine that produces wild grapes.  They are the cultivated olive and the grafted in olive.

This verse I added in 2021:
7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. [Eph 2:7 ESV]  Where is God in the 21st century?  How can He be here with all the things that are happening?  Look to the kindness he shows toward those who are saved.  Look to the prayers He answers, the directions He leads, the comprehended purpose in the lives of His own.  How much peace, comfort, and serenity do His people have at which the world can only grasp and invent counterfeits?  He is here for His own, and lavishes blessings on us that we could never earn, never deserved, and in fact never even fully appreciate.  This is where you look for God!  In HIS people, not in the lives of the children of wrath, who serve still the prince of the power of the air.  "Looking for love in all the wrong places" comes to mind.  For how much does salvation itself count?  How much evil does one eternally saved soul cancel out in the world?  Show me the scales you use to weigh the righteousness of God toward the undeserving against the consequences of sin in those who rebel against all that is holy.  Show me your criteria!  And we cannot forget the kindness shown, the sacrifices made, the good will injected into daily life by those who serve God.  How will you weight that?  How will you account for it?  What is a cup of coffee worth when offered by a Christian to a homeless man?  How much cruelty in the world does that offset?  There is no math for this calculation, no science to prove how it works.  No one can judge these things but the one who is perfect, the one who knows each and every event - good or bad - that ever happened, is happening, or will happen.  So who are you to ask the potter about what he makes with the clay.  That's what all that is about!!!!
How did I not make this a FB post the first time?  Because now, in 2021-2, I am putting this on the list.  (look at what is in 8,9!  Look at that conclusion in 10!  This all goes together!)

2023 - In vss 1-10, you get exactly nowhere by making a big deal out of the pronouns, which were possibly a big deal in chapter 1.  It would probably be much better, therefore, to make pronouns less important in Chapter 1 rather than trying to elevate them here.  I think I was just on the wrong track with that.

Vs 11 is a "therefore" verse.  Reads like this:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- [Eph 2:11 ESV]
The "made in the flesh by hands", in my opinion, is the same thing we saw in Colossians as to the Old and New Covenants.  The Old was in the flesh, and the body physically showed the mark of participation in the covenant.  It was all about the physical.  But the New Covenant is spiritual.  Is that where Paul is now headed in Ephesians?  Same idea?  

2021 - This also may be setting up as a reminder to the Gentiles not to be feeling too special about the salvation that came to them.  They shouldn't feel like they are now better than Israel, but remember that they came out of the same slavery to sin and death with which Israel struggled.  

2021-2, I note this time that in vss 12, 13, Paul tells the Gentiles that they previously had no hope.  No part of Israel, so no part of any covenant.  Gentiles until that time had no ready path to salvation.  How many Gentiles, from Abraham to Christ, will spend eternity in hell because they had such limited access to God?  I know, they all sinned, they all deserve hell...but to our way of thinking, it seems unfair.  Especially since the door that was closed was a door that resulted in the action of human hands - the circumcision practiced by Israel.  That was all that kept Gentiles out.  And it was Jesus blood that finally opened the door to Gentiles.

He continues that the Gentiles, under the Old Covenant, had no hope. It was not for them to be included in that covenant.  HUGE MSB note on vss 11, 12.  And there is a lot in it.  I include only a part - the five ways that Gentiles were cut off from God under the Old Covenant:
1, they were separate from Christ, the Messiah, having no Savior and Deliverer and without divine purpose or destiny,
2, They were "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel."  God's chosen people, the Jews, were a nation whose supreme King and Lord was God Himself, and from whose unique blessing and protection they benefited,
3, Gentiles were "strangers to the covenants of promise," not able to partake of God's divine covenants in which He promised to give His people a land, a priesthood, a people, a nation, a kingdom, and a King - AND to those who believe in Him, eternal life and heaven.  (So I see here the separation of the unconditional promises made to Abraham before the Law, and why they are to be kept despite the rebellion of Israel, and how the faith that saves is a separate thing from those promises.  
4, They had "no hope" because they had been given no divine promise,
5, They were "without God in the world".  While Gentiles had many gods, they did not recognize the true God because they did not want Him.

This is an inciteful list of the position in which the Gentiles found themselves.  Wild olives, with little chance - with no chance - of partaking of the promises until AFTER the cultured olive crop failed to produce.  Then we were grafted onto that stock, benefiting from those roots that we had no part of growing.  We should be so thankful that God chose to include us in these latter days, and mourn for all the Gentiles that were never really given such a chance.  

2023 - If Paul had not previously made it clear that under the OLD covenant God treated Jew and Gentile entirely separately and differently, then these verses of explanation drive that point home even more.  Think of it.  Under the Old Covenant, the Gentiles were not included.  There was no promise to them, no "path to salvation" provided for them, but only to Israel.  And now...God has blinded and deafened Israel and we have the New Covenant which is salvation by faith alone, AND we have the church.  There is no reason...hmmm....  The New Covenant is about salvation.  The church is Christ's manifestation of himself in the world.  So it is not "done" when you say that Jews and Gentiles are treated differently, unless you specify that you are talking about...the requirements.  Physical under the Law, spiritual under grace.  Ahh!!!  When we talk about the promises we are not talking about promises to individuals, but promises to national Israel.  The church is in NO SENSE a nation, a sovereign entity in the world that might inherit land.  Salvation is only through Christ - to whom the Law and its ritual always pointed forward, and to whom grace looks backward in thanksgiving.  This is about individuals.  To what under the OC does the church compare?  Shall we say the Temple, the place of worship?  Or the collection of  believers - as the nation of Israel in the OC and as the church in the NC?  Well...isn't that an interesting place to end up.  And just in case this is starting to make sense....the promises to Abraham were made BEFORE the Law.  Much to consider here.  Moving on though.

This verse:
15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, [Eph 2:15 ESV]
This doesn't say the law is set aside, but is in fact abolished.  The ordinances of the Law are no more.  Those rules are all gone.  The physical outward requirements are abolished.  And now, the Law is spiritual, about the inner man, and each of is a living sacrifice, trying to be perfect before God.  

2022 - This also goes along with what I have been thinking as I try to unravel just what exactly was abolished.  I had concluded that the Law is about moral law, dietary law, and sacrificial law.  But the moral law is a sticking point, because it was not abolished  But here, we see that it was the "commandments expressed as ordinances" that were abolished  Commandments included the punishments.  I think of the "go and sin no more" story of the woman caught in adultery.  The penalty was stoning, but Jesus didn't throw the rock, even though he was qualified.  What she had done was clearly still sin, but the penalty prescribed by the ordinances - in writing instead of in the heart - Jesus declined to carry out.  Yes, I know that story's inclusion is very questionable.  But God let it stay in the Bible.  It was not taken out.  It is there for a reason.  Maybe to help me understand this.  Commandments, under the Law, were written as ordinances.  Commandments, under the New Covenant, are written in the heart.  We know.
The Law was physical.  The punishments were physical, the diet was physical, the sacrifices were done with hands, and circumcision - the "seal" of the Law - was physical.  And it separated Jews from Gentiles.  But the New Covenant makes all these things spiritual things - as the kingdom is spiritual at this time.  The physical was abolished, but the spiritual truth underlying the Law remained.

I had never seen this contrast before.  The more you read the word, the more there is in the word.

2023 - "create in himself ONE new man instead of TWO".  UNLESS you are prepared to equate the church and Israel from here forward, you must see this verse as saying that where before, there was only a plan for the Jews and the Gentiles were left out completely, now that Law is gone, the plan of redemption is the same for all who call upon Him.  Under the old, there was circumcision and uncircumcision.  There were two, and one was, for all intents and purposes, excluded.  Now though, there is neither Jew nor Greek.  There is no longer national Israel and the rest of the world, there is only the kingdom!  That's it!  The church and the Kingdom are NOT the same, even Grudem points out that fact!  So under the OC, there was national Israel, and under the NC there is the kingdom of God.  The church is something else.  Something new, something different than what came before.  So...I might be able to go with a statement that says the promises made to Israel under the OC will be granted to the Kingdom under the NC.  Physical promises accruing to a spiritual nation.  Who is in the Kingdom if the Kingdom is not the church?  
2023 - From my notes on Grudem Chapter 44:   6. The Church and the Kingdom of God, p. 1058.  Starts with a definition by George Eldon Ladd.  It is an interesting definition, and includes the following:  The kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God. So the Kingdom includes what its King brings to pass.  In the Kingdom of God, the NATION of Israel - saved by GRACE under the NC, or "sealed" as in Rev 7, can receive the promises WITHIN THE KINGDOM, while the CHURCH, within the Kingdom, is in heaven post-rapture!  Right now this makes perfect sense to me, and I am moving on before I get confused again!

Vs 16 says Jesus' work on the cross reconciled us both to God - that is, both Jew and Gentile.  He died for both.  This verse:
18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. [Eph 2:18 ESV]  Access is not physical, at the mercy seat, but is now through the Holy Spirit inside each saved person.  Access is direct, and as available to Gentiles as to Jews, and a more direct access - through the spirit and not a building built with hands - than ever before.  

2022 - Vss 13-16 tear down the basis of anti-Semitism entirely.  There was previously some justification for jealousy toward the Jews, resentment, bitterness, even hatred.  Only they, in the whole world, could be saved.  But that is no longer the case because of the blood of Christ and because the dispensation is no longer physical only - that is, sort of by birthright - but is now entirely based on the spirit of man and the spirit of God.  Peace should reign between Jew and Gentile.

((((I suspect that this "access in one Spirit" may come back to mind when we hit the verse about baptism.)))

The language through the rest of the chapter is about "building" on the chief cornerstone and the apostles, a whole structure, a holy temple.  All of these things are metaphors for the kingdom now extant on the planet.  A spiritual kingdom, built, but not of stone and not with hands.  So no physical seal of participation is necessary (no circumcision).
((I like the phrase "Abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances", creating one new man in place of two (Jews and Gentiles).  The Jews circumcision set them apart in the world as part of the only chosen nation.  Now that all are one, no physical mark need be carried because all are now one in Christ.  Every time I think about this more truth pours out!)))

This verse:
22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. [Eph 2:22 ESV]  What a great verse for the process of sanctification.  The Spirit inside us works on us, changes us, perfects us as much as is possible and commensurate with our own commitment to change, to make us a suitable dwelling - a temple if you will - for God to dwell in, and the cornerstone of that temple is the finished work of Christ.  Not everything that ever happened in the Temple was perfect.  Yet God dwelled there.  We also are not perfect "tents", but God dwells in us also.

2023 - Note also the metaphorical language applied to the Kingdom, which is spiritual so that it can be tied back to national Israel.  A dwelling place - as in God dwelt with his people Israel in the desert, but now dwells inside each person in the Kingdom!  Oh, this is working better and better!  
2023 - But now, I need to think about what exactly are the distinctives of the church.  What is it, why is it?  The "visible" manifestation of the Kingdom through the assembly of its citizens?  Is the church the "distribution center" of blessings from the King to all mankind?  He "routes" his Kingdom blessings through the "trucking company" that is the church?  That's not a bad theory...

Chapter 3
These verses:
4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. [Eph 3:4-6 ESV]
In ancient times, under the Old Law, they just didn't understand that Jesus would come to fulfill the law, and through that fulfillment remove the restriction of the Covenant to those physically descended from Abraham and so marked, to the entire world, since we, in Him, are spiritually circumcised.  We become partakers in this New Covenant, not by taking on the requirements of The Law, but through the gospel.  Through belief in Jesus.

2022 - This verse:
5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. [Eph 3:5 ESV].  Interesting that he does not say it is made known to all men, but to apostles and prophets.  These are proclaiming the mystery to everyone else.  This is the second time in this book that Paul has said something implying a hierarchy of those who believe. One way to look at this is to note that apostles and prophets - in the sense that Paul meant prophet - are both gone.  So he is saying that originally, this mystery - and he's told us specifically what mystery he is referencing - was revealed only to a certain few.  He is not including the false teachers at Ephesus in this group.  I think it is likely that this is how Paul meant the "hierarchy" in both places he talks about it.  (This was back in Eph 1:1-14.  I went back today, as I read vs 3, and made some additional notes there.)  Paul is claiming here to have been given information directly from God that was not previously inspired in the OT books.  I think in one sense this is about clarity and about putting together scriptures previously misinterpreted - as in no one previously saw the church/Gentile age - but which now have their true meaning revealed...to Paul, to the "holy apostles and prophets".  Revealed by the Spirit - also a new concept for the NT church.  Indwelling had not previously been a thing, and Paul says this indwelling Spirit is a source of revelation to a select few.
I haven't heard it preached this way that I can remember.  I am not sure, but I could be reading a lot more into this than is really there.  But it's there twice, in Eph 1 and Eph 3, and in Eph 3 it seems abundantly clear, and if you take all those early verses in Eph 1 as a package, it is pretty clear there also.  And in vs 6, Paul tells us specifically what the mystery previously unseen was:

This verse:
6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. [Eph 3:6 ESV]  So...Paul here defines in words the mystery of which he has been speaking, and it really has little to do with a strategy to refute the prevailing philosophy and worldview of the Greeks at that time.  The mystery that the Jews never saw, never appreciated - or at least one of those mysteries - was that the Gentiles would be brought into the kingdom with the same rights and privileges - as sons adopted - as the descendants in the flesh - the Jews, the blood descendants of Abraham - to which they themselves looked forward.  So...Here is a verse to use as a proof text that the church is now Israel, and heir to the promises made to Abraham.  I disagree, but this is a verse that could well be used for that, and one needs a ready reply.
2022 - To use this as a proof text for the "land" promises going to the church, you have to establish what exactly is meant by "the promise".  This word is singular.  Only one promise is in view.  I would say it is the promise that Gentiles are included in God's plan to reconcile all things to himself.  I would not say it is the promise that all of Israel/Canaan/the land between the rivers will belong to Abraham's descendants.  After all, the gospel never talks about a reward of land on earth, but reward in heaven.

This verse:
7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. [Eph 3:7 ESV]  Paul says he is made minister to the Gentiles.  Doesn't say he is the only, but I think he is clearly implying that he is the primary.  And yet, all through Acts, Paul invariably went first to the synagogues of the Jews and preached to them, and only when they rejected him stubbornly and openly did he turn his back on them and go to the Gentiles.  This is a difficulty.

Paul was made a minister of the gospel TO THE GENTILES.  His purpose is detailed here:
9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. [Eph 3:9-10 ESV]
This is the purpose behind all of history.  God created to set in motion this revelation to the rulers and authorities of His own manifold wisdom.  This is all about God proving that He alone is worthy of worship.  Why would you do something for eternity, with never a doubt, if it weren't proven to be deserved in every way.
2022 - Paul uses the word "ekklesia" - translated "church" - in connection with this mystery and with his assignment as apostle to the Gentiles.  This "vehicle" of God's invention, this church not made with stones but of spirit, is here to demonstrate to those "in the heavenlies" the magnanimous plan of God to include all men in His reconciliation of all creation to himself.
2023 - This verse 9 is Paul's understanding of the purpose of the church.  Reworded, the purpose of the church is to make know to the rulers and authorities in the heavenlies the manifold wisdom of God.  I don't see any way to get around the purpose of the church being about those in the heavenlies, and not about those of us on earth at all.  The church is the conduit - the manifestation in the created world - through which Christ unites all men, thereby demonstrating the those in the heavenlies that his plan is perfect.  It leave out nothing, it leaves out no one.  These "rulers and authorities in heaven" are mentioned elsewhere, in the OT as I recall.  We see a number of heavenly assemblies in the OT where decisions are being made.  I need to start tagging those - and this reference - so I can get them all together.  I'll tag it "rulers and authorities in heaven".

This vs:
11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, [Eph 3:11 ESV]  Jesus was the culmination, the realization, of God's plan and purpose in the world.

2023 - Here is what God did that shows him to be not only God, but the only heavenly power and authority who COULD be God.  Satan could not have done this, though he considers himself equal with God.  What if the whole Satan elevating himself to God status all occurred BEFORE God created anything at all, and all of creation is here in order to PROVE that God is greater than all.  And the mysteries of Christ incarnated, of a way for a perfect and immortal God to die in one sense and so reconcile fallen creation to himself - a way for God not only to redeem his creation, but to do it by making a way for Him to do what he cannot do - and that is to die!  This is "why" the Trinity!  God is immortal, must be immortal.  The only way to reconcile the "crimes and offenses" of fallen man is by a perfect sacrifice, which fallen man can never be.  Only God is perfect.  So how can God sacrifice himself, how can God die himself, and yet still be God?  He can be the Trinity.  He can die and yet not die.  He can be with us through the Spirit and yet remain in heaven.  He can be present with sinful man, and yet refuse to allow sin into his presence.  All these impossible things are the mind and plan of God to reconcile fallen man, and through man all of fallen creation, back to himself.

vss 14-20 are Paul's prayer, again, for the church in Ephesus.  And it is a prayer for their growing, expanding, maturing understanding of just who Christ is.  He links this understanding not to the teachers and preachers in that church - some of whom were just plain false - but to the power of the Holy Spirit in their own inner being.  He seems to be encouraging the rank and file to trust the Spirit within them to "test" what they are being taught.

Chapter ends with "Amen".  This is the end of the theological section, and now we turn to the practical.


2021 - Just going to plunge through the last three chapters as much as I can, and focus on them next year.
2021-2, Not much time this year either because I am reading Isaiah concurrently and it takes much time and effort.  I know I should slow down, or read the Ephesians chapter first, but Isaiah is very compelling.
2022 - Reading Ephesians first, and then Isaiah this time through.  Ephesians has gone better.
2023 - Ephesian first again this year, and even so, I am getting a LOT from Isaiah that I had not seen before.  And still more from Ephesians.

​

 

Chapter 4
Almost immediately, we come to these verses:
4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. [Eph 4:4-6 ESV]
Having just shown that through Jesus both Jew and Gentile are redeemed from slavery by the same blood - and that not of bulls and goats but of one man one time - and that the Old Covenant is abolished, such that the distinction between citizens and non-citizens has been abolished, everything required is the same now, for all.  Both Jews and Gentiles are to be baptized.  It is not that Jews, being circumcised don't need to be baptized.  Baptism is the symbol of inclusion in the New Covenant, of intent to conform to that covenant.  That is what this is about.  The theme is unity, not baptism.  MSB note adds little to this.  In an earlier note, MSB says vs 4 emphasizes the Spirit, vs 5 the Son, and vs 6 the Father, showing that the three are unity.  
2021-2, The one baptism here is baptism by the Holy Spirit, which began on the Day of Pentecost, and continues to this day.  That baptism did not occur under the Law.  Under the Law, there was baptism into Moses through the Red Sea.  In Noah's time, 8 were saved by water - that is, all were in the ark, baptized "into" a new covenant on a de-populated earth.  I think that's what is in view here.  He just went through the whole thing about Jews and Gentiles being one now, and there being only one way now.  He is talking about Christ and the church.  Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit unite all in the church.

2022 - These verses compared:
8 Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." [Eph 4:8 ESV]
18 You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there. [Psa 68:18 ESV]
This one says he gave the gifts, but the original, in Psalms, says he received gifts from men.  MSB says Paul is using the OT verse as "...an interpretive rendering of Ps 68.18 as a parenthetical analogy..."  In Psalm 68, God, as King, is ascending Mt Zion in triumph.  As Kings did in those days, those taken prisoner in conquering Zion follow in his wake - he leads a LOT of captives.  I believe in Psalms, it is talking about gifts given by the residents of the city to the new King in order to gain favor with the new King, and to retain their homes, their wealth, their sons and daughters, and indeed their very lives.  The King brings with him, in addition to all these captives - his slaves now that he has conquered - the spoils of battle.  So this King is loaded up to the top with all the wealth and riches of this place he has captured, and it is in his power to keep or distribute those things as he pleases.  
Paul is saying this, not about God as he ascended Zion in those days after the capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, but about Christ as he ascended back to heaven after his resurrection.  All things were given to Christ, by God, after the cross.  The primary gift was the Holy Spirit - given through baptism of the Spirit , which now inhabits all in the kingdom, both Jew and Gentile so long as they believe in Christ, and all equal in the sight of God - and through the Holy Spirit, power in various forms also was given, as a gift.  Then the gifts are listed beginning in vs 11.


2021 - Vss 11-14, one of the places where spiritual gifts are enumerated. The other place is in I Cor 12 I think.  Here, as there, there is a separation of the gifts.  MacArthur's book says that the ones at the front are "gifted men", that is God calls some to hold offices in the church and gives them what they need to perform well in those offices.  Then there are the general gifts, spread in various quantity and proportion among the whole of the church.  Here are the verses, all four because there is no "period" until the end of 14.  Note it is THE apostles, THE prophets, and so on, through shepherds.  Teachers seems to be a different thing - a gift rather than a gifted man - but perhaps a Greek scholar would be better to make this call.  I believe teachers are an office, and that teaching is a gift, and I think if you put 1 Cor 12 with this you can pull that out without stretching.  There are also prophets as an office and prophesying as a gift.  And so on.  I would also note that the definite article shows up before EACH of those first four, but is missing before teachers.  Just the same, the word used is didaskolos, and is the word translated "Master" when used of Jesus 40 different times.  The point is that this word is teacher - as in position, not teaching - as in vocation.  That being noted, I would have to say that all five of these are positions in the church, to be held by men gifted and called to serve in those positions.  The purpose of the gifts is described in detail here also.  To "grow" the church and its members in maturity, understanding, full knowledge of Christ, and so that the body may work properly in order to make "...the body grow so that it builds itself up in love."  Eph 4:16b.
11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. [Eph 4:11-14 ESV]
2020 - All are given abilities, gifts maybe, though the word is not used, or maybe all are given "roles" is the best way to say it.  These roles are to be exercised in equipping for ministry.  We are to mature in our knowledge of God and Christ, to mature, to "grow up".  We are to do this individually, but also the whole church is to mature as a body, unified to one purpose.  Reminds me again of the athletes training to win, not just to run.

2022 - Some of the power was given to "the apostles", some to "the prophets", some to "the evangelists", "the shepherds" and I think it should say "the teachers".  It's a compound phrase and the article would apply to both nouns.  That's what I think it means.  I think all these, all five, are what MacArthur refers to as "gifted men".  In these early days, as the gospel is first proclaimed to the world and preached as a universal invitation to salvation, not just a gospel for the Jews, God gave gifts to those he chose to "light the fire".  Look at this list...apostles.  We know that was pretty exclusive group - 12 +1 and that 1 was constantly being accused of usurping the title.  Few, if any, seriously claim there are apostles anymore.  Apostles wrote scripture, they could heal anyone of any disease, they were the first hand keepers of the words of Christ - and the meaning behind his words.  They were first-hand witnesses to all that Jesus did, to the truth of the works he performed.  No one else can be one.  "The prophets" of those days (and I think this definite article showing up means JUST THESE were so gifted, specially gifted, and none that followed were so gifted.  I think all these titles are like this, even evangelists and teachers.  We saw in Eph 1 and 3 that Paul puts himself in a special group to whom God gave additional revelation of scripture beyond the OT.  He goes to some lengths to separate himself from the "rank and file" in the church at Ephesus.  And now he defines others, set off by the definite article, who are also specially chosen for specific positions.  MacArthur says that some of these still exist - shepherds/pastors in particular - and that some are no more - I have good notes on that book, but don't remember exactly which is which.  I don't know that I agree with him.  As I'm reading this in 2022, I see these five groups as set apart in Paul's day, and no longer extant.  At least not at all in the sense that Paul means right here.  That is how we explain the complete absence of apostles, the difference in how prophets functioned back then as opposed to now, and so on.  The gifts are much much much less powerful now than they were at the first.  I don't think we can say any but apostle is just completely gone, but I think we can say just as certainly that the power associated with all these gifts is much less than it used to be.

2022 - I had never noticed the phrasing of this verse before:
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, [Eph 4:13 ESV].   The term "we all" and "grown up MAN" are connected here.  Are we to believe that Paul includes women as "grown up men" in this statement, or that he is directing these remarks EXCLUSIVELY to the men in the Ephesian church?  Come on!  This is how he says it, this is who he is addressing, but even so, WE KNOW that women are included in the gospel.  BECAUSE IT SAYS SO ELSEWHERE!  There need not be some "re-interpretation" of the original Greek works to "sometimes" include women.  I do not think these words in those days EVER meant women.  Aner is a a male, exclusively.  And even so, since it is wrong to pick out one verse and build a whole "male only" doctrine around it, you have to look elsewhere, and when you do it is obvious that Paul is not excluding women from these things even though he is absolutely not SPEAKING TO women in this letter!!!  I go further, and say that the gifts that include the definite article back in vs 11 were given ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY to men.  And if we want to know how these same gifts, with much less power, play out today - and who can get them and should therefore use them - we need to look elsewhere.  I don't think these gifts - this quality of gift - still exists.

2022 - This verse:
16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. [Eph 4:16 ESV].  In this verse, we see for certain that Paul intends what he is saying to be taken up not just by men, but by the "whole body".  Even as he says this, is is addressing the men, only the men, who are to pass on the instructions to the whole body - women and children included.  Surely it is not possible for a body to grow properly unless EVERYTHING is functioning properly.  And that also is a key phrase.  Each part has a function, and we get into that whole "foot wanting to be a head" argument.  The goal of the gospel, and the goal of all the gifts, is to mature the body of Christ...in the way that God intended the body to grow and mature.  

The subject seems to change at this verse:
17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. [Eph 4:17 ESV]
Paul is going to give us some character traits of the regenerate man.  

He starts by telling them they are not to live as Gentiles any more.  He describes how Gentiles live apart from God.  His description is much like Romans 1, where the wrath of abandonment is described, and people sink to depravity in the absence of God's guidance.  This verse:
19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. [Eph 4:19 ESV]
I know this feeling.  Even after salvation, this persists to a greater or lesser degree.  It is always a fight.

2022 - Vss 17-19.  Who does Paul have in view here?  Is he telling those who are in the church to continue shunning the old Gentile ways from which they came?  Or is he saying that, as in Corinth, some in the church are continuing to abuse the freedom of salvation to do even worse things than they did before they were saved?  In vs 17 he talks about "their minds".  Their means others, means not us, but them.  So Paul seems to be saying that Gentiles in the church, saved Gentiles, ought not behave as those "other" Gentiles.  Yes...this gets more clear as the passage goes on.

Then in 20-24, Paul describes the aspirations of the regenerate, contrasting them with the old man, "greedy to practice...impurity".  The new man instead strives:
22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. [Eph 4:22-24 ESV]
Our goal is to get away completely from the things that drove us, that dictated our behavior, and look instead to a new standard, the likeness of God.

He lists many specific attitudes that the regenerate should have.  These should mark our character to all.  Among them, tell the truth, don't steal but instead work so you can freely give to those in need, watch what you say at all times, put away bitterness, anger and wrath.  This list is worth in-depth study.
2021 - You know, Paul would not have to say this if there were not some in that church who were practicing this behavior.  There were some who still made a living thieving after being saved.  Paul has to tell them to stop that.  And then there were many "talking sins".  People were saying what they ought not to say, had bad attitudes towards others in the church, and so on.  This was going on back then.  This is going on in the church today.  Why are we surprised???  What we should be doing - and what no church I ever heard of is doing - is addressing those who are in the church but daily "practicing sin".  Very first thing that comes to mind is unmarried church members living together.  That is adultery, that is just like stealing for a living.  It is sin, it is wrong, you should not be doing it and if you are the church ought to address it!  And lest we get too self-righteous, gluttony is in there too!  Foul language is in there.  But is there any church at all today that knows its members so well that such things can be addressed?   Is there any church where members go to each other first, as they should, and confront brothers AND SISTERS!!!! with ongoing sinfulness in their lives?  And how strong, how mature, how bright in a dark world can our church be if we are not first correcting our own selves internally!!!

Chapter 5
Once again, vs 1 starts with therefore, therefore it really belonged in the last chapter.  It is an important conclusion, and is the principle built on the previous examples:
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. [Eph 5:1 ESV]
In our terms, we should try to be like Him when we grow up.  This should be our guide.  What would Jesus do is indeed a phrase that should be constantly before us.

2022 - There is more to this "therefore":
2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Eph 5:2 ESV].
Looking back, note that 4:17 started a new thought contrasting the behavior of these saved Gentiles in the church with the still unsaved Gentiles outside the church.  Paul seems to be worried that in Ephesus, in the name of "loving their neighbors", the church was continuing to associate with unsaved friends who "sinned as a matter of course and without hesitation or regret".  Perhaps they were thinking they could not reach them if they did not "fit in" with them.  So Paul opens Chapter 5 saying, be imitators of God, and then vs 2, love other people - Gentiles - in the way that Christ loved them.  Christ didn't join them.  He ate with them, but it is obvious in every account that he was different from them.  If they were getting drunk at dinner, Jesus didn't get drunk.  If they were flirting with the servant chicks, Jesus did not flirt. He loved them by being an example of how to live, how to behave, how to love your neighbor into the kingdom rather than loving him as your "partner in crime".  This could be insidious.  Imagine doing whatever you want to stay close to your friends because you are once saved always saved.  Get your friends to join your church by showing them they don't really  have to give up any of the things they don't want to give up, but in the church they can do it with impunity, with no consequences.  

2022 - I think we see a corroboration that this is exactly what was going on beginning in vs 3:
3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. [Eph 5:3 ESV].  Don't do these things, even occasionally, as a way to maintain friends and get them to come to church.  Then the next verse:
4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. [Eph 5:4 ESV].  Does this not remind you of locker room talk?  Among men?  It isn't just about not "doing" lewd things, we ought not join in with joking and laughing about lewd things.  Our whole "behavior bar" needs to go much higher when we are saved.  We have to do as Christ would do, even if we do lose friends over it.  If we do not persuade them by proper behavior, then we are false advertising, and they will come into the church and dilute the church and never be saved from hell anyway, plus the church becomes indistinguishable from the Temple of Diana!

Paul now exhorts them against sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness.  Must remember that Ephesus' Temple of Diana was full of prostitutes of both sexes, and both hetero- and homo-.  
Paul gets very plain:
5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. [Eph 5:5 ESV]
I wonder the tense of the verb "is".  I would think it is the one that shows continuous ongoing action.  If immorality characterizes your life, you have no part in the kingdom.  All sin, and repentance brings forgiveness.  But you can't sin, anticipating that you will repent later.  This would be continuous ongoing sin, and show an attitude of immorality, and not purity.

2021-2, The word in the mGNT is eimi, and in the Textus Receptus, esti.  Neither is in the aorist tense.  Both are present indicative, meaning the action is a fact - as in not a speculation maybe - and the action is taken by the subject.  Also 3rd person singular.  So there really isn't anything in the Greek that I can see saying this is about repeated action.  Paul is saying don't even do this once.  If you do this once you have no inheritance.  Here is something interesting though.  The first two definitions of the word ESV translates "immoral", have to do with male prostitutes.  The word is  "pornos", Strong's G4205.  Only the third definition is the more general "immoral" and even that one includes the phrase "unlawful sexual intercourse".  "pornos" is a masculine noun.  Now that I see all this, I don't think Paul is saying "don't run around on your spouse", he is saying "Guys who are saved do not work as temple prostitutes!"  That is incompatible with the renewed nature.  So looking at this again, I think Paul is saying that association with male prostitutes is bad.  He is saying it is bad because such people are not saved and have no part in the kingdom.  Vs 7 is the one that brings this all home when it says "Therefore, do not become partners with them.".  The word "partners" is "symmeticos", which has to be where the word symmetry comes from.  Don't be symmetrical with the men who do these things, no matter what they say.  

2021 - Vss 5 and 6 are about the unsaved friends of those in the church at Ephesus.  Perhaps these friends attended the church when there wasn't an orgy going on at the Temple of Artemis, but they always went to Diana's place first.  I think the behavior of these is being contrasted with right behavior for Christians as covered in vss 8 ff.  Look how vs 7 starts, showing that there should be a contrast:  7 Therefore do not become partners with them; [Eph 5:7 ESV]  Don't do things the way these are doing things.  The conclusion about people who behave this way came earlier in vs. 5 - You can be sure these who behave this way are NOT saved people.  So don't hang out with them!

2022 - Vs 5 is looking outward.  Paul is still talking about the "old friends" with whom the Ephesian church previously associated.  Those old friends, who are behaving that way, and even those in the church who are still behaving that way - unchanged by their supposed salvation - are in fact NOT saved people.  Maybe they are telling you they are as they invite you to come with them to "orgy night" at the Temple of Diana, but they are not.  IF THEY WERE, they would not be doing such things.  You see and know (indicative) that they ARE doing these things, so you KNOW they are not saved.  Therefore, do NOT partner up with them and tag along like you used to do!
2021-2, This verse:
[Eph 5:10 ESV] and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
Does not say go ask the priest what is pleasing, nor any man.  This is between each person and the indwelling Holy Spirit.  No outside help.  These verses then contrast the difference between things of light and things of darkness.  Things of darkness are kept secret.  Not mentioned in polite company.  Such things need the light shined on them.

2022 - Vs 10 I think also tells us that "choosing" what we should do is not always going to be easy.  "Try to discern" indicates less than 100% success.  But try.  There is no Law any more, and even if there were, there would be situations it did not cover.  The Law always said what NOT to do.  We must practice discernment, practice "hearing" what the Spirit tells us to do.  Because the Spirit is God, and there is no "twilight" with God.  It is darkness or it is light.

This gives me a better grasp on some favorite verses:
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. [Eph 5:15-16 ESV]
or the way I learned it:
[Eph 5:15 KJV] See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
[Eph 5:16 KJV] Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Here is one of the interlinear definitions of "redeeming" that I really like:
"to make wise and sacred use of every opportunity for doing good, so that zeal and well doing are as it were the purchase money by which we make the time our own".
Sort of implying that only the time spent doing God's work is really "life".  The rest of the time is slavery to someone else.

Then, beginning in 22, we have instructions to wives and husbands, the subject of those John MacArthur sermons I  love so much...and need to listen to again.

2022 - Why in the world does this subject come up here?  We have just been shown the difference between those acting in the old Gentile way and the way saved Gentiles ought to act.  We've been told not to hang with those who still do visit the Temple prostitutes and sit around telling dirty jokes in the locker room, and carrying on with dissipation and drunkenness and partying all weekend.  There is nothing productive, nothing redeeming in this.  And then, we get instructions on being married?  Because that's what we ought to do instead of partying?  Stay home and work on that relationship?
2022 - Husband and wife...Christ and the church.  This is the model that Paul - an unmarried man who is more than just fine remaining that way - gives us advice for our most fundamental human relationship.  Christ's finished work brought the church into being.  He did away with the Law and established the church.  The relationship of a church with Christ is therefore spiritual, not based on physical things done with hands but on continual good will, love as a verb rather than an emotion, and communication "within" the spiritual relationship.  As Christ seeks to set the church apart in the world, so the Church seeks to attain to the standard set by Christ.  Christ wants to make the church honorable above all else.  The church wants to honor Christ by abiding by his wishes for them.  There is nothing here at all that says "Husbands, demand exemplary behavior from your wives even if you have to beat them to get it."  Nor does it say "Wives, obey the wise things your husband says, but always sort the wise out from the foolish and make the final decision yourself."  Doesn't say either one of those things.  Husbands don't "force" things on their wives.  Wives don't rebel against the leadership of their husbands.
Yeah.  I think that's on the right track.  I think so because those are pretty difficult things to do.  BUT, doing what a good husband would do is not dependent on what the wife does, how she responds, how submissive she is.  You can still be a good husband.  Being a good wife is not about how qualified the husband is.  It is possible to be a good wife to a very stupid man.  I think the proof that this is on the right track is the final verse:
33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. [Eph 5:33 ESV].  
Possible FB post if you have the guts to publish it...

2023- This verse, which shows up also pretty prominently in Grudem Chapter 45:
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [Eph 5:26 KJV].  Water's washing.  Washing by the word.  These are the two "connections" here that need to be unraveled.  With these, sanctification and cleansing are advanced.  What if we substitute baptism in for water's washing.  Then we get "with baptism by the word".  But that is almost certainly NOT what Paul meant.   Sanctify and cleanse with baptism by the word.  This is STILL a difficult verse, especially when connected with marriage instructions!  It is the cleansing of the church by Christ that is in view.
Look at the same verse in ESV:
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [Eph 5:26 ESV].  This translation puts the cleansing in the past and the sanctification as ongoing.  Christ is already done with cleansing the church, and he did so by water's washing with the word, and now seeks to sanctify the church.  "having cleansed her" is an aorist phrase.  A specific time of that happening is not in view.  So we would be unwise to try and connect this with the water and blood of the crucifixion.  So NOT already done.  The word translated "with" is "en".  It is just a preposition, with only two letters, and is most commonly translated "in".  That would be water's washing in the word.  I don't know.  Too much time here already.  By and with are the next two most common translations.  KJV used by.  Thing is, this word shows up 2800 times in the NT, and 1902 of those are translated "in".  For comparison, it is translated "by" only 160 times, and "with" only 140 times.  So why was "in" the wrong translation here???  Why not "by the washing of water IN the word".  This feels like progress...Now the water is what is in the word.  The word itself then could be thought of as the water that washes, cleanses, and sanctifies.  Now that makes pretty good sense.  And I am going to stop there before I confuse myself again.  It is through the Word, through the scripture, which we think of metaphorically as the water used to wash, to sanctify, and to purify the church.  

A husband's love should sanctify the wife.  That is, nothing he does should incite or encourage sin in her life.  Instead, a husbands actions should encourage toward purity, worship, and love.

31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. [Eph 5:31-32 ESV]

Chapter 6
Instructions to children and parents.
2023 - First verse:
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. [Eph 6:1 KJV].  The word here translated children most often means that.  Minor children, usually sons.  It can also be used of adults as in "my child", and the students of a teacher were often called his children.  There is NOTHING in the context here that would broaden the meaning beyond "minor children".  The point is that adult children are adults, and there is no "command" for grown men to obey their parents, much less their mothers.  When a man leaves his father and mother, he no longer is required to obey.  He can.  He can ask for advice.  But there is no command to obey once he is out of the house.  Verse 2 is different...though there is no reason to say it is about adults instead of children, except that it is quoted from the 10 which were given to ALL Israel.  I do not believe we can find a basis for saying that when giving the 10 God sometimes spoke only to the children.  So vs 2 is from everyone.
2021-2, This verse:
[Eph 6:2 ESV] "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise),
[Eph 6:3 ESV] "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land."
In these two verses Paul pulls the 5th commandment into the New Testament.  Paul has made it very clear in other places that the Law is no more.  It is completely gone, and all are free from its requirements in the same way that a widow is free of her dead husband.  No further obligation.  And yet here, he pulls the Ten into the New Testament, still to be obeyed as "always".  Why is that?  It is because God spoke those commandments directly, verbally, to all the children of Israel.  It was hearing God's voice in this way that prompted the people to petition Moses to be an intercessor for them after that.  They did not want to hear directly from God because it scared them to death.  So the Law, as spoken from God through Moses and later the Aaronic and Levitical priests, is what went away.  But what God spoke directly can never pass away.  The Ten will always be with us, and this is why.
2023 - Looked up honor in both Greek and in the Hebrew from Ex 20.  Neither defines the word honor.  They both use the English word honor in the translation.  It is understood that we already know what honor - as a verb - really means.  In Hebrew, it is the piel form, which I do not understand, but it can be a verbal noun, which makes sense here.  In Hebrew it can also mean "to make heavy", which obviously does not apply.  In Greek, the word is "timao", and it can mean "to estimate, to fix the value".  It is interesting that in both senses, there is this second possibility that I think makes this command clearer.  I do not think the idea is that we ought to "honor without cause" just because they are our parents.  I think an assessment is implied here.   Here is the Merriam-Webster for honor, the verb form:  "to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect : to regard or treat with honor."  I can get behind that.  Same as we are to do for the King, the President, and so on.  The position carries an obligation of honor by others.  You cannot insult the President, no matter what you think of him.  BECAUSE he is the President, and God put him there.  Same with parents.  So much easier to honor them when we value them highly, but still possible even if we don't.  So three commands, to three different audiences, in 4 verses.  First, to children, then to everyone, and then to fathers.  

Servants and masters.  Hmm....this outline seems to follow that of the final chapters of Colossians.  Yes, 5:22 on closely parallels Colossians 4 on.  Some topics are expanded, some contracted, but the outline of the two sections is very similar.

Vss 10-12, The battle is not with flesh and blood.  The enemy is Satan, and we need spiritual armor to confront him.

Even this prayer that Paul asks them to pray for him is very similar to his request of the Colossians:
19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. [Eph 6:19-20 ESV]

2021 - Here it is again.  It shows up over and over and over in the ESV:
23 Peace be to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [Eph 6:23 ESV]
There is a footnote on the word "brothers" that reads "Or brothers and sisters".  That is a cultural footnote, and has no basis in what Paul said.  The Greek word is "adelphos", and is used 346 times in the KJV.  It is never not once even translated with sisters anywhere in it.  Of course, that was KJV.  But even so, in the Greek language, the word is a masculine noun.  Surely Greek has a  feminine noun that means sisters.  Paul chose not to put that in a single solitary time.  He didn't put it in because it is not what he meant.  Now, we ought to be mature enough as Christians to know that when Paul said "adelphos" he meant the church.  He meant everyone.  But let us remember, too, that he just got through writing Eph 5:22-24, and 5:33.  It just might well be that what Paul meant was, I am writing this stuff to the men, and as I just got done saying earlier, the men should pass it on to their wives.  And that's the same thing he meant in Corinthians when he said let the woman ask her questions at home!  He meant brothers directly and sisters indirectly.  This is my argument, I realize, but I think it is a pretty good argument, and that it exposes this constant "or brothers and sisters" thing in ESV for what it is.  A nod to some "influential groups" who wanted their feminism included in the Bible, so that they can say "See, Paul didn't really mean just men, the ESV shows us that in the footnotes."   At least ESV did not put sisters up in the verse as if it existed in the original.  NLT, NIV, CSB, and NET  all put sisters right up there in the verse.  That is adding to the word, and may they get God's justice for doing it, and for all the repercussions that it initiates.