Progress
When we began to meet together all those months ago (over a year!), I would settle into study and try to tell you everything I was doing as I was doing it. As a result, I found I was focusing more on you than I was focusing on the Lord or what he was saying in his Word. Dorky, huh? Consequently, I stopped that practice. Now I study for a while before I tell you how I learned what I learned.
Do you remember this list?
- Observation
- Interpretation
- Application
Different Kinds of Questions
I am currently deep in the process of observation. In this process, I’ve been making lists (which I will share with you in a few minutes) from questions I’ve been asking the text. Some of my questions are answered with concrete answers. Doctrine, if you will. For example, one of my questions is “what happens when the audience does this action?” The answer is “then there is this result.”
On the other hand, there are questions that are not when/then. They are “I wonder” questions. In the case of Paul’s explanation of why he sent Tychicus, I asked such questions as “I wonder if Paul is explaining the correct way to do missions and missionary updates.” This is not an establishment of doctrine. There is no way that I would run around telling other people that I found these lines drawn between Paul’s mission and our missions today. I might have my opinion shaped by what I found and I might discuss it with someone who also finds this interesting.
But to be dogmatic about answers to “I wonder” questions is not only pointless but I believe dangerous. It’s adding to what God said. Because if I have to say, “I wonder” then God wasn’t clear about it. If he wasn’t clear (because he jolly well could have been clear about all the “I wonder” questions), then these are points in the Christian life that are up for discussion, deliberation, and decision on the part of individuals or groups of saints.
We will discuss this more at the end of our time together today.
Summary
Once again, as we study a passage (or two), we want to remember where we’ve been and where we are going in Paul’s discourse.
For me, the simplest and most effective means to remember is to write a summary for the previous passage. To add a flavor of Dr. Seuss, I’m looking in both front and back sections by pointing my hermeneutical eyeballs in different directions. If we think back to the passage even before the previous passage, Paul was giving instructions to the assembly in general terms for the walk of the believer, but then switched to particular groups with specific points.
Altogether, I saw the point of what Paul was saying for the last two sections as “how the believer should walk has to do with words, attitudes of the heart, and how believers treat each other.”
It always seems sad to me when I get to the last passage in a book of the Bible and there isn’t an “after” summary. Though I suppose if one were to consider Dr. Sproul’s assessment of the types of books in the NT, Ephesians is an introduction to the teaching of Paul.1 So reading any of Paul’s other epistles is kind of like the “after” of Ephesians.
For now, let’s look at some lists.
When, Then
Here is that first kind of question I was talking about, the when/then. I made a list.
In this list, I read through the passage(s) and found all the instances it looks like an event either could take place (e.g. put on armor) or will take place (e.g. Tychicus comes).
When the activity is accomplished it opens the possibility for the described result.
For example, that first one where Paul says to the audience put on the whole armor of God in Ephesians 6:11. When they put on the armor, then they may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.
Wait. What does it mean that the audience may be able to stand?
That’s part of our observation. If you also have that as a question, write it down so you can investigate it in interpretation too. In fact, a lot of these when situations have a possible outcome when it’s translated into ESV. Ephesians 6:11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22. See all the may’s and can’s?
We’ve already discussed it but it bears repeating: translation is not a one-for-one code. So I have questions about the Greek behind these seemingly potential outcomes.
Against, Not Against
Thinking about the anaphora, that technique from rhetoric we talked about last time, the against’s are important to Paul’s line of thought. Since he has against and not against, what is the audience to wrestle against and what are they not to wrestle against? I made a list.
In this list, I have the content from the anaphora, but Paul also seems to have a whole theme of some sort combat as he’s sharing his heart with his friends. So as an afterthought I included other against-y content from the two passages. Those thoughts are in parenthesis near the end.
As I was observing the text in the NET Bible, I noticed a note “23” on Ephesians 6:12 where Paul talks about flesh and blood.
Since I like to have reminders that Paul and the rest of the Bible is Eastern in thought and not Western, I followed the original Greek that the NET points out in the translator note. Blood and flesh. He wrote in that order and I want to think of it in that order. I’m trying to get into the mind of Paul.
Opposites
We are following the thought-track I went on as I was studying. So another question I asked the text was what if the audience did NOT do the preparatory actions? If the congregation was in the Lord, they would be strong, Ephesians 6:10. What if they sought their strength elsewhere?
Or when the congregation puts on the whole armor of God, they may be able to stand. What if they didn’t? Opposites. I made a list.
Of all my lists this was the one that impacted my heart the most. Things like, if someone doesn’t have the readiness of the gospel of peace, whatever this combat is that Paul sees is coming or is here now, the congregation would not have shoes.
No shoes. You’ve seen civil war images of soldiers with no shoes, haven’t you? That. Combat without shoes.
Or if the audience didn’t take the helmet or the sword, the end of keeping alert and talking to God on behalf of their fellow combatants wouldn’t happen. They would be oblivious. There would be no communication with God.
Basically, I summarized the whole of the armor section with the opposite there at the end of my list: without armor, the congregation is vulnerable. There could be no wrestling against evil but instead submitting to evil. No extinguishing of fire, but getting blown up by flaming darts. All kinds of mayhem. Losing the battle.
This list fires my imagination and helps me to better imagine what could be the result of putting on the armor. It also paints a clear picture of what the potential is when the armor is left back at base and the combatants are at war anyway. Now that would be pretty dumb, huh?
Missionaries
I noticed that in the second passage, Paul turned to personal matters. Missionary matters. I made a list.
This is the list where I was asking “I wonder” of the text. Paul didn’t say, do these things. He said, I am doing these things. What we have here is not prescriptive but descriptive. The distinction between those two types of information is critical. A distinction which when ignored creates unnecessary burden on the flock at best and straight up heresy at worst.
Reflection
Once again, we are not to the point of actual application. From what I’ve studied so far, making “I will” statements would be premature. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t look at what Paul said and have basic comprehension. From there, I can make a general statement of reality. It’s the thing I can chew on for the rest of the day.
Remember last time we met? I was staggered by the idea that the G.O.A.T. missionary Paul needed prayer. If Paul needed prayer, where does that leave the rest of us?
Now in my present installment of study, I made that Opposites list. Paul has the statement positively posed:
17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 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.2
In my list, I went the other direction. What if the audience did the opposite? Results from that would be devastating. Consider it.
There are Paul’s in the world today. Not modern day apostles, but people who speak the mystery of the gospel. If the present-day audience leaves behind the helmet and the sword and as a result is complacent in prayer, cowardice will reign in the proclamation of the gospel. The opposite of boldness is cowardice.
Cowardice, friend. I heard a sermon once pointing out that the first line item in Revelation 21:7 of those folks who would have their portion in the lake of fire are the cowardly. How does God feel about cowards? About the not-bold? Let’s join with the ancient church and take that helmet and that sword.
This is a solid chunk to chew on today.
Wrap Up
We began our time today mulling over different kinds of questions. There are questions with definite answers and questions that have maybe answers.
As our kids were growing up and we were efforting to bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, we would teach them about these different questions. Answers to these questions needed to be organized and we described that using a mental filing system.
- For Sure
- Maybe
I think there could also be a “definitely not” file for straight up heresy, but I will leave that alone for now.
For Sure File
In the “for sure” file was the information about which there was no doubt. Clear data to go in the “for sure” file would be things like we had in our last passage. Verses like Ephesians 6:2-3 which clearly contain promises.
2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”3
Like these verses are Ephesians 6:5-8, which also contain a promise.
5 Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free.4Ephesians 6:5–8 (ESV)/4
The information gained from studying these verses would be classified as doctrine. We may not know the exact form of going well with you or living long in the land, but whatever it is, it is true. It will come to pass if you honor your father and mother.
Maybe File
Contained in this mental file is potentially more tidbits of data than the “for sure” file.
Consider Missionaries in My Own Study
In my own study today, I have this list about missionaries. Did you read my scribbles that make up my list? At the end of the list I have this bullet point:
The verses where I get this thought are Ephesians 6:21-22. It is born from my observation of some missionaries who flit from field to state side at the drop of a hat. The budget for travel for these missionaries must be monumental. Maybe Paul’s example of what seems like a short-term missionary is a good idea. Perhaps a missionary sent to gather intel from Paul in order to let the partner churches know what’s happening is better than furloughs.
See? “Maybe” file. Paul is in chains when he writes this letter, so him traveling back isn’t a possibility. Though Paul says that Asian churches will know how we are. There were other folks with him. Were they missionaries too? I don’t know. I wonder though. Clearly the mental “maybe” file. How missions run is one of those aspects of Christian living that can be discussed, deliberated, and decided among the members of the local churches.
Consider Requirements for Communion
Recently I heard another sermon where the pastor declared that no one should take communion before they were baptized. They are not part of the community of saints without the ordinance of baptism, therefore to eat of the Table would not be right.
At the outset, this might appear doctrinally sound. Except upon further consideration, is there anywhere in scripture that clearly states this as fact? Is there anywhere in scripture that can cast doubt on this?
The pastor was drawing lines between circumcision and baptism. Does scripture ever definitively correlate these two ordinances? Could scripture have ever definitively correlated these two? Then why didn’t it?
These are good questions to ask when interpreting scripture and deciding where points of doctrine should be classified.
What this pastor was preaching belongs firmly in the mental “maybe” file because there is no clear instruction about it. I have my own opinions about this declared doctrine and wouldn’t mind an audience with this pastor to discuss it. It’s possible that this is one of those aspects of Christian living, in this case the structure of that local church, that could be up for discussion, deliberation, and decision on the part of individuals or groups of saints.
Keep Adding to the “Maybe” File
My wonderings as I observe and the correlations of this pastor I heard, we both should be quick to add to the “maybe” file. A point of doctrine that belongs in the “for sure” file is that Jesus has a problem when sheep are burdened with loads that he didn’t place on the flock. Making “maybe’s” into “for sure’s” seems to be potentially piling it on the backs of the sheep.
Thanks for studying with me today! If you’ve found anything helpful here, please like and subscribe. And if you know of other students of the Word, would you please share so we can all study and encourage each other with what we’re learning?
