Nostr Web Client

I would like to hear more of your take on Ephesians 4:6.

You say “God can and does indwell his people, but not by blending or mixing the finite with the infinite…”

Is that not exactly what happened when Jesus took on flesh? Isn’t His life a “template” pointing to the beginning of all things?

[We receive "his Spirit" in our "jars of clay."]

Wouldn’t His bodily resurrection suggest that the emphasis shouldn’t be to conceptualize our bodies as “jars of clay”, but rather new (presumably eternal) “wine skins” (referencing Lk. 5:38).

If so, might that be a template for the whole (physical) world? 🌍

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

(sorry this is much longer than I'd intended)

Again, great questions. This is a poor/difficult medium, but I'll give it a shot...

Regarding [Ephesians 4:6](https://esv.org/Eph+4), "[There is]...one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all [of you]." (ESV) - first, notice to whom he is speaking (back up to verse 1): he is speaking directly to the saints in Ephesus, and he is talking about what it means to be "one" in the church. Secondly, the ESV lacks that "of you" in the last phrase, but it's there in the Greek (and in the KJV, at least). So, given the greater context, especially the exhortation in verse 2, the main point seems to be: we are one in Christ, so let's act that way, let's bear with those who aren't as far along, and let's keep going. And more to the point of your question, Paul is not saying here that "God *is* all things," nor is he saying "God is *in* all things," but he is saying "God is in you all" and he is speaking to the church (those who have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ).

- Remember that the person of the Son of God--eternally begotten, not made--"took on flesh," which is to say that "he become what he was not, without ceasing to be what he always was," as the ancient fathers put it. The Person who took on flesh pre-existed the taking on of that flesh, did not cease to be that person, and did not become a new person. A summary of the [Nicene Creed](https://threeforms.org/the-nicene-creed/) would be "one person in two natures," and the [Athanasian Creed](https://threeforms.org/the-athanasian-creed/) gets even more precise: "He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person." The divine nature and the human nature stand together without the one becoming the other, or even mixing with the other--"one person, two natures." The theologians call this the [hypostatic union](https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/he19/), and a bit of digging on that might prove fruitful. More to your point, the Holy Spirit indwelt Christ "without measure," so in a sense, since we receive the selfsame Spirit, we are like him in that way. But the Spirit never becomes us, and we never become the Spirit, there is never an identity of persons. Even with Christ, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son. This is worthy of reflection. Think of it: as mediator, he had to be true man in order to redeem man (he could not be anything other), and he had to be true God in order to bear the weight of that just judgement (he could not be anything other). So if Christ was some third thing, neither fully man nor fully God, but some mixture of each, he could not have been the mediator.

- There is a difference between Christ and us, though we share the same substance (human nature): the person of Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, incarnate. That is, though he "took on flesh," in doing so did not cease to be divine. He did not descend from Adam "by ordinary generation," as the rest of us did. He is a new head of humanity; the firstborn of [read: over] the new creation, as well as the first fruits of the new creation. Whereas he is eternally begotten of Father, not created, we are adopted into the family.

- "Jars of clay" - yes, "new wineskins" is also a good biblical analogy/metaphor. The point is that we don't yet have our glorified, resurrected bodies. The Holy Spirit's indwelling, as a gift of grace, is like a downpayment on full glorification. A "seed," if you will, of the new life that is yet to come in the state of glory. For now, in the age of grace, we struggle with fits and starts, slowing being sanctified little by little until that day. But we have this promise: "because he was raised, [since we are joined to him as body is to head], we also shall be raised." Where head [forefunner] goes, the body [rest of the ship] is sure to follow. (Think also of birth: the body follows the path ~trailblazed~ so to speak, by the head.)

I didn't have as much time to refine this as I'd hoped, but hopefully this makes some sense of where I'm coming from. It's a real pleasure to get to talk about these things. Thank you.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

A further thought: Paul is eager in this Epistle to show that the Jews and Gentiles are no longer separate, but "one in Christ," so we could also read this as him emphasizing God's oneness over "all [kinds]," which is to say, both Jew and Gentile. Look at his argument in Ephesians 2: by the tearing down of the wall of separation, he has made of the two one new man in Christ. It is a call for unity.

Also just came across an excellent commentary on Ephesians written by the Great William Hendriksen. He writes, in a footnote on the word translated "all,":

> The entire context clearly indicates that the word πάντων ["all"] is here not neuter. In the present connection the apostle has not been discussing God's relation to the universe or to nature [as as whole]."

-- William Hendriksen, _Galatians and Ephesians_, (New Testament Commentary, Baker, 1968).

Auxmos 1y ago

I appreciate you taking the time to write this out. It took me a while to review everything, but it proved to be extremely insightful.

With all that said, how do you think about the experience of His presence/nearness in something like a beautiful sunrise?

How does Romans 1:20 weave its way into this conversation:

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

Are we to understand the seeing of His invisible qualities as a “reflection” in the physical world around us or something else?

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

I really enjoyed responding--and was sharpened by a closer look at that one particular verse (Eph. 4:6) than I think I'd done before. So: thank you, too.

I think the best answer is that the glory of a sunrise (or sunset) is magnified when we realize that it "speaks." It is a gift for us, and is wonderful in itself, and yet it speaks of an even greater glory. I think of Psalm 19. God is not the created light, or the created heat, but when we see the light and feel the heat it is as from his direct hand, and gives something true about him even if only by way of analogy. We can be thankful for both the gift, and the giver. I think in those situations, God is not necessarily "more present" -- he is always present everywhere -- but we are given a greater sense of his presence, like a veil is lifted a bit more. E.g., the armies of heaven were with Elisha all along, but he was granted to see/experience it for a moment (2 Kings 6).

So, I'm not sure I would use the word 'reflection,' though I think I see what you're getting at. I think I'd prefer the word 'messenger.' There is volition involved in God's creating the heavens and earth _in order to_ show his glory. Created beauty is a servant-messenger to the Creator, and is dependent on him. It is not (to expressly push back on pantheistic ideas) merely an emanation from his essence, nor part of his being, that 'just is.' He reveals what he wills about himself, when and where and how he, in his wisdom, so chooses. "The secret things belong to the Lord, but what he has revealed belongs to us, and to our children, forever." (Deut. 29:29).

If I'm away for a while, and my wife sends me a letter--I see her handwriting, I read her 'heart' and 'mind' (or whatever of it she has chosen to open to me in this moment), maybe there's even a faint whiff of her perfume--I do not have _her_ but I have clear evidence of her: I have many signs that 'point' to her, even though she is not physically present. (Even if she were, could I 'see' her love without her expressions of it--unless she speaks it, reveals it?) I think there's some analogy in that (though it does break down a bit because she, unlike God, is not omnipresent)...

But all that said: I certainly agree that in a majestic sunrise or sunset my mind is more fixed on the God who created that, for us, as a gift, and especially as a gift that gives some 'whiff' or 'hint' of his greater glory--into whose presence we (though enemies) are welcomed, by grace along, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

"...in your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forever more." (Ps. 16:11).

Hope that gets at your question somewhat. (I am not gifted with concise-ness, sorry so long.)

Auxmos 1y ago

The analogy to these things we “see” ultimately being messages is helpful.

To reference a note you posted a couple days ago:

note1tfdzwwrgd8jyddnuvzy96nqsj3uqdepnhae9klrnedkfrp57qqqssd66xk

Underneath it all, the fact that He is speaking is potentially the most important thing.

The idea that we have to realize He is speaking reminds me of Job 33:14:

For God does speak—now one way, now another—

though no one perceives it.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

Excellent. Hebrews 1 also comes to mind!