My Exegesis of Eph 2:8-9

Aaron32

Active member
God tried walking with Adam, but he was too afraid (Genesis 3:8-10)

Enoch walked:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Gen 5:24)
Hebrews 11:5 notes Enoch had faith.

Noah walked:
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
9 ....Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:8-9)

God covenanted with Abraham that he should walk:
“walk before me, be thou perfect” (Gen. 17:1, 13-14) and gave him a token of the covenant of circumcision, that anyone who would not perform it would be cut off.

The children of Israel walked...
Ex 14:29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea;

And,when they reached the promised land, they were commanded to continue to walk:
“...what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,..” Deut 10:12

Yet, they didnt understand nor keep the covenant as God intended:
4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.
10 To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. (Jeremiah 4:6, 6:10)

John the Baptist showed us the “straight” way (to walk):
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
Of which, Jesus was baptized by Him (John 1:23)

Jesus followed John’s “way” to fulfill all righteousness:
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matt 3:13-15)
Note

By following Jesus, we are doing Gods will, and we will be built upon his rock:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.(Matt 7:13,21,24)

The church is also built upon His rock, Peter (an apostle) was part of the foundation:
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt 16:18)

Added Sidenote - (For those with ears to hear)
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus gave the great commission to Peter and the Apostles:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt 28:18-20)

Of which, Peter fulfilled his commission AFTER people were filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. (Acts2:4,38)

Paul was baptized, and received the Holy Ghost:

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Paul re-baptized those baptized by John the Baptist for the sake of receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:1-5)

Tying it all together in Ephesians:

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him (Eph 1:9-10)

Highlighting in all the examples (given above) - it not the “works” that save us, but grace:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Though it is not the “works” that save us, doesn’t mean are not designated good works to walk in:
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10)

Paul linking “the walk” with the church:
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
(Eph 2:19-22)

Where we become “the family” of God:
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, (Eph 3:14-15)
(keep in mind the covenant of Abraham above)

There is only one way:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

And don’t forget grace;
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. (Ephesians 4:4-7)

One might say:
“.. to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
...we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.” (2 Ne 25:23, 25)

Nephi goes into more detail:
“4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?” (2 Nephi 31:4-10)

You don’t have to take MY word for it, or Paul’s, or Nephi’s - you can know this by studying God’s word confirmed by revelation:

“8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:8-12)

Nephi gives a similar warning:
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
Pretty good, except for the BoMquotes. We do not need those. The Bible is 100% sufficient to know the true Gospel message and God's will. Also, Jesus meant Himself when He said "upon THIS Rock" I will build my church." Certainly the church is built upon the foundation of the 12 apostles, but Jesus is the cornerstone, the BIG Rock. The other rocks are little rocks...And I do not mean the capital of Arkansas! :p
 

Aaron32

Active member
Pretty good, except for the BoMquotes. We do not need those. The Bible is 100% sufficient to know the true Gospel message and God's will. Also, Jesus meant Himself when He said "upon THIS Rock" I will build my church." Certainly the church is built upon the foundation of the 12 apostles, but Jesus is the cornerstone, the BIG Rock. The other rocks are little rocks...And I do not mean the capital of Arkansas! :p
Peter means “Stone” in Hebrew.
True, Jesus might have been referring to Himself, since the subject was “Who Ye say that I am”. He could also be referring to the method in which Peter knew “not by flesh and blood, but by [His] Father.” But, given the context, that keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, it likely He was talking about him.
There is only one foundation - Law and Prophets (OT), Witness of the Apostles (NT), and Jesus - the cornerstone which Fitly frames it all together.

Since this Is the Mormonism board, my purpose is not only exegete Ephesians 2:8-9, but illustrating the real meaning of “by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
Peter means “Stone” in Hebrew.
True, Jesus might have been referring to Himself, since the subject was “Who Ye say that I am”. He could also be referring to the method in which Peter knew “not by flesh and blood, but by [His] Father.” But, given the context, that keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, it likely He was talking about him.
There is only one foundation - Law and Prophets (OT), Witness of the Apostles (NT), and Jesus - the cornerstone which Fitly frames it all together.

Since this Is the Mormonism board, my purpose is not only exegete Ephesians 2:8-9, but illustrating the real meaning of “by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”
Actually, no. 'Lithos" is stone in Greek. The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew. When Jesus said "upon this ROCK" the Greek word for "rock" used is "petra" which is feminine and means a big, rocky massif, like El Capitain in Yosemite Nat'l park. "Peter" is from "petros" which is masculine and means a chunk of rock, like a boulder. So, no, it does NOT refer to the "method" by which Peter knew who Jesus was. Nor was Jesus referring to Peter, but Himself and the "rock" of Peter's confession. And Jesus did not build His church on revelation. 1 Cor. 10 says this:

Warnings From Israel’s History​

10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

"Rock" here is the same word as used in Matthew--Petra. So, the Rock is Christ Jesus our Lord. Also, in the OT, GOD is called the "Rock of our salvation."

The keys represent Jesus' authority and access to the kingdom of God via the true Gospel message. Peter was not the only one with the authority to dispense the Gospel message; all believers can do that, in Jesus' name and authority.
 

zerinus

Member
God tried walking with Adam, but he was too afraid (Genesis 3:8-10)
That is not quite correct, is it. Adam walked with God before the Fall without a problem. After the Fall, he became conscious of his nakedness for the first time, and rightly didn't want to appear before God in that condition. Would you want to walk down the street naked? So why would you want to walk with God naked? Later on when God clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins, that problem disappeared.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Actually, no. 'Lithos" is stone in Greek. The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew. When Jesus said "upon this ROCK" the Greek word for "rock" used is "petra" which is feminine and means a big, rocky massif, like El Capitain in Yosemite Nat'l park. "Peter" is from "petros" which is masculine and means a chunk of rock, like a boulder.

First of all, Bonnie is correct. The name "Peter" is not found anywhere in the OT, or in Hebrew in general, since it comes from Greek ("petros"), meaning "rock". "Stone" comes from the Greek term "lithos", from which we get "lithograph, "monolith", and the chemical name "lithium".

I do take issue, however, with the claim that the masculine "petros" and feminine "petra' have different meanings. This is an old argument against the RCC doctrine of Petrine primacy, and from everything I've read, there's little to defend it.

So, no, it does NOT refer to the "method" by which Peter knew who Jesus was. Nor was Jesus referring to Peter, but Himself and the "rock" of Peter's confession. And Jesus did not build His church on revelation.

Yes, it is a misinterpretation to claim that Jesus was building HIS church on Peter. If He did, it would be the Petrine church, not the "Christ"-ian church. Jesus is not dead! "He is risen!" He is still around to run his own church!

Besides, Jesus did NOT say, "You are Peter, and upon YOU I will build MY church".
He said", you are Peter, and upon THIS Rock I will build MY church".

Jesus switched from "second person" (He was speaking directly to Peter), to "third person" ("this"), meaning He was referring to something OTHER than Peter.

Finally, even though it is the RCC's false claim that their church has taught for 2000 years that Peter was "the rock" upon which the church was built, the ECF's (which apparently Mormons LOVE to quote!) say otherwise. They are split between interpreting the "rock" as Christ Himself (1 Cor. 10:4), or whether it was on Peter's confession of the Christ.



And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd."
-- Chrysostom, Homily LIV,

"And wherefore said He not, But I did not suffer it, rather than, I have prayed? He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He may show His humanity. For He that has built His church upon Peter's confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it;"
-- Chrysostom, Homily LXXXIV

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: On him as on a rock the Church was built But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For, Thou art Peter and not Thou art the rock was said to him. But the rock was Christ, in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. 
-- Augustine Retractations

"To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, Thou art the Son of the living God. Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church. 
Hilary


Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peters flesh, but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But his confession of faith conquered hell. 
Ambrose of Milan


"When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple.
-- Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah 4.2


"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." 
-- Augustine, John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

"You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name."
-- Bede, Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156.


"It will not be moved is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord."
-- Cassiodorus, Expositions in the Psalms, Psalm 45.5, M.P.L., Vol. 70, Col. 330)
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
God tried walking with Adam, but he was too afraid (Genesis 3:8-10)

Hello, Aaron... Thank you for taking the time to write this post. You claim it is an "exegesis", and I will assume you sincerely believe that it is. Unfortunately, it is not an exegesis of Eph. 2:8-9 at all. I will also grant you that you have "addressed" Eph. 2:8-9, in that you are definitely put forth the effort.

But I will have to say this, with all respect.

First of all, I had difficulty following the thinking of your post, and even after reading it through three times, still don't understand what you were trying to say. IMO, you are still avoiding (no offense intended) the meaning of Eph. 2:8-9, but you will likely disagree, and perhaps try to say we are not longer allowed to bring up Eph. 2:8-9, since you have already "addressed" it. Well, if that's the case, then it should also be true that Mormons must stop bringing up James 2, because WE have addressed THAT passage many times. After all, fair is fair. Let's not have any double standards, shall we?

Now, let me try to elaborate why I reject the idea that your post is an "exegesis" of Eph. .

You began your post by discussing Gen. 3, Gen. 5, Gen. 6, Gen. 17, Ex. 14, all which refer to "walking with God", which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Eph. 2, since Eph. 2 NEVER refers to "walking with God.

Then you cite Deut. 10, Jer. 4, Jer. 6, John 1, Matt. 3, Matt. 7, Matt. 16, Matt. 28, Acts. 2, Acts 19, and all that (FIFTEEN passages total before you even GOT to the book of Ephesians!

Eisegesis

What you have presented is a strategy called "eisegesis", which is a Greek-based term meaning, "to lead in" ("eis" means "into"). It is when someone projects their personal beliefs INTO a text, rather than getting them from the text. It generally occurs when someone looks at a text, and either wants to interpret it in a particular way, or else wants to AVOID a particular meaning, and so they go to other passages which they think support the doctrine they WANT the verse in question to have, and then claim that those passages are linked to the passage in question, and use that (instead of the immediate context) to argue what the meaning is.

When you started your post with 15 other passages, completely unrelated to Eph. 2:8-9, that is an excellent indication that you were engaging in eisegesis.
Added Sidenote - (For those with ears to hear)
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You also made the questionable comment, "For those with ears to hear". Such a comment has absolutely no place in an exegetical application. If you need someone to have "ears to hear" in order to understand something, and if you bring out an automatic excuse for why people might reject your opinion, "well, they must not have ears to hear", then you are doing anything BUT "exegesis".



Exegesis

So what does exegesis look like? There are many great examples of it, but my mentor was James White, who did a masterful job. Just as an example, I would recommend Dr. White's book, "Drawn by the Father", which is about 45-50 pages long, and is basically just an exegesis and "walk through" of John 6:35-45, where he starts at v. 35, discusses what it says, and then follows Jesus' thought process as He goes from verse to verse.

Exegesis is simply studying a particular passage in CONTEXT. For an exegesis of Eph. 2:8-9, for instance, you might begin a few verses back, staring from Eph. 2:5, and working your way forward. It might be better to start at Eph. 2:1, to get a good running start on the context. I wouldn't even have a problem starting from Eph. 1:1, the beginning of the epistle.

Exegesis involves following the author's argument from one verse (or sentence) to the next, and explaining the argument as you see it. It means paying attention to linking words, such as "since", "because", or "therefore" (there is a common saying in evangelical churches, we ask ourselves, "What is the 'therefore' there for?").

Does that mean we should ignore the rest of the Bible? Of course not! But we must not ignore the IMMEDIATE context of Eph., which you didn't seem to address very much at all. And certainly, if we find Paul citing or alluding to a particular OT verse in that immediate context, we would do well to go back and study it in its context, and see the link for the reason why Paul quoted it to support his argument. Or if there are key words Paul uses, it might be useful to look at where they are used in the OT, although it is not always as clear that the passages you might find are directly relevant to the understanding of Eph. 2:8-9.

You seem to have tried to do this, when you quoted a bunch of passages which talk of people "walking with God". But since Paul never wrote about "walking with God" in Ephesians, this doesn't seem to be relevant. Paul does mention "walking" in his epistle, but it was referring to:
"walking in sin" (Eph. 2:1);
"walking in good works" (Eph. 2:10);
"walking" in the fruits of the Spirit (Eph. 4:1);
not "walking" as the Gentiles do (Eph. 4:17);
"walk in love" (Eph. 5:2);
"walk as children of light" (Eph. 5:8);
"walk" in wisdom (Eph. 5:15);

Tying it all together in Ephesians:
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him (Eph 1:9-10)

Highlighting in all the examples (given above) - it not the “works” that save us, but grace:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Though it is not the “works” that save us, doesn’t mean are not designated good works to walk in:
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10)

Paul linking “the walk” with the church:
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
(Eph 2:19-22)

Where we become “the family” of God:
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, (Eph 3:14-15)
(keep in mind the covenant of Abraham above)

There is only one way:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

And don’t forget grace;
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. (Ephesians 4:4-7)

Here you simply QUOTE the verse, providing very little outside the actual text.
This is NOT "exegesis", this is simply quoting the text, and not explaining how you understand what it means.





You don’t have to take MY word for it, or Paul’s, or Nephi’s - you can know this by studying God’s word confirmed by revelation:

I have spent 30 years prayerfully studying God's word, with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
That's why I know Mormonism is false, and an abomination before God.
 

Aaron32

Active member
That is not quite correct, is it. Adam walked with God before the Fall without a problem. After the Fall, he became conscious of his nakedness for the first time, and rightly didn't want to appear before God in that condition. Would you want to walk down the street naked? So why would you want to walk with God naked? Later on when God clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins, that problem disappeared.
If I could find a scripture that stated Adam walked with God that non-Mormon Christians would accept, I’d use it. Maybe you could help me there.
Yes. Before the Fall Adam wasn’t ashamed of his nakedness. If he hadn’t partaken of the fruit (if he continued in obedience), he would have still walked with God.
The problem disappeared...until he was cast out of the Garden.
Do you understand my point of my post in its entirety? Don’t you like people supporting your side, or do you just want to debate everything that moves? Can we stop with the friendly fire, or do you have a serious point to make that I’m missing?
 

Aaron32

Active member
Hello, Aaron... Thank you for taking the time to write this post. You claim it is an "exegesis", and I will assume you sincerely believe that it is. Unfortunately, it is not an exegesis of Eph. 2:8-9 at all. I will also grant you that you have "addressed" Eph. 2:8-9, in that you are definitely put forth the effort.

But I will have to say this, with all respect.

First of all, I had difficulty following the thinking of your post, and even after reading it through three times, still don't understand what you were trying to say. IMO, you are still avoiding (no offense intended) the meaning of Eph. 2:8-9, but you will likely disagree, and perhaps try to say we are not longer allowed to bring up Eph. 2:8-9, since you have already "addressed" it. Well, if that's the case, then it should also be true that Mormons must stop bringing up James 2, because WE have addressed THAT passage many times. After all, fair is fair. Let's not have any double standards, shall we?

Now, let me try to elaborate why I reject the idea that your post is an "exegesis" of Eph. .

You began your post by discussing Gen. 3, Gen. 5, Gen. 6, Gen. 17, Ex. 14, all which refer to "walking with God", which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Eph. 2, since Eph. 2 NEVER refers to "walking with God.

Then you cite Deut. 10, Jer. 4, Jer. 6, John 1, Matt. 3, Matt. 7, Matt. 16, Matt. 28, Acts. 2, Acts 19, and all that (FIFTEEN passages total before you even GOT to the book of Ephesians!

Eisegesis

What you have presented is a strategy called "eisegesis", which is a Greek-based term meaning, "to lead in" ("eis" means "into"). It is when someone projects their personal beliefs INTO a text, rather than getting them from the text. It generally occurs when someone looks at a text, and either wants to interpret it in a particular way, or else wants to AVOID a particular meaning, and so they go to other passages which they think support the doctrine they WANT the verse in question to have, and then claim that those passages are linked to the passage in question, and use that (instead of the immediate context) to argue what the meaning is.

When you started your post with 15 other passages, completely unrelated to Eph. 2:8-9, that is an excellent indication that you were engaging in eisegesis.


You also made the questionable comment, "For those with ears to hear". Such a comment has absolutely no place in an exegetical application. If you need someone to have "ears to hear" in order to understand something, and if you bring out an automatic excuse for why people might reject your opinion, "well, they must not have ears to hear", then you are doing anything BUT "exegesis".



Exegesis

So what does exegesis look like? There are many great examples of it, but my mentor was James White, who did a masterful job. Just as an example, I would recommend Dr. White's book, "Drawn by the Father", which is about 45-50 pages long, and is basically just an exegesis and "walk through" of John 6:35-45, where he starts at v. 35, discusses what it says, and then follows Jesus' thought process as He goes from verse to verse.

Exegesis is simply studying a particular passage in CONTEXT. For an exegesis of Eph. 2:8-9, for instance, you might begin a few verses back, staring from Eph. 2:5, and working your way forward. It might be better to start at Eph. 2:1, to get a good running start on the context. I wouldn't even have a problem starting from Eph. 1:1, the beginning of the epistle.

Exegesis involves following the author's argument from one verse (or sentence) to the next, and explaining the argument as you see it. It means paying attention to linking words, such as "since", "because", or "therefore" (there is a common saying in evangelical churches, we ask ourselves, "What is the 'therefore' there for?").

Does that mean we should ignore the rest of the Bible? Of course not! But we must not ignore the IMMEDIATE context of Eph., which you didn't seem to address very much at all. And certainly, if we find Paul citing or alluding to a particular OT verse in that immediate context, we would do well to go back and study it in its context, and see the link for the reason why Paul quoted it to support his argument. Or if there are key words Paul uses, it might be useful to look at where they are used in the OT, although it is not always as clear that the passages you might find are directly relevant to the understanding of Eph. 2:8-9.

You seem to have tried to do this, when you quoted a bunch of passages which talk of people "walking with God". But since Paul never wrote about "walking with God" in Ephesians, this doesn't seem to be relevant. Paul does mention "walking" in his epistle, but it was referring to:
"walking in sin" (Eph. 2:1);
"walking in good works" (Eph. 2:10);
"walking" in the fruits of the Spirit (Eph. 4:1);
not "walking" as the Gentiles do (Eph. 4:17);
"walk in love" (Eph. 5:2);
"walk as children of light" (Eph. 5:8);
"walk" in wisdom (Eph. 5:15);

Here you simply QUOTE the verse, providing very little outside the actual text.
This is NOT "exegesis", this is simply quoting the text, and not explaining how you understand what it means.

I have spent 30 years prayerfully studying God's word, with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
That's why I know Mormonism is false, and an abomination before God.
I appreciate you recognizing my effort.
Likewise, I appreciate your detailed response.

Yet, I think it’s apparent we are simply on two different frequencies, and just don’t understand each other. I also we have limited trust, which is understandable.

I consider my understanding (or lack thereof) Of the word “exegesis” the minutiae of the argument.
I think anyone with a desire to understand of what I was trying to say would see that my attempt at exegesis would see that I was laying the groundwork to expose the meaning of the text. Stephen did something similar in Acts 7 to illustrate Christ’s divinity. Likewise, I’m sure the learned discounted his argument as well.

If you fail to understand, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong, it just means I don’t know how to exegete to your satisfaction and I used the wrong term. Jesus spoke many truths in parables that some did not understand.
Paul preached foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor 1:23). I’m perfectly comfortable being alone in my understanding, and if you want to understand me, then you can continue to read my OP and pray for a spirit of understanding. Nevertheless, I’ll give a summary that might help:

The parts of the Bible I highlighted were key points in the Gospel story, the fall of Adam, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Law, the Beattitudes. I think those are all major turning points in terms of doctrine, wouldn't you agree?
My strategy was to highlight key elements in each. “Walking” seemed to be common among them.
Ephesians is an letter written to a multicultural group. Thus Paul wanted to explain how the church is a big family regardless of our backgrounds, but the aim is to become ONE in Christ. I knew you weknowledgeable, and I assumed you knew that.
While Ephesians 2:8-9 highlights and underscores how we are saved by grace, and not by works...
Eph 2:10 says God still has works ordained that we should WALK in them.
Explicitly, it would be foolish to think God gives conditions to Abraham and Israel to be a part of the family, but a free pass to Christians. Thus, baptism and confirmation, and the sacrament are works that shows who actually are his family. And those works require authority to be bound in Heaven.

So, despite the breadth and depth of your knowledge, it’s absolutely useless if you cant discern my position, and translate it into your understanding and pinpoint the gap in our understanding that I may be edified. If you are assuming the role of “teacher” and I, “the uneducated fool.” Help me understand what I’m missing here, and that I have a greater sin other than being called “Mormon”.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I also we have limited trust, which is understandable.

That works both ways.

I consider my understanding (or lack thereof) Of the word “exegesis” the minutiae of the argument.

And that's a big part of the problem.
Exegesis is a fundamental part of understanding Scripture (or any text), it is not a "minutiae".
But Mormons seem to think that "the Spirit" will simply give the correct meaning to everyone, but the existence of hundreds of Mormon sects alone shows how unreliable that is.

I think anyone with a desire to understand of what I was trying to say would see that my attempt at exegesis would see that I was laying the groundwork to expose the meaning of the text. Stephen did something similar in Acts 7 to illustrate Christ’s divinity. Likewise, I’m sure the learned discounted his argument as well.

Here is the attitude problem.
Anyone who disagrees with you is the "learned" ignorant who "discount the ["correct"] argument.

If you fail to understand, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong, it just means I don’t know how to exegete to your satisfaction

Of course not. You couldn't possibly be wrong, right?

and I used the wrong term. Jesus spoke many truths in parables that some did not understand.

There's that attitude problem again. You're not Jesus.
Paul preached foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor 1:23). I’m perfectly comfortable being alone in my understanding, and if you want to understand me, then you can continue to read my OP and pray for a spirit of understanding. Nevertheless, I’ll give a summary that might help:

Or maybe you can learn to explain yourself in a way that's understandable.
Maybe... Just maybe.... The communication problem doesn't originate with me.

The parts of the Bible I highlighted were key points in the Gospel story, the fall of Adam, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Law, the Beattitudes. I think those are all major turning points in terms of doctrine, wouldn't you agree?

But the purpose of our discussion was to exegete Eph. 2:8-9, NOT "the fall of Adam", "the Abrahamic Covenant", "the Mosaic Law", "the Beattitudes". Wouldn't YOU agree?

My strategy was to highlight key elements in each. “Walking” seemed to be common among them.

Again, there was nothing in Eph. 2:8-9, or anywhere else in the epistle, about "walking with God".

Ephesians is an letter written to a multicultural group. Thus Paul wanted to explain how the church is a big family regardless of our backgrounds, but the aim is to become ONE in Christ. I knew you weknowledgeable, and I assumed you knew that.

Why would I "know" something you have simply ASSUMED, and haven't demonstrated to be true?
This is why your presentation wasn't "exegesis". You present your personal ASSUMPTIONS, instead of actually sticking to what the actual TEXT presents.

While Ephesians 2:8-9 highlights and underscores how we are saved by grace, and not by works...
Eph 2:10 says God still has works ordained that we should WALK in them.

And you still haven't even begun to try to explain how that Biblical truth goes against the Mormon argument of James 2. You are basically contradicting your Mormon brethren here.

Explicitly, it would be foolish to think God gives conditions to Abraham and Israel to be a part of the family, but a free pass to Christians. Thus, baptism and confirmation, and the sacrament are works that shows who actually are his family. And those works require authority to be bound in Heaven.

But the Bible does NOT TEACH "God gives conditions to Abraham and Israel to be a part of the family, but a free pass to Christians".

So instead of actually exegeting a simple passage such as Eph. 2:8-9, you have instead brought up a number of further false claims that you haven't demonstrated from Scripture.

This actually emphasizes why your interpretation of Scripture is so wrong, since you try to surround your understanding with a whole bunch of false teachings that are nowhere to be found in Scripture.

So, despite the breadth and depth of your knowledge, it’s absolutely useless if you cant discern my position,

Again, maybe the problem is not with my ability to understand, but with your ability to convey it clearly. I'm a teacher by occupation, and I know the necessity of having sufficient teachings skills, not to mention James warning that "Not many should be teachers, brethren".

and translate it into your understanding and pinpoint the gap in our understanding that I may be edified. If you are assuming the role of “teacher” and I, “the uneducated fool.”

Playing the victim now, are we?
I have NEVER called you "the uneducated fool".
YOU are the one who keeps throwing around derogatory comments about "not having ears to hear", and "I'm just doing what Jesus was doing".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
If I could find a scripture that stated Adam walked with God that non-Mormon Christians would accept, I’d use it. Maybe you could help me there.

First of all, "non-Mormon Christians" is redundant, since all Christians are "non-Mormon" by definition.

Secondly, Bonnie is AGREEING with you that Adam walked with God. If you can't understand that, then we know where the communication problem lies.

Yes. Before the Fall Adam wasn’t ashamed of his nakedness. If he hadn’t partaken of the fruit (if he continued in obedience), he would have still walked with God.

You know the "nakedness" had a symbolic meaning, right?
Tell me you know that?

His nakedness meant he couldn't hide his true self (and therefore his sins) from God.
When he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he became aware of his sins, and rightly ashamed of them.

Do you understand my point of my post in its entirety? Don’t you like people supporting your side, or do you just want to debate everything that moves? Can we stop with the friendly fire, or do you have a serious point to make that I’m missing?

I can just imagine how indignant you would become if we directed such comments at you.
<sigh>
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Pretty good, except for the BoMquotes. We do not need those. The Bible is 100% sufficient to know the true Gospel message and God's will. Also, Jesus meant Himself when He said "upon THIS Rock" I will build my church." Certainly the church is built upon the foundation of the 12 apostles, but Jesus is the cornerstone, the BIG Rock. The other rocks are little rocks...And I do not mean the capital of Arkansas! :p
Just a note here--whatever one believes about "little rocks"--the great majority of the Biblical NT text was attributed to the apostle's writings.

As a side to that point--what do you find in the Book of Mormon, as to salvational doctrines--which is not also found in the Biblical NT?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
As a side to that point--what do you find in the Book of Mormon, as to salvational doctrines--which is not also found in the Biblical NT?

So apparently you think that asking the same question for the 50 millionth time will result in receiving an answer that you find acceptable.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Paul preached foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor 1:23).

1 Cor. 1:23 but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.

Actually, Paul didn't "preach foolishness".
He preached the crucified Christ.
The Greeks simply CONSIDERED it "foolishness".

So one wonders why you think you have the truth, when you can't understand straightforward statements from the Bible.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
First of all, Bonnie is correct. The name "Peter" is not found anywhere in the OT, or in Hebrew in general, since it comes from Greek ("petros"), meaning "rock". "Stone" comes from the Greek term "lithos", from which we get "lithograph, "monolith", and the chemical name "lithium".

I do take issue, however, with the claim that the masculine "petros" and feminine "petra' have different meanings. This is an old argument against the RCC doctrine of Petrine primacy, and from everything I've read, there's little to defend it.



Yes, it is a misinterpretation to claim that Jesus was building HIS church on Peter. If He did, it would be the Petrine church, not the "Christ"-ian church. Jesus is not dead! "He is risen!" He is still around to run his own church!

Besides, Jesus did NOT say, "You are Peter, and upon YOU I will build MY church".
He said", you are Peter, and upon THIS Rock I will build MY church".

Jesus switched from "second person" (He was speaking directly to Peter), to "third person" ("this"), meaning He was referring to something OTHER than Peter.

Finally, even though it is the RCC's false claim that their church has taught for 2000 years that Peter was "the rock" upon which the church was built, the ECF's (which apparently Mormons LOVE to quote!) say otherwise. They are split between interpreting the "rock" as Christ Himself (1 Cor. 10:4), or whether it was on Peter's confession of the Christ.



And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd."
-- Chrysostom, Homily LIV,

"And wherefore said He not, But I did not suffer it, rather than, I have prayed? He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He may show His humanity. For He that has built His church upon Peter's confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it;"
-- Chrysostom, Homily LXXXIV

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: On him as on a rock the Church was built But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For, Thou art Peter and not Thou art the rock was said to him. But the rock was Christ, in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. 
-- Augustine Retractations

"To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, Thou art the Son of the living God. Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church. 
Hilary


Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peters flesh, but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But his confession of faith conquered hell. 
Ambrose of Milan


"When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple.
-- Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah 4.2


"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." 
-- Augustine, John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

"You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name."
-- Bede, Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156.


"It will not be moved is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord."
-- Cassiodorus, Expositions in the Psalms, Psalm 45.5, M.P.L., Vol. 70, Col. 330)
Hi Theo--Actually, petros and Petra, though related, still have slightly different meanings. I checked with that Greek scholar friend of mine, Dr. Luginbill, whom I have been writing to since 2003, and he confirmed the difference in meaning. It is he who gave me the "El Capitain" reference.

Thanks for the other quotes. I have seen the St. Augustine one before. I may archive your response for future reference on the RCC board.
 

Aaron32

Active member
1 Cor. 1:23 but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.

Actually, Paul didn't "preach foolishness".
He preached the crucified Christ.
The Greeks simply CONSIDERED it "foolishness".

So one wonders why you think you have the truth, when you can't understand straightforward statements from the Bible.
Why would you assume I didn’t know that when I wrote it?
 

Aaron32

Active member
Um, because I took you at your word, based on the words you wrote.

You said "Paul preached foolishness".
The Bible NEVER teaches that.
Taking my words out of context much?

I said:
“ If you fail to understand, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong, it just means I don’t know how to exegete to your satisfaction and I used the wrong term. Jesus spoke many truths in parables that some did not understand.
Paul preached foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor 1:23). I’m perfectly comfortable being alone in my understanding, and if you want to understand me, then you can continue to read my OP and pray for a spirit of understanding.”

The sentence you selected is in the midst of a statement of your failure to understand me.
 
Top