EPHESUS Ephesus is a Greek word, which means "desired". It is the capital of the Roman colony on the left side of the Kayster River, west of Asia Minor, about three miles from the sea. It is almost in the middle between the city of Smyrna from the left, Miletus from the south, and it is where all the commercial roads meet, especially the main road between Rome and the East. An industrial port was built there, which gave it some great importance in the Middle Ages. It was known for its great temple Artamis, which is a goddes representing a mother who has many breasts, most probably of a Hathian origin 1. To the Greeks, it is considered the goddess of moon, like Diana to the Romans. It appears as a virgin, tall and beautiful, sister of Apollo. They think that her statue descended from heaven, and often it is drawn in the shape of a fisherman. The Ionians, who are of Greek origin, occupied the city of Ephesus at 11 B.C., and it became one of the twelve cities in their union, and became the capital of Ionia. In the year 555 B.C., the city fell under the reign of Croesus, the king of Lydia, (its capital is Sardes). After a short while, it became under the Persian rule. During the reign of Alexander the Great, it was under the Greek Macedonian rule. In the year 133 B.C., it became under the Roman rule and became the capital of Asia. In the year 29 B.C., an earthquake demolished the city, and Emperor Tabarius ordered its reconstruction. ESTABLISHING THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS In Ephesus, there were many Jews with Roman citizenship 2(Acts 18:19 & 19:17). At the end of St. Paul's second missionary trip (about 54 A.D.), on his return to Jerusalem, he visited Ephesus where he preached in their synagogue. There he left Aquila and Priscilla to continue his work (Acts 18: 18-21), and promised the Jews that he will return to them very soon. During his absence, Apollos came from Alexandria, and he was one of St. John the Baptist's disciples. He preached in the synagogue only about what he had known about the Lord Christ, but Aquila and Priscilla taught him the way of the Lord more accurately. (Acts 18: 24- 26). According to his promise, St. Paul returned on 54 A.D., or on his third missionary trip, where he found some disciples who had not accepted except the baptism of John the Baptist, so he preached them about the Lord Jesus and baptized them. Putting his hand on them and the Holy Spirit descended on them and they started talking with different languages and prophecy. (Acts 19: 3-9) St. Paul preached in the synagogue of the Jews for three months. When the unbelieving Jews attacked him, he left them and preached in a school of Tyrannus for two years, until all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. (Acts 19: 8-12) The results of St. Paul's preaching in Ephesus, as St. Luke wrote in the book of Acts were as follows: 1. Many of the Jews and Gentiles accepted the faith of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:10) 2. The word of God reached all over Asia, through its capital, Ephesus. (Acts 19:10) 3. Since God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul (Acts 19:11), some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists called the name of the Lord Jesus, whom Paul preaches, over those who had evil spirits (Acts 19: 13), while many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver. (Acts 19:19) 4. The worship of Artamis was abolished, which made the craftsmen mad and they rioted, attacking the preaching of St. Paul and considering it an insult to the great temple. (Acts 19: 24- 29) 5. The establishment of a great church in Ephesus, with many priests, was mentioned in Acts chapter 20. In Miletus, (south of Ephesus), after preaching in Macedonia and Achaia, St. Paul called all the priests of Ephesus and told them about the false prophets who are like savage wolves who do not spare the flock. (Acts 20:29) When St. Paul left Ephesus, his disciple Timothy went to serve there, so that they may teach no other doctrine (1 Tim. 1: 3). Tychicus was sent to Ephesus, with this epistle (Eph. 6: 21 & 2 Tim. 4:12). Probably, he gave some copies to other churches in Asia, as well as he sent a special epistle to the Colossians. The church of Ephesus was one of the seven churches in Asia mentioned in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:11 & 2: 1-7). According to church tradition, St. John spent his last days in Ephesus, and later departed on the island of Patmos, which is across from Ephesus. On the year 431 A.D., the third ecumenical council was held there to attack the heresy of Nestor, who was the patriarch of Constantinople who said that the Lord Jesus had two natures, considering that the divinity came upon Him on His baptism. Now the saying that Ephesus left her first love has been fulfilled in her, and that He is about to move her lampstand (Rev. 2:4), for it was transformed to the village of "Ephis", where no Christians live anymore. The Writer of the Epistle: Up till the nineteenth century, there was no doubt that St. Paul is the writer of the epistle, and that he directed it to the church of Ephesus. However, some critics doubted who the writer was, saying that someone similar to St. Paul wrote this epistle, after the apostolic age, copying many of the writings of St. Paul from other epistles. Even if St. Paul had written it, it was not directed to the church of Ephesus. They put four proofs, which can be summarized in four kinds3. We are going to mention the four proofs and refute them. We will ascertain that this epistle was written by St. Paul and that it was directed to the Ephesians (with other churches like the church of Laodicia). This is the traditional opinion, which the church in the East and the West had adhered to throughout the nineteen centuries. Proofs that the epistle was written by St. Paul: First: The inner witness: D. Guthrie attested that the fingerprints of St. Paul are so obvious in this epistle. For the divine inspiration works in the writer to guide him and keep him from erring, without losing his personality, honoring his individuality, which the Holy Spirit uses and interacts with. St. Paul' personality is apparent in the following points4: 1. The epistle instills the spirit of hope in the souls of the believers, plus encouraging them and thanking God for the news of the one who writes to them: "Therefore, I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers…" (Eph. 1:15,16) 2. He calls himself "…prisoner of Christ Jesus…" (Eph. 3:1), "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord…" (Eph. 4:1). He writes as a prisoner, imprisoned on behalf of faith. 3. He writes about the "mystery of Christ", declared to him personally, for he says, "how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery… of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power." (Eph. 3:3,7) 4. As usual, the apostle points his practical love to whom he writes, for he considers his afflictions for them, asking them not to be occupied with his afflictions, but to look above to the eternal glory, considering his afflictions glory not for himself, but for them also, for he says, "Therefore, I ask that you do not lose heart at my tribulations for you, which is your glory." (Eph. 3:13) 5. He practices his practical love toward all the human race, not only through his preaching and enduring afflictions for them, but also through prayers and interceding for them, in the spirit of humility. "For this reason, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… that He would grant you according to the riches of His glory to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith…" (Eph. 3:14-21) 6. He was a preacher to the Gentiles, always calling them to the new life and the new thought, and forsaking the gentile life with its futile mind: "This I say, therefore, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,… be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4: 17-24) 7. In the spirit of humility, he prays for them and for all the church, for he says, "Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel." (Eph. 6: 18,19) 8. As usual, he concludes the epistle by the apostolic blessing. (Eph. 6: 23,24) 9. His introduction corresponded to the introduction of his second epistle to the Corinthians and his epistle to the Colossians. 10. His fingerprints are very apparent in the general skeleton of this epistle, which is very unique of his character, for the epistle started with the introduction, thanksgiving, talking about the dogma, instilling good conduct, conclusion and the apostolic blessing. Second: The outer Proofs: In spite of the inner proofs that this epistle was written by St. Paul, yet there are outer proofs, which confirm that. This epistle had wide acceptance in the middle of the second century in the Orthodox Church, and even between the heretics. St. Clement the Roman, St. Agnatius the bishop of Antioch5, Policarp the bishop of Smyrna6, Hermas in his book "The Shepherd"7, the "Didache" which is the Lord's teachings to the twelve apostles, and the heretic Merkion mentioned it among the canonical books (around year 140 A.D.) under the name of "The Epistle to the Laodicians". It was also mentioned under the Muratorian Canon8 about the year 180 A.D. among the epistles of St. Paul. Objections about the writer of the epistle and how to refute them: First: Objections regarding the linguistic and stylistic arguments: Some of the scholars and critics like Goodspeed9 object that the epistle contains many of the Greek words, which was never used in any of St. Paul's other epistles, hapaz legomena (36 words. Moreover, they were never used in the whole New Testament (42 words). St. Paul used to use the word "Satanas (Satan), but here he uses the word diabolos (devil)" (Eph. 4:27) (as well as in the pastoral epistles). On the other hand, its style and language is close to the first epistle of St. Clement the Roman (in the era following St. Paul's), more than to St.Paul’s epistles. The scholars refute these objections by the following: 1. The different vocabulary goes back to the different nature, for this epistle is unique as a "liturgical epistle", which contained some of the liturgical praises, for its main topic is "the church". Some of the vocabulary was derived from the liturgical church. Some explain that the different vocabulary goes back to the one whom St. Paul was dictating to, in prison, for he used many writers. 2. This epistle is very related to the first epistle of St. Clement the Roman, because the latter derived a lot of its vocabulary from the first. 3. In spite of the fact that this type of epistle is liturgical, different than all the other epistles, yet it is very close to St. Paul's writings. In its essence, it carries the type and fingerprints of St. Paul, which is very difficult to say that it is not his. It is very obvious that it is St. Paul's type. Second: Litrary Arguments: Some critics say that these objections are major. The most important one is the great similarity between this epistle and the epistle to the Colossians. More than a fourth of the words used in the epistle to the Ephesians were derived from the epistle to the Colossians, while more than a third of the words used in the epistle to the Colossians were repeated in the epistle to the Ephesians. (There are 83 words common in both epistles). The critics say that it is impossible for such a scholar, with renewed thought like St. Paul, to repeat the same words in two epistles, especially that sometimes he uses the same word with two different meanings. The word "mystery" in the epistle to the Colossians refers to Christ, while in the epistle to the Ephesians; it refers to the unity of the Jews with the Gentiles. Goodspeed concluded that the epistle to the Ephesians was not written by St. Paul, but by someone else who adopted parts from St. Paul's letters, especially from the epistle to the Colossians. To refute that, the following is mentioned: 1. The epistle to the Ephesians, as some scholars perceive it, is a periodic epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor, especially the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). The epistle to the Ephesians was recorded as the capital of Asia Minor. Laodicea and Colosse are two cities close to each other, that is why St. Paul asked to exchange the epistles (Col. 4:16), especially that the time in which they were written were close to each other, and were carried by the same person "Tychicus" (Eph. 6:21 & Col. 4:7). Also, both epistles discussed two topics, which compliment one another. The epistle to the Ephesians discussed the church as the body of Christ, while the epistle to the Colossians discussed the topic of "Christ the Head of the church". That is why they are very similar. This similarity does not make us doubt that the writer is one, but on the contrary, confirms that. What the critics considered as an objecting proof is a proof against them. 2. If another writer had adopted words from St. Paul's epistles, he would have adopted complete expressions. However, we say that common words in the two epistles confirm that the epistle was written by St. Paul. 3. Using common words in the two epistles (Ephesians and Colossians) with two different meanings, does not mean that the epistle was not written by St. Paul. On the contrary, it confirms that it belongs to St. Paul with the wide thought who can give more than one meaning to the expression. When he talks to the Colossians about "Christ the Head of the church", he talks about the "mystery" being "the mystery of Christ". In the epistle to the Ephesians, when he talks about "the church as the Body of Christ", he talks about the mystery as the union of the church with Christ, whether those of Gentile origin or Jewish origin. Although the two meanings are different, yet we find them complimenting one another and not conflicting. Third: Historical Arguments: Some critics relate that there is a difference between these epistles and the rest of St. Paul's epistles from the historical aspect. In this epistle, we see that the conflict between the Jews and the Gentiles has settled, while in the other epistles, we still see the conflict very apparent. That is why critics considered that this epistle was written at a later era than the era of St. Paul. To refute that, we mention the following: 1. Writing about the reconciliation between the Jews and the Gentiles through the cross in one body "Putting to death the enmity …" (Eph. 2:14-16), he wrote in a language which characterize St. Paul's writings, the minister of the Gentiles who concentrated his writings on "breaking down the middle wall of separation", before breaking down the walls of Jerusalem to be opened for everyone. 2. If the epistle were written after St. Paul's era, there would not have been silence regarding the fall of Jerusalem when the middle wall of separation between the Jews and Gentiles was broken…This confirms that it was written in St.Paul’s era. 3. Not mentioning the persecution refers that it was written at an earlier time before the church history that is in the apostolic age. Fourth: Doctrinal Arguments: Some critics denied the authorship of St. Paul because of the differences in doctrines mentioned here than in the other epistles, which pertain to "the church, Christ, social doctrines". We do not want to go into details regarding these doctrines; however, we clarify that there is no contradiction between what was mentioned here and what was mentioned in the other epistles. But there are differences, which give the epistle vitality instead of repetition, and reveals the depth of the divine thought of St. Paul, without rigidity. This epistle is unique in its topic, which is to reveal the "universality of the church", and its uniqueness in adopting the church liturgical praises. Some of the differences, which the critics mentioned, are as follows: 1. Regarding the special teaching of the church, in the other epistles, St. Paul emphasized the local churches and was concerned about the practical and dogmatic problems, and presented special greetings to beloved ministers working in the Lord's vine. However, in this epistle, we do not find any of that, because the theme of the epistle is "the universality of the church". (Eph. 4:1-16) Talking about this matter, he elevates us above the conditions of the church of Ephesus, its events, its problems and those working in it to declare the oneness of the church, the Body of Christ and His bride. (Eph. 2:8,9 & 4:14 & 5:6) This is the main theme of the epistle, all in harmony with the apostolic thought. 2. Talking about the apostles and the prophets, St. Paul presents them as saints (Eph. 3:5), and as a foundation for the church where Christ is the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Some thought that this thought which carries great veneration to the apostles and the prophets, represent the era after the apostolic age, where all the apostles have departed and where the church is honoring them. This conflict is not logic, for sometimes St. Paul called the believers saints (Rom. 1:7). His writing about the apostles and the prophets as foundation to the church is definitely St. Paul's thought. He recorded it here when mentioning the universal church. 3. Writing about marriage (Eph. 5:21-33) gives it special holiness, which correlates it to the concept of the unity of the church with Christ. We do not find this in his mentioning of marriage in his epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:1-9), the reason for that is that in this epistle, he presents a general picture of the understanding of the sacrament of holy matrimony, while in First Corinthians chapter seven, he presents an answer to a specific question. To whom was it sent? In some of the old Greek manuscripts, the word "Ephesus" was not mentioned at all. That is why some of the scholars thought that it was a periodical message written for all the churches in Asia Minor, especially the church of Laodicia, and that it was referred to Ephesus because it was the capital of Asia Minor at that time. The scholars rejected this theory of being a “periodical message”, but every group has their own point of view and their proofs. The first group emphasizes that this epistle was a general periodic message. Their proof was that St. Paul never mentioned special greetings to any of the ministers in Ephesus, although he had many memories there, since he is the one who had established it. Also, there was no handling to any of the specific problems as the rest of the epistles. They also say that referring to the book of Revelation, (Rev. 3:16), where we find that the Lord Jesus who is risen from the dead, declares that the name Laodicia will be removed from His mouth. And truly, Laodicia was replaced by Ephesus. In the second century, Marcion started with an idea that this epistle was sent to Laodicia. Some of the church fathers objected saying that it was originally sent to Ephesus. Among the fathers who proclaimed that idea were Tertillian the scholar10, St. Clement of Alexandria11, St. Irenaeus12, Origen, and St. Moratory. The other group objecting to the theory of "the periodic message" believes that this epistle was recorded during the last days of St. Paul while he was in prison at Rome. They believe that St. Paul is directing it not to the church at Ephesus as a whole, but to the members who were of Gentile origin, to people whom he did not know, who had accepted the faith and baptism after his departure from that city. He knows the church of Ephesus, which he had established, but here he talks to the Gentiles about the concept of "the universal church". He did not want to mention names to elevate them above the personal relationships. However, in the other epistles, he addresses certain local problems, so he emphasized individual relationships. These are two complimenting concepts, which are apparent in St. Paul's life. As a true shepherd, he wanted to know each one in the flock, on a personal level in Christ Jesus, but in the mean time, he wanted to lift his eyes above the events to see the church of Christ as one and universal, without being partial to any person. When was it written? St. Paul does not show when he wrote this epistle nor where, but he made it clear that he is the prisoner of the Lord Jesus. He said, "I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles…" (Eph. 3:1) "I ask that you do not lose heart at my tribulation for you, which is your glory." (Eph.. 3:13) "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord…" (Eph. 4:1) "For which I am an ambassador in chains…" (Eph. 6:20) The correct opinion is that it was written in the year 63 A.D., when he was in house arrest in Rome for two years and he received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 28:30) During those two years, he wrote the epistles of Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon. Some researchers like Reuss and Mayer believe that St. Paul wrote the epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon from his prison in Caesarea. (Acts 23: 35 & 24:27), between the years of 58 A.D. and 60 A.D. Mayer presented four proofs, which we refute as follows13: 1. Onesimus could have gone to Caesaria and not have gone on this long trip to Rome. We refute that by saying that it is more acceptable that Onesimus, the robber slave, would have gone first to Rome because it is far from Philemon, his master, lest he find him and kill him. Second, Rome is vast and he can hide there without anyone noticing where he was, not like Ceasaria, the small city where anyone could find him easily. 2. If these epistles were written in Rome, Onesimus and Tychicus would have carried the epistles to Ephesus before reaching Colosse. It would have been natural that St. Paul refers to them in his epistle to the Ephesians, as he did in his epistle to the Colossians (4:9), but never mentioning both of them in his epistle to the Ephesians was due to his coming from Caesaria to Colosse, where Onesimus settled there and did not go with Tychicus to Ephesus. That is why there was no need to mention the name Tychicus. To refute that, we say that the epistle to the Ephesians was a periodic epistle to all the churches in Asia Minor, so there is no need to mention Onesimus too. 3. His saying, "But that you also may know my affairs and how I am doing…" (Eph. 6:21) refers to Tychicus crossing first to Colosse then to Ephesus. He did that by going from Caesaria and not through Rome. To refute that, the word "also" has many interpretations here. It means that the epistle to the Colossians was first written and carried its news to the entire region. Then this epistle was written to continue the news that Tychicus will inform them with new matters also. 4. St. Paul asked that Philemon prepare a place for him (Phil. 1:22). This means that St. Paul was near Caesaria. To refute that, St. Paul was not talking about hastily going to him. Church tradition confirms that the epistles of captivity were written from Rome and not from Caesarea, especially what was mentioned in Ephesians 6:19,20 clarifies that St. Paul had some freedom which he used to preach the Gospel, and it is the same in Rome. (Acts 28: 16), and not in Caesarea (Acts 24:23) The Subject of the Epistle: This epistle is considered "church type" in its essence. Its main subject is "the church" and Christ's relationship with the church. To Christ, the church is the body in relation to the Head (Eph. 1:22-23) and the bride to the Bridegroom. (Eph. 5: 23-32) The purpose of the epistle is to declare God's plan to create messianic people, a holy congregation united with the Head, Jesus Christ. This is the secret of God's love to humanity. After St. Paul has confirmed, in the first three chapters, that salvation is for the Jews as well as the Gentiles, he emphasized, in the last three chapters, that unity of faith, holiness, social behavior, the spiritual weapons for the believer are practiced through the church and within it14. Many scholars called it the "crown of Paulinism". Its Characteristics: This epistle has been characterized by its concern for the apostolic church thought; hence it carried a special type and unique traits. We mention some: First: This epistle represents a church song or praise, on which St. Paul meditates. He sees the veil obstructing the Jews and Gentiles has been demolished, and the cross has destroyed the enmity. Therefore, this epistle is liturgical and also hymnodic15, where St. Paul encourages everyone to talk with psalms and spiritual songs. (Eph. 5: 19) Second: This epistle contained some praises, which were used in his age. Some excerpts are: Eph. 1:3 –14, 20 – 23 & 2: 4 – 7, 10, 14 – 18, 20 – 22 & 3: 5, 20-21 & 4: 4 – 6, 11 –13 & 5: 2, 14, 25 –27). All these excerpts had affected the language of the epistle and its style. We add the following: 1. Verbs exceeded the nouns; there were 231 verbs versus 158 nouns, while in Galatians, there were 139 verbs versus 202 nouns, and in Romans, there were 363 verbs versus 377 nouns. 2. Many pronouns were used like "for, therefore, that…" These were used at the beginning of the sentence or at its end. 3. Some expressions were used in the middle of sentences. 4. Often, the name of God was not mentioned but he said, "through Him or by Him…" 5. He mentioned those who benefited from God's blessings as in the first person in the plural form like "our Father, our Lord, blessed us, chose us…" Third: He mentioned the church as the bride of Christ, united with the Father in His Son. He demonstrated God as the God of glory (Eph. 1:17), and God of might (Eph. 1:19), and God the merciful (Eph. 2:4). He talked about the church as "in Christ", for in Him we receive heavenly blessings (Eph. 1:3), and in Him He has chosen us (Eph. 1:4), and in Him we have redemption (Eph. 1:7), etc…16 He declared the power of His cross in the reconciliation (Eph. 2), and demonstrated the work of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:18, 3:5, 4:1-3, 5:18), in other words, the church is the work of the love of the Father, the Lover of mankind, and the work of the Son who gathered her through the cross through the work of the Holy Spirit the doner of fellowship. Fourth: Since St. Paul declared the universal church in her hidden union with her Heavenly Bridegroom; he emphasized her heavenly nature, lifting our hearts up to heaven. In the introduction, he said, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ." (Eph. 1:3) We can say that he means by "heavenly places", the church life as being a deposit of heaven! When mentioning the work of the Father in Christ the Head of the church, he said, "He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places." (Eph. 1:20) Through Him, we rise from the death of sin and we sit in the heavenly places, that is, we practice the church life as "life in the Heavenly Christ." Then, he repeated, "And raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2:6) In the third chapter, he declares, "To the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places." (Eph. 3:10) Even our struggle against the devil is achieved for the sake of heaven. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12) Hence, we see the heavenly path very clear, for the church is a heavenly life, and our Father is Heavenly and our Christ sits at the right hand of heavens, and the enemy fights us every day to deprive us of heaven. Fifth: This epistle had demonstrated the holiness of the church as life with Christ, a heavenly life yet factual and livable. St. John Chrysostom said, in his sermon about the fall of Etrobios, “Nothing is settled like the church, she is your salvation and refuge! She is above the heavens and close to the earth; she does not get old. Many names cannot describe her, for she is the bride, the daughter, the virgin, the mother, and also the queen17.” Sixth: Many researchers noticed that this epistle emphasized the glorified Lord Jesus not the suffering Christ, for this is the epistle of the hidden church, though she participated in the suffering of Christ, yet she hopes to enjoy the fellowship of His heavenly glories. This is the epistle of the Lord of glory, the glorified Father and the glorified Son. That is why in the first chapter, we find the words "the praise of His glory" repeated three times. (Eph. 1:6, 12,14) By practicing the church life, we present the song of "the praise of His glory", not only by our lips but also by all our life. Seventh: Since 1835, F. C. Baur believed that this epistle carried Gnostic approaches, which appeared in the second half of the second century. The researchers were concerned about the relation of this epistle to the Gnostic writings, especially after the famous Nagah Hamadi Gnostic reprints. Some thought that this epistle had some Gnostic thoughts and meanwhile, anti- Gnostic ones18. The reason for that is that he used their expressions but in a completely different understanding, we have prementioned this19. For example, St. Paul often mentioned the word "knowledge", but he does not present "gnosis knowledge", according to the Gnostic thought, which means that the mind replaces the faith, but he mentioned knowledge as a heavenly gift declaring what is hidden and its purpose is salvation, which attaches the one who obtains it to God as the road of spiritual life, whose center is the Lord Christ. The epistle is divided into parts: Part One: The secret of God's plan "The Messianic God's people": ch. 1 – 3 1. The church and the mystery of knowledge: ch. 1 2. The church and the mystery of reconciliation: ch. 2 3. The universal church and the mystery of Christ: ch. 3 Part Two: The practical church life: ch. 4 - 6 1. Unity and the inflaming of the gifts: ch. 4 2. Worship and behavior: ch. 5 3. Practical life and spiritual strife: ch. 6
Welcome