Redeeming Theology Archives

Carl Jung and Learning About Your Soul

INDIVIDUATION
AND THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF WHOLENESS

By Kenny Ammann

What is life really about? Why on earth are we here? While it is true that many have discovered there is more to life than meets the eye, surprisingly few people are really concerned about these questions. Yet each of us has been given just one human lifetime to discover who we are, why we are here, and where we are going.

Perhaps the reason that seemingly few seek answers to such issues is that many believe there are no answers. Personally I find myself plagued with these thoughts every day. I think this is the reason I find Jung’s concept of individuation so fascinating. I believe becoming whole and understanding oneself rates first among priorities.

I agree with Jung, who seems to say the unconscious is not our enemy, but is always striving to produce wholeness. Evidence of this may be found in the lives of people, in which people often seem to be consciously or unconsciously searching for some kind of meaning. Much of our humanity depends on having purpose in who we are and what we do. Unfortunately, many who look to the world for answers fail in their depressing search, because the world produces conformity. Individuation is the idea of leaving the the collective thinking of one’s upbringing and embarking on a path leading to an understanding of one’s own self and appropriate relation to others, such that both the individual and others will benefit. Jung’s concept of individuation is not an easy process to define, especially when one attempts to do so from solely a Western, Judeo-Christian paradigm. None of Jung’s teachings are limited to this viewpoint. Instead, Jung accomplishes the extraordinary task of bridging East and West by successfully integrating both drastically different paradigms into the way of individuation. He seems to see the heart of Eastern and Western viewpoints as complementary toward one another, much as male and female persons perceive truth and set their priorities in different ways, both of which are valid.

In order to examine the Jungian bridge between East and West, I will stereotype the cultures. This in no way is an attempt to minimize or limit either philosophy, but merely an effort to further understand the Jungian paradigm. Western civilization originates from Greek and Roman ideas, values, philosophy, and government. When one thinks of Western culture, one thinks of science, industry, technology, progress (or what Westerners tend to think is progress), exploitation of resources, carelessness toward nature and naivete with regard to man’s relationship with nature. Second, Eastern stereotypes include contemplation, meditation, mysticism, and harmony with nature. In the same way that the West would be considered experts on outer space, East could be considered experts on “inner space.” Western thought is primarily concerned with analytical knowledge, while Eastern thought prefers inner, mystical knowledge- for example, the path of the Eastern guru. In Eastern philosophy there is the concept of the Tao, the way of harmony between opposites. Thus, Zen Buddhists seek to live in a way where there is harmony between heaven and earth-for example, the path of harmony between the King and his people, between male and female, or between heaven (yang) and earth (yin). These concepts are illustrated in the Chinese book of philosophy, the I Ching.

Jung seems to see religion necessary in the process of individuation; not in the confessional or creedal sense such as being a Baptist or a Buddhist, but rather in the experiential sense. He writes,

“I want to make clear that by the term ‘religion’ I do not mean a creed. It is, however, true that on the one hand every confession is originally based upon the experience of the numinous and on the other hand upon the loyalty, trust, and confidence toward a definitely experienced numinous effect and the subsequent alteration of consciousness: the conversion of Paul is a striking example of this. ‘Religion,’ it might be said, is the term that designates the attitude peculiar to a consciousness which has been altered by the experience of the numinous” (Psychology & Religion; C. G. Jung, pg. 6).

Therefore Jung integrates religion into the process of individuation from both Eastern Unitarian thought and his own concept of God from his European upbringing. Morton T. Kelsey, in the twelfth chapter of his book entitled Psychology, Medicine & Christian Healing, shows how it was Jung who integrated religious experience into psychological thought more fully than any other psychologist. Kelsey explains how “Jung lived to be almost 86 and wrote until three weeks before his death; during the final 15 years of his life-from the time of a nearly fatal illness until his death-Jung’s main preoccupation was the significance of religious experience for psychiatry and psychology” (Psychology, Medicine & Christian Healing; Morton T. Kelsey, pg. 241). Furthermore, in 1932 Jung gave a talk to the Alsatian Pastoral Conference entitled “Psychotherapists or the Clergy.” In it he said that for more than thirty years people had been coming to him from all the civilized countries of the world, and writes,

“Among all my patients in the second half of life-that is to say, over thirty-five-there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost what the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook” (Collected Works, Vol. 11(1958), pg. 334).

Although religious experience is a part of Jung’s theory of individuation, it certainly does not constitute its entirety. Individuation, rather, is “the possibility, ingrained in the human species and present in everyone, whereby the individual psyche can attain its full development and completion” (A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis, Samuels; pg. 76). In an essay in which Jung set forth the individuation process called “The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious,” he defines individuation as, “becoming an ‘in-dividual’, and, in so far as ‘individuality’ embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one’s own self. We could therefore translate individuation as … ‘self-realization’ “(Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, C.G. Jung; pg. 173).

The individuation process means the realization and integration of all the immanent possibilities of the individual. It seems to be opposed to any kind of conformity with the collective, and it even demands the rejection of conventional attitudes with which most people would like to live. June Singer writes in her novel of the works of Jung, called Boundaries of the Soul, that,

“Individuation offers the possibility that everyone can have his won direction, his special purpose, and it can attach a sense of value to the lives of those who suffer from the feeling that they are unable to measure up to collective norms and collective ideals. To those who are not recognized by the collective, who are rejected and even despised, this process offers the potentiality of restoring faith and dignity and assures them of their place in the world.”

In order to discover one’s place in the world, however, the process of individuation begins with breaking away from collective norms and ideals. People conform to their parents’ values, they conform to others’ expectations, and they conform to what is taught in the educational system and what is accepted by the culture. While it is safe and comfortable to remain a part of the flock and passively remain a follower, the idea of individuation is breaking away from the comfort zone and no longer being controlled by collective thinking. Only after one leaves the herd will s/he come to an understanding of his/her own unique potentials.

Once a person takes the initial step of breaking away from the collective norm, the path of understanding continues where the secret of the true self lies-in the complicated world of the unconscious. The unconscious consists of personal and collective data. Unlike Freud, Jung does not regard the unconscious as solely a repository of repressed, infantile, or personal experiences. He also viewed it as “a locus of psychological activity which differs from and is more objective than personal experience, since it relates directly to the instinctual bases of the human race” (Two Essays; pg. 127). The personal unconscious is seen more as resting upon the collective unconscious. The potentials for an individual’s wholeness lie in the personal unconscious, which Jung defines as “the materials of a personal nature in so far as they have the character partly of acquisitions derived from the individual’s life and partly of psychological factors which could just as well be conscious” (Two Essays; pg. 135). Jung argues that knowledge of the personal unconscious is actually knowledge of the self.

The contents of the collective reflect archetypal processes, which are the inherited portion of the psyche. Archetypes are recognizable in outer behaviors, especially those clustering around the universally cultural experiences of life such as marriage, motherhood, death and separation, and also reveal themselves by way of such inner figures as animus, shadow, persona, and so forth (Samuels; pg. 26). Freud’s view expresses an overall fear of the of the unconscious. He considers it a “Pandora’s box,” that is, if one were to open up the unconscious, a flood of evil would be let out upon the world. Jung, however, sees the unconscious as spontaneously working toward wholeness and striving toward healing of the person. Taking a much more positive outlook, Jung sees the unconscious as a potential friend due to its tendency toward wholeness. Jung insists that the unconscious is the “matrix, the artesian well from which all creativity springs” (He: Understanding Masculine Psychology, Robert A. Johnson; pg. 14). Thus the journey through this unfamiliar world may be a valuable one, because transformation is a spontaneous motion, and if one does not inhibit the unconscious but rather removes the roadblocks, the unconscious will be helpful towards healing.

As one begins to delve into the many layers of the unconscious, what he or she will find at the threshold is the shadow. In 1945 Jung gave a most direct and clear-cut definition of the shadow: “the thing a person has no wish to be” (The Collective Works of C.G. Jung 16, para. 470). In this simple statement is subsumed the many-sided and repeated references to shadow as, “a repository in the unconscious of all the things one cannot accept about oneself, the sum of all the unpleasant qualities one wants to hide, the inferior and primitive side of man’s nature, or simply, the dark side of one’s personality” (Samuels, pg. 138). An extreme example of shadow is Robert Louis Stevenson’s story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, whereupon Jekyll views himself as an extremely good and moral person. By thinking of himself as solely a kind, loving, and accepting doctor, he remains dishonest in facing himself as he really is, and the stronger shadow progressively dominates until Jekyll becomes a murderer. This would not have come about if contradictions in the inner self were resolved. The shadow therefore can be either a friend or one’s enemy.

According to Jungian theory, the shadow develops as one grows up and develops a self-image. Everything that does not correspond to this image or does not fit into one’s own ideal of masculinity is repressed to the unconscious, where they will reappear in dreams, biases, bigotry, etc. One example is a bigoted individual who projects his or her own feelings of inadequacy onto another individual or group. The shadow in this type of person may show up in dreams in the form of an Indian or black man who is murderous or sexually promiscuous. Another example is that of a “jock.” “Jocks” tend to think they are fairly masculine, as well as viewing themselves as highly moralistic. The shadow of this type of individual will be very embarrassing to him/her. Examples of real life shadows include Hitler and Saddam Hussein, who may reflect the shadow of an entire culture.

According to Samuels et al, the aim of psychotherapy as far as shadow is concerned is to develop an awareness of those images and situations most likely to produce shadow projections in one’s individual life (Ibid; pg. 139.). The dangers of shadow projections are evident-social and racial biases, as well as other unhealthy attitudes toward others. Thus admitting the shadow is the crucial step in breaking its compulsive hold (Ibid; pg. 139.).

In addition to his concern of harmony between East and West, the conscious and the unconscious, Jung is also extremely aware of the necessity of harmonious functioning of the masculine and feminine characteristics of the individual. This relationship between the masculine and feminine is a great mystery, but is among the further stages in the process of individuation and one of the most fascinating. Jung appears to teach that every man and every woman has both “masculine” and “feminine” traits. In the male, masculine priorities are usually dominant on the surface and feminine qualities are recessive. In women the opposite is true. Men who suppress their feminine heritage (passed on from the mother, as it were) and live out only masculine qualities are cold, insensitive, calculating, domineering, overly rational, harshly aggressive, and too self-assertive (Jesus: Lord of Time and Space, Lambert T. Dolphin; pg. 145.). Conversely, totally “feminine” women tend to be thought of as wall-flowers in their passivity, governed by emotions or intuition and hopelessly dependent, unable to take the initiative in the smallest matters (Ibid.; pg. 145.). Beginning the first of two essays entitled, Animus and Anima, Emma Jung writes,

“The anima and the animus are two archetypal figures of especially great importance. They belong on the one hand to the individual consciousness and on the other hand are rooted in the collective unconscious, thus forming a connecting link or bridge between the personal and the impersonal, the conscious and the unconscious. It is because one is feminine and the other is masculine that C. G. Jung has called them anima and animus respectively. He understands these figures to be function complexes behaving in ways compensatory to the outer personality, that is, behaving as if they were inner personalities and exhibiting the characteristics which are lacking in the outer, and manifest, conscious personality. In a man, these are feminine characteristics, in a woman, masculine. Normally both are always present, to a certain degree, but find no place in the person’s outwardly directed functioning because they disturb his outer adaptation, his established ideal image of himself.”

It should be clear that a yin/yang relationship between many of these complementary sets of priorities exists in every one of us, and it is therefore important to understand ourselves. To become whole, however, means to successfully know and relate to the opposite sex, to live in harmony with the other’s values and priorities. Thus when a man gets in touch with his anima he ought to become more loving, gentle, receptive, and emotional. When a woman discovers her animus and accepts these qualities, she should develop poise, dignity, self-confidence, and stature. In either case, the man is thought of to be more manly and the woman, more regal in stature, attaining character traits everyone recognizes and admires as marks of a well-integrated personality (Dolphin; pg. 147.).

Robert A. Johnson, in his two books on understanding masculine and feminine psychology entitled He and She, explains through the use of myth how the masculine and feminine relate and complement one another. He writes,

“Few women understand how great is the hunger in a man to be near femininity. This should not be a burden for a woman and she will not have to bear this in such a solitary manner all of her life. As a man discovers his own inner femininity, he will not rely so heavily on the outer woman to live this out for him. But if a woman wishes to give a most precious gift to a man, if she would truly feed his greatest masculine hunger ( a hunger which he will seldom show but is often there), she will be very feminine when her man is mutely asking for that precious quality. It is especially true that when a man is in a mood he needs true femininity from his woman so that he may get his bearings and be a man again” (She, Robert A. Johnson; pg. 33).

Johnson also comments on the potential of projection in reference to the masculine and feminine relationship:

“We often project our relationship, or lack of one, with our inner femininity onto an outer flesh-and-blood woman…Man has only two alternatives for relationship to his inner woman: either he rejects her and she turns against him in the form of bad moods and undermining seductions, or he accepts her and finds within a companion who walks through life with him giving him warmth and strength” (He; pg 33-34).

The results of projection Johnson discusses may occur as an individual dates or marries someone that is very similar to the opposite-sexed parent (I find this true in my life). This is not, however, a necessarily negative situation, for an individual may desire to be with someone that the anima/animus is comfortable with. But it may be problematic or potentially unhealthy when the opposite-sexed parent is overly domineering or in other ways dysfunctional.

One would conclude then that archetypes can be helpful in the process of individuation but do contain positive and negative aspects. The anima/animus relationship is a good example of this. For instance, a man’s anima could be that of a nagging wife, an overprotective mother, a witch with her spells and charms, or a seductive prostitute. Conversely, the anima may express itself as a nurse (healer), a loving wife, a mother, a sister, or a source of wisdom. When one opposes or declares war on the unconscious by not accepting oneself, he or she will see the negative side of the archetypes of the unconscious. The difficulty is that the shadow archetypes are stronger than the conscious will, as in the case of Jekyll and Hyde. An example of this is a mousy, hen-pecked husband with an overbearing, nagging wife. This kind of man is under the spell of the anima. However, individuation teaches that if people are willing to learn more of their own unconscious and accept what is really there, not just what s/he wishes to believe to be present, archetypes may serve the individual in a positive manner.

This theory of archetypes also occurs in the case of friendship, for people who truly love another will inform them of the truth about themselves. Although this truth is often painful, I believe it is helpful toward the growth of the individual.

Perhaps one of the most interesting archetypes of Jungian psychology is the concept of the hero myth. On page 170 of Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, Jung says of the hero,

“…if a man is a hero, he is a hero because, in the final reckoning, he did not let the monster devour him, but subdued it, not once but many times. Victory over the collective psyche alone yields the true value- the capture of the hoard, the invincible weapon, the magic talisman, or whatever it be that the myth deems most desirable. Anyone who identifies with the collective psyche- or, in mythological terms, lets himself be devoured by the monster- and vanishes in it, attains the treasure that the dragon guards, but he does so in spite of himself and to his own greatest harm.”

Certainly every culture has its own mythologies of “the hero.” The hero may start out as someone who is inferior or insignificant. The hero may be the “boy in the village,” or the orphan, or perhaps he or she might be mentally or physically handicapped. Simply, the hero is often the last person in the world one would expect to amount to anything.

A hero myth might go something like this: There is a village living under the enslavement of a great and terrible dragon. The dragon raids the people, takes their gold, and burns their crops with fire. The terrible dragon lives high on a mountain in a cave, sitting on and delighting in his treasure hoard. All the people in the village have long since given up hope on killing the dragon, since all the bravest fighters have perished in their attempts to do so. However, the boy who is to be the hero announces that he is going to go off and slay the dragon, which results in great laughter and also dismay to those in the village who realize they will never see him again. So the boy leaves with a few meager provisions-a sack with some stale food and water. In Jungian theory, leaving the village is the first and crucial step of individuation. The hero is the commoner who simply refuses to conform to the patterns of his/her society, and sets out to find oneself.

The hero has now left everything behind, and as he journeys he goes into the forest. Now as he was growing up, the hero heard many tales of the awful enemies of the forest. However, once in the forest he discovers many friends, animals who begin to help him. According to Jung’s way of individuation, this going into the forest is the actual delving into the unconscious. The individual is receptive to the unconscious so the unconscious begins to equip the individual. There are dangerous animals in the forest, but they don’t destroy him like everyone told him back in the village. Instead, they teach him wisdom, give him special weapons and resources, and the boy learns how to destroy the dragon. This illustrates that if one chooses to experience the unconscious realm and accept what is there, he/she will the unconscious helpful toward wholeness.

The story concludes after many adventures and the boy single-handedly killing the dragon. Thus in destroying the dragon he liberates his people (much as a person who has become whole would benefit those around him/her) and recovers the treasure. The treasure seems to be extremely important to Jungian thought. The treasure is life itself-unlived and unfulfilled life. It is only by taking the initial bold step of leaving the comfort of the village and facing the potential enemies of the forest that one acquires the knowledge of how to experience the treasures of life.

Individuation is for the common person-the person of ordinary stature or less. Someone famous, rich and successful is more likely to be comfortable in that situation and have less of a desire to become individuated. Another example of the individuation aimed at the common person through use of myth is the hero waking up the sleeping princess. The princess is under a spell and the hero goes through many steps to free the princess. Here the princess is the anima. The hero has nothing going for him until he learns how to awaken the feminine beauty that lies before him. This notion of the hero myth is saturated in our modern culture, and may be a timeless fascination of the human race.

Up to this point I have been discussing the Jungian concept of individuation as I understand it to be. At this point I would like to give my understanding of the Biblical view of wholeness as defined in the Bible and in relation to my own personal experiences. Even though the Jungian theory of individuation and what the Bible defines as wholeness are in some ways different, they are in many ways extremely similar due to the fact that there are numerous scriptures paralleling Jung’s view. For example, the theme of a believer’s pilgrimage through life as “strangers and exiles on the earth” begins with Abraham and the Patriarchs in the book of Genesis, and continues through the Bible into the New Testament. Like the boy who leaves his village in the hero myth, so Jesus taught that “If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it” (Mark 8: 34b-35). This notion of breaking away from conformity is also found in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which is perhaps the most relevant passage in the Scriptures in relation to wholeness . The Apostle writes,

“I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, wholly acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:1-2; NASB).

The first thing Paul asks the Christians to do in Rome is to offer their bodies as living sacrifices to God. The idea here is the same as the Old Testament picture of sacrifice being burned up on the altar. The Christian is to be totally consumed, giving everything to God, including body, soul, and spirit-allowing God to begin the process of wholeness in the individual. Paul does not tell those in Rome to improve themselves, or “clean up their acts” and then God will accept them. Rather, Paul says to bring oneself just as s/he is, and God will make them whole. This is one Biblical picture of worship-that is, giving to God your entire being. Like individuation, the process of becoming whole is not completed in a day, but is a lifelong process containing many struggles.

This idea is also similar to the Old Testament story of the burning bush, whereupon the fire does not destroy the bush, but rather gives it great light. The bush in and of itself is not deserving or really good for anything, for any old bush will do. However, if God dwells in the thorn bush, the bush is glorified.

Paul explains that the way one becomes whole is two-fold: first, he says not to conform to the pattern of the world, and second, one’s mind must be transformed. Like Jung, Paul believes the world produces conformity. In the Christian paradigm, humility is a very necessary precedent to begin and continue the way of wholeness. Humility is also a logical result of understanding the character of God. However, the prevailing attitude of the world is self-centeredness. Paul instructs not to conform to that philosophy, but to “be transformed by the renewing of their minds.” Because of the pressure the world puts on individuals to conform, he says the way to avoid conformity is to have your mind renewed.

In his novel called Symbols of Transformation, Jung makes reference to the notion that it is the spirit who gives life-and that dead orthodoxy is certainly not sufficient. Paul says the Spirit of God is necessary for a renewed mind and a spirit of life and peace:

“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness” (Romans 8: 5-10).

Paul phrases this notion again in his epistle to the Galatians,

“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly” (Galatians 2:20-21).

The danger to many is that once Christ takes over, an individual will no longer be him/herself any longer. However, according to the Bible and my own experiences, the opposite is true. Humility and service in no way implies depleting one’s own personality and becoming a clone. That is conformity, the very thing Paul is telling us to avoid. The Biblical view of wholeness means you are more yourself than ever before. The way to become our true selves as the God of the Bible intended is to yield ourselves to Him. Jesus said, “I came that you might have life, and life more abundantly.”

This abundant life (wholeness) appears also to be just Jung is primarily concerned with.

Perhaps the most helpful book on the subject of masculinity and femininity is The Song of Solomon. The most common interpretations of this book include a love story of a man and woman who grow and mature as their relationship progresses, and a picture of Yahweh’s love for Israel or Christ’s love for the church. Yet there is a third interpretation, one which perhaps Jung would be extremely comfortable with: Solomon is a male Hebrew name derived from shalom, but Shulamite is a feminine name, also derived from shalom (Dolphin; pg. 148). Therefore one could interpret that this is a story of the same person seen from two different viewpoints-one outward and one inward-and so the book could therefore be a study of personal wholeness in relation with God (Ibid; pg 148).

These views are in conjunction with what Jung described as “the union of opposites,” the goal of individuation. In his own way, Jung attempted to understand how we all must understand the masculine and feminine principles in life, and in God Himself, in order to be whole persons.

Jung does not appear to have problems with what Christianity really is, but instead his famous vision of God defecating on the church in his autobiography seems to be more related to his extreme displeasure with the dry religious orthodoxy he grew up with. This dead religion that so much plagued Europe in Jung’s day may be found in all cultures, and Jung happened to grow up in this type if setting.

When one is sensitive to Jung’s situation, he is much more clearly understood. Morton Kelsey is such an individual. He writes,

“…the greatest problem that Christians have in reading Jung is that Jung is ambivalent about institutional Christianity and about its belief in the resurrection of Jesus and its saving power. He was raised by a father who was a minister in the Swiss Reformed Church. His father’s intellectual faith was not based in experience and was different from his unconscious belief. Jung believed that his father’s inner split led to his early death. Jung’s father expected his son to accept faith on authority, without discussion. Jung was a deeply religious boy and young man, but he was scarred by this relationship. So even though Jung thought of himself as a Christian, he did not see the importance for himself of the saving action of Jesus’s death and resurrection” (Kelsey; pg. 255).

In spite of all this, Jung’s last written statement about religion is found in his autobiography:

“Man can try to name love, showering upon it all the names at his command, but still he will involve himself in endless self-deceptions. If he possesses a grain of wisdom, he will lay down his arms and name the unknown by the more unknown, ignotum per ignotius-that is, by the name of God. That is a confession of his subjection, his imperfection, and his dependence; but at the same time a testimony to his freedom to choose between truth and error” (Memories, Dreams, Reflections; 1963, pg. 354).

In response to this statement, Kelsey states that, “This is the same conclusion reached by some of the greatest Christian saints. I think that Jung was far more Christian than he himself knew. I wish more Christian theologians were as clear about the nature of God as Jung is in this passage” (Kelsey; pg. 255).

As Kelsey points out, individuation and the Biblical conception of wholeness are extremely parallel, for Jung was “more Christian than he himself knew.” Although I consider myself much more informed after reading the works of Jung, I disagree with him on a few points. For instance, Jung’s writing about evil is ambiguous-at times, as in The Answer to Job, he portrayed evil as a part of God, while in Aion (1968) he made no reference to this idea (Kelsey; pg. 249). The Bible is clear that “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5), and, “Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from, the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow” (James 1:17). Thus according to Christian theology, I differ from Jung’s dualistic approach and I believe that evil comes not from the Creator, but from the created when we choose to rebel against Him.

However, the Bible does not teach man is inherently evil, for men and women are created in God’s image and are therefore of immeasurable worth. Instead, Paul teaches in Romans chapter one that mankind is stained with sin (different than evil), and is in desperate need of the Savior-and that sin oftentimes may result in evil actions.

I also believe Jesus is the only way to the Father, a statement which is not my own but rather one which Jesus himself made in John chapter fourteen-a statement I may choose to accept or reject. Nevertheless, I have greatly benefited from my new knowledge of Carl Jung and his teachings in the field of psychology. I find his ideas incredibly refreshing. Furthermore, he has helped me see the scriptures in a new light, and I feel I am a more individuated person as a result of his influence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Amazon Affiliate Link)

1. Psychology & Religion, C. G. Jung; Yale Press, 1938.

2. Psychology, Medicine & Christian Healing; Morton T. Kelsey, Harper & Row, San Francisco, Ca. 1966.

3. The Collective Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11 &16.

4. A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis, Samuels et al; London, 1986.

5. Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, C.G. Jung; Bollingen Foundation, Inc., N. Y., New York, 1953.

6. Boundaries of the Soul, June Singer; Rowins Inc., N. Y., New York, 1974.

7. He: Understanding Masculine Psychology, Robert A. Johnson; Harper & Row Publishers, N. Y., New York, 1989.

8. She: Understanding Feminine Psychology, Robert A. Johnson; Harper & Row Publishers, N. Y., New York, 1989.

9. Animus and Anima: Two Essays by Emma Jung, Emma Jung; Spring Publications Inc., Dallas, Texas, 1957.

10. Jesus: Lord of Time and Space, Lambert T. Dolphin; New Leaf Press, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1988.

11. New American Standard Bible; Harper & Row Publishers, N. Y., New York, 1952.

12. Memories, Dreams, Reflections, C. G. Jung; Random House Inc., N. Y., New York, 1961.

November 29, 1990, revised September 24, 1995, October 22, 1996, February 26, 1997. July 26, 2004

Ken Ammann is a graduate of Stanford University with a B.S. Degree in Psychology, and an M.S. degree from San Jose State University. He is presently Head Basketball Coach at Concordia University in Irvine, California.

What a Non-Violent Atonement reveals about Scripture

By Jeremy Myers

2 Comments

(#AmazonAdLink) I am taking a short break from teaching through Ephesians to record an audiobook for my book (#AmazonAdLink) The Atonement of God. A reader has generously offered to sponsor the recording of this audiobook. This podcast episode provides a preview of the audiobook by giving you Chapter 5: What a Non-Violent View of the Atonement Reveals about Scripture.

In this podcast episode, you will learn how to read and understand the violent portions of Scripture in light of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

On this cross, Jesus shows us how to properly read the Bible. If you struggle with the violent portions of Scripture, it helps to read them through the lens of Jesus Christ on the cross.

If you want to sponsor a reading of one of my books into audiobook format, please reach out to me through the contact form.

A Prisoner for Peace (Ephesians 3:1-7)

By Jeremy Myers

Question from a Reader

Hi, Jeremy! I would just like to ask because I still get anxiety over hell. What are we to do with testimonies about hell? Sometimes I think that it may be from God redirecting us. But I also believe that there might be no hell. The only thing stopping me from holding that view are the testimonies and books saying it’s divine revelation.

I have written a book about hell titled (#AmazonAdLink) “What is Hell?” and in it, I challenge the three main views about hell and show what the Bible actually teaches regarding the doctrine of hell. It’s a shocking and surprising book, and I encourage you to read it.

Regarding the various testimonies and visions of hell that some people claim to have, I tend to be very skeptical about them, for three reasons.

First, we must always be skeptical of any vision, dream, or testimony that is not found specifically in Scripture. Scripture is the ultimate written revelation from God, and so all other forms of revelation must be filtered through the lens of Scripture. In my understanding of Scripture, there are no direct visions or revelations of hell as a place of suffering torture and everlasting burning, and so any dream or vision that a person today has which claims to have seen hell as such a place is suspect by default, for it contradicts the Bible.

Second, the human mind is quite susceptible to the power of suggestion. This is also true of dreams. I am sure you have noticed that quite often, your dreams somewhat follow the events or experiences or worries that have been most at the forefront of your mind during the previous few days. If you are worried about a test at school, or presentation at work, or some situation with your spouse, you are likely to have some dreams about these things.

I often find that when I am studying a particular text of Scripture and am struggling with it, I will have dreams about the text. If I am working on a problem with my car, I might have dreams about fixing my car. If I am preparing for a trip, I might have dreams about the upcoming trip.

The same thing happens with dreams about hell. I have found that when people have dreams about hell, it is usually because they have been thinking a lot about hell in the previous days and weeks. Maybe they have been reading and studying a lot about it. Maybe they have heard some pastors preach or teach about it. Maybe they have been extremely worried about it. Maybe a loved one passed away and they are afraid that their loved one is in hell. And so then they have dreams about hell. And since the concept of hell as a place of burning torture is so common, the dreams of hell as a place of torture are quite vivid. The more vivid your dreams are, the more you remember them. So people dream about hell, and the dreams are quite vivid, and so people will often tell others about these dreams. They might even write books about them.

But note that that the fact that they had these dreams does not prove that the dreams show what hell is really like. All it shows is that they were thinking or worried about hell, and so had a dream which helped their mind sort through and deal with some of the thoughts and worries that were on their mind. That is where most of these dreams seem to come from … not necessarily from God.

Third, and somewhat in support of the second point, any human can have these sorts of dreams and visions. I have frequently encountered non-Christian people who tell stories about visions or dreams of a place of suffering and torture in the afterlife. Muslims have these. Pagans (as in people who follow Norse mythology such as that of Odin and Thor) have these sorts of stories. The ancient Egyptians had these sorts of stories.

(#AmazonAdLink) This doesn’t mean that all such dreams and visions are correct or incorrect. It just means that stories of a place of burning and suffering after this life are not unique to Christianity, and so we have to wonder about the spiritual source of all such dreams and visions. And who is more likely to want people to live in fear about the after life? God or Satan?

Second Timothy 1:7 says that God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. God is a God of peace; not of fear, punishment, and torture.

So in my view, any human testimony about a dream or vision of hell which leads people to live in fear of God or fear for the after life is not something that comes from God. Therefore, I do not give any credibility to these visions of hell that some people claim to have. God does not threaten us into a relationship with Him, but woos us with love and promises of peace and safety.

This concept of God as a God of peace helps transition into our study of Ephesians 3:1-7.

A Prisoner for Jesus (Ephesians 3:1-7)

So far in Ephesians, Paul has explained the riches and inheritance that is ours in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1) and how Jesus revealed the way to live in peace with those people we used to hate (Ephesians 2). Now, in Ephesians 3, Paul goes on to encourage the Ephesians Christians to follow the example of Jesus and live in peace with each other also, so the world can learn from us and begin to live in peace with each other as well.

I want to remind you that many people read Paul’s letter to the Ephesians quite differently than this. As a result, they often don’t really know what to do with Ephesians 3:1-13 since these verses don’t really seem to fit with what they think Paul is saying. So when you read most commentaries or listen to pastors teach Ephesians 3:1-13, they often refer to it as an “aside.” It is thought to be one of Paul’s famous “rabbit trails” where he goes off onto some tangent that doesn’t really have much to do with anything else he is saying, and then finally returns to his main point in Ephesians 2:14.

One of the primary reasons people think this is because of those repeated words in Ephesians 3:1 and 3:14, “For this reason.” It is thought that Paul begins a point in Ephesians 3:1 by saying “For this reason” but then gets sidetracked to talk about being in prison and how the church is a mystery, until he finally returns to this main point in Ephesians 3:14 by repeating the phrase “For this reason.”

When I first taught Ephesians about twenty years ago, this is how I taught it.

But I have since come to a completely different understanding of the message of Ephesians, and in my new understanding, Paul’s words in Ephesians 3:1-14 are not a tangent, not a rabbit trail, but are rather a perfectly logical follow-up point from what Paul has written so far in this letter.

Paul’s primary point in Ephesians can be summarized in one word: “Peace!” Through Jesus, there is peace with God, peace with one another, and together, all of us are working toward universal peace (which includes bringing the principalities and powers back into their proper place).

So Paul’s point in Ephesians 3 is that he wants the Ephesian Christians to live at peace with each other. This follows naturally from what Paul has just written in Ephesians 2 about how Jesus showed us the way to live in peace with each other.

The reason we are to leave in peace with one another is because the world doesn’t know how to attain peace, and if we live at peace with each other, the world will learn how to live in peace by watching us and learning from us.

And Paul knows that before he can ask the Ephesian Christians to live in peace with each other, he needs to show them how he himself is following the example of Jesus. This is what Paul explains in Ephesians 3:1-13, how he himself is following the example of Jesus is seeking peace with others.

I am not going to be able to cover this entire section in this one study, so we will split it up into two, looking at Ephesians 3:1-7 this time, and Ephesians 3:8-13 next time.

Ephesians 3:1. For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles …

Paul begins by pointing out that his attempt to follow Jesus into the way of peace ended up with him in prison. As Paul writes this letter to the Ephesians, he is sitting in a prison in Rome.

Of course, even though he is a prisoner in Rome, Paul does not consider himself a prisoner of Rome. Paul says that he is a prisoner of Christ Jesus. Paul knows that he is right where Jesus wants him to be.

Indeed, prison is the natural and normal consequence for someone who seeks peace in a world filled with violence.

When Jesus sought peace, He ended up on a cross. So also, Paul’s quest for peace led him to prison, where he himself might die.

Yet when peace is the goal, imprisonment and possible death is better than violence and bloodshed. And in a world that is ruled and dominated by violence, those who seek peace are viewed as the enemies, who must be silenced, imprisoned, or killed.

So Paul is is prison because he followed Jesus into the way of peace.

Finally, Paul writes that he is a prisoner for you Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul was a prisoner because of the Gentiles. He is not blaming the Gentiles, especially not the Gentile Christians in Ephesus. Instead, Paul is saying that he is a prisoner “as an example” for the Gentiles, or as a way to reach the Gentiles with the truth that they too are now accepted into the family of God.

Paul is saying, “I’m in prison for your sake, to help you, to show you how this whole ‘peace’ thing works.”

We know this is what Paul means because he goes on in Ephesians 3:2-13 to explain how peace works.

Ephesians 3:2. … if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you …

The word dispensation is a word we don’t use very much anymore. We saw it previously though in Ephesians 1:10. The Greek word is oikonomia. Oiko means house, and nomia means law, so oikonomia means “law of the house.” It is the rules by which a house or business is governed. Synonyms could be “management, stewardship, or an orderly arrangement.”

In Ephesians 3:2, Paul says that a dispensation was given to him, and so we could say, as some of your translations do, that he was given a stewardship—he was made a steward or a manager over a certain task or responsibility. Paul was given specific guidelines from God by which he should live and function.

What were these guidelines? Well, the verse says that he was a steward of the grace of God which was given to me for you. Paul was sent by God to declare peace to the Gentiles. To declare that there are not more outsiders and insiders, but that all are “insiders” with God.

As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was the person God chose to take the message of peace to the Gentiles.

Ephesians 3:3-4. … how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),

This message of peace to the Gentiles was something unknown to Jewish people prior to the ministry of Jesus and apostleship of Paul. Most Jews thought that God could accept Gentiles into His family, but only if they first became Jewish and kept the Mosaic Law. But Paul was showing that Jesus opened the door for all people, Jew and Gentile alike, to join the family of God. Everybody was on equal footing before God.

Now Paul says he already wrote to them about this, which he did in two places already: Ephesians 1:9-10 and Ephesians 2:11-22. We discussed this mystery there as well, so we can now move on.

Ephesians 3:5. … which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:

The reason Paul refers to this truth as a mystery is because few people saw or understood the truth of it until Jesus revealed it and Paul proclaimed it.

The idea that all people were on equal footing with God was a shocking idea for most people in Paul’s day (cf. Acts 10-15; Galatians). The idea that God wanted to love and accept all people is definitely taught all over the place in the Hebrew Scripture, but it was such a challenging idea, most Jewish people didn’t understand it or believe it. It was a hidden truth. It was a mystery to them.

In previous ages, humans have always operated under the “us vs. them” principle, which was a principle of rivalry, violence, and death (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3). But now we have a new revelation by the Spirit through the prophets and apostles, that all of us are one, and our struggle is not against each other (cf. Ephesians 6:12).

But Jesus revealed the truth of God’s love for all, and Paul has learned this truth as well, and so is now declaring it to the world. Jews and Gentiles can now live in peace with each other because both are equal footing before God. This is what Paul writes in Ephesians 3:6.

Ephesians 3:6. … that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel …

So instead of division, strife, and rivalry, we are all one family, fellow heirs of God, recipients of the promises (Ephesians 1:3-14; 2:11-22).

Previously, only the Jews were heirs. Only the Jews had promises and covenants from God. Only the Jews were allowed near to God. Only the Jews had forgiveness of sins from God.

But now they are being allowed in. Now they are being grafted into the body. Now they can partake—or share—in the promise of God! This is the mystery. It seems clear to us, but that is because it has been revealed to us.

Jews who lived prior to Paul did not see this clearly. “No one knew the full meaning of God’s promise to Abraham that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3) until Paul wrote, “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations shall be blessed in you’” (Gal 3:8).

In Ephesians 3:7, Paul states that he effectively carried out this task of revealing the mysterious message of peace to the Gentiles.

Ephesians 3:7. … 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.

The word minister comes from the Greek word diakonos, which could also be translated as deacon. Many churches have deacons. This is where that title comes from. A deacon is someone who serves in the church. They are those men and women who have the God given ability to see what needs to be done and do it – no matter how menial. They are wonderful people to have in a church – deacons and deaconesses. That is Paul’s picture of himself in Ephesians 3:7. He calls himself a diakonos, a minister. He was a minister.

Paul is just saying that this ministry was a gift given to him by God. The term effective working is the Greek word energion from which we get our word energy, and the word power us the Greek word dunamis from which we get our word dynamite. God was working in Paul with energy like dynamite to carry out the task given to him.

And all of this divine energy and power to perform a ministry to the Gentiles led Paul directly into prison. A lot of times we think that when we have divine power and energy to perform our God-given ministry, we will be led into popularity and fame. But when Jesus followed God, He ended up on the cross. When Paul followed his calling, he ended up in prison.

Now, Paul is not done with this point about why he is in prison for following Jesus into the way of peace. He explains more in Ephesians 3:8-13, which we will cover next time. We will see that as a result of preaching peace to the Gentiles, this threatened the principalities and powers of this world, and so they put Paul in prison. However, by not fighting violence with violence, Paul was able to show the church, the world, and even the fallen powers of this world, that there was a better way to peace.

In Ephesians 2, Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians (and therefore to us as well), that we, as the church, are to lead the world into the way of peace by being an example to them of how to live in peace with people who used to be our enemies. But Paul knows that this is easier said than done, and so in the first part of Ephesians 3, Paul is showing the church how he himself is an example to them about how to live in peace with others.

Paul is in prison as a result of his stand for peace, but Paul knows that this will only serve to prove the truth of what he is teaching. Paul leads by example, just as we, the church, are to be an example to the world. This is what we have begun to learn in this study of Ephesians 3:1-7, and we will pick back with Paul’s point next time in Ephesians 3:8-13.

By Grace are you Saved Through Faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)

By Jeremy Myers

2 Comments

I firmly believe that the Bible teaches that we receive eternal life by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. But is that what Paul is teaching in Ephesians 2:8-9 when he writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast”? Though many Christians think so, I do not. This study of Ephesians 2:8-9 will explain what I think Paul is really talking about in these verses.

Before we get to that, I want to address a question from a reader about whether it is sinful or not for Christians to engage in New Age practices.

Question from a Reader about New Age Practices

I feel like a lot of Christians are against things like manifesting, meditation, and positive affirmations. I do believe Jesus died for my sins and he is the way to heaven. But most of my day is centered around these New Age practices because they help me clear up the doubt and fear in my life and bring me to a better mental state and ultimately so much more happiness. Is there anything wrong with this and should I feel guilty for it? Is this talked about in any of your books? I would love to hear more about what you have to say. I appreciate your response it was a weight lifted off my shoulders.

Great question! To my knowledge, I have not written about this anywhere.

Let me give you a principle that I use in my life that helps me often make tricky decisions about morality. There are two ways to approach life regarding biblical morality. They are this: First, some people think we should only do what the Bible commands. Second, some think we can do anything the Bible doesn’t forbid.

The first group thinks that we should only do what the Bible tells us we can do. Everything else is potentially sinful. This is why some extreme groups, like the Amish, don’t have electricity and won’t drive cars or have phones. That’s super simplistic, and there are other reasons also, but one reason for this approach to life is that the Bible doesn’t mention such things, and so we should avoid them.

The second approach is that we should only avoid what the Bible strictly forbids. This is the approach that most Christians try to follow, but even here, there is a wide diversity of opinion on what the Bible forbids. For example, lots of Christians in previous generations taught that playing cards was sinful. But the Bible doesn’t forbid this practice anywhere. So why did they think cards were sinful? I honestly don’t know, but they probably had their reasons.

These issues sort of go hand-in-hand with whether the Bible is prescriptive or descriptive, but that’s a slightly different issue, and so I’ll leave that one alone for now.

Anyway, I do follow that second option. For the most part, God gives us freedom to live life how we want, as long as we don’t go against the clear teachings of Scripture on moral issues. This is not a fool proof plan, because of course, the Bible never strictly forbids slavery, but we all know slavery is evil. I use a bit of trajectory hermeneutics to help make these sorts of conclusions.

So how can we apply this to New Age practices?

Well, I need to be honest. I am mostly ignorant of New Age practices and beliefs. I did a little reading and watched a few videos, but based on my extremely limited knowledge, it seems to me that many of the New Age practices are quite similar to some of the practices mentioned in the Bible, but the New Age approach sort of removes God from the equation.

So for example, many New Age practitioners talk about Manifesting or the Law of Attraction, where, which some positive thinking about yourself and the universe, you can bring good things to yourself and turn hopes and dreams into reality. Well, this is somewhat similar to prayer. Rather than trying to manifest your hopes and dreams into reality, why not have a conversation with God about your hopes and dreams instead?

What about positive thinking? Well again, why not think positive thoughts about who you are in Jesus Christ? Why not recognize all the truths from Scripture about what God thinks about you?

Does this mean that manifesting or positive thinking are sinful? …. Probably not. I just don’t think it is anywhere near as effective as prayer or as claiming the truths of Scripture about yourself.

Now look, I would avoid some of the New Age beliefs that teach we are all mini gods. That’s not true. Or that all roads lead to heaven. I am not a universalist and so don’t agree with that either.

Anyway, I am not an expert on any of this. I would love it if you weighed in below by leaving a comment. Let me know what you think about mystical beliefs and practices and how they line up with Scripture or contradict it.

By Grace are You Saved Through Faith … Ephesians 2:8-9

This study was difficult for me to prepare, because I could spend hours talking about Ephesians 2:8-9 and all the various ways of understanding this verse, and also the importance of understanding the key terms in this verse, such as grace, saved, faith, and the “gift of God” at the end of the verse. I have lessons on all these words in my Gospel Dictionary Online Course for those who join my discipleship group.

But let me just try to summarize everything for you. Let us begin with the traditional understanding of Ephesians 2:8-9. The verses say this:

Ephesians 2:8-9. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Traditionally, Christians believe that Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about how to receive eternal life. I even taught this in the past, and you read my old teachings on Ephesians 2:8-10 here. Christians think this because of the word “saved.” Most Christians think that the word “saved” refers to receiving eternal life and going to heaven when you die.

Therefore, most Christians think that this verse is teaching that God offers eternal life to use solely by His grace, and we receive this free gift through faith … that is, by believing Jesus for it.

There is also an issue there at the end of the verse about the “gift of God” and what it refers to. What is the gift of God that Paul is referring to? Is it the grace? The faith? the salvation? I have taught about this frequently in the past, so I’m not going to dive deep into the question now. (See these articles: Faith is NOT a gift from God, Is faith the gift from God, Faith is Not a Gift from God) The answer to the debate, however, is that the Greek words have the entire “by grace are you saved through faith” package in view. The gift that Paul has in mind is all that God has done for us human to offer us salvation by grace through faith. That’s all I’m going to say about that, and you can read those other articles for a longer explanation.

Now, it is 100% true that we receive eternal life by grace through faith. The Bible teaches this everywhere (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

However, although the Bible everywhere teaches that we receive eternal life by grace along through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, Ephesians 2:8-9 is not one of the verses that teaches this idea.

The reason is because the word “saved” in Scripture does not ever actually refer to receiving eternal life. As I briefly explained in the previous study of Ephesians 2:5-7, the word “salvation” means “deliverance” and the context of the passage determines what kind of deliverance is in view. When you perform this study on every passage in the Bible (as I have done), you discover that the Bible never uses the words “saved” or “salvation” in reference to receiving eternal life.

Not even here in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Again, as we saw last time, the salvation of Ephesians 2 has in view the way God has delivered us from our bondage and slavery to the sin of blame, accusation, scapegoating, and violence that dominates and rules the world. Since Cain murdered Abel, the world has run on violence. We know of no other way to live.

But God, through the person and work of Jesus Christ, came and rescued us, delivered us, SAVED us from this way of living and showed us a completely different way of living. This new way of life is what we were made for originally, and what God has always modeled for us, and what we are now to walk in, as we follow Jesus.

God revealed this to us out of His grace, and as we follow this new way by faith, we will be saved from the death that has enslaved humanity.

In other words, Ephesians 2:8-9 is not about how to go to heaven when you die, but rather about how God stepped in to the human problem to rescue us from our slavery to death.

So with that in mind, here is how to read Ephesians 2:8-9:

God gave us an amazing free gift [by grace] in showing us how to live a different way than through violence and bloodshed [are you saved], and while this new way of living is counterintuitive and seems to contradict everything we think we know about life, if we believe that what we see in Jesus is the true way to properly live life [through faith], then God will lead us into this new way of life. This entire thing did not come from ourselves. We humans did not think it up and come to this new understanding on our own [and that not of yourselves]. This entire revelation of the new way to live life is a gift from God [it is the gift of God]. No one can boast that they thought this up on their own [not of works so that no one can boast]. Nope, it’s solely and only from God.

Does that way of reading these verses make sense?

This way of reading the verse fits perfectly in the overall context of Ephesians 2, where Paul has laid out the problem of humanity in Ephesians 2:1-3, the solution to this problem that has come from God through Jesus in Ephesians 2:4-10, and the application of how to live this new way in Ephesians 2:11-22.

Again, Ephesians 2 is not about how to go to heaven when we die, but is about how to bring heaven down to earth by living at peace with one another here on this earth, just as Jesus did during His life and just as God wants us to do in ours. And our world desperately needs this way of living right now, doesn’t it?

We will pick back up next time with Ephesians 2:10 as we continue to talk about this new way of living as revealed in Jesus.

What is Salvation in Ephesians 2:5-7?

By Jeremy Myers

1 Comment

As we continue our study of Ephesians, this study considers Ephesians 2:5-7 and the meaning of the word “salvation.” We see that a misunderstanding of the word “salvation” leads to a misunderstanding of the entire chapter of Ephesians 2. But when we properly understand what “salvation” means in context, we can then better understanding the whole of Ephesians 2.

Before we look at that text, however, we answer a question from a reader about something I taught from Matthew 13 and the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

Before we get to that, however, I hope you took advantage of my offer to get some free Bitcoin and Dogecoin a few weeks ago. At the time, Bitcoin was at $32,000 and Dogecoin was at $0.19. Today, Bitcoin is at $46,500, up 45%, and Dogecoin is currently at $0.32, up 68%. I am not giving financial advice, but I am glad I bought a little bit of both (You don’t have to buy a whole Bitcoin, but can buy a tiny fraction of one coin like I did).

If you haven’t yet joined my discipleship group, I have a way for you to get about $60 in free cryptocurrency and use some of it to join my Discipleship group. If you are already part of my discipleship group, you can still get the free cryptocurrency. If you follow the steps I lay out, you really don’t have anything to lose. If you had followed these steps about a month ago when I provided them, that $60 in free crypto would now be worth almost $100. And don’t think you’ve missed out. I honestly think we’re just at the very beginning of the cryptocurrency adoption and growth. But do your own due diligence and make choices that are right for you.

Question from a Reader

My question was in the study of the wheat and the tares you say that the wheat are the ideas of God and the tares are the ideas of the evil one if I understand correctly. In Matthew 13:38 it refers to them as people. I’m confused. Thanks for your response.

The reader is referring to a previous study on the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13:24-30.

This is a question! And good job noting the translation in the NIV.

Part of the problem is the NIV translation is pretty bad on this verse. The Greek word used twice in Matthew 13:38 should not get translated as “people.” It should be “sons” or “children.”

I went on to argue that the word for “sons” in both “sons of the kingdom” and “sons of wickedness” is better understood as “offspring,” which in the context, would indicate the behavior or results that come from living according to the ideas and teachings of the Kingdom of God vs. the kingdom of darkness.

Here is what I said:

Typically, a “son” is understood to be a child of someone else. But the word “son” can also be used metaphorically. When the word “son” is used in connection to a concept or idea, instead of to a person or family, it refers to the characteristics or inner attributes of someone, rather than to the person themselves. So “sons of this world” are contrasted with “sons of light” in Luke 16:8 (cf. John 12:36; 1 Thess 5:5). A student or disciple of the Pharisees could be called a “son of the Pharisees” (Matt 12:27; Acts 23:6). Scripture can also speak of “sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36), “sons of this age” (Luke 16:8; 20:34), “sons of disobedience” (Eph 2:2; 5:6), “sons of the devil” (Acts 13:10) and numerous other similar terms. Such descriptions are not literal (a son of the devil is not literally the biological offspring of the devil), but are instead figurative and symbolic ways of referring to someone’s character and behavior.

If this applies to the word “sons” in this parable, then Jesus is referring to the figurative offspring that comes from the teachings of the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of darkness. Throughout time, the results that come from the teachings of Jesus have always proven to be better than that which comes from any other source. Jesus’ words and teachings can therefore be trusted.

What is Salvation in Ephesians 2:5-7?

In previous studies of Ephesians 2, I have stated that Ephesians 2 is one of the most misunderstood chapters in the Bible. Most people think that the overall message of Ephesians 2 is about how to receive eternal life and go to heaven when you die. And while the first 10 verses of Ephesians 2 can be read this way, the “Application” section of Ephesians 2, found in verses 11-24, show that Paul does not have eternal life and going to heaven in view at all. Paul is concerned with a completely different issue in Ephesians 2.

One of the primary reasons that people misunderstand Ephesians 2 is because they have a faulty definition of the word “salvation.” If Ephesians 2 is one of the most misunderstood chapters in the Bible, the word “salvation” is the most misunderstood word in the Bible.

When most Christians see the word “saved” or “salvation” in the Bible, they think it means “being saved from sin and death so you can receive eternal life and go to heaven when you die.”

You might be surprised to know that this is not how the salvation word family (saved, salvation, save, Savior) is used anywhere in Scripture. A careful study of the various contexts of the words “saved” or “salvation” in the Bible reveals that the word simply means “delivered” or “deliverance.” And you can be delivered from a wide variety of things in Scripture.

In Matthew 8:25, the disciples are in a boat on the Sea of Galilee, and they cry out to Jesus, “Lord, save us!” Are they asking Jesus to forgive their sins so they can receive eternal life and go to heaven when they die? No! There is a great storm on the sea, and they are about to drown and so they ask Jesus to save, or deliver, them from drowning.

This is an easy example, but the rest of the uses of “saved” and “salvation” in Scripture follows a similar pattern. People can be saved from sickness, from enemies, from war, from financial ruin, from premature physical death, from the devastating consequences of sin and temptation, and from a wide variety of other things.

So whenever you see the word “saved” or “salvation” in Scripture, you should substitute in the word “delivered” or “deliverance” and then look in the context to see what kind of deliverance is in view. This will help clear up a lot of confusing Bible passages for you. I will cover many of these passages in my Gospel Dictionary online course for the entry on “salvation” when it gets published.

This is what we will do today when we encounter the word “saved” in Ephesians 2:5-7. We will substitute in the word “delivered” and then consider the context to see what we are delivered from and what this deliverance looks like. When we do this, we will come to understand that Paul is not talking about how to receive eternal life and go to heaven when we die, but is instead talking about a pressing issue that involves the lives of all people on planet earth here and now.

So let’s jump in to Ephesians 2:5.

By Grace You Have Been Saved (Ephesians 2:5)

We are picking up from last time when we looked at Ephesians 2:4 and how God has stepped in to the problem of human violence to do something about it.

Paul continues this idea in the first part of Ephesians 2:5 when says. …because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses.

Again, Paul is showing that the activity of God which is described in Ephesians 2:4-10 is not because of how great we humans are, but is rather because of how much God loves us. God stepped in to act on our behalf while we were dead in our sins. While we were unlovely. While we were undesirable by any standard. Yet God’s love for us was so great, that He loved us anyway.

So what did God do? At the end of Ephesians 2:5, Paul says (by grace you have been saved).

Here is the word “saved” that has caused so many problems in this text. So here is what we do. We see the word “saved” and since we know that this word is widely misunderstood in the minds of most Christians, we substitute in the word “delivered.” The word “delivered” is a fine translation for the Greek word, and it helps us better understand the passage, because it doesn’t carry the same theological baggage as the word “saved.”

So Paul is saying “By grace you have been delivered.”

Now we can look into the context to see what we have been delivered from.

And thankfully, since we’ve been studying Ephesians verse-by-verse, we already know what we have been delivered from, because Paul described it in Ephesians 2:1-4. In those verses, Paul describes the great human problem, which is that we are blinded by Satan so that we engage in a never-ending cycle of human violence that leads to death.

Back in our study of Ephesians 2:1, we learned that salvation in Ephesians is not about receiving eternal life so we can go to heaven when you die, but is instead about being rescued and delivered from our addiction to accusation, scapegoating, and violence, so that we are brought into the way of life, love, and liberty that God always wanted and desired for humanity.

So what is “salvation” is Ephesians 2? It is deliverance from our addiction to violence against other human beings. It is deliverance from how we justify our violence against other human beings. It is being shown what the real problem is and being shown how to handle this violence in a different way, a way that follows the heart of God and the example of Jesus.

This deliverance from the cycle of human violence is what Paul goes on to describe in Ephesians 2:5-7. He uses three descriptive terms to show how we have been delivered, or saved, from our blindness and slavery to violence.

These three descriptive terms are that we have been regenerated with Christ, resurrected with Christ, and are now reigning with Christ.

Regenerated with Christ (Ephesians 2:5)

First in Ephesians 2:5. He made us alive together with Christ. We were dead, and he gave us life. God couldn’t just do this by a wave of his hand, no matter how much he loved us, because – as I said earlier – that would violate his justice and his righteousness. So God made us alive together with Christ.

Paul doesn’t go into great detail here on what he means by regeneration, but this is because Paul has already gone into detail in Ephesians 1:13-23. In our study of Ephesians 1:13, we learned that regeneration is being given new life in Jesus Christ. We are brought back to life with Him.

Jesus not only showed us a different way to live life, He also has given brand new life to us so that we can live in it. It is like we were living in a desert, and Jesus not only showed us what life is like in the rich, lush mountains filled with rivers and streams, but also took us to the mountains so that we can actually experience new life living there.

Jesus didn’t just say “Let me show you a new way to live,” He actually gave us new life so that we can live in it.

Resurrected with Christ (Ephesians 2:6a)

Next in Ephesians 2:6, Paul reveals how we were given new life in Christ. We were raised us up together with Christ. We were resurrected with Christ.

Resurrection is different from regeneration. Regeneration is new spiritual life in Christ. Resurrection is new physical life in Christ. We have been spiritually raised with Him, and we will be physically raised. Life in Christ is not just a spiritual reality, but will also be an eternal physical reality when we are raised with Christ and given new, glorious, sinless bodies.

Now, physical resurrection with Christ is still a future event for us, but in regard to how we live in this life, it is a current reality that we can live in light of.

It is sort of like living with an inheritance that you have not yet received. If you know with absolutely certainty that when you turn a certain age, you will receive a million dollars, that is going to affect how you live your life now and the sorts of choices you will make about your finances. You can even start making investments or purchases with the expectation that in the future, you will gain your million dollar inheritance.

Resurrection is sort of like that. When we receive our resurrected bodies, we will be perfect. We will be sinless. We can start living in light of that reality now. We no longer have be enslaved to this present body of sin. We no longer have to live under the crushing debt of sin. We can instead live in light of the way we will be.

The third and final description of our salvation is related to this, and is found in the last part of Ephesians 2:6.

Reigning with Christ (Ephesians 2:6b)

Paul writes that were were made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

This is a reference to reigning with Christ. And remember, being seated with Christ in heavenly places is a theme that Paul brings up several times in Ephesians. We discussed it previously back in our study of Ephesians 1:3 and our study of Ephesians 1:20-23 and we will see it again later in Ephesians.

One of the key truths to remember is that this statement about sitting with Christ Jesus in heavenly places is not a reference to some future event when we are in heaven with Jesus, but is instead a reference to life here and now on this earth. One of the things Jesus sought to do during His earthly ministry, which is also the task that Jesus assigned to the church, is that we are to bring heaven down to earth. We are to carry out God’s will on earth, just as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10).

Heavenly places are the places on earth where the Kingdom of God is making inroads to life on this earth so that God’s rule and reign comes upon this earth, just as it is done in heaven.

So when Paul writes that we are seating with Jesus Christ now in heavenly places so that we can rule and reign with Him, he is talking about how we are to lead the world now into the way that Jesus wants the world to live.

And how is that? Not with violence and blame and hate and anger, where we accuse and demonize our enemies so that we can kill them in God’s name. No. Rather, we are to lead the world into the way of Jesus, into a life filled with grace, mercy, and forgiveness, where, like God, we love others even when they are dead in their trespasses and sins and seek to do us harm in return.

We reign with Christ by loving our enemies, just as He loved us while we were still His enemies.

When we live in light of our regeneration, resurrection, and reigning with Christ, it is then that we begin to experience the results of this sort of life, which is what Paul discusses in Ephesians 2:7.

Results: Riches in Christ (Ephesians 2:7)

In view of that, though, how should we act? How should we behave? We have been given new spiritual life and physical life in Christ, and have been seated with Him to rule and reign over this earth. We have infinite resources at our disposal. So how are we to live?

We should not be ashamed of whose children we are. We should be proud of our name and our family. We should not worry about worldly concerns because our Father the King is watching out for us. And if a new life, and being raised with Christ, and getting a royal position are not enough to get you excited to serve God, Ephesians 2:7 tells us the results of living in light of the deliverance Jesus has brought to us.

Paul writes in Ephesians 2:7… That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

With these words, Paul shows that the new life we have been given in Jesus Christ is not temporary or limited. It begins now, and continues through all the ages of our life, which includes all the ages of eternity. In all the ages to come, God will continue to pour out upon us the riches of His grace and kindness. He loves us and will always love us, and we are only beginning to see the height and depth of God’s love for us. We will spend all eternity exploring God’s love in greater detail.

So, what is the salvation, or the deliverance, that we have been given in Jesus Christ?

It is that we no longer have to live in the realm of death, where we condemn, accuse, and kill others. Instead, because of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ, we are able to truly live. We have new spiritual life (regeneration), physical life (resurrection), and powerful life (reigning) with Jesus Christ. We have been delivered from our old way of life and brought into a brand new way of life.

A life based on love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness. A life that looks just like Jesus.

Paul is not done talking about this life. He continues in Ephesians 2:8 to show us how we can start living in this new way of life. That is where we will pick up in our next study. In Ephesians 2:8-10 we will see how we can start showing the world a better way to live. How we can fulfill our calling to reveal the life of Jesus to this dying world.

Carl Jung and Learning About Your Soul

INDIVIDUATION
AND THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF WHOLENESS

What a Non-Violent Atonement reveals about Scripture

A Prisoner for Peace (Ephesians 3:1-7)

Question from a Reader

A Prisoner for Jesus (Ephesians 3:1-7)

By Grace are you Saved Through Faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Question from a Reader about New Age Practices

By Grace are You Saved Through Faith … Ephesians 2:8-9

What is Salvation in Ephesians 2:5-7?

Question from a Reader

What is Salvation in Ephesians 2:5-7?

By Grace You Have Been Saved (Ephesians 2:5)

Regenerated with Christ (Ephesians 2:5)

Resurrected with Christ (Ephesians 2:6a)

Reigning with Christ (Ephesians 2:6b)

Results: Riches in Christ (Ephesians 2:7)

So, what is the salvation, or the deliverance, that we have been given in Jesus Christ?

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

INDIVIDUATION AND THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF WHOLENESS

Question from a Reader

A Prisoner for Jesus (Ephesians 3:1-7)

Question from a Reader about New Age Practices

By Grace are You Saved Through Faith … Ephesians 2:8-9

Question from a Reader

What is Salvation in Ephesians 2:5-7?

By Grace You Have Been Saved (Ephesians 2:5)

Regenerated with Christ (Ephesians 2:5)

Resurrected with Christ (Ephesians 2:6a)

Reigning with Christ (Ephesians 2:6b)

Results: Riches in Christ (Ephesians 2:7)

So, what is the salvation, or the deliverance, that we have been given in Jesus Christ?

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

INDIVIDUATION
AND THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF WHOLENESS