With the exception of Romans 9, Ephesians 1:3-14 is perhaps the most often quoted verses in support of Unconditional Election (The U in TULIP). The typical response from someone who rejects that is to say that predestination is on the basis on foreseeing the repentance and faith of the people (See Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:2). The problem with this idea is that is doesn't have much applicability to Christian life and the writers of the New Testament were not concerned with theoretical theology in my opinion, but theology that has a practical meaning and application to human life.
This lead me at a point where I was conflict. The voice of Scripture as a whole is clear to me in it saying that salvation is genuinely offered to all (or most everyone) with the capacity for them to accept it. But Ephesians 1:4-5 created a conflict with that idea. So it lead me to study the Ephesians passage deeper.
I noticed something. In the first three chapters of Ephesians, there is a "you" and "us" type language throughout. When one reads later in chapter 2, I notice that the "you" is directed towards the Gentiles. One might say then, that through Paul's letter the "us" could very well at times refer to the Jews, especially when he uses the "you" and "us" language. Low and behold, this seems to be how Ephesians 1:4-14 is formatted, with 4-12 using the 1st person plural whereas 13-14 using the 2nd person plural. What could the author (who I am take to be Paul) be saying here? Lets look at little closer at the verses then with my translation of it (based upon the NASB).
Ephesians 1:3-14
Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places because of Christ. Just as He chose us in Him from before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him, by having predestined us in love to the adoption as sons for Himself through Jesus Christ, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely gave us because of the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the freedom from our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He made to overabound for us. In all the wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him toward a dispensation of the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things because of the Messiah, things in the heavens and things on the earth, in whom we also have been given an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the plan of His will, to the end that we would be to the praise of His glory, those who have hoped in the Christ first. In Him you also, having listened to the message of truth (the gospel of your salvation) and in Him, having also believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance until the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Before going even further, it must be stated that the consensus is that Ephesians 1:3-14 is one long sentence. However, this seems a quite bit odd considering the other Pauline letters than have a benediction such as we have in verse 3 and then starts with teaching. This may be said to be a default setting but not the rule because 2 Corinthians 1:3-12 has a benediction that is used to teach from. Also, Romans 1:2-6 contains some teaching before Paul even gets to the greeting and then benediction. Nevertheless, the default for Paul's greeting and benediction to be short and then for him to launch into the main part of the letter.
So what am I trying to get at? That I think verse 3 is in fact a separate sentence from 4-14. In verse 4, Paul starts the sentence with "just as" (kathws). Keep in mind that there is no actually punctuation in the Greek like we have today, so our attempts to find sentences is based upon trying to find where the author begins and ends a thought. So, with a word like kathws which is used to compare two ideas and typically goes between the two things being compared, the presumption would be that verse 4 an on is being likened to what is said in verse 3.
However, I propose a different understanding. I propose that kathws is used before the first idea and that Paul brings that which the first is likened to, the "you" in verses 13-14 (notice the two phrases I bolded). For kathws to be used at the beginning is not unprecedented. See Luke 11:30, 22:29, John 15:29, Romans 1:28, 2 Corinthians 1:5, etc.
Why is this important? For two reasons. First off, the first person plural is used from verse 3 all the way through verse 12. If verse 3 is part of the long sentence, then we would be hard pressed to change the meaning of the first person plural from including the audience to excluding them. Language is not generally used so fluidly. However, if verse 4 marks a new thought, one could say that the first person plural is used differently without much objection. Secondly, if kathws is used before the first thing that is likened to a second thing, then this means that Paul is not speaking universally in verse 4-12, but that it is one segment of the population (the Jews) which the Gentiles are likened to in 13-14.
Leaving the technical aspects of the text, lets look more at the meaning if I am correct. In verse 4-12, Paul speaks of 5 different ideas: choice, predestination, redemption, revealing the mystery, and inheritance. These aspects are more or less repeated in some form in verses 13-14. "Having listened to the message of truth" could be likened to the revealing of the mystery. Additionally, receiving the Spirit who was promised could be the equivalent to predestination and choice, because having the Spirit is a sign of the acceptance before God. Furthermore, inheritance is spoken of and also redemption (though one might say the word is used in two different ways between verse 7 and verse 14). Additionally, one should compare Ephesians 1:4-14 with 3:1-12 (discussion of the state of the Gentiles) and see the similarities of languag between the two passages.
So if verses 4-12 refer to the Jews, what does Paul mean that they were predestined? A common theme throughout the Old Testament was that the patriarch's (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) children would never be totally forsaken, but on account of them their seed would continue and would have a part in the inheritance. So, in order for God to be faithful to the covenant with the fathers, God would always have a remnant from Israel that would be in God's grace. As a result, the Jews as a whole were predestined to have some saved, but no other tribe would have such a promise made for them. But then Paul later turns to the Gentiles has basically says something along the lines of "While we are predestined to have a part in God's salvation, you Gentiles are also partakers yourselves in salvation." Paul essentially acknowledges Israel as the chosen people of God and how God will keep that promise, but likewise stating that the Gentiles are not excluded, but they too are included.
This better fits the context than of a predestination of individuals, since Paul clearly discusses the Gentiles place in 2:11-22. Additionally, one can see hints of this in the end of chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2.
The thinking of a predestined remnant (as I would term it) is not without precedent elsewhere. In Romans 11:1-6, Paul denies that all of Israel was forsaken, but that there will be a remnant with them. Looking closer at 11:2, we note that Paul refers to the people of Israel as those whom God foreknew (one might render that as those whom God knew first). Paul has previously used the word in Romans 8:29 and speaks of them being predestined. If those who God foreknew was a phrase used to refer to the Israelites being the people first known (or chosen) by God (see Romans 1:16 also), then Paul refers to Israel being predestined, which would align with what is said in Ephesians 1:5.
I write all this to give a different way to view Ephesians 1 and to study more deeply. I have not addressed every issue in detail here, but in my time of studying this idea, I have found it to have a lot of support. Once again, that is something I would be willing to discuss. What I have provided is the primary parts of my study without going into excruciating detail.
1 comment:
update on my last comment - I've now posted an article - "Understanding the Language of Predestination". I hope you find it helpful.
Post a Comment