Ephesians 1

CHAPTER I

The First Half of the Epistle

Three Chapters

Paul Recalls to the Mind of the Ephesians:

THE BLESSEDNESS OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNA SANCTA AS IT IS IN CHRIST

The Greeting

Ephesians 1:1

1 The form of the greeting is stereotyped: a nominative to indicate the writer, a dative to indicate the intended readers: A to B; then nominatives to express the greeting itself, which are exclamatory (although the grammars supply a verb): Grace to you! Lysias, Acts 23:26, and James use the classical infinitive, Paul and Peter the nouns. Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, to the saints and believers who are in Ephesus in Christ Jesus: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

In addition to calling him “Saul” his father gave his baby boy the Roman name “Paul” since the child was born a Roman citizen. When he worked among the Gentiles, the apostle naturally used only his second name.

Since he is writing in his official capacity, Paul adds his official title: “apostle of Christ Jesus,” one commissioned and sent by his superior, the Lord’s ambassador. The word apostle is to be understood in the narrow sense as the added phrase “through God’s will” indicates. Paul had received an immediate call; those who are termed apostles in the wider sense had received only a mediate call. The genitive is possessive: this apostle belongs to Christ; but this possession involves origin and agency: Christ appointed and sent him. This was done “by God’s will,” i. e., by what God willed. Paul did not become an apostle through a set of fortuitous circumstances, nor did he grow into his office. see 2 Cor. 1:1.

Paul is discharging his apostolic obligation by writing this letter. He is conscious of his responsibility and is meeting that responsibility. Apostolic dignity and authority are naturally involved. The Ephesians are receiving an apostolic letter, one that is to be appreciated accordingly.

Ἅγιοι is one of the earliest and the most frequently employed designations for the Christians (Acts 9:13) and thus is regularly used in the plural. A variant term is the perfect participle ἡγιασμένοι, “those who have been sanctified” and are now in that state. Both signify separation unto God by faith in Christ. The idea expressed by ἅγιοι is passive just as is that expressed by ἡγιασμένοι: “saints” as being separated from the world by God for himself.

Here one article combines the two designations: “to the saints and believers.” The Ephesians are both. By placing “believers” after “saints,” both nouns after the one article, Paul shows that “saints” refers to sanctification in the wider sense. “Saints” includes all that makes us Christians. “Believers” adds what is most essential in this sainthood, namely faith. The thought is: you who are separated unto God, separated thus as true believers. In this epistle, as in Colossians, the readers are to be fully conscious of both their separated state and their faith. The great Una Sancta to which they belong is holy unto God and is thus composed only of true believers. The combination of terms is highly significant. It is the basis of Luther’s teaching that the church consists of only true believers.

Our versions translate πιστοί “faithful.” One also meets the explanation that Paul is addressing the saints who are faithful, as if there could also be unfaithful saints. C.-K. 868 shows that the word is to be taken in the specific New Testament active sense: those who trust another, and not in the classic passive sense: those whom another trusts. The word “believers” is here used as a noun exactly as is its companion, “saints.” When it is used as an adjective it may mean “faithful” or “trustworthy.” Here it means “believers,” Glaeubige (Luther). See the discussion in C.-K. “Faithful” would lift out only one of the moral qualities of the saints but by doing so would inject an implied contrast, namely that of unfaithfulness, a contrast that is indicated nowhere in the epistle. The opposite of the πιστοί (“believers”) are the ἄπιστοι, “unbelievers,” who are in no sense “saints,” who are altogether without faith.

It is debated whether we should construe: “believers in Christ Jesus,” so that the phrase names the object of the faith of these believers. In the first place, note that one Greek article combines “saints and believers” and thus regards the two designations as a unit. This answers the assumption that the phrase modifies only “believers” and not also “saints.” The Greek makes this very plain. In the second place, this phrase occurs again and again throughout the epistle and in all manner of connections. It always has the same meaning: “in connection with Christ, with the Lord.” To obtain the meaning of the phrase we must collate all the passages in which it occurs.

Deissmann has done this in Die neutestamentliche Formel in Christo Jesu. He finds the phrase occurring 164 times in Paul’s writings and concludes that it was original with him and means that all Christians are locally united “within the pneumatic Christ” insofar as they form one body. R. 587 calls the phrase mystical; we have explained mystical language when interpreting Rom. 6:4. Some let “in” denote the element in which Christians move. We are usually referred to John 15:4. “I in you, you in me.” So also the phrase is thought to refer only to the glorified and not to the historical Christ, which is misleading. Paul, indeed, wrote after Christ was glorified, but John 15:4 was spoken by Jesus before his glorification. Besides, Christ is one and is just as historical after his glorification as he was before it.

Ἐν denotes a vital spiritual connection so that we translate: “in connection with.” This connection is established objectively by the means of grace (Word and Sacrament), subjectively by faith. That is why we often read: “in connection with the Name,” etc., i. e., with the objective revelation (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; etc.). This ἐν, this connection, applies to every individual believer as such and only thus to all of them as one body. Since each one is connected with Christ, all form one body.

It is mechanical and misleading to stress the idea of sphere or of element when defining the force of ἐν. While all prepositions can be diagrammed, and thus a circle represents ἐν, this device is only helpful and must not be stressed so as to make “in Christ” = as living creatures in the air, as fish in the water, as plants in the earth; man living and breathing in the air, and the air also being in him (Deissmann, 84, 92). Our connection is the sphere which embraces both Christ and us and does not extend beyond him. We enter nothing that resembles air, water, or earth. We are in the connection only by virtue of its being formed by the objective and the subjective means named above. The connection joins us to the crucified, risen, and glorified Christ. This is wholly spiritual and not mystical unless everything that is spiritual is also to be called mystical.

We see practically no difference between “Christ Jesus” and “Jesus Christ.” One may indicate the office first as is done in General Washington, President Lincoln. Office and person are often united in the one word “Christ.”

The fact that the phrase “in Ephesus” is genuine we have shown in the introduction. The flexibility of the Greek and its ability to make a unit of “saints” and “believers” by means of the one article enables it to place οὖσιν between these two nouns and to have it modify both by simply repeating the article and thus making the participle attributive. The English cannot do this; our versions make an unsatisfactory attempt. Translate: “to the saints and believers in Christ, those who are in Ephesus.” Compare 2 Cor. 1:1: “the saints who are in,” etc.; also Rom. 1:7: “all those who are in,” etc. Both passages have the word “saints”; see also Phil. 1:1 and Col. 1:2; 1 Cor. 1:2 has, “having been sanctified” plus “called saints.”

Those who cancel “in Ephesus” from the text have difficulty with regard to construing the participle. They should translate: “to the saints who are also (καί) believers in Christ.” Zahn says that this “is not quite satisfactory.” Yet he offers no alternative. Ewald has another construction; he connects as belonging together: “to the saints and (καί) believers who are in Christ Jesus.” He overlooks the rule that adverbial modifiers are placed next to their verbs (or participles) unless there is obvious reason for a separation. If Paul had in mind what Ewald says he should have written: τοῖςἁγίοιςκαὶπιστοῖςτοῖςοὖσινἐνΧ. Ἰ. These are the facts of the case. In other words, those who cancel “in Ephesus” are left with a participle which cannot be properly construed. All attempts at construction either offer a new sense (Zahn) or overlook the grammar (Ewald).

Ephesians 1:2

2 The greeting itself is exactly like that found in Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2, which see.

In Colossians Paul mentions Timothy as a fellow writer. Although Ephesians was written at this same time, Paul alone addresses the Ephesians, and does that in the simplest manner. There is nothing in Ephesus that needs correction. The epistle is an apostolic message which comes from Paul himself. The greeting thus fits the epistle closely.

The Great Doxology

Ephesians 1:3

3 Other epistles begin with thanksgiving; this one, Second Corinthians, and First Peter begin with a doxology, and the greatest of these doxologies is this one found in Ephesians. The one found in Second Corinthians is due to the intense emotion of comfort, this one to the profound contemplation of the whole work of God for our salvation. Paul glorifies God, the Fountain of our Salvation. The doxology is Trinitarian. It reaches from eternity to eternity. Both in contents and in structure it towers above all other doxologies. It is comparable to Ps. 103.

The whole of it in all its details was present to Paul’s mind when he began his dictation. This is clear from the structure, especially from the three phrases: “for the praise of the (his) glory,” in v. 6, 12, 14. Little attention is usually paid to the structure. R. 433 lists this doxology among Paul’s noble periods but detracts from his praise when he adds that Paul would have had many more such but for his impatience with the fetters of a long sentence and his passing over into anacolutha. We have expressed ourselves on the latter in connection with Rom. 5:12; 15:23; 2 Cor. 5:12; and elsewhere. Much remains hidden and is lost when the doxology is printed in the usual way. Let us conserve as much as we can.

BLESSED

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

he who blessed us with every spiritual blessing

in the heavenly places

in Christ,

Even as he elected us in him before the world’s foundation

to be holy and blemishless before him in love,

having predestinated us to adoption through Jesus Christ for himself

according to the good pleasure of his will

For the Glory-Praise of his Grace

which he graciously granted us

in the Beloved One

---

In whom we have

The ransoming through his blood,

The remission of the trespasses,

according to the riches of his grace

which he made abound for us in all wisdom and intelligence,

having made known to us the mystery of his will

which he purposed in him for administration

during the fulness of the time-seasons,

to summarize all things in the Christ,

those in the heavens and those on the earth;

in him in whom also we were given a lot

as having been predestinated

according to his purpose who works all the things

according to the counsel of his will,

that we may be for his Glory-Praise

as those who have hoped in advance in the Christ

In whom also you,

having heard the Word of the Truth,

the gospel of your salvation—

in whom also having believed

you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise,

who is pledge of our inheritance

for ransoming the possession

For his Glory-Praise.

The First Member of the Doxology

The phrase “in Christ” (“in him,” “in whom”) occurs ten times, the number of greatest rhetorical completeness. Christ is the golden string on which all the pearls of this doxology are strung. He is the central diamond around which all the lesser diamonds are set as rays. “The Beloved One” is the divine designation made prominent. “For the Glory-Praise” marks the close of each of the three parts, these three indicating the persons of the Trinity. “According to the good pleasure” occurs three times. A large number of the greatest New Testament concepts is worked into a grand whole with consummate mastery. Proper printing aids the eye; proper reading, especially of the original, aids still more.

When Paul begins with this lofty doxology he shows that his whole heart is filled with the contemplation of God, here in his relation to the Una Sancta in Christ. The apostle at once strikes the most exalted note; all else in this epistle rings in harmony with it. The verbal εὐλογητός is common in doxologies. The grammarians feel that a copula should be supplied. So they debate as to whether to supply ἐστί, declarative, or εἴη the optative of wish, or ἔστω, the imperative of command. Supply nothing but read this word as an exclamation.

This word means “well-spoken”; we speak well of God when we say what he is and does in his attributes and his works. No task should delight us more. There is too little contemplation of God, too little praise of him. The Scriptures, however, show us no sinking of the mind and the emotions into God as this is cultivated by the mystics, even the best of whom are morbid, the rest, like those of India, pagan. Paul sings the true glory of God as his mind moves amid the gospel glories.

The full liturgical name, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” designates God in an effective soteriological way: he in whom our whole salvation in Christ is bound up. This name is really a concentrated confession. All that the Scriptures reveal regarding our Savior God is packed into this blessed Name. The discussion of the commentators as to whether Paul intends to say that God is only the Father of our Lord Jesus or also his God, generally overlook the point just stated.

On this subject see 2 Cor. 1:3. Let it suffice here to state that in 1:17 Paul himself writes: “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Note also Matt. 27:46 and John 20:17. For Jesus in his human nature God is his God, and for Jesus in his deity God is his Father, his God since the Incarnation, his Father from all eternity. But note “our Lord” which connects us with Christ and through him with God. “Lord” is wholly soteriological: he who purchased and won us, to whom we belong as our Savior King.

Those who do not accept this obvious meaning of God’s designation overlook the fact that one article makes a unit of the two terms: “the God and Father” just as we see this in v. 1. They would eliminate everything “metaphysical,” in particular the generatio aeterna which the church has always found in the name Father of Jesus Christ. For this they substitute the view that “God” refers to the omnipotence and “Father” to the love which are displayed in “our Lord Jesus Christ” in the work of salvation. Yet, unless our Lord is “true God, born of the Father from eternity,” and then also “true man, born of the Virgin Mary,” no salvation remains for which to glorify God.

“Blessed, he who blessed us with every spiritual blessing” form a beautiful paronomasia. Our blessing rises in answer to God’s blessing. His lies in the bestowal of saving gifts, ours in the response of praise. The substantivized participle “he who blessed us” is a constative aorist which sums up all the blessing of God in one grand act. “With every blessing” adds the cognate noun in order to emphasize the idea of the participle. We may translate, “with every, or with all blessing,” since in the case of abstract nouns the meanings “every” and “all” flow together. Here “every” is preferable since it individualizes the whole number which makes up the sum.

The nature of these many blessings is “spiritual”; all pertain to our regenerate spiritual nature, to the new man born in us. They thus benefit both soul and body. The adjective does not refer to the constitution of man as being composed of an immaterial and a material part, for all men have these two parts. It is true, all of these blessings come from God’s Spirit and might be called “spiritual” because of this origin. This interpretation is often found. Yet the idea is that “spiritual blessings” are intended for spiritual men. They are not intended for fleshly men, fleshly blessings do not exist, such men remain unblessed.

Although Luther translates in himmlischen Guetern, and C.-K. 829 adopts this, our versions are correct when they translate, “in heavenly places.” One arrives at this translation by noting the same phrase in 1:20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12. The A. V. margin to our passage offers the translation, “in heavenly things” but does not have this marginal rendering of the other four passages. One must also note the article. Not bona but loca are referred to. They are the definite heavenly places, supreme over all the earth, where God dwells. God blessed us in the heavens above (ἐπί in the compound). His blessing is according: infinitely superior to anything here on earth below. All that follows accords with these “heavenlies,” notably the very next most fundamental blessing, God’s eternal election.

He blessed us “in connection with Christ.” We have explained this phrase in our comments on v. 1. The phrase is evidently to be construed with the participle. The point is important for the understanding of v. 4 where we propose to construe the same phrase in the same way: “he elected us in connection with him.” The sense of the phrase has been given in v. 1. When “through Christ” and “on account of Christ” (per and propter) are offered as translations for ἐν, or even as interpretations, the thought is changed. It may seem harmless in the present clause, it is not so in v. 4. “In” denotes union, vital connection. The whole action of blessing with every blessing as well as the recipients of these blessings are in the sphere formed by Christ and not an inch beyond that sphere; are in the union and vital connection expressed by this significant preposition.

“Us” = Paul and the Ephesians whom he has just designated as “the saints and believers in connection with Christ Jesus” and stated expressly that they are in this connection. When Paul’s “us” is regarded as including all Christians, this is done by way of application only. Paul is not writing a catholic letter, he is writing to the Christians in Ephesus. The question is raised as to how he can call all of them “saints and believers” and say that all are “in Christ.” May there not have been a few hypocrites among them? The question is answered by the designation itself and by what it implies. “To the saints and believers in union with Christ Jesus” certainly does not include hypocrites, it excludes them. It does so throughout this epistle in the case of all the pronouns which refer to these saints and believers in Ephesus.

Ephesians 1:4

4 In perfect correspondence with this constative action of blessing us with every blessing in connection with Christ (καθώς) is the fundamental act of God which antedates the foundation of the world, that “he elected us for himself in connection with him” (Christ). God selected us and appropriated us unto himself (middle voice) by a specific, eternal act. The preposition in the verb points to a mass or a number out of which the choice was made; here the entire fallen race is that mass.

In view of the Hebrew equivalent bachar, and of the Old and the New Testament use of ἐκλέγεσθαι, ἐκλεκτοί, and ἐκλογή, the distinctive meaning of a choice out of many should be noted, and the verb should not be regarded as meaning that God merely appointed us to something. The claim that the emphasis does not rest on the verb but on the infinitive clause, “to be holy,” etc., is untenable (C.-K. 694). The verb is in the emphatic position and must have the resultant strong emphasis. It was a divine election and no less that took place in eternity. The fact that it also had a great object or purpose in view, which is here duly stated, is what we expect.

The entire multitude of spiritual blessings which have come upon Paul and the Ephesians here in time is in accord with the eternal act by which God elected them, chose them for himself. Perfect agreement exists between that election and this blessing. The latter has its explanation in the former. Here we have another instance in which Paul penetrates to the very bottom and does not stop halfway.

Note also that this election before the world began explains the blessing “in the heavenly places.” The two correspond also in this regard. The heavenly and thus eternal nature of these blessings is thereby indicated. The word καθώς is sometimes interpreted as expressing source; Paul stated only a correspondence, which is also ample in every way. He mentions two distinct acts, one that took place in eternity, the other that occurred in time, but both are in heavenly correspondence.

Our older exegetes construed: “us (as being) in Christ,” i. e., by faith, this faith being foreseen by God. The assertion that a phrase cannot thus modify a pronoun unless the participle “being” is inserted, is met by the examples in which even the indefinite τίς is so modified. Prominent English and German exegetes still construe as our fathers did. One says pointedly: “In Christ = included in Christ, and this including is conditioned by faith.” Matters are only complicated when in Christo is regarded as meaning per Christum. This alters the text. When Paul wants διά he writes it as he does in v. 5. The reason for this objection to the exegesis of the fathers is dogmatical, namely the idea that, when God entered upon his election, he saw nothing but a massa perdita and yet from this vast vile mass, for some mysterious reason that is never revealed in Scripture, chose some to become believers and to be saved, and that he did this “through Christ.”

Yet we, too, decline to construe: “us (as being) in him” for the reason that in v. 3 “us” is found unmodified, and “in Christ” modifies, not this pronoun, but the participle. The reason is purely linguistic and not dogmatical. But look at this “us” when it is thus divested of the phrase adjacent to it. It is the same “us” as that found in v. 3; it signifies Paul and the Ephesians, the people he calls “the saints and believers in Christ” (v. 1). These, Paul says, God elected for himself in eternity. He elected them “before the foundation of the world,” before a single human being existed.

Is it not correct to say that God foresaw “us” when he entered upon this election in eternity? Did not the whole world down to the last day lie open before his omniscience? Did that omniscience halt at a certain point so that it saw only a massa perdita and only Christ’s redemption of this mass, and did God thus make his selection and see no more? Did that omniscience not also see all that God’s grace would accomplish to the last second of the last day? Did it not see every man’s whole life until the moment of death (and beyond)? Yes, in eternity he saw “us” as “saints and believers in connection with Christ” (v. 1), and “us” he elected.

This whole act of God’s took place “in Christ,” in connection with him. It could not have been otherwise. Does this refer to “Christ” only as the causa meritoria objectively and in general as acquisita for the entire massa perdita? Does it exclude “Christ” as the causa meditoria appropriata, as made ours subjectively by faith? I cannot find this separation in Paul’s words here or in any other passage of Scripture. Surely, the verb “he elected” and its object “us” (the saints and believers in Christ) belong together and are connected with Christ.

It has been well said: “If the sphere of an action is Christ, the objects of that act must also be within that sphere or else they would be beyond the sphere of the action itself.” Any eternal act of God’s pertaining to “us” in time is bound to offer difficulty to our minds and our thinking. Both Calvinism and synergism rationalize in order to remove the difficulty; it remains, we must let it remain.

The phrase: he elected us “in Christ” may be taken to include all that is involved in our connection with him, from the elective act onward to the glory in all eternity, salvation from inception to completion. This is called the wider form or the first tropus of teaching divine election. Its best presentation is found in the C. Tr. 1067, 13–24. When, however, the divine act is considered only in connection with the persons chosen and all else is disregarded, we have the second form or tropus of teaching, called narrower, which was employed by the Lutheran fathers after the time of the Formula of Concord. The doctrine is the same, the presentation takes in more or takes in less.

Each form of teaching has its special purpose. The wider excludes synergism. Covering, as it does, the whole of salvation, it lays the greatest stress on the divine activity as the sole power which works that salvation. The narrower fronts against Calvinism, for by pointing to the truth that God chose the believers in Christ the arbitrary and absolute predestination of a mysterious few is overthrown. The Lutheran fathers called the latter: election intuitu fidei, “in view of faith,” an abbreviation for the fuller statement: “in view of the all-sufficient merits of Christ perseveringly apprehended by divinely wrought faith.” The objection that this is or at least sounds synergistic depends on the conception one has of “faith.” When one has the truly Biblical conception that faith is in toto divinely wrought, that all power lies in the Christ, the one and only content filling the cup of faith, the objection falls. Until better forms of teaching are developed, those of the fathers will stand. Of course, as in the case of all the teaching of Jesus and of his apostles, adequate apprehension is necessary.

Is the infinitive clause complementary: “he elected us to be,” etc., or final: “in order to be,” “that we should be” (our versions)? The difference seems to be a merely formal one. Is the sacrificial meaning of “blemishless” to be retained as is done in the LXX? The question concerns also 5:27; Phil. 2:15; Col. 1:22. In Heb. 9:14 and 1 Pet. 1:19 the idea of sacrifice is evident; but in 2 Pet. 2:13 the noun is without this connotation. In Phil. 2:15, “blemishless children of God,” the thought of sacrifice is untenable.

Lightfoot thinks that in our passage “holy” refers to the consecration of the victims and “blemishless” to their fitness for this consecration. This difference of opinion comes to view in the translation, some translate immaculatus, others inculpatus. We fail to find the least implication of sacrifice although we retain the translation “blemishless.” On “holy” (ἁγίους) see “saints” (ἅγιοι) in v. 1.

Does the clause, “to be holy and blemishless before him in love,” refer to our justification or to our sanctification (holy life)? Both are included as is also our glorification. We obtain this idea from 5:26, 27 where we are told that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it to sanctify and cleanse it by baptism and thus to present it to himself as a glorious church without spot or wrinkle but as “holy and blemishless.” Again, in Col. 1:22 Christ reconciled us to present us as “holy and blemishless and unreprovable” before him (κατενώπιον, as in our passage). These three passages shed light on each other even as all of them contain the same adjectives, 5:27 adds “glorious.” Two contain the phrase “before him,” and the other has the same thought in “present to himself.”

In eternity God elected us saints and believers to stand before him to all eternity as being holy and blemishless in love; in time Christ reconciled, washed, and cleansed us in baptism and thus actually presented us as being holy and blemishless and also glorious. That is why God elected us “in connection with Christ,” and why we are now called “saints and believers in connection with Christ” (v. 1). In 5:27 and Col. 1:22 all that Christ has done for us is stated together with our being holy and blemishless; in our passage, which takes us back to God’s elective act in eternity, this work of Christ’s is indicated in the phrase “in him” and is then set forth in the following verses (v. 7, etc.).

Those who find only justification in the infinitive clause “to be holy and blemishless” construe the phrase “in love” with v. 4: “having predestinated us in love,” etc. If justification alone were referred to we should expect the phrase “in faith” and not “in love” to round out the idea. When this phrase is drawn into v. 4, it would, of course, be God’s love that predestinated us. A few leave the phrase in v. 3 but construe “he elected us—in (this) love,” a construction which, however, no reader would suspect, for verb and phrase are too widely separated. Still others have it modify the whole infinitive clause: “to be holy and blemishless,” to be thus justified “in (God’s) love,” which is again unexpected and rather peculiar. Of course, the thought that God elected, or that he predestinated, or even that he justified us “in (his great) love” (for us), is in itself quite true.

The rhythm of the sentence requires that “in love” be retained in v. 3 as our versions have it. The full emphasis is required on the participle in v. 4 as it is required for the “he elected” in v. 3. Some may regard this as having no importance; the importance of the rhythm is there nevertheless. The claim that adjectives such as the two used here cannot be modified by “in love” is answered by 2 Pet. 3:14.

But the main issue lies in the thought, in the reference of the phrase to our love. Here we submit 1 Cor. 13:13, love abides forever. Also Matt. 25:35–40: “You have done it unto me,” namely all this work of love. On judgment day Christ presents us with this evidence of our faith, the works of our love. Of course, “in love” cannot be restricted to our love for the brethren. We must finally point to Rom. 8:28, 29 where love to God is also brought into connection with predestination.

The objection that our love is not perfect in this life and does not render us “holy and blemishless” is answered already in v. 1 where, in spite of our imperfection in this life, we are termed “saints,” ἅγιοι, just as is the case here. This love always flows from faith; all its present imperfection is covered by the perfect merits of Christ.

Ἀγάπη is the love of comprehension and of corresponding purpose. see John 3:16 where the verb occurs, also 1 Cor. 13:1, and wherever else the word is found. In the LXX it is at times still used to designate the lower types of love; in the New Testament the word rises to its fullest nobility. The idea that agape finds value in the loved object breaks down in the most vital passages. Φιλία is the love of affection and is thus distinct from agape even in instances which call for no special emphasis on the distinction.

Ephesians 1:5

5 The participle “having predestinated us” is aorist like the main verb, its action is simultaneous with that of the main verb, its force is modal. Whether we translate “foreordained” or “predestinated” makes no difference, for προορίζειν and προορισμός are the Greek words for “predestinate” and “predestination.” The meaning is to fix and establish in advance, in this case already in eternity. In God’s great elective act, when he chose us for himself in connection with Christ to be holy and blemishless in connection with Christ, he destined us in advance for adoption unto himself through Christ. The thought is much the same as in Rom. 8:28: “them he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” The idea that the participle is antecedent in point of time and thus causal: “he elected us because he predestinated us,” will find little or no acceptance. The persons involved are again those mentioned in v. 1. The idea that the participle expresses the main part of the divine act, that this is not expressed by the main verb, cannot be correct, for then the verbal forms ought to be reversed.

Christ is the essential Son, we are sons only by adoption, Kuehrsoehne, as Luther puts it. Little or nothing is gained by delving into the Jewish and the Roman ways of adoption. To introduce ideas borrowed from the pagan mystery cults does not advance an understanding of the subject. C.-K. 1103 says: “The Greek language offered Paul only the word and not the thought, which did not agree with the Greek conception.” The word means, “placing into the position of a son.” This involves a declaration of God concerning us and is not only an operation of God in us which changes us inwardly. Yet this is true, the word “adoption” includes the state into which this act places us, i. e., our sonship, in addition to the act and the declaration.

Paul writes: for adoption “through Jesus Christ” and not again “in Christ.” Now we do have per, the preposition that points to Christ as the Mediator, by means of whose mediatorial work adoption and sonship are made ours. The final phrase εἰςαὐτόν rounds out the expression: “adoption for or unto him” (God). The participial clause thus adds to the main statement and gives us still more light; in particular, we see that “to be holy and blemishless before God in love” is to possess “adoption through Christ to him,” to be God’s sons through this Mediator.

The entire statement regarding our election and predestination is modified by the two closing phrases: “according to the good pleasure of his will” and “for the glory-praise of his grace,” thereby bringing the first part of the doxology to a close. The view that εὐδοκία refers only to the free determination of God, and that this is made certain by the addition of the genitive, is untenable; see the phrase also in v. 9. To be sure, God was prompted by nothing outside of himself, least of all by anything in us. But our election is not declared to be a matter of merely the will of God considered in an absolute sense, for this would be the Calvinist’s absolute sovereignty of God. Paul does not write: “according to his will” but states whath norm this will followed. C.-K. 354 defines: “the free good will, the contents of which is something good,” and again: Gottes Gnadenwille, der damit als aus Gottes freiem Ermessen hervorgehend und so auf das Heil der Menschen abzielend gekennzeichnet wird.

Nor should “the good pleasure” and “the will” be identified. Nor is “the will” a mysterious and secret will, for in v. 9 Paul says explicitly that God “made known unto us the mystery of his will.” This he did in the gospel, in the entire plan of salvation.

Ephesians 1:6

6 The phrase that is introduced with εἰς may denote either purpose or result; here it is the latter: so that praise of the glory of his grace is the result. Here we have one of the concatenations of genitives noticed in this epistle. They put into brief form a great wealth of thought. The first two nouns are without articles and are practically a compound: “for glory-praise.” The glory and the praise of it center in the great attribute of God’s “grace,” the favor Dei together with all its works and its gifts. It is unnecessary to restrict “grace” to the Gesinnung. We behold the grace in its activity and thus praise it.

Grace, too, is one of the operative and not one of the quiescent attributes of God. Still more important is its wonderful quality: it is always wholly undeserved by those who receive this grace or any of its gifts. In fact, grace, as distinct from mercy, connotes guilt in the recipient, mercy connotes misery, the result of guilt. Thus grace is associated with pardon; we are declared righteous by grace, Rom. 3:24; but mercy relieves our distress. The word sweetest to the sinner in the entire Scripture is “grace.” Here it is pictured in its fulness as having its source in eternity and in God’s eternal acts. Note “the riches of his grace” in v. 7. This entire doxology is Paul’s praise of the glory of God’s grace.

The genitive case of the relative is attracted from the accusative, the latter is called an accusative of inner content, R. 716; B.-D. 294, 2: “which he graciously granted us in the Beloved One.” The fact that grace is graciously granted is self-evident. We may regard the aorist as constative: all of God’s granting to the Ephesians expressed as one comprehensive act. But the main point lies in the final phrase: all this granting of grace was “in connection with the Beloved One.” The perfect participle reaches into the past and extends into the present and the future. This designation at once recalls Matt. 3:17; Luke 9:35 (compare 2 Peter 1:13; Col. 1:13). Christ is “the One Beloved” because of his mediatorial obedience to God. The verb from which the name is derived is ἀγαπᾶν; see the noun in v. 4.

Paul does not again write “in Christ” or “in Jesus Christ” when he concludes the first member of his doxology; nor is this exceptional designation a mere variation in style in order to avoid monotony. As to the latter point, this choice new term to designate Christ does mark a division in the doxology; but in doing so it reveals Christ as the One who wrought out our entire salvation, as the One upon whom in consequence rests all the love of God, his love of fullest comprehension, the whole purpose of which takes up all that Christ wrought in order to carry it to its blessed consummation.

All that lies in the preceding phrases “in Christ or Jesus Christ” is thus made to shine forth with fuller radiance. For “in” draws a circle about “the Beloved One,” the same circle that was drawn before and once more places the bestowal of God’s grace together with us its recipients into this blessed circle but now as those who are filled with the radiance of this heavenly name for Christ so that we break forth in the praise of the glory of the grace that is thus ours.

The Second Member of the Doxology

Ephesians 1:7

7 All that lies in the phrase “in the Beloved One” is carried over into the second part of the doxology by the relative “in whom” and must be present to our minds as we read on. The whole doxology is a unit. It ascribes blessedness to God alone, but to him as to the First Person, to whom is joined the Second, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Beloved One, and equally the Third, to whom also a significant name is given, the Holy Spirit of the Promise. It is thus that Paul makes the doxology Trinitarian.

It is the height of injustice to Paul to regard his grand sentence as a rambling of thought and of language. The whole of it is most carefully and symmetrically constructed; it is so elaborate because it is so grand. Even in our far less flexible English we are not compelled to break it up into several sentences. A spacious and lofty palace is naturally larger than a common dwelling. “In whom we have” is in marked contrast to the preceding, both in tense and in subject; instead of the aorists we now have the present tense, and the object of the aorists, “us,” now becomes the subject “we,” although it is without emphasis. In this simple and effective way the turn to the second part of the doxology is made.

By the grace so graciously granted us in the Beloved One “we have,” we actually possess in all its power and efficacy for us, “the ransoming through his blood.” This is the liberation wrought by the payment of a ransom or price, and the price is named, it is “the blood of Christ.” The very word ἀπολύτρωσις denotes release by paying a λύτρον or ransom. Captives of war and slaves were thus ransomed. Our word “redemption,” in its common use, has lost some of this distinctive sense and has dropped to the idea of deliverance in general. Hence “ransoming” is to be preferred (Warfield). Only the payment of a full ransom releases the sinner in God’s court. For a fuller discussion, including synonymous terms as well as Deissmann’s pagan ransoming, see Rom. 3:24.

The mention of “blood” is more precise than the mention of “death” would be; “through his blood” = sacrifice, when Christ was slain as the Lamb in sacrifice. The ideas of ransom, of sacrifice, and of substitution (λύτρονἀντί, Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) are thus combined.

When Paul says: “we have the ransoming,” etc., he refers to “the saints and believers,” to their having this ransoming by faith. It is not had except by faith. Hence Paul adds the apposition: “the remission of the trespasses,” which constitutes the essential effect of Christ’s ransoming for all believers. The Scriptures nowhere treat the ransoming and the remission as one act; ἡἀπολύτρωσις and ἡἄφεσις are two acts. The one took place on Calvary when Christ’s blood paid the ransom price for all men; the second takes place whenever a sinner repents and God in that instant sends away his sin and his guilt. The remission rests on the ransoming.

The English word “forgiveness” is not as accurate as the Greek word ἄφεσις, which is the noun denoting action derived from the verb ἀφίημι, “to send away.” Ps. 103:12 is the perfect commentary: “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.” Where does the east begin, where does the west end? When our sins are so far removed from us, sent away so far from us by God himself, they are removed from us forever. The psalmist properly names the east and the west and not the north and the south lest someone think of the poles, of the distance of the north pole from the south pole, which is a definite distance. The psalmist indicates a distance that no man can measure: “as far as the east is from the west,” this is the great distance that God’s ἄφεσις, God’s “sending away” removes our transgressions from us the instant we are brought to faith.

Another commentary is Micah 7:19: “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea,” whence they shall never be brought up again. Add Isa. 43:25: “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.” Isa. 44:22: “I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins.” These are human expressions, the strongest that human language affords. Add John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye remit (ἀφῆτε, send away), remitted are they (ἀφίενται, they have been sent away) for them.” And thus the opposite: “whose soever (sins) ye retain (κρατῆτε, hold fast, so that they remain upon the sinners), they are retained (κεκράτηνται, they have been held fast, namely by me Christ).” Se also John 3:36: “the wrath of God abideth on him” since his sins remain upon him. Also v. 18: “He that believeth not is condemned already” (ἤδηκέκριται, has already been judged, the judgment remaining upon him).

All these Old Testament and New Testament passages show clearly what Paul means by our having “the remission.” They show likewise that in the ransoming and in the remission we have two acts: Christ ransomed all men, the apostles (ministers) remit (John 20:23), i. e., God remits through them. Remission = personal justification, the act of God by which the moment faith is kindled in a poor sinner’s heart he is pronounced free from guilt and declared righteous in God’s sight for the sake of the merits of Christ, i. e., on the basis of Christ’s ransoming. Rom. 3:24–26. Although they are bought by the Lord (ransomed), those who deny him by unbelief bring swift destruction upon themselves (remission is not theirs), 2 Pet. 2:1.

The idea of παράπτωμα is: the result of falling to a side. The idea in our English equivalent “transgression” is that of crossing the line of right. The difference is formal; the one language conceives the sinner as having fatally fallen by plunging off the road of right, the other as having run counter to the line of right. To divide the sin and the guilt is abstraction, the guilt hugs the sin like its shadow, and it is impossible to send the one away without sending away also the other. As Jesus describes the final judgment in Matt. 25:34, not a single sin is even remotely in evidence in the case of the believers; but look at the others.

Our thus having as our personal possession the ransoming and the remission is “according to the riches or wealth of his grace.” “Grace” is again God’s unmerited favor toward sinners as explained in v. 6, the energetic attribute of God. “The riches” brings out the greatness, the magnificence of this grace which are exhibited in the ransoming and the remission we possess—which alone is wonderful beyond our comprehension—but extends even beyond that as the relative clause adds.

Ephesians 1:8

8 “Which he made abound for us in all wisdom and intelligence” is to be read together and modifies grace. As in v. 4 “in love” is to be construed with what precedes, so here “in all wisdom,” etc., is to be construed likewise. The verb is here used transitively, its object accusative being attracted into the genitive of its antecedent (R. 716; B.-P. 1042); there is no need to discuss the intransitive idea with the verb that governs a genitive. Such is the wealth of God’s grace in bestowing the ransoming and the remission upon us that he caused his grace to abound for us in the way in which he did this. God’s means was, of course, the gospel which is called “the mystery of his will” (v. 9). By using this means he made his rich grace abound for us “in all wisdom and intelligence.” We may also say: “in every (kind of) wisdom” (compare v. 3 “all” and “every”), the sense being the same.

The fact that Paul refers to the “wisdom” and “intelligence” that are bestowed on us need not be questioned, especially in view of the parallel, “in all wisdom and spiritual understanding,” in Col. 1:9, where σύνεσις replaces φρόνησις. Paul uses the latter only here; it appears but once more, in Luke 1:17, although the verb and the adjective are frequently found. It would, indeed, seem peculiar to predicate φρόνησις of God, likewise to use “all” wisdom and intelligence when speaking of God. And it would be still more peculiar to say of God that he “abounded” (intransitive) in all wisdom and intelligence toward us.

“Wisdom” is here used with reference to us (C.-K. 1009) and in the noble sense of the word even as its substance is the gospel. It is more than knowledge with which it is often used. Here and in Col. 1:9 it is greater than intelligence and understanding, both of which are sensibleness as applied to our lives and our actions. Wisdom is the penetrating insight into the divine realities. Christ is made unto us wisdom, 1 Cor. 1:30. So great are the riches of God’s grace in Christ that God must make us abound in “all wisdom” and must add “all intelligence” so that we may apply all of it in the varying situations of our life.

Ephesians 1:9

9 The riches of his grace God made abound for us by filling us with all wisdom and intelligence, “by having made known to us the mystery of his will.” The participle is modal and modifies “made abound,” its time is contemporary with that of this verb. The true wisdom is knowing “the mystery of God’s will,” of his θέλημα, of what he actually willed. This God must make known to us. He is the only source of this wisdom, for it is he who originated this will. To apprehend it is also true intelligence, the ability to shape life and conduct according to what God has willed, which is the only sensible thing to do (φρόνιμον). To make known a mystery is to reveal it. “The mystery” belongs to “the will,” i. e., to what God willed; the genitive is possessive.

Paul is speaking of the gospel, the will of grace, the mystery hid from the ages during all these generations but now preached and published in all the world by Christ’s messengers and fully manifest to the saints, Col. 1:25, 26. Paul is not speaking of some secret decree of God. Paul’s use of the term “mystery” has nothing to do with the pagan “mysteries” and their cults. Since “all wisdom and intelligence” precedes, “the mystery of his will” is not this or that part of the gospel but the whole gospel. The word is here comprehensive as in 6:19: “to make known the mystery of the gospel.” Once hidden from the world in general and known by preparatory revelation only in Israel, it is now thrown open to the whole world. C.-K. 742 advances the idea that the word implies the necessity of impartation or revelation, without which man cannot know the contents of the mystery: die Kunde der Heilswahrheiten, sofern diese durch goettliche Off enbarung kundgemacht werden oder worden sind.

God made known to us, Paul says, the mystery of his will “according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him,” i. e., in Christ. We leave the order in its natural sequence, the phrase modifying the participle. In making known the mystery to us as he did God followed the norm set by his good pleasure. Here eudokia is again not merely God’s free determination but this as it is filled with what is good. The phrase is shorter than the one used in v. 5 and yet much longer; for instead of a mere genitive the relative clause is here attached: his good pleasure “which he purposed (literally, set before himself—middle voice) in him” (in Christ). Πρό in the verb is not temporal but a part of the reflexive voice. God set this his good and gracious pleasure before himself in order to carry it into effect. This he had begun by making known the mystery to Paul and to the Ephesians, but, of course, it would continue in the same way for others during all future time.

We consider the debate as to whether ἐναὐτῷ means “in him” (Christ) or “in himself” (God) pointless because the middle voice of the verb is already reflexive and needs no added phrase to express the idea “in himself.” No one purposes anything save in himself. Paul has already used “in Christ” and “in him” so often that this new reference is perfectly clear. Certainly, all that God set before himself in regard to his good pleasure was “in connection with him” (Christ), in connection with whom were all the other acts of God that have already been mentioned in this doxology.

Ephesians 1:10

10 God set his good pleasure before himself in connection with Christ “for administration.” God’s good pleasure was to be carried out or realized; God set it before him “in Christ for administration.” Christ was to administer God’s good pleasure so as to carry it into effect. Read together: “In him (Christ) for administration” (no article). The object implied in “administration” is “his good pleasure which,” etc., and not the following genitive. For this is a designation of time exactly like “the fulness of time” in Gal. 4:4. It is the genitive of time within which something is to occur: “for administration during the fulness of the time periods.” All of the previous time periods reached their fulness when the New Testament Era began; this fulness continues until the last day. Within it falls the administration which Christ exercises.

Christ is now God’s great οἰκονόμος, administrator or manager. To his administration God purposed to commit the good pleasure of what he had willed. Christ’s administration is to carry the good pleasure into execution. From his eternal election onward God has connected everything with Christ, especially during this New Testament Era, during the fulness of the καιροί or time periods. Christ will eventually lay everything at God’s feet, 1 Cor. 15:28.

We need not puzzle about the different meanings of “fulness.” C.-K. 785 regards οἰκονομία as a passive: a disposition or Hausordnung arranged by God “relative to (thus the genitive) the fulness of the time periods.” This confuses the thought. Keep the active sense: “for administration,” i. e., for Christ to administer. Paul repeatedly uses the word in this active sense to designate his own apostolic administration. The word oikonomia with its suggestion of an oikonomos is most apt. Great proprietors still have a manager for some great estate, who carries out the good pleasure of the owner. So great is the riches of God’s grace, even so bound up with Christ that its administration since the completion of the redemption is placed wholly into his hands.

When the infinitive is made epexegetical, it becomes difficult to see what it would elucidate. Would it be “the mystery of his will” or “his good pleasure which he set for himself” or “administration”? The idea that these expressions are only formal and need something concrete to fill out either one or all of them, is a misunderstanding. In fact, the last two belong together: “his good pleasure which he set before himself in him (in connection with him) for administration.” The infinitive states purpose or intended result. This administration during the fulness of the periods, during the New Testament Era following the completion of those previous periods, is “to sum up all the (existing) things in the Christ, those in the heavens and those on the earth.” The thought is the same as that expressed in Col. 1:20: “to reconcile all the (existing) things unto him, … whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.” Compare also Phil. 2:9–11, where the things under the earth are added since Christ’s exaltation shall cause even the demons to bow before him. We add Rom. 8:19–21.

Paul uses this verb only once again, in Rom. 13:9, to express a logical summing up of the various commandments into one, to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Here, however, the summing up is one of actual objects. What seems to cause so much difficulty in apprehending Paul’s meaning is the preposition ἐν when this is translated “in.” “To sum up in the Christ,” to sum up “all the (existing) things” in him, seems abstruse. So modified meanings are sought for the infinitive and for “all the things,” and a variety of interpretations results, in fact, the passage is called a locus vexatus. Yet the words are not vexatious. Christ’s administration of God’s good pleasure is to have this result: to cause the summing up (the verb is causative, R. 809) of all the things that exist, to do this in connection with him as “the Christ.” Did not the risen Savior say that all authority was given to him in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18)?

Is not this what Paul says, that he is to administer God’s good pleasure so as to sum up all that exists? Matt. 28:18 contains “all authority” and the very phrases here used, “in heaven” and “on earth.” All authority covers “all the (existing) things.”

To cause a summing up of all things “in connection with the Christ,” with him in his capacity of the Anointed One (appellative article, also in v. 12), is the same thing as v. 22: God “gave him as head over all things to the church.” Yet this is not accepted because of the word “head,” because our infinitive does not mean “to head up,” in fact, is not derived from κεφαλή, “head,” but from κεφάλαιον, “sum.” True enough, Christ is head only of the church which is his body, and not in this sense head of all things as if they were his body. Yet, if he has absolute authority over all things in heaven and on earth, if he is “over all things,” he is certainly their head in the sense of their supreme ruler, to whose “authority” all things must bow (Phil. 2:10, 11), whose authority all things must acknowledge. The head of the church is no less a one than he who in his authority is “over all things.” We feel that Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:10, 11; and Eph. 1:22 help to expound our passage.

R. 773 lets τὰπάντα with the article signify “the sum of things,” “the all,” the Germans say das All. It is more exact to say πάντα = all things in general while τὰπάντα is definite: “all the things” that exist. One may use either according to the way in which one desires to conceive of them. In v. 22, 23 we have both. Yet, whether this expression occurs with or without the article, a plurality, a vast multiplicity is referred to; the German das All is misleading because it is a singular and expresses a great unity. What Paul says is that all the things, multiplied and varied as they are, are to be summed up in connection with the Christ; this is to be the result of his administering the good pleasure of God.

The connection is that he has assumed authority over all of them and is thus over all things whatsoever. Under him they now constitute a sum. This thought underlies Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:10, 11; Eph. 1:22; in our passage it is expressed. Yet only the summation is expressed that God brings it about in connection with the Anointed One, v. 22 adding that he is the head of the church.

Although it is grand beyond comprehension, the thought is quite clear. These many things are not left to drift or to operate for themselves; they are made to constitute one sum. It is our Lord and Savior, the head of the church, the administrator of God’s good pleasure, of his grace and his gospel, who takes in charge all the things in heaven and on earth in order to rule all of them with all authority. It is thus that he makes “all things” work together for good to them that love God, i. e., to his church and to every individual in it. In the language of the catechism this is called the kingdom of power which Christ rules in the interest of his kingdom of grace.

We are satisfied with the reading ἐν instead of ἐπί: “those in the heavens.” Like the English, the Greek may say either “heaven” or “heavens.” When Paul writes: “all the things, those in the heavens and those on the earth,” he refers to all of them. It is a misunderstanding to say that he has in mind only the aggregate and not every individual thing or being. Only the demons and the wicked are usually dropped from “all the things,” this being done either silently or designedly. A few go even farther and drop everything save the good angels and the elect and tell us that for the first time we here meet the Una Sancta. But do the angels belong to the Una Sancta? All of their service to the elect is pointed to to show that they do. Still more surprising is the claim that this Una Sancta is called τὰπάντα, “all the things, those in the heavens, and those on the earth.”

These ideas result from the sense that is put into the infinitive. It is thought to mean that Christ makes a grand unit of “all the things,” and the aorist is conceived as being accomplished at the end of time. From this final unity the demons and the wicked are of necessity excluded since the Scriptures do not teach an apokatastasis. John 11:52 is referred to: “to gather together in one the children of God that are scattered abroad.” Why not also John 10:16: “one fold and one Shepherd”? The good angels are included on the plea that they are called “the sons of God.” One wonders why Rev. 21:1–5 is not mentioned, the union of heaven and earth, “all things” made new.

These difficulties disappear when we abide by Paul’s words. There is no restriction in “all the things,” and the infinitive is not dated at the last day. All the things are summed up in the Christ “for administration” during the fulness of the periods, i. e., during the New Testament Era. His administration deals with all of them. All of them are taken together like a great sum and placed definitely (aorist) “in connection with the Christ,” not to form a great harmonious unity, a spiritual entity “in him,” some say “centering in him,” but “for administration” by him.

As far as heaven is concerned, he there prepares a place for us, John 14:3. As far as “all things” on earth are concerned, his “administration” makes them work for good to those who love God. As far as the demons and the wicked world are concerned, he has already overcome them (John 16:13), the devil is already judged. During Christ’s administration the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church; we, indeed, pass through much tribulation, but the kingdom is already ours. If one makes oikonomia passive and not the active “administration,” if one makes “in” and “to sum up” a spiritual unity, if one disconnects the administration from what follows, and if one misunderstands ta, panta, then everything seems to be a vexatious puzzle.

Ephesians 1:11

11 “In connection with him” is appositional to the preceding “in connection with the Christ.” Paul shows what our place is in this administration of Christ, in which all these things are summed up in connection with him. It is surely a most blessed place: “in connection with him, in connection with whom also we were given a lot, as having been predestinated according to his purpose who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” The verb simply means, “we were assigned a lot” in connection with the Christ, i. e., under his administration. The verb means neither, “we have obtained an inheritance” (A. V.) nor, “we were made a heritage.” While the Greek words for “inheritance,” “heir,” “to inherit” are derived from κλῆρος or “lot”—a lot or allotment assigned by a testament—the present verb does not stress the idea of inheritance.

The translations of our versions are so attractive because they embody such rich Biblical thoughts; for we certainly have obtained an inheritance, and, like Israel of old, we are also made God’s heritage although we note that these two thoughts differ materially. Yet the word here used has reference to neither of them. It is to be construed with the participle: “we were assigned a lot as having been predestinated.” This represents the thought of v. 4, 5, and yet in a form that fits the present connection, which should not be overlooked, for the thought is now advanced to Christ’s administration and to all the things in heaven and on earth. In this vast complex which is in connection with the Christ our lot is one that has the purpose—or is it the result? (εἰςτό may mean either)—that we are to be for his glory-praise.

“We” in the verb = Paul and the Ephesians, and καί notes that also others have received the blessed lot. The passive implies that God gave the lot, that it is received by grace alone. If we regard the verb as indicating an allotment that was bestowed on us in time, the added participle, nevertheless, carries us back into eternity, for it is the same as the one used in v. 5, save that it is now passive and is applied to God. We obtained our lot in connection with Christ, under his administration, “as having been predestinated,” etc. Already in eternity God determined the lot he assigned us in time. Paul does not need to repeat that God predetermined our lot as being that of “adoption”; his readers will have kept that in mind from v. 5. One might also say that he would not need to remind them of their predestination; yet his thought has advanced to Christ’s administration as it is now exercised and is thus connected with eternity with which the doxology begins.

Thus also the modifiers are different. In v. 5 we have the goodness of what God freely willed; here we have the purpose which God carries into effect under Christ’s administration. Κατὰπρόθεσιν lacks the article and is not the equivalent of the adverb “purposely,” which denotes manner; κατά states concord, and the noun is the norm of the concord. God’s predestinating act tallies with this governing and normative purpose, and he is the One who ever works (durative present participle) “all the things” that his purpose covers according to the counsel of what he wills. His purpose cannot fail of realization, for there is never a thing that God does not work in concord with the counsel of his will. The lot God has accorded us and which we now enjoy (our adoption, v. 5) must be viewed in this blessed light.

Πρόθεσις = the act of setting something before oneself to carry it into effect, “purpose,” Vorsatz. God’s purpose, like his good pleasure (v. 5), is entirely free, is determined entirely by himself. Selbstbestimmung (C.-K. 1173) makes this plain; Ratschluss is more like the following βουλή, “counsel.” But to stress only the freedom and the determination of the “purpose” is to go astray. Calvin has carried this idea to its extreme. Even in the case of men “purpose” involves certain motives, and these determine the purposing itself and the aims and the objects intended to be realized. So God’s purpose emanates from his agape and his charis and is thus directed to man’s salvation.

The term is not abstract as it is used by Paul here and in Rom. 8:28; it can never be separated from the motives nor from the aim. This is apparent in the present passage, for here is Christ’s administration and our blessed lot. God’s “purpose” is his free determination which springs from his love and grace to effect salvation in accord with this love and grace.

Man’s purpose often fails, God’s never does so. “He works all the things.” Here τὰπάντα does not denote objects as it did in v. 10 but must denote effects and results. They are conceived as definite, hence the article is used. An illustration of the mightiest of these things is presented in v. 20, etc., where also the same verb ἐνεργέω is used; compare Phil. 3:21 and the ἐνέργεια of Christ. But the stress is on the norm and principle governing all this working, namely “the counsel of his will.”

“Counsel” and “will” are often synonymous, C.-K. 226: “often completely” so. Yet, since they are here used side by side, their distinction is evident. The Hellenic θέλημα (the suffix μα to indicate result, R. 151) = the will as expressed in a volition although some add the action itself as one use of the word; βουλή implies deliberation: thus a decision based on reasons and considerations. We consider the question as to which of the words implies inclination, which deliberation, as being illy put—“inclination” seems inadequate. C.-K. uses “plan” when he explains “counsel.” We take Paul to mean that in all the things God works he follows the plan with all the wise reasons on which it rests as these have been settled by what he has willed. In this no one has been his cousellor (Rom. 11:34); all of it lies on too high a plane. Note θέλημα in v. 1, 5, 9.

Ephesians 1:12

12 The clause introduced by εἰςτό states the purpose for which we were given a lot. This is “that we may be for his glory-praise as those who have hoped in advance in the Christ.” Our whole condition in this our lot is to be that of praise for God’s glory. Here and in v. 14 the genitive “of his grace,” which is found in v. 6, is omitted, but this omission merely abbreviates. The glory of God is the sum of his attributes or any one attribute shining forth to men; the attribute whose glory is here most prominent is grace. Once this is said (v. 6), it need not be repeated. We do not make the phrase “for his glory-praise” parenthetical so that the predicate would be the participle: “that we may be for his glory-praise those who have hoped before,” etc.

The phrase is too prominent in the three places in which it occurs, marking, as it does, the conclusion of each of the three parts of the doxology, so that it might be unemphatic here where it occurs the second time. One also naturally reads it as the predicate.

The substantivized participle forms an apposition to ἡμᾶς (R. 778). We are to be to the praise of God’s glory “as those who have hoped in advance in the Christ.” Πρό in the perfect participle refers to the future fulfillment of the hope; we now hope “in advance,” hope shall finally turn to sight (Rom. 8:24, 25). The note of hope is struck here because of what follows in v. 14; we now have only the pledge of our inheritance, we shall eventually enter upon our entire inheritance. The apposition forms the transition. It is suggested that we read the whole clause as a unit idea: God’s intention is that our hoping in advance be for the praise of his glory. This would make the entire statement more compact.

We do not find a restriction in the participle so that it reduces the “we” found here at the end of this second part of the doxology to Paul and the Jewish Christians at Ephesus. From v. 3 onward we have “us” and “we” as a reference to all the Ephesian Christians plus Paul, and now, without warning or preparation of any kind, this ἡμᾶς cannot refer to “us Jewish Christians,” and do so by only an apposition. What kind of Jewish Christians would these be? Very few of those who had been converted to Christianity had ever had a true, spiritual hope in the Christ; almost all of them had had a carnal hope in a political Messiah. Had this been to the praise of God’s glory? The true hope had entered the hearts of these Jewish Christians in Ephesus when they were converted.

Furthermore, “for praise of his glory” marks the conclusion of the three parts of the doxology equally. It cannot in one instance ascribe this praise to all the Christians and then only to Jewish Christians. “In the Christ” (Rom. 15:12; 1 Cor. 15:19) does not make the Christ the object hoped for but connects our hoping with “the Christ” (the article is used as in v. 10).

The Third Member of the Doxology

Ephesians 1:13

13 Like the second, this begins with the phrase “in whom,” i. e., “in connection with whom” (the Christ). But now, addressing the Ephesians more directly, Paul writes, “also you,” and drops the reference to himself as found in all the preceding “us” and “we.” When this “you” is thought to mean “you Gentiles also,” the question naturally arises whether it is possible for Paul to restrict the sealing with the Holy Spirit to these Gentiles. “You” is directed to all the Ephesians; and καί joins them to all other Christians, it is like the καί occurring in v. 11. We regard “you” as the subject of ἐσφραγίσθητε; hence we suppy neither, “also you were given a lot,” nor, “also you have hoped,” nor, “also you are (i. e., in him).” Because Paul changed to “you,” ὑμεῖς had to be written in order to show that the two following participles refer to the Ephesians.

The very first participle shows the propriety of this change to “you,” for the Ephesians—certainly all of them—“had come to hear the Word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,” from Paul himself. The fact that he, too, had come to hear it is taken care of by καί which combines Paul with all the other Christians: he and they are now one group, “also you” are joined to them as another group. Both participles are ingressive aorists: “having come to hear,” “having come to believe.” At the same time both are effective aorists: the Ephesians really heard and believed. Paul repeats “in whom” before the second participle. This emphasizes the phrase which has already been used so often. But this shows that both “in whom” phrases are not to be construed with the participles but with the main verb.

In regard to the first participle this is plain since we cannot say: “in whom having heard”; in regard to the second one might raise the question, for in a few instances πιστεύω is construed with ἐν. But here the parallelism of the phrases is too marked. We all believe “in” Christ, regarding this there is no question. The question is regarding what words Paul would have us construe together. We take them to be these: “having come to hear the Word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation, and having come to believe.” Πιστεύω is used without a modifier, which is proper here where the Word and gospel are already mentioned.

Hearing and believing belong together as correlatives; together they lead to the sealing. That is why “having come to believe” is the ingressive aorist. The moment we come to faith the sealing occurs. The thought is not that we must believe a while, and that some time later in the course of our believing the Spirit is bestowed. “The Word of the truth” is the logos which conveys to our ears and thus to our hearts the divine reality (ἀλήθεια) which we are to apprehend by the faith this reality creates in us. Truth should always be believed; not to believe it, is to trust a lie, and that is the greatest guilt because it is so abnormal. The devil is the liar from the beginning.

It is the judgment of those who refuse to believe the truth that they should believe a lie (2 Thess. 2:11). It is well to note the article: “the truth,” for this is the specific reality which deals with our salvation. It consists of the facts of God’s grace and Christ’s work.

What we have come to hear is so important that Paul adds the apposition: “the gospel of our salvation.” “The gospel” defines “the Word,” and “our salvation” describes “the truth.” We may regard both genitives as objective: the Word which deals with the truth, the gospel which deals with our salvation. The Word is, indeed, “the glad message” that has reached our ears through the grace of God. Its very goodness should kindle faith even as it is full of the power to do so. Nothing is so good for the sinner as his “salvation,” his rescue from all the guilt and the damnation of sin plus his entrance into an abiding condition of safety. Both ideas are contained in this word. Also the fact that we have a “Savior” who is able “to save” to the uttermost. After these objects of our hearing have been named, our believing does not call for the designation of an object.

“In connection with whom (the Christ) you were sealed with the Spirit of the promise, the Holy One.” The first ἐνᾧ is repeated in the second ἐνᾧ; this is done because of the intervening words and in order to make certain of the emphasis on “in connection with whom.” The idea that the Christ is the container into which we were placed, and that this container is then sealed up, will scarcely find acceptance. We were sealed “in connection with the Christ.” This connection is clearly stated; it was effected objectively by the Word and gospel heard, and subjectively by our coming to faith. In this connection God sealed us with the Spirit, for God is the agent in this passive. The dative might express the agent but it cannot do so here where the Spirit is at once called “the pledge,” etc. Besides, throughout this doxology it is God who is glorified in connection with Christ and now also in connection with the Spirit. The aorist “were sealed” fits one act of sealing.

This act God performed in our baptism (C.-K. 1031), which only those will deny who conceive baptism as being merely a symbol. To be thus sealed with the Spirit is the same as to be anointed with the Spirit (both expressions are found in 2 Cor. 1:22), the same also as being gifted with the Spirit.

The secular uses of sealing are pointed out by M.-M. 617, etc.: for security, for concealment, for marking, and for authenticating. Here and in 2 Cor. 1:22 the idea is that of ownership: by means of the seal, i. e., by the bestowal of the Spirit, God marked us as his own, 2 Cor. 1:22 has the middle voice. Sealing, confirming, and “pledge” (down payment)—though not anointing—have been listed as legal and juridical terms, as technical or semitechnical court terms. The modicum of truth in this claim is the fact that these terms sometimes appear in legal connections, but only sometimes, they occur far more often in non-legal connections. The examples cited in M.-M. suffice. The tomb of Jesus was sealed by Pilate’s special seal.

The claim that Paul borrowed the word “to seal” from the pagan mystery cults is one of many similar claims which, if taken together, might well lead us to conclude that Paul himself had been initiated into at least some of these pagan mystery cults. In 1 Cor. 2:13 he tells us that he uses “spiritual words for spiritual things.” He himself calls circumcision a seal (Rom. 4:11) although we doubt that Paul had in mind a parallel between circumcision and the Holy Spirit as being seals.

The Spirit is a living seal, thus a mark that is proper for the divine life kindled in us. The Greek is able to lay special emphasis on the adjective “Holy” by appending it with a second article at the end like an apposition and a climax (R. 776). The Spirit himself is called “the promise of the Father” in Luke 24:49, and Acts 1:4 (compare Acts 2:33; Gal. 3:14). This makes it certain that “the promise” here referred to is to be understood in the same sense: not the Spirit who makes the promise, but who is the gift promised by God in the Old Testament. He is emphatically Ἅγιος so that those who are sealed with him are ἅγιοι (v. 1), marked as being separated for God.

Ephesians 1:14

14 If we prefer the reading ὅς, this is only an attraction of the gender to the predicate ἀρραβών. The personality of the Spirit is in no way involved by the reading ὅ or ὅς. To the figure of sealing Paul adds an allied one by means of the clause, “who is the down payment of our inheritance.” Ἀρραβών is the Hebrew ‘irabon, yet it is found in the Greek already before the LXX and is thus perhaps of Phoenician origin. It denotes the pledge money or down payment and in the papyri involves the guarantee of completing the full payment in due time. It is considered a technical term.

The Spirit is the first down payment of our inheritance and makes certain that in due time the inheritance in full will be turned over to us. As God has fulfilled the vital promise that he would give us his Spirit, so he will fulfill the rest of his promise and eventually give us our heavenly inheritance. The Spirit is more than an affixed seal, he is even the first part of our inheritance and is already now made ours. Doubly blessed is our lot. The idea is that of the greatest assurance. It is personal for each believer although Paul uses the plural.

Since the Spirit is received in the soul, the assurance remains individual and constitutes no means for our judging each other. The expressions here used imply no obligation on our part; homiletical deduction is free to bring in our obligation even as we are often told elsewhere in Scripture that we should let the Spirit lead and control us.

We were sealed with the Spirit “for (effecting final) ransoming of the possession, for his glory-praise.” The two phrases introduced with εἰς express goal and aim. The first evidently states in what the possession of the Spirit is finally to result as far as we are concerned; the second what the result is to be for God. We are to obtain our final ransoming; God is to receive the praise of his glory. We already have the ransoming through Christ’s blood, that part of the ransoming which consists of the remission of all our sins (v. 7). The same word ἀπολύτρωσις is used to designate the final act when we are ransomed from all evil, when even our dead bodies are ransomed for eternal glory (Rom. 8:23).

It will be difficult to show that the word as it is used in v. 7 implies Christ’s ransom (his blood) but that it is now used without this idea and means only deliverance apart from any price. Ἀπολύτρωσις signifies not only the payment of the λύτρον but includes the freeing of those for whom the “ransom” is paid. This release consists of two stages: first the remission of the transgressions (v. 7), finally our transfer to heaven. It is thus that the word “ransoming” is used to include both, and the latter is as much due to the ransom as is the former.

This appears also from the context. Our present possession of the Spirit is only the first down payment and not the full inheritance involved in our adoption (v. 5). The transaction as a whole includes much more. Christ’s ransom has bought the glory of heaven. The transaction is not complete until this glory is completely ours.

Περιποίησις it at times discussed at length; also the force of the genitive. We take it that the word means “the possession” and that the genitive is objective. The suffix -σις is active, and there is no reason for thinking that the term is intended to be passive. It is what God possesses and not what is possessed. This point is really immaterial, for whatever is possessed (passive) somebody possesses. More important is the thought that God’s possession is referred to, that we constitute this possession, and that as such he will complete his ransoming of us. See the word in 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thes. 2:14; Heb. 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:9. Isa. 43:21 (LXX) and Acts 20:28 are especially helpful, for both contain the verb with God as the subject.

Westcott points out that in this doxology, which reaches out to “all the things,” God’s “possession,” which shall attain final ransoming, includes, besides us believers, all the creation which shall participate in the liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:20, 21). We thus reject the various interpretations which speak of our possession: “a complete redemption which will give possession” to us (a modified objective genitive); “the redemption which is to become our possession” (an appositional genitive); possession as haereditas acquisita; etc. Some have the final αὐτοῦ modify also “the possession” mentioned in the first phrase. Can it be made so retroactive? Is this needed in order to mark “the possession” as God’s and not as ours? We say, “no.”

“For his glory-praise” ends the third member of the doxology. This phrase marked the ending of the other two members (v. 6, 12), but each time it had an addition since another member follows; this third time nothing is added since the doxology is concluded. “We were sealed—for ransoming,” for heaven.

---

The Great Prayer for Knowledge

Ephesians 1:15

15 Like the doxology, the prayer is but one sentence. After blessing God for his heavenly grace and gifts to the Ephesians (v. 3–14) Paul tells them of his intercession for them, prays God to increase their knowledge of Christ, and mentions also some of the wondrous features of this knowledge. Because of this I, too, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and of your love for all the saints, cease not in giving thanks for you, making mention (of you) in my prayers, that, etc.

We cannot make “because of this” refer only to v. 13, 14, the last member of the doxology, for this last member rests on the other two and cannot be made independent of them. The fact that v. 13 begins with “you also” as Paul now writes “your faith” only shows that already in v. 13, 14 Paul focuses on the Ephesians as naturally he intends to do in v. 15, etc. Yet in v. 14 he writes “our inheritance.” “You also” (v. 13) implies that others, too, were sealed; so now “I also” means that others besides Paul have heard of the faith of the Ephesians and thank God for their faith. Some of these others were with Paul in Rome.

The deduction that, since Paul heard of the faith and the love of his readers, he intends to imply that he was not acquainted with them, and that they were not resident in Ephesus but in other places in which new congregations had been founded since he had left Ephesus, is unwarranted; see the introduction. To point to Col. 1:4, where Paul speaks in the same way, is inconclusive. He had, indeed, never been in Colosse, had only heard about the faith and the love of these Christians. But how about Philemon 4, 5, where the same language is used? Yet Paul was personally acquainted with Philemon, a fact that is unquestioned. One may hear about persons whom one has never met (the Colossians) as well as about persons whom one has met (the Ephesians, Philemon).

Five years had elapsed since Paul left the Ephesians, and during this time many new people had united with the congregation. The fact that this church continued in faith and in love Paul could know only because he heard about them. The idea that this epistle is an encyclical finds no support in Paul’s “having heard” of his readers during his long imprisonment in Rome.

The thing heard is expressed by the accusative; the person heard speaking by the genitive. The usual order is: “faith—love” (here and in Col. 1:4), for faith produces love. When the order is reversed (Philemon 5), this relation is not altered; the fruit receives special stress because some special exercise of love is referred to. One of the textual conundrums is the fact that ἀγάπην is absent from a number of important texts. Of course, explanations for the absence are offered by those who adopt the texts which have this word, the best being that the omission is due to an old error in transcription. Those who adopt the other texts call the word an importation from Col. 1:4 (compare Philemon 5).

One might consent to the omission if a satisfying meaning could be secured when “love” is absent. But this seems hopeless. The best that is offered is the suggestion that, to the Greek ear, πίστις conveys both the idea of faith (trust) and of faithfulness so that the word would here refer first to Christ and faith in him and next to the saints and faithfulness toward them. The trouble with this suggestion is the fact that a dual sense of the main noun must be accepted. We find ourselves compelled to agree with the conclusion of the American Committee of the R. V.: Paul wrote “love.”

In this connection it may be remembered that the best text critics are unable to explain how many of the variant readings originated. Nor do we blame them, they have no means of knowing. In such instances commentators likewise should confess that they, too, do not know. The present instance seems plain. When Paul heard of the true and constant faith of his former church he would unavoidably also hear of their love, and why should he omit a reference to their love when he so frequently combines these two essential virtues?

Καθʼ ὑμᾶς = ὑμῶν, the possessive or the subjective genitive, yet with this difference that, like the German bei euch, the former refers to the faith as it was when Paul heard of it, the simple genitive ὑμῶν would refer to their faith in general also as it was when Paul was in Ephesus. We are satisfied that πίστιςἐν should denote sphere but do not accept the view of C.-K. 889, who follows Deissmann (see v. 1), that this expression indicates that faith has its root in Christ. Vital, spiritual connection of faith with Christ is the thought and not the local inherence of a root in the soil. When Paul writes “the Lord Jesus,” this is like “Christ Jesus”: title plus name. “Lord” is soteriological (see 1:1), and “Jesus” the name the Master bore on earth, implying what this our heavenly Lord wrought while he was here on earth (C.-K. 891).

Paul does not need to repeat καθʼ ὑμᾶς with “the love,” for the readers understand that their present love is referred to. Chrysostom calls faith and love “a wonderful pair of twins”; yet love is always the product of faith, the evidence of faith’s genuineness, and thus not a twin virtue of faith. Bengel says that this love is the characteristic mark of Christianity, John 13:35; 15:12. This is better. One may note that Paul writes about love for all the saints (the word is used as it was in 1:1) since the church in Ephesus had existed for over seven years, while in 1 Thess. 1:3 and 2 Thess. 1:3 this broad area of love is not yet indicated, this church being quite young when Paul wrote.

Moreover, “for all the saints” is most appropriate in a letter dealing with the entire Una Sancta. Today some lay practically the entire stress on love and neglect the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and “the work of the faith” (1 Thess. 1:3), which is the confession of faith, the first obligation of every believer. One cannot raise fruit without having the tree on which alone it grows, nor pluck flowers without growing the plant which alone bears them. “Mighty works,” even when these are done in Jesus’ name but apart from true faith, are not acknowledged by the Lord, Matt. 7:22, 23. The faith and the love of a congregation reach far beyond its own neighborhood. When a church is widely known for its faith and its love it has a blessed fame.

Ephesians 1:16

16 The good reports which Paul heard from Ephesus set his thoughts turning to this former place of his labors: “I cease not in giving thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers.” Paul is grateful to God for all the good blossoming of the gospel in Ephesus, doubly so because he himself had first planted the good seed there. During his imprisonment the triumphs of the gospel in the fields of his former labors made him happy and lightened his captivity. “Cease not” takes the complementary participle, the second participle adding something to the first. With μνείανποιούμενος the genitive ὑμῶν is not needed although some texts insert it; it is implied in the phrase “for you” which precedes. Ἐπί is to be understood in its temporal force: bei meinen Gebeten, B.-P. 445.

Ephesians 1:17

17 Paul’s thanksgiving flows over into intercession for the Ephesians. Having such great spiritual blessings, it is most necessary that they know and realize ever more fully what these blessings are, their greatness and their value. We often take God’s supreme gifts as a matter of course, which may result in our regarding them lightly, perhaps even losing them. It is thus most proper that Paul’s doxology passes over into intercession; the transition is thanksgiving.

Is ἵνα final or non-final, and is its verb form subjunctive or optative? Are we to translate: “in order that God may give to you” (purpose); or: “that he give to you” (optative of wish in indirect discourse)? Robertson champions the latter; others, also Moulton, Einleitung, Rademacher, and some dictionaries, decide for the former. The answer to those who think that the optative is impossible—one even calls it “monstrous”—after ἵνα and a primary tense is that the optative is not due to ἵνα; it is a volitive optative of a wish regarding the future, and its use after ἵνα is not unknown in the classics (R. 983). This clears the atmosphere, the supposed Ionic subjunctive included. In fact, ἵνα may be regarded as appositional to μνείαν, Paul is stating that the “mention” he makes is this, “that God may give,” etc.

If this seems too daring, the fact still stands (although R. 994 seems to hesitate to accept it) that the primary tense of the main verb has no effect upon this optative of wish. Apart from the grammar involved, we desire to say that we rather expect Paul to state what mention he makes for the Ephesians in his prayers and not merely for what purpose he makes mention.

So we translate: That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of the glory, give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in connection with knowledge of himself, the eyes of your heart enlightened, so that you know, what is, etc.

By calling God “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” Paul himself settles the dispute raised in regard to v. 3 and elsewhere as to whether both “the God and Father” apply to “our Lord Jesus Christ,” which they certainly do (see v. 3). According to Christ’s human nature God is his God. For the sake of his readers Paul brings out the truth that the God to whom he and they go in prayer is the God who sent Jesus into the flesh as Christ to work out our redemption and made him our blessed Lord who is exalted forever. As the God of our Lord he is our God, the fount of infinite grace. At the same time he is “the Father of the glory” to whom all “the glory” of deity belongs. This doxa distinguishes God as God, his infinite greatness, excellence, perfection, and majesty ever shine forth. It is the sum of all the divine attributes in their manifestation.

Both terms of this double designation pertain to the blessings which Paul requests for the Ephesians. Since God is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, we may freely ask of him, as Paul does, all that God has provided for us in our Lord Jesus Christ; and since he is the Father of the glory, we may freely ask him to help us to see and to realize this glory of his as it manifests itself in our exalted Lord for our salvation.

The gift which Paul desires for the Ephesians is “a spirit of wisdom and revelation in connection with knowledge of himself.” Our versions have “spirit”, yet not a few interpreters think this should be “the Spirit.” Anarthrous πνεῦμα often means the latter so that the word alone may be indecisive. What is rather decisive is the apposition: “the eyes of your hearts enlightened,” etc., an apposition that fits “spirit” but not “the Spirit.” The close parallel Col. 1:9 shows that the gifts for which Paul prays are really wisdom and revelation, enlightened eyes, to know, etc.

“A spirit of wisdom and revelation” = a spiritual quality or, let us say, nature that is marked by wisdom and revelation. The claim that then revelation should be placed first and wisdom, its fruit, second overlooks the fact that the cause is often mentioned after its effect. We are perfectly free to say that wisdom results from revelation as we are also to say that revelation works wisdom. Compare the analogous use of “spirit” in 1 Cor. 4:21; Gal. 6:1; Rom. 1:4; 8:15; 9:8; 2 Tim. 1:7; Rev. 11:11; “the spirit,” 1 Cor. 2:12; 1 John 4:6; John 14:17; 15:26; etc.

It is misleading to speak of the active sense of ἀποκάλυψις and to state that here the revealer is indicated by πνεῦμα. “A spirit of revealing” by which we make revelations to others would be out of place. Christians are not the source of revelation; if this were Paul’s meaning, “the Spirit of revelation” would alone be in place, for he makes revelation to us. But revelation is used objectively. Even in Rev. 1:1 God gave to Jesus Christ “a revelation” (objective) which he was to show to God’s servants. The word is here so used by Paul and therefore follows wisdom. Paul wants God to give the Ephesians a spirit that is marked and graced by wisdom and revelation (qualitative genitives), a spirit that is rich in the wisdom derived from God’s revelation. see v. 8 regarding “wisdom”: “in connection with all wisdom.” The revelation here referred to is that embodied in the gospel.

“In connection with (ἐν) knowledge of himself” (αὐτοῦ, referring to the subject, “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,” objective genitive) modifies “revelation.” The following verses show that Paul wants the Ephesians really and fully to know God, the full, great revelation he has made of himself by what he has already done for the Ephesians and by what he will yet do according to what he has already done in regard to Christ. Centering all the knowledge on “him” (God) so that the revelation is connected with the knowledge of him, will put the Ephesians into the fullest possession of the entire gospel contents. This harmonizes perfectly with the doxology (v. 3–14) which focuses everything on God.

Ἐπίγνωσις is the proper word: it is not merely Kenntnis but ErKenntnis, the knowledge which really apprehends God, true realization in the heart and not merely that of the intellect. John 17:3. “Christian knowledge does not consist of certain finished intellectual apprehensions, certain doctrinal statements and formulas impressed upon the memory, but in a living and constantly growing experience of the saving truth, in an ever-fresh apprehension of what the grace of God has given us in Christ Jesus.” Besser. The intellect is exercised to its fullest capacity but only as the avenue to the heart and the soul. Unless the latter is reached, the intellect fails to serve its purpose; mere historical or head knowledge is not enough. Some connect the phrase with what follows. But who could surmise that a pause is to be made before the phrase? If it modifies the following participle, why does it precede it and thereby receive a strange emphasis?

Ephesians 1:18

18 Those who translate “Spirit” in v. 17 have trouble in construing the accusative “the eyes,” some call it an anacoluthon in order to solve the difficulty. Paul has in mind “spirit,” and “the eyes of your heart,” etc., are an elucidating apposition. The participle is placed forward because of the emphasis it requires as being the important predicate. “Wisdom,” etc., means eyes “having been enlightened and thus remaining so (perfect tense).” God has enlightened them (passive).

Leb (Hebrew), καρδία, and the Greek and the Biblical idea of “heart” deserve considerable study; one may start with the data provided by Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 248, etc., § 12, and C.-K. 581, etc. “The heart” is in brief the central organ of the personal life and as such the seat not only of the feelings (the common English idea) but also and especially of the intellect and of the will. Here the spiritual life pulsates, here dwell God and the Spirit. Here, in the unregenerate, wickedness and even Satan himself dwell. Thus Paul speaks of “the eyes of your heart having been enlightened” (“spirit of revelation”). The unregenerate heart is stone-blind; it must first receive sight, i. e., be given eyes to see. 2 Cor. 4:3–6 is most instructive; add John 9:39–41; Eph. 4:18. “The eyes of the heart” are the spiritual powers of sight. But even when we have these inner eyes, they must be more and more filled with the heavenly light of revelation in order to receive all that this light reveals.

Εἰςτό indicates contemplated result: so that you get to know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the case of the saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power for us believing ones in accord with the working of the strength of his might, which he wrought in the Christ, etc.

We may regard the infinitive as an ingressive aorist: “get to know,” also as effective: “actually get to know.” Here we have εἰδέναι which expresses the relation of the object to the subject (the object comes to our knowledge); γϛῶναι would express the relation of the subject to the object (we consider in a certain way, as affecting ourselves, the object known), C.-K. 388. Here Paul properly speaks only of the former. What our attitude to the things here mentioned will be need not be stated, for it will be like that of Paul as expressed in his doxology (v. 3–14).

The three indirect questions constitute a unit and form a pyramid. From the hope in our hearts Paul looks up to the object of that hope, the heavenly inheritance, and then looks up still farther to the divine power which guarantees this inheritance to us. All of this is to move fully into the range of our vision and our knowledge.

“What is the hope of his calling” is the hope in our own hearts belonging to (possessive genitive) God’s call by which he made us his own. In the epistles noun, verb, and verbal are always used with reference to the successful “call” of God and not as in Matt. 22:14 also with reference to the rejected call. This call offers us a hope regarding the future, and we are to perceive fully just what this hope in our hearts is, what its substance is and its immense certainty, thus its vast superiority over all mere human and self-made hopes. Let us note the mention of faith and of love in v. 15 and that hope is now added.

Now the object or the substance of this our hope: “the riches of the inheritance of him” (αὐτοῦ, genitive of the author). God has promised us this inheritance for which we hope, we already have the down payment of it (v. 14). This inheritance possesses glory, and this glory unspeakable richness. It is promised by “the Father of glory,” whose sons we are by “adoption” (v. 5, 17). How could it be otherwise than rich in glory? 1 Cor. 2:9. Our heavenly state shall shine with wondrous splendor, a reflection of our Father’s own glory. “What a full, grandiose heaping up of terms, actually symbolizing the importance of the subject!” Meyer. Yet some complain about Paul’s style.

But this inheritance is intended for the whole Una Sancta, hence we have the great phrase about “the saints.” Ἐν puzzles the commentators. The solution is not that we are here called God’s inheritance; here, in v. 14, and throughout the New Testament the word κληρονομία always means the inheritance intended for us. “Among the saints” will also not do. “In the person of,” or “in the case of the saints” (R. 587) seems to be the solution; we offer it as such. Ἐν is quite often used with persons and refers to what is mentioned as pertaining to them: “in their case.”

Ephesians 1:19

19 Now the power which guarantees the final bestowal of this inheritance in the fulfillment of our hope. This power is beyond question God’s omnipotence, but it is viewed by Paul, not abstractly, but concretely in regard to what this omnipotence has already done in the exaltation of Christ. It is well to remember that, as the humiliation pertained to Christ’s human nature, so also does his exaltation. He who has so exalted Christ, he guarantees our inheritance, the fulfillment of our hope of glory.

Paul wants the Ephesians to know “the exceeding greatness of his power” as it is effective “for us believing ones.” It exceeds all other power that might interfere to nullify our hope, to prevent the bestowal of the riches of the glory of the inheritance God intends for us believing ones. When we know the excessive greatness of this power, nothing will ever disturb our hope. Other men also hope; alas, their hopes are built on air, there is no power to fulfill their hopes, to bestow that for which they hope. God’s power is only “for us the believing ones,” for us who trust him and in that trust hope. Paul writes “for us the believing ones” because he must include himself and the Ephesians and all others who are believers. The substantivized appositional participle τοὺςπιστεύοντας describes us as the kind of people we are: the ones who continue in believing. The participle is added for the purpose of elucidation.

It seems that Von Hofmann was the interpreter who originated the exegesis which has the κατά phrase modify the participle and states that this phrase, which includes all that follows to the end of the chapter, shows that our believing is due to God’s omnipotence. Von Hofmann has his followers today who use his exegesis as their sedes doctrinae for establishing their contention that saving faith is wrought by omnipotence. They generally quote Eph. 1:19 as establishing this doctrine. When an exegesis is given, a specious alternative is introduced, an either—or: If you do not believe what we say, you must believe this other, i. e., something that is manifestly wrong. The fact that a third, even a fourth interpretation exists, is ignored. We are confronted with the choice: Paul either speaks of the power of God at the Parousia (which he does not) or of God’s present power which is the cause of our believing, omnipotence as a future or as a present reality.

Both views are untenable. God’s omnipotence is timeless, but here Paul uses the aorist: “which he wrought in the Christ,” etc. The Ephesians are to know God’s omnipotence by what it has already wrought in the exaltation of the Christ. What they see as having occurred in the past is their guarantee regarding the bestowal of their inheritance in the future. The greatness of God’s power accords (κατά) with what God has already done. The immense κατά phrase (v. 19–23) modifies “the exceeding greatness of his power for us the believers”; this “greatness” is exhibited in what God has done and stands as thus exhibited forever. The Ephesians are to know this “greatness” accordingly.

The idea that Paul is here explaining how we come to believe and continue to believe, that our believing is due to omnipotence, is foreign to his thought. The combination πιστεύεινκατά is not used, κατά never modifies this verb. The long elaboration introduced by this preposition could not modify the incidental participle attached to ἡμᾶς. The cause of faith is the power of grace in the gospel; to make Allmacht, Allmacht, omnipotence, the cause is contrary to Scripture teaching. This conception is carried to the extreme claim that “the greatest triumph of the divine almightiness” is to crush “the intensest exercise of their (men’s) power” in resisting God. This is the irresistibility of Calvinism.

Why, then, does God use this all-crushing omnipotence upon only so few? Is it because of his sovereign, absolute will? To escape this plain Calvinism it is assumed that there are two kinds of Allmacht, one that may, and one that may not be resisted. The Bible knows only the latter; the other does not exist.

Paul heaps up the terms when he says that “the greatness of his power” accords with “the working of the strength of his might”: ἐνέργεια is the operating activity in some task; κράτος is the strength exercised in the activity; ἰσχύς is the vis, virtus, or strength possessed, whether it is exercised or not. Paul knows how to describe “the exceeding greatness of God’s power,” δύναμις or dynamic power; the other three nouns unfold this δύναμις.

Ephesians 1:20

20 The feminine relative modifies the first (feminine) noun. Paul recites the deeds of God by which he crowned the saving work of the Messiah: his resurrection from the dead, his enthronization in supreme glory and majesty, the two together often being called the exaltation. These deeds are, indeed, works of omnipotence; they make certain also our exaltation. Our hope rests on what God has thus wrought in Christ, on the working which he wrought in the person of the Christ by having raised him up from the dead and having seated him at his right in the heavenly place far above all rule and authority and power and lordship and every name named not only in this eon but also in the one to come; etc. Note the cognate accusative: “the working which he worked,” τὴνἐνέργειαν … ἣνἐνήργησεν. Ἐν = “in the person of,” “in the case of” (R. 587). “In the Christ,” as in v. 10 and 12 = in him who is the Christ, the one anointed for his great office.

Two complementary participles state what God wrought; they are aorists because they were single acts. God raised the Christ from the dead. The Scriptures say both that God raised him and that he himself arose, for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa. The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν has been thought to mean: “out from among the dead.” This is done in the interest of chiliasm. This phrase occurs many times and is always without the article; it is idiomatic in the Greek and signifies “from death.” See further Matt. 17:10; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:7; John 2:22; Acts 3:16. Christ’s resurrection exceeds that of Lazarus and of others who were raised up as he was, for Christ rose with glory. He is himself the Resurrection and the Life, in whom the blessed resurrection of all believers is assured.

The second participle καθίσας is causative: “having caused him to sit at his right” (feminine adjective, supply “hand”). Sitting expresses permanency. The expression “the right hand” is God’s infinite glory, power, and majesty, which the risen and exalted Christ exercises completely. In the state of humiliation he exercised these powers only to the degree that they were necessary for his redemptive work; now he exercises them in an infinite way. Both the raising up and the seating at God’s right hand pertain to the human nature of Christ; so also God’s putting all things under his feet (v. 22). “In the heavenly places,” explained in v. 3, means in the heavenly world to which Christ ascended visibly, from which also he shall come again in like manner, Acts 1:11. The glory of the exaltation is brought out most completely by the added phrase: “far above all rule,” etc. How far above is apparent: as far as infinite exaltation exceeds finite exaltation whether it is earthly, “in this eon,” or heavenly, “in the eon to come.”

Ephesians 1:21

21 The terms “rule—authority—power—lordship—name” do not signify five ranks so that “rule” is one rank, “authority” another rank, etc. Moreover, the five are found on earth (“in this eon”) as well as in heaven. Nor have we an ascending or a descending scale of rank. There are ranks, lower and higher; the five terms apply to each rank both in this and the next world. What the ranks are, and how many there are, is not stated, but all of them are included. Each one has a certain ἀρχή, “rule” or domain, greater or smaller, an emperor, a king, this and that minister, this and that official, other men in their various stations.

With that rule there naturally goes the corresponding “authority”; with that the corresponding “power”; with that the corresponding “lordship” which exercises the power; and with that the corresponding “name” or title. So it is in heaven: one is set over ten cities, another over five.

Only to the last, “the name,” does Paul need to attach the modifier: “named not only,” etc.; for the name or title one bears involves the other terms. Αἰών is eon or age, saeculum, yet as marked by what transpires in it. When it is translated “world,” the sense is the world in its course of affairs. Since in its course and current “this eon” is marked by sin, “this world” has an evil connotation and is in contrast to “the eon about to come” when this eon shall end. The coming one is perfect. Christ shall usher it in at his Parousia although it exists now and we may already taste the powers thereof (Heb. 6:5). It is called “the eon to come” only because we now wait for it in hope.

We may also note that human language is compelled to use terms that indicate time when it speaks of eternity although eternity is timelessness, the opposite of time, succession, progress, etc. The Scriptures themselves condescend to our limitation in language in this matter.

Ephesians 1:22

22 When Paul continues with a finite verb instead of a third (and a fourth) participle, this is not anacoluthic nor a change in construction. The two new statements are no longer subordinate; they are intended to be independent and coordinate even as they are written: and he ranged everything under his feet and him he gave as head over everything to the church since she is his body, the fulness of him who fills all the things in all ways for himself.

Even the change of the object from “him” (Christ) used after the participles to πάντα justifies the finite verb. Πάντα means “everything” in general. The idea of subjecting hostile things is not conveyed but only that of ranging all things as a footstool under Christ’s feet (it is like Matt. 5:35 and not like Matt. 22:44). The idea is that of supreme exaltation. The language is that of Ps. 8:6 (compare, 1 Cor. 15:27; Heb. 2:8). The psalm speaks only of man as the ruler of the earth; the apostle elevates the word about man’s dominion by using it with reference to Christ and includes far more than the creatures of the earth, namely “everything” no matter where it is found. Man’s earthly dominion is only a shadow of Christ’s universal dominion.

Now the astounding statement: “and him he gave as head over everything to the church,” “him” (forward for the sake of emphasis) under whose feet God had ranged everything, “him” as thus “head over everything.” This was a gift of grace to the church, a stupendous gift. Christ in his supernal exaltation “as head over everything” is God’s gracious gift to the church, to the Una Sancta, to the Communion of Saints composed of all true believers. This is all that Paul says thus far. “Head over everything” only repeats the substance of “everything he ranged under his feet.” What Christ as this gift is to be for the church is not stated. Some think it is, namely that he is to be our head also; but “head over everything” is not to be taken in a double sense; omnipotent ruler over all creatures and besides this spiritual Lord of the church.

Ephesians 1:23

23 The forms of ὅστις often imply the causal idea; R. 728: “There is no doubt about the causal use of ὅστις (cf., qui and quippe qui).” Here: “she being such as,” i. e., “since she is,” etc. Paul indicates the reason for God’s gift to the church. This lies in the nature of the church, namely that “she is his (Christ’s) body.” To the church as this body of Christ God gave Christ, gave him in his entire exaltation over everything. Of course, not to be a member of this body, but as its spiritual head. Here this headship is implied, not in v. 22. Even here it is introduced only by way of implication, only by calling the church “his body.”

God gave Christ in his exaltation over everything to the church since she is Christ’s body, “the fulness of him who fills all things in every way for himself.” The sense of this apposition is not noted by those who overlook the tremendous paradox here expressed and this paradoxical apposition (also the predicate after ἥτιςἐστί), the astonishing statement that he who has everything under his feet and is “head over everything” is yet himself bestowed as a gift to his church. The fact that she is his body is a part of the solution. Not because she consisted of mere creatures could she receive this supremely exalted Christ as her gift, for as so composed she, too, is under his feet. But she is far more, she is different from the other creatures, she is spiritual, Christ’s spiritual body, and as such, and only as such, is able to receive and does receive this supreme Christ as God’s gift to her. Not even the angels could so receive Christ, to say nothing of the rest included in “everything.” She has this special, unique relation to Christ, that she alone is “his body.”

And it is this fact that makes her “the fulness of him who fills all the things in all (possible) ways for himself.” The paradox lies not only in the fact that he who fills all that exists, fills all in all possible ways, should yet himself have a fulness filling him; the paradox is even more intense, namey that “all the things” filled by Christ “in all (possible) ways,” that this church, itself so filled, should yet be its own Filler’s fulness. Yet this is what Paul says.

Here we have the definite τὰπάντα, all the things that actually exist, thus including the church. Ἐνπᾶσι is adverbial: “in all (possible) ways,” B.-P. Christ fills some things in one, some in another way, for all are by no means alike, some being inanimate, some only animate, some rational, some spiritual (the church), some angelic. The fact that the exalted Christ fills the church in a special spiritual way is thus plainly stated. Some misunderstand ἐνπᾶσι. The idea is incorrect that Christ fills each of all the things in all ways. In how many ways he is able to fill a stone, for instance, we cannot say, but certainly it is not in the ways in which he is able to fill a saint or an angel.

Christ does not ignore the nature and the capacity of each being. We regard the middle πληρουμένου as a true middle, as saying more than the active. Christ fills all the things for himself, in his own interest, even as he has all of them ranged under him.

This filler of all the things has his own πλήρωμα, which is the church, his own body. We recall Christ’s own words, not only that he is in us (ἐνὑμῖν), but equally that we and each one of us is in him, ἐνἐμοί, John 6:56; 15:4–7; 17:21; 1 John 3:24. His being in us = he fills us; our being in him = we fill him. The Vine has its “fulness” in the branches; the Christ cannot have his “fulness” in any save the Christians, the church. The very paradox demands that “fulness” be taken in the active sense: we are “that which fills” him who “fills” all the things. The point is lost when the noun is made passive, for if he fills all the things in all possible ways, it is superfluous to say that we are “that which is filled.”

The statement of some of the commentators that πλήρωμα is always only passive is unwarranted. Instead of considering only their examples and their arguments, let us study what is offered by B.-P. 1077; M.-M. 520; Liddell and Scott; and other comprehensive tabulations. The word “fulness” is so common that it cannot be called a technical or a theological term which was later clothed with the glamor of mystery by the Gnostics. Paul uses it in v. 10, here, and in the following without the least polemical intent or even the least linguistic uncertainty.

With the exalted apposition “the fulness of him who fills all the things for himself in all possible ways” Paul reaches his final unit conception which brings the whole period (v. 15–23) to its climax and close. He can add no more to what his prayers for the Ephesians ask of God.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.