Paul, to the Saints in Ephesus

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 1:1-3

Paul’s Greeting — 1:1-2

There are two parts to verse 1—the author and the audience—and each part teaches us doctrine and practical application. Likewise with the standard blessing extended from God in verse 2. If we compare the introduction to himself, Paul, as the author, with his other twelve letters, some common characteristics are clear. His own name is given in all of them,1 coupled with “Silvanus, and Timothy” in both letters to the Thessalonians, and just with Timothy to the Philippians, and elsewhere with “our brother Sosthenes” (1 Cor. 1:1). The point is that this is standard for Paul. So too are his titles, “apostle” (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Ti. 1:1), “servant” (Rom. 1:1; Phi. 1:1; Ti. 1:1), and “prisoner” (Phm. 1:1). These are not so different from each other as one might think. While the rhyme and reason might not always be apparent for his choice, in other cases it is clear. We can see that he situates his apostleship with ultimate authority in Galatians because of its comparative status with the Jerusalem church, and he shows his chains at the outset to Philemon because of his plea for the slave Onesimus.

Here the chosen title is the dominant one: apostle. ἀπόστολος means one who is sent, —note the verb, a construct of “to send” (στέλλειν) and “off, away from” (από)—though clearly when it is used of those especially chosen by Christ to lay the foundation of the church, the sense is of the ultimate royal ambassadorship. It also carries the idea of a messenger, but since ἄγγελος also means “messenger,” it is worth distinguishing that, here, there is a wider sense of stewardship, as Paul will draw out more in Chapter 3. One other distinction must be kept in mind. This will be similar to problems that emerge from general and special uses of other words, like the word for “deacon.” Context has to tell us whether a general or special sense is in view. Charles Hodge commented on its wider usage:

“The word ‘apostle’ is used in three sense in the New Testament:—1. In its primary sense of ‘messenger:’ John xiii. 16 (the messenger), ‘He that is sent is not greater than he that sent him;’ Phil. ii. 25, ‘Your messenger;’ 2 Cor. viii.23, ‘Messengers of the churches’ ... 2. In the sense of missionaries, men sent by the church to preach the gospel. In this sense Paul and Barnabas are called apostles, Acts xiv. 4, 14; and probably Andronicus and Junia, Rom. xvi. 7. 3. In the sense of plenipotentiaries of Christ; men whom he personally selected and sent forth invested with full authority to teach and rule in his name.”2

Note the causes of his apostleship. Here we have both the formal cause and the efficient cause indicated. First, as to the formal cause: What does it mean for him to be of Jesus Christ? Eadie comments: “While the genitive Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is that of possession, and not of ablation, yet naturally, and from its historical significance, it indicates the source, dignity, and functions of his apostolic commission, Acts xxvii. 23.”3 A formal cause of something is like the image on the blueprint, in the case of a house, or the totality of a recipe in a dish. It is the thing both in its idea and in its act of having come into being, but it is that perfect “shape” that it takes upon completion. Thus to be an apostle in Paul’s sense takes the form of being Christ’s property for a specific task. As to the efficient cause, there is the will of God. But as every theologian knows, this begs a question as to which sense of the divine will. The sense of by (διὰ) in relation to the will of God is simply that Paul was made an apostle and given his whole duty by God Himself. It fits both the decretive and prescriptive will of God.

The word our English renders as saints (ἁγίοις) simply means “holy ones,” being the plural of a substantival use of the adjective. We know it is a substantival use when there is no noun for the word to modify. We call this use of an adjective substantival because the one adjective is standing in for a noun, or a “substance,” that is, a thing. The word is actually “holy” (ἅγιος), which, of course, begs the question: “holy what? or whom?” In this case, clearly it is a whom, but also a plurality or community of persons. An important point is made by Eadie, that this word “exhibits the Christian church in its normal aspect—a community of men self-devoted to God and His service.”4 This is not an upper-division in a hierarchy of Christians, such as the Roman Catholic Church treats its “saints.” In the Apostle’s language, every Christian is a saint.

The second word Paul uses to describe them works in the same way. It also has no noun present. The faithful (πιστός) only works without a noun if it refers to a substance. So the plural here (πιστοῖς) has the same referent, namely, “faithful ones.” As a matter of syntax, Graham points out that, “The occurrence of the article before ἁγίοις ‘saints’ and its omission before πιστοῖς ‘faithful / believing’ supports this, showing both adjectives belong to the same persons.”5 Since καὶ may mean “and” or “even,” various renderings are plausible: “the saints and the faithful,” “those who are saints and faithful,” “the saints who are faithful,” “the saints, the faithful,” and so forth.

The question may be put as to whether the words in Christ signify the status of these believers purely and simply, or else qualify the sense in which they are holy and faithful, namely, owing to the union with Christ. This same connection is made in Colossians 1:2 and 1 Thessalonians 1:1. It is also sometimes asked whether ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ qualifies both “saints” and “faithful” or simply the latter, as it is joined directly after the latter. Eadie and Meyer favor the latter; Hendriksen sees a modification of the pair together.

Stott offers a useful implication, especially given how this theme appears throughout the letter, that, this is living “both in Christ and in the secular world, or ‘in the heavenlies’ and on earth.”6

Why would Paul separate the Persons, God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, in his opening blessing? This is the sort of thing that an anti-trinitarian, or an adherent to some other Christological heresy, will have their antennae up for, as they usually do with more famous passages.

Grace (Χάρις), says Hendriksen, “refers undoubtedly to God’s spontaneous, unmerited favor in action, his freely bestowed lovingkindness in operation, bestowing salvation upon guilt-laden sinners. Grace is the fountain. Peace belongs to the stream of spiritual blessings which issues from this fountain.”7

When the Jew wished peace (εἰρήνη) upon someone, it was much more than our contemporary usage, which usually stops at a ceasing of trouble or some other internal psychological resolution. The Old Testament counterpart,  שָׁלוֹם, extends to the sum of all blessing. It was for nothing less than for God to smile upon you. That is why the priestly blessing in Numbers 6:24-26 is fundamentally for the divine “face” or “countenance” to be aimed at someone as the sun gives light to the day and life to the plants.

Doxology: The Beginning of the Work of God the Father — 1:3

The whole of Ephesians 1:3-14 has been referred to as a doxology—that is, a word of worship. Its first verse may even be referred to as a eulogy, but certainly not of the same sort that we use that word for at funerals. Hold that thought, because it requires some theologizing. For now, note that the first word Paul uses has its root in the adjective “blessed” (εὐλογητός). Its form here in verse 3 is of a nominative masculine singular, so it does not have any different morphology. The reason that we render it Blessed be is simply that the adjacent nouns are also in the nominative—hence, they are the subjects of the sentence, which implies that the noun is functioning in a similar way to a noun in apposition (e.g., “Paul, an apostle” where both are nominative) or even as a predicate nominative (e.g., “I am the bread of life,” where both are nominative). The word “be” is the best equivalent to “is” here, and it makes for a more majestic English anyway. We would not say, “God is blessed” here, although that would not be syntactically or logically wrong. The point we will see is that it would be poetically or aesthetically wrong. The other consideration is Hebrew precedence. The common expression is “Blessed be the LORD” (Gen. 9:26), whether the shorter version (ברוך יהוה), or in the prayer with the formal “you” (בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהֹוָה). As Paul was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phi. 3:5), such an expression would flow from his mind as easily as his own name.

Now the most obvious challenge to our understanding of the word “blessing” here is that it is used, almost in the same breath, for God and for creatures. Indeed, even those the blessing spoken of God is in the nominative case, and is something that He is, it is still a note of praise in the mouth of a creature. So, we are told by the Psalmist, “Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name” (Ps. 29:2); and “I bless the LORD” (Ps. 16:7). To speak of God on “the receiving end” is not to suggest that our worship is contributing anything that God needs. If there was no creature to “bless” Him, He would be in a perfectly blessed state that could be neither diminished nor augmented. This references the aseity of God. That divine attribute speaks of God’s utter independence or self-sufficiency. That He is essentially blessed or most blessed is necessary to God being God. If God depended on anything else for His own fulfillment or to achieve His ends, then He would not be God. He would be supplemented by the creature.

To speak of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is to orient the believer toward the special relationship that he has with the one, true God. Hodge says, “It is this relationship which is the ground of our confidence. It is because God has sent the Lord Jesus into the world, because he spared not his own Son, that he is our God and Father, or that we have access to him as such.”8

To the lesser, who receives blessing as ones who are in need, He has blessed us. Now the same root word becomes εὐλογήσας. This is the aorist active participle form (also nominative masculine singular). If we want to be wooden about it, it would be “[He, or the One] having blessed.” Now the act of blessing has been received by a direct object, namely us (ἡμᾶς), so that it is in the accusative case.

The word ἐπουρανίοις is a construct of the preposition ἐπί, which has a wide range of meaning, depending on case and context, and οὐρανός, meaning heaven or sky. Since this context is already conditioned by the spiritual (πνευματικῇ) nature of the blessings, the obvious choice for translation is heavenly places or heavenly realms (ἐπουρανίοις). While the Hebrew and Greek uses of “heaven” is often ambiguous as to number, here we are not left to guess, as it comes in the dative plural. This naturally raises questions about how to conceive of the location of such blessing in the present. Other passages tend to suggest that this is not a bad question:

“In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?” (Jn. 14:2)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:3-4).

Stott opts for the description, “the unseen world of spiritual reality.”9 We are tempted to think of this as something less real until, perhaps, the end of time. It is more real, and the Apostle is constantly laboring to get us to conform our minds to this (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Col. 3:1-4). Thielman adds, “In the NT outside of Ephesians, ἐπουρανίοις (epouranios, heavenly) is always associated with God and often stands in contrast to what is earthly and therefore less permanent or significant (John 3:12; 1 Cor. 15:48-49; Heb. 8:5; 11:16; 12:18-22; cf. Phil. 2:10).”10

Although every spiritual blessing (v. 3) is not specified or drawn out here, the label “inheritance” later on in Chapter 1 is used synonymously. Essentially, all that Christ has belongs also to us, in Him (cf. Rom. 8:17, Col. 3:1-4), though in a way fitting for our station as creatures and subjects of His kingdom. It includes the whole world (Rom. 4:13) or all things (1 Cor. 2:16, Col. 1:18-20), such as will be ours in the new heavens and the new earth. As I suggested, these are more real than temporal realities, even temporal blessings. Richard Phillips explains:

Let us take one for instance. Spiritually, in the heavenly realms, we are blessed with adoption as children of God. That is true of us now, but it is not manifest in this earthly sphere. No royal robes fall from our shoulders. No visible insignia marks us out as royal sons and daughters. Angels minister to our needs, yet no eye beholds them. No crowds gather to watch as we pass by, we who are chosen for eternal inheritance with Christ; no spellbound readers follow the day-to-day progress of our pilgrimage to glory; no hands reach out to touch our persons cleansed white and made resplendent by the shed blood of God’s Son … Eternity will record the world’s disinterest and scorn of us as an oddity and a cause for its condemnation.11

Commentators as diverse as John Chrysostom to F. F. Bruce have hinted that these blessings are called “spiritual” so as to contrast those benefits that Jesus has brought to the church as opposed to that material inheritance of the old covenant people through Moses.12 However, even if we grant those “better promises” (Heb. 8:6) of the new covenant, that hardly seems to be the Apostle’s point here.

Boice comments that “in the Greek, Ephesians 1:3-14 is one sentence. But it is appropriate that the New International Version (and some others) make verse 3 a sentence to itself. It states a theme and highlights what is to come.”13

___________________________

1. Hebrews would be the exception if one wants to argue that this was Pauline.

2. Hodge, A Commentary on Ephesians, 1-2.

3. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, 1.

4. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, 3.

5. Glenn Graham, An Exegetical Summary of Ephesians, 2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2008), 8.

6. Stott, The Message of Ephesians, 23.

7. Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians, 71.

8. Hodge, Ephesians, 6.

9. Stott, The Message of Ephesians, 35.

10. Thielman, Ephesians, 47.

11. Richard D. Phillips, Chosen in Christ: The Glory of Grace in Ephesians 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2004), 36-37.

12. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 27; Chrysostom is paraphrased by Calvin toward this end — Commentaries, XXI:197.

13. James Montgomery Boice, Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 10.