The Father Elects Unconditionally
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Ephesians 1:4-6
The whole of Ephesians 1:3-14 has been referred to as a doxology—that is, a word of worship. Note how he says of the Father, that his choosing us is “to the praise of his glorious grace.” All three sections end this way: the section on the Father (vv. 3-6), on the Son (vv. 7-12), and on the Spirit (vv. 13-14). So part of what Paul is showing is that the Persons of the Trinity do what they do in salvation so that we would credit them for doing so. We ought not be ignorant of this doctrine any more than any other doctrine having to do with salvation. We must rise above the sort of ignorance that is represented by that old joke about the Arminian in his Sunday school class, who was asked what he thought election was.
“Oh, election—that’s easy! That’s when God casts one vote for me, and Satan casts one vote against me; and I cast the deciding vote!”
This is not the biblical doctrine, and yet this is not far from what the majority of Evangelicals have settled for, if they have allowed themselves to talk about it at all.
Hendriksen divides his analysis of our passage here by 1. its author, 2. its nature, 3. its object, 4 its foundation, 5. its time, 6. its purpose, and 7. its further description.1 That is certainly a valuable approach, but I have opted for causal analysis to structure my comments. We can speak of the efficient, formal, and end causes of election. I put end causes in the plural because there are three of them in this passage. We cannot speak of a material or instrumental cause, however, as both would imply that the nature of the object chosen was an element in the cause itself, which would contradict a number of truths that we will discern from this passage.
Election’s Ultimate Cause
Recall that the efficient cause is the first, or ultimate, cause of something. Here we can easily say that it is God. But we must be more specific for several reasons, some of which is forced on us by rival views that must be answered, and some of which is necessary because of the way that Paul treats the three persons of the Trinity as having unique roles in the whole drama of salvation.
How do we know this is the act of the Father? The words ‘even as’ (v. 4) form a clause signifying a way that a previously described action has taken place. Eadie helps us: “The adverb kathos defines the connection of this verse with the preceding. That connection is modal rather than causal.”2 Thielman adds, “Paul uses the term καθὼς (kathōs, inasmuch as) to link his opening blessing ... This adverbial conjunction normally introduces a comparison, although it can also indicate cause (BDAG 493-94; Wallace 1996: 674-75).”3 All of this is to say that the Actor who causes in already given in verse 3 and the act which causes is the choice, so that “even as” or “according as” is setting up the choice as the mode of purposing the blessing to a group of people.
The action itself is obvious enough in these words. The word ‘chose’ (v. 4) ἐξελέξατο is the third-person singular, aorist middle indicative, from the root ἐκλέγω, meaning chosen, chose, choose, made a choice, picking, or select. Eadie shows that this word corresponds to the Hebrew בָּחר in texts like Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:6, 7; Isaiah 41:8; Psalm 33:12 and 47:4.4 Thielman adds, “Grammatically, this is the only verb in vv. 3-14 that is not subordinate to some other element ... and although grammatical priority does not always translate into conceptual priority, it probably does so here.”5
As if to reinforce what he knew might be a difficult pill to swallow, Paul says that God ‘predestined’ (v. 4) — προορίσας being an aorist active participle, nominative masculine singular, whether “having predestined” (ESV, KJV) or “He predestined” (NASB) or “by predestining” (LSV). This is from the root verb, προορίζω, meaning I determine before, ordain, predestinate. Thielman comments, “Just as the preposition πρό (pro, before) in 1:4 placed God’s choice of his people before his creation of the world, so Paul prefixed this preposition to the verb ὁρίζω (horizō, determine) to place God's decision to mark off a people for himself chronologically before the world began.”6
Some will begrudgingly agree that predestination is in the Bible, but they will explain its unconditional nature away by saying that this refers to God “looking down the corridors of time” to see who will exercise faith. It is these whom He elects. This is called the prescient view because, in it, God’s fore (pre) knowledge (scientia) is that which bridges the gap between human faith in time and the divine choice in eternity.
In the prescient view, the human being’s free will is the efficient cause of election. There is a condition. That condition is faith. A believer in Christ is conceived to be one who meets that condition. He or she believed, and, as a result, became born again and thus elect of God.
This is the view held in Arminian and Wesleyan strands that make up the majority of Evangelical Christianity in the English speaking world throughout the past two centuries.
The first obstacle in the text to the prescient view are the words that are variously translated from the Greek εὐδοκίαν.7 It can mean desire, kind intention, well-pleasing, good pleasure, good will, or pleased. The ESV renders this ‘purpose’ (v. 5), whereas the majority of other English translations opt for “good pleasure” or “kind intention” (NASB). The other word that must be coupled with this in our analysis, θελήματος, is the neuter singular genitive of θέλημα, meaning will, desire, desires. It seems to modify the purpose to say that it is ‘of his will’ (v. 5). That brings up the additional difficulty that theologians speak of different senses of God’s will.
Herman Bavinck wrote,
“The New Testament word βουλή denotes the will of God as based on counsel and deliberation, and differs in that respect from θέλημα, which is the divine will per se (cf. Eph. 1:11: ‘the counsel of his will,’ βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ). This counsel of God antecedes all things.”8
Comparing this Greek word to others used for will, in part, vindicates treating this as different from merely desire, given what has already been said of God’s “good pleasure.” Putting the two words together gives the sense that it is not merely what He does, but what He pleases to do.
The expression ‘before the foundation of the world’ (πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) is no more awkward in relation to divine eternity and immutability, than are other accommodating expressions. The point is to empty from the reader’s mind the whole stage or slate of the world, whether in time or space, so that absolutely nothing can retain a claim on God’s choice.
In summary, election and predestination have as their cause God’s choice—without any other condition beyond Himself contributing to His choice. What we can see in verses 4 and 6 is a clarification of that truth by means of different angles of this divine choice. The “when” (before the foundation of the world), the “why” (In love), and “on what basis” (according to the purpose of his will). All three perspectives signal this ultimacy, or, as we say in this context: sovereignty. There are other passages that make this quite plain:
“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’” (Rom. 9:11-13).
“But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1 Cor. 1:27-29)
“[God] who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began” (2 Tim. 1:9).
“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began” (Ti. 1:1-2).
Aside from the immediate and supporting biblical texts, there are fundamental logic cracks that begin to appear in one’s system of doctrine with the prescient view. Eadie offers this reply,
The dilemma of those who base predestination upon prescience is: if God foresaw this faith and holiness, then those qualities were either self-created, or were to be bestowed by Himself; if the former, the grace of God is denied; if the latter, the question turns upon itself—What prompted God to give them the faith and holiness which He foresaw they should possess?9
That we are elect by God’s sovereign will eliminates the prescient view, and cautions anyone who would entertain it that this would undermine the eternality, immutability, aseity, and omniscience of God, and not only the grace of God.
Calvin’s response to this in his sermon on this passage is probably the best:
How should [God] foresee that which could not be? For we know that Adam's offspring is corrupted and that we do not have the skill to think one good thought of doing well, and much less therefore are we able to commence to do good. Although God should wait a hundred thousand years for us, if we could remain so long in the world, yet it is certain that we should never come to him nor do anything else but increase the mischief continually to our own condemnation. In short, the longer men live in the world, the deeper they lunge themselves into their own damnation. And therefore God could not foresee that what was not in us before he himself put it into us.10
Now, overlapping somewhat the efficient and formal causes of election is the love of God. He not only loved us in eternity, but loved us in going to the cross. He not only loved us beforehand, but loves us still, and will love us in the eternal state. But it is not only a theological question that drives us here. Should the words ‘in love’ (ἐν ἀγάπῃ) be the beginning of verse 5, or, as it is in the ESV, at the end of verse 4?
The two words are at the end of verse 4 in the Textus Receptus. Bucer was one magisterial Reformed who agreed with this placement. Theilman takes this view today.11 In this view, the phrase “in love” would modify the end of holiness and blamelessness, so that the Christian strives for these in love. These are pursued out of one’s love for God. Bruce represents those who think it should be in 5, as does Eadie, and the latter remarks that, “The union of ἐν ἀγάπῃ to προορίσας is sanctioned by the old Syriac version, by the fathers Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, and Jerome,” as well as by a large number of Reformed commentators he lists.12 In this view, the modifier “In love,” characterizes God’s act, so that this choice which foreordains is that which foreknows in the sense of fore-loving (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Election’s Formal Cause
The ultimate formal cause here is signified by the phrase ἐν αὐτῷ. There has been a tremendous debate about this is theological circles beginning in the mid-twentieth century, not primarily because of the grammatical or syntactical features of the text, but because of the doctrinal eccentricities of Karl Barth. He was certainly not the first to suggest a corporate election, but his understanding of Christ as the elect and reprobate Man, the former according to divine freedom and the latter according to judgment—not to mention the question of whether his system implied universalism—pressed the dogmatic premises upon this text.
Everything will turn of whether ‘in him’ (v. 4) is the efficient cause, or part of it anyway, or else the formal cause.
As I said, views of corporate election were around before Barth. Similar objections will fix on alternative objects of the choice. So, Eadie speaks of one Hofmann, who argues that “they are chosen not out of others, but chosen for a certain end—für etwas.”13 Such corporate rationale only backs up into the same uncertainty as the prescient view, as Hodge had heard in his day:
“Other say the meaning is ‘He hath chosen us because we are in him;’ the foresight of our faith, or union with Christ, being the ground of this election. This, however, cannot be admitted,—1. Because faith, or a living union with Christ, is the very blessing to which we are chosen. 2. Because it introduces into the passage more than the words express. 3. Because in this immediate connection, as well as elsewhere, the ground of this election is declared to be the good pleasure of God.”14
Corporate categories in soteriology are not problematic.15 The church is being saved, and not merely the individuals in it. Ecclesiology and soteriology go hand in hand, but there is a sense in which soteriology gets the upper hand, so to speak.
This “Him” is the personal possessive pronoun in the third singular dative. It is a dative of location, even though that is a kind of figurative “location” as compared to the spatial kind we are used to. Bruce speaks of God’s eternal choice being “completely bound up with the person of Christ.”16 Stott’s expression is helpful: “God put us and Christ together in his mind.” But of course it does not follow that Christ as the object of divine mind and the elect believers as the objects of divine mind are equally conceived in every respect. So, Stott adds, “He determined to make us (who did not yet exist) his own children through the redeeming work of Christ (which had not yet taken place).”17
It is best to see this formal cause as a hint of the “eternal covenant” (Heb. 13:20) that Reformed theologians have called the covenant of redemption. This is the foundation of the covenant of grace that moves left to right in biblical history.
Election’s End Causes
There are three end causes of election mentioned here: adoption, sanctification (or the holiness of the elect), and the glory of God. Note the practical punch of these end causes. That we are elect to the ends of adoption, holiness, and God’s glory implies that election in no way leads to impersonal coldness (contra adoption), indifferent living (contra holiness), or arrogant self-congratulations (contra the praise of His glorious grace).
As to the first—‘for adoption … as sons’ (v. 5)—Thielman renders this “adoptive sonship” since it is one word (υἱοθεσίαν, huiothesian). “In the Greek Bible,” he continues, “this is a distinctive Pauline term. It is never used in the LXX, and in the NT it appears only here and in Gal. 4:5; Rom. 8:15, 23; and 9:4. The term was common in the Greco-Roman world, where it referred to a legal practice by which the father of a family accepted as his heir a male child who was not his own.”18 The words ‘to himself’ (εἰς αὐτόν) are in the Greek text directly after Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It is a reminder that the ESV prizes clarity for the contemporary English reader, whereas the NASB, as well as KJV in this case, opt for a stricter order.
The second end cause mentioned is ‘that we should be holy’ (v. 4). This other Greek word, coupled with “holy,” namely ‘blameless’ (ἀμώμους, from ἄμωμος), is used of the spotless animal used for the sacrifices in the old covenant (Ex. 29:1, 38; Lev. 1:3, 10; Num. 6:14), and, as Thielman points out, the LXX uses the same word when speaking of the moral blamelessness of persons: e.g. 2 Sam. 22:24, 31; Ps. 14:2; 15:2.19 Taken together, these are ‘before him’ (v. 4). That is, God has elected to present the elect to Himself—“to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” (Jude 24).
This brings up one of the ways that the English language has used the word “choice,” as an adjective—that is, something that is precious. That God would chose something from eternity, and not take care that it would be presented to Himself in exactly the condition that He sought for it, is absolutely unthinkable. All of this forms a powerful answer to those who would say that, If God predestines you, then it doesn’t matter how you live. Nonsense! God will obtain exactly what He has set out for, and all the more so in the sphere of holiness, as a reflection of His own moral excellence and purity.
Now to the third and last of those end causes, we must ask what is meant by this saving act of God being driven ‘to the praise of his glorious grace’ (v. 6). We may have remembered that this is a doxology, and identified these words as something of a poetic or rhetorical exclamation. It certainly does exclaim. However, there is a profound truth here. In one sense, the meaning should be straightforward: namely, that believers might praise God, or, in other words, credit God with having chosen us. This fits the New Testament theme of electing grace being on a collision course with boasting (e.g., Rom. 3:27; 4:16; 1 Cor. 1:30; 4:7; Eph. 2:8-9).
This is yet another important argument against those who say that the doctrine of election is unimportant. That is not the sense of this threefold expression, which is echoed in verses 12 and 14 about the work particular to the Son and the Spirit. One design of the act of unconditional election is that believers will believe in the doctrine of unconditional election. We can hardly put it blunter than this: God’s glory is at stake in this proper credit for salvation.
Bruce commented, “Here we are confronted by the mystery of God's grace. In the presence of such mystery we do well to be humble, acknowledging the limitations of our own understanding and paying heed to the solemnly practical purpose of God's electing grace.” Although having more to do with holy living than humility per se, Bruce seems still to have this in mind in concluding, “The predestinating love of God is commended more by those who lead holy and Christ-like lives than by those whose attempts to unravel the mystery partake of the nature of logic-chopping.”20
The doctrines of God’s sovereign grace wind up giving us a more personal and powerful vision of salvation than its supposedly more humane and practical modern alternatives. Let me offer one example that goes right to the heart. How often do we hear Evangelicals speak of God loving us “unconditionally,” and yet the majority of the same people find the picture of God ensuring our salvation apart from our meeting conditions to be somehow remote from their personal needs. Part of the problem is how that word “unconditionally” is functioning. To say that God “saves us unconditionally” and that God “elects unconditionally” are actually worlds apart. The former marginalizes all conditions per se. It ignores the fact that infinite holiness is the most insurmountable condition imaginable, and that this is precisely the condition standing in between God and all sinners. Hence, it is not that salvation as a whole is unconditional, but rather the ground of God's choice to save whom He wills. That is why the Reformed call this doctrine unconditional election. Nothing conditioned God’s choice.
______________________
1. Hendriksen, Ephesians, 74-80.
2. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, 18.
3. Thielman, Ephesians, 47.
4. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, 18.
5. Thielman, Ephesians, 48.
6. Thielman, Ephesians, 51.
7. εὐδοκίαν is here in the feminine singular accusative, and is the gloss of the word.
8. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: God and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 345.
9. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, 26.
10. Calvin, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians (1562; reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975), 31-32.
11. Thielman, Ephesians, 49-50.
12. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 30.
13. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, 19.
14. Hodge, A Commentary on Ephesians, 8
15. For example, there was already a corporate kind of adoption in the Bible and this was expanding on that idea, but not by a simple transference. Anticipating the discussion about Israel and the Gentiles in 2:11-18, Paul here speaks of adopted sons. Thielman comments, “Both the OT and Jewish literature of the Second Temple period claim that God’s people Israel are his ‘sons’ (LXX υἱοὶ, huioi: Deut. 14:1; Isa. 1:2; 30:9; Hos. 1:10 [2:1 MT, LXX]; Wis. 12:21; 16:26), his ‘children’ (LXX τέκνα, tekna: Deut. 32:5; Isa. 63:8; Wis. 16:21), or comprise his ‘firstborn son’ (Exod. 4:22-23; Jer. 31:9: Sir. 36:17; cf. Wis. 18:13; Jub. 2:20; 2 Esd. [4 Ezra] 6:58; 4Q504 3.6-7; Hos. 11:1). This relationship had become strained through Israel’s rebellion (Deut. 32:5, 19; Isa. 1:2; 30:1) but would one day be fully restored in the eschatological age (e.g., Isa. 63:8-9; Hos. 1:10 ...) Paul believed that the presence of God’s Spirit among believers was evidence that this time of eschatological restoration has begun, that believers were God’s children, that they were now spiritually related to Jesus—God’s Son par excellence—and that they were heirs with him of a future glory when their bodily resurrection would make their ‘adoptive sonship’ complete (Gal. 4:1-7; Rom. 8:14-17; cf. 2 Cor. 6:18).” — Ephesians, 52.
16. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 28.
17. Stott, The Message of Ephesians, 36.
18. Thielman, Ephesians, 52.
19. Thielman, Ephesians, 49.
20. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 28
