Albert Barnes Commentary Ephesians 1

INTRODUCTION to EPHESIANS

THE SITUATION OF EPHESUS, AND THE CHARACTER OF ITS PEOPLE.

This Epistle purports to have been written to "the saints at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus," though, as we shall see, the fact of its having been directed to the church at Ephesus has been called in question. Assuming now that it was sent to Ephesus, it is important to have a general view of the situation of that city, of the character of its people, and of the time and manner in which the gospel was introduced there, in order to correctly understand the epistle.

Ephesus was a celebrated city of Ionia in Asia Minor, about 40 miles south of Smyrna, and near the mouth of the river Cayster. The river, though inferior in beauty to the Meander, which flows south of it, waters a fertile valley of ancient Ionia. Ionia was the most beautiful and fertile part of Asia Minor, settled almost wholly by Greek colonies, and included Pergamos, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Miletus.

See Travels of Anacharsis, i.91, 208; vi.192, 97, 98. The climate of Ionia is represented as remarkably mild, and the air as pure and sweet; this region became early celebrated for everything that constitutes softness and effeminacy in life. Its people were distinguished for amiability and refinement of manners, and also for luxury, music, dancing, and the seductive arts that lead to vicious indulgence. Numerous festivals occupied them at home or attracted them to neighboring cities, where the men appeared in magnificent attire, and the women in all the elegance of female ornament and with a strong desire for pleasure. — Anacharsis.

Ephesus was not, like Smyrna, distinguished for commercial advantages. Consequently, lacking such advantages, it has fallen into total ruin, while Smyrna has retained some degree of its ancient importance. It was in a rich region and seems to have risen to importance mainly because it became the favorite resort of foreigners for the worship of Diana, owing its celebrity more to its temple than to anything else. This city was once, however, the most splendid city in Asia Minor. Stephens, the geographer, gives it the title of Epiphanestate, or "Most Illustrious;" Pliny styled it "The Ornament of Asia." In Roman times it was the metropolis of Asia and unquestionably rose to a degree of splendor surpassed by few, if any, oriental cities.

The city was most celebrated for the temple of Diana. This temple was 425 feet in length and 220 in breadth. It was encompassed by 127 pillars, each 60 feet in height, presented by as many kings. Some of those pillars, it is said, can still be seen in the Hagia Sophia at Constantinople, having been removed there when the church of Hagia Sophia was erected. These, however, were the pillars that constituted a part of the temple after it had been burned and repaired, though it is probable that the same pillars were retained in the second temple which had constituted the glory of the first.

All the provinces of Asia Minor contributed to the erection of this splendid temple, and two hundred years were consumed in building it. This temple was set on fire by a man named Herostratus, who, when put to the torture, confessed that his only motive was to immortalize his name. The general assembly of the states of Ionia passed a decree to consign his name to oblivion, but the fact of the decree has only served to perpetuate it (Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.27; Plutarch, Life of Alexander; Compare Anacharsis vi.189). The entire edifice was consumed, except the four walls and some of the columns.

It was, however, rebuilt with the same magnificence as before and was regarded as one of the wonders of the world. It is now in utter ruin. After the temple had been repeatedly pillaged by barbarians, Justinian removed the columns to adorn the church of Hagia Sophia at Constantinople. The place where it stood can now be identified with certainty, if at all, only by the marshy spot on which it was erected and by the prodigious arches raised above as a foundation. The vaults formed by them compose a sort of labyrinth, and the water is knee-deep beneath. Not an apartment remains entire; thick walls, shafts of columns, and fragments of every kind are scattered around in confusion (Ency. Geog. ii.273-274).

In the reign of Tiberius, Ephesus was greatly damaged by an earthquake but was repaired and embellished by the emperor. In the war between Mithridates and the Romans, Ephesus took part with the former and massacred the Romans who lived in it. Sulla severely punished this cruelty, but Ephesus was afterward treated with leniency and enjoyed its own laws, along with other privileges. About the end of the eleventh century, it was seized by a pirate named Tangripermes, but he was routed by John Ducas, the Greek admiral, in a bloody battle. Theodorus Lascarus, a Greek, took control of it in 1206. The Muslims recovered it in 1283. In the year 1401, Tamerlane employed a whole month in plundering the city and the neighboring country. Shortly after, the city was set on fire and was mostly burned in a combat between the Turkish governor and the Tartars. In 1405, it was taken by Mehmed I and has continued since that time in the possession of the Turks. (Calmet).

There is now a small and humble village named Ayasaluk, near the site of the ancient town, consisting of a few cottages, which is all that now represents this city of ancient splendor. Dr. Chandler says, "The inhabitants are a few Greek peasants, living in extreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility; the representatives of an illustrious people, and inhabiting the wreck of their greatness—some in the substructures of the glorious edifices which they raised—some beneath the vaults of the Stadium, once the crowded scene of their entertainments—and some by the abrupt precipice in the sepulchers which received their ashes. Its streets are obscured and overgrown. A herd of goats was driven to it for shelter from the sun at noon, and a noisy flight of crows, from the quarries, seemed to insult its silence. We heard the partridge call in the area of the theatre and the stadium. The glorious pomp of its heathen worship is no longer numbered; and Christianity which was here nursed by apostles, and fostered by general councils, until it increased to full stature, barely lingers on in an existence hardly visible." (Travels, p. 131, Oxford, 1775).

A very full and interesting description of Ephesus, as it appeared in 1739, can be found in Pococke's Travels (Vol. II, Part II, pp. 45–53, London edition, 1745). Several ruins are described by him, but they have mostly now disappeared. The temple of Diana was on the western side of the plain on which the city was built, and the site is now in the midst of a morass which renders access difficult. The ruins of several theaters and other buildings are described by Pococke.

In the year 1821, Mr. Fisk, the American Missionary, visited the ruins of Ephesus, of which he has given the following account: "We sent back our horses to Ayasaluk and set out on foot to survey the ruins of Ephesus. The ground was covered with high grass or grain, and a very heavy dew rendered the walking rather unpleasant. On the east side of the hill, we found nothing worthy of notice; no appearance of having been occupied for buildings. On the north side was the circus or stadium. Its length, from east to west, is forty rods or one stadium. The north or lower side was supported by arches, which still remain. The area, where the races used to be performed, is now a field of wheat. At the west end was the gate. The walls adjoining it are still standing and are of considerable height and strength. North of the stadium, and separated only by a street, is a large square, enclosed with fallen walls, and filled with the ruins of various edifices. A street running north and south divides this square in the center. West of the stadium is an elevation of ground level at the top, with an immense pedestal in the center of it. What building stood there it is not easy to say. Between this and the stadium was a street passing from the great plain north of Ephesus into the midst of the city."

"I found on the plains of Ephesus some Greek peasants, men and women, employed in pulling up tares and weeds from the wheat. I ascertained, however, that they all belonged to villages at a distance and came there to labor. Tournefort says that, when he was at Ephesus, there were thirty or forty Greek families there. Chandler found only ten or twelve individuals. Now no human being lives in Ephesus; and in Ayasaluk, which may be considered as Ephesus under another name, though not on precisely the same spot of ground, there are merely a few miserable Turkish huts."

"The plain of Ephesus is now very unhealthy, owing to the fogs and mist which almost continually rest upon it. The land, however, is rich, and the surrounding country is both fertile and healthy. The adjacent hills would furnish many delightful situations for villages, if the difficulties were removed which are thrown in the way by a despotic government, oppressive aghas, and wandering bandits." (Missionary Herald, 1821, p. 219).

II. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL AT EPHESUS

It is admitted by all that the gospel was introduced into Ephesus by the Apostle Paul. He first preached there when on his way from Corinth to Jerusalem, about the year 54 (Acts 18:19). On this visit, he went into the synagogue, as was his usual custom, and preached to his own countrymen, but he does not appear to have preached publicly to the Gentiles. He was requested to remain longer with them, but he said he must by all means be in Jerusalem at the approaching feast—probably the Passover (Acts 18:21). He promised, however, to visit them again if possible, and sailed from Ephesus to Jerusalem.

Two persons had gone with Paul from Corinth—Priscilla and Aquila—whom he appears to have left at Ephesus, or who at any rate soon returned there (Acts 18:18, 26). During Paul's absence, a certain Jew born in Alexandria, named Apollos, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures, who had received the baptism of John and taught the doctrine John had taught (Acts 18:24–25). It is difficult now to understand the precise nature of that doctrine. It seems to have been, in substance, that repentance was necessary, that baptism was to be performed, and that the Messiah was about to appear. Apollos had embraced this doctrine with zeal, was ready to defend it, and was in just the state of mind to welcome the news that the Messiah had come. Priscilla and Aquila instructed this zealous and talented man more fully in the doctrines of the Christian religion, communicating to him the views they had received from Paul (Acts 18:26).

Paul, having gone to Jerusalem as he intended, returned again to Asia Minor. Taking Phrygia and Galatia in his way, he revisited Ephesus and remained there about three years (Acts 18:23; 19:1 and following). It was during this time that the church was founded, which afterward became so prominent and to which this epistle was written. The principal events in Paul's life there were:

1. His baptizing the twelve persons whom he found there, who were disciples of John (see notes on Acts 19:1 and following).
2. Paul went into the synagogue there and engaged in an earnest discussion with the Jews for about three months concerning the Messiah (Acts 19:8–10).
3. When many of the Jews opposed him, he left the synagogue and obtained a place to preach in the schoolroom of a man named Tyrannus. In this place, he continued to preach without harassment for two years and proclaimed the gospel so that a large portion of the inhabitants had an opportunity of hearing it.
4. The cause of religion was greatly promoted by the miracles Paul performed (Acts 19:11–17).
5. Paul remained there until his preaching excited great commotion, and he was at last driven away by the tumult instigated by Demetrius (Acts 19:23–41). At this time, the gospel had secured such a hold on the people that there was danger that the temple of Diana would be abandoned and that all who depended on the worship of Diana for their livelihood would be thrown out of employment. It is not probable that Paul visited Ephesus after this, unless it was after his first imprisonment at Rome (see Introduction to 2 Timothy). On his way from Macedonia to Jerusalem, he came to Miletus, sent for the elders of Ephesus, and gave them his deeply affecting parting address, expecting to see them no more (Acts 20:16 and following).

Paul remained longer at Ephesus preaching the gospel than he did at any other single place. He seems to have deliberately set himself to establish a church there that would ultimately overthrow idolatry. Several reasons may have led him to depart so far from his usual plan by laboring so long in one place.

One reason may have been that this was the principal seat of idolatry then in the world. The evident aim of Paul in his ministry was to reach the centers of influence and power. Hence, he mainly sought to preach the gospel in large cities; thus, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Athens, Philippi, and Rome shared so largely in his labors. Not ashamed of the gospel anywhere, he yet sought mainly that its power should be felt where wealth, learning, genius, and talent were concentrated. Therefore, the very places where the most magnificent temples were erected to the gods, where the worship of idols was celebrated with the most splendor and pomp, and where that worship was most strongly defended by the civil authorities, were those in which the apostles first sought to preach the gospel.

Ephesus, therefore, as the most splendid seat of idolatry at that time in the whole pagan world, particularly attracted the Apostle's attention. This is why he was willing to spend so large a part of his public life in that place. It may have been for this reason that John afterward made it his permanent abode and spent so many years there as the minister of the church Paul had founded (see § III).

Another reason Paul sought Ephesus as a field of labor may have been that it was at that time not only the principal seat of idolatry but also a place of great importance in the civil affairs of the Roman Empire. It was the residence of the Roman proconsul and the seat of the courts of justice in Asia Minor, and consequently was a place to which a great amount of learning and talent would be attracted (Macknight). The Apostle, therefore, seems to have been anxious that the full power of the gospel should be tried there, and that Ephesus should become as important as a center of influence in the Christian world as it had been in paganism and in civil affairs.

III. NOTICES OF THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AT EPHESUS

The church at Ephesus was one of the seven churches of Asia and the first one mentioned to which John was directed to address an epistle from Patmos (Revelation 2:1–7). Little is said of it in the New Testament from the time Paul left it until the Book of Revelation was written. The tradition is that Timothy was a minister at Ephesus and was succeeded by the Apostle John; but whether John came there while Timothy was living, or not until his removal or death, even tradition does not inform us. In the subscription to the Second Epistle to Timothy, it is said of Timothy that he was "ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians;" but this is of no authority whatever.

All that can be learned with certainty about Timothy's residence at Ephesus is what the Apostle Paul says of him in his First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3): "As I besought you to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that you might charge some that they teach no other doctrine." From this, it would appear that Timothy's residence at Ephesus was a temporary arrangement, designed to achieve a result Paul particularly wished to secure and to avoid an evil he had reason to dread would follow from his own absence.

That it was a temporary arrangement is apparent from the fact that Paul soon after desired him to come to Rome (2 Timothy 4:9, 11). The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written only a few years after the first. According to Lardner, the first was written in the year 56, and the second in the year 62; according to Hug, the first was written in the year 59, and the second in the year 61; according to the editor of the Polyglott Bible, the first was written A.D. 65, and the second A.D. 66. According to either calculation, Timothy's residence in Ephesus was brief. There is not the slightest evidence from the New Testament that he was a permanent bishop of Ephesus, or indeed that he was a bishop at all in the modern sense of the term.

Those who may be disposed to look further into this matter, and to examine the relation Timothy sustained to the church of Ephesus and the claim sometimes made that he held the office of a bishop, may find an examination in the Review of Bishop Onderdonk's Tract on Episcopacy, published in the Quarterly Christian Spectator in March 1834 and March 1835, and republished in 1843 under the title "The Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church" (pp. 91–114, London edition).

Whatever the relation he sustained to the church in Ephesus, it is agreed on all hands that John the Apostle spent a considerable portion of his life there. At what time he went to Ephesus, or why he did so, is not now known. The common opinion is that he remained at or near Jerusalem for some fifteen years after the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, during which time he had the special care of Mary, the mother of the Saviour; that he then preached the gospel to the Parthians and the Indians, and that he then returned and went to Ephesus, in or near which he spent his latter days and in which, at a very advanced age, he died.

It was from Ephesus that, under Emperor Domitian in A.D. 95, he was banished to the island of Patmos. He returned in A.D. 97 on the accession of Nerva to the crown, who recalled all who had been banished. John is supposed at that time to have been about ninety years of age. He is said to have died at Ephesus in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100, aged about ninety-four years. For a full and interesting biography of the Apostle John, the reader may consult "Lives of the Apostles" by David Francis Bacon (pp. 307–376).

Of the subsequent history of the church at Ephesus, little is known, and it would not be necessary to dwell upon it for an exposition of the epistle before us. It is sufficient to remark that the "candlestick is removed out of its place" (Revelation 2:5), and that all the splendor of the temple of Diana, all the pomp of her worship, and all the glory of the Christian church there, have alike faded away.

IV. THE TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE EPISTLE

It has never been denied that the Apostle Paul was the author of this epistle, though it has been made a question whether it was written to the Ephesians or to the Laodiceans (see § V). Dr. Paley (Horae Paulinae) has shown that there is conclusive internal proof that this epistle was written by Paul. This argument is derived from the style and is carried out by a comparison of this epistle with the other undoubted writings of the Apostle. The historical evidence on this point also is undisputed.

It is generally supposed, and indeed the evidence seems clear, that this epistle was written during the Apostle's imprisonment at Rome; but whether it was during his first or his second imprisonment is not certain. Paul was held in custody for some two years in Caesarea (Acts 24:27), but there is no evidence that during that time he addressed any epistle to the churches he had planted.

That this was written when he was a prisoner is apparent from the epistle itself. "The two years in which Paul was imprisoned at Caesarea," says Wall, as quoted by Lardner, "seem to have been the most inactive part of St. Paul's life. There is no account of any proceedings or disputations, or of any epistles written in this space." This may have arisen, Lardner supposes, from the fact that the Jews made such opposition that the Roman governor would not allow him to have any intercourse with the people at large or to procure any intelligence from the churches abroad.

But when he was at Rome, he had more liberty. He was allowed to dwell in his own hired house (Acts 28:30) and had permission to address all who came to him and to communicate freely with his friends abroad. It was during this period that he wrote at least four of his epistles—to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon.

Grotius, as quoted by Lardner, says of these epistles that though all Paul's epistles are excellent, he most admires those written by him when a prisoner at Rome. Of the Epistle to the Ephesians, he says it surpasses all human eloquence—rerum sublimitatem adsequans verbis sublimioribus, quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana—describing the sublimity of the things by corresponding words more sublime than are found elsewhere in human language.

The evidence that it was written when Paul was a prisoner is found in the epistle itself. Thus, in Ephesians 3:1, he says, "I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ—ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ—for you Gentiles." So he alludes to his afflictions in Ephesians 3:13: "I desire that you faint not at my tribulations for you." In Ephesians 4:1, he calls himself "the prisoner of the Lord," or, as a marginal note might say, "in the Lord"—ὁ δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ.

And in Ephesians 6:19-20, there is an allusion which seems to settle the inquiry beyond dispute and to prove that it was written while he was at Rome. He there says that he was "an ambassador in bonds"—ἐν ἁλύσει (in chains, manacles, or shackles); and yet he desires (Ephesians 6:19–20) that they would pray for him, that utterance might be given him to open his mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, that he might speak boldly, as he ought to speak.

Now, this is a remarkable circumstance. A man in custody, in bonds or chains, and that for being an "ambassador," yet asking for their prayers that in these circumstances he might have grace to be a bold preacher of the gospel. If he were in prison, this could not be. If he were under a strict prohibition, it could not well be.

The circumstances of the case correspond exactly with the statement in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles: that Paul was in custody at Rome; that he was permitted to "dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him" (Acts 28:16); that he was permitted to call the Jews together and to debate with them freely (Acts 28:17–28); and that Paul lived in his own hired house for two years and "received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God," etc. (Acts 28:30–31). So exactly do these circumstances correspond that I have no doubt that was the time when the epistle was written.

And so unusual is such a train of circumstances—so unlikely would it be for a man to forge such a coincidence—that it furnishes striking proof that the epistle was written by Paul, as it purports to be. An impostor would not have thought of inventing such a coincidence. If it had occurred to him to make any such allusion, the place and time would have been more distinctly mentioned and not left as a mere incidental allusion.

The Apostle Paul is supposed to have been at Rome as a prisoner twice (compare Introduction to 2 Timothy) and to have suffered martyrdom there about A.D. 65 or 66. If the Epistle to the Ephesians was written during his second imprisonment at Rome, as is commonly supposed, then it must have been written sometime between the years 63 and 65. Lardner and Hug suppose that it was written in April 61; Macknight supposes it was in 60 or 61; the editor of the Polyglott Bible places it at 64. The exact time it was written cannot now be ascertained and is not material.

V. TO WHOM WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN?

The epistle purports to have been written to the Ephesians—"to the saints which are at Ephesus" (Ephesians 1:1). But the opinion that it was written to the Ephesians has been questioned by many expositors. Dr. Paley (Horae Paulinae) supposes that it was written to the Laodiceans. Wetstein also maintained the same opinion.

This opinion was also expressly stated by Marcion, a "heretic" of the second century. Michaelis (Introduction) supposes that it was a "circular" epistle, addressed not to any particular church but intended for the Ephesians, Laodiceans, and some other churches in Asia Minor. He supposes that the Apostle had several copies made; that he intentionally made it of a very general character so as to suit all; that he affixed with his own hand the subscription (Ephesians 6:24) to each copy—"Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity;" that at the beginning of the epistle the name of the particular church to which it was to be sent was inserted—as "to the church in Ephesus," "in Laodicea," etc. When the several works composing the New Testament were collected into a volume, he supposes that it so happened that the copy of this epistle which was used was one obtained from Ephesus, containing a direction to the saints there.

This is also the opinion of Archbishop Ussher and Koppe. It does not align with the design of these Notes to go into an extended examination of the question. After all that has been written on it and the different opinions entertained, it certainly does not behoove anyone to be very confident. It is not a question of great importance, as it involves no point of doctrine or duty. However, those who wish to see it discussed at length can be satisfied by referring to Paley's Horae Paulinae, to Michaelis' Introduction (Vol. IV, Chap. XX), and to the Prolegomena of Koppe. The arguments alluded to, which suggest it was addressed to the church at Laodicea, or at least not to the church at Ephesus, are summarily the following:

1. The testimony of Marcion, a heretic of the second century, who affirms that it was sent to the church in Laodicea, and that instead of the reading "in Ephesus" (Ephesians 1:1) in the copy he had, it was "in Laodicea." But Marcion's opinion is now regarded as of little weight. It is admitted that he was in the habit of altering the Greek text to suit his own views.

Continuation of Notes for Verse 1. (The specific verse is addressed at the end of this note.)

The principal objection to the opinion that it was written to the church at Ephesus is found in certain internal marks, and particularly in the lack of any allusion to the fact that Paul had ever been there, or to anything that particularly related to the church there. This difficulty comprises several particulars:

1. Paul spent nearly three years in Ephesus and was engaged there in deeply interesting transactions and occurrences. He had founded the church, ordained its elders, taught them the doctrines which they held, and had at last been persecuted there and driven away. If the epistle was written to them, it is remarkable that there is in the epistle no allusion to any one of these facts or circumstances. This is the more remarkable, as it was his usual custom to allude to the events which had occurred in the churches which he had founded (see the epistles to the Corinthians and Philippians), and as on two other occasions at least he makes direct allusion to these transactions at Ephesus. See Acts 20:18-35; 1 Corinthians 15:32.

2. In the other epistles which Paul wrote, it was his custom to salute a large number of persons by name; but in this epistle there is no salutation of any kind. There is a general invocation of peace to the brethren (Ephesians 6:23), but no mention of an individual by name. There is not even an allusion to the "elders" whom, with so much affection, he had addressed at Miletus (Acts 20), and to whom he had given so solemn a charge. This is the more remarkable, as in this place he had spent three years in preaching the gospel, and must have been acquainted with all the leading members in the church. To the church at Rome, which he had never visited when he wrote his epistle to the Romans, he sends a large number of salutations (Romans 16); to the church at Ephesus, where he had spent a longer time than in any other place, he sends none.

3. The name of Timothy does not occur in the epistle. This is remarkable, because Paul had left him there with a special charge (1 Timothy 1:3), and if he was still there, it is singular that no allusion is made to him, and no salutation sent to him. If he had left Ephesus, and had gone to Rome to meet Paul as he requested (2 Timothy 4:9), it is remarkable that Paul did not join his name with his own in sending the epistle to the church, or at least allude to the fact that he had arrived. This is the more remarkable, because in the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the name of Timothy is joined with that of Paul at the commencement of the epistle.

4. Paul speaks of the persons to whom this epistle was sent as if he had not been with them, or at least in a manner which is hardly conceivable on the supposition that he had been the founder of the church. Thus, in Ephesians 1:15-16, he says, Wherefore also after I heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, etc. But this circumstance is not conclusive. Paul may have been told of the continuance of their faith, and of their growing love and zeal, and he may have alluded to that in this passage.

5. Another circumstance on which some reliance has been placed is the statement in Ephesians 3:1-2, For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given toward you, etc. It is argued (see Michaelis) that this is not language which would have been employed by one who had founded the church, and with whom they were all acquainted. He would not have spoken in a manner implying any doubt whether they had ever heard of him and his labors in the ministry on account of the Gentiles. Such are the considerations relied on to show that the epistle could not have been written to the Ephesians.

On the other hand, there is proof of a very strong character that it was written to them. That proof is the following:

1. The common reading in Ephesians 1:1, To the saints which are in Ephesus. It is true, as we have seen, that this reading has been called in question. Mill says that it is omitted by Basil (Lib. 2. Adversus Eunomium), as he says, "on the testimony of the fathers and of ancient copies." Griesbach marks it with the sign om., denoting that it was omitted by some, but that in his judgment it is to be retained. It is found in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Ethiopic in Walton's Polyglott. Rosenmuller remarks that "most of the ancient codices, and all the ancient versions, retain the word." To my mind this fact is conclusive. The testimony of Marcion is admitted to be of almost no authority; and as to the testimony of Basil, it is only one against the testimony of all the ancients, and is at best negative in its character. See the passage from Basil, quoted in Hug's Introduction.

2. A slight circumstance may be adverted to as throwing light incidentally on this question. This epistle was sent by Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21). The epistle to the Colossians was also sent from Rome by the same messenger (Colossians 4:7). Now there is a strong improbability in the opinion held by Michaelis, Koppe, and others, that this was a circular letter, sent to the churches at large, or that different copies were prepared, and the name Ephesus inserted in one, and Laodicea in another, etc.

   The improbability is this: that the apostle would at the same time send such a circular letter to several of the churches, and a special letter to the church at Colosse. What claim had that church to special notice? What pre-eminence had it over the church at Ephesus? And why should he send them a letter bearing so strong a resemblance to that addressed to the other churches, when the same letter would have suited the church at Colosse as well as the one which was actually sent to them; for there is a nearer resemblance between these two epistles than any other two portions of the Bible. Besides, in 2 Timothy 4:12, Paul says that he had sent "Tychicus to Ephesus;" and what is more natural than that, at that time, he sent this epistle by him?

3. There is the utter lack of evidence from manuscripts or versions that this epistle was sent to Laodicea, or to any other church, except Ephesus. Not a manuscript has been found having the name Laodicea in Ephesians 1:1; and not one which omits the words in Ephesus. If it had been sent to another church, or if it had been a circular letter addressed to no particular church, it is scarcely credible that this could have occurred.

These considerations make it plain to me that this epistle was addressed, as it purports to have been, to the church in Ephesus. I confess myself wholly unable, however, to explain the remarkable circumstances that Paul does not refer to his former residence there; that he alludes to none of his troubles or his triumphs; that he makes no mention of the "elders," and salutes no one by name; and that throughout he addresses them as if they were to him personally unknown.

In this respect it is unlike all the other epistles which he ever wrote, and all which we should have expected from a man in such circumstances. May it not be accounted for from this very fact, that an attempt to specify individuals where so many were known, would protract the epistle to an unreasonable length?

There is, indeed, one supposition suggested by Dr. Macknight, which may possibly explain to some extent the remarkable circumstances above referred to. It is that a direction may have been given by Paul to Tychicus, by whom he sent the letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans, with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians. In such a case everything local would be designedly omitted, and the epistle would be of as general a character as possible. This is, however, mere conjecture, and does not remove the whole of the difficulty.

The rest of the material for this note is continued in the note for Ephesians 1:2 due to space limitations for this note.

VI.—THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN.

Very various opinions have been formed regarding the design for which this epistle was written. Macknight supposes that it was with reference to the Eleusinian mysteries, and to various religious rites in the temple of Diana, and that Paul intended particularly to state the "mysteries" of the gospel in contradistinction from them.

But there is no clear evidence that the apostle had any such object, and it is not necessary to go into an explanation of those mysteries in order to understand the epistle. The epistle is such as might be addressed to any Christians, though there are allusions to customs which then prevailed, and to opinions then held, which it is desirable to understand in order to a just view of it.

That there were Jews and Judaizing Christians in Ephesus may be learned from the epistle itself. That there were those there who supposed that the Jews were to have a more elevated rank than the Gentiles may also be learned from the epistle; and one object was to show that all true Christians, whether of Jewish or Heathen origin, were on a level, and were entitled to the same privileges. That a false and dangerous philosophy prevailed there may also be learned from the epistle; and that there were those who attempted to cause divisions, and who had violated the unity of the faith, may also be learned from it.

The epistle is divided into two parts—

I. The doctrinal part, chapters 1–3; and,

1. Praise to God for the revelation of his eternal counsels of recovering mercy (Ephesians 1:3–14).

2. A prayer of the apostle, expressing his earnest desire that the Ephesians might avail themselves fully of all the advantages of this eternal purpose of mercy (Ephesians 1:15–23).

3. The doctrine of the native character of man, as being dead in sins, illustrated by the past lives of the Ephesians (Ephesians 2:1–3).

4. The doctrine of regeneration by the grace of God, and the advantages of it (Ephesians 2:4–7).

5. The doctrine of salvation by grace alone, without respect to our own works (Ephesians 2:8–9).

6. The privilege of being thus admitted to the fellowship of the saints (Ephesians 2:11–22).

7. A full statement of the doctrine that God meant to admit the Gentiles to the privileges of his people, and to break down the barriers between the Gentiles and the Jews (Ephesians 3:1–12).

8. The apostle prays earnestly that they might avail themselves fully of this doctrine, and be able to appreciate fully the advantages which it was intended to confer; and with this prayer he closes the doctrinal part of the epistle (Ephesians 3:13–21).

II. The practical part, or the application, chapters 4–6.

1. Exhortation to unity, drawn from the consideration that there was one God, one faith, etc. (Ephesians 4:1–16).

2. An exhortation to a holy life in general, from the fact that they differed from other Gentiles (Ephesians 4:17–24).

3. Exhortation to exhibit particular virtues—specifying what was required by their religion, and what they should avoid—particularly to avoid the vices of anger, lying, licentiousness, and intemperance (Ephesians 4:25–32; Ephesians 5:1–21).

4. The duties of husbands and wives (Ephesians 5:22–33).

5. The duties of parents and children (Ephesians 6:1–4).

6. The duties of masters and servants (Ephesians 6:5–9).

7. An exhortation to fidelity in the Christian warfare (Ephesians 6:10–20).

8. Conclusion (Ephesians 6:21–24).

The style of this epistle is exceedingly animated. The apostle is cheered by the intelligence which he had received of their deportment in the gospel, and is warmed by the grandeur of his principal theme—the eternal purposes of Divine mercy. Into the discussion of that subject he throws his whole soul; and there is probably no part of Paul's writings where there is more ardor, elevation, and soul evinced, than in this epistle.

The great doctrine of predestination he approaches as a most important and vital doctrine; states it freely and fully, and urges it as the basis of the Christian's hope, and the foundation of eternal gratitude and praise. Perhaps nowhere is there a better illustration of the power of that doctrine to elevate the soul and fill it with grand conceptions of the character of God, and to excite grateful emotions, than in this epistle; and the Christian, therefore, may study it as a portion of the sacred writings eminently fitted to excite his gratitude and to fill him with adoring views of God.

THE EPISTLE of PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

1. The salutation (verses 1-2).

2. The doctrine of predestination, and its bearing and design (verses 3-14).

   1. It is the foundation of praise to God, and is a source of gratitude (verse 3).

   2. Christians have been chosen before the foundation of the world (verse 4).

   3. The object was that they should be holy and blameless (verse 4).

   4. They were predestined to be the children of God (verse 5).

   5. The cause of this was the good pleasure of God, or he did it according to the purpose of his will (verse 6).

   6. The object of this was his own glory (verse 6).

3. The benefits of the plan of predestination to those who are thus chosen (verses 7-14).

   1. They have redemption and the forgiveness of sins (verses 7-8).

   2. They are made acquainted with the mystery of the Divine will (verses 9-10).

   3. They have obtained an inheritance in Christ (verse 11).

   4. The object of this was the praise of the glory of God (verse 12).

   5. As the result of this, or in the execution of this purpose, they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (verses 13-14).

4. An earnest prayer that they might have a full understanding of the great and glorious plan of redemption (verses 15-23).

   1. Paul says that he had been informed of their faith (verse 15).

   2. He always remembered them in his prayers (verse 16).

   3. His especial desire was that they might see the glory of the Lord Jesus, whom God had exalted to his own right hand in heaven (verses 17-23).

Paul, an apostle. See the notes on Romans 1:1.

By the will of God. See the notes on 1 Corinthians 1:1.

To the saints. A name often given to Christians because they are holy. See the notes on 1 Corinthians 1:2.

In Ephesus. See the Introduction, § 1, 5.

And to the faithful in Christ Jesus. This evidently refers to others than to those who were in Ephesus, and it is clear that Paul expected that this epistle would be read by others. He gives it a general character, as if he supposed that it might be transcribed, and become the property of the church at large.

It was not uncommon for him thus to give a general character to the epistles which he addressed to particular churches, and so to write that others than those to whom they were particularly directed, might feel that they were addressed to them. Thus the first epistle to the Corinthians was addressed to the church of God in Corinth—with all that in every place call upon the name of Christ Jesus our Lord. The second epistle to the Corinthians, in like manner, was addressed to the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia. Perhaps, in the epistle before us, the apostle referred particularly to the churches of Asia Minor, which he had not visited, but there is no reason for confining the address to them.

All who are faithful in Christ Jesus may regard the epistle as addressed by the Holy Spirit to them, and may feel that they are as much interested in the doctrines, promises, and duties set forth in this epistle, as were the ancient Christians of Ephesus. The word "faithful" here is not used in the sense of trust-worthy, or in the sense of fidelity, as it is often employed, but in the sense of believing, or having faith in the Lord Jesus.

The apostle addresses those who were firm in the faith—another name for true Christians. The epistle contains great doctrines about the Divine purposes and decrees in which they, as Christians, were particularly concerned; important "mysteries" (Ephesians 1:9) of importance for them to understand, and which the apostle proceeds to communicate to them as such.

The fact that the letter was designed to be published shows that he was not unwilling that those high doctrines should be made known to the world at large; still they pertained particularly to the church, and they are doctrines which should be particularly addressed to the church. They are rather fitted to comfort the hearts of Christians, than to bring sinners to repentance.

These doctrines may be addressed to the church with more prospect of securing a happy effect than to the world. In the church they will excite gratitude, and produce the hope which results from assured promises and eternal purposes; in the minds of sinners they may arouse envy, and hatred, and opposition to God.

Grace be to you. See the notes on Romans 1:7.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This begins a sentence that continues to the end of Verse 12. The length of the sentences in Paul's writings is one reason his style can be obscure, making explanation often difficult.

The meaning of this phrase is that God has laid a foundation for gratitude for what He has done. The reason for the praise referred to here is what is stated in the following verses. The main thing on which the apostle focuses is God’s eternal purpose—His everlasting counsel regarding the salvation of humanity.

Paul exclaims that God is worthy of praise for such a plan, and that His eternal purposes, now revealed to people, provide lofty views of God's character and glory. Most people suppose the contrary. They feel that God’s plans are dark, stern, and forbidding, and such as to render His character anything but amiable.

They speak of Him, when He is referred to as a sovereign, as if He were tyrannical and unjust; and they never connect the idea of what is amiable and lovely with the doctrine of eternal purposes. There is no doctrine that is usually so unpopular; none that is so much reproached; none that is so much abused.

There is none that people desire so much to disbelieve or avoid; none that they are so unwilling to have preached; and none that they are so reluctant to find in the Scriptures. Even many Christians turn away from it with dread; or if they tolerate it, they still feel that there is something about it that is peculiarly dark and forbidding.

Paul did not feel this way. He felt that it laid the foundation for eternal praise; that it presented glorious views of God; that it was the basis of confidence and hope; and that it was desirable that Christians should reflect on it, and praise God for it. Let us feel, therefore, as we begin the exposition of this chapter, that God is to be praised for ALL His plans, and that it is possible for Christians to have such views of the doctrine of eternal predestination as to give them the most elevated conceptions of the glory of the Divine character.

And let us also be willing to know the truth. Let us approach word after word, phrase after phrase, and verse after verse in this chapter, willing to know all that God teaches, to believe all that He has revealed, and ready to say, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for all that He has done."

Who has blessed us. Who does Paul mean here by "us?" Does he mean all the world? This cannot be, for all the world are not blessed in this way with all spiritual blessings. Does he mean nations? For the same reason, this cannot be. Does he mean the Gentiles, as distinct from the Jews?

Why, then, does he use the word us, including himself, who was a Jew? Does he mean to say that they were blessed with external privileges, and that this was the only object of God’s eternal purposes? This cannot be, for he speaks of "spiritual blessings;" he speaks of the persons referred to as having "redemption," and "the forgiveness of sins;" as having "obtained an inheritance," and as being sealed with the "Holy Spirit of promise." These do not pertain to nations, or to external privileges, or the mere offers of the gospel, but to true Christians; to persons who have been redeemed.

The persons referred to by the word "us," are those who are mentioned in Ephesians 1:1 as "saints"—agioiv; "holy" and "faithful"—pistoiv—believing, or believers. This observation is important because it shows that the plan or decree of God referred to individuals, and not merely to nations. Many have supposed (see Whitby, Dr. A. Clarke, Bloomfield, and others) that the apostle here refers to the Gentiles, and that his object is to show that they were now admitted to the same privileges as the Jews of earlier times, and that the whole doctrine of predestination here referred to relates to that fact. But, I would ask, were there no Jews in the church at Ephesus? (See Acts 18:20, 24; 19:1-8).

The fact seems to have been that Paul was uncommonly successful there among his own countrymen, and that his chief difficulty there arose, not from the Jews, but from the influence of the heathen (Acts 19:24). Besides, what evidence is there that the apostle speaks in this chapter specifically of the Gentiles, or that he was writing to that portion of the church at Ephesus which was of Gentile origin? And if he was, why did he name himself among them as one on whom this blessing had been bestowed? The fact is, that this is a mere supposition, adopted without evidence, and contrary to every fair principle of interpretation, to avoid an unpleasant doctrine. Nothing can be clearer than that Paul meant to write to Christians as such; to speak of privileges which they enjoyed as peculiar to themselves; and that he had no particular reference to nations, and did not design merely to refer to external privileges.

With all spiritual blessings. Pardon, peace, redemption, adoption, the earnest of the Spirit, and so on, referred to in the following verses—blessings which individual Christians enjoy, and not external privileges conferred on nations.

In heavenly places in Christ. The word places is here implied, and is not in the original. It may mean heavenly places, or heavenly things. The word places does not express the best sense. The idea seems to be that God has blessed us in Christ regarding heavenly subjects or matters.

In Ephesians 1:20, the word "places" seems to be inserted more appropriately. The same phrase occurs again in Ephesians 2:6 and Ephesians 3:10; and it is remarkable that it should occur in the same elliptical form four times in this one epistle, and, I believe, in no other part of Paul’s writings.

Our translators have, in each instance, supplied the word "places," as indicating the rank or station of Christians, of the angels, and of the Savior, to each of whom it is applied. The phrase probably means, in things pertaining to heaven; fitted to prepare us for heaven; and tending toward heaven.

It probably refers here to everything that was heavenly in its nature, or that related to heaven, whether gifts or graces. As the apostle is speaking, however, of most Christians on whom these things had been bestowed, I am inclined to think that he refers to what are called Christian graces, rather than to the extraordinary endowments bestowed on the few. The sense is, that in Christ, that is, through Christ, or by means of Him, God had bestowed all spiritual blessings that were fitted to prepare for heaven—such as pardon, adoption, the illumination of the Spirit, and so on.

According as. The importance of this verse makes a somewhat detailed examination of the words and phrases that compose it appropriate. The general sense of the passage is that these heavenly blessings were bestowed upon Christians in accordance with an eternal purpose. They were not conferred by chance or haphazard.

They were the result of intention and design on God's part. Their value was greatly enhanced by the fact that God had designed from all eternity to bestow them, and that they come to us as the result of His everlasting plan. It was not a recent plan; it was not an afterthought; it was not by mere chance; it was not by caprice; it was the fruit of an eternal counsel.

Those blessings had all the value, and all the assurance of permanency, that must result from that fact. The phrase "according as"—kaywv—implies that these blessings were in conformity with that eternal plan and have flowed to us as the expression of that plan. They are limited by that purpose, for it marks and measures all. It was as God had chosen that it should be, and had appointed in His eternal purpose.

He has chosen us. The word "us" here shows that the apostle was referring to individuals, not to communities. It includes Paul himself as one of the "chosen," and those whom he addressed—the mixed Gentile and Jewish converts in Ephesus. That it must refer to individuals is clear. Of no community, as such, can it be said that it was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy. It is not true of the Gentile world as such, nor of any one of the nations making up the Gentile world.

The word rendered here "has chosen"—exelexato—is from a word meaning to lay out together (Passow), to choose out, to select. It has the idea of making a choice or selection among different objects or things. It is applied to things, as in Luke 10:42: Mary hath chosen that good part;—she has made a choice, or selection of it, or has shown a preference for it. 1 Corinthians 1:27: God hath chosen the foolish things of the world; He has preferred to make use of them among all conceivable things that could have been employed to confound the wise. (Compare to Acts 1:2, 24; Acts 6:5; Acts 15:22, 25).

It denotes to choose out with the accessory idea of kindness or favor. Mark 13:20: For the elect's sake whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.John 13:18: I know whom I have chosen.Acts 13:17: The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers; that is, selected them from the nations to accomplish important purposes.

This is evidently the sense of the word in the present passage. It means to make a selection or choice, with the idea of favor or love, and with a view to impart important benefits on those whom He chose. The idea of making some distinction between them and others is essential to a correct understanding of the passage—since there can be no choice where no such distinction is made.

He who chooses one out of many things makes a difference, or shows a preference—no matter what His ground or reason for doing so may be. Whether this refers to communities and nations, or to individuals, it is still true that a distinction is made, or a preference given to one over another.

It may be added that, as far as justice is concerned, it makes no difference whether it refers to nations or to individuals. If there is injustice in choosing an individual to favor, there cannot be less in choosing a nation—for a nation is nothing but a collection of individuals.

Every objection that has ever been made to the doctrine of election as it relates to individuals will apply with equal force to the choice of a nation for peculiar privileges. If a distinction is made, it may be made with as much propriety regarding individuals as regarding nations.

In Him. In Christ. The choice was not without reference to any means of saving them; it was not a mere purpose to bring a certain number to heaven. It was with reference to the mediation of the Redeemer and His work. It was a purpose that they should be saved by Him and share the benefits of the atonement. The whole choice and purpose of salvation had reference to Him, and apart from Him no one was chosen to life, and no one apart from Him will be saved.

Before the foundation of the world. This is a very important phrase in determining the time when the choice was made. It was not an afterthought. It was not commenced in time. The purpose was far back in the ages of eternity. But what is the meaning of the phrase "before the foundation of the world?"

Dr. Clarke supposes that it means "from the commencement of the religious system of the Jews, which," he says, "the phrase sometimes means." Such principles of interpretation are those compelled to resort to who endeavor to show that this refers to a national election to privileges, and who deny that it refers to individuals.

On such principles, the Bible may be made to signify anything and everything. Dr. Chandler, who also supposes that it refers to nations, admits, however, that the word "foundation" means the beginning of anything, and that the phrase here means, "before the world began." There is scarcely any phrase in the New Testament clearer in its meaning than this.

The word rendered "foundation"—katabolh—means, properly, a laying down, a founding, a foundation—as where the foundation of a building is laid. The phrase "before the foundation of the world" clearly means before the world was made, or before the work of creation. (Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 13:8), in all these places the phrase "the foundation of the world" means the beginning of human affairs, the beginning of the world, the beginning of history, etc.

Thus, in John 17:24, the Lord Jesus says, thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world, that is, from eternity, or before the work of creation commenced. Thus Peter says (1 Peter 1:20) of the Savior, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world. It was the purpose of God, before the worlds were made, to send Him to save lost men.

. Nothing can be clearer than that this phrase must refer to a purpose that was formed before the world was made. It is not a temporary arrangement; it has not grown up under the influence of vacillating purposes; it is not a plan newly formed, or changed with each coming generation, or variable like the plans of men. It has all the importance, dignity, and assurances of stability that necessarily result from a purpose that has been eternal in the mind of God. It may be observed here:

1. If the plan was formed "before the foundation of the world," all objections to the doctrine of an eternal plan are removed. If the plan was formed before the world—no matter whether a moment, an hour, a year, or millions of years—the plan is equally fixed, and the event equally necessary. All the objections that can be made against an eternal plan will also apply to a plan formed a day or an hour before the event. The one interferes with our freedom of action as much as the other.

2. If the plan was formed "before the foundation of the world," it was eternal. God has no new plan. He forms no new schemes. He is not changing and vacillating. If we can ascertain what God's plan is at any time, we can ascertain what His eternal plan was with reference to the event. It has always been the same—for He is of ONE MIND, and who can turn Him? (Job 23:13). In reference to the plans and purposes of the Most High, there is nothing better settled than that WHAT HE ACTUALLY DOES, HE ALWAYS MEANT TO DO—which is the doctrine of eternal decrees—and the whole of it.

That we should be holy. Paul proceeds to state the object for which God had chosen His people. It is not merely that they should enter into heaven. It is not that they may live in sin. It is not that they may flatter themselves that they are safe and then live as they please.

The tendency among men has always been to abuse the doctrine of predestination and election; to lead men to say that if all things are fixed, there is no need of effort; that if God has an eternal plan, no matter how men live, they will be saved if He has elected them; and that, at all events, they cannot change that plan, and they may as well enjoy life by indulgence in sin.

The apostle Paul held no such view of the doctrine of predestination. In his view, it is a doctrine suited to excite the gratitude of Christians; and the whole tendency and design of the doctrine, according to him, is to make men holy and without blame before God in love.

And without blame before Him in love. The expression "in love" is probably to be taken in connection with the following verse and should be rendered, "In love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children." It is all to be traced to the love of God.

1. It was love for us that prompted it.

2. It is the highest expression of love to be ordained to eternal life—for what higher love could God show us?

3. It is love on His part, because we had no claim to it and had not deserved it. If this is the correct view, then the doctrine of predestination is not inconsistent with the highest moral excellence in the Divine character and should never be represented as the offspring of partiality and injustice. Then, too, we should give thanks that God has, in love, predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Having predestinated us. Regarding the meaning of the word used here, see the comments on Romans 1:4 and Romans 8:29.

The word used (proorizw) properly means to set bounds before, and then to predetermine. It carries the essential idea of setting bounds or limits, and of doing this beforehand. This means it was not that God determined to do it when it was actually done, but that He intended to do it beforehand. No language could express this more clearly, and I suppose this interpretation is generally admitted.

Even by those who deny the doctrine of particular election, it is not denied that the word used here means to predetermine. They maintain that the sense is that God had predetermined to admit the Gentiles to the privileges of His people.

Admitting, then, that the meaning is to predestinate in the proper sense, the only question is, who are predestinated? To whom does the expression apply? Is it to nations or to individuals? In reply to this, in addition to the remarks already made, I would observe:

1. That there is no specification of nations here as such, no mention of the Gentiles in contradistinction from the Jews.

2. Those referred to were those included in the word "us," among whom Paul was one—but Paul was not a Gentile.

3. The same objection will lie against the doctrine of predestinating nations that will lie against predestinating individuals.

4. Nations are made up of individuals, and the predetermination must have had some reference to individuals. What is a nation but a collection of individuals? There is no such abstract being or thing as a nation; and if there was any purpose regarding a nation, it must have had some reference to the individuals composing it.

He that would act on the ocean must act on the drops of water that make up the ocean; for besides the collection of drops of water, there is no ocean. He that would remove a mountain must act on the particles of matter that compose that mountain, for there is no such thing as an abstract mountain.

Perhaps there was never a greater illusion than to suppose that all difficulty is removed in regard to the doctrine of election and predestination by saying that it refers to nations. What difficulty is lessened? What is gained by it? How does it make God appear more amiable and good?

Does it render Him less partial to suppose that He has made a difference among nations, than to suppose He has made a difference among individuals? Does it remove any difficulty about the offer of salvation to suppose that He has granted the knowledge of His truth to some nations and withheld it from others?

The truth is, that all the reasoning founded on this supposition has merely been throwing dust in the eyes. If there is any well-founded objection to the doctrine of decrees or predestination, it is to the doctrine at all, alike concerning nations and individuals, and there are just the same difficulties in one case as in the other.

But there is no real difficulty in either. Who could worship or honor a God who had no plan, purpose, or intention in what He did? Who can believe that the universe was formed and is governed without design? Who can doubt that what God does, He always meant to do?

When, therefore, He converts and saves a soul, it is clear that He always intended to do it. He has no new plan. It is not an afterthought. It is not the work of chance. If I can find out anything that God has done, I have the most certain conviction that He always meant to do it—and this is all that is intended by the doctrine of election or predestination.

What God does, He always meant to do. What He permits, He always meant to permit. I may add further, that if it is right to do it, it was right to intend to do it. If there is no injustice or partiality in the act itself, there is no injustice or partiality in the intention to perform it.

If it is right to save a soul, it was always right to intend to save it. If it is right to condemn a sinner to woe, it was right to intend to do it. Let us, then, look at the thing itself; and if that is not wrong, we should not blame the purpose to do it, however long it has been cherished.

Unto the adoption, etc. See the comments on John 1:12 and Romans 8:15.

According to the good pleasure of His will. The word rendered "good pleasure" (eudokia) means a being well pleased, delight in anything, favor, goodwill (Luke 2:14; Philippians 1:15). It then denotes purpose or will, with the idea of benevolence being included. Robinson. Rosenmuller renders the phrase, "from His most benignant decree." The evident object of the apostle is to state why God chose the heirs of salvation.

It was done as it seemed good to Him in the circumstances of the case. It was not that man had any control over Him, or that man was consulted in the determination, or that it was based on the good works of man, real or foreseen. But we are not to suppose that there were no good reasons for what He has thus done.

Convicts are frequently pardoned by an executive. He does it according to his own will, or as seems good in his sight. He is to be the judge, and no one has a right to control him in doing it. It may seem to be entirely arbitrary. The executive may not have communicated the reasons why he did it, either to those who are pardoned, to the other prisoners, or to anyone else.

But we are not to infer that there was no reason for doing it. If he is a wise magistrate, worthy of his station, it is to be presumed that there were reasons which, if known, would be satisfactory to all. But those reasons he is under no obligation to make known.

Indeed, it might be improper that they should be known. Of that, he is the best judge. Meanwhile, however, we may see what would be the effect on those who were not forgiven. It would very likely excite their hatred, and they would charge him with partiality or tyranny.

But they should remember that whoever might be pardoned, and on whatever ground it might be done, they could not complain. They would suffer no more than they deserve. But what if, when the act of pardon was made known to one part, it was also offered to the others on certain plain and easy conditions?

Suppose it should appear that while the executive meant, for wise but concealed reasons, to forgive a part, he had also determined to offer forgiveness to all. And suppose that they were in fact disposed in the highest degree to neglect it, and that no inducements or arguments could prevail on them to accept it.

Who then could blame the executive? Now, this is approximately the case concerning God and the doctrine of election. All men were guilty and condemned. For wise reasons, which God has not communicated to us, He determined to bring at least a portion of the human race to salvation.

He did not intend to leave this to chance and haphazard. He saw that all would of themselves reject the offer, and that unless some efficient means were used, the blood of the atonement would be shed in vain. He did not make known to men who they were that He meant to save, nor the reason why they particularly were to be brought to heaven.

Meanwhile, He meant to make the offer universal, to make the terms as easy as possible, and thus to take away every ground of complaint. If men will not accept pardon, if they prefer their sins, if nothing can induce them to come and be saved, why should they complain?

If the doors of a prison are open, the chains of the prisoners are knocked off, and they will not come out, why should they complain that others are in fact willing to come out and be saved?

Let it be borne in mind that the purposes of God correspond exactly to facts as they actually occur, and much of the difficulty is taken away. If in the facts there is no just ground of complaint, there can be none, because it was intention of God that the facts should be so.