BARNES’ NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
by Albert Barnes
Ephesians 1:4According as—The importance of this verse will render proper a somewhat minute examination of the words and phrases of which it is composed. The general sense of the passage is, that these blessings pertaining to heaven were bestowed upon Christians in accordance with an eternal purpose. They were not conferred by chance or hap-hazard. They were the result of intention and design on the part of God. Their value was greatly enhanced from 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,” which must result from that fact. The phrase “according as”— καθὼς kathōs —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 hath chosen us—The word “us” here shows that the apostle had reference to individuals, and not to communities. It includes Paul himself as one of the “chosen,” and those whom he addressed—the mingled 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 anyone of the nations making up the Gentile world. The word rendered here “hath chosen”— ἐξελέξατο 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 Cor. 1:27 , “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world;” he has preferred to make use of them among all the conceivable things which might have been employed” to confound the wise;” compare Acts 1:2 , 24 ; 6:5 ; 15:22 , 25 .
It denotes “to choose out,” with the accessary 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 passage before us. 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 be 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 evinces a preference—no matter what the ground or reason of his doing it may be. Whether this refers to communities and nations, or to individuals, still it is true that a distinction is made or a preference given of one over another. It may be added, that so 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 which 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 to unique privileges. If a distinction is made, it may be made with as much propriety in respect to individuals as to 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 “out” of him no one was chosen to life, and no one out of 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,” says he, “the phrase sometimes means.” Such principles of interpretation are they 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 which is more clear in its signification than this.
The word rendered “foundation”— καταβολή katabolē —means properly a laying down, a founding, a foundation—as where the foundation of a building is laid—and the phrase “before the foundation of the world” clearly means before the world was made, or before the work of creation; see Matt. 13:35 ; 25:34 ; Luke 11:50 ; Heb. 9:26 ; Rev. 13:8 , in all which 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,” i. e., from eternity, or before the work of creation commenced. Thus, Peter says 1 Pet. 1:20 of the Saviour, “who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world.” It was the purpose of God before the worlds were made, to send him to save lost men; compare Rev. 17:8 . Nothing can be clearer than that the phrase before us 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 people. It has all the importance, dignity, and assurances of stability which necessarily result from a purpose that has been eternal in the mind of God. It may be observed here,
(1) That 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 which will lie against an “eternal” plan, will lie against 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 is the plan of God 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 people has always been to abuse the doctrine of predestination and election; to lead people to say that if all things are fixed there is no need of effort; that if God has an eternal plan, no matter how people 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 apprehension 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 people 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 which prompted to 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 be 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.”
Ephesians 1:5Having predestinated us—On the meaning of the word here used, see the notes at Rom. 1:4 ; 8:29 , note . The word used πρωρίζω prōrizō means properly “to set bounds before;” and then to “pre-determine.” There is the essential idea of setting bounds or limits, and of doing this beforehand. It is 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 here used means to “pre-determine;” and they maintain that the sense is, that God had pre-determined 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 heathen.
(3) The same objection will lie against the doctrine of predestinating “nations” which will lie against predestinating “individuals.”
(4) Nations are made up of individuals, and the pre-determination 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 in regard to 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 that 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 which has been founded on this supposition, has been merely 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 in regard to nations and individuals, and there are just the same difficulties in the 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, or 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 also right to intend to save it. If it is right to condemn a sinner to we, 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 …—see John 1:12 note ; Rom. 8:15 note .
According to the good pleasure of his will—The word rendered “good pleasure”—( εὐδοκία eudokia )—means “a being well pleased;” delight in anything, favor, good-will, Luke 2:14 ; Phil 1:15 ; compare Luke 12:32 . Then it denotes purpose, or will, the idea of benevolence being included—Robinson. Rosenmüller 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, or 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, and 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 obligations to make known. Indeed, it might be improper that they should be known. Of that he is the best judge. Meantime, however, we may see what would be the effect in those who were not forgiven. It would excite, very likely, their hatred, and they would charge him with partiality or with 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 offered to the others also 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 of it. Who then could blame the executive? Now this is about the case in regard to God, and the doctrine of election. All people were guilty and condemned. For wise reasons, which God has not communicated to us, he determined to bring a portion at least of the human race to salvation. This he did not intend to leave to chance and hap-hazard. 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 people who they were that he meant to save, nor the reason why they particularly were to be brought to heaven. Meantime 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 people will not accept of 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, and 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 the “intention of God that the facts should be so.”
