Ephesians 1:5

προορίσας ἡμᾶς : having foreordained us. Better, in that He foreordained us. Wycl. gives “hath bifore ordeyned us”; Tynd. and Cranmer, “ordeyned us”; and so the RV, “foreordained”. But the Genevan, the Rhemish and the AV, following the praedestinavit of the Vulg., give “did predestinate us,” “hath predestinated us,” “having predestinated us”. While in Romans and Ephesians the AV adopts “predestinated,” in 1 Corinthians 2:7 it has “foreordained”. It is best to adopt foreordain all through, as προορίζειν means to determine before. The verb seems not to occur either in the LXX or in any Greek writer before Paul. It is found in Heliodorus, Ignatius, etc. In the NT it is always used of God as determining from eternity, sometimes with the further definition πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1 Corinthians 2:7) decreeing to do something (Acts 4:28); foreordaining things or persons (1 Corinthians 2:7; Romans 8:29 ff.); or, as here, appointing one beforehand to something. The πρὸ in the compound verb expresses the fact that the decree is prior to the realisation of its object. The aor. part, may be taken as temporal (so the Syr.-Phil.), in which case the foreordination would be something prior (not in time, indeed, but in logical order) to the election, and the election would be defined as proceeding on the foreordination (Ell., Alf., etc.). But it may also be taken as modal, not prior to the election but coincident with it, and expressing the mode of its action or the form which it took “in that He foreordained us” (Mey., etc.). On this use of the aor. part, see Winer-Moul., Gram., p. 430. This is the more probable view, because no real distinction appears to be made between the ἐκλογή and the προορισμός beyond what may be suggested by the ἐκ in the one and the πρό in the other; the idea in the ἐκλογή being understood to be that of the mass from which the selection is made, and that of the προορισμός the priority of the decree (Ell.). It is also to be noticed (cf. Mey.) that both in Romans (Romans 8:29) and in 1 Peter (1 Peter 1:2) it is the πρόγνωσις, not the προορισμός, that is represented as antecedent to the election or as forming its ground. This Divine προορισμός, like the Divine ἐκλογή, has in the Pauline writings, in which it receives its loftiest, most complete, and most unqualified statement, not a speculative but an intensely practical interest, especially with regard to two things of most immediate personal concern the believer's incentive to live in newness and holiness of life (cf. Ephesians 2:10), and his encouragement to rest in the Divine salvation as for him an assured salvation. εἰς υἱοθεσίαν : unto adoption. Or, as the RV gives it, following the adoptio filiorum of the Vulg., “unto adoption as sons”. It is a Pauline term, and conveys an idea distinct from that of sonship and explanatory of it. The sonship of believers, the fact that they are children of God, with the privileges and responsibilities belonging to such, finds frequent expression in the NT writings. But it is only in the Pauline Epistles that the specific idea of υἱοθεσία occurs, and there in five instances (Romans 8:15; Romans 8:23; Romans 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5). In one case it is applied to the special relation of Israel to God (Romans 9:4); thrice (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5) it is used of the present position of believers in Christ; once (Romans 8:23) it refers to their future consummation, the resurrection of life that will be the full manifestation of their sonship. It is a term of relation, expressing our sonship in respect of standing. It appears to be taken from the Roman custom, with which Paul could not fail to be acquainted. Among the Jews there were cases of informal adoption, as in the instance of Mordecai and Esther (Esther 2:7). But adoption in the sense of the legal transference of a child to a family to which it did not belong by birth had no place in the Jewish law. In Roman law, on the other hand, provision was made for the transaction known as adoptio, the taking of a child who was not one's child by birth to be his son, and arrogatio, the transference of a son who was independent, as by the death of his proper father, to another father by solemn public act of the people. Thus among the Romans a citizen might receive a child who was not his own by birth into his family and give him his name, but he could do so only by a formal act, attested by witnesses, and the son thus adopted had in all its entirety the position of a child by birth, with all the rights and all the obligations pertaining to that. By “adoption,” therefore, Paul does not mean the bestowal of the full privileges of the family on those who are sons by nature, but the acceptance into the family of those who do not by nature belong to it, and the placing of those who are not sons originally and by right in the relation proper to those who are sons by birth. Hence υἱοθεσία is never affirmed of Christ; for he alone is Son of God by nature. So Paul regards our sonship, not as lying in the natural relation in which men stand to God as His children, but as implying a new relation of grace, founded on a covenant relation of God and on the work of Christ (Galatians 4:5 ff.). διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : through Jesus Christ; in this case not in Christ but through Him. That is, it is through the mediation of Christ that our adoption as sons is realised; cf. Galatians 3:26 to Galatians 4:7. Elsewhere the ethical side of the sonship is expressed. For God not only brings us into the relation of sons, but makes us sons in inward reality and character, giving us the filial mind, leading us by His Spirit, translating us into the liberty of the glory of His children (Romans 8:12; Romans 8:14; Romans 8:21; Galatians 4:6). εἰς αὐτόν : unto Himself, that is, not unto Christ, as De Wette, V. Soden, etc., still think, but unto God. Here, as in Ephesians 1:4, we read αὐτοῦ, not αὐτοῦ (as Stephens, Mill, Griesbach, etc., put it), the writer giving it as from his own standpoint. How is this to be understood? It may mean simply that God Himself is the Father to whom we are brought into filial relation by adoption. In that case the point would be the glory of the adoption, inasmuch as it is God Himself and none less than He who becomes our Father by it and to whom the foreordination into the position of sons looks. Or it may be the deeper idea that God Himself is the end of the foreordination, as Christ is its medium or channel. The εἰς is not to be confused with ἐν, nor would the idea thus be reduced to that of simple possession. Here the εἰς may rather have its most definite force, expressing the goal of all. The final object of God's foreordination of us to the standing of sons is to bring us to Himself, into perfect fellowship with Him, into adoring, loving relation to Himself as the true End and Object of our being. κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ : according to the good Pleasure of His will. Wycl. gives “by the purpose of His will”; Rhem., “according to the purpose of His will”; Tynd., “according to the pleasure of His will”; Cran., Gen., AV, “according to the good pleasure of His will”. The noun εὐδοκία (Vulg.-Clem., beneplacitum) is a biblical term. It is not current in profane Greek, but represents the רָצוֹו of the OT (especially in the Psalms), and occurs a good many times in Sir. In the NT it is found thrice in the Gospels (Matthew 11:26; Luke 2:14; Luke 10:21), and six times in the Pauline Epistles (Romans 10:1; Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:9; Philippians 1:15; Philippians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:11), but nowhere else. It has the sense (a) of will (Matthew 11:26; Luke 10:21), passing into that of desire (Romans 10:1); and (b) of good will (Luke 2:14; Ephesians 1:9; Philippians 1:15; Philippians 2:13), passing into that of delight or satisfaction (2 Thessalonians 1:11). Here it is taken by most (Mey., De Wette, Stier., Alf., Ell., Abbott, etc.) in the sense of beneplacitum, purpose, sovereign counsel, as equivalent to κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ in Ephesians 1:11. Light., e.g., is of opinion that, while its central idea is “satisfaction,” it will “only then mean ‘benevolence' when the context points to some person towards whom the satisfaction is felt”. He refers to ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17, and contends that without such indication of a personal object “the satisfaction is felt in the action itself, so that the word is used absolutely, and signifies ‘good pleasure,' in the sense of ‘desire,' ‘purpose,' ‘design' ” (Notes, ut sup., 314). But in the Pauline Epistles, when it is used of God, it is a term of grace, expressing “good pleasure” as kind intent, gracious will, and even when used of man it conveys the same idea of goodness (Romans 10:1; Philippians 1:15). Nor does the connotation appear to be different in the occurrences in the Gospels (Matthew 11:26; Luke 2:14; Luke 10:21). In the present passage it is only in relation to the grace of His dealings with sinful men that reference is made to the will of God. The clause in question presents that grace in the particular aspect of its sovereign, unmerited action. It adds the last note to the statement of the wonders of the Divine election by expressing the fact that that election and God's foreordination of us unto adoption are not due to any desert in us or anything outside God Himself, but are acts of His own pure goodness, originating only and wholly in the freedom of His own thoughts and loving counsel.