Ephesians 1:5

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Ver. 5. Having predestinated us] Interpreters have observed that this word that signifies to predestinate is but six times to be found in the New Testament (never in the Old), being referred but twice to things, Act 4:28; 1Co 2:7, four times to persons, Rom 8:29-30 Eph 1:5; Eph 1:11, and never applied to reprobates, but to elect persons only. Howbeit divines under predestination do usually consider the decree both of election and reprobation. The doctrine hereof men should not adventure to teach till they have well learned and digested it. In the year 1586, Jacobus Andreas, the Lutheran, and Theodore Beza, conferred and disputed for eight days’ time at Montpelier: the issue of which conference was unhappy, for from that time forward the doctrine of predestination was much misused and exagitated. (Alsted. Chron.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_1:5

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

The predestination of believers

I. The benefit itself. Having predestinated.

1. God first loves us to life before the means bringing us to life are decreed.

2. God has not only chosen some, but ordained effectual means to bring them to the end to which they are chosen.

II. The persons who are predestinated. Those who have believed and are sanctified--of them we may say that they have been predestinated, and shall be glorified. A chain of four links, two of which are kept with God in heaven, and two let down to earth; this chain is so coupled, that whoever are within these mid]inks are within the two others also. How precious then is this faith which purifies the heart, and enables us even to read our names in Gods register of life.

III. The thing to which God has predestinated us. Unto the adoption of children.

1. The dignity of being sons of God.

2. The inheritance of light, or a Divine nature.

3. All the glory we look for in heaven is included.

IV. The cause. Through Jesus Christ.

V. The manner. To Himself, i.e., according to the good pleasure of His will.

1. Sending His Word.

2. Working by it with His Spirit.

VI. The end. To the praise of the glory of His grace. (Paul Bayne.)

Adoption

If the thing itself be right, it must be right that God intended to do the thing; if you find no fault with facts, as you see them in providence, you have no ground to complain of decrees as you find them in predestination, for the decrees and the facts are just the counterparts one of the other. I cannot see, if the fact itself is agreeable, why the decree should be objectionable. I can see no reason why you should find fault with Gods foreordination, if you do not find fault with what does actually happen as the effect of it. Let a man but agree to acknowledge an act of providence, and I want to know how he can, except he runs in the very teeth of providence, find any fault with the predestination or intention that God made concerning that providence. Will you blame me for preaching this morning? Suppose you answer, No. Then can you blame me that I formed a resolution last night that I would preach? Will you blame me for preaching on this particular subject? Do, if you please, then, and find me guilty for intending to do so; but if you say I am perfectly right in selecting such a subject, how can you say I was not perfectly right in intending to preach upon it? Assuredly you cannot find fault with Gods predestination, if you do not find fault with the effects that immediately spring from it. Now, we are taught in Scripture, I affirm again, that all things that God choseth to do in time were most certainly intended by Him to be done in eternity, and He predestined such things should be done. If I am called, I believe God intended before all worlds that I should be called; if in His mercy He has regenerated me, I believe that from all eternity He intended to regenerate me; and if, in His loving kindness, He shall at last perfect me and carry me to heaven, I believe it always was His intention to do so. If you cannot find fault with the thing itself that God does, in the name of reason, common sense, and Scripture, how dare you find fault with Gods intention to do it?

I. Adoption--the grace of it. No man can ever have a right in himself to become adopted. If a king should adopt any into his family, it would likely be the son of one of his lords--at any rate, some child of respectable parentage; he would scarce take the son of some common felon, or some gipsy child, to adopt him into his family; but God, in this case, has taken the very worst to be His children. The saints of God all confess that they are the last persons they should ever have dreamed He would have chosen. Again, let us think not only of our original lineage, but of our personal character. He who knows himself will never think that he had much to recommend him to God. In other cases of adoption there usually is some recommendation. A man, when he adopts a child, sometimes is moved thereto by its extraordinary beauty, or at other times by its intelligent manners and winning disposition. But no; He found a rebellious child, a filthy, frightful, ugly child; He took it to His bosom. I was passing lately by the seat of a nobleman, and someone in the railway carriage observed that he had no children, and he would give any price in the world if he could find someone who would renounce all claim to any son he might have, and the child was never to speak to his parents any more, nor to be acknowledged, and this lord would adopt him as his son, and leave him the whole of his estates, but that he had found great difficulty in procuring any parents who would forswear their relationship, and entirely give up their child. Whether this was correct or not, I cannot tell; but certainly this was not the case with God. His only-begotten and well-beloved Son was quite enough for Him; and, if He had needed a family, there were the angels, and His own omnipotence was adequate enough to have created a race of beings far superior to us; He stood in no need whatever of any to be His darlings. It was then, an act of simple, pure, gratuitous grace, and of nothing else, because He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and because He delights to show the marvellous character of His condescension.

II. The privileges which come to us through adoption.

1. We are taken out of the family of Satan. The prince of this world has no more claim upon us.

2. We have Gods name put upon us.

3. We have the spirit as well as the name of children.

4. Access to the throne.

5. We are pitied by God. He pities thee, and that pity of God is one of the comforts that flow into thine heart by thine adoption.

6. In the next place, He protects thee. No father will allow his son to die without making some attempt to resist the adversary who would slay him, and God will never allow His children to perish while His omnipotence is able to guard them.

7. Once again, there is provision as well as protection. Every father will take care to the utmost of his ability to provide for his children.

8. And then you shall likewise have education. God will educate all His children till He makes them perfect men in Christ Jesus.

9. There is one thing perhaps you sometimes forget, which you are sure to have in the course of discipline if you are Gods sons, and that is, Gods rod.

10. Lastly, so sure as we are the children of God by adoption, we must inherit the promise that pertains to it--If children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. If we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified together.

III. There are some duties which are connected with adoption. When the believer is adopted into the Lords family, there are many relationships which are broken off. The relationship with old Adam and the law ceases at once; but then he is under a new law, the law of grace--under new rules, and under a new covenant. And now I beg to admonish you of duties, children of God. It is this--if God be thy father, and thou art His son, thou art bound to trust Him. Oh! if He were only thy Master, and thou ever so poor a servant, thou wouldst be bound to trust Him. But, when thou knowest that He is thy Father, wilt thou ever doubt Him? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Adoption and its privileges

After the battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon immediately adopted all the children of the soldiers who had fallen. They were supported and educated by the State, and, as belonging to the family of the emperor, they were permitted to attach the name of Napoleon to their own.

Adoption confers honour

It was at Vienna, in the year 1805, that Haydn, then seventy-three years of age, first met Cherubini, who, though not a young man, still must have appeared so to the veteran composer, being thirty years his junior, and not having then composed many of those works which have since made his name so famous. Bat the very fact of his own seniority was made use of by the old man to utter one of the most graceful compliments which could have been spoken for the encouragement of a younger worker. Handing to Cherubini one of his latest compositions, Haydn said, Permit me to style myself your musical father, and to call you my son, words which made such an impression on Cherubini that he could not keep back the tears when he parted with the aged Haydn.

Election and adoption into Gods family

I. God chose and predestined these ephesian Christians before the foundation of the world.

1. We must not so conceive of Gods election, and the influence of His grace, as to set aside our free agency and final accountableness.

2. Nor must we so explain away Gods sovereignty and grace as to exalt man to a state of independence.

II. They were chosen to be holy and without blame, before Him, in love. Holiness consists in the conformity of the soul to the Divine nature and will, and is opposed to all moral evil. In fallen creatures it begins in the renovation of the mind after the image of God. Love is a main branch of holiness.

III. The adoption to which believers are predestinated.

1. Adoption implies a state of freedom, in opposition to bondage.

2. Adoption brings us under the peculiar care of Gods providence.

3. Adoption includes a title to a glorious resurrection from the dead, and to an eternal inheritance in the heavens.

IV. All spiritual blessings are derived to us through Jesus Christ.

V. The season of Gods choosing believers in Christ, and predestinating them to adoption, is the good pleasure of His will. The original plan of salvation is from Him, not from us. The gospel is a Divine gift, not a human discovery; and our being in circumstances to enjoy it is not the effect of our previous choice, but of Gods sovereign goodness.

VI. The great purpose for which God has chosen and called us is the praise of the glory of His grace. Goodness is the glory of the Divine character; grace is the glory of the Divine goodness; the plan of salvation for sinners by Jesus Christ is the glory of Divine grace. (J. Lathrop, D. D.)

Regeneration and sonship in Christ

I. Christ is the unique son of God. From what we know of our Lord as He lived among men, nothing so perfectly represents the impression which His character, spirit, and history produce upon us as the title which describes Him as the Son of God. Other men had been Gods servants; He, too, was born under the law; but to speak of Him as a servant does not tell half the truth. He is a servant, and something more. There is an ease, a freedom, a grace about His doing of the will of God, which can belong only to a Son. About the Fathers love for Him He has never any doubt; and there is no sign that His perfect faith is the result of discipline, or that it had ever been less secure and tranquil than it was in the maturity of His strength. When He speaks of the glory which is to come to Him after His death and resurrection, He is still a Son anticipating the honour to which the Father has always destined Him, and which indeed had always been His.

II. Christians are the adopted sons of God. If we are in Christ we, according to Gods eternal purpose, have become Gods sons. The eternal relationship between Christ and the Father cannot belong to us; but all who are one with Christ share the blessedness, the security, and the honour of that relationship; and the life of Christ, which has its eternal fountains in the life of God, is theirs.

III. Christians are made Sons of God by a new and supernatural birth. Regeneration is sometimes described as though it were merely a change in a mans principles of conduct, character, taste, habits. If so, we should have to speak of a man as being more or less regenerate according to the extent of his moral reformation, which would be contrary to the idiom of New Testament thought. The simplest and most obvious account of regeneration is the truest. When a man is regenerated he receives a new life, and receives it from God. A higher nature comes to him than that which he inherited from his human parents; he is begotten of God, born of the Spirit.

IV. The incarnation of Christ effects our adoption and regeneration. The capacity for receiving the Divine life is native to us, but the actual realization of our sonship is possible only through Christ. Not until the Son of God became Man could men, either in this world or in worlds unseen, become the sons of God. The Incarnation raised human nature to a loftier level, lifted it nearer to God, fulfilled in a new and nobler manner the Divine idea of humanity.

V. These blessings are to be ascribed solely to Gods infinite love. We had no claim upon Him for gifts like these. Nor, in conferring them, did He act under the constraint of any law of His own nature which imposed upon Him either a necessity or an obligation to raise us to the dignity of Divine sonship. It is all the result of His free, unforced, spontaneous kindliness. What He has done for us is to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed upon us in the Beloved. (R. W. Dale, LL. D.)

Adoption

1. Wherein does the predestination of the fifth verse differ from the election of the fourth? Election only, and always, refers to the Church; predestination refers to the Church, and the world, and the whole universe. It is a general, all-embracing principle. He elected us that we should be holy, and to accomplish this He predestined us to the adoption of sons. Election is a mere passive preference of some rather than others, while predestination is active, and includes the ideas of ordering, defining, and controlling all things according to a settled purpose and plan. Election is the foundation of a Church, and predestination is the basis of providence.

2. But what is this adoption to which we are predestinated? It is the very first of the privileges which Paul ascribes to the Jewish nation--To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever (Rom_9:4-5). In a wide sense, the Jews were nationally the children of God, and the principle of adoption was in their polity; for the Son of God, the Messiah, was the hope of the nation. They were His peculiar people (Deu_14:2). But the adoption is the peculiar privilege and glory of the New Testament Church, in which the incorruptible seed remains, because they are born of God.

3. This adoption into the family of God is by or through Jesus Christ.

4. The two words unto Himself has occasioned the commentators some trouble, and their sentiments are very various. But surely, looked at simply, the most common understanding can see no difficulty in this idea--God has predestinated us unto the adoption of children to or for Himself. Is it not a Scriptural idea that the Church is the peculiar treasure and property of God? (See Exo_19:5; Deu_14:2; Psa_135:4; Tit_2:14)

5. Note here, also, that this predestination and adoption are according to the good pleasure of His will. This is the mode and the measure of His working.

6. We see here the purpose in which all His working, before time and in time, ends--That we might be to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved (Eph_1:6). The phrase glory of His grace is a Hebraism which our translators have rendered literally, but which means His glorious grace. (For similar forms see Col_1:27; 2Th_1:9) The purpose of electing and redeeming love is to form from among the sinners of mankind a people to the praise and glory of God. The glorious grace of God shines forth in the struggling, wrestling Church more than anywhere else in the creation; for it is there put to the severest tests, and, like the rainbow in clouds and storms, it is enhanced by the contrast. As sure, and so far as God is the Ruler and Governor of the world, the great end of every creature must be His glory; and as grace is the form in which His glory has shone forth most brightly on this earth, the highest aim of the redeemed creature--in all states and conditions of being--should ever be to the praise of His glorious grace. (W. Graham, D. D.)

Adoption

I. The adoption of children to himself, unto which we are said to be predestinated. The adoption of children necessarily implies that those admitted or chosen to this honour are not naturally or legally children, but become so only by the will and act of Him who adopts them.

1. The adoption of children is the permanent restitution of sinners unto the favour, love, and enjoyment of God.

2. There is implied or included in this a participation in the Divine Glory, through the gift of the Holy Spirit. The third person in the Trinity receives the peculiar name of the Spirit of Adoption.

3. In the adoption of children, all is included whatsoever is embraced in the inheritance of the saints in light. It doth not yet appear what we shall be. The half hath not yet been told us concerning the dignity and blessedness of heaven.

II. God hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children. Now this predestination stands connected with the election spoken of in the previous verse. In respect of the purpose or design of God, it is not to be distinguished from that election--as if the one preceded the other in the order of time. When He elected or chose us in His love, He also predestinated us in His wisdom and power, and when He predestinated us He also in love chose us. But the term election has respect more to the affection of the Divine Heart, so to speak; whereas the term predestination has respect more to the plan and purpose of the Divine Mind. It leads us to consider a certain definite end, purposed, determined, and secured--which in the present case is the adoption of children to Himself. Infinite wisdom, and infinite power, can infallibly carry out the designs of infinite sovereignty; and He who hath chosen us out of love can easily, in His sovereign wisdom and power, bring us into the possession of all that infinite love would have us to enjoy.

III. The ground of this predestination, viz., According to the good pleasure of His will. The expression is to be understood of that sovereign will of God which acknowledges no superior beyond itself, and no cause whatsoever moving it from without.

IV. That Gods predestination and the good pleasure of His will are carried out by Jesus Christ--the Beloved--in whom we are accepted. The mystery of salvation is not perceived at all until we bring into account the necessity of such an atonement as could be effected only by the Son of God Himself.

V. The final end which God hath proposed in the salvation of the Church is the praise of the glory of His grace. He hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children … to the praise of the glory of His grace. God can accomplish no higher or better end than the manifestation of His own glory. Since, in and of Himself, He is infinitely and eternally blessed, therefore it was an act of pure goodness on the part of God to create a race of intelligent beings, who being endowed with freedom of will, might, in the right exercise of their powers and faculties, find their happiness in contemplating His glory and sharing His favour. This freedom having been abused by all, in departing from the true object of delight and satisfaction, it becomes an act of grace on the part of God to renew to any the favours of His love and friendship. Contemplating sinners lying in their guilt and pollution and misery, God found the highest motive for extending to them His goodness entirely in Himself. I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own names sake. (W. Alves, M. A.)

God wills our salvation

When the Crusaders heard the voice of Peter the Hermit, as he bade them go to Jerusalem to take it from the hands of the invaders, they cried out at once, Deus vult; God wills it; God wills it; and every man plucked his sword from its scabbard, and set out to reach the holy sepulchre, for God willed it. So come and drink, sinner; God wills it. Trust Jesus; God wills it. Father, Thy will be done on earth even as it is in heaven. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Adoption defined and illustrated

Adoption is that act of God whereby men who were by nature the children of wrath even as others, are, entirely of the pure grace of God, translated out of the evil and black family of Satan, and brought actually and virtually into the family of God, so that they take His Name, share the privileges of sons, and are to all intents and purposes the actual offspring and children of God. Did you ever think what a high honour it is to be called a son of God? Suppose a judge of the land should have before him some traitor who was about to be condemned to die. Suppose that equity and law demanded this, but suppose it were possible for the judge to step from his throne and to say, Rebel as thou air, I have found out a way whereby I can forgive thy rebellions. Man, thou art pardoned! There is a flush of joy upon his cheek. Man, thou art made rich; see, there is wealth! Another smile passes over the countenance. Man, thou art made so strong that; thou shalt be able to resist all thine enemies! He rejoices again. Man, saith the judge at last, thou art adopted into the Royal Family, and thou shalt one day wear a crown! Thou art now as much the Son of God as thou art the son of thine own father. You can conceive the poor creature fainting with joy at such a thought. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EPHESIANS

ACCORDING TO’-I.

Eph 1:5; Eph 1:7.

That phrase, ‘according to,’ is one of the key-words of this profound epistle, which occurs over and over again, like a refrain. I reckon twelve instances of it in three chapters of the letter, and they all introduce one or other of the two thoughts which appear in the two fragments that I have taken for my text. They either point out how the great blessings of Christ’s mission have underlying them the divine purpose, or they point out how the process of the Christian life in the individual has for its source and measure the abundances, the wealth of the grace and the power of God. So in both aspects the facts of earth are traced up to, and declared to be, the outcome of the heavenly depths, and that gives solemnity, grandeur, elevation, to this epistle all its own. We are carried, as it were, away up into the recesses of the mountains of God, and we look down upon the unruffled, mysterious, deep lake, from which come the rivers that water all the plains beneath.

Now of these two types of reference to the divine will and the divine wealth, I should like to gather together the instances, as they occur in this letter, in so far as I can, in the course of a sermon, touching them, it must be, very imperfectly. But I fear that it is impossible to deal with both the phases of this ‘according to,’ in one discourse. So I confine myself to that which is suggested by the first of our two texts, in the hope that some other day we may be able to overtake the other. So then, we have set before us here the Christian thought of the divine will which underlies, and therefore is manifest by, the work of Jesus Christ, in its whole sweep and breadth. And I just take up the various instances in which this expression occurs in a great variety of forms, but all retaining substantially the same meaning.

I. Note that that divine will which underlies and is operative in, and therefore is certified to us by the whole work of Jesus Christ, in its facts and its consequences, is a ‘good pleasure.’

Now there are few thoughts which the history of the world has shown to be more productive of iron and steel in the human character than that of the sovereign will of God. That made Islam, and is the secret of its power to-day, amidst its many corruptions. Because these wild desert tribes were all stiffened, or I might say inflamed, by that profound conviction, the sovereign will of God, they came down like a hammer upon that corrupt so-called Christian Church, and swept it off the face of the earth, as it deserved to be swept. And the same thought of the sovereign will, of which we are but instruments-pawns on its chessboard-made the grand seventeenth century Puritanism in England, and its sister type of men and of religion in Holland. For this is a historically proved thesis, that there is nothing which so contributes to the formation, and valuation of, and the readiness to die for, civil liberty, as the firm grasp of that thought of the divine sovereignty. Just because a man realises that the will of God is supreme over all the earth, he rebels against all forms of human despotism.

But with all the good that is in that great thought-and the Christianity of this day sorely wants the strength that might be given it by the exhibition of that steel medicine-it wants another, ‘the good pleasure of His will.’ And that word, ‘good pleasure,’ does not express, as I think, in Paul’s usage of it, the simple notion of sovereignty, but always the notion of a benevolent sovereignty. It is ‘the good pleasure’-as it is put in another place by the same Apostle-’of His goodness.’ And that thought, let in upon the solemnity and severity of the other one, is all that it needs in order to make the man who grasps it not only a hero in conflict, and a patient martyr in endurance, but a child in his Father’s house, rejoicing in the love of his Father everywhere and always.

Paul would have us believe that if we will take the work of Jesus Christ in the facts of His life, and its results upon humanity, as our horn-book and lesson, we shall draw from that some conceptions of the great thing that underlies it, ‘the good pleasure of His will.’ We stand in front of this complex universe, and some of us say: ‘Law’; and some of us say: ‘A Lawgiver behind the law; a Person at the heart of all things’; but unless we can say: ‘And in the heart of the Person a will, which is the expression of a steadfast, omnipotent love,’ then the world seems to me to be a place of unsolvable riddles and a torture-house. There goes the great steam-roller along the road. Everybody can see that it crushes down, and makes its own path. Who drives it? The steam in the boiler, or is there a hand on the lever? And what drives the hand? Christianity answers, and answers with unfaltering lip, rising clear above contradictions apparent and difficulties real, ‘The good pleasure of His will,’ and there men can rest.

Then there is another step. Another form in which this ‘according to’ appears in this letter is, if we adopt the rendering, which I am disposed to do in the present case, of the Authorised Version rather than of the Revised, ‘according to His good pleasure ... which He hath purposed in Himself.’ The Revised Version says, ‘Which He hath purposed in Him,’ and that is a perfectly possible rendering. But to me the old one is not only more eloquent, but more in accordance with the connection. So I venture to accept it without further ado-’His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself.’

That brings us into the presence of that same great thought, which in another aspect is expressed in saying ‘His name is Jehovah,’ and in yet another aspect is expressed in saying ‘God is love,’ viz. the thought which sounds familiar, but which has in it depths of strength and illumination and joy, if we rightly ponder it, that, to use human words, the motive of the divine action is all found within the divine nature.

We love one another because we discern, or think we discern, lovable qualities in the being on whom our love falls. God loves because He is God. That great artesian fountain wells up from the depths, by its own sweet impulse, and pours itself out; and ‘the good pleasure of His goodness’ has no other explanation than that it is His nature and property to be merciful. And so, dear brethren, we get clean past what has sometimes been the misapprehension of good people, and has oftener been the caricatured representation of Evangelical truth which its enemies have put forth-that God was made to love and pity by reason of the sacrifice of the Son, whereas the very opposite is the case. God loves, therefore He sent His Son, ‘that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life,’ and the notion of the Cross of Christ as changing the divine heart is as far away from Evangelical truth as it is from the natural conceptions that men form of the divine nature. We shake hands with our so-called antagonists and say, ‘Yes! we believe as much as you do that God does not love us because Christ died, but we believe what perhaps you do not, that Christ died because God loves us, and would save us.’ ‘The good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself.’

Then, still further, there is another aspect of this same divine will brought out in other parts of this letter, of which this is a specimen, ‘Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ,’ which, being turned into more modern phraseology, is just this-that the great aim of that divine sovereign will, self-originated, full of loving-kindness to the world, is to manifest to all men what God is, that all men may know Him for what He is, and thereby be drawn back again, and grouped in peaceful unity round His Son, Jesus Christ. That is the intention which is deepest in the divine heart, the desire which God has most for every one of us. And when the Old Testament tells us that the great motive of the divine action is for ‘My own Name’s sake,’ that expression might be so regarded as to disclose an ugly despot, who only wants to be reverenced by abject and submissive subjects. But what it really means is this, that the divine love which hovers over its poor, prodigal children because it is love, and, therefore, lovingly delights in a loving recognition and response, desires most of all that all the wanderers should see the light, and that every soul of man should be able to whisper, with loving heart, the name, ‘Abba! Father!’ Is not that an uplifting thought as being the dominant motive which puts in action the whole of the divine activity? God created in order that He might fling His light upon creatures, who should thereby be glad. And God has redeemed in order that in Jesus Christ we might see Him, and, seeing Him, be at rest, and begin to grow like Him. This is the aim, ‘That they might know Thee, the only true God ... whom to know is eternal life.’ And so self-communication and self-revelation is the very central mystery of the will.

But that is not all. Another of the forms in which this phrase occurs tells us that that great purpose, the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, was that, ‘Now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known’ by the Church ‘the manifold wisdom of God.’ And so we get another thought, that that whole work of redemption, operated by the Incarnation, and culminating in the Crucifixion and Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, stands as being the means by which other orders of creatures, besides ourselves, learn to know ‘the manifold wisdom of God.’ According to the grand old saying, at Creation the ‘morning stars sang together for joy.’ All spiritual creatures, be they ‘higher’ or ‘lower,’ can only know God by the observation of His acts.

‘‘Twas great to speak a world from nought,

‘Tis greater to redeem,’

and the same angelic lips that sang these praises on the morning of Creation have learnt a new song that they sing; ‘Glory and honour and dominion and power be unto the Lamb that was slain.’

Thus to principalities and powers, a diviner height in the loftiness, and a diviner depth in the condescension, and a diviner tenderness in the love, and a diviner energy in the power, of the redeeming God have been made known, and this is the thought of His eternal purpose. And that brings me to another point which is involved in the words that I have just quoted, which stand in connection with those that I have previously referred to. The phrase ‘eternal purpose’ literally rendered is, ‘the purpose of the ages,’ and that, no doubt, may mean ‘eternal’ in the sense of running on through all the ages; or it may mean, perhaps, that which we usually attach to the word ‘eternal,’ viz. unbeginning and unending. I take the former meaning as the more probable one, that the Apostle contemplates that great will of God which culminates in Jesus Christ, as coming solemnly sweeping through all the epochs of time from the beginning. In a deeper sense than the poet meant it, ‘Through the ages an increasing purpose runs,’ and that binds the epochs of humanity together-’the purpose of God in Christ Jesus.’ The philosophy of history lies there, and it is a true instinct that makes the cradle at Bethlehem the pivot around which the world’s chronology revolves. For the deepest thing about all the ages on the further side of it is that they are ‘Before Christ,’ and the formative fact for all the ages after it is that they are Anno Domini.

And now the last thing that is suggested by yet another of these eloquent expressions is deduced from another part of the same phrase. The purpose of the ages is described as that which ‘He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ Now the word ‘purposed’ literally is ‘made.’ And it may be a question whether ‘purposed’ or ‘accomplished’ is the special meaning to be attached to the general word ‘made.’ Either is legitimate. I take it that what the Apostle means here is that the purpose of God, which we have thus seen as sovereign, self-originated, having for its great aim the communication to all His creatures of the knowledge of Himself, and running through the ages, and binding them into a unity, reaches its entire accomplishment in the Cradle, and the Cross, and the Throne of Jesus Christ our Lord.

He fulfils the divine intention. There is that one life, and in that life alone of humanity you have a character which is in entire sympathy with the divine mind, which is in full possession of the divine truth, which never diverges or deviates by a hair’s-breadth from the divine will, which is the complete and perfect exponent to man of the divine heart and character; and that Christ is the fulfilment of all that God desired in the depths of eternity, and the abysses of His being. Did He will that men should know Him? Christ has declared Him. Did He will that men should be drawn back to Him? Christ lifted on the Cross draws all men unto Him. Was it ‘according to the good pleasure of His goodness’ that we men should attain to the adoption of sons? By that Son we too became sons. Was it the purpose of His will that we should obtain an ‘inheritance’? We obtain it in Jesus Christ, ‘being heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.’ All that God willed to do is done. And when we look, on the one hand, up to that infinite purpose, and on the other, to the Cross, we hear from the dying lips, ‘It is finished!’ The purpose of the ages is accomplished in Christ Jesus.

Is it accomplished with you? I have been speaking about the divine counsel which is a ‘good pleasure,’ which runs through the whole history of mankind. But it is a divine purpose that you can thwart as far as you are concerned. ‘How often would I have gathered ... and ye would not,’ and your ‘would not’ neutralises His ‘would.’ Do not stand in the way of the steam-roller. You cannot stop it, but it can crush you. Do not have Him say about you, ‘In vain have I smitten, in vain have I loved.’ Bow, accept, recognise that all God’s armoury is brought to bear upon each of us in that great Cross and Passion, in that great Incarnation and human life. And I beseech you, in your hearts, let the will of God be done even as for a world it has been done by the sacrifice of Calvary.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family: By his sovereign initiative, God embraces and blesses as his children those who trust in Christ. They become heirs to all the promises God has made to his people (see 1:11, 14; 2:19; Rom 8:15-17, 29-30; Gal 4:5).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Eph_1:5. Love was the disposition of God, in which He through this our election predestined us to υἱοθεσία. Hence this divine motive, therefore, is prefixed with emphasis, quite in keeping with the character of ascription of praise marking the discourse. Consequently: in that He in love predestined us. Homberg has indeed conceived the relation of the time of προορίσας to ἐξελέξατο as: postquam nos praedestinavit adoptandos, elegit etiam nos, ut simus sancti; but the usual view correctly conceives προορίσας as coincident in point of time, and accomplished simultaneously with ἐξελέξατο, so that it is regarded as the modus of the latter (see on γνωρίσας, Eph_1:9). For the praedestinatio (the προορίζειν) is never elsewhere distinguished from the election as something preceding it; it rather substantially coincides with it (hence at Rom_8:29 only the expression προώρισε is used, while in Rom_8:33 only ἐκλεκτοί are mentioned), and only the πρόγνωσις is prior, Rom. l.c. Comp. Lampsing, Pauli de praedestinat. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 70. See on this use of the aorist participle, Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774; Bernhardy, p. 383; Winer, p. 321 [E. T. 430]. It is, we may add, purely arbitrary to distinguish ἐξελέξατο and προορίσας, so that the former should apply to individuals, the latter to the whole (Schenkel). Both verbs have in fact the same objects (ἡμᾶς, which denotes the persons); see on Rom_8:29.

The προ in προορίσας, beforehand, points to the future realization. Certainly the predestination has taken place before the creation of the world (Eph_1:4); but this is not expressed by προ, which rather looks always towards the future setting in of the thing predestined. See Rom_8:29; 1Co_2:7; Eph_1:11; Act_4:28; Heliod. p. 298, 14, p. 266, 15; Sopater in Walz, Rhet. V. p. 152, 20.

εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν] are to be taken closely together: unto adoption through Jesus Christ in reference to Him,that is, He has destined us to stand in the relation of those assumed as children through mediation of Jesus Christ to Him (to God). Comp. Rom_8:29. That υἱοθωσία is nowhere merely childship (as Meier and Bleek still take it here, following Usteri), but adoption,[96] see on Rom_7:15; Gal_4:5. υἱοθεσία is never predicated of Christ Himself; for He is the born Son of God (Rom_8:3; Gal_4:4), who procured for His own the assumption into the place of children (whereby they became de jure His brethren, Rom_8:29). The pre-eminence of Christ is therefore essential, not merely prototypal, as of the head of humanity;[97] He is the μονογενής. Through adoption believers have passed out (comp. Rom_7:24 f.) of their natural state, in which they by sin were liable to the wrath of God (Eph_2:3), and have entered into the state of reconciliation, in which they, through the mediation of the reconciling death of Christ (Eph_1:6-7), by means of the faith in it which was counted to them for righteousness (Gal_3:26; Rom_4:5; Rom_4:23 f.), have forgiveness of sins, and are heirs of the Messianic blessedness (Eph_1:14; Gal_4:7; Rom_8:10-11; Rom_8:17), as a guarantee of which the Holy Spirit is given to them (Eph_1:14; Gal_4:6; Rom_8:16).

ΕἸς ΑὐΤΌΝ] does not apply to Christ (Anselm, Thomas, Castalio, Vorstius, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including de Wette), since Christ is mediator of the adoption, and this is a relation to God. This simple sense of reference toward is to be maintained, and we must not import either ad gloriam gratiae suae (Piscator; comp. Schenkel) or τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνάγουσαν τὸ γένος ἡμῶν (Theophylact). At variance with linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, and Calixtus take it for ἘΝ ἙΑΥΤῷ, and discover in it the independence of the divine ΠΡΟΟΡΙΣΜΌς; and Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Koppe, Holzhausen, Meier hold it as equivalent to sibi, לוֹ (as children, who rightly belong to Him as His own, Meier). Comp. also on Col_1:20.

We may add that here, too, we must not write (with Beza, Stephanus, Mill, Griesbach, Knapp, Meier, and others) ΑὙΤΌΝ, but ΑὐΤΌΝ. Comp. above on ΚΑΤΕΝΏΠΙΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ.

ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΕὐΔΟΚΊΑΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΛΉΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ (not ΑὙΤΟῦ): conformably to the pleasure of His will, just as it was the purpose of His will. Comp. Mat_11:26; Luk_10:21. So Vulgate, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, Flatt, and others, including Rückert, de Wette, Bleek. It may also signify: according to the benevolence of His will (see, generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 369 ff.). So Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following older expositors. But this notion is already and more strongly contained in ἘΝ ἈΓΆΠῌ; and the element which is here meant, of free self-determination, independent of all human desert, as regulative of the προορίζειν, is clearly pointed to in the parallel by ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὑτῷ. Comp. also Eph_1:11; 2Ti_1:9.

[96] Even the old theocratic υἱοθεσία was adoption; for the Jews were as such, and not as men generally, the chosen and peculiar people to whom the Messiah was promised. See on Rom_9:4.

[97] In opposition to Beyschlag, Christol. d. N.T. p. 222 f.

REMARK.

Predestination is not made dependent on any sort of causa meritoria on the part of man (comp. Eph_1:11), but is simply an act of free divine kindness, whose determination has its causa impulsiva only in Christ; so that, in the case of the predestined subjects, faith is set forth as the causa apprehendens of the salvation destined for them κατὰ πρόγνωσιν (Rom_8:29); and with this Romans 9, when rightly apprehended, agrees. The conditions mentally supplied by expositors (as e.g. Grotius, who finds in our passage decretum ejus, quod Deus facere vult, si et homines faciant, quod debent; comp. already Jerome) remove the relation out of the sphere of the divine εὐδοκία τοῦ θελήματος into that of dependence on human self-choice, and consequently into the domain of the accidental. The notion of absolute decree, however, breaks down before the πρόγνωσις as the necessary premiss of the divine ἐκλογήa premiss, which doubtless involves the necessity of morally restricting the truncus aut lapis of the Formula Concordiae (comp. Luthardt, Lehre vom freien Willen, p. 272).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 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 1Co 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 (1Co 2:7 ) decreeing to do something (Act 4:28 ); foreordaining things or persons (1Co 2:7 ; Rom 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 (Rom 8:29 ) and in 1 Peter (1Pe 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. Eph 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 (Rom 8:15 ; Rom 8:23 ; Rom 9:4 ; Gal 4:5 ; Eph 1:5 ). In one case it is applied to the special relation of Israel to God (Rom 9:4 ); thrice (Rom 8:15 ; Gal 4:5 ; Eph 1:5 ) it is used of the present position of believers in Christ; once (Rom 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 (Est 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 (Gal 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. Gal 3:26 to Gal 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 (Rom 8:12 ; Rom 8:14 ; Rom 8:21 ; Gal 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 Eph 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 (Mat 11:26 ; Luk 2:14 ; Luk 10:21 ), and six times in the Pauline Epistles (Rom 10:1 ; Eph 1:5 ; Eph 1:9 ; Phi 1:15 ; Phi 2:13 ; 2Th 1:11 ), but nowhere else. It has the sense ( a ) of will (Mat 11:26 ; Luk 10:21 ), passing into that of desire (Rom 10:1 ); and ( b ) of good will (Luk 2:14 ; Eph 1:9 ; Phi 1:15 ; Phi 2:13 ), passing into that of delight or satisfaction (2Th 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 Eph 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 Mat 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 (Rom 10:1 ; Phi 1:15 ). Nor does the connotation appear to be different in the occurrences in the Gospels (Mat 11:26 ; Luk 2:14 ; Luk 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ephesians 1:5

The apostle says, God hath chosen us to holiness, having predestinated us to sonship; that is, because he has thus predestinated us. Holiness, therefore, must be a necessary condition or prerequisite for the sonship here spoken of. Sonship in reference to God includes

1. Participation of his nature, or conformity to his image.

2. The enjoyment of his favor, or being the special objects of his love.

3. Heirship, or a participation of the glory and blessedness of God.

Sometimes one and sometimes another of these ideas is the most prominent. In the present case it is the second and third. God having predestinated his people to the high dignity and glory of sons of God, elected them to holiness, without which that dignity could neither be possessed nor enjoyed. It is through Jesus Christ, that we are made the sons of God. As many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God. Joh_1:12. For we are all the children of God by faith of Jesus Christ. Gal_3:26. Christ has purchased this dignity for his people. He died for them on condition that they should be the sons of God, restored to their Fathers family and reinstated in all the privileges of this divine relationship.

The words εἰς αὐτὸν, to himself, in the clause, Predestinated us to sonship by Jesus Christ to himself, are somewhat difficult. The text, in the first place, is uncertain. Some editors read εἰς αὐτὸν, unto himself, and others εἰς αὐτὸν, unto him. In either case, however, the reference is to God. They admit of three explanations:

1. They may limit or explain the word sonship. Sonship unto himself, i.e. sons in relation to God.

2. They may express the design of this adoption. Sonship for himself, i.e. for his benefit or glory. This assumes that εἰς is here equivalent to the dative.

3. They may be connected immediately with the words of Jesus Christ. Through Jesus Christ to himself, i.e. to be brought to him by Jesus Christ.

The first is generally preferred, because it gives a good sense, and is consistent with the force of the preposition.

The ground of this predestination and of the election founded upon it, is expressed by the clause κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, according to the good pleasure of his will. The word εὐδοκία means either benevolence, favor, as in Luk_2:14; or good pleasure, free or sovereign purpose, as in Mat_11:26; and Luk_10:21; Php_2:13. The meaning therefore may be either: according to his benevolent will, or according to his sovereign will, i.e. his good pleasure. The latter is to be preferred.

1. Because it agrees better with the usage of the word in the N. T. In Mat_11:26, ὅτι οὕτως ἐγένετο εὐδοκία ἔμπροσθέν σου means, Because thus it seemed good in thy sight. In Luk_10:21, the same words occur in the same sense. In Php_2:13, ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας means of good pleasure.

2. The words εὐδοκία τοῦ θελήματος naturally mean voluntus liberrima, beneplacitum, sovereign purpose; to make them mean benevolent will, is contrary to scriptural usage.

3. In this connection it is not the predestinated that are the objects of εὐδοκία but the act of predestination itself. God chose to have that purpose. It seemed good to him.

4. The expressions, purpose of his will, counsel of his will, Eph_1:11, are used interchangeably with that in the text, and determine its meaning.

5. The analogy of Scripture is in favor of this interpretation, because the ground of election is always said to be the good pleasure of God.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

God respecteth nothing, either that present is, or that is to come, but himself only.

Another plainer exposition of the efficient cause, and also of eternal election, whereby God is saith to have chosen us in Christ, to wit, because it pleased him to appoint us out when we were not yet born, whom he would make to be his children by Jesus Christ: so that there is no reason here of our election to be sought, but in the free mercy of God, neither is faith which God foresaw, the cause of predestination, but the effect.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

predestinated--more special in respect to the end and precise means, than "chosen" or elected. We are "chosen" out of the rest of the world; "predestinated" to all things that secure the inheritance for us (Eph 1:11; Rom 8:29). "Foreordained."

by Jesus--Greek, "through Jesus."

to himself--the Father (Col 1:20). ALFORD explains, "adoption . . . into Himself," that is, so that we should be partakers of the divine nature (Pe2 1:4). LACHMANN reads, "unto Him." The context favors the explanation of CALVIN: God has regard to Himself and the glory of His grace (Eph 1:6, Eph 1:12, Eph 1:14) as His ultimate end. He had one only-begotten Son, and He was pleased for His own glory, to choose out of a lost world many to become His adopted sons. Translate, "unto Himself."

the good pleasure of his will--So the Greek (Mat 11:26; Luk 10:21). We cannot go beyond "the good pleasure of His will" in searching into the causes of our salvation, or of any of His works (Eph 1:9). (Job 33:13.) Why needest thou philosophize about an imaginary world of optimism? Thy concern is to take heed that thou be not bad. There was nothing in us which deserved His love (Eph 1:1, Eph 1:9, Eph 1:11) [BENGEL].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 5. Having predestinated us] προορισας. As the doctrine of eternal predestination has produced much controversy in the Christian world, it may be necessary to examine the meaning of the term, that those who do use it may employ it according to the sense it has in the oracles of God. The verb προοπζω, from προ, before, and οριζω, I define, finish, bound, or terminate, whence ορος, a boundary or limit, signifies to define beforehand, and circumscribe by certain bounds or limits; and is originally a geographical term, but applied also to any thing concluded, or determined, or demonstrated. Here the word is used to point out God's fixed purpose or predetermination to bestow on the Gentiles the blessing of the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ, which adoption had been before granted to the Jewish people; and without circumcision, or any other Mosaic rite, to admit the Gentiles to all the privileges of his Church and people. And the apostle marks that all this was fore-determined by God, as he had fore-determined the bounds and precincts of the land which he gave them according to the promise made to their fathers; that the Jews had no reason to complain, for God had formed this purpose before he had given the law, or called them out of Egypt; (for it was before the foundation of the world, Eph 1:4;) and that, therefore, the conduct of God in calling the Gentiles now-bringing them into his Church, and conferring on them the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, was in pursuance of his original design; and, if he did not do so, his eternal purposes could not be fulfilled; and that, as the Jews were taken to be his peculiar people, not because they had any goodness or merit in themselves; so the Gentiles were called, not for any merit they had, but according to the good pleasure of his will; that is, according to his eternal benevolence, showing mercy and conferring privileges in this new creation, as he had done in the original creation; for as, in creating man, he drew every consideration from his own innate eternal benevolence, so now, in redeeming man, and sending the glad tidings of salvation both to the Jews and the Gentiles, be acted on the same principles, deriving all the reasons of his conduct from his own infinite goodness.

This argument was exceedingly conclusive, and must silence the Jews on the ground of their original, primitive, and exclusive rights, which they were ever ready to plead against all pretensions of the Gentiles. If therefore God, before the foundation of the Jewish economy, had determined that the Gentiles, in the fulness of time, should be called to and admitted into all the privileges of the Messiah's kingdom, then the exclusive salvation of the Jews was chimerical; and what God was doing now, by the preaching of the apostles in the Gentile world, was in pursuance of his original design. This same argument St. Paul repeatedly produces in his Epistle to the Romans; and a proper consideration of it unlocks many difficulties in that epistle. See the notes on Ro 8:29; Ro 8:30; and elsewhere, in the course of that epistle, where this subject is handled. But why is the word προορισας, fore-determined, limited, or circumscribed, used here? Merely in reference to the settlement of the Israelites in the promised land. God assigned to them the portions which they were to inherit; and these portions were described, and their bearings, boundaries, vicinities to other portions, extent and length, as exactly ascertained as they could be by the most correct geographical map. As God, therefore, had dealt with the Jews in making them his peculiar people, and when he divided the earth among the sons of Noah reserved to himself the twelve portions which he afterwards gave to the twelve tribes; (See Clarke on De 32:8;) and as his dealings with them were typical of what he intended to do in the calling and salvation of the Gentiles; so he uses the terms by which their allotment and settlement were pointed out to show that, what he had thus designed and typified, he had now fulfilled according to the original predetermination; the Gentiles having now the spiritual inheritance which God had pointed out by the grant made of the promised land to the children of Israel. This is the grand key by which this predestination business is unlocked. See Clarke on Eph 1:11.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. Who hath predestinated us. What follows is intended still further to heighten the commendation of divine grace. The reason why Paul inculcated so earnestly on the Ephesians the doctrines of free adoption through Christ, and of the eternal election which preceded it, has been already considered. But as the mercy of God is nowhere acknowledged in more elevated language, this passage will deserve our careful attention. Three causes of our salvation are here mentioned, and a fourth is shortly afterwards added. The efficient cause is the good pleasure of the will of God, the material cause is, Jesus Christ, and the final cause is, the praise of the glory of his grace. Let us now see what he says respecting each.

To the first belongs the whole of the following statement God hath predestinated us in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, unto the adoption of sons, and hath made us accepted by his grace. In the word predestinate we must again attend to the order. We were not then in existence, and therefore there was no merit of ours. The cause of our salvation did not proceed from us, but from God alone. Yet Paul, not satisfied with these statements, adds in himself. The Greek phrase is, εἰς αὑτὸν, and has the same meaning with ἐν αὑτῷ. By this he means that God did not seek a cause out of himself, but predestinated us, because such was his will.

But this is made still more clear by what follows, according to the good pleasure of his will. The word will was enough, for Paul very frequently contrasts it with all outward causes by which men are apt to imagine that the mind of God is influenced. But that no doubt may remain, he employs the word good pleasure, which expressly sets aside all merit. In adopting us, therefore, God does not inquire what we are, and is not reconciled to us by any personal worth. His single motive is the eternal good pleasure, by which he predestinated us. Why, then, are the sophists not ashamed to mingle with them other considerations, when Paul so strongly forbids us to look at anything else than the good pleasure of God?

Lest anything should still be wanting, he adds, ἐχαρίτωσεν ἐν χάριτι This intimates, that, in the freest manner, and on no mercenary grounds, does God bestow upon us his love and favor, just as, when we were not yet born, and when he was prompted by nothing but his own will, he fixed upon us his choice.

The material cause both of eternal election, and of the love which is now revealed, is Christ, the Beloved. This name is given, to remind us that by him the love of God is communicated to us. Thus he is the well-beloved, in order that we may be reconciled by him. The highest and last end is immediately added, the glorious praise of such abundant grace. Every man, therefore, who hides this glory, is endeavoring to overturn the everlasting purpose of God. Such is the doctrine of the sophists, which entirely overturns the doctrine of Christ, lest the whole glory of our salvation should be ascribed undividedly to God alone.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself.—The idea of Election depends on the union of the sense of actual difference between men, as to privilege and spiritual life, with the conviction of God’s universal sovereignty. Hence, in all cases, it leads back to the idea of Predestination, that is, of the conception of the divine purpose in the mind of God, before its realisation in actual fact. On the doctrine of predestination see Romans 9. It will suffice to note that here (1) its source is placed in God’s love; (2) its meritorious cause is the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ; (3) its result is adoption, so that He is (see Rom_8:29) “the firstborn of many brethren,” who are conformed to His image, and redeemed by Him from bondage to sonship (Gal_4:5). (It is clear that the adoption here is not the final adoption of Rom_8:23; but the present adoption into the Christian covenant, there called “the firstfruits of the Spirit;”) (4) it is in itself the expression of “the good pleasure of His will” on which all ultimately depends; and (5) its final purpose is to show forth God’s glory in the gift of His grace. In a few words the whole doctrine is summed up, with that absolute completeness, so eminently characteristic of this Epistle.

According to the good pleasure of his will.—In our version, “good pleasure,” there is an ambiguity, reproducing the ambiguity of the original. The word used may signify (as in Mat_11:26; Luk_10:21; Php_2:13) simply God’s free will, to which this or that “seemeth good,” or (as in Luk_11:14; Rom_10:1; Php_1:15) “His good will towards us.” Even the old Greek interpreters were divided upon it, and either sense will suit this passage. But the close parallel in Eph_1:11, “according to the counsel (deliberate purpose) of His will,” turns the balance in favour of the former rendering.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. Having predestinated us] Again an aorist, not a perfect, in the Greek; referring to a definite past act. For the same word, in the Greek, cp. Eph_1:11; Act_4:28 (E. V. “determined”); Rom_8:29-30; 1Co_2:7 (E. V. “ordained”). It is lit. “to define, mark out, set apart, beforehand.” All idea of blind destiny must be excluded; the “pre-ordination” is the act of the Living and Holy God. But while we can thus repose upon its justice, it is none the less sovereign. And it is a cause, not an effect, of good desires and holiness in the saints.

the adoption of children] For the (one) word rendered thus, cp. Rom_8:15; Rom_8:23; Rom_9:4; Gal_4:5. The sacred truth of the filial relation of the saints to their Lord’s Father (see above on Eph_1:2) comes out further Eph_3:15, Eph_4:6, Eph_5:1. This sonship has two aspects in the N. T.; the generative aspect, a change in the state of will, character, nature, a new birth; and, as here, the adoptive aspect, a divinely legal institution into filial position and privilege. In the eternal Idea this latter may be said to be first in order; and thus it stands here, in this account of the heavenly origin of our salvation.

by Jesus Christ] Lit., through Jesus Christ; Representative and Mediator. As in the Old Creation (see e.g. Joh_1:3, “all things came into being through Him”; and cp. Heb_1:2) so in the New, the Father works through the Son, Whom He “gives,” “anoints,” “sanctifies,” “sends.”

to himself] As the Father is the Origin of the process of Redemption, so He is continually presented as its End. See the Lord’s discourses in St John’s Gospel, passim, and e.g. 1Co_15:28; Php_2:11. This fact makes it on the other hand the more deeply significant that the same language is used also with reference to the Son; e.g. below ch. Eph_5:27. And cp. “for Him,” Col_1:16.

according to the good pleasure &c.] The ultimate account of all Divine procedure, from the creature’s point of view. Nothing in that Will is capricious; all is supremely wise and good. But it enfolds an “unseen universe” of reasons and causes wholly beyond our discovery; and here precisely is one main field for the legitimate exercise of faith; personal confidence as to the unknown reasons for the revealed action of a Known God. Cp. Mat_11:26; 1Co_1:21. The word rendered “good pleasure” means specially (in N. T.) deliberate beneficent resolve.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having predestinated us,.... Predestination, taken in a large sense, includes both election and reprobation, and even reaches to all affairs and occurrences in the world; to the persons, lives, and circumstances of men; to all mercies, temporal or spiritual; and to all afflictions, whether in love or in wrath: and indeed providence, or the dispensations of providence, are no other than the execution of divine predestination; but here it is the same with election, and is concerned with the same persons, and has regard to a special blessing, the elect are appointed to, as follows;

unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself; by which is meant, either the grace of adoption, which is an act of the Father's love, a blessing provided and secured in the covenant of grace; and is of persons to an inheritance, to which they have no legal right; and is entirely free, there being no need on the adopter's part, and no worth on the part of the adopted: or rather the inheritance they are adopted to; which exceeds all others, is incorruptible, undefiled, and fades not away; and lies among the saints in light, and belongs to all the children of God: and this they are predestinated unto by God the Father, who takes them into his family, puts them among the children, and gives them a goodly heritage: and that "by Jesus Christ"; or through him; for both the grace of adoption, and the kingdom and glory they are adopted to, come by and through him as Mediator; through his espousing their persons, assuming their nature, and redeeming them from under the law and its curses; through his giving them a power and privilege openly to be the sons of God; and through faith in him, whereby they are manifestly such: the phrase "unto himself", either refers to God the Father, who has chosen, set apart, formed and reserved his people and children for himself, for his peculiar treasure, and for his own glory; or to Jesus Christ, that he might have some brethren, and they be conformed to him, and he be the firstborn among them, and in all things have the pre-eminence; and that they might be with him, and behold his glory, and he be glorified in them: and this act of divine predestination was

according to the good pleasure of his will: the will of God is the rule of all his actions, and of all his acts of grace and goodness; and the good pleasure of it appears in the predestination of men to grace and glory: and from hence it is manifest, that foreseen faith, holiness, and good works, are excluded from being the moving cases of predestinating grace; and that it is wholly to be resolved into the good will and pleasure of God; the view in it being entirely as follows,

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Having predestinated us - On the meaning of the word here used, see the notes at Rom 1:4; Rom 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 Joh 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, Luk 2:14; Phi 1:15; compare Luk 12:32. Then it denotes purpose, or will, 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, 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.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children; having appointed us unto a state of sonship and right to glory. This seems to be more than the former, a greater thing to be the sons of God, and heirs of heaven, than to be holy.

By Jesus Christ; as Mediator, and Head of the elect, and the foundation of all spiritual blessings vouchsafed them, and so of this relation into which they are brought, by being united to him. The adopted children come into that state by the intervention of the natural Son.

To himself; either:

1. In himself, i.e. looking no farther than to himself for the cause of and motive to his adopting them. Or:

2. To himself, (according to our translation), i.e. to God. Or, rather:

3. For himself (as the Syriac renders it); God would have the honour of having many adopted children that shall all call him Father.

According to the good pleasure of his will; his sovereign grace and good will, as the only spring from which predestination issued, God being moved to it by nothing out of himself.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. Having predestinated—That neither election nor predestination is identical with foreknowledge, see shown in our note on Rom_8:29. Predestination here, as in that passage, is a destination to a particular thing—namely, to sonship in the image of Christ. If election is to be considered as preceding predestination, it does not follow (as Alford) that election and foreknowledge are to be identified; but that it is an intermediate step between foreknowledge and predestination. Unless we suppose the deity blindly to elect and predestinate, foreknowledge must lie in the divine nature as an attribute back of all acts. Election is the preference for the conditioned object, lying in the eternal divine nature; predestination, the specific direction of the object to its particular blessed destiny. It is the divinely established connexion between the conditioned object and his final salvation, never being affirmed of the wicked.

Adoption of children—The Greek word is simply sonship, and should have been so rendered. The phrase is parallel to conformed to the image of his Son, in Rom_8:29. It therefore more properly expresses regeneration than adoption; regeneration, in its fullest sense, including restoration to Christ’s glorified likeness in the resurrection.

Good pleasure—The Greek word ευδοκια may signify either beneficence, or an absoluteness of purpose which must not be questioned. Thus, taking it in the latter sense, Bengel says, “Beyond this good pleasure it is lawful for us neither to go prying into the causes of our salvation nor into any other of the works of God.” But the very peremptoriness of such language is at entire discord with the flowing and joyous current of the apostle’s thought while reviewing the free grace of God in our salvation. His boast is not in God’s repressive reserve, but in his open revelation of the mystery of his will according to his beneficence, Eph_1:9-10. In regard to the two disputed meanings of the term, all the reasons seem to be for the former, but the majority of commentators favour the latter. 1. As to its philology, it is conceded that in the Septuagint it is used in the former sense in every case; in the New Testament clearly in every case but two. This settles the question, unless the present context excludes that meaning. But, 2. The context requires the meaning. The whole paragraph is almost a hymn of grateful rapture. Every adverse point, such as the reprobacy of the persistently impenitent, or the conditions of salvation, is omitted or postponed. An insertion, therefore, of the stern, repressive absolutism of the divine counsels is wholly out of time and tune. 3. As already intimated, the same term in Eph_1:9 must have the same meaning. This will clearly appear, we think, in our note upon this verse, showing that it designates the divine beneficence of God’s ideal of a universal restoration of all men, through Christ, to holiness and heaven. 4. The parallelism between this and the following clause requires this meaning: according to the beneficence of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace. Beneficence and grace here, are to be held as different, but cumulative, designations of the same thing.

4. Paul’s thanksgiving for the Ephesians, and prayer for their realization of Christ’s glorious headship, Eph_1:15-23.

15. Wherefore—In view of your thus being happily sealed to this inheritance, Eph_1:13-14.

I also—In response to ye, Eph_1:13. My prayers are for the sealing which is to result in possession, Eph_1:14.

Heard—He probably had not seen them in four or five years.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having predestinated (or, foreordained) us to adoption through Jesus Christ unto himself. The same idea is denoted by proorisav in this verse and ejxelexato in ver. 3, but while in xelexato the idea of selection out from among others is prominent, in proorisav the special phase of thought is that of the time, pro, before before the foundation of the world. Both denote the exercise of Divine sovereignty. In ver. 4 we have the ultimate purpose of God"s decree the entire sanctification of the elect; here, in ver. 5, we find one of the intermediate steps of the process adoption. The apostle"s reason for speaking of adoption in this place, and of justification afterwards, is that be bad just referred to the restoration of a relation of lore between us and God as connected with our ultimate complete sanctification; thus it was natural for him to bring in our adoption as the preordained act in which this loving relation is formed. Our obedience is not the forced obedience of servants, but the loving obedience of sons. Adoption implies more than sentiment a real legal relation to God as his sons. (Rom_8:17) The adoption is "by Jesus Christ:" "As many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God". (Joh_1:12) And it is eijv aujton, unto or into himself denoting a movement towards God which terminates in union to Him. According to the good pleasure of his will. The spring or motive to the selection is solely in God, not in man. It is an act of sovereignty. It has been disputed whether "the good pleasure of his will" is equivalent to benevolentia or to bene placitum. Parallel passages like Mat_11:26 and Luk_10:21 lead us to prefer the latter. The idea of kindness is not excluded, but it is not what is affirmed. Kindness is always involved in the Divine will; but the point here is simply that it pleased God to choose and ordain the Ephesian believers to the privilege of adoption through Jesus Christ. This is presented as a ground of praise, a reason for their blessing God. The Divine sovereignty is not presented in Scripture to seekers, but to finders. It is apt to embarrass those that seek; and accordingly the aspect of God"s character presented to them is his good will to men, his free offer of mercy: "Look unto me, and be ye saved;" "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." But it is a ground of thanksgiving to those who hare accepted the offer; they see that before the foundation of the world God chose them in Christ. What an interest he must have had in them, and how thoroughly they may rely on his finishing the work he has begun! Divine sovereignty, human responsibility, and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and, though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, ought all to have a place in our minds.

Adoption.

I In a certain sense, all men are children of God; (Mal_2:10) i.e. God has a fatherly interest in them and yearning towards them. But sinners have forfeited the rights and position of sons; they are like the prodigal son, "not worthy to be called thy son." Thus they have no claim on God. Nay, they are "children of wrath". (Eph_2:3)

II Sonship in God"s family is for sinners only the fruit of adoption. Adoption is solely by grace, through Jesus Christ. It is the result of Divine predestination. It belongs only to "as many as receive him". (Joh_1:12) It is the fruit of spiritual oneness with Christ. When we are by faith united to the eternal Son of God, we become, in a lower sense, sons of God ourselves.

III Sonship has many privileges; parallel between nature and grace. Sons have a right to a due provision, to protection and shelter, to education and training; they share their father"s house; they get the benefit of his experience, wisdom, counsel; they enjoy his fellowship, and are molded by his example and influence.

IV Sonship has many duties: obedience, honor, trust; gratitude, complacency, affection; co-operation with the father in his designs and aims.

V In Christ, sonship is indissoluble and everlasting.

The adoption.

"Having predestinated us to the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ to himself." "Adoption" in Scripture expresses more than a change of relation it includes the change of nature as well as the change of relation. It thuscombines the blessings of justification and sanctification, or represents the complex condition of the believer as at once the subject of both. In a word, it presents the new creature in his new relations. This passage teaches

I THAT ADOPTION ORIGINATES IN THE FREE GRACE OF GOD; for we are predestinated thereunto. By nature we have no claim to it. "It is not a natural but a constituted relationship." The idea is not of sonship merely, but of sonship by adoption. None can adopt into the family of God but God himself, and therefore it may be regarded as an act of pure grace and love. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God!". (1Jn_3:1) He may ask the question, "How shall I put thee among the children?" but he has answered it graciously in the line of covenant promise: I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord". (2Co_6:18)

II THAT ADOPTION IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERSON AND MEDIATION OF CHRIST. He is not merely the Pattern of sonship to which we are to be conformed, but the adoption is "by Jesus Christ." The apostle declares elsewhere that "we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus", (Gal_3:26) and that "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons". (Gal_4:4, Gal_4:5) It is evident from these passages that we do not receive the adoption merely in virtue of Christ"s incarnation. Some modern divines hold that the adoption springs, not from the death, but from the birth of Christ; that its benefits are conferred upon every member of the human race by virtue of the Incarnation; that Christ being one with every man, the Root and Archetype of humanity, all men are in him adopted and saved, and that nothing remains for faith but to discern this oneness and his salvation as already belonging to us.

1. This theory makes Christ, and not Adam, the Head of humanity. Yet Scripture makes Adam the true head of humanity, and Christ the Head of the redeemed. Christ is no doubt called "the Head of every man", (1Co_11:9) in so far as he is "the Firstborn of every creature," and as "all things were created" by him and for him; but the allusion is not to the Incarnation at all, but to the pre-existent state of the Son, and to the fact that, according to the original state of things, the world was constituted in him. But the whole race of man is represented as in Adam. (Rom_5:12) How else can we understand the parallel between the two Adams? "That was not first which was spiritual, but that which was natural." "The first man was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Is it proper to regard Christ as the Archetype of fallen humanity alienated from God, and needing to be created anew in the Divine? (Col_3:10; Eph_4:24)

2. This theory is inconsistent with Scripture, which makes the Incarnation and the cross inseparable. They are both means to an end: the expiation of sin, the vindication of Divine justice the meritorious obedience to be rendered to the Law. Jesus was born that he might die. The event of Golgotha not only explains but completes the event of Bethlehem. Our Savior came to save the lost; (Mat_18:11) he came to give his life a ransom; (Mat_20:28) he came into the world to save sinners; (1Ti_1:15) he took part of flesh and blood to destroy death; (Heb_2:14) he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil; (1Jn_3:8) it was on the cross he triumphed over principalities and powers. (Col_2:15) There are a hundred passages in Scripture which ascribe our salvation to his death to one passage ascribing it to his birth. It is a suggestive circumstance that he should have appointed a festival to commemorate his death the Lord"s Supper and should have appointed no similar festival to commemorate his birth. The effect, if not the design, of this theory is to destroy the necessity for the atonement, and thus to avoid the offence of the cross. The Incarnation is presented to us as a remedial arrangement by virtue of its connection with the cross, and the connection of man with Christ is represented as corrective of his connection with Adam. Our primary connection is with the first Adam, and we only attain to connection with Christ by regeneration.

III THAT ADOPTION IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNITED TO CHRIST BY FAITH. Scripture is exceedingly plain in its testimony upon this point. "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus"; (Gal_3:26) "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name"; (Joh_1:12) "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God". (Rom_8:14) Yet it is said that faith does not make the sonship, but discerns it as already ours. The proper office of faith, however, is not to recognize the blessing of adoption as ours, but "to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." The blessings of salvation are not conferred on all men prior to their faith or without their faith. The union between Christ and believers, of which the Scripture is so full, is not accomplished by our Lord"s assumption of our common nature, but is only realized through an appropriating faith wrought in each of us by the grace of God.

IV THAT THE ISSUE OF THE ADOPTION" IS TO BRING BELIEVERS AT LAST INTO COMMUNION WITH GOD HIMSELF. "Ye are Christ"s, and Christ is God"s." We are brought into the Divine family family in heaven and in earth" (Eph_3:15) of which God is the Father; for "adoption finds its ultimate enjoyment and blessing in God." If we are thus brought to God and belong to God in virtue of our adoption, ought we not with a profound earnestness to aim at a high and spiritual tone of living? T.C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having predestinated us to the adoption of sons - Having foreordained that all who afterwards believed should enjoy the dignity of being sons of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. According to the good pleasure of his will - According to his free, fixed, unalterable purpose to confer this blessing on all those who should believe in Christ, and those only.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

predestinated

Predestination is that effective exercise of the will of God by which things before determined by Him are brought to pass. See Election,

(See Scofield "1Pe 1:2")

Foreknowledge, (See Scofield "1Pe 1:20")

adoption

Adoption (huiothesia, "placing as a son") is not so much a word of relationship as of position. The believer’s relation to God as a child results from the new birth Joh 1:12; Joh 1:13 whereas adoption is the act of God whereby one already a child is, through redemption from the law, placed in the position of an adult son. Gal 4:1-5.

The indwelling Spirit gives the realization of this in the believer’s present experience Gal 4:6 but the full manifestation of the believer’s sonship awaits the resurrection, change, and translation of saints, which is called "the redemption of the body"; Rom 8:23; 1Th 4:14-17; Eph 1:14; 1Jn 3:2.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That is, "having predestinated us Gentiles, who in the esteem of the Jews were accounted dogs, to be his adopted sons and daughters, in and by Jesus Christ, in whom he hath made us accepted, to the abundant praise and glory of his free grace and mercy."

Observe here, 1. That none are the children of God by nature: none are born sons, but made sons; not of their own, but God’s making; and in order to this glorious privilege, we were predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.

Observe, 2. The attribute mentioned here by the apostle, which moved God to predestinate us to the adoption of children: it was the glory of his grace, he mentions not the glory of his holiness, the glory of his justice, or the glory of his power, because the glory of his power is manifested in making of the world, the glory of his holiness in making of his law, the glory of his justice in turning the transgressors of that law into hell; but his grace he shows no where so much as in the predestination ofhis children, and in what he hath predestinated them unto; he showeth indeed all his attributes herein, but grace over and above all the rest.

Observe 3. The effect and fruit of this privilege, namely, of our being predestinated to the adoption of children, and that is, our being made accepted in Christ the Beloved; the word is properly rendered, He hath made us dear, precious, and delightful, to himself; or in one word, He hath ingratiated us.

Here note, That as Jesus Christ is in an eminent manner beloved of God and accepted with him, so in like manner all God’s adopted children do, and shall, find favour with God, and acceptance through Christ: He hath made us freely accepted in the Beloved.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5-8. “In love having predestinated us unto sonship in himself through Jesus Christ.” Here is a beautiful allusion to the Father’s love, which moved him to interpose the wonderful redemptive scheme.

“O for this love let rocks and hills Their lasting silence break, And all harmonious human tongues Their Savior’s praises speak.

Angels, assist our mighty joys; Strike all your harps of gold;

But when you reach your highest notes, His love can ne’er be told.”

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. Having predestinated us. Foreordained that we, the church of Jesus Christ, should be adopted as his children. The whole line of argument is general instead of particular. God foreordained a church which should be composed of those adopted as his children. According to the pleasure of his will. The act of predestination was due simply to God's sovereign will. His will was the cause.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

The words "his," "He," and "he" refer to God.

God chose us beforehand for adoption

The word "us" refers to Paul, the Ephesian church, and all believers in Christ. AT: "God planned long ago to adopt us" (See: Inclusive "We")

God chose us beforehand

"God chose us ahead of time" or "God chose us long ago"

for adoption as sons

Here "adoption" refers to becoming part of God's family. Here the word "sons" refers to males and females. AT: "to be adopted as his children" (See: When Masculine Words Include Women)

through Jesus Christ

God brought believers into his family by the work of Jesus Christ.

he has freely given us in the One he loves.

"he has kindly given to us by means of the One he loves"

the One he loves

"the One he loves, Jesus Christ" or "his Son, whom he loves"

translationWords

predestine

adoption

praise

glory

grace

beloved

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

5. προορίσας. Cf. Rom 8:29; 1Co 2:7; Act 4:28; ‘designating’ or ‘appointing’ beforehand, a further definition of Election. The word is not found in LXX., but see Enoch xxxix. 9.

εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χρ. εἰς αὐτόν, ‘to attain the relation of sonship towards Himself through Jesus Christ.’

υἱοθεσία in the Greek Bible peculiar to P. ‘Adoption,’ as inscriptions show, was frequent in all parts of the Roman Empire. (See Deissmann, B.S. p. 239.) And St Paul seems to have laid hold of the figure to suggest the truth that the special Christian relation of sonship to God (cf. Eph 5:1) is as the relation of Israel to Jehovah had been (Rom 9:4, cf. Exo 4:22 f.) not a ‘physical’ thing, but due to the Will of the Father. It is never used of the Only-Begotten Son. At the same time the image, as derived from the region of legal fictions, is necessarily an imperfect one, and must not be pressed into all its logical implications. St Paul himself, it should be noticed, speaks of heirs, whose only disqualification is their age, as receiving ‘the adoption’ (Gal 4:5), and even Christians who are already ‘children of God’ (Rom 8:16) as still awaiting ‘adoption’ (Rom 8:23). We must be careful therefore not to interpret the phrase in such a way as to make it contradict Luk 3:38.

διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Cf. Hort on 1Pe 2:5. In St Peter however it is ‘through Jesus Christ’ that we offer acceptable sacrifices to God. Here it is ‘through Jesus Christ’ that God conveys to us the gift of sonship. Our election ‘in Christ’ preceded creation. Our ‘adoption’ could not take effect before the appearance of Jesus Christ in flesh; cf. Gal 4:4. In 1Co 8:6 the whole creation, and in a special sense the members of the Christian Church, derive their being through the one Lord Jesus Christ.

εἰς αὐτόν, to be connected closely with υἱοθεσίαν. The relation of Sonship ‘to Himself.’ God is our goal and source (1Co 8:6), as well as the goal and source of Creation (Rom 11:36). εἰς = ‘unto’ rather than ‘into’ (cf. Eph 4:32; Col 1:20).

κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ. Cf. Eph 1:9; Eph 1:11. ‘According to the gracious purpose of His desire.’ The originating and controlling force at the back of God’s election is to be found in God Himself, not indeed in any arbitrary decree, but in His love. Cf. Deu 7:8; esp. Isa 42:1 = Mat 12:18, ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου; and Enoch xxxvii. 4, xxxix. 4, xlix. 4. On εὐδοκία see Eph 1:9.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5.] Having predestined us (subordinate to the ἐξελέξατο: see Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30, where the steps are thus laid down in succession;—οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν—οὓς προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν. Now the ἐκλογή must answer in this rank to the προέγνω, and precede the προώρισεν. Stier remarks well, “In God, indeed, all is one; but for our anthropomorphic way of speaking and treating, which is necessary to us, there follows on His first decree to adopt and to sanctify, the nearer decision, how and by what this shall be brought about, because it could only be thus brought about.” προ,—as Pelagius (in Harless),—“ad eos refertur qui antea non fuerunt, et priusquam fierent, de his cogitatum est et postea substiterunt”) unto adoption (so that we should become His sons, in the blessed sense of being reconciled to Him and having a place in His spiritual family,—should have the remission of our sins, the pledge of the Spirit, the assurance of the inheritance) through Jesus Christ (the Son of God, in and by whom, elementally and instrumentally, our adoption consists, cf. Rom 8:29, προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τ. υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς) to Him (the Father: see Col 1:20, διʼ αὐτοῦ (Christ) ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν (the Father). So Thdrt., all., Harl., Olsh., Meyer, Stier: and rightly, for the Son could not be in this sentence the terminus ultimus (the whole reference being to the work and purpose of the Father); and had this been intended, as Harl. remarks, we must have had καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. De W., who, after Anselm, Tho.-Aq., Castal., all., refers it to the Son, fails to answer this objection of Harl.’s. But now arise two questions: (1) the meaning. Does it merely represent ἑαυτῷ, a dativus commodi? So Grot., al., but it cannot be, after the insertion of the special διὰ Ἰ. χ., that the sentence should again return to the general purpose. It seems much better, to join it with διὰ Ἰ. χ. as in Col 1:20, above: and so Harl., but too indefinitely, taking it only as a phrase common with the Apostle and not giving its full import. As in Col 1:20, the εἰς αὐτόν, though thus intimately connected with διʼ αὐτοῦ, depends on ἀποκαταλλάξαι, so here it must depend on υἱοθεσίαν, and its import must be ‘to (into) Himself,’—i.e. so that we should be partakers of the divine nature: cf. 2Pe 1:4. (2) Should we read αὐτόν or αὑτόν? It will depend on whether we refer this clause, from διὰ to κατά, to the Father as its subject, or consider it as a continuation of the Apostle’s thanksgiving. And the latter is much the most likely; for had the former been the case, we should probably have had, instead of διὰ Ἰησ. χριστοῦ, διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰ. χρ., so that reference to the Father might still be kept up. I decide therefore for αὐτόν, as Thdrt. certainly read, or his remark, τὸ δὲ εἰς αὐτόν, τὸν πατέρα λέγει, would have been needless. And so Erasm., Wetst., Lachm., Harl., Olsh., Meyer. Then αὐτοῦ in ver. 6 naturally takes it up again) according to (in pursuance of) the good pleasure (it is disputed whether εὐδοκία has here merely this general meaning of beneplacitum, or that of benevolentia. Harl. (see also Ellicott) examines thoroughly the use of the word by the LXX, and decides in favour of the latter, alleging especially, that a mere assertion of doctrine would be out of place in an ascription of thanksgiving. But surely this is a most unfortunate position. The facts on which doctrines rest are here the very subjects of the Apostle’s thanksgiving: and the strict parallels of Mat 11:26, Luk 10:21, should have kept him from adducing it. Granting, as we must, both senses to εὐδοκεῖν and εὐδοκία, the context must in each case determine which is meant. And its testimony here is clear. It is, as De W. remarks, not in προωρισμένοι, but in προορίσας, that the object, to which εὐδοκία refers, is to be sought: and the subsequent recurrences to the same idea in ver. 9 and ver. 11 point out that it is not the Father’s benevolentia, but His beneplacitum, which is in the Apostle’s mind. And so Meyer, De W., Stier, and Ellic. This beneplacitum was benevolentia, ver. 6; but that does not affect the question. See, besides Harl., a long note in Fritz. on Rom_2. p. 369) of His will,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having predestinated [προορισας] . Rev. foreordained. From pro before, oJrizw to define, the latter word being from opov a boundary. Hence to define or determine beforehand.

Adoption [υιοθεσιαν] . See on Rom 8:15. Never used of Christ. Good pleasure [ευδοκιαν] . Not strictly in the sense of kindly or friendly feeling, as Luk 2:14; Phi 1:15, but because it pleased Him, see Luk 10:21; Mt 11:26. The other sense, however, is included and implied, and is expressed by in love.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.