The overall context and purpose of the first three chapters of Ephesians is to show the benefits God has showered on two people groups – The Jews and the Gentiles. Of course, it is addressed to Christians. However, the pronouns “we” and “you” are arguably even more generalized in the developing context.
1) 1:1-12 pertains to the plural “we”, referring to those “who first trusted in Christ” (v12)
a. This is specifically speaking of Jews, which will be quite apparent later in the context. The Jews were the first to receive the Gospel (Mt 10:5-6, 15:24)
2) v 13 switches to a plural “you”
a. This is speaking of Gentiles, as the unraveling context will make quite apparent. Galatia was the first region Paul went to share the Gospel to the Gentiles universally
3) In Chapter 2, Paul continues his discussion about Gentiles
a. V1 – “you hath he quickened”
b. V11 – “you being … Gentiles”, “uncircumcision”
c. V12 - Speaking of “you”, Paul addresses the former gentile condition in (“aliens from commonwealth”, “strangers of covenants”, etc.)
d. So we establish that “you” is speaking explicitly of Gentiles
4) In 2:14, Paul expressly states that he is speaking of two legal entities, not individuals, being reconciled: “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us”
a. The key word here is “both”. This strongly suggests that Paul has been speaking of two people groups, and not individuals.
5) In 2:16, Paul explicitly makes mention of the two legal entities again, not individuals: “that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby”
6) In 2:19, Paul concludes the entire discussion thus far, saying, “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;”
a. This shows that the emphasis of the entire discussion was that of the Gentiles (“you”) being included in the election “in Christ”, and hence we see the first use of the conjunction “therefore” in the epistle.
7) Paul continues in 3:1 – “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles”
8) He then discusses how this reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles was previously a mystery (3:5-6). This is the same mystery mentioned in 1:9-10, which is obviously linking the context of chapters 1 through 3.
9) In 3:6, Paul makes it clear that the Gentiles, all Gentiles, “should be fellow heirs … and partakers”. Then in 3:8, he ties this to his commissioning that he “should preach among the Gentiles”, all Gentiles, with the purpose of making “all men [arguably all gentiles] see what is the fellowship of the mystery” (v9). Surely the “Gentiles” in 3:8-9 are the same “Gentiles” in 3:6, which are the same “Gentiles” in 3:1 (Where he ties “you” to “gentiles”).
So, in general, “you” in Ephesians 1 is referring to Gentile Christians, although is conveying a higher level benefit potential for all “Gentiles”. As Acts 11:18 exclaims, “Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance to life”. Gentiles are offered election “in Christ”, just as the Jews are. Paul’s Christian readers have merely made their election individual and efficacious by placing their faith in Christ. Those who identify with Christ by faith are elect "in Christ". In this sense, Ephesians is speaking of individual election. Yet, in another sense, Ephesians is speaking of a corporate group. The epistle wasn't written to a fixed person (e.g. Timothy) or set of people (Timothy and Titus), but rather to an ethnic Christian body -- Ephesians who were faithfully "in Christ". Christ is like a proverbial boat, and anyone on the boat can read these benefits as applying to them, because they apply to the whole boat. Nobody is chosen to be in the boat, but rather chosen as a result of being in the boat. Jews and Gentiles are not chosen TO BE in Christ, but rather “IN CHRIST” are chosen TO BE “holy and without blame before him in love” (1:3).
Another fallacy is that predestination means "predestination unto salvation". That's chronologically wrong. The predestination is unto glorification, not a rigid unconditional predetermination of people to get saved. Anyone finally "in Christ", God has purposed to glorify. In Eph 1:5 it says "Having predestined us [Jews "in Christ"] unto the adoption...." Romans 8 echoes this: "predestined to be conformed to the image of His son" (v29). In Romans 8, Paul clearly states that the "adoption" is the glorification (v23), and that to be conformed into Christ's image is also the glorification. Both epistles are referring to this glorification as the "inheritance" (Rom 8:17, Eph 1:11), and it is expressly in Jesus (i.e. "in Whom we have..."). And yes, glorification is a fixed determined plan for those "in Christ". The "in Christ" part is up to us. Jesus commands us, "Abide in Me!".
God has devised a destiny for Jews and Gentiles who are "in Christ". Nowhere does Ephesians 1:11 imply that God has determined who will be in Christ. Nor do the words "purpose" and "counsel" (Gr. boule) add any necessitiy of unconditionality -- they simply speak of a salvific plan. God's "plans" include conditional provisions. God has conditionally purposed, according to His counsel, to offer sinners grace, but allows many individuals to forego that counsel for themselves (See Lk 7:30 and the use of boule there).
2 Tim 1:9 is stated similarly to Eph 1:11, stating:
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began".
It is the economy of salvation offered before the world began, "in Christ". God's purpose was to offer salvation "in Christ", and to offer Him in such a way that it was not based on works, but based on grace (which is only possible by making it through faith -- see Rom 4:16).
Consider also 2 Thess 2:9-15:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Here we read of two types of people – them that perish (v10), and the “brethren beloved of the Lord” (v13). The perish are reprobated “because they received [or accepted] not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (v10). The words “because” in verse 10 and “for this cause” in verse 11 clearly demonstrate that reprobation is not an unconditional decree made in abstracto, but rather conditioned on rejection of the truth. Them that perish “believed not the truth” (v12). But them that are saved have entered into God’s choice or preference. God has, “from the beginning” of their conversion (as in Acts 11:15), preferred them “in [Gr. en] sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (YLT). Here we have the means of election (hence the King James rendering of v13). Verse 14 then informs us that they were called into this state (Gr. eis os) through the spoken Gospel. The Gospel is the “call” to all men. Unfortunately, many are called, but not chosen (Mt 20:16, 22:14). Why? Because, though the pistis has been granted to all men (Acts 17:31), not all have exhibited pisteusantes of the truth. Finally, in verse 15, Paul ties all of this to an imperative – “Therefore, brethren, stand fast…” Such an imperative is not a mere artificiality (to an audience bound to never fall away), nor is it an imperative spoken to a mixed audience (of which some genuinely aren’t currently saved). Rather, it is a genuine command to genuine believers who genuinely need to make their “calling and election sure” (2 Pet 1:10), lest they jeopardize their standing like those who are “so quickly deserting him who called” them into grace of Christ (Gal 1:6, ESV). The Calvinist will continue to say that "called" in these verses takes on different meanings, even though the context of all is salvific.
So what about the salvific chain that follows God’s “election” in Romans 8:29-30? First I’ll let John Wesley answer this question. Wesley (in his NT notes) states:
"St. Paul does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings. that precisely the same number of men are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification, Rom_11:22. Neither does he deny that many are called who never are justified. He only affirms that this is the method whereby God leads us step by step toward heaven. He glorified - He speaks as one looking back from the goal, upon the race of faith. Indeed grace, as it is glory begun, is both an earnest and a foretaste of eternal glory."
What he says makes complete sense, especially in light of how proginosko (i.e. foreknow, or know before) is used in Acts 26:5 ("foreknowing me . . . that I lived according to the strictest sect of our religion, a Pharisee"), and 2 Peter 3:17 ("Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before"), which both actually point to knowledge at a current point in time about something in the past. So in God's perspective, it could just as easily be understood as God looking back from a future perspective to the ones who made it through the whole chain, viewing how He worked with them (the ones who are glorified) to achieve each step along the way (predestined/purposed to be conformed, called, justified, etc.). This is why the prophetic past tense is employed for the verbs -- He's in a sense looking backward from the end (since He sees the end from the beginning). If God already sees (according to foreknowledge) those who are glorified, then surely He can say about an individual: I called Him, Justified him, and Glorified him. That would be 100% true. But the verse doesn't speak of the reprobates. If God were addressing them, He might have said: "Some of them I called but didn't justify.... Some of them I called and justified but didn't glorify...etc.." This is no different than a coach of a championship football team saying, "I scouted them…I drafted them…I trained them...etc." Of course the coach is speaking of the team that ended up winning -- not the players who didn't make the team, or the players who quit half way through the season because they couldn't hang in there. So, unless God addresses the reprobates in Romans 8 along with the elect, there is no argument for an unconditional election and reprobation.
In addition to the misapplication of the salvific chain in Romans 8:29-30, there is also a lot of confusion about the word proginosko (foreknow), which needs articulated. I recently read an enlightening article by Thomas Edgar which I suggest (click here), which proposes that Calvinists and Arminians alike commit two fundamental exegetical/linguistic fallacies with regard to proginosko. First, they violate D.A. Carson's root fallacy by assuming that we define proginosko based on the lexical usage of its root words (namely ginosko in Greek, or even Yada in Hebrew). They then pick the meaning "love" or "have intimacy", among many. With such a process, we could say that proginosko could take on ANY of Ginosko's dozens of meanings. It could be a free for all (especially when the context of Rom 8:29-30 could allow for many of them).
Let me demonstrate the rule a little more obviously. A compound word, though formed by one or meanings of its root words, does not necessarily take on all meanings of its root words. Thus, an honest approach to word meaning is a lexical study on the Biblical use of the compound word, not its roots. Consider the word “mispronounce”. Here are some meanings of the word “pronounce”:
1: to declare officially or ceremoniously <the minister pronounced them husband and wife>
2: to declare authoritatively or as an opinion <doctors pronounced him fit to resume duties>
3 a: to employ the organs of speech to produce <pronounce these words> ; especially : to say correctly <I can't pronounce his name> b: to represent in printed characters the spoken counterpart of (an orthographic representation) <both dictionaries pronounce clique the same>
4: recite <speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you — Shakespeare>
If we do an honest lexical study of the compound word “mispronounce”, we find that it is only used in the sense of #3. So if I say “I mispronounced marriage”, I mean that I verbally said the word “marriage” wrong. I don’t mean that I wrongly pronounced someone man and wife at a marriage. We just don’t use mispronounce in that way. Consider the word “rematch”. Surely a match could be a sports event, a union of two like pieces (or people), or a wooden stick that makes fire. But, the word rematch is lexically used with the first definition. We just don’t use “rematch” in the other ways. Likewise, there is no Biblical or extra-Biblical evidence that proginosko is tied to any meaning of ginosko other than “to know [something about]”. The use of proginosko in Romans 8:29 is the same as in Acts 26:5 (Subject and Personal Object). The only difference is the qualifying clause at the end of Acts 26:5. Should a clarifying clause change the meaning of the verb, or only clarify the contents? If, in Acts 26:5, the clarifying clause were omitted, would Paul’s point change? Nope. So the burden of proof is on the Calvinist to show me that a lexical study of proginosko (not ginosko) shows a different meaning.
So, to summarize this rule: The appropriate lexical process is to look up the uses of proginosko (not its root words) and determine its use in Rom 8:29 based on its lexical meaning and its use elsewhere. Its lexical meaning is simply "to know beforehand, that is, foresee" (Strong's). None of the verses containing proginosko necessitate a context of "forelove" or "predetermine". In fact, Acts 2:23 shows that predeterminism and foreknowledge are distinct entities, and not one in the same. If they were the same, we would have redundancy in Romans 8:29 (“and whom He did predetermine, He did predetermine”). The concepts of forelove/foreordain are not lexically determined, but rather based on presuppositions (eisegesis). They are read into the word proginosko without lexical basis.
Secondly, they violate the simple linguistic rule that a verb does not fundamentally change meaning based on its subject: Edgar writes:
It is exegetically incorrect to consider only those passages where God is the subject. Still, this approach is common. The assumption involved in so restricting the study is that the meaning is different, and not merely modified, when God is the subject. Several reasons show this approach to be incorrect: (1) The meaning of a verb is not dependent on, nor does it vary with the subject of the verb. (2) Other words do not have a different meaning when used of God. How do interpreters know that this one does? (3) God has given Scripture to communicate to humans. He uses human language with its normal meanings. If words have different meanings when God is the subject, the interpreter cannot know what they are, nor if our concepts about God are accurate. (4) Why would God deliberately make the communication difficult? Why would He use words with different meanings than normal when He could use readily available words that clearly communicate? If this term normally means "foreknowledge," but when used of God, it means "electing love, intimate knowledge, or determining choice," why use it here? Why not say, "electing love." Such an approach is illogical. (5) If words do not have their normal meaning when used to describe God, there can be no objective control on interpretation, leaving each interpreter to read in his theological opinions. Thus, to study only those uses of proginwskw where God is the subject is defective hermeneutically and logically.
Taken to its logical end, a violation of this rule invalidates human language. Any verb can mean any different thing depending on who the subject is. I could start saying that any verb with God as the subect means something else. I disagree with this approach. God spoke to us in human language so that we could relate to Him via the same words we use with each other. We should a approach the verb the same way with the subject being God, as we should with the subject being man. And since the unambiguous verses are used of simple foreknowledge (Acts 26:5, 2 Pet 3:17), then the verbs with God as the subject (Rom 8:29, 1 Pet 1:20, Rom 11:20) should be used in a similar way unless the CONTEXT (not the subject) necessitates. Without such evidence, it is only responsible to stick with the lexical meaning because it works for ALL of them, while the artificial "foreloved" could only possibly apply to 3 of the 5.
Below is an article from the "Life in the Spirit Study Bible" concerning election in Christ:
Election. God’s choice of those who believe in Christ is an important teaching of the apostle Paul (see Ro 8:29-33; 9:6-26; 11:5, 7, 28; Col 3:12; 1 Th 1:4; 2 Th 2:13; Tit 1:1). Election (Gk eklego) refers to God choosing in Christ a people whom he destines to be holy and blameless in his sight (cf. 2 Th 2:13). Paul sees this election as expressing God’s initiative as the God of infinite love in giving us as finite creation every spiritual blessing through the redemptive work of his Son (1:3-5). Paul’s teaching about election involves the following truths:
(1) Election is Christocentric, i.e., election of humans occurs only in union with Jesus Christ. “He chose us in him” (Eph. 1:4; see 1:1, note). Jesus himself is first of all the elect of God. Concerning Jesus, God states, “Here is my servant whom I have chosen” (Mt 12:18; cf. Isa 42:1, 6; 1 Pet 2:4). Christ, as the elect, is the foundation of our election. Only in union with Christ do we become members of the elect (Eph 1:4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13). No one is elect apart from union with Christ through faith.
(2) Election is “in him…through his blood” (Eph 1:7). God purposed before creation (Eph. 1:4) to form a people through Christ’s redemptive death on the cross. Thus election is grounded on Christ’s sacrificial death to save us from our sins (Ac 20:28; Ro 3:24-26).
(3) Election in Christ is primarily corporate, i.e., an election of a people (Eph 1:4-5, 7, 9). The elect are called “the body of Christ” (4:12), “my church” (Mt 16:18), “a people belonging to God” (1 Pe 2:9), and the “bride” of Christ (Rev 19:7). Therefore, election is corporate and embraces individual persons only as they identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the true church (Eph 1:22-23; see Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers]). This was true already of Israel in the OT (see Dt 29:18-21, note; 2Ki 21:14, note; see article on God’s Covenant with the Israelites, p. 298).
(4) The election to salvation and holiness of the body of Christ is always certain. But the certainty of election for individuals remains conditional on their personal living faith in Jesus Christ and perseverance in union with him. Paul demonstrates this as follows. (a) God’s eternal purpose for the church is that we should “be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4). This refers both to forgiveness of sins (1:7) and to the church's purity as the bride of Christ. God’s elect people are being led by the Holy Spirit toward sanctification and holiness (see Ro 8:14; Gal. 5:16-25). The apostle repeatedly emphasizes this paramount purpose of God (see Eph 2:10; 3:14-19; 4:1-3, 13-24; 5:1-18). (b) Fulfillment of this purpose for the corporate church is certain: Christ will “present her to himself as a radiant church…holy and blameless” (Eph 5:27). (c) Fulfillment of this purpose for individuals in the church is conditional. Christ will present us “holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4) only if we continue in the faith. Paul states this clearly: Christ will “present you holy in his sight without blemish…if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel” (Col 1:22-23).
(5) Election to salvation in Christ is offered to all (Jn 3:16-17; 1Ti 2:4-6; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9) but becomes actual for particular persons contingent on their repentance and faith as they accept God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Eph 2:8; 3:17; cf. Ac 20:21; Ro 1:16; 4:16). At the point of faith, the believer is incorporated into Christ’s elect body (the church) by the Holy Spirit (1 Co 12:13), thereby becoming one of the elect. Thus, there is both God’s initiative and our response in election (see Ro 8:29, note; 2 Pet 1:1-11).
Predestination. Predestination (Gk prooizo) means “to decide beforehand” and applies to God’s purposes comprehended in election. Election is God’s choice “in Christ” of a people (the true church) for himself. Predestination comprehends what will happen to God’s people (all genuine believers in Christ).
(1) God predestines his elect to be: (a) called (Rom. 8:30); (b) justified (Ro 3:24, 8:30); (c) glorified (Ro 8:30); (d) conformed to the likeness of his Son (Ro 8:29); (e) holy and blameless (Eph 1:4); (f) adopted as God’s children (1:5); (g) redeemed (1:7); (h) recipients of an inheritance (1:14); (i) for the praise of his glory (Eph 1:2; 1 Pe 2:9); (j) recipients of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13; Gal 3:14); and (k) created to do good works (Eph 2:10).
(2) Predestination, like election, refers to the corporate body of Christ (i.e., the true spiritual church), and comprehends individuals only in association with that body through a living faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 1:5, 7, 13; cf. Ac 2:38-41; 16:31).
Summary. Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be his very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ. [Life in the Spirit Study Bible, pp. 1854, 1855]