Redemption (vi)

In chapter four in this series I cited from Dr. Charles Hodge on the long passage in Ephesians 3 and on how Paul says he created the world "to the intent..." Hodge wrote:

"To the intent that now might be made known, ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν. If this clause depend on the immediately preceding, then the apostle teaches that creation is in order to redemption. God created all things in order that by the church might be made known his manifold wisdom."

Dr. Gordon Clark, in his great book "Predestination," wrote the following under the heading "Creation and the Church":

Ephesians 3:8-10 read as follows (study them carefully):

Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God...

Note, just as a preliminary step, that this passage mentions the preaching of Paul, the creation of the world, and a certain revelation of God’s wisdom to heavenly creatures.

The main exegetical problem of this passage, which must be solved in order to understand it aright, is the identification of the antecedent of the purpose clause. Something happened in order that the wisdom of God might be made known by means of the church to heavenly beings, according to God’s eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. What was it that happened for this purpose? What is the antecedent of the purpose clause?

There are three, and apparently only three, possible antecedents: Paul’s preaching might have had this purpose; the mystery was hid for this purpose; or, God created the world for this purpose.

The second of these possibilities is the least likely. We can eliminate it from consideration because this interpretation would hold that God kept a certain secret hidden from the beginning in order to reveal it in New Testament times. The only support in the wording of the verses for this interpretation, aside from the fact that the event of hiding is mentioned prior to the purpose clause, is the word now. By emphasizing the word now, one may say that the mystery or secret was kept hidden for the purpose of revealing it now. It is true that the emphatic position is given to the verb might be made known, and hence a contrast with a previous hiding is pointed out. The word now, however, is not particularly emphatic and cannot bear the burden of this exegesis. The burden is considerable, for while it is possible to hide something in order to reveal it at a later date, it is more probable that the revelation is the purpose of Paul’s preaching or of God’s creation of the world. Hiding is more or less a negative idea, and it seems reasonable to expect some definite and outward event that has happened for the purpose stated here.

This is not to deny that there is some minimum truth in the notion that God hid the secret earlier in order to reveal it later. Surely it could not have been revealed later if it had not been hidden earlier. But this is a relatively unimportant truth, and the passage has much more to say.

Let us then consider the next possibility. The interpretation that Paul was called to preach in order that God’s wisdom might be made known seems to fit in very well with the preceding context.

In verse 8 Paul had just referred to the grace God had given him for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. From this point the long complicated sentence continues to the end of verse 13. Even further back, as early as verse 2, the idea of Paul’s preaching had been introduced. Therefore, no one can doubt that Paul’s preaching is the main idea of the passage, or at least one of the main ideas. Whether or not Paul’s personal ministry recedes from its central position as the paragraph approaches its end, and what other subordinate ideas may be found in verses 9-11, must of course be determined by direct examination. But the idea of Paul’s preaching is without doubt prominent.

The question now is whether or not Paul’s preaching has for its stated purpose the revelation of God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. It is obviously true that the purpose of Paul’s preaching was to reveal God’s wisdom to men on Earth. This was both God’s purpose and Paul’s purpose. But was it God’s purpose (it could hardly have been Paul’s purpose) to reveal his wisdom to heavenly beings through the preaching of Paul?

Some good commentators think that this is what the passage means. Charles Hodge is one such commentator. Aside from his objection to other interpretations, which we shall study presently, his positive argument is as follows:

The apostle is speaking of his conversion and call to the apostleship. To him was the grace given to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to teach all men the economy of redemption, in order that through the church might be made known the manifold wisdom of God. It is only thus that the connection of this verse with the main idea of the context is preserved. It is not the design of creation, but the design of the revelation of the mystery of redemption, of which he is here speaking.

For the moment the only objection to Hodge’s exegesis is the seemingly peculiar notion that Paul’s preaching on Earth reveals the wisdom of God to the powers in Heaven. Paul preached to men; he did not preach to angels, demons, or whomever these powers may be. Admittedly, in the chain of divine intentions and the purposes of purposes, Paul’s preaching and the founding of the church can be said to reveal God’s wisdom to these powers, if we suppose that God directed their attention to what was going on; but it would be a purpose two or three steps removed. Immediately, it would seem more natural to connect Paul’s preaching with its effects on men, rather than on angels or demons."

To disconnect "who created all things" from "to the intent" is not natural, as Dr. Clark points out. To apply the "hina clause" (purpose clause) to Paul's preaching, or to God's previous hiding of revelation, makes the "purpose clause" to connect with an event further back in the sentence, which is not natural nor the general practice. It is natural to connect ἵνα γνωρισθῇ (literally "in order to make known") immediately with τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι (literally "who the all things created"), thus literally saying "who the all things created in order to make known."

In my series on Predestination, I dealt with Hodge's interpretation at length and I wish to cite what I wrote now. I wrote (see here):

Hodge rejects the interpretation that sees Paul affirming that God created all things in order to redemption, and yet this to me is Paul's obvious meaning.  Hodge is an infralapsarian Calvinist.  In his denial Hodge says that Paul's words "who created all things by Jesus Christ," is an interjection that has no connection with anything in the passage, merely a statement of praise unrelated to anything he has said in the context.  This is wholly untenable.  First, why not simply say, "God who is blessed" or some other statement of praise and adoration?  Second, Hodge thinks that it is the calling of the apostle to preach the gospel that is the thing God has done "in order to redemption."  Certainly that is included, but it is not limited to that event.  Was Paul's being made into an apostle and evangelist not a creative act of God?  Yes.  So, Paul is saying that God made Paul in order to redemption.  So, Hodge's view still is upholding the principle that he condemns, that principle which says that God created Paul to be an apostle in order to redemption!  Creation unto redemption! Viewed in this light, it is not an unconnected thought for Paul to say "who created all things (not just Paul)" unto redemption.  Thus, Hodge's argument about the clause being unnatural is false.  It is very natural and appropriate.  Hodge's view makes the clause meaningless, an interjection that does not relate to anything Paul has said!  Hodge said - "the words ‘who created all things,’ is entirely subordinate and unessential."  I find this view totally false.  The words are pertinent and essential.  

Yes, the creation of Paul into an apostle and evangelist is "unto redemption," and Paul appropriately does not limit his being made an apostle for the purpose of redemption, but includes "all things" that God has made.  Hodge's statement that the - "clause might be omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage," is an absurd position, and indicts the apostle in charging him with uttering things in a complex sentence without any relation to anything he has stated in the sentence.  

Further, it is more likely that the phrase "to the intent" connects with the clause "who created all things by Jesus Christ" for this is the clause nearest the phrase.   

It is also a natural and connected thought, and not unnatural and an unconnected thought.  If Paul had just spoken of his being made or created, it is appropriate for him to expand his thought to the creation of all things.  Why was Paul created an apostle?  Well, for the same reason why all things have been created.

Further, the argument on the word "now" by Hodge carries no weight.  Paul is simply saying that the purpose of his being made an apostle, like God's purpose in all things, is "now" known, in a superior way, by the new testament revelation.

Hodge is wrong to not recognize that God's "design" in gospel preaching is the same as his"design" in creation.  

Clark continued:

"There is no decisive grammatical reason why Paul’s preaching cannot be the antecedent of the purpose clause. Hodge’s interpretation is a quite possible meaning of the passage. And, as with the case of the notion of hiding, there is at least a minimum of truth in it. All of God’s purposes form a connected system, and in some way a preceding event has for its purpose anything that succeeds it.

On the other hand, there is a third interpretation, also grammatically possible, one that seems to have weightier reasons in its favor, and which does not suffer under the objections raised against it. Grammatically, in fact, this third interpretation is not merely equally good, but somewhat preferable; and it makes better sense out of the passage as a whole.

When we say that God created the world for the purpose of displaying his manifold wisdom, we connect the purpose clause with its nearest antecedent. As anyone can see, the reference to Paul’s preaching lies several clauses further back. The immediate antecedent is creation, and this immediate connection between creation and the purpose clause is, we hold, of some value in deciding the matter. It is usually better to choose the nearest possible antecedent. Since, therefore, the syntax is at least somewhat in its favor, the best procedure is to examine objections against so understanding it.

The objections are well stated by Charles Hodge. The view that God created the universe in order to display his manifold wisdom is, as Hodge says, the supralapsarian view. Never mind the technical theological name at the moment. Against this view Hodge urges four objections. First, this passage is the only passage in Scripture adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism; and supralapsarianism, so Hodge says, is foreign to the New Testament. Second, apart from such a doctrinal consideration, this interpretation imposes an unnatural connection on the clauses. The idea of creation in Ephesians 3:10 is entirely subordinate and unessential. It could have been omitted, says Hodge, without materially affecting the sense of the passage. Third, the theme of the passage concerns Paul’s preaching the Gospel; only by connecting the purpose clause with Paul’s preaching can the unity of the context be preserved. And fourth, the word now, in contrast with the previous hiding, supports the reference to Paul’s preaching. It was Paul’s preaching that had now put an end to the secret’s hiddenness. Such are Hodge’s four objections.

Let us consider the last one first. Admittedly it was Paul’s preaching that founded the church, and the founding of the church made known God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. The supralapsarian interpretation does not deny that Paul played this important part in God’s eternal plan. But even so, Paul’s preaching was not the immediate cause of the revelation of God’s wisdom. It was the existence of the church that was the immediate cause. Yet grammar prevents us from saying that the church was founded in order that God’s wisdom might be revealed. It is true that the church was founded in order to reveal God’s wisdom, but this is not what the verse says. Now, if several events occurred, all leading up to this revelation of God’s wisdom, including the founding of the church, Paul’s preaching, and of course the death and resurrection of Christ that Paul preached, the word now in the verse cannot be used to single out Paul’s preaching in contrast with other events mentioned in the passage. This fourth objection is therefore a poor one.

Next, the first objection says that this is the only passage adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism, and supralapsarianism is foreign to the New Testament. The latter half of this objection is a case of begging the question. If this verse teaches supralapsarianism, then the doctrine is not foreign to the New Testament. We should not assume that the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament and then determine what the verse means. We should first determine what the verse means in order to find out whether or not the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament.

To be sure, if this one verse were indeed the only verse in the Bible with supralapsarian overtones, we would be justified in entertaining some suspicion of this interpretation. Hodge does not say explicitly that this is the only verse; he says it is the only verse adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism.

Well, really, even this verse does not directly assert the whole complex supralapsarian view. Very few verses in Scripture directly assert the whole of any major doctrine. There is no one verse, for example, that gives us the full doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore we must recognize degrees of directness, partial and even fragmentary assertions of a doctrine. And with this recognition, regularly acknowledged in the development of any doctrine, it is evident that this verse does not stand alone in suspicious isolation.

More of the complete doctrine of supralapsarianism will come to light when in the next chapter we discuss the knowledge of God. The main point of the present discussion is whether or not the purpose of creation was to make known the wisdom of God. All that is required at this point is the avoidance of the assumption that this verse in Ephesians cannot mean this before examining it.

Thus, we come to objection number two. Hodge claims that the supralapsarian interpretation of this verse imposes an unnatural connection upon the clauses. The idea of creation, he said, is entirely unessential and could have been omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage.

Does not this objection make it clear that Hodge does not know how to handle the reference to creation? He claims that it is unessential, a chance, thoughtless remark that does not affect the sense of the passage. Such careless writing does not seem to me to be Paul’s usual style. For example, in Galatians 1:1 Paul says, “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” Why now did Paul mention that God had raised Jesus Christ? If it were a chance remark without logical connection with the sense of the passage, a remark intended only to speak of some random aspect of God’s glory, Paul could have as well said, God who created the universe. But it is fairly clear that Paul had a conscious purpose in selecting the resurrection instead of the creation. He wanted to emphasize, against his detractors, that he had his apostolic authority from Jesus himself. And Jesus was able personally to give him that authority because he was not dead but had been raised up by God.

So, as Paul chose the idea of resurrection in Galatians instead of the idea of creation, he also chose the idea of creation in Ephesians instead of resurrection, because the idea of creation contributed some meaning to his thought. Certainly the supralapsarian or teleological interpretation of Ephesians 3:10 accommodates the idea of creation, and, contrariwise, an interpretation that can find no meaning in these words of the text is a poorer interpretation.

The remaining objection is that only by making Paul’s preaching the antecedent of the purpose clause can the unity of the context be preserved. The reverse seems to be the case. Not only does Hodge fail to account for the mention of creation, and thus diminish the unity of the context, but further stress on purpose, running from creation to the present, unifies the passage in a most satisfactory manner."

I agree. The purpose clause being connected with the statement about God creating all things does in fact preserve the unity of the context.

Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Whole Bible wrote (emphasis mine):

"To the intent - Greek, “that” Ἵνα - Hina". The sense is, that it was with this design, or that this was the purpose for which all things were made. One grand purpose in the creation of the universe was, that the wisdom of God might be clearly shown by the church. It was not enough to evince it by the formation of the sun, the stars, the earth, the seas, the mountains, the floods. It was not enough to show it by the creation of intelligent beings, the formation of immortal minds on earth, and the various ranks of the angelic world. There were views of the divine character which could be obtained only in connection with the redemption of the world. Hence the universe was created, and man was made upon the earth, not merely to illustrate the divine perfections in the work of creation, but in a still more illustrious manner in the work of redemption. And hence the deep interest which the angelic hosts have ever evinced in the salvation of man."

Clark continued:

"The supralapsarian or teleological understanding of God’s working, that is, the understanding that God works for a purpose, enables us to combine all three of these interpretations, including even the second, which in itself has so little into its favor, in a unified and intelligible thought. Since God does everything for a purpose (and this truth will be made more clear in the next chapter), and since whatever precedes in time has in a general way the purpose of preparing for what follows, we may say that God kept the secret hidden in order to reveal it now, and also that Paul preached in order to reveal it now. But if God had not created the world, there would have been no Paul to do the preaching, no church by which the revelation could be made, and no heavenly powers on which to impress the idea of God’s manifold wisdom. Only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation can a unified sense be obtained from the passage as a whole. We conclude, therefore, that this was the purpose of creation."

I agree with Clark and disagree with Hodge. It is "only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation" that the unity of the long sentence is preserved. Further, when Paul affirms that "all things" were created in order to display God's wisdom, he certainly includes the idea of creating Paul himself (and thus his apostleship and preaching) and of the church.

Clark continued:

"If it has now been sufficiently shown that the ultimate purpose of creation is the glory of God, this chapter may well conclude with a brief statement as to what glory means.

Now, in addition to internal excellence, the word glory can mean the exhibition of this excellence. The brightness of the Sun and stars in 1 Corinthians 15:41 is not precisely their inward constitution but their outward appearance. Ezekiel 1:28 makes it very clear: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” Isaiah 6:1-3 is a more familiar passage: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim…and the whole Earth is full of his glory.” Another passage is Isaiah 60:1-2, “Arise, shine, for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.” Again, there are dozens of such verses (Luke 2:9; Acts 22:11; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6; Hebrews 1:3, etc.).

The purpose, then, of creation will be, not the production of God’s internal and eternal excellence, but the display of his greatness to principalities, to powers, and to mere human beings.

That there is a chain or system of purposes is not to be denied. Indeed, these details will be insisted upon in the following chapters. Therefore, it is quite true to say that the purpose of creation, or, better, one purpose of creation, was to have Abraham born in Ur and move his family to Palestine. But the purpose, the final purpose, the all-inclusive purpose, is to display God’s excellence. If God’s excellence contains knowledge or mysteries, then the purpose of creation is to make these known. These are part of God’s glory. If God’s excellence contains power, then God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying his power, not precisely to him, but through him, so that God’s name might be declared throughout all the Earth, as is explicitly stated both in Exodus 9:16 and in Romans 9:17.

The manifold subsidiary purposes are all summed up and comprehended in a single ultimate purpose, the glory of God. It is the revelation of God’s excellence, the revelation of God himself. He created the world in order to display his sovereign majesty. He is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the final and ultimate end. Only by realizing the glory and omnipotence of God can a proper understanding of predestination be achieved."

What would we know of God's nature without redemption? Would there have ever been an incarnation and resurrection had there been no sin?