Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
Zack Eswine Preaching to a Post-Everything World: Crafting Biblical Sermons That Connect with Our Culture
The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered Company
Mark Driscoll On Church Leadership (Book You'll Actually Read)
« Wednesday Links | Home | The Teenage Girl Syndrome »
Against Corporate Election in Ephesians 1.3-14
By jason | July 2, 2008
This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive or hugely technical post. But after Matt’s good comment (and please hear me say that) on a corporate election perspective of Ephesians 1 I wanted to point out a few reasons I don’t think it works in the context. I don’t have any axe to grind (let’s major on the majors), I just have not bought into the corporate election language to this point.
- It must be said that Paul is not referring merely to the church at Ephesus or else he would have used the 2nd person plural instead of 1st person plural.
- Paul is not merely talking to Gentiles alone in this section because he lumps himself in (and consequently all believers) and Paul is a Jew. In my mind this is important because a corporate election has to have a black and white distinction here for it to work. But it seems throughout Paul is speaking to all believers, not just Gentiles.
- Even if this is a corporate view (which surely we see this in some way) there still must be a view for the individual within the larger sphere because the goal of election is “that we should be holy and blameless. We can’t blindly say Paul is simply saying Gentiles are in view and now added to the sphere of God’s redemptive plan because not all Gentiles are heading down the holy and blameless path. One might also point out this unqualified corporate election could logically lead to some form of universalism (again, if individuals are not in view too).
- Corporate election (without individuals in view) downplays the fact of individual sins and the severity of individual sins. This seems to run counter to the rest of the book. Again, there is surely a corporate elements but it doesn’t seem we can lose sight of the individual viewed corporately.
- NB: okay, going to get slightly technical here…I will have to disagree and say that there is something significant in the language used in verse 4. “He chose us” seems best taken in the middle voice. This indicates personal interest in the one chosen (not random impersonal choice; contra Barth’s assertion). And this personal interest seems to indicate an interest in the individual, not just the corporate entity (corporate entity alone is far more impersonal). It is at best redundant and at worst counter-productive and confusing to lay this on the whole of humanity. Why not say things in a more straight forward way if solely the corporate entity is in view.
- To come full circle, Paul is writing to a church (not an individual) so using the plural pronoun (”us”) is normal. So one cannot simply go to corporate election based on the use of the plural alone. And again, it is 1st person plural, not 2nd plural. So Paul includes himself in the corporate entity, so seems unlikely this is advantageous for corporate election view.
- To draw attention to one of Matt’s statements: “This carries much weight, particularly if the author is in fact Paul, because it essentially declares that all people, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, man or woman are all welcome to follow Jesus, a lifestyle that is by its nature, blessed and predestined.” But this is not what the text says. It doesn’t say a certain way of life is chosen and predestined but that people are chosen and predestined to a certain way of life.
Those are some thoughts that came to mind in the last few days. Whatchu think.
Go.
Topics: The Scriptures, Theology |
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The title of the post seems to conflict with the statement, “Even if this is a corporate view (which surely we see this in some way)…” Maybe you’re advocating both/and but think the individual aspects are primary? I definitely see individual and corporate (but don’t know which weighs heavier or if it is even necessary/proper to weigh them.)
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
It’s the individual viewed corporately. (sorry for the confusion.)
The individual is in view, I think the weight of the argument is in favor of this. But these individuals, as is seen in the rest of Ephesians, are viewed corporately (the new living temple, etc).
But corporate election doesn’t allow for the individual in this way. At least it cannot do so consistently in my estimation.
The encouragement, that is Ephesians 1.3-14, is to individuals not just some conglomerate of gentiles.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
got it, thx. no need to apologize, i am a slow learner and miss stuff the first 10 or 50 times. can you say oblivious?
as a side note, it’s interesting (to me anyway) to see how the new paul pendulum swung way to the corporate side at first and is slowly working its way back to the middle. of course, that’s just my interpretation.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I think there is definitely an affinity with corporate election and NPP. I almost mentioned something about that but didn’t.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Well, a much delayed comment, and here we go.
1. I think on a more base level, it’s obvious that Paul isn’t writing to just the church at Ephesus, since the letter doesn’t seem to be written originally or solely to a church in Ephesus. In fact, if Paul did write this letter, it seems most likely to be a circular letter to several churches, and probably churches he did not start. Perhaps a 1st person plural pronoun is used to associate Paul with churches he did not know so well, or to emphasize the unity that he speaks explicitly about in chapter 2.
2. Paul lumps himself in with these Gentile readers because it is one of his main agendas in the letter: to prove to Gentiles that they are credible heirs to the Jewish blessings of faith in Christ (the corporate recipient of election). In Galatians, it is those who are of Abraham’s seed in the Spirit, in which there are no divisions. Therefore, an emphasis on Gentile-inclusion would play up the emphasis on corporate election of all who choose to follow Christ, not discredit it.
3. By this point, I’m not sure we’re seeing corporate election in the same terms. Election rests on those who enter into the gospel. I’m not implying a corporate election that automatically includes all people in certain ethnic groups. Election rests on the spiritual body of those in the Church, a body that is entered by a faithful response (human reaction) to God’s grace. But it is important to note that Paul’s argument, particularly in chapter 2 and in Romans 9-11 is that God’s redemptive plan is universal in its scope, though I wouldn’t call that universalism.
4. This one I agree, is a good point. But at the same time, I feel there is a struggle in the vast differences between a culture 2,000 years ago that knew nothing like our current individualism. This didn’t seem to be as much of a stumbling block for our ancient friends as it is for us.
5. Again, individualism like we know it today is completely foreign to their understanding of the world. Nor do I think corporate election falls upon “all of humanity” without any sort of commitment and covenant maintenance.
6. Election is an idea that Paul did not make up. Scripture is to be interpreted by scripture. It seems that Paul’s view of election is based on Israel’s election, which had methods for incorporating “strangers” and “foreigners.” If such a view were a basis for Paul’s understanding of Christianity (at the time a sect of Judaism with very similar ideas), these ideas would have probably crossed-over and been appropriated. So, the idea of corporate election is not simply based on the use of the plural, but on scripture itself and the cultural mindset of the time. If Paul is arguing that election rests on Abraham’s true seed, which does not divide between Jew and Gentile, then obviously Paul would include himself in that category, therefore adding weight to the view of corporate election with a new definition of the body as spiritual and the “new Israel.”
7. This is where I would reference the plural pronoun. The election rests on the “us,” and who are the us? Those who follow Christ. The election, therefore rests on us as a unit, on those who follow Christ because we each have been given what we have for the sake of the whole body (chapter 4). The Church has been gifted and predestined to benefit all of its members and the world at large.
It is late. I hope that made sense.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Good thoughts.
I still disagree but thanks for your input. I still don’t see corporate election in the text, but you have clearly articulated the standard corporate election view and it will help people to see what’s happening in NPP, et al (and I don’t mean that as a slam, it is helpful).
July 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
It’s not taken as a slam at all, Sanders’ “covenantal nomism” and the New Perspective on Paul has influenced my reading of the New Testament quite a bit. I gladly stand for it, and I suppose therefore, slightly against the Reformed traditions (not a slam, either).