Does “in love” connect to verse 4 or verse 5?

Explanation:

Ephesians 1:4 is found at the beginning of a berakah that spans Ephesians 1:3–14, where Paul is offering praise to God for his spiritual blessings. He is articulating God’s grand redemptive work and characterizing the qualities through which God carried out this work. In this short passage, Paul mentions God’s love (Ephesians 1:4), will (Ephesians 1:5), grace (Ephesians 1:6), forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7), revelation (Ephesians 1:9), plan (Ephesians 1:10), and purpose (Ephesians 1:11), all to the praise of God’s glory (Ephesians 1:12). Given the fact that there is no punctuation to help clarify whether in love modifies Ephesians 1:4 or Ephesians 1:5, and the fact that the context is all about God, his work, and his qualities, it is likely the case that the phrase is used to characterize God.^1,2

Added to this, the phrase is found in a sentence that states that God predestined us to adoption. What better connection is there for how to understand the prepositional phrase in love than in the context of describing the relationship between the love of a father for his son.³

Counterargument:

If Paul used in love to characterize what motivated God to predestine believers to be adopted as his sons and daughters, this would make Ephesians 1:5b–Ephesians 1:6 redundant.⁴ In other words, Paul is focused on praising God for his work, so much so that he adds according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the beloved (Ephesians 1:5b–Ephesians 1:6) to characterize God’s predestining believers to adoption. There is simply no need for Paul to add in love to characterize God’s preordination, because he is about to offer an even more comprehensive statement.

Response to counterargument:

It is reductionistic to claim that Ephesians 1:5b–Ephesians 1:6 and the prepositional phrase ἐν ἀγάπῃ are all essentially characterizing predestination the same way. Rather, Paul is offering a sophisticated formula that includes what motivated predestination (love), the faculty God used to bring this plan about (his will), and the purpose to which predestination serves (to the praise of his glorious grace). The fact is, Ephesians 1:5b–Ephesians 1:6 is not redundant when the phrase in love further qualifies predestination; rather, it adds colour by shining some light on the otherwise mysterious work of God.

Explanation:

The philosophical notion of determinism has been a feature of human thought since the seventh century BC. In some sense, predestination seems to carry a notion of determinism, because if God foreordains an event, it is impossible to see how this event would not come about. If one connects determinism with predestination, this can make predestination seem somewhat cold and uncaring.⁵ Whether conscious of determinism or not, Paul avoids this problem by grounding the motivation for predestination in God’s love. It is because God loves us that he predestined us to be his sons and daughters. Interestingly Paul will go on to extrapolate God’s love by explaining that love has to do with Christ dying for us even while we are sinners (Ephesians 2:4–5). Far from being cold and uncaring, God’s love is revealed through the high priest, Jesus Christ, who would lay down his life for his sheep. And it is this same love that motivates God to predestine us to sonship.

Counterargument:

There is no reason for Paul to add the prepositional phrase ἐν ἀγαπῃ to characterize God’s act of predestination, because the fact that God preordains us to be his sons and daughters through Christ implies that he loves us.⁶ In other words, given how undeserving we are of God’s grace, Paul does not need to be explicit about God’s love when he states that God chose us to be holy and blameless, and that he predestined us to be his children. It should be obvious enough that love motivated God to adopt sinful humans.

Response to counterargument:

Just because God’s choosing and predestining implies that he loves us does not mean that Paul should forgo articulating this. In fact, as an apostle, explaining things like what motivated God to predestine believers is precisely the task that Paul was called to perform. God is a personal being who desires for us to be in a relationship with him. This means that God not only wants us to know about him, but he wants us to know him. As a personal being, God reveals himself through servants like Paul and the other writers of Scripture, so we can get to know his plans and his character. Whatever else we think of predestination, God wants us to know that what motivated him to save us through the blood of Christ is his love.⁷

Possible weaknesses:

Harold Hoehner makes a case against this view based on the structure of the Greek. He argues that when Paul uses the prepositional phrase in/with love in Ephesians, it always follows the phrase it modifies (Ephesians 4:2, Ephesians 4:15, Ephesians 4:16; Ephesians 5:2). He also suggests that in Ephesians 1:3–11, the verbs and participles used to describe God’s action always precede the prepositional modifiers that follow.⁸

Explanation:

The prepositional phrase in/with love could have a variety of meanings depending on what it modifies. Since the earliest copies leave out commas around the phrase, it is not easy to see if the phrase refers to the end of Ephesians 1:4 or the beginning of Ephesians 1:5. If the phrase is used at the end of Ephesians 1:4, it refers to the love that believers would have for one another when they stand before God holy and blameless. If it is modifying the participle προορίσας (to predestine) that begins Ephesians 1:5, it refers to the characteristic that motivated God to predestine believers to be adopted as sons and daughters through Christ. Both interpretations are grammatically and theologically correct, so how do we decide between them?

One way is to see if Paul uses the same prepositional phrase ἐν ἀγαπῃ (in/with love) in the rest of the letter, and if he does, whether these uses offer insight into a dominant use.¹⁰ When we do this, we find that Paul uses the same prepositional phrase in/with love six times in Ephesians. If we exclude Ephesians 1:4, we notice that in all other instances, Paul uses the phrase to denote love between believers: being rooted and grounded in love (Ephesians 3:17), bearing with one another in love (Ephesians 4:2), speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Ephesians 4:16), and walk in love (Ephesians 5:2). Since Paul’s overall usage of in/with love in Ephesians is meant to convey love between believers, we have good reason to think that Paul uses the phrase similarly here in Ephesians 1:4, in spite of the ambiguity due to the lack of punctuation. That is, he uses the phrase to denote love between humans, rather than the characteristic that motivated God to predestine.¹¹

Counterargument:

It may be the case that Paul uses the phrase ἐν ἀγάπῃ to convey human love throughout the rest of Ephesians, but we need to consider whether this makes sense in Ephesians 1:4 given the context. While the grammatical position in the sentence might mean that in love works with both Ephesians 1:4 and Ephesians 1:5, if we apply the phrase to Ephesians 1:4, the meaning of the translation is unnatural.¹² It is not clear, on the surface, what it means for believers to be holy and blameless in love. If we take the preposition in a comitative sense, we might translate the sentence God chose us…to be holy and blameless, together with love, before him.¹³ There is something awkward about this construction because holy" and "blameless are properties, while love is a virtue. Added to this, there are many places in Scripture where God calls his people to holy living without mentioning the virtue of love (Leviticus 11:44–45; Leviticus 19:2; Leviticus 20:26; 1 Peter 1:15–16). In fact, the theme, Be holy as I am holy, was well-known to the Israelites, and used in the first epistle of Peter as a call for believers to set aside their fleshy passions. There, Peter makes no mention of the virtue of love, not because love is unimportant, but because holy living is important for its own sake.

Response to counterargument:

One must examine the context of Israel’s history to make proper sense of God’s call in Leviticus to holy living. There, God is revealing through Moses the rules and regulations that will govern the Israelites. They have been called out of Egypt where they were slaves of Pharoah for four hundred years. In his perfect timing, God led the Israelites out of Egypt, and now he acquaints himself on a more personal level. God wants Israel to be crystal clear: he is the Holy One who dwells in unapproachable light, and although in his mercy he has called a lowly people out of slavery, if the Israelites are to please God, they must live accordingly. This involves clean and holy living, and God presents the requirements for how to accomplish this lifestyle through Moses. Arguably 1,400 years have passed when Paul writes Ephesians, and the crucial step of God’s plan of salvation has come to pass through Jesus’ death and resurrection. While God’s perfect holiness never changes, through the cross he has revealed something remarkable about his love, that it is a love willing to suffer death for sinners. God’s astonishing love, revealed through Jesus’ death on the cross, cannot go unnoticed by Paul. God has chosen his people not just to be holy and blameless but to be holy and blameless in love, just as God has revealed himself to be holy and blameless in love.

Explanation:

Argument 1 tried to deduce the meaning of in/with love based on quantity of usage. Argument 2 is based on the overall theme of the second half of the letter, which is Paul’s call that the believers love one another. First, in Ephesians 4:1–2 he thinks back on the notion that God has selected believers to be holy and blameless before him, when he reminds the believers of the life to which they have been called. Paul exhorts them to live in a manner worthy of that call, which entails bearing with one another in love. He calls for unity in the body of Christ and reminds the believers that their gifts are used toward the same goal of maturity in Christ (Ephesians 4:13). The believers are to speak the truth in love, to put aside their ignorant behaviour (Ephesians 4:17–31), and to walk in love (Ephesians 5:2). Paul goes on to explain that lifestyles of impurity are unacceptable for God’s children (Ephesians 5:3–14), husbands are to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25), children are to obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1), and servants their masters (Ephesians 6:5). The point is, in Ephesians 4:1 – 6:9, Paul is giving full expression to what it means that God chose us to live holy and blameless in love (Ephesians 1:4). It means putting off our sinful desires, and living lives of thanksgiving and holiness, rooted in love.¹⁴

Counterargument:

It might be the case that the second half of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is a call for believers to love one another. Still, the first half is characterized by God’s love, which he lavished on believers according to the riches of his grace (Ephesians 1:7). After unfolding in Ephesians 1:3–14 the magnificent spiritual blessings that God has freely bestowed on believers, Paul calls on God to reveal insight into the immeasurable greatness of God’s power as it works in believers (Ephesians 1:15–20). He then explains God’s great love for us, even when we were dead in sin, so that he can show us the riches of his grace toward us in Christ (Ephesians 2:7). Paul goes on to explain how Christ made peace for believers with his blood, reconciling us to God (Ephesians 2:13–19). In other words, the first half of Ephesians is about God’s love for us, while the second half is a call in light of God’s love for believers to love one another. Since Ephesians 1:4 lands in the first half of Ephesians and characterizes something about God when it modifies the participle προορίσας (to predestine) at the beginning of Ephesians 1:5, it makes more sense that the preposition in/with love modifies Ephesians 1:5 rather than Ephesians 1:4.

Response to counterargument

Paul does focus much of his effort on extolling God for his love and mercy in the first half of Ephesians. Still, when he mentions that believers are called to be holy and blameless in love, he is anticipating his later remarks. This means that while the overall thrust of the first half of the letter is about God, in Ephesians 1:4 Paul plants a thematic seed that he will carry on later in the letter.

Possible weaknesses: One possible weakness with this view is that it leaves one with a translation that is on the face of it more awkward than the alternative. It is not easy to see precisely what it means for believers to be holy and blameless before God in love. What does in love add to the clause, other than to make it slightly awkward and difficult to translate? If we take in in the sense of accompaniment, as Bruce suggests, we do not fare all that much better. For what does it mean to be holy and blame along with love before God? On the other hand, if we take Interpretation 1, the translation is not awkward.

Explanation:

In other texts such as Ephesians 1:5 and 1 Thessalonians 3:12–13, Paul calls on believers to abound in love for one another. The superabundant love seems to be what believers will need to be holy and blameless before Christ. At the same time, there is great comfort in the notion that God has predestined us in love.¹⁵ For these reasons, one should take in love as a clever literary device that is meant to straddle both verses.

Counterargument:

The literary genre of Ephesians is that of an ancient letter. These letters were fairly typical in their structure and basically followed the pattern of other Greco-Roman letters. Still, there are some differences between the New Testament letters and other ancient letters, including that the New Testament letters are typically longer, less artistic, and more didactic.¹⁶ In other words, based on the genre of epistle, we have little reason to think that Paul would use a poetic literary device that expects his reader to apply the same prepositional phrase to two clauses. In order for this view to be plausible, one must make a case by showing that Paul does this elsewhere, or that it falls within the normal literary style of an epistle. Since we have no evidence of either, we should respectfully reject this interpretation.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it has no supporting evidence. Unless one can make a solid case, it is not fruitful to think that Paul uses a prepositional phrase to modify multiple sentences at once.