Does Genesis 2 Support Complementarianism?

Complementarianism vs. Feminism is quite a battle these days. A huge part of this debate is due to the fact that complementarians find the basis of their beliefs in Scripture. One of the passages they use to support their views is Genesis 2. I have been studying this passage for a theological collaboration with a friend of mine, and my research has inspired me to write a blog addressing this. Before I do, I must preface it by saying that I am only going to deal with Genesis 2 here. The conclusion drawn will be, "As far as Genesis 2 is concerned..." and not "As far as the Bible is concerned..." I have not done significant research in the other passages used to support complementarianism, so I will not comment on those at this time.

Man is Created First

Does the fact that man is created first imply that the woman has a subordinate role to play under the man? Many believe it does. Elizabeth Cady Stanton criticizes Genesis 2, saying that Genesis 1:26-28 "dignifies woman as an important factor in the creation, equal in power and glory with man," which is in contrast to Genesis 2, which she says "makes her a mere afterthought."(1) Phyllis Trible rightly criticizes this understanding, saying that the woman in the story "is not an afterthought; she is the culmination."(2) Just as creation in Genesis 1 led up to the creation of humanity, followed by God's rest, so this narrative leads up to the creation of woman and their subsequent union. The climax of the narrative is found in the creation of woman.

Furthermore, the fact that the woman is created from the man does not imply that she is inferior to him or destined to be his subordinate. Bill Arnold observes: "As the human was formed from the dust of the ground (‘ādām from ‘ădāmâ), so woman is built from the man (‘iššâ from ‘îš)."(3) That woman was created from man does not imply that she is inferior to man anymore than the fact that man was created out of dust implies that dust is superior to man.(4) In fact, as Terence Fretheim provides, the phrase "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"--what Adam says in response to the woman's creation (v.23)--"literally highlights mutuality and equality."(5) These words that explicitly state woman's equality with man are man's first words in all of Scripture!(6)

Finally, Adam's short poem in response to the creation of woman strengthens the argument that this creative act is the climax of this passage. In Hebrew, the poem begins and ends with zot ('this'), referring to the woman. Gordon Wenham says of this poem, "by opening the tricolon and bicolon with 'this' and then by concluding with the same word, the man's exclamation concentrates all eyes on this woman."(7)

Man Gives Her a Name

While John Bailey recognizes the profound place of woman in this narrative--saying it is "all the more extraordinary when one realizes that this is the only account of the creation of woman as such in ancient Near Eastern literature"--he makes the mistake of seeing the facts that she is called 'woman' by Adam and deemed a 'helper' as signs of a "certain subordination."(8)

While it is true that "name-giving in the ancient Orient was primarily an exercise of sovereignty,"(9) there is a difference, in Hebrew, between what one calls someone and what one names someone. Trible observes this difference. Throughout the narrative, and in other places in the Hebrew Bible, call (qārā') and name (shem) are used together and denote the command one has over the other by naming the other (see Gen. 2:19-20; 4:17, 25, 26).(10) However,‘ādām merely calls (qārā') her woman. Fretheim cleverly observes that for man to call her 'woman' does not imply his authority over her anymore than Hagar calling God "El-roi" implies that she had authority over God (Gen. 16:13).(11) 

Trible reasonably suggests that the action in v.23 is the man recognizing sexuality.(12) Or, as Fretheim says, it "involves discernment regarding the nature of relationships."(13)

That being said, in chapter 3, Adam does name the woman Eve (v.20). However, Trible observes that this takes place after their sin and judgment; Adam asserts his rule over her and gives her a name when sin has entered his life (v.16).(14)

I am of the mind that the author of this passage was explaining why things were the way they were in their society. Thus, after humanity sinned against God, they assumed degraded roles. In a sense, they were downgraded to the service of that from which they were created: man would toil over the land, and woman would serve the man. First, this has to be understood as the result of sin, and not the way God created things to be. Second, given that this was the author's way of explaining why things were the way they were in his culture--men toiled over the land, and women served the men--I don't think it can be said that this is the God-given role of women that they are to fulfill today.

The Woman is a Helper

Bailey, referred to above, sees the woman's role of helper as a sign of subordination. However, this is not at all implied by the Hebrew word. Rather than suggesting any hint of inferiority, Trible recognizes that 'ezer (helper)  is a relational term.(15) Furthermore, if the word did denote inferiority or subordination, we would have to explain why the majority of its uses refer to God's being a helper of humans!(16) The use of 'ezer does not imply subordinate service to the one being helped, but rather that the strength of the one being helped, Wenham provides, "is inadequate by itself" (cf. Eccl. 4:9-10).(17) Furthermore, Fretheim says of this passage that humans were created to be "social, relational beings—male and female—and thereby correspondent to the sociality of God (‘let us’; see Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:17; cf. 9:6)."(18)

Side note: Many complementarians might agree with most, maybe even all of this, and would say that their complementarian views don't put women in lesser roles. However, when one says, for example, that women should not be pastors and should not exercise authority over men in church, this puts women in a lesser role. Genesis 2 does not support such an understanding. The Hebrew word for 'helper' does not limit the role of the woman to serving the man, nor to being under his authority, nor does it deny her the right to exercise authority over him. In Genesis 2, both humans are equal and under the authority of God alone.

After reviewing the creation narrative, I have found that the passage does not support complementarianism, or any view that places women in a lesser role under men. The way God intended things to be includes the equality of man and woman, partnering with God to preserve a beautiful creation and form a relational human history.


Notes:
(1) Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman's Bible, Part 1 (New York: European Publishing Company, 1895), 20.
(2) Phyllis Trible, "Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread," Andover Newton Quarterly 13, no. 4 (1973): 251-252.
(3) Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), ed. Ben Witherington, III (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 61.
(4) Terence Fretheim makes the same point. See Terence E. Fretheim, "Genesis", in Vol. 1 of The New Interpreter's Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 353.
(5) Ibid.
(6) I recently heard a sermon from Brian Zahnd, in which he said that the first recorded words of man in Scripture are found in Adam's response to God's question "Where are you?" in the garden. Man says, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid" (3:10). While the sermon was beautiful, this, as we can seen, is absolutely incorrect. I like Zahnd a lot, but I'm a little surprised he made this claim again and again, since it would have been so easy to check and see that it wasn't true. On top of Adam's words when seeing woman for the first time, Eve's response to the serpent is recorded in Gen. 3:4-5, just a few verses before the verse Zahnd quoted.
(7) Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard, and Glenn Barker (Word Books, 1987), 70.
(8) John Bailey, Quoted in Trible, 251-252, n. 5.
(9) Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 81.
(10) See Trible's more elaborate explanation, p.254.
(11) See Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 60.
(12) Trible, 255.
(13) Fretheim, "Genesis," 353.
(14) Fretheim supports this understanding. See Ibid.
(15) Trible, 252.
(16) Arnold, 60.
(17) Wenham, 68.
(18) Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament, 55. Trible says: "God is the helper that is superior to man; the animals are the helpers inferior to man; woman is the helper equal to man." See Trible, 252.

God is Love, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace 1 John 4

I was having a theological conversation with a reformed friend of mine a few months ago and, like I will often do, I brought up the phrase found in 1 Jn. 4:7, 16, "God is love." He responded the way many respond to this verse by saying that God isn't just love, but is also holy. He added that we have to realize that "God is complex and that there are multiple levels and aspects of His will and character." Thus, "as a person is not easily boiled down into one all-encompassing emotion or state of mind all the time," so we should not boil the transcendent God down to one all-encompassing characteristic

The problem is that Scripture defines God with the word love. "God is just," is a descriptive statement that uses an adjective. All of God's character is not presented in this statement because 'just' is just one adjective. "God is love," on the other hand, is a descriptive statement that uses a noun. The point here is that God = love. John says this to emphasize that God can be "boiled down" to one all-encompassing characteristic: love. It's not that there are "multiple levels and aspects" of God that are seemingly paradoxical, but that every level and aspect of God can be understood through the lens of love. This concept is difficult for many, like D.A. Carson, the author of The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, but if you have a theology in which the love of God is difficult, you need to re-evaluate, because this God is defined by love.

Larry Hart notes that love is not the only noun said to be equal to God. He brings up the statement, "God is light" (1 Jn. 1:5) to say that God is also holy.(1) God's justice and wrath are then thrown under the "God is holy" section. This is a flawed understanding. Hart, my reformed friend, and many others assume that God's holiness somehow balances out his love with all of his qualities that are less loving. I can't remember who I read this argument from, but I remember reading a theology book in which the author said something like this: "Where God's love would disregard man's actions and have mercy on all and save all, God's justice recognizes the need for judgment. And where God's justice would abandon all and send them to hell, God's love comes in with a desire for mercy and an offer of salvation."

Similarly, when I posted my blog about universal reconciliation (here), including my argument that God is love and love never fails, a friend of mine said, "Yes, God is love, but he is also just"--as if, the 'love' part of God purposes to save everyone, but the 'just' part of God balances him out. This creates a conflict within God's nature that can be avoided if we join John in his scandalous claim that God actually is love! That means his holiness and justice are defined by his love. His wrath is defined by his love. His will is defined by his love. His complexity is defined by his love. His followers should be defined by his love (Jn. 12:35). All of his characteristics are in harmony with and defined by his love.

Notes
(1) Larry D. Hart, Truth Aflame, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 86.

Calvinism in Acts of the Apostles

I continue my blog series taking a look at passages in the Bible typically used to support Calvinism. So far, I have covered Romans 9 (here) and Ephesians 1 (here). Now, I'm going to deal with a few verses in the book of Acts that seem to support the theology: those are 2:23; 4:28; 13:48; 16:14; and 18:10. I contend that the most valid reading of these verses does not support Calvinist interpretations at all.

Acts 2:23 and 4:28 can be responded to together because they both refer to the same idea. 2:23 says that Jesus was “handed over to [Jews] according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” and was “crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” Similarly, 4:28 says that Herod and Pontius Pilate gathered together “to do whatever [God’s] hand and [his] plan had predestined to take place.” Both verses allude to the idea that the crucifixion was God’s definite, predestined plan.

Ajith Fernando claims that we see here “the paradox between divine providence and human responsibility.”(1) This response is typical of Calvinists. However, it is not a paradox at all, but can be reasonably explained. Gregory Boyd observes that “Both texts speak of the event of the crucifixion being preordained and foreknown. But neither speak of Herod or Pilate being preordained or foreknown to carry out this event.”(2) Of course the crucifixion was the definite plan predestined by God!(3) But, as Boyd says, these verses do not say that the actions of the Jews, those outside the law, Herod, and Pilate were included in the predestined plan of God.

John Sanders states that hōrismenē boulē (definite plan) in 2:23 denotes “a boundary-setting will.”(4) Here, the crucifixion is the “boundary,” meaning God decided beforehand that Christ would be crucified, and established, based on his precise foreknowledge, the perfect time for this to occur.

Furthermore, it cannot be said from these verses that people cannot resist God’s will. Luke himself is aware of the fact that people can and always have resisted God’s will. Luke 7:30 says that “by refusing to be baptized by [John the Baptist], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (emphasis mine). In Acts 7:51, before Stephen was martyred, he exclaims, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (emphasis mine).

The other verse in Acts Calvinists use to support their theology is 13:48: when Paul and Barnabas announced to a large crowd of people that the salvation offering had come to the Gentiles, the Gentiles rejoiced and “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”(5)

C. K. Barrett says that this verse remains “as unqualified a statement of absolute predestination as is found anywhere in the NT.”(6) Indeed, the verse seems to be that, not only because of its wording, but also because it is reminiscent of the idea that names are written into the book of life.(7) But the verse only seems to point to a Calvinist theology of individual predestination when taken at face value. Paton Gloag voices that here, “Luke merely mentions a historical fact—that those who believed were appointed to eternal life.”(8) This translation is more likely. The word ἐπίστευσαν (believed) precedes the rest of the statement ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (all who were appointed to eternal life). Thus, the text could very easily be read, “all who believed were appointed to eternal life.”

In this case, there is no problem at all; the wording no longer suggests that the appointing came before the believing, and the similarity to the references of the book of life is more natural, for none of those references state that specific names were written in the book of life before the foundations of the earth—only that the names of those who believe are included.

This translation fits better within the context as well. Verse 46 says that the Jews rejected the word of God and did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life (meaning they were not appointed to eternal life because they rejected the Gospel). So then, Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles, and all who believed were found worthy of eternal life.

All of that being said, this interpretation has not been used by most Bible translations. As Esther Yue Ng suggests, ἦσαν τεταγμένοι (were appointed) in this passage “implies an action that precedes the Gentiles’ believing” and contends that the verse is “one among a number of biblical passages that comports better with the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of divine election.”(9) Though I disagree, even if one does not accept Gloag’s interpretation, the Calvinist theological conclusion of the verse is still not the conclusion that should be drawn. Boyd observes that “the verse does not tell us when these people were destined. . . . Calvinists assume that this destiny was given to the elect before the world began by sheer divine fiat, but the text simply does not say this.”(10) Rather, Boyd continues, the text

only requires us to accept that the Spirit of God had been preparing receptive hearts to accept the preaching that was soon coming their way. . . . Those Gentiles who didn’t resist the Spirit’s work in their lives were ‘ripe’ for the message of Paul and Barnabas. In this sense, they were already ‘destined for eternal life,’ and thus they accepted the good news when it was preached to them.(11)

Boyd’s conclusion is quite plausible; definitely more-so than the Calvinist interpretation. This is true also of Acts 18:10 and 16:14. When God says “I have many people in this city” (18:10), he could be referring to those who were “ripe for the message,” as Boyd says. Lydia in 16:14 is an example of such a person. The verse says that God opened her heart to Paul’s message. However, this was not without her will. Lydia is introduced in the verse as “a worshiper of God.” Thus, she had already subjected herself to God’s work. By worshiping God, she yielded to him and, in a sense, let him open her heart to Paul’s teaching.“Whatever be the precise nuance of the words,” says I. Howard Marshall, “there is no suggestion that [the Gentiles] received eternal life independently of their own act of conscious faith.”(12)

We have seen that, when examined closely, all the verses in Acts that seem to support Calvinism actually provide no platform on which Calvinists can base their theology. Any notion of individual predestination must be read into the texts because the verses themselves do not imply the conclusions that Calvinists make of them. Thus, as far as the book of Acts goes, Christians today do not have to fear that they are ignoring “Calvinist verses” and can maintain a love-centered understanding of the character of God.

Notes:
(1) Ajith Fernando, The NIV Application Commentary: Acts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 102.
(2) Gregory A. Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?” Reknew.org, http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-acts-223-and-428/
(3) It is not applicable to this study, but Acts 2:23 has also been used to refute open theism because of its reference to God’s foreknowledge. In addressing this, we must ask “What is foreknowledge?” Is it knowing exactly every single thing that is ever going to happen? Or could it be knowing all of the possibilities that the future holds? We should ask what Luke’s purpose was in writing these verses in the first place. Was to establish the reality of a theological paradox of God controlling people’s actions yet holding them responsible for them? Robert W. Wall states otherwise, saying that the verses do not “envisage a predestinarian notion of divine providence but Luke’s logical deduction from his idea of Scripture. That is, if the Jesus event and the Spirit’s outpouring both follow the biblical script of God’s salvation, then God must have known about both in advance of their occurrence.” See Robert W. Wall, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in Vol. 10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 66. Indeed, on similar lines, Richard I. Pervo notes that “Because Luke is more a ‘romantic’ than an ‘ironic’ theologian, he concentrates more on the fact and fulfillment of God’s plan than on what it reveals about the human situation.” See Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 123, n.30.
(4) John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, rev. ed. (Downers Grover: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 167.
(5) There has been a debate as to how the word τεταγμένοι should be translated. I have found that the choices include: “set,” “determined,” “appointed,” “destined,” “enrolled,” and a few others. Whichever you prefer will not affect the following study.
(6) C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 1 (London: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 658.
(7) F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 267, n.111.
(8) Paton J. Gloag, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), 40.
(9) Esther Yue L. Ng, “ἦσαν τεταγμένοι in Acts 13:48: Middle Voice or Passive Voice? Implications for the Doctrine of Divine Election,” CGST Journal, 50 (2011): 192, 186. 
(10) Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 13:48?”
(11) Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 190–191. Elsewhere, Boyd elaborates on this concept, saying, “The Father is always looking for people whose hearts may be pliable in his hand (viz. through the Spirit) so he may ‘destine them to eternal life’ by opening up their heart to receive the Gospel.” See Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 13:48?”
(12) I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Vol. 5 of Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 245.

Predestined in Christ: Ephesians 1 and Calvinism

A couple months ago, I discussed Romans 9 and whether or not it supports Calvinism (here). That was the first of a series of blogs I'm doing about the passages in Scripture typically used to support Calvinism. Here, I am dealing with Ephesians 1:3-14:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

At face value, this passage seems to support Calvinist ideas of predestination and election: "he chose us . . . before the foundation of the world," "he predestined us for adoption," "[we were] predestined according to the counsel of his will." This sounds like Calvinism, and I sympathize with everyone who reads this passage and either thinks, "See? There it is!" or "Well, I guess it is in Scripture." However, when one analyzes the passage, and considers its historical context, not only is the Calvinist understanding unnecessary, but also unlikely.

ELECTION

Before Christ, Israel was the elect. Such is common knowledge. Israel was the chosen vessel through which salvation would be brought to the world. However, as N.T. Wright observes, the people of Israel were "bound up in the problem instead of being the bringers of the solution."(1) Thus, if salvation was going to spread to the world, it would have to be accomplished through a very different means. Enter Jesus Christ. The story continued with the "Messiah [doing] for the world what Israel was called to do."(2) Christ, then, is the new elect. Paul spells out God's redefinition of election with Christ at its center. As Markus Barth states, "God administers and carries out election through Jesus Christ."(3) Likewise, Ralph P. Martin states, "Election is . . . universalized to include all who are in Christ."(4)

It then follows that, since Christ is the elect, Wright says, "those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared to be [God's] people, his elect."(5) This can be seen quite clearly in our passage: "God . . . blessed us in Christ . . . [and] chose us in him. . . . he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. . . . he blessed in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood. . . . he set forth [the mystery of his will and purpose] in Christ . . . to unite all things in him. In him we have obtained an inheritance. . . . In him, you also . . . were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit."

It is clear in this passage that the elect ones are what they are only in Christ. This may seem like a simple, commonsensical statement, but we have to stop and think about how this completely redefines election: election is no longer a chosen people group, nor is it made up of specific individuals who are chosen; rather, it is Christ who is chosen, the elect, and, subsequently, all those who are in Christ. Those who accept the gospel and believe in Christ become in him, they become elect: "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" (v.13).

PREDESTINATION

How, you might ask, does this perspective explain the references to predestination in this passage? Doesn't the passage suggest that those who are in Christ were predestined to be so?
Not necessarily.

I think all Christians can agree that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, were predestined. But do passages like these suggest that we go a step further and say that all those who would be saved by his sacrifice were also predestined? It is unlikely that Paul was saying that in writing this passage, for one only has to affirm that Christ's saving act was predestined in order to say with Paul that we were predestined for adoption.

God predestined that Christ would be the elect and that he would call all people to salvation. Thus, when one says 'Yes' to Christ through faith, one becomes one of the elect and it can rightfully be said that he/she was predestined for adoption (Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Rom. 8:29-30), because it was predestined that Christ would be the elect for all people, and that all who accept him would then be the elect. I was predestined to for adoption, because it was God's purpose in Christ to adopt all who believe in him, and I chose to believe in him. Consider Greg Boyd's analogy:

Suppose you attend a seminar in which a certain video is shown. You might ask the instructor, 'When was it decided (predestined) that we'd watch this video?' To which the instructor might respond, 'It was decided six months ago that you'd watch this video.' Note that it was not decided six months ago that you individually would watch this video. What was decided was that anyone who took this seminar would watch this video. Now that you have chosen to be part of this seminar, what was predestined for the seminar applies to you. You can now say, 'It was decided six months ago that we would watch this video.'(6)

In the same way, Christ's saving act was predestined; it was predestined that all who would believe in Christ would be the elect. Election is an open invitation to all people, and all who say 'Yes' become the elect, who are predestined for adoption, "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (v.11).

ROMANS 8:29

I believe this is the way we should look at Romans 8:29: 

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

If we look at the context, "those whom" does not refer to individual people that God elected for salvation; it refers to "those who love God" and "those who are called." Joseph Fitzmyer suggests that this verse refers to "all who have responded to the divine call."(7) Must we draw from this that the individuals who responded to the divine call were foreknown and predestined?

The Greek word οὓς ('those whom') does not go that far. In Romans 11:2, the word refers to the people of Israel in general. 8:28-30 tells us that God predestined to call people to be conformed to the image of his Son, and that those who love God are justified and glorified. That there would be a group of people--the elect--that would respond to God's call by loving him was indeed predestined and foreknown.

God predestined that he would call people to be conformed to the image of his Son. He foreknew the elect as all who would believe in Christ. Just like the presenter of the seminar in Boyd's analogy foreknew the attendees as all who would arrive for the seminar. The passage does not suggest that God predestined and foreknew the elect as specific individuals chosen for salvation. The passage does provide that God predestined that all who are in Christ would be justified, glorified, and conformed to the image of Christ, but it does not go beyond this. It does not suggest that individuals were foreknown and predestined. To say that would be to go beyond what the text itself provides.

Notes:
(1) N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress press, 2005), 119.
(2) Ibid., 120.
(3) Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, Vol. 34 of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 107.
(4) Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 18.
(5) Wright, 122.
(6) Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 47.
(7) Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 524.