In Rom 1:13, Paul says that he “often intended to come” to the Romans. In that report of his (frustrated) travel plans, the pro- in protithēmi may have a temporal sense (projecting a plan for the future) or an imaginative sense (proposing an idea, setting it out there for consideration), or both. On this model, Eph 1:9 teaches that God framed or purposed his eudokia internally. This sense of the verb aligns well with the fact that protithemi is the root of the noun prothesis, purpose, which occurs nearby in 1:11 (predestined “according to the purpose”). On this view, Paul is nearly saying that God has purposed with a purpose; it is characteristic of Ephesians to say that God verbs with cognate nouns. 

As I work on my theological commentary on Ephesians, I usually follow pretty predictable tracks. Ephesians has drawn centuries of excellent interpretation, including some powerful recent scholarship from professional exegetes. But sometimes I find myself “falling down a hole,” stumbling into discoveries I had not expected, and catching glimpses of things none of the commentaries have prepared me for. On those occasions, I give myself permission to follow the subject matter where it leads, and to write freely without worrying about word count or, frankly, audience. Something like that happened this week with the inconspicuous words “which he set forth in Christ” in Eph 1:9. It got hold of me, and I produced about 1400 words of comment on a phrase that is only four words in Greek. No doubt I will edit this down to something briefer before publication. A sense of due proportion is very important, and this is disproportionate attention to a small text. But I am (verbosely) making up for neglect. Anyway, I wanted to share it here on the blog in case it doesn’t finally make it into print.

According to His Good Pleasure That He Set Forth in Christ

This little phrase (hēn proetheto en auto) has drawn less attention than it merits. The justly famous claim about God’s oikonomia in the next phrase has perhaps distracted interpreters from apprehending just how much is already taught here in this claim about a divine setting-forth. What if the term “God’s economy” had not become the favored way of evoking this great mystery, and “God’s setting-forth” had instead won prominence?

God has set forth his good pleasure en autō, which could refer either reflexively back to God “himself,” or demonstratively to “him,” that is, Christ. If autō means himself, then the idea is that God alone (not precisely the Father, but the one God considered absolutely) “formed this design, for He is surrounded by no co-ordinate wisdom.”[1] But if autō means “him,” Christ, then the idea is that the Father has set forth his good pleasure in the Son. While KJV offered “in himself,”[2] several other translations adopt the “him” view so decisively that they replace the pronoun with the name Christ here to guide the reader (NRSV, ESV, NIV).

At the highest theological level, we might venture to say that since en autō directs our thoughts into the inner life of God, it understandably hovers between the inseparable deity “himself” and the Father-Son relation.[3] Divine action en autō without further specification simply throws us back onto God as the agent, where there is no contradiction between ascribing agency to the one God essentially or to the Father and the Son relationally. To say that the triune God sets forth the divine eudokia is not actually different from saying that the Father sets it forth in the Son through the Spirit.

But there is a further fullness in this phrase ēn proetheto en auto, and it lurks in the verb protithēmi. The verb is syntactically important as the hook from which hang both of the following prepositional phrases: not just “in him” but also the more expansive “as an oikonomia” etc. The transitive verb can mean either to intend/purpose something or to set something forth.[4] In the NT it only occurs two other times: Rom 1:13 and Rom 3:25.

Read More