A unique inheritance

In the ancient world, obtaining an inheritance was crucial to maintaining wealth and prosperity. This was not a time like ours where individuals were encouraged to go out and strike their own fortunes. Thus we see, for example, the utter heinousness of the prodigal son's request to his father in Christ's parable. Taking this common social custom as a very apt metaphor, Biblical writers often mention the inheritance which God has promised to give to his people. The apostle Paul, for example, continues his litany of Spiritual blessings available only through union with Christ in Ephesians 1:11 by saying, "In him we have obtained an inheritance..." The word he uses here is the passive verb form of the same word used in verse 14. Taken generally, it could just mean that we were simply "chosen" by God as the NIV seems to suggest, but since Paul has already discussed individual election in verse 4, and the fact that he continues to discuss the issue of inheritance in verse 14, I think the idea of inheritance should be brought out. But then another translational option presents itself when we consider the fact that the verb is indeed, passive. So rather than saying "we have obtained an inheritance," I think it also can be rendered, "we have been chosen as an inheritance." If this is the case, then the one getting an inheritance here, is not us as the people of God, but God choosing us, his people, as his inheritance. This falls in line with a rich OT motif where God chooses Israel as his own special possession (Exo 15:16; 19:5; Deut 7:6; Ps 33:12; cf. I Pet 2:9). So we see in vivid detail a reciprocal promise summarized by the covenantal formula: "I will be your God, and you will be my people."

But then in verse 12, Paul says something that (for us Gentiles anyway) may throw a whole wrench in this interpretation. He says, "So that we who were first to hope in Christ..." What Paul does here, is distinguish between himself and his present company, and those to whom he is writing. When he designates himself and others as "those who first hoped in Christ," he no doubt is referring to Jewish believers who received the gospel first as opposed to the Gentile believers who were told about it later. The question to ask at this point is: is the "we" in verse 12 the same as the "we" in verse 11? In other words, are only Jewish believers God's special possession and inheritance? There are some who suggest this. The facts, however, emphatically state the opposite.

In verse 13 Paul goes on to speak specifically of the Gentile converts by saying that after they heard the gospel, they believed it, and believing, they were sealed by the Holy Spirit. A seal in the ancient world (as in our day) was a mark of ownership. Whether it was a brand mark on cattle or slaves, or whether it was an insignia imprinted on a piece of wax or clay, they were a clear way of letting others know that something belonged to you. When Paul told his audience that the Holy Spirit seals them, he was stating in a vivid and emphatic manner, that they belonged to God. Further, the way in which Paul writes these two verbs: "believing " and "sealing," suggests that they happen simultaneously, that is, the moment one believes in Christ is also the same moment that they are sealed by the Spirit, there is no time delay.

Paul further elaborates on the role of the Spirit in the believers life by calling the Spirit the "guarantee" of our inheritance. The word used here (arrabon) was commonly used in commerce when someone wanted to purchase something but didn't have enough money to pay for it all at once. What he would do is leave an arrabon which would serve as a type of down payment or earnest money to show that he was serious about coming back with the full sum to purchase the item. In most cases, this deposit was non-refundable, so if the person changed his mind, he wasn't getting any of the arrabon back. Here Paul tells us that God has given us his Spirit to show how serious he is about redeeming us, and he's never going to take that away!

Finally, to further ensure his readers that all the benefits of inheritance were theirs, Paul designates the inheritance in verse 14 as "ours." Did you notice what the apostle did? First he distinguishes between himself and fellow Jewish believers (v.11-12) and his audience of predominantly Gentile believers (v.13). Then he unites them all together in verse 14 by saying "our" inheritance. The distinction is not an ethnic one, between national Israel and the church, rather it's chronological or Redemptive Historical. That is to say, in the past, God worked with Israel, but now the covenant community has broadened to include all types of people. There is but one people of God (Eph 2:11-22).

Was it really necessary?

The atonement of Christ is rightly viewed as a central aspect of the Christian religion. Its true significance and even its necessity, however, has been debated throughout church history and it still continues to this day. Here are some of the traditional views that have been held throughout the history of the church:

Christus victor - this view, held by many of the early church fathers, saw fallen humanity in bondage to Satan. In order to redeem us, Christ agreed to give his life as a ransom by dying on the cross. Satan took the bait, as it were, and agreed to the trade. However, in so doing, he sealed his defeat, because the power of Christ’s death and subsequent resurrection actually destroyed the powers of darkness. Readers of C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe may find this depiction familiar in his story of Aslan giving his life for Edmund and in so doing, defeating the White Witch.

Satisfaction theory – in the eleventh century, a bishop by the name of Anselm wrote a book entitled, Cur Deus homo? (lit. “Why the God man?”). In this work, Anselm spoke of the necessity of the incarnation of Christ as well as the purpose and intent of the atonement. He spoke of humanity’s estrangement and hostility with God being the result of having offended his honor. Instead of a ransom being paid to Satan, Christ was to offer his life to an offended God; his death was a payment for humanity’s debt in order to restore the honor due his name. This view has been criticized in contemporary discussions due to its heavy reliance upon Anselm’s own social assumptions of the feudal system.

Moral influence theory – Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm, did not view God as needing any sort of appeasement in order to reconcile humanity to him, but rather placed the blame upon human hostility that they have towards God and each other. Thus, he spoke of the atonement as God’s ultimate demonstration of love towards his creatures. The purpose of the atonement, therefore, is to serve as an example of selfless love, which then changes people’s hearts to no longer want hostility, but reconciliation. This view, unlike the others, is purely subjective, that is, the atonement does not accomplish anything outside of people’s lives (e.g. satisfying God’s justice or defeating the powers of darkness), but only has effect in the hearts of people. Also, the atonement is not strictly necessary, since it was merely a demonstration of God’s love and a free act of his will.

Feminist theory – in contemporary discussions of the atonement, perhaps the most radical and blunt theory is that which says the atonement is nothing more than a case of divine child abuse. For God the Father to have his Son die on the cross is cruel and unusual, they say. Further, they suggest that the doctrine of the atonement has been used to exploit people (women especially), by suggesting that humble submission in the face of suffering has redemptive value. Despite all of this theory’s obvious faults, I do not think that we should so easily dismiss it. If a view does not see the atonement as absolutely necessary in order to satisfy God’s justice, then I believe that it is subject to the feminist critique.

Reformed view - the atonement, according to this view, is of “consequent absolute necessity,” that is, since God has determined to redeem fallen humanity, the cross of Christ was the only way. It is not a case of divine child abuse since, according to the pactum salutus (“covenant of peace”), the Son voluntarily agrees to give his life for the people whom the Father has chosen. Like Anselm’s theory, this was done in order to make satisfaction towards God (cf. Heidelberg Catechism #12-17), but unlike his view, this was to meet his justice, not some other arbitrary standard. Christ also defeated the powers of darkness on the cross and though his Spirit, he applies the benefits of his death and resurrection towards all of the elect.