Ephesians 4:6 — One God and Father of all

“One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Ephesians 4:6

Context: the sevenfold unity of the congregation

Ephesians 4:1–16 is the practical core of the letter. After three chapters in which Paul has theologically unfolded the unity of the congregation made up of Jews and Gentiles (Eph 1–3), there follows the call to a manner of life that corresponds to this unity. Vv.4–6 contain the rhythmically shaped confessional formula whose centre is constituted by seven units: one body, one Spirit, one hope — one Lord, one faith, one baptism — one God and Father of all.

The order is not accidental. It rises from the ecclesial unity (body, Spirit, hope) through the kerygmatic centre (Lord, faith, baptism) to the summit: the one God and Father of all. Each of the seven statements is distinct: no body is a Spirit, no baptism is a faith, no Lord is a God. Whoever flattens out the sevenfold series breaks the rhetorical logic of the passage.

Within the Pauline letters Ephesians 4:6 stands in a close family with 1 Cor 8:4–6, 1 Tim 2:5 and Gal 3:20. In each of these texts the one God of the Shema is given concrete shape in the Christian confession — and in each he is expressly identified as the Father, while Christ is named alongside (not within him) as one mediator or one Lord. This Pauline linguistic family is internally consistent.

Historically, Ephesians is written in an environment in which Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian members of the congregation had to learn to be one single covenant people. The Christian confessional formula of the one God therefore deliberately takes up the language of the Jewish Shema: heís — one, exclusive. To Gentile-Christian ears this strict monotheism is the most radical break with the polytheistic background; to Jewish-Christian ones it is the seamless continuation of the Shema. Both find themselves combined in the same formula.

Mark 12:29 (the Shema in the mouth of Jesus) is the NT pre-echo of this passage. What Jesus there cites as the greatest commandment (cf. the entry on Mark 12:29), Paul here speaks into the confessional language of the Gentile-Christian congregation. That is no accident but a programme: the Shema is the theological basic axis to which the New Testament consistently holds fast.

Socinian core thesis

Read Socinianly, Ephesians 4:6 is the Pauline universality-formula of the Shema. Paul identifies the one God unambiguously: he is the Father, and he is the Father of all. The singular heís theós and the predicate patêr pántôn stand in an unbroken line with Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29. There is no passage in the Pauline corpus where the one God is identified with a triadic communion of subsistences.

The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381) reads heís theós as a designation of the essence of the three persons. But Pauline language resists this reading: Paul does not predicate the one God as “Father, Son and Spirit” but as Father of all. The predicate is universal-cosmic (all creatures), not intra-trinitarian. Whoever reinterprets the verse trinitarianly must break apart the Pauline predicate structure and reinterpret the clearly identified subject reference (“the Father”) in terms of an underlying substance — a hermeneutically costly detour.

The three appended prepositions epi pántôn, diá pántôn, en pâsin describe the omni-activity of this one Father. They have no trinitarian echo but a clear precedent in Romans 11:36: ex autou kai di' autou kai eis autòn ta pánta — “for from him and through him and to him are all things.” This series of prepositions is consistently mono-subjective in Paul: one God, three prepositions of his universal relation. Whoever distributes the three prepositions in Eph 4:6 trinitarianly imports a distribution that the text does not yield.

The Racovian Catechism (1605), the principal theological document of the Polish Brethren, cites Eph 4:6 at three systematically central places: as proof that God is only one (Mk 12:29 + Eph 4:6); as proof that this one God is the Father (John 17:3 + 1 Cor 8:6 + Eph 4:6); and as proof that Christ is expressly distinguished from this one God (1 Cor 8:6 + Eph 4:6 + John 17:3). This threefold scriptural use shows: Eph 4:6 is not a marginal passage for the Socinian doctrine of God but a hermeneutical nodal point.

Key statement

Key terms

Five terms decide the interpretation of Ephesians 4:6 linguistically and philologically:

heís theós — “one God”

The predicative heís is the numeral one, not an essentialist adjective. It is the same word that in Mk 12:29 (LXX Deut 6:4) renders the Hebrew 'echad: numerically one, exclusive. In Jewish-Hellenistic usage (Philo, De Opificio 171; Josephus, Antiquitates III,91; Contra Apionem II,193) heís theós consistently designates the only God of strict monotheism — never a co-essential plurality.

Paul uses the formula several times: 1 Cor 8:4 (oudeís theós ei mê heís); 1 Cor 8:6 (heís theós ho patêr); Gal 3:20 (ho theós heís estin); 1 Tim 2:5 (heís theós); Eph 4:6 (heís theós kai patêr pántôn). In all these passages heís is the numeral in the strict sense. A subsistential-trinitarian reading imports later dogmatic meanings into a linguistically unambiguous text.

kai patêr pántôn — “and Father of all”

The “and” connects two statements which are identical: the one God is the Father of all. They are not two entities (one God + one Father) but a statement of identity. Socinianly: the Father is the one God — not one of three persons in an underlying substance. This identity-formula is stable in Pauline language: 1 Cor 8:6 (heís theós ho patêr) is its exact short form.

The predicate pántôn (“of all”) is universal-cosmic. It does not denote the intra-trinitarian persons of whom the one God would be Father, but the totality of creatures. The comparison with Mal 2:10 (“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us all?”) is linguistically exact: the Father of all is the Creator-Father, not the intra-divine Father of an eternal generation.

epi pántôn, diá pántôn, en pâsin — three prepositions of omni-activity

The three prepositions describe God's comprehensive relation to creatures: epi (“over”) denotes transcendence and sovereignty; diá (“through”) denotes the efficacious mediation of creative action; en (“in”) denotes the immanent-preserving presence of God in creatures. Three dimensions, one single subject: the one God and Father of all.

The structurally closest parallel is Romans 11:36: hoti ex autou kai di' autou kai eis autòn ta pánta — “for from him and through him and to him are all things.” There the reference is unambiguous: Paul is speaking of the one God (vv.33–35), and the three prepositions describe his universal relation. No one reads Rom 11:36 trinitarianly. Eph 4:6 follows the same linguistic pattern — and is therefore to be read analogously as mono-subjective.

Stoic parallels (Marcus Aurelius, Ad se ipsum IV,23: ek sou pánta, en soi pánta, eis se pánta) show: the three-preposition formula is a standing expression in ancient religious language for the omni-activity of a single deity — not for a distribution of persons. Paul takes over this formula and fills it biblically: it is the one God and Father of all whose universal relation is so described.

heís in v.5 vs. heís in v.6 — one Lord, one God

In v.5 it reads: heís kýrios (one Lord); in v.6: heís theós (one God). The doubling of the formula is exactly parallel to 1 Cor 8:6: heís theós ho patêr + heís kýrios Iêsôus Christós. In both texts Paul distinguishes two heís-statements: the one God is the Father; the one Lord is Christ. Both are heís — but not the same One.

This is decisive Socinianly: heís kýrios designates Christ in his messianic-mediatorial function (Ps 110:1: “the LORD [YHWH] said to my Lord [Adonai]”); heís theós designates the Father as first origin. Both are not subsumed under a triadic substance but stand alongside one another as two distinct heís-subjects. Whoever identifies them dissolves Paul's sharp distinction.

The sevenfold confessional structure (vv.4–6)

The seven units are all distinct. One body (the Church) is not one Spirit (the life-power); one hope is not one faith; one baptism is not one Lord. The series rises from ecclesial unity to the theological centre (Lord, faith, baptism) and culminates in the one God. Whoever produces identities within this series dissolves the rhetorical seven-structure.

In particular the identification of heís theós with heís kýrios (i.e. Father = Son) shatters the sevenfold differentiation. It turns seven units into six — against the wording. Pauline theology is at this point linguistically more precise than the later dogmatic construction.

Sozzini in the original: the Racovian Catechism on Ephesians 4:6

The Racovian Catechism (1605) cites Ephesians 4:6 at three systematically central places in its doctrine of God. The three places mark the three argumentative steps of the antitrinitarian scriptural argument: God is one; this one God is the Father; Christ is distinguished from this one God.

First passage: God is one

“If we did not believe that God is only one, we would be compelled to worship several, which is contrary to the way of salvation… Therefore Scripture frequently admonishes us on this matter, that God is one, as is seen in Moses (Deut 6:4), which the Lord himself repeats in Mark (Mk 12:29): ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord.’ And again in Moses (Deut 32:39): ‘See that I am the only one and there is no God beside me.’ See also 1 Cor 8:4–6; 1 Tim 2:5; Eph 4:6; Gal 3:20.”

Racovian Catechism, on the necessity of knowing the one God

In this passage the Catechism counts Eph 4:6 among the five Pauline key proofs that God is numerically one. The rhetorical line: Deut 6:4 (Shema) and Deut 32:39 are the OT foundational texts; Mk 12:29 is the NT confirmation by Jesus himself; and 1 Cor 8:4–6, 1 Tim 2:5, Eph 4:6, Gal 3:20 are the Pauline scriptural argument. Eph 4:6 thus stands in the hard core group of monotheistic proof-texts.

Second passage: this one God is the Father

In the next section the Catechism asks who this one divine person is. The answer: “The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And the scriptural proof for it runs:

“By the clearest testimonies of Scripture, which run: ‘This is eternal life’ (says Jesus, John 17:3), ‘that they may know you, Father, the only true God.’ And to the Corinthians the Apostle writes: ‘For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things’ (1 Cor 8:6). And to the Ephesians: ‘One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all’ (Eph 4:6).”

Racovian Catechism, on the one God the Father

Here Eph 4:6 is adduced as the third and crowning attestation that the one God of the confession is the Father. The order is programmatic: John 17:3 (Jesus' prayer to the Father as the “only true God”) — 1 Cor 8:6 (Pauline short form) — Eph 4:6 (Pauline universality-formula). The Catechism reads Eph 4:6 as a statement of identity: heís theós = patêr pántôn; the one God is identical with the Father of all. A triadic doctrine of subsistences is excluded by this Pauline identity-formula.

Third passage: Christ is distinguished from this one God

In the polemical engagement with the doctrine that Christ himself possesses the divine nature, the Catechism returns once more to Eph 4:6:

“First, on the ground that Scripture presents to us only one single God, of whom we have shown above that he is the Father of Christ. This ground is all the more evident in that Christ is expressly distinguished, not only at very many places from the God so called simpliciter, but also from that one or only God (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; John 17:3).”

Racovian Catechism, against the divine nature of Christ

Here the line of argument is reversed: Eph 4:6 is not (only) adduced as a positive identification of God with the Father, but as a negative attestation against the consubstantiality of Christ with the supreme God. If Paul explicitly identifies the one God as the Father, then Christ — whom Paul introduces separately in v.5 as heís kýrios — is not this one God. The Pauline linguistic structure is unambiguously disjunctive.

The three proof-passages together yield Sozzini's (or the Polish Brethren's) argumentative logic:

1. God is numerically one (Mk 12:29; Eph 4:6; 1 Cor 8:4).
2. This one God is the Father (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6).
3. Christ is distinguished from this one God (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; John 17:3).

In all three steps Eph 4:6 appears. Whoever removes the verse weakens each of the three steps; whoever reinterprets it trinitarianly causes the Pauline linguistic structure to collapse. That is precisely why the Racovian Catechism cites this passage so prominently.

Logical arguments

From Ephesians 4:6 the following linguistic-theological arguments arise against the trinitarian reading:

1. Argument from the identity-formula. “One God and Father of all” is a Pauline statement of identity: the one God is the Father. Whoever alternatively identifies the one God as a triadic communion of subsistences dissolves the Pauline identity of heís theós and patêr pántôn.
2. Argument from the sevenfold confessional structure. Vv.4–6 name seven units which are all distinct. Heís theós (v.6) is not heís kýrios (v.5). Whoever identifies the two dissolves the sevenfold seven-structure into a sixfold one — against the wording.
3. Argument from Pauline linguistic usage. 1 Cor 8:4–6, 1 Tim 2:5, Gal 3:20, Eph 4:6 use heís theós consistently in a numerical sense. In none of these passages is heís used as “consubstantial-three.” The uniform Pauline use is unambiguous from the standpoint of linguistic history.
4. Argument from the predicate pántôn. “Father of all” is universal-cosmic (all creatures), not intra-trinitarian. Mal 2:10 (“one Father, one Creator”) is the exact linguistic parallel. Whoever reinterprets the predicate intra-trinitarianly imports a construction that the text does not yield.
5. Argument from the three-preposition structure. Epi pántôn, diá pántôn, en pâsin is linguistically mono-subjective (cf. Rom 11:36). It describes the omni-activity of a single subject — not a distribution of persons. Whoever assigns three prepositions to three persons shatters the Pauline linguistic pattern.
6. Argument from the LXX linguistic tradition. Heís theós is Septuagint language (Deut 6:4 LXX: kýrios heís estin). In Jewish-Hellenistic usage this language knows no subsistential ambiguity. Eph 4:6 stands in this linguistic tradition; a later ontological reinterpretation is anachronistic.
7. Argument from 1 Cor 8:6. The parallel formula heís theós ho patêr (1 Cor 8:6) is linguistically identical with Eph 4:6 in short form. Both identify the one God as the Father — and Christ alongside as heís kýrios. The Pauline linguistic family is internally consistent.
8. Argument from Jesus' self-designation (John 20:17). The risen Christ himself says: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Whoever has one God and Father is not himself this one God and Father. Eph 4:6 yields, together with this self-designation, a coherent picture: one God and Father of all (also of Christ).
9. Argument from hermeneutical clarity. Eph 4:6 is one of the most unambiguous Pauline statements about God. The trinitarian reading must reinterpret this unambiguous passage by means of later and more difficult ones (John 1:1; Matt 28:19). Hermeneutically this is the wrong direction: the clear interprets the obscure, not the other way round.
10. Argument from the context of unity. Vv.1–6 call the congregation to unity and ground this unity in the unity of God. If the one God subsisted in three persons, the relation of grounding (one congregation, because one God) would be broken. The rhetorical logic of the call presupposes strict monotheism.

Objections and Socinian replies

Objection 1: “The three prepositions are distributed among the three persons of the Trinity.”

Objection: Epi pántôn (over all) supposedly designates the Father (transcendence); diá pántôn (through all) supposedly designates the Son (mediating efficacy); en pâsin (in all) supposedly designates the Spirit (immanent indwelling). This reading is said to be widespread in patristic exegesis (Theodoret, Chrysostom in part) and to agree with the trinitarian economy of salvation.

Reply: This reading is a later dogmatic inscription which the Pauline text does not support. First: the subject of the three prepositions is in the text unambiguously the one God and Father of all; no distribution of persons is introduced linguistically. Second: Rom 11:36 uses exactly the same three-preposition structure (ex autou, di' autou, eis autòn) and is unambiguously mono-subjective (referred to the one God). Third: Stoic and Jewish-Hellenistic parallels (Marcus Aurelius, Philo) show that such three-preposition formulae in ancient usage were mono-subjective — descriptions of the omni-activity of a single deity, not distributions over persons. Fourth: the text yields a triadic distribution of persons only when one reads it into the text; a late-antique read-in into a Pauline text is methodologically problematic. Fifth: had Paul meant a triadic distribution of persons, the confessional formula was the exact occasion to name it — he does not.

Objection 2: “Heís can also designate a composite unity (cf. Gen 2:24).”

Objection: If the Hebrew 'echad in Gen 2:24 (“they shall be one flesh”) and the Greek heís in the LXX can occasionally designate plurality-as-unity, then heís theós in Eph 4:6 likewise permits the reading of a triadic unity.

Reply: This argument confuses meaning with potential meaning. 'Echad and heís are numerals; they count countable one. When a married couple is “one flesh,” it is countably one, not “several within the one.” Applied to God in the Socinian sense it would say: God is countably one, not two or three. In addition: context decides. In Eph 4:6 the context (sevenfold differentiation of the units in vv.4–6, identity-formula with patêr pántôn, Pauline linguistic family with 1 Cor 8:4–6) is unambiguously numerical-monad. Whoever inscribes “composite unity” here imports an apologetic reading that the text does not yield. Moreover: the Jewish-Hellenistic usage of heís theós (Philo, Josephus) is consistently monad-monotheistic — whoever reads it otherwise has left the linguistic horizon.

Objection 3: “V.5 names ‘one Lord’ (Christ) on equal footing with ‘one God’; this proves trinitarian consubstantiality.”

Objection: The confessional formula sets heís kýrios (v.5, Christ) and heís theós (v.6, Father) linguistically alongside one another on equal footing. Both are predicated with the same heís. Christ's consubstantiality with the Father is thereby confessionally attested.

Reply: Juxtaposition is not consubstantiality. Precisely this is proved by the sevenfold differentiation in vv.4–6: one body is not one Spirit; one hope is not one faith; one Lord is not one God. Each unity stands distinguished alongside the others — that is the rhetorical point. The parallel formula 1 Cor 8:6 makes the relation explicit with prepositional precision: heís theós ho patêr (ex hou ta pánta, “from whom are all things”) and heís kýrios Iêsôus Christós (di' hou ta pánta, “through whom are all things”). The prepositional semantics distinguishes first cause (ex, Father) and mediating cause (diá, Christ). In Eph 4:5–6 the same distinction is at work, more concisely formulated. Whoever fuses v.5 and v.6 into consubstantiality does precisely what Paul rhetorically wishes to separate.

Objection 4: “If Christ is not the one God, his worship is idolatry.”

Objection: NT believers call upon Christ (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor 1:2; Rev 5:12–14). If Christ were not the one God of Eph 4:6, every worship of Christ would be idolatry. The Socinian reading is therefore practically untenable.

Reply: This premise is not biblical but dogmatically constructed. In the NT Christ is venerated as the mediator exalted by the Father (Phil 2:9–11: “God has highly exalted him”; doxa Theou patrós); his dignity is derived, not original. The Racovian Catechism consistently explains the NT invocation of Christ from his messianic-mediatorial function (cf. John 14:13; Heb 4:14–16): we ask the Father in the name of the Son. This worship of Christ requires no consubstantiality; it requires the sending and exaltation of Christ by the one God. The practical reproach of idolatry takes hold only if one postulates a worship which the one God himself had not authorised — but Acts 2:36 shows: God himself has made Christ “Lord and Christ”; the veneration is therefore instituted by the one God, not in defiance of him. The one God remains the Father (Eph 4:6); the one mediator remains Christ (1 Tim 2:5).

Objection 5: “Matt 28:19 (‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’) shows a trinitarian extension of the confession of God.”

Objection: The NT confession of God is not conclusively formulated by Eph 4:6; Matt 28:19 names three entities on equal footing in the baptismal name, which retrospectively justifies a trinitarian reading of Eph 4:6.

Reply: Matt 28:19 is a baptismal formula, not a confession of God. It assigns three entities to the baptismal action without naming them as ontologically consubstantial. Already from a text-critical standpoint the longer trinitarian form is disputed (Eusebius repeatedly cites the shorter form “in my name”). Even if the longer form is authentic, it is read consistently in the Racovian Catechism as a functional triad: Father = Creator and source; Son = mediator and sent teacher; Spirit = operative power of the one God. The chief exegetical rule remains: the clear interprets the obscure. Eph 4:6 (unambiguously: one God = the Father) has hermeneutical priority over Matt 28:19 (ambiguous: three entities in a baptismal formula). Whoever reverses the order has given up the principle of Scripture. The Pauline confessional formula is the NT doctrine of God par excellence; it cannot be overtrumped by a baptismal formula.

Cross-references

Theological consequences

Summary

Ephesians 4:6 is the Pauline universality-formula of biblical monotheism. Heís theós kai patêr pántôn identifies the one God of the Shema unambiguously as the Father of all — not as a triadic communion of subsistences. The three appended prepositions (epi, diá, en pâsin) describe the omni-activity of this one Father; they are mono-subjective (cf. Rom 11:36), not trinitarianly distributed. The sevenfold confessional structure (vv.4–6) clearly differentiates heís kýrios (Christ) from heís theós (Father) — a consubstantial identification shatters the Pauline linguistic pattern.

The Pauline linguistic family is consistent: 1 Cor 8:4–6, 1 Tim 2:5, Gal 3:20, Eph 4:6 use heís theós throughout monad-monotheistically and identify the one God as the Father. Christ is named alongside as heís kýrios or one mediator — sent, sanctified, exalted by the one God. This disjunction is the hermeneutical key to Pauline Christology.

The Racovian Catechism cites Eph 4:6 threefold as a central scriptural proof: for the numerical unity of God (Mk 12:29 + Eph 4:6), for the identification of the one God with the Father (John 17:3 + 1 Cor 8:6 + Eph 4:6), and for the distinction of Christ from the one God (1 Cor 8:6 + Eph 4:6 + John 17:3). Whoever reads Eph 4:6 in its Pauline sharpness has already left the dogma of the Trinity exegetically. There is one God and Father of all — and Jesus Christ is his sent mediator.