to describe God’s liberation of Israel from Egypt (15. xliii. 3 does not count). On the other hand, the classical examples favour the idea that a reference to the cost of liberation is involved in the word. Thus Jos., Ant., xii. 2, 3: πλειόνων δὲ ἢ τετρακοσίων ταλάντων τὰ τῆς ἄπολν- τρώσεως γεγήσεσθαι Φαμένων κ.τ.λ.; and Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, § 17 (ot a Spartan boy taken prisoner in war) ἀπογνοὺς ἀπολύτρωσιν ἄσμενος ἑαυτὸν διεχρήσατο, where it is at least most natural to translate ‘having given up hope of being held to ransom”’. In the N.T., too, the cost of man’s liberation is often emphasised: 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23, 1 Pet. i. 18 f., and that especially where the cognate words λύτρον and ἀντίλυτρον are employed: Mc. x. 45, 1 Tim. ti.6. The idea of liberation as the end in view may often have prevailed over that of the particular means em- ployed, but that some means— and especially some cost, toil or sacrifice— were involved, was always understood. It is implied in the use of the word here that justification is a liberation; the man who receives the righteousness of God is set free by it from some condition of bondage or peril. From what? The answer is to be sought in the connection of i. 17 and i. 18: he is set free from a condition in which he was exposed to the wrath of God revealed from heaven against sin. In Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14, ἀπολύτρωσις is plainly defined as re- mission of sins: in Eph. i. 14, Rom. Vili. 23, 1 Cor. i. 30, it is eschatological.
Ver. 25 f. But the question whether the word ἀπολύτρωσις involves of itself a reference to the cost at which the thing is accomplished is after all of minor consequence: that cost is brought out unambiguously in ver. 25. The ἀπολύ- τρωσις is in Christ Jesus, and it is in Him as One whom God set forth in pro- pitiatory power, through faith (or, read- ing διὰ τῆς πίστεως, through the faith referred to), in His blood. προέθετο in Eph. i. 9 (cf. Rom. i. 13) is ‘‘ purposed ” ; but here the other meaning, ‘‘set forth”’ (Vulg. proposuit) suits the context much
ο 24—25.
‘ , a ~ , Las ~ > a a 3 ἁλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ' ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, εἰς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων
1 δια της πιστεως; 5ο ΒΟΣΡΣΚΙ, 17, but om. της ΝΟΕ, Origen. edd. omit, but W. and H. give it a place in marg.
emphasises it with ref. to ver. 22.
better. ἱλαστήριον has been taken in various ways. (1) In the LXX it is the
rendering of 939, (A.V.) “ mercy-
seat’, ‘ne passage at least, Ex.
xxv. 16, FID is rendered ἱλαστή-
ριού ἐπίθεμα, which is possibly a com- bination of two translations—a literal one, a “lid” or “covering”; and a figurative or spiritual one, ‘“‘ a propitia- tory’’. Many scholars argue that Paul’s use must follow that of the LXX, fa- miliarity with which on the part of his readers is everywhere assumed. But the necessity is not quite apparent ; and not to mention the incongruities which are introduced if Jesus is conceived as the mercy-seat upon which the sacrificial blood—His own blood—is_ sprinkled, there are grammatical reasons against this rendering. Paul must have written, to be clear, τὸ ἱλαστήριον ἡ p @ ν, Or some equivalent phrase. Cf. 1 Cor. v. 8 (Christ our passover). A “‘ mercy-seat ” is not such a self-evident, self-interpret- ing idea, that the Apostle could lay it at the heart of his gospel without a word of explanation. Consequently (2) many take ἱλαστήριον as an adjective. those who so take it, some supply θῦμα or ἱερεῖον, making the idea of sacrifice explicit. But it is simpler, and there is no valid objection, to make it masculine, in agreement with ὃν: ‘‘ whom God set forth in propitiatory power”. This use of the word is sufficiently guaranteed by Jos., Ant., xvi. 7, 1: περίφοβος 8 αὐτὸς ἐξῄει καὶ τοῦ ine ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα ο κατεσκευάσατο. The passage in 4 Macc. xvii. 22 (καὶ διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐκείνων καὶ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου [τοῦ] θανάτον αὐτῶν ἡ θεία πρόνοια τὸν