Ri ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ
writings, but it occurs also once in John (xvii. 24) and once in Peter (1 Pet. i. 20). It is akin to the form ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (Matt. xiii. 35, omitting κόσμου with LTTrWHR marg.), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσ- μου (Luke xi. 50; Heb. iv. 3; Rev. xiii. 8); as also to these phrases: ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς (1 Thess. ii. 13), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. ii. 7), πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (2 Tim. i. 9). It expresses most definitely the fact that the election in question is not the setting apart of certain persons at a definite period, an act in time, a historical selection, as some (6.Ρ., Beys.) strive to prove, but an eternal choice, a deter- mination of the Divine Mind before all time. The idea of the Divine elec- tion in the NT is not a philosophical idea expressing the ultimate explanation of the system of things or giving the rationale of the story of the human race as such, but a religious idea, a note of grace, expressing the fact that salvation is originally and wholly of God. In Pauline teaching the subjects of this Divine election are neither the Church as such (Ritschl), nor mankind as such (Beck), but Christian men and women, designated as ἡμεῖς, ὑμεῖς. It is, as is here clearly intimated, an eternal deter- mination of the Divine Will, and it has its ground in the freedom of God, not in anything foreseen in its subjects. Ofa prevision of faith as the basis or motive of the election there is no indication here. On the contrary, the character or dis- tinguishing inward quality of the subjects of the election is presented in the next clause as the object of the election, the end it had in view. (See especially Haupt, in loc.)—elvar ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους : that we should be holy and without blemish. The election, there- fore, had a definite purpose before it— the making of its subjects ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους. The simple infinitive is freely used to express the idea of purpose or design not. only in the NT but in classical Greek (Soph., Oed. Col., 12; Thuc., i., 50, iv., 8; Herod., vii., 208, etc.; cf. Winer-Moult., Gram., p. 399). On the ἁγίους see under ver. 1. There is a question, however, as to the precise sense Of ἀμώμους. The adjective means both ‘ without blame” (inculpatus) and “without blemish” (immaculatus). In the LXX it is a sacrificial term, applied in the latter sense to victims (Exod. xxix. τ Ἐν 3, τους 1, 6).9, 10, xxii. το, etc.). It has this sense of “without blemish” also in Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; cf. the use of the noun in 2 Pet. ii, 13. In the Pauline writings it is
249
found, in addition to the present passage, in Eph. v. 27; Phil. ii. 15 (according to the best reading); Col. i. 22. In the first and third of these occurrences it is rendered by tbe RV “ without blemish,” in the second, “ blameless’. On the ground of usage, especially in the LXX, many commentators conclude for the second sense. Light., e.g., takes the point of the two adjectives to be that the former denotes the consecration of the victim and the latter its fitness for the con- secration (Notes on Epistles of Paul, p. 313). The Vulg. gives immaculati, and Wycl. “without wene”. On the other hand, there is nothing in the verse to suggest the idea of sacrifice or a victim. The parallel passage, also, in Col. i. 22, where we have not only ἁγίους and ἀμώμους but a third adjective ἀνεγκλή- τους, is on the whole on the side of “blameless”. That, too, is the meaning of the word in classical Greek {ε.ρ., Herod. ii., 177), and in inscriptions (C. I., 1974). Little indeed depends on the decision between the two senses; for both terms, ‘‘ without blemish”? and “ without blame,” may have ethical appli- cations. There is the further question, however, whether in this statement Paul has in view the standing of believers or their chavactey—whether he thinks of them as justified or as designed to be sanctified. The arguments in support of the objective relation to God being a view here (Mey., Haupt, etc.) are weighty. It is held, e.g., that γίγνεσθαι would be more appropriate than εἶναι if the per- sonal sanctification of believers was in the writer’s mind; that in that case the ἐν ἀγάπῃ would more naturally have come in before the κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ; above all, that the tenor of the section as a whole is on the side of the first view, the idea all through the paragraph (vv. 3-14) being what God does for us, not what we are now or are meant to be inwardly to Him, and the objective facts of the forgiveness of sin, adoption, etc., being clearly introduced in vv. 7 ff. On the other hand the ethical sense is strongly advocated by many (Chrys., Theophy., Alf., Ell., Candl., Abb., etc.) on the broad ground that it is so much Paul’s way to point us to newness and holiness of life as the great end of the Divine purpose and the Divine call (Phil. ii. 15; τ Ὅπεβε, ἵν. 7; 2 Thess. 11. 13; Titus ii. 14). This is supported further by the presence of the qualifying ἐν ἀγάπῃ», if it is attached to ver. 4; and by the weighty consideration that the ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους in the