250
r 2 Cor. ii. 17, ΧΙ 19;
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν] ἀγάπῃ, 5. " προορίσας 2 ἡμᾶς εἰς ' υἱοθεσίαν
Col. i. 22: διὰ ἸΙησοῦ χριστοῦ ὃ “eis αὐτὸν, κατὰ τὴν " εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος
ude 24;
vit. ἵν. 17 vat. 5 ver. 11 reff.
t Rom. viii. 15, 23, ix. 4; Gal. iv. 5 only ἡ.
u=Col. i. 20,
v Matt. xi. 26 ||; Luke ii. 14; Phil. i. 15, ii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 11; Ps. v. 12.
λεν αγαπ. is joined with the foregoing by LP, f, Vig.; with the following by d, g,
Orig., Chrys., Thdrt. ἔπροωρισας D*P.
parallel passage in Col. i. 22 is fol- lowed immediately by a reference to continuing “in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the Gospel”. Something depends, however, on the position of the following ἐν ἀγάπῃ, on which see Ῥεϊονν.---κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ: before Him; that is, before God. Read αὐτοῦ, not (as Harl., etc.) αὑτοῦ ; see Winer-Moul., Gram., pp. 188, 189. So, too, in the parallel passage Col. i. 22. The present approbation of God is in view, not His future judgment. Light. thinks that God Himself is thus regarded as the great μωμοσκόπος, who inspects the vic- tims and takes cognizance of blemishes. But this is to import a priestly notion which is not expressed in the context. This phrase might be specially appro- priate to the idea of the standing or relation of believers as supposed to be conveyed by ἀμώμους. But it also suits the idea of character —Gpoépovs “ in God's sight,”’ “under the eye of God as Witness and Judge, and so in truth and reality”. The terms ἐνώπιον, κατε- γώπιον, κατέναντι are also used in this sense in the NT, and do not appear to occur in profane Greek. They are peculiar to the LXX, the Apocrypha, and the NT. All three are used by Paul, κατενώπιον and κατέναντι spar- ingly (the former only here and in Col. i. 22, the latter in Rom. iv. 17; 2 Cor. ii. 17, xii. 19); most frequently ἐνώπιον (Rom. iii. 20, xii. 17, xiv. 22; 1 Cor. i. 29; 2 Cor. iv. 2, etc.), which is also much employed in Luke and Revelation, never in Matthew or Mark.—év ἀγάπῃ : in love. What does this qualify? The divine election, say some (CEc., etc.). But the remoteness of the ἐν ἀγάπῃ from the ἐξελέξατο makes this, if not an impracticable, at least a less likely connection. It is possible, indeed, also to retain the connection of the ἐν ἀγάπῃ with ver. 4 and yet give it the sense of the Divine love, if we take it to qualify not the ἐξελέξατο alone, but the whole clause which it concludes. In that case the idea would be that the
5 Xp. Ino. B, Chr.; Xp. Or., Hil.
electing act and the object it had in view, namely holiness and blamelessness on our part, were both due to God’s love and had their explanation in it. The choice, however, appears to be between attaching the clause to the preceding ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους and attaching it to the following προορίσας. Commentators and Versions are widely divided on the question. The former 15 the connection in LP, the Goth. and Copt. Vv., the Vulg., the texts of Stephens, WH, and the Revisers, and it is preferred by Eras., Luth., Beza, Calv., Grot., Wetst., Alf., Light. The latter is the connection in the Syr.-P, and is followed by LTTr marg., RV marg., Orig., Chrys., Thdrt., Theophy., oy Beng., Harl., de Wette, Olsh., Hof., Bleek., Mey., Ell., V. Sod., Haupt, Abbott, etc. The propriety of understanding the ἐν ἀγάπῃ as meant to qualify the προορίσας is | -- on such grounds as these—that the Pauline Epistles furnish no other instance of ἅγιος or ἄμωμος having attached to it any grace or virtue defined by évas the form in which the holiness or blameless- ness shows itself (Haupt); that it is befitting that the love which is its prin- ciple and ground should get emphatic expression when the Divine πὶ ισμός is first introduced (ΕἸ]., etc.); that this connection is most in harmony with the ascription of praise (Mey.), and with the genius of the paragraph as a whole, which is concerned with what God is to us rather than what we are required to be to Him. On the other hand in support of attaching the ἐν ἀγάπῃ to the preced- ing, itis pointed out that in view of the subsequent κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν there is less reason for introducing ἐν ἀγάπῃ in so emphatic a position before the προορί- σας; that, if not in the Pauline Epistles themselves, yet elsewhere both within and without the NT we have instances analogous to the connection of ἐν ἀγάπῃ with ἀμώμους here—e.g., 2 Pet. ili. 14, ἀμώμητοι . . « ἐν εἰρήνῃ ; Jud. 24, ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει ; Clem. Rom., 50, ἵνα ἐν ἀγάπῃ εὑρεθῶμεν δίχα προὔκλίσεως ἀνθρωπίνης ἅμωμοι (cited