Ver. 11. ἐν ᾧ καὶ: in whom also τος. The καί does not qualify the subjects (for there is no emphatic ἡμεῖς, nor is there any such contrast between ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς here as appears in verses 12, 13),
10-11.
but refers to what is expressed by the verb and presents that as something additional to what has been expressed by the preceding verb. The ‘ we,” there- fore, designates Christians inclusively, and the καί gives the sentence this force —‘‘not only was it the purpose of God to make known the secret of His grace to us Christians, but this purpose was also fulfilled in us in point of fact and we were made His own—not only chosen for His portion but actually made that”, The AV “in whom also we” seems to follow the erroneous rendering of the Vulg., im quo etiam nos. Equally at fault are those (including even Wetstein and Harless) who limit the “we” to Jewish Christians Πεγα.---ἐκληρώθημεν : were made a heritage. The reading ἐκλήθημεν, found in a few uncials and favoured by Griesb., Lachm., Riick., may be a gloss from Rom. viii. 13, or possibly a simple case of mistaken transcription due to the faulty eyes of some scribe. The verb ἐκληρώθημεν is of disputed meaning here. This is its only occur- rence in the NT. The compound form προσκληροῦν also occurs in the NT, but only once (Acts xvii. 4). In classical Greek κληροῦν means to cast the lot, to choose by lot, and to allot. Both in the classics and in the NT κλῆρος denotes a lot, and then a portion allotted. The cognate κληρονομεῖν means to get by lot, to obtain an allotted portion, and so to inherit; and κληρονομία, in the LXX
often representing ΟΠΣ, signifies a property inherited, or a possession. In the OT it is used technically of the por- tion assigned by lot to each tribe in the promised land, and of the Holy Land itself as Israel’s possession given by God (Deut. iv. 38, xv. 4). In the NT it gets the higher sense of the blessedness of the Messianic kingdom, the Christian’s des- tined possession in the consummation of the Kingdom of God. The affinities of κληροῦν show that it may have the definite sense of heritage. It is alleged indeed by some (e.g., Abb.) that the only idea expressed in κληροῦν is that of assigning a lot or portion, and that the notion of an inheritance does not belong to it. But the portions of land assigned by lot to the tribes of Israel on their entrance into Canaan were secured inalienably, and the lots belonging to each family were so secured to the family from father to son that it was impious to let them go into the hands of strangers (cf. the case of Naboth, 1 Kings xxi. 3). Thus the idea of lot or portion passed