If you compare English translations, you will
notice a difference in the positioning of the prepositional phrase “in love” at
Ephesians 1:4-5. The NKJV reads, “that
we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us…” The ESV
reads, “that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined
us …” The prepositional phrase en agápē [“in love”] is attached to the
preceding words of v. 4 in the ASV, N/KJV, NET, and NRSV, but prefaces what
follows in v. 5 in the CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, and RSV. The former applies to the love of those who are holy and blameless, whereas the latter refers to
God’s love.1
L. T. Lincoln argues that the phrase
belongs at the end of the foregoing section and should “be seen as part of the
goal election is intended to achieve in those it embraces – a life before God
which is holy and blameless and lived in love” (Ephesians WBC 42:17). There seems to be a pattern where each
section of the extended thanksgiving ends with an en (“in”) prepositional phrase, and elsewhere in the letter it is
the love of the saints that is highlighted (1:15; 3:17; 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2, 25a,
28, 33; 6:23, 24) (ibid.).
On the other hand, divine love is the
subject of 2:4; 3:19 (employing the noun agápē) and 2:4;
5:2b, 25b (employing the verbal agapáō).2 Seeing that
the love of God undergirds the entire biblical revelation, whether explicitly
stated or not, it is certainly understood. There
are 116 occurrences of the noun agápē in the
NT, seventy-five of which are in Paul’s writings (87%). The verb agapáō appears 137 times in the NT, thirty-four in Paul; and the
adjective agapētós (“beloved”) is found sixty-two times in the NT,
twenty-eight in Paul.
The ambiguity might be
intentional, compelling readers to think, reflect, interpret, and make
application in light of what has already been learned (cf. Acts 20:20,
27). A double nuance pointing in both directions is not
inconceivable (cf. 6:23).3 Accordingly, the people of
God should be holy and blameless before him in love, while in love he has
predestined us – neither to the exclusion of the other.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 F. Foulkes observes, “the
differing opinions of translators and commentators ancient and modern indicate
that it is not possible to be dogmatic regarding the intention of the writer” (Ephesians 47). In favor of the application
to God’s love, see T. K. Abbott, Ephesians
8; C. L. Mitton, Ephesians 50-51. In
favor of the application to Christian love, see G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison 35; J. B.
Lightfoot, Notes 313; L. T. Lincoln, Ephesians WBC 42:17; J. A. Robinson, Ephesians
2nd ed. 143.
2 A form of the
noun agápē occurs in 1:4, 15; 2:4; 3:17, 19; 4:2,
15, 16; 5:2a; 6:23. The verbal usage appears in 1:6; 2:4; 5:2b, 25[x2], 28[x3],
33; 6:24.
3 See M. Barth, Ephesians
1:79. T. A. Turner comments, “This wonderful relationship between Redeemer
and the redeemed would be one of mutual love” (Study of Ephesians 5).
Related Posts:
Unconditional Election?
No comments:
Post a Comment