Introducing Ephesians: Establishing Believers in Christ

Clint E. Arnold  |  Southwestern Journal of Theology Vol. 39 - Fall 1996

Introduction[1]Some material adapted from the article entitled, “Ephesians, Letter to the,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993). Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P. 0. Box 1400, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, 60515.

Eloquent, profound, and practical, the epistle to the Ephesians has been and continues to be one of the most cherished books of the Bible for many Christians. Ephesians was John Calvin’s favorite. Martin Luther characterized it as “among the best and noblest books of the New Testament.”[2]Cited in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church. Volume l: Apostolic Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910; rpt. 1994) 781.

The popularity of Ephesians is due in large measure to the fact that it gives expression to a broad range of foundational Christian belief. The expression comes not in a dry sort of way, but often in the language of exultation, praise, and prayer. These important truths are integrally linked to demanding expectations regarding Christian lifestyle-a call for people to strive for the highest levels of integrity before God-not merely by their own effort, but by the power of God.

This concise letter also contributes key insights to many of the important issues in contemporary Christianity. Ephesians is indispensible for dealing with the topics of racial reconciliation, spiritual warfare, divine sovereignty and human free will, salvation by grace through faith, the nature of the church, the filling of the Holy Spirit, the gift of prophecy, the role relationships of husbands and wives, and many others.

Considerable controversy, however, surrounds some of the most basic of questions regarding the letter. Was the letter really written by the Apostle Paul? Was it actually sent to the church in the city of Ephesus? What was the purpose of the letter? And, what was going on among the Christians to whom it was addressed? I will endeavor to provide some perspective to these issues.

Did Paul Write the Letter?

Scholarly opinion regarding the Pauline authorship of Ephesians is strongly divided with perhaps a majority of scholars today holding that the letter was not written by Paul. This situation is rather ironic in that a good number of scholars have esteemed Ephesians as “the crown” of Paul’s thought.[3]J. Armitage Robinson described Ephesians as “the crown of St. Paul’s writings” (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1907), vii. Similarly, C. H. Dodd spoke of Ephesians as “the crown of Pauline” (as cited by F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon and to the Ephesians, New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984, 229). Bruce himself termed Ephesians “the quintessence of Paulinism.” On the other hand, modern scholarship echoes the assessment of Kummel: “the theology of Ephesians makes the Pauline composition of the letter completely impossible.”[4]W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 360.

The Pauline authorship of Ephesians was not challenged until the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. It was the outspoken denial of authenticity by F. C. Baur and his followers, however, which had the greatest influence on the subsequent course of scholarship. Prior to this time it was universally recognized as Pauline. As early as Ignatius, the epistle is quoted as being from the hand of the apostle.

Until recently, British and American evangeli­cal scholars unanimously affirmed Pauline author­ ship. Now, some evangelicals are convinced that the evidence of the epistle is inconsistent with Pauline authorship. A. T. Lincoln, for instance, concludes, “Everything points instead to a later follower of Paul who used Colossians as the basis for his own reinterpretation of the Pauline gospel.”[5]A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians Word Biblical Commentary 42. (Dallas: Word, 1990), lxvii. Similarly, R. P. Martin contends that the author was “a well-known disciple and companion of Paul who published this letter under the apostle’s aegis either during the apostle’s final imprisonment or (more probably) after his death.”[6]R. P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Interpretation. (Louisville: John Knox, 1992), 4. In an earlier writing, Martin identified this person as Luke. The arguments against Pauline authorship have been four-fold:

(1) Language and Style. Scholars often call attention to the fact that there are about ninety words that do not appear elsewhere in letters written by Paul.[7]See, for example, D. C. Duling and N. Perrin, The New Testament Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, 3d ed. (Fort Worth: Har­court Brace, 1994), 274. This amount, however, is proportionally insignificant. The low proportion actually turns out to be a point in favor of Pauline author­ ship. The weight of the criticism lies more in the observation that many of these unique terms are used in the apostolic fathers, thus giving the epistle more of a post-apostolic feel. Since most scholars, however, acknowledge that fathers such as Clement knew and used Ephesians, the possibility that the vocabulary of Ephesians influenced these writers needs to be considered more seriously.

The style of writing exhibited in Ephesians has been the greater stumbling block to authenticity. The style is often characterized as “pleonastic,” that is, a fullness of style seen in the repeated use of prepositional phrases, abundant participles, numer­ous relative clauses, genitive upon genitive, and lengthy sentences. Rudolph Schnackenburg says that “there is scarcely anything comparable in Paul.”[8]R. Schnackenburg Trans. by H. Heron, The Epistle to the Ephesians, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 26. What is not often observed, however, is that this unique style predominates in the first half of the epistle. Here the author intentionally employs a lofty style of eulogy, praise, prayer, and doxology. He also appears to be reliant on the use of traditional material. This half of the letter is not straightforward prose, argument, or admonition that usually stamps the Pauline letters. Passages such as Rom. 8:38-39 and 11:33-36 demonstrate that Paul was capable of writing in an elevated style similar to what we find in the Qumran hymns. One should not underestimate Paul’s resourcefulness in expressing himself.

(2) Theology. Many scholars have contended there are significant theological divergences in Ephesians compared to the seven recognized epistles. Discussion normally focuses on the cosmic Christology, the realized eschatology, and the apparently advanced ecclesiology of the letter. Those denying authenticity contend there is not merely a development in Paul’s thought, but an entirely changed perspective reflecting a later stage of theological reflection.[9]See Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 26-28; Lincoln, Ephesians, lxii-lxv.

There is no doubt about the development of the cosmic aspect of Christology and the heightened emphasis on a realized eschatology in the letter. I have argued in a different context that this empha­sis was prompted by the writer’s concern to build up the readers in light of their ongoing struggle with the principalities and powers (see below).[10]In Ephesians: Power and Magic Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 63. (Cambridge: University Press, 1989; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 124-29, 145-58, 171. Whereas I have stressed the animistic background of the Gentile converts and their ongoing fear of hostile spirit powers as background to the emphasis on cosmic Christol­ogy and realized eschatology in the letter, J. H. Roberts stresses the con­nection the author makes between the powers of darkness and the prob­lem of Jew-Gentile disunity in the letter; see J. H. Roberts, “The Enigma of Ephesians: Rethinking Some Positions on the Basis of Schnackenburg and Arnold,” Neotestamentica 27 (1993) 93-106. Roberts concludes that the author of the letter “might very well have been Paul.” The teaching of the epistle on both of these topics does not represent a break with the apostle’s teaching, but the logical extension of his thought. A.T. Lincoln himself has done much to demon­strate that Ephesians is not totally devoid of a futurist eschatology as it was once often charged.[11]See Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxxix-xc; pace A. Lindemann, H. Conzel­mann, et al.

Many aspects of the ecclesiology are thought to be inconsistent with Paul and to reflect a later temporal setting: the use of “church” (ekklesia) in a non-local sense, Christ now seen as “head* of the church, mention of the apostles and prophets as “holy” and as the foundation of the church. Some think that the author of the letter is looking back to the founding years of the church, emphasizing Paul as the guarantee of apostolic tradition, and building on his eschatology.[12]See Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 28. Each of these objec­tions, however, can meet with a plausible explana­tion in the lifetime of the apostle. (a) If the letter circulated among a network of churches, as is likely, it would be natural for the writer to use “church” in a more universal sense. (b) Christ as “head” of the church is a clear development over his earlier presentation of the metaphor of the body of Christ, but it is not impossible for Paul to have developed himself. The needs of the Coloss­ian church initially prompted this development and Paul further reflects on it for the benefit of the readers of Ephesians.[13]See Clinton E. Arnold,  “Jesus Christ: ‘Head’ of the Church (“Colossians and Ephesians,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, eds. J. B. Green and M. M. B. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 346-66. (c) The description of the apostles and prophets as “holy” (hagios; 3:5) does not necessarily point to a time when they were receiving increasing veneration. “Saints” (hagioi) was the typical Pauline designation for believers. The term was used of anyone or anything set apart for a sacred purpose.[14]See T. K. Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, International Critical Commentary. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), 82. (d) Although the apostles and the prophets do indeed form the foundation of the church through their foundational witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, they are not presented as dead, gone, and off the scene. The resurrected Christ continues to give them to the church (4:11-12). They are founda­tional in a dynamic continuing fashion.

In general, more consideration needs to be given to uncovering the plausible life-setting of the letter in Asia Minor in the early 60s before recourse is made to the more extreme assumption of a different temporal setting toward the end of the first century. Furthermore, it is not irrational to assume that Paul himself could bring further devel­opment to his own ideas especially as his circum­stances and the circumstances of his readers would prompt him. D. A. Carson, D. Moo, and L. Morris recently observed, “What appears to some as impossible for one mind is for others quite a possibility for such a wide-ranging and inventive mind as Paul’s.”[15]D. A. Carson, D. Moo, and L. Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 307.

(3) The Use of Colossians. All have recog­nized the close connection between the vocabulary, phraseology, and thought of Ephesians and Colossians. Many scholars are now contending that there is a formal relationship between the two epis­tles in terms of a one-way literary borrowing. The precise nature of the borrowing and the alleged . alteration of the thought of Colossians is thought to point decisively away from Pauline authorship. The nature of this relationship is explored in more detail.

Since each of these objections to the authentic­ity of Ephesians can be met with a reasonable explanation, the scales are tipped in favor of the authenticity of the epistle when two other factors are taken into consideration.

(1) Tradition. Kummel correctly observes (and must concede) that “Ephesians is extraordinarily well attested in the early church.”[16]Kummel, Introduction, 357. It appears to have been used as a Pauline letter by many of the apostolic fathers, including Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Clement of Rome. It is listed as a Pauline letter in the earliest canons, that is to say Marcion’s (c. A.O. 140) and the Muratorian Canon (c. A.O. 180). Many of the Gnostic writers quote it as Paul’s own words. A new line of evidence that has not entered the debate thus far is that Ephesians is quoted as Pauline in some of the Nag Hammadi documents (as early as the second century). For instance, Eph. 6:12 is quoted in the Hypostasis of the Archons as from “the great apostle” (Il.86.20-25). The same verse is cited in the Exegsis on the Soul (II.6.131) as the words of Paul.

(2) Autobiographical Information. In addition to the address of the letter, which claims Paul as the author ( 1:1), Ephesians contains a substantial amount of material presented as a firstperson address on the part of the apostle to the readers. The most significant is his reflection on his stewardship of the mystery (3:2-6) and the nature of his apostolic ministry (3:7-13). The first-person material also extends to the prayers, for example, “I Paul the servant of Christ Jesus [pray] for you Gentiles” (3:1; see also 1:16; 3:14), his call to unity (“I, the prisoner of the Lord” [4:1]). Paul also asks specifically that the readers would pray for him (6:19-20) and then concludes the letter with comments on the role of Tychicus when he comes to them with words that in places exactly parallel the text of Colossians (6:21-22).

Those who argue in favor of pseudonymity have variously explained the autobiographical material. Most recently, D. G. Meade claims that the literary device of pseudonymity was not only acceptable to early Christians but widely used. He contends that the author of Ephesians, an admirer of Paul’s, wrote in Paul’s name as an attempt to secure the heritage of Paul in the Asia Minor churches after the death of the great apostle. According to Meade, by writing in Paul’s name, the author is able “to actualize the apostolic doctrine and lifestyle.”[17]D. G. Meade, Pseudanymity and Canon, Wissenschaftliche Unter­ suchungen zum Neuen Testament 39. (Tubengen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986; rpt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 139-61. Pseudonymity, he asserts, “is primarily an assertion of authoritative tradition, not of literary origins.”[18]Meade, Pseudanymity, 161. A. T. Lincoln accepts Meade’s thesis and attempts to provide additional exegetical support for it. According to Lincoln, “Instead of simply saying that he is passing on Pauline traditions, he [the author of Ephesians] makes it more personal, direct, and forceful by adopting the device of Paul himself appealing to the churches.”[19]Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxxvii.

This thesis makes too strong a dichotomy between authoritative tradition and literary origins without corroborating it with convincing support. Meade’s approach also has been criticized for presenting a facile and homogenous picture of ancient Jewish literature that blurs the distinctions of literary genre among the varied documents. With regard to Ephesians, however, the thesis is difficult to sustain in a passage like 6:19-20 where Paul asks his readers to pray that he would be emboldened to proclaim the gospel in his prison situation. It is not enough to say that the the writer is soliciting the readers prayers for the progress of the apostolic gospel that is summed up by the image of Paul. The autobiographical information is much more naturally explained by the assumption of authenticity.

The Relationship of Ephesians to Colossians

Most scholars who see Ephesians as pseudo­nymous contend that it depends heavily on Colossians as its primary literary source (e.g. Lincoln; Schnackenburg; Lindemann; Mitton; et al.). Some argue that the dependence is based on the author’s memory of Colossians,[20]So Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 32. but others contend that the author must have pos­sessed a copy of Colossians which he redacted according to his own interests.[21]So Lincoln, Ephesians, Iv; C. L. Mitton, Ephesians, New Century Bible. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 230.

The most extensive point of contact is the commendation of Tychicus (Col 4:7-8; Eph 6:21-22) where there is verbatim correspondence between twenty-nine consecutive words (although kai sundoulos, “and fellow servant” is omitted in Eph.). Beyond this there are only three additional places where seven words are exactly paralleled and two places where there are five words. This appears to be very slim evidence for the postulation of literary dependence. It seems especially odd that the longest passage reproduced in Ephesians is not from the theological argumentation or paraenesis of Colossians, but about the sending of Tychicus. This passage is even more difficult under the assumption that the Ephesian author is reproduc­ing the text of Colossians from memory.

Proponents of literary dependence put more stock in the similar overall structure and sequence of the letters with much of the same thematic material[22]E.g. Lincoln, Ephesians, xlvii. and the apparent dependence on certain key terms and concepts expressed in Colossians. Nevertheless, it is argued, the author of Ephesians has his own distinctive interests: quite apart from slavish dependence, he rearranges and gives fresh expression to his source material to suit his own theological purposes.

One example of this reworking is Paul’s digres­sion in 3:1-13 on his apostolic ministry which is said to depend on Col. 1:23-29. The Ephesian passage sequences many of the same themes as the Colossian text and uses a number of the same (or

similar) terms and expressions. Lincoln therefore concludes that the passage “derives from the author’s distinctive reworking of the Colossians passage.”[23]Lincoln, Ephesians, 170. In response, it must be said that the conclusion of literary dependence is not demanded by this passage (although it could fit the hypothe­sis). If the author is using Colossians as source material it is surprising that he does not reproduce more of his source in his writing; he is going far beyond the work of a redactor in his complete refashioning of the material and creative elaboration on it. This passage more likely reflects the same author giving a fresh exposition of a similar theme (with different emphases) a short time later for a different audience.

Many scholars, however, find the theology of­ Colossians at variance with that of Ephesians. Thus, some suggest that even assuming the authenticity of Colossians (which itself is disputed), it is highly doubtful that Paul could have written Ephesians. This conclusion is based on the way the author of Ephesians alters the theology of Colos­sians on certain points. For example, in Col. 1:27, 2:2 the content of the “mystery” appears to be Christ, whereas in Ephesians it is the fact that the Gentiles have been made fellow members, with the Jews, of the body of Christ (3:6). But one must ask if this is truly a discrepancy or whether it could possibly be a matter of emphasis in the use of a term which expresses a multi-faceted concept. In a recent monograph on the Pauline concept of “mystery,” M. Bockmuehl argues that this use of the term reflects an emphasis on one aspect of the more comprehensive use of “mystery,” in other words, it is more a matter of continuity and empha­sis rather than discontinuity and a variant theol­ogy.[24]M. N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.36. (Tubengen: Mohr, 1990), 202; cf. C. C. Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion, CB 8. (Lund; Gleerup, 1977) 143: “They are not different mysteria, but wider or narrower aspects of one and the same mysterion-God’s mysterion in Christ.” On the relationship of the two epistles as a whole, F. F. Bruce rightly comments that the change of perspective from Christ (Colossians) to the church (Ephesians) may go far to account for the different nuances of terms held in common by the two letters.[25]Bruce, Ephesians, 231.

Some significant problems with the postulation of literary dependence still remain: (1) The influen­tial study by H. J. Holtzmann in 1872 concluded that the evidence of some of the parallels pointed more in the direction of the dependence of Colossians on Ephesians. Others, especially Mitton and now Lincoln, argue that all the parallels point to a one-way dependence.

A. van Roon, however, has once again brought this hypothesis into question. In his comparison of the two epistles he found no indication of literary priority on the part of either epistle, but what evidence there was pointed toward the priority of Ephesians.[26]A. van Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians, NovTSup 39. (Leiden:Brill, 1974), 426.

Although van Roon’s postulation of a third document upon which both were dependent is highly questionable, he does demonstrate the difficulty of proving any literary dependence on the available evidence. (2) If the author of Ephesians did use Colossians as his literary source, it is difficult to explain why he neglected the hymn and omits any use of the polemic against the “heretics” in Colossians 2. (3) The theory does not give sufficient credit to Paul’s ability and versatility as a writer and theologian. It is not unreasonable to think of Paul reexpressing, developing, and modifying his own thoughts for a different reader­ ship facing a different set of circumstances. It seems that one must first prove that Paul was incapable of this versatility.

The traditional view, recently given fresh expression by Carson, Moo, and Morris, still seems to have the most evidence in its favor: “The best explanation to many seems to be that the same man wrote Colossians and Ephesians a little later, with many of the same thoughts running through his head and with a more general application of the ideas he had so recently expressed.”[27]Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 308.

 

Was the Letter Written to Ephesus?

In 1855, Cambridge scholar Charles Ellicott wrote, “That the Epistle was addressed to the Christians of the important city of Ephesus seems scarcely open to serious doubt.”[28]G J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 2d ed. (London: Parker & Son, 1859), 1. Precisely the opposite sentiment is shared by the majority of scholars today.

The epistle is traditionally understood to have been written to believers in Ephesus because the city is mentioned in the superscript, “To the Ephesians,” and the prescript, “to the saints who are in Ephesus” (1:1). The words “in Ephesus,” however, are not present in certain manuscripts generally regarded as the most reliable, viz. Sinaiti­cus (x), Vaticanus (B), and a second-century papyrus (P46) – all published after Ellicott wrote his commentary. Further doubt is cast on the authenticity of the words because of the impersonal tone of the letter and the general nature of the contents. “Ephesians” does not look like an occasional letter written to one church which Paul knew well through three years of ministry. Thus, most inter­preters see Ephesians as some form of a circular letter.

Various attempts have been made to explain the sense of 1:1without the addition of a geographical location. Some take the text as it stands in x and B as original and translate it, “to the saints and to those who are faithful in Christ Jesus.”[29]E. Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 41. But this leaves us with a very awkward participial expres­sion (tois ousin) which always has a place name following it in prescripts of other Pauline letters (see Rom. 1:7; 1Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2).

Others resort to some form of conjectural emendation. For example, E. Best supposes that the original text may have been tois hagiois kai pistois en Christo Iesou [“to the saints and faithful ones in Christ Jesus”]. He argues that the address given on the outside of the papyrus roll originally read “to the saints” and was later modified to “to the saints who are in Ephesus (tois ousin en Epheso).” Accord­ing to Best, this occurred when the Pauline collection of letters was made (late first century) and the collectors realized that this letter did not conform to the rest because it had no geographical location. The phrase was then later carried into the body of the letter.[30]E. Best, “Recipients and Title of the Letter to the Ephesians: Why and When the Designation ‘Ephesians’? Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt 11.25.4 (1987), 3251. Against this view, it does not seem likely that such a process could happen over the time required without at least some remaining manuscript evidence.

It is likely that there was some indication of place in the prescript of 1:1. The participle ousin, “ones who are” expects the subsequent naming of a place. Bruce, persuaded that “in Ephesus” was not original and that the epistle has the appearance of a circular letter, conjectures that a space was left after ousin for Tychicus to insert the appropriate geographical name for each of the places he delivered a copy of the letter.[31]Bruce, Ephesians, 240; so also Martin, Ephesians, 3-5. Bruce correctly admits that such a practice is difficult to attest for the first century, but nevertheless still finds this argument the most convincing. It is problematic to this view that Ephesus alone was preserved as the only geographical place name when the letter was presumably written to many other cities along the west coast of Asia Minor (although Tertullian reports that Marcion thought the letter was written to Laodicea – probably Marcion’s own conjecture based on Col. 4:16).

A. van Roon, followed by A. T. Lincoln, suggested there were originally two place names­ Hierapolis and Laodicea. They claim this has the advantage of explaining the awkward kai (com­monly translated “also”) which connects “saints” with “faithful.”[32]van Roon, Authenticity, 80-85; Lincoln, Ephesians, 3-4. Apart from the difficulty of no textual evidence to support these locations, this view cannot explain why a scribe-often con­cerned with smoothing the text-would have let the kai stand in the text.[33]Cf. Best, “Recipients,” 3250.

We are left with no satisfying explanation of the original text of Eph. 1:1 if we assume the reliability of P46, and B on this reading. This is one point where it may be best to part company with these manuscripts and affirm the accuracy of the widely attested alternative tradition, that is, “in Ephesus” was the original reading. This view is beginning to find an increasing number of supporters.[34]H. Cozelmann and A Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament (tr. S. Schatzmann; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 205, comment, “The simplest solution of this problem is the assumption that the reading εθ ‘Εφεσφ is original. After all, the bulk of the witnesses, among them Alexandrinus, attest to it.” See also J. Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Nuen Testament X/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1971) 1-7, esp. 7; H. Conzelmann, Der Brief an die Epheser (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 8; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 89; A Lindemann, Der Epheserbrief   (Zurcher Bibelkommentar 8; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1985) 19; H. Hoehner, Ephesians (Baker Exegetical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker, in preparation).

The following arguments support this conclu­sion: (1) There is still strong manuscript support for the inclusion. The entire Western and Byzantine traditions stand behind it as well as important Alexandrian witnesses, including Alexandrinus. (2) An Ephesian destination was the unanimous tradition of the early church[35]For references, see Ellicott, Ephesians, 1. and is the only reading known in all the extant versions. (3) There is a reasonable explanation to account for the omission of “in Ephesus.” At a very early date, churches in a different location (perhaps Egypt) universalized the address in the prescript by omitting the prescript in copies that were made for their own catechetical (or liturgical) purposes.[36]Gnilka, Epheserbrief, 7.

The contents of Ephesians, as also the book of Romans, were especially well-suited to a broad readership. For the same reason, several witnesses omit “in Rome” (Rom. 1:7) in the prescript to the book of Romans. On this passage, Metzger notes that the words were eliminated “as a deliberate excision, made in order to show that the letter is of general, not local, application.”[37]B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 505). (4) When Paul says in 1:15 that he “heard” of their faith and love, it does not necessarily mean that he does not know them. It could just as easily refer to the progress they made in the five or so years he was absent from them. There is probably also a reference here to the many converts that joined the church since he had been with them. (5) One cannot place too much emphasis on the fact that no greetings are attached since he likewise sends no extended greetings to other churches he knew well (see 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians.

Was the letter therefore written exclusively to the one church at Ephesus? Although many inter­preters assume there was one big church present in Ephesus when the letter was written, it is far more likely there was a network of house churches scattered throughout the city and perhaps also in the nearby villages (e.g. Metropolis, Hypaipa, Diashieron, Neikaia). Many of these could have started after Paul left Ephesus. One must not forget that population estimates for first-century Ephesus begin at one-quarter million. Furthermore, Paul may have envisioned and even encouraged the reading of the letter to a broader circle of churches throughout the west coast of Asia Minor (e.g. Pergamum, Laodicea, Colossae, and Hierapolis).

The epistle was probably a circular letter in the sense that it was intended primarily to circulate among the house churches of Ephesus, its environs, and perhaps even more broadly in western Asia Minor (e.g. to the Lycus valley).

Style and Composition

Paul’s method of composition reveals his affectionate heart for the subject matter through the elevated style of writing. He also identifies with the beliefs of the early church through his use of traditional material: hymns, creeds, liturgy, and household codes. Yet he is not content merely to reaffirm what the church is already confessing; he is a fresh thinker and advances his readers’ understanding of Christ, the church, and eschatology.

The first half of Ephesians is well-known for its lofty and exalted style. Here Paul makes use of the language of worship, prayer, and doxology. The epistle begins with an elegantly composed eulogy (berakah) praising God for the election and redemption of his people (1:3-14). Consisting of one long sentence, the section abounds with participles, prepositional phrases, and relative clauses and is punctuated with the refrain-like phrase, “to the praise of his glory.” In true poetic form, the passage also uses a variety of synonyms to repeat the key thoughts, such as the knowledge, power, and will of God. Because of these poetic traits, some scholars have regarded this section as an early-Christian hymn (e.g. Lohmeyer, Kase­ mann). The majority of scholars, however, prefer to describe it as the author’s own “unified ad hoc composition, a hymnic passage in artistic, rhythmi­cal prose.”[38]Heinrich Schlier as cited in Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 46. The style is distinctively Jewish and has much in common with the hymns of Qumran. The switch from the first person plural (“we”) to the second person plural (“you”) in verse 13 has occasioned much discussion with some contending for an intentional contrast between Jewish Christians (“we”) and Gentile Christians (“you”) (e.g. Martin; Bruce; Robinson; Barth). Since the discussion of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles does not surface as a major theme until 2:11, it is better to take “we” as a reference to all believers and “you” as referring to the readers in particular (e.g. Schnackenburg; Lincoln).

The epistle also contains two prayers (1:15-23; 3:14-21). The first actually consists of an introduc­tory thanksgiving, an intercessory prayer report, and a digression extolling the power of God which raised Jesus from the dead. The poetic language used in this praise of God’s resurrection power (1:20-23) leads some interpreters to regard it as a hymnic quotation, but it more likely reflects the author’s own poetic style with possible dependence on early creedal formulations.[39]See Lincoln, Ephesians, 50-51; M. Barth, Ephesians, Anchor Bible 34, (New York: Doubleday, 1974) 1.154. The second prayer properly begins in 3:1 but is interrupted by an excursus on Paul’s apostleship to the Gentiles (3:2-13), a topic extremely relevant to the predom­inantly Gentile readership. The prayer report consists of one long sentence but is simply structured around two requests (introduced by hina) and a summarizing request. The prayer reiterates and develops some of the themes of the first prayer (e.g. power, spirit). The exalted language of the prayer leads immediately into a doxology (3:20-21) praising God for his power effective in the lives of believers.

The first half of the epistle is far from a dispas­sionate theological treatise. It exudes with emotion in the praise and worship of the almighty God who loves and responds to his people. Paul writes with intense feeling and wants to solicit the same emotions – praise, worship, and prayer – in the lives of his readers.

The most explicit citation of an early Christian hymn appears in 5:14 where it is introduced by a technical formula normally used for the introduc­tion to an OT citation (dio leger, “wherefore it says”; cf. Eph. 4:8 where it is used to introduce an OT quotation). The original setting of this hymn is thought by many scholars to be the occasion of baptism (e.g. Lincoln; Martin), but this is rather speculative.

Another possible hymnic fragment appears in 2:14-18 although this view is disputed by P. Stuhlmacher who regards it as a Christian midrash on Isa. 57:19.[40]Peter Swhlmacher, “‘He is Our Peace’ (Eph. 2:14). On the Exegesis and Significance of Ephesians 2:14-18,” in Reconciliation, Law, & Righteousness (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 182-200. The formal characteristics of the passage-the unique words, the use of participles, the intensely christological content, the parallelism of the lines, the “we” style that interrupts the “you” style-lead most scholars to conclude that it is indeed hymnic (so Lincoln; Martin; Barth). Therefore, Paul’s admonition to “speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (5:19) appears to be modeled by his own use of hymnic material in this letter. Paul himself was certainly capable of composing these hymns of praise. Whether he writes them or quotes them, they express his heart and he intends for them to move the hearts of those who read this letter.

At the beginning of his call to unity in the second half of the letter, Paul roots his appeal partly in a confession of the early church: “there is one body and one Spirit. ‘. .one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all” (4:4-6). Appar­ently, he wants to remind these believers of their common confession as the beginning step to increasing the unity of the churches.

In his composition of the epistle, Paul also makes use of a literary form commonly called the “household code” (5:21-6:9). This form was his vehicle for addressing the relationships within the household: husband-wife; parent-child; and master­ slave. This passage and Col. 3:18-4:1 appear to be the first adaptations of this form from Hellenistic Judaism to describe the relationships in a Christian household. The use of the form here varies consid­erably from Colossians, particularly in the expanded discussion of the husband-wife relation­ ship modeled on Christ and the church.

Although the number of OT quotations is not very large in Ephesians (there are only four explicit quotations), there are many allusions evidenced by Paul’s dependence on OT phraseology, terminol­ogy, and concepts. In one quotation of the.OT . (4:8), he uses Ps. 68:18 as an introduction onto his discussion of the risen Christ endowing the church with gifted people. The actual citation appears to follow a rabbinic tradition preserved in a later Targum that the victorious king “gave” gifts to people rather than “received” them (so the LXX and MT).[41]See Bruce, Ephesians, 340-43. He also shows his knowledge of rabbinic methods of exegesis as he then (in vv. 9-10) explains the meaning of the text in terms of a midrash pesher technique. A section of moral exhortation such as 5:15-18 reveals his indebted­ness to the OT wisdom tradition. References to such items as temple, redemption, God’s choosing, hope, mercy, promise, wisdom, the Father, sons of men, helmet of salvation, and many more show how deeply he was steeped in the OT and how the language of the OT influenced his own composition.

Rhetorical criticism is still in its infancy stages in application to NT documents, so very little has yet been written on Ephesians from this perspec­tive. A noteworthy beginning is A. T. Lincoln’s recent commentary on Ephesians which attempts to observe the rhetorical purpose of the flow of thought throughout the letter. He concludes that the writer combines the epideictic and the deliber­ative rhetorical genres.[42]Lincoln, Ephesians, xii-xiii. See also his treatment in The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters (Cambridge: University Press, 1993), 79-83.

With its variety of literary forms, traditions, and sources, Ephesians is far from the straightforward prose of a typical letter of antiquity. What, then, is the best way to describe Ephesians? Is it even accurate to call it a “letter”?

Kasemann described it as a “theological tract”merely dressed up like a letter.[43]Ernst Kasemann, “Epheserbrief,” in Religion in beschichte und begen­wart 2.517. H. Schlier called it a “wisdom discourse” focusing on the person of Christ as personified wisdom.[44]Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1957) 21; see also Bruce, Ephesians, 246, but also seeing it as an actual letter. J. Gnilka refers to it as a “liturgical homily” clothed in the form of a letter.[45]Gnilka, Epheserbrief, 33. Similarly, and most recently, A. T. Lincoln characterizes it as “the written equivalent of a sermon or homily.”[46]Lincoln, Ephesians, xxxix. Nevertheless, he still regards it as an actual letter adapted from the Pauline letter form.

Because Ephesians retains many conventions of the Pauline letter form, it is probably best explained as an actual letter. The language, literary and rhetorical forms, and the traditions employed say more about the concerns of the author in com­municating to his readers. The precise nature of the content and composition need to be explained by the background and purpose of the author as well as his perceived understanding of the needs of the readers.

Does Gnosticism Loom in the Background?

In the mid-nineteenth century, F. C. Baur argued that Ephesians must belong to the second century because of its dependence on Gnostic thought. Since then the affirmation of Gnostic influence upon Ephesians has been pro­mulgated widely by such writers as R. Bultmann, Schlier, E. Kasemann, W. Schmithals, P. Pokorny, H. Conzelmann, and A. Lindemann. They found Gnosticism evident in such terminol­ ogy and concepts as the head-body imagery, mystery, fullness, age, ruler, the once-now schema, and the so-called spatial eschatology. More conser­ vative scholars, on the other hand, argued more for the influence of Gnosticism on the readers of the letter than on the author himself.

In recent years, a dramatic shift away from the history-of-religions school’s assumption of a pre-Christian Gnostic redeemer myth has taken place in NT scholarship in general, and in the study of Ephesians in particular. In light of new evidence about the origins of Gnosticism, it is now accurate to conclude that the existence of any relatively coherent Gnostic system which would have been capable of influencing either the author of Ephesians or the communities to which the epistle was addressed rests on a very weak founda­tion.[47]Arnold, Ephesians, 12. Scholars are now using phrases such as “proto-Gnosticism” and “incipient Gnosticism” to describe the phenomena in the first-century A.D.

The most productive approach is to examine the local religious traditions which were known to be active and influential at the time the epistle was written. For western Asia Minor, this would include the phenomena commonly referred to as magic, the oriental religions (such as the cults of Artemis and Cybele), astrological practices and astral religion, and the various other local cults.[48]Arnold, Ephesians, 5-40. A deeper understanding of these traditions provides a more firm basis for interpreting the readers and assessing how Paul may have contextualized his theology to address their needs.

The Life-Setting and Purpose of Ephesians

Of all the letters written by Paul, Ephesians is the least situational. This does not mean that the epistle fails to address real needs and problems faced by its readers; Ephesians simply does not have the same sense of urgency and response to crisis as the apostle’s other letters. Consequently, a vast array of opinions have been expressed regarding why the letter was written.

Of course, one’s view on the authenticity of the letter has a significant impact on how this question is answered. Among those denying the Pauline authorship, a few have seen it as something other than a letter-such as a theological tract, a wisdom discourse, or a liturgical homily-as was noted above. N. Dahl stresses a baptismal setting for the document. He thinks the pseudonymous letter was addressed to some recently founded congregations to remind the young Gentile Christians of the implications of their faith and baptism and to exhort them to live up to their calling.[49]N. A. Dahl, “Gentiles, Christians, and Israelites in the Epistle to the Ephesians,” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986) 38.

R. P. Martin recently described Ephesians as “an exalted prose-poem on the theme ‘Christ-in-his­ church.”‘[50]Martin, Ephesians, 5-6. He explains that the document was written in response to the needs of the predomi­nantly Gentile readership to admonish them to appreciate the Jewish background of their faith and thus also their fellow Jewish Christians. He also sees a type of “gnosticizing” teaching that has led the readers into a libertine lifestyle and a fear of astrological fate. R. Schnackenburg, however, describes Ephesians as a genuine letter. More specifically, he sees it as “a theologically-based, pastorally-oriented” pseudonymous letter written to a circle of churches in Asia Minor around A.D. 90 addressing two pragmatic concerns: the internal unity of the congregations and the need for a distinctively Christian life-style in a pagan environment.[51]Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 22-35. E. Best finds no hint of any moral or spiritual crisis afflicting the readers. He sees the letter as written by a member of the Pauline school simply “to give some general theological and ethical advice on a number of matters.”[52]E. Best, Ephesians, New Testament Guides. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 93. A. T. Lincoln above all stresses the temporal setting of the letter in the period after the death of the apostle Paul.[53]Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxxv-lxxxvii. He concurs with D. Meade that many of the problems seen in Ephesians stem from the loss of Paul as a unifying source of authority. He sees the readers as consequently lacking a sense of cohesion and communal identity once the coordinating activity of the great apostle was gone.

Moving in an entirely different direction, E. J. Goodspeed, later supported by J. Knox and C. L. Mitton, argued that Ephesians was a general letter written toward the end of the first century as an introduction to the collected letters of Paul. Mitton concedes that Ephesians may not properly have served as an “introduction” to the epistles, but that it sprang from a relationship to the corpus and to present the message of the recently assembled Pauline letters comprehensively to a new generation.[54]Mitton, Ephesians, 29.  He believes that the writer is well-aware of the context of the readers and thus writes against the current Gnostic threat and the danger of the largely Gentile readership disowning their Jewish heritage.[55]Mitton, Ephesians, 30-31.

There also have been a diversity of opinions offered by those affirming Pauline authorship. C. Ellicott said the epistle was not prompted by any special circumstances, but was written to set forth the origin and development of the church for believers in Ephesus. He contends that Paul wrote the letter in a general way because he intended it for circulation among all the churches coterminous to or dependent on that city.[56]Ellicott, Ephesians, xv-xvi.

H. A. W. Meyer described the epistle simply as a written discourse by Paul to the predominantly Gentile church in Ephesus to advance their under­ standing of the glory of their redemption and encourage them to proper conduct in keeping with their faith. He also thinks that Paul had dangers of the possible approach of Gnosticism in the back of his mind as he wrote.[57]H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Ephesians, 4th ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884)m 307-8.

J. A. Robinson envisioned Paul taking advan­tage of his own tranquil circumstances (under house arrest in Rome, but with time to think) to write a positive exposition of the heart of his theology- “the doctrine of the unity of mankind in Christ and of the purpose of God for the world through the church.”[58]Robinson, Ephesians, 10-11. He thinks the letter was written as an encyclical which would go first to Ephesus and then to the many churches in Asia Minor.

E. F. Scott termed the epistle “a private medita­tion,” but composed as a letter for the church at Laodicea. Although a positive exposition, he sees the letter addressing a problem of Jew-Gentile disunity in the church and the splintering affect of the heresies that were beginning to surface.[59]E. F. Scott, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (Moffatt New Testament Commentary); London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), 122-24. These heresies were also promoting a moral laxity and libertinism.

More recently, M. Barth suggested that Ephesians was written by Paul to Christians in Ephesus, but only those of Gentile origin, “people whom he did not know personally and who had been converted and baptized after his final depar­ture from that city.”[60]Barth, Ephesians, 1.3-4. F. F. Bruce regards it as a circular letter (with a blank space in 1:1) written as a meditation on the divine “wisdom in a mystery.”[61]Bruce, Ephesians, 245-46; see also Schlier, Epheser, 21-22. Through this Paul also encouraged the Gentile Christians to appreciate the dignity of their calling.

Among all the viewpoints expressed, a few points of commonality emerge: Gentile believers are strongly in view; there is no specific crisis or problem the epistle addresses; the epistle gives a positive presentation of the Pauline gospel; and, there is a need for the readers to receive teaching and admonishment on unity and a distinctively Christian lifestyle.

Based on the foregoing discussion and conclu­sions, the life-setting and purpose of the letter could be described in the following way: In the period of time since Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, the churches of the area engaged in extensive evange­lism among the Gentiles. These new believers lacked a personal acquaintance with Paul, but respected his role as apostle. Being converts from a Hellenistic religious environment – local cults, mystery religions, magic, astrology – these people needed a positive grounding in the Pauline gospel from the apostle himself. Their fear of evil spirits and cosmic powers was also a great concern, especially the question of where Christ stands in relation to these forces. Because of their pagan past, they also needed help and admonishment in cultivating a lifestyle consistent with their salva­tion in Christ, a lifestyle free from drunkenness, sexual immorality, stealing, and bitterness. Although there were many Jewish Christians (and former godfearers) in the churches of the region, the flood of new Gentile converts created some significant tensions. Their lack of appreciation for the Jewish heritage of their faith prompted some serious Jew-Gentile tensions in the churches.

Ephesians is therefore a genuine letter, without a specific crisis, but addressed in a pastoral way to a multiplicity of needs shared by the readership. It was written by the apostle Paul to a network of churches in Ephesus, but also intended for a broader readership among the churches of the region.

Ephesians traditionally has been regarded as written during Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (see also Robinson; Barth; Bruce; et al), but a strong case has also been made for his prior impris­onment in Caesarea (Meyer). It is least likely to have been written during a possible Ephesian imprisonment. A date of A.D. 60-62 is probable.

 

Conclusion

Ephesians is an exceptionally valuable portion of Scripture to read, study, meditate upon, teach, and preach. Paul wrote it to help

establish believers in Christ as they faced a variety of challenges to their walk with the Lord in first­ century Ephesus and Asia Minor. It remains just as relevant and bears the same potentially life­ changing impact today.

 

References[+]

Category: Journal Article
Tags: ,


Share This Article:  

Southwestern Journal of Theology
To download full issues and find more information on the Southwestern Journal of Theology, go to swbts.edu/journal.