Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, Philemon

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary is based on the second edition of the New Living Translation (2015). Nearly 100 scholars from various church backgrounds and from several countries (United States, Canada, England, and Australia) participated in the creation of the NLT. Many of these same scholars are contributors to this commentary series. All the commentators, whether participants in the NLT or not, believe that the Bible is God’s inspired word and have a desire to make God’s word clear and accessible to his people.

This Bible commentary is the natural extension of our vision for the New Living Translation, which we believe is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful. The NLT attempts to communicate God’s inspired word in a lucid English translation of the original languages so that English readers can understand and appreciate the thought of the original writers. In the same way, the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary aims at helping teachers, pastors, students, and laypeople understand every thought contained in the Bible. As such, the commentary focuses first on the words of Scripture, then on the theological truths of Scripture—inasmuch as the words express the truths.

The commentary itself has been structured in such a way as to help readers get at the meaning of Scripture, passage by passage, through the entire Bible. Each Bible book is prefaced by a substantial book introduction that gives general historical background important for understanding. Then the reader is taken through the Bible text, passage by passage, starting with the New Living Translation text printed in full. This is followed by a section called Notes, wherein the commentator helps the reader understand the Hebrew or Greek behind the English of the NLT, interacts with other scholars on important interpretive issues, and points the reader to significant textual and contextual matters. The Notes are followed by the Commentary, wherein each scholar presents a lucid interpretation of the passage, giving special attention to context and major theological themes.

The commentators represent a wide spectrum of theological positions within the evangelical community. We believe this is good because it reflects the rich variety in Christ’s church. All the commentators uphold the authority of God’s word and believe it is essential to heed the old adage: Wholly apply yourself to the Scriptures and apply them wholly to you. May this commentary help you know the truths of Scripture, and may this knowledge help you grow in your knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord (2 Pet 1:2, NLT).

P

HILIP

W. C

OMFORT

G

ENERAL

E

DITOR

ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS

b.   Babylonian Gemara

bar.   baraita

c.   circa, around, approximately

cf.   confer, compare

ch, chs   chapter, chapters

contra   in contrast to

DSS   Dead Sea Scrolls

ed.   edition, editor

e.g.   exempli gratia, for example

et al.   et alii, and others

fem.   feminine

ff   following (verses, pages)

fl.   flourished

Gr.   Greek

Heb.   Hebrew

ibid.   ibidem, in the same place

i.e.   id est, that is

in loc.   in loco, in the place cited

lit.   literally

LXX   Septuagint

mathematical fraktur capital m   Majority Text

m.   Mishnah

masc.   masculine

mg   margin

ms   manuscript

mss   manuscripts

MT   Masoretic Text

n.d.   no date

neut.   neuter

no.   number

NT   New Testament

OL   Old Latin

OS   Old Syriac

OT   Old Testament

p., pp.   page, pages

pl.   plural

Q   Quelle (Sayings as Gospel source)

rev.   revision

sg.   singular

sv.   sub verbo, under the word

t.   Tosefta

TR   Textus Receptus

v., vv.   verse, verses

vid.   videtur, it seems

viz.   videlicet, namely

vol.   volume

y.   Jerusalem Gemara

ABBREVIATIONS FOR BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

ASV   American Standard Version

CEV   Contemporary English Version

ESV   English Standard Version

GW   God’s Word

HCSB   Holman Christian Standard Bible

JB   Jerusalem Bible

JPS   Jewish Publication Society Translation (Tanakh)

KJV   King James Version

NAB   New American Bible

NASB   New American Standard Bible

NCV   New Century Version

NEB   New English Bible

NET   The NET Bible

NIV   New International Version (1984)

NIrV   New International Reader’s Version

NJB   New Jerusalem Bible

NJPS   The New Jewish Publication Society Translation (Tanakh)

NKJV   New King James Version

NRSV   New Revised Standard Version

NLT   New Living Translation

REB   Revised English Bible

RSV   Revised Standard Version

TEV   Today’s English Version

TLB   The Living Bible

ABBREVIATIONS FOR DICTIONARIES, LEXICONS, COLLECTIONS OF TEXTS, ORIGINAL LANGUAGE EDITIONS

ABD   Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols., Freedman) [1992]

ANEP   The Ancient Near East in Pictures (Pritchard) [1965]

ANET   Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Pritchard) [1969]

BAGD   Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker) [1979]

BDAG   Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich) [2000]

BDB   A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Brown, Driver, Briggs) [1907]

BDF   A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Blass, Debrunner, Funk) [1961]

BHS   Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Elliger and Rudolph) [1983]

CAD   Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago [1956]

COS   The Context of Scripture (3 vols., Hallo and Younger) [1997–2002]

DBI   Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Ryken, Wilhoit, Longman) [1998]

DBT   Dictionary of Biblical Theology (2nd ed., Leon-Dufour) [1972]

DCH   Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (7 vols., D. Clines) [2000]

DJD   Discoveries in the Judean Desert [1955–]

DJG   Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Green, McKnight, Marshall) [1992]

DLNTD   Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development (R. Martin, P. Davids) [1997]

DOTP   Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (T. Alexander, D. W. Baker) [2003]

DPL   Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Hawthorne, Martin, Reid) [1993]

DTIB   Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Vanhoozer) [2005]

EDNT   Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 vols., H. Balz, G. Schneider. ET) [1990–1993]

GKC   Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Gesenius, Kautzsch, trans. Cowley) [1910]

HALOT   The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, J. Stamm; trans. M. Richardson) [1994–1999]

IBD   Illustrated Bible Dictionary (3 vols., Douglas, Wiseman) [1980]

IDB   The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols., Buttrick) [1962]

ISBE   International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (4 vols., Bromiley) [1979–1988]

KBL   Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros (Koehler, Baumgartner) [1958]

LCL   Loeb Classical Library

L&N   Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (Louw and Nida) [1989]

LSJ   A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed., Liddell, Scott, Jones) [1996]

MM   The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Moulton and Milligan) [1930; 1997]

NA²⁶   Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed., Nestle-Aland) [1979]

NA²⁷   Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed., Nestle-Aland) [1993]

NBD   New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed., Douglas, Hillyer) [1982]

NIDB   New International Dictionary of the Bible (Douglas, Tenney) [1987]

NIDBA   New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Blaiklock and Harrison) [1983]

NIDNTT   New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (4 vols., C. Brown) [1975–1985]

NIDOTTE   New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols., W. A. VanGemeren) [1997]

PG   Patrologia Graecae (J. P. Migne) [1857–1886]

PGM   Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. (Preisendanz) [1928]

TBD   Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Elwell, Comfort) [2001]

TDNT   Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols., Kittel, Friedrich; trans. Bromiley) [1964–1976]

TDOT   Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (15 vols., Botterweck, Ringgren; trans. Willis, Bromiley, Green) [1974–]

TLNT   Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 vols., C. Spicq) [1994]

TLOT   Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (3 vols., E. Jenni) [1997]

TWOT   Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2 vols., Harris, Archer) [1980]

UBS³   United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (3rd ed., Metzger et al.) [1975]

UBS⁴   United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed., Metzger et al.) [1993]

WH   The New Testament in the Original Greek (Westcott and Hort) [1882]

ABBREVIATIONS FOR BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

Old Testament

Gen   Genesis

Exod   Exodus

Lev   Leviticus

Num   Numbers

Deut   Deuteronomy

Josh   Joshua

Judg   Judges

Ruth   Ruth

1 Sam   1 Samuel

2 Sam   2 Samuel

1 Kgs   1 Kings

2 Kgs   2 Kings

1 Chr   1 Chronicles

2 Chr   2 Chronicles

Ezra   Ezra

Neh   Nehemiah

Esth   Esther

Job   Job

Ps, Pss   Psalm, Psalms

Prov   Proverbs

Eccl   Ecclesiastes

Song   Song of Songs

Isa   Isaiah

Jer   Jeremiah

Lam   Lamentations

Ezek   Ezekiel

Dan   Daniel

Hos   Hosea

Joel   Joel

Amos   Amos

Obad   Obadiah

Jonah   Jonah

Mic   Micah

Nah   Nahum

Hab   Habakkuk

Zeph   Zephaniah

Hag   Haggai

Zech   Zechariah

Mal   Malachi

New Testament

Matt   Matthew

Mark   Mark

Luke   Luke

John   John

Acts   Acts

Rom   Romans

1 Cor   1 Corinthians

2 Cor   2 Corinthians

Gal   Galatians

Eph   Ephesians

Phil   Philippians

Col   Colossians

1 Thess   1 Thessalonians

2 Thess   2 Thessalonians

1 Tim   1 Timothy

2 Tim   2 Timothy

Titus   Titus

Phlm   Philemon

Heb   Hebrews

Jas   James

1 Pet   1 Peter

2 Pet   2 Peter

1 John   1 John

2 John   2 John

3 John   3 John

Jude   Jude

Rev   Revelation

Deuterocanonical

Bar   Baruch

Add Dan   Additions to Daniel

Pr Azar   Prayer of Azariah

Bel   Bel and the Dragon

Sg Three   Song of the Three Children

Sus   Susanna

1–2 Esdr   1–2 Esdras

Add Esth   Additions to Esther

Ep Jer   Epistle of Jeremiah

Jdt   Judith

1–2 Macc   1–2 Maccabees

3–4 Macc   3–4 Maccabees

Pr Man   Prayer of Manasseh

Ps 151   Psalm 151

Sir   Sirach

Tob   Tobit

Wis   Wisdom of Solomon

MANUSCRIPTS AND LITERATURE FROM QUMRAN

Initial numerals followed by Q indicate particular caves at Qumran. For example, the notation 4Q267 indicates text 267 from cave 4 at Qumran. Further, 1QS 4:9-10 indicates column 4, lines 9-10 of the Rule of the Community; and 4Q166 1 ii 2 indicates fragment 1, column ii, line 2 of text 166 from cave 4. More examples of common abbreviations are listed below.

CD   Cairo Geniza copy of the Damascus Document

1QH   Thanksgiving Hymns

1QIsaa   Isaiah copy a

1QIsab   Isaiah copy b

1QM   War Scroll

1QpHab   Pesher Habakkuk

1QS   Rule of the Community

4QLama   Lamentations

11QPsa   Psalms

11QTemplea,b   Temple Scroll

11QtgJob   Targum of Job

IMPORTANT NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

(all dates given are AD; ordinal numbers refer to centuries)

Significant Papyri ( mathematical fraktur capital p = Papyrus)

mathematical fraktur capital p 1 Matt 1; early 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 4+ mathematical fraktur capital p 64+ mathematical fraktur capital p 67 Matt 3, 5, 26; Luke 1–6; late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 5 John 1, 16, 20; early 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 13 Heb 2–5, 10–12; early 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 15+ mathematical fraktur capital p 16 (probably part of same codex) 1 Cor 7–8, Phil 3–4; late 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 20 Jas 2–3; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 22 John 15–16; mid 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 23 Jas 1; c. 200

mathematical fraktur capital p 27 Rom 8–9; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 30 1 Thess 4–5; 2 Thess 1; early 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 32 Titus 1–2; late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 37 Matt 26; late 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 39 John 8; first half of 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 40 Rom 1–4, 6, 9; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 45 Gospels and Acts; early 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 46 Paul’s Major Epistles (less Pastorals); late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 47 Rev 9–17; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 49+ mathematical fraktur capital p 65 Eph 4–5; 1 Thess 1–2; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 52 John 18; c. 125

mathematical fraktur capital p 53 Matt 26, Acts 9–10; middle 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 66 John; late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 70 Matt 2–3, 11–12, 24; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 72 1–2 Peter, Jude; c. 300

mathematical fraktur capital p 74 Acts, General Epistles; 7th

mathematical fraktur capital p 75 Luke and John; c. 200

mathematical fraktur capital p 77+ mathematical fraktur capital p 103 (probably part of same codex) Matt 13–14, 23; late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 87 Philemon; late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 90 John 18–19; late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 91 Acts 2–3; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 92 Eph 1, 2 Thess 1; c. 300

mathematical fraktur capital p 98 Rev 1:13-20; late 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 100 Jas 3–5; c. 300

mathematical fraktur capital p 101 Matt 3–4; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 104 Matt 21; 2nd

mathematical fraktur capital p 106 John 1; 3rd

mathematical fraktur capital p 115 Rev 2–3, 5–6, 8–15; 3rd

Significant Uncials

א (Sinaiticus) most of NT; 4th

A (Alexandrinus) most of NT; 5th

B (Vaticanus) most of NT; 4th

C (Ephraemi Rescriptus) most of NT with many lacunae; 5th

D (Bezae) Gospels, Acts; 5th

D (Claromontanus), Paul’s Epistles; 6th (different MS than Bezae)

E (Laudianus 35) Acts; 6th

F (Augensis) Paul’s Epistles; 9th

G (Boernerianus) Paul’s Epistles; 9th

H (Coislinianus) Paul’s Epistles; 6th

I (Freerianus or Washington) Paul’s Epistles; 5th

L (Regius) Gospels; 8th

P (Porphyrianus) Acts—Revelation; 9th

Q (Guelferbytanus B) Luke, John; 5th

T (Borgianus) Luke, John; 5th

W (Washingtonianus or the Freer Gospels) Gospels; 5th

Z (Dublinensis) Matthew; 6th

037 (Δ; Sangallensis) Gospels; 9th

038 (Θ; Koridethi) Gospels; 9th

040 (Ξ; Zacynthius) Luke; 6th

043 (Φ; Beratinus) Matthew, Mark; 6th

044 (Ψ; Athous Laurae) Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles; 9th

048 Acts, Paul’s Epistles, General Epistles; 5th

0171 Matt 10, Luke 22; c. 300

0189 Acts 5; c. 200

Significant Minuscules

1 Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles; 12th

33 All NT except Rev; 9th

81 Acts, Paul’s Epistles, General Epistles; 1044

565 Gospels; 9th

700 Gospels; 11th

1424 (or Family 1424—a group of 29 manuscripts sharing nearly the same text) most of NT; 9th-10th

1739 Acts, Paul’s Epistles; 10th

2053 Rev; 13th

2344 Rev; 11th

f¹ (a family of manuscripts including 1, 118, 131, 209) Gospels; 12th-14th

f¹³ (a family of manuscripts including 13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709—known as the Ferrar group) Gospels; 11th-15th

Significant Ancient Versions

SYRIAC (SYR)

syrc (Syriac Curetonian) Gospels; 5th

syrs (Syriac Sinaiticus) Gospels; 4th

syrh (Syriac Harklensis) Entire NT; 616

OLD LATIN (IT)

ita (Vercellenis) Gospels; 4th

itb (Veronensis) Gospels; 5th

itd (Cantabrigiensis—the Latin text of Bezae) Gospels, Acts, 3 John; 5th

ite (Palantinus) Gospels; 5th

itk (Bobiensis) Matthew, Mark; c. 400

COPTIC (COP)

copbo (Boharic—north Egypt)

copfay (Fayyumic—central Egypt)

copsa (Sahidic—southern Egypt)

OTHER VERSIONS

arm (Armenian)

eth (Ethiopic)

geo (Georgian)

TRANSLITERATION AND NUMBERING SYSTEM

Note: For words and roots from nonbiblical languages (e.g., Arabic, Ugaritic), only approximate transliterations are given.

HEBREW/ARAMAIC

Consonants

א   aleph   = ’

בּ, ב   beth   = b

גּ, ג   gimel   = g

דּ, ד   daleth   = d

ה   he   = h

ו   waw   = w

ז   zayin   = z

ח   heth   = kh

ט   teth   = t

י   yodh   = y

כּ, כ, ך   kaph   = k

ל   lamedh   = l

מ, ם   mem   = m

נ, ן   nun   = n

ס   samekh   = s

ע   ayin   = ‘

פּ, פ, ף   pe   = p

צ, ץ   tsadhe   = ts

ק   qoph   = q

ר   resh   = r

שׁ   shin   = sh

שׂ   sin   = s

תּ, ת   taw   = t, th (spirant)

Vowels

hebrew point patah   patakh   = a

hebrew letter het with patah   furtive patakh   = a

hebrew point qamats   qamets   = a

ה hebrew point qamats   final qamets he   = ah

hebrew point segol   segol   = e

hebrew point tsere   tsere   = e

י hebrew point tsere   tsere yod   = e

hebrew point hiriq   short hireq   = i

hebrew point hiriq   long hireq   = i

י hebrew point hiriq   hireq yod   = i

hebrew point qamats   qamets khatuf   = o

hebrew point holam   holem   = o

וֹ   full holem   = o

hebrew point qubuts   short qibbuts   = u

hebrew point qubuts   long qibbuts   = u

וּ   shureq   = u

hebrew point hataf patah   khatef patakh   = a

hebrew point hataf qamats   khatef qamets   = o

hebrew point sheva   vocalic shewa   = e

י hebrew point patah   patakh yodh   = a

GREEK

α   alpha   = a

β   beta   = b

γ   gamma   = g, n (before γ, κ, ξ, χ)

δ   delta   = d

ε   epsilon   = e

ζ   zeta   = z

η   eta   = ē

θ   theta   = th

ι   iota   = i

κ   kappa   = k

λ   lamda   = l

μ   mu   = m

ν   nu   = n

ξ   ksi   = x

ο   omicron   = o

π   pi   = p

ρ   rho   = r (ῥ = rh)

σ, ς   sigma   = s

τ   tau   = t

υ   upsilon   = u

φ   phi   = ph

χ   chi   = ch

ψ   psi   = ps

ω   omega   = ō

greek dasia   rough breathing mark   = h (with vowel or diphthong)

THE TYNDALE-STRONG’S NUMBERING SYSTEM

The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series uses a word-study numbering system to give both newer and more advanced Bible students alike quicker, more convenient access to helpful original-language tools (e.g., concordances, lexicons, and theological dictionaries). Those who are unfamiliar with the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek alphabets can quickly find information on a given word by looking up the appropriate index number. Advanced students will find the system helpful because it allows them to quickly find the lexical form of obscure conjugations and inflections.

There are two main numbering systems used for biblical words today. The one familiar to most people is the Strong’s numbering system (made popular by the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible). Although the original Strong’s system is still quite useful, the most up-to-date research has shed new light on the biblical languages and allows for more precision than is found in the original Strong’s system. The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series, therefore, features a newly revised version of the Strong’s system, the Tyndale-Strong’s numbering system. The Tyndale-Strong’s system brings together the familiarity of the Strong’s system and the best of modern scholarship. In most cases, the original Strong’s numbers are preserved. In places where new research dictates, new or related numbers have been added.[1]

The second major numbering system today is the Goodrick-Kohlenberger system used in a number of study tools published by Zondervan. In order to give students broad access to a number of helpful tools, the Commentary provides index numbers for the Zondervan system as well.

The different index systems are designated as follows:

TG   Tyndale-Strong’s Greek number

ZG   Zondervan Greek number

TH   Tyndale-Strong’s Hebrew number

ZH   Zondervan Hebrew number

TA/ZA   Tyndale/Zondervan Aramaic number

S   Strong’s Aramaic number

So in the example, love agapē [TG26, ZG27], the first number is the one to use with Greek tools keyed to the Tyndale-Strong’s system, and the second applies to tools that use the Zondervan system.

The indexing of Aramaic terms differs slightly from that of Greek and Hebrew. Strong’s original system mixed the Aramaic terms in with the Hebrew, but the Tyndale-Strong’s system indexes Aramaic with a new set of numbers starting at 10,000. Since Tyndale’s system for Aramaic diverges completely from original Strong’s, the original Strong’s number is listed separately so that those using tools keyed to Strong’s can locate the information. This number is designated with an S, as in the example, son bar [TA/ZA10120, S1247].

INTRODUCTION TO

Ephesians

T

HE LETTER TO THE

E

PHESIANS

has long been a favorite among Christians over the centuries. It contains the leading themes of Pauline literature, and it expresses Paul’s motive for his ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. The ideas in Ephesians represent the crown of Paulinism (Dodd 1929:1224-1225) or the quintessence of Paulinism (Bruce 1967:303). The book of Ephesians, presenting an exalted view of the church and its relationship to the exalted Christ, contributed richly to the first-century believers’ understanding of eternal truths. Its message is just as rich and relevant to today’s church.

AUTHOR

Prior to the last two centuries, Paul’s authorship of this letter was not questioned, but much has been written in the past 200 years that casts doubts on his authorship. An examination of this problem will be divided into two parts: The traditional view of Pauline authorship will be stated, and then various arguments used to suggest that Ephesians was written by someone other than Paul will be introduced.

The Traditional View of Pauline Authorship. The traditional view of Pauline authorship is based on internal and external evidence. Regarding internal evidence, Ephesians clearly claims to have been written by Paul. In typical Pauline fashion, he opened his letter with the identifier: Paul, chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus (1:1; cf. 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Col 1:1). He again mentioned his name in 3:1, which is consistent with his other letters (2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:2; Col 1:23; 4:18; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 3:17; Phlm 1:19). Descriptions mentioned in the first person singular (3:1; 4:1) correspond with depictions of Paul from his other letters (Phil 1:13, 17; Col 4:3; Phlm 1:1, 9) and from Acts (Acts 25:14, 27; 28:17; cf. 16:37; 21:33; 24:27; 26:29). Thus, the internal evidence of Paul’s claim of authorship of this letter clearly corresponds with other letters written by him.

Regarding external evidence, Ephesians has the earliest attestation of any New Testament book. As early as the late first century or very early second century, Clement of Rome (fl. 96) mentions one God and one Christ and one Spirit, which probably alludes to Ephesians 4:4-6. Furthermore, Clement’s prayer that God would open the eyes of our heart that we might know you [God] is an allusion to Ephesians 1:17-18, the mention of the senseless and darkened heart is an allusion to Ephesians 4:18, and his exhortation to let each be subject to his neighbor is reminiscent of Ephesians 5:21. Ignatius (

AD

 35–107/8), bishop of Antioch, seems to allude to Ephesians 5:1-2 when he mentions that the Ephesians were imitators of God by their demonstration of love to him, and he also shows familiarity with the armor of God described in chapter 6. Polycarp (

AD

69–135), bishop of Smyrna, quotes Ephesians 4:26 and Psalm 4:5 and calls them both Scripture, making Ephesians the first New Testament epistle to be called Scripture by the apostolic fathers. Polycarp also makes reference to Ephesians 2:5, 8-9 and 6:11-17, further indicating his acquaintance with the letter. Furthermore, Irenaeus (

AD

130–200), Clement of Alexandria (

AD

150–215), the Muratorian Canon (possibly from Rome; ca.

AD

 170–200), and Tertullian of Carthage (

AD

166–220) acknowledge that Ephesians is a letter by Paul. Hence, Ephesians is not only the first New Testament book to have been recognized as Scripture, but its attestation of Pauline authorship is very early and from various geographical areas of the New Testament world.

The Dispute over Pauline Authorship. Despite this early and diverse attestation to Paul as the author of Ephesians, many scholars throughout the past 200 years have posited arguments for rejecting Pauline authorship. Six of the major objections will be discussed here—each followed by an analysis and a rebuttal.

1. Impersonal nature. It was not until 1792 that an English clergyman named Evanson (1792:261-262) first doubted Pauline authorship of Ephesians. He posited that it was inconsistent for the writer of Ephesians to claim that he had just heard of the Ephesians’ faith (1:15-16), when according to Acts, Paul had spent more than two years at Ephesus. Paul first arrived in Ephesus at the end of his second missionary journey in the autumn of 52, and after a short ministry he left for Jerusalem, leaving Priscilla and Aquila there (Acts 18:18-21). A year later (in autumn of 53), on his third missionary journey, he returned to Ephesus and remained there for two and a half years, leaving in the spring of 56 (Acts 19:1–20:1). A year after that (in spring of 57), he visited the elders of Ephesus at Miletus on his way to Jerusalem from Corinth (Acts 20:16-38). It is argued that since Paul spent considerable time with the Ephesians, it seems remarkable that he speaks of having heard of their faith and love (1:15) and further that he closes the letter with a brief impersonal farewell. In addition, Paul questions whether or not they had heard of the administration of the grace of God given him to minister to Gentiles, including those at Ephesus (3:2), and also questions their reception of the instruction they received (4:21). Interestingly, there are no personal greetings to individuals in the Ephesian church. By contrast, in letters such as the one addressed to Rome, a place he had never visited, there are extended greetings from him in the last two chapters of the book.

The impersonal tone of the letter, however, is not extraordinary. First, Paul was not obligated to give personal greetings at the end of each letter; there are none in 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, or Philippians, for example. In the case of 2 Corinthians, Paul had stayed with them for 18 months, and in that of Galatians, he had been with them only a few months before he wrote his letter. Even though greetings are absent in these books, very few deny their Pauline authorship. Second, though the letter addresses those in Ephesus, it may have been an encyclical letter intended for other churches in the area. An example of this is the Colossian letter, which was addressed specifically to the Colossians (Col 1:2) but was to be read by the Laodiceans, who in turn were to let the Colossians read the letter addressed to them (Col 4:16). It is not improbable to surmise that a letter addressed to a city like Ephesus may have been intended to go elsewhere as well. It is true that the letter to the Colossians is more personal, but this may be explained by the fact that Colossae and Laodicea were neighboring villages and the people of both communities knew each other. On the other hand, Ephesus was not only a commercial and political center in western Asia Minor but also the center of Paul’s ministry from which many other churches were started by him and his disciples during and after his stay there. Hence, it is reasonable to think that this letter would go to many other churches within Ephesus and the surrounding areas, which would explain the lack of the personal element. As already mentioned, Galatians has no personal greetings and was an encyclical letter, since it was addressed to the churches of Galatia (Gal 1:2). Third, since Paul had not visited Ephesus for five or six years, it is likely that there were many new believers with whom he had little or no acquaintance. Furthermore, he may not have wished to single out those whom he knew since his emphasis was on the unity of all believers. Fourth, the letter to the Ephesians is not completely impersonal. Paul mentions the fact that he is praying for them (1:16), and he asks for their prayers (6:19-20), which indicate some familiarity with the believers there. Moreover, it seems that the better Paul knew a church, the fewer personal greetings he gave. For example, Romans, where Paul had never been, has the most extensive greetings, while in the letters to the church in Thessalonica, where Paul had been only a few weeks earlier, has no greetings. It may be that one of the reasons for personal greetings was to strengthen his credibility. If this were the case, greetings would be most necessary in the cities where he had never been. Conversely, it would be least necessary in letters to churches where the recipients knew him well. Thus, the impersonal tone of the letter in no way necessitates the denial of Pauline authorship of Ephesians.

2. Language and style. With regards to language it is suggested that Ephesians has too many unique words to be Pauline. Statistically, Ephesians has 2,425 words with a total vocabulary of 529 words. There are 41 words Paul used only in Ephesians while 84 words in Ephesians are not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings but do occur elsewhere in the New Testament. How does this compare with other Pauline literature? Galatians has similar characteristics, namely, 2,220 words with a total vocabulary of 526 words; and virtually no one doubts its Pauline authorship. There are 35 words Paul used only in Galatians and there are 90 words in Galatians that are not found elsewhere in Paul but do occur elsewhere in the New Testament. Hence, the total vocabulary is about the same, Ephesians has slightly more words unique to the NT than Galatians, and Galatians has more words not used elsewhere in Paul but elsewhere in the New Testament—even though Galatians is ten percent shorter than Ephesians! Does this suggest that Paul did not write Galatians? Most would not say so. Even Mitton (1951:29) admits that several undisputed works of Paul have a higher percentage of words not found in other Pauline letters. Hence, the unique use of vocabulary does not demonstrate the non-Pauline authorship of Ephesians.

The same reasoning can be applied to unique phrases used in Ephesians. Lincoln (1990:lxv) lists 15 word combinations or phrases in Ephesians unique within Pauline literature. However, there are more than 15 unique expressions in Galatians compared to the Pauline corpus. Again these unique expressions in Galatians do not prove Paul did not write this letter. Unique expressions are due to the mood and content of the letter, the recipients of the letter, and the flexibility and ingenuity of the author. It is also pointed out that the Greek prepositions en [TG1722, ZG1877] (in) and kata [TG2596, ZG2848] (down, according to) are used more frequently in Ephesians than in Paul’s undisputed letters (the undisputed corpus varies from four to seven letters). However, in examining the undisputed letters one notices much greater frequency of the prepositions dia [TG1223, ZG1328] (through), epi [TG1909, ZG2093] (on), para [TG3844, ZG4123] (from, with) in Romans, and ek [TG1537, ZG1666] (out of, para [TG3844, ZG4123] (from, with) and hupo [TG5259, ZG5679] (by, under) in Galatians. Other similar examples could be cited, but none would cause one to conclude that Romans and Galatians were not written by Paul. Although the preposition kata [TG2596, ZG2848] (down, according to) is used more frequently in Ephesians than in other Pauline letters, it is used quite often in Galatians; in fact, its use with the genitive case occurs much more frequently in Galatians than in any other Pauline letter, but it does not follow that Galatians is not Pauline. Therefore, on the basis of vocabulary one cannot determine the authorship of a letter.

In addition to language, the style in which Ephesians is written has caused some to question Pauline authorship. For example, Ephesians has eight lengthy sentences. However, van Roon (1974:105-111) has pointed out that Paul uses long sentences in doxologies and prayers (cf. 1:3-14, 15-23; 3:14-19; Rom 8:38-39; 11:33-36; 1 Cor 1:4-8; Phil 1:3-8; 1 Thess 1:2-5; 2 Thess 1:3-10), doctrinal content (cf. 2:1-7; 3:2-13; Rom 3:21-26; 1 Cor 1:26-29; 2:6-9) and parenthetical materials (cf. 4:1-6, 11-16; 6:14-20; 1 Cor 12:8-11; Phil 1:27–2:11). Furthermore, would one argue that since Galatians uses short incisive language and abrupt statements not found in other Pauline letters, it could not be by the hand of Paul? Unlikely. Others have argued that the style of Ephesians is not out of character with the other Pauline literature (Turner 1963:84-85; Neumann 1990:194-199, 206-211, 213-226).

In conclusion it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine authorship on the basis of language and style. This is readily evident in the present day. For example, an engineer uses different vocabulary and style when he writes to his colleague, his senator, his friend, his wife, or his children.

3. Literary relationships. It is proposed that certain remarkable similarities in vocabulary, phraseology, and thematic development between Ephesians and Colossians point to a Pauline imitator as the author of Ephesians. Regarding vocabulary, Mitton (1951:58-59, 97) concludes that Colossians verbally parallels 26.5 percent of Ephesians and Ephesians parallels 34 percent of Colossians. However, these statistics are not as formidable as they might first appear. By using a database to observe the parallels, it becomes apparent that only 246 words are shared between the two epistles out of a total of the 2,429 words in Ephesians and 1,574 words in Colossians. Furthermore, many of the 246 words are used many times since they include conjunctions, pronouns, prepositions, and proper nouns (e.g., God, Christ). The repeated use of these 246 words makes up 2,057 words (out of the 2,429 words) in Ephesians and 1,362 words (out of the 1,574 words) in Colossians. Finally, these similarities are understandable since the two works have similar content.

Conversely, there are 21 words in Ephesians and Colossians not found elsewhere in Paul but found elsewhere in the New Testament and only 11 words in Ephesians and Colossians that are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It seems that an imitator’s letter to the Ephesians would have more closely corresponded to Paul’s letter to the Colossians, especially since much of the content is similar.

Beyond individual words, one needs to look at the linkage of words to see if the similarities between Ephesians and Colossians are enough to suggest non-Pauline authorship. In three verses, there is a string of seven consecutive words that correspond exactly in the two letters (Eph 1:1-2 = Col 1:1-2; Eph 3:2 = Col 1:25; Eph 3:9 = Col 1:26). Twice there is exact correspondence of five consecutive words (Eph 1:7 = Col 1:14; Eph 4:16 = Col 2:9). Finally, in the information about Tychicus (6:21-22; Col 4:7-8) there are 29 consecutive words of Colossians repeated in Ephesians, except the words and fellow servant are omitted. Because of these literary correspondences, Mitton (1951:58-59, 67) concludes that the author of Ephesians must have known Colossians almost by heart. Why would anyone memorize such spiritually insignificant details regarding Tychicus? It is more likely that Paul wrote both letters at approximately the same time and when he came to the end of the second letter, he referred to the conclusion of the first letter since it was applicable to both. If the author of Ephesians had known Colossians almost by heart, he would likely have memorized the more important portions for the sake of accuracy in order to convince the recipients that it was Paul’s work. There is actually very little consecutive verbal agreement between the two letters.

Regarding thematic development, much of the thought and sequence of the themes in Ephesians and Colossians are similar. Lincoln (1990:li-lviii) believes that the author of Ephesians used Colossians in writing his letter. He notes two reasons for this conclusion. First, there is verbal correlation within parallel sections. The greetings are similar, both having saints and faithful in Christ (Jesus), a combination not found in other Pauline letters. There is verbal correspondence with key words (e.g., redemption, reconciliation, body, flesh, tribulation, ministry, mystery, power) in parallel sections, which, according to Lincoln and others, indicates that the author of Ephesians clearly borrowed from Colossians (e.g., 2:11-16; Col 1:15-22). In the last half of the book, the author of Ephesians appears to utilize Colossians regarding putting off the old humanity and putting on the new (4:25–5:20; Col 3:5-17), the household codes (5:21–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1), and the information about the sending of Tychicus (6:21-22; Col 4:7-8). Second, there are terminological links outside the major parallel sections. Lincoln argues that Ephesians 1:4 is taken from Colossians 1:22 with some alteration, and Ephesians 1:6-7 uses Colossians 1:13-14, 20 with some changes in expressions, such as substituting (literally rendered) in the beloved for in the Son of his love. These expressions demonstrate that the author of Ephesians depended on Colossians in terms of its overall structure and sequence, its themes, and its wording. Yet what is also absolutely clear is that this is a free and creative dependence, not a slavish imitation or copying (Lincoln 1990:lv). Thus, some conclude that the writer of Ephesians had seen Colossians but may not have memorized it; many also conclude that Paul could not have been the author because only an imitator would have copied it so closely.

However, there are four things that must be pointed out regarding these proposals. First, one cannot be certain that Colossians was written before Ephesians; in fact, there are a few scholars who think that Ephesians was written before Colossians (e.g., van Roon 1974:413-437). Second, there is no proof that the author of Ephesians had Colossians in front of him. It is easier to postulate that Paul wrote Ephesians and that many of the themes and thoughts are written from memory of what he had said and taught over the years. The variations in vocabulary and expressions may be due to his own development and the varying needs of his audiences. This is true in the present time, for a scholar may read a paper to a scholarly society that is later rewritten to be presented to an audience of lay people. Although there are changes, much of the vocabulary and expressions will remain the same. To make claims that the author of Ephesians clearly borrowed from Colossians cannot be demonstrated (Best 1997:72-92). Third, it is more likely that the same author would vary to a greater degree than an imitator. An imitator would feel more bound to use the same vocabulary and expressions than would a genuine author. Fourth, if an imitator wrote Ephesians, it seems odd that there was not more wholesale copying of Colossians in vocabulary, expressions, and content so as not to be detected as an imitator.

In conclusion, the literary relationship between Ephesians and Colossians is quite evident. The similarities and differences between the two letters are best explained by the fact that they are written by the same author. It seems appropriate to accept the internal evidence of Ephesians, which states that Paul wrote it (1:1-2; 3:1), and to accept that what he wrote is consistent with Colossians and with his other letters. It is much easier to understand the differences as the creative variations of an author than to expect them of an imitator. The differences arose due to differences of purpose, content, time, mood, and audience. This also explains similarities and variances in wording of specific content. It is easier to believe that Paul wrote these two letters and that when he penned Ephesians he would have similar vocabulary and content on similar topics and would vary in vocabulary when addressing different issues. One must allow for development of Paul’s thought.

4. Pseudonymity. The subject of pseudonymity is an outgrowth of the preceding discussion. If Paul did not write Ephesians, then who did? Throughout the years many suggestions have been made, but most conclude that the author of Ephesians was most likely a writer from the Pauline school, a disciple or secretary who was familiar with Paul’s thoughts. The idea of the pseudonymity of Ephesians is based on the claim that it was a widely used practice in the Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian cultures (Moffatt 1918:40-44; Meade 1986:1-16, 116-118, 153-161, 190-193). It is suggested that the pseudonymous author was not consciously misrepresenting Paul in that he was not deceiving anyone and that the church received the letters with warm appreciation without any misunderstanding (Mitton 1951:222, 259-260; Meade 1986:194-218; Lincoln 1990:lxxii-lxxiii). However, Green cogently argues, If this assessment were wholly true, and if nobody was taken in by the device, it is hard to see why it was adopted at all (1961:32). Though pseudepigraphy was widespread among the Greeks and Romans, no writing was ever accepted as genuine if it were known that it was not written by the author it claimed (Donelson 1986:11). Even within Judaism there were many pseudepigraphical works, but they were composed centuries after the lives of those named in their works and were never accepted as canonical by Jews.

Furthermore, most of these pseudepigraphical works are apocalyptic and not epistolary in form. Only two pseudepigraphical writings, the Epistle of Jeremiah and the Letter of Aristeas, are epistolary in form, though neither of these are strictly epistles. Both of these works were considered pseudepigraphical by the Jews and were never considered genuine either by the Jewish rabbis or the Christian church in the first century

AD

. During the time of the early church, many writings bore the names of the apostles, such as Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and Apocalypse of Peter. The church from its earliest times critically examined the writings with apostolic claims and rejected those that were heretical or pseudonymous. In fact, in one of his earliest letters Paul warns his readers not to be troubled or anxious by a letter purported to have come from him (2 Thess 2:2). At the end of this same letter, he affirms it by stating that the greeting is by his own hand (2 Thess 3:17). Clearly, Paul was opposed to pseudonymous writings.

Even after the first century, pseudonymous works were rejected by the church. Two such works come to the forefront. First, Epistle to the Laodiceans was a forgery whose title was no doubt inspired by Colossians 4:16, where the Colossian believers were encouraged to read the letter Paul sent to the Laodiceans. Already by the end of the second century, it is stated in the Muratorian Canon (c.

AD

 170–200) that the letter to the Laodiceans is a letter forged in Paul’s name. Jerome (

AD

 345–419) stated that it was rejected by all. Second, Acts of Paul and Thecla was rejected by Tertullian as a spurious work. The author of the work was convicted by church leaders of passing it off under Paul’s name and thus using Paul’s reputation for his own purpose. Although he protested that he had done it in good faith and out of love for Paul, he was removed from his office as presbyter due to the deception. Hence, not only Paul but also the church (attested as early as the second century) rejected pseudonymous writings.

It is often asserted that pseudonymous origins do not impugn either the inspiration or canonicity of the work (Meade 1986:215-216). This is simply not true. For example, Serapion, bishop of Antioch (c.

AD

 190–211), at first allowed the Gospel of Peter to be read in church, but later when he heard that some used it for the support of Docetism, he examined it, found it unorthodox, and consequently rejected it as a forgery (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.12.2-3). A forgery was considered uninspired and thus noncanonical. If the opposite were true, it would seem that there would have been many clear-cut examples of such works in the early church that would have been accepted as canonical.

In conclusion, there is a tendency among those who favor pseudepigraphical authorship to minimize the fraudulence of pseudonymity. The claim that authorship, plagiarism, and copyright are modern concerns and were not concerns in the first century is untenable. As mentioned above, in the Greco-Roman world, no pseudepigraphical writing identified as such was ever considered to have prescriptive or proscriptive authority and was thus rejected. There is uniform testimony in the first four centuries of the church that any pseudepigraphical writing was to be rejected as a forgery. This perspective is not different from the contemporary view of literary proprietorship. Hence, it is more logical that Ephesians was authored by Paul (as stated in 1:1 and 3:1) than that Ephesians was the work of a pseudonymous writer. This, after all, has been the accepted view throughout church history until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

5. Theological distinctives. Every book of the New Testament has theological distinctions, but it is thought by some, such as Kümmel, that the theology of Ephesians makes the Pauline composition of the letter completely impossible (1975:360). Four areas of theology will be considered: Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

First, regarding Christology the designations Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Jesus, or Christ occur very often in this small epistle. Ephesians 1:3 and 1:17 designate God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, indicating that Christ is distinct from the Father and also affirming him as the Son of God (4:13). He is called the beloved (1:6, NLT mg), a messianic title (cf. Jesus’ baptism, Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; and transfiguration Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7). His eternality is distinctly affirmed, as he is the one who existed before the foundation of the world (1:4-5, 11). Jesus is the Christ (1:5, 17; 4:20-21) and Lord (1:2-3, 15, 17; 3:11; 4:5; 5:20; 6:23-24) who became human (2:14), died on the cross (2:13, 16; 5:2, 25), was raised from the dead by God (1:20), and is now seated at the right hand of God in the heavens (1:20; 4:8). Christ’s divinity is affirmed by the declaration that he has provided redemption for believers (1:7; 2:13; 5:2, 23, 25-26), that is, the forgiveness of sins (1:7; 5:25-27), which, as the religious leaders had protested to Jesus, is the prerogative of God only (Mark 2:7, 10; Luke 5:21, 24). Believers are to place their faith in him as their Lord (1:15; 4:5; cf. 3:12). The Father’s predestination of believers to adoption as children is through Christ (2:18; 5:20). His sovereignty is demonstrated by the fact that he is the one who has put all creation, animate and inanimate, human and angelic, under God (1:22), and in the future all of creation will be united under him (1:10). Christ is filled with God’s fullness (1:23) and fills the church and the cosmos with that fullness (3:19; 4:10). Therefore, Christ, eternal and divine, is not only the cosmic head of all things but also the head of the church. The Christology in Ephesians is similar to that of Colossians and is in agreement with the rest of Pauline literature.

Second, regarding soteriology, it is suggested that, on the one hand, the death of Christ and the theology of the Cross is less prominent in Ephesians than in other Pauline literature. The cross is mentioned only in 2:16 (which parallels Col 1:20), in connection with the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles into one body, and Christ’s death is mentioned only in traditional formulations (1:7; 5:2, 25). By contrast, Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and cosmic lordship are given prominence (Lincoln 1990:lxiii-lxiv; Mitton 1951:20). In response to this, it can be argued that the references to Christ’s death do speak to his death as a substitutionary sacrifice for humanity in line with the other Pauline letters. The fact that there are four references to Christ’s death in a six-chapter book is noteworthy. Though there is an emphasis on Christ’s exaltation, it is in line with the early preaching of the church as seen in the sermons by Peter (Acts 2:24-36; 3:15-16, 21, 26) and by Paul (Acts 13:30-37), both of whom stressed Christ’s resurrection and exaltation. Also, in his defense speeches, Paul stressed the hope of the Resurrection (Acts 23:6; 24:14-15; 26:23). In other letters Paul accentuates resurrection and exaltation (1 Cor 15:3-28; Phil 2:5-11).

It is also noted by some that in Ephesians there is an absence of the concept of justification by grace. Granted, this terminology is not used, but certainly that is the essence of Ephesians 2:8-10. Moreover, the noun and verb for justification occur 85 times in Paul’s writings, but 61 of these are in Romans and Galatians—the books that specifically address the issue of justification. In fact, the noun occurs only once and the verb only twice in the long letter of 1 Corinthians, and neither the noun nor verb are found in Colossians or 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Clearly, the subject of justification need not be in every Pauline letter, much less these two particular words.

Finally, it is alleged that salvation is viewed as something completed in the past (by the use of the perfect tense for saved in 2:8-9) with no future implication. However, there is mention of (1) the enjoyment of salvation in a future consummation (1:10); (2) the placement of a seal upon believers until (literally) the redemption of the purchased possession (1:13-14); (3) the future age(s) (1:21; 2:7); (4) the day of redemption (4:30), and (5) the future presentation of the church as glorious without a spot or wrinkle (5:27). Though believers are portrayed as being presently seated with Christ (2:6) to indicate their deliverance from the cosmic powers of the devil, in no way does this imply that salvation is fully realized in the present day without a future consummation. In conclusion, then, Ephesians contains differences from Paul’s other writings in his expression of soteriology, but creative differences must be allowed by a thinker like Paul. Though there are differences, they do not contradict anything stated in the undisputed Pauline letters.

Third, regarding ecclesiology, it is surmised that the church is viewed exclusively as universal (cf. 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32) and that this stands in contrast with the undisputed Pauline Epistles, which most frequently refer to local churches. In addition, it is suggested that the emphasis on the church as one body (4:4), universal (1:22-23), built on the apostles and prophets (2:20), and holy and blameless (5:26-27) probably reflects a stage after the ministry of Paul—a kind of emergent Catholicism (Lincoln 1990:lxiv; Mitton 1951:18-20). In answer to these suggestions, it should be noted that the undisputed letters of Paul also speak of a universal church. Paul mentions that he persecuted the church of God (Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6) and gives instruction not to offend the church of God (1 Cor 10:32), referring to the universal church. When he speaks of the body of Christ as composed of individual members out of which God has appointed apostles, prophets, teachers, and other ministries (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:27-28), as he did in Ephesians 4:11, he is not limiting his instruction to a local assembly of believers. Paul also mentions that all Christians are baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13; cf. Gal 3:27), which again must have reference to the universal rather than the local church. Granted, the author of Ephesians makes no mention of the local church in the letter, but this is explainable if this letter is considered to be a circular letter addressed to several churches in Asia Minor. Furthermore, the use of the singular church rather than the plural churches may be due to his theme of unity throughout the book (Arnold 1989:164-165).

Furthermore, some suggest that the author of Ephesians views the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church (2:20), which differs from 1 Corinthians 3:11 where Christ is regarded as the foundation. But authors must be allowed to use different imagery as it suits the situation. Moreover, if the foundation is viewed as consisting of apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone of that foundation, then it is not a contradiction but an extension of the imagery in 1 Corinthians 3:11, reflecting further development in Paul’s thought. Hence, though there may be differences in nuances and emphases, the ecclesiology expressed in Ephesians is in line with other Pauline literature, albeit with possible further reflection and development in thought.

Fourth, with regard to eschatology, some suggest that in Ephesians the expectation of Christ’s return evidenced in the early years of Paul’s ministry has faded into the background (Mitton 1951:21-22; Lindemann 1975:21-24, 120-125; Lincoln 1990:lxiv). It is true that Ephesians speaks of presently being made alive together with Christ (2:5), but this is not speaking about eschatology per se but about the believer’s position as one who is justified, as mentioned in other Pauline literature (Rom 6:5-11; 8:15-17). Moreover, in other places in Ephesians, Paul expresses the return of Christ as the time of the redemption of the purchased possession (1:14; 4:30) and that though we are presently seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (2:6), we will be demonstrated as the wealth of his grace in the future (2:7). In other words, although there is a present realization of our position in Christ, there will be a future consummation. He speaks of the fullness of time (1:10), which has reference to future fulfillment. Still, it is suggested that since Christ had not returned by the time this epistle was written, the emphasis in Ephesians shifted from Christ’s future reign to the believers’ present relationship to Christ in the heavenly realms (1:3, 20-21; 2:6) and the believers’ maturity in the present age (4:15). In response to this, it should be noted that, although there is much on eschatology in the Thessalonian letters, there is very little on the subject in Paul’s earliest letter, namely, Galatians, so its lack of emphasis in Ephesians is not out of character for Paul.

In conclusion, it can be seen that although in Ephesians there may be differences from other letters by Paul, the differences, in many cases, may be ones of emphasis, possibly due to differences in the circumstances of the audience. A different emphasis is not indicative of a different author.

6. Historical considerations. Regarding historical considerations in assessing the authorship of Ephesians: neither external nor internal evidence count against Paul. As far as external evidence, the authorship of Ephesians was not questioned until the last two centuries, as was noted above. Mitton, who denies Pauline authorship of Ephesians, confirms the long history that attests Pauline authorship and states that the burden of proof lies with those who seek to maintain a contrary opinion (1951:15-16, 25). Second, with regard to internal evidence, it is thought that the resolution of the Jewish–Gentile controversy intimated in Ephesians reflects a period after Paul’s lifetime (Mitton 1951:16; Lincoln and Wedderburn 1993:84). Though this controversy did exist in the early church, it was not as great as has been suggested by the Tübingen school of the last century. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the state of the debate based on any of the Pauline letters, let alone from the contents of Ephesians. More importantly, the passage in Ephesians 2:11-21 is not discussing the controversy within the church but rather the rift between unconverted Jews and Gentiles prior to the Cross and the reconciliation of believing Jews and Gentiles in the death of Christ. Hence, there is nothing within the letter that reflects a period after Paul’s time of ministry.

Conclusion. The Pauline authorship of Ephesians has the earliest attestation of any New Testament book. In addition, though there are differences in Ephesians compared to other Pauline literature, none of them are out of character with Pauline style and theology. These differences are easily explained by the varying content of Paul’s letters, as well as the varying needs and character of his recipients. Furthermore, one must allow for differences of expression and thought due to Paul’s own development of thought. Content, development of thought, mood, and recipients affect the vocabulary and style of an author, whether in the first or the present century. Let Paul be Paul!

DATE AND OCCASION OF WRITING

Paul makes the explicit statement that he was in prison when he wrote this epistle (3:1; 4:1). Traditionally, it has been thought that Paul wrote four letters (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon) while he was imprisoned in Rome. This view is a natural inference from Acts 27–28. He had traveled from Caesarea to Rome and was allowed to live by himself in rented private quarters under guard (Acts 28:16) for a period of two years (Acts 28:30). Although he was chained to a soldier (Acts 28:20), he was free to receive visitors (Acts 28:17, 23, 30). This corresponds to the Prison Epistles, which speak of his imprisonment or chains (6:20; Phil 1:7, 13; Col 4:18; Phlm 1:10, 13) and his reception of visitors or friends—namely, Tychicus (6:21; Col 4:7), Timothy (Phil 1:1; 2:19; Col 1:1; Phlm 1:1), Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12; Phlm 1:23), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25; 4:18), Onesimus (Col 4:9; Phlm 1:10), Jesus or Justus (Col 4:11), Mark, Aristarchus, Luke, and Demas (Col 4:10, 14; Phlm 1:24). Thus, the Roman imprisonment of Paul fits well as the background for the Prison Epistles.

However, some question whether the Prison Epistles were written from Rome and suggest two other alternatives. The first suggested alternative is that Paul wrote the Prison Epistles while imprisoned in Caesarea (

AD

 57–59; Robinson 1976:60-67, 77-85). It is more reasonable to assume that Onesimus traveled to Caesarea rather than to Rome, for in Caesarea it is less likely that he would have been recognized as a runaway slave. However, it could be argued that Onesimus could be more easily found in a smaller city such as Caesarea. So this is not a very strong argument.

It is also suggested that the imprisonment in Rome would pose a distance too great and the time too short for the frequent interchanges between him in Rome and the church in Philippi. However, the problem of time and distance for the interchanges between Rome and Philippi is not insurmountable. Many people who could have conveyed the reports or interchanges traveled between Rome and Philippi, an important Roman city. Hence, the Caesarean imprisonment as the place where Paul wrote the Prison Epistles is not convincing or necessary. The second alternative to the Roman imprisonment is an imprisonment at Ephesus (Duncan 1929). It is suggested that the Prison Epistles were written during his imprisonment at Ephesus shortly after the riot there in May 56. However, there is no indication that Paul was imprisoned there after the riot, and it seems odd that this is not specifically mentioned in Ephesians if that were the case.

In conclusion, then, the traditional Roman imprisonment has the best biblical support (Acts 25:6–28:31) and continues to be the view of most students of the New Testament. This being the case, it means that Ephesians would have been written after his imprisonment in Caesarea (

AD

 57–59)—hence, sometime in the years 60–62. To further narrow the date of the composition of Ephesians may be helpful but is conjectural. According to Philippians 2:19, 24, Paul anticipated his release and, therefore, that letter was written toward the end of his incarceration, around the spring of

AD

 62. The Epistle to the Colossians was sent with Tychicus and Onesimus (Col 4:7-9), and it is reasonable to think that the letter to Philemon was also sent at this time (Phlm 1:12). Paul instructed Philemon to prepare a guest room for him (Phlm 1:22), which may indicate an imminent release from prison. As such, these epistles may have been written toward the end of his two-year imprisonment. Nothing is mentioned in Ephesians regarding his release or his hope of visiting them soon. However, Ephesians most likely was sent with Colossians because both mention that Tychicus (6:21; Col 4:7) would report Paul’s situation. It is unlikely that Tychicus was sent two different times. Thus, the occasion for the letter was Tychicus’ travel to Colossae and Ephesus. This means that Ephesians may have been written toward the end of his Roman imprisonment, some time in late 61 or early 62.

AUDIENCE

The destination of Ephesus is obvious when one reads most English translations of the first verse of the book (KJV, ASV, NASB, NEB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). However, most scholars have serious doubts that the words in Ephesus should be included in the verse. They point out that these words are omitted from some of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, namely, the renowned fourth-century codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B) and the second-century papyrus P46. In addition, it is proposed that the impersonal tone of the letter and the omission of any specific problems make it unlikely that Paul was writing to believers in Ephesus, whom he had come to know well in his three-year ministry among them. Thus, consensus of opinion is that the words in Ephesus were either written by someone other than Paul (see Author above) or that the letter was a circular.

The omission of in Ephesus makes for a very difficult reading and there have been several proposals to explain the omission. Some suggest that it