International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
e-fe'-zhan (Ephesios), e-fe'-zhanz:
A term which, as in Acts 19:28, 34, 35 and Acts 21:29, was applied to those natives or residents of the city of Ephesus who were adherents of the cult of the goddess Diana. A Jew or a Christian, though a native of Ephesus, would probably have been designated as such, rather than as an Ephesian.
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
1. External Evidence 2. Internal Evidence
II. PLACE AND DATE OF WRITING
1. Title 2. The Inscription 3. The Evidence of the Letter Itself 4. Conclusion
IV. RELATION TO OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS
1. Peter 2. Johannine Writings 3. Colossians
V. THE PURPOSE
1. External Evidence:
None of the epistles which are ascribed to Paul have a stronger chain of evidence to their early and continued use than that which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians. Leaving for the moment the question of the relation of Eph to other New Testament writings, we find that it not only colors the phraseology of the Apostolic Fathers, but is actually quoted. In Clement of Rome (circa 95 A.D.) the connection with Ephesians might be due to some common liturgical form in xlvi.6 (compare Ephesians 4:6); though the resemblance is so close that we must feel that our epistle was known to Clement both here and in lxiv (compare Ephesians 1:3-4); xxxviii (compare Ephesians 5:21); xxxvi (compare Ephesians 4:18); lix (compare Ephesians 1:18; Ephesians 4:18). Ignatius (died 115) shows numerous points of contact with Ephesians, especially in his Epistle to the Ephesians. In chap. xii we read: "Ye are associates and fellow students of the mysteries with Paul, who in every letter makes mention of you in Christ Jesus." It is difficult to decide the exact meaning of the phrase "every letter," but in spite of the opinion of many scholars that it must be rendered "in all his epistle," i.e. in every part of his epistle, it is safer to take it as an exaggeration, "in all his epistles," justified to some extent in the fact that besides Ephesians, Paul does mention the Ephesian Christians in Roman (16:5); 1 Corinthians (15:32; 16:8, 19); 2 Corinthians (1:8); 1 Timothy (1:3) and 2 Timothy (1:18). In the opening address the connection with Ephesians 1:3-6 is too close to be accidental. There are echoes of our epistle in chap. i (Ephesians 6:1); ix (Ephesians 2:20-22); xviii (oikonomia, Ephesians 1:10); xx (Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 4:24); and in Ignat. ad Polyc. v we have close identity with Ephesians 5:25 and less certain connection with Ephesians 4:2, and in vi with Ephesians 6:13-17.
The Epistle of Polycarp in two passages shows verbal agreement with Eph: in chap. i with Ephesians 1:8, and in xii with Ephesians 4:26, where we have (the Greek is missing here) ut his scripturis dictum est. Hermas speaks of the grief of the Holy Spirit in such a way as to suggest Ephesians (Mand. X, ii; compare Ephesians 4:30). Sim. IX, xiii, shows a knowledge of Ephesians 4:3-6, and possibly of 5:26 and 1:13. In the Didache (4) we find a parallel to Ephesians 6:5: "Servants submit yourselves to your masters." In Barnabas there are two or three turns of phrase that are possibly due to Ephesians. There is a slightly stronger connection between II Clement and Ephesians, especially in chap. xiv, where we have the Ephesian figure of the church as the body of Christ, and the relation between them referred to in terms of husband and wife. This early evidence, slight though it is, is strengthened by the part Ephesians played in the 2nd century where, as we learn from Hippolytus, it was used by the Ophites and Basilides and Valentinus. The latter (according to Hip., Phil., VI, 29) quoted Ephesians 3:16-18, saying, "This is what has been written in Scripture," while his disciple Ptolemais is said by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i.8, 5) to have attributed Ephesians 5:13 to Paul by name. According to the addenda to the eighth book of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, Theodotus, a contemporary of Valentinus, quoted Ephesians 4:10 and 30 with the words: "The apostle says," and attributes Ephesians 4:24 to Paul. Marcion knew Ephesians as Tertullian tells us, identifying it with the epistle referred to in Colossians 4:16 as ad Laodicenos. We find it in the Muratorian Fragment (10b, l. 20) as the second of the epistles which "Paul wrote following the example of his predecessor John." It is used in the letter from the church of Lyons and Vienne and by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and later writers. We can well accept the dictum of Dr. Hort that it "is all but certain on this evidence that the Epistle was in existence by 95 A.D.; quite certain that it was in existence by about fifteen years later or conceivably a little more" (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 118).
2. Internal Evidence:
To this very strong chain of external evidence, reaching back to the very beginning of the 2nd century, if not into the end of the 1st, showing Ephesians as part of the original Pauline collection which no doubt Ignatius and Polycarp used, we must add the evidence of the epistle itself, testing it to see if there be any reason why the letter thus early attested should not be accredited to the apostle.
(1) That it claims to be written by Paul is seen not only in the greeting, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints that are at Ephesus," but also in Ephesians 3:1, where we read: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles," a phrase which is continued in 4:1: "I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord." This claim is substantiated by the general character of the epistle which is written after the Pauline norm, with greeting and thanksgiving, leading on to and serving as the introduction of the special doctrinal teaching of the epistle. This is the first great division of the Pauline epistles and is regularly followed by an application of the teaching to practical matters, which in turn yields to personal greetings, or salutations, and the final benediction, commonly written by the apostle's own hand. In only one particular does Ephesians fail to answer completely to this outline. The absence of the personal greetings has always been marked as a striking peculiarity of our letter. The explanation of this peculiarity will meet us when we consider the destination of the epistle (see III below).
(2) Further evidence for the Pauline authorship is found in the general style and language of the letter. We may agree with von Soden (Early Christ. Lit., 294) that "every sentence contains verbal echoes of Pauline epistles, indeed except when ideas peculiar to the Epistle come to expression it is simply a mosaic of Pauline phraseology," without accepting his conclusion that Paul did not write it. We feel, as we read, that we have in our hands the work of one with whom the other epistles have made us familiar. Yet we are conscious none the less of certain subtle differences which give occasion for the various arguments that critics have brought against the claim that Paul is the actual author. This is not questioned until the beginning of the last century, but has been since Schleiermacher and his disciple Usteri, though the latter published his doubts before his master did his. The Tubingen scholars attacked the epistle mainly on the ground of supposed traces of Gnostic or Montanist influences, akin to those ascribed to the Colossians. Later writers have given over this claim to put forward others based on differences of style (De Wette, followed by Holtzmann, von Soden and others); dependence on Colossians (Hitzig, Holtzmann); the attitude to the Apostles (von Soden); doctrinal differences, especially those that concern Christology and the Parousia, the conception of the church (Klopper, Wrede and others). The tendency, however, seems to be backward toward a saner view of the questions involved; and most of those who do not accept the Pauline authorship would probably agree with Julicher (Encyclopedia Biblica), who ascribes it to a "Pauline Christian intimately familiar with the Pauline epistles, especially with Colossians, writing about 90," who sought in Ephesians "to put in a plea for the true catholicism in the meaning of Paul and in his name."
(3) Certain of these positions require that we should examine the doctrinal objections. (a) First of these is the claim that Ephesians has a different conception of the person and work of Christ from the acknowledged epistles of Paul. Not only have we the exaltation of Christ which we find in Colossians 1:16, but the still further statement that it was God's purpose from the beginning to "sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth" (Ephesians 1:10). This is no more than the natural expansion of the term, "all things," which are attributed to Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and is an idea which has at least its foreshadowing in Romans 8:19, 20 and 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19. The relation between Christ and the church as given in Ephesians 1:22 and 5:23 is in entire agreement with Paul's teaching in Romans 12, and 1 Corinthians 12. It is still the Pauline figure of the church as the body of Christ, in spite of the fact that Christ is not thought of as the head of that body. The argument in the epistle does not deal with the doctrine of the cross from the standpoint of the earlier epistles, but the teaching is exactly the same. There is redemption (Ephesians 1:7, 14; Ephesians 4:30); reconciliation (Ephesians 2:14-16); forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 4:32). The blood of Christ shed on the cross redeems us from our sin and restores us to God. In like manner it is said that the Parousia is treated (Ephesians 2:7) as something far off. But Paul has long since given up the idea that it is immediately; even in 2 Thessalonians 2 he shows that an indeterminate interval must intervene, and in Romans 11:25 he sees a period of time yet unfulfilled before the end. (b) The doctrine of the church is the most striking contrast to the earlier epistles. We have already dealt with the relation of Christ to the church. The conception of the church universal is in advance of the earlier epistles, but it is the natural climax of the development of the apostle's conception of the church as shown in the earlier epistles. Writing from Rome with the idea of the empire set before him, it was natural that Paul should see the church as a great whole, and should use the word ekklesia absolutely as signifying the oneness of the Christian brotherhood. As a matter of fact the word is used in this absolute sense in 1 Corinthians 12:28 before the Captivity Epistles (compare 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 10:32). The emphasis here on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the church finds its counterpart in the argument of the Epistle to the Romans, though in Ephesians this is "urged on the basis of God's purpose and Christian faith, rather than on the Law and the Promises."
Neither is it true that in Ephesians the Law is spoken of slightingly, as some say, by the reference to circumcision (2:11). In no case is the doctrinal portion of the epistle counter to that of the acknowledged Pauline epistles, though in the matter of the church, and of Christ's relationship to it and to the universe, there is evidence of progress in the apostle's conception of the underlying truths, which none the less find echoes in the earlier writings. "New doctrinal ideas, or a new proportion of these ideas, is no evidence of different authorship." (c) In the matter of organization the position of Ephesians is not in any essential different from what we have in 1 Cor.
(4) The linguistic argument is a technical matter of the use of Greek words that cannot well be discussed here. The general differences of style, the longer "turgid" sentences, the repetitions on the one hand; the lack of argument, the full, swelling periods on the other, find their counterpart in portions of Romans. The minute differences which show themselves in new or strange words will be much reduced in number when we take from the list those that are due to subjects which the author does not discuss elsewhere (e.g. those in the list of armor in Ephesians 6:13). Holtzmann (Einl, 25) gives us a list of these hapax legomena (76 in all). But there are none of these which, as Lock says, Paul could not have used, though there are certain which he does not use elsewhere and others which are only found in his accepted writings and here. The following stand out as affording special ground for objection. The phrase "heavenly places" (ta epourania, Ephesians 1:3, 10; Ephesians 2:6; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 6:12) is peculiar to this epistle. The phrase finds a partial parallel it in 1 Corinthians 15:49 and the thought is found in Philippians 3:20. The devil (ho diabolos, Ephesians 4:27; Ephesians 6:11) is used in place of the more usual Satan (satanas).
But in Acts Paul is quoted as using diabolos in 13:10 and satanas in 26:18. It is at least natural that he would have used the Greek term when writing from Rome to a Greek-speaking community. The objection to the expression "holy" (hagiois) apostles (Ephesians 3:5) falls to the ground when we remember that the expression "holy" (hagios) is Paul's common word for Christian and that he uses it of himself in this very epistle (Ephesians 3:8). In like manner "mystery" (musterion), "dispensation" (oikonomia) are found in other epistles in the same sense that we find them in here. The attack on the epistle fails, whether it is made from the point of teaching or language; and there is no ground whatever for questioning the truth of Christian tradition that Paul wrote the letter which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians.
II. Place and Date of Writing.
The time and place of his writing Ephesians turn on the larger question of the chronology of Paul's life (see PAUL) and the relation of the Captivity Epistles to each other; and the second question whether they were written from Caesarea or Rome (for this see PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO). Suffice it here to say that the place was undoubtedly Rome, and that they were written during the latter part of the two years' captivity which we find recorded in Acts 28:30. The date will then be, following the later chronology, 63 or 64 A.D.; following the earlier, which is, in many ways, to be preferred, about 58 A.D.
To whom was this letter written?
The title says to the Ephesians. With this the witness of the early church almost universally agrees. It is distinctly stated in the Muratorian Fragment (10b, 1. 20); and the epistle is quoted as to the Ephesians by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., v.14, 3; 24, 3); Tertullian (Adv. Marc., v.11, 17; De Praesc., 36; De Monag., v); Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iv0.65; Paed., i.18) and Origen (Contra Celsum, iii.20). To these must be added the evidence of the extant manuscripts and VSS, which unite in ascribing the epistle to the Ephesians. The only exception to the universal evidence is Tertullian's account of Marcion (circa 150 A.D.) who reads Ad Laodicenos (Adv. Marc., v.11: "I say nothing here about another epistle which we have with the heading `to the Ephesians,' but the heretics `to the Laodiceans'. (v.17): According to the true belief of the church we hold this epistle to have been dispatched to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion had to falsify its title, wishing to make himself out a very diligent investigator").
2. The Inscription:
This almost universal evidence for Ephesus as the destination of our epistle is shattered when we turn to the reading of the first verse. Here according to Textus Receptus of the New Testament we read "Paul unto the saints which are at Ephesus (en Epheso) and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." When we look at the evidence for this reading we find that the two words en Epheso are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and that the corrector of the cursive known as 67 has struck them out of his copy. Besides these a recently described MS, Cod. Laura 184, giving us a text which is so closely akin to that used by Origen that the scribe suggests that it was compiled from Origen's writings, omits these words (Robinson, Ephesians, 293). To this strong manuscript evidence against the inclusion of these two words in the inscription we must add the evidence of Origen and Basil. Origen, as quoted in Cramer's Catena at the place, writes: "In the Ephesians alone we found the expression `to the saints which are,' and we ask, unless the phrase `which are' is redundant, what it can mean. May it not be that as in Exodus He who speaks to Moses declares His name to be the Absolute One, so also those who are partakers of the Absolute become existent when they are called, as it were, from non-being into being?" Origen evidently knows nothing here of any reading en Epheso, but takes the words "which are" in an absolute, metaphysical sense. Basil, a century and a half later, probably refers to this comment of Origen (Contra Eun., ii.19) saying: "But moreover, when writing to the Ephesians, as to men who are truly united with the Absolute One through clear knowledge, he names them as existent ones in a peculiar phrase, saying `to the saints which are and faithful in Christ Jesus.' For so those who were before us have handed it down, and we also have found (this reading) in old copies." In Jerome's note on this verse there is perhaps a reference to this comment on Origen, but the passage is too indefinitely expressed for us to be sure what its bearing on the reading really is. The later writers quoted by Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 384) cannot, as Robinson shows (Eph, 293), be used as witnesses against the Textus Receptus. We may therefore conclude that the reading en Epheso was wanting in many early manuscripts, and that there is good ground for questioning its place in the original autograph. But the explanations suggested for the passage, as it stands without the words, offend Pauline usage so completely that we cannot accept them. To take "which are" in the phrase "the saints which are" (tois ousin) as absolute, as Origen did; or as meaning "truly," is impossible. It is possible to take the words with what follows, "and faithful" (kai pistois), and interpret this latter expression (pistois) either in the New Testament sense of "believers" or in the classical sense of "steadfast." The clause would then read either "to the saints who are also believers," or "to the saints who are also faithful," i.e. steadfast. Neither of these is wholly in accord with Paul's normal usage, but they are at least possible.
3. The Evidence of the Letter Itself:
The determining factor in the question of the destination of the epistle lies in the epistle itself. We must not forget that, save perhaps Corinth, there was no church with which Paul was so closely associated as that in Ephesus. His long residence there, of which we read in Acts (chapters 19; 20), finds no echo in our epistle. There is no greeting to anyone of the Christian community, many of whom were probably intimate friends. The close personal ties, that the scene of Acts 20:17-38 shows us existed between him and his converts in Ephesus, are not even hinted at. The epistle is a calm discussion, untouched with the warmth of personal allusion beyond the bare statement that the writer is a prisoner (Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 4:1), and his commendation of Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21, 22), who was to tell them about Paul's condition in Rome. This lack of personal touch is intensified by the assumption underlying Ephesians 3 and 4 that the readers do not know his knowledge of the mysteries of Christ. In 3:2 and 4:21, 22 there is a particle (eige, "if indeed") which suggests at least some question as to how far Paul himself was the missionary through whom they believed. All through the epistle there is a lack of those elements which are so constant in the other epistles, which mark the close personal fellowship and acquaintance between the apostle and those to whom he is writing.
This element in the epistle, coupled with the strange fact of Marcion's attributing it to the Laodiceans, and the expression in Colossians 4:16 that points to a letter coming from Laodicea to Colosse, has led most writers of the present day to accept Ussher's suggestion that the epistle is really a circular letter to the churches either in Asia, or, perhaps better, in that part of Phrygia which lies near Colosse. The readers were evidently Gentiles (Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 3:1, 2) and from the mission of Tychicus doubtless of a definite locality, though for the reasons given above this could not well be Ephesus alone. It is barely possible that the cities to whom John was bidden to write the Revelation (Revelation 1-3) are the same as those to whom Paul wrote this epistle, or it may be that they were the churches of the Lycus valley and its immediate neighborhood. The exact location cannot be determined. But from the fact that Marcion attributed the epistle to Laodicea, possibly because it was so written in the first verse, and from the connection with Colossians, it is at least probable that two of these churches were at Colosse and Laodicea. On this theory the letter would seem to have been written from Rome to churches in the neighborhood of, or accessible to, Colosse, dealing with the problem of Christian unity and fellowship and the relations between Christ and the church and sent to them by the hands of Tychicus. The inscription was to be filled in by the bearer, or copies were to be made with the name of the local church written in, and then sent to or left with the different churches. It was from Ephesus, as the chief city of Asia in all probability, that copies of this circular letter reached the church in the world, and from this fact the letter came to be known in the church at large as that from Ephesus, and the title was written "to the Ephesians," and the first verse was made to read to the "saints which are in Ephesus."
IV. Relation to Other New Testament Writings.
Ephesians raises a still further question by the close resemblances that can be traced between it and various other New Testament writings.
The connection between Ephesians and 1 Peter is not beyond question. In spite of the disclaimer of as careful a writer as Dr. Bigg (ICC) it is impossible to follow up the references given by Holtzmann and others and not feel that Peter either knew Ephesians or at the very least had discussed these subjects with its author. For, as Dr. Hort tells us, the similarity is one of thought and structure rather than of phrase. The following are the more striking passages with their parallels in 1 Peter: Ephesians 1:3 (1 Peter 1:3); 1:18-20 (1 Peter 1:3-5); 2:18-22 (1 Peter 2:4-6); 1:20-22 (1 Peter 3:22); 3:9 (1 Peter 1:20); 3:20 (1 Peter 1:12); 4:19 (1 Peter 1:14). The explanations that 1 Peter and Ephesians are both from the pen of the same writer, or that Ephesians is based on 1 Pet, are overthrown, among other reasons, by the close relation between Ephesians and Colossians.
2. Johannine Writings:
The connection with the Apocalypse is based on Ephesians 2:20 as compared with Revelation 21:14 Ephesians 3:5 and Revelation 10:7 Ephesians 5:11 and Revelation 18:4, and the figure of the bride of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7; compare Ephesians 5:25). Holtzmann adds various minor similarities, but none of these are sufficient to prove any real knowledge of, let alone dependence on Ephesians. The contact with the Fourth Gospel is more positive. Love (agape) and knowledge (gnosis) are used in the same sense in both Ephesians and the Gospel. The application of the Messianic title, the Beloved (Ephesians 1:6), to Christ does not appear in the Gospel (it is found in Matthew 3:17), but the statement of the Father's love for Him constantly recurs. The reference to the going up and coming down of Christ (Ephesians 4:9) is closely akin to John 3:13 ("No man hath ascended into heaven, but he," etc.). So, too, Ephesians 5:11, 13 finds echo in John 3:19, 20 Ephesians 4:4, 7 in John 3:34 Ephesians 5:6 in John 3:36. Ephesians 5:8 is akin to 1 John 1:6 and Ephesians 2:3 to 1 John 3:10.
When we turn to Colossians we find a situation that is without parallel in the New Testament. Out of 155 verses in Ephesians, 78 are found in Colossians in varying degrees of identity. Among them are these: Ephesians 1:6 parallel Colossians 1:13 Ephesians 1:16 parallel Colossians 1:9 Ephesians 1:21 parallel Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 2:16 parallel Colossians 2:20 Ephesians 4:2 parallel Colossians 3:12 Ephesians 4:15 parallel Colossians 2:19 Ephesians 4:22 parallel Colossians 3:9 Ephesians 4:32 parallel Colossians 3:12; Ephesians 5:5 parallel Colossians 3:5 Ephesians 5:19 parallel Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 6:4 parallel Colossians 3:21 Ephesians 6:5-9 parallel Colossians 3:22-4:1. For a fuller list see Abbott (ICC, xxiii). Not only is this so, but there is an identity of treatment, a similarity in argument so great that Bishop Barry (NT Commentary for English Readers, Ellicott) can make a parallel analysis showing the divergence and similarity by the simple device of different type. To this we must add that there are at least a dozen Greek words common to these two epistles not found elsewhere. Over against this similarity is to be set the dissimilarity. The general subject of the epistles is not approached from the same standpoint.
In one it is Christ as the head of all creation, and our duty in consequence. In the other it is the church as the fullness of Christ and our duty-put constantly in the same words-in consequence thereof. In Ephesians we have a number of Old Testament references, in Colossians only one. In Ephesians we have unique phrases, of which "the heavenly spheres" (ta epourania) is most striking, and the whole treatment of the relation of Jew and Gentile in the church, and the marriage tie as exemplified in the relation between Christ and the church. In Colossians we have in like manner distinct passages which have no parallel in Ephesians, especially the controversial section in chapter 2, and the salutations. In truth, as Davies (Ephesians, Paul to Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians.) well says: "It is difficult indeed to say, concerning the patent coincidences of expression in the two epistles, whether the points of likeness or of unlikeness between them are the more remarkable." This situation has given rise to various theories.
Read Complete Article...