Iii. Authorship

Turning now to Ephesians, passages paralleled in Colossians are clear from the parallel columns on pp. 6–26 in which the basis of comparison is the text of the longer epistle, printed consecutively in the first column. It is, accordingly, not necessary at this point to give a table of references for Ephesians as we did for Colossians. Ephesians contains 155 verses, well over half of which are paralleled, or partly paralleled, in Colossians. Sometimes more than one Ephesian passage is paralleled by the same Colossian passage. Thus both Eph. 4:2–4 and 4:32–5:2 resemble Col. 3:12–15. And for both Eph. 5:22 and 5:33b see Col. 3:18; for both Eph. 5:25a and 5:33a see Col. 3:19; etc. (The converse is also true: for both Col. 1:11 and 1:29 see Eph. 1:19; for both Col. 1:22 and 1:28 see Eph. 5:27; etc.)

Also with respect to Ephesians, however, it is necessary to point out not only the passages which correspond with those in Colossians but also those which do not. Though the two epistles have been called twins, these twins are by no means identical.

Thus, taking as our starting point for comparison the first chapter of Ephesians, we note that the paragraph concerning the church’s eternal foundation in Christ and the ascription of praise for every spiritual blessing to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (vss. 3–6, 7–12, 13, 14), has no parallel in Colossians. The references to the third person of the Holy Trinity (1:13, 17; and see also 2:18, 22; 5:16; 4:3, 4, 30; 5:9, 18; 6:17, 18) are not duplicated, as to frequency of occurrence, in the smaller epistle, which mentions the Holy Spirit only once (Col. 1:8).³ And the many references to “the church” in its most comprehensive sense, references beginning already in chapter 1 and continuing in later chapters (1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23–25, 27, 29, 32), distinguish Ephesians from Colossians.

When we turn to the second chapter of Ephesians we are again reminded that this letter is by no means a copy of Colossians. Though, to be sure, Colossians, as well as Ephesians, magnifies God’s grace (1:6), yet nowhere in that smaller epistle do we find anything that equals Eph. 2:7–10 in clearly stating and emphasizing the sovereign character of this grace and its relation to faith and to works. Moreover, the truth concerning the universal scope of the salvation which grace provides, so that through the blood of Christ men who were formerly bitter enemies are not only reconciled to the Father but also, because of that very fact, to each other (Eph. 2:11–18), though implied also in Colossians, is brought into the foreground only in Ephesians.

There is little in Colossians that parallels the closing paragraphs of the third chapter of Ephesians, the section containing the stirring prayer (3:14–19) and the doxology (3:20, 21). To be sure, the little there is suffices to show the reasonability of believing that he who wrote Col. 1:9b–14 (and Phil. 1:9–11) was also the author of Eph. 3:14–21 (cf. also Eph. 1:17–23). Yet, the lofty goal described in the words, “in order that you … may be enabled, together with all the saints, to grasp what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled to all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:17–19) is unique.

As the parallel columns also clearly indicate, there is much in Ephesians 4:1–16 to which there is no parallel in Colossians. The organic unity (amid diversity) and growth of the church is described in a paragraph which is unlike anything in the twin epistle, though, to be sure, the idea itself is not altogether absent from the latter (cf. Col. 3:15).

The glorious renewal on which Eph. 4:17–6:9 dwells (note especially 4:23, 24; 5:14) and which becomes evident not only in the relation of believers to outsiders but also in the reciprocal attitudes of members of the same family (wives, husbands; children, fathers; slaves, masters), though paralleled to a considerable extent in Colossians, is in Ephesians described as a work of the Holy Spirit (4:30), by whom men are turned from “darkness” to “light” (5:6–14). The darkness to light metaphor occurs in a touching paragraph which, again, has no real parallel in Colossians, though the germinal idea occurs there also (Col. 1:13). And the striking thought that the relation between the believing husband and his wife is rooted in and patterned after that between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:23–32) stands by itself.

In Eph. 6:10–24 it is especially the section that describes the believers’ effective armor (Eph. 6:10–20) that distinguishes the two epistles. Except for verses 18–20 Colossians has little that corresponds to it.

It has become clear that those paragraphs — some of them lengthy — and those many individual passages in which Ephesians differs from Colossians are too numerous and too significant to be considered mere amplifications. On the contrary, they form a pattern and give to Ephesians a distinct character. This will become even clearer in Chapter V of this Introduction, where the theme of Ephesians is discussed and the distribution of the material under this theme is considered.

III. AUTHORSHIP

A. Arguments Against Pauline Authorship Answered

The epistle to the Ephesians has been called “the divinest composition of man,” “the distilled essence of the Christian religion,” “the most authoritative and most consummate compendium of the Christian faith,” “full to the brim with thoughts and doctrines sublime and momentous,” etc. It has made that impression upon professional scholars and laymen, upon believers throughout the history of the church and of every nationality. Accordingly, to deny the universal testimony of the early church, namely, that it was the apostle Paul, richly endowed by his Lord with talents of heart and mind, who wrote it, would seem to require what some call “courage,” others “temerity.” This is true all the more when to this denial is added the suggestion that the writer was a person far more obscure than the apostle. Nevertheless, such denials have been lashed out and such suggestions have been propounded.⁴

The main arguments that have been urged against Pauline authorship are two which, at least to a certain extent, cancel each other out:

1. The Resemblance Is Too Close

a. Ephesians resembles Colossians

The statement is made that this similarity is so very close that if Paul wrote Colossians he cannot have written Ephesians.

Answer: This argument has been fully answered in the preceding chapter. The traditional theory, according to which the same author at about the same time wrote letters to people living in the same Roman province, but elaborated on themes which, though closely related, are yet essentially different, fits all the data. Moreover, several Colossians-Ephesians parallels are found also in Paul’s other epistles. In such cases, therefore, assuming that Colossians was written prior to Ephesians,⁵ can it be said that whoever wrote the Ephesian passages was necessarily using only Colossians as a basis for composition? May he perhaps also have had in mind Romans, I or II Corinthians, Galatians or some other Pauline epistle(s)? This leads to the next proposition:

b. Ephesians resembles too closely Paul’s other epistles

The claim is made that words and phrases from the other Pauline epistles, for the moment leaving out not only Colossians but also the Pastorals, reappear far more frequently in Ephesians than in any genuine letter written by the great apostle. The conclusion is drawn that a capable imitator, having been a disciple of the renowned master, and being well acquainted with his genuine epistles and thus able to reproduce their words and phrases from memory, must have composed Ephesians.

Answer:

(1) There is wide divergence of opinion among scholars as to the actual extent of this resemblance. E. J. Goodspeed claims that out of 618 short phrases into which Ephesians may be divided as many as 550 have unmistakable parallels in Paul, in words or substance. On the other hand, A. S. Peake and T. K. Abbott see in Ephesians no or very little evidence of borrowing from any of Paul’s epistles other than Colossians. C. L. Mitton, though convinced that the percentage as given by Goodspeed is an exaggeration, agrees with him in his general conclusion that the similarities are so numerous and of such a character that someone other than Paul must have written Ephesians. Nevertheless, detailed examination of the borrowings which Mitton considers the most striking has left many unconvinced. Would a disciple, reproducing from memory or even from the written page, Romans 3:24, “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” have reformulated this into “even though we were dead through our trespasses (he) made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved —” (Eph. 2:5)? To be sure, there is agreement in doctrine here and the phrase “by grace” is used in both passages. But is it not more reasonable to ascribe the significant alteration in general phraseology to an original author who has thoroughly digested this central fact of redemption and is recasting his own thought? And the same holds also with respect to other parallels such as Rom. 8:28, cf. Eph. 1:11; I Cor. 3:6, cf. Eph. 2:21; Gal. 1:15, cf. Eph. 3:8; Philem. 13, cf. Eph. 6:20; etc. In all these cases there is, to be sure, a degree of similarity, but resemblance close enough to disprove Pauline authorship, not at all! In each case, if the same author wrote both corresponding passages, neither their resemblance nor their divergence is strange or in need of further explanation.

(2) Since the author of Ephesians has as his theme The Church Glorious, a church enriched by all the blessings of salvation which God, solely by grace, bestows upon both Jew and Gentile, “to the praise of his glory,” it is not at all strange that at least as to content many passages in this prison epistle resemble those in the other letters where the same or a very similar theme is expressed. The theme Salvation (“Justification”) by Grace Alone is also central in Romans and Galatians and is the basis for the exhortations in all the other epistles.

(3) Ephesians offers very little material of a polemical character, and there are few — according to some there are no — local references. This leaves more room for resemblances in positive teaching.

(4) Ephesians was written later than most of the other epistles. It contains, as it were, a summary of doctrine. Also for this reason in reading it one would expect to hear more echoes of the other epistles than one could expect to detect elsewhere.

Now in comparing Ephesians with Paul’s other epistles there is not any good reason to omit the Pastorals (I and II Timothy and Titus), as if it is an established fact that these were not written by Paul. On the contrary, the attempt to disprove their Pauline authorship must be considered a failure. See N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 4–33; 377–381. The most reasonable explanation for the extent of the resemblances, often in substance or thought-content but at times even in exact phraseology, between Ephesians and the Pastorals, is that these four letters sprang from the same mind and heart. Note the following:

Ephesians	I and II Timothy and Titus
Doxologies break in suddenly
“Now to him who is able to do infinitely more than all we ask or imagine … be the glory … forever and ever” (3:20). Cf. 1:3 ff.	“So to the King of the ages, the imperishable, invisible, only God (be) honor and glory forever and ever!” (I Tim. 1:17). Cf. I Tim. 6:15, 16; II Tim. 4:18.
Believers are God’s elect
“… just as he elected us in him before the foundation of the world” (1:4).	“On account of this I endure all things for the sake of the elect” (II Tim. 2:10).
Man’s chief purpose is God’s glory
“… to the praise of the glory of his grace” (1:6); “… to the praise of his glory” (1:12, 14).	“to him (be or is) the glory forever and ever. Amen” (II Tim. 4:18).
The gospel is “the word or message [logos] of the truth”
“… the message of the truth, the gospel of your salvation” (1:13).	“… rightly handling the word of the truth” (II Tim. 2:15).
It was because of God’s love that sinners were saved
“… among whom we also once lived in the lusts of our flesh … God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even though we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (2:3–6).	“For at one time we also were … enslaved to various passions and pleasures.… But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love toward man appeared he saved us” (Tit. 3:3–5).
It is grace — not works — that saved us
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this not of yourselves, (it is) the gift of God; not of works, lest any one should boast” (2:8, 9).	“(God) who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace” (II Tim. 1:9). Cf. Tit. 3:5.
Nevertheless, good works are necessary, as the fruit (never the root!) of grace
“For his handiwork are we, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (2:10).	“… (our great God and Savior Christ (Jesus) who gave himself for us in order … to purify for himself a people, his very own, with a zest for noble deeds” (Tit. 2:14). Cf. I Tim. 2:10; 6:18; II Tim. 3:17; Tit. 3:8.
Christ is the one and only Mediator
“ … for through him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (2:18).	“For (there is but) one God, and (there is but) one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5).
Paul considers himself unworthy
“To me, the very least of all saints, was this grace given” (3:8).	“Reliable (is) the saying, and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world sinners to save, foremost of whom am I” (I Tim. 1:15).
The mystery of salvation, once hidden, has now been disclosed
“… the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God … in order that now … might be made known through the church the iridescent wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he formed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (3:9–11).	“… his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before times everlasting but now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 1:9, 10).
The ascended Christ has instituted the offices for the perfecting of believers
“And it was he who gave some (to be) apostles … fully to equip the saints for the work of ministry, with a view to the building up of the body of Christ” (4:12).	“… that the man of God may be equipped, for every good work thoroughly equipped” (II Tim. 3:17).
Wives should be submissive to their own husbands
“Wives (be subject) to your own husbands as to the Lord (5:22).	“… so that they may train the young women to be … submissive to their own husbands” (Tit. 2:4, 5).
We are saved through a spiritual washing, that of regeneration, symbolized by baptism
“… cleansing her by the washing of water …” (5:26).	“… through a washing of regeneration” (Tit. 3:5).
The mystery which centers in Christ is great
“This mystery is great …” (5:32).	“And confessedly great is the mystery of (our) devotion” (I Tim. 3:16).
The grace and power of the Lord is the believers’ source of strength
“Finally, find your (source of) power in the Lord and in the strength of his might” (6:10).	“You then, my child, be strengthened in the grace (that is) in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 2:1).
When grace, love, and faith combine true peace results
“Peace (be) to the brothers and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace (be) with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with (a love) imperishable” (6:23, 24).	“And it super-abounded (namely) the grace of our Lord, with faith and love in Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 1:14).

Now in all this the complete harmony with the leading ideas found in those epistles that are by nearly everyone ascribed to Paul, coupled, however, with rich variety of expression, points to identity of authorship and not to either of two suggestions, namely, a. that a disciple of Paul refurbished passages from Ephesians, thus producing material now found in the Pastorals, or b. that he who composed Ephesians borrowed from the Pastorals.

c. Ephesians resembles I Peter

It must not be overlooked that some of the material found in Ephesians is similar to that contained in non-Pauline New Testament literature. There are, for example, significant resemblances between Ephesians and I Peter. Note the following:

	Ephesians	I Peter
“Blessed (be) the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”	1:3	1:3
“before the foundation of the world”	1:4	1:20
“so that you may know what is the hope … what the inheritance … and what the … power … which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead”	1:18–20	cf. 1:3–5
“he (God) raised him (Christ) from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand … far above every principality and authority and power”	1:20, 21	cf. 3:21b, 22
“the sons of disobedience” … “children of wrath”	2:2, 3	cf. 1:14; 2:2
“Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone”	2:20	cf. 2:4, 8
“in other generations not made known … that now might be made known.…”	3:5, 10	cf. 1:10–12
“lowliness … meekness … longsuffering … love,” etc.	4:2, 3	cf. 3:8, 15; 5:5
“laying aside falsehood … bitterness and anger and wrath and brawling and slander, along with all malice”	4:25, 31	cf. 2:1
“tenderhearted”	4:32	3:8
table of household duties	5:22–6:9	cf. 2:18–3:7
“Put on the full armor of God in order that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty methods of the devil”	6:11	cf. 5:8, 9a

d. Ephesians resembles Luke and Acts

Similarly there are resemblances between Ephesians and the Lucan writings. In all three the divine love and grace, mercy and forgiveness are prominently displayed (Eph. 1:4, 6–8; 2:5–8; Luke 1:48; 4:18; 5:20; 7:47, 48; Acts 5:31; 11:23; 13:38, 43; 14:3, 26; 15:11, 40; 26:18). There is emphasis on prayer, often intercessory in content (Eph. 1:15, 16; 3:14; 6:18; Luke 1:9, 10, 13; 2:37; 3:21; 5:16; 6:12, 28; etc.; Acts 1:14; 2:42; 4:24–31; 10:4; 12:5; etc.). There is thanksgiving, praise, and song (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14, 16; 5:19, 20; Luke 1:46; 2:13, 14, 20, 29–32, 47; 3:8, 9; 5:67–79; 24:52, 53; Acts 2:47; 15:31; 16:25, 34). This is not surprising, for a world-embracing gospel is being proclaimed (Eph. 2:18; Luke 1:78, 79; 2:32; 13:29; Acts 2:17–21; 13:46, 47; 15:7–9; 22:21). It is the gospel of full and free salvation through the shedding of Christ’s blood (Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Luke 22:20, 44; Acts 20:28). In the final analysis, therefore, every blessing proceeds from God, was included before the foundation of the world in his all-comprehensive decree, and flows forth from his sovereign “good pleasure” (Eph. 1:4, 5; Luke 2:14; 17:26–28). Nothing either good or evil ever happens apart from his all-comprehensive, eternal decree (Eph. 1:11; Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 13:29). The blessings received on earth descend from heaven, from the ascended and exalted Mediator (Eph. 1:3, 20–22; 4:8–10; Luke 24:50, 51; Acts 1:6–11; 2:32–36; 7:55, 56). It is from that heavenly home that Jesus sent the Comforter, so that his own might be “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 5:18; Luke 1:15, 41, 53, 67; Acts 2:4, 33; 4:8, 31; etc.). In receiving these marvelous blessings men do not remain passive. On the contrary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, they, “with loins girded” (Eph. 6:14; Luke 12:35), and walking in the light, expose the works of darkness (Eph. 5:8–14; Luke 1:79; 11:33–36; 12:3; 16:8).

e. Ephesians resembles the Johannine writings

The last mentioned contrast — light versus darkness — is found, however, not only in Ephesians and Luke but also in other sacred literature, notably in the writings of John (John 1:4–9; 3:19–21; 8:12; I John 1:5, 7; 2:8–10, etc.; cf. also Rev. 21:22–26). The claim has often been made that Ephesians emits a Johannine fragrance. Note, accordingly, not only the light-darkness contrast but also the very similar opposition between life and death (Eph. 2:1, 5; 4:18; John 1:4; 5:24; I John 3:14; Rev. 3:1). Another contrast — in this case not hostile but complementary — with respect to which Ephesians reminds one of John’s terminology, is that between Christ’s descent and his ascent (Eph. 4:9, 10; John 3:13; 6:38, 41, 50, 51, 58, 62; 16:28). Many blessings descend upon the church from the ascended Christ. Now it was in Christ that even “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; John 17:24; cf. 17:5; Rev. 13:8; 17:8) believers were chosen. They were fore-ordained to adoption as sons (Eph. 1:5; John 1:12; I John 3:1). Moreover, all of them having been elected from eternity “in Christ,” (Eph. 1:3, 4, 6, 7, etc.; John 15:5) who dwells in them (Eph. 3:17; John 14:20; cf. Rev. 1:13), form a unity and must do their utmost to promote spiritual unity (Eph. 4:1–16; John 15:12; 17:21–23). The purpose of Christ’s active and energetic indwelling is that he may present the church to himself brilliant in purity, having no spot or wrinkle, thoroughly sanctified (Eph. 5:27; cf. 3:14–19; 4:17–24; John 15:2; 17:17–19), cleansed by the spoken word (Eph. 5:26; John 15:3). This church is the object of his love. Of very frequent occurrence both in Ephesians and in the Johannine literature is this word love, both as noun and as verb (noun: Eph. 1:4, 15; 2:4; 3:14–19; verb: 2:4; 5:2; noun: John 5:42; 13:35; 15:9; I John 2:5, 15; II John 3, 6; III John 6; Rev. 2:14, 19; verb: John 3:16; I John 2:10; II John 1, 5; III John 1, to list only a few references). And is it not true that, according to both Ephesians and John, Christ is “the Beloved” of the Father? (Eph. 1:6; John 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23, 24, 26). Because of his infinite and tender love and in his Spirit believers are “sealed” (Eph. 1:13; 4:30; John 6:27; Rev. 5:1–9; 6:1; 7:3–8). They receive the reassuring testimony of the Holy Spirit. Within the limit (“according to the measure,” Eph. 4:7) in which, in any situation of life, believers have need of pardoning and sustaining grace, their Savior apportions it to them, for it is he who has received the Spirit in unlimited degree (“without measure,” John 3:34). He has “known” his sheep from all eternity, and they aim “to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph. 3:19). Note this combination of these two entities that match perfectly: a. experiential knowledge and b. love that is experienced. As has already been indicated, John’s writings, too, refer to this love again and again. They also enlarge on this knowledge (John 8:32; 10:15; 17:3, 25; I John 2:3–5, 13, 14; 4:7, 8, 16; 5:2, 20; II John 1; Rev. 13:9).

f. Ephesians resembles Hebrews

Both teach redemption through blood (Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12, 22); Christ’s exaltation at God’s right hand (Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12); and access to the Father through Christ (Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Heb. 4:16; 7:25). They also describe in similar terms those who are immature (Eph. 4:14; Heb. 5:13); warn against being whirled around or carried away by every gust of doctrine, that is, by strange and deviating teaching (Eph. 4:14; Heb. 13:9); recognize Christ’s one and only offering of himself for the sin of his people (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 10:10); pronounce God’s judgment upon every form of immorality (Eph. 5:5; Heb. 13:4); tell us that Christ offered himself for the church in order that he might sanctify it (Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:10, 22; 13:12); and compare the word of God to a sword (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12).

g. Ephesians resembles the Epistle of James

The same figure of speech is used to describe the unstable person. He is said to be “driven” or “tossed to and fro” by the wind (Eph. 4:14; cf. James 1:6). Ephesians 5:8 calls believers “children of light.” James 1:17 describes God as “the Father of lights.” “Be angry but do not sin” (Eph. 4:26) reminds one of “Let every man be … slow to anger” (James 1:19). For other resemblances compare Eph. 4:2, 3 with James 3:17; 5:8; Eph. 4:29 with James 3:10; Eph. 4:31 with James 3:14; Eph. 5:19 with James 5:13; Eph. 6:18, 19 with James 5:16. To represent James as Paul’s opponent with respect to the doctrine of good works is unfair. On the contrary, James championed the cause of Paul (Acts 15:13–29). To the very end he remained Paul’s friend (Acts 21:18–25). Paul and James were not in conflict, but faced different issues. James valued genuine faith highly (1:3, 6; 2:1, 5, 22–24; 5:15). The “faith” which he condemns is that of dead orthodoxy and of demons (2:19). Paul would condemn that just as vehemently. And, on the other hand, Paul was a firm believer in the necessity of good works as a fruit of faith (Eph. 2:10; cf. Rom. 2:6–10; II Cor. 9:8; I Thess. 1:3; II Thess. 2:17; Tit. 3:8, 14).

As to any conclusion with respect to authorship that can be drawn from these resemblances between Ephesians and other New Testament writings see below, under heading 3.

2. The Difference Is Too Great

a. Different Words

It is claimed that the letter contains too many exceptional or new words; that is, either words found nowhere else in the New Testament (forty-two of them), or else words which, though occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, are not found in any genuine epistle of Paul.

Answer:

(1) The same argument, if applied to Romans, Galatians, Philippians, or I and II Corinthians, would also exclude them from the list of Pauline letters. The number of new words in Ephesians is not disproportionately large.

(2) A different subject requires different words. In Ephesians, more than elsewhere, the apostle discusses “the unity of all believers in Christ.” Hence, it is not surprising that here he uses such new words (those in italics which follow) as: unity (4:3, 13), which resulted because Christ “made both one and has broken down the barrier formed by the dividing wall” (2:14). In connection with this same stress on spiritual togetherness, this letter contains many sun-compounds, the prefix “sun-” meaning “together” or “fellow-.” Paul uses the expressions: harmoniously fitted together (2:21), built together (2:22); fellow-citizens (2:19), fellow-members of the body, fellow-partakers of the promise (3:6). The last two are preceded by fellow-sharers in the inheritance (co-heirs), but this is not a new word, as it already occurs in Rom. 8:17.

Also, Paul stresses the fact that this entire united church should bid defiance to the forces of evil, and that in order to do so it should put on the spiritual armor which God provides (6:11 ff.). In that striking little paragraph this battle and this panoply of faith are described with a fulness of detail found nowhere else in Paul’s epistles. We therefore expect to find new words. When they occur they certainly cannot be used as an argument against Pauline authorship. The apostle speaks about crafty methods of “the devil” (ho diábolos, a word found, however, also in the Pastorals; see No. [4] below). He reminds us of the fact that our wrestling is against … world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (see No. [3] below). He urges us to fasten the belt of truth around the waist, to put on (lit., “ to bind beneath”) shoes that symbolize the readiness derived from the gospel of peace, and to take up the shield of faith by means of which we shall be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. In all this, for the reason given, there is nothing that argues against Pauline authorship for Ephesians.

(3) It is not very convincing to say that Paul could write “God,” but not without God (Eph. 2:12); “shameful” (I Cor. 11:6; 14:35) but not shamefulness or, as here, filthiness (Eph. 5:4); that he could use the verb “to open” (I Cor. 16:9; II Cor. 6:11), but not the noun opening (Eph. 6:19); could call a man “wise” (I Cor. 1:26) but not unwise (Eph. 5:15); could write “to equip,” to make complete (I Cor. 1:10), but not equipment (Eph. 4:12); “to persevere” (Col. 4:2), but not perseverance (Eph. 6:18); “holily” (I Thess. 2:10), but not holiness (Eph. 4:24); and “heavenly” (I Cor. 15:40 — twice; 48, 49), also “the heavenly beings” (Phil. 2:10, “of those in heaven”), but not the heavenlies, at least not five times (Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12).

(4) The statement, made so often, that many words are found in Ephesians “but not in any genuine Pauline writing,” generally proceeds from the tacit assumption that the Pastorals (sometimes also Colossians) are not “genuine Pauline writings.” But, as has been indicated N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 4–33; also footnote 193 on pp.377–381, for this assumption there are no real grounds. It was Paul who wrote the Pastorals. Hence, from the list of exceptional words that have any value as an argument against Pauline authorship for Ephesians must also be subtracted those which this letter has in common with the Pastorals though they do not occur in any other Pauline epistle: chain (Eph. 6:20; II Tim. 1:16); deceive (Eph. 5:6; I Tim. 2:14); dissolute behavior or unrestrained living (Eph. 5:18; Tit. 1:6); devil (Eph. 4:27; 6:11; I Tim. 3:6, 7, 11; II Tim. 2:26; 3:3; Tit. 2:3; also used by Matthew, Luke, John, James, Peter, and the author of Hebrews, often interchangeably with Satan); evangelist (Eph. 4:11; II Tim. 4:5); discipline or training (Eph. 6:4; II Tim. 3:16) and the verb to honor (Eph. 6:2; I Tim. 5:3).

(5) As to the “exceptional” words that still remain after all of these others have been subtracted because they can have no value in supporting the proposition that Paul could not have written Ephesians, we may well ask whether Paul, an able writer, with originality and a fertile mind, should not be credited with a sufficient command of language to enable him to use synonymous words and phrases. At the beginning of his writing-career was the apostle handed a list of words with the requirement that, no matter what the circumstances might be, either of himself or of the readers, and no matter what might be the purpose of any epistle or the subject on which he would write, he must invariably use these words, and only these, and, in addition, must distribute them in equal proportion over all his letters, like the spots on a polka-dot dress? Vocabulary proves nothing at all against Pauline authorship of Ephesians!⁶

b. Different Meanings

It is also maintained that in Ephesians Pauline words are used in a new sense. Thus the word plé̄rōma, fulness, in Col. 1:19; 2:9 indicates the fulness of deity dwelling in Christ, but in Eph. 1:23 it is used in a different connection. In Col. 1:26, 27 the term mystery indicates eschatological glory, but in Ephesians it refers to the acceptance of the Gentiles (1:9; 3:3 ff.). So also in Col. 1:22 the word só̄ma, body, refers to the physical body of Jesus Christ offered as a sacrifice for sin, and in Col. 2:19 its English equivalent is cosmos or universe, but in Ephesians the body is the church. Finally, the word oikonomía (whence our “economy”), which in Colossians and elsewhere has reference to the special task or assignment which by God was entrusted to Paul, has the abstract meaning “God’s wise planning or generalship” in Ephesians.

Answer: The word fulness, in Greek as well as in English, can be used in many different connections. See N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, footnote 56, pp. 79, 80. Its exact reference in Eph. 1:23 is disputed. Certainly no argument of value can be based on such a controversial passage. See also the explanation of Eph. 1:10, 23; 3:19; 4:13. As to the word mystery, it is clear from the context that even in Col. 1:26, 27, though the setting is eschatological, the reference is to “the glory of the mystery among the Gentiles … Christ in you, the hope of glory.” As to the word só̄ma, body, is it fair to demand that it must have exactly the same reference in Ephesians as in Col. 1:22, when only in the latter case the author speaks of “his body of flesh”? It is not true that in Col. 2:19 the word body refers to the cosmos or universe. See N.T.C. on that passage. What is true is that (in Ephesians) the well-nigh consistent reference of this word to the church, with the human body in the background (1:22, 23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4 ff.; 5:23, 30; exception 5:28) is also well represented in Colossians (1:18; 2:19; 3:15). Hence, there is no real problem here. And finally, as to oikonomīa, this word, wherever it occurs in the New Testament, is based upon the idea of stewardship. It has this meaning not only in Luke 16:2–4; I Cor. 9:17; Col. 1:25; and I Tim. 1:4 but also in Eph. 3:2. However, by a slight semantic shift the meaning “administration of one’s stewardship” arises, and so, in general, administration, execution, effectuation, the carrying into effect of a plan or purpose (Eph. 1:10; 3:9). One and the same author must certainly be allowed the privilege of using the same word both in its basic meaning and also, in a different context, in a somewhat modified sense. Is it not true that even in the same short sentence a word, used twice, can have two different connotations (see Luke 9:60; Rom. 9:6)? It is clear, therefore, that the argument based on “different meanings” lacks validity.

Sometimes an entire phrase is used in Ephesians in a connection in which it is not found in Colossians or elsewhere in Paul. This, too, has been used as an argument against Pauline authorship. The most remarkable instance of this exception to the rule is held to be Eph. 5:20 as compared with Col. 3:17. The latter passage reads, “And whatever you do in word or in deed, (do) all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him”; but the former reads, “giving thanks … in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to (our) God and Father.” Mitton tells us that in the Ephesian passage the phrase “in the name of Jesus” is artificially associated with giving thanks. As he sees it this phrase is added “rather pointlessly.” To him this wrenching of a phrase from its proper Colossian context speaks, more than perhaps any other item, against Pauline authorship. But should we not rather say that this type of reasoning speaks more than perhaps anything else against the convincing nature of Mitton’s argumentation? What could be wrong with the idea that in Paul’s mind the giving of thanks was associated with the name of Jesus? Does not the very passage in Colossians clearly state that everything — hence, also the giving of thanks — must be done “in the name of the Lord Jesus”? Is not the clause, “giving thanks to God the Father through him,” synonymous with giving thanks to God the Father in the name of the Son? If it be true that in Christ’s name knees will bend (Phil. 2:20), commands are issued (II Thess. 3:6), and, in fact, all things must be done (Col. 3:17), is it then pointless to say that in his name thanksgiving must also be offered? Is it not rather true that since the Father blesses us through the Son, thanksgiving should also be brought to the Father through the Son, that is, “in his name”?

c. A Different Style

The style employed by the author of Ephesians is said to be too diffuse, deferential, and dulcifying to belong to the real Paul. First, it is said to be diffuse. It is a wordy epistle, and the words are widely spread. By means of almost interminable sentences the letter moves along slowly and majestically like a glacier that worms its way down the valley inch by inch. See 1:3–14; 1:15–23; 2:1–10; 2:14–18; 2:19–22; 3:1–12; 3:14–19; 4:11–16; and 6:13–20. Within these lengthy sentences there is often a descriptive verbosity that is completely uncharacteristic of the real Paul. Titles are written out in full, followed by modifying clauses; example, “Blessed (be) the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has …” etc. Frequently, a noun is followed by its synonym, the latter being in the genitive or being preceded by a preposition: “the dividing wall of the barrier,” probably meaning “the barrier formed by the dividing wall,” to which, as if this were not enough, is added another synonym “the hostility” (2:14); “the law of commandments in ordinances,” indicating “the law of commandments with its requirements” (2:15); and “the measure of (the) stature of the fulness of Christ” (4:13). See also 1:5, 11, 19. Now all this is in sharp contrast with the concise, abrupt, lively, impetuous style that characterizes the real Paul.

Answer: Much of Ephesians is in the nature of a prayer offered by a deeply grateful apostle who is witnessing the realization of his life’s dream, namely, the coming into existence of a new and glorious spiritual entity, the one church of Jew and Gentile, the product of the marvelous grace of God. Now elevated language with its many synonyms is characteristic of adoration. See N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, p. 30. Also, by far the most of these lengthy sentences occur in the first of the two major divisions of the letter, that is, in the part that can be described as Adoration in contrast with Part II: Exhortation. It is not fair to contrast the style of this Adoration section of Ephesians with that of the Exhortation section of the other epistles, and then to say that, therefore, Paul cannot have written Ephesians. It is true that Ephesians contains more long and lofty sentences than is usual with Paul. There is, however, a reason for this. Nowhere else is there such an outpouring of the heart, such unrestrained praise, as there is in this letter. The author is moved to the very depths of his being by a. the contemplation of God’s sovereign, eternal, redemptive love for sinners, both Jew and Gentile, b. the inner conviction that he, the author himself, is a recipient of this grace, and c. the reflection that he, Paul, yes even he himself, formerly a vehement persecutor of the church, had been predestined by God to play a very important role in the proclamation and realization of God’s marvelous plan of the ages.

Yet, as already indicated, the described stylistic difference in this respect between Ephesians and the other epistles is one in degree only. Hence, it cannot be properly used as an argument against Pauline authorship. Lengthy sentences are also found in other epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul. Rom. 1:1–7 has 93 words in the original; 2:5–10 has 87; Phil. 3:8–11 has 78; and Col. 1:9–20 has no less than 218. And as to piling up closely connected synonyms, this feature, too, is by no means confined to Ephesians. On the contrary, such and similar pleonasms are found also in Rom. 11:33; Phil. 3:8; Col. 1:5, 11, 27; I Thess. 1:3, to mention only a few.

Secondly, the style of Ephesians has been described as deferential. It is maintained that an admirer of the great master is here speaking. Paul himself, according to this manner of argumentation, could never have written such a boastful clause as the following: “whereby, as you read it, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ” (3:4). Surely, the man who wrote, “I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (I Cor. 15:9), was far too humble to write Eph. 3:4 (or 3:4–9).

Answer: It is exactly characteristic of Paul to make enormous claims. He claims to have fully preached the gospel amid signs and wonders (Rom. 15:19); calls himself “a wise master-builder” (I Cor. 3:10), and a “steward of the mysteries of God” (I Cor. 4:1; cf. 9:17). He even dares to make comparisons between himself and others. He ranks himself higher than ten thousand tutors (I Cor. 4:15). He is able to speak with tongues “more than you all” (I Cor. 14:18). As an apostle he has “labored more abundantly” than any of the others (I Cor. 15:10). See also II Cor. 11:22–33; Gal. 1:1, 14; Phil. 3:4–6. Hence, the claim made by the author of Eph. 3:4 is in line with those made elsewhere in Paul’s epistles and cannot be used as a valid argument against the traditional ascription of Ephesians to the great apostle to the Gentiles.

It should be noted, however, that Paul’s claims are entirely valid, are made in order that, through confidence in his message, men may be benefited spiritually and may be won for Christ (I Cor. 9:19–21), and that the glory may be given not to the recipient of the enumerated distinctions but to God alone (I Cor. 9:16; 10:31; Gal. 6:14). The apostle never claims personal credit for any virtue or talent (Rom. 7:24, 25; I Cor. 4:7; Gal. 6:3). Here in Ephesians he is just as humble as he was in I Corinthians, perhaps even more so (cf. Eph. 3:8 with I Cor. 15:9). But that he, nevertheless, makes these great claims cannot be denied. In the light of all the evidence it is clear that also on this score there is no essential difference between Ephesians and the other Pauline epistles.

Finally, a dulcifying character has also been ascribed to the style of Ephesians. It has been said by those who deny the Pauline authorship of both Colossians and Ephesians that in addition to the desire to soften the extreme doctrinal utterances of the former, the author of the latter, whoever he may have been, tried to tone down the exhortations found in the shorter epistle. Hence, the demand that children obey their parents and that slaves obey their masters “in all things” (Col. 3:20, 22) is in Ephesians reproduced in the weakened form which omits the offensive modifier (6:1, 5).

Answer: It is not difficult to suggest possible reasons for the change, reasons that will in no way imply a rejection of Pauline authorship for both epistles. In the case of the exhortation addressed to the children, the author here in this longer epistle wishes to stress another aspect of the matter, namely, that such submission is proper and will be rewarded. And in connection with the admonition to the slaves we may well ask whether the command (6:5) does not already have a sufficient number of predicate modifiers (verses 5b, 6, 7, 8) to be able to dispense with an additional “in all things.” Besides, was not the flight of Onesimus from his Colossians master a sufficient reason why exactly in Colossians the demand that slaves obey their masters had to be emphasized by the addition of the modifier? But there may have been other reasons. What, however, especially shuts the door against this type of argumentation against Pauline authorship for Ephesians is the fact that in connection with the requirement that wives obey their husbands it is exactly Ephesians, not Colossians, that adds, “in everything” (cf. Eph. 5:24 with Col. 3:18).

It has become clear, therefore, that there is nothing in the style of Ephesians that prevents it from being a genuine letter written by Paul.

d. Different Doctrines

(1) The Doctrine of God. Objection: According to Ephesians God’s eternal decree is the source of salvation for his people (Eph. 1:4, 5, 11). Paul, however, glories in the cross (Gal. 6:14; cf. Rom. 3:24).

Answer: Ephesians, too, glories in the cross (2:16; cf. 1:7), and the other Pauline epistles also trace salvation to its source in God’s sovereign, eternal plan (Rom. 8:29, 30; 11:2, 28, 36; Col. 3:12).

(2) The Doctrine of Man. Objection: Ephesians describes man’s condition apart from grace in milder terms than does Paul in Colossians and elsewhere. Contrast the strong language of Col. 3:5–9 with the mere negatives of Eph. 2:12.

Answer: No language used to describe the sinner in his natural state could be stronger than that used in Eph. 2:1–3. Moreover, there is dynamite in those negatives of Eph. 2:12! See on that passage.

(3) The Doctrine of Christ. (a) Objection: Ephesians calls Christ “the head” of the church (1:21, 22; 4:15, 16; 5:23). According to Paul the head is merely one of the members of the body (I Cor. 12:21).

Answer: Different themes require different metaphors. The passage from I Corinthians describes the mutual obligations of church-members. Ephesians deals with the unity of all believers in Christ, their head. There is no contradiction here. Even in I Corinthians the fact that “the head of every man is Christ” is clearly taught (I Cor. 11:3). Colossians, too, recognizes Christ’s headship in relation to his church (Col. 1:18; 2:19).

(b) Objection: According to Eph. 2:16 it is Christ who achieves reconciliation; according to Col. 1:20; 2:13, 14 it is God who does this. Similarly, Eph. 4:11 teaches that it is Christ who appoints apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc. This is contradicted by I Cor. 12:28 which indicates that it is God who exercises that function.

Answer: As is clear from II Cor. 5:18 and Eph. 4:32, it is ever God in Christ who is at work. Hence, deeds of this kind can be ascribed to either person. It is as the late Professor L. Berkhof remarks in his Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1949, p. 89, “Opera ad extra, or those activities and effects by which the Trinity is manifested outwardly … are never works of one person exclusively, but always works of the Divine Being as a whole.” Thus also according to John 14:16, 26 the “giving” or “sending” of the Holy Spirit is ascribed to the Father, but in 15:26 this “sending” is ascribed to the Son. There is no contradiction: it is “in the Son’s name” that the Father sends the Spirit; it is “from the Father” that the Son sends him.

(c) Objection: In Ephesians Christ’s death is no longer basic. All the attention is concentrated on his exaltation (1:20 ff.; 2:6; 4:8).

Answer: Although, due to the central theme of Ephesians, the emphasis has changed somewhat, Christ’s death is basic, even for the author of Ephesians (1:7; 2:13; 2:16).

(d) Objection: According to Paul sinners are reconciled to God through the cross (II Cor. 5:20, 21; Col. 1:21, 22), but according to Ephesians the cross effects a reconciliation between Jew and Gentile (2:14–18; cf. 2: 19–22; 3:5 ff.; 4:7–16).

Answer: There is no contradiction. By means of the cross Jew and Gentile are reconciled to God; therefore also to each other. That basically the reconciliation is “to God” is clearly taught in Eph. 2:16; cf. also verse 18. But, in harmony with the central theme of Ephesians — the unity of all believers in Christ; hence, the church universal — it is on the reconciliation between Jew and Gentile that the emphasis falls here.

(e) Objection: Ephesians emphasizes Christ’s ascension (4:8 ff.). Paul has no ascension doctrine.

Answer: Christ’s ascension is clearly implied in such passages as Rom. 8:34; Phil. 2:6–11; 3:20; I Thess. 1:10; 4:16; and I Tim. 3:16.

(f) Objection: Ephesians teaches Christ’s descent into Hades (4:19), and is therefore clearly post-Pauline. The real Paul nowhere teaches this doctrine.

Answer: See the explanation of Eph. 4:8–10.

(4) The Doctrine of Salvation. (a) Objection: Ephesians teaches the doctrine of salvation — “for by grace you have been saved through faith”; Paul that of justification (Rom. 3:24; 5:1).

Answer: It is true that over against Jewish and Judaistic legalism the forensic aspect of the sinner’s deliverance is stressed in some Pauline epistles, notably in Romans and Galatians, leading to the use of the terms “justification” and “no condemnation,” while, in harmony with the theme of Ephesians — the oneness of all believers “in Christ” — here the mystical experience and fellowship with Christ receives somewhat more extensive treatment. However, this does not imply any contradiction. The essence of the doctrine of justification, the “not of works, but solely by grace” doctrine, is clearly expressed in Eph. 2:8, 9. See also on 4:24; 6:14. Paul never departed from this, and even subsequent to the writing of Ephesians gave eloquent expression to it (Titus 3:4–7). As to Paul’s emphasis on being saved, and being used as God’s agent in saving others, see Rom. 10:9, 13; 11:14; I Cor. 9:22; 15:2.

(b) Objection: The manner in which Ephesians treats the law is un-Pauline. In Ephesians the law is viewed not as something of benefit to man but as an instrument of division between man and man (2:15). Paul, however, establishes a definite relation between the law and the process of salvation: he pictures the law as our guide (“tutor”) who brings us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). According to him “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12).

Answer: In Romans and Galatians Paul views the law from several different aspects. Viewed from one aspect it is good, as just indicated; from another it is inadequate (Rom. 8:3); and from still another it even pronounces a curse upon a person (Gal. 3:10, 13). Hence, here, too, there is no contradiction. It certainly was not necessary for the author of Ephesians to discuss all the various phases of the law. What he does say about it here is in harmony with what he says elsewhere.

(5) The Doctrine of the Church. (a) Objection: In Ephesians the term church always refers to the church universal (1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32). In the genuine Pauline epistles it does not (or: does not always) have this meaning.

Answer: Examples of the use of the word church without local reference are I Cor. 12:28; 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6 (cf. Acts 20:28). In Col. 1:18, 24 the reference is to the church universal; in Col. 4:15, 16 a local congregation is indicated. Accordingly, the use of this term in Ephesians cannot be a good reason for denying Pauline authorship. Since in writing Ephesians it was not Paul’s purpose to enlarge on any local conditions but rather to glorify God for the work of his grace in the church at large, the apostle naturally used the word here in this broad sense.

(b) Objection: The author’s emphasis on the unity of the church shows that this epistle must have been written after Paul’s death, at a time when various sects had arisen, and when it had become necessary to stress the need of a centralized ecclesiastical government.

Answer: The unity that is described and urged in Ephesians is of a spiritual character. Cf. John 17:21. It is not the organizational unity for which, in a later day, Ignatius pleaded.

(c) Objection: The extreme importance attached to “apostles and prophets” (2:20–22; 3:5), as if they were “holy” and “the foundation” of the church, befits a generation later than Paul. The apostle himself would never have written this. To him Jesus Christ is the only true foundation (I Cor. 3:11).

Answer: It is exactly because these men gave a true and enthusiastic testimony about Christ that, in a secondary sense, they could be called the foundation of the church. Not at all in themselves or because of any intrinsic merit were they entitled to this distinction, but as divinely appointed witnesses and ambassadors who were constantly pointing away from themselves, to Christ. This manner of speaking about Christ’s plenipotentiaries originated with Christ himself (Matt. 16:18). John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, made use of the same symbolism in describing Jerusalem the Golden. He says, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14). The fact that the author of Ephesians calls these men “holy” is no objection. They were, indeed, holy, that is, set apart and qualified by God for a unique office. All this does not plead against Paul as the author of Ephesians but rather for him. It is in strict harmony with all that he has to say about himself and about the other apostles and prophets. See the following passages: Rom. 1:1; I Cor. 3:10; 5:3, 4; 9:1; 12:28; II Cor. 10:13, 14; 12:12; Gal. 1:1, 11–17; 2:6–9.

(d) Objection: Paul could not have written Eph. 2:11. No true Jew could have viewed the sacrament of circumcision with such utter contempt.

Answer: Read what Paul says about this in Gal. 5:1–12; Phil. 3:2, 3.

(6) The Doctrine of the Last Things. Objection: Paul could not have written Ephesians, for in this epistle there is no suggestion of any second coming or of any event in connection with it.

Answer: The following Ephesian passages cannot be understood apart from an implied doctrine of the consummation: 1:14; 2:7; 4:13, 30; 5:5, 6, 27.

3. Conclusion

a. as to the resemblance being too close

(1) The striking similarity between Colossians and Ephesians is due chiefly to identity of authorship, time and place of writing, and general situation of those addressed. Identity of authorship also explains numerous variations in expressions and emphases. An imitator or forger would have adhered more closely to the original. Another reason for the divergence of the two letters is their different purpose, as has been explained.

(2) Since the other letters (that is, other than Colossians) that are traditionally ascribed to Paul were written under different circumstances with respect to both addressor and addressees (exception: Philemon), the resemblances between them and Ephesians are not quite as striking. Nevertheless, here too there are many clear parallels. And here also the same thought is frequently given a new turn. In addition to identity of authorship, hence also of doctrine, a second factor must be taken into consideration, namely, the rise, throughout the early Christian church, of common forms of expression, such forms as generally come into being whenever people become united by ties of deep convictions to which they feel impelled to bear unanimous testimony in the midst of a generally hostile environment. The increasing prevalence of such forms is also a factor in explaining the parallels existing between Ephesians, etc., and the non-Pauline New Testament literature. Among the forms there are doxologies of two types: a. “Blessed be …” (Eph. 1:3; cf. Rom. 1:25; 9:5; II Cor. 1:3; 11:31; I Peter 1:3) and b. “Now to him be …” (Eph. 3:20, 21; cf. Rom. 11:36; Jude 24, 25); hymns or hymn-fragments (Eph. 5:14; cf. the nativity account in Luke; Col. 1:15–19; I Tim. 3:16; Book of Revelation); tables of duties for the respective members of the family (Eph. 5:22–6:9; cf. Col. 3:18–4:1; I Tim. 2:8–15; 6:1, 2; Titus 2:1–10; I Peter 2:12–3:7); lists of virtues (Eph. 4:1–3, 32; Col. 3:12–15; James 3:17; 5:8); and various others.⁷ Some of these forms have an Old Testament origin. Hence, see also No. 5 below.

(3) The need of imparting uniform catechetical instruction to enquirers and recent converts would also promote unanimity in thought-expression.

(4) Similarity in form and content, whenever it occurs among New Testament writers, must also be traced further back, namely, to Christ, that is, to the Spirit-guided reflection on his person, work, and teaching. Thus, one can hardly fail to see the words recorded in Matthew 6:12 and the similar words and action in Luke 23:34 (forgiveness) reflected in Ephesians 4:32: I Peter 2:21–23; 3:8, 9; etc.; Christ’s title, God’s “beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17) echoed in Eph. 1:6; II Peter 1:17; the reference to this son’s stoneship (Matt. 21:42) recurring in Eph. 2:20 and I Peter 2:4, 8; and the mention of his glorious exaltation to the Father’s right hand (implied in Matt. 26:64) re-affirmed in Eph. 1:20; Acts 7:55; Heb. 1:3; 10:12; 12:2; I Peter 3:22; Rev. 12:5. Paul and the other New Testament authors were drawing water from the same Well, namely, Christ.

(5) The apostle and the other sacred writers were versed in the same Old Testament background. Thus, to take but two examples mentioned under No. (4) above, the idea of Christ’s stoneship can be traced to Psalm 118:22; that of his exaltation to the Father’s right hand, to Psalm 110:1.

(6) The combination of all these factors constitutes a far more satisfying explanation of the listed similarities than does the assumption that the traditional ascription of the authorship of Ephesians to Paul must be regarded as an error and that an imitator must have been at work.

b. as to the difference being too great

When this argument is applied to such matters as vocabulary and style, it has been shown in detail that whatever remains of it, after due allowance has been made for exaggeration, is accounted for by the overpowering emotion of gratitude which prompted Paul to write the letter and by the purpose he had in mind. As to alleged differences in doctrine, the following conclusion has been established: though it is certainly true that in Ephesians various doctrines receive not only greater emphasis but also broader amplification than elsewhere and new facets of well-known gems of truth are displayed, no doctrines found in other Pauline epistles find any contradiction here.

B. Arguments in Favor of Pauline Authorship Stated

1. The writer calls himself “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus” (1:1); and “I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles” (3:1; cf. 4:1). Just before he pronounces the final benediction he states, “But in order that you also may know my affairs, how I am getting along, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, will make them all known to you, whom I am sending to you for this very purpose, that you may know our circumstances and that he may strengthen your hearts” (6:21, 22). Would a disciple of Paul, a collector of his letters whose mind was saturated with Pauline teaching, have dared to identify himself with Paul so brazenly? The burden of proof surely rests on those who say that the writer, though calling himself Paul and delegating someone to tell those for whom the letter was intended how he, Paul, was getting along, was not actually Paul but Onesimus, Tychicus, or someone else.

2. Ephesians has all the characteristics of such almost universally recognized Pauline epistles as Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians. It resembles Colossians in many ways, as has been shown. To prove this remarkable similarity between Ephesians and the other Pauline epistles one need only compare the list given below with that found in N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 33, 34. Limiting ourselves now to Ephesians note the following:

	Ephesians
a. The author is deeply interested in those whom he addresses	1:16: 3:14–19; 5:15–21
b. He loves to encourage and praise them	1:15; 2:1
c. He traces every virtue of those whom he addresses to God, ascribing all the glory to him alone	1:3–5; 2:1
d. He writes touchingly about the supremacy of love	5:1, 2, 25, 28, 33
e. He is filled with gratitude to God who laid hold on him and made him, though unworthy, a minister of the gospel	3:6–9
f. He lists virtues and vices	4:17–5:21
g. He is never afraid to assert his authority	3:4; 4:17–6:22
h. When conditions are at all favorable he thanks God for those addressed and at times assures them of his constant prayer for them	1:15 ff.; 3:14–19
i. He warns earnestly against those who are seeking to lead others astray	4:14, 17–19; 5:3–7; 6:10 ff.
j. He loves “the gospel”	1:13; 3:6; 6:15, 19

3. It is hard to believe that somewhere in the early church there existed a genius of a forger who blended the genuine writings of Paul into a composite so excellent in style, logical in arrangement, and lofty in content that he must have been at least the apostle’s peer in intellectual ability and spiritual insight, able even to provide the church with a further development of Pauline thoughts, and then leave no trace behind as to his identity.

4. The testimony of the early church is in harmony with the conclusion that has been established. Thus, Eusebius, having made a thorough study of the sources within his reach, states: “But clearly evident and plain are the fourteen (letters) of Paul; yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the (letter) to the Hebrews” (Ecclesiastical History III.iii.4, 5). It is clear, therefore, that this great church-historian, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, was well aware of the fact that the entire orthodox church of his day and age recognized Ephesians as an authentic epistle of Paul.

From Eusebius we go back to Origen (fl. 210–250), who in his work On Principles (De Principiis) quotes several passages from Ephesians, assigning them to “the apostle” or to “Paul himself” (II.iii.5; II.xi.5; III.v.4). In his chief apology Against Celsus (Contra Celsum) he says (chapter 72), “The apostle Paul declares,” and then quotes Eph. 2:3.

From Origen we go back still further, to his teacher, Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200). In his work The Instructor (Paedagogus I.5) he quotes Eph. 4:13–15, ascribing it to “the apostle” (according to the preceding context).

About the same time Tertullian (fl. 193–216) in his work Against Marcion (Adv. Marcionem V.17) declares, “We have it on the true tradition of the church that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion, however, was very desirous of giving it the new title, as if he were extremely accurate in investigating such a point. But of what consequence are the titles, since in writing to a certain church the apostle did in fact write to all.” Again (V.11), “I here skip the discussion concerning another epistle, which we hold to have been written to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans.”

Earlier by a few years, but still for a long time a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria and of Tertullian, was Irenaeus, who in his work Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses, I.viii.5) states, “This also Paul declares in these words,” and then quotes Eph. 5:13. Similarly (V.ii.3), “… even as the blessed Paul declares in his epistle to the Ephesians, ‘We are members of his body and of his flesh and of his bones.’ ” Cf. Eph. 5:30. This testimony of Irenaeus, in which he clearly names Paul as the author of Ephesians, is very significant, for Irenaeus had traveled widely and was rather thoroughly acquainted with the entire church of his day and age, a period of early history in which the traditions of the apostles were still very much alive.

The Muratorian Fragment (about 180–200), a survey of New Testament books, definitely names Paul as the author of Ephesians.

But we can go back even further than the latter part of the second century a.d.. Skipping disputed allusions to Ephesians in The Shepherd of Hermas, The Teaching of the Apostles (Didache), the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, etc., because such controversial passages have but little if any decisive value, we come now to such authors who not only flourished at one time or another during the period 100–170, but also furnished clear evidence for the existence and recognition of this epistle in their day. At a time so close to that of the apostles it was not necessary to mention the very names of the latter. Quoting their writings, with implied assumption that these were well known and were considered authoritative by the church, is all that we can expect from these early witnesses. I do not deny that those who reject the Pauline authorship of Ephesians will, of course, even deny the relevancy of the passages about to be quoted. But in doing so they labor under difficulties that are but too evident. Note, then, the following:

Polycarp states, “… knowing that ‘by grace you have been saved, not by works’” (Letter to the Philippians I.3, quoting from Eph. 2:8, 9). Again, “Only as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘Be angry but do not sin,’ and ‘Let not the sun go down on that angry mood of yours’” (XII.1, Latin, quoting Eph. 4:26). Anent this letter of Polycarp see also N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 16.

We come now to Ignatius and his letter To the Ephsians.⁸ The clearest reference to Paul’s Ephesians is found in the opening paragraph (I.1), “… being imitators of God.” These words immediately remind one of Paul’s exhortation, “Be therefore imitators of God” (Eph. 5:1). And when Ignatius compares believers to “stones of the sanctuary of the Father, made ready for the building of God our Father” (IX.1), is not the reference to Paul’s statement in Eph. 2:20–22 rather obvious?

Clement of Rome (as representing the church of Rome) writes, “Through him the eyes of our hearts were opened” (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians XXXVI.2). Is not this a near-quotation of Eph. 1:18: “… that the eyes of your hearts may be illumined”? Compare also: “Or have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?” (XLVI.6) with this sentence from Paul, “There is … one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope which your calling brought you [lit. ‘of your calling’], one Lord … one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4–6).

According to Hippolytus, the Basilides, Ophites, and Valentinians used Paul’s Ephesian letter. Now these three were among the earliest of the Gnostic sects. The Epistle to the Ephesians was, moreover, also included in Marcion’s Canon (though, as has already been indicated, under a different title), in the Old Latin, and in the Old Syriac. Finally, there is the possibility that Col. 4:16 refers to this letter. See N.T.C. on that passage.

It has been shown, therefore, that as soon as the church began to assign the New Testament writings to definite authors it “with one accord” named Paul as the author of Ephesians. There was no doubt or dissent. This definite ascription began about the latter part of the second century. But even earlier than this the existence of the letter and the high value which the church attached to it as inspired Scripture was everywhere recognized. There is no reason to depart from these traditional convictions.

IV. DESTINATION AND PURPOSE

A. Destination

1. The Facts and the Problem Arising from Them

A real difficulty confronts us because Eph. 1:1, which in A.V., etc., mentions those to whom the letter was addressed, does not read the same in all the Greek manuscripts. The opening words, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints and believers in Christ Jesus who are,” furnish no serious textual problem. The difficulty arises with the additional phrase “in Ephesus” (ἐν Ἐφέσῳ). This phrase is not found in the oldest extant manuscripts: it is absent from p⁴⁶, dating from the second century, and from the unrevised Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, dating from the fourth.⁹ As most scholars see it, a comment by Origen (early third century) implies that it was not in the text he used. A remark by Basil (about a.d. 370) has led to a similar conclusion with respect to the text on which he commented.

On the other hand, with one exception, from the middle of the second century the title above the letter has always been “To the Ephesians.” The one exception was Marcion’s copy in which the epistle bore the title “To the Laodiceans.” It is commonly held, with good reason, that this departure from the rule was due to a misinterpretation of Col. 4:16. The manner in which Tertullian criticized Marcion for accepting (or originating?) this error has been noted (see III B 5 above). Also, with near-unanimity later manuscripts have “in Ephesus” in the text of 1:1. The versions also with one accord support this reading.

The problem, accordingly, is this: How can we explain the absence of the phrase “in Ephesus” from the earliest extant manuscripts in the light of the otherwise well-nigh unanimous testimony in favor of its inclusion? And what light do these facts shed on the real destination of Ephesians?

2. Various Proposed Solutions

a. The letter was not intended for any specific locality whether large or small but rather for believers everywhere and at any time

According to this view, whatever the title may say, the words “in Ephesus” were never meant by Paul to be inserted. There are two main forms of this theory. According to the first, Paul addressed his message to the saints “who are,” that is, who alone have true being, since Christ, in whom they live, is the one who truly IS. Is not he the great I AM? (cf. Ex. 3:14; John 6:35, 48; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; etc.; Rev. 1:8; 22:13). This interpretation was suggested by Origen. Basil also adopts it. According to the second, Paul is simply writing “to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus.” This, with omission of the words “in Ephesus,” is found not only in the text of R.S.V. but favored also, with some variation in wording, by many others, both translators and expositors: Beare, Findlay, Goodspeed, Mackay, Williams, etc.

Evaluation: Elsewhere in Paul’s epistles the words “who are” or (the church) “which is,” when present in the original, are consistently followed by a place-designation (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1). Accordingly, there is no valid reason to assume that the occurrence of the words “who are” in Ephesians was to be an exception to this rule. There is nothing in Paul’s other epistles that lends support to the metaphysical explanation presented by Origen and Basil. And as to the similarly non-local rendering “the saints who are also faithful,” this rendering, besides being likewise exposed to the objection just mentioned, can be given a reasonable sense only if it be not interpreted to mean that there were some saints who were faithful and other saints who were not.

Though for the reason stated (Pauline usage elsewhere) I cannot accept the theory endorsed by R.S.V., etc., I am, nevertheless, of the opinion that it contains a point of value that should not be passed by. What Tertullian already pointed out is true, namely, that “in writing to a certain church the apostle did in fact write to all” (see above III B 5). In Ephesians, as well as in all the other epistles, etc., the Spirit is addressing all the churches both then and now. In fact the ecumenical theme of Ephesians adds emphasis to this point! It is possible to stress too strongly the local reference. However, this does not mean that the question whether or not the words “in Ephesus” should be retained can be dismissed as of no value whatever.

b. The letter, though sent to believers living in a definite and limited region, was not in any sense meant for Ephesus

This theory is defended, among others, by T. K. Abbott in his work The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (International Critical Commentary), New York, 1916, p. viii; and by E. F. Scott in his brief exposition, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (Moffatt New Testament Commentary), New York, 1930, pp. 121, 122. According to Abbott Ephesians was meant for the Gentile converts in Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colosse, etc. Scott writes, “… nothing is certain except that the letter was not written to the Ephesians.” Grounds: “in Ephesus” is lacking in the best manuscripts; there are no intimate touches; the implication of 1:15; 3:2; 4:21, 22 altogether rules out Ephesus.

Answer: It is hardly conceivable that Paul, who had spent so much time and energy in Ephesus, would write a letter to the churches of Proconsular Asia, excluding Ephesus!

The next two theories should be considered together. They agree basically, for both proceed from the assumption that in one sense or another the letter was sent to Ephesus. They differ in that c. interprets “in Ephesus” regionally; d. locally.

c. The letter was addressed to the believers who resided in the province of which Ephesus was the chief city. It was a circular letter intended not only for the local church but also for the surrounding congregations in Proconsular Asia

Today this is a widely accepted view.

d. The letter was sent to one specific, local church, namely, the one at Ephesus, just as Philippians was sent to the church at Philippi, and I and II Corinthians to the church at Corinth

For the defense of this view and the refutation of the circular-letter or encyclical idea in any form see especially R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., pp. 329–341.

Those who favor the circular letter theory, c., advance the following reasons for their view (these being the same as those under b. but with less rigid application):

(1) The words “in Ephesus” are omitted in the best and most ancient manuscripts. Hence, there is really no good reason to retain this place-designation unless we interpret it as referring to the region of which Ephesus was the metropolis.

(2) The words “… because I have heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus that (exists) among you” (1:15) and “… if so be that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me” (3:2; cf. 4:21, 22) clearly imply that among the addressed there were those with whom Paul was not acquainted and who had never stood in close personal relationship to him. Had the letter been intended solely for believers living in the city of Ephesus, with whom the apostle had established such very close ties (read especially Acts 20:36–38), he could never have expressed himself in this manner.

(3) In every epistle addressed by Paul to a congregation which he had founded or with which he had become personally acquainted there is a reference to the fact that he was the spiritual father of the church and had labored in its midst (I Cor. 1:14; 2:1; 3:5–10; 11:23; 15:1–11; II Cor. 3:3; Gal. 1:8; 4:13–20; Phil. 1:27–30; I Thess. 1:5; 2:1–5). No such reference occurs in Ephesians. On the contrary, the epistle is completely lacking in intimate touches, items of personal information, or allusions to the work which the apostle had performed in the city and church of Ephesus, as recorded in Acts 18:18–21; 19; 20:17–38. If Ephesians was never intended as a letter to one specific congregation but rather as a circular letter sent to several churches, including Ephesus, this is understandable.

(4) Sometimes — but now seldom — a fourth reason is added: The epistle contains no personal greetings; yet, if it had been intended exclusively for the congregation at Ephesus these would not have been lacking.

Those who believe that the epistle was addressed solely to the church at Ephesus and was not a circular letter answer as follows:

(1) In all ancient manuscripts (except Marcion’s) the letter bears the title: To the Ephesians. All the ancient versions have “in Ephesus” in verse 1. How shall we explain that title and those versions if the letter was not originally intended for the congregation at Ephesus? As to the absence of “in Ephesus” from 1:1 of the most ancient manuscripts, is it not possible that someone tampered with the text? Nearly all the later Greek manuscripts contain the disputed phrase. How do those who reject its genuine character explain that?

(2) As to 1:15, 3:2, and 4:21, 22, this is a matter of interpretation. See Commentary on these passages.

(3) It is not certain that there is no connection between the record of Paul’s work found in Acts and the contents of this epistle. On the contrary, of which letter can it be said more truly that it proclaims “the whole counsel of God” (cf. Eph. 1:3–14)? Now according to Acts 20:27 that is exactly the characterization of Paul’s preaching at Ephesus. See also on Eph. 2:20–22. Absence of major local problems that troubled the congregation may explain why Paul does not in this letter refer to the manner in which he had been received when he founded the church. Moreover, as to intimate touches and news with respect to himself, this is explained in 6:21, 22: Tychicus was able to supply full information.

(4) II Corinthians, Galatians, I and II Thessalonians also lack greetings though written to churches founded by Paul. On the other hand, Romans, addressed to a church not founded by the apostle, contains a great many greetings.

Evaluation: It is clear that not all the reasons advanced in favor of the circular letter theory are valid. No. (4) particularly is weak, and has been dropped by many proponents of the encyclical idea. It is doubtful, though, whether the rebuttal to No. (3) is fully satisfying. The lack or rather inconsiderable amount of local color and of personal touches as well as the broad and exalted theme (the church universal) would seem to harmonize better with the encyclical theory than with the purely local. There is, moreover, another fact that would seem to lend even greater support to this circular letter view. It would have been almost impossible for Paul to address a letter to the believers in Ephesus and not also to include those in the surrounding churches. Ephesus was the heart and center of the Christian community, as is very clear from Acts 19:10, which implies that when Paul was laboring in this city people from all around came streaming to hear him. As a result, “all those who were living in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” In the Book of Revelation, too, the very first of the circle of seven letters is addressed to the church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:1–7). Accordingly, I favor theory c. But on the basis of either view (c. or d.) the words “in Ephesus” can be safely retained in our translation of Eph. 1:1.

Now in elaborating on the circular letter theory a popular view (proposed by Beza and endorsed by Archbishop Ussher) is that originally a blank had been left after the words “who are,” and that Tychicus or someone else had been asked to make several copies, one for this church, one for that, in order, in each separate case, to fill in this blank by writing into it the name of the church for which the particular copy was intended. Furthermore, according to this theory, in the end the phrase “in Ephesus” became standardized because the church in that city was the most important one.

Possible objections to this theory are the following: First, are we not thus assuming for Ephesians a method of letter-distribution which “savors more of modern than of ancient manner” (Abbott)? Secondly, how do we explain the fact that a totally different method of letter-circulation is clearly indicated in Col. 4:16? Thirdly, if this seriatim labeling of blank spaces is what actually took place, how is it that there is no trace of copies in which 1:1 has any other name than that of Ephesus?

We shall have to admit that we do not know how and why the change from omission of “in Ephesus” to its insertion (or vice versa) occurred. Lenski, proceeding from the idea that the words “in Ephesus” were in the text from the very beginning, conjectures that Marcion may have tampered with the text of his day. However, this is not the only and perhaps not even the most charitable manner of solving the problem. Another suggestion — again, a mere possibility! — would be that in full harmony with the expressed wishes of the apostle and with thorough candor toward all concerned, the following took place:

The original letter, the autograph, left a blank, let us assume, after the words “who are.” When this letter was read to any congregation assembled for worship, this blank was filled in orally, in each case in a manner suitable to the place where it was read. After the letter had been thus read to the church at Ephesus, it began its circular journey, arriving next at Laodicea. Here, before it was sent forward on its way to the next church, Colosse (Col. 4:16?), a copy was made, enabling the members of the Laodicean church and also the brothers and sisters across the river (in Hierapolis) to be reminded again and again of the beauty of the inspired contents. This copy was true in every way to the written original, even to the point of retaining the blank space. This state of the letter is reflected in the oldest extant manuscripts. Finally, each church having made a copy, the autograph, having completed its circuit of the various congregations for which it was originally intended, was returned to Ephesus to rest in the archives of that church. However, by previous direction from Paul, the words “in Ephesus” were now inserted, for by now believers everywhere would understand that this place-designation had reference to Greater Ephesus, that is, to Ephesus proper and the surrounding churches. Just how far out this circle extended we do not know. Moreover, though the letter was now resting in the Ephesian archives, it was not unproductive. From this great center copies went out whenever they were needed. These copies contained the phrase “in Ephesus,” exactly as reflected in nearly all the later manuscripts.

I repeat: all this is merely one of many possibilities. What actually happened may have been something entirely different. Nevertheless, the suggested possibility is not burdened with the three objections, mentioned earlier, to which the theory of the immediate seriatim labeling of blank spaces is exposed. Neither does it heap even more odium on the name of Marcion. As to doing this, did not Tertullian take care of it in an astoundingly thorough manner? (Against Marcion I.1).

3. Conclusion

The destination of the letter was “Ephesus,” in the sense explained: the churches of Ephesus and surroundings. Place and time of writing: Rome, somewhere near the middle of the period a.d. 61–63. See N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, p. 28; on Philippians, pp. 21–30.

B. Purpose

1. Paul wrote this letter in order to express his inner satisfaction with the Christ-centered faith of the addressed and their love for all the saints (1:15). The departure of Tychicus and Onesimus for Colosse (6:21, 22; cf. Col. 4:7–9) enabled the apostle to convey his warm greetings, etc., to the believers in Ephesus, through which city these emissaries would be passing. The same message must be communicated to the surrounding churches.

2. A closely related purpose was to picture God’s glorious redemptive grace toward the church, bestowed upon it in order that it might be a blessing to the world and might stand united over against all the forces of evil and thus glorify its Redeemer.

In what Paul says about this glorious church he pushes every line of thought to its very limit. Thus he makes clear that neither good works nor even faith but the gracious plan of God “in Christ” from eternity, hence Christ himself, is the church’s true foundation (1:3 ff.). Christ controls nothing less than the entire universe in the interest of the church (1:20–22). Both Jew and Gentile are included in the scope of redemption (2:14, 18), in connection with which all things are brought under the headship of Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth (1:10). The saving process does not stop when men are “converted.” On the contrary, the believers’ goal must be to attain to “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (4:13). In order to reach this goal all must manifest their oneness in Christ and must grow up in all things into him (4:1–16). Paul prays that believers may be enabled to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that they may be filled to all the fulness of God (3:19). The wisdom of God in all its infinite variety must be proclaimed by the church. Moreover, not only to the world must it be made known but also “to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly places” (3:10). Every member of the household must make his renewal manifest (5:22–6:9). In the struggle against evil the church, acting as one body, must make effective use of the entire panoply provided by God (6:11 ff.).

It is not impossible that Paul’s exuberant doxology at the beginning of this letter was due in part to the fact that he saw in the hearts and lives of the addressed, as reported to him, a partial but significant degree of progress in the realization of God’s plan for his church. But this was not the only reason for joy and praise. See on 1:3.

3. It is possible that in writing this letter the apostle also intended to draw a contrast between the Roman empire, by which he was being held a prisoner, and the church. That this possibility cannot be entirely dismissed appears from another letter composed during this same imprisonment (Phil. 3:20). If so, then Rome’s glamor may have suggested to him the church’s glory; Rome’s stern dictator who ruled over a vast yet limited domain, the church’s gracious Lord, sovereign over all; its political consolidation by physical force, the church’s organic unity in the bond of peace; its military might, the church’s spiritual armor; and its foundation in time and “change and decay,” the church’s eternal foundation and endless duration.

V. THEME AND OUTLINE

If it be true that in Colossians Paul dwells on “Christ, the Pre-eminent One, the Only and All-Sufficient Savior,” then in Ephesians he discusses its corollary, namely, “The Unity of All Believers in Christ.” For “All Believers” one can substitute “The Church Glorious.” The ideas of “unity” and of the “in Christ” relationship can be given their proper place in the Outline. Careful study of Ephesians has led an ever-increasing number of exegetes to arrive at the conclusion that the concept of the church receives such emphasis in this epistle that the entire contents can be grouped around it without superimposing one’s own subjective opinions upon the apostle’s thinking.¹⁰

The term church, as here used, indicates the body (Eph. 1:22, 23; 4:4, 16; 5:23, 30), building (2:19–22), and bride (5:25–27, 32) of Christ; the totality of those, whether Jew or Gentile, who were saved through the blood of Christ and through him have their access in one Spirit to the Father (2:13, 18).

As in Romans and Colossians so also here in Ephesians there is a rather clear-cut division between Exposition and Exhortation, between the truth stated and the