WORD

BIBLICAL
COMMENTARY
 Editorial Board
Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé–Walford (2011 – )
New Testament Editor: Peter H . Davids (2013 – )

Past Editors
General Editors
Ralph P. Martin (2012 – 2013) David A. Hubbard (1977 – 1996)
Bruce M. Metzger (1997 – 2007) Glenn W. Barker (1977 – 1984)

Old Testament Editors:

John D. W. Watts (1977 – 2011) James W. Watts (1997 – 2011)

New Testament Editors:

Ralph P. Martin (1977 – 2012) Lynn Allan Losie (1997 – 2013)

Volumes
1 Genesis 1– 1 5 ...............Gordon J. Wenham 28 Ezekiel 1 – 19...........................Leslie C. Allen
2 Genesis 16 – 5 0 .............Gordon J. Wenham 29 Ezekiel 20 – 48.........................Leslie C. Allen
3 Exodus..................................John I . Durham 30 Daniel John E. Goldingay
4 Leviticus............................. John E. Hartley 31 Hosea –Jonah**...................Douglas Stuart
5 Numbers................................. Philip J. Budd 32 Micah – Malachi**.................Ralph L. Smith
6a Deuteronomy 1:1 – 21:9, 2nd ed. . . Duane L. 33a Matthew 1 – 13.................Donald A. Hagner
Christensen 33b Matthew 14 – 28...............Donald A. Hagner
6b Deuteronomy 21:10 – 34:12.......... Duane L. 34a Mark 1– 8:26** Robert A Guelich
Christensen 34b Mark 8:27 – 16:20 .................. Craig A. Evans
7a Joshua 1–12, 2nd ed...............Trent C. Butler 35a Luke 1 – 9:20...........................John Nolland
7b Joshua 13–24, 2nd ed.............Trent C. Butler 35b Luke 9:21 – 18:34.....................John Nolland
8 Judges....................................Trent C. Butler 35c Luke 18:35 – 24:53...................John Nolland
9 Ruth – Esther.....................Frederic W. Bush 36 John, 2nd ed. . . . George R. Beasley–Murray
10 1 Samuel, 2nd ed................Ralph W. Klein 37a Acts 1– 1 4 * ........................Stephen J. Walton
11 2 Samuel................................ A. A. Anderson 37b Acts 15 – 28* Stephen J. Walton
12 1 Kings, 2nd ed.....................Simon J. Devries 38a Romans 1– 8 James D. G. Dunn
13 2 Kings...........................................T. R. Hobbs 38b Romans 9 – 16..................James D. G. Dunn
14 1 Chronicles Roddy Braun 39 1 Corinthians* Andrew D. Clarke
15 2 Chronicles Raymond B. Dillard 40 2 Corinthians, rev ed Ralph P. Martin
16 Ezra, Nehem iah.......... H. G. M. Williamson 41 Galatians Richard N. Longenecker
17 Job 1– 20 David J. A. Clines 42 Ephesians Andrew T. Lincoln
18a Job 21 – 37 David J. A. Clines 43 Philippians, rev. ed. . . .Gerald F. Hawthorne,
18b Job 38 – 42 David J. A. Clines rev by Ralph P Martin
19 Psalms 1 – 50, 2nd ed Peter C. Craigie,
Marvin E. Tate 44 Colossians, Philemon** . . . Peter T. O’Brien
20 Psalms 51 – 100.....................Marvin E. Tate 45 1 & 2 Thessalonians**.................F. F. Bruce
21 Psalms 101 – 150, rev ed Leslie C Allen 46 Pastoral Epistles William D. Mounce
22 Proverbs Roland E. Murphy 47a Hebrews 1 – 8.........................William L. Lane
23a Ecclesiastes Roland E. Murphy 47b Hebrews 9 – 13.......................William L. Lane
23b Song of Songs/Lamentations . . . .Duane H. 48 James Ralph P. Martin
Garrett, Paul R House 49 1 Peter J. Ramsey Michaels
24 Isaiah 1– 33, rev ed John D. W. Watts 50 Jude, 2 Peter**.......... Richard J. Bauckham
25 Isaiah 34 – 66, rev ed John D. W. Watts 51 1, 2, 3, John, rev ed Stephen S. Smalley
26 Jeremiah 1 – 25 Peter C. Craigie, 52a Revelation 1– 5 David E. Aune
Page H. Kelley, Joel F. Drinkard Jr. 52b Revelation 6 – 16......................David E. Aune
27 Jeremiah 26 – 52 ...............Gerald L. Keown, 52c Revelation 17 – 22 .................. David E. Aune
Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers
*forthcoming as of 2014
**in revision as of 2014
 4
2WORD
BIBLICAL
COMMENTARY
Ephesians

ANDREW T. LINCOLN
General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker
Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts
New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

ZONDERVAN®
 ZONDERVAN

Ephesians, Volume 42
Copyright © 1990 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Previously published as Ephesians.

Formerly published by Thomas Nelson, now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChris-

tian Publishing.

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

This edition: ISBN 978-0-310-52168-6

The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows:

Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211

The author’s own translation of the text appears in italic type under the heading “Translation”, as well
as in brief Scripture quotations in the body of the commentary, except where otherwise indicated.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or trans-
mitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except
for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

978031021686_wbc_ephesians_vol42.indd 4 11/6/14 9:09 AM

 FOR DAVID AN D PA U L
ets ävSpa reXetov (Eph 4:13)
 Contents

Editorial Preface ix
Author’s Preface x
Abbreviations xiii
Main Bibliography xxix
IN T R O D U C T IO N xxxv
1. C on tent/S tructure/G en re/Style xxxv
2. Relation to Colossians and the Rest o f the Pauline Corpus xlvii
3. A uthorship/P seu donym ity/C anon lix
4. Setting and Purposes lxxiii
5. T h e T h o u g h t o f Ephesians lxxxvii
CO M M ENTARY 1
Prescript (1:1,2) 1
Blessing o f G od for His Salvation in Christ (1:3– 14) 8
T hanksgiving with Prayer for Believers’ K now ledge o f God
and T h eir Awareness o f the C hurch’s Significance (1:15– 23) 45
G od’s Gracious Salvation as Resurrection and Exaltation
with Christ (2:1– 10) 83
T h e G aining o f the G entiles’ Privileges o f Participation in
G od’s N ew T em p le T h rou gh Christ’s Reconciliation (2:11– 22) 122
Paul as Minister o f the Mystery to the G entiles (3:1– 13) 166
Further Prayer— for the C om pleteness o f the Readers’
Experience o f God— with D oxology (3:14– 21) 196
T h e Church’s Calling to M aintenance o f the U nity It Already
Possesses (4:1– 16) 222
Exhortation to Live A ccording to the N ew H um anity Rather
than the O ld (4:17– 24) 270
Practical Injunctions A bout the Old and N ew Life (4:25– 5:2) 292
From Darkness to Light (5:3– 14) 316
Wise and Spirit–Filled Living (5:15– 20) 337
H ouseh old Relationships— Wives and H usbands (5:21– 33) 350
H ousehold Relationships— Children and Parents (6:1– 4) 395
H ousehold Relationships— Slaves and Masters (6:5– 9) 411
C oncluding A ppeal to Stand Firm in the Battle against Spiritual
Powers (6:10– 20) 429
Postscript (6:21– 24) 461
dexs
In
469
 Editorial Preface

T he launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enter–

prise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the edito–
rial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the
books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospec–
tive readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were
intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved
time alone will tell.
First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a num ber
of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in
the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and semi–
nary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. T he broad
stance o f our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is
to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a comm itm ent to Scripture
as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.
T hen, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written
for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several
o f our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there
are no translated works, originally written in a non–English language. Also,
ou r comm entators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original
biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments
and exegesis. W hat may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is
based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly
approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and
useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the
guild of professional scholars and teachers as well.
Finally, a word must be said about the form at of the series. T he layout, in
clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at differ–
ent levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the
translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the
readers’ concern is with the state of m odern scholarship on any given portion
o f Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/
Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s m eaning and its rele–
vance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explana–
tion are designed expressly to m eet that need. There is therefore something
for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.
If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors
will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.

General Editors: David A. Hubbard

Glenn W. Barker t
Old Testam ent: John D. W. Watts
New Testam ent: Ralph P. Martin
 Author’s Preface

T h e letter to th e Ephesians, with its lofty them es an d lofty language, has

evoked equally lofty praise. W hile few w ould indulge in the extravagance o f
praising it as “th e divinest com position o f m a n ” (cf. S. T . C oleridge, Table
Talk, May 25, 1830, in Specimens of the Table Talk of the Late Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, ed. H. N. C oleridge [L ondon, 1835] 88), m any m ore w ould be p re -
p ared to agree th at it is “th e crow n o f Paulinism ” (cf. C. H. D odd, “E phesians,”
The Abingdon Bible Commentary, ed. F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis, an d D. G. Downey
[New York: A bingdon, 1928] 1224 – 25). O thers, how ever, have not fo u n d E p h e‫־‬
sians so congenial. Some, th o u g h sym pathetic to its m essage, struggle with its
ap p aren tly tu rg id style a n d abstract tru th s (cf., e.g., W. Sanday a n d A. H eadlam ,
Romans [E dinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1895] lv); o thers see its em phasis on the
C h u rch as a distortion o f P aul’s th o u g h t which, they believe, m ay well n eed
reversing ra th e r th an ratifying (cf., e.g., E. K äsem ann, Perspectives on Paul
[ET; L ondon: SCM, 1971] 120– 21), while one scholar, because o f th e difficulties
su rro u n d in g th e p u rp o se o f th e letter, depicts it as “the W aterloo o f com m enta-
to rs” (cf. E. J . G oodspeed, The Meaning of Ephesians [Chicago: University o f
Chicago Press, 1933] 15).
My own theologically orien ted assessm ent o f th e letter’s im pact will be fo u n d
in th e final b rief com m ents o f th e Introduction. B ut com m entators’ feelings
ab o u t an d assessm ents o f the text on which they have w orked are inevitably
colored by th eir own circum stances. I have experienced both th e attractions
an d the difficulties o f E phesians, a n d at th e sam e tim e the process o f w riting
ab o u t th em has h ad its peaks a n d troughs. T h e com m ission to w rite this com-
m entary has accom panied m e th ro u g h a transatlantic m ove from an A m erican
sem inary to th e quite d ifferent d em ands o f an English theological college,
an d th ro u g h a fu rth e r m ove to a B ritish university. It has also accom panied
m e th ro u g h an ex ten d ed p erio d o f dom estic traum a. T o take u p th e language
o f th e epistle, th e w ork on th e com m entary has h ad its tim es o f being exhila-
rated by th e expo sure to “th e heavenlies” a n d its tim es o f battling it o u t “in
the evil days.” D u ring the latter I have in d eed w o ndered w h eth er I h ad m et
my W aterloo!
I am grateful, th erefo re, to th e editor, Professor R. P. M artin, fo r his tru st
in an d en co u rag em en t o f my contribution to th e series, an d for his patience
with my “m ism anagem ent o f career m oves,” each o f which m ean t m issing
o u t on ex ten d ed sabbatical leaves w hich could have b een devoted to th e com ple-
tion o f this project. T h e pleasure o f having th e ed ito r as a colleague in Sheffield
d u rin g th e last eig h teen m onths has also acted as a sp u r to finishing the writing.
E phesians’ style o f w riting can be contagious. I am grateful, th erefo re, also
to J . C h risto p h er T hom as, whose read in g o f th e ro u g h d ra ft o f the com m entary
has, in particular, sp ared readers from having too m any lengthy sentences
inflicted o n them .
My com pletion o f th e latter stages o f th e w ork owes m uch to th e friendship
an d love o f Carol, to w hom a n d fo r w hom I am thankful.
O f th e m any w ritings o n E phesians w hich have co n trib u ted to this com m en-
 Author's Preface XI

tary, I am indebted most to three other commentaries—to the older English

commentary by J. A. Robinson for its lucid syntactical and exegetical insights,
and to the more recent commentaries by two Germ an Catholic scholars, J.
Gnilka and R. Schnackenburg, for their thorough discussions of the concepts
of the letter in their first-century setting. As far as my own contribution is
concerned, I shall be pleased if, as well as helping the reader to think the
writer’s thoughts after him, and thereby to be in a better position to interact
with those thoughts, this comm entary is able to dem onstrate the value of keep-
ing an eye on the rhetorical purpose of the flow of thought. I hope, too, that
for some readers it will become evident that a decision in favor of a post-
Pauline setting in no way diminishes and may well, in fact, enhance the value
of the letter’s message for the Church.
In comparison with those in some of the other volumes in this series, the
Explanation sections in this commentary are longer. In them I have attem pted
to provide the reader with the fruit of the more detailed earlier sections and
to pick out the particular theological emphases of each passage. I trust that
the ability to read through the Explanations in order to gain relatively quickly
an understanding of the thrust o f particular passages and a sense of the overall
flow of thought in the letter will compensate for the small degree of repetition
that is involved.

Sheffield, England.
February, 1990. A n d r e w T. L in c o l n
 Abbreviations

A. General Abbreviations
A Codex Alexandrinus infra below
ad comment on in loc. in loco, in the place cited
Akkad. Akkadian Jos. Josephus
‫א‬ Codex Sinaiticus lat Latin
Ap. Lit. Apocalyptic Literature loc. cit. the place cited
Apoc. Apocrypha LXX Septuagint
Aq. Aquila’s Greek M Mishnah
Translation of the OT masc. masculine
Arab. Arabic mg. margin
Aram. Aramaic MS(S) manuscript(s)
B Codex Vaticanus MT Masoretic text (of the Old
C Codex Ephraemi Syri Testament)
c. circa, about n. note
cent. century n.d. no date
cf. confer, compare Nestle Nestle (ed.), Novum
chap(s). chapter(s) Testamentum Graece26
cod., codd. codex, codices rev. by K. and B. Aland
contra in contrast to no. number
CUP Cambridge University n.s. new series
Press NT New Testament
D Codex Bezae obs. obsolete
DSS Dead Sea Scrolls o.s. old series
ed. edited by, editor(s) OT Old Testament
e.g. exempli gratia, for example p., pp. page, pages
et al. et alii, and others pace with due respect to, but
ET English translation differing from
EV English Versions of the //, par(s). parallel(s)
Bible par. paragraph
f., ff. following (verse or verses, passim elsewhere
pages, etc.) pi. plural
fern. feminine Pseudep. Pseudepigrapha
frag. fragments Q Quelle (“Sayings” source
FS Festschrift, volume written for the Gospels)
in honor of q.v. quod vide, which see
ft. foot, feet rev. revised, reviser, revision
gen. genitive Rom. Roman
Gr. Greek RVmg Revised Version margin
hap. leg. hapax legomenon, sole Sam. Samaritan recension
occurrence sc. scilicet, that is to say
Heb. Hebrew Sem. Semitic
Hitt. Hittite sing. singular
ibid. ibidem, in the same place Sumer. Sumerian
id. idem, the same s.v. sub verbo, under the word
i.e. id est, that is sy Syriac
impf. imperfect Symm. Symmachus
xiv A b b r e v ia t io n s

T g- Targum v, vv verse, verses

Theod. Theodotion viz. videlicet, namely
TR Textus Receptus vg Vulgate
tr. translator, translated by v.l. varia lectio, alternative
UBSGT The United Bible reading
Societies Greek Text vol. volume
Ugar. Ugaritic X times (2x = two times.
UP University Press etc.)
u.s. ut supra, as above

Note: The textual notes änd numbers used to indicate individual manuscripts are
those found in the apparatus criticus of Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle and
K. Aland et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 197926). This edition of the
Greek New Testament is the basis for the Translation sections.

B. Abbreviations for Translations and Paraphrases

ASV American Standard Version, Moffatt J. Moffatt, A New Translation
American Revised Version of the Bible (NT 1913)
(1901) NAB The New American Bible
AV Authorized Version = KJV NEB The New English Bible
GNB Good News Bible = Today’s NIV The New International
English Version Version (1978)
JB Jerusalem Bible NJB New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
JPS Jewish Publication Society, Phillips J. B. Phillips, The New
The Holy Scriptures Testament in Modem English
KJV King James Version RSV Revised Standard Version
(1611) = AV (NT 1946, OT 1952, Apoc.
Knox R. A. Knox, The Holy Bible: A 1957)
Translation from the Latin RV Revised Version, 1881–85
Vulgate in the Light of the TEV Today’s English Version
Hebrew and Greek Original

C. Abbreviations of Commonly Used Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials

AAS Acta apostolicae sedis antiken Judentum s und des
AARSR American Academy of Urchristentums
Religion Studies in Religion AGSU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des
AASOR Annual of the American Spätjudentums und
Schools of Oriental U rchristentums
Research AH F. Rosenthal, An Aramaic
AB Anchor Bible Handbook
ABR Australian Biblical Review AH R American Historical Review
AbrN Abr-Nahrain AHW W. von Soden, Akkadisches
ACNT Augsburg Commentary on Handwörterbuch
the New Testament A ION Annali dell'istituto orientali di
AcOr Acta orientalia Napoli
ACW Ancient Christian Writers AJA American Journal of
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Archaeology
Antiquities of Jordan AJAS American Journal of Arabic
AER American Ecclesiastical Review Studies
AfO Archiv fü r Orientforschung AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Archaeology
 Abbreviations XV

AJBI Annual of the Japanese ASS Acta sanctae sedis

Biblical Institute AsSeign Assemblies du Seigneur
AJP American Journal of Philology ASSR Archives des sciences sociales
AJSL American Journal of Semitic des religions
Languages and Literature A STI Annual of the Swedish
AJT American Journal of Theology Theological Institute
ALBO Analecta lovaniensia biblica ATAbh Alttestamentliche
et orientalia Abhandlungen
ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und ATANT Abhandlungen zur
Geschichte des Theologie des Alten und
hellenistischen Judentums Neuen Testaments
ALUOS Annual of Leeds University ATD Das Alte Testament
Oriental Society Deutsch
AnBib Analecta biblica ATDan Acta Theologica Danica
AnBoll Analecta Bollandiana ATJ African Theological Journal
ANEP J. B. Pritchard (ed ), Ancient ATR Anglican Theological Review
Near East in Pictures AU SS Andrews University Seminary
ANESTP J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Studies
Near East Supplementary Texts
and Pictures BA Biblical Archaeologist
ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient BAC Biblioteca de autores
Near Eastern Texts cristianos
ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers BAGD W. Bauer, A Greek-English
Ang Anglicum Lexicon of the New Testament
AnOr Analecta orientalia and Other Early Christian
ANQ Andover Newton Quarterly Literature, ET, ed. W. F.
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Arndt and F. W. Gingrich;
römischen Welt, ed. 2d ed. rev. F. W. Gingrich
H. Temporini and and F. W. Danker
W. Haase, Berlin (University of Chicago,
ANT Arbeiten zur 1979)
Neutestamentlichen BAH Bibliothèque archéologique
Textforschung et historique
Anton Antonianum BangTF Bangalore Theological Forum
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
Testament BASOR Bulletin of the American
AOS American Oriental Series Schools of Oriental Research
AP J. Marouzeau (ed.), L ’annee BASP Bulletin of the American
philologique Society of Papyrologists
APOT R. H. Charles (ed.), BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha BCSR Bulletin of the Council on the
of the Old Testament Study of Religion
ARG Archiv fü r BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and
Reformationsgeschichte C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and
ARM Archives royales de Mari English Lexicon of the Old
ArOr Archiv orientální Testament (Oxford:
ARSHLL Acta Reg. Societatis Clarendon, 1907)
Humaniorum Litterarum BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and
Lundensis R. W. Funk, A Greek
ARW Archiv fü r Grammar of the New
Religionswissenschaft Testament (University of
ASNU Acta seminarii Chicago/University of
neotestamentici upsaliensis Cambridge, 1961)
xvi A b b r e v i a t io n s

BDR F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and BRev Bible Review

F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des BS Biblische Studien
neutestamentlichen Griechisch BSac Biblica Sacra
BeO Bibbia e oriente BSO(A)S Bulletin of the School of
BET Beiträge zur biblischen Oriental (and African) Studies
Exegese und Theologie BSR Bibliotheque de sciences
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum religieuses
theologicarum lovaniensium BT The Bible Translator
BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
Theologie BU Biblische Untersuchungen
BFCT Beiträge zur Förderung BulCPE Bulletin du Centre Protestant
christlicher Theologie dEtudes (Geneva)
BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der BVC Bible et vie chretienne
biblischen Exegese BW Biblical World
BH H Biblisch-Historisches BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft
Handwörterbuch vom Alten und Neuen
BHK R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica Testament
BHS Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BHT Beiträge zur historischen BZAW Beihefte zur ZAW
Theologie BZET Beihefte zur Evangelische
Bib Biblica Theologie
BibB Biblische Beiträge BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW
BibLeb Bibel und Leben BZRGG Beihefte zur ZRGG
BibNot Biblische Notizen
BibOr Biblica et orientalia
BibS(F) Biblische Studien (Freiburg, CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the
1895- ) Oriental Institute of the
BibS(N) Biblische Studien University of Chicago
(Neukirchen, 1951- ) CAH Cambridge Ancient History
BiTod The Bible Today CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien
BIES Bulletin of the Israel Testament
Exploration Society ( = Yediot) CB Cultura biblica
BIFAO Bulletin de Vinstitut frangais CBG Collationes Brugenses et
d’archeologie orientale Gandavenses
BILL Bibliotheque des cahiers de CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
l’Institut de Linguistique de CBQMS CBQ Monograph Series
Louvain CBVE Comenius Blätter fü r
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Volkserziehung
University Library of CCath Corpus Catholicorum
Manchester CChr Corpus Christianorum
BJS Brown Judaic Studies CGTC Cambridge Greek
BK Bibel und Kirche Testament Commentary
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: CGTSC Cambridge Greek
Altes Testament Testament for Schools and
BL Book List Colleges
BLE Bulletin de litterature CH Church History
ecclesiastique CHR Catholic Historical Review
BLit Bibel und Liturgie CIG Corpus inscriptionum
BLS Bible and Literature Series graecarum
BNTC Black’s New Testament CII Corpus inscriptionum
Commentaries iudaicarum
BO Bibliotheca orientalis GIL Corpus inscriptionum
BR Biblical Research latinarum
 Abbreviations xvii

CIS Corpus inscriptionum EBib Etudes bibliques

semiticarum EBT Encyclopedia of Biblical
CJT Canadian Journal of Theology Theology
ClerRev Clergy Review EcR Ecclesiastical Review
CLit Christianity and Literature ED Euntes Docete (Rome)
CM Cahiers marials EE Estudios Eclesidsticos
CNT Commentaire du Nouveau EglT Eglise et theologie
Testament EH AT Exegetisches Handbuch
ComLit Communautes et liturgies zum Alten Testament
ConB Coniectanea biblica EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer
Concil Concilium Kommentar zum Neuen
ConNT Coniectanea neotestamentica Testament
Cd Church Quarterly EKL Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon
CQR Church Quarterly Review Emman Emmanuel
CRAIBL Comptes rendus de l'Academie Encjud Encyclopedia judaica (1971)
des inscriptions et belles-lettres EnchBib Enchiridion biblicum
CrQ Crozier Quarterly EpR Epworth Review
CSCO Corpus scriptorutn ER Ecumenical Review
Christianorum orientalium Erjb Eranos Jahrbuch
CSEL Corpus scriptorum EstBib Estudios biblicos
ecclesiasticorum latinorum ETL Ephemerides theologicae
CTA A. Herdner, Corpus des lovanienses
tablettes en cuneiformes ETR Etudes theologiques et
alphabetiques religieuses
CTJ Calvin Theological Journal ETS Erfurter Theologische
CTQ Concordia Theological Studien
Quarterly EvK Evangelische Kommentar
CurTM Currents in Theology and EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
Mission E vT Evangelische Theologie
CV Communio viatorum EW Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum
Neuen Testament (EWNT),
DACL Dictionnaire d ’archéologie ed. H. Balz and G.
chrétienne et de liturgie Schneider, 3 vols. (Stuttgart:
DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible, Kohlhammer, 1980–83)
Supplement Exp Expositor
Diak Diakonia ExpTim The Expository Times
DISO C.–F. Jean a n d j. Hoftijzer, Forschung zur Bibel
FB
Dictionnaire des inscriptions
FBBS Facet Books, Biblical Series
semitiques de Vouest
FC Fathers of the Church
DID Discoveries in the Judean FM Faith and Mission
Desert FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion
DL Doctrine and Life
und Literatur des Alten und
DOTT D. W. Thomas (ed.), Neuen Testaments
Documents from Old Testament
FTS Frankfurter Theologische
Times
Studien
DR Downside Review
DS Denzinger-Schönmetzer, GAG W. von Soden, Grundriss der
Enchiridion symbolorum akkadischen Grammatik
DT Deutsche Theologie GCS Griechischen christlichen
DTC Dictionnaire de theologie Schriftsteller
catholique GKB Gesenius-Kautzsch-
DTT Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Bergsträsser, Hebräische
DunRev Dunwoodie Review Grammatik
xviii A b b r e v ia t io n s

GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ICC International Critical

ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Commentary
Cowley IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.),
GNT Grundrisse zum Neuen Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Testament Bible
GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological IDBSup Supplementary volume to
Review IDB
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
Studies IER Irish Ecclesiastical Record
Greg Gregorianum ILS H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones
GThT Geformelet Theologisch Latinae Selectae (Berlin,
Tijdschrift 1892)
GTJ Grace Theological Journal Int Interpretation
GuL Geist und Leben ISBE International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, ed. G. W.
H ALAT W. Baumgartner et al., Bromiley
Hebräisches und aramäisches ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly
Lexikon zum Alten Testament ITS Indian Theological Studies
HAT Handbuch zum Alten
Testament JA Journal asiatique
HB Homiletica en Biblica JAAR Journal of the American
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology Academy of Religion
HDR Harvard Dissertations in JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und
Religion Christentum
HeyJ Heythrop Journal JAM A Journal of the American
HibJ Hibbert Journal Medical Association
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near
Testament Eastern Society of Columbia
HKNT Handkommentar zum University
Neuen Testament JAOS Journal of the American
HL Das heilige Land Oriental Society
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen JA S Journal of Asian Studies
Testament JBC R. E. Brown et al. (eds.),
HNTC Harper’s NT Commentaries The Jerome Biblical
HR History of Religions Commentary
HSM Harvard Semitic JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
Monographs JB R Journal of Bible and Religion
HTKNT Herders theologischer JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Kommentar zum Neuen JDS Judean Desert Studies
Testament JEA Journal of Egyptian
H TR Harvard Theological Review Archaeology
HTS Harvard Theological JE H Journal of Ecclesiastical
Studies History
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies
HUTh Hermeneutische JE TS Journal of the Evangelical
Untersuchungen zur Theological Society
Theologie JH S Journal of Hellenic Studies
JIBS Journal of Indian and
IB Interpreter’s Bible Buddhist Studies
IBD Illustrated Bible Dictionary, J IPh Journal of Indian Philosophy
ed. J. D. Douglas and JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
N. Hillyer JM E S Journal of Middle Eastern
IBS Irish Biblical Studies Studies
 Abbreviations XIX

JM S Journal of Mithraic Studies LJ Liturgisches Jahrbuch

JNES Journal of Near Eastern LLAVT E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae
Studies aramaicae Veteris Testamenti
JPOS Journal of the Palestine LouvStud Louvain Studies
Oriental Society LPGL G. W. H. Lampe, Patristic
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review Greek Lexicon
JQRMS Jewish Quarterly Review LQ Lutheran Quarterly
Monograph Series LR Lutherische Rundschau
JR Journal of Religion LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic English Lexicon
Society LTK Lexikon fü r Theologie und
JRE Journal of Religious Ethics Kirche
JRelS Journal of Religious Studies LTSB Lutheran Theological Seminary
JR H Journal of Religious History Bulletin
JRomH Journal of Roman History LUÄ Lunds universitets ärsskrift
JR T Journal of Religious Thought LumVie Lumiere et Vie
JSJ Journal for the Study of LVit Lumen Vitae
Judaism LW Lutheran World
JSN T Journal for the Study of the
MC Modern Churchman
New Testament
McCQ McCormick Quarterly
JSO T Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament MDOG Mitteilungen der deutschen
tsO ILL f f Vis 9 L I
1
Orient-Gesellschaft
JSOTSup JSOT Supplement Series
MelT Melita Theologica
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
MeyerK H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-
JSSR Journal for the Scientific Study
exegetischer Kommentar über
of Religion
das Neue Testament
JTC Journal for Theology and the
MM J. H. Moulton and G.
Church
Milligan, The Vocabulary of
JT S Journal of Theological Studies
the Greek Testament (London:
JTSA Journal of Theology for South
Hodder, 1930)
Africa
MNTC Moffatt NT Commentary
Jud Judaica M émoires présentés à
M PM BL
KM H. Donner and W. Röllig, l’Academie des inscriptions et
Kanaanäische und aramäische belles-lettres
Inschriften MPG Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P.
KAT E. Sellin (ed.), Kommentar Migne, 1844ff.
zum Alten Testament MScRel Melanges de science religieuse
KB L. Koehler and W. MTS Marburger theologische
Baumgartner, Lexicon in Studien
Veteris Testamenti libros M TZ Münchener theologische
KD Kerygma und Dogma Zeitschrift
KEK Kritisch-exegetischer MUSJ Melanges de l’universite Saint-
Kommentar über das Neue Joseph
Testament MVAG Mitteilungen der vorder-
KIT Kleine Texte asiatisch-ägyptischen
KTR King's Theological Review Gesellschaft
(London) Nachrichten von der Akademie
NAG
LCC Library of Christian Classics der Wissenschaften in
LCL Loeb Classical Library Göttingen
LD Lectio divina NB New Blackfriars
Les Lešonénu NCB New Century Bible (new
LingBib Linguistica Biblica ed.)
xx A b b r e v ia t io n s

NCCHS R. C. Fuller et al. (eds.), Numen Numen: International Review

New Catholic Commentary on for the History of Religions
Holy Scripture N ZM Neue Zeitschrift fü r
NCE M. R. P. McGuire et al. Missionswissenschaft
(eds.), New Catholic
Encyclopedia OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
NCIB New Clarendon Bible ÖBS Österreichische Biblische
NedTTs Nederlands theologisch Studien
tijdschrift OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary
Neot Neotestamentica W. Dittenberger (ed.),
OGI
NESTR Near East School of Theology Orientis graeci inscriptiones
Review selectae (Leipzig: Hirzel,
NewDocs New Documents Illustrating
)1903-5
Early Christianity, A Review of Oriental Institute
OIP
Greek Inscriptions, etc., ed. Publications
G. H. R. Horsley, North OLP Orientalia lovaniensia
Ryde, NSW, Australia periodica
NFT New Frontiers in Theology OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung
NGS New Gospel Studies Or Orientalia (Rome)
NHS Nag Hammadi Studies OrAnt Oriens antiquus
NICNT New International OrChr Oriens christianus
Commentary on the New OrSyr L ’orient Syrien
Testament ÖTKNT Ökumenischer
NIDNTT C. Brown, ed., The New Taschenbuch-Kommentar
International Dictionary of zum NT
New Testament Theology, 3 OTM Oxford Theological
vols. (Grand Rapids: Monographs
Zondervan, 1975–78) OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën
NiewTT Niew theologisch tijdschrift
NIGTC New International Greek
Testament Commentary PAAJR Proceedings of the American
NJDT Neue Jahrbücher fü r deutsche Academy of Jewish Research
Theologie PC Proclamation Commentaries
NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift PCB M. Black and H. H. Rowley
NorTT Norsk Teologisk Tijdsskrift (eds.), Peake's Commentary on
NovT Novum Testamentum the Bible
NovTSup Supplement to NovT PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund ,
NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Quarterly Statement
Fathers PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
NRT La nouvelle revue theologique PFay Fayûm Papyri
NTA New Testament Abstracts PG Patrologia graeca, ed. J. P.
NTAbh N eutestamentliche Migne
Abhandlungen PGM K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri
NTD Das Neue Testament graecae magicae
Deutsch PhEW Philosophy East and West
NTF N eutestamentliche PhRev Philosophical Review
Forschungen pj Palästina-Jahrbuch
NTL New Testament Library PNTC Pelican New Testament
NTS New Testament Studies Commentaries
NTSR The New Testament for PO Patrologia orientalis
Spiritual Reading POxy Oxyrhynchus Papyri
NTTS New Testament Tools and ProcIBA Proceedings of the Irish
Studies Biblical Association
 Abbreviations XXI

PRS Perspectives in Religious RH PR Revue d ’histoire et de

Studies Philosophie religieuses
PRU Le Palais royal d’Ugarit RHR Revue de Vhistoire des
PSTJ Perkins (School of Theology) religions
Journal RivB Rivista biblica
PTMS Pittsburgh Theological RM Rheinisches Museum fü r
Monograph Series Philologie
PTR Princeton Theological RNT Regensburger Neues
Review Testament
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris RR Review of Religion
Testamenti graece RSLR Rivista di Storiae Letteratura
PW Pauly-Wissowa, Real- Religiosa (Turin)
Encyklopädie der klassischen RSO Rivista degli studi orientali
Altertumswissenschaft R SP T Revue des sciences
PWSup Supplement to PW philosophiques et théologiques
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
RTL Revue théologique de Louvain
QDAP Quarterly of the Department of
R TP Revue de théologie et de
Antiquities in Palestine
Philosophie
RTR Reformed Theological
RA Revue d’assyriologie et Review
d’archeologie orientale RU V La Revue de l'Université
RAC Reallexikon fü r Antike und Laval
Christentum RUO Revue de Vuniversité Ottawa
RArch Revue archéologique
RB Revue biblique SacPag Sacra Pagina
RBén Revue Bénedictine SAH Sitzungberichte der
RCB Revista de cultura biblica Heidelberger Akademie der
RE Realencyklopädie fü r Wissenschaften (phil.-hist.
protestantische Theologie und Klasse)
Kirche Sal Salmanticensis
REA Revue des Études SANT Studien zum Alten und
Augustiniennes Neuen Testament
RechBib Recherches bibliques SAQ Sammlung ausgewählter
REg Revue d’égyptologie kirchen- und
REJ Revue des études juives dogmengeschichtlicher
RelArts Religion and the Arts Quellenschriften
RelS Religious Studies SAWB Sitzungsberichte der (königlich
RelSoc Religion and Society preussischen) Akademie der
RelSRev Religious Studies Review Wissenschaften zu Berlin
RES Repertoire d’épigraphie (phil.-hist. Klasse)
semitique SB Sources bibliques
RestQ Restoration Quarterly SBB Stuttgarter biblische
RevExp Review and Expositor Monographien
RevistB Revista biblica SBFLA Studii biblici franciscani liber
RevQ Revue de Qumrän annuus
RevRel Review for Religious SBJ La sainte bible de J érusalem
RevScRel Revue des sciences religieuses SBLASP Society of Biblical Literature
RevSém Revue sémitique Abstracts and Seminar
RevThom Revue thomiste Papers
RGG Religion in Geschichte und SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
Gegenwart SBLMasS SBL Masoretic Studies
RHE Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique SBLMS SBL Monograph Series
xxii A b b r e v ia t io n s

SBLSBS SBL Sources for Biblical preussischen Akademie der

Study Wissenschaften
SBLSCS SBL Septuagint and SPB Studia postbiblica
Cognate Studies SR Studies in Religion / Sciences
SBLTT SBL Texts and Translations Religieuses
SBM Stuttgarter biblische SSS Semitic Study Series
Monographien ST Studia theologica
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien STÄ Svensk teologisk ärsskrift
SBT Studies in Biblical StBibT Studia biblica et theologica
Theology STDJ Studies on the Texts of the
SC Source chretiennes Desert of Judah
ScEccl Sciences ecclesiastiques STK Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift
ScEs Science et esprit Str-B H. Strack and P. Billerbeck,
SCR Studies in Comparative Kommentar zum Neuen
Religion Testament, 4 vols. (Munich:
Scr Scripture Beck’sche, 1926–28)
ScrB Scripture Bulletin StudBib Studia biblica
SD Studies and Documents StudNeot Studia neotestamentica
SE Studia Evangelica SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des
1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6 (= TU 73 Neuen Testaments
[1959], 87 [1964], 88 SVTP Studia in Veteris
[1964], 102 [1968], 103 Testamenti pseudepigrapha
[1968], 112 [1973] SW JT Southwestern Journal of
SEÄ Svensk exegetisk årsbok Theology
Sef Sefarad SymBU Symbolae biblicae
SeinSend Sein Sendung upsalienses
Sem Semitica
SemiotBib Semiotique et Bible
SHAW Sitzungsberichte TantY Tantur Yearbook
heidelbergen Akademie der TAPA Transactions of the American
Wissenschaften Philological Association
SHT Studies in Historical TB Theologische Beiträge
Theology TBC Torch Bible Commentaries
SHVL Skrifter Utgivna Av Kungl. TBl Theologische Blätter
Humanistika TB T The Bible Today
Vetenskapssamfundet i TBü Theologische Bücherei
Lund TC Theological Collection
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late (SPCK)
Antiquity TD Theology Digest
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology TD NT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich,
SMSR Studi e materiali di storia delle eds., Theological Dictionary of
religioni the New Testament, 10 vols.,
SNT Studien zum Neuen ET (Grand Rapids:
Testament Eerdmans, 1964– 76)
SNTSMS Society for New Testament TextsS Texts and Studies
Studies Monograph Series TF Theologische Forschung
SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament TGl Theologie und Glaube
und seiner Umwelt Th Theology
SO Symbolae osloenses ThA Theologische Arbeiten
SOTSMS Society for Old Testament ThBer Theologische Berichte
Study Monograph Series THKNT Theologischer
SPap Studia papyrologica Handkommentar zum
SPAW Sitzungsberichte der Neuen Testament
 Abbreviations xxiii

ThViat Theologia Viatorum VC Vigiliae christianae

TJ Trinity Journal VCaro Verbum caro
TJT Toronto Journal of Theology VD Verbum domini
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung VetC Vetera Christianorum
TNTC Tyndale New Testament VF Verkündigung und Forschung
Commentaries VKGNT K. Aland (ed.), Vollständige
TP Theologie und Philosophie Konkordanz zum griechischen
(ThPh) Neuen Testament
TPO Theologisch-Praktische VoxEv Vox Evangelien (London)
Quartalschrift VS Verbum salutis
TQ Theologische Quartalschrift VSpir Vie spirituelle
TRev Theologische Revue VT Vetus Testamentum
TRu Theologische Rundschau VTSup Vetus Testamentum,
TS Theological Studies Supplements
TSAT Texte und Studien zum
Antiken Judentum
WA M. Luther, Kritische
TSFB Theological Students
Gesamtausgabe
Fellowship Bulletin
(= “Weimar” edition)
TSK Theologische Studien und
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
Kritiken
WC Westminster Commentary
TT Teologisk Tidsskrift
WD Wort und Dienst
TTKi Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke
WDB Westminster Dictionary of the
TToday Theology Today
Bible
TTS Trier theologische Studien
WF Wege der Forschung
TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift
WHAB Westminster Historical Atlas of
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
the Bible
TW AT G. 1. Botterweck and WMANT Wissenschaftliche
H. Ringgren (eds.), Monographien zum Alten
Theologisches Wörterbuch zum
und Neuen Testament
Alten Testament
WO Die Welt des Orients
TW N T G. Kittel and G. Friedrich Westminster Theological
WTJ
(eds.), Theologisches Journal
Wörterbuch zum Neuen
WUNT Wissenschaftliche
Testament Untersuchungen zum
TynB Tyndale Bulletin
Neuen Testament
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
ww Word and World
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fü r die
Kunde des Morgenlandes
UBSGNT United Bible Societies WZKSO Wiener Zeitschrift fü r die
Greek New Testament Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens
UCL Universitas Catholica
Lovaniensis
UF Ugaritische Forschungen ZA Zeitschrift fü r Assyriologie
UFHM University of Florida ZAW Zeitschrift fü r die
Humanities Monograph alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
UNT Untersuchungen zum ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen
Neuen Testament morgenländischen Gesellschaft
US Una Sancta ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen
USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Palästina- Vereins
Review ZEE Zeitschrift fü r evangelische
UT C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Ethik
Textbook ZHT Zeitschrift fü r historische
UUÅ Uppsala universitetsärsskrift Theologie
xxiv A b b r e v ia t io n s

ZKG Zeitschrift fü r ZRGG Zeitschrift fü r Religions- und

Kirchengeschichte Geistesgeschichte
ZK N T Zahnfs Kommentar zum N T ZST Zeitschrift fü r systematische
ZKT Zeitschrift fü r katholische Theologie
Theologie ZTK Zeitschrift fü r Theologie und
ZM R Zeitschrift fü r Missionskunde Kirche
und Religionswissenschaft ZW T Zeitschrift fü r wissenschaftliche
ZNW Zeitschrift fü r die Theologie
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

D. Abbreviations for Books of the Bible, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha
OLD TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT
Gen 2 Chr Dan Matt 1 Tim
Exod Ezra Hos Mark 2 Tim
Lev Neh Joel Luke Titus
Num Esth Arnos John Philem
Deut Job Obad Acts Heb
Josh Ps(Pss) Jonah Rom Jas
Judg Prov Mic 1 Cor 1 Pet
Ruth Eccl Nah 2 Cor 2 Pet
1 Sam Cant Hab Gal 1 John
2 Sam Isa Zeph Eph 2 John
l Kgs Jer Hag Phil 3 John
2 Kgs Lam Zech Col Jude
1 Chr Ezek Mal 1 Thess Rev
2 Thess
APOCRYPHA
1 Kgdms 1 Kingdoms Bar Baruch
2 Kgdms 2 Kingdoms Ep Jer Epistle of Jeremy
3 Kgdms 3 Kingdoms S T h Ch Song of the Three Children
4 Kgdms 4 Kingdoms (or Young Men)
1 Esd 1 Esdras Sus Susanna
2 Esd 2 Esdras Bel Bel and the Dragon
Tob Tobit Pr Man Prayer of Manasseh
Jdt Judith 1 Macc 1 Maccabees
Add Esth Additions to Esther 2 Macc 2 Maccabees
4 Ezra 4 Ezra 3 Macc 3 Maccabees
Wis Wisdom of Solomon 4 Macc 4 Maccabees
Sir Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of
Jesus the son of Sirach)

E. Abbreviations of the Names of Pseudepigraphical and Early Patristic Books

Adam and Eve Life of Adam and Eve Ep. Arist. Epistle of Aristeas
Apoc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham Ep. Diognetus Epistle to Diognetus
(1st to 2nd cent, a .d .) Jub. Jubilees
2–3 Apoc. Bar. Syriac, Greek Apocalypse Mart. Isa. Martyrdom of Isaiah
of Baruch Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon
Asc. Isa. Ascension of Isaiah Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse of Moses Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
As. Mos. (See T. Mos.) T. 12 Patr. Testaments of the Twelve
Apoc. Elijah Apocalypse of Elijah Patriarchs
1–2–3 Enoch Ethiopic, Slavonic, T. Abr. Testament of Abraham
Hebrew Enoch T. Judah Testament of Judah
 Abbreviations XXV

T. Levi Testament of Levi, etc. Magn. Ignatius, Letter to the

Magnesians
Apoc. Pet. Apocalypse of Peter Phil. Ignatius, Letter to the
Gos. Eb. Gospel of the Ebionites Philadelphians
Gos. Eg. Gospel of the Egyptians Pol. Ignatius, Letter to
Gos. Heb. Gospel of the Hebrews Polycarp
Gos. Naass. Gospel of the Naassenes Rom. Ignatius, Letter to the
Gos. Pet. Gospel of Peter Romans *
Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas Smym. Ignatius, Letter to the
Prot. Jas. Protevangelium ofJames Smymaeans
Bam. Barnabas Trail. Ignatius, Letter to the
1–2 Clem. 1–2 Clement Trallians
Did. Didache Mart. Pol. Martyrdom of Polycarp
Diogn. Diognetus Pol. Phil. Polycarp, Letter to the
Herrn. Man. Hermas, Mandates Philippians
Sim. Similitudes Iren. Adv. Irenaeus, Against All
Vis. Visions Haer. Heresies
Ign. Eph. Ignatius, Letter to the Tert. De Tertullian, On the
Ephesians Praesc. Haer. Proscribing of Heretics

F. Abbreviations of Names of Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts

CD Cairo (Genizah text of 1QM Milhāmāh (War Scroll)
the) Damascus IQS Serek hayyahad (Rule of the
(Document) Community, Manual of
Hev Nahal Hever texts Discipline)
Mas Masada texts lQSa Appendix A (Rule of the
Mird Khirbet Mird texts Congregation) to IQS
Mur Wadi Murabbacat texts lQSb Appendix B (Blessings) to
P Pesher (commentary) IQS
Q Qumran 3Q 15 Copper Scroll from
IQ, 2Q, Qumran Cave 3
3 Q etc. Numbered caves of 4QFlor Florilegium (or
Qumran, yielding Eschatological Midrashim)
written material; from Qumran Cave 4
followed by abbreviation 4QMess ar Aramaic “Messianic” text
of biblical or apocryphal from Qumran Cave 4
book 4QPrNab Prayer of Nabonidus
QL Qumran literature from Qumran Cave 4
lQapGen Genesis Apocryphon of 4QTestim Testimonia text from
Qumran Cave 1 Qumran Cave 4
1QH Hödäyöt (Thanksgiving 4QTLevi Testament of Levi from
Hymns) from Qumran Qumran Cave 4
Cave 1 4QPhyl Phylacteries from
lQIsaa,b First or second copy of Qumran Cave 4
Isaiah from Qumran llQM elch Melchizedek text from
Cave 1 Qumran Cave 11
lQpHab Pesher on Habakkuk from 1lQ tgjob Targum of Job from
Qumran Cave 1 Qumran Cave 11

G. Abbreviations of Targumic Material

Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos Tg. Ket. Targum of the Writings
Tg. Neb. Targum of the Prophets Frg. Tg. Fragmentary Targum
xxvi A b b r e v i a t io n s

Sam. Tg. Samaritan Targum Tg. Yer. II Targum Yerusalmi II *

Tg. Isa. Targum of Isaiah Yem. Tg. Yemenite Targum
Pal. Tgs. Palestinian Targums Tg. Esth I, First or Second Targum of
Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti I II Esther
Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Tg. Yer. I Targum Yerusalmi I * *optional title

H. Abbreviations of Other Rabbinic Works

‫כ‬Abot R. Nat. 5Abot de Rabbi Nathan Pesiq. Rab Kah. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana
>Ag. Ber. ‫נ‬Aggadat Beresit Pirqe R. El. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer
Bab. Babylonian Rab. Rabbah (following
Bar. Baraita abbreviation for biblical
Der. Er. Rab. Derek Eres Rabba book: Gen. Rab. [with
Der. Er. Zut. Derek Eres Zuta periods] = Genesis
Gem. Gemara Rabbah)
Kalla Kalla Sem. Semahot
Mek. Mekilta Sipra Sipra
Midr. Midras; cited with usual Sipre Sipre
abbreviation for biblical Sop. Soperim
book; but Midr. Qoh. = S. cOlam Rab. Seder cOlam Rabbah
Midras Qohelet Talm. Talmud
Pal. Palestinian Yal. Yalqut
Pesiq. R. Pesiqta Rabbati

I. Abbreviations of Orders and Tractates in Mishnaic and Related Literature

‫י‬Abot 5Abot Mid. Middot
cArak. cArakin Miqw. Miqwa'ot
cAbod. Zar. cAboda Zara Moced Moced
B. Bat. Baba Batra Moced Qat. Moced Qatan
Bek. Bekorot M acas. S. M acaser Seni
Ber. Berakot Nasim Nasim
Besä Besä (= Yom Tob) Nazir Nazir
Bik. Bikkurim Ned. Nedarim
B. Mes. Baba Mesica Neg. NegaHm
B. Qam. Baba Qamma Nez. Neziqin
Dem. Demai Nid. Niddah
cEd. cEduyyot Ohol. Oholot
cErub. cErubin c0r. cOrla
Git. Gittin Para Para
Hag. Hagiga Pe'a Pe*a
Hai. Halla Pesah. Pesahim
Hör. Horayot Qinnim Qinnim
Hui. Hullin Qidd. Qiddusin
Kelim Kelim Qod. Qodasin
Ker. Keritot Ros. Has. Ros Hassana
Ketub. Ketubot Sank. Sanhedrin
KU. Kibayim Sabb. Sabbat
Macas. M acaserot Seb. SebiHt
Mak. Makkot Sebu. Sebucot
Maks. Maksirin (= Masqin) Seqal. Seqalim
Meg. Megilla Sota Sota
MeHl. MeHla Sukk. Sukka
Menah. Menahot Tacan. Tacanit
 Abbreviations xxvii

Tamid Tamid Yad. Yadayim

Tem. Temura Yebam. Yebamot
Ter. Terumot Yoma Yoma (= Kippurim)
Tohar. Toharot Zabim Zabim
T. Yom Tebul Yom Zebah Zebahim
cUq. cUqsin Zer. Zeracim

I. Abbreviations of Nag Hammadi Tractates

Acts Pet. 12 Melch. Melchizedek
Apost. Acts of Peter and the Twelve Norea Thought of Norea
Apostles On Bap. A On Baptism A
Allogenes Allogenes On Bap. B On Baptism B
Ap. Jas. Apocryphon of James On Bap. C On Baptism C
Ap. John Apocryphon of John On Euch. A On the Eucharist A
Apoc. Adam Apocalypse of Adam On Euch. B On the Eucharist B
1 Apoc. Jas. First Apocalypse of James Orig. World On the Origin of the World
2 Apoc. Jas. Second Apocalypse of James Paraph. Shem Paraphrase of Shem
Apoc. Paul Apocalypse of Paul Pr. Paul Prayer of the Apostle Paul
Apoc. Pet. Apocalypse of Peter Pr. Thanks Prayer of Thanksgiving
Asclepius Asclepius 2 1–29 Prot. Jas. Protevangelium of James
Auth. Teach. Authoritative Teaching Sent. Sextus Sentences of Sextus
Dial. Sav. Dialogue of the Savior Soph. Jes. Chr. Sophia of Jesus Christ
Disc. 8– 9 Discourse on the Eighth and Steles Seth Three Steles of Seth
Ninth Teach. Silv. Teachings of Silvanus
Ep. Pet. Phil. Letter of Peter to Philip Testim. Truth Testimony of Truth
Eugnostos Eugnostos the Blessed Thom. Cont. Book of Thomas the
Exeg. Soul Exegesis on the Soul Contender
Gos. Eg. Gospel of the Egyptians Thund. Thunder, Perfect Mind
Gos. Phil. Gospel of Philip Treat. Res. Treatise on Resurrection
Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas Treat. Seth Second Treatise of the Great
Gos. Truth Gospel of Truth Seth
Great Pow. Concept of our Great Power Tri. Trac. Triparite Tractate
Hyp. Arch. Hypostasis of the Archons Trim. Prot. Trimorphic Protennoia
Hypsiph. Hypsiphrone Val. Exp. A Valentinian Exposition
Interp. Know. Interpretation of Knowledge Zost. Zostrianos
Marsanes Marsanes
 Main Bibliography

Commentaries
Abbott, T. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to
the Colossians. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1897. Allan, J. A. The Epistle to the Ephesians.
London: SCM, 1959. Barth, M. Ephesians. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1974. Beare,
F. W. “Ephesians.” In The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 10. Nashville: Abingdon, 1953, 597–
749. Beet, J. A. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and
Colossians. 3rd ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1902. Bengel, J. A. “Ephesians.” In
Bengel’s New Testament Commentaries. Vol. 2. Tr. C. T. Lewis and M. R. Vincent. Reprint
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981. Benoit, P. Les Epitres de Saint Paul aux Philippiens, ä Phi-
lemon, aux Colossiens, aux Ephesiens. Paris: du Cerf, 1959. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the
Ephesians. London: Pickering and Inglis, 1961.———. The Epistles to the Colossians, to
Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Caird, G. B. Paul’s Letters
from Prison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Calvin J. Commentaries on the Epistles
of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Tr. W. Pringle. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1854.
Chadwick, H. “Ephesians.” In Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. M. Black and H. H.
Rowley. London: Nelson, 1962, 980–84. Chrysostom, J. Commentary on the Epistle to
the Galatians, and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1845.
Conzelmann, H. “Der Brief an die Epheser.” In Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper,
Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Philemon, ed. J. Becker, H. Conzelmann, and G. Friedrich.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1976, 86– 124. Dahl, N. A. “Ephesians.” Harper’s
Bible Commentary, ed. J. L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988, 1212– 19.
———. et al. Kurze Auslegung des Epheserbriefes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht,
1965. Dale, R. W. The Epistle to the Ephesians. London: Hodder 8c Stoughton, 1901.
Dibelius, M., and Greeven, H. An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon. Tübingen: Mohr,
1953. Eadie, J. A. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians.
3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1883. Ernst, J. Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon,
an die Kolosser, an die Epheser. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1974. Ewald, P. Die Briefe des
Paulus an die Epheser, Kolosser und Philemon. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Deichert, 1910. Foulkes,
F. The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. London: Tyndale Press, 1963. Gaugier, E. Der
Epheserbrief. Zürich: EVZ, 1966. Gnilka, J. Der Epheserbrief. Freiburg: Herder, 1971.
———. DerKolosserbrief. Freiburg: Herder, 1980. Haupt,E.DieGefangenschaftsbriefe. Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1902. Hendriksen, W. Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1967. Henle, F. A. Der Epheserbrief des heiligen Apostels Paulus. Augsburg, 1908. Hodge,
C. Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. London: James Nisbet, 1876. Houlden, J.
L. Paul’s Letters from Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970. Hugede, N. L ’Epitre aux
Ephesiens. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1973. Johnston, G. Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
and Philemon. London: Nelson, 1967. Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians
and to Philemon. London: Macmillan, 1879. Lindemann, A. Der Epheserbrief. Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1985. Lock, W. The Epistle to the Ephesians. London: Methuen,
1929. Lohse, E. Colossians and Philemon. Tr. W. R. Poehlmann and R. J. Karris. Philadel-
phia: Fortress, 1971. Martin, R. P. Colossians and Philemon. London: Oliphants, 1974.
———. “Ephesians.” In Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol. 11. Nashville: Broadman, 1971,
125–77. Masson, C. L ’Epitre de Paul aux Ephesiens. Neuchätel: Delachaux et Niestle,
1953. Meinertz, M., and Tillmann, F. Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe. Bonn: Hanstein, 1931.
Meyer, H. A. W. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Ephesians and the
Epistle to Philemon. Tr. W. P. Dickson. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1880. Mitton, C. L.
Ephesians. London: Oliphants, 1976. Moule, C. F. D. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to
the Colossians and to Philemon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Moulton,
XXX M a i n B ib l io g r a p h y

H. K. Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians. London: Epworth, 1963. Mussner, F. Der

Brief an die Epheser. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1982. O’Brien, P. T. Colossians, Philemon.
WBC 44. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982. Olshausen, H. Biblical Commentary on St.
Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Edinburgh:
T. 8c T. Clark, 1851. Patzia, A. G. Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians. New York: Harper and
Row, 1984. Pfammatter, J. Epheserbrief, Kolosserbrief. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1987.
Robinson, J. A. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1904.
Roon, A. van. De Brief van Paulus aan de Epheziers. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1976. Salmond,
S. D. F. “The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians.” In Expositor's Greek Testament. Vol. 3.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903. Schlatter, A. Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser,
Kolosser und Philemon. Stuttgart: Calver, 1963. Schlier, H. Der Brief an die Epheser. Dussel-
dorf: Patmos, 1957. Schnackenburg, R. Der Brief an die Epheser. Zürich: Benzinger,
1982. Schweizer, E. The Letter to the Colossians. Tr. A. Chester. London: S.P.C.K., 1982.
Scott, E. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1930. Simpson, E. K., and Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of Paul to the Ephesians
and to the Colossians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Soden, H. von. Die Briefe an die
Kolosser, Epheser, Philemon; die Pastoralbriefe. Freiburg: Mohr, 1893. Staab, K. Die Gefan-
genschaftsbriefe. Regensburg: Pustet, 1959. Swain, L. Ephesians. Wilmington, DE: M.
Glazier, 1980. Synge, F. C. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. London: S.P.C.K., 1941.
Taylor, W. F., and Reumann, J. H. P. Ephesians, Colossians. Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1975. Thompson, G. H. P. The Letters of Paul to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to
Philemon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Westcott, B. F. St. Paul's Epistle
to the Ephesians. London: Macmillan, 1906. Wette, W. M. L. de. Kurze Erklärung der
Briefe an die Colosser, an Philemon, an die Epheser und an die Philipper. Leipzig: Weidmann,
1843. Zerwick, M. Der Brief an die Epheser. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1962.

Monographs and Articles

Adai, J. Der Heilige Geist als Gegenwart Gottes in den einzelnen Christen, in der Kirche und
in der Welt. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985. Albani, J. “Die Metaphern des Epheserbriefes.”
ZW T 45 (1902) 420–40. Alexander, N. “The Epistle for Today.” FS W. Barclay, Biblical
Studies, ed. J. R. McKay and J. F. Miller. London: Collins, 1976, 99– 118. Allan, J. A.
“The ‘In Christ’ Formula in Ephesians.” N TS 5 (1958–59) 54–62. Arnold, C. E. Ephesians:
Power and Magic. Cambridge: CUP, 1989. Baker, N. L. “Living the Dream: Ethics in
Ephesians.” SW JT 22 (1979) 39–55. Barth, M. The Broken Wall. London: Collins, 1960.
———. “Conversion and Conversation: Israel and the Church in Paul’s Epistle to the
Ephesians.” Int 17 (1963) 3–2 4 .———. “Die Einheit des Galater- und Epheserbriefs.”
TZ 32 (1976) 78–91. ———. Israel und die Kirche im Brief des Paulus an die Epheser.
Munich: Kaiser, 1959.———. “Traditions in Ephesians.” N TS 30 (1984) 3– 25. Benoit,
P. “Body, Head, and Pleroma in the Epistles of the Captivity.” In Jesus and the Gospel.
Vol. 2. Tr. B. Weatherhead. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974, 5 1–92.
———. “L’Horizon paulinien de l’Épître aux Éphésiens.” RB 46 (1937) 342–61, 506– 25.
———. “Rapports litteraires entre les epitres aux Colossiens et aux Éphésiens.” In Neutes-
tamentliche Aufsätze. FSJ. Schmid, ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner. Regensburg:
Pustet, 1963, 11–22. Best, E. One Body in Christ. London: S.P.C.K., 1955.———. “Recipi-
ents and Title of the Letter to the Ephesians: Why and When the Designation ‘Ephe-
sians’?” AN RW 2.25.4 (1987) 3247–79. Bieder, W. “Das Geheimnis des Christus nach
dem Epheserbrief.” TZ 11 (1955) 329–43. Bogdasovich, M. “The Idea of Pleroma in
the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians.” Downside Review 83 (1965) 118– 30. Bor-
land, A. “God’s Eternal Purpose.” EvQ 34 (1962) 29–35. Bouttier, M. “L’horizon catholi-
que de l’épître aux Éphésiens.” In L'É vangile, hier et aujourd'hui. FS F. J. Leenhardt.
Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1968, 25– 37. Bowman, J. W. “The Epistle to the Ephesians.”
 M ain Bibliography XXXI

Int 8 (1954) 188–205. Bratcher, R. G., and Nida, E. A. A Translator’s Handbook on

Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. London: United Bible Societies, 1982. Bruce, F. F. “St.
Paul in Rome: 4. The Epistle to the Ephesians.” BJRL 49 (1967) 303–22. Burger, C.
Schöpfung und Versöhnung: Studien zum liturgischen Gut im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. Neu‫־‬
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. Cadbury, H. J. “The Dilemma of Ephe-
sians.” N TS 5 (1959) 91– 102. Caldwell, E. C. “The Purpose of the Ages.” PTR 16
(1918) 374–89. Cambier, J. Vie Chrétienne en Église: L ’Épître aux Éphésiens lue aux chrétiens
d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Desclé e, 1966. Caragounis, C. C. The Ephesian Mysterion. Lund:
Gleerup, 1977. Carr, W. Angels and Principalities. Cambridge: CUP, 1981. Cerfaux, L.
“En faveur de l’authenticite des epitres de la captivite.” In Litterature et Theologie Paulinien-
nes. Bruges: Desclee de Brouwer, 1960, 60–71. Chadwick, H. “Die Absicht des Epheser-
briefes.” ZN W 51 (1960) 145–53. Coipe, C. “Zur Leib-Christi-Vorstellung im Epheser-
brief.” In Judentum , Urchristentum, Kirche, ed. W. Ehester. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964,
172– 87. Corley, B. “The Theology of Ephesians.” SW JT 22 (1979) 24– 38. Coutts, J.
“The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians.” N TS 4 (1958) 201– 7. Cross, F. L.,
ed. Studies in Ephesians. London: Mowbray, 1956. Dahl, N. A. “Der Epheserbrief und
der verlorene erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther.” In Abraham unser Vater. FS O.
Michel, ed. O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt. Leiden: Brill, 1963, 65– 7 7 .———.
“Ephesians, Letter to the.” IDBSup (1976) 268–6 9 .———. “Gentiles, Christians, and
Israelites in the Epistle to the Ephesians.”In Christians among Jews and Gentiles, ed. G.
W. E. Nickelsburg, and G. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986, 31– 39; also H TR 79
(1986) 31–3 9 .———. “Interpreting Ephesians: Then and Now.” CurTM 5 (1978) 133–
43. Danker, F. W. “Ephesians, Epistle to the.” ISBE 2 (1982) 109– 14. Dautzenberg,
G. “Theologie und Seelsorge aus paulinischer Tradition: Einführung in 2 Thess, Kol,
Eph.” In Gestalt und Anspruch des Neuen Testaments, ed. J. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter,
1969, 96– 119. Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 2nd ed. New York: Harper
and Row, 1967. Deichgräber, R. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in derfrühen Christenheit.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1967. Efird, J. M. Christ, the Church, and the
End: Studies in Colossians and Ephesians. Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1980. Ernst, J. Pleroma
und Pleroma Christi. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1970.———. “Von der Ortsgemeinde zur
Grosskirche—dargestellt an den Kirchenmodellen des Philipper- und Epheserbriefs.”
In Kirche im Werden, ed. J. Hainz. Munich: F. Schoningh, 1976, 123–42. Fendt, L.
“Die Kirche des Epheserbriefs.” TLZ 77 (1952) 147–50. Findeis, H.-J. Versöhnung—
Apostolat—Kirche. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1983. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz und Absicht
des Epheserbriefs. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1973. Fung, R. “The Doctrine
of Baptism in Ephesians.” StBibT 1 (1971) 6– 14. Gewiess, J. “Die Begriffe nkripow
und TrXrJpcjjLia in Kolosser- und Epheserbrief.” In Vom Wort des Lebens. FS M. Meinertz.
Münster: Aschendorff, 1951, 128–41. Gnilka, J. “Das Akkulturationsproblem nach dem
Epheser- und Kolosserbrief.” In Fede e cultura alia luce della Bibbia. Turin: Editrice
Elle Di Ci, 1981, 235–47.———. “Das Kirchenmodell des Epheserbriefes.” BZ 15 (1971)
161– 84. ———. “Das Paulusbild im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief.” In Kontinuität und
Einheit, ed. P. G. Müller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981, 179–93. ———.
“Paränetische Traditionen im Epheserbrief.” In Melanges Bibliques. FS B. Rigaux, ed.
A. Descamps and A. de Halleux. Gembloux: Duculot, 1970, 397–410. Goguel, M.
“Esquisse d’une solution nouvelle du problème de l’épître aux Éphésiens.” RH R 111
(1935) 254– 84; 112 (1935) 73–99. Goodspeed, E. J. “Ephesians and the First Edition
of Paul.” /£ L 70 (1951) 285–9 1 .———. “Ephesians, the Introduction to the Pauline
Collection.” In New Solutions of New Testament Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1927, 11– 2 0 .———. The Key to Ephesians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1956.———. The Meaning of Ephesians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933.
Gore, C. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. London: John Murray, 1898. Gregg, J. A. F.
“The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians.” JT S 3 (1902) 233–
44, 398–420, 551–76. Grob, F. “L’image du corps et de la tête dans l’Épître aux Éphé–
xxxii Main B ibliography

siens.” ETR 58 (1983) 491–500. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos: Paulinische Kriterien fü r
das Proprium christlicher Moral. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Hanson, S. The Unity of the
Church in the New Testament: Colossians and Ephesians. Uppsala: Almquist 8c Wiksells,
1946. Holtzmann, H. J. Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe auf Grund einer Analyse
ihres Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1872. Hort, F. J. A. Prolegomena
to St. PauVs Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians. London: Macmillan, 1895. Houlden,
J. L. “Christ and Church in Ephesians.’’ SE 6 (1973) 267– 73. Howard, G. “The Head/
Body Metaphors of Ephesians.” N TS 20 (1974) 350– 56. Jeal, R. R. “The Relationship
between Theology and Ethics in the Letter to the Ephesians.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Sheffield, 1990. Käsemann, E. “Epheserbrief.” RGG 2:517–2 0 .———. “Ephesians
and Acts.” In Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. London: S.P.C.K.,
1968, 288–9 7 .———. “Das Interpretationsproblem des Epheserbriefes.” In Exegetische
Versuche und Besinnungen. Vol. 2. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1970,
253–6 1 .———. Leib und Leib Christi. Tübingen: Mohr, 1933.———. “Paulus und der
Frühkatholizismus.” ZTK 60 (1963) 75–89. King, A. C. “Ephesians in the Light of
Form Criticism.” ExpTim 63 (1952) 273–76. Kirby, J. C. Ephesians, Baptism and Pentecost.
London: S.P.C.K., 1968. Knoch, O. “Die Botschaft des Epheserbriefes.” In “Durch die
Gnade Gottes bin ich, was ich bin.‫ ״‬Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag, 1984, 74–89. Kuhn,
K. G. “The Epistle to the Ephesians in the Light of the Qumran Texts.” In Paul and
Qumran, ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968, 115– 131. Light-
foot, J. B. “The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians.” In Biblical Essays. London:
Macmillan, 1893, 375–96. ———. Notes on Epistles of St. Paul. London: Macmillan,
1895. Lincoln, A. T. Paradise Now and Not Yet. Cambridge: CUP, 1981. ———. “A
Re-examination of ‘The Heavenlies’ in Ephesians.” N TS 19 (1973) 468–83. ———.
“The Use of the OT in Ephesians.”J SAT 14 (1982) 16–57. Lindemann9A. Die Aufhebung
der Zeit: Geschichtsverständnis und Eschatologie im Epheserbrief. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn,
1975.———. “Bemerkungen zu den Adressaten und zum Anlass des Epheserbriefes.”
ZNW 67 (1976) 235– 5 1 .———. Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und
die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in derfrühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion. Tübingen:
Mohr, 1979. Lona, H. E. Die Eschatologie im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. Würzburg: Echter
Verlag, 1984. MacDonald, M. Y. The Pauline Churches. Cambridge: CUP, 1988. Mackay,
J. A. God's Order: The Ephesian Letter and This Present Time. London: Nisbet and Macmil‫־‬
lan, 1953. MacPhail, J. R. “Ephesians and the Church of South India.” SJT 10 (1957)
57–75. Martin, R. P. “An Epistle in Search of a Life-Setting.” ExpTim 79 (1968) 296–
3 0 2 .———. Reconciliation: A Study of Paul's Theology. London: Marshall, 1981. Meeks,
W. A. “In One Body: The Unity of Humankind in Colossians and Ephesians.” In
God's Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks. Oslo: Uni versi tetsforlaget,
1977, 209–21. Meritan, J. “L’ecclesiologie de l’epitre aux Ephesiens.” RB 7 (1898)
343–69. Merkel, H. “Der Epheserbrief in der neueren exegetischen Diskussion.” AN R W
2.25.4 (1987) 3156–3246. Merklein, H. Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief. Munich:
Kösel, 1973.———. “Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Ephes-
erbriefes.” In Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften, ed. K. Kertelge. Freiburg:
Herder, 1981, 25–69. Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
London: United Bible Societies, 1971. Meyer, R. P. Kirche und Mission im Epheserbrief.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Mitton, C. L. “The Authorship of the Epistle
to the Ephesians.” ExpTim 67 (1955–56) 195–98. ———. The Epistle to the Ephesians.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951. ———. “The Relationship between 1 Peter and Ephe-
sians.” JTS 1 (1950) 67–73. Moir, I. A. “The Text of Ephesians Exhibited by Minuscule
Manuscripts Housed in Great Britain—Some Preliminary Comments.” In Studies in
New Testament Language and Text, ed. J. K. Elliott. Leiden: Brill, 1976, 313–18. Moody,
D. Christ and the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. Mooney, C. F. “Paul’s Vision
of the Church in ‘Ephesians.’ ” Scr 15 (1963) 33–43. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom-Book of
New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: C.U.P., 1971. Moule, H. C. G. Ephesian Studies.
 M ain Bibliography xxxiii

London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “Truth: Paul and Qum-
ran.” Paul and Qumran, ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968,
179–230. ———. “Who Wrote Ephesians?” TB T 18 (1965) 1201–9. Mussner, F. Christus,
das All und die Kirche. 2nd ed. Trier: Paulinus, 1968.———. “Contributions Made by
Qumran to the Understanding of the Epistle to the Ephesians.” In Paul and Qumran,
ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968, 1 5 9 7 8 ‫ ־‬. ———. “Die
Geschichtstheologie des Epheserbriefes.” BibLeb 5 (1964) 8– 12. Ochel, W. Die Annahme
einer Bearbeitung des Kolosser-Briefes im Epheser-Brief Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch, 1934.
Odeberg, H. The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Lund: Lund Universitets
Arsskrift, 1934. Percy, E. Der Leib Christi in den paulinischen Homologoumena und Antile-
gomena. Lund: Gleerup, 1942.———. Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe. Lund:
Gleerup, 1946.———. “Zu den Problemen des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes.” ZNW
43 (1950–51) 178–94. Pereis, O. “Kirche und Welt nach dem Epheser- und Kolosser-
brief.” TLZ 76 (1951) 391–400. Pokorny, P. Der Epheserbrief und die Gnosis. Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965. ———. “Epheserbrief und gnostische Mysterien.”
ZN W 53 (1962) 160–9 4 .———. “Soma Christou im Epheserbrief.” E vT 20 (1960) 456–
64. Polhill, J. B. “The Relationship between Ephesians and Colossians.” RevExp 70
(1973) 439–50. Reuss, J. “Die Kirche als ‘Leib Christi’ und die Herkunft dieser Vorstei-
lung bei dem Apostel Paulus.” BZ 2 (1958) 103–27. Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of
His Theology. Tr. J. R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Roels, E. God's Mission:
The Epistle to the Ephesians in Mission Perspective. Franeker: Wever, 1962. Roon, A. van.
The Authenticity of Ephesians. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Rowston, D. J. “Changes in Biblical
Interpretation: Ephesians.” BTB 9 (1979) 121– 25. Sampley, J. P., et al. Ephesians, Colos-
sians, 2 Thessalonians, The Pastoral Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Sanders, E. P.
Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: SCM, 1977. Sanders, J. T. “Hymnic Elements
in Ephesians 1–3.” ZN W 56 (1965) 214–32. Schille, G. “Der Autor des Epheserbriefes.”
TLZ 82 (1957) 325–3 4 .———. Frühchristliche Hymnen. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsan-
stalt, 1965. Schlier, H. Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief. Tübingen: Mohr, 1930.
Schmid, J. Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus. Freiburg: Herder, 1928. Schnackenburg,
R. “Der Epheserbrief im heutigen Horizont.” In Massstab des Glaubens. Freiburg: Herder,
1978, 155– 7 5 .———. “Er hat uns mitauferweckt: Zur Tauflehre des Epheserbriefes.”
LJ 2 (1952) 159–8 3 .———. “Gestalt und Wesen der Kirche nach dem Epheserbrief.”
In Schriften zum Neuen Testament. Munich: Kösel, 1971, 268–87. ———. “L’Idee de
‘Corps du Christ’ dans la lettre aux Ephesiens: Perspective pour nötre temps.” In Paul
de Tarse. Apötre du nötre Temps, ed. L. de Lorenzi. Rome: Abbaye de St. Paul, 1979,
665–85. Schweizer, E. “Zur Frage der Echtheit des Kolosser- und des Epheserbriefes.”
ZNW 47 (1956) 287. Smalley, S. S. “The Eschatology of Ephesians.” EvQ 28 (1956)
152–57. Smith, D. C. “The Ephesian Heresy and the Origin of the Epistle to the
Ephesians.” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977) 78–103. Steinmetz, F.-J. “Jenseits
der Mauern und Zäune: Somatisches Verständnis der kirchlichen Einheit im Epheser-
brief.” Geist und Leben 59 (1986) 202– 14.———. “Parusie-Erwartung im Epheserbrief?
Ein Vergleich.” Bib 50 (1969) 328–36.———. Protologische Heilszuversicht: Die Strukturen
des soteriologischen und christologischen Denkens in Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. Frankfurt:
Josef Knecht, 1969. Stott, J. R. W. God's New Society: The Message of Ephesians. Leicester:
Inter-Varsity, 1979. Summers, Vi. Ephesians: Pattern for Christian Living. Nashville: Broad-
man, 1960. Tachau, P. “Einst" ”und “Jetzt"”im Neuen Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
Sc Ruprecht, 1972. Usami, K. Somatic Comprehension of Unity: The Church in Ephesus.
Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1983. Vanhoye, A. “L’épître aux Éphésiens et l’épître
aux Hébreux.” Bib 59 (1978) 198– 230. Warnach, V. “Taufwirklichkeit und Taufbewusst-
sein nach dem Epheserbrief.” Liturgie und Mönchtum 33/34 (1963–64) 36–51. Weiss,
H.-F. “Gnostische Motive and antignostische Polemik im Kolosser- und im Epheser-
brief.” In Gnosis und Neues Testament, ed. K.-W. Tröger. Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1973, 311–24. Wild, R. A. “ ‘Be Imitators of God’: Discipleship in the
xxxiv M a in B ib l io g r a p h y

Letter to the Ephesians.” In Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. F. Segovia. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985, 127–43. Williamson, L. God's Work of Art. Richmond, VA: CLC Press,
1971. Wilson, R. A. “ ‘We’ and ‘You’ in the Epistle to the Ephesians.” SE 2. (1964),
676–80. Wink, W., Naming the Powers. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Yates, R. “Principali-
ties and Powers in Ephesians.” NB 58 (1977) 516–21. Zwaan, J. de. “Le ‘rythme
logique’ dans l’epitre aux Ephesiens.” RH PR 6 (1927) 554–65.
 Introduction

Select Bibliography

Barker, G. W.; Lane, W. L.; and Michaels, J. R. The New Testament Speaks. New York:
Harper and Row, 1969. Childs, B. S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction.
London: SCM, 1984. Fuller, R. H. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London:
Duckworth, 1966. Guthrie, D. New Testament Introduction. 3rd ed. London: Tyndale
Press, 1970. Johnson, L. T. The Writings of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1986.
Keck, L. E., and Furnish, V. P. The Pauline Letters. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. Koester,
H. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Kümmel,
W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Tr. H. C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon,
1975. Martin, R. P. New Testament Foundations. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter:
Paternoster, 1978. Marxsen, W. Introduction to the New Testament. Tr. G. Buswell. Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1968. Moffatt, J. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament.
2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1912. Perrin, N., and Duling, D. C. The New
Testament: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. Roetzel,
C. J. The Letters of Paul. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. Schenke, H.-M., and Fischer,
K. M. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn,
1978. Wikenhauser, A. New Testament Introduction. Tr. J. Cunningham. New York:
Herder 8c Herder, 1958.

1. C o n t e n t /S t r u c t u r e /G e n r e /S ty le

Bibliography

Alexander, P. S. “Epistolary Literature.” In Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testa-

mentum. Vol. 2, ed. M. E. Stone. Assen: van Gorcum, 1984, 579–96. Audet, J. P. “Literary
Forms and Contents of a Normal Evxapuoria in the First Century.” SE 1. (1959) 643–
62. Aune, D. E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1987. Berger, K. “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament.” AN RW 2.25.2
(1984) 1031–1432, 1831–85. ———. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg:
Quelle 8c Meyer, 1984. Bjerkelund, C. J. Parakalö. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967.
Burgess, T. C. “Epideictic Literature.” Studies in Classical Philology 3 (1902) 89–261.
Dahl, N. A. “Interpreting Ephesians: Then and Now.” CurTM 5 (1978) 133–43. Doty,
W. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Jewett, R. The Thessalonian
Correspondence. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Johanson, B. C. To All the Brethren. Stock-
holm: Almquist 8c Wiksell, 1987. Kennedy, G. A. New Testament Interpretation through
Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Lausberg,
H. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. 2nd ed. Munich: Max Hueber, 1973. Malherbe,
A. J. “Ancient Epistolary Theorists.” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977) 3– 77.
O’Brien, P. T. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Perel-
man, Ch. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.
Perelman, Ch., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1969. Roberts, J. H. “Pauline Transitions to the Letter Body.” In
LApotre Paul, ed. A. Vanhoye. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986, 93–99. Sanders,
J. T. “The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters
of the Pauline Corpus.” JBL 81 (1962) 348–6 2 .———. “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians
1–3.” ZN W 56 (1965) 214– 32. Schubert, P. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings.
Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1939. Stowers, S. K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity.
XXXVI I n t r o d u c t io n

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. Thyen, H. Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Horni-
lie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. White, J. L. The Form and Function of
the Body of the Greek Letter. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972. ———. “Saint Paul
and the Apostolic Letter Tradition.” CBQ 45 (1983) 433–4 4 .———. “New Testament
Epistolary Literature.” A N R W 2.25.2 (1984) 1730– 56. Zwaan, J. de. “Le ‘rythme logique’
dans l’epitre aux Ephesiens.” RH PR 6 (1927) 554–65.

T h e letter to th e E phesians falls into two distinct, th o u g h not totally separate,

parts— chaps. 1– 3 an d chaps. 4–6— with the “A m en” at the en d o f chap. 3
a n d th e change to direct ex h o rtatio n at th e beginning o f chap. 4 as clear
division m arkers. R ecognition o f these two parts is determ inative for discussion
o f each o f th e areas o f content, stru ctu re, genre, an d style.
T h e two parts reflect the w riter’s two m ajor concerns, often described loosely
as theological o r doctrinal an d ethical. B ut particularly the fo rm er label o f
“theological” o r “doctrinal” does n o t do en o u g h justice to eith er th e form o r
co n ten t o f chaps. 1– 3. W ithin th e fram ew ork o f an ex ten d ed thanksgiving
these chapters contain a re m in d e r to th e G entile C hristian readers o f th e privi-
leges an d status they enjoy as believers in C hrist an d m em bers o f th e C hurch,
reinforcing for th em th eir significance in G od’s plan for history an d th e cosmos.
T h e second p a rt o f the letter th e n constitutes an appeal to live in the C h u rch
an d in the w orld in th e light o f these realities an d n o t simply to becom e m erged
into the ethos o f th e su rro u n d in g culture. T h e re is an explicit link betw een
the two parts th ro u g h the notion o f calling. If chaps. 1–3 are a re m in d e r o f
the read ers’ calling (cf. 1:18, “th a t you m ay know w hat is the h ope o f his
calling”), th e n chaps. 4–6 are an ex h o rtatio n to live in a m a n n e r ap p ro p riate
to th at distinctive calling (cf. 4:1, “I . . . ex h o rt you th ere fo re to lead a life
w orthy o f the calling with which you w ere called”). Simply to see E phesians
in term s o f th e discourse on the unity o f the C h u rch which begins at 2:1 (cf.
Keck an d F urnish, The Pauline Letters, 127; Patzia, 113 – 18) does n o t do en o u g h
justice eith er to th e co n ten t a n d th ru st o f 2 :1–10, 3 :1–13, an d 3:14–21 o r to
the bulk o f th e paraenesis. Similarly, to entitle 1:3– 3:21 “T h e Mystery o f the
Inclusion o f th e G entiles” is to re ad this them e into 1:3–2:10 an d 3:14–21 in
an u n w arran ted fashion, an d to describe 4 : 1–6:20 as “E xhortation to U nity
o f Spirit in Peace” is no t to take sufficient account o f the varying em-
phases o f th e different sections o f paraenesis (pace Roetzel, The Letters of Paul,
105– 6).
T h e first th ree chaps, have th e overall fram ew ork o f a long thanksgiving
(cf. also J. T . Sanders, JB L 81 [1962] 348– 62; G augler, 124– 25). T hey o p en
with a eulogy o r blessing o f G od fo r all the privileges o f salvation enjoyed by
th e read ers (1:3 – 14) an d m ove into a thanksgiving perio d with its intercessory
prayer-re p o rt for th e addressees’ know ledge o f G od an d his pow er a n d o f
the C h u rch ’s significance in his purposes (1:15– 23). T h e intercessory prayer-
re p o rt is picked u p again later, focusing this tim e on th e re ad ers’ experience
o f pow er, love, an d fullness (3:1, 14 – 19), before th e first h alf is ro u n d e d off
with a doxology (3:20, 21). T h e re m a in d er o f this first p a rt o f the letter pursues
the w riter’s aim in a form less explicitly related to liturgy. T h e initial intercession
(1:15– 23) blends into a re m in d e r o f th e greatness o f the salvation G od has
accom plished fo r the readers. T h is re m in d e r is expressed by m eans o f the
 Introduction xxxvii

twofold contrast betw een th eir past an d th eir present: first, in term s o f the
change from spiritual death to new life in C hrist (2:1– 10) and, second, in
term s o f th e change from being deprived G entiles in com parison with Israel
to being p a rt o f th e one new hum anity with access to the F ath er an d a place
in th e new tem ple o f th e C h u rch (2:11– 22). T his anam nesis (cf. 2:11, “remember,
th erefo re . . .”) is a recalling o f the heritage o f th e past in a way th at is form ative
for p resen t attitudes an d actions. It is continued w hen th e re tu rn to intercession
(3:1, 14– 19) is in te rru p te d by a fu rth e r rem inder, this tim e o f w hat the readers,
as p art o f th e o n e C h u rch with its significant role, owe to the m inistry o f the
apostle Paul (3:2 – 13). T h e re are also, o f course, aspects o f anam nesis, the
rem em b erin g o f G od’s graciousness an d pow er at w ork on b eh alf o f believers,
in the berakah an d thanksgiving (cf. also A udet, SE 1 [1959] 646, 655 n. 1,
659 n. 1).
If the first h alf o f the letter is distinguished by its epistolary use o f liturgical
form s an d its elem ents o f anam nesis, the second h alf is distinguished by the
extent o f its concern with paraenesis. From its o p en in g direct appeal in the
parakalō clause taken over from th e P auline letter (“I . . . ex h o rt you th erefo re,”
4:1), the latter h alf is alm ost totally given over to ethical exhortation, the
m ajor sections o f which em ploy the w riter’s favorite term for believers’ conduct,
the verb nepmarelp, “to walk” (cf. 4:1; 4:17; 5:2; 5:8; 5:15). T h e readers are
u rg ed first to play th eir p a rt in m aintaining th e unity o f the C hurch, which
is on its way to m aturity th ro u g h its m inisters o f the w ord an d the love o f all
its m em bers (4:1– 16), an d th en to live as those who have been tau g h t the
C hristian tradition an d are m em bers o f the new hum anity ra th e r th an the
old (4:17–24). T h e distinctive conduct re q u ired o f C hristian believers is given
m ore specificity in th e two sections which follow. T h e ir words an d deeds are
to reflect the contrast betw een th eir new life an d th eir old (4:25– 5:2) an d the
contrast betw een w hat is ap p ro p riate fo r the believing com m unity an d w hat
is characteristic o f sinful outsiders. By preserving such a contrast the readers
will in fact have an effect on the darkness o f the su rro u n d in g m oral clim ate
(5:3 – 14). T h e readers are th en enjoined to live wisely an d to ap p ro p riate
the pow er o f th e Spirit, which will result in corporate edification and
w orship (5:15–20). Such living will also result in m utual subm ission in the
specific relationships betw een h u sb an d a n d wife, p aren t an d child, m aster
an d slave, set o u t in this w riter’s version o f th e household code with its distine-
tive elaboration o f the m arriage relationship in the light o f th e relationship
betw een C hrist an d the C h u rch (5:21– 6:9). T h e paraenesis culm inates in a call
to the read ers to be strong an d stand firm in the spiritual battle against the
powers o f evil th at are arrayed against th em an d to engage in constant prayer
(6 : 10– 20 ).
Like a n u m b er o f o th e r early C hristian com positions, Ephesians resists clear-
cut classification in term s o f ancient epistolary an d rhetorical categories (cf.
also A une, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 199, 203, for the
general p o in t ab o u t N T letters). M ore w ork is n eed ed on this im p o rtan t aspect
o f the letter, an d w hat follows is sim ply an outline o f som e o f the considerations
involved. E phesians appears to be an ad ap tatio n o f the Pauline letter form .
It does have th e usual prescript with its m ention o f w riter an d addressees
an d its C hristian greetings (1:1, 2) a n d ends with som e typical closing features,
x x x v iii I n t r o d u c t io n

e.g., a reference to an apostolic representative (em ploying the sam e w ording

as Col 4 :7 ,8 ), a wish o f peace, an d a grace-benediction (6:21– 24). A re the
p rescript an d th e postscript simply a fram ing device fo r a letter-essay o r philo-
sophical letter (cf. A une, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 167–
6 8 ; B erger, A N R W 2.25.2 [1984] 1132– 38)? E phesians does have som e features
in com m on with such letters in th at it provides teaching which leads to advice
ab o u t how to live, b u t it is distinguished by th e liturgical elem ents in the first
p art, som e o f which are also epistolary characteristics o f the Pauline letter. It
is th erefo re m ore th an ju s t a theological tract barely disguised as a letter (pace
K äsem ann, RGG 2:518; Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 6 6 ;
C onzelm ann, 8 6 ; L indem ann, Z N W 67 [1976] 240; Schenke an d Fischer, Einlei-
tung 1:174). In addition to its beg in n in g an d end, it m akes use o f such elem ents
o f P aul’s letters as an introductory eulogy, a thanksgiving period an d in terces-
sory p rayer-re p o rt, an d paraenesis, th o u g h it is th e only letter in the Pauline
corpus with b oth a eulogy an d a thanksgiving period (cf. also van Roon, Authen-
ticity, 45– 56).
B ut does E phesians have a letter body? T h e re are difficulties in d eterm in in g
w here th e body begins an d ends in P aul’s letters (cf. Doty, Letters in Primitive
Christianity, 34; A une, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 183, “the
analysis o f the central section o f early C hristian letters rem ains problem atical”).
B ut it can be said th at E phesians has few o f the usual features o f the Pauline
letter’s body— its own form al opening, its transitional form ulae, an d its conclud-
ing “eschatological clim ax” o r m en tio n o f an apostolic parousia o r travel plans.
In reg ard to th e p rom inence o f th e features o f th e thanksgiving period a n d
the absence o f a n orm al body, E phesians is p erh ap s closest to 1 Thessalonians
(cf. also B jerkelund, Parakalô, 184 – 85, who holds th at in term s o f stru ctu re
Ephesians should be com pared with 1 T hessalonians; K üm m el, Introduction,
3 5 1–52). S chubert (Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings, 16–27; cf.
also O ’B rien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, 141–46) suggested
th at 1 T hessalonians h ad no m ain body because the thanksgiving o f 1:2–3:13
itself constitutes the body. H ow ever, W hite (The Form and Function of the Body
of the Greek Letter, 70–72) argues th a t th e body is a structural elem ent, th o u g h
to be sure, taken u p into, sh aped by, a n d logically d e p e n d e n t on the thanksgiv-
ing. Jew ett (The Thessalonian Correspondence, 71– 78, 216–21) provides a sketch
o f the various views an d suggests, in a com bination o f epistolary an d rhetorical
analysis, th at 1:2– 5 is to be seen as the thanksgiving p ro p e r with 1:6– 3:13 as
th e narratio o f th e g ro u n d s fo r thanksgiving. In Ephesians the m aterial im m edi-
ately after th e initial thanksgiving p erio d p ro p e r does n o t have a disclosure
form ula o r a fo rm ula o f request, which frequently introduces the body. R oberts
(“Pauline T ran sitio ns,” 93–99) argues th a t creedal statem ents can also function
as transitions to th e letter body, b u t it is very dou b tfu l w h eth er E ph 1:22, 23
is best described as a discrete p erio d containing a creedal statem ent, as he
claims. In stead 2 :1 continues the train o f th o u g h t already b eg u n in the interces-
sory prayer-re p o rt ab o u t th e display o f G od’s pow er on b eh alf o f believers
bu t now gives this m ore direct application to th e readers.
Yet if it is th e case th at the body o f th e P auline letter has as a m ajor character-
istic two parts to its arg u m en tatio n — first, a m ore tightly organized theological
p a rt an d , second, a less tightly constructed appeal fo r the concretization o f
 Introduction X X X IX

the principles espoused earlier (cf. W hite, The Form and Function of the Body of
the Greek Letter, 159; A N E W 2.25.2, 1746– 48; A une, The New Testament in Its
Literary Environment, 188, 191)— th e n 1:3–3:21 an d 4 : 1–6:20 correspond to
those parts. O th e r scholars (cf. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, 2 7 ,3 7 ;
Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, 22–24), how ever, see paraenesis as a separate section
after th e body in th e Pauline letter, so th a t its th ree m ain sections are thanksgiv-
ing, body, an d paraenesis. In this case Ephesians could be seen as replacing
the body by ex ten ding both the thanksgiving an d the paraenesis. We suggest,
therefore, th at 1:3–3:21 functions as the equivalent to the first p art o f the
body, which h ere has the overall shape o f an extended thanksgiving period
(cf. also Dibelius-G reeven 78), an d th at the parakalö clause in 4:1 acts as the
transition to th e paraenesis, which can be taken as th e equivalent o f the body’s
second m ajor p art. In fact, thanksgiving an d paraenesis m ake good com pan-
ions. B ringing th em to g eth er in the central section o f the letter in this way
can be seen to be a n atu ra l developm ent from the Pauline letter. As we have
seen, am ong P aul’s own letters, 1 T hessalonians constitutes a move in this
direction. In any case, thanksgivings in P aul’s letters already begin to argue
th at a p articular course o f action is re q u ired by the situation (cf. Doty, Letters
in Primitive Christianity, 32). As S chubert (Form and Function of the Pauline Thanks-
givings, 89) puts it, “All Pauline thanksgivings have eith er explicitly o r implictly
paraenetic fu n ctio n.”
Noticeably, however, Ephesians in its body an d as a whole lacks the m arks
o f the typical Pauline letter’s addressing o f particular an d im m ediate issues.
It contains no list o f personal greetings, an d its them es an d th eir treatm en t
are m ore general th an specific. T h y en (Der Stil der jüdisch-hellenistischen Homilie,
63, 119– 20) pro p o sed th at the body o f th e letters o f Paul, with th eir teaching
and paraenesis, reflected the m an n er in which Paul p reached to his congrega-
tions an d may th erefo re have been influenced by the synagogue homily. T h e
body o f E phesians seems even m ore like the w ritten equivalent o f the oral
presentation th e w riter w ould have delivered to a congregation at its assembly
for w orship. It is the w ritten equivalent o f a serm on o r hom ily (cf. A lexander,
“Epistolary L iteratu re,” 584, who claims th at the Jew ish literary letter may
have grow n o u t o f the serm on an d been re g ard e d as “the w ritten analogue
o f the serm o n ”; he cites 2 Apoc. Bar. an d R om ans as exam ples). C ertainly
its liturgical form s w ould have enabled th e read in g o f the letter to fit a p p ro p ri-
ately into a liturgical setting. Its o p en in g sequence o f eulogy, thanksgiving,
intercession, an d doxology was w idespread in Jew ish an d early C hristian wor-
ship. As J. T. Sanders (ZN W 56 [1965] 214) asserts, “the doxology at the en d
o f ch. 3 is a closing liturgical elem ent, ju s t as th e blessing an d thanksgiving in
ch. 1 are o p en in g liturgical elem ents” (cf. also Gnilka, 27; Kirby, Ephesians,
84– 89; 126– 38). O f course, the concluding “A m en” in 3:21 also signals the
liturgical setting o f th e letter (cf. O. C ullm ann, Early Christian Worship [London:
SCM, 1953] 23– 24, “T h e liturgical A m en, likewise taken over from Judaism ,
is said by the congregation, as we see from 1 C or 14:16”; cf. also Kirby, Ephe-
sians, 8 8 , on th e im portance o f this congregational response). In d eed Ephesians
has been described as a liturgical hom ily (cf. Gnilka, 33, an d on liturgical
elem ents in hom ilies cf. also T hyen, Der Stil, 2 8–31). N o certainty can be
attached to such a classification, how ever, since th ere is no clearcut evidence
xl I n t r o d u c t io n

from this p erio d o f any fixed form s fo r eith er early C hristian o r Jew ish syna-
gogue hom ilies (cf. A une, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 197,
202).
T h e two basic parts o f this w ritten discourse a n d th eir functions m ay never-
theless reflect general p attern s fam iliar from Jew ish tradition. O ne exam ple
is the “covenant speech” p a tte rn in w hich a re m in d e r o f w hat G od h ad d one
on b eh alf o f his people was followed by a call to keep his com m andm ents.
Sections o f D euteronom y have this sequence, an d the book also includes a
song o f praise (cf. L. H artm an , “B undesideologie in u n d h in ter einigen paulin-
ischen T ex te n ,” in Die paulinische Literatur und Theologie, ed. S. P etersen [Göttin-
gen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1980] 103 – 18, fo r th e influence o f this sort
o f m aterial on P aul’s letters a n d thought). It is possible th at Jew ish proselyte
baptism ex erted som e influence, since m uch later sources (cf. b. Yebam. 47;
Gerim 1.5) indicate th at an address o f congratulation a n d exhortation accom pa-
nies th e rite (cf. also F. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments
[L ondon: S.P.C.K., 1928] 31– 32, 35, 56). B ut th e adoption o f the rite a n d its
in terp retatio n was still evolving d u rin g the last p a rt o f the first century c .e .,
so u n certainty m ust still su rro u n d its influence on early C hristian cerem onial.
It is easy to see, how ever, why th e sort o f serm on the body o f E phesians
reflects has been related to a C hristian baptism al setting (cf. esp. Kirby, Ephe-
sians, 150–61; also R. R. Williams, “T h e Pauline C atechism ,” 89– 96; Dahl,
TZ 7 [1951] 241– 64; C outts, N T S 3 [1956– 57] 115– 27; P okorný, Z N W 53
[1962] 160– 94), in which the p re ach e r recalled the activity o f God in the change
from believers’ past to th eir p re sen t a n d th e n ap p ealed to th em to live o u t
the significance o f th eir baptism . B ut, alth o u g h the letter contains som e strong
baptism al m otifs, its co n ten t is n o t sim ply to be red u ced to an exposition o f
the significance o f this rite. Its subject is m uch b ro a d er—C hristian existence
as a whole.
Ephesians is som etim es classed as a general letter (cf., e.g., A une, The New
Testament in Its Literary Environment, 218), but, despite its m ore general n atu re
in com parison with th e u n d isp u ted P auline letters, th e letter’s co n ten t is no t
solely d eterm in ed by the situation o f its w riter. T h e co n ten t shows clear signs
th at the w riter does have a pastoral concern for a particular g ro u p o f recipients,
certain churches in w estern Asia M inor, a n d has shaped his m aterial to m eet
th eir needs (cf. also S chnackenburg, 19; see fu rth e r Section 4). In term s o f
ancient epistolary theory th ere is n o th in g to disqualify it as a letter. It is a
real com m unication, speaking in th e w ritten m edium to those absent as th o u g h
they w ere present, an d is ad a p te d to th e circum stances an d m ood o f its a d d re s-
sees as far as these can be ascertained (cf. also Dahl, IDBSup [1976] 268;
contra, e.g., K üm m el, Introduction, 356; M ussner, 17). Its style is a m ixture o f
the graceful an d o rnam entative with th e plain an d direct (cf. M alherbe, Ohio
Journal of Religious Studies 5 [1977] 15–27). Its letter form should no t th erefo re
be dism issed as n o n real b u t should be seen as a n atu ra l extension o f the Pauline
letter in the direction o f an epistolary serm on o r hom ily.
D ahl has called E phesians “a letter o f re m in d e r an d o f co n gratulation”
(CurTM 5 [1978] 141). A lthough its first p a rt does have a congratulatory tone,
its re m in d e r o f w hat the readers have becom e as the C h u rch is not, o f course,
 Introduction x li

in th e form o f a direct congratulation o f the readers. T his w ould n o t in any

case be in line with th e w riter’s perspective on the grace o f God, to which, he
holds, believers owe everything. T h e rem in d er, th erefo re, takes the shape o f
a celebration before G od o f all th at he has accom plished for these believers,
an d it takes place in the context o f praise an d thanksgiving. So, is th e first
p a rt o f E phesians m ore like an ancient letter o f congratulation o r m ore like
one o f thanksgiving (though no t to th e readers b u t to G od for w hat he has
done for th e readers)? A ncient epistolary theorists d eterm in ed the type o f a
letter in th e light o f th e action its w riter in ten d ed to p erfo rm th ro u g h it. In
term s o f its overall in ten d ed effect on the readers, the first p art, with its th an k s-
giving an d rem in d ers, serves prim arily to bolster th eir sense o f th eir calling,
th eir aw areness o f th eir status as those who belong to the C hurch. In th at
sense it is probably best seen as a C hristian version o f the letter o f congratula-
tion. B ut in any case the letter’s two parts m ean th at its genre is a m ixed
one. T h e second p a rt is a variation on the G reek letter o f advice—the
logos protreptikos o r logos parainetikos (cf. A une, The New Testament in Its Literary
Environment, 161; B erger, A N R W 2.25.2 [1984] 1138– 45). T h e letter as a
whole th en brings to g eth er w hat P seudo-D em etrius (Epistolary Types 11,
19) w ould call th e congratulatory an d the advisory, an d Pseudo-Libanius
{Epistolary Styles 4, 5, 20, 45, 52, 67, 92) th e congratulatory an d the paraenetic
types o f letter (cf. M alherbe, Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 [1977] 28– 39,
62– 77).
E phesians, as we have it, is in the form o f a letter, b u t since the letter
would have been m ean t to be re ad aloud to its recipients, an d since, as we
have suggested, th e bulk o f it is equivalent to a serm on, a rhetorical analysis
o f it is also ap p ro p riate (cf. also Jo h an so n , To All the Brethren, 42– 43, on the
relationship o f rhetorical analysis to letters; fo r a m ore detailed discussion o f
the rhetoric o f E phesians as it affects the relationship o f the two halves o f
the letter, see also R. R. Jeal, “T h e R elationship betw een T heology an d Ethics
in the L etter to th e E phesians,” Ph.D. diss., University o f Sheffield, 1990).
T h e congratulatory a n d th e paraenetic, th e re m in d e r o f the read ers’ calling
an d the appeal to live o u t th at calling, com bine the epideictic an d the delibera-
tive rhetorical genres (cf. L ausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, 53–61,
for a discussion o f th e th ree m ain genres an d th eir possible com binations; cf.
also B erger, Formgeschichte, 17 – 19; as G. Lyons [.Pauline Autobiography: Toward
a New Understanding (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 64] points out, “T h e free-
dom ancient w riters exercised in the m ixing o f genres an d in the organization
o f a discourse com plicates rhetorical analysis m aking a m easure o f subjectivity
unavoidable.”) P erelm an’s an d O lbrechts-T yteca’s description o f epideictic rh e t-
oric serves to illum ine the in ten d ed effect o f the first p a rt o f Ephesians: “T h e
arg u m en tatio n in epideictic discourse sets o u t to increase th e intensity o f ad h er-
ence to certain values, which m ight n o t be contested w hen considered on
th eir own b u t m ay nevertheless no t prevail against o th e r values th at m ight
com e into conflict with them . T h e speaker tries to establish a sense o f com m u-
nion cen tered aro u n d particular values recognized by the audience an d to
this en d he uses the whole range o f m eans available to th e rhetorician for
purposes o f am plification an d en h a n cem en t” (The New Rhetoric, 51; cf. also
xlii I n t r o d u c t io n

K ennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 74–75). T hey

also p o in t o u t th at this kind o f oratory is a showpiece for artistic virtuosity
an d is m ost in d an g e r o f becom ing rhetoric in the pejorative sense o f the
word. T h e o rn am entative thanksgiving a n d p ray er o f E ph 1– 3 is an effective
rhetorical strategy. It is one th in g fo r a w riter to arg u e a case with his readers,
which m ay o r m ay no t be persuasive, b u t it is a n o th e r th in g to give thanks
an d pray fo r them . T his sets u p a differen t relationship in which the readers
are affirm ed, in which th eir sym pathies are gained, an d in which a com m on
relationship to G od an d to C hrist a n d com m on values g ro u n d e d in this relation-
ship are consolidated. It avoids focusing on any differences betw een th e w riter
an d the readers, it eschews confrontation, an d it goes beyond linear a rg u m e n ta-
tion to touch th e re ad ers’ religious em otions an d C hristian com m itm ent.
In th e deliberative genre a speaker o r w riter seeks to persuade an audience
to take certain actions. Paraenesis is n o t necessarily deliberative. It can function
in bo th deliberative an d epideictic rhetoric, d ep e n d in g on w h eth er it is calling
for a change o f behavior o r simply re iteratin g com m on values (A une, The
New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 191, 208; B erger, A N R W 2.25.2, 1139).
T h o u g h som e o f th e paraenesis in E phesians is a re m in d e r o f com m on values
(cf., e.g., 4:20, 21) an d calls fo r a preservation o f w hat is already the case (cf.
4:3; 6:10– 17, which re tu rn s to th e epideictic genre, see below), for the m ost
p art the w riter is seeking an adjustm ent in the re ad ers’ behavior so that, w here
necessary, it will becom e m ore distinctly C hristian, th at is, m ore in line with
w hat h e deem s to be ap p ro p riate for those who belong to the C hurch. P arae-
nesis frequently functioned, as it does in places here, to rem in d those addressed
o f w hat they should already know, b u t it did this in o rd e r to ex h o rt them to
take action on th e basis o f this know ledge. T his second p a rt o f the letter at-
tem pts by persuasive (protreptic) an d dissuasive (apotreptic) m eans to en co u r-
age the readers to take certain actions in the fu tu re an d is th erefo re prim arily
deliberative. In fact, the epideictic first p a rt o f the letter leads well into the
deliberative second p art, fo r the role o f the epideictic “is to intensify adherence
to values, ad h eren ce w ithout which discourses th at aim at provoking action
cannot find th e lever to m ove o r inspire th eir listeners. . . . T h e goal is always
to stren g th en a consensus a ro u n d certain values which one wants to see prevail
an d which should o rien t actions in the fu tu re . It is in this way th a t all practical
philosophy arises from the epideictic g e n re ” (Perelm an, The Realm of Rhetoric,
19–20; cf. also B urgess, “Epideictic L itera tu re,” 96, 101– 2, 229– 34, on the
close links betw een the epideictic an d the deliberative). In E phesians the com-
bination o f th e two rhetorical genres m akes fo r a m ore pow erful overall im-
pact. T h e celebration, w orship, a n d p ray er th a t precede the paraenesis are
likely to m ove an d inspire the read ers to th e action called fo r m ore effec-
tively th an if th e letter h ad consisted prim arily o f a string o f exhortations. It
is significant th at the peroratio o f 6 : 1 0 – 2 0 , which sum s u p the concerns o f
the whole letter, com bines both epideictic an d deliberative elem ents. H ow ever,
it re tu rn s prim arily to th e epideictic with its call to stand firm in the battle
an d th u s to preserve the values th e w riter has attem p ted to instill in his
readers.
A n epistolary analysis o f the letter in the light o f th e above discussion w ould
result in th e following:
 Introduction xliii

1:1,2 I. Prescript
1:1a A. S ender
1:1b B. A ddressees
1:2 C. G reeting
1:3– 6:20 II. Body
1:3– 3:21 A. E xtended T hanksgiving
1:3– 14 1. Eulogy
1:15– 23 2. Initial T hanksgiving Period an d Intercessory
Prayer-R eport
2:1– 10 3. R em inder o f R eaders’ Experience o f Salvation
2:11– 22 4. R em inder o f R eaders’ Privileges as G entile Partici-
pants in the New C reation an d New T em ple
3:(1)2 – 13 5. R em inder o f R eaders’ D ebt to Paul an d His Min-
istry
3:14– 21 6 . Intercessory Prayer-R eport an d Doxology
4:1– 6:20 B. Paraenesis
4:1– 16 1. E xhortation to M aintenance o f the C h u rch ’s
Unity
4:17– 24 2. E xhortation to Live A ccording to the New H u-
m anity R ath er T h a n th e O ld
4:25– 5:2 3. Practical Injunctions ab o u t th e O ld an d New Life
5:3– 14 4. E xhortations ab o u t Speech, Sexual Morality, and
Living as C hildren o f L ight
5:15– 6:9 5. E xhortation to Wise an d Spirit-Filled Living in
W orship an d in H ousehold Relationships
6:10– 20 6 . E xhortation to S tand Firm in the Spiritual Battle
an d to C onstant P rayer
6:21– 24 III. Postscript
6:21, 22 A. R eference to Apostolic R epresentative, Tychicus
6:23 B. W ish o f Peace
6:24 C. G race-B enediction

A b rief rhetorical outline o f the letter on th e o th e r h an d m ight be as follows:

1:1– 23 I. E xordium
1 :1 ,2 A. P rescript
1:3– 14 B. Eulogy
1:15– 23 C. T hanksgiving an d Prayer
2:1– 3:21 II. Narratio o f G rounds for T hanksgiving
2:1– 10 A. R em inder o f R eaders’ Salvation in C hrist
2 :1 1–22 B. R em inder o f R eaders’ Privileges as G entile Partici-
pants in the New C reation an d New T em ple
3:(1)2– 13 C. Digressio: R em inder o f R eaders’ D ebt to Paul an d His
M inistry
3:1, 14–21 D. Transitus o f Intercessory P rayer an d Doxology
4 :1–6:9 III. Exhortatio
4 :1–16 A. E xhortation to M aintenance o f th e C h u rch ’s U nity
4:17– 24 B. E xhortation to Live as the New H um anity
xliv In t r o d u c t io n

4 :2 5–5:2 C. Seven Specific E xhortations about the O ld an d New

Life
5:3– 14 D. E xhortations ab o u t Speech, Sexual M orality, an d Liv-
ing as C hildren o f L ight
5:15– 6:9 E. E xhortation to Wise an d Spirit-Filled Living in W or-
ship an d in H ousehold R elationships
6:10–24 IV. Peroratio
6:10– 20 A. Final E xhortation to S tand Firm in the Spiritual Bat-
tie
6:21– 24 B. Postscript

T h ro u g h its eulogy about th eir salvation a n d its thanksgiving an d in terces-

sory p ray er o n th eir behalf, th e exordium leads th e readers into this epistolary
discourse in such a way as to m ake th em receptive to its m essage (cf. Q uintilian
3.8.7; 4.1.5, on th e ex o rd iu m ’s function o f gaining the audience’s favorable
disposition an d sym pathy tow ard the discourse). T h e narratio functioned as
a re p o rt o f th e circum stances o n w hich the audience was to base its perspective
o r actions (cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 3.6.1– 11; Q uintilian 4.2.1). H ere th e re is a skillful
transition from th e exordium into the narratio with its recalling o f the re ad ers’
past experience. T his continues th e flow o f th o u g h t, as w hat has previously
been said ab o u t C hrist is now applied to th e readers (cf. L ausberg, Handbuch
der literarischen Rhetorik, 163). T h e narratio o ften contains an excursus o r digres-
sio, fo u n d h ere in 3:2 – 13 (cf. L ausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik,
187– 88), Q uintilian (4.3.1) suggests th at a digression in the narratio enables
speakers to m ove to “som e pleasant an d attractive topic with a view to securing
the u tm ost a m o u n t o f favor from th eir aud ien ce.” C ertainly som eone w riting
in P aul’s nam e is calculated to increase his re ad ers’ favor an d tru st by digressing
ab out the suffering apostle’s m inistry on th e ir behalf. T o g e th e r with th e transi-
tus such a digression helps th e readers to be well disposed tow ard the ethical
adm onitions in P aul’s nam e th a t are ab o u t to follow (cf. also Q uintilian 4.3.9).
T h e re tu rn to intercessory p ray er a n d th e doxology o f 3:14–21 are h a rd e r to
classify rhetorically b u t are probably best seen as having th e role o f a transitus,
which frequently concludes a narratio in a pow erful affective m a n n e r an d
can function as a new exordium (cf. L ausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik,
188– 89). J u s t as on an epistolary analysis Ephesians does no t contain a norm al
letter-body, so on a rhetorical analysis it does n o t contain the usual a rg u m e n ta-
tio th at was at th e cen ter o f m ost discourses. Instead, this is replaced by the
ex ten d ed exhortatio (cf. Q uintilian 3.6.47; 9.2.103), which begins at 4:1. In
rhetorical term s th e exhortation o f 6 : 1 0 – 2 0 is to be th o u g h t o f as th e m ain
p a rt o f th e peroratio, providing a striking final appeal to the readers, which
sum s u p th e n eed to g u ard all th a t belongs to th eir calling in the battle against
hostile o p posing forces a n d attem pts to arouse th em to the ap p ro p riate action
by th e th reefo ld use o f th e verb “to stan d .”
T h e style o f E phesians m atches th e contents o f its two parts. In the first
p a rt w hat m ay be called th e language o f w orship is dom inant. T his is a p p ro p ri-
ate to its epideictic genre, in which “th e style is th e m ost distinctive feature.
. . . A tendency to o rn a m e n t o f every kind is fostered. . . . ‘A po m p an d
prodigality o f w ords,’ well-balanced periods, a style h a lf poetic, h alf oratorical,
 Introduction xlv

are th e qualities m ost desired” (Burgess, “Epideictic L iteratu re,” 94). H ym ns

an d o th er form s o f praise to th e gods were considered a stan d ard type o f
this g enre (cf. B urgess, “Epideictic L iteratu re,” 110– 14, 130, 174– 80, 191– 94).
T o p u t across his th oughts an d give them a presence th at acts u p o n the read ers’
sensibilities, th e w riter uses a n u m b er o f stylistic techniques such as repetition,
synonymy, an d am plification. As P erelm an puts it, “W ithout doubt, to create
presence it is useful to insist at length u p o n certain elem ents; in prolonging
the atten tio n given them , th eir presence in th e consciousness o f the audience
is increased. O nly by dwelling u p o n a subject does one create the desired
em otions” (The Realm of Rhetoric, 37). C haracteristic o f the style o f Ephesians
are th e rep etitio n an d parallelism o f its m any long, an d in some cases, exceed-
ingly long sentences. In the latter category are 1:3– 14; 1:15– 23; 2:1– 7; 3:1–
7; 4:11– 16; 6:14–20. T hese long sentences extend them selves by m eans o f
relative clauses, clauses with o n o r a n o th e r conjunction an d participial construe-
tions. K. G. K u h n points o u t th at these tapew orm -like sentences, which drag
on with loosely stru n g to g eth er clauses, also occur with frequency in the Q u m-
ran literature, especially in the H ym ns o f T hanksgiving, an d suggests th at
th eir presence in E phesians is to be explained on th e basis o f a continuity o f
tradition {Paul and Qumran, 116– 20). A gain an d again words which are either
synonym ous o r related in m eaning are linked by m eans o f a genitive construe-
tion. In this way, fo r exam ple, the w riter dwells on the notion o f divine pow er—
r\ evepyeva rod Kparovs rrfr lax1>0? avrov, lit., “the w orking o f the strength o f his
m ight” (1:19), 77 evepyeva rrfr bvvapeco? avrov, “the w orking o f his pow er” (3:7),
o r to Kpäros ri]<z taxuos avrov, “th e stren g th o f his m ig h t” (6 : 1 0 )— or the divine
will— r\ evboida rod OeXr)paro<; avrov, “th e good pleasure o f his will” (1:5), o r r\
ßovXr! rod 0 eX77/L1aro 5 avrov, “th e p u rp o se o f his will” (1:11). A sim ilar effect is
achieved by various sorts o f parallelism . Synonym s an d words connected in
m eaning are placed side by side, e.g., ao0ta Kai Qpovi01‫;<ך‬, “wisdom an d insight”
( 1 :8 ), o r ra napanreopara Km ai apapriat, “trespasses an d sins” (2:1). Elaborative
phrases are added, e.g., the addition o f “th e forgiveness o f trespasses” to “r e-
d em p tio n th ro u g h his blood” (1:7). Participles adjacent in m eaning are linked
o r ju x tap o sed (e.g., nepi^cvoapevoi. . . Kai evbvoäpevoi. . . Km vnobrjoapevoi. . .
ävaXaßövres, “having girded . . . an d having p u t on . . . an d having shod
. . . taking u p ” [6:14 – 16]), as are infinitive constructions (e.g., Karäkaßeodat
. . . yvcovai, “to grasp . . . to know ” [3:18, 19]). T h e re is also a parallelism o f
content, w hat van R oon calls a “rhym ing o f th o u g h ts” (Authenticity, 135– 58;
cf. also de Zwaan,. R H P R 6 [1927] 554– 65). In 2:14– 18, for instance, th ere
are th ree d ifferen t statem ents ab o u t peace in vv 14a, 15c, 17, fo u r about unity
in vv 14b, 15b, 16a, 18, an d two ab o u t the destruction o f enm ity in vv 14c -
15a, 16b.
T h e sim ple rep etitio n o f key w ords o r cognates o r synonym s is an o th er
featu re o f E phesians’ distinctive style. So, for exam ple, th ere is a piling u p
o f term s associated with G od’s choice, purpose, o r good pleasure in 1:3– 11
(e£eXe£aro, npoopioas, evboida [2x], OeXrjpa [3x], npoedero, dKOVopia, eKXr^pojdrjpev,
npoopioOevres, 7rpo0 eat5 , ßovXri), with know ledge in 1:17, 18 (ao0 ta, ä m K ä X v ^ ,
emyvoxns, TTe^coriapevovs, eibevai), with pow er in 1:1 9 ,2 0 (bvvapis, evepyeva,
Kparo5 , i e v r \ p y q p e v ) , an d with G od’s grace, m ercy, an d love in 2:4– 8 (eXeog,
äyäTTT}, riyaTrqoev, xapi? [3x], xpvor&n 75 ). O n occasions th ere is also the use
xlvi I n t r o d u c t io n

o f paronom asia an d the rep etitio n o f sounds for particular rhetorical effect
(e.g., to 7rXr7pco/ia t o v r a n a v r a e v n a m v 7r\T7p00 pe1 0 1 ‫>׳‬in 1:23; cf. also Lausberg,
Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, 322– 25). T h e stringing to g eth er o f p rep o si-
tional phrases is an o th e r device which adds to the repetitive n a tu re o f the
style (e.g., d ? v i o d e o i a v &a '1‫ ס ן ז‬0 ‫ ט‬X p v o T o d et$ a i n o v , K a r a t t \ v e v S o i a a p t o v 0 eX17paro 5
a v r o v , 6 t 9 e i r a i v o v . . . [1 :5 ,6 ], o r 7rpos t o p K a r a p r i o / u o p r C b v a y i c o v et9 e p y o v
b i a K O v i a s 1:‫ ?־‬o b c o b o p r j v t o v acbparo? t o v X p i o r o v [4 :1 2 ]). T h e re are also n u m ero u s
prepositional phrases with e v , m any o f which ro u n d off clauses. T h e p rep o si-
tions provide tem p orary pauses in the chantlike rh y th m o f som e o f th e long
sentences, an d th e series o f long syllables at th e e n d o f a n u m b er o f groups
o f words also have a slowing dow n effect.
T h e w riter shows in o th er places in th e letter th a t he is capable o f pro d u cin g
m ore succinct, lively, an d direct discourse, so it should be assum ed th at w here
he adopts a pro fu se an d effusive style it is d one deliberately in o rd e r to achieve
particu lar results. H e speaks repeatedly o f “riches” (to 7tX0öt0 5 )— “the riches
o f grace” (1:7; 2:7), “the riches o f glory” (1:18; 3:16), “th e riches o f C hrist”
(3:8)— an d th ro u g h th e constant re cu rren ce o f 7ra? (48x), the w ealth o f words,
an d the exalted form ulations attem pts to convey in a p p ro p riate language som e-
th in g o f th e riches which he is expo u n d in g . V an R oon (Authenticity, 182–90)
suggests th a t such a style is on th e fro n tie r betw een two worlds. O n the one
h an d , its repetitions an d parallels are rem iniscent o f H ebrew poetry, and, on
the o th er, it is in line with G reek epideictic rhetoric such as w ould be used in
cerem onial orations o f praise. T h e explanation fo r this, he claims, is th a t th e
psalm s an d wisdom literatu re inspired H e b rew- an d /o r A ram aic-speaking Jew s
to a devotional an d m oralizing style o f speech, th e sort o f style th at is to be
fo u n d in th e Q u m ra n w ritings, especially 1QH. T h e n , w ithin a sphere, w here,
besides H ebrew an d A ram aic, G reek was also spoken, this style o f speech b e-
cam e tran slated into an equivalent G reek style. It is this Hellenistic Jew ish
style th at influenced early C hristian liturgy an d th a t th e w riter o f Ephesians
is em ploying. In o rd e r to evoke thankfulness an d w orship am ong his readers,
the w riter em ploys the form s a n d language o f thanksgiving an d w orship with
which they w ould have been fam iliar. O rn am en tal, flowery language was n o r-
m al in w orship. Parts o f E phesians’ style m ay seem po n d ero u s o r ostentatious
to the m o d ern read er, b u t w hat m ust be b o rn e in m ind is its likely affective
connotations fo r its original readers. Since paraenesis for the m ost p a rt involves
discrete th o u g h ts ra th e r th an continuity o f arg u m en tatio n , the style o f the
latter p a rt o f E phesians is m ore direct, with sh o rter sentences a n d the use o f
im peratives, participles with im peratival force, a n d expressions o f exhortation
followed by an infinitive. B ut th ere are places w here som ething o f the style
o f the first h a lf o f th e letter flows over into the second, particularly in 4:1–
16; 5:21– 33; 6:10– 20. It is noticeable th a t these are places w here the w riter’s
distinctive concerns are ad d ed to th e traditional m aterial. (For m ore detailed
discussion o f th e style o f Ephesians, see th e discussion u n d e r Form/ Structure/
Setting o f th e various sections o f the com m entary a n d Schm id, Epheserbrief,
130–331; Percy, Probleme, 179–252; van R oon, Authenticity, 100– 212.)
T h e style is en h an ced by the w riter’s use o f traditions, which are also effective
in reinforcing com m on values. T h e two d ifferen t parts o f the letter for the
m ost p a rt m ake use o f two d ifferen t types o f traditional m aterial—liturgical
 Introduction x lv ii

in the first p a rt an d paraenetic in the second. In the first h alf th ere are no t
only traditional liturgical form s o f eulogy, intercessory prayer, an d doxology
b u t also traditional liturgical language within 1:3– 14, creedal form ulations in
1:20– 23, an d hym nic m aterial in 2:14 – 16. T h e “once . . . now ” contrast schem a
from early C hristian preaching has also been woven into the stru ctu re o f 2 :1–
10 an d 2:11– 22, while S cripture is em ployed directly in 2:17 an d indirectly
in 1:20, 22. T rad itional m aterial to be fo u n d in the second h alf includes early
C hristian catechetical m aterial (e.g., 4:22– 24), topoi o r sentences (cf. 4:25–5:20),
lists o f virtues an d vices (cf. 4:31– 32; 5 :3 ,4 ; 5:9), an d the household code
(cf. 5:21– 6:9). Jew ish S cripture is p u t to paraenetical use also (cf. its direct
use in 5:31, 32; 6:2, 3; 6:14– 17; cf. also 4:8; an d its indirect use in 4:25, 26;
5:18), an d liturgical o r hym nic fragm ents (5:14), confessional form ulae (4:4–
6 ), an d traditional form ulations (e.g., 5:2, 25) are n o t m issing from this p art
o f the letter (cf. the m ore detailed discussion u n d e r Form / Structure / Setting o f
the various sections; also B arth, N T S 30 [1984] 3– 25; Fischer, Tendenz und
Absicht, 136– 208; Gnilka, “Paränetische T ra d itio n en ,” 397– 4 1 0 ; King, ExpTim
63 [1952] 273– 76; Lincoln, J S N T 14 [1982] 16– 57; J. T . Sanders, ZA W 56[1965]
214–32). Colossians an d a n u m b er o f passages from Pauline letters function
as traditional m aterial also, b u t the relation o f E phesians to these will be dis-
cussed in the following section.

2. R e l a t i o n to C o l o s s ia n s and th e R est of the P a u l in e

C orpus

Bibliography

Benoit, P. “Rapports littéraires entre les épîtres aux Colossiens et aux Éphésiens.” In
Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. FSJ. Schmid, ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner. Regens-
burg: Pustet, 1963, 11–22. Coutts, J. “The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians.”
NTS 4 (1958) 201–7. Dahl, N. A. “Der Epheserbrief und der verlorene erste Brief
des Paulus an die Korinther.” In Abraham unser Vater. FS O. Michel, ed. O. Betz, M.
Hengel, and P. Schmidt. Leiden: Brill, 1963, 65– 77. Merklein, H. “Eph 4, 1– 5, 20 als
Rezeption von Kol 3, 1– 17.” In Kontinuität und Einheit. FS F. Mussner, ed. P. G. Müller
and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981, 194–2 1 0 .———. “Paulinische Theologie in
der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes.” In Paulus in den neutestamentlichen
Spätschriften, ed. K. Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1981, 25–69. ———. Das kirchliche
Amt, 28–44. Mitton, C. L. Epistle, 55– 158, 280– 338. Ochel, W. Die Annahme einer Bearbei-
tung des Kolosser-Briefes im Epheserbrief. Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch, 1934. Percy, E.
Probleme, 360–433. Polhill, J. B. “The Relationship between Ephesians and Colossians.”
RevExp 70 (1973) 439–50. Roon, A. van. Authenticity, 413– 37. Schmid, J. Epheserbrief,
384–457.

O ne o f the m ost fascinating o f th e various enigm as th at su rro u n d the letter

to the E phesians is the n atu re o f its relationship to an o th er letter in the Pauline
corpus, nam ely, Colossians. T h e relationship betw een these two letters is by
far the closest w ithin the Pauline corpus, an d w ithin the N T as a whole is
rivaled only by th at am ong the synoptic Gospels an d th at betw een 2 Peter
and Ju d e. N ot only is this issue an in trig u in g one in its own right, b u t the
stance one adopts on it is also a decisive factor in attem pts to resolve the
xlviii I n t r o d u c t io n

problem o f th e authenticity o f Ephesians. In fact Dibelius-G reeven go so far

as to claim th a t it is the decisive factor (“Das V erhältnis von E p h zu Col bietet
d en P u n k t d ar, von dem aus die E chtheitsfrage zu entscheiden ist” [83]).
F or reasons o f space, only a sketch o f th e issues a n d n o t a detailed a rg u m e n ta-
tion can be p resen ted here.
T h e b are statistics are these. O f th e 1,570 w ords in Colossians, 34 p ercen t
re a p p e a r in E phesians, an d conversely 26.5 p ercen t o f th e 2,411 w ords in
E phesians are paralleled in Colossians (cf. M itton, Epistle, 57). Yet, strangely,
this rem arkable in terd e p en d en c e is n o t p ro d u ced by ex ten d ed passages occur-
rin g in th e sam e form in each letter. In only one passage, th e recom m endation
o f T ychicus (E ph 6:21, 2 2 //C o l 4:7, 8 ), is th e re an ex ten d ed verbatim ag ree-
m en t o f tw enty-n ine consecutive w ords. Elsew here th ere are th ree places w here
seven consecutive words show exact correspondence (Eph 1:1, 2 //C o l 1:1, 2;
E ph 3 :2 //C o l 1:25; E ph 3 : 9 / / Col 1:26) an d two places w here five consecutive
w ords have an exact parallel (Eph 1 :7 //C o l 1:14; E p h 4 :1 6 //C o l 2:19).
Such statistics, how ever, do little to reveal th e g reat extent o f the sim ilarity
betw een th e two letters. It is Colossians, o f all th e o th e r letters, th a t com es
closest to th e distinctive style o f E phesians. It too has som e long sentences,
freq u en t relative clauses, genitive constructions, an d prepositional phrases with
ev (cf. the detailed discussion o f its style by W. B ujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchung
gen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen [G öttingen:
V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1973]). W hat is m ore, the overall stru ctu re an d
sequence o f th e letters is similar.
As th e ch art o n p. xlviii shows (cf. o th e r attem pts to ch art th e overall rela-
tionship by Schm id, Epheserbrief, 412; E rnst, 254– 55), in both parts o f the let-
te r E phesians has m uch o f its them atic m aterial in com m on with Colossians,
a n d in its m ain blocks this m aterial is in th e sam e sequence. In th e first p arts
o f th e letters, th e prescript, th e thanksgiving perio d with its intercessory prayer-
rep o rt, th e re m in d e r o f th e re ad ers’ previous experience o f alienation an d
p resen t experience o f reconciliation, a n d th e discussion o f Paul as th e suffering
apostle with his special m inistry o f th e m ystery o f th e gospel are all parallel.
O f course, each letter treats these form s an d subjects in a slightly different
fashion, so that, fo r exam ple, E phesians, in distinction from Colossians, places
its discussion o f past alienation a n d p re sen t reconciliation in th e context o f
th e G entiles’ alienation from Israel a n d th e ir p resen t privileges as m em bers
o f the new creation an d new tem ple. Even sections o f th e letters which a p p e a r
distinctive w hen viewed in sequence do in fact have th eir co u n terp arts else-
w here in th e o th e r letter. T h e additional statem ent in Colossians’ intercessory
prayer-re p o rt (1:13, 14) about believers’ experience o f salvation as a tran sfer-
ence from th e old dom inion to th e new can be seen to have its m ore developed
c o u n terp art in E p h 2:1– 10 (<contra M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 43– 44, who
attem pts to m ake a case th a t E p h 2 :1–10 is p a rt o f a com m entary in 2:1– 22
o n Col 1:21– 23, suggesting links betw een 2:1– 10 a n d Col 1:21 an d betw een
2:19– 22 an d Col 1:23 th a t are too ten u o u s to be convincing). Similarly, the
hym nic m aterial about th e cosmic C hrist in Col 1:15– 20 has som e striking
parallels with th e additional statem ent in E phesians’ intercessory prayer-re p o rt
(1:20– 23) ab o u t th e cosmic C hrist an d his relationship with the C hurch. In
term s o f th e stru ctu rin g o f m aterial, w hat is prim arily u n ique to th e first h alf
 Introduction x lix

C o m pa r iso n of E p h e sia n s and C o lo ssia n s

Col U n iq u e to C o l P a r a lle l M a te r ia l U n iq u e to E p h Eph

1:1,2 Prescript 1:1,2

Eulogy 1:3– 14
1:3–14 Thanksgiving 1:15–23
Intercessory prayer
report
(Additional statement (Additional statement
about believers’ expe- about cosmic Christ
rience of salvation) and his relationship
to the Church)
1:15–20 Hymnic material about
supremacy of cosmic
Christ in creation and
reconciliation
Reminder of readers’ 2:1–10
experience of salva-
tion
1:21–23 Reminder of readers’ 2:11–22
experience of alien-
ation then but recon-
ciliation now
(additional statement (context of alienation
about necessity of from Israel then but
continuing and Paul’s Gentile privileges
ministry) now)
1:24–29 Paul as suffering apostle 3:1–13
and his ministry of
the mystery
2:1–3:4 Interaction with false
teaching
Intercessory prayer-re- 3:14–21
port and doxology
(head-body relation Col Exhortation to mainte- 4:1–16
2:19//Eph 4:15,16) nance of Church’s
unity
3:5–17 Injunctions about old 4:17–5:20
and new humanity—
sexual morality,
anger, truth, love, (Light/darkness con-
thankfulness, and trast 5:8–14)
worship
3:18–4:1 Household code (Christ and the Church 5:21–6:9
5:22–32)
Spiritual warfare 6:10–17
4:2–4 Exhortation to prayer 6:18–20
4:5,6 Conduct toward
outsiders
4:7–9 Commendation of 6:21,22
Tychicus
4:10–17 Greetings
4:18 (Autograph) Grace-benediction (Peace wish) 6:23,24

o f Colossians is th e section which counters the false teaching, an d w hat is

u nique to th e sam e p a rt o f Ephesians is its liturgical fram ew ork o f a eulogy
an d a second intercessory prayer-re p o rt followed by a doxology. Even here,
however, th o u g h the m ain topics o f these sections are distinctive, th ere are
verbal parallels, which, in the case o f E p h 3:14– 21, show th at its w riter works
sequentially with the Colossians m aterial, fo r in 3 :1–13 he h ad em ployed Col
1 I n t r o d u c t io n

l:2 3 c - 28 an d now in 3:14–21 he takes u p language from the last p a rt o f th at

passage an d from w hat follows afte r in Col 1:29–2:10.
In th e second h alf o f the letters th e bulk o f the paraenesis has parallel
m aterial in the sam e b ro ad sequence. T h e re are injunctions about p u ttin g off
th e old an d p u ttin g on the new hum anity. W hen these injunctions becom e
m ore specific, they involve in both cases exhortations about sexual m orality,
an ger, speech, tru thfulness, love, forgiveness, thankfulness, a n d worship.
T h e re th en follows the instruction ab o u t relationships w ithin the household
in th e sequence o f wife-husband, child-p aren t, an d slave-m aster. W hat is p articu-
larly striking ab o u t this ag reem en t is that, alth o u g h household codes ap p e ar
elsew here, th ere is no parallel in n o n-C hristian a n d o th e r early C hristian litera-
tu re to th e specific o rd e r o f injunctions followed in Colossians an d Ephesians.
B oth letters close with a sim ilar ex h o rtatio n to prayer, the com m endation o f
Tychicus, an d a grace-benediction. A gain th ere are distinctives in the way
the sam e subject m atter is treated. In com parison with the sim ilar m aterial in
Col 3 :5 – 17, E p h 4:17– 5:20 has an additional contrast betw een light an d d a rk-
ness in 5 :8 – 14, an d the household code in E phesians is ex p an d ed by th e sus-
tained analogy betw een the relationship o f h u sb an d an d wife an d th at o f C hrist
an d the C hurch. In Colossians the grace-benediction is preceded by a signature
statem ent, an d in Ephesians it is com bined with a wish o f peace.
U nique to Colossians are the paraenesis abou t conduct in relation to outsid-
ers in 4:5, 6 a n d the list o f personal greetings in 4:10 – 17. In E phesians th e
o p en in g ex h o rtatio n about the m aintenance o f the C h u rch ’s unity an d its
grow th tow ard m aturity in 4:1– 16 an d th e p ero ratio n about believers’ w arfare
against spiritual pow ers in 6:10– 17 are unique. Yet even here, as will be seen
below, b oth Col 4:5, 6 an d E p h 4 : 1–16 have strong verbal links with m aterial
elsew here in th e o th er letter. T h e re is no reason to speculate about an original
letter o r outline which simply contained w hat we have reconstructed in the
colum n o f parallel m aterial (pace van R oon, Authenticity, 413–37, who argues
for an original com m on b lu ep rin t o f this sort). N o r is it adequate to hold
th at the two letters simply rep ro d u ce com m on traditions (pace G reeven in his
postscript in D ibelius-G reeven, 113; E rnst, 257, who sees this as the prim ary,
th o u g h n o t the only, explanation; D ahl, “D er E pheserbrief,” 71– 72). Even if
th ere was som e use o f com m on traditions, it looks far m ore likely th at the
p rim ary explanation m ust be th at one letter served as the m odel fo r the o th e r
(cf. also M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 39; fo r a survey o f th e various solutions
which have been proposed by recent writers, including theories about in terp o la-
tion p u t back into an original Colossians by the w riter o f Ephesians from his
com position m odeled on the original Colossians, first proposed by H. J. H o ltz-
m an n [Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe a u f Grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandt-
Schaftsverhältnisses (Leipzig: E ngelm ann, 1872)], see Polhill, RevExp 70 [1973]
439– 50, an d fo r a listing o f the positions taken by earlier scholars, see Schm id,
Epheserbrief, 393– 408). If Ephesians provided th e m odel for Colossians, th en
Colossians w ould have abbreviated sections with im p o rtan t content, reducing
E ph 2:11– 22 to Col 1:21– 23 an d E ph 5:21– 33 to Col 3:18, 19, fo r exam ple,
an d would have ex p an d ed the section with personal greetings from E ph 6:21,
22 to Col 4:7– 17. T h e far m ore obvious hypothesis is th a t Colossians served
as th e basis fo r E phesians, which om its the interaction with a specific false
 Introduction Ii

teaching an d the greetings from an d to particular individuals an d expands

the rest o f th e m aterial to m ake it m ore general an d to ad a p t it to its own
purposes (contra C outts, N T S 4 [1958] 201– 7; van R oon, Authenticity, 414– 26,
who suggest unconvincingly th at m uch o f the evidence points to the priority
o f Ephesians).
B ut it is n o t simply th at E phesians builds on the overall stru ctu re an d th e-
m atic sequence o f Colossians. T h e re are also very close verbal links, as has
been n o ted earlier, a n d an exam ination o f som e o f these will reveal m ore o f
the n atu re o f the relation betw een the two letters (cf. the synoptic arran g em en t
o f the G reek o f both letters in M itton, Epistle, 279– 315, which is m ost useful
for such an exam ination). A m ore detailed discussion can be fo u n d u n d e r
Form / Structure / Setting o f the relevant sections o f the com m entary. H ere we
shall look first at the sort o f links fo u n d betw een m aterial within the parallel
sections o utlined above. In the prescript th e sim ilarities betw een the description
o f the sender an d th e w ording o f th e greeting are n o t surprising. W hat is
striking is that, in the description o f the addressees, only Colossians an d E p h e-
sians, am ong the letters o f the Pauline corpus, call them both “saints” and
“faithful in C hrist (Jesus).” A t the beginning o f the thanksgiving period in
E ph 1:15– 17, th ere is th e p h en o m en o n o f “conflation” (cf. M itton, Epistle,
65), which is fo u n d in a n u m b er o f o th e r places also. T h e w riter h ere com-
bines w ording from two parts o f the parallel section in Colossians: 1:4 and
1:9. Similarly, E p h 2:11– 16 clearly takes u p Col 1 :21,22 (cf. especially
d7rT7XX0rp1c0jue1>0s, änoKaraXKaooeiv, acopa, adp£) b u t also has links th ro u g h its
use o f tradition with the hym nic m aterial in Col 1:15– 20 (cf. the notions o f
m aking peace betw een two entities, th e blood o f C hrist, an d “th ro u g h the
cross”) an d brings in term inology from Col 2:11, 14 (cf. circum cision m ade
with o r w ithout h ands an d “regulations”). T h e section on P aul’s apostolic suffer-
ings on b eh alf o f the G entiles in E ph 3:1– 13 contains n u m ero u s verbal links
with Col 1:24–29, on which it is based: 0 XÜ//15 , m ep vpcbv, 5uzkoi>05, olicovopia,
“given to m e fo r you,” the revelation schem a with its “m ystery” previously
“h id d en ” b u t now disclosed, rot? 0 7 1 0 1 5 , to 7rX0Ü7 0 5 , evepryeua, an d Swap 1 5 . As
well as differences in the co n ten t o f the m ystery an d th e nam ing o f its recipients
(discussed later in this section), th ere are as usual the slight verbal differences
so often fo u n d in the w riter’s use o f Colossians. So, fo r exam ple, E ph 3:2, in
taking u p Col 1:25, adds 7775 ‫ ־‬xapiro 5 afte r 7r\v cfocovopiav, m aking the description
“given to m e for you” now qualify “th e grace,” ra th e r th a n im m ediately qualify
“the stew ardship.”
In the paraenesis o f the second half, E p h 4:17– 24 is d e p e n d e n t on Col
3:5– 11 for its talk o f a previous way o f living, fo r its term inology o f p u ttin g
off the old h u m anity an d p u ttin g on the new, for th e vices it m entions, an d
for the notions o f renew al an d the new h u m an ity ’s relation to G od’s creative
activity. Yet again such m aterial is re a rra n g e d by th e w riter o f E phesians to
suit his own purposes, an d such variations are intro d u ced as changing participial
constructions to infinitive constructions for the language o f p u ttin g on an d
p u ttin g off an d changing Colossians’ description o f the new person from veo<$
to k<uvo<; an d its verb fo r “to renew ” from avaKaivovv to ävaveow. T h e next
sections o f paraenesis in E ph 4:25– 5:14 also take u p elem ents from Col 3:5–
11 an d the following verses in 3:12 – 14a, including th e vices an d virtues listed
lii I n t r o d u c t io n

in E ph 4:31, 32 which are an ad ap tatio n o f those fo u n d in Col 3:8, 12, 13,

the vices o f E p h 5:3– 5 from Col 3:5, 8 , th e m ention o f the com ing w rath o f
God in E ph 5:6 from Col 3:6, an d th e “th e n . . . now ” contrast in E ph 5:8
from Col 3:7, 8 . E p h 5:15– 20 are d e p e n d e n t on Col 3:16, 17, em ploying th eir
m ention o f m u tu al edification th ro u g h psalm s, hym ns, an d spiritual songs
an d o f singing in the heart, an d conflate this with Col 4:5 a n d its notions o f
walking wisely an d redeem ing the tim e. M itton (Epistle, 246) designates the
use o f Col 3:17 in E ph 5:20 as “a curious instance o f th e m erely accidental
association o f words prevailing over th e m eaning which they w ere originally
used to convey.” T his is because E p h 5:20 takes th e participle evxapwTOWTe*;,
“giving th an k s,” from the second h a lf o f Col 3:17 a n d adds to this the phrase
“in the nam e o f o u r L ord Jesus C hrist,” which is its version o f “in the nam e
o f th e L ord Jesu s,” from th e first h alf o f Col 3:17. In Colossians this phrase
h ad been associated n o t with giving thanks b u t with doing all things, while
the “all th in g s” from Colossians has been tran sferre d to the clause in E phesians
ab out giving thanks. W ith the household code, alm ost all the w ords from Col
3:18–4:1 have been taken over in the sam e sequence in E ph 5 :2 1–6:9. E p h e-
sians n o t only retains Colossians’ C hristianizing o f the code by b ringing believ-
ers’ relationship to th eir L ord to b ea r on its exhortations b u t also provides its
own m ore developed C hristian in terp retatio n . B oth exhortations to p ray er in
E ph 6:18– 20 a n d Col 4:2– 4 have the participle npooevxopevot a n d are concerned
ab o u t being alert o r w atchful (Eph, d 7 pu7r1>owre9 ; Col, ypriyopovvTes) an d about
perseverance (irpoomprepr^oet; 7xpoomprepevre). T h e co n ten t o f the p ray er has
to do with th e apostolic w ord (X0 7 0 9 ; \oyov), with the apostle’s proclaim ing o f
the m ystery (yvcopioat to pwTrjpiov tov eixiyyeXtov; XaXfioat to pwTrjpiov tov Xpia
roύ), for which he is im prisoned (vnep ob npeoßevco ev aXixjet; dt 0 m i dedepat),
a n d with his d oing this in the m a n n e r th a t he o u g h t to (iva . . . C09 del pe
XaXfjtrai). Finally, as n o ted in th e statistics provided earlier, th e letters’ post-
scripts in E p h 6 :2 1 ,2 2 an d Col 4 :7 ,8 have tw enty-nine consecutive words
th at are exactly the sam e an d in th e sam e ord er. E phesians has m ade no
additions; it has simply om itted the two w ords Kai ovvdovXos, “an d fellow ser-
vant,” from th e description o f Tychicus, which has the effect o f h eightening
the significance o f P aul’s ow n distinctive role.

As has been noted, E phesians is n o t only d e p e n d e n t on Colossians in the

m ajor sections th at they have in parallel, b u t th ere are also term inological
links outside these sections. A gain, sim ilar phrases are placed in quite different
contexts. T h e eulogy o f 1:3– 14 is fo u n d only in Ephesians, b u t it has a large
n u m b er o f parallels with Colossians. T h e tu rn o f phrase in 1:4, ayiovs Kai
apcopovs mTevcomov airrov, is taken from Col 1:22 b u t om its its additional m i
aveyKXrpov5 . 1:6, 7 incorporates Col 1:13, 14, ev <p exopev tt\v anoXurpcooiv . . .
tt\v a<t>e01v, b u t substitutes “in the beloved” for “in th e Son o f his love” an d
“transgressions” fo r “sins,” an d adds “th ro u g h his blood” in an a p p a re n t confla-
tion with Col 1:20. “In all wisdom an d insight” is th e E p h 1:8 version o f “in
all wisdom an d u n d ersta n d in g ” from Col 1:9. In E p h 1:10 the language o f
“all th ings,” “things in heaven a n d things on e a rth ,” being related to C hrist,
echoes th at o f Col 1:20, a n d “having h e a rd the w ord o f tru th , the gospel” in
E ph 1:13 has its origin in Col 1:5. T h e thanksgiving an d intercessory prayer-
 Introduction liii

re p o rt n o t only have parallels with the sam e m aterial in Colossians b u t also

have links with o th er parts o f th at letter. 1:18, with its m ention o f h ope and
the riches o f glory, em ploys the sam e vocabulary as Col 1:27. 1 :19,20 use
the sam e term inology about G od’s work in raising C hrist from the dead that
can be fo u n d in Col 2:12. 1:21 has th e nam es o f th e powers th at can be
fo u n d in Col 1:16, an d 1:22 takes u p the designation o f C hrist as the head
o f the C h u rch th at occurs in Col 1:18. T h e statem ent o f E ph 2:5 th at God
“m ade us alive even w hen we w ere dead in trespasses” has its equivalent
in Col 2:13, alth o u g h Ephesians changes the o rd e r o f the first fo u r words in
the G reek an d after owefaondrioev, “m ade alive,” has a sim ple dative instead
o f ovp with the dative. T h e second intercessory prayer-re p o rt an d the doxology
in 3:14– 21 have no parallel with Colossians in term s o f overall form b u t do
have term inological links with the earlier letter, especially 1:27– 2:10. “T h e
riches o f glory” in 3:16, for exam ple, corresponds to the sam e phrase in Col
1:27. T h e fo rm ulation “ro o ted an d g ro u n d e d in love” in 3:17 conflates partici-
pies from Col 2:7 an d Col 1:23. T h e th o u g h t o f “being filled u p to all the
fullness o f G od” in 3:19 takes u p th e term inology o f Col 2:9, 10, an d the
w ording o f 3:20, “in accordance with the pow er which is at work within us,”
echoes th at o f Col 1:29. T h e first section o f its paraenesis, 4 : 1–16, is distinctive
to the stru ctu re o f Ephesians, b u t here again th ere are clear parallels with
Colossians. In particular, 4:2– 4 condenses Col 3:12– 15 an d em ploys its key
words— hum ility, gentleness, patience, bearing with one another, love, bond,
peace, called, an d one body. 4 :1 5 – 16, “th e head, C hrist, from w hom the whole
body, jo in ed an d b ro u g h t to g eth er by every ligam ent which gives supply, m akes
bodily grow th,” is also d ep e n d e n t u p o n Col 2:19. T h e characteristic m inor
variations are again there. Ephesians has ad d ed the explanatory “C hrist” before
the relative clause, substituted awappokoyovpevov for emxopriyovpevov, using
the latter’s cognate n o u n with the phrase about ligam ents, which it has m odified
by its usual p reference for 7 r a ? with the singular form o f the noun, and changed
“grows with a g row th” to “m akes grow th.”
T his last exam ple brings us to a n o th e r aspect o f the relationship betw een
Ephesians an d Colossians— the use o f th e sam e term b u t with d ifferent connota-
tions. Some (e.g., D ibelius-G reeven, 84; O chel, Annahme, 3; M itton, Epistle,
84; Gnilka, 12; E rnst, 256–57) claim th a t this p h en o m en o n is fo u n d in Col
2:19 an d E ph 4 :1 5 – 16, th e fo rm e r using acopa to m ean the cosmos (cf. Col
2:10) an d th e latter using it to m ean the C hurch. B ut, in fact, this particular
exam ple is n o t at all convincing. Colossians has already re in te rp re te d “body”
in its o rig in al.cosmic sense to m ean the C hurch in Col 1:18, an d Col 2:19
alm ost certainly takes it in this sam e sense (cf. Lohse, Colossians, 122; Schweizer,
Colossians, 163; O ’B rien, Colossians, 147– 48; cf. also Percy, Probleme, 382– 84;
G uthrie, New Testament Introduction, 395). E phesians simply takes this rein-
terp retatio n fo r g ranted, so th a t this parallel may u n d erlin e the priority o f
Colossians b u t does n o t substantiate any change in th e m eaning o f term s (cf.
also M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 30–31). T h e sam e applies to the use o f the
term dicovopia in the two letters (Col 1:25; E p h T. 10; 3:2, 9). As opposed to a
n u m b er o f in terp reters, who claim th at th ere is a wholesale change o f m eaning
in E phesians (cf. M itton, Epistle, 9 1–94; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 33, 173–
74; Gnilka, 12; E rnst, 257), we arg u e in the com m entary that, although, in
liv I n t r o d u c t io n

E ph 1:10 an d 3:9 in relation to G od’s activity, th e term refers to his act o f

adm inistrating, in 3:2 in relation to P aul’s activity an d u n d e r the influence o f
the sim ilar context o f Col 1:25, it m ay well re fe r to th e office o f adm inistrating,
i.e., th e apostle’s stew ardship. T h e addition o f the genitive rf)5 xäpvro^ is no t
a decisive a rg u m e n t against this, since it can be seen as a genitive o f apposition,
grace often being the functional equivalent for P aul’s apostolic office in his
own writings (cf. Rom 1:5; 12:3; 1 C or 3:10; 15:10; Phil 1:7). T his w ould
indicate w hat one should expect—th a t a term can be used differently in differ-
e n t contexts— b u t it also suggests th at w here th ere is the sam e context the
w riter o f E phesians is d e p e n d e n t on the p rio r use in Colossians.
A re th e various uses o f nX^pcopa any m ore significant? In com parison with
the way th e term is em ployed in o th e r letters in the Pauline corpus, it is its
use in Colossians th at is decisive fo r its force in Ephesians. In Col 1:19; 2:9,
it stands fo r th e divine fullness which has taken u p residence in C hrist, th o u g h
according to Col 2:10 believers have access to this fullness an d by m eans o f
the cognate verb can be said to be filled in C hrist. Ephesians can also talk
ab o u t believers’ relationship to the fullness o f G od (3:19) an d the fullness o f
C hrist (4:13), b u t it goes fu rth e r th a n Colossians in actually using the n o u n
nXripijjpa to re fe r to th e C h u rch (1:23). So w hereas in the theologically p re g n a n t
uses o f the term the focus in Colossians is prim arily Christological, in Ephesians
the focus is prim arily ecclesiological. M itton (Epistle, 97) overstates the case
w hen he claims th at th ere is a m ajor break a n d th a t “one w ould expect to
find in E phesians th a t w hen th e w ord nXr!pcopa is used it w ould b ear som e o f
th e new significance attached to it in its two occurrences in Colossians; b u t
this we do n o t find.” Instead, th ere has been a developm ent betw een the two
letters, an d it is one th at corresponds to the shift in em phasis betw een th eir
perspectives. S om ething sim ilar occurs with th e term pvorripiov. In Col 1:26, 27
the specific co n ten t o f the m ystery is C hrist, th o u g h it is related to th e Gentiles:
th e m ystery am o n g th e G entiles is C hrist. In E ph 3 :3–6, how ever, th e G en-
tiles are now p a rt o f the m ystery; th e m ystery o f C hrist involves “the Gentiles
being jo in t heirs an d jo in t m em bers o f the body a n d sharers in C hrist Jesus
th ro u g h the gospel.” W hile the em phasis in Colossians is still o n the C hristologi-
cal aspect (cf. also 2:2; 4:3), E p h 3 has p u t far m ore em phasis on th e G entile
elem ent an d developed this in an ecclesiological direction. Elsew here in E p h e-
sians th e m ystery has to do with the sum m ing u p o f all things in C hrist (1:9, 10),
the C h u rch as th e m eans o f disclosure o f G od’s wisdom to the powers (3:9, 10),
an d the relation betw een C hrist a n d the C h u rch (5:32). A gain M itton (Epistle,
90), o p eratin g with too rigid a notion o f the m eaning o f a term , instead o f
seeing th at a w ord can take on d ifferent connotations in different contexts,
exaggerates w hen he speaks o f “the great difference in th e significance attached
to this w ord in th e two letters.” W ithout rep u d ia tin g th at the m ystery centers
in Christ, E phesians can develop the significance o f the m ystery w ithin a new
fram e o f referen ce by highlighting d ifferen t im plications o f w hat has h ap p e n ed
in C hrist, particularly th e one C h u rch o u t o f Jew s a n d Gentiles th at has resulted
(cf. also M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 31, 32). W hat is a m uch g re ater change
is the m odification E phesians m akes in th e designation o f the recipients o f
the mystery. W hereas in Col 1:26 the m ystery is disclosed to rot? 6 7 1 0 1 5 , “the
saints,” G od’s people as a whole, in E p h 3:5 6 7 1 0 1 5 becom es an adjective, “holy,”
 Introduction lv

which qualifies a m uch n arro w er g ro u p o f recipients, nam ely apostles

an d p ro phets. T his reflects a different ecclesiastical perspective also fo u n d else-
w here in th e change from believers’ being built u p in C hrist in Col 2:7 to
th eir being built u p on the fou n d atio n o f the apostles an d p ro p h ets in E ph
2:20 (cf. also M itton, Epistle, 85–86; Gnilka, 12; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt9
33).
W hat has em erg ed from this overview is the depen d en ce o f Ephesians on
a p rio r Colossians in term s o f its overall structure an d sequence, its them es,
and its w ording. Yet w hat is also absolutely clear is th at this is a free and
creative depen d en ce, not a slavish im itation o r copying. As far as the w ording
goes, as well as rep etition o f b rief snatches, th ere are nearly always m odifications
th ro u g h a change o f w ord ord er, omissions, additions, an d conflations. T his
p h en o m en o n suggests a w riter who has im m ersed him self in his source m aterial
to such an ex ten t th at it has becom e p art o f his way o f thinking. It also suggests
that, th ro u g h an association o f the source’s words o r ideas in his m ind, he is
able to com bine phrases from its different parts. T h e similarities and yet the
developm ent in th e use o f term s an d them es indicate a stage o f fu rth e r reflec-
tion since the tim e o f Colossians. D uring it the w riter has been able to em ploy
the earlier m aterial by way o f inspiration for his own fresh in terp retatio n o f
the sam e Pauline tradition in a new situation. W h eth er th e n atu re o f the d ep en-
dence should be designated as literary is alm ost academ ic. C ertainly the w riter
has at some stage h ad access to a copy o f Colossians, b u t w hether he actually
has re ferred to it d u rin g the com position o f this letter, so th at it is th ere
before him as he writes, o r w h eth er his m em orization o f its contents is so
good th at this is unnecessary, is difficult to determ ine. In any case these are
not exclusive alternatives. T h e tw enty-nine consecutive words from Colossians
th at ap p e ar in E ph 6:21, 22 in all probability indicate th at the w riter consulted
his copy o f th e earlier letter at this point, th o u g h it is possible th at they could
be explained o n the basis o f m em ory if the w riter h ad a particular personal
reason for know ing this passage so exactly (cf. also M itton, Epistle, 59, b u t cf.
2 4 4 ,2 4 8 ; also Ephesians, 11, w here he concludes m ore firmly for the fo rm er
alternative; an d cf. even van Roon, Authenticity, 416, who declares, “T h e re
can be no solution b u t th at this should be attrib u ted to a literary dependence
o f some kind”). It is highly likely th en th at the d ep en d en ce o f Ephesians on
Colossians should be seen as in som e sense a literary one (cf. also Ochel,
Annahme, esp. 6, 71– 72; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 39; “Paulinische T h eo lo-
gie,” 26– 27; “E ph 4, 1– 5, 20,” 195–96). In fact, E phesians’ redaction o f Colos-
sians is sim ilar to th at which can be show n to have taken place in the case o f
Jo sep h u s’ use o f th e Letter of Aristeas in his Jewish Antiquities (12.2.1– 15 §§ 12–
118). T h e re is literary dep en d en ce as Jo sep h u s p araphrases his source, b u t
th ere are only two places w here th ere is a sequence o f identical words— one
broken sequence o f twelve words an d a n o th e r sequence o f ten words. For
the m ost p art, it is only short phrases o r individual words th at are identical
in the two works, an d Jo sep h u s has om itted, conflated, an d em bellished m aterial
from his source in o rd e r to m ake his own particular points (for a detailed
study, see A. Pelletier, Flavius Josephe: Adapteur de la Lettre dAristée [Paris: Cerf,
1962]).
W hen th e two letters are taken as a whole, the m ain lines o f Ephesians’
Ivi I n t r o d u c t io n

rein te rp reta tio n o f th e m aterial in Golossians can be seen clearly. Colossians

h ad been aim ed specifically at a situation w here false teaching was becom ing
a th rea t an d h ad resp o n d ed by stressing the suprem acy o f C hrist in relation
to th e heavenly dim ension a n d believers’ in terest in it an d by setting its ethical
ex h o rtatio n in th e fram ew ork o f a contrast betw een heaven an d ea rth (cf.
Lincoln, Paradise, 110–34). E phesians assum es th e cosmic Christology o f Colos-
sians b u t is m ore general an d places m ore em phasis on the C h u rch in its
rem in d er to its readers o f th eir identity as believers. T hey are p a rt o f a new
hum anity m ade u p o f Jew s an d Gentiles, p a rt o f th e body o f C hrist, the fullness
o f Christ, th e new tem ple, the m atu re person, a n d the bride o f C hrist. T h e
fram ew ork fo r th e ethical exh o rtatio n is no longer the contrast betw een the
heavenly an d th e earthly b u t one betw een insiders an d outsiders, the C h u rch
an d the su rro u n d in g w orld (cf. also M erklein, “E ph 4, 1– 5, 20 als R ezeption
von Kol 3, 1– 17,” 194– 210). A study o f such redaction o f the Colossian m aterial
by th e w riter obviously m akes a m ajor contribution to the discussion o f th e
distinctive interests an d purposes o f Ephesians. At th e sam e tim e th e specific
fruits o f such an ap p ro ach in th e detailed rem arks in the com m entary serve
to reinforce o u r conclusions ab o u t E phesians’ dep en d en ce o n a n d ad ap tatio n
o f Colossians (cf. also O chel, Annahme, 15– 71, for an attem p t at a th o ro u g h ,
th o u g h n o t always persuasive, analysis o f E phesians’ editing o f individual p a s-
sages from Colossians; this analysis does not, how ever, su p p o rt his conclusion
th a t Ephesians was originally m ean t to replace Colossians [73]).
B ut Ephesians is no t only d e p e n d e n t o n Colossians; it also m akes use o f
o th er letters in th e Pauline cor p u s.T h e Pastoral Epistles are n o t included in
this consideration, since the m in o r correspondences th at exist betw een them
an d E phesians suggest a know ledge o f Ephesians by th eir a u th o r ra th e r th an
vice versa (cf. M itton, Epistle, 173–75). T h e following discussion attem pts to
show som ething o f the ex ten t o f E phesians’ use o f the Pauline letters. O nly
som e o f th e clearer an d m ore substantial parallels are m entioned. T h e a p p ro-
priate Form/ Structure/ Setting a n d Comment sections in the com m entary deal fu r-
th e r with these an d o th e r possible parallels. M itton’s discussion an d appendices
(Epistle, 98 – 158, 280–315, 322– 38; cf. also G oodspeed, The Key to Ephesians,
2–75, for the English text o f possible parallels) are helpful in providing a
wealth o f data, alth o u g h som e o f th e exam ples he gives are by no m eans
convincing. O n som e occasions th e parallels from o th e r letters are conflated
in th eir use by E phesians a n d in o th e r cases w ording from elsew here in the
Pauline corpus is conflated with w ording from Colossians.
We begin with the eulogy o f 1:3– 14, which takes over w ording a n d ideas
from o th er letters. T h e o p en in g w ords echo the blessing o f 2 C or 1:3, “Blessed
be th e G od an d F ath er o f o u r L ord Jesu s C hrist” ; v 5 with its notion o f p re d esti-
nation an d ad o p tion as sons takes u p R om 8:29 (cf. Rom 8:15, 23); v 10 has
th e idea o f “th e fullness o f tim e” as does Gal 4:4; an d vv 13, 14 (cf. also
4:30), which talk o f being sealed with th e Spirit as a g u aran tee an d link th e
Spirit with th e prom ise, com bine notions from 2 C or 1:22 an d Gal 3:14. T h e
b eg inning o f the thanksgiving perio d an d intercessory prayer-re p o rt in 1:15, 16
seems to be d e p e n d e n t on Philem 4, 5 fo r its language o f “m aking m ention o f
you in my p rayers” an d “faith in th e L ord Jesu s” an d “love for all the saints.”
1:21, 22 with th e list o f pow ers w ho have been p u t u n d e r C hrist’s feet m ay
well take u p 1 C or 15:24,27 a n d conflate it with Col 1:16. In chap. 2 th e
 Introduction lv ii

phrase “like th e rest” in v 3 an d the clause “having no h o p e ” in v 12 are

bo th draw n from 1 T hess 4:13. Verses 8, 9, with th eir trea tm e n t o f salvation
as by grace, a gift, by faith, with no works an d no boasting, draw on Rom
3:24–28; 4:2. T h e notion o f access th ro u g h C hrist in v 18 (cf. also 3:12) comes
from Rom 5:2, an d the “holy tem p le” im agery o f vv 20– 22, with its language
o f grow th, building on a foundation, an d the dw elling o f the Spirit, takes u p
1 C or 3:6, 9 – 12, 16. T h e depiction o f Paul an d his m inistry in 3:1– 13 talks o f
“Paul, th e p riso n er o f Jesus C hrist” in v 1, as does Philem 1; o f jo in t heirs in
v 6, as does Rom 8:17; o f “the grace given to m e” in v 7, as does Rom 12:3;
an d in v 8 em ploys the language o f “riches” an d “unsearchable” from Rom
11:33 an d “th e least” an d “grace” from 1 C or 15:9, 10. T h e re are no significant
parallels in 3:14– 21.
In the second h alf o f the letter the o p en in g appeal o f 4:1 com bines w ording
from Rom 12:1, “I ex h o rt you th ere fo re ,” an d 1 T hess 2:12, “walk worthily”
an d “call.” Verse 4, with its notion o f one body, is rem iniscent o f Rom 12:5,
an d v 11, with its listing o f apostles, prophets, an d teachers, echoes 1 C or
12:28. T h e depiction o f G entile living in 4:17– 19 is d e p e n d e n t on Rom 1:21, 24
for its term inology o f futility o f m ind, d ark en ed thinking, an d giving them selves
u p to im purity, an d conflates this with the term inology o f alienation from
Col 1:21. In th e m ore specific injunctions o f 4:25– 5:2, the m otivation o f being
m em bers o f one a n o th e r in v 25 derives from Rom 12:5, the language o f
“working h ard . . . with o n e’s own h an d s” com es from 1 C or 4:12, the w ording
o f 5:1, “as beloved children” an d “becom e im itators,” takes u p th at o f 1 C or
4; 14, 16, an d v 2 com bines “C hrist loved us an d gave him self for us” from
Gal 2:20 (cf. also E ph 5:25) with “fra g ra n t offering” an d “sacrifice to G od”
from Phil 4:18. In 5:3– 14, v 5, with its m ention o f the fornicator, the covetous
person, the idolater, an d inheritance in the kingdom o f God, has a parallel
in 1 C or 6:9, 10. In defining the covetous person as an idolater, the verse
shows th at it is at the sam e tim e d e p e n d e n t on Col 3:5. Verse 8, with its
contrast betw een the children o f light an d those who belong to the darkness,
takes u p the th em e o f 1 T hess 5:5– 7. Verse 10, with its talk o f “discovering”
an d “w hat is pleasing,” harks back to Rom 12:2, an d v 11, with the phrase
“works o f darkness,” draws on Rom 13:12. T h e use o f Pauline letters continues
in 5:15– 6:9. Verse 17 an d its notion o f “know ing w hat is the will o f the L ord”
is a n o th er passage (cf. 5:10) th at harks back to Rom 12:2. Verse 23, with its
discussion o f C hrist as h ead an d th e n o f the hu sb an d as the head o f the wife,
takes u p ideas from 1 C or 11:3 in o rd e r to conflate th em with Col 3:18, while
vv 3 0 ,3 1 , with th eir use o f the phrase “m em bers o f C hrist” in conjunction
with the q uotation o f G en 2:24, “the two shall becom e one flesh,” recalls
1 C or 6:15, 16. T h e exhortation to slaves in 6:5, 6 is d ep e n d en t on the sim ilar
exhortation in Col 3:22, which it com bines with the contrast betw een pleasing
m en an d serving C hrist already fo u n d in Gal T. 10. T h e com m and to m asters
in 6:9 weaves to g eth er the sim ilar com m and in Col 3:25 an d the w ording o f
Rom 2:11 th at “th ere is no partiality with him .” T h e p ero ratio n o f 6:10–20
takes u p in its battle im agery o f vv 14 – 16 term inology from 1 T hess 5:8 about
“p u ttin g on th e b reastplate” an d “th e helm et o f . . . salvation.” In its call to
p rayer in vv 18– 20, it conflates Col 4:2– 4 with w ording from Phil 4:6, “with
all p ray er an d supplication,” while the idea o f an im prisoned am bassador for
the gospel is in spired by 2 C or 5:20 an d Philem 9.
lviii I n t r o d u c t io n

T his sam pling o f typical parallels betw een E phesians a n d o th e r letters in

th e Pauline corpus indicates th a t th e d ep en d en ce o f the fo rm er on the latter
is fairly extensive. Ephesians m akes g re ater use o f R om ans th an any o th er
letter, even w hen th e latter’s length is taken into consideration (pace van Roon,
Authenticity, 432– 37, who claims th a t th e greatest correspondence is with
1 C orinthians). Interestingly, th ere are no significant parallels with 2 T hessalo-
nians, whose authenticity is d isp u ted by a n u m b e r o f m o d ern scholars. T h a t its
d ep en d en ce on the o th e r letters is m uch m ore extensive th a n th e usual sim ilari-
ties o ne m ight expect to find am ong w ritings by the sam e a u th o r is show n by
M itton, who illustrates the p o in t by a specific com parison betw een Philippians
an d th e o th e r letters an d concludes th a t “th e parallels in Ephesians are twice
th e n u m b er o f those in Philippians even w hen full allowance is m ade for the
g reater len g th o f E phesians” {Epistle, 109). T h e use o f the o th e r letters is,
how ever, n o t so extensive o r system atic as to indicate th at E phesians is simply
a mosaic o f th e o th er Pauline letters o r th a t it was designed in this way to be
an intro d u ctio n to the Pauline corpus (contra G oodspeed, The Meaning of Ephe-
sians). T h e way in which the o th e r letters are em ployed in E phesians suggests
th at its w riter knew them so well that, alth o u g h Colossians is his prim ary
m odel an d source, he was able to draw on th eir w ording an d ideas. His know l-
edge o f th em is such th at he is also able to m ake occasional verbal an d them atic
associations betw een a passage in one letter a n d a passage in an o th er, o r be-
tween a passage in a n o th e r Pauline letter an d a passage in Colossians, an d to
weave this m aterial creatively into his ow n fresh in terp re tatio n o f the Pauline
gospel (pace van R oon, Authenticity, 432–37, a n d D ahl, “D er E pheserbrief,” 75,
who attem p t to arg u e th at th e correspondences all derive from know ledge o f
com m on traditional m aterial, not from know ledge o f the letters). In this way
E phesians is an u p d atin g o f P aul’s gospel. It has Colossians as its m odel b u t
fu rth e r “paulinizes” its fresh in terp re tatio n by taking u p phrases an d them es
from th e Pauline letters, in which its w riter is steeped. If Colossians is n o n-
Pauline, th e n th e m aterial from th e o th e r letters functions also as a “paulini-
zation” o f liturgical an d paraenetic com m unity traditions which are taken u p
in both th e letters (cf. also M erklein, “Paulinische T heologie,” 38–40, 63).
T h e w riter has w orked on Colossians a n d the P auline tradition in a fashion
sim ilar to th at in which Jew ish exegetes often w orked on S cripture; he him self
provides an explicit m idrash o n S cripture in 4:8– 10. It may well be th a t he
treats Pauline m aterial as authoritative tradition th at needs refo rm u latin g for
a new situation. His m ethod is certainly no t the sam e as p esh er {pace M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 43, who claims th at p arts o f E phesians are “alm ost a type
o f p esh er” on Colossians), b u t it m ight be seen as a loose form o f im plicit
m idrash. O ne form o f m idrashic in terp re tatio n was the “anthological style”
which reem ployed phrases o r catchw ords from fam iliar texts, som etim es con-
Hating these texts, in o rd e r to form ulate new instruction (cf. R. Bloch, “Mid-
rash ,” DBSup 5 [1957] cols. 1263–81). It is probably better, however, to talk
m ore generally o f the w riter’s actualization o f authoritative tradition (cf. also
M eade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 153– 54) a n d to realize th a t such an actualiza-
tion o f earlier texts could take place by m eans o f a variety o f m ethods (cf.
also th e observations above about th e sim ilarities to Jo se p h u s’ use o f the Letter
of Aristeas).
 Introduction lix

3. A u t h o r s h ip / P s e u d o n y m it y / C anon

Bibliography

Aland, K. “Falsche Verfasserangaben? Zur Pseudonymität im frühchristlichen Schrift-

tum.” TRev 75 (1979) 1–10 . -------- . “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity
in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries.”/T S 12 (1961) 39–4 9 .-------- . “Noch
einmal: Das Problem der Anonymität und Pseudonymität in der christlichen Literatur
der ersten beiden Jahrhunderte.” In Pietas. FS B. Kötting, ed. E. Dassmann. Münster:
Aschendorff, 1980, 121–39. Balz, H. R. “Anonymität und Pseudepigraphie im Urchris-
tentum: Überlegungen zum literarischen und theologischen Problem der urchristlichen
und gemeinantiken Pseudepigraphie.” ZTK 66 (1969) 403– 36. Bauckham, R. “Pseudo-
Apostolic Letters.” JBL 107 (1988) 469–94. Baur, F. C. Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi.
Stuttgart: Becker & Müller, 1845, 449–55. Brox, N. Falsche Verfasserangaben: Zur Erklä–
rung der frühchristlichen Pseudepigraphie. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. Brox,
N., ed. Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike. Darmstadt: Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977. Cadbury, H. J. “The Dilemma of Ephesians.”
NTS 5 (1958– 59) 91– 102. Conzelmann, H. “Paulus und die Weisheit.” NTS 12 (1965–
66) 231–4 4 .-------- . “Die Schule des Paulus.” In Theologia Crucis— Signum Crucis. FS E.
Dinkier, ed. C. Andresen, and G. Klein. Tübingen: Mohr, 1979, 85–96. Donelson,
L. R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986,
7–66. Dunn, J. D. G. “The Problem of Pseudonymity.” In The Living Word. London:
SCM, 1987, 65–85. Erasmus, D. Novum Testamentum Annotationes. Basel: Froben, 1519,
413. Evanson, E. The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence
of Their Respective Authenticity Examined. Ipswich, 1792. Fenton, J. C. “Pseudonymity in
the New Testament.” Theology 58 (1955) 51–56. Fischer, K. M. “Anmerkungen zur
Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament.” N TS 23 (1976) 76– 81. Goodspeed, E. J. “Pseu-
donymity and Pseudepigrapha in Early Christian Literature.” In New Chapters in New
Testament Study. New York: Macmillan, 1937, 169–8 8 .--------. The Meaning of Ephesians.
Guthrie, D. “The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudepigraphs in New Testa-
ment Criticism.” In The Authorship and Integrity of the New Testament, ed. K. Aland. London:
S.P.C.K., 1965, 14–39. Harrison, P. N. “The Author of Ephesians.” SE 2 (1964) 595–
604. Hengel, M. “Anonymität, Pseudepigraphie und ‘Literarische Fälschung’ in der
jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur.” In Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, ed. K. von Fritz. Vandoeu-
vres-Geneve: Fondation Hardt, 1972, 231–308, 309–29. Laub, F. “Falsche Verfasseran-
gaben in neutestamentlichen Schriften.” TTZ 89 (1980) 228–42. Meade, D. G. Pseudo-
nymity and Canon. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986, esp. 139–57. Merklein, H. Das kirchliche
Amt, 19–54. Metzger, B. M. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” JBL
91 (1972) 3– 24. Mitton, C. L. “The Authorship of the Epistle to the Ephesians.” ExpTim
67 (1955– 56) 195–9 8 .-------- . Epistle. Nineham, D. E. “The Case against the Pauline
Authorship.” In Studies in Ephesians, ed. F. L. Cross. London: Mowbray, 1956, 2 1–35.
Patzia, A. G. “The Deutero-Pauline Hypothesis: An Attempt at Clarification.” EvQ 52
(1980) 27–42. Percy, E. Probleme, 179–488. Rist, M. “Pseudepigraphy and the Early
Christians.” In Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. FS A. P. Wikgren,
ed. D. E. Aune. Leiden: Brill, 1972, 75–91. Roon, A. van. Authenticity. Sanders, J. N.
“The Case for the Pauline Authorship.” In Studies in Ephesians, ed. F. L. Cross. London:
Mowbray, 1956, 9–20. Schenke, H.-M. “Das Weiterwirken des Paulus und die Pflege
seines Erbes durch die Paulus-Schule.” N TS 21 (1974– 75) 505– 18. Schille, G. “Der
Autor des Epheserbriefes.” TLZ 82 (1957) 325–34. Schweizer, E. “Zur Frage der
Echtheit des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes.” ZN W 47 (1956) 287. Sint, J. A. Pseudonymität
im Altertum: Ihre Formen und ihre Gründe. Innsbruck: Uni versi tätsverlag Wagner, 1960.
Speyer, W. Die literarische Fälschung im Altertum. Munich: Beck, 1971.-------- . “Religiöse
lx I n t r o d u c t io n

Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im Altertum.” JAC 8/9 (1965–66) 82– 125.
Usteri, L. Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs. Zürich: Orell Füssli, 1824, 2–8.
Wette, W. M. L. de. Lehrbuch des Neuen Testaments. Berlin: Reimer, 1826, 254–65.

It will already have becom e clear from th e first two sections o f the Introduction
th at au th o rsh ip o f E phesians by a follow er o f Paul is being presupposed. A n
autobiographical note may be a p p ro p ria te at this point. In my early w ork
an d w riting on Ephesians, I o p erated on th e assum ption th at th e letter cam e
from Paul him self (cf. “A Re-exam ination o f ‘the H eavenlies’ in E phesians,”
N T S 19 [1973] 468– 83; Paradise Now and Not Yet, 8, 135– 39, b u t see 197 n. 29).
T his was prim arily because at th e tim e I held th at one should o p t for its
authenticity if a plausible case fo r its setting in the life o f Paul could be m ade
an d unless th ere w ere weighty reasons against this. T h e arg u m e n t th a t the
letter’s p red o m in antly realized eschatology was n o n -Pauline, taken in itself,
did n o t seem to be weighty en o u g h . H ow ever, the m ore I have w orked on
the text as a whole, the m ore p ersu ad ed I have becom e th a t seeing th e letter
as the w ork o f a later follower o f Paul m akes b etter sense o f its contents.
Detailed probes o f particular aspects o f the letter have served to reinforce
this conviction (cf. “T h e Use o f th e O T in E phesians,” J S N T 14 [1982] 16–
57, an d “E phesians 2:8 – 10: A Sum m ary o f P aul’s G ospel?” CBQ 45 [1983]
617– 30). A sim ilar change o f perspective on au th o rsh ip can be traced betw een
the earlier an d th e later work on E phesians o f Nils A. D ahl (cf. his “A dresse
u n d P roöm ium des E pheserbriefs,” TZ 7 [1951] 2 4 1–64, with his “E phesians,”
IDBSup [1976] 268–69), F ranz M ussner (cf. his Christus, das All und die
Kirche, with Epheser, 33– 34) a n d R u d o lf Schackenburg (cf. his Baptism in
the Thought of St. Paul, tr. G. R. Beasley-M urray [O xford: Blackwell, 1964], in
which Ephesians is trea ted as a source o f P aul’s theology, with Epheser, 20–
25). I am aw are th at H einrich Schlier provides a notable p reced en t for a m ove
in the opposite direction on this issue. His change o f m ind an d em bracing o f
Pauline au th o rsh ip m ay no t have been un co n n ected with his conversion to
R om an Catholicism . A pparently, how ever, he intim ated yet a n o th e r change
o f m ind since th e w riting o f his com m entary a n d expressed doubts about
attrib u tin g th e letter to Paul (cf. S chnackenburg, 21 n. 16).
I shall attem p t to sum m arize som e o f th e m ajor arg u m en ts in su p p o rt o f
my position, b u t first it is w orth rem in d in g ourselves th a t the text does n o t
give the re a d e r im m ediate access to its au th o r. Instead, as literary approaches
to th e Bible have m ade us aw are, the re a d e r first o f all m eets the “im plied
a u th o r.” T h e im plied a u th o r is a construct evoked by th e text a n d in ferred
an d assem bled by th e re a d e r from all the com ponents o f th e text. It is a
fu rth e r question w hat th e relationship is betw een this im plied a u th o r an d the
actual au th o r. We shall p u rsu e this afte r sketching som e o f th e salient features
o f the im plied au th o r.
T his au th o r is singular an d calls him self Paul (1:1; 3:1). H e claims apostolic
au th o rity (1:1) an d describes him self as a suffering p riso n er fo r C hrist, the
gospel, an d th e Gentiles (3:1, 13; 4:1; 6:19, 20), yet gives no concrete details
o f his suffering o r im prisonm ent. H e has only a general know ledge o f his
addressees (1:13, 15,16) an d has to spell o u t his assum ption th at they will
have h ea rd o f his m inistry (3:2). T h e lack o f personal greetings reinforces
 Introduction lx i

this picture o f th e a u th o r as having no intim ate connection with his readers.

N evertheless, he asks fo r th eir prayers fo r his bold proclam ation o f the gospel
(6:19,20) an d recom m ends Tychicus as his representative who will pass on
personal news (6:21, 22).
By the use o f th e first person plural p ro n o u n the a u th o r frequently identifies
him self with all believers (cf. 1:3– 12, 14; 1:19; 2:3– 7, 10; 2:14– 16, 18; 3:12, 20;
4:7, 13– 15; 5:2; 6:12). At one point he even goes so fa r as to call him self
“the very least o f all the saints” (3:8).
H e uses th e O T as one m ajor authoritative tradition am ong o th er liturgical
an d paraenetic traditions with which he is fam iliar (see the way in which the
sam e in tro d u cto ry form ula is em ployed for the O T citation in 4:8 as for the
early C hristian baptism al frag m en t in 5:14). In his use he is in control o f a
variety o f exegetical m ethods available to contem porary Judaism , such as m id-
rash pesh er an d typology, which he m akes subservient to his C hristian persp ec-
tive. W hen this featu re is p u t to g eth er with depicting his readers as at one
tim e “Gentiles in the flesh” an d “the uncircum cision” (2:11) an d with calling
outsiders “G entiles” (4:17), o u r im plied au th o r, “P aul,” em erges as a Jew ish
Christian.
H e is eager to tell his readers th at he has been given a distinctive revelation
about the place o f the Gentiles in the C hurch. In fact, he asks them to recognize,
in w hat he has ju s t w ritten in the letter, his special insights into this mystery
(3:2–6). T h ro u g h his m inistry this im plied a u th o r is the agent o f an already-
achieved unity o f Jew an d Gentile. His apostolic m ission in bringing the C hurch
into being is p a rt o f G od’s cosmic purpose, an d his suffering m ediates salvation,
eschatological glory, to the Gentiles (3:7– 13). T h o u g h having this unique m inis-
try, th e im plied a u th o r can at the sam e tim e set him self am ong o th er holy
apostles an d p ro p h ets as a recipient o f the revelation o f the m ystery (3:5).
Along with them he is p a rt o f th e fo undation o f the C hurch (2:20).
T h e im plied a u th o r has an appreciation o f the greatness o f the salvation
God has provided in C hrist an d a p ro fo u n d aw areness th at every p art o f C hris-
tian existence is p u re gift an d m ust be attrib u ted to G od’s initiative (cf. esp.
1:3 – 14; 2 :1–22). As p a rt o f this theocentric perspective he holds th at G od’s
pu rp o se o f harm o ny for the whole cosmos is accom plished th ro u g h Christ.
H e has a vision o f a g reater spiritual quality for his read ers’ lives an d believes
in the pow er o f G od to b rin g this about (cf. esp. 1:15– 23; 3:14– 21). H e considers
the law to be abolished, the unity o f Jew an d G entile to have been achieved
th ro u g h C hrist’s w ork o f reconciliation, an d the C h u rch to be a new creation
replacing th e old o rd e r with its divisive categories o f Jew an d G entile (2 :1 1–
18). H e is particularly concerned to stress the significance o f this C hurch for
his readers (cf. 1 :22,23; 2:19– 22; 3 :1 0 ,2 1 ; 4:1– 16). H e takes seriously the
C h u rch ’s fu tu re in history, em phasizing the n eed for its unity an d the place
o f apostles, p ro p h ets, evangelists, pastors, an d teachers in producing unity
an d m aturity (4:1– 16). Finally, it is clear th a t he wants his readers to lead a
distinctive life in the world. H e is concerned ab o u t th eir speech an d sexual
m orality, an d wants th eir lives to be characterized by thanksgiving, love, Spirit-
filled w orship, an d an aw areness o f th eir place in a battle against the powers
o f evil. H e sees the need fo r C hristian m otivations to be b ro u g h t to bear
w ithin th e traditional structures o f th e household. In attem p tin g to provide
lxii I n t r o d u c t io n

such m otivations h e sets o u t an exalted view o f m arriage, w hereby it is to be

m odeled on the relationship betw een C hrist an d the C hurch, an d quotes an
O T text prom ising long life o n e a rth as a rew ard to obedient children.
I f these are som e o f the characteristics, views, an d concerns o f the im plied
a u th o r intrinsic to th e text, can we m ove from this figure to positing the actual
au th o r who ad o p ted such features fo r this particular work? T h e re are th ree
options: (i) th e apostle Paul him self, (it) a secretary who was given a free
h an d by Paul d u rin g his lifetim e, an d (iii) a later follower o f Paul w riting in
his nam e. A lthough the secretary hypothesis m ight be o f som e value in reg ard
to issues o f language an d style, it does n o th in g to solve the problem s o f differ-
ences in theology, o f the letter’s a p p a re n t later perspective, and, as we shall
see, o f its relationship to Colossians (for arg u m en ts against this hypothesis
from bo th p ro p o n e n ts o f Pauline au th o rsh ip an d o f pseudonym ity, see Percy,
Probleme, 4 2 1–22; B arth, 40–41; M itton, Epistle, 249–50). T h e first an d the
th ird should th erefo re be seen as the m ajor con ten d in g options. O f course,
in o rd e r to decide betw een them , factors extrinsic to the text o f Ephesians
itself m ust also be b ro u g h t into play, and, because o f the n atu re o f the case,
ju d g m en ts can only be in term s o f probabilities. I shall not attem p t h ere to
lay o u t an d th e n seek to re fu te th e arg u m en ts th at can be advanced in favor
o f Pauline au th o rship. T his sort o f discussion can be fo u n d in the stan d ard
New T estam en t introductions. Instead, I shall concentrate on providing briefly
th e positive arg u m ents fo r th e th ird option.

In all probability, it is subm itted, a later follower o f Paul w riting in his

nam e is responsible for the p o rtra it o f Paul th at can be constructed from the
letter by th e re a d e r an d fo r its o th e r features. Erasm us (1519) h ad doubts
ab out th e letter’s authenticity because o f its style, while Evanson (1792), U steri
(1824), a n d de W ette (1826 a n d 1843) w ere all early representatives o f the
view th at th e letter was n o t by Paul b u t by a later disciple. T his opinion was
also p ro m u lg ated by F. C. B au r (1845) a n d his pupils. For w hat it is w orth,
this is now th e consensus view in N T scholarship, th o u g h a sizable m inority
continues to u p h o ld P auline au th o rsh ip (cf., e.g., Percy, Probleme, 448; Schlier,
22–28; G uthrie, New Testament Introduction, 479–508; B arth, 36– 50; C aird,
Paul's Letters, 11–29; B ruce, Epistles, 229–40; how ever, van Roon, Authenticity,
438–39, an d Jo h n so n , The Writings of the New Testament, 367–72, have versions
o f Pauline au th o rsh ip which overlap with the secretary hypothesis, since they
appeal to th e influence o f a scribe o r fellow w orkers to account for som e
differences). It should be n oted in passing th at alth o u g h E phesians appears
to have been an uncontested p a rt o f the canon o f P aul’s letters since th e tim e
o f M arcion an d it was clearly accepted as being by Paul since th e tim e o f
Iren aeu s an d T ertu llian, we know n o th in g ab o u t how this situation cam e about.
T h erefo re, this can not be a decisive factor in discussion o f th e original au th o r-
ship (for fu rth e r discussion, see below on th e d atin g o f the letter).
A p art from th e fact th at the u n d isp u ted letters o f Paul (including Rom ans)
are addressed to specific concrete needs o f his churches, w hereas E phesians
is far m ore general, th ere are som e o th e r m ajor reasons for thinking th at the
case for pseudonym ity is the stro n g er one.
(a) The point of view o f the im plied a u th o r is later th a n th a t o f the apostle
 Introduction lxiii

Paul. 3:1– 13 in p articular reads far m ore like the estim ate o f Paul's apostleship
on the p a rt o f som eone looking back th an like Paul talking about him self.
Paul was certainly capable o f stressing the significance o f his apostleship w hen
this was u n d e r attack, b u t the n eed to tell the readers th at they will have
h eard o f his m inistry an d th e n to recom m end his own insights in 3:4 in an
unqualified fashion an d u n d e r no provocation is best explained as the device
o f som eone who wishes to boost claims for the authority o f the apostle’s teach-
ings for a later time. Similarly, 3:5, with its willingness to attribute to o th er
apostles the reception o f the special revelation about the Gentiles which the
historical Paul re g ard e d as p a rt o f his distinctive calling an d its use o f the
term “holy” in a particular, lim ited way for this g ro u p o f apostles, suggests a
post-apostolic setting for this apostolic self-portrait. T h e hum ility o f 3:8, “the
very least o f all th e saints,” is also exaggerated, lacking th e spontaneity o f 1
C or 15:9, with P aul’s reference to him self as “the least o f the apostles.”
Elsewhere in the letter, too, th o u g h Paul is supposed to be speaking, it is
as if he is being treated as a revered figure, a dignitary. Missing is his personal
presence o f th e u n d isp u ted letters with its passion, urgency, joy, an d an g er
(cf. also E rnst, 260). T h e tensions an d struggles o f P aul’s m inistry are no
longer ap p aren t. T h e adm ission o f th e G entiles an d with it P aul’s controversial
teaching on justification are no longer issues. H ad such a state o f affairs been
reached in th e lifetim e o f Paul? 2:11– 22 looks back on an achieved unity, has
no need to qualify its assertion o f the abrogation o f th e law, an d can regard
Paul along with th e o th e r apostles an d p ro p h e ts as p a rt o f the C h u rch ’s fo u n d a-
tion. T his w riter ap pears no t to feel the sam e problem s as the Paul o f R om ans
about the C h u rch ’s relation to Israel. T h e re is no w restling with the question
o f Israel’s fu tu re. Instead Israel is an entity from the past, an d the focus is
all on the new “th ird race,” the one C h u rch o u t o f Jew s an d Gentiles (cf. also
3:6). T h e im plied a u th o r’s th o ro u g h g o in g em phasis on the universal C hurch
and the significance he assigns to its m inisters in 4:11, 12 are also b etter ex-
plained, because o f the developm ent they suggest, by a perspective later th an
th at reflected in th e u n d isp u ted Pauline letters.
(b) The theological emphases o f the im plied a u th o r are d ifferent from those
o f the apostle Paul. No d o u b t a few o f these em phases could be accounted
for by the historical Paul having to address a d ifferent situation th an the situa-
tions en co u n tered in the u n d isp u ted letters. H ow ever, the n u m b er o f differ-
ences th at have to be accounted for are too m any for this to be a convincing
explanation for the whole p h en o m en o n . Some o f the points th at will be m en-
tioned h ere overlap with the previous discussion o f a later perspective, since
such a perspective is obviously one explanation for a n u m b er o f the differences.
T h e historical P aul’s stress on the d ea th o f C hrist an d his theology o f the
cross have faded into th e background. T h e cross is only m entioned in 2:16
as the agency o f reconciliation, an d th e n it is in dep en d en ce on Col 1:20,
while the d eath o f C hrist is touched on in the traditional form ulations o f 1:7;
5:2; an d 5:25. Instead, all the w eight o f the letter is on C hrist’s resurrection,
exaltation, an d cosmic lordship. Similarly, w hen it com es to the believer’s rela-
tionship to C hrist, th ere is no m ention o f dying with C hrist b u t only o f being
raised an d seated with C hrist. W hile the historical Paul o f R om ans is at pains
to point o u t th at his gospel does n o t abolish the law (3:31), E phesians claims
lxiv I n t r o d u c t io n

th at this is precisely w hat C hrist h ad d o n e (2:15), a n d th e sam e verb, tcarapyelv,

is used in each case. N o lo n g er do we find th e typical discussion o f Galatians
an d R om ans ab o u t justification by grace th ro u g h faith set over against works
o f th e law. Instead E phesians in 2:8– 10 talks m ore broadly o f salvation by
grace th ro u g h faith, which it sets over against works in general, h u m an effort.
T h e sam e passage speaks o f “good w orks‫( ״‬plural), a phrase avoided in the
u n d isp u ted Paulines. W hat is m ore, this passage does away with th e typical
distinction fo r Paul betw een p re sen t justification an d fu tu re salvation a n d in
its place depicts salvation as already com pleted for believers, using th e perfect
tense o f the verb ocpfav.
T his perspective o f realized eschatology is characteristic o f th e letter as a
whole. T h e C h u rch is a com m unity with a fu tu re in the world, an d the talk
is n o t o f its aw aiting th e Parousia with eag er expectation b u t ra th e r o f its
grow ing u p tow ard its h ead (4:15). T h e expectation o f th e Parousia has receded
even m ore th a n in Colossians, which at least refers in 3:4 to C hrist’s ap p earan ce
in glory. In E phesians th ere is no referen ce to the Parousia as such, th o u g h
th ere are general references to a fu tu re consum m ation in 1:14; 4:30; 5:5;
an d 6:13. T h e focus is m ore on believers’ p re sen t relationship to th e exalted
C hrist in th e heavenly realm (cf., e.g., 1:3; T.20– 23; 2:6). T h e re are o th e r
consequences o f these differing perspectives. In 1 C or 7, because o f his percep-
tion o f th e urgency o f the tim es, Paul is able only to m ake concessions about
m arriage. In E p h 5, how ever, a high value is now placed on m arriage as it is
co m p ared to th e relationship betw een C hrist a n d the C hurch. Similarly, the
household code o f E phesians reflects a m ore lo n g-term perspective o n life in
this world in its instructions ab o u t th e C hristian train in g o f children an d its
use o f LXX Exod 20:12 to prom ise long life o n ea rth to those children who
h o n o r th eir p aren ts (6:1– 4).
T h e historical Paul can talk o f th e C h u rch o f G od as a com prehensive entity
in 1 C or 15:9 an d Gal 1:13 in connection with his previous p ersecuting activity
(cf. also 1 C or 12:28) b u t m ost frequently reserves th e term eKKkqoia fo r local
assemblies o f believers. In contrast, E phesians em ploys eKKkqoia exclusively
o f the universal C h u rch (cf. 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23– 25, 27, 29, 32). T h e term “full-
ness,” which in Colossians was ascribed to C hrist, is now in E phesians applied
to this universal C h u rch (1:23). T h e concentration o n this sort o f ecclesiology
with its vision o f the universal C h u rch as one (4:4), holy (5:26, 27), catholic
(1:22,23), an d apostolic (2:20) in all probability reflects a stage beyond th at
o f the m inistry o f Paul. In d eed , seeing th e apostles a n d p ro p h e ts as th e fo u n d a-
tion o f the C h u rch is a different perspective from th a t o f Col 2:7, let alone
from th at o f th e exclusive im agery o f 1 C or 3 :11.
T h e w riter o f E phesians in his b ro ad vision o f the C h u rch ’s role in G od’s
purposes for the w orld sees it, n o t in continuity with an Israel which still has
its own p art in G od’s plan, b u t ra th e r as a rep lacem en t for Israel, a new creation
(2:11– 22). O n e can agree w ith B arth (47– 48) th a t th e u n d isp u ted Paul is not
ju s t an existentialist theologian o f individual justification b u t is concerned about
the unity o f Jew s an d G entiles in th e one people o f God. Yet this observation
does n o th in g to lessen the gap betw een th e perspective o f the irenic Paul o f
Rom ans, with his reflections on the continuing significance o f ethnic Israel,
an d the w riter o f E ph 2, for w hom th e significance o f Israel lies in th e past.
 Introduction lxv

Finally, a few o f this letter’s m inor theological peculiarities an d differences

from th e u n d isp u ted Paulines can be m entioned. E phesians depicts the evil
powers as a close th re a t to C hristian existence an d at w ork “in the air” (2:2;
6:12). It is u n iq u e in its concept o f believers actively exposing the darkness
th at su rro u n d s th em (5:11, 13). D espite its theocentric perspective, in some
places C hrist is given a m ore p ro m in en t role th an in th e u n d isp u ted letters.
So, for exam ple, C hrist is the subject o f the verb “to reconcile” in 2:16 and
n o t simply th e one th ro u g h w hom G od reconciles, as in 2 C or 5:18, 19; Rom
5:11; an d Col 1:20. In 4:11 it is C hrist who gives apostles, prophets, an d the
o th er m inisters, n o t G od who appoints them , as in 1 C or 12:28.
(c) E phesians exhibits significant differences of language and style from the u n d is-
p u ted Pauline letters. It contains 40 hapax legomena for th e N T an d 51 fu rth e r
words n o t fo u n d in the u n d isp u ted Pauline letters (cf. Percy, Probleme, 179–
80). T his statistic is n o t particularly significant in com parison with those for
o th er N T writings. W hat is m ore im p o rtan t in reg ard to the letter’s distinctive
vocabulary is to no te th a t th ere are w ords un iq u e to Ephesians th at have g reater
affinity with post-apostolic literatu re (e.g., a0eo9 [2:12], aao0o9 [5:15], 61‫׳‬ör779
[4:3], evvoia [6:7], evonXayxvos [4:32], K\r\povv [1:11], peyeBos [1:19), 0a 16r 179
[4:24], ovvoiKodopelv [2:22]; cf. also S chnackenburg, 22 n. 19). M ore im p o rtan t
th an individual w ords un iq u e to E phesians are the com binations o f words,
the phrases, which are un iq u e w ithin the Pauline corpus a n d reflect this letter’s
distinctive m ode o f expression. T hese include evXoyia 7rvevpaTUcr}, “spiritual
blessing” (1:3), xaraßoXr) KÖopov, “fou n d atio n o f th e w orld” (1:4), r) a0ea19 t u v
napaTTTüJixäTüJV, “forgiveness o f trespasses” (1:7), t o pwTTipiov t o v 0eXT)paro9
airrov, “m ystery o f his will” (1:9), oiKOVopia rod 1fkj)(xopaT0<; rCbv kaipQv, “adm inis-
tration o f the fullness o f tim e” (1:10), 6 X0 7 0 9 rf )9 akrjBeia^, “the w ord o f tru th ”
(1:13), 6 narrip rf \9 56£tj9, “the F ath er o f glory” (1:17), 7rapa7rrohpara Kai apapriai,
“trespasses an d sins” (2:1), 0 aiojv t o v Koopov t o v t o v , “this world-age” (2:2), r a
deXripara rf )9 aapx09, “the wishes o f the flesh” (2:3), 17 7rp60ea19 t Gj v aicovtov,
“the eternal p u rp o se” (3:11), pavBaveiv t o v XpujTÖv, “to learn C hrist” (4:20),
t o nvevpa t o v i> 009, “the spirit o f the m in d ” (4:23), piprirai t o v Beov, “im itators
o f G od” (5:1), r a nvevpaTueä rf )9 71wr?p1a9, “the spirit-forces o f evil” (6:12) (cf.
also Gnilka, 16). O th e r unique stylistic features are this letter’s use o f the
phrase ev roI9 emvpaviois (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12) with reference to the heavenly
realm instead o f ev rot9 ovpavols (2 C or 5:1; cf. Col 1:5, 16,20) and o f the
term 61d|30X09, “devil” (4:27; 6:11), instead o f oarava 9 , “Satan” (Rom 16:20; 1
C or 5:5; 7:5; 2 C or 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 T hess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9). It also
em ploys 510Xeyei (4:8; 5:14), which does no t a p p e a r in the u n d isp u ted Paulines,
as an in troductory form ula for citations. T h e prepositions ev and Kara are
fo u n d far m ore frequently in E phesians th an in the u n d isp u ted letters, and,
in contrast to Colossians, th ere are several form ulae with ev th at do not occur
in those letters: ev t l o Kvpicp ’I77aoö, “in the L ord Jesu s” (1:15), ev rep Xptarcp
’I77aoi), “in C hrist Jesu s” (3:11), ev rep ’Irjaoü, “in Jesu s” (4:21).
We have already discussed the style o f E phesians in o u r first m ain section,
b u t w hat needs to be u n d erlin e d in this context is the way in which its character-
istic features distinguish it from o th e r letters in the Pauline corpus. G one is
the direct, incisive arg u m en tatio n o f th e earlier letters. T his is replaced by a
heavier, pleonastic style. As Sanday an d H eadlam (The Epistle to the Romans
lxvi I n t r o d u c t io n

[E dinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 19025] lv) write, “W e sh u t u p the epistle to the

R om ans, an d we o p en th at to the E phesians; how great is th e contrast! We
can n o t speak h ere o f vivacity, hardly o f energy. . . . In its place we have a
slowly m oving, onw ards advancing mass, like a glacier w orking its way inch
by inch dow n the valley.” M offatt (Introduction, 389) puts it som ew hat m ore
positively, “In P aul’s letters th e re is always som ething o f a cascade; in E phesians
we have a slow, b rig h t stream which brim s its high banks.” T h e freq u en t piling
u p o f synonym s, th e genitival com binations, th e long sentences, the repetition
o f certain phrases, an d the lack o f conjunctions an d particles are striking,
even in com parison to Colossians (on w hich see W. B ujard, Stilanalytische Unter-
suchungen zum Kolosserbrief[G öttingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1973]). T h e
long sentences are not simply to be explained by liturgical influence in the
first p a rt o f th e letter. It is n o t only th e sentences o f 1:3– 14; 1:15–23; 2 :1–7;
3:14 – 19 th at need to be considered, b u t also 3:1– 7 and, in the second p a ra e n e ti-
cal p a rt p f th e letter, 4 :1 1–16; 5 :7 – 1 3 ;6 :14 – 20. T h e re are one o r two co m p ara-
ble sentences in term s o f length in the u n d isp u ted Paulines, b u t no t nearly
this m any an d n o t all in one letter. T his featu re o f Ephesians pushes van
R oon (Authenticity, 105 – 11,206) to o p t fo r som eone in the Pauline circle as
th e w riter. It does suggest as the actual a u th o r som eone m ore heavily influenced
th an Paul ap p ears to be by the im pact on Hellenistic Jew ish w riting o f the
style characteristic o f the Q u m ra n hym ns (cf. also Schnackenburg, 23). In d eed
K. G. K u h n claims th at “Semitic syntactical occurrences ap p e a r fo u r times
m ore frequently in the Epistle to th e E phesians th an in all the rem aining
letters o f th e corpus P aulinum ” {Paul and Qumran, 116).
(d) The relationship of Ephesians to Colossians points decisively away from
Pauline au th o rsh ip o f Ephesians. If w hat we have suggested about the relation-
ship betw een E phesians an d Colossians is correct, th ere are a n u m b er o f clear
im plications ab o u t the au th o rsh ip o f Ephesians. Since the au th o rsh ip o f Colos-
sians itself is still d isputed, this discussion o f th e im plications will not p resuppose
any clearcut position on th at issue. A m ongst recent com m entators on Colos-
sians, Lohse an d G nilka argue fo r its pseudonym ity, while M artin an d O ’B rien
defen d its authenticity. B ut so fa r d efen d ers o f authenticity have n o t dealt
adequately with th e detailed case against it on th e g rounds o f style m ade by
W. B ujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief Schweizer attem pts
a m ediating position, holding th a t the letter is n eith er Pauline n o r post-Pauline
an d suggesting th at it was w ritten by T im othy while Paul was still alive b u t
im prisoned an d unable to write o r dictate. W hat is clear is th at i f both Colossians
an d Ephesians are n o n -Pauline, Colossians stands closer to Paul in term s o f
its con ten t an d its tim e o f com position th an does Ephesians. W hat is also
clear is th at if Colossians is re g ard e d as n o n -Pauline, then, because o f its relation
to Colossians, E phesians m ust also be seen as n o n-Pauline (cf. also M itton,
Epistle, 56).
D efenders o f the authenticity o f Ephesians, how ever, invariably assum e o r
are p re p are d to arg u e fo r th e authenticity o f Colossians. A ccording to such a
view, it is th en arg u ed th at th e relationship betw een the two letters can be
accounted for by th eir both having com e from the sam e person, Paul. H e
addressed Colossians to a specific situation, th e n at roughly the sam e tim e
w rote the m ore general E phesians as a circular to a g ro u p o f churches in the
sam e area as Colossians, a n d sent bo th o f th em by th e h a n d o f Tychicus (cf.
 Introduction lxvii

Schm id, Epheserbrief, 3 9 2 4 5 5 ‫ ־‬, an d Percy, Probleme, 360– 433, who attem p t to
show th at th e parallels an d divergences betw een the letters are best explained
in this way, an d are followed by Schlier, 2 4 2 5 ‫) ־‬. B ut the n a tu re o f the sim ilari-
ties an d divergences, with w ording re a rra n g e d an d phrases conflated such as
we have described above, m akes such a hypothesis highly unlikely. T o un d erlin e
one exam ple, if th e sam e w riter h ad w ritten E ph 5:20 alm ost im m ediately
after Col 3:17, is he really likely to have changed the th o u g h t while keeping
substantially the sam e w ording, to have tinkered with th e phrasing w ithout
reg ard to the earlier context which h ad provided its m eaning? O ne m ight
expect the sam e w riter to m ake use o f som e o f the th oughts an d w ording o f
his first com position b u t no t to do so in the particular way in which the w riter
o f Ephesians has em ployed Colossians as his m odel. It is one th in g for a w riter
to rep ro d u ce the sam e ideas in th e sam e words o r even in different words,
b u t it is quite a n o th e r fo r a w riter w ithin a sho rt period o f tim e to rep ro d u ce
the same words an d phrases to express different ideas (cf. also N ineham , “T h e
Case against . . . ,” 27– 28). A nd o f course th ere is no sim ilar correspondence
betw een any o th er Pauline letters. G alatians an d R om ans provide one illustra-
tion o f w hat m ight be expected from the sam e w riter reflecting on some sim ilar
them es b u t addressing his th oughts to different situations, b u t th eir relationship
is very d ifferent from th at betw een Colossians an d E phesians (pace, e.g., J. B.
Lightfoot, “T h e D estination o f the Epistle to the E phesians,” in Biblical Essays
[London: M acmillan, 1893] 395, who claims, “T h e Epistle to the Ephesians
stands to the Epistle to the Colossians in very m uch th e sam e relation as the
Rom ans to the Galatians. T h e one is the general an d systematic exposition o f
the sam e tru th s which ap p e a r in a special bearing in th e o th e r”; also J. N.
Sanders, “T h e Case for. . . ,” 17). T h e re is an o th e r m ajor factor in the case
o f Galatians an d R om ans which does n o t m ake it a helpful analogy, an d th at
is the period o f tim e th at elapsed betw een the two. T his is precisely w hat
cannot have o ccurred on the supposition o f Pauline au th o rsh ip o f Ephesians.
O therw ise one w ould have to en tertain the extraordinarily difficult picture o f
Paul at a later stage looking u p a copy o f his earlier letter to the Colossians
an d studying it fo r inspiration for ideas an d w ording an d also ju s t h ap p e n in g
to have Tychicus on h an d to deliver this letter also (cf. also M itton, Epistle,
76 – 77 , 55 254
– ).
So if Paul was the a u th o r o f both letters, he m ust have w ritten Ephesians
alm ost im m ediately after Colossians. B ut the alm ost insurm ountable difficulty
with this is that, as we have seen, som e o f the theological divergences in the
use o f key term s an d them es have to be explained n o t simply by th eir having
been placed in a different context b u t by th a t new context having com e about
th ro u g h a process o f fu rth e r reflection p ro d u cin g a changed perspective. T his
changed perspective, while in continuity with th a t o f Colossians, at a n u m b er
o f points requires fo r its explanation a lapse o f tim e (cf. also M itton, Epistle,
254; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 32, 35; Schnackenburg, 29). T h e arg u m e n t
th en is not, as som e suggest, th at key term s from Colossians have a totally
different m ean in g in Ephesians, b u t th at the changed perspective in which
those term s are em ployed m eans th at the letters could no t have been w ritten
at the sam e tim e, which is w hat m ust be supposed if Pauline au th o rsh ip o f
Ephesians is claim ed (cf. also O chel, Annahme, 4).
As we have already asserted, to resort to the hypothesis o f P aul’s use o f a
lxviii I n t r o d u c t io n

secretary to explain the relationship betw een th e letters is o f little help. It is

unlikely th at a secretary authorized by Paul w ould retain th e style an d language
o f the earlier Colossians b u t th e n sub o rd in ate it a n d his m aster’s th o u g h t to
his own theological ideas (for fu rth e r arg u m en ts against this hypothesis, see
Percy ,Probleme, 4 2 1–22; G uthrie, New Testament Introduction, 508 n. 1; M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 38; S chnackenburg, 29). Everything points instead to a later
follower o f Paul who used Colossians as the basis fo r his own re in te rp reta tio n
o f th e Pauline gospel (cf. also, e.g., M offatt, Introduction, 375–81; K üm m el,
Introduction, 358–61; M itton, Epistle, esp. 254 – 5 5 ,2 6 1 ; Schnackenburg, 29;
M ussner, 18, 34). D efenders o f the authenticity o f Ephesians som etim es object
to this conclusion on the gro u n d s th a t a conscious im itator w ould have kept
far m ore closely to his m odel an d th a t “th e spiritual an d intellectual pow er o f
Ephesians, to g eth er w ith its freedom from a slavish rep ro d u ctio n o f Colossians,
is extrem ely im probable in an im itato r” (G uthrie, New Testament Introduction,
494; cf. also C aird, Paul's Letters, 25). B ut such an objection only has force
because it p resupposes a m odel o f th e later Paulinist as an im itator w ho has
to cop^ slavishly for fear o f being fo u n d out. As M eade (Pseudonymity and
Canon, 142) points out, no t only is this “d en ied by certain brilliant figures in
Jew ish p seu d ep ig raphy (2 Isaiah, Q oheleth), it is den ied by the very basis o f
Jew ish p seu d ep ig raphy itself. It was precisely the pu rp o se o f the a u th o r to
be in touch with the th oughts o f his pseudonym : no t ju s t to ‘im itate’ him ,
b u t to th in k his th o u g h ts after him .” As soon as one grants a Pauline disciple
any creativity an d fresh pastoral insight in his adap tatio n o f m aterial from
Colossians, as one surely m ust, th e c o u n terarg u m en t loses its effectiveness.
A nd as M offatt (Introduction, 375) rem inds us, “th e synoptic problem is en o u g h
to show th at th e deliberate em ploym ent o f a source was no t incom patible
with original w ork on th e p a rt o f an early C hristian w riter.”
It is difficult to d eterm in e w h eth er bo th the w riter o f Colossians an d the
w riter o f E phesians w ere disciples o f Paul, o r w h eth er only th e w riter o f E p h e-
sians was a later disciple a n d was em ploying w hat he considered to be a genuine
Pauline letter, i.e., Colossians, in his re in te rp re ta tio n o f the Pauline tradition
(cf. also E rnst, 257). T h e w riter o f Ephesians m ay have considered Colossians
to have com e from the h a n d o f Paul him self, an d he m ay o r may n o t have
been rig h t in this supposition. O n th e o th e r h a n d he m ay have believed C olos-
sians to be P auline in the sense o f being th e p ro d u c t o f a n o th e r follower o f
Paul, possibly while Paul was still alive (cf. th e view o f Schweizer, Colossians,
23– 24), an d th ere fo re treated Colossians as the m odel o f the sort o f w riting
th at could be d o n e in the apostle’s nam e (cf. M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 41).

F ou r m ain types o f arg u m e n t have b een p re sen ted for th e view th a t the
real au th o r o f E phesians is n o t Paul him self b u t a follow er o f his, a n d particular
weight has been given to th e fo u rth type. In addition, each o f these m ain
categories has included several specific su p p o rtin g arg u m en ts based on evi-
dence from th e text. T h e case can th ere fo re be seen as involving a cum ulative
arg u m en t. C aird (Paul's Letters, 24; cf. also G uth rie, New Testament Introduction,
504) believes th e cum ulative n a tu re o f th e arg u m e n t to be a problem for
advocates o f n o n -Pauline au th o rsh ip . B ut th e re are two ways o f looking at
the issue. O n th e one hand, it is tru e th a t if th e cum ulative arg u m e n t is fram ed
 Introduction lxix

in term s o f basing one probable case u p o n an o th er, the probability o f the

overall case becom es sm aller ra th e r th a n greater. O n the o th e r han d , if the
various arg u m en ts are taken as separate strands, th en these argum ents and
the am o u n t o f evidence in th eir favor produce an im pressive case (cf. also
M itton, Epistle, 17; N ineham , “T h e Case against . . . ,” 23). It is one thing
for the d efen d er o f Pauline auth o rsh ip , in the face o f aw kward evidence th at
suggests th e probable a u th o r was som eone o th e r th an Paul, to invoke the
b u rd e n-of-p ro o f a rg u m e n t an d to resp o n d once o r twice by saying, “Yes, b u t
it is still possible th at Paul could have w ritten th at for this particular reason. . . .”
B ut w hen such a defense has to be pro d u ced again an d again, doubts m ust
begin to be raised about th e tenability o f the position being defended. T h e
question in each case is n o t “Is it possible th at Paul could have done this?‫״‬
b ut “Is it probable?” In particular, is it probable th at in one letter Paul would
show such stro n g peculiarities in such significant areas? Som etim es the p ro p o-
nents o f Pauline au th o rsh ip concede the difficulty o f th eir position. C aird
(Paul's Letters, 29), for exam ple, adm its th at E phesians “is curiously unlike
the o th er Pauline letters‫ ״‬an d has to hold th at this is the result o f Paul’s m ind
becom ing m ore expansive an d taking in unparalleled concepts in a reflective
m ood at th e en d o f his life. Is it n o t m ore probable th a t the letter was w ritten
by som eone o th er th a n Paul? B arth (49) responds to such a question by attem p t-
ing to tu rn th e arg u m en ts ab o u t linguistic an d theological differences on th eir
head an d claim ing th at “because som e typically Pauline words have a slightly
different, p erh ap s unique, m eaning in Ephesians, an d because deviations from
a straight p a rty-line Paulinism are indisputable, E phesians may have to be
considered authentic. O nly a foolish plagiarist o r editor w ould have been u n-
aware o f th e changes, additions, corrections he m ad e.” B ut, as in the case o f
argum ents ab o u t the use o f Colossians, the anachronistic assum ption in such
a claim m ust be exposed. In first-century pseudonym ity, as we shall see, we
are n o t dealing with plagiarism o r with the necessity o f slavish im itation lest
one be fo u n d o u t b u t with a device for passing on authoritative tradition in a
creative way.
O ne fu rth e r m ajor arg u m e n t is used against the view th at Ephesians is
d e u te ro-Pauline. B oth Jü lich er (Einleitung in das Neue Testament [T übingen:
M ohr, 19317] 141–42) an d Percy (Probleme, 443) give as th eir m ain reason
for no t being able to accept th e d e u te ro-Pauline hypothesis th at they can discern
no p u rp o se fo r p ro ducing such a letter in th e nam e o f Paul. It is o u r contention,
however, th at th e letter’s p u rpose, th o u g h general, em erges clearly from an
analysis o f its contents an d th at its m essage is entirely a p p ro p riate for bolstering
the self-u n d ersta n d in g an d thereby guiding the behavior o f the churches o f
the Pauline m ission in Asia M inor after th e d ea th o f the apostle (see Section
4 on “P urposes”). T h e persuasiveness o f this view o f the overall pu rp o se will
o f course d ep e n d on w h eth er th e detailed com m entary on the text, on which
it d epends, is fo u n d to be convincing.
T h e re has been speculation ab o u t th e exact identity o f the real author.
A m ongst th e candidates who have been proposed are O nesim us (cf. Good-
speed, Meaning), Tychicus (cf. M itton, 230; Epistle, 27, 268), an d Luke (cf.
M artin, Exp Tim 79 [1968] 296–302; New Testament Foundations, 2:230–32; Adai,
Der heilige Geist, 22–24, who believes this to be a strong possibility; b u t cf.
lxx I n t r o d u c t io n

M itton, 17). B ut each proposal involves guessw ork to a g reater o r lesser extent,
an d in any case th e en terp rise stands little chance o f success, given th at a
m ajor p u rp o se o f th e w riter’s choosing to express him self in the way he has
was to divert atten tio n from his own identity an d focus it on th a t o f the apostle
in whose nam e he writes. P erhaps th e m ost th a t can be said is th at because
o f his way o f speaking about Israel a n d th e G entiles in 2:11, 12, his particular
use o f th e O T , his fam iliarity with o th e r Jew ish traditions, including those o f
the Hellenistic synagogue, an d his style with its H ebraism s, the real au th o r
was in all probability a Jew ish C hristian ad m ire r o f Paul. H e may well have
b een a m em b er o f a Pauline “school” in the loose sense o f th at term , a circle
o f those who began as his fellow w orkers in th e Pauline m ission an d from
which th ere later em erged som e who consciously an d deliberately w orked with
the heritage o f P aul’s th o u g h t in o rd e r to preserve it an d pass it on in a form
ad ap ted fo r th eir own times (cf. also Gnilka, 21; C onzelm ann, “Die Schule,”
88–95; Schenke, NT'S 21 [1974 – 75] 505– 18; K. B erg e r, Exegese des Neuen Testa-
merits [H eidelberg: Q uelle & M eyer, 1977] 226– 34; cf. also E. E. Ellis, “Paul
an d His Co-W orkers,” N T S 17 [1970– 71] 437– 52; W .-H. O llrog, Paulus und
seine Mitarbeiter [N eukirchen: N eukirchener, 1979]). C onzelm ann (N T S 12
[1965– 66] 233) an d M erklein (Das kirchliche Amt, 40– 41) suggest th at such a
Pauline school tradition is to be located in E phesus (cf. also Patzia, E vQ 52
[1980] 33– 34; for a survey o f ancient schools which w ere m ore clearly defined
com m unities th an any Pauline “school” ap p ears to have been, see R. A. C ulpep-
per, The Johannine School [Missoula, M T: Scholars Press, 1975] 39–260).
T o claim that, although the im plied a u th o r o f th e letter is the apostle Paul,
the actual a u th o r o f Ephesians is a later follower o f Paul is obviously also to
m aintain th at this a u th o r has used th e literary device o f pseudonym ity. T his
was a w idespread a n d accepted literary practice in both Jew ish an d G reco-
R om an cultures. In the H ebrew Bible, w ritings are attrib u ted to great nam es
such as Moses, David, Solom on, an d Isaiah. Such writings m ust have been
p ro d u ced after these figures h ad died, an d in th em earlier authoritative tra d i-
tions w ere elaborated an d contem porized b u t attrib u ted to the figures at th eir
source (cf. M eade, Pseudonymity and Canon, esp. 103–5, for a sum m ary o f the
significance o f this m aterial). It w ould have been clear to all th at such figures
could n o t have been the actual authors. Pseudonym ity was, as D u n n (“P roblem ,”
68) suggests, “a m eans o f affirm ing th e continuity o f G od’s p u rp o se betw een
the circum stances o f the n am ed a u th o r an d th e circum stances o f the actual
au th o r.” As is well know n, th ere are also n u m ero u s p seu d ep ig rap h a in early
Ju d aism —writings (apocalypses, testam ents, prayers, collections o f sayings) a t-
trib u ted to ideal o r authoritative figures from the past. It was also a convention
in Hellenistic rh eto ric fo r a speaker to give p ro o f o f his authority by ad o p tin g
the persona o f an authoritative figure. T his was know n as sermocinatio o r proso-
popeia (cf. Q uintilian 9.2.29–31), speaking in character to produce presence,
a sense o f dram atic an d psychological im m ediacy (cf. Lausberg, Handbuch der
literarischen Rhetorik, 129, 155, 4 0 7 – 11, 543, 548). P seudepigraphical letters, like
au th en tic letters, also attem p ted to convey the presence o f the sender to th eir
recipients (cf. D onelson, Pseudepigraphy, 64–65).
In reg ard to th e letter form in particular, the pseudonym ous didactic letters
o f the philosophical schools (e.g., the P ythagorean, Cynic, N eo-Platonist school
 Introduction lxxi

productions) offer som e analogies from the G reco-R om an w orld (cf. D onelson,
Pseudepigraphy, 7– 66; Sint, Pseudonymität, 114, 157– 59). Similarly, the Epistle of
Jeremiah, th e Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 92 – 105), the Epistle of Baruch (2 Apoc.
Bar. 78– 87), th e correspondence betw een Solom on, H iram , an d P haraoh in
Eupolem os an d Jo sep h u s {Ant. 8.2.6–7 §§ 50–54), the letters contained in 1
an d 2 M accabees, th e Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, 3 Corinthi-
ans, an d th e Second Epistle of Clement provide exam ples from Jew ish an d early
C hristian literature. T h e Letter of Aristeas, th o u g h pseudonym ous, is no t itself
in epistolary form , an d the earliest w riters who m ention it do not describe it
as a letter (cf. also A lexander, “Epistolary L itera tu re,” 580). In addition, the
consensus o f scholarship holds th at w ithin the N T at least 2 P eter (cf. especially
R. J. B auckham , Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 [Waco: W ord Books, 1983] 131– 35,
158– 62) an d the Pastoral Epistles (cf. m ost recently D onelson, Pseudepigraphy,
54–66) are fu rth e r instances o f th e use o f pseudonym ity. So within particular
intellectual o r religious traditions it was com m on for the nam es o f revered
leaders o r teachers from the past to be attached to a com m unity’s im p o rtan t
literature. W ithin early C hristianity tow ard the en d o f the first century, P eter
an d Paul especially h ad becom e identified as revered apostolic figures in various
parts o f the church. So, w hen it becam e necessary to appeal to the original
apostolic m essage as the n orm fo r the present, th eir nam es could be invoked
to re p resen t the apostolic tradition as a whole. C lem ent o f Rom e (c. 96 c .e .)
re ferred to th em as “the greatest an d m ost virtuous pillars o f o u r ch u rch ” {1
Clem. 5.2) an d re g ard e d them as the gu aran to rs o f the particular tradition he
wished to com m end to his readers (e.g., 1 Clem. 4 2 .1–5; 44.1, 2).
T h e earliest C hristian w riters o f pseu d ep ig rap h a rem ained u n d e r the influ-
ence o f Jew ish notions o f au th o rsh ip an d revelation w hereby pseudonym ity
involved the assertion o f authoritative tradition, but, in reg ard to form, em-
ployed the pseudepigraphical letter, which was an especially G reco-R om an
literary device. P seudepigraphical letters in th e G reco-R om an world frequently
invent ex traneous m u n d an e details an d personal references for the sake o f
verisim ilitude an d in o rd e r to provide the occasion for the prom ulgation o f
philosophical teaching an d the portrayal o f a particular philosopher as a m odel
for the readers (cf. the n u m ero u s exam ples in D onelson, Pseudepigraphy, 23–
42). T h e re is no reason to think o f the device o f pseudonym ity in negative
term s an d to associate it necessarily with such notions as forgery and deception
{pace Schm id, Epheserbrief 391, who, in a confusion o f literary an d m oral catego-
ries, claims th at pseudonym ity cannot be squared with the w riter’s own ex h o rta-
tion in 4:25, “p u t off falsehood an d let each one speak the tru th with his
n eig h b o u r”). T h e idea o f “intellectual p ro p e rty ,” basic to m o d ern discussion
o f legitim ate claims to au thorship, plagiarism , an d copyright laws, played little
o r no role in ancient literary production.
In reg ard to deception, the situation is som ew hat m ore com plex. U n d o u b t-
edly some p seu d ep ig rap h a w ere in ten d ed to deceive (cf. D onelson, Pseudepigra-
phy, 11), an d th ere is a need to investigate each proposed exam ple o f p seu d ep ig-
raphy, including canonical ones, to see w h eth er this was likely in a given case.
T h o u g h som e recent w riters on the p h en o m en o n believe th at N T pseu d ep ig ra-
p h a w ere com posed an d p ro m o ted openly as a tra n sp a re n t fiction (cf., e.g.,
Aland, “N och einm al,” 193– 94; D u n n , “P roblem ,” 84, “alm ost certainly the
lxxii I n t r o d u c t io n

final readers w ere not in fact deceived”), o thers hold th at the situation was
m ore am biguous, to say the least (cf., e.g., D onelson, Pseudepigraphy, 49– 55;
M eade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 198). M eade (Pseudonymity and Canon, 198)
allows th at if a d o cum ent h ad its origin in a “school,” “th en w ithin th e school
the work w ould m ost likely have b een openly know n an d acknow ledged to be
pseudonym ous (th ough no less authoritative).”
Q uestions also n eed to be asked ab o u t the recipients o f a pseudepigraphical
letter (cf. esp. B auckham ,/22L 107 [1988] 475– 92). W ere th ere in ten d ed specific
recipients, to w hom the letter was sent, a n d w ould they have been deceived?
O r was th e letter simply slipped into a collection o f letters with the h ope th at
som e later general readers w ould take it fo r one o f P aul’s o r P eter’s original
letters? U n fo rtunately, th ere is o ften n o t e n o u g h evidence to answ er such
questions. In th e case o f E phesians, how ever, it rem ains likely th a t th e letter
was in ten d ed fo r churches o f th e Pauline m ission in Asia M inor in th e g en e ra-
tion after th e apostle’s death, and, as we have seen, th at its w riter was in fact
a m em b er o f a P auline “school.” I f Ephesians was w ritten after the d ea th o f
Paul, it is h ard to believe th a t these churches o f the Pauline m ission in Asia
M inor w ould n o t have know n o f such an im p o rtan t event as his m artyrdom .
R ath er they w ould have recognized this p ro d u c t o f one o f th eir tru sted teachers
as in harm o n y with the Pauline trad itio n th a t he a n d others h ad co ntinued
to m ediate to them . T h erefo re bo th w riter a n d original readers w ould have
been know ing participants in this particu lar m ode o f com m unication, in which
the w riter wishes to p resen t his teaching n o t sim ply as his own b u t as in the
apostolic trad itio n which has Paul as its source.
T ertu llian (Adv. Marcion. 4.5) could later write, “it is allowable th at th at
which pupils publish should be re g ard e d as th eir m asters’ w ork.” Paul is the
g u aran to r o f th e tru e tradition a n d his authority is b ro u g h t into play in o rd e r
to establish th e apostolic as th e n o rm (cf. also Balz, Z T K 66 [1970] esp. 420–
31; Laub, T TZ 89 [1980] 228–42). In this letter’s pseudepigraphic fram ew ork
the a u th o r identifies him self with th e suffering, im prisoned apostle (cf. 3:1, 13;
4:1; 6:20), an d th u s presum ably with th e last stage o f P aul’s m inistry, in an
attem p t to pass o n the Pauline heritage. In this way th e w riter becom es the
m outhpiece fo r th e P auline tradition as he bo th creates a h earin g for it an d
re in terp rets it fo r a new situation. As M eade (Pseudonymity and Canon, 153–
54, 157) concludes, “E phesians can be seen as a creative attem p t to secure
the Pauline h eritage . . . an d to relate it to th e church at large, by th e actualiza-
tion o f the apostolic doctrine a n d lifestyle. . . . T h e re fo re . . . literary attrib u-
tion in E phesians is prim arily an assertion o f authoritative Pauline tradition,
n o t o f literary o rig in.” T h e w riter’s activity in u p d atin g the m essage o f Paul
can be co m pared with th e process o f u p d atin g the w ords o f Jesus th at is com-
m only recognized to have occurred in the Synoptics an d particularly in the
F o u rth Gospel (cf. also Laub, T T Z 89 [1980] 234 – 35; M eade, Pseudonymity
and Canon, 106– 15; D unn, “P roblem ,” 78–81).
W hen did th e w riter p roduce this letter? W hen the attem p t is m ade to
d eterm in e th e terminus ad quern, claims th at C lem ent o f Rom e was d ep e n d e n t
on E phesians can n o t be substantiated (cf. also Gnilka, 18; pace G uthrie, New
Testament Introduction, 480, 516). Probably the first early church fa th e r to show
clear know ledge o f E phesians is Ignatius (e.g., Ign. Pol. 5.1; Smym. 1.1), al-
 Introduction lxxiii

th o u g h any literary d ep en d en ce o f Ignatius on Ephesians is d isputed by som e

scholars (cf., e.g., L indem ann, Paulus, 199– 221). A date betw een 80 an d 90
c .e . (cf. also K üm m el, Introduction, 366; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 48) would
allow b oth fo r th e w riter’s post-apostolic perspective an d know ledge o f P aul’s
letters an d fo r th e letter to have becom e associated with th e collection o f P aul’s
letters an d th u s have becom e know n to Ignatius by the first decade o f the
second century. It is w orth notin g th a t explicit attrib u tio n o f the letter to
Paul is first fo u n d in T ertullian, th o u g h he also m akes it clear th at he holds
th at the letter to the Laodiceans, which M arcion earlier included am ong the
Pauline epistles, is in fact the letter to the Ephesians.
T h ere should be no suggestion th at to decide th at Ephesians is p seudony-
m ous is som ehow to detract from th e validity o r authority o f its m essage as
p art o f th e N T canon. T his could be said to be com m itting the “authorial
fallacy,” th at is, to set m ore store by who w rote a do cu m en t th an by w hat it
says. V an R oon (Authenticity, 2) does this, an d operates with assum ptions th at
he fails to spell o u t ab o u t w hat is truly canonical w ithin the canon, w hen he
says, “I f the final verdict is th a t the w ork is n o t authentic, the fact will be
th at alth o u g h th e C hristian church has always invested the epistle with canon-
ical authority, it will nevertheless have to be relegated to the p eriphery o f the
New T estam en t.” A t least B arth (50), th o u g h he defends Pauline authorship,
is clear th at th e issue does n o t affect the letter’s authority: “a concession to
those questioning the authenticity is necessary: Inspiration, highest authority,
an d im perishable value can be ascribed to E phesians even w hen the epistle is
‘b ereft o f its apostolic au th o rsh ip ’ ” (cf. also J. N. Sanders, “T h e Case for . . . ,”
9). W h eth er w ritten by Paul o r by a follower, E phesians is now canonical; it
has th e sam e authoritative an d foundational status fo r the C h u rch ’s teaching
an d life as, fo r exam ple, one o f the gospels o r P aul’s letter to the Rom ans.
As M eade (Pseudonymity and Canon, 215– 16) argues, “the discovery o f pseu d o n y-
m ous origins o r anonym ous redaction in no way prejudices eith er the inspira-
tion o r th e canonicity o f th e work. A ttribution, in the context o f canon, m ust
be prim arily re g ard e d as a statem ent (or assertion) o f authoritative tradition.”
By its inclusion w ithin the Pauline corpus, E phesians is already p art o f the
“canonical” Paul, w hatever its relation to the “historical” Paul. T h e significance
o f this for an ap p reciation o f th e letter’s m essage an d im pact will be reflected
on fu rth e r in the final section o f this Introduction.

4. S etting a n d P urposes
Bibliography
Arnold, C. E. Ephesians: Power and Magic. Cambridge: CUP, 1989, 5–40, 123– 24, 165–
72. Best, E. “Recipients and Title of the Letter to the Ephesians: Why and When the
Designation ‘Ephesians’?” A N E W 2.25.4 (1987) 3247– 79. Chadwick, H. “Die Absicht
des Epheserbriefes.” ZN W 51 (1960) 145– 53. Dahl, N. A. “Gentiles, Christians, and
Israelites in the Epistle to the Ephesians.” H TR 79 (1986) 31– 39. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz
und Absicht des Epheserbriefes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Lindemann,
A. “Bemerkungen zu den Adressaten und zum Anlass des Epheserbriefes.” ZN W 67
(1976) 235–51. Lona, H. E. Die Eschatologie im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. Würzburg:
Echter Verlag, 1984, 428–48. MacDonald, M. Y. The Pauline Churches. Cambridge:
lxxiv In t r o d u c t io n

CUP, 1988, 85–158. Martin, R. P. “An Epistle in Search of a Life-Setting.” ExpTim

79 (1968) 296–302. Meade, D. G. Pseudonymity and Canon. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986,
142–48. Meeks, W. A. “In One Body: The Unity of Humankind in Colossians and
Ephesians.” In God's Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks. Oslo: Universi-
tetsforlaget, 1977, 209–21. Schnackenburg, R. “Der Epheserbrief im heutigen Hori-
zont.” In Massstab des Glaubens. Freiburg: Herder, 1978, 155–75. Smith, D. C. “The
Ephesian Heresy and the Origin of the Epistle to the Ephesians.” Ohio Journal of Religious
Studies 5 (1977) 78– 103.

T h e issues o f th e setting an d purposes o f a letter are closely related. In

the case o f m ost o f the letters in th e Pauline corpus, scholars have usually set
ab o u t recon stru cting the setting o f the recipients by taking the explicit state-
m ents ab o u t a n d references to the situation being addressed, associating these
with im plications th at can be draw n from th e particu lar concerns an d problem s
th at are treated in the letter, an d correlating this m aterial with o th er available
relevant historical, geographical, a n d social data ab o u t the place o f the letter’s
destination. In a som ew hat circular fashion this reconstruction is th e n em ployed
to give sh a rp e r definition to an analysis o f the letter’s m essage an d the purposes
it was m ean t to achieve in the setting to which it was addressed. Scholars are
accustom ed to em ploying this m ethod on 1 C orinthians to discuss, fo r exam ple,
the views o f th e C orinthians on th e resu rrectio n o r th e social setting o f the
dispute over food offered to idols, o r on R om ans to investigate th e relations
betw een G entile C hristians an d Jew ish C hristians in th e various congregations
in Rom e, o r on Colossians to talk ab o u t the false teaching a n d its inroads
into th e ch u rch in Colossae, in o rd e r th e n in each case to elucidate the letter’s
response. F or such scholars, Ephesians, how ever, proves a source o f frustration.
It simply does n o t contain references to a specific setting o r problem s, and
th erefo re o th e r ex ternal data cannot be b ro u g h t to bear in the sam e way as
with o th e r letters to build u p a m ore detailed picture o f th e particular situation
being addressed. Some in terp reters, as we shall see, are d eterm in ed n ev erth e-
less, despite th e lack o f evidence, to discover a specific setting. It seems m ore
ap p ro p riate, how ever, to respect the distinctiveness o f this letter’s lack o f speci-
ficity by co n cen trating on th e general im plications o f th e letter itself an d by
being co n ten t with th e correspondingly general contours o f the setting th at
may be cautiously reconstructed.
Focusing on th e rhetorical situation o f the letter helps to avoid som e o f
the pressures an d frustrations im posed by th e d em an d to discover im m ediately
a specific historical life-setting. T h e rhetorical situation can be defined in term s
o f th e rhetorical occasion to which th e text is u n d ersto o d as a fitting response,
an d in term s o f the rhetorical problem o r problem s th at the a u th o r has to
overcom e in o rd e r to win the recipients over to his o r h e r point o f view.
Investigation o f th e rhetorical situation will n o t ignore the historical life-setting
b u t directs atten tio n first an d forem ost to w hat can be in ferred both from
the picture o f th e im plied w riter an d recipients th a t em erges from a text and
from th e tex t’s rhetorical genre an d strategies. Such an investigation o f the
com m unicative fu nction o f a text, by asking w hat responses are called for,
can elucidate the a u th o r’s purposes. It can th en ask w hat m ust have been the
situation th at the a u th o r th o u g h t such responses w ould affect, before finally
 Introduction lxxv

m aking the m ove o f suggesting w hat m ust have been th e actual historical
situation to which such a rhetorical situation corresponds (cf. also, e.g.,
E. Schü ssler Fiorenza, “R hetorical Situation an d H istorical R econstruction in
1 C orinthians,” N T S 33 [1987] 386– 403).
Some o f th e w ork for such an investigation o f E phesians has already been
done in the preced ing sections. It has been noted th a t th e m ixture o f rhetorical
genres— epideictic in the first h alf o f the letter an d deliberative in the second
h alf—reflects the w riter’s twofold strategy. H e wishes both to intensify the
read ers’ adh eren ce to the C hristian convictions, values, an d concepts th at he
an d they have in com m on an d to p ersu ad e them to take action th at will bring
th eir lives into g reater conform ity to w hat he deem s to be a p p ro p riate to
th eir shared perspective. T h e first p a rt reinforces th eir sense o f C hristian iden-
tity, the privileges an d status they enjoy as believers who are p art o f the C hurch.
T h e second p a rt appeals to them to dem onstrate th at identity as they live in
the C hurch an d in the world. T h e first p a rt has a congratulatory tone and
attem pts to secure the goodwill o f the recipients th ro u g h its language o f bless-
ing, thanksgiving, intercessory prayer, an d doxology. It does not, however,
simply rep eat w hat they already know adequately but, particularly th ro u g h
its anam nesis in chap. 2, with the sh arp contrasts betw een the read ers’ past
an d present, an d th ro u g h its digression in 3:1– 13 bringing to th eir attention
th eir relation to the apostle’s m inistry, indicates th at the readers are no t as
aw are as they should be o f som e o f the dim ensions o f th eir C hristian identity.
In addition, th ro u g h its intercessory prayer-reports, it suggests knowledge,
love, an d the experience o f G od’s pow er as areas for the read ers’ grow th.
T h e ethical exhortations o f the second p a rt build on the ra p p o rt established
with the readers in th e first p a rt an d set o u t the sort o f conduct to which the
w riter wishes th em to attain. T h e final rhetorical strategy, the peroratio of
6:10–20, com bines th e em phases o f both p arts o f th e letter by stressing the
identity o f believers— C hristian soldiers clad in G od’s arm o r an d d ep e n d en t
on C hrist’s pow er—an d by spelling o u t again the virtues they are to dem on-
strate— tru th fu ln ess, righteousness, peace, an d faith. T h e m ain concluding ex-
h o rtation— to stand in the cosmic battle— also sum s u p th e two em phases,
appealing to the readers to m aintain an d ap p ro p riate th eir identity an d position
o f stren g th as they practice distinctively C hristian living. T his exhortation is
not so m uch a call to changed behavior as a call to firm resolve in preserving
the values the w riter hopes will by now have been instilled in his readers.
A sketch o f th e im plied au th o r has been provided in Section 3. A m ong
the characteristics delineated, the following should be recalled at this point.
H e is a Jew ish C hristian who appears to have a general b u t not intim ate knowl-
edge o f his readers. H e claims P aul’s nam e a n d authority an d special insight
into G od’s purposes for G entile C hristians in the C hurch. H e desires an im-
proved quality o f living for his readers, in th eir relation to G od an d Christ,
in th eir relationships w ithin the C hurch, an d in th eir conduct in the world.
H e stresses the significance o f the C h u rch as one body created out o f Jew s
an d Gentiles, G od’s pow er, C hrist’s exaltation, P aul’s mission, m aintaining
unity, reaching m aturity, tradition an d the teachers who pass it on, speech,
sexual m orality, w orship, household relationships, an d the cosmic powers.
As reg ard s th e im plied readers o f the original letter, we cannot be sure
lxxvi I n t r o d u c t io n

w h eth er they w ere linked in the address with a particular church o r churches
in a specific city o r cities. N ot surprisingly, w hat is m ade clear from the outset,
however, is th at they are to be seen as C hristians. A host o f im ages an d descrip-
tions u n d erlin e such an identity. T hey are designated as “saints” (1:1, 15, 18;
3:18; 5:3; 6:18) an d as “believing” (e.g., 1:1, 13, 15; 2:18; 3:12). T hey are
am ong “all w ho love o u r L ord Jesu s C hrist” (6:24). T h ey are children o f light
an d G od’s w ork o f new creation (cf. 5:8; 2:10). As such, they are those who
have ex p erienced the grace o f G od (e.g., 1:6, 8; 2:5, 8) an d th e love o f G od
an d C hrist (e.g., 2:4; 5:2, 25), to g eth er with the re d em p tio n (1:7), forgiveness
(1:7; 4:32), life (2:5), salvation (1:13; 2:5, 8), reconciliation (2:14 – 18), a n d seal-
ing with th e Spirit (1:13; 4:30) th a t flow from this love an d grace. T h ey are
also those who are inco rp o rated into C hrist an d have been u n ited with him
in his resu rrectio n an d exaltation (e.g., 1:1, 3– 14, 15; 2:5, 6); yet at th e sam e
tim e they are still in a battle against hostile cosmic powers (6:12).
A n u m b er o f th e im ages an d descriptions used o f the im plied readers are
co rp o rate ones an d m ake clear th a t they belong to a larger g ro u p in g o f C h ris-
tian believers, to the universal C hurch. T h ey have links with all saints (2:19;
3:18; 6:18). T h ey belong to “the b ro th ers an d sisters,” have been ad o p ted as
sons an d d au g h ters into G od’s family, are his dearly loved children an d m em-
bers o f his h o u sehold (cf. 6:23; 1:5; 5:1; 2:19). T h ey are p a rt o f the C hurch,
which is related to the exalted C hrist (1:22; 3:10; 3:21; 5 :2 3 ,2 5 ,2 7 ,2 9 ,3 2 ).
T hey are m em bers o f C hrist’s body (1:23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4, 16; 5:23; cf. also
4:25), p a rt o f G od’s tem ple, which has C hrist as its keystone an d the apostles
a n d p ro p h ets as its fo u n d atio n (2:19–22). T hey belong to one new hum anity
which was created o u t o f Jew s a n d G entiles (2:14 – 16; 3:6) an d is characterized
by its unity (4 :1–6).
Som ew hat m ore specifically, in term s o f th eir ethnic background, these
C hristian read ers w ho are p a rt o f the universal C h u rch are Gentiles. T his
identification is m ade explicit in the way they are addressed in 2:11 a n d 3:1,
in the depiction o f th eir past as religiously d eprived in com parison with th at
o f Israel (2:11– 13), a n d in th e referen ce to th eir past G entile lifestyle in 4:17.
It is also im plicit in the way th a t past is described in 2:1– 3 a n d in the view o f
th eir relationship to P aul’s m inistry to th e G entiles which underlies th e d ig res-
sion o f 3:2– 13.
T h e im plied readers are assum ed to know o f Paul (1:1; 3:1; 6 :2 1 ,2 2 ), o f
his special proclam ation o f the gospel a n d m inistry to th e Gentiles (3:2, 3, 7, 8;
6:19), an d o f his suffering a n d im p riso n m en t (3:13; 4:1; 6:20).
T h e readers envisaged by th e au th o r, alth o u g h they are Gentiles, are also
assum ed to know th e Jew ish S criptures, to accept th eir authority, to be
conversant with the a u th o r’s m eth o d o f in te rp re tin g them an d persu ad ed by
the results o f th a t in terp re tatio n (cf. 2:17; 4:8– 10; 5:31, 32; 6:2, 3). In addition
they accept th e authority o f C hristian liturgical traditions (e.g., 5:14) an d
have received C hristian instruction which included paraenetical m aterial (cf.
4:20– 24).
D espite th eir identification as G entile C hristian m em bers o f the C hurch
an d despite all th at they already know a n d have experienced o f the gospel as
m ediated by Paul, the im plied read ers are those w ho need to grow a n d m ake
progress in a n u m b e r o f areas. In fact, they n eed a g re ater aw areness o f the
 Introduction lxxvii

blessings an d privileges th at are attached to th eir identity as believers in C hrist

an d m em bers o f the C hurch. T h e reh earsin g o f the blessings o f salvation in
the op en in g eulogy (1:3 – 14) serves this purpose, as do th e rem inders o f th eir
past d eath an d disobedience an d religious deprivation in contrast to th eir p re s-
en t life an d salvation an d participation in the one new hum anity an d the
new tem ple (2 :1–22). T hey also need rem in d in g o f P aul’s un iq u e m inistry to
the Gentiles an d o f the debt they owe to this (3:1– 13). A lthough the w riter is
thankful fo r th e faith the readers exercise as those in C hrist an d for the loving
concern they d em onstrate for all believers (1:15), at the sam e tim e th ro u g h
his prayer-rep o rts they are seen as in n eed o f fu rth e r insight, fu rth e r knowledge
o f the hope to which th eir salvation leads, o f the w ealth o f glory involved in
G od’s dealings with his people, an d in particular o f th e great pow er available
on th eir b eh alf (1:17– 19). W hat is m ore, they need to be energized by the
presence o f th e S pirit an d o f C hrist w ithin them , they n eed to know m ore o f
the all-em bracing love o f C hrist, an d they need to have a m ore com plete ex p eri-
ence o f the fullness o f the life an d pow er o f God (3:14– 19).
T h e ex ten d ed paraenesis o f the second p a rt o f the letter indicates that,
alth o u g h th e im plied readers have already received ethical instruction (4:20–
24), they n eed to be rem in d ed o f som e m ajor im plications o f the righteousness,
holiness, an d tru th involved in living o u t the life o f the new hum anity. Because
they are in d an g e r o f accom m odating to the values o f the su rro u n d in g world
(cf. also Lona, Eschatologie, 435), they need to give special attention to such
areas as dealing with anger, cultivating edifying speech, forgiving an d loving
others, living lives o f purity th at will expose an d transform the lives o f sexual
im purity aro u n d them , w orshiping, an d giving thanks. T hey need to dem on-
strate distinctively C hristian attitudes an d behavior in th eir household arran g e-
m ents. B oth th e b eginning an d the en d o f the paraenesis are particularly
significant fo r o u r picture o f th e im plied readers. T h ese readers are to devote
th eir energies to m aintaining the C h u rch ’s unity an d living in harm ony. T hey
are to play th eir p a rt in helping th e whole C h u rch to attain to m aturity in
the face o f false teaching an d are to recognize th e special role o f pastors an d
teachers in th a t process (cf. 4:1– 16). In the face o f th e opposition o f cosmic
powers th e im plied readers are those who will see them selves as C hristian
soldiers an d will avail them selves o f th e resources o f C hrist’s stren g th and
G od’s full arm or. T h ey n eed d eterm in ed resolve to stand firm , an d they will
d em onstrate such resolve by living lives o f truthfulness, righteousness, peace,
an d faith, by a p p ro p riatin g salvation a n d proclaim ing the gospel, an d by m ain-
taining a constant state o f prayerfulness an d alertness (cf. 6:10– 20).

If “rh eto ric is th at quality in discourse by which a speaker or w riter seeks

to accom plish his pu rp o ses,” a n d if “the ultim ate goal o f rhetorical analysis,
briefly p u t, is th e discovery o f the a u th o r’s in ten t an d how th at is transm itted
th ro u g h a text to an audience” (K ennedy, New Testament Interpretation through
Rhetorical Criticism, 3, 12), th e n the above sketch o f the elem ents in the rhetorical
situation has already uncovered, by im plication, som e o f this w riter’s purposes.
B efore we g ath er these together, it is w orth pausing in o rd e r to say a little
m ore ab o u t those passages in which the w riter o f E phesians m akes his purposes
explicit by expressing directly his concerns for his readers. N ot surprisingly,
lxxviii I n t r o d u c t io n

these occur prim arily in the intercessory pray er-re p o rts o f the thanksgiving
period, th e place in th e Pauline letter in which the m ain th ru st o f the w riter’s
concerns is m ost frequently anticipated.
Since th e first h alf o f the letter can be seen as an extended thanksgiving,
th ere are two prayer-rep o rts in E phesians, one n ea r the beginning in 1:16b—
19 an d one n e a r the en d in 3:14 – 19, in which th e w riter airs his concerns for
his read ers m ore directly. In l:1 6 b - 19 he tells th em th at he prays for th eir
grow th in know ledge, th at they will be given th ro u g h the Spirit wisdom an d
revelation to enable them to u n d e rsta n d G od an d his purposes for th e ir lives.
In n e r en lig h ten m en t should lead to th eir g re ater aw areness o f th ree m atters
in particular: th e hope o f th e consum m ation o f salvation, which they have as
the result o f G od’s calling, the glorious benefits which are theirs because o f
G od’s possession o f his people, an d th e g reat pow er o f God, his redem ptive
energy displayed in the resurrection an d exaltation o f C hrist, which is available
to them . In 3:14 – 19, th e p ray er fo r th e re ad ers’ grow th involves th eir in n er
stren g th en in g th ro u g h the Spirit a n d th ro u g h C hrist’s indwelling, th eir being
ro o ted an d g ro u n d e d in love, th eir know ing som ething o f the all-em bracing
love o f C hrist, an d th eir experiencing to th e fullest ex ten t the life an d pow er
o f God. Again, no specific concern n o r actual set o f problem s em erges from
these p rayer-rep o rts. Instead, the w riter sees his re ad ers’ needs in general
term s. T h ey n eed an im provem ent in the quality o f th eir lives before God.
T h ey n eed grow th in th eir relationship to G od in C hrist th ro u g h th e Spirit.
T h e need fo r fu rth e r know ledge a n d th e n eed fo r a g reater experience o f
divine pow er o r stren g th are com m on to bo th prayer-reports. T h a t these needs
have to do first o f all with th e re ad ers’ in n e r orientation an d m otivation is
clear from th e em phasis on th e h e a rt in bo th passages an d on the in n e r person
in th e second. T h e w riter th erefo re perceives his readers to be lacking in
appreciation fo r o r aw areness o f the significance o f central aspects o f the gospel,
which relate to th eir identity an d security, an d to be beset by a sense o f pow er-
lessness a n d a lack o f resolve. In addition, the p ray er o f the second re p o rt
suggests th at instability an d a sense o f insufficiency are am ong these perceived
needs. Tw o im p o rtan t parts o f the second h alf o f the letter—the pericopes
which fram e th e paraenesis— reinforce th at these are the kinds o f needs the
w riter is in ten d in g to m eet. 4 : 1–16, w hich m akes clear th at th e w riter’s call
will be fo r m ore distinctively C hristian living as well as g reater know ledge,
im m ediately focuses on the n eed for unity a n d talks ab o u t replacing im m aturity
an d instability by co rporate grow th in love tow ard C hrist, which is at the sam e
tim e grow th tow ard unity o f faith an d know ledge, tow ard m aturity an d com-
pleteness. T h e final appeal o f 6:10–20 to be strong, to stand firm against evil
powers, an d to p u t o n th e divine arm o r un d erlin es once m ore th at the a u th o r
wishes to address w hat he considers to be weakness, vacillation, lack o f resolve,
an d insufficient a p p ro p riatio n o f th e resources fo r living given by God.
A b rief sum m ary o f w hat has been discovered ab o u t the rhetorical situation
would include th e following factors. Som eone writes in the nam e o f Paul,
who is to be seen as p a rt o f the C h u rch ’s foundation. H e has special insights
into G od’s p u rposes for th e cosmos a n d th e place o f the one C h u rch o u t o f
Jew s a n d Gentiles in those purposes. H e attem pts both to reinforce the com m on
values which establish his re ad ers’ identity as G entile C hristians who belong
 Introduction lxxix

to the C h u rch an d to p ersu ad e them to change th eir behavior to th at which

is m ore ap p ro p riate to such an identity. H e m akes this attem p t because he
perceives the readers to be lacking in strength, resolve, stability, an d m aturity,
an d to need g reater know ledge, in n er renew al, corporate grow th in love, an d
m ore distinctively C hristian behavior in a variety o f areas o f th eir lives.
Such a sum m ary m ay ap p e a r no t to am o u n t to very m uch, hardly to have
been w orth the effort, o r no t to have advanced the discussion. O f course,
one m ajor factor about the setting has been resolved. It is n o t in the lifetim e
o f Paul. It has already been arg u ed that, alth o u g h the im plied a u th o r is Paul,
the actual a u th o r is a later Jew ish C hristian follower o f Paul who em ploys
the device o f pseudonym ity in o rd e r to pass on the Pauline tradition in a
situation after th e apostle’s death. T h erefo re, the actual readers are likely to
be Gentile C hristian m em bers o f churches o f the Pauline mission, who, in
the generation after his death, need to be re m in d ed o f the debt they owe to
Paul as the p ro m in en t p reach er to the Gentiles am ong the holy apostles and
p ro p h ets (cf. 3:1– 13). In fact, o u r sum m ary takes us still fu rth e r. It points us
in a significantly different direction from a n u m b er o f recen t scholarly proposals
about the letter’s occasion an d purposes, which are eith er purely general, treat-
ing the letter as a theological treatise, o r quite specific, suggesting very particu-
lar problem s which gave rise to th e letter.
A m ong the fo rm er is the designation o f the letter by Schlier (21– 22) as a
wisdom speech. T his designation is en dorsed by B ruce (Epistles, 246), who
also sees it as “th e quintessence o f Paulinism ” (Epistles, 229). C onzelm ann (86)
holds E phesians to be a theoretical theological essay, an d L indem ann (Paulus
im ältesten Christentum, 41) considers it to be a sort o f dogm atics in d raft form ,
which sets o u t th e ontology o f a timeless church w ithdraw n from the problem s
o f its own day {Aufhebung, 7, 248). B ut these proposals do not explain the
letter’s selection o f topics, n o r its m ode o f p resenting them , n o r th e im pact
they were m ean t to have on the readers.
Only slightly m ore specific are the hypotheses which treat the letter as a
homily for a baptism al occasion (cf., e.g., Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 263–64; Coutts,
N T S 3 [1956– 57] 125– 27) o r as a re m in d e r to “young G entile C hristians o f
the im plications o f th eir faith an d baptism ” (Dahl, H T R 79 [1986] 38). T h e
same objections apply. In addition, th e single m ention o f the term “baptism ”
(4:5) in a context devoted no t to baptism b u t to unity, an d a few m etaphors,
behind which a baptism al reference may lie, m ake it unlikely th at baptism
itself was a m ajor concern in the w riting o f the letter (cf. also A rnold, Ephesians,
135– 36). Kirby (Ephesians, 144– 61), who does becom e m ore specific by claim ing
th at the letter was in ten d ed fo r renew ing baptism al vows probably on the
Feast o f Pentecost, can only do so by m oving into fu rth e r u n fo u n d e d spec-
ulation.
O u r own discussion o f the purposes which em erge from the letter also
suggests the in ap p ropriateness o f o th e r m ore specific proposals. T h e well-
known hypothesis o f G oodspeed {Meaning, 1– 75, followed with some qualifica-
tions by M itton, Epistle, 45– 51) is th at E phesians was in ten d ed as an introduction
to a newly fo rm ed collection o f P aul’s letters, which h ad been provoked by a
read in g o f Acts. B ut, as is often poin ted out, the letter does no t read like
such an in troduction, the priority o f Acts to Ephesians an d its influence on
lxxx I n t r o d u c t io n

the a u th o r are problem atic, a n d th ere is no evidence th at E phesians ever stood

at th e h ead o f a Pauline canon. T h e re are no signs from th e letter itself th a t
a m ain p u rp o se was to com bat o p p o n en ts (pace, e.g., P okorný, Der Epheserbrief
und die Gnosis, 21, who sees the opposition as Ju daistic Gnosticism , an d Sm ith,
Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 [1977] 78 – 103, who believes the o p p o n en ts
to be fo rm er pagans who h ad a d o p ted speculative Ju d aism before they becam e
C hristians an d w ho are arro g a n t ab o u t m ore m ainstream Judaism ). C hadwick
(ZN W 51 [1960] 145– 53) suggested th at th e letter was w ritten to d em o n strate
th e antiquity o f th e C hristian m essage in th e face o f em barrassm ent on the
p art o f its read ers over the seem ing late arrival o f th e C h u rch o n the scene.
H ence, the w riter shows th e C h u rc h ’s continuity with ancient Ju d aism , its
universality, an d its links with heaven so th at it can be seen as a m etaphysical
entity encom passing all generations. T his proposal highlights som e elem ents
th at are th ere in th e letter b u t m isinterprets the needs o f the readers th at
they are designed to m eet. If th e letter does n o t read like a polem ic, it also
does n o t re ad like this sort o f ex ten d ed apologetic, an d its concern with the
past is n o t with antiquity p e r se b u t with G od’s dealings with Israel, which is
treated in such a way as to enable th e read ers to appreciate th eir p resen t
privileges in contrast to th e ir past deprivation. O thers, in o rd e r to explain
the occasion o f th e letter, latch on to a supposed crisis in which unity betw een
Jew ish C hristians an d G entile C hristians is th rea ten ed . K äsem ann (“E phesians
a n d Acts,” 29 T, cf. also Fischer, Tendenz und Absicht, 79– 94) claims, “T h e letter
betrays its historical setting precisely here. W hat Paul m entioned hypothetically
in R om ans ll:1 7 ff. has h a p p e n e d here: Jew ish C hristianity is p u sh ed aside
a n d despised by th e steadily grow ing G entile C hristianity.” B ut this is to misin-
te rp re t th e letter’s trea tm e n t o f th e them es o f unity a n d th e C h u rch ’s relation-
ship to Israel a n d to m isconstrue th e force o f its rh eto ric (see Commentary on
2:11– 22). Fischer (Tendenz und Absicht, 21– 39), in his reconstruction o f th e
letter’s occasion, adds to a crisis in re g a rd to unity betw een Jew ish an d G entile
C hristians a crisis in ecclesiastical developm ent. H e argues th at th e letter was
w ritten at a tim e w hen th e new o rd e r o f episcopacy was being p ro m o ted in
G entile C hristian congregations in Asia M inor. T h e w riter attem pts to com bat
this innovation by su p p o rtin g th e m ore charism atic stru ctu re th at prevailed
in the perio d o f th e Pauline m ission an d by stressing apostles an d p ro p h e ts
as foundational. B ut this reconstruction involves a highly speculative a rg u m e n t
from th e letter’s silence ab o u t bishops, presbyters, o r deacons.
M oving in a ra th e r different direction from his assessm ent described above,
L in d em an n (ZN W 67 [1976] 242– 43) has also pro p o sed th at a different sort
o f crisis gave rise to th e w riting o f E phesians— a situation o f persecution in
the reign o f D om itian, fo r which the readers n eed ed com fort an d stren g th en-
ing. H e believes th e battle im agery in 6:10–20 points in this direction. B ut
this reference is a slender basis on which to build such a view. A lthough it
could be claim ed th a t E phesians an d R evelation re sp o n d to such a perceived
th rea t to C hristians in Asia M inor in quite differen t ways, one would surely
expect to find m ore evidence in E phesians th a t the w riter h ad this th re a t in
m ind. Besides, the im agery o f “the evil day” an d “th e b u rn in g arrow s o f the
evil o n e” requires no such external persecution for it to m ake sense in th e
context o f believers’ spiritual battle against hostile cosmic powers (cf. also
 Introduction lxxxi

Schnackenburg, 30). O ne fu rth e r exam ple o f a m ore specific proposal about

the letter’s setting is th at o f A rnold (Ephesians: Power and Magic, esp. 123–
24). H e holds th at the em phasis on th e cosmic pow ers an d the them e o f pow er
in the letter suggests th at it was w ritten to those who h ad com e from a back-
g ro u n d in magical practices a n d involvem ent in th e cult o f the Ephesian Ar-
temis, who were o ppressed by the dem onic realm , an d who w ere tem pted to
com bine th eir C hristian faith with m agical practices. Again, this suggestion
does n ot take sufficient account o f the variety o f the re ad ers’ needs th at has
em erged from o u r analysis. It isolates one particular them e, m aking the cosmic
powers too m uch the fo reg ro u n d ra th e r th an the background o f the w riter’s
concerns, it moves too far beyond the evidence o f the letter itself, and in the
end, despite A rn o ld’s disclaim ers, it links the setting too closely to E phesus
itself.
T h e general aspects o f the purposes o f the letter which em erged from the
analysis o f its rhetorical situation indicate why E phesians so easily transcends
its original setting an d has h ad such a bro ad an d universal appeal. T h e re will
always be C hristians in a variety o f settings o f w hom it could be said th at
they w ere in n eed o f in n er strength, fu rth e r know ledge o f th eir salvation,
g reater appreciation o f th eir identity as believers an d as m em bers o f the
C hurch, increased concern fo r the C h u rch ’s unity, an d m ore consistent living
in such areas as speech, sexuality, an d household relationships. T hese general
purposes do n o t m ean, o f course, th at th e letter was not addressed to a p a r tia l-
lar g ro u p o f recipients, b u t they m ake all th e clearer th e hazardous n atu re of
attem pts to p ropose specific settings fo r the letter an d the caution th at should
be exercised in any discussion o f an actual setting.

B ut w hat th en can be said about the actual setting an d recipients o f the

letter? T h e geographical location o f such recipients cannot be identified with
any great certainty. It is usually assum ed th at they w ere situated in Asia M inor
or, m ore particularly, w estern Asia M inor. B ut w hat is the evidence to su p p o rt
this assum ption? It is tru e th at th ere w ere churches fo u n d e d on P aul’s G entile
m ission in this area an d th erefo re a continuing influence o f the Pauline m ission
could be expected here, b u t the apostle also fo u n d ed churches an d h ad a
continuing influence elsew here in the R om an E m pire. T h e later association
o f the letter with E phesus is o f little help. H ypotheses about the letter being
linked with E phesus because it was originally w ritten from this city, o r because
a copy o f it was left th ere, o r because on th e basis o f similarities with Ignatius’
letter to the E phesians it was believed this letter was also to the Ephesians,
are unconvincing (cf. the extended discussion by Best, A N R W 2.25.4 [1987]
3247–79). If, as Best considers m ost likely, the designation “E phesians” was
n o t given to th e letter until a collection o f a reasonably large n u m b er o f Pauline
letters h ad com e into being, th e n this consideration m akes the association
with E phesus late. Best also suggests th at at this late date, w hen m em ory o f
Paul’s long stay in E phesus had faded an d th ere was no t wide knowledge o f
Acts, a text o f th e letter which had no geographical location was assigned
this one. T his designation was given after deducing from the o th er letters a
place in which Paul h ad w orked an d which o u g h t to have been the recipient
o f such a letter. 1 C or 15:32; 16:8 w ould have m ade Ephesus a strong candidate
lxxxii I n t r o d u c t io n

(cf. Best, A N R W 2.25.4 [1987] 3278–79). B ut this whole suggestion m eans

th at the later ascription is likely to have very little actual connection with th e
original recipients.
T h e com m entary on 1:1 will suggest th e possibility th at the letter was origi-
nally addressed to th e churches o f H ierapolis a n d Laodicea in the Lycus Valley.
T h e choice o f these two nam es is su p p o rted som ew hat by M arcion’s fam iliarity
with th e trad itio n o f a connection betw een this letter an d Laodicea, b u t m ore
by E phesians’ use o f Colossians, in which H ierapolis an d Laodicea are the
churches linked with Colossae because all th ree are served by E p aphras (cf.
Col 4:13). In theory, simply because the w riter has em ployed the th o u g h ts
an d w ording o f Colossians as his starting point, this need not m ean th at his
own letter is addressed to recipients in the sam e vicinity as Colossians. In this
case, how ever, th e fact th at the w riter o f E phesians chooses to keep the ex-
ten d ed reco m m en d ation o f Tychicus fo u n d at the en d o f Colossians m ay well
suggest th at this is n o t only p a rt o f his device o f pseudonym ity, b u t th at T ychi-
cus w ould have been know n to the recipients as one o f the leading re p re se n ta-
tives o f the Pauline mission. Elsew here he is associated with Asia M inor (cf.
Col 4:7, 8; Acts 20:4; 2 T im 4:12), an d so it could well be th at the recipients
are expected to know him because they are in Asia M inor.
O ne fu rth e r possible corroborating stran d o f evidence taken from th e letter’s
use o f Colossians is w orth m entioning. In Colossians the w riter’s com bat with
the syncretistic philosophy is very m uch to th e fore. H e em ploys som e o f its
term inology, addresses its concern with cosmic pow ers an d th e heavenly realm ,
an d attem p ts to deal with th e sense o f inadequacy these h ad en g e n d ere d am ong
som e o f th e Colossian C hristians. Ephesians retains sim ilar language an d con-
cepts, b u t uses th em as th e backdrop against which it develops its own distinctive
interests. T his m ay suggest th at som e o f the local concerns which provoked
th e letter to th e Colossians are assum ed to be still a ro u n d in the recipients’
setting, alth o u g h no longer seen as p a rt o f a pressing problem to be addressed
directly. If th e w riter o f E phesians has one eye on th e sort o f cosmological
concerns which are reflected in Colossians (and th ere is a general w arning
against false teaching in 4:14), they may have been characteristic o f this area
as a whole. If any o f the readers are being m ade to feel in ferio r a n d are
tem p ted to seek en h an ced know ledge th ro u g h the m eans offered by m ystery
cults, it is m ade clear w here tru e know ledge o f th e m ystery an d gen u in e access
to the heavenly realm are available. In any case, Colossians acted as th e catalyst
for E phesians’ own developm ent o f the cosmic im plications o f salvation an d
for its own trea tm e n t o f the heavenly dim ension as a m ajor focus o f its realized
eschatology. B ut b oth this distinctive trea tm e n t o f cosmic issues an d th e closely
related area o f th e history-o f-religions background to the letter are p erh ap s
even m ore directly related to the influences on th e w riter’s th o u g h t th a n they
are to the setting o f the recipients. T h e history-of-religions background for
Ephesians will n o t be dealt with separately in the Introduction. Instead in terac-
tion an d parallels with o th e r strands o f th o u g h t are h an d led in the com m entary
in those places w here they are relevant to the discussion o f particular texts.
(For an excellent overview o f how the recen t history o f in terp re tatio n has
so ught th e key to the letter in eith er an O T o r Essene o r Hellenistic Jew ish
o r Gnostic background, see H. M erkel, “D er E p h eserb rief in d er n e u e re n Dis-
 Introduction lxxxiii

kussion,” A N R W 2.25.4 [1987] esp. 3176– 212, an d for a good b rief exposition
o f why H ellenistic Ju d aism provides m ost illum ination for som e o f the m ain
concepts in the letter, see Gnilka, 33– 45.)
T h e strands o f evidence, som e o f th em slender, th at link E phesians to west-
e rn Asia M inor have now been seen, an d given the lack o f fu rth e r data in
the letter, this does seem the m ost plausible geographical setting. T h e re is a
grow ing bibliography o f works about Asia M inor an d ab o u t early Christianity
in th at area, som e o f which follows, b u t how useful it is in illum inating a
d o cum ent which has so little specificity m ust be a m atter o f som e debate.

Arnold, C. E. Ephesians: Power and Magic. Cambridge: CUP, 1989, 5–40. Bauer, W.
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Trans, and ed. R, A. Kraft and G. Krodel.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971, 61–94. Bean, G. E. Aegean Turkey. New York: Praeger,
1966.-------- . Turkey beyond the Maeander. London: Ernest Benn, 1971.-------- . Turkey’s
Southern Shore. New York: Praeger, 1968. Dickey, S. “Some Economic and Social Condi-
tions of Asia Minor Affecting the Expansion of Christianity.” In Studies in Early Christian-
ity, ed. S. J. Case. New York: Century, 1928, 393–416. Eiliger, W. Ephesos: Geschichte
einer antiken Weltstadt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985. Elliott, J. H. A Homefor the Homeless.,
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981, 59–100. Hemer, C. J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of
Asia in their Local Setting. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986. Johnson, S. E. “Asia Minor and Early
Christianity.” In Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Part 2. Ed. J. Neusner.
Leiden: Brill, 1975, 77– 145.-------- . “Early Christianity in Asia Minor.” JBL 77 (1958)
1– 19.----- —. “Unsolved Questions about Early Christianity in Anatolia.” In Studies in
New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune. Leiden: Brill, 1972, 181–
93. Jones, A. H. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon,
1971, 28–94. Koester, H. Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1982, 241–3 4 7 .-------- . “The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of
Early Christianity.” H TR 58 (1965) 279– 318. Lindemann, A. Paulus im ältesten Christen-
tum. Tübingen: Mohr, 1979. Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the
Third Century after Christ. 2 vols. Reprint. New York: Arno, 1975. Meeks, W. A. The
First Urban Christians. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983, 42–45. Meinardus,
O. F. A. St. John of Patmos and the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse. Athens: Lycabettus,
1974. Miltner, F. Ephesos: Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes. Vienna: Franz Deuticke,
1958. Norris, F. W. “Asia Minor before Ignatius: Walter Bauer Reconsidered.” SE 7.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982, 365– 77. Oster, R. E. A Bibliography of Ancient Ephesus.
Metuchen, NJ: ATLA and Scarecrow, 1987. Ramsay, W. M. The Cities and Bishoprics
of Phrygia. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895, 1897.-------- . The Historical Geography of
Asia Minor. Reprint. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1962.-------- . The Social Basis of Roman
Power in Asia Minor. Reprint. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1967. Robinson, T. A. The
Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church. New York:
Edwin Mellen Press, 1988, 93–205. Yamauchi, E. New Testament Cities in Western Asia
Minor. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

T hese w ritings indicate th at th ere is little ag reem en t about the developm ent
o f early C hristianity in w estern Asia M inor tow ard the e n d o f the first century
c .e . an d also th at m ore w ork will have to be done on how the picture o f the
recipients which em erges from E phesians fits into the overall history o f the
early C hristian m ovem ent in Asia M inor. W hat w ere the fortunes o f Pauline
Christianity in Asia M inor after th e d eath o f the apostle? B au er’s view th at
Pauline C hristianity never gained m uch influence in Asia M inor is increasingly
lxxxiv I n t r o d u c t io n

questioned, an d so the proposal th a t E phesians was “a last ditch stand by a

well-know n representative o f Paul in his final attem p t to regain Asia fo r the
Pauline gospel by publishing an assem blage o f Pauline teaching” (R. P. M artin,
New Testament Foundations, 2:233) has to be seen as equally o p en to question.
How do th e F o u rth Gospel, Revelation, 1 P eter, th e Pastorals, C erinthus, Pa-
pias, a n d Ignatius contribute to o u r know ledge o f the com peting an d coalescing
strands o f early C hristianity in Asia M inor? O nly two m inor points connected
with this larg er question can be n o ted here. First, if Laodicea was one o f the
churches m ean t to receive E phesians, th e n th e diagnosis o f its spiritual state
in this letter is som ew hat d ifferen t from th a t provided by the seer in Rev 3,
who indicts it for its ostentatious self-sufficiency yet ineffectiveness an d spiritual
blindness (cf. H em er, Letters, 178– 209). Second, th e similarities betw een E p h e-
sians an d 1 P eter m ay be o f such a n a tu re as to suggest a literary relationship
betw een these docum ents a n d a relationship in which 1 P eter is d e p e n d e n t
on Ephesians (cf. esp. M itton, Epistle, 176– 97; b u t cf. also L indem ann, Paulus,
252– 61, w ho disputes literary dependence).
A fu rth e r question th at arises is why the w riter ap p aren tly only addresses
G entile C hristians. W ere th ere only G entile C hristians in th e churches ad-
dressed? O r could it be th at th e w riter is n o t addressing whole churches in a
p articular locality b u t only G entile C hristian m em bers o f them o r p erh ap s
G entile C hristian house churches? W hat was th e relationship o f th e recipients
to Jew ish Christians? A gain, the letter itself gives the contem porary re ad er
no help in answ ering such questions. O n e can only agree with D ahl’s assessm ent
(HTR 79 [1986] 36– 37) th a t “if th ere w ere C hristians o f Jew ish origins am ong
the addressees, th e a u th o r takes no account o f th em ” an d th at “the a u th o r o f
E phesians h ad a keen in terest in th e Jew ish roots a n d origin o f th e church
b u t failed to show any concern fo r the relationship o f his audience to co n tem p o-
rary Jew s in o r outside the ch u rch .”
Some scholars m ove away from direct deductions from th e text o f E phesians
an d forgo hypotheses about a specific setting in o rd e r to sketch the spiritual
an d intellectual m ilieu o f Asia M inor as p a rt o f the general crisis affecting
the H ellenistic world. T h e re is som e justification fo r such a m ove, a n d these
scholars can provide a general background th a t correlates indirectly with a
n u m b er o f th e em phases o f th e letter a n d th e needs o f the readers th a t have
em erg ed from o u r analysis (cf. esp. Gnilka, 47– 49; Lona, Eschatologie, 435–
41; cf. also Lincoln, Paradise, 116– 18, 138–39; A rnold, Ephesians, 146–47).
D espite th e ex tern al political a n d econom ic unity b ro u g h t about by th e consoli-
dation o f R om an pow er, individuals felt little sense o f social integration o r o f
belonging. Instead, in a cosm opolitan environm ent, old traditions a n d alle-
giances, including religious ones, w ere seen as inadequate, an d m any people
felt u p ro o ted an d alienated. T h e cosmos, once seen as o rd ered , was now p er-
ceived to be hostile an d to be inhabited by dem onic pow ers o pposed to h u m an
well-being. In such a setting religious syncretism gained g round. It was in-
fo rm ed by m onotheistic convictions— th e re was one G od in heaven, ju s t as
th ere was one em p e ro r on ea rth —b u t this universal G od was viewed as rem oved
from in terest in an d contact with this w orld. A ccordingly, th e way o f salvation
was seen in term s o f the individual’s attem p t to escape from this w orld an d
to ascend to th e u p p e r realm s o f the cosmos. M ystery religions an d m agical
 Introduction lxxxv

rites offered this sort o f salvation th ro u g h deliverance from the w orld and
protection from dem onic powers, while fostering speculation about the cosmos.
Such concerns shed light on the syncretistic teaching which is com bated in
Colossians. It could well be also th at this general religious m ilieu contributed
to the confusion about th eir identity an d the disorientation th at appears to
characterize th e readers o f Ephesians. It w ould also help to explain th e way
in which the w riter o f Ephesians transform s cosmic concerns by em phasiz-
ing the salvation G od has provided in history th ro u g h C hrist, the corporate
n atu re o f C hristian existence, an d the responsibility o f the C hurch in the
world.

B ut in the end, the letter’s tem poral setting w ithin the developm ent o f
early C hristianity m ay well be m ore im p o rtan t th an its geographical location
o r th e crisis in the Hellenistic religious w orld for attem p tin g to identify the
sort o f recipients who m ight have h ad the needs to which the letter attests. If
the w riter was a disciple o f Paul w riting in his nam e afte r the apostle’s death,
th en o f course th e recipients are also situated in this post-apostolic period.
O ne should not, how ever, simply speak in passing o f the apostle’s death, for
this would have been an extrem ely significant factor in the situation o f the
letter’s recipients (cf. also M eade, Pseudonymity, 148, who goes so far as to
claim th at “all o f the problem s o f E phesians stem from one fu n d am en tal p ro b-
lem : the loss o f Paul as a unifying source o f au th o rity ”). N ot only does it
explain th e fact th a t they n eed to be rem in d ed o f th eir debt to the apostle
(cf. 3:1– 13), b u t it w ould also account fo r the lack o f a sense o f cohesion and
com m unal identity th a t m ight well be felt by Pauline churches once the p re s-
ence o f th e apostle an d his coordination o f the activities o f his team o f co-
workers h ad d isap p eared from the scene. T h e re was n o t the sam e sense o f
w hat it m ean t to be p a rt o f a unified C hurch, p a rt o f an entity th at was m ore
th an a local g ro u p . H ence, the call for m aintenance o f unity an d the em phasis
on the recipients’ being p a rt o f the universal C hurch. H ence also, the need
for the Pauline tradition to be continued an d the prom inence given to teachers
in passing it on.
For second-gen eration Pauline C hristians, o th e r m ajor elem ents th at gave
shape an d m ean in g to the earlier g en eratio n ’s perspectives h ad also been dis-
placed. Jeru salem h ad fallen an d yet the expected en d o f history h ad no t
come. N or h ad th e salvation o f all Israel, h o p ed fo r by the Paul o f R om ans,
m aterialized. H opes o f an im m inent parousia w ere fading an d am ong Pauline
C hristians reassessm ent o f G entile C hristians’ relationship to Israel n eeded to
be m ade. For som e G entile C hristians n o t only was th ere a deficient sense o f
all th at they already h ad in the salvation they h ad experienced, b u t th ere was
also a decreasing aw areness o f th at C h u rch ’s origins an d its place in the history
o f G od’s purposes th at included his dealings with Israel. Pauline churches
were now also having to adjust to the prospect o f a m ore extended co-existence
with th eir su rro u n d in g society.
It w ould n o t be surprising if these factors led to a loss o f a clear sense o f
th eir identity on the p a rt o f these G entile C hristians in P auline m ission churches
an d if, along with this, th ere was an insufficient concern about distinctively
C hristian behavior. Laxity in ethical m atters could have resulted both from
lxxxvi I n t r o d u c t io n

n atu ral tendencies fo r G entile C hristians to draw w rong conclusions from P aul’s
law-free gospel an d also, in the process o f accom m odation to the su rro u n d in g
society, from th e pressures simply to ad o p t its ethical values. H ence the large
am o u n t o f th e letter given over to paraenesis.
It was into this sort o f setting, th en , th a t the m essage o f E phesians was
directed. As we have seen, broadly speaking, th e letter was in ten d ed to reinforce
its read ers’ identity as participants in the C h u rch a n d to u n d erlin e th eir distine-
tive role an d conduct in the world. In re m in d in g the readers o f th eir identity
an d roots, th e w riter tells th em th a t they are p a rt o f a universal C hurch, one
new h u m anity o u t o f Jew an d Gentile. T h ey owe this status, in large part, to
Paul an d his insight into the gospel. B ut th e m ovem ent o f which they are a
p a rt is n o t ju s t a n o th e r new cult. It is linked with G od’s previous w orking
w ithin Israel an d is a decisive stage in th e com pletion o f his purposes in C hrist.
In d eed , ultim ately it is ro o ted in his electing purposes from before the fo u n d a-
tion o f th e world. T h e C h u rch o f which the readers are m em bers is n o t ju s t
one am ong a n u m b er o f com peting m ovem ents. T h ro u g h th eir relationship
with C hrist they are in touch with th e God who is the C reato r o f the whole
cosmos an d whose plan o f salvation includes th at cosmos an d its harm ony in
C hrist. In fact, th e salvation they have already experienced is an essential
p a rt o f th e outw orking o f th a t plan, a n d w hat has been accom plished in the
C h u rch ’s unity is an anticipation an d pledge o f final cosmic unity.
T h e read ers are to be p ro u d o f such an identity an d such a calling an d
are to live th em out. T hey are to have an aw areness o f G od’s global o r cosmic
purposes, b u t are th en to act locally in a way th at is ap p ro p riate to this u nique
com m unity’s role in the world. T h ey should not, th erefo re, simply accom-
m odate them selves to su rro u n d in g values. Instead, the w riter sets o u t
some o f the ethical distinguishing m arks o f th e new hum anity G od has created
in C hrist an d indicates that, as his read ers em body these, they will discover
th at th eir life in th eir com m unity illum inates som e o f the su rro u n d in g d a rk-
ness.
B ut th e w riter’s efforts to persu ad e his read ers to realize th eir tru e identity
an d behave accordingly are no t carried o u t purely on an intellectual level
an d only by didactic m eans. H e is wise en o u g h to know th at it cannot simply
be assum ed th a t if people have a rig h t u n d ersta n d in g they will do w hat is
right. T h e rh eto ric o f the letter shows th a t he knows th at it is not en o u g h to
hold before his readers the vision o f th e ir vocation, o f the kind o f people
they are called to be. H e also appeals to th e deep springs o f th eir experience,
th eir em otions, th e com m on values they celebrate in th eir w orship. H e con-
stantly com m unicates his vision o f th e ir identity th ro u g h the language an d
form s o f w orship a n d prayer. H e also helps th em to define m ore clearly who
they are by inviting th em to rem em b er w hat G od has d one fo r them in C hrist.
In this way also, they are rem in d ed th a t they are p a rt o f a w orshiping com m u-
nity with a distinctive tradition an d a distinctive co rporate life. T h e w riter is
concerned to m otivate his readers, a n d he knows th a t a d ee p er sense o f th eir
co rp o rate C hristian identity an d a g re ater desire to please G od in wise an d
holy living will flow o u t o f the sort o f re m em b erin g o f G od’s activities on
th eir b eh a lf th at is accom panied by thanksgiving. A t th e sam e tim e, he assures
them th a t in living o u t th eir calling they are n o t on th eir own. T h e pow er
which G od has displayed in acting in C hrist an d in changing the re ad ers’
 Introduction lxxxvii

status he has also m ade available to th em to enable them to be the sort o f

people he wants th em to be.
In attem p tin g to m otivate his readers, the w riter is concerned both about
th eir ap p a re n t disorientation on account o f an insufficient sense o f h ope and
a loss o f clear goals a n d purpose, an d about th eir accom panying flagging r e-
solve. H e stresses th e im portance o f hope, spells o u t w hat this hope involves
for the whole cosmos, an d gives the readers som e sense o f destiny by indicating
the C h u rch ’s relationship to G od’s purposes. In addition, he sets before them
the goal o f grow th tow ard m aturity a n d tow ard the ap p ro p riatio n o f the unity
God has given, a grow th in un d erstan d in g , m utual edification, an d love. H e
knows th at the read ers’ fu tu re goals will n o t be achieved by neglecting the
past b u t by recalling th eir individual an d corporate narratives an d building
on tradition. H e claims th at C hrist has provided all th at is necessary fo r reaching
the goals th ro u g h m inisters o f the w ord who will pass on an d apply the Pauline
tradition. T h a t trad ition is not ju s t doctrinal b u t also ethical—“learning C hrist,”
being “tau g h t in him , as the tru th is in Jesu s.” T h e way into the fu tu re is by
appro p riatin g , building on, creatively ad a p tin g past tradition. W hat the w riter
advocates for others, he practices him self. N ot surprisingly, Ephesians is full
o f Pauline traditions, especially Colossians, b u t also rem iniscences o f o th er
letters an d liturgical, doctrinal, an d paraenetical traditions, which the w riter
now em ploys fo r his own purposes. Again, his rhetorical strategy m akes this
m ore effective. In stead o f simply saying th a t he is passing on Pauline traditions,
he m akes it m ore personal, direct, an d forceful by ad opting the device o f
Paul him self ap pealing to the churches.
In particular his concluding appeal reinforces his pu rp o se in the letter as
a whole. In the face o f flagging enthusiasm , lack o f spiritual energy, an d defi -
d e n t sense o f pu rpose, he calls on the readers to be strong an d to stand
firm. H e gives th em a new im age by which to think o f them selves— C hristian
soldiers engaged in a battle. T h e pieces o f arm o r which they are to p u t on or
use—tru th , righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, an d the w ord o f God—involve
conscious ap p ro p riatio n o f key elem ents o f th eir identity. H e rem inds them
th at living o u t th e vision o f th e calling he has set before them will no t ju s t
take place autom atically. It will m eet with resistance, the chief source o f which
is the cosmic powers o f evil th at can still affect negatively the way in which
they dem o n strate th eir calling. His forceful rhetoric m akes clear to the readers
th at they are in a battle, b u t his positive rein fo rcem en t o f th eir self-im age is
m aintained— they are on the w inning side. W hat they need to do is to a p p ro p ri-
ate the resources th at have been m ade available— G od’s arm or, C hrist’s pow er,
the Spirit—an d p rayer is em phasized as the crucial m eans o f tap p in g such
resources. As th e readers stand firm , both by m aintaining th eir identity an d
by living it out, th e result will be th a t th e Pauline gospel will continue to be
proclaim ed an d to triu m p h despite adversity.

5. T he T h o u g h t of E phesians
Bibliography
Adai, J. Der Heilige Geist als Gegenwart Gottes in den einzelnen Christen, in der Kirche und
in der Welt Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985. Arnold, C. E. Ephesians: Power and Magic.
Cambridge: CUP, 1989, 123–60. Barth, M. “Conversion and Conversation: Israel and
lxxxviii I n t r o d u c t io n

the Church in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.” Int 17 (1963) 3–24. Benoit, P. “Body,
Head, and Pleroma in the Epistles of the Captivity.” In Jesus and the Gospel, Vol. 2. Tr.
B. Weatherhead. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974, 51–92. Bouttier, M.
“L’horizon catholique de l’epitre aux Ephesiens.” In L'Evangile, hier et aujourd'hui. FS
F. J. Leenhardt. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1968, 25– 37. Brown, R. E. The Churches the
Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press, 1984, 47–60. Corley, B. “The Theology
of Ephesians.” SW JT 22 (1979) 24–38. Dahl, N. A. “Interpreting Ephesians: Then
and Now.” CurTM 5 (1978) 133–43. Dautzenberg, G. “Theologie und Seelsorge aus
paulinischer Tradition: Einführung in 2 Thess, Kol, Eph.” In Gestalt und Anspruch des
Neuen Testaments, ed. J. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter, 1969, 96– 119. Fendt, L. “Die
Kirche des Epheserbriefs.” TLZ 77 (1952) 147–50. Gnilka, J. “Das Kirchenmodell des
Epheserbriefes.” BZ 15 (1971) 161–84. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos: Paulinische Kriterien
fü r das Proprium christlicher Moral. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Hanson, S. The Unity of the
Church in the New Testament: Colossians and Ephesians. Uppsala: Almquist 8c Wiksells,
1946. Houlden, J. L. “Christ and Church in Ephesians.” SE 6 (1973) 267–73. Käsemann,
E. “Ephesians and Acts.” In Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn. London:
S.P.C.K., 1968, 288–97. Knoch, O. “Die Botschaft des Epheserbriefes.” In “Durch die
Gnade Gottes bin ich, was ich bin.” Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag, 1984, 74– 89. Lincoln,
A. T. Paradise Now and Not Yet. Cambridge: CUP, 1981.-------- . “The Use of the OT
in Ephesians.” J S N T 14 (1982) 16–57. Lindemann, A. Die Aufhebung der Zeit: Geschi-
chtsverständnis und Eschatologie im Epheserbrief. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975. Lona,
H. E. Die Eschatologie im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984. Mac-
Donald, M. Y. The Pauline Churches. Cambridge: CUP, 1988, 85– 158. Martin, R. P.
Reconciliation: A Study of Paul's Theology. London: Marshall, 1981. Meeks, W. A• “In
One Body: The Unity of Humankind in Colossians and Ephesians.” In God's Christ
and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977, 209–
21. Merkel, H. “Der Epheserbrief in der neueren exegetischen Diskussion.” A N R W
2.25.4 (1987) 3156–246. Merklein, H. Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief. Munich:
Kösel, 1973.-------- . “Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Ephes-
erbriefes.” In Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften, ed. K. Kertelge. Freiburg:
Herder, 1981, 25–69. Meyer, R. P. Kirche und Mission im Epheserbrief. Stuttgart: Kathol-
isches Bibelwerk, 1977. Mussner, F. Christus, das All und die Kirche. 2nd ed. Trier:
Paulinus, 1968.-------- . “Die Geschichtstheologie des Epheserbriefes.” BibLeb 5 (1964)
8– 12. Odeberg, H. The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Lund: Lund
Universitets Arsskrift, 1934. Percy, E. Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe. Lund:
Gleerup, 1946. Pereis, O. “Kirche und Welt nach dem Epheser- und Kolosserbrief.”
TLZ 76 (1951) 391–400. Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Tr. J. R. de
Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Roels, E. God's Mission: The Epistle to the Ephesians
in Mission Perspective. Franeker: Wever, 1962. Schlier, H. Christus und die Kirche im
Epheserbrief. Tübingen: Mohr, 1930. Schmid, J. Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus. Frei-
burg: Herder, 1928. Schnackenburg, R. “Der Epheserbrief im heutigen Horizont.”
In Massstab des Glaubens. Freiburg: Herder, 1978, 155– 75.-------- . “Er hat üns mitaufer-
weckt: Zur Tauflehre des Epheserbriefes.” LJ 2 (1952) 159–8 3 .------- “Gestalt und
Wesen der Kirche nach dem Epheserbrief.” In Schriften zum Neuen Testament. Munich:
Kösel, 1971, 268–87. Steinmetz, F.-J. Protologische Heilszuversicht: Die Strukturen des soter-
iologischen und christologischen Denkens im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. Frankfurt: Josef
Knecht, 1969. Usami, K. Somatic Comprehension of Unity: The Church in Ephesus. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1983. Wild, R. A. “ ‘Be Imitators of God’: Discipleship in the
Letter to the Ephesians.” In Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. F. Segovia. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985, 127–43.
Any adeq u ate discussion o f the th o u g h t o f E phesians would draw o u t clearly
the relation o f th e letter’s symbols a n d concepts to its setting an d purposes.
 Introduction lxxxix

It would show th e function o f its symbolic universe in su p p o rtin g the sense

o f identity an d role the w riter attem pts to give his readers with th eir specific
needs. It w ould analyze the way in which the theology an d ethics o f the letter
are p art o f th e w riter’s explanation to th e readers o f who they are as a social
entity an d th e way in which they help to plot the read ers’ place in tim e an d
space, in history, society, an d the cosmos. Such a discussion w ould also interact
with th e w ealth o f scholarly treatm ents bo th o f the th o u g h t o f the letter as a
whole an d o f its m ajor individual them es. It w ould also m ake some attem p t
to ap p ro p riate critically the theology o f E phesians fo r p re sen t-day concerns.
T h e limits o f this volum e forbid such a full-scale trea tm e n t at this point in
the Introduction, a n d the w riter will attem p t a fuller discussion in a fu tu re
publication. It has been th o u g h t w orthw hile, how ever, to provide a b rief sum-
m ary in sketch form o f som e o f the m ain elem ents o f the letter’s th o u g h t
an d an even briefer concluding reflection on its overall im pact.

(a) Eschatology

If E phesians is to be seen as a re in te rp reta tio n o f Paul fo r the particular

needs o f G entile C hristians in a later generation, it m akes sense to begin this
survey o f its th o u g h t in the area th at was so determ inative for the apostle
himself. W ith o th e r in terp reters, I hold th a t the co h eren t core o f P aul’s tho u g h t,
which comes to different expression in a variety o f settings, is his eschatology
which centers in C hrist, an d th at this is fu n d am en tal for the rest o f his thinking,
including his th in k ing about justification (cf., e.g., R idderbos, E. P. Sanders,
Beker, for various recen t form ulations o f this ap p ro ach to Paul). As is well
known, o ne m ain stran d in P aul’s eschatological fram ew ork is the concept o f
the two ages fo u n d in som e Jew ish apocalypses. Paul m odifies this in various
ways because o f w hat he believes to have h ap p e n ed in Christ. H e sees the tim e
betw een the resu rrection an d the parousia as th e overlap o f the ages in which
th ere is a tension betw een p resen t an d fu tu re aspects o f the blessing o f the
e n d-times. E phesians shares this eschatological fram ew ork. In fact, it contains
the only explicit reference in the Pauline corpus to both ages: “above every
n am e th at is n am ed, n o t only in this age b u t also in th at which is to com e”
(1:21). B ut as co m pared with the rest o f the Pauline corpus, Ephesians has a
m uch g reater em phasis on th e p resen t o r realized aspect o f eschatology. T his
em phasis becom es clear from th e beginning o f th e letter. In the o p ening lines
o f the o p en in g eulogy G od is blessed, because he “has blessed us with every
spiritual blessing in the heavenly realm s in C hrist” (1:3). T h e benefits o f the
age to com e are seen as having already becom e a p resen t spiritual an d heavenly
reality for believers. T his perspective is also expressed in striking fashion in
the contrast th at is m ade betw een the read ers’ previous situation, in which
th eir conduct was “in accordance with this w orld-age” (2:2), an d th eir p resen t
situation, in which G od “raised us u p with him an d seated us with him in the
heavenly realm s in C hrist Jesu s” (2:6). T h e latter p a rt o f this statem ent, in
particular, spells o u t boldly an d explicitly w hat is only im plicit in Col 3 :1–3,
on which it is d ep e n d en t. Believers’ u n io n with C hrist is such th at they share
in the triu m p h o f his exaltation to heaven (cf. 1:20). Elsew here in th e N T,
xc I n t r o d u c t io n

believers’ rule with C hrist is re fe rre d to only as a prom ise fo r the fu tu re (cf.,
e.g., Rev 3:21, “H e who conquers, I will g ra n t him to sit with m e on my
th ro n e, as I m yself conquered a n d sat dow n with my F ath er on his th ro n e ”),
b u t h ere in E phesians this rule has already been accom plished. C hrist’s exalta-
tion involved his triu m p h a n d ru le over hostile cosmic powers, as 1:20– 22
m ade clear, an d , because o f th eir relationship with C hrist, believers are now
seen as p a rt o f th e new dom in io n ’s superiority over th e old, participating in
its liberation from the powers.
T h e distinctive em phasis o f E phesians is on realized eschatology, b u t it does
retain som e fu tu re elem ents (cf. 1:14; 2:7; 4:30; 5:5; 6:8, 13). It is noticeable
th at these references to the fu tu re em erge m ore obviously in the second h alf
o f the letter, w here the w riter m akes use o f m ore traditional paraenetical m ate-
rial. In his attem p t to assure his read ers o f w hat God has accom plished for
th em an d to reinforce th eir identity as C hristian believers, the w riter does
n o t lose all realism about C hristian existence. H e is u n d e r no illusion th at
sh arin g in C hrist’s victory brings rem oval from the sphere o f conflict. T hose
who have been seated with C hrist in the heavenly realm s are at the sam e tim e
those who m ust walk in the w orld (cf. 2:10; 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15) an d who m ust
stand in th e m idst o f th e continuing battle with th e pow ers (cf. 6:11– 16).

(b) Christology

W hat is distinctive about E phesians’ view o f C hrist is in keeping with w hat

is distinctive ab o u t its eschatology. A lthough th ere are a few b rief references
to C hrist’s d ea th (cf. 1:7; 2:13, 16; 5:2, 25), th e em phasis is on C hrist’s exalta-
tion, as elem ents o f the cosmic C hristology o f Colossians, which em erged in
th e en c o u n te r with syncretism an d its cosmic concerns, are taken fu rth e r.
T his cosmic lordship o f C hrist is elaborated at the en d o f the thanksgiving
section, which speaks o f th e w orking o f G od’s “m ighty stren g th which he accom-
plished in C hrist w hen h e raised him from th e dead, an d seated him at his
rig h t h an d in th e heavenly realm s fa r above every principality an d authority
an d pow er an d d o m inion an d every nam e th a t is nam ed. . . . A nd he placed
all things u n d e r his feet an d gave him as h ead over all things to the C hurch,
which is his body, th e fullness o f him [Christ] who fills all things in every
way” (1:20–23). C hrist’s resu rrectio n a n d exaltation m ean th at the cen ter o f
gravity in G od’s cosmic d ra m a o f salvation has m oved from the realm o f e a rth
to th at o f heaven an d th at a change in th e pow er structures o f this w orld has
been b ro u g h t about. Ps 110:1 an d Ps 8:6, which Paul h ad used in 1 C or
15:25–27 to speak o f C hrist’s rule at the en d o f history, are ad a p te d by the
w riter o f E phesians a n d applied to C hrist’s p resen t status, as he is depicted
as th e last A dam w ho is already L ord with d om inion over the cosmos. As
head over th e cosmos C hrist fills it with his sovereign rule. T his sam e note is
struck later w hen C hrist is said to have “ascended far above all th e heavens
in o rd e r th at he m ight fill th e cosm os” (4:10).
Since C hrist is depicted as head over all things, it is no t surprising th at he
is also described as head o f th e C hurch. H e is both its beginning an d its end,
the source a n d the goal o f its grow th (cf. 4:15, 16; cf. also 5:23). H e is the
one who is th e keystone o f the tem ple structure, th e top stone in w hom the
 Introduction XC1

whole stru ctu re coheres (cf. 2:20). It can be seen th at in E phesians it is no t

so m uch th at C hristology is swallowed u p by ecclesiology as th at th e ecclesiology
is thoroughly Christological. W hat is said about the C h u rch d epends on w hat
has been said ab o u t w hat God has d one in C hrist, b u t at th e sam e tim e w hat
is said ab out C hrist is always related to believers an d th e C hurch.
T h e relationship betw een C hrist’s cosmic lordship a n d his lordship over
the C h u rch is an intrig u in g one. T h e two are not simply set in parallel, bu t
the fo rm er is su b o rdinated to the latter, as, in both E ph 1 an d E ph 4, cosmic
Christology is m ade to serve the needs o f the readers. T h e portrayal o f C hrist’s
cosmic lordship in the thanksgiving section assures the readers th at this world
is not simply a continual chaotic b attleg ro u n d in which d o m in an t hostile forces
need to be placated. Instead, in C hrist’s resurrection an d exaltation G od has
shown th at the world is his creation over which he has p u t C hrist in control
so th at life can be lived in tru st in his pow er. W hat is m ore, the w riter stresses
th at God has given C hrist as head over the cosmos to the Church (1:22). All
th eT u le an d au th o rity God has given to C hrist is to be used on b ehalf o f the
C hurch since God has also given this exalted C hrist to the C hurch. In the
light o f such an assertion the readers are to see them selves no t as a num erically
and sociologically insignificant g ro u p b u t as p a rt o f the universal C hurch which
can only be truly u n d ersto o d in relation to its L ord in the heavenly realm
who exercises all pow er on its behalf. Similarly, in E ph 4 the point o f the
application o f Ps 68 to C hrist’s ascent to be cosmic L ord is th at his triu m p h a n t
exaltation results in his giving o f gifts, the gifts o f m inisters o f the w ord neces-
sary to equip the C h u rch for its task in the world. In o th e r words, the w riter’s
vision o f the C h u rch ’s calling is not to be th o u g h t o f as a totally unrealizable
ideal, because th e cosmic C hrist has given the C h u rch the resources it needs
to be able to dem o nstrate its unity, to proclaim the tru th in love, an d to attain
to m aturity.
T h e letter’s cosmic C hristology an d its eschatology com e to g eth er in the
eulogy’s description o f the m ystery which has been disclosed to believers. T h e
readers are show n th at the divine election which has grasped th em also involves
G od’s p u rp o se for history: “to sum u p all things in C hrist, things in heaven,
and things on ea rth in him ” (T. 10). T his unifying o f the cosmos an d restoration
o f its h arm ony w ere achieved in principle w hen G od exalted C hrist to heaven
as cosmic L ord, thereby en su rin g the inseparable connection betw een heaven
an d earth th at enables both heavenly things an d earthly things to be sum m ed
u p in him . T his p a rt o f the o p en in g blessing is m ean t to help the readers to
see th at to be in C hrist is to be p a rt o f a pro g ram which is as broad as the
universe, a m ovem ent which is rolling on tow ard a renew ed cosmos w here all
is in harm ony.

(c) Salvation

A lready it has been seen th a t salvation in E phesians is predom inantly re al-

ized, has its cen ter in C hrist, an d is cosmic in scope. T h ese features an d others
are u n d erlin ed in the re m in d e r o f th e re ad ers’ salvation in the first h alf o f
E ph 2 (vv 1– 10). T h ere, salvation is p resen ted as a rescue act accom plished
on b eh alf o f believers, which involves a m ovem ent from death to life, from
x c ii I n t r o d u c t io n

conduct characterized by trespasses, sins, sensual indulgence, an d disobedience

to th at characterized by good works, from this p resen t world-age to the heavenly
realm s, from bon d age to the forces which ru le this w orld to victory with C hrist
over hostile powers, an d from liability to G od’s w rath to experience o f his
mercy, love, an d kindness. All o f this is “by grace . . . n o t from yourselves,”
“th ro u g h faith . . . no t by w orks” (2:8, 9). Paul h ad used this language o f
grace, faith, an d works in association with justification term inology (cf. esp.
Rom 3:24– 28). It appears th at the w riter o f E phesians deem s the use o f righ-
teousness term inology in its distinctive Pauline sense no longer ap p ro p riate
for G entile C hristians, fo r w hom polem ics with Jew ish C hristians about adm is-
sion to th e com m unity was a m atter o f the past. So he has taken th e essentials
o f the justification discussion, set th em in this context o f a realized eschatology
th ro u g h participation in C hrist, a n d subsum ed th em u n d e r the inclusive cate-
gory o f salvation to give th em a m ore general reference. In this process o f
re in te rp reta tio n th e perfect passive participle oeooxjuevot, “have been saved,”
is em ployed (2:5, 8). So in Ephesians even th e b road general notion o f salvation
can be spoken o f as a com pleted event. Also, w hat in Paul is always clearly
“works o f th e law” an d belongs firm ly to th e contexts o f Galatians an d R om ans
has now becom e in E phesians sim ply “w orks.” R em oved from its original p o-
lemical context it now has a fa r b ro a d er reference a n d stands fo r h u m a n effort
in general. Most readers o f Paul afte r 70 c .e . have fo u n d one o f the prim ary
contexts o f his work—the battle fo r adm ission o f Gentiles to the new com m unity
with its debate ab o u t circum cision a n d th e law— no lo n g er im m ediately relevant.
H ere, th e w riter o f E phesians takes th e first steps in show ing how th e m ain
elem ents o f th a t debate can be re in te rp re te d a n d given m ore general scope.
T h e second h alf o f E p h 2 (vv 11–22) provides a n o th e r key passage in E p h e-
sians’ distinctive trea tm e n t o f salvation, particularly with its im agery o f reconcili-
ation. T h e change from the re ad ers’ p re-C hristian past to th eir p re sen t in
the C h u rch is this tim e said to have been p ro d u c ed by C hrist’s reconciliation
(2:16). In th e only ex tended reflection on C hrist’s d ea th in th e letter, his d eath
on the cross is seen as effecting peace both on a horizontal an d a vertical
level. By dealing with the law as th e source o f hostility, C hrist’s d eath overcam e
th e alienating divide betw een Jew s a n d Gentiles an d was th e creative pow er
which p ro d u ced a unified new hum anity from these two groups. It is this
em phasis o n th e horizontal social dim ension th at E phesians contributes to
the notion o f reconciliation which it takes u p from Paul. T h e m ajor division
within h u m anity in th e first-century w orld is reckoned to have been overcom e,
as Jew s an d G entiles with th eir ethnic a n d religious differences are seen to
have been reconciled in the one body o f the C hurch. B ut th e vertical elem ent
o f Pauline reconciliation, restoration to G od’s acceptance a n d favor, is n o t
missing, fo r C hrist’s d ea th effected this restoration at the sam e tim e fo r both
groups, who now enjoy th e privilege o f access to G od’s fatherly presence
(2:17, 18).

(d) Relation to Judaism

In th e latest epistles o f Paul, he was still engaged in a life-a n d-d eath struggle
with rival Jew ish C hristian groups, b u t Ephesians looks back on an achieved
 Introduction xciii

unity betw een Jew an d G entile in the C h u rch as th e one body (cf. 2:11– 22).
G one are th e h eated struggles with rival groups about the term s o f Gentile
adm ission an d ab o ut the law an d gone also is the apostle’s personal agony,
expressed in R om ans, about the relation o f believers to ethnic Israel. Ephesians
exhibits a d etach m en t from such issues, reflecting its setting tow ard the end
o f the first century c .e . w hen P aul’s position on adm ission o f Gentiles had
been firmly established, Jeru salem had fallen, an d G entile C hristians in term s
o f influence an d nu m bers w ere do m in an t in the churches o f Asia M inor. Such
Gentile C hristians w ere liable to be ig n o ran t o f th eir roots an d needed to be
rem in d ed o f th e privilege o f th eir salvation an d the greatness o f w hat had
been accom plished in o rd e r for th em to take th eir place in the C hurch. B ut
unlike the G entile C hristians in Rom 11, they are n o t told th at they have
been ad d ed to a given Jew ish base. T h e G entiles’ fo rm e r disadvantages have
been reversed, n o t by th eir being incorporated into Israel n o r even by their
jo in in g a renew ed Israel o f Jew ish C hristians, b u t by th eir being m ade m em bers
o f a new com m unity which transcends the categories o f Jew and G entile, an
entity which is a new creation. T h e two fo rm er groupings have not simply
m erged, b u t one new person has been created in place o f the two (2:15). In
Ephesians, th en , th e em phasis is on discontinuity with Israel, and the concept
o f the C h u rch is in fact, if n o t in nam e, th at o f the “th ird race.” T his stance
tow ard Israel goes h a n d in h an d with the w riter’s trea tm e n t o f the law, for
he asserts th at in o rd e r to deal with the divisiveness pro d u ced by the law,
C hrist had to abolish the law (2:14, 15). F or Paul, too, the period o f the law
had com e to an end, b u t in R om ans he is m ore careful an d dialectical in
expressing him self th a n elsew here (cf. R om 3:31). T h e w riter o f E phesians
presents th e apostle’s basic position in an unqualified fashion, though, again
like Paul, he is n o t averse to calling on the law for secondary su p p o rt for his
ethical adm onitions w hen th at suits him (cf. 6:2, 3).
T h e w riter’s use o f the Jew ish Scriptures also fits th e general perspective
on Ju d aism suggested above. O T traditions are one source am ong a n u m b er
o f authoritative traditions which he em ploys to fu rth e r his purposes. W hereas
in the discussions o f Gal 3 an d 4 an d Rom 4, 9 – 11, an d 15, w here unity betw een
Jew ish C hristians an d G entile C hristians is a live issue, the O T plays a key
role an d is cited as p a rt o f a fulfillm ent-of‫־‬prom ise ap p ro ach to S cripture, in
Ephesians th e O T is used only som ew hat incidentally in connection with this
topic in 2:17. E phesians lacks this prom ise-a n d-fulfillm ent use o f Scripture.
In d eed it w ould be quite in ap p ro p ria te, given the perspective expressed in
3:5 – th at the m ystery o f th e inclusion o f the G entiles “was no t m ade know n
to the sons o f m en in o th er generations as it has now been revealed to his
holy apostles an d to p ro p h ets by the Spirit.” A ccording to Ephesians, the
O T w riters w ere ig n o ran t o f the sort o f blessing th at was to com e to the
Gentiles.

(e) Church and World

As is well know n, the concept o f the C h u rch is very m uch to the fore in
Ephesians. T h e term eKK\r!01a occurs nine times. In Paul this term is used
m ost frequently fo r the actual g ath erin g o f a g ro u p o f local C hristians o r for
xciv I n t r o d u c t io n

the local g ro u p which gath ered regularly, alth o u g h in a few places the apostle
ap p ears to have in view an entity which is b ro a d er th an the local gath erin g
(cf. Gal 1:13; 1 C or 10:32; 12:28; 15:9; Phil 3:6). Colossians certainly refers
to a C h u rch which consists o f all believers (1:18, 24) in addition to local g ath er-
ings (4:15, 16). B ut in E phesians all nine references are to the universal C hurch,
the C hristian com m unity seen in its totality.
T h e w riter uses a variety o f im ages fo r this new people o f God. It is G od’s
family (2:19), th e new tem ple (2:20– 22), C hrist’s fullness (1:23; 4:13), an d
C hrist’s b ride (5:23– 33). T h e d o m in an t im age, how ever, is th at o f the body
o f C hrist, which occurs ten tim es in the letter. Again, via Colossians, it has
becom e a depiction o f the universal C h u rch as distinct from the m ore local
application o f the im age in 1 C or 12 o r Rom 12. Only 4:15, 16 explicitly
retain th e original com parison involving the in terd ep en d en ce o f the parts o f
an organism . Elsewhere, it is used fo r viewing the C hurch as a com pact whole.
W hile in 1 C orinthians th e use o f th e im age is colored by the eucharistic
trad itio n with its focus on th e crucified body o f C hrist, h ere in E phesians the
co n centration o n C hrist’s exaltation colors th e use o f th e im age, as the C h u rch
as body is seen in relation to C hrist as its h ead (though the ju x tap o sitio n o f
these im ages should n o t be taken as p a rt o f one physiological m odel: see the
com m entary’s discussion o f 1:22b, 23). W hen th e body m etap h o r is elaborated
in 4 : 1–16, it is in o rd e r to depict th e C h u rch as a dynam ic corporate entity,
which grows as its individual m em bers are involved in a continual process o f
m u tu al ad justm ent, an d which is on th e m ove tow ard unity an d m aturity.
T h e body o f C hrist is a stru ctu re d unity th a t can contain the diversity o f the
essential contributions o f each individual m em ber (4:7, 16) an d the especially
significant role o f certain people— the apostles, pro p h ets, evangelists, pastors,
an d teachers (4 :1 1–16). T h e w riter un d erlin es the role an d authority o f such
m inisters o f th e w ord as they preserve an d apply th e apostolic tradition. H e
looks back o n th e apostles an d p ro p h e ts them selves as the foun d atio n o f the
C h u rch (2:20). T h ese revered leaders o f th e first generation can, in fact, be
described as “holy apostles an d p ro p h e ts” (3:5), from w hom Paul is singled
o u t in particu lar as th e one en tru sted with the revelation o f the “m ystery” o f
G od’s p u rposes fo r th e G entiles (3:1– 13).
Ephesians is suprem ely concerned ab o u t th e unity o f the C hurch. T h e w riter
exhorts th e C h u rch to m aintain the unity it already possesses an d stresses
th at th e essential in g red ien t fo r achieving the harm o n y o f unity in diversity
is love (4:1– 16). F or him , th e quality o f the C h u rc h ’s corporate life has every-
th in g to do with fulfilling its role in th e world. As it em bodies the unity it
already possesses, th e C h u rch fulfills its calling to be the paradigm o f the
cosmic unity which is th e goal o f th e salvation G od provides in C hrist (cf.
1:10). T his role o f the C h u rch is outlin ed in 3:9, 10, w here its existence is
seen as G od’s an n o u n c em en t to th e principalities an d authorities in th e h eav-
enly realm s th a t he is going to m ake good o n his m ultifaceted an d wise plan
for cosmic unity. Because the C h u rch is th e one new hum anity in place o f
two (2:15), th e one body (2:16; 4:4), it can be depicted as providing the powers
with a tangible re m in d e r th at th eir au th o rity has been decisively broken an d
th at everything is going to be u n ited in C hrist.
N ot only is this letter concerned ab o u t the unity o f the C hurch; it also
 Introduction xcv

stresses the holiness o f the C hurch. Believers have been chosen to be holy
an d blam eless (1:4). T hey are grow ing into a holy tem ple in the L ord (2:21).
T hey have p u t on th e new hum anity, which is characterized by holiness (4:24).
All kinds o f im purity belong to th eir past life (4:17 – 19) an d are so in ap p ro p ria te
to the lives o f “saints‫ ״‬o r holy ones th at they should no t even be nam ed am ong
them (5:3 – 14). How could anything else be the case for those who have com e
to realize th at th e goal o f C hrist’s sacrificial d eath was the sanctification o f his
Bride, the C h urch, w hom he has cleansed by w ashing in w ater th ro u g h the
w ord in o rd e r to p resen t h e r to him self in splendor, w ithout spot o r wrinkle,
b u t ra th e r holy an d blam eless (5:25– 27)?
B ut the perspective o f Ephesians is n o t one in which the C hurch an d the
rest o f creation are fixed in a state o f p erm a n en t opposition an d alienation.
R ather, the C h u rch as C hrist’s fullness provides the p resen t focus fo r and
dem onstration o f th a t presence, which now fills th e cosmos in a h idden way
b u t which will do so openly an d com pletely (cf. 1:22, 23). T h e second h alf o f
th e letter does, how ever, u n d erlin e the C h u rch ’s holiness an d draws a sharp
distinction betw een the conduct o f believers an d th at o f those in the sinful
su rro u n d in g society (4:17– 24; 5:3– 14). Yet the distinctive behavior req u ired
o f the new hum anity, o f the children o f light, is no t achieved by flight from
the world b u t by living responsibly in the w orld, in the ordinary structures o f
h u m an life— h u sb an d-wife, p a re n t-children, an d m aster-slave relationships (cf.
5 :2 1–6:9). In contrast to the attitu d e to m arriage in 1 C or 7, w here it, along
with the o th er structures o f this world, is seen as passing away, the exalted
view o f m arriage in E ph 5 as reflecting the heavenly reality o f the union
betw een C hrist an d his C h u rch an d the use o f th e household code as a whole
provide evidence th at the w riter believes th e C h u rch to have a fu tu re in this
world with which it needs to com e to term s. In contrast to the earlier baptism al
vision o f equality o f Gal 3:28, E phesians accepts an d even reinforces the basic
structures o f p atriarchal m arriage an d the institution o f slavery and th en w ithin
them brings to b ear C hristian m otivations o f love an d service.

( / ) Impact

How do G entile C hristians rem oved from the original context in which
Paul expressed his gospel, rem oved from the urgency o f its pervasive eschato-
logical perspective an d from the particularities o f its J e w-Gentile concerns,
ap p ro p riate the apostle’s m essage? As he attem pts, tow ard the en d o f the
first century, to inspire a G entile audience which has little aw areness o f any
Jew ish heritage an d different expectations about the fu tu re o f the C h u rch in
the world, the w riter to the E phesians provides us with one answer. His m odel
for rein te rp retin g Paul has o f course jo in e d the genuine Paul an d becom e
p art o f the canonical im age o f Paul.
Its im pact will inevitably be different fo r d ifferent readers at different times
an d any attem p t to evaluate it a som ew hat personal en terprise. C ertainly the
letter’s vision o f the C hurch is bold an d im pressive. Difficult as it frequently
is to reconcile the vision o f a unified universal C h u rch with the em pirical
reality o f a m yriad o f traditions, denom inations, factions, an d petty politics
and personality disputes even w ithin those factions, such a vision needs to be
xcvi I n t r o d u c t io n

ap p ro p riated , if co n tem porary C hristians are n o t to give u p on th eir ecum enical

endeavors. T h e scandal o f p resen t ecclesiastical divisions is n o t in the variety
o f th e theological convictions, preferences for form s o f w orship, o r cultural
distinctives th at they express. It lies in C hristians allowing these to prev en t
th em from providing a visible dem o n stratio n th a t in C hrist G od has u n ited
them in one body an d one Spirit. A central challenge o f th e letter’s picture o f
the C h u rch ’s calling is th at C hristians should spare no effort to find ways
an d structures fo r m aintaining the unity o f the Spirit in visible dem onstrations
o f cooperation an d unity in w orship, witness, a n d social action. C atching th e
vision o f E phesians about th e C h u rch will m ean that, from w ithin th eir own
traditions, C hristians will increasingly reach o u t to w orship an d w ork with
o th er believers, so th at they can em body w hat H ans K üng has called an “evan-
gelical catholicity,” which centers on th e gospel, an d a “catholic evangelicity,”
which has th e b re ad th o f perspective to take in th e continuity in tim e o f th e
faith an d its com m unity an d th e universality in space o f th e faith a n d its
com m unity (cf. On Being a Christian [New York: Pocket Books, 1978] 503).
Ephesians does not, how ever, allow unity to be seen as simply an in-house
issue fo r th e C hurch. It sees th e unity o f th e C h u rch as providing th e principali-
ties an d powers, and, by extension, all hostile alienating forces at w ork in
this world, with a tangible re m in d e r th a t th eir dom inion has been decisively
broken an d th a t G od is going to m ake good o n his purposes in C hrist
for cosmic unity (cf. 3:9, 10). W hen C hristians becom e discouraged, feel weak
an d insignificant, succum b to an individualistic piety, o r lose th eir sense o f
identity an d pu rp o se, E phesians can provide th e necessary re m in d e r o f the
im p o rtan t p art they have to play in G od’s cosmic plan, o f the fact th a t the
quality o f th eir life to g eth er in the C h u rch has everything to do with the
C h u rch ’s carrying o u t its task in the world, an d o f the pow er th at has been
m ade available in C hrist to m ove th em on tow ard th e fulfillm ent o f such a
calling.
E phesians’ re in te rp reta tio n o f Paul has been criticized both for its tendency
to a trium phalistic p o rtra it o f the C h u rch a n d for a view o f C hristian existence
which fails to em brace the d ark side o f life a n d th ere fo re lacks the pro fu n d ity
o f a theology o f th e cross with its note o f G od’s identification with h u m an
suffering. T h e fo rm er criticism applies m ore to a m isuse o f the letter’s im agery
an d forgets bo th th at the confidence o f the original readers n eed ed to be
boosted an d th at its m essage was in ten d ed to p roduce no t arrogance b u t hum ble
g ratitu d e fo r G od’s grace (cf. also Schnackenburg, “D er E pheserbrief,” 172).
T h e latter criticism is, how ever, m ore telling. For a m ore com pelling perspective
on life with its am biguities a n d anguish w ithin th e N T one w ould tu rn to
parts o f the g en uine Paul o r to th e G ospel o f M ark. Yet no single N T do cu m en t
can be expected to contain all the tru th , an d th e optim istic vision which ch arac-
terizes E phesians, with its theological grasp o f a n d doxological response to
G od’s grace in the gospel o f C hrist, its depiction o f G od’s purposes in C hrist
in term s o f peace an d reconciliation on a universal an d cosmic scale, an d its
view o f the C h u rch ’s role in the advancing o f those purposes o f cosmic harm ony
th ro u g h a life o f holiness an d love, can still be im m ensely attractive an d provides
a pow erful incentive fo r hope. T h e genuine Paul, for a variety o f reasons,
fo u n d it necessary in his letters to p u t his prim ary stress o n the cross, th o u g h
 Introduction XCV11

it is always seen in the light o f the resurrection. E phesians places its em phasis
on th e resu rrectio n an d exaltation. By draw ing o u t the im plications fo r the
C h u rch o f this dim ension, which was certainly th ere in the genuine Paul,
E phesians can be seen to be m aking its com plem entary contribution to the
canonical P aul’s gospel o f the crucified an d risen Christ.
Prescript (1:1, 2 )
Bibliography

Batey, R. “The Destination of Ephesians.” JBL 82 (1963) 101. Best, E. “Ephesians

i.l.” Text and Interpretation, ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979, 29–4 1 .-------- . “Ephesians 1.1 Again.” Paul and Paulinismy ed.
M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: S.P.C.K., 1982, 273– 79. -------- . “Recipi-
ents and Title of the Letter to the Ephesians: Why and Wh£n the Designation ‘Ephe-
sians’?” A N R W 2.25.4 (1987) 3247– 79. Dahl, N. A. “Adresse und Proömium des
Epheserbriefes.” TZ 7 (1951) 241–6 4 .-------- . “The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles
as a Problem in the Ancient Church.” Neotestamentica et Patristica, FS Cullmann, Leiden:
Brill, 1962, 261–71. Harnack, A. “Die Adresse des Epheserbriefes des Paulus.” SPAW
37 (1910) 696–709. Lightfoot, J. B. “The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians.”
Biblical Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893, 375–96. Lindemann, A. “Bemerkungen zu
den Adressaten und zum Anlass des Epheserbriefes.” ZN W 67 (1976) 235–51. Percy,
E. Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, 449–66. Roon, A. van. The Authenticity of
Ephesians, 72– 85. Santer, M. “The Text of Ephesians i.l.” N TS 15 (1969) 247–48.
Schenk, W. “Zur Entstehung und zum Verständnis der Adresse des Epheserbriefes.”
Theologische Versuche 6 (1975) 73– 78. Schmid, J. Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus,
37– 129. Zuntz, G. The Text of the Epistles. London: Oxford, 1953.

Translation

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who area also
faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ.

Notes

aThe words “in Ephesus” are not included in this translation and are omitted in the Greek in
a number of early manuscripts. Since this textual question affects not only one’s view of the
addressees but also decisions about the authorship and purpose of the letter and since there is
no clear consensus on it in NT scholarship, it requires extended discussion. Schmid offers a
comprehensive review of earlier discussion and Best (“Ephesians i . l ”) gives an overview o f more
recent proposals.
The manuscript evidence is as follows, ev ,E^acp is omitted by p46 ‫ * א‬B* 424c 1739. In addition,
Origen and Basil, and, in all probability Marcion and Tertullian, did not have the phrase in
their texts. P46 differs slightly from the other evidence in also omitting the definite article rot?
before ovotv. The vast majority o f manuscripts do have ev Ftyeatp, including ‫ ש א‬A B3 D G K,
although D (Codex Claromontanus) also differs from the others by the omission of the definite
article before ovoiv.
The combination o f the original scripts of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus with the earliest
manuscript evidence for Ephesians, P46, is strong external evidence for the omission of the geographi-
cal location in the earliest text. There are also good internal reasons that can be adduced against
the originality of “in Ephesus.” According to the account in Acts, Paul had not only founded the
church at Ephesus but had had an extensive ministry there (cf. Acts 18:19– 21; 19:1– 20:1; 20:17–
38). Yet in this letter there are clear indications that Paul does not know the addressees personally
(cf. 1:15; 3:2; 4:21) and there is a complete absence of any personal greetings. Certainly this
makes an Ephesian address highly unlikely on the assumption of Pauline authorship. Even Meyer,
18, who upholds the traditional view o f Pauline authorship and an Ephesian address, has to
confess, “Nevertheless, this epistle, as an apostolical letter to the Ephesians . . . remains an enigma
2 E p h e s ia n s 1 : 1 , 2

awaiting further solution.” Against the suggestion o f Barth, 11, 67 (made earlier by Neudecker,
Einleitung ins N T [Leipzig, 1840] 502), there is no real indication in the letter itself that only one
group in the congregation, namely, Gentiles baptized after Paul had left the area, is being addressed.
An Ephesian address is equally unlikely on the assumption of authorship by a skillful admirer or
disciple of Paul who had any knowledge o f the apostle’s ministry. Lindemann, ZNW 67 (1976)
238, believes that the Paulinist addressed the letter to Ephesus because of his knowledge of Paul’s
close links with that church. But this view has to ignore the fact that the writer would then
contradict this in 1:15; 3:2; and 4:21. Gnilka, 6, also in support of an Ephesian address as original,
claims that the Paulinist, removed in time from the period o f Paul’s ministry, would not be concerned
with the verisimilitude, yet this appears to be exactly his concern in including 6:2 1 , 22.
The earliest extant text then is likely to have read rot? ctytoi? rot? oixnv *cat 7rtorrot?. It is comparatively
easy to see how the other variants could have developed from this original. Because o f the three
successive 01‫ ?־‬endings, the scribe o f p46 may have been guilty of haplography and missed the
second rot?. Then, once the superscription “To the Ephesians” became attached to the letter,
and because oixnv in other Pauline addresses is followed by ev and a geographical location, it
would only seem natural to supply ev ’E0ecrcp to this particular address.
The earliest reading also satisfies the criterion o f being the more difficult reading. The English
translation above hides the fact that the Greek syntax is extraordinarily difficult to construe.
Indeed Blass-Debrunner-Funk, para. 413(3), consider this use o f the participle oixnv to be impossible
without a further adjunct to the predicate, which evidently in their judgment ev Xptarcp Irpov
does not supply, whereas ev ’E0eacp would do so. Schnackenburg, 38, believes rot? aytot? rot? oixnv
to be comprehensible as a single phrase meaning simply “to the local saints” (cf. also F. J. Foakes
Jackson and K. Lake, ed., The Beginnings of Christianity I, Vol. 4 [London: Macmillan, 1933] 56;
J. H. Moulton and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3 [Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1963] 151– 52). He argues that although such a use o f the participle is out of line with
Paul’s usage, the pseudonymous writer could well have proceeded differently. Against this, it
must be said that it is unlikely that a writer wanting to remain faithful to the Pauline tradition
by taking up the letter form would deliberately introduce this alteration at the beginning of his
writing. Also, none of the examples Schnackenburg adduces for his suggested meaning from
Acts (5:17; 13:1; 14:13) or that others cite from the papyri are clear parallels because in them
the participle is used with or closely accompanied by some explanatory phrase (cf. also the criticism
of this view by Best, “Ephesians i.l,” 33). But in any case discussions of the participle by itself
still ignore the very important fact that the K a i is extremely awkward. Although the translation
above, “to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus,” is the most obvious, as Best, “Ephesians
i.l,” 32, has most recently pointed out, it is doubtful whether the Greek can easily be made to
have this meaning (<contra Abbott, viii). It is also difficult to see what it means, since what appears
to be intended as a qualifying description simply repeats what by definition the saints should
already be, that is, faithful in Christ Jesus.
The main attempts to interpret the text as it stands have not been convincing. This applies
particularly to Origen’s early attempt which takes rot? oixjtv to refer to those called out o f non-
existence into real existence through participation in the one who is Being itself (cf. Exod 3:14
and J. A. F. Gregg, “The Commentary o f Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians,” JTS 3
[1902] 235). Since Paul elsewhere can refer to the Jerusalem church as “the saints” (e.g., Rom
15:25– 31), some take the address to designate two groups, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians
who are also faithful in Christ Jesus, claiming that in 2:19 also “saints” refers to Jewish Christians
and that in other parts o f the letter “we” and “you” also convey a distinction between Jewish
Christians and Gentile Christians (cf. Kirby, Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost, 170 and n. 86; Caird,
31). But, as we shall see, neither of these claims can be substantiated and in none o f the other
addresses of the Pauline letters does “saints” have this restricted meaning. It is unlikely that a
follower of Paul, taking up the usual Pauline form o f address in order to preserve continuity
with the apostolic tradition, would introduce such a change o f meaning. The same objection
tells against those who would take oi äyioi to be simply a reference to the people of God in the
OT tradition, the Jews, a term which then has to be qualified by a specifically Christian description
(for differing versions o f such a view cf. Beare, 602, 611; Kümmel, Introduction, 355; Schenk,
Theologische Versuche 6 [1975] 76).
Another, more popular approach to the text as it stands is to suggest that there was an intentional
gap left after rot? oixnv because this was a circular letter and as it, or copies o f it, circulated to the
various churches, the messenger or the church itself would supply the appropriate place name.
 Notes 3

This was first proposed by J. Ussher, Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti (London: Crook, 1650–
54), taking up hints made by Beza and Grotius, and is supported by such scholars as Lightfoot,
“Destination,” 392; Robinson, 11– 13; Percy, Probleme, 461–64; Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 228
n. 1; and Houlden, 250. But there are a number o f considerations that tell decisively against this
suggestion. There are no texts o f Ephesians that actually contain such a lacuna. Furthermore,
O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933) 199–212, 520–25,
has shown that there are no other examples o f letters in the ancient world with such lacunae.
Also, would not such a circular have included ev, which after all would remain a constant in the
address? If the gap in the original was to be filled in by each church, why would copies without
a place name continue to exist? Finally, this suggestion offers no explanation for the mi, which
remains awkward and inconsistent with other Pauline addresses.
These difficulties in construing the reading rot? 67101? roi? ovoiv m i 7r1ar0l? may well indicate
that, although it is our earliest extant reading, it is not what was originally written. There are
two main hypotheses about the original text which can provide convincing explanations for the
earliest reading we have. Schmid, Epheserbrief 125– 29 (followed by Best, “Ephesians 1.1 Again,”
276–78), conjectured that the author wrote röi? 67101? Kai 7ru7Töi? ev Xpiorip ,I77oov. This has the
advantage of being very similar to the address in Colossians, the letter which in many ways serves
as a model for Ephesians. The suggestion is that the general letter which had this address became
associated with Ephesus and the ensuing superscription “to the saints who are in Ephesus” eventually
entered the text. The insertion of this geographical element was, however, made very awkwardly
before /cat 7r«7701?. On this view, at a later stage, a scribe either remembered that the original had
no geographical reference or noted the inconsistency between the letter’s contents and an Ephesian
address, and omitted the reference to Ephesus, thus producing our earliest extant reading. As
Best, “Ephesians 1.1 Again,” 278, admits, the weakness o f this hypothesis is that it requires a
considerable amount of textual development and therefore necessitates a substantial lapse of time.
Since, instead of such a long and complicated process, the following suggestion necessitates
only one stage prior to our earliest reading, it is to be preferred. In setting out this solution,
which, given the limitations of the evidence, provides the best available explanation for the earliest
reading, we take up and modify the proposal made by van Roon, Authenticity, 72– 85. When the
address of Ephesians is compared to those in other Pauline letters, it becomes evident that the
use of the present participle o f “to be” demands a subsequent geographical location (and not the
phrase “in Christ Jesus,” which Santer, NTS 15 [1969] 247–48, conjectures as originally following
the participle). Cf. for example 2 Cor 1:1 (rfi eKK\r\qiq. rod deov rf! 01x777 ‫ ׳מ‬Xopivdcp, ovv rot? 67101?
iräoiv rot? ovoiv ev 6X77 rf} ,Axaig) or Phil 1:1 (iräoiv rot? 67101? ev Xpiorü) ’177000 rot? ovoiv ev 4>1Xt7r7rot?).
Yet, as we have seen in the case of Ephesians, adding a place name still leaves us with an awkward
address that involves a syllepsis or zeugma (linking two words or phrases with a word that is in a
different relation to each of them) and that is out of line with other Pauline addresses on account
of the /cat. This same objection also tells against the view that the original location was simply
Laodicea, which Marcion attested and which Harnack (SPAW 37 [1910] especially 700, 706–8)
supported, in the belief that the place name was omitted later because of the negative reference
to Laodicea in Rev 3:14 – 17.
But if there were two place names in the address—rot? 67101? röi? ovoiv ev . . . /cat ev . . .
Triarot? ev Xpturcp 1‫ןז‬oov—this would not only help to explain the /cat but also bring this address
into harmony with the syntax of other Pauline addresses where we find a dative construction
simply followed by an attributive phrase. 1 Cor 1:2 has rfi eKKXrjoiq. rod deov rf! 01x777 ev Kopivdcp,
rffiaopevois ev Xpiorip ’177000 /cXr7röt? 6710t?, and similarly Rom 1:7 has iräoiv rots ovoiv ev 'PCO/L1776707177701‫?־‬
deov, /cXr7rot? 67101?. Which, then, were the two place names originally mentioned? Connected
with his argument for the letter’s authenticity, van Roon suggested that the intended readers
would be in an area which the messenger, Tychicus, visited on his journey to Colossae and in
which Paul himself had not worked. He opted for the towns mentioned in Col 4:13, Hierapolis
and Laodicea, believing that this would also fit Paul’s concern, expressed in Col 2:1–3, for the
other churches in the Lycus Valley. Many who hold the letter to be a circular also consider these
towns to have been the primary locations on its circuit (cf. Percy, Probleme, 457; Dahl, TZ 7
[1951] 24 5 ^ 8 ; Schlier, 31, 32). However, van Roon’s suggestion would be equally appropriate if
the letter were by a follower o f Paul, who writes to churches in Asia Minor around Ephesus and
makes use particularly of Colossians. Colossians is the only other Pauline letter to describe its
recipients as “faithful . . . in Christ” in its prescript. Later, in the postscript, Eph 6:21, 22 will
also take up Col 4:7, 8. Consistent with his overall use of Colossians, the writer continues in the
4 E p h e s ia n s 1 :1 , 2

Pauline tradition by addressing the letter to particular churches mentioned in Colossians which
were not known personally by Paul and which Tychicus could have visited. The original address
would therefore have been rot? dytot? rex? ovoiv ev 'lepa7rdXe1 koi ev AaoSuceiQL, ?rtarex? ev Xptarep Irjooo.
Such an original would also account for the tradition of a connection of this letter with Laodicea
with which Marcion was familiar (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.11).
The earliest textual reading known to us came about through the desire o f a scribe to universalize
the sphere o f the letter’s influence by omitting the place names originally attached. We know
that there was this tendency on the part of some in the ancient world through the textual history
o f Romans and the remark o f Tertullian in Adv. Marc. 5.17 that “the title is of no interest, since
in writing to a certain church the apostle is writing to all.” A well-known statement to this effect
can also be found in the Muratorian canon: “. . . the blessed Paul himself, imitating the example
of his predecessor, John, wrote to seven churches only by name. . . . But although he wrote
twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, for reproof, it is nevertheless obvious that one church
is known to be dispersed throughout the whole globe o f the earth. For John also, while he wrote
in the Apocalypse to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all” (cf. the text in A. Souter, The
Text and Canon of the New Testament, rev. C. S. C. Williams, 2nd ed. [London: Duckworth, 1954]
191–94). In regard to Romans, the best explanation for a version of the letter ending at 14:23,
as for a version ending at 15:33, as for versions with the reference to Rome omitted from 1:7
and 1:15, is that they were produced to give the letter more general significance and more ecumenical
impact (cf. H. Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977], and N. A. Dahl, “Particularity,” 266–67, 270, who also provides a similar argument about
the textual tradition at 1 Cor 1:2). It can be argued that in view of the more general nature of
the body of these letters, Romans and Ephesians especially lent themselves to this catholicizing
treatment. In the case of Ephesians the scribe simply deleted the two geographical locations but
left the connective koi. On any view the awkwardness o f the Kai is hard to explain, but it is far
more probably explained by the clumsiness o f a scribe in making the omission than by an original
author deliberately writing the text we have. Once the superscription “To the Ephesians” became
attached to the letter (see under Setting and Purposes in the Introduction and the extensive discussion
in Best, ANEW 2.25.4 [1987] 3247–79), it is easy to see how ev ’E0eacp would be inserted into the
earlier form of the text and thereby to account for the unusual position o f this geographical
reference in the readings which have it. Against Best, “Ephesians i.l,” 40, it is scarcely an objection
to this hypothesis that the scribe who later added “in Ephesus” on these grounds was not consistent
with the earlier scribe who on different grounds had deleted “in Hierapolis” and “in Laodicea.”

Form / Structure / Setting

E phesians opens in the fashion o f th e typical P auline letter. As is well know n,

Paul h ad ad a p te d the basic p a tte rn o f th e H ellenistic letter to suit his own
purposes (for an in tro d u ctio n to th e issues cf. W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive
Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973]). In G reco-R om an letters the
p rescript took th e stan d ard form o f “w riter to addressee, greetings!” P aul’s
version o f this o p en in g frequently ex p a n d ed its elem ents by providing a descrip-
tion o f his own relation to C hrist a n d o f th e status o f the recipients o f the
letters as believers in C hrist a n d by giving th e greetin g a C hristian content.
H ere in E phesians too th e nam e o f C hrist is m en tio n ed in connection with
all th ree elem ents o f th e prescript. T h e w riter, as a follower o f Paul w ho
wishes to claim th e authority o f th e apostle b eh in d his elaboration o f P aul’s
teaching, naturally takes u p the form o f com m unication on which Paul h ad
placed his stam p a n d continues in the trad itio n o f th e P auline epistolary p re-
script.
T h e only u n u su al featu re o f th e form in com parison with the o th e r Pauline
letters is th a t Paul alone is n am ed as sender. Elsew here, with the exception
o f R om ans, th e letters generally considered to be authentically P auline all
m ention co-senders. It is som etim es a rg u ed in su p p o rt o f the authenticity o f
 Comment 5

E phesians th at the reason no associates o r co-w orkers o f Paul are m entioned

h ere is that, like Rom ans, this letter was w ritten to those no t know n personally
to Paul. H ow ever, this arg u m en t cannot stand, since Colossians was also w ritten
to a congregation no t know n personally by Paul (cf. Col 1:4; 2:1) an d yet in
its prescript T im othy is m entioned alongside Paul. A gainst van R oon, Authentic-
ity, 85– 87, Colossae is in no d ifferent position in re g ard to its relationship to
Paul th an the o th er churches o f the Lycus Valley (cf. Col 4:13). In addition,
if Rom 16 is integral to the original letter an d was sent to Rom e, Paul certainly
h ad a n u m b er o f personal acquaintances in the R om an congregation (cf.
K. P. D onfried, “A S hort N ote on R om ans 16,'‫ר‬JB L 89 [1970] 441– 49; C. E. B.
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2
vols. [E dinburgh: T . & T. Clark, 1975– 79] 1:9– 11; Gam ble, Textual History,
esp. 36– 55, 84–95). R om ans is distinctive in this aspect o f its address, not
prim arily because Paul was not know n personally to its recipients b u t because
the apostle is w riting to a congregation th at does not owe its origin directly
o r indirectly to the Pauline mission an d so the letter has to serve in a n u m b er
o f ways as a self-introduction in which Paul attem pts to show the relevance
o f his own apostleship to the situation o f the R om an C hristians (cf. Rom 1:1–
15). T his consideration does no t apply to any o th e r o f P aul’s letters, an d certainly
any congregations addressed in the Lycus Valley o r in the area o f Asia M inor
aro u n d E phesus w ould have com e into being th ro u g h the m inistry o f Paul o r
his associates. If anything, then, this deviation in Ephesians from the custom ary
Pauline practice o f m entioning co-senders, who are associates in his work on
the gentile mission, could well be an indication th at a Paulinist is w riting in
the nam e o f Paul alone in o rd e r to focus on the authority o f the apostle
him self beh in d th e traditions th at are being transm itted (cf. also eyco IlaüXo?
in 3:1 an d eyto b Sea/uto? ev Kvpicp in 4:1).

Comment

1 IlaüAo? a 7röar 0X05 Xpiorov 17}oov 81a OeXriparos deov, “Paul, an apostle o f
C hrist Jesu s by the will o f G od.” T his Pauline self-designation is in the sam e
words as those o f Col 1:1 an d 2 C or 1:1 (cf. also 1 C or 1:1). It signaled the
official ch aracter o f P aul’s com m unication to his churches, since he w rote as
the authorized representative o f the exalted C hrist an d as one whose authority
cam e n o t from his self-ap p o in tm en t to this office b u t from G od’s election o f
him to it—“by the will o f G od.” We have already given reasons for thinking
th at h ere this au thority is being claim ed for his m essage by a follower o f
Paul conscious o f standing in his apostolic tradition. O n Paul as the apostle to
the Gentiles, see u n d e r 3:1– 13 w here this explicit focus o f the text is discussed.
rots ayiois . . . 7rwrroI5 ev Xpiorcp ’1rjaou, “to the saints . . . faithful in C hrist
Jesu s.” As in 1 C or 1 :1 ,2 C or 1:1, Rom 1:1, Phil 1:1, an d Col 1:2, the recipients
o f the letter are addressed as “saints,” th e holy people w hom G od has set
ap a rt fo r him self. In these o th er places the term is synonym ous with the whole
g ro u p o f believers being addressed, an d its scope is th erefo re likely to be no
d ifferen t here. F u rth e r consideration o f in terp retatio n s th at w ould give the
term a restricted reference h ere has been given in the discussion o f th e text
u n d e r Notes. T h e readers, then, are described in th e light o f th eir relationship
6 E p h e s ia n s 1 : 1 , 2

to God, n o t prim arily, o f course, in term s o f th e ir actual m oral condition, b u t

as his holy people in continuity with the O T designation o f Israel (cf. LXX
Exod 19:6). T h e w riter will expand on the im plications o f this term a y tot in
1:4 w here he sees holiness as the result o f G od’s election an d in 5:26, 27
w here h e views it as an effect o f C hrist’s d ea th on b eh alf o f the C hurch. T h e
saints are fu rth e r designated as “faithful,” which is to be seen as in apposition
to “saints” an d as having reference to the sam e g ro u p (cf. Col 1:2, which is
also th e only o th e r Pauline address to em ploy this term fo r th e recipients
an d so could well have influenced its use here). “F aithful” is to be u n d ersto o d
in the sense o f having faith o r exercising belief ra th e r th an o f being trustw orthy
o r reliable. As an adjective, 7rtar 0 5 m eans “believing” in Gal 3:9. U sed as a
substantive, it began to take on the sem itechnical sense o f “believer”; in 2 C or
6:15 th e believer (ttutto?) is contrasted with th e unbeliever (a 7rtar 0 5 ), a n d by
th e tim e o f th e Pastorals this usage seems to have becom e fixed (cf. 1 T im
4:10, 12; 5:16; 6:2; T itus 1:6). At the tim e o f th e w riting o f E phesians p erh ap s
this final stage has no t yet been reached because th e term h ere is qualified
by th e addition o f the phrase ev Xpiorcb ' 1 7 0 ‫ססן‬. T his is to be taken as a separate
attributive phrase. It is not th at ev plus the dative is here serving to den o te
th e object o f belief (cf. 1:15, contra Schenk, Theologische Versuche 6 [1975] 76).
In stead th e p h rase “in C hrist Jesu s” refers to th e relationship o f u n io n with
C hrist which results from having been in co rp o rated into him (cf. Col 1:2,
“faithful b ro th ers in C hrist,” an d for fu rth e r discussion o f the significance o f
“in C hrist” in Paul an d in Ephesians see below on 1:3). T h ro u g h th eir relatio n ‫־‬
ship to C hrist th e addressees o f this letter are m arked o u t no t only in term s
o f G od’s choice o f them as his holy people b u t also in term s o f th eir believing
response, th o u g h , as the w riter will go o n to assert, they owe even this to
G od’s gracious initiative (cf. 2:8).
2 xäpi? vplv Kai eipqvr! d 7rö Oeov 7rarpos r!p<Jbv Kai rjvaiov 1 ‫סךו‬0‫ ט‬Xpiorov, “G race
to you an d peace from G od o u r F ath er a n d the L ord Jesus C hrist.” T h e actual
salutation p a rt o f the p rescript is w orded in exactly the sam e way h ere as in
Rom 1:7; 1 C or 1:3; 2 C or 1:2; Phil 1:2; an d Philem 3. T h e o th e r salutations
in the Pauline letters involve a variation in the possessive adjectives (Gal 1:3;
2 T hess 1:2) o r in the nam ing o f the sources o f grace an d peace ( 1T hess 1:1;
Col 1:2). It is usually agreed th at Paul replaced the stan d ard Hellenistic greeting
Xaipeiv with the similar-sounding b u t theologically m ore p ro fo u n d term
“grace,” an d com bined this with the G reek version o f the norm al Jew ish greeting
“Shalom ”— eipr\vr\. T h e closest parallel to this is the com bination “m ercy and
peace” in som e Jew ish salutations (cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 78:2). Paul gave the
benefits o f grace an d peace a distinctly C hristian fram ew ork by specifying
God o u r F ath er an d the L ord Jesus C hrist as th eir origin a n d m ade his salutation
serve as a form o f prayer-wish. H ere also the w riter desires for his readers
the experience o f the undeserved favor an d d eep well-b eing which flow from
C hrist an d from the God who th ro u g h C hrist is know n as F ather. T h e two
elem ents, grace an d peace, recur, th o u g h no t linked so im m ediately, in the
epistle’s closing blessing o f 6:23, 24, an d before that, in th e body o f the letter,
they re p resen t two o f its m ajor them es, xäpis occurring ten tim es ( 1 :6 , 7 ; 2 :5 , 7 ,
8 ; 3:2, 7, 8 ; 4:7, 29) an d eiprjvr} six tim es (2:14, 15, 17; 4:3; 6:15).
 Explanation 7

Explanation

Possibly addressing his letter to the churches o f H ierapolis an d Laodicea

to preserve a Pauline flavor, a disciple o f Paul writes in the nam e o f the apostle
to the churches o f the Pauline m ission in Asia M inor in the area a ro u n d E phesus.
His earn est wish is for Paul to continue to speak to a situation in the churches
which arose after th e apostle’s death. So, following th e ancient literary device
o f pseudonym ity, he m akes use n o t only o f P aul’s nam e, b u t also o f the Pauline
letter form an d th e typical features o f the Pauline prescript as he adapts the
liturgical traditions o f P aul’s churches an d P aul’s own teaching in o rd e r to
b ring them to b ear on th e new historical an d ecclesiastical circum stances. In
this way, P aul’s au thority is claim ed for th e m agnificent in terp re tatio n o f his
m essage which follows in the rest o f the epistle. Yet its o p ening greetings,
despite th eir stereotyped form , w ould have been in ten d ed by the w riter to be
received by his readers in the sam e way as, at an earlier date, those o f the
apostle him self w ould have b een received by his original churches.
Blessing of God fo r His Salvation in Christ

Bibliography

Ahern, B. “The Indwelling Spirit, Pledge of Our Inheritance—Eph 1.14.” CBQ 9 (1947)
179– 89. Allan, J. A. “The ‘In Christ’ Formula in Ephesians.” N TS 5 (1958– 59) 54–62.
Best, E. “Fashions in Exegesis: Ephesians 1:3.” Scripture: Meaning and Method. FS A.
T. Hanson, ed. B. P. Thompson. Hull: Hull University Press, 1987, 79–91. Cambier,
J. “La Bénédiction d’Eph. 1, 3– 14.” ZN W 54 (1963) 58–104. Caragounis, C. C. The
Ephesian Mysterion, 39–52; 78–96; 143–57. Coune, M. “A la louange de sa gloire. Eph
1, 3– 14.” AsSeign 46 (1974) 37–42. Coutts, J. “Ephesians 1.3– 14 and 1 Peter 1.3– 12.”
N TS 3 (1956–57) 115–27. Dahl, N. A. “Adresse und Proömium des Epheserbriefes.”
TZ 7 (1951) 241–64. Debrunner, A. “Grundsätzliches über Kolometrie im NT.” TBl 5
(1926) 231–33. Deichgräber, R. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus, 40–43; 64–76. Denton,
D. R. “Inheritance in Paul and Ephesians.” EvQ 54 (1982) 157–62. Drago, A. “La
nostra adozione a figli di Dio in Ef 1,5.” RivB 19 (1971) 203–19. Dreyfus, F. “Pour la
louange de sa gloire (Ep 1,12.14): L’origine vétéro-testamentaire de la formule.” Paul
de Tarse. Apôtre du nôtre Temps, ed. L. de Lorenzi. Rome: Abbaye de S. Paul, 1979,
233–48. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz und Absicht, 111– 18. Gibbs, J. G. Creation and Redemption:
A Study in Pauline Theology. Leiden: Brill, 1971, 114– 34. Hammer, P. L. “A Comparison
of KXrjpovoida in Paul and Ephesians.” JBL 79 (1960) 267– 72. Hartin, P. J.
“ ANAKE4>AAAIf2EAL0AI TA I1ANTA EN TO XPIETO (Eph. 1:10).” A South African Per-
spective on the New Testament, ed. J. H. Petzer and P. J. Hartin. Leiden: Brill, 1986, 228–
37. Hofius, O. “ ‘Erwählt vor Grundlegung der Welt’ (Eph. 1.4).” ZNW 62 (1971) 123–
28. Innitzer, T. “Der ‘Hymnus’ im Epheserbrief (1,3– 14).” ZKT 28 (1904) 612–21.
Jayne, D. “ ‘We’ and ‘You’ in Eph. 1:3–14.” ExpTim 85 (1974) 151–52. Jankowski, A.
“L’espérance messianique d’Israel selon la pensée paulinienne, en partant de Proelpizein
(Ep 1, 12).” De la Torah au Messie, ed. M. Carrez, J. Doré, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclée,
1981, 475– 81. Kessler, P. D. “Unsere Berufung zum göttlichen Leben. Betrachtung
über den Prolog des Epheserbriefes.” BLit 40 (1967) 110–22. Krämer, H. “Zur sprachli-
chen Form der Eulogie Eph. 1.3– 14.” Wort und Dienst 9 (1967) 34–46. Kruse, C. “II
significato di 7rep17rot77<719 in Eph. 1.14.” RivB 16 (1968) 465–93. Lang, F. “Die Eulogie
in Epheser 1,3–14.” Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation, ed. L. Abramowski
and J. F. G. Goeters. Neukirchen‫־‬Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969, 7– 20. Lemmer,
H. R. “Reciprocity between Eschatology and Pneuma in Ephesians 1:3– 14,” Neot 21
(1987) 159– 82. Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on Epistles of St. Paul. London: Macmillan, 1895,
307–24. Lincoln, A, T. “A Re-Examination of ‘The Heavenlies’ in Ephesians.” N TS
19 (1973) 468– 83. Lohmeyer, E. “Das Proömium des Epheserbriefes.” TBl 5 (1926)
120–25. Lyonnet, S. “La bénédiction de E ph.l, 3– 14 et son arrière-plan judaique.” A
la Rencontre de Dieu, FS A. Gelin. Le Puy: Editions Xavier Mappus, 1961, 341– 52.
Maurer, C. “Der Hymnus von Epheser 1 als Schlüssel zum ganzen Briefe.” E vT 11
(1951–52) 151–72. McHugh, J. “A Reconsideration of Ephesians 1.10b in the Light
of Irenaeus.” Paul and Paulinism, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: S.P.C.K.,
1982, 302–9. McNicol, J. “The Spiritual Blessings of the Epistle to the Ephesians.”
EvQ 9 (1937) 64–73. Montagnini, F. “Christological Features in Eph 1:3– 14.” Paul de
Tarse: Apôtre du nôtre Temps, ed. L. de Lorenzi. Rome: Abbaye de S. Paul, 1979, 529–
39. Mussner, F. “Das Volk Gottes nach Eph L, 3– 14.” Concilium 1 (1965) 842–47.
O’Brien, P. T. “Ephesians 1: An Unusual Introduction to a New Testament Letter.”
N TS 25 (1979) 504– 16. Odeberg, H. The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians.
 Notes 9

Robbins, C. J. “The Composition of Eph 1:3– 14.” JBL 105 (1986) 677– 87. Sanders,
J. T. “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1–3.” ZN W 56 (1965) 214– 32. Schattenmann, J.
Studien zum neutestamentlichen Prosahymnus. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1965, 1– 10. Schille,
G. Frühchristliche Hymnen, 65–73. Schnackenburg, R. “Die grosse Eulogie Eph 1, 3–
14.” BZ 21 (1977) 67–87. Trinidad, J. T. “The Mystery Hidden in God: A Study of
Eph. 1, 3– 14.” Bib 31 (1950) 1– 26. Wilson, R. A. “ ‘We’ and ‘You’ in the Epistle to
the Ephesians.” Studia Evangelica 2, ed. F. L. Cross. TU 87. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1964, 676– 80.

Translation

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us
with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ,4even as he chose us
in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in
love. a 5 He has predestined us fo r adoption as his own sons through Jesus Christ, b in
accordance with his good pleasure and will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace
with which he has highly favored us in the Beloved, 7 in whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, in accordance with the richness of
his grace 8 which he lavished upon us with all wisdom and insight. a 9He has made
known to us the mystery of his will, in accordance with his good pleasure which he
purposed in Christ10for the administration of the fullness of time, to sum up all
things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth in him ; 11 in whom we were
also appointed, having been predestined in accordance with the plan of him who
carries out all things according to the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who
have already hoped in Christ, might be fo r the praise of his glory. 13 You also are in
him,c having heard the word of truth, the good news of your salvation; in him also,
when you believed, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 which d is the
guarantee of our inheritance vouching fo r God's redemption of his possession, to the
praise of his glory.

Notes

aIn the original Greek text 1:3– 14 constitutes one sentence. For the sake o f intelligibility the
translation has not attempted to convey this stylistic feature. Instead, its sentence divisions have
followed what appear to be the main structural dividers in this passage. For discussion o f this
and of the relation of the last part of v 4 to v 5 and the last part of v 8 to v 9 see Form/
Structure / Setting below.
bThe Greek text has et? avrov after 51a 177(700 Xpiorov. This has been interpreted as a reference
to God (cf. Lightfoot, 314; Abbott, 9; Westcott, 10; Cambier, ZNW 54 [1963] 75– 76; Krämer,
Wort und Dienst 9 [1967] 42; Schnackenburg, BZ 21 [1977] 81; Caragounis, Mysterion, 87; Barth,
80) rather than Christ (cf. Schlier, 54; Gnilka, 73; Ernst, 272). The abrov most naturally refers
back to the subject of 7rpooptaa5, and avrov, which then occurs twice in this same clause, clearly
has this reference. In this way ets avrov would stand in parallel to Karevcomov avrov o f the previous
clause and 5ta !77000 Xpujrov eis avrov would follow the Pauline pattern of per Christum in Deum (cf.
W. Thüsing, Per Christum in Deum [Münster: Aschendorff, 1965]). The sonship therefore has
God as its goal, “toward him,” and this emphasis is suggested in the translation by adding “his
own” to the notion of adoption as sons.
cThe translation for the sake of greater smoothness hides an anacoluthon at this point in the
original. A literal translation would be “in him you also . . . ,” which is not in fact completed
until the second part of the verse with “you were sealed,” but by then the writer has started the
thought again with “in him also. . .”
dSome manuscripts, including ‫ א‬D ^ K , have the masculine relative pronoun of, while others,
10 E p h e s ia n s 1 :3 – 14

including p 46 A B G, have the neuter 6, which agrees with the gender o f the preceding noun
irvevpa. The United Bible Societies’ second edition of the Greek NT opted for the former as
original, while the third edition opted for the latter. This indicates the difficulty o f a decision.
Although the neuter appears to have somewhat stronger external support, it is easier to see how
69 would have been changed to 6 than vice versa, and in the end this factor should probably be
given greater weight. There would be no clear reason for a scribe to alter the grammatically
correct 6, but if 69 were original it might well be changed by a scribe who failed to realize that
the author had assimilated the gender of the relative pronoun to that of the following noun
äppaßow.

Form /Structure / Setting

T his o p en in g passage with its o u tb u rst o f praise has the form o f an ex tended
blessing o r berakah (“Blessed be G od, who has . . the O T an d Jew ish w orship
provide th e back g round for this form . euX0777 r 0 5 , “blessed,” is frequently used
in the LXX to re n d e r th e H ebrew bänik. C. W esterm ann (The Praise of God in
the Psalms, tr. K. R. C rim [London: E pw orth Press, 1966] 87– 89) has shown
th at in th e O T th e earliest form o f berakah occurred w hen an individual r e-
sp o n d ed sim ply to an act o f G od’s deliverance o r provision (e.g., G en 14:20;
24:27), th at later it becam e associated with th e cult a n d was used in Israel’s
co rp o rate w orship (e.g., Solom on’s p ra y er at th e dedication o f the tem ple begins
an d ends with th e berakah form ula in 1 Kgs 8:15, 56), an d th at a fu rth e r
stage o f dev elo p m ent is evidenced by th e use o f the berakah to conclude the
books o f th e Psalter (Pss 41:13; 72:18, 19; 89:52; 106:48). Such eulogies r e-
m ained d o m in an t in Jew ish w orship an d can be fo u n d in the Q u m ra n literatu re
(e.g., IQ S 11.15; 1 Q H 5.20; 10.14; 11.27, 29, 32, 33; 16.8), i n Z echariah’s p ray er
o f Luke 1:68–75, a n d in rabbinic Ju d aism w here they w ere the m ost characteris-
tic form ulae fo r prayer, as prayers such as th e ’Ahăbâ Rabbâ an d the Šěmôn ēh
cĒśrēh show. T h e form o f th e latter, th e E ighteen B enedictions o f the synagogue
service, can be seen from th e first benediction:

Blessed art thou, O Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God
of Isaac, and God of Jacob, the great, mighty and revered God, the most high
God, who bestowest loving-kindnesses, and possessest all things; who rememberest
the pious deeds of the patriarchs and in love will bring a redeemer to their children’s
children for thy name’s sake. (The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew
Congregations of the British Commonwealth of Nations, tr. S. Singer [London: Eyre and
Spottiswoode Ltd., 1962] 46).

S. Lyonnet, “La b én é diction,” in fact draw s heavily on the second benediction

in th e liturgy b efore the Shema to shed light on issues in E ph 1:3– 14. Its
language form s p a rt o f th e b ro ad Jew ish b ackground o f th e eulogy, b u t the
details are m uch less closely related th a n L yonnet supposes. In these Jew ish
blessings G od is usually praised fo r som e action on his p a rt already p erfo rm ed ,
such as creation o r red em p tio n , o r praised fo r som e action desired for the
fu tu re such as th e provision o f food o r th e com ing o f his kingdom . W hile in
the O T th e predicate was alm ost always in th e th ird person, in the later Jew ish
blessings, as th e above exam ple shows, th e address is frequently in th e second
person. In this re g ard th e eulogy in Ephesians corresponds with th e th ird
person form o f th e O T berakah. In term s o f W esterm an n ’s categories o f “d eclara-
 Form I Structure / Setting 11

tive” an d “descriptive” praise (Praise of God, 81– 142), it is declarative in th at

it is a response to definite actions o f G od on b eh alf o f his people.
T h o u g h an ch o red firmly in Jew ish w orship, th e liturgical form used by
the a u th o r o f E phesians has a specifically C hristian flavor in th at the G od o f
Israel, to w hom praise is ascribed, is now know n as “the F ath er o f o u r L ord
Jesus C hrist.” T his form ulation appears to have been a fixed p attern for C hris-
tian eulogies, since this is also the way the predicate is ph rased in the o th er
two m ajor eulogies in the N T — those in 2 C or 1:3, 4 an d 1 Pet 1:3– 12. T h e
C hristian focus o f this particular blessing is h a rd to miss, since “in C hrist” o r
“in him ” is rep eated in nearly every verse. Such repetition em phasizes th at
all th at God has d one for his people, which issues in th eir praise, has been
done in C hrist (cf. also M ontagnini, “Christological F eatures,” 529– 39). In
addition th ere ap p ears to be no p reced en t outside the N T for the particular
form o f an intro d uctory eulogy in a letter. O ne exam ple is som etim es cited
from the letter o f H iram to Solom on in 2 C h ro n 2:11, 12. B ut the place o f
the blessing in this passage is clearly secondary. O riginally it was an in d ep en d e n t
blessing before th e letter, as 1 Kgs 5:21 (H ebrew , 5:7 Eng.) indicates, and
the citation o f th e 2 C hronicles passage by E upolem os (Eusebius, Praep. evang.
9.34) an d Jo sep h u s (Ant. 8.53) by no m eans constitutes evidence th at an in tro d u c-
tory blessing in a letter h ad becom e a fixed practice (cf. D eichgräber, Gotteshym-
nust 64; Lang, “Die E ulogie,” 19; contra Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 250– 51). T his feature
o f the letter form th en is a specifically early C hristian one with 2 C or 1:3, 4
providing the first exam ple.
In reg ard to its language an d style this sentence, the length o f which (26
lines in the U nited Bible Societies’ text) is unparalleled in the N T , has produced
quite diverse reactions am ong scholars. F requently cited is E. N o rd e n ’s com m ent
th at it is “das m onströseste S atzkonglom erat . . . das m ir in griechischer
Sprache begegnet ist” (E T : “the m ost m onstrous sentence conglom eration . . .
th at I have en c o u n te red in G reek”; Agnostos Theos, Berlin: T eu b n e r, 1913,
253). D anker (ISBE 2 [1982] 110) asserts, “As a syntactical salm agundi, the
m arvelous spiral o f E ph 1:3 – 14 is probably w ithout rival in G reek literatu re,”
while M asson (149) could write, “O n est fra p p é de la plén itu d e de son verbe,
de sa m ajesté liturgique, de son rythm e perceptible d u com m encem ent à la
fin” (ET: “one is struck by the fullness o f the language, its liturgical majesty,
its perceptible rh y th m from beginning to e n d ”).
T h e long sentence stretches itself o u t by m eans o f relative clauses, participial
constructions, an d the piling u p o f prepositional phrases and synonym s. Typical
o f this style o f oratio perpetua are th e th ree prepositional phrases o f v 3, which
are all in tro d u ced by the preposition ev— ev 7raojj evXoyig. 7rvevpar1Kf1, “with every
spiritual blessing”; ev rols enovpav'iois, “in th e heavenly realm s”; an d ev Xptcrrcp,
“in C hrist”—an d the heap in g u p o f prepositions in the clause in vv 5, 6 – ei$
viodeoiav 6 ta ,Itjctoü Xpiorov et$ avrov, Kara rrjv evöoidav rov deXriparos airrov et£
67raivov So£779 . . . , 'for ado p tio n through Jesus C hrist to him self in accordance
with his good pleasure an d will to the praise o f the glory. . . . ” Synonyms are
som etim es linked in a genitive construction (cf. r) evöoida rov deXriparos avrov,
“the good pleasure o f his will” [v 5], ‫ )ז‬ßovXrj rov 0 eX77paro 9 avrov, “the purpose
o f his will” [v 11]) o r com bined in o th e r ways (cf. ev 7raafl ao0tg /cat Qpovqoet,
“with all wisdom an d insight” [v 8 ], an d rov 06X77paro 9 airrov, Kara rr!v evöoidav
12 E p h e s ia n s 1 :3 – 14

ainod, “o f his will, in accordance with his good p leasu re” [v 9]). O th e r stylistic
features o f th e sentence are paronom asia, th e use o f cognate verbs an d no u n s
to g eth er (cf. evXoynros . . . evXoyrjoas . . . evXoyig [v 3] an d xäpiros . . .
exapiToxjev [v 6 ]), an d th e parallelism p ro d u ced by the threefold use o f ei?
eirawov (rift) 56£9?‫ ל‬. . . avrov in vv 6 , 12, a n d 14. T h e w riter speaks o f th e
w ealth a n d ab u n d ance o f G od’s grace (rö 7rX0 ü7 0 9 ‫־‬, v 7; enepLoaevoev, v 8 ), a n d
th e recu rren ce o f 7ras (vv 3, 8 , 10, 11) a n d th e h ea p in g u p o f w ords a n d phrases
in this pro fu se an d effusive style are a deliberate a ttem p t to express th e riches
o f which he speaks in an ap p ro p riate way. T h is is th e language o f p ray er
a n d w orship, an d no t surprisingly m any o f the stylistic features n o ted above
are th e result o f Semitic influence (cf. D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 72– 75) an d
have som e o f th eir closest parallels in th e Q u m ra n literature. K. G. K u h n has
p o in ted o u t th at they are characteristic o f the H ebraic style o f the liturgical
an d hym nic language o f the Q u m ra n w ritings w here “we com e across these
long-draw n-out, loosely connected ta p e-w orm sentences w hich cause difficulties
to th e tran slato r as regards p u n ctu atio n ” a n d “can n o t fail to notice th e striking
sim ilarity betw een a sentence such as th e one we find in E p h 1:3 – 14 a n d th e
typical H ebrew sentence stru ctu re o f th e Q u m ra n texts” (“T h e Epistle to the
E phesians in th e Light o f the Q u m ra n T ex ts,” Paul and Qumran [1968] 117).
R epetition an d re d u n d an ce are o f th e essence o f liturgy a n d h ere the re p e ti-
tion o f certain words an d phrases, the re p eated genitives, a n d the collection
o f synonym s n o t only have the effect o f intensifying the force o f th e concepts
involved b u t also serve to provide the sentence with a certain rh y th m . In
addition th e succession o f long syllables in a n u m b e r o f places periodically
slows dow n th e flow o f w ords so th a t a chantlike effect is p ro d u c ed as th e
eulogy is spoken (cf. van R oon, Authenticity, 158 – 62). T h e one m ajor fe atu re
o f this liturgical prose which is typically H ellenistic ra th e r th a n Semitic is its
hypotaxis. Its clauses are syntactically su b o rd in ated to each o th e r ra th e r th a n
arran g e d in parataxis o r parallelismus membrorum (couplets) as in H ebrew poetic
an d liturgical texts (cf. also D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 75; Gnilka, 57). It is
likely th en th at th e language a n d style o f th e eulogy reflect a H ellenistic Ju d aism
w here th e devotional tone an d style o f th e H ebrew psalm s a n d th e Q u m ra n
hym ns has h ad a p ro fo u n d im pact an d has been translated into an equivalent
G reek style (cf. van R oon, Authenticity, 188–89). As C aragounis (Mysterion, 45)
rem arks, “In th e case o f the Eighteen Benedictions th e w ord bäruk is re p eated
in each B enediction. In Eph. on th e o th e r h an d , the a u th o r declares God
evXoyqros an d th en tries in o ne sweep to e n u m erate all his reasons fo r eulogising
him . T h e result m ay be som ew hat clumsy, b u t it is quite effective in a n o th e r
way, in p resenting, in a torrential m an n er, all th at constitutes G od’s blessings.”
N um ero u s attem pts have been m ade to lay bare th e stru ctu re o f this sentence
with its hym nic qualities. In th e process som e scholars believe they have been
able to isolate a hym n which th e a u th o r has taken u p a n d used, while o thers
consider th e entire passage itself to constitute a hym n which can be divided
into clear strophes an d lines. Som e have based th eir stru ctu ral division on syn-
tactical features such as th e th ree m ain verbs e£eXe£a70‫־‬, “chose,” exapircooev, “fa-
v o red,” an d eirepiooewev, “lavished,” o r the th ree aorist participles ev\oyr!oa <;9
“blessed,” 7rpooptaa5, “p red estin ed ,” an d yvcopioas, “m ade know n,” o r th e re p e ti-
 Form / Structure / Setting 13

tion o f et? 67raivov rffr 50£‫ןד‬$ auroO, “to th e praise o f his glory,” o r th e position
o f ev Xptarcp, ev <p, a n d ev a m cp. O th ers have divided the eulogy on the basis
o f its co n ten t according to a trin itarian p a tte rn w here in th e first p a rt God
th e F ath er is central, in th e second C hrist, an d in th e th ird th e Spirit, o r
according to a tem poral schem a w here at th e b eginning G od’s blessing o f
believers in th e past is th e focus, th e n th e present, a n d finally the future.
Some o f th e m o re im p o rtan t proposals should be m en tio n ed briefly.
In n itzer ap p ears to have been the first to divide th e passage into strophes
according to th e rules o f classical G reek m eter. H e fo u n d th ree strophes (vv
3– 6; 7– 12; an d 13, 14) which trea ted G od, C hrist, a n d th e Spirit respectively
an d th e whole was to be considered “einen v erhüllten H ym nus, einen Lobgesang
im schlichten G ew ände d e r K unstprosa” (ET: “a disguised hym n, a song o f
praise in the sim ple clothing o f artistic p ro se”; Z K T 28 [1904] 619). Lohm eyer
(TBl; 5 [1926] 20– 25) o n the basis o f m eter a n d also o f th e p ro m in en t place
o f the aorist participles, p ro d u ced a fo u r stro p h e stru ctu re (vv 3 ,4 ; 5– 8; 9–
12; an d 13, 14 as th e fo u rth strophe, th e application, which was o f a slightly
d ifferent len g th th a n th e others). B oth In n itze r an d L ohm eyer used colom etry
in th eir analyses, b u t its use, with particular reference to L ohm eyer’s work,
was th o ro u g h ly criticized by D e b ru n n er (TBl 5 [1926] 231– 33; cf. also van
R oon’s criticism o f In n itzer a n d L ohm eyer on sim ilar grounds, Authenticity,
158– 59). T his sort o f criticism did n o t d e te r M asson’s later attem p t to detect
a hym n which th e a u th o r used. O n the g rounds o f parallelism o f the n u m b er
o f syllables an d assonance o f th e first a n d last syllables h e g ro u p ed the passage
into six strophes, each o f which h ad two stanzas, each o f which in tu rn had
fo u r lines, except th a t th e first stanzas o f the first two strophes h ad five lines
each. In M asson’s reconstruction each line ends with th e syllable –ov o r –‫( נס‬cf.
148–51). A sim ilar analysis on th e basis o f syllable co u n t an d rhym ing o f last
syllables in th e line has been provided by S chattenm ann (Studien, 1– 10) bu t
his effort resu lted in fo u r strophes (vv 3 – 6a; 6b - 10a; 10b - 12; 13, 14). B oth
analyses are o p en to D e b ru n n e r’s original charge o f forcing norm al gram m ar
an d syntax u n n atu rally an d o f arbitrariness in th eir w riting an d arran g in g o f
lines a n d syllables (cf. also C am bier, Z N W 54 [1963] 60 n. 7, an d D eichgräber,
Gotteshymnus, 69, in re g ard to M asson, a n d D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 7 1–72,
an d K räm er, Wort und Dienst 9 [1967] 36– 37, fo r a m ore detailed substantiation
o f this criticism in re g ard to S chattenm ann).
Even m o re speculative in th eir attem pts to find an original hym n are C outts,
Schille, an d Fischer. C outts (N TS 3 [1956– 57] 115– 27) believes th e passage
to be a hom ily based on a liturgical prayer. T his liturgical form is discovered
by om itting 76 o f the eulogy’s 202 w ords in o rd e r to arrive at th ree strophes
o f six lines, each en d in g with th e re frain “to th e praise o f his glory.” D eichgräber
(Gotteshymnus, 70) is particularly severe in his discussion o f this suggestion,
calling it b o th false an d fantastic. Schille (Hymnen, 65 – 73) holds th at the passage
contains an Initiationslied, “song o f initiation,” with two strophes, vv 5– 8 and
9– 12a, preced ed by an in tro it in vv 3, 4. Verses 13 a n d 14 are th e n supposed
to provide a corrective o f eschatological reserve to the theology o f realized
eschatology in th e original hym n which th e a u th o r does n o t share. T his recon-
struction contains a n u m b e r o f im probabilities (cf. D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus,
14 E p h e s ia n s 1:3 – 14

70) an d its p resu p position ab o u t th e w riter’s eschatology is u n fo u n d e d (cf.

Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 166–68). Fischer (Tendenz, 111–18) also
considers th at th e original hym n b eh in d th e passage has been extensively re ‫־‬
w orked. His reco n struction om its 87 o f th e 202 w ords in vv 3– 14 a n d transposes
o thers in o rd e r to arrive at th ree strophes, each en d in g with “to th e praise o f
his glory” (vv 4– 6 a; 7, 8 , 12a; 13b, 14), a n d in this way the cosmic C hristology
is held to be th e a u th o r’s addition to th e hym n. Fischer him self (114) realizes
th a t this reco n stru ction is “sehr u n sich er,” “very u n ce rtain ,” an d S chnackenburg
(BZ 21 [1977] 70) has po in ted o u t som e o f its problem s.
In general it has to be said th a t these proposals th at th e passage is a hym n
which is being q u o ted o r a rew orking o f an original hym n are unlikely. Its
language a n d style are too sim ilar to th e rest o f the first th ree chapters for it
to be possible to isolate an entity which is clearly different. In its p resen t
form it reads very m uch as an in teg rated whole. N o two reconstructions are
able to agree o n th e original a n d its divisions. In addition, these attem pts all
fail to take account o f th e several connections betw een th e language o f this
passage a n d th a t o f Colossians, which suggest th a t th e a u th o r drew on th a t
letter an d weigh strongly against the eulogy o r its core having h ad som e in d ep en-
d e n t existence (see th e com m ents o n th e individual verses below, section 2 o f
the Introduction, an d also Sanders, Z N W 56 [1965] 227– 29; M itton, 43, 65).
T h e consensus am ong m ost recen t w riters is th a t th e eulogy is an ad hoc
com position o n th e p a rt o f the a u th o r in elevated liturgical language (cf. M aurer,
E v T 11 [1951– 52] 154; Schlier, 41; S anders, Z N W 56 [1965] 229; D eichgräber,
Gotteshymnus, 6 5–66; Gnilka, 60; E rnst, 268; M itton, 44; O ’B rien, N T S 25 [1979]
509). It is likely th a t woven into his com position are bo th som e traditional
liturgical language a n d som e P auline phrases. T h e n a tu re an d am o u n t o f th e
traditional m aterial is n o t such as to w arran t th e proposal o f L ang (“Die E ulogie,”
16) th at a p re fo rm ed eulogy lies b eh in d th e passage.
T h o u g h ab an d o n in g any recourse to an original hym n, som e scholars still
hold th at th e w riter’s com position has a clear strophic structure. Schlier (39–
40) holds th at an analysis m ust do justice to th e close connection betw een
form an d co n ten t a n d sees a benediction form ula in v 3 which is developed
in the first m ajor p a rt o f th e eulogy (vv 4 – 10). T his is divided into th ree
strophes (vv 4– 6 a; 6 b, 7; 8– 10) based on th e m ain verbs (e£eXe£aro, exapircooev,
enepiooewev). T h e form al features becom e looser tow ard the e n d o f th e eulogy,
an d vv 11– 14 are th e n trea ted as a “d ouble stro p h e” in which th e “in C hrist”
phrases are d eterm inative o f th e structure. C am bier (ZN W 54 [1963] 58– 104)
works first o n th e sequence o f th o u g h t in th e passage a n d th e n ties in his
investigation o f stru ctu re which concludes th a t th e re is an intro d u ctio n (v 3 )
an d th ree strophes (vv 4– 6; 7– 12; 13, 14) each en d in g with “to th e praise o f
his glory.” T h e first stro p h e has two couplets (v 4; vv 5, 6 ), the second th ree
couplets (vv 7, 8 a; 8b - 10; 11, 12) an d th e th ird two (v 13; v 14). T hese couplets
are in tu rn m ade u p o f lines arran g e d in an a b a sequence. A m ajor problem
with Schlier’s attem p t to m ake th e th re e m ain verbs determ inative can be
seen w hen th e strophes have to divide v 6 u n n atu rally an d break the relative
clause’s close connection with its an teced en t (cf. also th e criticism o f K räm er,
Wort and Dienst 9 [1967] 36, an d S chnackenburg, BZ 21 [1977] 71). F or C am bier’s
analysis to agree with the shift in co n ten t o f th e eulogy, th ere should be a
 Form / Structure / Setting 15

m ajor division at v 9, as the subject m oves from the benefit o f forgiveness to

th at o f being included in the cosmic dim ensions o f G od’s p u rp o se in C hrist
(cf. Sanders, ZN W 56 [1965] 225, a n d the fu rth e r criticism o f D eichgräber,
Gotteshymnus, 71).
Robbins (JBL 105 [1986] 677– 87) has suggested th at the sentence length
an d m eth o d o f com position o f th e eulogy accord with certain principles o f
G reek rhetoric. H e argues th a t the stru ctu re is d eterm in ed by the am o u n t o f
speech th at can be fitted betw een breaths, an d by the unity an d com pleteness
o f th o u g h t o f w hat fits betw een the breaths. T his seems a plausible suggestion,
b u t analysis according to these criteria is no less subjective th a n m ost o f the
o th er structural analyses. R obbins’ own reconstruction ap pears forced, an d
he confesses th at th ere is “som e opaqueness o f th o u g h t” in it. His division
into rhetorical periods also does n o t do en o u g h justice to the continuous flow
o f this one long sentence.
Probably th e two m ost useful discussions o f stru ctu re are the two m ost
recent lo nger syntactical analyses o f th e eulogy, those by K räm er an d Schnacken-
burg. K räm er considers “in C hrist” a n d its equivalents to be central to both
the con ten t an d th e form o f the passage an d considers th a t the endings o f
clauses are especially im p o rtan t for structural divisions. H e sees th ree m ajor
parts— the benediction form ula o f v 3, th e n vv 4– 12, a n d finally vv 13, 14.
T h e m ajor m iddle section has th ree strophes (vv 4– 6; 7– 10; 11, 12), each o f
which ends with an ev Xptarcp o r equivalent expression, ju s t as does the b en e-
diction form ula itself. S chnackenburg’s trea tm e n t (followed by M ussner, 40)
is d ifferent in th a t after the op en in g form ula he has six divisions. T hese consist
o f vv 3– 4, th en vv 5– 6 beginning with ev ayairfl, vv 7– 8, vv 9– 10, vv 11– 12
beginning with ev aurcp, an d th e n vv 13– 14. It seems b etter to allow differences
from these two treatm ents to em erge in interaction with th em in the following
analysis o f the passage th a n to provide detailed criticism at this point. It shduld
be said, however, th a t it is th e wisest course o f action to agree with Sanders
(ZA/W 56 [1965] 227) th at “every attem p t to provide a strophic structure for
E ph 1: 3 – 14 fails” an d th ere fo re to avoid talking ab o u t fixed strophes o f a
hym n. In stead o u r analysis will deal sim ply with the m ajor divisions in the
flow o f the eulogy’s syntax (cf. also Gnilka, 59; Schnackenburg, BZ 21 [1977]
75). O f course, decisions about syntax an d decisions ab o u t co n ten t an d m eaning
are inevitably interrelated. O u r analysis o f the flow o f the syntax is set o u t
below an d a discussion o f its salient features follows.

Berakah EÜX0777TÖ5 6 0605 Kai narrip rod Kvpiov 7)ß(Jbv

Formula (v 3a) !77000 XpiüTov
I a (v 3b) 0 60X0777005 77pä5 ev 1 1 ‫סז‬0 ‫ ך‬evkoyiqi irvevpaTiKfi
ev rot? enovpaviois ev XpiorCb
b (v 4) KaOibs e£eXe£aro 7}pa5 ev airrCo 7rpö KaraßoXfj5 KÖapov
eivai 77pä5 £71005 Kai £pcopoo5 mrevcomov
airrov ev £707177
II a (vv 5, 6) 7rpooptog5 1?/uä5 ei5 viödeaiav öt£ !77000 Xptoroü 615 avröv
Kara tt!v evdoidav roö 06X77pgro5 airrov
615 enaivov 50£t?5 rf?5 xäpiro 5 airrov
775 exapiroxjev 17pa5 ev rep T77a7n7/mewp
16 E p h e s ia n s 1:3– 14

b (vv 7, 8) ev cp exopev rrjv airoXvrpoxnv 81a rov alparos avrov

rr!v a0eatp rCbv 7rapaTrrcx)päru)v
Kara to 7rXo0ro9 rffr xaptro? aüroö
779 e7repiooemev eis r\pas; ep 7raafl ao0tg Kat (bpovrpei
III a (vv 9, 10) yvoipioas r\pvv rö pvurrjpLOV rod ÖeXfiparös avrov
Kara rr!v evöoidav avrov f}v 7rpoedero ev axnCp
ei? dmvopiav rov nX–qpcbparo^ tCjv rnipcbv
ävaKecpaXauboaodai ra nävra ev rCp Xpiorcp
ra eiri rot? ovpavoV; m i ra 67rt rfj? 77)? 61>aurcj
b (vv 11, 12) ev cp m i eKkqpCjdr\pev
npoopiodevres Kara npodeoiv rov ra 7rdrat evepyovvros
Kara rr)v ßovXrjv rov OeXrjfjLaros avrov
eis rö elvai 77/uä9 et? enaivov 66J77? aoroö
too? nporjXmKÖra<; ev rep Xpiorcp
IV additional ev <b Kai vpeis aK0voavre<; rov ^ojov rffe aXrjdeias
ev cb statement rb evayyeXtov rfjs ourrripias vpcbv
addressing ev cb m i mjorevoavre5 eoQpayioOrjre rep irvevpan
recipients rf}5 enayyeXias rCp ayicp
(vv 13, 14) 05 eariv äppaßebv Tffr KXripovopias rjpcbv
eis anoXvrpoxjiv Tffr 7rept7rotr7aecj9
et? enaivov Tfft 60^775 avrov

Interestingly, this analysis o f syntax tu rn s o u t to be closest in overall term s

to L ohm eyer’s early division, th o u g h o f course unlike his attem p t it does no t
ap p eal to m eter fo r su p p o rt o r treat th e divisions as strophes o f a hym n. T h e
aorist participles are determ inative in th e flow o f th e syntax (with Lohm eyer;
also Gnilka, 59: pace K räm er, whose concern with ev Xpiorcp phrases is too
exclusive), b u t since the latter two are sub o rd in ated to 0 evXoyrpas they cannot
be said to m ark separate strophes. T h e analysis above in fact indicates the
su b ordination o f each m ajor clause in th e eulogy to the preceding one by the
increasing indentation. Each o f the first th re e m ajor divisions also has two
parts. T h e Kaöcb? clause o f v 4 m arks the b eginning o f the second p a rt o f the
first section, while the ev cp clauses o f vv 7, 1 1 m ark this p oint in the second
an d th ird sections. (S chnackenburg underplays the KaOcjs clause an d overplays
th e ev cp clauses by m aking them o f equal im portance to th e aorist participles.)
T h e last section, vv 13, 14, with its anacoluthon, can th e n be seen as an additional
ev cp statem en t addressing, an d thereby specifically draw ing into th e eulogy,
th e recipients o f the letter, an d concluding ap p ro p riately by taking u p the
doxological p h rase et? eirawov rf)<? 50£t7s avrov. All the preceding parts o f the
eulogy can be seen to conclude with a prepositional p h rase with ev.
O th e r im p o rtan t features fo r the flow o f the syntax which stand o u t in the
analysis provided above (and which are also no ted by K räm er an d Schnacken-
burg) are the Kara phrases (vv 5, 7, 9, 11) a n d th e expressions w ith et? (vv 6 ,
10, 12, 14; cf. also d ? viodeoiav an d d ? avrov in v 5 an d d ? r!p.a<; in v 8 ). Verse
3a provided the berakah form ula. Verse 3b, the first p a rt o f the first section, is
a them atic statem ent fo r the rest o f th e eulogy, setting o u t in general term s
G od’s blessing o f believers in C hrist, for which he is w orthy o f blessing. Kadcb?,
which begins th e second part, has both a com parative an d causal force an d
in this way v 4 starts to elaborate on an d to g ro u n d the previous them atic
 Form / Structure / Setting 17

statem ent (cf. BDF §453 (2); Percy, Probleme, 243– 45; Schlier, 49; Lang,
“Die Eulogie,” 10; Gnilka, 69 n. 3; contra B arth, 79, who holds th at it indicates
th e in tro d u ctio n o f a quotation). Literally it could be translated “in accordance
with th e fact th at,” an d it has a sim ilar function in the thanksgiving o f 1 C or
1:4–9 w here in v 6 it introduces the gro u n d s for the C orinthians’ rich spiritual
endow m ent, ev ayan^j, “in love,” is to be placed at the en d o f this first section
ra th e r th an related to 7rpooptaas, “he has pred estin ed ,” at th e beginning o f
the next (cf. a v , r v , n e b ; C aird, 35; J. A. R obinson, 143; Lightfoot, Notes,
313; C aragounis, Mysterion, 84 n. 24, adm its the argum ents for this construction
are th e strongest, b u t th en rules it o u t as no t fitting his sem antic analysis;
contra Abbott, 8 ; Percy, Probleme, 268; Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 255; Schlier, 52;
M aurer, E v T 11 [1951– 52] 155; Gnilka, 59, 72 n. 6 ; S chnackenburg, BZ 21
[1977] 77; E rnst [271] an d M itton [50, 51] allow for a connection with both v
4 an d v 5). Election g ro u n d ed in the love o f G od is o f course fine theology.
In deed, som e who associated ev ayanxi with v 4 link it to c£eAe£a70‫־‬, “he chose”
(cf. L yonnet, “La benediction,” 348; K räm er, Wort und Dienst 9 [1967] 42;
an d B arth, who holds ayairr] has both divine an d h u m an associations in v 4),
th o u g h it \s too far rem oved from the m ain verb in th e syntax for this to be
plausible. B ut “in love” should ra th e r be seen as p art o f the goal election is
in ten d ed to achieve in those it em braces—a life before G od which is holy
an d blameless an d lived in love. Elsew here in the letter, with reference to
love, its h u m an associations p redom inate (cf. 1:15; 3:17; 4:2, 15, 16; 5 :2 ,2 5 ,
28, 33; 6:23, 24). M ore decisively, w hen ayanri occurs in th e introductory section
o f Pauline letters in intercession o r thanksgiving it has a h u m an reference
(cf. Col 1 :4 ,8 an d Phil 1:9, 10 w here it is associated with being p u re and
blameless), an d in P aul’s p ray er o f 1 T hess 3:12, 13 the th re e qualities asked
for believers are love, blam elessness, an d holiness. In addition, construing ev
ayanfl in this way fits the p attern o f the rest o f the eulogy w here the various
sections conclude with a prepositional phrase with ev.
Such a p attern is som etim es disputed at two o th e r points— the en d o f v 8
an d the en d o f v 10. In the first case the issue is w h eth er the phrase ev 7‫ז‬00‫ןך‬
ooftq. K a i (j>povrjoet, “with all wisdom an d insight,” qualifies the following aorist
participle an d refers to G od’s own wisdom an d insight (cf. Gnilka, 77; Percy,
Probleme, 309 n. 6 6 , an d Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 259 n. 23, link it with v 9 b u t
refer it to w hat G od gives hum ans) o r w h eth er it belongs to th e preceding
relative clause an d refers to G od’s gifts o f grace (cf. A bbott, 15; R obinson,
30; Schlier, 59; K räm er, Wort und Dienst 9 [1967] 43; R. E. B rown, The Semitic
Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1968] 57 n. 168; B arth, 84, 85, b u t attem p tin g to include a variety o f m eanings;
Ernst, 274; Schnackenburg, B Z 21 [1977] 77). T h e latter is fa r m ore likely,
since sim ilar gifts are requested fo r the readers in the p ray er re p o rt in 1:17,
an d since, in th e introductory section o f Colossians, to which this letter is
closely related, th e very sim ilar phrase in 1:9 – “in all spiritual wisdom an d
u n d ersta n d in g ”— clearly refers to w hat is desired fo r hum ans. In th e o th er
p o in t o f dispute at the en d o f v 1 0 som e hold th at the ev airrci) provides a
new start an d should be associated with v 11 (cf. Schlier, 6 6 ; S chnackenburg,
BZ 21 [1977] 76); b u t it seems to do m ore justice to the syntax to take it as
p a rt o f a whole p h rase “things in heaven an d things on ea rth in him ,” which
18 E p h e s ia n s 1:3– 14

is in apposition to an d epexegetic o f th e preced in g phrase, r a 7ravra ev Xpicrrcp

(cf. Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 257; M aurer, E v T 11 [1951– 52] 166 n. 40; K räm er,
Wort und Dienst 9 [1967] 40; Gnilka, 82). “T h in g s in heaven a n d things on
e a rth ” elaborates o n the “all things,” an d “in h im ” com pletes th e apposition
an d with its place o f em phasis at th e e n d un d erlin es C hrist’s m ediation o f
G od’s cosmic pu rp o se. In this way the p a tte rn o f th e syntax holds w hereby ev
phrases conclude sections a n d relative clauses with ev cp altern ate with aorist
participles in beg in ning new stretches o f syntax (here vv 1 1 , 1 2 ).
O u r analysis o f th e syntactical stru ctu re o f th e eulogy reinforces o u r earlier
observations o n its m editative style. Its stru ctu re em erges as each th o u g h t
builds on th e previous one, som etim es explaining, som etim es elaborating, som e-
tim es supp lem en ting, som etim es co n trib u tin g som ething new, a n d som etim es
picking u p again w hat has already been said.
Viewed rhetorically, th e style a n d stru ctu re o f th e eulogy enhance its function
as an ex o rd iu m designed to m ake th e recipients o f th e letter favorable to its
content. It encourages assent to a n d participation in its thanksgiving an d praise,
as th e read ers are carried along by its rhythm s an d flow. Vv 13, 14, in particular,
with th eir change to second person p lu ral address, explicitly involve th e readers,
ap p ealin g to th eir experience o f th e g reat blessings o f salvation a n d thereby
enabling th em to identify with the w riter’s th o u g h ts a n d sym pathize with his
concerns (cf. A ristotle, Rhet. 3.14.11; Q uintilian 3.8.7; 4.1.5).
T w o questions about th e setting o f th e eulogy need to be addressed briefly.
O n e concerns th e eulogy’s connection with a baptism al setting an d th e o th e r
its epistolary setting. D ahl (TZ 7 [1951] 263–64) held th at the eulogy was
m odeled o n eulogies said before baptism , while C outts (N TS 3 [1956–57] 120–
27) w ent fu rth e r a n d considered it to be a hom ily based on a baptism al p ray er
which can be reconstructed from it. Reasons have already been given fo r the
unlikelihood o f this latter, m ore specific proposal, b u t th ere is no reason to
deny th at eulogies used in C hristian w orship w ould be som ething like this
one which contains som e m otifs th a t may well be closely connected with baptism .
T h e term inology o f vv 5, 6 – “sonship,” “good pleasu re,” a n d “th e beloved”—
echoes th e lan guage o f th e divine voice at Je su s’ baptism (M ark 1:11 cf. also
Col 1:13), “forgiveness o f sins” (v 7) has close baptism al ties elsew here in the
N T (cf. Acts 2:38; also Col 1:14), a n d th e “sealing o f th e S pirit” (v 13) could
have associations with baptism . T h e aorist ev\oyr!oa<; in v 3 cannot how ever
be used to arg u e th a t th e blessing took place in th e once-for-all act o f baptism
(pace Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 260; D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 76; Lang, “Die Eulogie,”
15; cf. F. Stagg, “T h e A bused A orist,” JB L 91 [1972] 222– 31). It seem s best
to conclude th a t som e o f th e traditional m aterial taken u p in the eulogy originally
h ad a close connection with baptism b u t that, since baptism al blessings can
be an d should be a p p ro p ria te d by th e believer again a n d again in a variety
o f circum stances, it w ould be rash to claim any exclusive relationship to baptism
fo r th e eulogy as a whole (cf. also D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 76; O ’B rien,
N T S 25 [1979] 510).
M au rer (E vT 11 [1951–52] 168) has entitled 1:3 – 14 “th e key to th e whole
letter.” H e m eans by this th a t it is a herm eneutical key, since it provides the
m odel fo r th e interplay o f O T a n d w hat he believes to be Gnostic m otifs
which characterizes th e letter as a whole. Such a title is, how ever, m ore a p p ro p ri-
 Comment 19

ate to 1:3– 14 in term s o f its epistolary function, for the eulogy introduces a
n u m b er o f significant words an d them es, u p o n which the rest o f the letter
will elaborate. In addition, it introduces them in such a way as to draw the
recipients into ap p reciation o f a perspective which is to be basic for the letter’s
teaching. So, for exam ple, the groundw ork is laid fo r the letter’s cosmic persp ec-
tive with the use o f ev rot? e7roupawo1?, “in the heavenly realm s,” in v 3 for the
sphere in which th e blessings o f salvation are found, an d this phrase is taken
u p again in 1:20; 2:6; 3:10; an d 6:12. Likewise r a 7ravra, “all things,” in 1:10
recurs in 1 :22,23; 3:9; 4:6; an d 4:10. G od’s cosmic plan is a m ystery which
has to be disclosed (1:9), an d this language reap p ears in 3:3–5; 3:9, 10; and
6:19; it also centers in C hrist (1:9, 10), an d the ev Xpiorep form ulation o r equiva-
lents which p red o m in ate in the eulogy are fo u n d again in the letter, particularly
in chaps. 2 an d 3. T h e grace o f God in the bestowal o f salvation is highlighted
in vv 6 , 7, an d grace is a concept also em phasized later in the letter in 2:5, 7, 8 ;
3:2, 7, 8 ; 4:7, 29; an d 6:24. Some them es fo u n d in the eulogy are taken u p
later in the paraenesis (cf. also O ’B rien, N T S 25 [1979] 511– 12). In fact, the
language o f election, predestination, G od’s will an d plan in the berakah can be
seen as a functional equivalent to th at o f “the calling to which you have been
called” (4:1), which the paraenesis exhorts believers to live out. In addition,
those who have been sealed by the Holy Spirit (1:13) are exhorted not to
grieve the Holy Spirit (4:30), to keep the unity o f the Spirit (4:3), to be filled
with the Spirit (5:18), to take the sword o f th e Spirit (6:17) an d to pray in
the Spirit (6:18). T hose who th ro u g h the Spirit experience the g uarantee o f
their eschatological inheritance (1:14) are later rem in d ed in 5:5 th at certain
behavior is n o t com patible with th a t inheritance. T hose who have been p re d e s-
tined for ado p tio n according to G od’s will (1:5) an d given insight into the
working o f th at will (1:9, 11) also need to live in accord with the ethical dem ands
o f th at will (5:17; 6 :6 ), while those who have h ea rd the w ord o f tru th (1:13)
are to speak an d do the tru th (4:15, 21, 25; 6:14). It can be seen th at in this
way the eulogy fulfills the function which an introductory thanksgiving norm ally
has in a Pauline letter, signaling o r an n o u n cin g in sum m ary form m uch o f
the subject m atter o f the body o f the letter (cf. P. Schubert, Form and Function
of the Pauline Thanksgivings [Berlin: A. T ö p elm an n , 1939] 24; P. T . O ’B rien,
Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977] 262).
T his raises the issue o f the relationship o f th e eulogy to the following thanksgiv-
ing and the discussion o f why Ephesians contains both, b u t this will be addressed
u n d e r Form / Structure / Setting on 1:15–2 3.

Comment

3 For discussion o f v 3a (the berakah form ula) see Form !Structure !Setting.
ev 7rac7fl evXoyiqL nvevpaTuef!, “with every spiritual blessing.” T h e th ree ev phrases
in v 3 com bine to sum u p in a general way the content o f G od’s blessing o f
believers for which he is to be blessed an d which will be elaborated in the
rest o f th e eulogy. T h e blessing consists o f G od’s saving activity in C hrist and
this fullness o f divine blessing can be described as “spiritual,” not because it
belongs to a p erso n ’s in n er, h id d en life (pace C aird, 33) b u t because it is b ound
u p with th e Holy Spirit. T his sense o f “spiritual,” as resulting from the presence
20 E p h e s ia n s 1:3– 14

an d w ork o f th e Spirit, is to be fo u n d in 5:19 (cf. also Col 1:9; 3:16), a n d the

last two verses o f th e eulogy, vv 13, 14, indicate th a t p resen t a p p ro p riatio n o f
th e blessing o f th e inheritance occurs th ro u g h participation in th e Spirit. Else-
w here in th e P auline corpus th e prom ised blessing to A braham is seen by
Paul to find its fulfillm ent in term s o f th e Spirit (Gal 3:14) a n d “spiritual”
can be closely linked, as here, w ith th e heavenly w orld (cf. 1 C or 15:44–49
w here to have a spiritual body is to b ear th e im age o f th e heavenly one).
ev rot? emvpaviois, “in th e heavenly realm s,” designates th e sp h ere o f the
spiritual blessings as th e heavenly realm s. e7roopca>to?is synonym ous with ovpavto?,
an d it is n o t clear w h eth er th e nom inative o f this phrase w ould have b een
ot enovpavioi (to be com pleted by r 67rot, “places”) o r m ore likely r a emvpavui
(Abbott, 5; O d eb erg, View, 7; Schlier, 45; van R oon, Authenticity, 215; B arth,
78; C aragounis, Mysterion, 147). T h e m ost a p p ro p ria te m eaning fo r this p h rase
in each o f its five usages in Ephesians is a local one. A n extensive exam ination
o f th e in terp re tatio n o f this ph rase a n d its relationship to P auline eschatology
can be fo u n d in my earlier article (N T S 19 [1973] 4 6 8–83). T h e origin o f the
expression is uncertain, th o u g h it m ay well have b een a traditional form ulation
from th e w orship o f th e early ch u rch on analogy with such expressions as ev
rot? £n//tarot? (M ark 11:10) o r ev ui/zr^Xot? (H eb 1:3). O d eb erg (View, 12, 13), in
an influential trea tm e n t o f the form ula, a rg u ed th a t the heavenlies are no t
the equivalent o f heaven in its d en o tatio n as th e celestial regions in distinction
from o th e r p arts o f the universe b u t re p re se n t th e whole o f spiritual reality
in which th e C h u rch participates, an d so can be taken as th e realm o f the
C h u rch in C hrist. T his hypothesis, how ever, does n o t do e n o u g h justice to
the presence o f evil pow ers in th e heavenlies (cf. 3:10; 6:12).
K äsem ann (“E pheserbrief,” 518) an d C onzelm ann (57) hold th a t th e phrase
has links with Gnostic th o u g h t, as does Schlier (45–48), fo r w hom it also takes
on existential significance as th e tran scen d en tal dim ension o f h u m an existence
which challenges a p erso n to decision. In its possible liturgical origins a n d in
its use h ere in th e eulogy th e ph rase is fa r m ore likely to have its b ackground
in Jew ish views o f heaven, ev rot? eirovpavioi? is closely related to ev rot? ovpavdis,
an d th o u g h th e w riter is speaking p redom inantly to G entiles a n d against a
setting o f Hellenistic cosm ological interests, his use o f th e fo rm u la derives
from his ow n fram ew ork, w hich can be m ost adequately u n d ersto o d in th e
light o f th e O T a n d Jew ish conception o f heaven. T his cosm ological picture
was one in which heaven was depicted as th e u p p e r p a rt o f the cosm os b u t
at th e sam e tim e stood analogically fo r th e spiritual w orld above, w hich the
firm am ent concealed, a n d beyond th a t re fe rre d also to th e realm o f divine
transcendence. T h e H ebrew term fo r heaven is in th e p lu ral a n d this p lu ral
is o ften reflected in th e G reek term inology o f th e N T , ev rot? oupam ?, so th a t
this need n o t indicate any d ep en d en ce on specific apocalyptic o r rabbinic specu-
lations ab o u t th e n u m b e r o f heavens, b u t m aintains th e general referen ce o f
th e relatively unsophisticated O T perspective. T h e sam e applies to ev rot?
emvpav'iois. In this perspective heaven in its created aspect was involved in
G od’s plan fo r th e ages. T h e heavens as well as the ea rth are to be shaken
an d rem oved in th e ju d g m e n t o f th e e n d-tim e (cf. Isa 51:6; H ag 2:6), while
Isa 65:17 a n d 66:22 speak o f th e creation o f a new heaven a n d a new earth.
 Comment 21

In apocalyptic Ju d aism also the evil pow ers in heaven are ju d g e d (cf. 1 Enoch
16.1– 4; 21.1– 16; 89.59, 60) before the com m encem ent o f the com ing new
age with its new heaven (cf. 1 Enoch 91.16).
A sim ilar eschatological fram ew ork can be fo u n d in P aul’s thinking an d is
shared by the a u th o r o f Ephesians (cf. 1:21). In it both heaven an d ea rth are
inco rp o rated in each age, b u t now heaven an d ea rth take on new significance
as they are related to G od’s acts in C hrist. In particular, the heavenly realm s
in E phesians are to be seen in the perspective o f th e age to com e, which has
been in au g u rated by G od raising C hrist from the d ead an d exalting him to
his rig h t h an d (1:20; cf. also Percy, Probleme, 181; C aragounis, Mysterion, 152,
who asserts th at the term is “b o u n d u p with the salvation events, an d has
. , . a heilsgeschichtlich im p o rt”; W. C arr, Angels and Principalities [Cam bridge:
C am bridge University Press, 1981] 93–98). Yet, since heaven is also still involved
in the p resen t evil age, th ere rem ain hostile pow ers in the heavenly realm s
(cf. 3:10; 6:12) until th e consum m ation o f th e age to come. H ere in 1:3, against
a background o f cosmological concerns on the p art o f the letter’s recipients,
th ere is the indication th at the blessings o f salvation they have received from
God link the recipients to the heavenly realm . T h e blessings can be said to
be in the heavenly realm s, yet they are n o t viewed as treasu re stored u p for
fu tu re ap p ro p riatio n , b u t as benefits belonging to believers now. In apocalyptic
writings, aspects o f fu tu re salvation were som etim es seen as p resen t in heaven
(cf. 4 Ezra 7 :1 4 ,8 3 ; 13:18; 2 Apoc. Bar. 21.12; 48.49; 52.7). In Ephesians,
th ro u g h w hat G od has done in C hrist, the benefits o f the age to com e have
becom e a p resen t heavenly reality for believers, an d for this reason can also
be closely linked with the Spirit o f th at age.
ev Xpiarcp, “in C hrist.” T h e rep etitio n o f this phrase o r a variation o f it
th ro u g h o u t the passage, w here it occurs eleven times, highlights the distinctive
C hristian co n ten t o f this berakah in com parison with its Jew ish counterparts.
B ut w hat is th e force o f this expression, an d is its use in Ephesians different
from th at in the u n d isp u ted Paulines? W h eth er ev Xpiarcp has a set m eaning
in Paul him self is a highly controverted issue. A. D eissm ann in his pioneering
study o f 1892 (Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu” [M arburg: N. G.
E lw ert]) arg u ed th at it was a form ula w ith a local an d mystical m eaning w hereby
Christ, as universal Spirit, was the atm o sp h ere which believers occupied. B ut
the work o f F. Büchsei (“ ‘In C hristus’ bei P aulus,” Z N W 42 [1949] 141– 58),
F. N eu g eb au er (“Das paulinische ‘in C hristo,’ ” N T S 4 [1957– 58] 124– 38), an d
M. B outtier (En Christ: É tude d ’exégèse et de théologie pauliniennes [Paris: Presses
U niversitaires, 1962]) has in fact show n th at the phrase has a great variety o f
force, which m ust be derived from the context in which it is found. Most
frequently its use is in strum ental, so th at it m eans “th ro u g h C hrist’s agency.”
B ut th ere are a n u m b er o f references w here it does ap p e a r to have a local
sense in which “C hrist is the ‘place’ in w hom believers are a n d in w hom salvation
is” (Best, One Body in Christ, 8 ). Such references involve the notion o f the
incorporation o f believers into C hrist, an d this concept o f the incorporation
o f m any in one representative head, to g eth er with the use o f ev, can be seen
in the LXX in reg ard to o th e r figures, such as A braham (Gen 12:3) an d Isaac
(Gen 21:12), an d in Paul in re g ard to A dam (1 C or 15:22). It seems to be
22 E p h e s ia n s 1:3– 14

used in this sense in re g ard to C hrist in passages such as 2 C or 5:17, Rom

8:1, o r Phil 3:9 (cf. also C. F. D. M oule, The Origin of Christology [C am bridge:
C am bridge University Press, 1977] 54– 62).
Allan (N T S 5 [1958– 59] 54– 62) has arg u ed th a t th e use o f ev Xptarcp in
Ephesians, w here it occurs alm ost twice as m any tim es as th e average fo r a
P auline letter, differs in th a t this letter com pletely lacks any local o r incorporative
instances o f th e p hrase. H e believes th a t “th e w riter is n o t sensitive to the
Pauline conceptions o f th e co rp o rate C hrist61) ‫ )״‬a n d th a t “ ‘in C hrist’ is no
lo n g er fo r this w riter th e fo rm u la o f in co rp o ratio n into C hrist, b u t has becom e
th e fo rm u la o f G od’s activity th ro u g h C hrist” (59). H ow ever his thesis bo th
overestim ates th e ex ten t to w hich “in C hrist” is a fo rm u la o f in corporation in
Paul an d underestim ates th e ex ten t to which its use in E phesians involves
incorporation. It cannot be den ied th a t in E phesians with its liturgical style
th e p h rase is u sed with an alm ost form al quality a n d a predom inantly in stru m en-
tal force a n d refers prim arily to C hrist’s m ediation o f G od’s activity tow ard
his people (cf. Gnilka, 66– 69). B ut it is particularly h a rd to avoid th e m ore
intensive incorporative connotation in 2 : 6 w here believers are said to have
been raised a n d seated in the heavenly realm s to g eth er with C hrist “in C hrist
Jesu s.” T o say with Allan (N TS 5 [1958–59] 58) th a t th ere “th e w riter regards
C hrist n o t as th e inclusive representative b u t as the m ighty com panion o f th e
up w ard way, th e one th ro u g h w hom G od’s u plifting pow er is b ro u g h t to b ea r
on u s” is to ignore th a t th e w ording o f this verse takes u p th a t o f 1:20. T h e
m ore straightforw ard a n d convincing explanation o f the fact th a t w hat was
said o f C hrist can now be said o f believers is th a t they are re g ard e d as included
in him (cf. also Percy, Probleme, 290).
I f this is th e case, it m akes it m ore likely th at h ere in 1:3 also th e w riter’s
th o u g h t is th a t believers experience th e blessings o f th e heavenly realm s no t
only th ro u g h C hrist’s agency b u t also because they are in co rp o rated into th e
exalted C hrist as th eir representative, w ho is him self in the heavenly realm s
(cf. also Schlier, 48; E rnst, 270). F u rth er, if th e “in him ” o f 1:4 is n o t taken
simply to m ean th a t G od chose believers before th e fo u n d atio n o f th e w orld
th ro u g h C hrist’s agency b u t th a t they can be viewed as u n ited to th e preexistent
C hrist before th e fo u n d atio n o f th e w orld a n d th u s chosen by G od in him
(cf. R. G. H a m e rto n -Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of M an [C am bridge:
C am bridge U niversity Press, 1973] 180– 82; E rnst, 282– 83; C aragounis, Myster-
ion, 157), th e n so fa r from th e incorporative sense o f “in C hrist” being entirely
absent from E phesians, it could be a rg u ed th a t th e a u th o r has in fact ex tended
the scope o f Pauline usage, bo th backw ards to em brace inclusion in som e
sense in C hrist’s preexistence a n d forw ards to m ake explicit w hat is only im plicit
in Col 3:1, nam ely, inclusion in C hrist’s exaltation (cf. also C aragounis, Mysterion,
158).
4 Kadtos e£eXe£aro r)/ua? ev aineb 7rpo KaraßoXfis köo!xov, “even as he chose us
in him before th e fo u n d atio n o f the w orld.” F or th e force o f Ka0chs see th e
com m ents u n d e r Form !Structure !Setting. In elaborating on an d g ro u n d in g th e
them atic statem en t o f v 3 the great th em e o f G od’s electing pu rp o se is in tro-
duced. T h e w riter asserts th a t G od has blessed believers bo th because an d to
the ex ten t th at he elected them . T h e n u m b e r a n d variety o f w ords used in
this passage to describe G od’s p u rp o se is im pressive: e£eXe£aro, “chose” (v 4 );
 Comment 23

7rpooptaa5 , “p re d estin ed ,” evdoida, “good pleasure,” Qekqpa, “will” (v 5); OeXrjpa,

evSoida, 7rpoeöero, “p u rp o se d ” (v 9); eKkripojOripev, “a p p o in ted ,” irpoopiadevTe5 ,
“p red estin ed ,” 7rp60ea1s, “p lan ,” ßouXr), “p u rp o se ,” Qekqpa (v 11). G od’s sovereign
pu rp o se in choosing o u t a people fo r him self is o f course a fam iliar idea in
the O T (e.g., D eut 7:6–8; 14:2), which witnesses to Israel’s consciousness o f
G od’s choice o f h e r in the m idst o f the twists an d tu rn s in h e r historical fortunes.
God h ad chosen A braham so th at in him the nations o f the ea rth w ould be
blessed, an d Israel’s election was n o t fo r h e r own self-indulgence b u t for the
blessing o f the nations: it was a privilege b u t also a sum m ons to service. C hristian
believers also h ad this consciousness o f being chosen to be th e people o f God.
T h e new elem ent is signaled by the ev avrCp phrase. T h e ir sense o f G od’s
gracious choice o f them was inextricably interw oven with th eir sense o f belong-
ing to Christ. G od’s design for them to be his people h ad been effected in
an d th ro u g h C hrist. T hey saw him as G od’s C hosen O ne (see below on “in
the Beloved,” 1:6). Indeed, Paul in Gal 3 treats C hrist as in a sense fulfilling
Israel’s election. C hrist is the offspring o f A braham par excellence (3:16), and
in C hrist th e blessing o f A braham has com e to the Gentiles (3:14) so th at
they too, because they are C hrist’s, are A b raham ’s offspring (3:29). T h e notion
o f being chosen in C hrist h ere in E phesians is likely th e n to include the idea
o f incorporation into C hrist as the representative on w hom G od’s gracious
decision was focused. In respect to th at m erciful decision o f love, which governs
G od’s plan for his creation, the believing com m unity is aw are o f its solidarity
with C hrist. It is by explicitly linking the notion o f election to th at o f being
“in C hrist” th at E phesians takes fu rth e r the discussion o f election fo u n d in
the u n d isp u ted Pauline letters.
G od’s choice o f his people in C hrist is said to have taken place “before the
foundation o f th e w orld.” T his phrase indicates an elem ent in the thinking
about election which cannot be fo u n d in the O T an d occurs only later in
Jew ish literature, e.g. , Joseph and Asenath 8.9 (A); Midr. Ps. 74.1; Midr. Ps.
93.3; Gen. Rab. 1.5 (cf. also Hofius, Z N W 61 [1971] 125– 27). Elsewhere in
the N T the p h rase “before the fo u n d atio n o f the w orld” is used o f G od’s
love for C hrist (J o h n 17:24) an d his pu rp o se for C hrist (1 Pet 1:20), b u t in
reg ard to believers passages elsew here in the Pauline corpus provide the closest
parallels. In 2 T hess 2:13 the best read in g is probably “from the beginning”
and its best in terp re tatio n is probably as a reference to G od’s choice from the
beginning o f time. In 2 T im 1:9 grace is said to have been given to believers
before etern al times, while in Rom 8:29 the prefix in irpoyivoxjKeiv, “to foreknow ,”
is usually held to indicate th at G od’s electing know ledge o f believers precedes
n o t simply th eir know ledge o f him b u t the creation o f the world. In com parison
with Rom 8 :28–30 an d its eschatological focus, the language o f E ph 1:4, by
m aking the p retem p o ral aspect o f election explicit, sets salvation in protological
perspective.
Such language functions to give believers assurance o f G od’s purposes for
them . Its force is th at G od’s choice o f them was a free decision not d ep e n d en t
on tem poral circum stances b u t ro o ted in the d e p th o f his natu re. T o say that
election in C hrist took place before the fo u n d atio n o f th e w orld is to underline
th at it was provoked n o t by historical contingency o r h u m an m erit, b u t solely
by G od’s sovereign grace. It is the notion o f preexistence which m akes this
24 E p h e s ia n s 1:3 – 14

form ulation possible. If G od’s election o f believers took place before the fo u n d a-
tion o f th e w orld in Christ, this could well presu p p o se th e existence o f C hrist
before th e fo u n d atio n o f the w orld (cf. Col 1:15, 16). Schlier (49) speaks o f
th e C hristian ad ap tatio n o f the Jew ish th eo lo g o u m en o n o f the preexistence
n o t only o f th e M essiah b u t also o f th e people o f salvation, b u t th e re are
grave difficulties with datin g th e evidence fo r eith er concept in Jew ish w ritings
before 70 c .e . (cf. J. D. G. D unn, Christology in the M aking [L ondon: SCM,
1980] 70– 82; H ofius, Z N W 62 [1971] 123– 28). Probably th e n th e notion o f
the election o f believers in C hrist has b een com bined with th a t o f th e preex is-
tence o f C hrist. T h is does n o t im ply th e preexistence o f th e C hurch, an idea
which can be fo u n d later in early C hristian w ritings (cf. 2 Clem. 14.1; H errn.
Vis. 1.1.6; 2.4.1). It is no t th e C h u rch b u t th e choice o f the C h u rch which
precedes th e fo u n d atio n o f th e world. So if th ere is to be any talk o f the
preexistence o f th e C hurch, it can only be o f “ideal” preexistence, i.e., in the
m ind o r counsel o f G od (cf. B arth, 112; Gnilka, 70, 71; H a m e rto n -Kelly, Pre-
existence, Wisdom, and the Son of M an [C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press,
1973] 180– 82).
It is significant th a t the language o f election before the fo u n d atio n o f th e
w orld occurs h ere in the context o f thanksgiving (cf. also 1 T hess 1:4; 2:13).
It is p a rt o f an expression o f g ratitu d e fo r G od’s inexplicable grace, n o t a
logical ded u ctio n ab o u t the destiny o f individuals based on th e im m utability
o f G od’s decrees. A nd, unlike th e language o f R om 9:13, 18, 22, E ph 1:4 p ro-
vokes absolutely no speculation about th e negative side o f election, rep ro b atio n .
O verw helm ed by the blessing o f being chosen in C hrist, th e w riter does n o t
attem p t to find explanations b u t can only praise th e G od who is th e source
o f such blessing.
elvai ripäs äyiovs Kai äpcopovs Karevtomov ainov ev ayairxi, “to be holy an d
blam eless before him in love.” G od’s choice o f a people in C hrist has a goal—
th at they should exhibit a particu lar quality o f life, described h ere in term s
o f holiness an d love. F or th e reasons fo r connecting “in love” with th e goal
o f election, see th e discussion u n d e r Form !Structure !Setting above. In Phil 1:9, 10
an d 1 T hess 3:12, 13 Paul prays for these sam e features to characterize believers’
lives—love in th e p re sen t an d holiness a n d blam elessness in view o f th e Parousia.
T h e actual w ording o f th e latter qualities in E phesians, ayiovs Kai apcopovs
Karevcomov auroD, is taken from Col 1:22, w here, as here, th ere is no clear
connection with th e P arousia a n d th e w ords describe believers’ p re sen t lives.
If <17105 in 1:1 d en o ted prim arily status, h ere in 1:4 it indicates the m oral
condition th a t belongs to such a status. It is closely connected with apcjpos
an d b oth have a cultic background. T h a t which is separated to God, such as
a sacrificial anim al (cf. LXX Exod 29:37, 38; N u m 6:14; 19:2) m ust be w ithout
defect. A lready in th e O T such term inology is also used for ethical purity
(e.g., LXX Ps 14:2; 17:24). In E p h 1:4 holiness, blam elessness, an d love are
com plem entary term s. O n its negative side, holiness is th e absence o f m oral
defect o r sin, i.e., blam elessness, while, on its positive side, as m oral perfection,
it displays itself in love which is th e fulfillm ent o f G od’s will. M oral separation
from th e sinful w orld an d active love are qualities which, in fact, provide a
good sum m ary o f th e ethical ex h o rtatio n to follow in th e second p a rt o f this
letter. In this reference a theocentric perspective predom inates, fo r a life o f
 Comment 25

holiness, blam elessness, a n d love has its source in an d is a response to the

gracious election o f God a n d is lived “before him ,” th at is, conscious th at
G od’s presence an d G od’s approval are o n e’s ultim ate environm ent.
,
5 6 7rpooptaa? r\pas; et? vio d eo ia v 81a ’1 pr o v XpiOTOV ei$ airrov , “he has p redestined
us for ad o p tio n as his own sons th ro u g h Jesus C hrist.” F or th e way in which
ei? airrov continues th e theocentric view point o f v 4 see the discussion u n d e r
Notes above. T h e sonship to which believers are pred estin ed has God as its
goal. Believers bless G od the F ather, because his choice o f them is in ten d ed
to b rin g th em into a relationship with him self. T his theocentric em phasis is
m aintained th ro u g h o u t vv 5, 6 . 7rpooptaa5 , “p re d estin ed ,” also reem phasizes
G od’s initiative in salvation a n d develops the notion o f G od’s choice from v
4. It focuses on th e divine decision w hich m akes sonship th e goal fo r those
who are elect. G od’s fo reo rd in atio n is celebrated in a hym nic context in the
Q u m ra n writings (cf. 1QH 15.13– 22). In Paul 1rpoopt$e 1v is used in 1 C or 2:7
an d in Rom 8:29, 30 w here it is also connected with the them e o f sonship.
T h e term viodeoia, “ado p tio n as sons,” is a Pauline one fo u n d also in Rom
8:15, 23; 9:4; an d Gal 4:5. It is a term taken from G reco-R om an law w here it
re ferred to th e ad o ption as sons o f those who w ere n o t so by birth. T h e w ord
can be fo u n d in second century b .c .e . inscriptions a n d in the first century
b .c .e . writings o f D iodorus Siculus a n d Nicolaus D am ascenus. A well-to-do
b u t childless ad u lt who w anted an h eir w ould ad o p t a m ale, usually at an age
o th er th an in infancy an d frequently a slave, to be his son. In Paul this is
applied to th e privileged new relationship believers have with God, b u t m ust
also be seen against th e O T b ackground o f Israel’s relationship with God.
In d eed in Rom 9:4 ado p tio n as sons is listed am ong Israel’s privileges by
Paul. It becom es a co rresponding privilege o f the C h u rch also (cf. Rom 9:26;
also 2 C or 6:18). T h e relationship awaits com pletion (Rom 8:23) b u t has the
p resen t witness o f the Spirit in th e m eantim e (Rom 8:14, 15). Ephesians em p h a-
sizes th at by G od’s free pred estin in g choice he adopts believers, taking them
into his family an d intim ate fellowship, establishing th em as his children an d
heirs. It stresses th a t this privileged relationship o f know ing G od as F ather
for those w ho at one tim e w ere “sons o f disobedience,” “children o f w rath ”
(cf. 2:2, 3) is th ro u g h the agency o f C hrist (8ta ’160‫ סןד‬XpvoTOv). Such an assertion
sum s u p th e th o u g h t o f passages such as Gal 3:26; 4:4, 5; an d Rom 8:29 th at
link believers’ reception o f ad option as sons with th e life an d w ork o f C hrist
as G od’s Son. Sonship is a benefit o f th e salvation o f the e n d-tim e a n d it
comes to those included in the Son th ro u g h w hom th a t salvation has been
in au g u rated — cf. also “in the B eloved” (1:6). (O n adoption, see fu rth e r T .
W haling, “A d o p tion,” P T R 21 [1923] 223– 35; H. J. Flowers, “A doption an d
R edem ption in th e B eloved,” ExpTim 39 [1927– 28] 16– 21; W. H. Russell,
“N T A doption— G raeco-R om an o r Sem itic,” JB L 71 [1952] 233– 34; D. J.
T h ero n , “A doption in the Pauline C o rp u s,” E vQ 28 [1956] 6– 14; M. W. Schoen-
berg, “T h e A doptive Sonship o f Israel,” A E R 143 [1960] 261– 73; “viodeoia:
T h e W ord a n d th e In stitu tio n ,” Scr 15 [1963] 115– 23; “St. P aul’s N otion o f
the A doptive Sonship o f C hristians,” Thomist 28 [1964] 51– 75; F. Lyall, “R om an
Law in th e W ritings o f Paul: A doption ”JB L 8 8 [1969] 458– 66; E. Schweizer,
“vios, viodeoia,‫ ״‬T D N T 8 [1972] 334– 99).
Kara tt\v evdoidav tov deKriparos airrov, “in accordance with his good pleasure
26 E p h e s ia n s 1:3 – 14

an d will.” T h is is one o f th e instances o f th e re d u n d an cy o f concepts in this

w riter’s style. evboiaa, “good p leasu re,” corresponds to the H ebrew ‫ ר צ ו ן‬,
rä$ön, an d highlights G od’s will as his good pleasure o r favor, while 0 eX17pa,
“will,” in th e LXX m ost frequently translates ‫ ח פ ץ‬bepe$, a n d in this context
can be seen as stressing G od’s will as his active resolve, his redem ptive purpose.
T h e two term s are in close proxim ity again in 1:9. A sim ilar red u n d an cy can
be fo u n d in th e language o f th e Q u m ra n w ritings: cf. CD 3.15 ‫ו ח פ צ י ר צ ע ו‬
(whp$y r$wnw)9 “a n d the desires o f his will.” H ere in E ph 1:5 it serves the
function o f reem phasizing th a t C hristian existence as sonship n o t only has
G od as its goal b u t has him as its source, fo r it is g ro u n d e d in him an d is in
accordance with his sovereign good pleasure a n d gracious resolution to red eem
m en an d w om en.
ets eiratvov 56£t?9 rfft xapiros avrov, “to th e praise o f the glory o f his grace.”
T his ph rase is sim ilar to those in vv 12 a n d 14, b u t h ere th e em phasis is no t
simply o n G od’s glory as th e object o f praise b u t on his grace. T h e addition
o f this concept provides an instance o f th e com bination o f genitives which is
characteristic o f th e liturgical style o f th e letter. N eith er this expression n o r
th e closely related ones in vv 12 a n d 14 can be fo u n d in the u n d isp u ted Paulines,
w here th e closest parallel is th e ph rase in Phil 1:11 eis 80 £a1> m i 67raivov Oeov.
H ere th e p h rase takes u p again th e theocentric note o f th e berakah. T h e goal
o f believers’ p red estination as sons a n d d au g h ters has already b een said to be
ets avrov b u t now it is also ei? enatvov 86%r!<; rffr xapt 7 0 9 avrov. T h e red em p tio n ,
which o riginated with God, has his own glorification as its end. T h e p re d estin a-
tion, which is th e p ro d u c t o f G od’s grace, resounds to th e praise o f th e glory
o f th at grace.
7 fft xaptro? avrov 5 ?‫ ל‬exapircooev rjpa?, “his grace with which h e has highly
favored us.” T h e genitive case o f th e relative in this clause is to be explained
by th e fact th a t th e relative can o ften be attracted to the case o f its an teced en t
(cf. BDF para. 294 [2]). T h a t the n o u n is followed by its cognate verb (literally
“his grace with which he has graced us”) obviously serves to em phasize the
concept involved a n d is a p h en o m en o n which occurs again in this letter in
1:19, 20; 2:4; a n d 4:1. x^P ^o w , th e cognate verb used h ere, occurs elsew here
in th e N T only in Luke 1:28. T h e blessing o f salvation which is th e subject
o f th e whole berakah can be eq u ated with th e notio n o f grace highlighted in
this verse. As in E p h 2:5, 8 , grace is seen as th e principle o f G od’s redem ptive
activity which perm eates it th ro u g h a n d th ro u g h . A nd so intensively does G od
favor believers with his grace th a t bo th th e ir existence a n d th eir w orship becom e
a paean o f praise to the sp len d o r o f th a t grace.
ev 7 cp T)7 a 7n 7pe 1>cp, “in th e B eloved,” expresses how this grace has com e to
believers an d continues the idea already fo u n d in ev Xpu77 <p (1:3), ev avrCj?
(1:4), a n d 51d ’Irpov Xpiorov (1:5). T h is variation uses a term which seems to
have been u n d ersto o d as a title for C hrist. J . A. R obinson (229– 33) a n d Schlier
(56) believe it was a m essianic title c u rre n t am o n g the Jew s d u rin g th e first
century c .e ., th o u g h n e ith e r can offer any h a rd evidence fo r its p re-C hristian
usage in such a way. It is safe to say th a t it becam e a m essianic title am ong
early C hristians (cf. also Ign., Smym. inscr.; B am . 3.6; 4.3, 8 ). In the LXX it
was used o f Israel w here it translates th e hypocoristicon o r “p et n am e” ‫ י ס ר ו ן‬,
yěšurûn (D eut 32:15; 33:5, 26; Isa 44:2), a n d m ore generally designates Israel
 Comment 27

as G od’s beloved people (D eut 33:12; Isa 5:1, 7; J e r 11:15; 12:7). In th e Pauline
corpus this designation for Israel can be tran sferre d to believers, frequently
in close association with the concept o f election, cf. 1 T hess 1:4; 2 T hess
2:13; Rom 9:25; Col 3:12. E phesians reflects a transference o f the title to
C hrist as well as to C hristians, a transference no d o u b t facilitated by the closeness
o f this title to th e designation o f Jesus as th e beloved Son p ro m in en t in early
C hristian trad itio n —cf. M ark 1:11 par.; M ark 9:7 par., 6 vi6 5 fxov 0 a ya 7r7jr6s;
also M ark 12:6; Luke 20:13. E phesians appears to be in indirect contact with
this trad itio n th ro u g h Col 1:13 – rov viov rffr a ya 7rrjs avrov, on which it is a
variation. In any case the title m akes clear C hrist’s status as G od’s specially
chosen one, his beloved Son. V erse 6 th e n confirm s the th o u g h t fo u n d earlier,
th at G od’s p red estining choice o f believers to be his sons an d daughters is
inextricably tied to C hrist’s being his chosen one an d th at th eir experience o f
this grace is th ro u g h th eir being included in the one who is the beloved Son
par excellence. B eing highly favored with grace m eans, for th e believing com m u-
nity, participation in th at divine love with which the F ath er favored the Son,
th o u g h th e com m unity’s participation in this relationship is th ro u g h adoption
(cf. v 5).
7, 8 ev cp exofxev rr\v ä 7T0\vrpuxnv 31a rov atparo^ avrov, rr\v afyeow rcbv
7rapa7rrcopd7‫־‬co1>, “in w hom we have re d em p tio n th ro u g h his blood, the forgive-
ness o f trespasses.” W ith these words th e grace with which believers have been
highly favored in the Beloved is elaborated on in term s o f som e o f the present
benefits o f salvation which they have in him . In fact these words, to g eth er
with th e last ph rase o f the preceding verse, stand in very close relation to
Col 1:13, 14. A gainst M itton (52) it is n o t tru e to say th a t “the whole sentence
is taken w ord fo r w ord” from th at passage. In taking u p the language o f
Colossians th e a u th o r o f Ephesians m akes his own variations. We have already
n o ted this in re g ard to th e Christological title. T o th e notion o f redem ption
is ad d ed the p h rase “th ro u g h his blood.” T his is n o t fo u n d in Col 1:14, although
“th ro u g h th e blood o f his cross” does occur in Col 1:20 w here it appears to
be a Pauline addition to the Christological hym n. Finally, w hereas Col 1:14
speaks o f rr\v cupeow rcbv äpaprtcbv, E ph 1:7 substitutes a d ifferent w ord for
sins, having rr\v axpeoiv r(bv napaTTrooparcov. T h e liturgical language from C olos-
sians, with its baptism al connotations (cf. Lohse, Colossians, 40), is th erefo re
taken u p in a m odified form in th e E phesian berakah.
d 7roXurpcoat5 , “re d em p tio n ,” is a ra re w ord in nonbiblical G reek an d appears
only once in th e LXX, in D an 4:34, yet it occurs ten times in the N T , seven
o f these in th e Pauline corpus. T h e P auline concept o f re d em p tio n has its
roots in the O T , w here in particular the divine act o f deliverance from Egypt
was o ften described in term s o f re d em p tio n (cf. D eut 7:8; 9:26; 13:5; 15:15;
24:18; 1 C h r 17:21). T h e te rm ’s general significance as “deliverance, liberation”
is clear. T h e re is a dispute am ong scholars, how ever, w h eth er it also has the
m ore specific co n n otation o f th e paym ent o f a ransom . In re g ard to E ph 1:7
some insist this co nnotation is p resen t (e.g., L. M orris, The Apostolic Preaching
of the Cross, 3 rd ed. [London: T yndale Press, 1965] 42; B ruce, 31; I. H . M arshall,
“T h e D evelopm ent o f the C oncept o f R edem ption in the New T estam en t,”
Reconciliation and Hope, FS L. M orris, ed. R. J. Banks [Exeter: P aternoster
Press; G ran d Rapids: E erdm ans, 1974] 165), while others hold th at the term
28 Ephesians 1:3–14

simply signifies deliverance (e.g., A bbott, 11–13; J . A. Robinson, 148; F. Büchsei,

“Xuco jctX.,” T D N T 4 [1967] 354 – 55; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings
[C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1967] 73–74; C aird, 36–37; Gnilka,
75). It is tru e th at often in th e ir LXX usage Xvrpovada 1 a n d its cognates retain
the sense o f release th ro u g h paying back. T his sense is also frequently clear
in th e nonbiblical usages o f d7roX67‫־‬pcoa19, am o n g which are references to the
m anum ission o f slaves which involved paym ent. In addition, Paul does speak
o f believers as having b een b o u g h t w ith a price in 1 C or 6:20; 7:23; an d he
uses th e verb e^ayopafav in Gal 3:13; 4:5, in which this idea is also present.
O n th e o th e r h an d , m any o f th e LXX usages o f th e re d em p tio n w ord -g ro u p
are references to deliverance from d a n g e r a n d especially deliverance from
Egyptian b o n dage a n d B abylonian exile w here no notion o f a ransom price
is involved. T h e use o f d 7roXurpcjat5 in LXX D an 4:34 does n o t contain this
idea, an d it w ould be n a tu ra l fo r Paul to see parallels betw een G od’s acts o f
liberation in th e O T an d his act o f liberation in C hrist a n d use this term in
th at sense. C ertainly som e o f the uses o f a 7roXurpcoa19 in th e N T re fe r to G od’s
final eschatological deliverance in C hrist w here notions o f a ransom p aym ent
are n o t p resen t an d have to be re ad into th e text (cf. Luke 21:28; R om 8:23;
an d th e o th e r two occurrences in E p h 1:14; 4:30). It is h a rd to decide this
issue, b u t it ap p ears to be overdogm atic to insist o n ransom connotations for
all uses o f a 7roXu7‫־‬pcoa19 in th e N T . It is safer to see these only w here they are
explicit in th e context. T h ey do n o t a p p e a r to be explicit in Col 1:14, which
lies b eh in d th e E phesian reference. As we have noted, in taking this u p , the
w riter has ad d ed a reference to C hrist’s blood, a n d som e see this as m aking
the ransom price connotations o f re d em p tio n clear. As elsew here in the N T ,
the blood o f C hrist signifies his violently taken life an d stands fo r his ato n in g
d eath (cf. J . B ehm , “alp a,’’ T D N T 1 [1964] 172– 76; L. M orris, The Apostolic
Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. [London: T yndale Press, 1965] 112– 28). Strictly
speaking, how ever, 51a rod at/uaro? avrov introduces a new m etap h o r from sacri-
fice, an d öta with th e genitive is n o t used to express cost b u t has in stru m en tal
force. T h e a u th o r o f E phesians has tied dow n G od’s deliverance o f his people
to C hrist’s w ork in history by m aking clear th a t th e m eans o f red em p tio n was
C hrist’s sacrificial death. T o be sure, th e addition o f this sacrificial im agery
shows the costly n a tu re o f re d em p tio n , b u t this is n o t the sam e as insisting
th at it was actually in ten d ed to signify th e ransom price.
T h e forgiveness o f trespasses is in apposition to “re d em p tio n th ro u g h his
blood” an d so depicts th e p rim ary way in w hich believers experience th eir
liberation at present. T hey can be assured o f the cancellation o f th eir offenses
against G od a n d thereby o f a re sto red relationship with him . a 0 ea 1s, “forgive-
ness,” is a term n o t fo u n d in th e u n d isp u ted Paulines, an d in d eed Paul does
n o t speak o f forgiveness as such (for an attem p ted explanation o f this cf.
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 499– 501). T o o m uch should n o t
be m ade o f this, how ever, since forgiveness is im plicit in two o f P aul’s m ajor
them es, justification an d reconciliation, a n d th e p h e n o m en o n should, th erefo re,
certainly n o t be m ade a basis fo r driving a w edge betw een Colossians a n d
E phesians, w here the concept does occur, a n d th e g enuine Paul. C onnected
with this discussion is th e fre q u e n t assertion th a t while th e genuine Paul speaks
o f sin as a pow er in th e singular, Ephesians speaks o f sinful deeds in the
 Comment 29

p lural (e.g., E rnst, 274). T h e dictum is only partially tru e, how ever. It is signfi -
cant th at the no tio n o f sin as a pow er o r force is m issing from Ephesians, b u t
m ention o f sins in th e plural is n o t lacking in th e g enuine letters o f Paul. It
can be fo u n d n o t only in his use o f traditional C hristian m aterial (cf. 1 C or
15:3; Gal 1:4; Rom 4:25) b u t also in his own form ulations (cf. Gal 3:19; Rom
5:16; 7:5; 1 C or 15:7; 2 C or 5:19). H ere in 1:7 th e p lu ral is 7rapa 7rrcbjL1a r a
ra th e r th an apaprtat, which is used in every o th e r N T reference to th e forgive-
ness o f sins, an d this term has th e connotation o f trespass, transgression, an d
act o f disobedience (contra B arth, 83– 84, it m akes no difference th a t G en-
tiles w ould n o t them selves have defined th eir actions with reference to G od’s
law).
/card to ttXovtos rffr xdptro? airrov 775 enepiooevoev d ? 77/iäs, “in accordance
with th e richness o f his grace which he lavished u p o n us.” T h e reference in
v 7a to th e p resen t benefit o f re d em p tio n which believers experience is fram ed
by th e m ention o f grace. W e have seen th e way in which grace was highlighted
in v 6 , an d now again th e recipients o f th e letter are n o t allowed to forget
th at th eir re d em p tio n is in accord with th e full scope o f G od’s grace. T h e
term s to 7tXoütos an d eneptooevoev with th eir connotations o f abundance an d
extravagance h elp to m ake this notion o f grace em phatic, while at the sam e
tim e leaving th e im pression th a t w ords fail in attem p tin g to describe th e inex-
haustible resources o f G od’s giving (cf. also 2:7 – tö imepßäXXov 7tXoütos rf )5
xdptro? airrov). F or the use o f nepiooevetv with the concept o f grace in Paul, cf.
2 C or 9:8; Rom 5:15, 20.
ev 1‫סז‬0‫ )ך‬ao0 tg /cat Qpovrioei, “with all wisdom an d insight.” G od’s lavish grace
n o t only provides re d em p tio n b u t also supplies, along with this, all necessary
wisdom an d insight to u n d ersta n d an d live in the light o f w hat he has done
in C hrist an d its im plications (elaborated in vv 9, 10). Reasons fo r taking this
phrase with w hat precedes ra th e r th a n as qualifying th e following participle
have been given above u n d e r Form!StructureISetting. T h e phrase is a variation
on th e language o f Col 1:9, ev 7rdaft ao0tg /cat ovveoei 7rvevpaTucf), which uses a
com m on LXX com bination (cf. Exod 31:3; 35:31; 1 C h r 22:12; 2 C h r 1:10–
12; Isa 11:2). H ere 0 pow7at 9 substitutes fo r the second p a rt an d is itself a
term which can be fo u n d in close association with ao0 ta in th e LXX (cf. Prov
1:2; 3:19; 8:1; 10:23; J e r 10:12; D an 2:21; 4 Macc 1:18). A ristotle (Eth. Nie.
6 .6 . 7 ) distinguishes ao0 ta as m ore general intellectual u n d ersta n d in g an d
0 p61>77<71s as related to m ore practical application, b u t in biblical G reek such a
distinction can n o t be m aintained a n d the term s function synonym ously. H ere
in E phesians we have n o ted th a t it is characteristic o f the w riter’s style to use
two o r m ore w ords o f sim ilar m ean in g w hen one w ould do, an d so it is likely
th at “wisdom a n d insight” constitute a hendiadys. 7raafl in this phrase is p a rt
o f the profuseness o f th e w riter’s style (cf. 1:3) b u t also, as did the ev 7raafl
ao0 tg o f Col 1:9, 28; 3:16, speaks to th e background o f syncretistic religious
interests c u rre n t in Asia M inor. Paul h ad re m in d ed the Colossians that, in
contrast to th e teaching infiltrating th e com m unity, which only h ad the “a p p e ar-
ance o f w isdom ” (2:23), all th e treasures o f wisdom an d know ledge w ere h id d en
in C hrist (2:3). T h e force o f E p h 1:8 is similar. W hatever wisdom o r insight
m ight be so ught o r m ight be on offer, th ere is no g enuine wisdom o r insight
th at is n o t included am ong G od’s gifts o f grace. A gain, ra th e r th an having to
30 Ephesians 1:3– 14

be achieved th ro u g h h u m a n effort, mystical technique, o r ascetic rigor, such

wisdom an d insight are available sim ply th ro u g h th e generosity o f G od’s grace.
9,10 T h ese verses, with th e th ird m ajor aorist participle at th e ir h ead
an d with th eir statem ent ab o u t th e m ystery o f G od’s will, constitute an im p o rtan t
an d m uch discussed p a rt o f th e eulogy. T o see th e ir m eaning it is essential to
recognize th e overall flow o f th e syntax before analyzing th eir individual com po-
nents. In p articu lar it should be recognized th a t th e long prepositional ex p res-
sion K ara ri\v evdoKiav . . . rcbv Kaipcbv qualifies th e aorist participle w ith its
notion o f m aking know n th e m ystery a n d th a t th e form ulation b eginning with
th e aorist m iddle infinitive dcpa/<e0 aXatdx7a a 0 at, which th e n follows, is ap p o si-
tional to a n d explanatory o f th e earlier 7 0 ‫ ־‬pvorr\p10v rod Q e\r\paro 5 a in o v. In
o th e r words, it is n o t until v 1 0 b, with th e th o u g h t o f th e sum m ing u p o f all
things in C hrist, th at the co n ten t o f th e m ystery o f G od’s will m en tio n ed in v
9a is expressed (cf. also Schlier, 62; Gnilka, 79; C aragounis, Mysterion, 95).
‫׳‬ypcoptaa? r\pw to pvarriptov rod deXrjparos avrov, “he has m ade know n to us
th e m ystery o f his will.” T h e re is a clear link with the last p a rt o f v 8 in th at
th e wisdom a n d insight believers have b een given have to do in large p a rt
with th e ability to u n d ersta n d th e m ystery o f G od’s will a n d this has b een
m ade possible from G od’s side because he has chosen to m ake it know n. A gainst
its Semitic back g ro und the term inology o f “m aking know n a m ystery” refers
to th e disclosure o f a form erly h id d en secret. H ow ever, even in its usage in
apocalyptic contexts, pvarriptov n eed n o t always be red u ced to th e notion o f a
m ere secret, b u t can also carry with it an echo o f its original force in connection
with th e G reek m ystery cults— th e connotation o f th e m ysterious, th a t which
is beyond o rd in ary h u m a n co m p reh en sio n (cf. C aragounis, Mysterion, 1– 34)
o r o f esoteric religious know ledge (cf. A. E. H arvey, “T h e Use o f M ystery
L anguage in th e Bible,” J T S 81 [1980] 320– 36). T h e usage o f pvorripiov in
LXX Daniel, w here it translates th e A ram aic H , räz, form s a m ajor aspect o f
its Semitic back g ro und (cf. D an 2:18, 19, 27– 30, 47) a n d provides som e parallels
with its use in E phesians, since in D aniel it refers to G od’s purpose, which is
a unified p lan with eschatological a n d cosmic dim ensions (cf. also C aragounis,
Mysterion, 134 – 35). “M ystery” occurs frequently in o th e r apocalyptic w ritings
(e.g., 2. Apoc. Bar. 81.4; 4 Ezra 14:5; 1 Enoch 51.3; 103.2; 104.10) a n d in the
Q u m ra n literatu re with th e term s ‫( רז‬rz), “m ystery,” an d ‫( ס ו ר‬swd), “m arvel,”
(e.g., lQ p H a b 7.4, 8 , 13; 1QM 3.8; 16.9; IQ S 3.21– 23; 4.18; 11.34; 1Q H 7.27;
10.4; 11.9, 16). In one place th ere is a p h rase which com es close to E phesians’
“m ystery o f his will”— ‫( ל רז י ח פ צ ן‬Irzy bp$w) “th e m ysteries o f his good p leasu re”
(1Q H F rag 3.7). In apocalyptic w ritings “m ystery” usually refers to an event
which will only be revealed at th e e n d o f history, alth o u g h since it is already
p re p are d in heaven th e seer can have know ledge o f it at p re sen t (e.g. 4 Ezra
14:5; 1 Enoch 9.6; 103.2). A t Q u m ra n , how ever, as h ere in E phesians, “m ystery”
can re fer to an event which has already been realized in the com m unity. In
IQ S 11.5– 8 , fo r exam ple, th e com m unity’s participation in th e angelic assembly
is seen as one o f G od’s m arvelous m ysteries (cf. also R. E. B row n, The Semitic
Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1968] 22– 29; H. W. K uhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil [Göttin-
gen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1966] 166– 75; Gnilka, 78).
Paul uses pvarriptov in a variety o f ways. It is fo u n d in the plural in 1 C or
 Comment 31

4:1; 13:2; 14:2, an d in th e singular, b u t with differing references, in 2 T hess

2:7; 1 C or 2:1 (w here th e m anuscript evidence is disputed); 2:7; 15:51; Rom
11:25; 16:25 (in all probability a later addition). In Colossians the use o f pvorripiov
to re fer to th e h e a rt o f P aul’s m essage, G od’s activity in C hrist (cf. 1 C or
2:7), becom es constant (cf. 1:26,27; 2:2; 4:3), an d it is this reference to the
eschatological fulfillm ent o f G od’s plan o f salvation in C hrist th at has influenced
the way th e w riter to the Ephesians speaks o f “m ystery” h ere an d in 3:3, 4, 9;
5:32 an d 6:19. 1:9, 10; 3:3 – 10; an d 5:32 all unfo ld different aspects o f the
one m ystery o f w hat G od has d one in C hrist. In th e various “m ystery” cults,
which w ould have been fam iliar to the recipients o f this letter, the com m on
characteristic was possession o f a secret o r o f secrets, which were m ade known
only to initiates, giving them great spiritual privileges unavailable to others
w ithout this know ledge. In the berakah o f E phesians th e w riter sees the C hristian
com m unity as a highly privileged g ro u p also. Believers can bless G od th at he
has disclosed his secret to th em an d th a t they have been given wisdom and
insight, an d yet this secret is one th at can be proclaim ed openly (6:19) and
one th at has a scope th a t goes far beyond the com m unity o r any exclusive
claims it m ight be tem p ted to m ake fo r itself, as 1:10b will indicate. (For fu rth e r
discussion o f pvorripiov an d its background see J. A. R obinson, 234– 40; G.
B ornkam m , “pvorripiDV,” T D N T 4 [1967] 802– 28; K. G. K uhn, “T h e Epistle
to the E phesians,” 118 – 19; J. C oppens, “ ‘M ystery’ in the T heology o f St.
Paul an d Its Parallels at Q u m ra n ,” Paul and Qumran, ed. J. M u rp h y-O ’C onnor
[London: C h ap m an, 1968] 132– 58; F. M ussner, “C ontributions,” 159– 63; R.
E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968]; C aragounis, Mysterion, esp. 1–34, 117–
35; A. E. H arvey, “T h e Use o f Mystery L anguage in the Bible,” J T S 81 [1980]
320– 36.)
Kara rr\v evdoidav avrov f!v 7rpoedero ev avrcp, “in accordance with his good
pleasure which he p u rp o se d in him (C hrist).” T his reaffirm s for G od’s activity
o f disclosing th e m ystery o f his will w hat v 5 h ad asserted o f his activity o f
pred estin atin g believers to adoption as sons an d d aughters, nam ely, th at such
activities are in line with G od’s sovereign a n d etern al purpose. OeXrjpa from
the previous clause in v 9 an d evSoida in this expression, in fact, re p eat the
term inology o f v 5, while npoedero fu rth e r reinforces the notio n o f G od’s plan
o r purpose. Some (e.g., Schlier, 62; Gnilka, 78) believe the 7rpo‫ ־‬prefix to have
tem poral force an d th erefo re the verb to re fer to G od’s p retem p o ral resolve
as in 1:4. No d o u b t 7rpoedero does re fer to G od’s etern al intent, b u t such a
m eaning has to be derived from contextual considerations ra th e r th a n the
form o f th e verb, as its use in Rom 1:13 indicates. G od’s carefully designed
strategy to m ake know n the m ystery, like th at m ystery itself, has always had
its focus in C hrist— ev airrcp.
eis otKOVopiav rov 7rX77pcopa70 9 ‫ ־‬r(bv Kcapcbv, “fo r the adm inistration o f the full-
ness o f tim e.” T h e pu rp o se o f G od to m ake know n the m ystery o f his will
em braces history an d its ordering. oiKOVopia can re fer to (1) the act o f adm inister-
ing, (2) th at which is adm inistered, an arran g e m e n t o r plan, an d (3) the office
o r role o f an ad m inistrator, a p erso n ’s stew ardship; it is often difficult to decide
which nu an ce is in view with a particular usage. In the G reek w orld oiKOVopia
was regularly used fo r G od’s o rd erin g an d adm inistration o f the universe.
32 E p h e s ia n s 1:3–14

H ere in 1:10 it also ap p ears to have th a t active force (cf. also 3:9), while
elsew here (cf. 3:2; 1 C or 4:1; 9:17; Col 1:25) it refers to P aul’s apostolic role
an d office. In th e Pauline corpus it is frequently used in close connection
with 1xv0TT\p10v (cf. 1 C or 4:1; Col 1:25– 27; E p h 3:2– 4, 9). L ater in patristic
writings otKOVopia was used to re fe r to th e divine plan o r econom y o f salvation
an d h ad close associations with covenant term inology (cf. J. R eum ann, “Oikono-
mia = ‘C o venant’: T erm s for Heilsgeschichte in Early C hristian U sage,” N o vT 3
[1959] 282– 92), b u t in re g ard to E p h 1:10 “o ne m ust be cautious h ere n o t to
read into oiKOVopia too m uch em phasis o n Heilsplan o r som e patristic plan o f
salvation sense” an d to stay with th e active m ean in g o f adm inistration o r o rd er-
ing (J. R eu m an n , “Oi/c01>0 f ia-T erm s in Paul in C om parison with L ucan Heilsges-
c h ic h te N T S 13 [1966– 67] 164; cf. also A bbott, 17; R obinson, 32; Schlier,
63; Gnilka, 79 n. 4; B arth, 8 6 – 8 8 ; contra W. Tooley, “Stewards o f God: A n
E xam ination o f th e T erm s O IK O N O M O Z a n d O IK O N O M IA in th e New
T estam en t,” SJT 19 [1966] 81, who sees oiKOvopia in E ph 1:10 as G od’s m aster
plan an d simply synonym ous with pvorriptov).
T h a t which is being adm inistered is, literally, th e fullness o f th e tim es (plural),
ot Kaipot refers to periods o f tim e a n d th e whole expression t o nXripcopa rcbv
Kaipcbv reflects th e view, fo u n d in som e apocalypses, o f a sequence o f periods
o f tim e u n d e r G od’s direction (cf. LXX D an 2:21; 4:37; T o b 14:5; 4 Ezra
4:37; 2 Apoc. Bar. 40.3; cf. also IQ S 4.18; 1QM 14.14; lQ p H a b 7.2, 13). t o
nXripojpa in p articu lar reflects th e notion th a t this sequence o f tim e will com e
to its climax, to its full m easure. In this way th e expression can be seen to
belong to th e C hristian eschatological term inology fo u n d elsew here in the
N T (e.g., M ark 1:15; J o h n 7:8; Acts 1:7; Gal 4:4; 1 T hess 5:1; 1 T im 6:15).
B arth ’s p arap h ra se “days o f fulfillm ent” (88–89) conveys som ething o f this
flavor, G od has o rd e red history in such a way th a t it culm inates in the achieve-
m en t o f his p u rp o se, as th e various eras o f history are crow ned a n d com pleted
by a climactic p o int at which the disclosure o f th e m ystery o f his will takes
place. T his in terp re tatio n is in sh arp contrast to th e highly unlikely view o f
L in d em an n (Aufhebung, 9 5–96), w ho claims th a t t o nXripojpa t l j v naipojv refers
n o t to th e clim ax o f history b u t to th e suspension o f tem p o ral categories, the
cessation o f tim e (see th e title o f his m o n o g rap h Die Aufhebung der Zeit). H e
asserts, w ithout providing evidence, th a t nXripGjpa refers to a p o in t beyond
tim e, and, o p eratin g with a sh arp distinction betw een xpwo? as “d u ra tio n o f
tim e” an d /caipo? as “point o f tim e” (a distinction w hich J. B arr, Biblical Words
for Time [L ondon: SCM, 1969] 44 has clearly show n n o t to hold), claims th at
the concept o f tim e a n d its d u ra tio n is o f no im portance fo r Ephesians. T his
is to ignore com pletely th e apocalyptic b ackgro und o f the term inology o f this
verse, its context in early C hristian eschatology, a n d th e continuity betw een
E phesians a n d P aul’s gospel.
avaK6(jx1Xa1cooaoda1 ra 7xäma ev rep Xpiarcp, ra em rot? ovpavw; /eat rd 67rt rffr
7 9 ?‫ & ז‬avrep, “to sum u p all things in C hrist, things in heaven a n d things on
ea rth in h im .” We now reach the m ain p o in t o f th e clause which begins with
yvcjptoas. T h e m ystery which has been disclosed to believers in accordance
with G od’s p u rp o se fo r history is his sum m ing u p o f all things in C hrist. It
m ust be rem em b ered th a t am/ce0 aXatdx7a a 0 at is derived from K€<j>aXa10v, no t
from /cc0 aXr7. neQaXaiov refers to th e m ain point, th e sum o r sum m ary (cf.
Acts 22:28; H eb 8:1), an d ära/ce 0 aXa 1oüa0a 1 has as its basic m eaning “to sum
 Comment 33

u p ” o r “to sum m arize.” It was often used in a rhetorical context to re fer to

sum m ing u p o r recapitulating an a rg u m e n t (cf. Q uintilian 6.1; Aristotle, Frag-
ments 123). Paul uses it with the sense o f “to sum u p ” in Rom 13:9 w here
love is th o u g h t o f as th e com prehensive com m and which integrates the others,
b ringing th em to g eth er u n d e r one focal point. In E p h 1:10 by analogy C hrist
exercises a sim ilar function with respect to th e cosmos. Since later in the
letter C hrist’s role in relation to th e cosmos is seen in term s o f headship
( 1 :2 2 ), m any have used this im agery fo r th eir exegesis o f 1 : 1 0 an d elucidation
o f ävaK€(j)ä\a16xjaodaL F or Schlier (65; idem , “Ke0 aX!7, dm/ce^aXatoo/nat,” T D N T
3 [1965] 681– 82) th e m eaning o f 1:10 involves th e subjection o f the cosmos
to C hrist as its h ead, while B arth (89– 92) translates th e verb as “to be com pre-
h en d ed u n d e r o ne h ea d .” T his p ro ced u re has rightly been criticized by J.
B arr, The Semantics of Biblical Language [O xford: U niversity Press, 1961] 237–
38 an d by M ussner, Christus, 65. It is bo th legitim ate a n d illum inating to place
the th o u g h t o f 1 : 1 0 in th e context o f th e whole letter an d link it with o th er
passages in which a relation betw een th e cosmos a n d C hrist is posited, b u t
this should be d o n e afte r 1 : 1 0 has b een exegeted o n its ow n term s. 1 : 1 0 th en
refers to th e sum m ing u p a n d b rin g in g to g eth er o f th e diverse elem ents o f
the cosmos in C hrist as th e focal point.
T h e concept o f “sum m ing u p ” involves recapitulation, as points already
m ade are d raw n to g eth er in a conclusion, a n d it is likely th a t this is som ething
o f th e force o f th e prefix cwa-, indicating a resto ration o f harm ony with C hrist
as th e p o in t o f re in teg ratio n (cf. also M ussner, Christus, 6 6 ). T h e sum m ing
u p o f all things in C hrist m eans the unifying o f th e cosmos o r its direction
tow ard a com m on goal. In line with this letter’s close links with Colossians, a
sim ilar th o u g h t ab o u t C hrist a n d th e cosmos h ad b een expressed in the Co-
lossians hym n in term s o f reconciliation a n d with explicit soteriological con-
notations (Col 1:20). B oth passages a p p e a r to p resuppose th at the cosmos
h ad been p lu n g ed into disintegration on account o f sin an d th at it is G od’s
p u rp o se to restore its original h arm ony in C hrist (cf. also M ussner, Christus,
66– 67; Gnilka, 80; pace C aird, 38). T h e notion o f recapitulation which
araKe0 aXauixjaa0a 1 involves was developed fu rth e r by th e church fathers: cf.
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.18.1; 5.29.2 (cf. also M cH ugh, “R econsideration,” 304–
7) an d O rigen, De Principiis 2.8.4 – 8 ; 3.6.6. F or a listing o f a variety o f the
interp retatio n s this verb has received in th e com m entaries, see S. H anson,
Unity, 123– 25. O nce again o u r ow n in terp re tatio n is in com plete disagreem ent
with th at o f L in d em an n (Aufhebung, 96– 97), who sees avaK€<t>a\a1GXJao0 a 1 as
related to th e Gnostic view o f entry into th e pleroma, a n d thus as a reference
to th e dissolution o f th e cosmos a n d an equivalent in cosmic term s to the
cessation o f tim e he believes is in view in th e earlier p a rt o f the verse. Such
an in terp re tatio n does n o t take seriously the letter’s close associations with
Colossians, lacks clear su p p o rtin g lexical evidence, a n d posits a total break
with P aul’s gospel with its h o p e o f th e re d em p tio n , n o t the dissolution, o f
the created o rd e r (cf. Rom 8:18– 23).
T h e divine p u rp o se is to sum u p all things ev Xparrcp. T h e ev am Q phrase
at th e en d o f th e verse afte r th e elaboration o f r a navra repeats this th ought.
Reasons fo r taking ev avr(& with this verse ra th e r th a n th e next have been
discussed u n d e r Form!Structure/ Setting above. T his th o u g h t could be taken in
a general in stru m en tal sense as “by m eans o f th e C hrist event,” o r it could be
34 E p h e s ia n s 1:3– 14

that, as with the use o f this ph rase o r its equivalent in 1:3, 4, 5, the m ore
specific notion o f re p resen tatio n is in view. C hrist sum s u p the cosmos as its
representative. G od achieves his p u rp o se fo r all things th ro u g h w hat he accom-
plishes in th e o ne person, C hrist (pace Gnilka, 80, it is precisely because C hrist
is n o t identical with the cosmos th a t it could be said th at it is sum m ed u p in
him o r th at he rep resen ts it; cf. also S. H anson, Unity, 125; L indem ann, Aufhe-
bung, 98). C hrist is the one in w hom G od chooses to sum u p the universe, in
w hom he restores th e h arm ony o f th e cosmos. Earlier, “in C hrist” has functioned
to indicate C hrist’s being the elect representative in w hom believers are included,
b u t now it can be seen th at G od’s com prehensive pu rp o se goes beyond simply
h um anity to em brace the whole created o rd er. T his p a rt o f the berakah helps
believers to recognize th at to be in co rp o rated into G od’s gracious decision
ab out C hrist is also to be cau g h t u p in G od’s gracious pu rp o se fo r a universe
cen tered an d re u n ite d in Christ.
T h e elaboration ra ewi rot? ovpavols Kai r a e7rt rf)? y f?? indicates th at we are
rig h t to take r ä 7ravra in its widest sense o f all things an d all beings, th at is,
th e cosmos as a whole an d n o t ju s t h um anity (pace Davies, Paul, 57; M itton,
Ephesians, 56–57). T his twofold division o f th e universe was com m on in Jew ish
th o u g h t w here created reality was seen as having two m ajor parts (cf. G en
1 : 1 ) an d w here heaven as th e u p p e r p a rt o f th e cosm os was re g ard e d as conceal-
ing a presently invisible created spiritual o rd e r (e.g., 2 Kgs 6:17; Jo b 1:6;
Zech 3:1). For fu rth e r discussion see th e com m ents above on “in the heavenly
realm s” (1:3). H ere r a e7ri rot? ovpavols is a som ew hat un u su al phrase, since
norm ally one expects ev ra th e r th a n e7rt w hen it is used (cf. Col 1:16, 20). Percy
(Probleme, 181 n. 7) holds th at th e ph rase has been influenced by the form ula
ev rot? e7rovpavio1<;, b u t it is m ore likely th a t C. F. D. M oule (Idiom-Book, 49) is
correct in th in k in g th at this “looks like a m erely stylistic variation” on the
p art o f this w riter. T h e “things in h eav en ” include the spiritual forces, both
good an d evil, which com pete for th e allegiance o f hum anity, an d th eir m ention
h ere particularly em phasizes th e point, which will be m ade explicitly in 1 :2 1 , 2 2 ,
th at no hostile heavenly pow er can thw art G od’s p u rp o se in C hrist.
W hen, according to these verses, is th e sum m ing u p o f all things said to
take place? T h e aorist tense o f th e infinitive cannot provide a definite answ er
at this p o in t (contra L indem ann, Aufhebung, 96). T h a t the m ystery has already
been disclosed to believers is also n o t in itself decisive (contra L indem ann,
Aufhebung, 99), fo r w hat has b een disclosed could be G od’s p u rp o se fo r the
fu tu re (cf. th e fu tu re co n ten t o f th e m ystery disclosed in Rom 11:25– 27).
Yet elsew here in Colossians a n d E phesians the co n ten t o f the m ystery does
re fer to a p re sen t reality (cf. Col 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3; E p h 3:3– 6; 3:9, 10; 5:32;
6:19). T his factor a n d th e general em phasis on “realized eschatology” in the
letter m ake it likely th at from th e w riter’s perspective the “sum m ing u p in
C hrist” has already taken place (cf. also S chnackenburg, 59–60). C ertainly he
sees believers as living in the climactic p erio d w hen G od is adm inistrating the
fullness o f tim e (contra M ussner, Christus, 6 8 , w ho sees this as still fu tu re an d
as a referen ce to th e Parousia). Elsew here in the letter it is C hrist’s exaltation
in p articu lar which is the focus fo r w hat G od has already d one as it affects
the cosmos (cf. 1:20–23; 2:6; 4 :8 – 10). S. H an so n (Unity, 126) sees th e unity o f
the cosmos achieved th ro u g h C hrist’s ato n in g w ork o n the cross. T his may
 Comment 35

be th e em phasis o f Colossians, b u t n o t o f Ephesians. In Ephesians, as a result

o f C hrist’s exaltation, G od has placed all things u n d e r C hrist’s feet an d m ade
him the h ead over all things (1:22) an d C hrist fills all things (1:23; 4:10),
an d these are notions which help one to u n d ersta n d m ore o f w hat is involved
in his sum m ing u p o f all things. T h u s, in the p erio d o f fulfillm ent, G od has
exalted C hrist to heaven as cosmic L ord, thereby en su rin g the inseparable
connection betw een heaven an d ea rth th at enables bo th things in heaven and
things on ea rth to be sum m ed u p in him . A gainst C aragounis (Mysterion, 144)
th ere is no n eed to play this dow n an d assert th at d 1‫׳‬a/ce0 aXatdxraa0 at “is essen-
tially a fu tu re concept.” It is tru e th a t th ere is a tension betw een “already”
an d “n o t yet” in E phesians in re g ard to C hrist’s rule over the powers (cf.
1:21 with 2:2 an d 6:12, an d cf. C aragounis, Mysterion, 145; Lincoln, Paradise,
166–68), yet h ere in th e eulogy, in the context o f w orship, the perspective is
one o f realized eschatology as the total com pletion o f G od’s p urpose is antici-
pated. T h e references to the co n ten t o f the m ystery later in the letter in 3:3–
10 also b ear o n th e w riter’s th o u g h t at this point. T h ey indicate, as we shall
see, th at in his view this cosmic sum m ing u p has a proleptic realization in
the C h u rch which unites Jew s an d Gentiles (cf. also Schlier, 65; Gnilka, 81;
R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968] 60).
T hese im p o rtan t verses show clearly th at for the w riter to the E phesians
G od’s p u rpose, focused in C hrist, em braces history a n d th e cosmos an d th at
in this way his m essage is in essential continuity with th e core o f P aul’s gospel
an d its C hristian eschatology (cf. J. C. B eker, Paul the Apostle [Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980] 11– 19; 135– 81; R idderbos, Paul, 44–57; Lincoln, Paradise,
169– 84). At th e sam e tim e it is highly likely th at the concerns o f the letter’s
recipients have influenced th e w riter’s form ulation o f the particular blessings
o f salvation m en tio n ed in vv 9, 10. In the related letter to the Colossians false
teachers h ad evidently offered esoteric know ledge gained th ro u g h ascetic techni-
ques an d visionary experiences. Any am ong the readers o f this letter who are
tem p ted to believe th at fullness o f salvation will m ean insight into m ysteries
are shown th a t th e m ystery o f G od’s will has already been m ade known. It is
n o t discovered by special techniques b u t is in accordance with G od’s good
pleasure. In stead o f presu p p o sin g a cosm ological dualism w here heaven an d
earth are two sep arated realm s a n d w here th e heavenly pow ers dom inate those
in the low er evil realm o f m atter, it involves the bringing to g eth er an d sum m ing
u p o f heaven a n d ea rth in C hrist. T hose who can see th at th ere is th erefo re
no aspect o f this universe which is outside the scope o f G od’s redem ptive
purpose, in which they too have b een included, are thereby given grounds
for overcom ing any sense o f weakness a n d insecurity in th e face o f hostile
cosmic powers.
1 1 ,1 2 ev £ xa i eKkripcodrinev, “in w hom we w ere also a p p o in ted .” Believers
are now explicitly related to the cosmic C hrist in w hom all things are sum m ed
up. It is th ro u g h being in this C hrist th a t G od’s choice has fallen on them .
KXripovv is a hapax legomenon in the N T an d literally m eans “to ap p o in t o r
choose by lot,” a n d so the passive has th e force o f “to be ap p o in ted by lot.”
In the papyri th e passive can simply m ean “to be destined, chosen” (cf. BAG
435). T h e cognate n o u n KXf}p0 5 is used in Col 1:12 w here God is said to have
36 E p h e s ia n s 1:3 – 14

qualified believers fo r a share in th e lot o f th e holy ones in light. In th e LXX

KXfjpos was em ployed in th e context o f th e division o f th e land by lot for
in h eritan ce (e.g., N um 26:55, 56) a n d also fo r th e individual Israelite’s lot o r
p o rtio n in general (cf. Prov 1:14; Wis 2:9; 5:5). T his latter notion is a fre q u e n t
one in Q u m ra n literatu re (e.g., IQ S 4.26; 11.7; 1QH 3.22). Also in th e LXX
Israel can be re fe rre d to as G od’s lot o r p o rtio n (e.g., D eut 9:29 with icXfjpos;
also D eut 32:8, 9 with nepis!). B ecause o f such associations o f the cognate n o u n ,
it has been suggested th at the verb h ere in E p h 1:11 should be re n d e re d “we
have been chosen as G od’s p o rtio n ,” i.e., assigned by G od him self as his ow n
lot (cf. J. A. R obinson, 34). T h e use o f KXfjpos in Colossians may well lie b eh in d
this use o f K kqpovv in Ephesians, b u t if so, it is th e m ore general reference o f
Kkfipo 5 as a p erso n ’s lot o r destiny th a t carries over. In Colossians G od qualifies
believers fo r a certain lot o r destiny; in Ephesians they have b een allotted a
destiny o r ap p o in ted by God. W hat th a t destiny is to be is expressed in v 12,
b u t before th at a n o th e r participial clause elaborates on eKkr}p 0jdr\pev.
irpoopiodevres K a ra 7rpbdeoiv r o v r a n ä v r a e v e p jo v v r o s K a ra rr!v ßovkfjv ro d
deX fip a ro s aurou, “having b een p re d estin ed in accordance with th e p lan o f him
who carries o u t all things according to th e p u rp o se o f his will.” W ith th e use
o f two prepositional phrases b eginning with K a ra an d a genitive construction
linking two synonym ous nouns, this clause heavily underlines th at believers’
ap p o in tm en t in C hrist to th eir destiny is p a rt o f G od’s sovereign purp o se. It
repeats th e earlier em phasis on pred estin atio n a n d th e divine will (cf. v 5
an d the com m ents above on 7rpooptfeu>and 0 eX77/ua). H ere this notion is reinforced
with th e additional n o uns 7rpo0e(71s (cf. irpoedero v 9 a n d R om 8:28; 9:11 w here
7rp60ea19 is also used in the context o f election) a n d (SouXtj (signifying “p u rp o se ”
in th e sense o f “decisive resolve”) a n d with th e description o f G od as th e one
who carries o u t o r works all things according to his own will (cf. 1 C or 12:6;
Rom 8:28). G od’s unconditional freed o m is affirm ed, for w hatever he has
p u rp o sed is sure to be fulfilled.
eis rb eivai r\pa<$ eis enaivov 60£75 ‫ ל‬avrov, “in o rd e r th at we m ight be fo r th e
praise o f his glory,” expresses w hat G od has p u rp o se d fo r believers, a n d is to
be linked with eKkqpojOr^pev ra th e r th a n with the participle 7rpoopwdevres. As
in v 4 th e p u rp o se o f G od’s choice is th a t believers be holy a n d blam eless
before, him in love, an d as in vv 5, 6 the p u rp o se o f his pred estin atio n is th a t
believers be in relationship with him self an d to th e praise o f th e glory o f his
grace, so in vv 1 1 , 1 2 the p u rp o se o f his ap p o in tin g is th at they be to the
praise o f his glory. G od’s p u rp o se in choosing Israel h ad been expressed in
sim ilar term s, an d the notion o f G od’s acting fo r th e sake o f his nam e an d
his glory was an integral p a rt o f O T th in k in g (e.g., Isa 43:7, 21; 48:9– 11; J e r
13:11; cf. also D reyfus, “P o u r la louange. . . ,” 233– 48). Now this is said
with re g ard to th e p u rp o se a n d destiny o f th e C hurch. In the final analysis
G od’s w orking o u t o f his p u rp o se serves his ow n glorification an d th e believing
com m unity exists to fu rth e r th at end. T h e praise o f G od’s glory is the goal
o f its whole existence, no t m erely o f its cultic w orship.
r o v s nporjXm KÖras ev rep XpvorCp , “w ho have already h o p ed in C hrist.” As
the full translation indicates, this ph rase is to be taken in apposition to r\pm?
earlier in th e verse, so th at those whose goal is th e praise o f G od’s glory are
now fu rth e r described as those w ho have already h o p ed in C hrist, ev rep X pvorep
 Comment 37

denotes th e object o f th eir h ope (cf. also 1 C or 15:19) ra th e r th a n th at C hrist

is the one in w hom those who h ope exist {contra Schlier, 6 8 , followed by Ja n k o w-
ski, “L ’esp eran ce,” 478– 79). M any arg u e th at this elaboration on tJ/luz? introduces
a narrow ing o f its scope an d is a reference to Jew ish C hristians (cf. Abbott,
21; J . A. Robinson, 34– 35; M aurer, E v T 11 [1951– 52] 166– 67; Schlier, 6 6 –
6 8 ; C outts, N T S 3 [1956– 57] 120; L yonnet, “La benediction,” 349; B arth, 92,
130– 33; E rnst, 279; C aird, 40; M itton, 57; M ussner, 49– 50; Jankow ski, “L ’esper-
ance,” 475– 81). O n this in terp re tatio n th e prefix 7rpo- in nporjkmKÖTas is said
to indicate eith er th at as Jew s they h o p ed in th e M essiah before his com ing
or th at as Jew ish C hristians they h o p ed in C hrist before th e Gentiles. B ut u p
to this p o in t th e berakah has been concerned with th e whole com m unity; “we”
an d “us” re fer to all believers. It is unlikely eith er th a t at this point th ere is a
su d d en change o f perspective back to a p re-C hristian p erio d with a reference
to Israel’s m essianic expectations o r th a t th ere is a su d d en change o f reference
so th at th e first person plural p ro n o u n is now restricted to only one particular
g ro u p o f believers, Jew ish C hristians. E verything said in vv 11, 12 about believ-
ers’ ap p o in tm en t to be fo r the praise o f G od’s glory an d about th eir predestina-
tion is equally ap p ro p riate for Jew ish an d G entile believers (cf. also Dahl, TZ
7 [1951] 259– 60; Percy, Probleme, 266 n. 16; C am bier, Z N W 54 [1936] 91–
95; K räm er, Wort and Dienst 9 [1967] 4 1 ,4 5 ; Gnilka; 82; L indem ann, Aufhebung,
99; S chnackenburg, 63). So it is believers in general who are said to have
h o p ed in Christ.
7rpoeX7rifeu> is a hapax legomenon in th e N T . In co m p o u n d verbs the 7rpo-
prefix usually stresses th e notion o f “ah ead o f tim e” o r “b efo reh an d ,” b u t
w hen jo in ed to eXm^etv it can simply reinforce th e idea already p resen t in the
m eaning o f th e sim ple form o f th e verb (cf. Posidippus 27.8; D exippus Hist.
32; Gal. 16.822). In o u r translation th e “already” is m ean t to convey som ething
o f this stren g th en in g o f the idea o f hope. H alter (Taufe und Ethos, 229, 623
n. 13) relates th e 7rpo- prefix to th e preexistence o f th e C hurch. In th at the
C hurch was p reexistent it h o p ed ah ead o f tim e. B ut this in terp re tatio n stretches
alm ost to b reaking p o in t a notion which we have already seen to be highly
d isputed (see com m ents on v 4). T h e perfect tense o f th e participle suggests
a com pleted action, the results o f which still continue. T his w ould add to the
case against any reference to Jew ish h o p e in th e M essiah before his com ing.
It may well be th at a com parison with Colossians sheds light on the w riter’s
form ulation here, since E p h 1:12, 13 look very m uch like a rew orking o f Col
1:5. As in th e case o f KX7}p0 9 , w here Colossians has the n o u n (eX7rt5 ), Ephesians
has th e verbal form , an d instead o f th e 7rpo- prefix going with aaoveiv (cf. Col
1:5 with E p h 1:13) it has been shifted to go with this verbal form . Instead o f
the com m unity being said, as in Colossians, to have already h ea rd about the
hope, h ere it is said to have already hoped. T h e use o f this verb is significant
for th e w riter’s eschatological perspective. For, by definition, “h o p e ” (cf. also
1:18; 4:4) indicates som e eschatological reserve despite o th e r expressions o f
realized eschatology in the berakah (cf. Gnilka, 84, contra L indem ann, Aufhebung,
1 0 0 – 1 0 1 , who by a ten d en tio u s exegesis argues th a t those who have h o p ed
are no longer those w ho h o p e an d thus ignores the force o f the perfect tense
o f the participle).
1 3 ,1 4 ev Kai upeZ?, “you also are in h im .” Literally the G reek should be
38 E p h e s ia n s 1:3 – 14

translated “in him you also . . . ” a n d be com pleted by “w ere sealed” at the
en d o f v 13. O n this anacoluthon in the G reek see Notes above. W ith the
Ujitel? v 13 introduces a change in th e personal p ro n o u n . T hose w ho in te rp re t
“we” in v 12 as Jew ish C hristians take “you” h ere as a contrasting reference
to G entile C hristians. H ow ever, th e Jew /G en tile them e does n o t becom e p a rt
o f th e w riter’s discussion until 2:11 a n d even th e n in 2:11– 3:21 “we” is used
o f all believers, Jew s an d Gentiles, n o t ju s t o f Jew ish C hristians. T h e p roposed
distinction betw een “we” as Jew ish C hristians an d “you” as G entile C hristians
is one th a t simply does n o t hold fo r th e rest o f the letter. In fact the re tu rn
to th e first p erso n plural in v 14 tells overw helm ingly against such a proposal.
“O u r in h eritan ce” is th at o f all believers, n o t least o f those who have ju s t
been described as having b een sealed with the Holy Spirit, an d is n o t ju s t the
in h eritan ce o f Jew ish believers. A gain, in 1:15– 23 the second p erson plural
in vv 15 – 18 shifts to the first p erso n p lu ral in v 19 b u t it w ould be extrem ely
h ard to see any Jew /G en tile distinction as rem otely envisaged in such a variation.
T h ese variations in usage also m ake it unlikely th a t the distinction betw een
“we” in v 12 a n d “you” in v 13 is one betw een first- an d second-generation
believers (contra M itton, 57). It is fa r m ore likely th a t the “you” in v 13 m arks
the p o in t at which the letter’s recipients are addressed an d explicitly draw n
into th e blessing offered by believers in general as they are rem in d ed o f th eir
reception o f th e gospel (cf. also Dahl, TZ 7 [1951] 259–60; Gnilka, 62, 84;
L indem ann, Aufhebung, 101; H alter, Taufe und Ethos, 229, Jay n e, ExpTim 85
[1974] 151–52). T h e w riter m akes a distinction betw een believers in general
an d his p re sen t audience, an d yet is saying th a t the sam e blessings have com e
u p o n b o th groups. T his does n o t necessitate th e hypothesis th a t his p re sen t
readers are newly baptized (contra W ilson, “ 4W e’ a n d ‘Y ou,’ ” 676–80). W hat
has h a p p e n e d is simply th at th e m ore general liturgical style has shaded over
into address to th e readers. T h e sam e p h en o m en o n with a change in the
p erson o f th e p ro n o u n can be fo u n d in th e blessing in 1 Pet 1:3–9.
a K O V o a v r e s t o p \ o y o v rffc äXrjöeia?, t o e v a y y e k io v rfft o o r r ^ p i a ^ vpCbv, “having
h ea rd the w ord o f tru th , the good news o f your salvation.” T h e language o f
this clause is very sim ilar to th at o f Col 1:5. T h e re the Colossians are said to
have h ea rd ab o u t th eir h o p e in th e w ord o f tru th , the gospel. H ere “th e w ord
o f tru th ” has becom e the direct object o f aicoveiv, from which the 7rpo- prefix
has been d ro p p e d , a n d to e v a y y e k io v , which is in apposition in both verses,
has b een ad d ed 7 fft acj 777pta 9 vpcbv. T his form ulation takes u p th e n atu ra l
term inology o f the early C hristian m ission in re g ard to “h earin g the w ord”
(cf. Rom 10:14 – 17; Acts 2:37; 13:7, 44; 19:10). H ere th e m essage is designated
as “the w ord o f tru th ,” a term w hich continues P aul’s em phasis on his apostolic
gospel as tru th (e.g., Gal 2:5, 14; 5:7; 2 C or 4:2; 6:7; Col 1:5). In Paul the
gospel can also be called “w ord o f the L o rd ” (1 T hess 1:8; 2 T hess 3:1),
“w ord o f G od” (1 T hess 2:13; 1 C or 14:36), “w ord o f C hrist” (Col 3:16), “w ord
o f life” (Phil 2:16), o r “w ord o f reconciliation” (2 C or 5:19). “W ord o f tru th ”
focuses o n th e apostolic gospel as revealing th e reality o f G od’s saving p u rp o se
an d h u m an ity ’s place in it, as providing access to the tru th , an d as having
tru th as its co n ten t (cf. also 4:14, 15, 21; fo r parallels to the Q u m ra n literatu re
w here tru th is seen as divine revelation a n d correct teaching, see J. M u rp h y-
O ’C o nnor, “T ru th : Paul an d Q u m ra n ,” Paul and Qumran, 179– 230). T h e tru th
 Comment 39

o f this apostolic m essage is shown in w hat it accom plishes, fo r it is the m essage

which has effected the re a d e r’s salvation— “the good news o f your salvation”
(cf. the referen ce to th eir having been saved in 2:5, 8 a n d to C hrist as Savior
in 5:23; cf. also Rom 1:16; 1 C or 1:18). T h e good news effects a rescue operation,
a deliverance from spiritual death, from G od’s w rath, from bondage to evil
powers, sin an d th e flesh (cf. 2:1– 3).
ev (b Kai m orew avres eo^payioOryre rep TTvevpaTi tt)<; eTTayyehia<; rep ayicp, “in
him also, w hen you believed, you w ere sealed with th e prom ised Holy Spirit.”
O ne is d e p e n d e n t on context in d eterm in in g the tem poral relationship o f
the action o f an aorist participle to th at o f th e m ain verb. H ere the aorist
participle morevaavTes refers to an action coincident in tim e with th at o f the
m ain verb eo^payiodqre (cf. also Acts 19:2: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit
w hen you believed [7r1areuaa 1>res]?”; cf. B ruce, 36; J. D. G. D unn, Baptism in
the Holy Spirit [London: SCM, 1970] 158– 59). As regards acceptance o f the
C hristian gospel, believing can be seen to be the vital link betw een hearing
the w ord an d receiving the Spirit. W hen they believed, the readers o f this
epistle were sealed with the Spirit. C attle an d slaves w ere b ra n d ed with their
ow ner’s seal, an d so th e seal was a m ark o f ow nership an d o f preservation as
the ow ner’s p roperty. In the O T G od can be said to set a sign on his elect to
distinguish th em as his own an d protect th em from destruction (cf. Ezek 9:4–
6 ). T h e seal also has this significance in 4 Ezra 6:5 an d Rev 7:1– 8; 9:4. So
believers’ reception o f the Spirit is the sign th at they belong to God in a special
sense an d have been stam ped with the character o f th eir ow ner. T hey belong
to him now, b u t they are also protected until he takes com plete possession o f
them (cf. v 14). T h e Spirit is an eschatological seal who m arks believers out
as a people w ho will be protected th ro u g h the testings, the battles, an d the
sufferings o f th e e n d-tim e, which are already u p o n them (cf. 6:10– 18). As
4:30 will assert, in the Spirit believers “w ere sealed for the day o f re d em p tio n .”
T h e term inology o f “sealing” (v 13) an d “g u aran tee” (v 14) in connection
with th e Spirit has been taken from Paul in 2 C or 1:22.
B ut to w hat precise aspect o f the re ad ers’ experience does the im agery o f
“sealing” correspond? Some w riters arg u e th at it is a reference to the read ers’
baptism (cf. Kirby, Ephesians, 153–54; H oulden , 270; Gnilka, 85; Ernst, 280–
81; Schille, Hymnen, 69; H alter, Taufe und, Ethos, 230) b u t others dispute any
reference to this sacram ent (cf. A bbott, 22; J. D. G. D unn, Baptism in the Holy
Spirit, 160). Schlier (69– 70) holds th at the “sealing” is specifically the laying
on o f han d s at baptism for th e giving o f th e Spirit, an d older w riters som etim es
saw a reference to the laying on o f hands in th e rite o f confirm ation; b u t for
a convincing re fu tatio n o f this identification, see G. W. H. Lam pe, The Seal of
the Spirit (London: L ongm ans, G reen an d Co., 1951) 3– 18, 64– 94. M ore can
be said in favor o f the baptism al reference. It is arg u ed th at reception o f the
Spirit was norm ally associated with w ater baptism in the early C hristian m ission
(cf. Acts 2:37– 39; 8:12– 17; 19:5, 6 ), a n d in addition th at the term “seal” was
used b oth o f circum cision an d its C hristian co u n terp art, baptism . In Rom
4:11 Paul links A b raham ’s circum cision with th e function o f a seal an d in
Barn. 9.6 the term “seal” is used o f circum cision, as it is in some later rabbinic
writings (e.g., Ber. 7.13, cf. Str-B 3:495; 4:31– 33). In the post-apostolic
writings baptism is also called a “seal” (cf. 2 Clem. 7.6; 8 .6 ; H e rm . Sim. 8.6.3;
40 E p h e s ia n s 1 :3 – 14

9.16.3– 6; 9.17.4; Acts of Thomas 131). F rom this evidence it is a short step to
the assertion that, since baptism replaces circum cision for th e C hristian com m u-
nity (cf. Col 2:11), it is likely th at already in th e N T the language o f “sealing”
w ould be taken as a reference to baptism . B ut th e re are weaknesses in such a
line o f arg u m en t. It is tru e th a t recep tio n o f th e Spirit was associated with
baptism , b u t it does n o t follow from this th a t th e two can be identified. T h e
evidence fo r explicit identification o f circum cision in general with a seal an d
o f baptism with a seal com es from th e second century an d has to be read
back into th e N T . Finally, th e assum ption on which th e evidence is often
read back, nam ely, th a t in the analogy betw een circum cision a n d baptism in
Col 2:11 the m ean ing o f th e two rites is identical so th at th e latter replaces
the form er, is a dubious one. Som e correlation is m ade betw een th e two, b u t
they are by no m eans equ ated (cf. Lohse, Colossians, 102; M artin, Colossians,
81– 83). It seems m ore likely th a t “sealing” in this verse is a reference to the
actual recep tio n o f the Spirit o n th e p a rt o f the readers, a distinguishable
event fo r th e early C hristians, since it was usually accom panied by observable
p h en o m en a (e.g., Acts 8:17, 18; 10:44–46; 19:6). T o be sure, this was closely
associated with w ater baptism , b u t as C aird (41) observes, “we m ust n o t con-
fuse th e occasion with the event.” T h e “seal o f th e S pirit” is th erefo re baptism
o f the Spirit, to which in the conversion-initiation process baptism in w ater
was th e reverse side o f the coin, an expression o f th e faith to which G od
gives the Spirit (cf. also B arth, 143; G. W. H . L am pe, The Seal of the Spirit
[London: L ongm ans, G reen a n d Go., 1951] 5; G. R. Beasley-M urray, Baptism
in the New Testament [London: M acm illan, 1962] 174).
T h e Spirit by w hom believers are sealed is called, literally, “th e Holy Spirit
o f prom ise.” T his could m ean, in line with v 14, th at he is th e Spirit who is
full o f th e prom ise o f things to com e. It is m ore likely, how ever, to be a
Semitism (cf. M oule, Idiom-Book, 175) designating th e Spirit as th e Spirit p ro m-
ised in th e Scriptures (cf. Gal 3:14 w here th e Spirit is seen as the fulfillm ent
o f the prom ise to A braham , also Acts 2:17 which takes u p the prom ise o f
Jo el 2:28–32). T his constitutes th e first explicit m ention o f the Spirit in the
letter. B eing sealed by the Spirit is a specific blessing for which G od is to be
blessed, yet at th e sam e tim e, as v 3 has indicated, th ere is a sense in which all
the blessings o f th e eulogy can be attrib u ted to th e Spirit, since they are “spiri-
tu al” blessings.
6 5 eoriv äppaßcov 7 5 (7‫ ־‬Kkqpovopia5 r!pcov9“which is th e g u aran tee o f o u r in h e ri-
tance.” äppaßcov is a loanw ord from th e H ebrew ] ‫ ע ר בו‬, ceräbön (cf. G en 38:17–
2 0 w here it occurs th ree tim es an d is usually tran slated as a “pledge”), an d in
Hellenistic G reek becam e th e ordinary com m ercial term for a dow n paym ent
o r first installm ent. Paul uses th e term as a m e ta p h o r to show w hat takes
place in G od’s giving o f the Spirit in 2 C or 1:22; 5:5. In a dow n paym ent,
th at which is given is p a rt o f a g re ater whole, is o f the sam e kind as th at
whole, an d functions as a g u aran tee th a t th e whole paym ent will be forthcom ing.
T h e Spirit th e n is th e first installm ent a n d g u aran tee o f the salvation o f the
age to com e with its m ode o f existence totally d eterm in e d by the Spirit. In
th e context o f 2 C or 5:5 th e com plete inheritance g u aran teed for th e believer
by his o r h e r p resen t experience o f th e Spirit is th e spiritual resurrection
body (cf. also 1 C or 15:44). T h e use o f the m e ta p h o r by the w riter to the
 Comment 41

E phesians indicates a m aintenance o f th e Pauline “already /n o t yet” eschatologi-

cal tension. T h e Spirit is seen as th e pow er o f the age to com e given ahead
o f tim e in history, b u t as still only the beginning a n d g u aran tee o f the full
salvation o f th at age which is yet to com e. In v 14 it is th e notion o f “in h eritan ce”
which conveys th e com pletion o f salvation in th e fu tu re. “In h e rita n ce” term in o l-
ogy is fam iliar from th e u n d isp u ted Paulines (cf. Gal 3:18, 29; 4:1, 7, 30; 5:21;
1 C or 6:9, 10; 15:50; R om 4:13, 14; 8:17; also J. D. H ester, P auls Concept of
Inheritance [E dinburgh: O liver an d Boyd, 1961]). F u rth erm o re, in Galatians
it is linked with th e Spirit as believers are seen as the offspring o f A braham ,
those who have com e into his inheritance by prom ise, an d this is witnessed
by th eir experience o f the Spirit (3:14, 18). H ere in E phesians the Spirit is
the g u aran tee o f th e inheritance th a t awaits believers as m em bers o f G od’s
family, as his sons a n d d au g h ters (cf. v 5). Some have claim ed th at the use o f
the term Kkqpovoyia in this way constitutes a m ajor difference betw een the
au th o r o f E phesians a n d Paul, a n d th at w hereas in Paul the inheritance is
som ething prom ised in the past w hich is fulfilled in th e present, in E phesians
it rem ains fu tu re (cf. also 1:18, 5:5; H am m er, JB L 79 [1960] 267– 72; Gnilka,
8 6 ). T h e re ap p ears to be little value to such a claim. It bases too m uch on
the use o f a single term , the actual n o u n Kkripovofiia, an d dep en d s on Colossians
also being n o n -Pauline, since Col 3:24 uses the term with a fu tu re reference.
B ut as soon as o ne broadens th e sem antic field to include cognate words such
as the verb Kkr\povo1xeu> an d th e n o u n Kkripovoixos, a different picture em erges
with bo th p resen t an d fu tu re aspects o f inheritance being fo u n d in Paul. Gal
5:21 qnd 1 C or 6:9, 10 are clearly fu tu re references a n d n o t to be discounted
simply because Paul m akes use o f traditional form ulations (cf. also D enton,
EvQ 54 [1982] 157– 62). It ap pears also to be a contradictory use o f eschatological
m aterial to claim, on th e one h an d , th a t E phesians is n o n -Pauline because it
uses this term with a fu tu re reference, while in Paul it has a p resen t one,
and, on th e o th er han d , th a t it is n o n -Pauline because o f its stress elsew here
on th e p resen t aspect o f eschatology, while Paul is o rien ted to the fu tu re (e.g.,
the use o f “resu rrectio n ” term inology in 2:6). As vv 13, 14 clearly show, both
sides o f th e eschatological tension are p re sen t in E phesians as they are in
Paul.
eis awoXvrpoxHP rfft 7rept7rotr?aeco5 , “vouching fo r G od’s red em p tio n o f his
possession.” T his interpretative translation dep en d s on decisions which have
to be taken ab o u t th e m eaning o f the G reek, which literally re n d e re d w ould
be “fo r re d em p tio n o f the possession.” rsv (“u ntil we acquire possession o f
it”) an d n e b (“u n til G od has red eem ed w hat is his ow n”) both take et? in a
tem poral sense, b u t illustrate the m ajor alternatives. Does 7rep17rotT70x9, “posses-
sion,” re fer to believers’ possession o f prom ised blessings (Abbott, 23–24;
Schlier, 72) o r to G od’s possession o f believers (Robinson, 147– 49; C am bier,
Z N W 54 [1963] 96– 97; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings [C am bridge:
C am bridge University Press, 1967] 74– 75; H o u ld en , 271; Gnilka, 86– 87;
I. H. M arshall, “T h e D evelopm ent o f the C oncept o f R edem ption in the New
T estam en t,” Reconciliation and Hope, ed. R. J. Banks [Exeter: P atern o ster Press,
1974] 161– 62)? T h e latter is m ore likely. Elsew here in the N T d 7roXurpcoat9 is
always an act o f God. H ere too he is th e m ost likely ag en t o f red em p tio n an d
th erefo re also th e subject o f “possession.” G od’s people as the object o f his
42 E p h e s ia n s 1:3 – 14

possession is a com m on O T th em e (cf. Exod 19:5; D eut 14:2; 26:18; Mai

3:17) an d is fo u n d elsew here in th e N T in Acts 20:28 a n d 1 Pet 2:9. For
discussion o f th e concept o f “re d e m p tio n ” see th e com m ents on v 7. H e re in
1:14 an d in 4:30 re d em p tio n has a fu tu re reference, while in 1:7 it was treated
as a p resen t possession o f believers. In relation to the rest o f th e sentence ets
in this p h rase should be seen as indicating th e goal ra th e r th a n as having a
purely tem p o ral sense. T h e Spirit functions as th e g u aran tee o f believers’ in h e ri-
tance, looking tow ard o r vouching fo r G od’s full re d em p tio n o f th a t for which
he has m ade this dow n paym ent. Final deliverance by G od m eans his taking
full an d com plete possession o f those w ho have already becom e his.
et? enaivov rris 86%775 avrov, “to th e praise o f his glory.” T h e w riter has specifi -
cally draw n th e recipients o f th e letter into his blessing o f G od in vv 13, 14
b u t in do in g so has n o t totally digressed from his berakah. T his final phrase, a
variation on those preceding in 1 :6 , 1 2 , reaffirm s th e liturgical character o f
1:3 – 14 as a whole. It is loosely connected to w hat has gone before in v 14,
suggesting b o th th a t in com pleting re d em p tio n , by taking possession o f his
people, G od’s glory is praised, a n d th a t th e prospect o f such a consum m ation
o f his p u rp o se should call fo rth a response o f praise o n the p a rt o f his creatures
now.
Explanation
U sing a form o f praise ro o ted in Jew ish w orship (the berakah) a n d a language
an d style which suggest the im pact o f th e H ebrew psalm s an d Q u m ra n hym ns
on Hellenistic Ju d aism , th e w riter introduces his them e in the letter with a
eulogy. In o n e long sentence o f liturgical prose he blesses G od for all th e
blessings G od has show ered u p o n his people.
T h e sentence begins with a general them atic statem ent (v 3), which links
these blessings to th e presence a n d w ork o f th e Spirit a n d to th e heavenly
dim ension, a n d indicates th a t they com e to believers th ro u g h th eir incorporation
into Christ. T h e blessings o f salvation are th e n elaborated (vv 4 – 14) an d im m edi-
ately tied closely to G od’s electing p u rp o se fo r an d gracious choice o f his
people. T his is a choice w hich, because it was m ade before th e foundation, o f
th e world, provides assurance th a t salvation is n o t d e p e n d e n t on tem poral
contingencies. It is also a choice w hich has as its goal the form ation o f a people
characterized by holiness an d love. G od is to be blessed because in his choice
o f a people he p red estin ed th em fo r an intim ate relationship with him self as
his sons an d d au g h ters a n d because in his beloved Son he has highly favored
th em with his grace. T h ro u g h th e generosity o f th a t grace believers now ex p e ri-
ence in C hrist deliverance a n d forgiveness, a n d receive the wisdom a n d insight
th at they need. T h ey are privileged, because G od has revealed to th em th at
his o rd e rin g o f history focuses in C hrist a n d involves th e b rin g in g to g eth er
o f everything in th e universe into a state o f harm o n y in C hrist. T h e eulogy
th en again relates believers, as those w ho have h o p ed ah ead o f tim e, to this
cosmic C hrist a n d to G od’s sovereign pu rp o se, which issues in th e praise o f
his own glory. Finally it draw s th e addressees m ore explicitly into its blessing
by rem in d in g th em o f bo th th eir reception o f the gospel m essage an d th eir
reception o f th e Spirit as the g u aran tee o f th e final deliverance in which G od
will take com plete possession o f his people.
 Explanation 43

Such a b are sum m ary o f the contents does n o t begin to indicate the im pact
o f th e language o f this passage o r the intricate interw eaving o f its them es. In
one sense th e language is exalted an d extravagant an d yet, in an o th er, the
very rep etitio n o f phrases reveals its poverty an d inadequacy to do justice to
its subject—salvation on the g randest scale an d broadest canvas. T h e flow o f
th o u g h t spans past, present, an d fu tu re , an d its reflection on G od’s activity
can be seen to have a trin itarian content. T h e blessings o f salvation are related
to the p retem p o ral (“b efore th e fo u n d atio n o f the w orld,” v 4), to the past
(what God has d o n e in C hrist, v 3, 7; an d the believer’s past ap p ro p riatio n o f
this, vv 13, 14), to the presen t (the c u rre n t enjoym ent o f red em p tio n and
forgiveness, v 7), to th e fu tu re (the believer’s inheritance which coincides with
G od’s com plete possession o f his people, v 14), a n d to the overlap betw een
the p resen t an d th e fu tu re (as this is reflected in the sum m ing u p o f all things
in Christ, v 10, an d the experience o f the Spirit as a g uarantee, v 14). T h e
trin itarian p a tte rn o f th o u g h t is reflected in G od the F ather, as the origin o f
every blessing an d th e one who chooses his people, C hrist, as the beloved
Son in an d th ro u g h w hom th e blessings are m ediated an d the one to whom
red em p tio n b o th o n the personal an d on the cosmic level is m ost closely related,
an d the Spirit, as stam ping his character on th e blessings (they are “spiritual,”
v 3) an d as being th e one who m arks G od’s ow nership an d serves as the guarantee
o f the fulfillm ent o f his purpose.
A lthough a “trin ita rian ” elem ent can be discerned, w hat em erges m ore clearly
from th e co n centration o f the language in th e passage is an em phasis on
G od’s p u rp o se o r will (vv 4, 5, 9, 11), on th e praise o f his glory (vv 6 , 12, 14),
on “in C hrist” (vv 3, 4, 6 , 7, 9, 10 [twice], 11, 12, 13 [twice]), an d on “us”/ “we”
(vv 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8 , 9, 11, 12, 14). G od as the origin o r goal o f salvation, C hrist
as its m ediator, an d believers as its recipients—these them es give the passage
a th reefo ld theocentric, C hristological, a n d ecclesiological focus. G od’s sovereign
will, initiating an d w orking o u t salvation for his people an d for all things in
the person an d th ro u g h th e agency o f C hrist an d to the praise o f his own
glory, captures th e m ajor th ru st o f th a t which fills th e w riter’s th oughts and
causes him to bless God. T h e Christological focus m arks off this berakah from
its Jew ish co u n terparts. C hrist’s central place m eans th at G od’s pretem p o ral
pu rp o se focused in him an d th at he spans th e outw orkings o f th at p urpose
in history. In him G od’s blessings fo r his people an d for the cosmos have
already been realized; in him these blessings provide a p resen t salvation; an d
in him they contain th e assurance o f fu tu re consum m ation. Yet for all the
centrality o f C hrist’s m ediation, his w ork has G od a n d his pu rp o se as its source
an d G od’s glory as its object. T h e theocentric perspective rem ains dom inant.
G od’s gracious electing p u rp o se shapes past, present, an d fu tu re. Salvation
comes from him , an d its object is n o t simply th a t h u m an needs may be m et,
th o u g h it accom plishes that, b u t th a t G od him self m ay be glorified; hence
the variously w orded refrain — “to th e praise o f his glory.”
A n im p o rtan t p a rt o f the eulogy is the m iddle section which blesses God
for revealing th at his gracious p u rp o se in history is all-em bracing (vv 9, 10).
As believers are rem in d ed o f the revelation o f this m ystery, they are b ro u g h t
to realize th at th e salvation with which they have b een blessed centers in the
sam e com prehensive C hrist in w hom G od is w orking to restore all things.
44 E p h e s ia n s 1:3 – 14

T h e divine election which has grasped th em is show n to be G od’s decision to

sum u p all things in C hrist. T o be in C hrist, th erefo re, is to be p a rt o f a
p ro g ram which is as bro ad as th e universe, a m ovem ent which is rolling on
tow ard a renew ed cosmos w here all is in harm ony. C o unteracting insecurity
an d insignificance in the face o f th e claims o f syncretistic m ystery religions o r
cosmic forces, th e effect o f this p a rt o f th e blessing is to p roduce confidence
in th e G od whose gracious decision em braces everything in heaven a n d on
earth , an d to inspire those w ho echo it to play th eir p a rt in G od’s adm inistration
o f the fullness o f th e tim es in C hrist.
T his in tro d u cto ry berakah m akes use o f a liturgical style, b u t n o t sim ply to
address G od in a hym n; it takes u p traditional form ulations, b u t n o t sim ply
to instruct. R ather, in re m in d e r o f G od’s blessings o f salvation in C hrist an d
in praise o f G od, it functions in such a way as to appeal to the recipients’
experience o f these blessings a n d to stim ulate th em to participate in th e grateful
praise o f G od it has inau g u rated . R ecalling G od’s blessings in C hrist is m ean t
to lead to g ratitu d e an d praise. In fact, th e w hole long sentence functions as
a p aean o f praise into which its read ers are invited. F or this w riter th e p u rp o se
o f th e existence o f the eschatological people o f G od is th e praise o f his grace
an d glory. As they confess with ab an d o n th a t to G od belongs all th e glory,
G od’s people find th eir fulfillm ent. It is o f th e essence o f grace to culm inate
in thanksgiving an d o f th e essence o f th e ir relationship as G od’s sons an d
d au g h ters to bless th eir F ath er constantly fo r having blessed th em so richly
in C hrist.
At th e sam e tim e as it stim ulates th e addressees to give G od th e glory d u e
to him , th e eulogy draw s th em into th e perspective th a t will be basic to th e
letter’s teaching an d exhortation. It helps to o p en th e eyes o f th e recipients
to w hat has b een graciously co n ferred on th em in C hrist and, th erefo re, to
th e fact th at they already have all a n d m ore th a n all th a t any syncretism can
offer. In this way th e eulogy has an epistolary function as a p re lu d e a n d a
rhetorical fu nction as an exordium . Its theocentric character, its Christological
focus, its cosmic perspective on th e m ystery, its stress on G od’s grace, a n d its
n otion o f th e calling o f G od’s people are all significant for th e letter as a
whole. U sing a berakah to in troduce th e concerns o f th e letter reveals som ething
o f th e w riter’s own convictions a n d priorities. Evidently he has a pervasive
sense th at “th e ch ief e n d o f m an is to glorify G od a n d enjoy him fo r ever,”
an d this m eans th at th e vision o f th e C h u rch ’s life a n d task which he presents
in the letter is one th a t is deeply ro o ted in th a t C h u rc h ’s w orship, firm ly located
“in C hrist,” an d p ro foundly aw are o f th e sp len d o r o f God. All o f these features
will help him to stren g th en th e recipients’ sense o f th eir own identity vis-à–
vis th eir su rro u n d in g society. Finally, th e w riter’s praise o f G od o n account
o f th e blessings his addressees have received backs u p th e assurance th a t follows
im m ediately in v 16 th a t he constantly gives thanks to G od in his prayers for
them .
Thanksgiving with Prayer fo r Believers’
Knowledge of God and Their Awareness of
the Church’s Significance (1:15–23)
Bibliography

Allen, T. G. “Exaltation and Solidarity with Christ: Ephesians 1.20 and 2.6 .”JS N T 28
(1986) 103–2 0 .-------- . “God the Namer. A Note on Ephesians 1.21b.” NTS 32 (1986)
470– 75. Bedale, S. “The Meaning of Ke$a\r\ in the Pauline Epistles.” JT S 5
(1954) 211– 15. Benoit, P. “Body, Head and Pleroma in the Epistles of the Captiv-
it y ”Jesus and the Gospel, Vol. 2. Tr. B. Weatherhead. London: Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1974, 51–92. Best, E. One Body in Christ, 139–59. Black, M. “7raaat ejouatat aurcp
morayrpovrai” Paul and Paulinism, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: S.P.C.K.,
1982, 74– 82. Bogdasovich, M. “The Idea of Pleroma in the Epistles to the Colossians
and Ephesians.” Downside Review 83 (19(35) 118–30. Carr, W. Angels and Principalities.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 93– 111. Coipe, C. “Zur Leib-Christi-
Vorstellung im Epheserbrief.” Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche, ed. W. Ehester. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1964, 172–87. Deichgräber, R. Gotteshymnus, 161–65. Delling, G. “7rXr7pr?5
ktX.” TDNT 6 (1968) 283– 311. Dupont, J. Gnosis: La connaissance religieuse dans les Epitres
de Saint Paul. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1949, 419–93. Ernst, J. Pleroma und Pleroma Christi.
Regensburg: Pustet, 1970. Feuillet, A. “L’Eglise pleröme du Christ d’apres Ephes.,
I , 23.” N R T 78 (1956) 449– 72, 593–610. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz und Absicht, 118– 20.
Flowers, H. J. “Paul’s Prayer for the Ephesians: A Study of Eph. 1:15– 23.” ExpTim
38 (1926–27) 227–33. Fowler, R. “Ephesians 1:23.” ExpTim 76 (1965) 294. Gewiess,
J. “Die Begriffe 7rX77poö&‫ ׳‬und irXrjpcopa im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief.” Vom Wort des
Lebens. FS M. Meinertz. Münster: Aschendorff, 1951, 128–41. Gundry, R. H. Soma in
Biblical Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976, 223–44. Hanson, S.
The Unity of the Church, 112– 17, 127– 29. Hegermann, H. Die Vorstellung vom Schöpfungs-
mittler im hellenistischen Judentum und Urchristentum. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961.
---------. “Zur Ableitung der Leib-Christi-Vorstellung.” TLZ 85 (1960) 839–42. Hitchcock,
A. E. M. “Ephesians 1:23r ExpTim 22 (1910–11) 91. Howard, G. “Head/Body Metaphors
of Ephesians.” N TS 20 (1974) 350–56. Käsemann, E. Leib und Leib Christi. Tübingen:
Mohr, 1933.-------- . “The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body
of Christ.” Perspectives on Paul. Tr. M. Kohl. London: SCM, 1971, 102–21. Lightfoot,
J. B. Colossians, 255– 71. Lindemann, A. Die Aufhebung der Zeit, 59–63, 204– 17. McGlash-
an, A. R. “Ephesians 1:23.” ExpTim 76 (1965) 132–33. Meuzelaar, J. J. Der Leib des
Messias. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1961. Meyer, R. P. Kirche und Mission im Epheserbrief.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Moule, C. F. D. Colossians, 164–69. -------- .
“ ‘Fulness’ and ‘Fill’ in the New Testament.” SJT 4 (1951) 79–8 6 .-------- . “A Note on
Ephesians i, 22, 23.” ExpTim 60 (1948) 5 3 .-------- . The Origin of Christology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1977, 69–8 9 .-------- . “Pleroma.” Interpreter’s Dictionary of
the Bible, Vol. 3. New York: Abingdon, 1962, 826–28. Mussner, F. Christus, das All
und die Kirche, 29–64, 118– 74. O’Brien, P. T. “Ephesians 1: An Unusual Introduction
to a New Testament Letter.” N TS 25 (1979) 504–16. Overfield, P. D. “Pleroma: A
Study in Content and Context.” N TS 25 (1979) 384–96. Percy, E. Der Leib Christi in
den paulinischen Homologoumena und Antilegomena. UUÄ. Lund: Gleerup, 1942. Pokorny,
P. Der Epheserbrief und die Gnosis. Die Bedeutung des Haupt-Glieder-Gedankens in der entstehen-
den Kirche. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965.-------- . “Soma Christou im Ephe-
serbrief.” E vT 20 (1960) 456–64. Potterie, I. de la. “Le Christ, Plérôme de l’Église
46 E p h e s ia n s 1:15– 23

(Eph 1.22–23).” Bib 58 (1977) 500–524. Ramaroson, L. “Une lecture de Éphésiens

I, 15–2, 10.” Bib 58 (1977) 388–410. Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology.
Tr. J. R. de Witt, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 362–95. Robinson, J. A. T. The
Body. London: SCM, 1952, 49–83. Roels, E. God's Mission, 84– 139, 229–48. Sanders,
J. T. “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1– 3.” ZN W 56 (1965) 214– 32. -------- . “The
Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline
Corpus.” JBL 81 (1962) 348–62. Schenke, H.-M. Der Gott ‘Mensch ” in der Gnosis: Ein
religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Diskussion über die paulinische Anschauung von der Kirche
als Leib Christi. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Schlier, H. Christus und
die Kirche im Epheserbrief. Tübingen: Mohr, 1930. -------- . “Ke0aX77.” TDNT 3 (1965)
673– 82. Schnackenburg, R. “L’Idee de ‘Corps du Christ’ dans la lettre aux Éphésiens:
Perspective pour nôtre temps.” Paul de Tarse: Apôtre du nötre temps, ed. L. de Lorenzi.
Rome: Abbaye de St. Paul, 1979, 665–85. Schubert, P. Form and Function of the Pauline
Thanksgivings. Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1939. Schweizer, E. The Church as the Body of
Christ. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964. -------- . “The Church as the Missionary
Body of Christ.” Neotestamentica. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963, 317– 2 9 .-------- . “Die
Kirche als Leib Christi in den paulinischen Antilegomena.” Neotestamentica. Zürich:
Zwingli Verlag, 1963, 293–316.-------- . “Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den paulinischen
Homologumena.” Neotestamentica. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963, 272–92.-------- . “acö/na.”
TDNT 7 (1971) 1024–94. Wedderbum, A. J. M. “The Body of Christ and Related
Concepts in 1 Corinthians.” SJT 24 (1971) 74–96. Wikenhauser, A. Die Kirche als der
mystische Leib des Christus nach dem Apostel Paulus. Münster: Aschendorff, 1940. Wink,
W. Naming the Powers. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984, 3–35, 60–64, 151–63. Yates, R.
“A Re-examination of Ephesians 1:23.” ExpTim 83 (1972) 146–51.

Translation

15For this reason, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love
fo r all the saints, a 16I do not cease giving thanks fo r you, remembering you in my
prayers 17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you
the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.b 18I pray that, the
eyes of your heart having been enlightened,c you may know what is the hope of his
calling, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance among the saints, 19and
what is the surpassing greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to
the working of his mighty strength, 20which he accomplishedd in Christ when he
raised him from the dead, and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms 21fa r
above every principality and authority and power and dominion and every name
that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come. 22And he
placed all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the
Church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all things in every way.

Notes

3There is a difficult textual question at the end o f v 15. Did the original text read Kai Hp
äyäirqv 7‫־‬771‫ ׳‬eis 7rä17‫׳‬a9 tovs ayiovs, “and your love for all the saints,” which is supported by ‫ א‬£ Dc
K 4* 88 330 451? Or was the second 7‫־‬771‫ ׳‬omitted, as in D* G? Or was 7‫־‬771‫ ׳‬äyänriv included at all,
because p 46 ‫ * א‬A B P 33 Origen all read *at 7‫־‬771‫ ׳‬eis 7rd17‫׳‬a5 tovs ayiovs, “and toward all the saints”?
This last option is clearly the best attested. It would mean that the recipients’ faith or faithfulness
is either found in the sphere of the Lord Jesus or placed in him but at the same time is directed
toward all the saints. This would also make it the most difficult reading and the others could be
explained as attempts to conform it more to the wording o f Col. 1:4, cucovoavres 77 ‫־‬771‫׳‬rta7‫־‬u‫ ׳‬üpcöi‫׳‬
ev XpiorCb ’I77oov tcai 7771‫ ׳‬äyäirrjv 771‫ ׳‬exere eis irävras tovs ayiovs. However, with the exception o f
 Form / Structure / Setting 47

Beare (626), Bruce (38), and Barth (146–47), most commentators have decided that the shortest
reading is too difficult. Nowhere else in the NT is there a failure to distinguish between faith
directed to Christ and to one’s fellow believers. Philem 5 is sometimes cited as an example—
GKOVcov oov 77)1‫ ׳‬äyäirrjv m i ttjv mortv f!v exeis 7rp09 tov Kvpiov ’1rjoouv m i et? 7r<B7‫׳‬a s 701>9 äyiovs—but it
does not count, since it involves a chiastic construction (cf. Moule, Colossians and Philemon, 141;
Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 193; Martin, Colossians and Philemon, 160–61). It is possible that
the writer was influenced by the last part of Philem 5 and did not realize it was part of a chiasmus,
but this is unlikely since it would have to assume a much more wooden and insensitive use of
Paul’s letters than is the case elsewhere in Ephesians. A further objection to the shortest reading
as original and the one that best explains the others is that if there was a later assimilation to
Col 1:4, this would surely have involved the 7)v exere o f Colossians instead of either the second
Tr!v or simply the absence of any relative expression. It is more likely then that the reading m i
77)1‫ ׳‬äyänrjv ttjv «9 7ra17‫׳‬a 9 70t>9 äyiovs is original and that an early scribal error has affected the
chief manuscripts. It would certainly be easy for the eye to skip from the first 7‫־‬771‫ ׳‬to the second—
homoeoarcton (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 602). The reading found in D* G can then be
explained as an attempt to deal with the awkward second 77‫( קן‬pace Robinson, 295– 97, who believes
this reading to be original), as can both the rearrangement of the words in 81 104 eth Cyril and
the addition in 181.
bThe original Greek text o f 1:15– 23 forms one sentence. Again, for the sake of English style
and intelligibility, the translation has been broken down into a number of sentences and here
the words “I pray” have been added in order to begin a new sentence.
cThe place of the participial clause 7re0co71‫־‬a/ue1‫׳‬o1>5 t o d00aX/uou9 777s x a p ö t a s in the syntax is
not clear. And why are the noun and the perfect passive participle in the accusative case? There
are two major explanations. One is to treat the clause as the second direct object of the verb &0‫ןן‬
in the previous verse so that the petition is that God might give the Spirit of wisdom and revelation
and eyes of the heart that have been enlightened (cf. Abbott, 28; Gaugler, 63; Gnilka, 90 n.6).
The other is to connect the clause with the indirect object of the preceding verb, with upü‫׳‬, and
to suggest that, although one might have expected the clause to involve the dative case, its case
has been influenced by the following accusative and infinitive construction with which it is also
closely linked, «9 70 eidevai vpäs (cf. Robinson, 149; Westcott, 23–24), On the former explanation
one is left without any explicit connective between the two objects, which makes a very awkward
construction where “enlightened eyes” appears to be in apposition to “the Spirit o f wisdom and
revelation.” The latter explanation, which connects “eyes that have been enlightened” more clearly
with the state of the recipients of the Spirit, is to be preferred.
dThe Greek text at this point should read «77/5777‫׳‬x0 ‫ ׳‬rather than the « ‫׳‬770777(7«‫ ׳‬of the UBSGT
and Nestle text. The perfect is witnessed by A B Cyril, while the aorist is supported by p 46 ‫ א‬D
G K L P. P 46, though ancient, often has secondary variants which, as here, attempt to make the
text smoother. An original perfect has probably been changed to conform to the following aorist
forms. It is much harder to account for a change in the reverse direction (cf. also Abbott, 31;
Gaugler, 72; Gnilka, 50, 94).

Form !Structure !Setting

E ph 1:15– 23 constitutes an extended thanksgiving which, like the preceding

berakah, form s one long sentence. In term s o f its overall stru ctu re this pericope
can be divided into th ree m ajor elem ents: ( 1 ) the thanksgiving p ro p e r in vv
15, 16a, followed by (2) an intercessory prayer-re p o rt in vv 16b - 19, which
shades into (3) confessional m aterial in praise o f G od’s pow er in C hrist’s resu r-
rection an d exaltation an d the use o f this m aterial to highlight the role o f
the C h u rch in G od’s purposes in vv 20– 23.
In his work on Pauline thanksgivings S chubert classified these sections o f
the letter into two general types, those characterized by participial constructions
m odifying evxapioreco, “I give thanks,” an d followed by a final clause subordinate
to them , an d those characterized by a causal o n clause following the principal
evxapvareco clause and followed in tu rn by a consecutive clause in troduced by
48 E p h e s ia n s 1:15–23

cbore. In the first category he placed the thanksgivings found in 1 T hessalonians,

Philippians, Colossians, Philem on, an d Ephesians an d in the second those fo u n d
in 2 T hessalonians, 1 C orinthians, an d R om ans (cf. Form, 35). T h e E phesian
thanksgiving has six o f the seven form al elem ents often fo u n d in th e first
category, (i) A principal verb o f thanksgiving: (oi) iravoyai) evxapiOTcbv, 1:16;
cf. 1 T hess 1:2; 2:13; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3; Phlm 4. In E phesians this elem ent
does n o t begin the thanksgiving b u t is preceded by the o p en in g link with the
berakah 81a tovto näyco, “for this reason, I,” an d by the participial clause ex p ress-
ing the cause for thanksgiving, (ii) A tem poral expression indicating the fre-
quency with which thanksgiving is offered: ov wavopai, “I do n o t cease” (1:16;
cf. 1 T hess 1:2; 2:13; Phil 1:4; Col 1:3; Philem 4. (Hi) A p ro n o m in al object
phrase: virep vpuv, “for you” (1:16; cf. 1 T hess 1:2; Phil 1:4; Col 1:3; P. T .
O ’B rien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul [Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1977] 78, argues th at 7rept vp ü v in Col 1:3 is to be taken with evxapiorovpev).
(»‫ ) ״‬A participial clause indicating th e cause o f thanksgiving: aKOVoas rr\v Had’
u/Lia? moTiv. . . , “having h eard o f your faith. . . ,” (1:15; cf. 1 T hess 1 :3 ,4 ;
Phil 1:6; Col 1:4; Philem 5. In E ph 1:15, unlike the o th er references w here
such a clause follows the verb o f thanksgiving, this elem ent precedes th e p rin ci-
pal verb. (1/) A participial clause indicating the tim e o f thanksgiving: pvetav
miovpevos em t Cov 7rpooevx&v pov, “w hen I rem em b er you in my prayers,” 1:16;
cf. 1 T hess 1:2; Phil 1:4; Col 1:3; Philem 4. (vi) A final clause indicating the
co n ten t o f th e intercessory prayer: Iva b 0eo? . . . 8cj[j . . . , “th at th e G od
. . . m ay give. . . ,” 1:17; cf. Phil 1:9; Col 1:9; Philem 6 . T h e one elem ent
to be fo u n d in o th e r thanksgivings o f this type which does n o t occur in Ephesians
is a personal object for the verb o f thanksgiving. In fact, G od is nam ed as
the recipient o f the thanksgiving in all th e o th e r thanksgivings. H ow ever, the
nam in g o f G od in the intercessory prayer-re p o rt h ere in 1:17 m akes clear to
w hom the thanksgiving is ren d ered .
T hanksgiving sections in the P auline letters can be seen as m odifications
o f the H ellenistic letter form which often stated th a t the w riter “gives thanks
to the gods” o r “m akes continual m ention o f you before th e gods” an d th en
p rovided reasons for the w riter’s gratitu d e (cf. Schubert, Form, 158– 79). B ut
P aul’s o p en in g thanksgivings do no t simply reflect Hellenistic epistolary style
(pace Schubert, Form, 184; B arth, 161); they reflect also early C hristian liturgical
style which in tu rn had its roots in Jew ish w orship. J. M. R obinson has show n
th at in Jew ish prayers the berakah an d hôdāyâ (“thanksgiving”) form s w ere in ter-
changeable. Even th o u g h they used variant form ulae, th eir m o tif an d function
w ere similar. T h e hödäyä form was p o p u lar at Q u m ra n , as th e H ym ns o f T h a n k s-
giving (1Q H ) indicate, an d in early C hristianity th ere gradually cam e to be a
preferen ce fo r th e thanksgiving form ula (“T h e Historicality o f Biblical L an-
gu ag e,” The Old Testament and Christian Faith, ed. B. W. A nderson [New York:
H a rp e r an d Row, 1963] 124–58; “Die H odajot-F orm el in G ebet u n d H ym nus
des F rü h ch risten tu m s,” Apophoreta, FS E. H aenchen, ed. W. E hester an d
F. H. K ettler [Berlin: T ö p elm an n , 1964] 194– 235; cf. also J. P. A udet, “Literary
Form s an d C ontents o f a N orm al EvxapuJTia in the First C en tu ry ,” Studia Evange-
lica 1, ed. F. L. Cross, T U 8 6 [Berlin: A kadem ie-V erlag, 1959] 643–62). T h e
epistolary thanksgivings, therefore, provide a fu rth e r exam ple o f th e interaction
betw een Hellenistic an d Jew ish elem ents in P aul’s cultural clim ate. In th eir
 Form / Structure / Setting 49

form an d fu nction they are prim arily influenced by c u rre n t letter style, while
th eir co n ten t shows th e influence o f Jew ish liturgy. T h e sam e observations
hold for th e E phesian thanksgiving section which, as we have seen, continues
the p attern set by th e u n d isp u ted Pauline letters, an d details o f th e influence
o f Jew ish liturgical m aterial on th e co n ten t will be po in ted o u t in the com m ents
on individual verses.
In term s o f th e elem ents in its basic form al stru ctu re th e E phesian thanksgiv-
ing resem bles m ost closely th a t o f Philem on. In the principal thanksgiving
clause th ere are th e sam e two participial constructions— a/couaa? . . . pve'tav
noiovpevos, “having h ea rd . . . re m em b erin g ,” in E phesians an d pveiav oov
7rotou/L1evo<; . . . a kovcov, “rem em b erin g you . . . h ea rin g ,” in Philem on—an d
these are im m ediately followed by a final clause, b eginning with iva in Ephesians
an d Ö7TC0 5 in Philem on. H ow ever, as in th e case o f th e rest o f the letter, the
closest co rrespondence in th e w ording o f th e E phesian thanksgiving is with
th at in Colossians. T h e introductory link with th e berakah in 1:15 takes u p
the w ording o f Col 1:9; an d the way th e cause o f thanksgiving is expressed is
very close in d eed to Col 1:4. T h e intercession in tro d u ced by the final clause
with iva in 1:17 takes u p elem ents o f th e intercession in Col 1:9, also introduced
by iva; and, as will be no ted in Comment, o th e r features o f th e content o f the
intercession draw o n notions p ro m in en t in Colossians.
In com parison with o th e r thanksgiving sections, the actual elem ent o f th an k s-
giving for th e recipients is relatively b rief in E phesians a n d betrays no personal
knowledge o f th eir specific situation. T his supports the view th at the w riter
has in ten d ed to w rite a letter o f general in terest to a n u m b e r o f churches.
T h e second stru ctural elem ent in th e passage, th e intercessory prayer-re p o rt
o f vv 16b - 19 with its th reefo ld petition, shares the sam e characteristic o f gen eral-
ity. O ’B rien (N TS 25 [1979] 516) concludes, “O f all th e introductory prayers
in the thanksgiving periods this tells us least about a specific situation. It th e re-
fore contains petitions th at are valid u n d e r m any sets o f circum stances an d at
various tim es.” In com m on with o th e r intercessory prayer-rep o rts in thanksgiv-
ing sections E p h 1:16b - 19 has a verb fo r pray ing in participial form , p v d a v
n oiovpevos e7ri r tb v irpooevxcbv !1 ov, “rem em b erin g in m y prayers” (cf. Rom 1:9, 10
an d Philem 4 fo r the sam e term inology). As we have already indicated, the
co ntent o f th e intercessory p ray er is o ften expressed in a final clause. O ne
form al elem en t m issing in Ephesians as co m p ared with m ost o f th e o th e r
intercessory p ray er-re p o rts is a prepositional ph rase o r p ro n o u n indicating
those in whose b eh a lf th e p ray er has been m ade (cf. vpcöv in Rom 1:9, virep
ttovtcov vpoov in Phil 1:4, im ep vpcbv in Col 1:9, a n d o o v in Philem 4). In 1:16a
im ep v p Q v , “fo r you,” has already b een included in th e thanksgiving p ro p e r,
however, an d so can be u n d ersto o d to apply also to th e intercession clause in
the second h alf o f the verse. Intercessory prayer-rep o rts can be fo u n d in the
letter o f 1 Macc 12:6– 18 in v 11 a n d in th a t o f 2 Macc 1:1–10a in v 6 . T h e
link in th e Pauline letters betw een thanksgiving an d intercessory pray er has
parallels in a small n u m b er o f ex tan t papyrus letters, w here thanksgiving an d
assurances o f prayers fo r th e health o f th e re a d e r are com bined (cf. Schubert,
Form, 160– 68). B ut again, liturgical as well as epistolary factors m ay well have
influenced th e com bination, since in Jew ish prayers thanksgiving o r praise
was often m ixed with petition, th o u g h n o t so m uch specifically intercession
50 E p h e s ia n s 1 :1 5 – 2 3

(cf. Pss 9, 29, [59, 69; 1QH 16– 18; Šěmônēh cĒsrēh; cf. also G. P. Wiles, Paul's
Intercessory Prayers [C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1974] 160– 62).
C ertainly with th e intercessory prayer-re p o rt in E phesians the w riter re tu rn s
to th e liturgical style o f his earlier berakah with its sequence o f relative clauses
an d genitive constructions, an d it is h ere th at parallels with th e Q u m ra n th a n k s-
giving hym ns p redom inate. As well as picking u p the style o f th e berakah, the
intercessory p rayer-re p o rt takes u p som e o f its them es. T h e req u est for “the
Spirit o f wisdom an d revelation in th e know ledge o f h im ” (v 17) recalls the
term inology o f vv 8 , 9. T h e notions o f “h o p e,” “riches,” a n d “in h eritan ce” (v
18) recall term s in vv 12, 7, an d 14 respectively. “T h e w orking o f his m ighty
stren g th ” (v 19) reflects the term inology o f “th e one who works all things
according to th e p urpose o f his will” in v 11. In tu rn , som e o f th e language
o f this intercessory prayer-re p o rt will be taken u p later in 3:1, 14 – 19 as the
w riter re tu rn s to intercession for his reader.
W here does th e thanksgiving end? B oth S chubert (Form, 34) an d O ’B rien
(N TS 25 [1979] 505) see the basic thanksgiving as en d in g with the intercessory
p ray er o f vv 17– 19, th o u g h S chubert holds th a t th e overall thanksgiving perio d
extends to v 21 an d O ’B rien adm its the en d in g is n o t clear-cut. Sanders (JBL
81 [1962] 348– 62) attem pts to show th at the e n d o f a thanksgiving p erio d is
to be seen in an eschatological climax in which the p resen t tim e o f thanksgiving
is linked with th e final days o f the su p rem e rule o f G od, followed by a form
characteristic o f Pauline p a rag ra p h openings such as TrapaKaXQ 56 u/ua?, a5eX0d,
“I ap p eal to you, b rothers (and sisters).” O n this basis he believes the thanksgiv-
ing in E phesians ru n s at least as far as 2:10 an d th at it could well ex ten d to
3:21, p o in tin g o u t th at a doxology also ends the thanksgiving period in 1
T im 1:17. Wiles (Paul's Intercessory Prayers, 158 n. 5; 164 n. 1) considers the
limit o f th e thanksgiving to be 1:23, with 1:21b, “no t only in this age b u t also
in th at which is to com e,” providing the eschatological climax, b u t claims that,
as in Col 1, th e transition is d o ubtful since p ray er m aterial gradually shades
into statem ents. O n the o th er han d , the whole o f 1:20–23 m ay provide the
eschatological climax. It is simply that, in keeping with th e predom inantly
realized eschatology o f the first p a rt o f the letter, th e thanksgiving is linked
with th e p resen t ru le o f Christ. As th e discussion o f the stru ctu re o f the letter
in the Introduction to the com m entary suggests, S anders m ay well be rig h t in
his proposal th at th ere is a sense in which th e whole o f 1:3– 3:21 can be viewed
as an in troductory thanksgiving. Yet w ithin th at larg er u n it a separate berakah
an d a separate thanksgiving can still be distinguished, an d 1:15–23 constitutes
th e latter. T h e closing portio n o f P auline thanksgivings often consists o f litur-
gical m aterial which reflects o r substitutes fo r th e berakah with which it was
th e Jew ish custom to en d a pray er as well as to begin it (cf. J. T . Sanders,
JB L 81 [1962] 355–62). H ere in E ph 1 this p h en o m en o n is present. T h e in-
tercessory prayer-re p o rt passes alm ost im perceptibly into liturgical m aterial
in praise o f the exalted C hrist, including th e eschatological form ulation o f
1 : 2 1 b, since th e words o f the p ray er have carried the w riter “so fa r th at
th e p ray er h ad lost itself in the w onder o f the blessing prayed fo r” (Robin-
son, 73).
We have called the contents o f vv 20– 23 “liturgical m aterial,” b u t the exact
n a tu re o f this m aterial has been d isputed by scholars. Som e hold th at it in co rp o-
rates a hym n (cf. G augler, 71; Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen, 103 n. 4; Sanders,
 Form / Structure / Setting 51

Z N W 56 [1965] 220– 23, thinks this a possibility; Fischer, Tendenz, 118– 20;
D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 161– 65, th o u g h adm itting to m any uncertainties
about his attem p ted reconstruction o f th e hym n). C ertainly its subject m atter
contains elem ents fo u n d in w hat are generally acknow ledged as C hristological
hym ns elsew here in th e N T : C hrist’s resu rrectio n from the dead, his exaltation,
his session at G od’s rig h t han d , a n d his suprem acy over the powers (cf. Phil
2:6– 11; Col 1:15–20; 1 T im 3:16). B oth D eichgräber (Gotteshymnus, 163– 64)
an d Fischer (Tendenz, 120 n. 5) concede th at if a hym n does originally lie
beh in d vv 20– 23, it is m ore likely to have b eg u n with statem ents about C hrist’s
incarnation a n d his d ea th in com m on with o th e r N T C hristological hym ns
th an with a reference to the resurrection, so th a t in fact any reconstruction
will be o f a frag m en t o f a hym n ra th e r th a n a com plete hym n. In the n atu re
o f the case this m akes any convincing d em on stration o f the original m uch
m ore difficult.
J. T . Sanders (Z N W 56 [1965] 220) an d D eichgräber (Gotteshymnus, 165),
however, m ake a b etter case fo r the original frag m en t’s having been com posed
o f m uch o f vv 20 a n d 22 th a n Fischer (Tendenz, 120) does for the inclusion
o f v 21a in such m aterial. T h e lines w ould th e n be:
eyeipas airrov 6k veKpCrv
m i Kadiaas ev airrov
Kai irävra vneraZev v m rov<; 7roSa? airrov
m i airrov eScoKev KecpaXrfv m ep rravra.
Such a reco n struction could be seen to contain parallelismus membrorum, the
first tim e with participles an d th e second tim e with finite verbs; also, the verbal
form s com e n e a r th e beginning o f each line, an d th ere is th e repetition o f
Kai. ev 70‫־‬Z9 emvpaviot*;, “in the heavenly realm s,” in v 20 could th en be seen as
a gloss by th e w riter, using a phrase distinctive to his letter. Verse 21 would
be an addition in prose style elaborating on th e com pleteness o f C hrist’s victory
over the powers, rfj eKKX7\oig. at the en d o f v 22 w ould be a fu rth e r gloss, like
th at in Col 1:18, in ten d ed to focus the Christological statem ent in term s of
its significance for th e C hurch, a them e which th e a u th o r develops fu rth e r
by his descriptive statem ent in v 23. T his hypothesis has its attractions.
O n the o th e r h an d , th e statem ents in the frag m en t could equally well have
been creedal statem ents no t taken from one particular hym n b u t woven to g eth er
by the w riter in th e liturgical an d hym nic style o f which he has already shown
him self to be capable in 1:3– 14 (cf. Gnilka, 94, 96; B arth, 154; L indem ann,
Aufliebung, 205; Schnackenburg, 70–71). T h e sim ilarity o f the w ording o f 1:20
with Col 2:12b a n d especially the sim ilarities betw een 1:20– 22 an d 1 C or 15:24–
27 (where b o th passages involve a com bination o f th e use o f Ps 110:1 an d
the use o f Ps 8 :6 , agree in th eir w ording o f the latter as against the LXX an d
its citation in H eb 2:8, an d have the sam e o rd e r an d term inology fo r the
th ree powers apx% e^ovoia, a n d Svvapis) also m ake one w onder w h eth er it is
n o t m ore likely th at th e a u th o r has been influenced by earlier Pauline m aterial
th an th at he has m ade use o f a hym n. B ut against this it can be countered
(cf. Sanders, Z N W 56 [1965] 222) th at 1 C or 15:24–28 itself reflects elem ents
o f early C hristian preaching, elem ents w hich also fo u n d a place in the ch u rch ’s
liturgy, so th a t E p h 1:20– 23 can be seen as draw ing on m aterial in th at liturgical
tradition ra th e r th a n directly on 1 C or 15. N one o f th e argum ents is decisive,
an d it rem ains an o p en question w h eth er vv 20– 23 incorporate the frag m en t
52 E p h e s ia n s 1:15–23

o f a hym n o r m ake use o f creedal form ulations p h rased in exalted poetic

language. H ow ever, th e absence o f decisive arg u m en ts for th e fo rm e r position
m eans th at th e latter is th e safer optio n if one is forced to choose. In eith er
case, as we shall see, the w riter shapes such m aterial fo r his own particu lar
purposes.
It is a striking a n d m uch discussed fe atu re o f th e form al stru ctu re o f E phesians
th at an epistolary thanksgiving is p re sen t at all in a com position which has
already b eg u n with an in troductory berakah. T his is a featu re which m akes
E phesians u n iq u e in th e Pauline corpus. M uch o f the debate ab o u t it has
focused o n its im plications fo r th e question o f au th o rsh ip . S chubert (Form,
44, followed by Kirby, Ephesians, 131) held th a t th e inclusion o f the E phesian
thanksgiving indicated “a highly conscious effort on the p a rt o f th e a u th o r to
om it n o th in g which he considered form ally essential in P auline epistolography.”
Kirby (Ephesians, 132) believed th a t th e thanksgiving was in fact in serted into
a liturgical com position which th e a u th o r already h ad before him , in o rd e r to
give it th e ap p earan ce o f a personal letter from Paul. T his latter suggestion
has little in its favor, how ever, fo r in term s o f its style an d com position the
thanksgiving can n ot be distinguished from its context, containing liturgical
elem ents a n d verbal sim ilarities with Colossians to th e sam e ex ten t as does
th e preced in g m aterial in 1:2 – 14 a n d th a t which follows in chap. 2. W hatever
its inclusion suggests ab o u t au th o rsh ip , th e re is no reason to believe it was
n o t com posed at the sam e tim e a n d by th e sam e p ro cedures as th e rest o f
the first th ree chapters (cf. also M itton, 65). T h e m ost telling p o in t th a t S chubert
an d Kirby m ake is th a t the thanksgiving ap p ears to be re d u n d a n t, in th a t an
o p en in g berakah a n d an in troductory thanksgiving b o th p erfo rm the sam e fu n c-
tion. T h ey are two ways o f doing th e sam e thing. O ’B rien (N TS 25 [1979]
512– 13) claims th at such arg u m en ts ab o u t au th o rsh ip are “a two-edged sw ord.”
H e holds th at Paul in his introductions em ployed consistently o f
thanksgivings fo r G od’s w ork in th e lives o f o th ers a n d et>X0777 rds fo r blessings
in which h e participated him self. O ’B rien goes on to conclude th a t th e w riter
who w ould preserve this distinction while boldly including both a berakah an d
thanksgiving, thereby m aking this letter d ifferen t from any o th er, is m ost likely
to have been Paul. T o this it m ust be said th a t it is questionable how consistently
the alleged distinction holds fo r th e o th e r letters (cf. 1 T hess 3:9; Col 1:12, 13).
Even if it did hold, it w ould only show th a t th e re are som e form al distinctions
betw een a berakah an d a thanksgiving, a n d this w ould still n o t m eet th e p o in t
th at the two p erfo rm th e sam e epistolary function as an introduction.
In stead o f becom ing entan g led in questions o f a u th o rsh ip alm ost im m edi-
ately, it m ay well be a m ore fru itfu l ap p ro ach to ask w h eth er th e tw ofold
intro d u ctio n is as distinctive as it is o ften assum ed to be. I f th e eulogy an d
thanksgiving form s w ere interchangeable, th e n p erh ap s th e stru ctu re o f E p h e-
sians is n o t so d ifferen t from th a t o f 1 T hessalonians, w here th e re is m ore
th an o ne thanksgiving p erio d (cf. 1:2; 2:13; 3:9), o r 2 T hessalonians (cf. 1:3;
2:13), o r even Colossians with its double thanksgiving statem ent (cf. 1 :3 ,4
an d 1:9– 12). F. O. Francis (“T h e F orm a n d F unction o f th e O p e n in g an d
Closing P arag rap h s o f Jam es a n d 1 J o h n ,” Z N W 61 [1970] 110– 26) has in
fact investigated th e p h en o m en o n o f double o p en in g statem ents in letters.
H e shows how in Jo se p h u s’ version o f th e exchange o f letters betw een Solom on
 Form / Structure / Setting 53

an d H iram th e second letter replaces a thanksgiving by a tw ofold statem ent

anticipating im p o rtan t them atic m aterial u n d e r th e rubrics o f “blessing” an d
th en “rejoicing” (Ant. 8,50– 54; cf. also E upolem us’ version o f the sam e letters
in Eusebius, Praep. evang. 9.33, 34, w here th e second letter has a blessing fol-
lowed by a statem ent which links rejoicing a n d blessing, alth o u g h it has no
form al thanksgiving). W ithin th e N T itself Francis points to a variety o f episto-
lary double form ulae, including thanksgivings, which play a vital role in the
stru ctu re o f th e en tire body o f a letter, as in 1 a n d 2 T hessalonians; the blessing
an d reverse thanksgiving which fram e th e o p en in g statem ent o f 2 C or 1:3–
11 (cf. also M. E. T h ra ll’s a rg u m e n t th a t 2:14– 17 constitutes a second thanksgiv-
ing p eriod in th e letter in “A Second T hanksgiving Period in II C orinthians,”
J S N T 16 [1982] 101–24); an d o p en in g statem ents which are initiated an d carried
forw ard by a p air o f thanksgivings, as in Colossians, a p air o f rejoicing form ulae,
as in 3 Jo h n , o r a com bination o f blessing an d thanksgiving, as in Ephesians.
T o Francis’ list could also be ad d ed the second letter fo u n d at the beginning
o f 2 M accabees (1 :10b—2:18), which contains a thanksgiving accom panied by
a eulogy. In addition to these observations about epistolary introductions, it
m ust also be said th a t in term s o f Jew ish liturgical background a sequence o f
eulogy followed by thanksgiving can often be fo u n d (e.g., D an 2 :20––23; Jub.
22.6– 9). So, as with the use o f thanksgiving periods them selves in the Pauline
letters, b oth epistolary pattern s an d liturgical factors can help to explain this
com bination o f berahah an d thanksgiving in Ephesians. Seen in this light the
p h en o m en o n has no special im plications for auth o rsh ip . E ither Paul o r a fol-
lower, w riting his own version o f a Pauline letter, could have p ro duced this
variation on double o p en in g statem ents which p erfo rm a sim ilar function.
W hat functions does th e thanksgiving section o f 1:15–23 perform ? Is it
identical to th at o f th e berakah in 1:3– 14 a n d th ere fo re totally red u n d an t?
We have already poin ted o u t th at red u n d an cy o f style is a characteristic o f
the first p art o f E phesians, so som e red u n d an cy in re g ard to its form al elem ents
would n o t be surprising. It is tru e th a t th e thanksgiving does no t introduce
any totally new them es. H ow ever, it does explicitly m ention C hrist’s resurrection
an d exaltation fo r the first tim e an d m akes clear the relation betw een C hrist’s
universal ru le an d th e C hurch, also in tro d u ced as a specific entity for the
first time. In this way the thanksgiving has a com plem entary introductory
role to th e berakah, giving sh a rp e r focus to them es already in troduced o r only
implicit. In o th e r Pauline letters th e thanksgiving p eriod with its prayer-re p o rt
n ot only an n ounces th e central m essage b u t also anticipates the letter’s m ain
paraenetic th ru st. H ere in E phesians also, the thanksgiving n o t only continues
the an n o u n cem en t o f the central them es, b u t m akes clear, in a way the berakah
does not, why these them es have been introduced. It is in o rd e r th a t the
readers m ight have a g reater know ledge o f th e G od o f o u r L ord Jesus Christ,
an d o f the h ope, the privileges, a n d the pow er th at are available to them
th ro u g h him . T h e blessings described earlier are to be p a rt o f the believers’
aw areness an d increasingly a p p ro p ria te d by them . It is in the thanksgiving
section, th erefo re, th a t the didactic a n d paraenetic th ru st o f the letter is m ore
clearly introduced.
T h e rhetorical function o f th e thanksgiving period a n d prayer-re p o rt is as
a continuation o f the exordium b eg u n by th e eulogy. T h e passage serves as a
54 E p h e s ia n s 1:15–23

captatio benevolentiae, a statem ent w hich secures th e goodwill o f th e recipients.

It achieves this th ro u g h its thankfulness for th e re ad ers’ faith an d love an d
th ro u g h its concern fo r th eir grow th in know ledge an d appreciation o f God
a n d o f th e benefits he has m ade available to th em in C hrist. As with 1:3– 14,
th e oratio perpetua o f 1:15– 23 m eans th a t th e read ers will also be carried along
with th e w riter’s contem plation o f G od’s pow er in raising C hrist an d m aking
him sovereign over th e cosmos. B oth at th e b eginning an d at th e e n d o f this
contem plation th eir sym pathies fo r w hat th e w riter is saying are m aintained
th ro u g h his m aking clear th a t all th a t has h a p p e n e d in C hrist is to th eir advan-
tage: G od’s pow er in C hrist is fo r those who believe (v 19) a n d C hrist’s sover-
eignty over th e cosmos is exercised o n b eh a lf o f th e C h u rch (v 22).

Comment

1 5 ,16a Ata tovto Kayoj, “fo r this reason . . . I.” T h e phrase “fo r this reaso n ”
probably points back to th e whole berakah o f vv 3 – 14, to which th e thanksgiving
perio d in tro d u ced by these w ords is com plem entary. M ore particularly, it p r o-
vides a link with vv 13, 14, in which th e w riter has already draw n th e recipients
o f th e letter into his blessing o f G od as he focused on th eir experience o f the
gospel. A n u m b er o f P auline thanksgivings have th e actual expression o f th a n k s-
giving in th e singular form (cf. 1 C or 1:4; R om 1:8; Philem 4; Phil 1:3, contrast
1 T hess 1:3, 2 T hess 1:3; Col 1:3), b u t this is th e only reference with th e
em phatic first person p ro n o u n /ccrycb. T h is fe atu re is consistent with th e way
in which eyco lays stress on th e apostle him self in 3:1 a n d 4:1 an d with the
om ission o f th e m ention o f any co-senders in 1:1. B oth factors suggest a disciple
w riting in th e nam e o f Paul alone in o rd e r to focus on th e apostolic authority
b eh in d th e m essage o f th e letter.
äK oboa s rr\v kccO’ v p a s ttlotlv ev rep Kvpico I r p o v kcli rr\v a y a n rfv rr\v e is n d v r a s
toi>5 a y io v s , “having h e a rd o f yo u r faith in th e L ord Jesu s an d your love for
all th e saints.” See th e discussion u n d e r Notes fo r reasons fo r taking this as
the original text. Som e hold th a t th e w ording suggests hearsay acquaintance
with th e re ad ers’ faith an d love, a n d th a t this tells against P auline auth o rsh ip .
If hearsay acquaintance is the force o f the w ording, it should be clear th at
this tells only against P auline au th o rsh ip o f a letter to Ephesus, w here he h ad
sp en t a lot o f tim e, b u t n o t against Pauline a u th o rsh ip o f a circular letter.
Col 1:4 uses sim ilar language ab o u t those with w hom the apostle was no t
personally acquainted. Philem 5 uses sim ilar language with reference to P hi-
lem on, w hom Paul clearly did know. B ut th e participle th ere is in th e presen t
tense, an d this m ay m ake a difference (cf. also A bbott, 25), indicating th at
E p ap h ras h ad b ro u g h t him news o f his co-w orker. I f the w riter is a Pauline
disciple, th e n th e w ording am ounts to a general statem ent o f his know ledge
o f those to w hom h e is w riting, which echoes Pauline thanksgivings.
T h e w riter has already m ade referen ce to his re ad ers’ act o f belief in v 13.
B ut is “in th e L ord Jesu s” h ere th e object o f th e re ad ers’ faith (cf. A bbott,
25; Gnilka, 8 8 ), o r does it den o te th e sp h ere in which th eir faith is exercised
(Schlier, 76; G augler, 57; Ernst, 284)? Paul usually has the object o f faith in
the genitive (cf. Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Rom 3:22, 25; Phil 3:9) o r else uses 7rpo?
(Philem 5) o r ets (Col 2:5). In favor o f th e fo rm e r in terp re tatio n are the a p p a re n t
 Comment 55

parallelism with rr!v äyänr]v rrjv et? navra? 7 9 <01‫ ־‬ayiovs, “love fo r all the saints,”
w here the prepositional phrase does indicate the object o f the read ers’ love,
the LXX back g ro u nd in which ev, “in,” can be used with 7ri(ms, “faith,” an d
mareveiv, “to believe,” to d enote the object (cf. J e r 12:6; Ps 77:22), an d the
interchangeability o f ev, “in ,” an d ei?, “tow ard,” in p o p u lar Greek. O n the
o th er han d , w hen ev is used with m ans elsew here in the Pauline corpus, it
appears to re fer to th e realm in which faith operates (cf. Gal 3:26; 5:6; Col
1:4; 1 T im 1:15; 3:13; 2 T im 1:13; 3:15). T h e closest verbal correspondence
o f the thanksgiving here in E phesians is to th at in Colossians, an d Col 1:4,
rr\v moTtv vpcbv ev Xptarcp Tqqov, “your faith in C hrist Jesu s,” is a reference to
the faith th e Colossians exercise as those w ho are in C hrist (cf. Lohse , Colossians,
16; M oule, Colossians, 49; O ’B rien, Colossians, 11). T his reference, to g eth er
with norm al Pauline usage, tips the w eight o f the arg u m e n t in favor o f the
sam e m eaning in E ph 1:15 (cf. also 1:1 an d the com m ents on “faithful in
C hrist Jesu s”). T h e read ers’ “love fo r all the saints” has been in terp re ted as
p ro o f o f the b reaking dow n o f barriers betw een Gentiles an d Jew s (cf. Caird,
43), b u t “the saints” h ere is a reference to believers in general ra th e r th an to
the Jeru salem ch u rch o r to Jew ish C hristians. T h e sam e phrase is used in
Col 1:4 an d Philem 5 w here the general, ra th e r th a n any narrow , reference
is in view. T h e recipients o f this letter have an attitu d e o f solidarity with, and
concern for, the w elfare o f o th e r believers. T h e im portance o f th eir relationship
with “all the saints” is expressed also in 3:18 an d 6:18 (cf. also 6:24). Faith
an d love are m en tioned to g eth er in 1:15, as they are in the thanksgivings o f
1 T hess 1:3 an d 2 T hess 1:3. T h e o th e r m em ber o f the triad which appears
frequently in early C hristian writings— hope— has already been m entioned in
v 12 an d will be stressed in the intercessory prayer-re p o rt in v 18. Faith, hope,
an d love are fo u n d to g eth er in Pauline thanksgiving periods in 1 T hess 1:3
an d Col 1:4, 5.
oi) iravopai evxapiOTcbv m ep vpcbv, “I do n o t cease giving thanks for you.” As
in Pauline thanksgivings, th ere is m ention o f the constancy o f the w riter’s
thanksgiving fo r his addressees (cf. Travrore in 1 T hess 1:2; 2 T hess 1:3; 2:13;
1 C or 1:4; Phil 1:4; Col 1:3; Philem 4), an d this is to be taken in connection
with the following reference to prayers. T h e clause is not a claim to having
given over his whole life to thanksgiving, b u t m eans th at the w riter does not
forget in his re g u la r tim es o f pray er to give thanks for those to w hom he is
writing. Such expressions o f thanksgiving were, as we have seen, a convention
in letter writing, b u t th ere is no reason why this one should n o t reflect the
actual p ray er life o f the w riter as m uch as o th e r letters did th at o f Paul him self
(cf. O ’B rien, Introductory Thanksgivings, 266). His gratitude to G od for those
whose faith an d love are know n to him a n d o f w hom his previous description
in vv 13, 14 is tru e is based ultim ately on G od’s own work in C hrist, as th at
berakah so clearly indicates.
16b, 17 J u s t as th e w ording o f the thanksgiving in vv 15, 16a h ad a close
relation to th at o f Col 1:3 ,4 , so som e o f th e key words at the beginning o f
the intercessory p rayer-re p o rt in vv 16b, 17 can be fo u n d in th at o f Col 1:9, 10.
‫ן‬uveiav Troiovpevos ewi tcjv 7rpooevxcbv pov, “rem em b erin g you in my prayers,”
literally, “m aking rem em brance in my prayers.” As we no ted u n d e r Form/Struc-
ture I Setting, assurances o f a w riter’s constant prayers for the health an d welfare
56 E p h e s ia n s 1:15– 23

o f th e addressee can be fo u n d in G reek papyrus letters. 1 Macc 12:11 also

provides an exam ple o f this stylistic featu re. T h e sam e expression “m aking
rem em b ran ce‫ ״‬occurs in 1 T hess 1:2; R om 1:9; Philem 4. H ere th e u n expressed
object, “you,” clearly needs to be supplied from the previous clause in v 16a.
T h e w riter is indicating th at he m akes use o f w hat he knows o f his readers
an d th eir situation to intercede on th eir b eh a lf before God. His intercession
am ounts to a p ray er fo r th eir grow th in C hristian m aturity. In praying fo r
wisdom he is asking for som ething which, according to v 8 , has already been
lavishly given. Yet this p ray er indicates his realism ab o u t the state o f his readers—
th ere will always be room for fu rth e r grow th a n d sanctification—a n d his ap p reci-
ation o f th e object o f his request—G od’s wisdom can never be totally possessed,
since it is inexhaustible.
0 0eos rod Kvpiov rjpeov Ir/aoö X p ta r o v , 6 n a rrip rfft 50£‫?ןז‬, “th e G od o f o u r
L ord Jesu s C hrist, the F ath er o f glory.” T h e liturgical style o f th e prayer-
re p o rt is im m ediately indicated in this designation o f the one to w hom the
p ray er is addressed. T h e first ph rase is rem iniscent o f th e way in which G od
is described at th e beginning o f th e berakah (1:3). It m aintains a distinction
betw een G od an d C hrist in which the latter is subordinate, a n d at th e sam e
tim e it characterizes G od as th e C hristian God, th e one uniquely associated
with Christ. “T h e F ath er o f glory” (cf. Acts 7:2, “th e God o f glory”) is a Semitic
genitival ph rase w here frequently th e second n o u n can have adjectival force.
T o translate it as “the glorious F ath er,” how ever, probably does no t cap tu re
sufficiently th e force o f the O T notion o f käböd as th e m ode o f G od’s being
an d activity, which lies beh in d the designation here. “Glory” denotes th e splen-
d o r o f th e divine presence an d pow er. In fact, in Paul “glory” an d “pow er”
can be synonym ous in term s o f G od’s activity (cf. Rom 6:4 a n d 1 C or 6:14
with referen ce to his activity in raising Christ). H ere in 1:17, as well as focusing
on the radiance o f G od’s being, glory m ay also be linked with th e notion o f
en lig h ten m en t in 1:18 as th e pow er to illum inate (cf. the connection betw een
the glory o f G od an d th e light o f know ledge in 2 C or 4:4, 6 ).
Iva . . . 8 chft i)pw irvevp a ao0ta? Kai anoKaXvipecas ev em yv co o e t airrov , “th a t . . .
(he) may give you th e Spirit o f wisdom a n d revelation in th e know ledge o f
him .” In v 8 o f th e eulogy G od has been blessed fo r supplying in his grace
all wisdom an d insight. Now this language is taken u p in the request th a t
w hat is already theirs m ight continue to be com m unicated to G od’s people
by th e Spirit, n v e v p a ao0tas Kai a7r0Ka\v\I/€0j<; is a variation on ev 7raafl cro0tg icat
o vveoei irvevpariK fi, “in all wisdom a n d insight w orked by th e S pirit” (Col 1:9).
T h e addition o f th e notion o f revelation corresponds to th e w riter’s em phasis
o n this them e later (esp. 3:3, 5). irv ev p a ao0ta? occurs a n u m b e r o f tim es in
the LXX, w here it refers to the inspiration o f th e m akers o f A aro n ’s garm ents
(Exod 28:3), Bezalel, th e craftsm an (Exod 31:3; 35:31), Jo sh u a (D eut 34:9,
n vev p a aiveaeco?), a n d G od’s M essiah (Isa 11:2). L ater the Q u m ra n com m unity
claim ed fo r itself, as th e p u re re m n a n t, th e Spirit o f u n d erstan d in g , insight,
wisdom, an d know ledge (IQ S 4.3– 5) a n d 1 Enoch 49.3 could say o f th e Elect
O ne th at “in him dwells the spirit o f wisdom , a n d th e spirit which gives insight,
an d th e spirit o f u n d ersta n d in g a n d o f m ig h t.” In th e O T , wisdom often involves
practical know ledge, th e ability to choose rig h t conduct, while in Paul it often
involves u n d ersta n d in g G od’s activity in C hrist a n d th e benefits it brings to
 Comment 57

believers. B oth o f these dim ensions surface in E phesians’ interest in th e notion

o f wisdom (1:8, 17; 3:10; 5:15) a n d in its ethical exhortations which m ake
use o f elem ents o f wisdom teaching.
T h e term nvevna anoKaXv^ecos does no t occur in th e LXX. 1 C or 2:10– 13
speaks o f the revelation th a t takes place th ro u g h th e Spirit, a n d in 1 C or
14:6, 26, 30 a7r0Ka\v\l/1s refers to th e spiritual gift o f receiving an d passing on
a revealed m essage. In Ephesians, w hen th e n o u n anoKakv1//15 is used again in
3:3 o r th e verb amKaXimreiv in 3:5, o r its synonym yvcopi^eiv in 1:9; 3:3, 5, 10;
6:19, it is in connection with various aspects o f the m ystery o f w hat God has
done in Christ. In 3:5 it is especially stated th a t such revelation takes place
th ro u g h th e Spirit. W hereas in 3:3 th e revelation is said to be for Paul him self,
an d in 3:5 it com es to th e holy apostles a n d pro p h ets, th e intercessory prayer-
re p o rt requests revelation for all believers. It is interesting th at the w riter
does n o t view revelation as restricted solely to the apostles an d prophets, al-
th o u g h th e revelation th a t cam e to th em appears to have foundational priority
an d authority (cf. 2:20; 3:5). Instead, revelation continues to be given by God
th ro u g h the Spirit to all believers to enable th em to u n d ersta n d the disclosure
o f G od’s secret an d to show th em how to live in th e light o f it. C ertainly the
experience o f th e S pirit’s illum ination, which was restricted to a select few in
Israel an d is g ran ted particularly to apostles an d p ro p h e ts in the C hurch, can
also be seen as belonging to th e C h u rch as a whole (cf. Col 1:26; also B arth,
164). T h e co n ten t o f this revelation to all believers is suggested by the petition
for th e threefo ld en lig h ten m en t which follows in vv 18, 19.
T h e re is discussion am ong the com m entators w h eth er 7rvevfxa w ithout the
definite article refers to th e h u m a n spirit as the possessor o f a spiritual gift
(Abbott, 28, B eare, 628, M itton, 67) o r to th e holy Spirit as th e giver o f wisdom
an d revelation (Flowers, ExpTim 38 [1926–27] 227; G augler, 62; C aird, 45).
It is difficult to m ake a sh arp distinction betw een th e Spirit o f God an d the
h u m an spirit, which is precisely th a t p a rt o f th e personality op en to the influence
o f the divine Spirit, a n d so som e see the reference h ere as being to both
equally (Gnilka, 90; B arth, 162). Paul was able to m ake som e distinction, h o w-
ever, an d was in fact capable o f using nvevna with the two different senses in
one sentence (Rom 8:16). In favor o f th e h u m a n spirit as the receiver o f
spiritual gifts in 1:17 are th e reference in 4:23, w here it is the h u m an spirit
which is renew ed, th e reference in Gal 6:1, w here “spirit o f gentleness” ap pears
to d enote a h u m an quality, a n d th e fact th a t a7r0fazX1^1? in 1 C or 14 refers to
a spiritual gift possessed by a believer. B ut th e factors which favor an em phasis
h ere on th e divine Spirit as giver are w eightier. T h ey include the explicit
m ention o f th e divine Spirit in connection with revelation in 3:5 (cf. also 1
C or 2:6– 16), th e a p p a re n t d ep en d en ce on Col 1:9 w here “spiritual” refers to
the Spirit, an d th e close verbal parallel to Rom 8:15 w here irvevixa utoöeata?,
“Spirit o f ad o p tio n ,” is to be taken as a reference to G od’s Spirit. So this is a
petition for th e Spirit him self to be at work, giving insights into an d unveiling
aspects o f th e p u rp o se o f G od in C hrist, an activity which could take place
privately, to individuals, o r in th e co rp o rate assembly g ath ered fo r w orship.
It is in this way th a t th e w riter envisages grow th in know ledge o f G od
com ing ab o u t— ev etnyvoxjei avrov. T his phrase picks u p on th e language o f
the intercessory p rayer-re p o rt in Col 1:9, “know ledge o f his will,” an d Col
58 Ephesians 1:15–23

1:10, “know ledge o f G od.” em yvoxns occurs several tim es in Colossians (cf.
also 2:2; 3:10) an d Ephesians (cf. also 4:13). Its synonym yvcoois is fo u n d in
Col 2:3 an d E p h 3:19. T h ese are term s which w ould have been congenial to
Hellenistic syncretistic religion with its concern fo r th e com m unication o f eso-
teric know ledge. It could well be th a t th eir use in these letters suggests a
contrast w ith this em phasis in th e syncretistic philosophy, indicating th a t this
is a p ray er fo r th e g enuine article, real know ledge o f G od (cf. also B arth,
149). F or a follower o f Paul ernyvcoms has m oral, as well as simply intellectual,
overtones from th e O T background. T h e living, obedient relationship with
G od th a t it involves is d e p e n d e n t o n G od’s p rio r know ledge o f hum anity (cf.
Gal 4:9; 1 C or 13:12). In its context, th e gen u in e know ledge o f G od requested
in 1:17 is g ro u n d e d in a life o f faith a n d love, is p ro d u ced by the Spirit, an d
is explained fu rth e r in th e rest o f th e p ray er in vv 18, 19.
18,19 T h e rest o f th e p ray er is a petition fo r a th reefo ld enlightenm ent.
T h e th ree clauses beginning w ith ris, 715, a n d ri ask fo r know ledge o f the
ho p e G od’s calling brings, know ledge o f the w ealth o f glory laid u p in his
in h eritance in th e saints, a n d know ledge o f th e im m ensity o f his pow er. T hese
are th ree d ifferen t aspects o f th e salvation believers should be experiencing,
each o f which should be given its own w eight, ra th e r th a n the inheritance
an d th e pow er being su b o rd in ated to h o p e as an expansion on w hat this ho p e
involves (pace Schlier, 8 1–82).
7re0coTta/ue>ou5 701>s o00aXpoi>5 7r)s Kap&a5 , “th e eyes o f your h ea rt having
been en lig h ten ed .” O n th e place o f this clause in the syntax see u n d e r Notes.
Is th e choice o f the im age o f “light” fo r know ledge related to th e contrast
betw een light a n d darkness in th e Colossian thanksgiving period (Col 1:12,
13), with which this E phesian thanksgiving perio d has so m uch in com m on?
J u s t as th e tran sference from darkness to light o f Col 1:12, 13 has been associated
with baptism (cf. Lohse, Colossians, 38), so som e com m entators have suggested
th at the referen ce to en lig h ten m en t h ere in 1:18 could be a reference to baptism
(cf. Schlier, 79; H o ulden, 275). A lthough certainly at a later date en lig h ten m en t
is eq u ated with baptism (cf. Odes Sol. 15; Ju stin M artyr, Apol. 1.61.12; 1.65.1;
Dial. 39.2; 1 2 2 .1 ,2 ,6 ), a n d h ere in Ephesians th e hym n with the line “a n d
C hrist will shine u p o n you” (5:14) is usually connected with baptism , th e re fer-
ence in 1:18 is to an in n e r en lig h ten m en t, affecting “th e eyes o f your h e a rt.”
T h e p erfect tense, w ith its sense o f a com pleted action which has continuing
force, m ust th e n re fe r to the illum ination o f conversion. T h e re ad ers’ state
p rio r to this is indicated by 4:18, “d ark en ed in th eir u n d ersta n d in g ,” a n d 5:8,
“for once you w ere d arkness.” B ut th e w riter believes th a t a decisive tran sfo rm a-
tion has tak en place a n d saving illum ination has b een b ro u g h t by th e S pirit
th ro u g h th e gospel. T his has affected th e h eart, which in O T a n d Jew ish
writings was seen as th e seat o f th o u g h t, th e o rg an o f practical know ledge
an d wisdom. A parallel to th e language o f this clause an d its context can be
fo u n d in th e Q u m ra n literatu re in th e blessing o f IQ S 2.3, “May H e lighten
your h ea rt with life-giving wisdom a n d g ra n t you etern al know ledge!” (cf.
also IQ S 11.3– 6). T h e actual ph rase “th e eyes o f th e h e a rt” is n o t fo u n d in
O T o r Jew ish w ritings b u t occurs in th e Corpus Hermeticum (cf. 4.11; 7.1) an d
can also be fo u n d later in 1 Clem. 36.2; 59.3, which m ay be d e p e n d e n t on
E phesians. T h is has suggested to som e th e possibility th a t th e p h rase was
 Comment 59

cu rren t in gnosticizing th o u g h t b u t was p u t to his own use by the w riter to

the E phesians (cf. G augler, 64).
e i 9 71‫ ־‬eifevai u/ua9 r19 ea rn ; 77 6X7ri9 7779‫ ־‬/<X77aec09 avrov, “th a t you may know
w hat is th e h o p e o f his calling.” T h e w riter believes it is essential th at the
addressees be aw are o f the h ope they can enjoy as a result o f the fact th at
God has called them . T h e language o f “calling” brings to m ind th at o f “choice,”
“pred estin atio n ,” an d “a p p o in tm en t” in the eulogy (1:4, 5, 11), an d it will occur
again at th e beg in n ing o f the paraenesis (4:1,4). T h e call o f G od is the actualiza-
tion in history o f his electing pu rp o se an d involves G od’s initiative in bringing
a person into relationship with him self (cf. Schlier, 82– 84, for a sum m ary o f
Paul’s trea tm e n t o f the notion o f calling). It is pow erful an d effective in opening
u p fo r th em th a t h o p e which is the co n ten t o f th e gospel. “It is a certain
hope: for it rests on the very fact th a t th e calling is G od’s calling an d no
weak wish o f ours fo r b etter things” (J. A. Robinson, 40). W hereas in 1:12
believers’ activity in h o p in g has been stressed, here it is th e object o f hope,
th at which is h o p ed for, which is in view, ra th e r th a n the disposition itself.
T h a t which believers ho p e for is the consum m ation o f th eir salvation, the
sum m ing u p o f all things in C hrist (1:10). T his notion o f hope as th at which
is h o p ed for accords with the usage o f the term in Colossians, w here it is said
to be already laid u p in heaven (1:5), w here it is seen as the content o f the
gospel (1:23), a n d w here C hrist am ong th e Gentiles is viewed as the h ope o f
glory (1:27). In line with the th o u g h t o f Colossians, alth o u g h hope h ere has
an inevitable fu tu re connotation, its reference is n o t restricted entirely to the
fu tu re (contra H o u lden, 275; M itton, 68). Since h ope is so closely tied u p to
C hrist as th e co n ten t o f salvation, it is already p resen t in heaven an d th ere
can be aw areness o f it in the C hurch. O nce the readers were separated from
C hrist an d h ad no ho p e (2:12), b u t now th ro u g h the w ork o f the Spirit they
can have an increasing know ledge o f the ho p e into which God has b ro u g h t
them by his call.
7 7 0 19‫־‬rXouro? 7779‫־‬779 60 ^ 779 7‫ ־‬Kkr}povoyia<$ airrov ev 70‫־‬Z9 6 7 1 0 1 9 , “w hat are the
riches o f his glorious inheritance am ong the saints.” T h e phrase ö 7rX0t)7779‫־‬09 7‫־‬
56£t79 occurs elsew here in Rom 9:23, 24 w here it is also connected with G od’s
calling o f his people from bo th Jew s a n d G entiles. H ere the riches o f glory
are linked particularly to G od’s inheritance am ong his people. M any com m enta-
tors have assum ed th at the w riter is thinking o f the believers’ inheritance.
B ut w hereas 1:14 talked about th at— 7779‫ ־‬K\r\povo1&a<; r^xCov, “o u r inheritance”—
an d believers’ obtaining th eir inheritance coincided with G od’s taking com plete
possession o f his people an d thereby his glory being praised, here in 1:18
the talk is o f 7779 Kkrjpovo^ia9 avrov, “his inh eritan ce,” G od’s inheritance, which
focuses n o t so m uch on w hat he gives his people as on the o th er side o f the
th o u g h t o f 1:14, his possession o f his people. In the O T G od’s inheritance is
frequently used as a synonym for his people, Israel (cf. D eut 4:20; 9:26, 29;
2 Sam 21:3; 1 Kgs 8 :5 1 ,5 3 ; 2 Kgs 21:14; Pss 28:9; 33:12; 68:9; 78 :6 2 ,7 1 ;
94:14; 106:5, 40; Isa 19:25; 47:6; 63:17; J e r 10:16; 51:19). H ere his inheritance
involves th e people o f G od from bo th Jew s a n d Gentiles, fo r it is ev 70 I9 6 7 1 0 1 9 ,
“am ong th e saints.” T h e m eaning o f 6 7 1 01 here has been m uch disputed,
however. Several com m entators believe th e reference is to the angels (cf. Schlier,
84; Gnilka, 91; Schnackenburg, 74; M ussner, 53– 54; cf. also my earlier view,
60 Ephesians 1:15–23

Lincoln, Paradise, 144). In th e O T th e angels can be called “holy ones” (ayuoi:

LXX J o b 15:15; Ps 8 8 :6 , 8 ; Isa 57:15; Am os 4:2; D an 8:13), a n d th e language
o f in h eritan ce is used in connection with th em at Q u m ra n — “G od has given
th em to his chosen ones as an everlasting possession, an d has caused th em to
in h erit th e lot o f th e Holy O nes” (IQ S 11.7, 8 ; cf. also 1Q H 11.7, 8 )— so th a t
th e elect com m unity o n ea rth is seen as jo in e d with th e angels in heaven. In
Paul ayiot does ap p e a r to re fe r to angels in 1 T hess 3:13 a n d 2 T hess 1:7,
10, an d this m ay well be th e significance o f th e term in Col 1:12, rep iKavcoocum
vpäs ei9 tt\v pepiba rov KXqpov tcjv ayicov ev T(p 0 cori, “who qualified us to share
in th e inh eritan ce o f th e holy ones in light” (cf. Lohse, Colossians, 35, 36; M artin,
Colossians, 54; Lincoln, Paradise, 119). T h is m akes sense in the context o f C olos-
sians fo r designating w hat is involved in th e believers’ inheritance. B ut elsew here
in th e N T th a t in h eritance involves a place am o n g the saints, th e people o f
G od (cf. Acts 20:32, bovvai 7‫־‬771‫ ׳‬nX^povopiav ev roLs r1ytaapev 01<; iraoiv, “to give
you th e in h eritan ce am ong all those who have been sanctified”; Acts 26:18,
Kkf\pov ev rot? ryyvcwpevoi^ m aret rfj 619 epe, “a place am ong those sanctified by
faith in m e”; cf. also Wis 5:5). E phesians uses sim ilar w ords to those in Col
1 : 1 2 b u t with a d ifferent relationship am o n g th em a n d in a difficult context.
H ere it is God's in heritance w hich is in view a n d his inheritance consists o f
th e believers who now constitute his people (cf. also A bbott, 30; G augler, 69;
H o u ld en , 275; E rnst, 288; M itton, 6 8–69). A n arro w er referen ce to Israel
(B arth, 151) o r Jew ish C hristians (C aird, 45) is n o t in view in this context.
T h o se who o p t fo r a reference to angels allow th e Q u m ra n parallels to be
too decisive. A reference to believers as a whole does best justice to th e in h e ri-
tance in 1:18 being G od’s a n d n o t believers’, to th e em phasis in the eulogy
on th e p eople o f G od as his possession, to th e o th e r a 7 10 1 references in Ephesians
(in 1:1, ju s t previously in 1:15, a n d th e n later in 2:19 an d 3:8), a n d to the
focus in this letter on th e C h u rch a n d glory in th e C h u rch (cf. 3:21; 5:27).
T his p a rt o f th e w riter’s petition, th en , is th a t th e readers m ight appreciate
the w onder, th e glory o f w hat G od has do n e in e n terin g into possession o f
his people, th e C h u rch from Jew s a n d G entiles, a n d th e im m ense privilege it
is to be am o n g these saints.
Kai ri to imepßäWov peyedos 7‫־‬f}9 övväpecos abrov et? 77 9(01‫־‬na7‫־‬eu01>7‫־‬a9 Kara
7‫־‬771‫ ׳‬evepyevav rod KpäTOVS 7‫־‬f}9 tax^o? avrov, “a n d w hat is th e surpassing greatness
o f his pow er tow ard us who believe, according to th e w orking o f his m ighty
stren g th .” T h e w riter also desires believers to know the greatness o f G od’s
pow er an d attem p ts to exhaust the resources o f th e G reek language by piling
u p fo u r synonym s fo r pow er in o rd e r to convey an im pression o f som ething
o f the divine m ight. T h re e o f th e term s are in a double genitive construction
at th e en d o f v 19 (cf. o th e r genitive constructions with w ords fo r pow er in
3:7 an d 6:10). Some com m entators have suggested th a t if th e re is any distinction
o f nuance, th e n Swap 19 denotes ability to accom plish som ething, evepyeia in h e r-
en t stren g th o r pow er, Kpäros th e pow er to overcom e w hat stands in the
way, an d tax*)? th e exercise o f pow er (cf. Schlier, 85; B arth, 152 n. 39). H ow ever,
th e p o in t in th e w riter’s h eap in g u p o f these expressions is n o t th eir distinctive-
ness, b u t th eir similarity. A gain, th e language o f th e Colossian thanksgiving
p eriod ap p ears to lie b eh in d th a t o f E phesians, this tim e from th e intercessory
prayer-re p o rt in Col 1:11, ev 7raafl dvväpei dvvapovpevoi Kara to KpaTOs 7 7 7 9 ^60 179‫־‬
 Comment 61

airrov, “m ay you be stren g th en e d with all pow er according to his glorious m ight.”
T h e accum ulation in term s in Ephesians, how ever, outdoes th a t in Colossians.
T h e im m ense pow er o f G od is exercised “tow ard us w ho believe.” H ere th ere
is a change to th e first person plural from the second person plural which
has do m inated th e p ray er a p a rt from the earlier description o f G od as “the
G od o f o u r L ord Jesu s C hrist.” T his ap p ears to be simply a stylistic variation,
ets, “tow ard,” can probably be u n d ersto o d to include th e sense o f ev, “in ” (cf.
3:20 w here G od’s pow er is said to be at w ork w ithin believers). T his life-giving
pow er o f the new age was th e pow er which raised C hrist from th e dead (1:20),
was th e revelatory pow er at w ork in P aul’s gospel (3:7), an d is th e pow er
available now fo r th e people o f G od in the continuing com m unication o f G od’s
grace. T h e p ray er is th a t believers should know a n d ap p ro p riate such power.
2 0 ,2 1 f\v evripyqicev ev rep Xptarcp eyetpa? avrov €K veicpcbv, “which he accom-
plished in C hrist w hen he raised him from th e d ea d .” T h e extent o f the pow er
available to believers has been d em o n strated in w hat G od has already done
in C hrist, particularly in raising him from th e d ead a n d exalting him . evr\pyr\Kev
picks u p on th e cognate n o u n evepyeua at the e n d o f v 19 an d as a perfect
signifies a com pleted action with a continuing effect. T h a t this act o f G od in
C hrist does have a determ inative effect on believers’ u n d ersta n d in g o f th eir
own existence will be m ade clear in 2 :5 ,6 . In delineating w hat God accom plished
in C hrist th ere is no m ention o f C hrist’s d ea th on the cross. Clearly this is
because th e focus o f the w riter’s atten tio n is on the pow er displayed in G od’s
activity, an d in P aul’s th o u g h t the cross is prim arily connected with weakness
b u t th e resu rrectio n with pow er (cf. 2 C or 13:4). O th e r places in P aul’s writings
which link the resu rrection o f C hrist with th e pow er o f G od are 1 C or 6:14,
Rom 1:4, an d Phil 3:10. Col 2:12 is particularly significant because it also
em ploys th e term evepyeva in connection with G od raising C hrist from the
dead. T h e creed al-sounding form ulation o f 1:20 reflects th e d o m in an t convic-
tion o f early C hristianity th at C hrist was alive, an d here, as nearly everyw here
else in the N T , his resurrection is seen as an act o f G od ra th e r th a n his own
act. Yet th e em phasis in the w riter’s th o u g h t is n o t o n th e resurrection itself
b u t m ore on the exaltation which receives atten tio n in th e rest o f vv 20, 21
an d which has such im portance fo r the perspective o f this letter.
m i Kadioas ev Se£1q. avrov ev rot? eTTOvpaviois, “an d seated him at his rig h t
h an d in th e heavenly realm s.” Tw o aspects o f C hrist’s victory over d eath are
featu red in th e N T —his resu rrectio n a n d his exaltation to a position o f pow er
an d authority. Som etim es only th e resu rrectio n is m entioned, as in 1 T hess
1:10; Gal 1:1; 1 C or 15:3; R om 1:4. Som etim es it is th e exaltation alone which
is stressed, as in Phil 2:9. A t o th e r times, as h ere in 1:20, both are m entioned
(cf. Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Acts 2:32, 33), b u t m ention o f both n eed n o t im ply
th at th e w riter h ad two separate episodes o f resurrection an d th e n ascension
in view as in L uke-Acts (pace H o u ld en , 273). T h e language o f exaltation used
here is th at o f th e com m on early C hristian tradition o f C hrist’s session at the
rig h t h an d o f G od, which takes u p Ps 110:1, one o f the portions o f th e O T
m ost frequently re fe rre d to in th e N T . Ps 110 m ay well originally have been
em ployed as an en th ro n e m e n t psalm for the king. Its term inology o f a session
at th e rig h t h a n d h ad parallels in th e ancient N ear E astern w orld w here the
king was often re p resen te d as seated n ext to the tutelary deity o f a particular
62 Ephesians 1:15–23

city o r nation. O ccupying a place o n th e god’s rig h t h a n d m ean t th a t the

ru le r exercised pow er on b eh a lf o f th e god an d held a position o f suprem e
h o n o r. In th e O T itself Y ahw eh’s rig h t h a n d is re p resen te d as th e position o f
favor (Ps 80:18; J e r 22:24), o f victory (Ps 20:6; 44:3; 48:10; Isa 41:10), an d
o f pow er (Exod 15:6; Ps 89:13; Isa 48:13). T h e re is no firm evidence th at
before th e tim e o f th e N T th e im agery o f th e psalm was given a m essianic
in terp retatio n . T h e earliest definite m essianic use in Ju d aism is to be fo u n d
in rabbinic traditions datin g from th e second h a lf o f th e th ird century c .e .
(cf. D. M. H ay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity [Nashville:
A bingdon, 1973] 19– 153, on th e use an d m ean in g o f the psalm in Judaism ).
W h eth er these traditions have a long history an d p re d ate the N T o r w h eth er
C hristians w ere th e first to use th e psalm messianically is th ere fo re difficult
to say, th o u g h a n u m b er o f studies incline to th e fo rm e r view (cf. Hay, Glory
at the Right H and, 30; W. R. G. L oader, “C hrist at the R ight H a n d — Ps. cx.l
in th e New T estam e n t,” N T S 24 [1978] 199). In any case Ps 110:1 cam e to
be ap p lied frequently to Jesus in th e early church. Paul h ad taken u p this
Christological in terp re tatio n in 1 C or 15:25; R om 8:34; a n d Col 3:1. H ere
the w riter continues this tradition in o rd e r to evoke C hrist’s position o f su p rem e
favor an d h o n o r, his place o f victory a n d pow er associated with his exaltation
to heaven.
W ith referen ce to C hrist’s place o f exaltation the w riter sets a symbolic
phrase, “a t his rig h t h a n d ,” next to a spatial one, “in the heavenly realm s.”
(See the discussion o f th e significance o f this latter phrase u n d e r 1:3 above.)
T h e functions o f th e two phrases are n o t to be equated, for th e fo rm er as a
symbol o f sovereignty is posited only o f C hrist, n o t o f believers (cf. 2:6 w here
despite th e o th e r parallels w ith 1:20 “at his rig h t h a n d ” is om itted). H ere, as
in o th er places in th e N T (cf. Acts 2:34; H eb 8:1), a reference to Ps 110:1 is
ju x tap o sed with a local setting o f heaven, so th a t while, on th e one h an d , the
w riter speaks o f C hrist in spatial term s, on th e o th er, his use o f an expression
such as “at his rig h t h a n d ” indicates th a t he viewed C hrist as also breaking
th ro u g h th e b o u n d s o f such categories (cf. also 4:10). Yet for th e early C hristians
C hrist h ad n o t sim ply d isap p eared n o r h ad he evaporated into a universal
spirit, b u t he h ad d ep a rte d to a new sphere, th a t o f heaven, which w ould be
ap p ro p riate to his tran sfo rm ed body’s m ode o f existence. In the view o f th e
history o f salvation as a cosmic dram a, which this w riter shares with Paul,
C hrist’s exaltation to heaven m eans th a t a shift in th e cen ter o f gravity from
the realm o f ea rth to th a t o f heaven has taken place, for the central figure in
the d ram a o f salvation has been m oved from th e setting o f ea rth to th a t o f
heaven, w here h e now is (cf. 6:9). T his is crucial fo r u n d ersta n d in g th e w riter’s
perspective in this letter. It is n o t th a t C hristology has been swallowed u p by
ecclesiology, b u t ra th e r th a t w hat has h a p p e n e d to C hrist becom es determ inative
for th e C h u rch in its relationship to the heavenly realm .
vnepavco 1rä0r!<; apx5?‫* ז‬ai e£01xrias Kai dwapeus Kai Kvpi&rrjro^, “far above every
principality a n d au thority a n d pow er a n d do m in io n .” T h e scope o f the victory
G od has secured by exalting C hrist is m ade clear by th e en u m eratio n o f the
d efeated cosmic powers. T his verse does n o t use th e characteristic term s o f
V alentinian Gnosticism , which spoke o f such cosmic beings as “aeons” an d
“archons” (rulers). R ather, those w ho trace th e language ab o u t the pow ers
 Comment 63

back to O T an d early Jew ish beliefs in angelic pow ers are likely to be right.
In fact all fo u r nam es fo u n d h ere are listed in 2 Enoch 20– 22, w here in the
seventh heaven ten classes o f angels are placed on ten steps according to
th eir ran k (cf. also 1 Enoch 61.10; T. Levi 3; 2 Macc 3:24). In Ju d aism th ere
was the belief th a t G od h ad delegated authority over the nations to angelic
beings. T h e no tio n th a t w hat h ap p en s am ong these beings in heaven affects
w hat h ap p en s am o ng th e nations on ea rth is reflected in D an 10:13, 20. M ono-
theis tic Jew s d en ied the deity o f pagan gods b u t n o t th eir existence an d influence,
which w ere linked to th e existence o f rebellious, fallen angels o r dem onic
powers (cf. D eut 32:17). T h e ir beliefs about such su p ern atu ral powers also
linked th em to th e various heavenly bodies an d saw th em as affecting all aspects
o f life (ci.Jub. 2.2; 1 Enoch 60.11, 12). It is significant th at the term bvvayLis is
used frequently in the LXX translation o f the phrase “L ord o f hosts.” (For a
sum m ary o f th e place o f angelic pow ers in Jew ish th o u g h t, cf. C arr, Angels
and Principalities, 2b—40; b u t cf. also W ink, Naming the Powers, 13– 35, fo r an
im p o rtan t corrective to C arr.) Paul m entions these sam e pow ers in 1 C or 15:24
b u t does n o t include th e last term m entioned here in 1:21, “dom inion.” In
Rom 8:38 “principalities” a n d “pow ers” ap p e a r in a list o f possible obstacles
betw een th e believer a n d the love o f G od in C hrist, which also includes “angels.”
B ut these principalities an d pow ers featu re m ost prom inently in Colossians,
with which E phesians is so closely connected. In Col 1:16 fo u r powers are
n am ed in a d ifferent o rd e r from E p h 1 : 2 1 an d dpövoi “th ro n es,” replaces the
term “pow er,” while Col 2:10, 15 bo th re fer to “principalities” an d “authorities.”
It is likely th at in th e syncretistic teaching being advocated in Colossae these
angelic powers w ere associated with th e “elem ental spirits” (Col 2:8, 20) an d
were seen as controlling the heavenly realm an d with it a p erso n ’s access to
the presence o f God. O ne way o f placating th em was the rigorous subduing
o f the flesh in o rd e r to gain visionary experience o f the heavenly dim ension
an d participate in th eir angelic liturgy. T his in tu rn was a m eans o f gaining
fullness o f salvation, reaching the divine presence a n d obtaining the esoteric
knowledge th a t accom panied such visions. All this would have been in addition
to w hat th e Colossians h ad h e a rd about C hrist, so th a t in effect he becam e
ju s t a n o th er in term ediary betw een hu m an s a n d God, ju s t one m ore way o f
p en etratin g th e heavenly dim ension to reach God. T h e w riter in th at setting
would allow no ultim ate dualism in re g ard to the powers. T hey were to be
seen as su bordinate to C hrist bo th in term s o f creation an d redem ption, the
latter involving th eir reconciliation o r pacification (cf. 1:20, also Lincoln, Para-
dise, 114– 22). T his background still has its echoes in Ephesians, as P aul’s disciple
writes to th e churches o f the Pauline m ission in Asia M inor. In addition to
1 :2 1 , 3 : 1 0 an d 6 : 1 2 pick u p the language o f “principalities” an d “au thorities.”
H ere in 1:21 th e w riter m akes clear th at C hrist cannot be viewed as on the
sam e level as o th e r angelic pow ers in th e cosmic hierarchy. His exaltation
has placed him above th em all.
T h e re has been discussion as to w h eth er the pow ers listed here are benign
o r hostile. C arr (Angels and Principalities, 9 8–99) believes the term s h ere may
only apply to abstract notions b u t asserts th at if th e reference is to personal
spiritual powers, th e n th e list contributes to th e Christology, no t by pointing
to C hrist’s victory over hostile powers, b u t simply by associating him with
64 Ephesians 1:15–23

G od as the one who receives th e recognition o f th e heavenly host. Yet w hen

the powers are listed by Paul in 1 C or 15:24–26, they are am ong th e enem ies
who are to be p u t u n d e r C hrist’s feet, a n d th e com bination o f allusions to Ps
110:1 an d Ps 8 : 6 in connection with these enem ies in 1 C orinthians is re p eated
h ere in E phesians (pace C arr, Angels and Principalities, 90–92, w ho fails to deal
convincingly with this point). 6 : 1 2 m akes explicit th at the principalities an d
authorities are evil forces (cf. also 2 :2 ) so th a t in this letter as a whole th e
powers are to be conceived as hostile beings (cf. also Schlier, 8 8 ; B arth, 180;
C aird, 46; Gnilka, 95; W ink, Naming the Powers, 50–55, 60–61; pace C arr, Angels
and Principalities, 93– 111, who has to a ttem p t to arg u e th a t E p h 6:12 is an
in terp o latio n into th e text d atin g from th e m iddle o f the second century).
T h e re is also discussion as to w h e th e r th e pow ers, which we have claim ed
to be su p ern atu ral beings, m ight in fact be h u m a n rulers o r political structures.
T h e p o p u lar dem ythologizing o f these pow ers in c u rre n t theology, w hereby
they re p resen t th e structures o f h u m an society which oppress people, m ay
well be a valid re in te rp reta tio n o f a N T concept b u t it is a rein te rp reta tio n .
T h e w riter him self believes the pow ers to be spiritual agencies in the heavenly
realm standing b eh in d any earthly o r h u m a n institutions (cf. 6 : 1 2 : “fo r o u r
com bat is not against flesh a n d blood, but against the principalities, against
the authorities, against the world-ru lers o f this d ark dom ain, against th e spiritual
forces o f evil in th e heavenly realm s”; pace, for exam ple, B arth, 175, w ho
holds th at in E phesians “both visible specific governors an d the invisible au th o r-
ity ex erted by them ; concrete conditions a n d m anifestations o f life a n d th e
invisible m ystery o f the psyche” are in view, a n d W ink, Naming the Powers,
60–64). W ink (Naming the Powers, 9) is clearly rig h t to assert th a t th e term s
for th e pow ers can be em ployed in the N T fo r d ifferen t sorts o f pow ers,
som etim es h u m an o r earthly, som etim es spiritual o r heavenly, an d th a t it will
d ep e n d o n th e context as to which is in view in a particu lar passage. B ut he
too quickly reads a com prehensive m eaning, w hich em braces all these types
o f powers, into certain passages, especially in Colossians an d Ephesians. H e
also m isconstrues Col 1:16, which he m akes his p aradigm (cf. Naming the Powers,
11, 64–67), w here th e term s fo r th e pow ers are best u n d ersto o d n o t as including
both things visible an d things invisible, b u t as an elaboration o f things invisible,
for th e benefit o f those so concerned with th e heavenly realm , iravra a n d r a
7rävra in E p h 1:22, 23 indicate th a t all things are in subjection to C hrist’s p re sen t
rule; b u t in line with Colossians, o n w hich he is d ep e n d en t, this w riter’s use
o f the specific term inology o f “principalities” a n d “authorities,” following on
his focus on C hrist’s exaltation to th e heavenly realm s, has reference to heavenly
spiritual powers, a n d the “all” th a t precedes denotes all such powers. W ink’s
view (104– 5) th at the cosmic pow ers do n o t have a separate spiritual existence
b u t are the in n e r o r spiritual essence, o r gestalt, o f an institution o r state o r
system m ay well be a h elpful way o f a p p ro p ria tin g first-century m ythology,
b u t it can hardly claim the su p p o rt o f th e text o f Ephesians. His version o f
E ph 6:12, “we wrestle n o t ju s t against flesh a n d blood b u t also against principali-
ties, against powers. . . ,” (117 – 18) reflects th e type o f change in w hat the
w riter actually said th at is necessary in such a move. (For fu rth e r su p p o rt for
o u r view th at th e pow ers in Colossians a n d E phesians are spiritual agencies
cf. also P. T . O ’B rien, “Principalities a n d Pow ers,” in D. A. C arson [ed.], Biblical
 Comment 65

Interpretation and the Church [Exeter: P aternoster, 1984] 110– 50, esp. 133– 36;
A rnold, Ephesians, 41– 56).
m i Tiavro^ bvöiiaros övoßa^ofievov ob jiöi>w ev rep aicbvi tovtco äXkä Kai ev rep
peAAom, “a n d every nam e th a t is nam ed n o t only in this age b u t also in th at
which is to com e.” T his rhetorical flourish at the e n d o f v 21 underlines the
universality o f C h rist’s ru le over any im aginable cosmic forces an d brings hom e
to believers th a t they have no possible justification for considering them selves
u n d e r the control o f such powers. T h e phrase “every nam e th at is n am ed ”
indicates th at th e preceding list o f nam es was n o t m ean t to be exhaustive
an d suggests th a t th e pow ers o f which the w riter speaks include beings w hom
m any in Asia M inor m ight re g ard as deities. “T o call on the nam e” o f a deity
is a fam iliar O T expression for w orship o f th at deity, e.g., 1 Kgs 18:24. A rnold
(Ephesians, 54 – 55) has draw n atten tio n to the fact th a t th e calling o f the nam es
o f deities an d su p ern atu ral pow ers was fu n d am en tal to the practice o f magic,
an d th erefo re th e term ovoya itself is pervasive in the magical papyri. It is
significant for this w riter’s view o f C hrist’s suprem acy over th e nam es th at in
Phil 2:9– 11 Paul could say th at th ro u g h his exaltation C hrist h ad been given
the nam e above every nam e.
T h e explicit m en tion in 1:21 o f th e two ages, a notion fo u n d in som e Jew ish
apocalypses, provides the only reference in the Pauline corpus to both ages
(cf. M att 12:32). Paul him self saw C hristian believers as those “u p o n w hom
the en d o f th e ages has com e” (1 C or 10:11) an d in a n u m b er o f places sets
believers over against “this age” (cf. Gal 1:4; 1 C or 1:20; 2 :6 ,8 ; 3:18; 2 C or
4:4; Rom 12:2). W hen speaking o f a p re sen t experience o f the benefits o f
the age to com e h e will often do so in term s o f th e Spirit or, as in th e eschatology
o f the apocalypses, with reference to th e heavenly dim ension (cf. Lincoln,
Paradise, 170– 80). It is striking th a t h ere in E phesians w here “realized” eschatol-
ogy is so m uch to th e fore, this reference to “th e age to com e” treats it as still
fu tu re (cf. also 2:7). T h e w riter is n o t h ere concerned with the Pauline overlap
o f th e ages, b u t th e two ages re p resen t th e p re sen t a n d th e fu tu re in conventional
Jew ish m a n n e r (cf. also H oulden, 276– 77; B arth, 155; M itton, 73,,pace Schlier,
8 8 ; C aird, 47). It is tru e th a t the w riter’s em phasis on C hrist’s exaltation to
heaven an d its benefits for the C h u rch indicates clearly th a t he believes the
age to com e has already been in au g u rated . His view in 1:10 also is th at the
adm inistration o f th e fullness o f tim es is already u n d e r way. B ut his use o f
language in 1 : 2 1 rem ains traditional a n d has n o t b een coordinated with th at
perspective (cf. also Schnackenburg, 78, 84). It is also tru e, how ever, th a t the
fu tu re age will b rin g n o th in g new, fo r th e victory o f C hrist’s exaltation above
every nam e in this age continues into th e com ing age (cf. also L indem ann,
Aufhebung, 211). T his n eed n o t im ply th a t tem p o ral categories are o f no signifi -
cance for the w riter. T h e very fact th a t he still uses traditional two-age term in o l-
ogy is p a rt o f th e evidence th a t in E phesians realized eschatology has not
obliterated all fu tu rist eschatology (cf. also 1:14; 2:7; 4:30; 5 :5 ,2 7 ; 6 :8 , 13).
22a Kai 7m v r a vn erc^ ev im o rou? 7 r 0 5 a s a v r o v , “a n d he placed all things u n d e r
his feet.” So co ncerned is th e w riter to em phasize th e suprem acy o f C hrist’s
heavenly status th a t he continues to h eap u p fu rth e r clauses u n d erlin in g it.
T his assertion in v 22a sum s u p w hat has p receded with a citation o f Ps 8 : 6
[7 LXX]. It differs from th e LXX in th a t a finite form o f th e verb replaces a
66 Ephesians 1:15 – 23

participle an d m o tous 7rööa<? is p re fe rre d to monarch tcov tto&cov. T h e w ording

thereby corresponds to the version o f the citation used by Paul in 1 C or 15:27.
Ps 8:6 itself recalls G en 1:26–28 a n d ho n o rs h um anity as created in G od’s
im age to exercise d om inion over th e rest o f th e created order. In typological
fashion Paul has applied this to C hrist as th e last A dam to w hom , by virtue
o f his resu rrectio n , h ad b een resto red d om inion over the cosmos (cf. also
Phil 3:21). T h is in terp re tatio n has been co n tin u ed by his follower. 7rävra, which
in th e original psalm re fe rre d to th a t p a rt o f th e creation below hum anity in
the hierarchy, now has the sam e scope as r a 7xavra in 1:10,23 so th a t the
whole universe, heaven an d earth , cosmic pow ers an d h u m an beings, is seen
as su b o rd in ated to th e exalted C hrist. T h e ju x tap o sitio n o f th e use o f Ps 8:6
with th e use o f Ps 110:1 rem inds one o f 1 C or 15:25, 27. B ut in 1 C or 15:25,
as o p p osed to E p h 1:20, it is th e second p a rt o f Ps 110:1, a n d n o t the session
at th e rig h t h a n d o f th e first p art, to which reference is m ade. It is likely th at
E ph 1:20, 22 are d ep e n d e n t on 1 C or 15, which in tu rn draw s on a com m on
exegetical trad itio n in th e early ch u rch w hereby Ps 8:6 h ad becom e linked to
Ps 110:1 in draw ing o u t the im plications o f C hrist’s resu rrectio n an d exaltation
(cf. H eb 1:3, 13; 2:5– 8; 1 P et 3:22). T h e m ediation o f this use o f the O T via
1 C or 15:24 – 28 is suggested by th e fact th a t th e w ording o f Ps 8:6 is the
sam e in bo th cases an d th e term inology for th e subjugated pow ers is the sam e,
except th a t E phesians has ad d ed “do m in io n ” to th e e n d o f th e list. (For fu rth e r
discussion o f this indirect use o f th e O T cf. Lincoln, J S N T 14 [1982] 4 0–42.)
W hereas in 1 C or 15 the use o f Ps 8:6 su p p o rts a view o f C hrist’s cosmic
lordship which focuses on its full realization at th e en d o f history, h ere in
E phesians it su p p o rts a perspective o f realized eschatology, as the mera%ev is
to be taken in a straightforw ard sense, indicating th a t th e act o f subjection
has already occurred. T his difference is a striking one, th o u g h n o t in itself
decisive in re g ard to the question o f au th o rsh ip , fo r elsew here in Paul C hrist’s
rule over th e cosmos is seen as having already taken place (cf. Phil 2:10, 11;
3:21b; Col 2:15). B ut certainly in E p h 1, in th e context o f prayer, th e language
o f w orship o f th e exalted L ord anticipates th e consum m ation o f history.
2 2 b , 23 T h e final th ree clauses o f th e first ch a p te r are som e o f th e m ost
difficult o f th e whole epistle for th e com m entator. N ot only do they contain
m ajor problem s o f syntax an d translation, b u t they also introduce key term s
(head, church, body, a n d fullness), to w hich an im m ense am o u n t o f secondary
literatu re has b een devoted. T h e limits o f this com m entary forbid any full-
scale review o f an d interaction with th e literatu re, b u t an attem p t will be m ade
to sketch th e b ro ad outlines o f such scholarly discussion.
Kai a v r o v edojKev Ke<pa\r\v m e p 7rä v r a rfj eKKXrpiqL, “a n d gave him as head
over all things to th e C h u rch .” 650 oicev has b een translated in line with its
n o rm al m ean in g as “gave” ra th e r th a n as a Sem itism reflecting th e H ebrew
]TW.nätan, which can have the sense o f “to a p p o in t” (cf. also A bbott, 34; Gnilka,
97; H ow ard, N T S 20 [1974] 353; pace B arth, 158). T his is how 8i 8copt is used
th ro u g h o u t E phesians with an indirect object in th e dative case (cf. 1:17; 3:2,
7, 8 , 16; 4:7, 8 , 11, 27, 29; 6:19). T h e indirect object h ere in v 22b is rf) e/acXr^rig,
an d th e use o f th e verb in its m ore usual sense brings o u t th e characteristic
em phasis o f E phesians on G od’s grace tow ard th e C hurch.
In fact this last p a rt o f the thanksgiving an d its use o f confessional m aterial
 Comment 67

is d o m inated by th e concept o f the C hurch. H ere is its first explicit m ention,

b ut it is im m ediately given an exalted status, for C hrist as cosmic L ord has
been given to th e C hurch. T h e w riter has elaborated on the suprem acy God
has given to C hrist in relation to the cosmos in vv 20– 22a, b u t now all these
statem ents ab o u t his lordship over the cosmos are su bordinated to a statem ent
ab out G od’s p u rp o se fo r C hrist in re g ard to th e C hurch. Syntactically, the
weight o f this clause falls on rf? eicKX17atg at th e end, an d the em phasis on the
C h u rch continues in the two descriptive clauses which follow. T h e notion o f
believers as th e people o f God has been presen t both in the eulogy an d earlier
in this thanksgiving b u t now com es to explicit focus. T his direction in the
w riter’s th o u g h t has already been set in v 19 w here he has said th at the greatness
o f G od’s pow er, which was effective in C hrist’s exaltation, is “tow ard us who
believe.”
Now this is taken fu rth e r, as the result o f th at pow er, an d C hrist’s suprem acy
over the cosmos is seen to be for th e benefit o f believers, h ere described as
“the C h u rch .” Paul h ad in h erited the term eKtckrtoia from the C hristian com m u-
nity, probably from hellenistic Jew ish C hristian circles (cf. K. B erger, “Volksver-
Sam m lung u n d G em einde Gottes: Zu d en A nfängen d e r christlichen V erw en-
d u n g von ‘ekklesia,’ ” Z T K 73 [1976] 167– 207). In ordinary G reek usage it m eant
an assembly o r g athering, b u t in th e LXX it was th e p red o m in an t term for
translating ‫ ק ה ל‬, qāhāl, an d its usage for th e covenant assembly o f Israel before
Yahweh. In Paul it is used m ost frequently for th e actual g athering o f a group
o f local C hristians o r fo r the local g ro u p which g ath ered regularly. B ut in a
n u m b er o f places he ap pears to have in view an entity which is b ro ad er th an
the m erely local congregation (cf. Gal 1:13; 1 C or 10:32; 12:28; 15:9; Phil
3:6). Colossians certainly refers to a C h u rch which consists o f all believers
(1:18,24), as well as containing references to local gatherings (4:15,16).
H ere in E p h 1:22, following Col 1:18, 24 w here eiacXrioia is used in apposition
to oQpa as a designation for th e new com m unity in C hrist, the reference is to
the universal C h u rch, th e C hristian com m unity in its totality. T his is also the
case in the o th e r eight uses o f the term in E p h 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29,
32 (pace R. Banks, Paul's Idea of Community [G rand R apids: E erdm ans, 1980]
44–47, who claims th at the references in E phesians are to a heavenly assembly
p erm anently in session).
T o th e C h u rch in general C hrist has been given as head over all. T h e
absence o f th e article before iravra in th e phrase Ke0 aX771> virep iravra does no t
m ean th at this is no t a reference to th e cosmos (pace M ussner, Christus, 30,
31, who takes th e phrase to indicate su p rem e headship), b u t is to be explained
by the fact th at th e w riter is taking u p th e language o f the psalm citation in
v 22a in o rd e r to develop his arg u m e n t in this ecclesiological direction. If
iravra refers to th e cosmos, w hat is th e force o f K60 aXr7 in this phrase? In its
LXX usage /ce0aXri often translates the H ebrew 10‫ ר א‬, rö’s, in the sense o f “ru le r”
o r “lead er” (e.g., D eut 28:13; J u d g 10:18 A; 11:11; 2 Sam 22:44; Isa 7 :8 ,9 ),
the notion o f auth ority being connected with th a t o f priority in the use o f
the H ebrew term (cf. B edale, J T S 5 [1954] £ 11– 15). Paul h ad used “h ea d ”
with this sense in 1 C or 11:3, a n d it is so used in Col 2:10, “the h ead o f all rule
an d au th o rity ,” which m ost clearly stands b eh in d “h ead over all things” here
in E ph 1:22. It should be n o ted th a t th e w riter’s po in t in this verse is n o t to
68 Ephesians 1:15 – 23

m ake an explicit assertion ab o u t C hrist’s h ead sh ip over the C hurch, his body.
How ever, a clear im plication o f th e th o u g h t th a t th e one w ho is h ead over
all is given to th e C h u rch is th at h e is also h ea d o f th e C hurch. Strictly speaking,
the im ages o f “h ea d ” an d “body” are kept separate here; C hrist’s h eadship
refers to his relation to th e cosmos a n d th e n “body” is b ro u g h t in as a description
o f the C h u rch to which C hrist is given (cf. also M euzelaar, Der Leib des Messias,
122; H ow ard, N T S 20 [1974] 353; pace Best, One Body, 146– 47; J . A. T . R obin-
son, Body, 66).
N evertheless, because th e two im ages are in close ju x tap o sitio n here, because
they have b een b ro u g h t very closely to g eth er in the influential letter to the
Colossians (cf. 1:18; 2:19), a n d because later in E phesians they will also be
b ro u g h t m ore closely to g eth er (cf. 4:15; 5:23), som ething m ore needs to be
said ab o u t th e relationship betw een them . Som e have b een tem p ted to see
th em simply as p a rt o f one physiological m odel, in which the h ead contains
the brain which directs th e nervous system o f th e rest o f th e body an d on
which th e body is d e p e n d e n t (e.g., J. A. R obinson, 43, 103). B edale (JTS 5
[1954] 212; cf. also R idderbos, Paul, 379– 82) holds th a t “this is to be guilty
o f serious anachronism : for this m etap h o r, which is ‘n a tu ra l’ to us, w ould be
unintelligible to St. Paul o r his readers, w ho h ad no idea o f the real function
o f the central nervous system .” B arth (186–92; cf. also B enoit, Jesus and the
Gospel, 74) is less inclined to dismiss th e physiological m odel a n d shows from
his investigation o f the neurological know ledge o f th e tim e th a t H ippocrates
(c. 460– 380 b .c .e .) a n d G alen (c. 130– 200 c .e .) did see the b rain as th e strongest
force in a person, ru lin g the nerves a n d coordinating w hat w ent on in the
body. H ow ever, a n o th e r stran d in G reek th o u g h t, re p resen te d by A ristotle
an d th e Stoics, ascribed priority to the h eart, a n d this, o f course, was the
view fo u n d in O T an d Jew ish th in k in g w here the h e a rt was th e cen ter o f the
personality a n d its reason a n d will. In com parison to th e term inology o f H ip p o-
crates an d Galen, Colossians a n d E phesians speak o f th e head a n d th e body,
n o t th e b rain a n d th e nerves, a n d th e re are n o clear parallels in H ippocrates
o r Galen to th e n o tion o f the body’s grow th from the h ead (Col 2:19; E ph
4:15, 16). A lthough he toys w ith it as an explanation, B arth eventually has to
concede th at th e physiology o f P aul’s tim e can n o t be considered th e key to
the h ead-body im agery o f this letter.
O thers have so u ght th e key in Gnostic th o u g h t ab o u t the Prim al M an-Re-
d eem er who constitutes one hu g e body (e.g., H. Schlier, T D N T 3 [1965] 673–
82; idem , Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 37–60; K äsem ann, Leib, 56–
94, 168– 71; Pokorny, Epheserbrief, 33– 81). T h e Prim al M an, the head, bears
the cosmos, th e body, w ithin him self. T h e souls o f hu m an s are p a rt o f the
one body, b u t this has fallen away into m atter a n d becom e scattered, so th a t
the R edeem er as h ead has to g ath er all again into one body. It is n o t claim ed
by scholars w ho suggest this as a key th a t th e m yth is fo u n d in E phesians,
b u t th at th e w riter o f the letter has b een influenced by o r interacted with it.
Yet th e m ajor differences betw een th e dualistic cosm ology o f th e m yth an d
the worldview o f Ephesians, a n d betw een th e uses o f th e term inology “h e a d ”
an d “body” in th e two contexts, m ake it h a rd to see th e Gnostic m yth as the
m ajor source o f th e use o f this im agery in Ephesians. E x p an d in g the physiologi-
cal m odel to cosmic p ro p o rtio n s does n o t rem ove its difficulties. Elem ents o f
the Gnostic m yth do n o t provide obvious parallels to th e notion o f the body
 Comment 69

grow ing from th e head in E ph 4:15, 16. M oreover, in Ephesians, the head,
alth o u g h in intim ate relationship with th e body, is never m ade identical to it,
as at certain points in the Gnostic schem a. A gain, alth o u g h E phesians sees
C hrist an d th e C h u rch as in u n io n (cf. 5:32), it does n o t see th e h ead plus
the body as constituting the one figure o f th e heavenly C hrist (pace Schlier,
91, 92). Above all, th e re are crucial questions ab o u t th e legitim acy o f talking
ab out a u n ifo rm Prim al M an-R edeem er m yth which uses th e concept o f “body”
in this way, given th e frag m en tary n a tu re a n d variety o f th e sources used in
its scholarly reconstruction. Even with th e discovery o f the N ag H am m adi
texts th ere rem ains no clear literary evidence th a t such a m yth was p re-C hristian,
b u t ra th e r m uch d ispute ab o u t read in g back into the first century the views
o f texts which are m uch later (cf. Schenke, Der Gott “Mensch” in der Gnosis,
esp. 1– 5; 155– 56; C olpe, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule [G öttingen: V anden-
hoeck & R u p rech t, 1961] 171– 93, 203– 8; fo r differing views on the validity
o f reconstructing a p re-C hristian Gnosticism from th e N ag H am m adi texts
cf. E. Yam auchi, “P re-C hristian G nosticism in the N ag H am m adi T exts?” CH
48 [1979] 129– 41; G. W. MacRae, “N ag H am m adi an d th e New T estam en t,”
Gnosis, FS H. Jo n as, ed. B. A land [G öttingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1978]
144– 57).
E arlier H ellenistic views ab o u t th e cosmos which m ay have contributed to
later Gnostic th o u g h t are m ore likely candidates for influence on the com bina-
tion o f “h ea d ” a n d “b ody” im agery in Colossians a n d Ephesians. T h e LXX
does n o t provide any instances o f such a com bination. Elsew here in G reek
th o u g h t w here th e city o r state was depicted as a body, the ru le r could be
seen as “h ea d ” o f th e body (cf. T acitus, Ann. 1.12, 13; P lutarch, Galba 4.3;
C urtius R ufus, Historiae Alexandri M agni Macedonensis 10.9.1; Philo, De Praem.
et Poen. 114, 125). In addition, th e body was used as an im age fo r the cosmos
an d in th at context “h e a d ” som etim es occured with it. In an O rphic frag m en t
(F ragm ent 168) Zeus is depicted as head o f the cosmos, pervading it with his
pow er as it lies in his m ighty body. In Philo, the Logos is seen as th e leading
principle o f th e cosmos as the body, a n d Ke0 aXr7 is used fo r this relationship
(Quaest. in Exod. 2.117), alth o u g h o th e r p arts o f this w ork in which the term
occurs ap p e a r to be the w ork o f a C hristian in terp o lato r (cf. also De Somn.
1.128). It is generally th o u g h t th a t the earlier form o f the Colossian hym n
contained th e assertion in 1:18 th a t C hrist is th e head o f the body an d m ean t
by “th e body” th e cosmos, a n d th at th e a u th o r o f Colossians by ad d in g “the
C h u rch ” after “th e body” gave the th o u g h t o f th e original line his own direction
(cf. Lohse, Colossians, 54–55; Schweizer, Neotestamentica, 293–301; Colossians,
58– 59, 82–83; H eg erm an n , Schöpfungsmittler, 138–57). T his is the first instance
o f “h ead ‫ ״‬an d “body” com ing to g eth er in th e Pauline corpus. So, it is likely
th at the relation betw een “h e a d ” a n d “body” en te re d Pauline th o u g h t in this
way via Hellenistic ideas ab o u t the cosmos. E arlier letters o f Paul use the
im agery o f “h e a d ” fo r authoritative lead er an d “body” for the organic in te rd e-
pendence o f believers in the church, b u t do n o t com bine them . T h e Colossian
situation a n d the Christological em phasis n eed ed to m eet it a p p e a r to have
provided th e catalyst for th e com bination o f two originally in d e p e n d e n t images.
T h e connotations o f th e H ebrew 10‫ ר א‬, röfs, lie b eh in d Ke0aXr) an d m ean th at
in som e places Ke0aXr? is synonym ous with apxv a n d has the force o f d eterm in a-
tive source o r origin; this allows for th e developm ent o f th o u g h t w hereby the
70 Ephesians 1:15– 23

body is n o t only in subjection to th e h ea d as its au thoritative “overlord” b u t

also derives its grow th an d developm ent from its h ead (cf. also B ed ale, JTS 5
[1954] 214).
T o re tu rn to E p h 1:22b: /ce0 aXr7 is used h ere to den o te C hrist’s position o f
ru le a n d au th o rity over all things, a n d as th e one given to the C hurch, th e
head is an entity distinct from the body. In th e ju x tap o sitio n o f cosmic an d
ecclesiological perspectives fo u n d in this clause, th e w riter has taken a confes-
sional fo rm u latio n ab o u t C hrist’s cosmic lordship a n d su bordinated it to his
in terest in th e C h u rch ’s w elfare. All th e suprem acy an d pow er G od has given
to C hrist h e has given to be used on b eh a lf o f th e C hurch. In this way the
C h u rch is seen to have a special role in G od’s purposes for the cosmos.
77719 ‫ ־‬eariv to ocbfxa auroö, “w hich is his body.” T h e w riter continues his em-
phasis on th e C h u rch in o rd e r to spell o u t its significance fu rth e r. Since w hat
has been given to the C h u rch is C hrist as h ead over all things, it is n o t surprising
th a t th e C h u rch is now described as C hrist’s body, particularly since on th e
two occasions eKKXrjGia is used o f th e universal church in Colossians, it is also
identified as th e body o f C hrist (cf. 1:18, 24). T his im age is used o f th e local
ch u rch in th e earlier Paulines, b u t questions relating to the origin of, a n d the
influences on, P aul’s use are d isp u ted ones. B ecause o f the connection o f the
im age with th at o f “h e a d ” in Colossians an d E phesians, o u r discussion o f these
questions will inevitably overlap at som e points with the preceding discussion
o f th at term .
T h e no tio n o f the universe as a gigantic cosmic body was fairly w idespread.
In Iran ian th o u g h t, the G od A ion was depicted as p re g n a n t with th e creation
an d giving b irth to all things. T his su p rem e god was conceived o f as a hu g e
h u m an figure whose body consisted o f the cosmos (cf. H eg erm an n , Schöpfungs-
mittler, 59–61). In the G reco-R om an w orld it was also com m on to com pare
the cosmos to a body. A n im p o rtan t source fo r this notion is Plato (cf. Tim.
30b - 34B, 47c - 48B). It was developed by th e Stoics who em phasized how each
elem ent in th e universe was p a rt o f an organic whole ju s t as each m em ber o f
the body was (cf. Diog. L aert. 7.138, 142, 143, 147; Cicero, Nat. Deor. 1.35;
3.9; Seneca, Nat. Quaest. 6.14.1; Ep. 95.52; De Ira 2.31. 7, 8). T h e sam e im agery
can be fo u n d later in th e Corpus Hermeticum (cf. 1:2, 3; 4:2; 10:12). It also
becam e p a rt o f th e thinking o f H ellenistic Ju d aism as evidenced by Philo (cf.
De Plant. 7; De Op. M undi 82; De Migr. Abr. 220; De Spec. Leg. 1.210), who
com bined such a notion with his teaching ab o u t th e Logos (cf. De Spec. Leg.
1.96; De Vit. Mos. 2.127, 133, 134).
A n o th er com m on application o f the im age o f the body was to th e social
entity o f th e state in which the individual m em bers have responsibility for
each o th e r a n d fo r th e whole (cf. Plato, Resp. 5.464B; Aristotle, Pol. 1.1,2;
Cicero, Phil. 8.5, 16; De Off. 1.25, 85; Seneca, De Clem. 1.5.1; Livy, 26.16.19).
Well know n in this re g ard was M enenius A g rip p a’s allegory about the belly
an d th e limbs (cf. Livy, 2.32.8– 12). Philo, too, talks o f all the parts o f the
n ation being w elded into one a n d th e sam e fellowship as th o u g h it w ere a
single body (De Spec. Leg. 3.131).
As we have already seen, others believe “body” im agery in Gnostic th o u g h t
to be decisive fo r N T usage, since the Prim al M an was held to constitute one
hu g e body w ith th e h ead being th e deity a n d the rest o f th e body the w orld.
 Comment 71

T h e reasons given above for d o u b tin g th a t Gnosticism holds the key to the
com bination o f “h e a d ‫ ״‬an d “body” im ages also apply in large m easure to the
latter im age alone (cf. also M euzelaar, Der Leib des Messias, 8– 10; Schenke,
Der Gott “Mensch,” 155–56; M ussner, Christus, 160–74; C olpe, “Z ur Leib-C hristi-
V orstellung,” 178– 82; W ed d erb u rn , SJT 24 [1971] 82– 85).
Jew ish speculations ab o u t the physical body o f A dam which included all
hum anity have been suggested as a fu rth e r possible source for P aul’s view o f
the body o f C hrist which in corporated the new hum anity (cf. W. D. Davies,
Paul and Rabbinic Judaism [New York: H a rp er, 1965] 53–57). In certain rabbinic
traditions d ifferen t individuals could be conceived as being derived from o r
attached to different parts o f A dam ’s body, e.g., Exod. Rab. 40.3. Paul was
certainly fam iliar with Jew ish ideas ab o u t A dam as th e representative o f h u m a n-
ity, the one who stands for all who are included in him (cf. 1 C or 15:20– 22,
44b - 49; Rom 5:12– 21). B ut th ere is no evidence th a t in this he was d ep e n d en t
on speculations specifically about A dam ’s physical body. R ather, it is likely
th at the overall n otion o f co rporate o r representative solidarity has affected
his thinking ab o u t th e incorporation o f th e new hum anity into C hrist, although
O T an d apocalyptic writings in which it is fo u n d did n o t use the “body” im age
for this notion. P aul’s use o f “body” im agery in 1 C or 12:12– 27 an d Rom
12:4, 5, in its em phasis on the in terd ep en d en ce o f diversity in unity, does
have som e parallels with the use o f the im age in G reco-R om an th o u g h t for
the fu nctioning o f the state. Yet, in addition, 1 C or 12 (vv 12, 13, 27) m akes
a com parison o f th e body with C hrist, talks o f baptism into one body, and
calls believers th e body o f C hrist, while Rom 12:5 speaks o f this body as being
in Christ, so th at the notion o f incorporation into C hrist, with its background
in Jew ish ideas o f representative solidarity, is also re q u ired fo r an explanation
o f P aul’s usage (cf. Best, One Body, 93–95, 111–12; Schweizer, Neotestamentica,
280– 90; W ed d erb u rn , SJT 24 [1971] 83– 96). T his is again clear in the earlier
reference to th e body o f C hrist in 1 C or 10:16, 17, which, in addition to the
them e o f the o n e an d th e m any, m entions participation in the body o f Christ.
It is also d e p e n d e n t on the eucharistic tradition ab o u t the body o f the crucified
C hrist (cf. 1 C or 11:23– 32), which thus ap p ears to have been a fu rth e r form ative
influence in P aul’s developm ent o f this concept.
By the tim e o f Colossians an d E phesians the term “the body” has becom e
an explicit description o f the universal C h u rch as distinct from the m ore local
application o f th e im age in 1 C or 12 o r Rom 12. In fact, o f the m any references
to the “body” in Colossians an d E phesians only two explicitly retain the original
com parison involving th e in terd e p en d en c e o f the parts o f a social organism
(cf. Col 2:19; E p h 4:15, 16). Elsew here the term occurs in Col 1:18, 24; 3:15;
an d E ph 1:23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4, 12, 16; 5:23, 29. In the m ajority o f these instances
it is used fo r viewing th e C h u rch as a com pact whole, in relation to C hrist as
its head. T h e change in em phasis is in tro d u ced by Colossians, as the Pauline
gospel interacts with a syncretistic teaching with cosmological interests. T h e
w riter fo u n d th e hym n to C hrist (Col 1:15– 20), with its cosmic em phases,
ap p ro p riate fo r his purposes in instructing th e Colossians b u t changed its
conception o f the cosmos as C hrist’s body, sim ilar to ,that in Hellenistic Judaism
o f the cosmos as the body p en e trated by th e Logos, to show th at the tru e
body o f C hrist is the C hurch, an d the perm eatio n o f the cosmos by his rule
72 Ephesians 1:15–23

is a p resen t reality in it. T h e tran sfer o f “body” im agery from the cosmos to
th e C h u rch was a n atu ra l en o u g h m ove, since P aul h ad already used this
im agery in connection with believers in 1 C orinthians a n d Rom ans. T h e w riter
o f E phesians continues this em phasis. H e re in 1:23 th e use o f “body o f C hrist”
term inology afte r e/c/cX7?ata un d erlin es th a t the existence o f th e eschatological
people o f G od has a C hristological focus. T his w riter is ju s t as concerned as
was th e w riter o f Colossians to show that, alth o u g h C hrist is h ead over the
cosmos, it is th e C h u rch which is his body.
Such an assertion does n o t lose th e essentially m etaphorical force o f the
body language as it was applied to believers in th e earlier letters, despite the
wish o f som e in terp re ters to trea t th e expression “body o f C hrist” realistically
an d see th e C h u rch as literally an extension o f th e incarnation (cf. also Best,
One Body, 95– 101; G undry, Sōma, 223–44; pace J. A. T . R obinson, The Body,
5 1 ,5 8 ; B enoit, Jesus and the Gospel, 53–58; Percy, Leib Christi, 44). Failure to
use simile is no m ore decisive against th e use o f m etap h o r h ere th an , for
instance, in 1 C or 3:9 w here Paul says th e C orinthian believers are G od’s field,
G od’s building. T h e ap p ro ach which presses fo r a mystical identification o f
C hrist an d th e C h u rch on th e basis o f th e expression “body o f C hrist” seizes
on a single m etap h o r an d builds on it a whole ecclesiology, which does n o t
do en o u g h justice to th e distinction Paul him self was able to m ake betw een
th e co n tin u ed existence o f th e individual glorified body o f C hrist (e.g., Phil
3:21) a n d th e ecclesiological body o f C hrist. W hereas in 1 C orinthians the
use o f th e ecclesiological m e ta p h o r is colored by th e eucharistic tradition with
its focus on th e crucified body o f C hrist, h ere in Ephesians th e w riter’s focus
on C hrist as th e exalted h ead colors his use o f th e m etap h o r a n d paves the
way fo r th e rem arkable declaration o f th e glory o f the C h u rch as his body: it
is his fullness. T h is depiction m ust be balanced by the fact th at the preceding
stress o n C hrist’s h eadship also im plies th e total d ep en d en ce o f his C h u rch
on C hrist an d its subordination to him .
t o 7rX77pcopa t o o ra 7rama iv 7ramv 7rX77poupe1‫׳‬w , “th e fullness o f him w ho fills
all things in every way.” O ne scholar has said th a t this clause contains “an
unsolved en ig m a” (M itton, Epistle, 96) a n d th a t in it “th e w riter intends to
say som ething very im p o rtan t, b u t precisely w hat th a t is cannot be d eterm in ed
with any deg ree o f certainty” (M itton, 76). T h e w ords do seem to have been
in ten d ed to p ro d u ce a n im pressive effect as th e stylistic featu re o f paronom asia,
th e com bination o f a cognate n o u n a n d verb (already used in 1:3,6, 19b,
20a), an d th e fu rth e r alliteration p ro d u c ed by Trama an d irauiv indicate. T h e
w riter’s fondness fo r this effect is evidenced by its rep etitio n in 3:19, iva
7rX77pcj0fJ7‫־‬e ei? irav t o 7rX77pcopa t o v Oeov, “th a t you m ight be filled with all the
fullness o f G od.” W hile rem aining aw are o f th e uncertainties o f in terp re tatio n ,
we shall set o u t th e problem s associated with the clause a n d m ake som e attem p t
to suggest th e m ost likely m eaning o f this sonorous language. T h e re are th ree
m ajor problem atic issues.
(1) Is t o 7rX77pcjpa in apposition to t o acopa airrov o r to ainov (v 22b)? In
o th er words, is th e term “fullness” a description o f the C h u rch o r o f Christ?
Some scholars p re fe r the latter option, believing th a t it has few er theological
difficulties th a n does a reference to the C h u rch a n d th a t it has th e advantage
o f being in line with the use o f 7rX77pcopa in Colossians w here it refers to C hrist
 Comment 73

(cf. 1:19; 2:9). In this way the clause “which is his body” is to be treated as
an aside with no integral position in th e syntax.
T h e overall th o u g h t w ould be th a t G od has given C hrist as h ead over all
to the C h u rch an d as the fullness o f him who fills all in all (i.e., God) (cf.
Hitchcock, ExpTim 12 [1910– 11] 91; C aird, 49; M oule, Colossians, 164–69; IDB
3 [1962] 826– 28; M cGlashan, ExpTim 76 [1965] 133). A variation on this inter-
p retatio n sees C hrist as th e fullness o f th a t which is being com pletely filled
(i.e., th e C hurch) (cf. de la P otterie, Bib 58 [1977] 513– 21). T elling against
this view, how ever, is th e syntactical point th a t 7rXT7pcopa is m ore naturally
read as in apposition to acopa, w hich im m ediately precedes it, th a n as referrin g
to avrov, which is twelve w ords earlier an d w ould involve a very awkward
gram m atical construction. In addition, the w eight o f th e clause in v 22b is on
the end, on rfj 6‫ו‬0<\7‫ן‬01$‫ י‬on the status o f the C h u rch in G od’s purposes, so
th at in term s o f th e sequence o f th o u g h t the two clauses in v 23 would m ost
naturally be expected to enlarge on how th e w riter views th e C hurch. As
B arth (158) says, “E p h 1:23 contains, in th e form o f appositions, two definitions
o f the C hurch: she is C hrist’s body a n d she is his fullness” (cf. also G augler,
80; Gnilka, 97; Schlier, 99; Ernst, 291; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 214; B enoit,
Jesus and the Gospel, 89; M ussner, Christus, 59– 60; S chnackenburg, 79– 80;
B ratcher an d N ida, Handbook, 37–38). T aking 7rXT7pcopa as a reference to the
C h u rch is in line with E ph 3:19, w here the p ray er is th a t believers m ight be
filled with all th e fullness o f God. T his shift o f reference from Colossians,
w here th e term re fe rre d to C hrist, has b een p re p a re d fo r by Col 2:9, 10 w here,
because o f th eir relation to C hrist in w hom th e fullness o f deity dwells, believers
can also be said to have been filled.
(2) T h e second problem atic area is th a t su rro u n d in g the term 7rXr7pcopa
itself. W hat is th e background fo r its use in E phesians a n d is it active o r passive
in force?
In LXX J e r 23:23, 24 G od can be said to fill heaven an d earth; in Isa 6:3
an d Ps 72:19 th e glory o f G od is said to fill the whole earth ; an d in Wis 1:7
the Spirit o f th e L ord, who holds all things together, is also said to fill the
world. Such assertions about G od’s dynam ic presence in the w orld m ay provide
im p o rtan t background, b u t they do n o t actually contain the n o u n 7rX77pcopa
(Feuillet, N R T 78 [1956] 462– 71, how ever, sees this as the m ajor direct influence
on th e usage in Colossians an d Ephesians).
Stoic reflection ab o u t th e cosmos m ay also have co n trib u ted to the currency
o f th e term 7rXr7pcjpa in P aul’s tim e, fo r in it the notion o f filling, th o u g h
again n o t th e n o u n 7rX77pcjpa, is used in connection with a unified cosmos
p erm eated by th e divine Spirit w ho fills it with his presence an d is filled by it
(cf. Seneca, De Benefic. 4.8.2; A ristides, Or. 45.21, 24). F or th e Stoics noth in g
in the world is em pty, everything is full (cf. H ippolytus, R e f 1.21.5; cf. also
Benoit, Jesus and the Gospel, 82– 83; E rnst, Pleroma, 8– 11). Stoic th o u g h t and
term s w ere probably m ediated to the C hristian com m unity th ro u g h the H ellenis-
tic synagogue w here they w ere associated with W isdom speculation. T h e p o p u-
larity o f th e no tio n o f G od as p erm eatin g a n d filling the universe with his
pow er is evidenced by Philo (e.g., Leg. Alleg. 3.4; De Vit. Mos. 2.238; De Sacrif.
67), th o u g h he does n o t use the actual n o u n 7rXr7pcopa. T h e n o u n does occur
in later syncretistic literatu re w hich reflects gnosticizing tendencies. In the
74 Ephesians 1 :1 5 – 2 3

Corpus Hermeticum G od is described as th e pleroma o f all things (16.3) an d the

pleroma o f good (6.4), a n d the cosmos, w hich is intim ately u n ited with God, is
term ed a pleroma o f life (12.15). In th e Odes of Solomon th e reference o f 7rX77pc0jua
is n o t always clear, b u t in 26.7 it ap p ears to re fe r to th e sphere o f G od (cf.
also 19.5, 36.6), th o u g h in 7.11 th e Savior is also th e pleroma, an d the two are
linked in 41.13 w here it is said th a t th e Son o f th e H ighest has ap p e are d in
th e pleroma o f his F ather. T h e expression 7rav to 7rXT7pco/ua is used in 7.13 a n d
17.7, an d th e goal o f th e heavenly jo u rn e y is to find rest in the pleroma
in 35.6; 3 6 .1 ,2 .
T h e term 7rX?7pcopa plays an im p o rtan t role in the m ore fully developed
Gnosticism o f th e second century. It stands fo r th e fullness, the totality o f
the em anations which com e from God. As such, it rep resen ts th e highest spiritual
realm , th e sp h ere o f perfection a n d salvation in closest proxim ity to G od an d
op p o sed to th e low er realm o f m atter (cf. N ag H am m adi texts such as Gospel
of Truth 16, 34 – 36, 41; Treatise on Resurrection 44, 46, 49; Tripartite Tractate
70, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 86, 90, 93– 95, 97, 122– 25, 136, in The N ag Hammadi
Library in English, ed. J. M. R obinson [New York: H a rp e r an d Row, 1977],
w here pleroma is used with th e sam e sort o f sense as Iren aeu s a n d H ippolytus
re p o rt o f th e V alentinian system; cf. Iren aeu s, Adv. Haer. 1.1– 5; 1.11.1, 3, 5;
3.11.1; H ippolytus, R e f 6.29–34. O n the use o f 7rXT]pcopa in V alentinianism
cf. Lightfoot, Colossians, 263–69; O verfield, N T S 25 [1979] 384–88).
Paul h ad used th e term 7rXT7pcopa in 1 C or 10:26; Rom 11:12,25; 13:10;
15:29, b u t n o t with the sense th a t pred o m in ates in E phesians (though cf. 1:10).
As in th e case o f “h e a d ‫ ״‬a n d “body” term inology, it is th e developm ent o f
th e term in Colossians th a t is decisive fo r its use in Ephesians. It ap p ears in
th e hym n to C hrist in 1:19 a n d is th e n taken u p again in 2:9. T his suggests
th at th e Stoic idea o f pleroma as the divine Spirit pervading the cosmos had
been taken u p by H ellenistic Jew s to depict G od’s im m anence in his creation
a n d was being used by C hristians to speak o f th e fullness o f G od w hich decided
to dwell in C hrist. W isdom speculation, w hich is reflected clearly elsew here
in th e hym n, m ay also have been influential in th e ado p tio n o f this term ,
since W isdom was already th o u g h t o f as p ervading a n d p erm eatin g all things
(Wis 7:24; cf. 1:7; also Lohse, Colossians, 58; Schweizer, Neotestamentica, 294;
Colossians, 77–78). It could be th a t th e a u th o r picks u p o n this term in Colossians
an d insists th a t th e fullness o f deity dwells in C hrist bodily, because th e term
also played a p a rt in the “philosophy” against which he is w arning (cf. 2:8)
an d h ad a significance som ew here on th e trajectory betw een Stoic an d Gnostic
usage. T h e teaching in Colossae ap p ears to have advocated ascetic techniques
a n d know ledge gained by visionary experience as a m eans o f experiencing
liberation from hostile cosmic pow ers, e n te rin g th e heavenly realm , a n d partici-
p atin g in th e divine fullness. B ut fo r the a u th o r th e pleroma is n o t o pposed to
th e physical realm . As th e divine fullness in its totality it has taken u p residence
in C hrist, a n d believers have access to it in C hrist (2:9, 10). In teractio n with
the syncretistic teaching in Colossae p re p are s th e way fo r th e use o f 7rX77pcopa
in E phesians. Like Col 2:10, E p h 4:13 speaks o f believers corporately attaining
to th e fullness o f C hrist, a n d E p h 3:19 contains th e p ray er th a t they m ay be
filled with all th e fullness o f God. H e re in E p h 1:23 th e w riter develops the
th o u g h t a little fu rth e r so that, as th e C h u rch , believers can actually be called
 Comment 75

C hrist’s fullness. All o f this presupposes, with Colossians, th a t C hrist is the

one filled by G od an d able to extend th e divine life a n d pow er to others. In
the O T G od’s glorious presence could be seen as p erm eatin g n o t only the
creation b u t also th e tem ple (cf. Isa 6:1; Ezek 43:5; 44:4; H ag 2:7), so it
should n o t be su rprising th a t in an epistle which calls th e C h u rch “a holy
tem ple in th e L ord . . . a dw elling place o f G od in the S pirit” (2:21, 22) it
should also be seen as th e place o f the dynam ic fullness o f G od in Christ.
It is th e passive force o f 7rXT7pa>pa which best fits this in terp re tatio n o f the
developm ent o f th e use o f the term . T h e C h u rch is th a t which is filled or
com pleted by C hrist (cf. Lightfoot, Colossians, 261; S. H anson, Unity, 127– 29;
Delling, T D N T 6 [1968] 304, J. A. T . R obinson, Body, 68– 69; Gewiess, “Die
Begriffe,” 134–35; Feuillet, N R T 78 [1956] 456; R idderbos, Paul, 390; M ussner,
57; Christus, 60; Best, One Body, 141– 43; G augler, 80; Schlier, 98–99; Gnilka,
97; B arth, 205,209; Schnackenburg, 80) ra th e r th a n th a t which fills o r com pletes
C hrist (cf. A bbott, 37; J. A. Robinson, 43– 44, 255– 59; B eare, 637; Overfield,
N T S 25 [1979] 393; Yates, ExpTim 83 [1972] 146–51). In favor o f the latter it
can be arg u ed th at th e active m eaning covers m ost o f the biblical uses (cf.
L X X P s2 3 :l; M ark 8:20; M att 9:16; 1 C or 10:26; Rom 11:25) an d th at elsew here
in G reek the term is m ost frequently used with this sense o f “th at which fills.”
It is also arg u ed th a t th e notion o f C hrist as being com pleted by the C hurch
need n o t be th o u g h t theologically strange eith er in the light o f Col 1:24, w here
Paul is said to com plete w hat is lacking in C hrist’s afflictions, o r if it is in terp re ted
as the m any, th e C hurch, re p resen tin g the one, C hrist (Yates, ExpTim 83 [1972]
149–51; Overfield, N T S 25 [1979] 393). A gainst this, it m ust be said th at every-
w here else C hrist is portray ed as actively filling believers ra th e r th an being
filled by them ; th a t Col 1:24 is probably ab o u t C hrist’s sufferings as p a rt o f
the m essianic woes, b u t here a deficiency in his p erson w ould be im plied;
an d th at if th e w riter is simply talking ab o u t rep resen tatio n , he has chosen a
strange way o f d oing so with a term w hich does n o t have this m eaning elsew here.
Above all, this in terp re tatio n o f the C h u rch as th e com plem ent o f C hrist fails
because th ere is no evidence o f 7rXr)pGjpa being used o f two m utually supplem en-
tary things (cf. J . A. T . Robinson, Body, 67 n. 2).
T h e n nXrjpcopa with a passive sense can be fo u n d elsew here. T h e references
given above fro m the Corpus Hermeticum are m ost plausibly taken in a passive
sense, e.g., 6.4 – ö yäp KÖopos nXripcopa eonv 7 9 (7‫ ־‬/ca/da?, 6 56 0609 rov ayadov,
“for th e w orld is full o f evil [that is, filled by evil], while G od is full o f goodness
[that is, filled by goodness]” (cf. also Ernst, Pleroma, 12–21). T h e context o f
the use o f th e term by Philo in De Praem. et Poen. 65 leaves little d o u b t th at a
passive m ean in g is in ten d ed , fo r th ere the soul is spoken o f as becom ing a
fullness o f virtues “leaving no em pty room w ithin itself w here o th e r things
can e n te r,” a n d De Praem. et Poen. 109 also m akes m ost sense taken in this
way (cf. also n\r)pcopa KaXonayaOias, “fullness o f nobility,” De Spec. Leg. 1.272;
Quod. Omn. Prob. Lib. 41). W here a follow er o f Paul is m aking his own use o f
a syncretistic term already exploited in Colossians, it is en o u g h to be able to
show th at th e distinctive use claim ed fo r him was capable o f being understood.
T his is the case, since o th e r uses o f 7rX77pcopa in th e passive sense can be evi-
denced, alth o u g h its use in the active sense is m ore com m on. E rnst (292;
idem , Pleroma, 120), who has investigated th e concept thoroughly in his m ono-
76 Ephesians 1:15–23

g rap h , concludes th at the w riter’s use o f th e term is deliberately am biguous

an d th at it contains several paradoxical nuances, so th at h ere it involves both
the C h u rch ’s being filled by C hrist a n d th e C h u rc h ’s com pleting him . G ran ted
th at words can carry a variety o f connotations, it seems unlikely th at the w riter
is being deliberately am biguous at this stage as he develops his th o u g h t ab o u t
the C h u rch o r th at he would m ake two quite d ifferen t theological assertions
at th e sam e tim e. It is p referable to attem p t to establish a particular m eaning
o f the original. In this reg ard , in addition to th e specific points already m ade,
the decisive issue m ust be th at o f the theological context o f the w riter’s use
o f this term . C om pelling reasons have already been given for believing th at
he has developed its use to re fe r to the C h u rch as being filled by C hrist. As
C hrist is filled with God (Col 1:19; 2:9), so his body is filled with C hrist. T his
in terp retatio n is very m uch in line also with th e th o u g h t o f believers’ being
filled with all th e fullness o f G od expressed later in 3:19.
(3) T h e last m ajor area o f contention su rro u n d s the final six w ords o f the
clause, rod rä 7rävra ev näoiv nXripovßevov. In p articu lar w hat voice has the p resen t
participle nXripovßevov} Is it passive, m iddle, o r m iddle with an active sense?
Again, E rn st (292; idem , Pleroma, 120) wishes to trea t the m eaning as am bivalent
an d containing b o th an active an d passive sense— C hrist fills all b u t is also
com pletely filled (by th e C hurch). B ut fo r reasons sim ilar to those given in
the case o f 7r\T7pcopa, it is necessary to m ake a choice. T hose who trea t the
participle as having a passive voice consider th e m ean in g to be th a t th e C hurch
is the fullness o f C hrist, w ho is being totally filled— i.e., by G od (cf. Feuillet,
N R T 78 [1956] 458; J. A. T . R obinson, Body, 6 8–69; Best, One Body, 143 n.
2) o r by the C h u rch (J. A. R obinson, 42– 44, 152; B enoit, Jesus and the Gospel,
90; Yates, ExpTim 83 [1972] 149– 51; O verfield, N T S 25 [1979] 393). T hey
take the p h rase r a 7rävra ev 7raxjw adverbially. A strong p oint in favor o f this
in terp retatio n is th at nXrjpovodai occurs now here else in the N T an d very rarely
elsew here with an active sense (cf. X eno p h o n , Hellenica 5.4.56; 6.2.14, 35;
P lutarch, Alcibiades 35.6; Isaeus, Orat. 11.48; Plato, Gorgias 493e; T hucydides
7.142). Yet against this position it m ust be said th at elsew here C hrist already
is the fullness o f God, the whole fullness o f deity already dwells in him (Col
1:19; 2:9), an d th at the filling o f C hrist with G od’s presence is no t seen as a
continuing process. It w ould seem particularly strange fo r th e w riter to depict
the C h u rch as already “th e fullness” b u t C hrist as still being filled. N ow here
else is the passive nXripovoOai applied to C hrist. O bjections have already been
raised in the discussion o f 7rXr7pcopa to th e notion th at C hrist is being filled by
the C hurch. Finally, it is far from clear th a t rä 7rävra ev 7rauiv is best taken
adverbially, r a navra is used in th a t sense in E ph 4:15, b u t th at is quite d ifferent
from the whole p h rase r a 7ravra ev 7rauiv. W hen th at phrase occurs in 1 C or
12:6 it clearly stands fo r two separate ideas. 1 C or 15:28 an d Col 3:11 are
som etim es advanced as parallels, b u t th e ir earliest texts probably do no t include
the article b efore navra, an d they also are best in te rp re te d as involving two
ideas. T h e re is no clear evidence in th e N T th a t the ph rase should be taken
as the equivalent to th e classical G reek navränaoiv.
T hose w ho o p t for th e m iddle voice frequently leave o p en the question o f
w h eth er the m iddle is a tru e m iddle, em phasizing th e subject’s own interest
in the action, “fills fo r him self,” o r simply an exam ple o f th e m iddle with an
 Comment 77

active sense (cf. A bbott, 38, an d S. H anson, Unity, 129, who are unable to
decide on this issue, th o u g h H ow ard, N T S 20 [1974] 35, does hold o u t for a
tru e m iddle w here “the action is d one fo r the benefit o f som ething vitally
concerned with th e subject‫)״‬. B ut th ere appears to be no clear reason for
draw ing particu lar atten tio n to the subject an d stressing th at C hrist fills all
things for him self in this context, w here God is the subject o f the m ain clause
in v 22b. It seems preferable, th erefo re, to trea t nXripovpevov as m iddle with
active force, o f which th ere are a n u m b er o f exam ples in the N T (cf. also
BDF para. 316 [1]; M oule, Idiom-Book, 25, th o u g h as p a rt o f a different overall
in terp retatio n ; BAGD 581; Roels, God's Mission, 245–48; Gewiess, “Die Be-
griffe,133– 3 4 ‫ ;״‬M ussner, Christus, 59; Gnilka, 99; G augler, 80– 81; Schlier,
99; B arth, 209; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 215; R idderbos, Paul, 390 n. 97;
Schnackenburg, 80–81; B ratcher an d N ida, Handbook, 38). O n this in te rp re ta-
tion C hrist is th e one who com pletely fills all things, th a t is, fills the cosmos
in every respect. T his has the advantage o f taking rd nävra in its n atu ral sense
as the object o f the clause an d as m eaning the cosmos (cf. vv 10, 22), an d ev
ttcuhp in its straightforw ard m eaning o f “in all respects,‫“ ״‬in every way‫( ״‬cf.
BAGD 633) an d as ad d ed for rhetorical effect. It is also in line with the later
statem ent in E ph 4:10 about C hrist filling all things. It does not count against
the in terp retatio n o f 1r \ 7)pov1xevov as m iddle with active force th at in the parallel
th o u g h t o f E ph 4:10 th e verb is in the active voice. In the N T the active and
m iddle o f the sam e verb can be closely ju x tap o sed with no a p p a re n t distinction
o f m eaning (e.g., Kap7ro0opeco an d Kap7ro0opeopat in Col 1:6, 10).
T h e re is no indication th at the w riter th o u g h t o f this filling in a physical
sense in th e way th a t the Prim al M an o f the Gnostic schem a is said to fill the
universe. R ath er the m ost illum inating parallels rem ain LXX J e r 23:24, w here
God is said to fill heaven an d earth , an d the term inology o f Philo, in which on
m any occasions G od can be said to fill 7‫־‬a 7ravra (e.g., De Post. Caini 30; De
Sacrif. 67– 68; Leg. Alleg. 1.4; De Gig. 47; De Vit. Mos. 2.238). By analogy C hrist
pervades all things with his sovereign rule as he directs them to th eir divinely
ap p o in ted goal, th e restoration o f th eir m eaning an d harm ony (cf. 4:10;
1:10). It could well be th at ju s t as 1:20, 22 draw on 1 C or 15:24– 28 b u t place
Paul’s th o u g h t in a context o f realized eschatology, so this phrase in 1:23
recalls the n otion o f 1 C or 15:28 th at G od will be all in all, 7ravra ev
7raatv, b u t transfers it to C hrist an d m akes it a p resen t reality.
O u r decisions in re g ard to the th ree m ajor areas o f contention su rro u n d in g
the last clause o f th e first ch a p te r m ean, then, th at the w riter’s overall th o u g h t
is th at the ch u rch is C hrist’s fullness an d th at C hrist is the one who is com pletely
filling the cosmos. H ere, as in 1:22b, ecclesiological an d cosmic perspectives
are ju x tap o sed in a way th at u nderlines the C h u rc h ’s special status, for although
C hrist is in th e process o f filling the cosmos, at p resen t it is only the C hurch
which can actually be called his fullness. T h e C h u rch appears, then, to be
the focus for an d m edium o f C hrist’s presence an d rule in the cosmos. T his
entails n eith er th at the C h u rch is the exclusive m edium o f C hrist’s presence
an d rule n o r th at it will eventually fill the world. Schlier (99) an d B enoit (Jesus
and the Gospel, 90) talk o f the cosmos being draw n into the C hurch. Schweizer
(Neotestamentica, 314 – 16, 327– 29) thinks in term s o f m issionary expansion, as
does M eyer (Kirche und Mission, esp. 28– 2 9 ,4 5 – 48), w ho treats r a navra prim arily
78 Ephesians 1:15– 23

as the world o f h u m an beings a n d gives 7rXT?p0J^a a m issionary dim ension. T o

be sure, th e w riter sees the C h u rch consisting o f Jew s an d Gentiles as a witness
to G od’s p u rposes for the w orld, b u t he does n o t choose to em phasize the
C h u rch ’s active m issionary efforts. Roels (God's Mission, 231– 32), w ho investi-
gates th e epistle fo r this them e, finds in 1:22, 23 “n o t the slightest suggestion
eith er in th e context o r in th e w ords them selves w hich points to ” a m ission
perspective. T h e w riter does n o t m ake clear exactly how th e C h u rch participates
in th e process o f C hrist’s cosmic rule, b u t h e does see it as th e com m unity
which m anifests C hrist’s presence a n d as th e com m unity in which th e consum-
m ation o f C h rist’s rule is anticipated (cf. Comment o n 3:10).

Explanation

1:3– 14 constituted a blessing o f G od fo r th e g reat salvation he h ad accom-

plished in C hrist. Now in a n o th e r long sentence, which takes th e form o f a
thanksgiving p erio d a n d has m uch o f th e liturgical style o f the earlier berakah,
1:15– 23 in essence reflects a p ra y er th a t th e letter’s recipients m ight progress
to m aturity o f know ledge a n d appreciate ju s t how great this salvation is an d
w hat is th eir ow n place w ithin it.
T h e sentence begins with a thanksgiving p ro p e r (vv 15, 16a) in which the
w riter claims to express regularly his g ratitu d e to G od for th e addressees. In
a general statem en t he selects as C hristian qualities which are know n to him
an d fo r w hich h e is th an k fu l th e faith they exercise as those who are in C hrist
an d th e love they have for th eir fellow believers. T h e w riter th e n m akes use
o f his know ledge o f th eir situation to intercede fo r his readers, again in fairly
general term s. T o be m ore accurate, he in fact gives th em a re p o rt o f his
intercession (vv 16b - 19). T h e pray er-re p o rt contains references back to the
p receding blessing, indicating th at p a rt o f the p u rp o se o f the p ray er is to ask
th at th e blessings en u m erated in the berakah m ay be fully ap p ro p ria te d by
th e letter’s recipients. In 1:8, 9 G od h ad b een praised for the spiritual wisdom
an d insight a n d th e know ledge o f his m ystery h e h ad g ran ted his people.
Now in 1:17 th e req u est is fo r “th e spirit o f w isdom an d revelation in the
knowledge o f him .” Similarly, “h o p e,” “riches,” “in h eritan ce,” an d “th e w orking
o f his m ighty stren g th ,” as topics in th e prayer, recall them es from the eulogy
in 1:1 2 ,7 , 14, 11 respectively. T h e relationship in this ch a p te r betw een the
eulogy an d thanksgiving on th e one h a n d a n d th e intercessory prayer-re p o rt
on th e oth er, like th a t betw een thanksgiving an d intercession in P aul’s thanksgiv-
ing periods, reflects two fu n d a m e n tal aspects o f C hristian prayer—the acknow l-
e d g m en t o f grace received an d the req u est fo r grace still needed. T hese, in
tu rn , reflect th e p re sen t situation o f C hristian believers w ith its glory, because
o f w hat has already b een accom plished, a n d yet its incom pleteness, because
the consum m ation is still outstanding. T h e w riter is n o t m erely satisfied with
the past an d th e p resent, b u t ra th e r his contem plation of, an d thankfulness
for w hat God has do n e for his readers m ake him aw are o f rem ain in g needs
an d o f new possibilities for know ledge a n d ap p ro p riatio n o f the salvation God
has provided.
T h e w riter’s re p o rt o f his intercession com m ences with his pray er for the
Spirit to be at w ork in all th e addressees, giving wisdom — practical u n d ersta n d in g
 Explanation 79

o f w hat G od has accom plished in C hrist—an d revelation— disclosure o f G od’s

plan fo r history a n d the world an d how to live in th e light o f it. In this way
th ere will be grow th in these believers’ relationship to G od, a n d in th eir knowl-
edge o f him . T h e saving illum ination o f the gospel, which has already radically
affected th eir lives, needs to be continued with a threefold grow th in knowledge.
T h e w riter desires for th em to gain an increasing know ledge o f the h ope o f
the consum m ation o f salvation, th a t is, th e h ope into which God has b ro u g h t
th em by calling th em into relationship with him self, an increasing knowledge
o f the w ealth o f glory th a t is b o u n d u p with G od’s possession o f his people,
and, with fo u r d ifferent words for pow er accum ulated to drive this hom e, an
increasing know ledge o f the im m ensity o f G od’s pow er which is operative for
his people. T h e w riter’s own faith ap p ears to be an ch o red in a know ledge o f
G od’s pow er so th at he is no t afraid o f asking G od fo r too m uch as he prays
for his fellow believers. In fact, n o th in g sh o rt o f G od’s im m ense pow er available
on th eir b eh alf will enable them to realize the vision this w riter has for th eir
lives.
For the w riter, the suprem e d em onstration o f the extent o f G od’s pow er
took place in his raising C hrist from the d ead an d exalting him to a position
o f pow er an d auth ority in the heavenly realm above all hostile cosmic powers.
At this point, th e intercessory prayer-re p o rt shades over into the m agnificent
statem ent which ro u n d s off this thanksgiving p eriod (vv 20– 23). It takes u p
confessional m aterial about G od’s pow er in the resurrection, the exaltation,
an d the cosmic ru le o f C hrist, an d also em ploys some o f the im agery used in
Colossians in o rd e r to elaborate on C hrist’s suprem acy over the powers and
h ighlight th e role o f th e C h u rch in G od’s purposes. A dapting P aul’s use of
Ps 110:1 an d Ps 8:6 from 1 C or 15 a n d applying th em to C hrist’s p resen t
status, th e w riter depicts C hrist as th e last A dam who is already lord with
dom inion over th e cosmos an d any pow er in it. His readers in Asia M inor
still need ed to be assured th a t this world was no t simply a continual battleg ro u n d
o f w arring forces w here the hostile pow ers w ere in control an d n eeded to be
placated. T h e w riter th erefo re m akes clear th at th ere can be no justification
for believers considering them selves as in any way in bondage o r debt to such
powers. Instead, G od h ad show n in C hrist’s resurrection an d exaltation th at
this w orld was his creation over which he h ad p u t C hrist in control an d th at
life could be lived by tru st in the C rea to r’s pow er, which was th ere fo r his
people.
T h a t G od’s pow er is available for his people is u n d erlin e d in the assertion
th at God has given C hrist as h ead over all things to the C hurch. T h e w riter
does n o t simply set C hrist’s rule an d authority over th e cosmos in parallel to
his relation to th e C h u rch b u t subordinates th e fo rm er to the latter. In this
way, the C h u rch ’s privileged place in G od’s pu rp o se for the cosmos becom es
clear. Yet th a t privileged place is d u e solely to the C h u rch ’s relation to C hrist.
All th e rule a n d authority G od has given to C hrist can be used on b eh alf o f
the C hurch, since G od has also given this exalted C hrist to the C hurch. In
the C hrist, who is h ead over all, the C h u rch has one who is g reater th an all
the powers ran g ed against it. T h e force o f this for C hristian readers, who,
num erically an d sociologically, w ould have been an insignificant g ro u p in g in
Asia M inor, is th a t they should n o t succum b to th e tem ptation to defeatism
80 Ephesians 1:15– 23

an d th in k o f them selves as an insignificant new cult am ong m any o th e r religious

groups. R ather, they are to see them selves as p a rt o f the universal C hurch,
which can only be truly u n d ersto o d w hen seen in relation to its exalted L ord
in th e heavenly realm , who exercises all pow er on its behalf. B ecause o f the
identity o f its head , th e C h u rch is a body w hich is able to co n fro n t the pow ers
a n d which has th e whole cosmos as its sp h ere o f witness (cf. 3:10).
In placing b o th C hrist an d th e C h u rch in a cosmic context th e w riter em ploys
th e term s “h ea d ,” “body,” a n d “fullness.” T h ese term s h ad taken on special
force in P auline th o u g h t th ro u g h interaction with the syncretistic teaching,
with its cosmological concerns, w hich h ad th re a te n e d th e w elfare o f th e C olos-
sian church. W hile the use o f “h e a d ” a n d “body” im agery is sim ilar to th at in
Colossians, th e term “fullness” un d erg o es an im p o rtan t developm ent here in
E p h 1, as it shifts from th e referen ce to C hrist in Colossians to an application
to th e C hurch. T h e b rie f characterization o f the C h u rch at th e e n d o f the
thanksgiving p erio d reinforces th at it is constantly to be seen in its relation to
C hrist. It is his body, the com m unity o f believers as an organic whole, which
belongs to him a n d over which he rules. It is his fullness, th e com m unity
which he fills suprem ely with his presence a n d dynam ic rule. T his depiction
o f th e C h u rch is in the context o f the cosmic ex ten t o f C hrist’s activity. Yet
such a context only serves to set in sh a rp e r relief th e significance o f the C h u rc h ’s
role. For, yes, C hrist is the h ead over all things, b u t as h ead over all he has
been given to th e C hurch, an d only the C h u rch is his body. A nd yes, C hrist
is filling all things in term s o f his sovereign rule, b u t he fills th e C h u rch in a
special sense with his Spirit, grace, a n d gifts (cf. 4:7– 11), so th at only the
C h u rch is his fullness. T his w riter’s consistent ap p ro ach , like th a t o f Paul, is
th at h u m anity is to be viewed from th e vantage po in t o f w hat has h a p p e n e d
to Christ. Because G od has exalted C hrist to heaven, believers can enjoy all
the benefits o f being related to th e ir heavenly Lord. “B ody” an d “fullness” as
descriptions o f th e C h u rch u n d erlin e th e privileges o f th a t relationship an d
assert th e C h u rch ’s significance. Yet, at th e sam e tim e, they clearly presu p p o se
a dep en d en cy in th e relationship. T h e C h u rch is n o th in g in itself. It is a special
com m unity only because C hrist is its h ea d a n d his presence fills it.
Any who m ight be attracted by syncretism ’s claims to provide access by
various m eans to the fullness o f th e divine presence are being rem in d ed first
th at th at presence is m ediated by C hrist, who th ro u g h his exaltation a n d rule
fills heaven an d earth , an d th en , th a t it is in the fellowship o f th e C h u rch
th at th e fullness o f C hrist’s presence is to be experienced. T h e im portance o f
th e C h u rch , fo r th e w riter, is th a t as C hrist’s fullness it provides th e p resen t
focus for an d d em onstration o f th at presence w hich now fills th e cosmos in a
h id d en way b u t which will do so openly an d com pletely. A lthough th e paraenesis
in particu lar draw s a clear ethical distinction betw een believers an d su rro u n d in g
society (e.g., 4:17– 24; 5:7– 14), th e perspective h ere is n o t one in w hich th e
C h u rch a n d th e rest o f creation are two entities fixed in a state o f p erm a n e n t
opposition a n d alienation. R ather, because th e C h u rch ’s h ead is h ead over
all, an d because th e one who fills th e C h u rch is filling all things, th ere is now
a continuity betw een th e realm o f salvation a n d th e realm o f creation (cf. the
last A dam im agery o f v 22), betw een th e C h u rch an d the w orld. T h e whole
o f created reality becom es th e C h u rc h ’s legitim ate concern, an d th e C h u rch
 Explanation 81

symbolizes the realization o f the possibilities in h e re n t in G od’s purposes in

C hrist for all creation. As G od calls m en an d w om en into th e new com m unity
o f the C h urch, he is in the process o f com pleting his p u rp o se o f filling all
things with C hrist’s sovereign presence, o f which the essential quality is love
(cf. 3:17– 19).
J u s t as the p receding eulogy attem p ted to treat salvation on a g ran d scale,
so this thanksgiving perio d opens u p bro ad vistas on G od’s purposes for his
people. Again, its p a tte rn o f th o u g h t encom passes past, present, an d fu tu re
an d can be seen to have trin itarian content. T h e past elem ent is the activity
o f God in C hrist’s resu rrectio n a n d exaltation an d his calling o f believers; the
p resen t takes in th e privileges o f being G od’s people, who have his pow er
m ade available to them , an d also em braces C hrist’s cosmic rule an d the C h u rch ’s
relation to him ; an d th e fu tu re is in view with th e m ention o f the hope o f
believers an d o f the age to com e. T h e F ath er o f glory is addressed in the
intercession an d is at w ork on b eh a lf o f people who are his inheritance; C hrist
is the focus o f th e F ath er’s activity; a n d th e Spirit is th e agent o f revelation,
who in terp rets G od’s activity an d enables believers to ap p ro p riate w hat has
been accom plished fo r them . Yet, as in the berakah, the in h e re n t p attern o f
th o u g h t in th e thanksgiving p erio d is n eith er a tem poral n o r a trinitarian
one b u t ra th e r theocentric, Christological, a n d ecclesiological. In his prayer
the w riter tu rn s to God. It is know ledge o f G od th at he desires for his readers
an d thus th o u g h ts o f G od’s calling, G od’s inheritance, G od’s pow er, an d G od’s
w orking in C hrist fill th e prayer. B ut C hrist is at the cen ter o f G od’s relationship
to his people an d as a result his resurrection, exaltation, a n d cosmic ru le soon
becom e the focus o f attention. “Fullness” language, as applied to G od in the
O T , an d Hellenistic Jew ish notions o f G od filling th e w orld, which to a large
extent lie b eh in d th e usage o f this term inology in Colossians an d Ephesians,
were a way o f expressing G od’s all-encom passing presence, his all-pervading
sovereignty; th e sam e realities w ere conveyed by Jesu s’ teaching about God
an d his kingdom . F or this follower o f Paul, those realities can now be seen as
realized in an d m ediated by th e exalted C hrist. Yet, significant as it is th at
the w riter finds him self describing th e C h u rc h ’s experience o f C hrist in term s
traditionally used o f experience o f G od, it is th e ecclesiological aspect o f the
thanksgiving period, m ore th a n e ith er th e theocentric o r Christological, which
is prim arily to th e fore. T h e flow o f th o u g h t begins a n d ends with th e C hurch.
It com m ences with thanksgiving a n d p ra y er fo r believers, which lead to contem-
plation o f G od’s p u rposes for th em in C hrist. T h e thanksgiving an d intercession
are integrally related to the stress on the role o f th e C h u rch in a cosmic context
at th e en d o f th e section. T his relationship com es to the fore th ro u g h the
w riter’s th ird p etition fo r an increasing know ledge o f th e pow er o f G od effective
for his people, which is itself linked with the notion th a t C hrist’s rule over all
is for th e benefit o f th e C hurch.
As the overall w eight o f th e thanksgiving period falls on its stress on the
C hurch, it fulfills its epistolary function a n d com plem ents the berakah by in tro-
ducing m ore specifically the concerns o f th e letter as a whole. T h e w riter is
concerned fo r G entile C hristian com m unities whose m em bers m ay have been
attracted by th e claims o f others to know ledge o f cosmic m ysteries o r m ay be
in d an g er o f succum bing to th e m orality o f th e su rro u n d in g w orld (cf. 4:17–
82 Ephesians 1:15–23

24) o r tem p ted to think o f them selves as belonging to insignificant religious

g roups o r simply confused ab o u t th e im plications o f th eir C hristian confession.
For this reason he wants to brace th em a n d give th em a sense o f the identity
an d role in th e w orld o f the com m unity o f which they have becom e a part.
His intercessory prayer-re p o rt reveals th a t he believes this can be achieved
th ro u g h a revitalizing o f th eir relationship with God, an increase in th eir know l-
edge o f him . T h e C h u rch will be w hat it o u g h t to be w hen it becom es m ore
aw are o f an d ap p ro p riates th e privileges a n d pow er G od gives his people
an d th e benefits o f its relation to th e C hrist who rules the cosmos.
God’s Gracious Salvation as Resurrection and
Exaltation with Christ (2:1–10)
Bibliography

Allen, T. G. “Exaltation and Solidarity with Christ: Ephesians 1.20 and 2.6.” JS N T 28
(1986) 103–20. Benoit, P. “Rapports littéraires entre les Épîtres aux Colossiens et aux
Ephesiens.” Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner. Regens-
burg: F. Pustet, 1963, 11–22. Best, E. “Dead in Trespasses and Sins (Eph. 2.1).‫ ״‬JS N T
13 (1981) 9– 25. Carr, W. Angels and Principalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1981, 100– 104. Countess, R. H. “Thank God for the Genitive (Eph. 2:8– 10).”
BETS 12 (1969) 117–22. Crowther, C. “Works, Work and Good Works.” ExpTim 81
(1970) 66–71. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz und Absicht, 121–31. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos,
233–41,625–29. Larsson, E. Christus als Vorbild. Uppsala: Almquist 8c Wiksells, 1962,
105–9. Lincoln, A. T. “Ephesians 2:8– 10 – A Summary of Paul’s Gospel?” CBQ 45
(1983) 617–30. Lindemann, A. Die Aufhebung der Zeit, 106–40. Luz, U. “Rechtfertigung
bei den Paulusschülern.” Rechtfertigung, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhl-
macher. Tübingen: Mohr, 1976, 365– 83. Mehlmann, J. Natura filii Irae: Historia interpre-
tationis Eph 2, 3 ejusque cum doctrina de Peccato Originali nexus. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1957. Merklein, H. “Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser-
und Epheserbriefes.” Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften, ed. K. Kertelge. Frei-
bürg: Herder, 1981, esp. 37–51. Mussner, F. Christus, das All und die Kirche, 16–20, 24–
27, 91–94. Ramaroson, L. “Une lecture de Éphésiens 1, 15–2, 10.” Bib 58 (1977) 388–
410. Riensche, R. H. “Exegesis of Ephesians 2:1– 7.” LQ 2 (1950) 70– 74. Romaniuk,
K. L Amour du Père et du Fils dans la sotériologie de Saint Paul. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1961, 212– 16,247–49. Sanders, J. T. “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1– 3.”
ZNW 56 (1965) 218– 23, 232. Schille, G. Frühchristliche Hymnen, 53–60. Schnackenburg,
R. Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul. Tr. G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1964, 73– 78. Steinmetz, F.-J. Protologische Heilszuversicht. Frankfurt am Main: Josef
Knecht, 1969, 37–44, 5 1–67. Tachau, P. 'Einst”und “Jetzt”im Neuen Testament. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972.

Translation

1And you were dead through your trespasses and sinsa 2m which you once lived
in accordance with this world-age, in accordance with the ruler of the realm of the
air, of the spirit that is now at work in those who are disobedient.b 3Among them
we all also once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the wishes of the
flesh and the thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath like the rest. 4But
God, being rich in mercy, out of his great love with which he loved us,c 5made us
alive with Christd even when we were dead through trespasses— by grace you have
been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly
realms in Christ Jesus, 7so that he might show in the ages to come the surpassing
richness of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have
been saved through faith; and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9it is
not by works, lest anyone should boast. 10For we are his work, created in Christ
Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance in order that we might live
in them.
84 Ephesians 2 :1–10

Notes

aThe Greek text here does not have a finite verb but rather a participial clause, ujua? ovras
veicpovs . . . , lit. “you being dead. . . .” In fact there is an anacoluthon in the Greek syntax, for
this clause is the object o f a verb whose subject is introduced in v 4 but which itself does not
appear until after the opening clause has been repeated in the first person plural in v 5, övras
77/uäs veKpobs, lit. “we being dead,” and can then be seen to be 0vve^camdr]0ev, “made alive with.”
In translating v 1, one can either supply the main verb from v 5 – “And you he made alive,
when you were dead”—and repeat this when one comes to v 5 (cf. r s v ) or simply translate the
participle as a finite verb (cf. n i v ). Though it perhaps has the disadvantage of not showing immedi-
ately the close connection between 1:19– 23 and 2:1– 7, we have chosen the latter option, since it
does convey better the sequence of the Greek text with its delay in introducing a resolution of
the sinful situation on which the writer at first dwells.
bThe Greek phrase is literally “sons o f disobedience.” Again the sentence divisions o f the first
part of this pericope are our own. In Greek vv 1– 7 form a single sentence. The translation of vv
8– 10 follows the Greek text in its divisions.
cp 46 itd’8 Ambrosiaster Victorinus-Rome read 171‫ ׳‬riXe^oev, “with which he had mercy,” instead
of f!v riyairrioev, “with which he loved,” and, with D* G, omit the preceding ccutou, “his.” Ramaroson
(Bib 58 [1977] 389– 90) opts for this reading, but as is often the case when p 46 varies from most
other major witnesses, this is likely to be secondary. The reading could be said to be in line with
the style o f Ephesians in its combination o f cognate noun and verb—eXeet, “mercy,” and ,qXerjaev,
“had mercy”—but it achieves this conformity only by changing the combination o f cognate noun
and verb already in the text—ayairrp, “love,” and fiyanrjoev, “loved.” Apart from the wealth of
external evidence in its favor, the latter combination is more natural because its noun and verb
are in closer proximity.
d P 46 B 33 vgcl Ambrosiaster Victorinus-Rome Ephraem Ambrose Chrysostom, amongst other
witnesses, support the reading ev rep Xptar<p, “in Christ,” instead o f the straightforward dative rep
Xptarep (‫ א‬A vid D Gsr K P ^ Hilary Pelagius Jerome al.) However, the ev may well have been
added through dittography, the unintentional repetition o f the last two letters of the preceding
word awefoxmd-qoev (cf. J. A. Robinson, 156), or through assimilation to the phrase ev Xptarep
1rjaov found after the aw - compounds in v 6. In the latter case this could reflect an interpretation
of the aw - prefix in v 5 which does not relate it directly to Christ but sees it as a reference to
Jews and Gentiles being united in their participation in God’s redemptive activity in Christ.

Form / Structure/ Setting

E ph 2:1 begins a new sentence. W ith th e N estle-A land a n d UBS texts we

should assum e a p erio d a n d n o t a com m a at th e e n d o f 1:23 (contra R am aroson,
Bib 58 [1977] 392– 96). 2:1– 10 consists o f two sentences in th e G reek text, vv
1– 7 an d vv 8– 10. T h e first p a rt o f 2:1– 7 is anacoluthic. T h e subject a n d th e
verb o f which u/Lta?, “you,” in v 1 is th e object are n o t in tro d u ced until vv 4, 5
an d only th e n in connection with the re p etitio n in a slightly different form in
v 5 o f th e no tio n first expressed in v 1. In this way 2 :1–7 falls into two parts,
the anaco lu th o n in vv 1– 3 a n d th e contrasting statem en t o f vv 4– 7. T his syntacti-
cal division o f th e pericope reflects a th reefo ld division in term s o f its content.
Verses 1– 3 depict th e sinful condition o f th e re ad ers’ past existence an d indeed
th at o f all hum anity. Verses 4–7 express th e change occasioned fo r believers
in C hrist by G od’s m ercy an d grace. Verses 8– 10 provide a sum m ary o f the
n atu re o f th e salvation achieved by God. T h e sections are linked an d th e progress
o f the w riter’s arg u m e n t is m arked by repetitions. “D ead th ro u g h trespasses”
form s th e link betw een vv 1–3 a n d vv 4 – 7 w hen it is re p eated in v 5. “By
grace you have been saved” is re p eated from th e m iddle section to provide
the transition in v 8 to the sum m arizing conclusion ab o u t th e relationship o f
 Form / Structure / Setting 85

grace an d works. Verse 5, with its introduction o f th e first m ain verb,

(7wefGJ07ra77ae1>, “m ade alive w ith,” its repetition in th e first person p lural o f
the participial clause from v 1, an d its anticipation o f th e last section th ro u g h
“by grace you have been saved,” can be seen to be pivotal for the whole pericope.
T h e use o f 7reptnarelp, “to live/w alk,” at the beginning o f v 2 to describe the
p re-C hristian way o f life an d again at the en d o f v 10 to portray C hristian
living form s an inclusion which dem onstrates th at vv 1– 10 constitute a com pact
unit.
How does this u n it fit into the su rro u n d in g flow o f thought? T h e w riter
has already left th e specific intercessory p rayer-re p o rt o f the thanksgiving period
an d will n o t re tu rn to this until 3:1, 14. T h a t prayer-re p o rt h ad led him into
the m ajor th em e o n which he is now launched— th e pow er o f G od’s actions
in C hrist an d th e relevance o f this fo r believers. I f th e berakah an d thanksgiving
period in chap. 1 set o u t G od’s w ork o f salvation an d its bearing on the lives
o f believers in general term s, chap. 2 as a whole m akes clearer th at bearing
by rem in d in g th e m ainly G entile C hristian readers o f th e ir past an d pointing
o ut in contrast th e privileges o f th eir p resen t situation as those who have
experienced G od’s salvation. T h e first h alf o f this re m in d e r (vv 1– 10) depicts
the read ers’ past as a condition o f death, sinfulness, a n d bondage to evil forces
an d the flesh, an d contrasts it with the p resen t as an experience o f G od’s
mercy, o f new life, an d o f the heavenly realm s th ro u g h th eir relationship
with C hrist. T h e second h alf (vv 11–22) rehearses th e past m ore in term s o f
alienation from Israel, an d describes th e present, by contrast, as a belonging
to the new people o f God, th e C hurch, consisting o f bo th Jew s an d Gentiles
an d created by G od’s reconciling w ork in Christ. It w ould be w rong (!contra
M itton, 79, 80) to see the point o f vv 1– 10 as stressing individual salvation in
o rd e r to g u ard against an overem phasis on the C hurch, as arg u in g th at “o ne
becomes p a rt o f th e C h u rch by first becom ing a believer; one does not becom e
a C hristian by jo in in g the C h u rch .” It is d oubtful w h eth er such a distinction
betw een individual an d corporate categories was in the m ind o f th e w riter.
H e is simply p o rtray in g his re ad ers’ experience o f salvation from two d ifferent
perspectives. T h e fo rm er is m ore general a n d lends itself to personal application,
while the latter is m ore specifically ecclesiological, but, as becom es a p p a re n t
in v 2 with its m ention o f conform ity to this w orld an d its structures, the
form er, as well as the latter, contains a m ore th an purely individual dim ension.
T h e Kai at the beginning o f 2:1, w hatever its origins (see the discussion
below on th e relationship with Col. 2:13) a n d as it now stands, signals a continuity
o f them e betw een vv 1–10 an d the thanksgiving period. W hat G od has done
in C hrist fo r th e C hurch, which was th e focus o f th e use o f the confessional
m aterial in th e im m ediately preceding verses, is taken u p afresh. T h e w riter
asserts th at th e pow er o f G od which was m anifested suprem ely in C hrist’s
resurrection an d exaltation is the sam e pow er which his readers have them selves
experienced. His p oint is effectively m ade by th e parallels he builds betw een
2:5– 7 an d the creedal m aterial in 1:20,21. B oth C hrist an d believers have
been raised from the d ead (1:19; 2:5, 6), both C hrist an d believers have been
seated in th e heavenly realm s (1:20, 2:6), a n d “in th e com ing age” (1:21)
balances “in th e com ing ages” (2:7). T h e actual ph rase ev tov; enoopavioi5, “in
the heavenly realm s,” is em ployed in bo th contexts a n d the com p o u n d verbs
86 Ephesians 2 :1–10

ovvqyeipev, “raised w ith,” an d ovveicäOiaev, “seated w ith,” in 2:6 deliberately

recall th e sim ple form s e7 etpa 5 , “raised,” a n d Kaöiaas, “seated,” in 1:20. Yet
the parallel is by no m eans exact. T h e d ea th from which C hrist was raised
was according to 1:20 a physical d eath , while th a t from which believers have
been raised is th e d ea th o f an existence characterized by th eir sinful action.
O ne reason fo r th e anacoluthon o f vv 1–3 m ay well be th at before he com pletes
his com parison, th e w riter wishes to clarify in w hat sense he speaks o f his
readers as d ead (cf. also J. A. R obinson, 48). At th e sam e tim e, this elaboration
o f th eir past condition functions as a backdrop setting in sh arp er relief th e
salvation G od has now provided fo r them .
Less directly, 2 :1–10 can also be seen to have connections with the o p en in g
berahah. G od’s m ercy an d love for those d ead in trespasses (vv 4, 5) corresponds
to th e forgiveness o f trespasses in 1:7. T h e richness o f G od’s grace (v 7) takes
u p the ph rase in tro d u ced in 1:7. B eing seated with C hrist in the heavenly
realm s (v 6) recalls “every spiritual blessing in th e heavenly realm s in C hrist”
from 1:3. Finally, th e notion o f G od’s having p re p a re d good works fo r believers
to live o u t (v 10) is sim ilar to th e th o u g h ts in 1:4, 11, 12 o f G od’s having
chosen believers to be holy a n d blam eless before him in love an d having p re d e s-
tin ed th em to live fo r the praise o f his glory.
As has already becom e a p p a re n t, one o f th e m ajor features o f E ph 2 is its
twofold co ntrast betw een believers’ past u n re d eem ed situation a n d th eir p resen t
privileged experience o f salvation. Such a contrast is p erh ap s m ore d o m in an t
in E ph 2 th an elsew here, b u t it is n o t at all uncom m on in th e N T epistles
an d is o ften signaled by a form al contrast involving the term s 7rore, “once,”
an d vvv, “now .” T his form al contrast is clear in 2:11– 13. T a c h a u ’s m o n o g rap h ,
“Einst” und Jetzt”, investigates such m aterial a n d finds th a t it reflects a schem a
whose co n ten t is a contrast betw een th e p r e-C hristian past a n d th e C hristian
present, a n d one which is usually, b u t n o t always, expressed by th e use o f
7rore an d vvv. Such a description o f th e schem a allows him to claim th e following
passages fo r it: Rom 5:8 – 11; 6 :1 5–23; 7 :5 ,6 ; 11:30–32; 1 C or 6:9 – 11; Gal
1:23; 4:3– 7; 4:8– 10; E ph 2:1– 22; 5:8; Col 1:21,22; 2:13; 3 :7 ,8 ; Phlm 11;
1 T im 1:13, 14; T itu s 3:3– 7; 1 P et 2:10; 2:25 (“Einst” und “Jetzt”, 12,7 9 – 85).
T ac h au ’s investigation concludes th a t this schem a has no clear an teced en t in
the O T o r intertestam ental Ju d aism (21– 70) a n d th a t only in Joseph and Asenath
can any stro n g form al contrast betw een 7rore o r som etim es to nporepov, “for-
m erly,” an d vvvbe fo u n d (52– 58). T h e itore-vvvcontrast is used in G reek rhetoric
as a stylistic device (71– 78), b u t T ac h au holds th a t N T usage is fa r m ore
th a n rhetorical a n d involves th e substantial elem ent o f the contrast betw een
p re-C hristian past a n d C hristian p re sen t (94). H e believes it likely th at the
original setting fo r th e N T schem a was early C hristian preaching, a n d th at
such p reach in g may well have b een in connection w ith baptism o r recen t conver-
sion. T hose original connections are, how ever, no longer accessible because
the schem a is now fo u n d in a variety o f d ifferen t contexts in the N T (80, 133–
34). W hen he com es specifically to deal w ith E p h 2 (134– 43), T ac h au argues
th at vv 1– 3 with th eir 7rore call for a n am ing o f the p re sen t with vvv, a n d yet
only vv 11– 13 b rin g a resolution o f this tension. H e claims th at vv 1– 10 are
to be considered incom plete in th e ir contrast, a n d th a t the form o f chap. 2 as
a whole is a co ntrast betw een past an d p re sen t (vv 1– 3, 11– 13), echoed in the
 Form / Structure / Setting 87

closing section (vv 19– 22), b u t in te rru p te d by two excursuses (vv 4– 10, 14–
18; cf. also Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen, 54).
T ac h au ’s research into the schem a as a whole is helpful, b u t his analysis o f
E ph 2 is unconvincing. T h e initial contrast, which deals w ith salvation in general
term s, is com pleted in vv 1– 10. “D ead th ro u g h trespasses a n d sins‫( ״‬v 1) has
as its contrast “m ade alive” (v 5). Following this world-age an d being u n d e r
the d om ination o f the ru ler o f the realm o f the air (v 2) is in antithesis to
being in relationship to C hrist (cf. the ow - com pounds a n d ev XpiorG) Irjaov)
an d seated in the heavenly realm s (vv 5, 6). G od’s w rath (v 3) is balanced
against his m ercy, love, grace, an d kindness (vv 4, 5, 7), a n d being by n atu re
children o f w rath (v 3) can be paralleled with being saved by grace (vv 5, 8).
All th e necessary elem ents o f a clear contrast betw een the past an d the present
are in fact fo u n d in vv 1– 7. 6 66 0eos, “b u t G od,” o f v 4 an d th en the th ree
aorists an d the perfect o f the verb form s o f vv 5, 6 u n d erlin e the break betw een
the past an d th e p resen t which has taken place. T h e concluding section (vv
8– 10) adds fu rth e r to the contrast no t only by the rep etitio n o f “by grace you
have been saved” (v 8), b u t also by the final note o f “w alking” in good works
(v 10), which is the converse o f the “walking” in trespasses an d sins with which
the passage began (vv 1, 2). T hese features indicate a real contrast within vv
1– 10 an d suggest th at it is m uch b etter to see vv 1–7, in particular, as an
exam ple o f the schem a w here 7rore is p resen t (v 2) while vw is im plicit in vv
4, 5 (cf. also H alter, Taufe und Ethos, 626 n. 9). T ach au him self (‘E inst” und
Jetzt”, 81) includes in the schem a passages w here 7rore is im plicit (Rom 5:8–
11; 7 :5 ,6 ; 1 Pet 2:25), passages w here uvv is im plicit (1 T im 1:13, 14; T itus
3:3– 5) an d passages w here both 7r07e an d vvv are im plicit (1 C or 6:9– 11; Gal
4:3– 7; Col 2:13). E ph 2:1– 7 th en is to be considered an exam ple o f the contrast
schem a w here only 7rore is explicit.
W hen one com pares this exam ple o f the schem a with others, a n u m b er o f
parallels may be noted. O n the p re-C hristian side o f th e contrast, the being
d ead in 2:1 can be com pared, o f course, to the sam e notion in Col 2:13, b u t
also to the d eath, b oth physical an d spiritual, m entioned in Rom 6:16, 21, 23;
7:5. T h e “trespasses an d sins” o f 2:1 recall the trespasses o f Col 2:13 an d the
sins o f Rom 7:6, b u t also “sinners” in Rom 5:8 an d “sin” in Rom 6:16– 18, 20, 23.
B eing u n d e r the control o f the spiritual force o f the ru le r o f the realm o f the
air in 2:2 is sim ilar to being u n d e r the control o f the elem ental spirits in Gal
4 :3 ,8 . “D isobedience” in 2:2 is fo u n d also in Rom 11:30– 32 an d T itus 3:3.
“Passions” (emdvpiai) in 2:3 is paralleled in Col 3:7 (cf. 3:5) an d T itus 3:3,
an d has its equivalent in 7radrjfxara in Rom 7:5. Rom 7:5 also speaks o f the
past as being lived in the flesh, ju s t as 2:3 does here. Finally, “w rath ” in 2:3
corresponds to the sam e notion in Rom 5:9 an d Col 3:7 (cf. 3:6). O n the
positive side o f th e contrast, presen t C hristian experience involves having been
m ade alive (2:5), which can be com pared with Col 2:13 an d also with the
m ention o f etern al life in Rom 6:22, 23 a n d T itus 3:7. It is an experience o f
salvation (2:5), as in the p resen t aspect o f the contrast in Rom 5:9, 10 an d
T itus 3:5. It is also an experience o f G od’s love (2:4), as in Rom 5:8 (cf. also
1 T im 1:14); o f m ercy (2:4), as in Rom 11:30– 32; 1 T im 1:14; T itus 3:5 an d
1 Pet 2:10; o f grace (2:5, 7), as in 1 T im 1:14 an d T itus 3:7; a n d o f kindness
(2:7), as in T itus 3:4. As can be seen from these references, the exam ple o f
88 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 – 10

the schem a with which Ephesians has m ost in com m on is T itus 3 :3–7, w here
th ere are several parallels in vocabulary, th o u g h the term s are fo u n d in d ifferent
sequence. T his suggests the possibility o f a com m on tradition which Ephesians
an d th e Pastorals have rew orked in th e ir ow n way. (O n the links betw een
E ph 2:1– 10 an d T itus 3:3– 7 cf. Luz, “R ech tfertig u n g ,” 370.)
T h e TTori-vvv schem a is generally used in th e N T epistles to help in the
instruction o f believers. H ere in E p h 2 :1–7 th e contrast fu rth e rs the application
o f th e m ore general statem ents o f chap. 1 (cf. also T achau, “Einst” und Jetzt”,
135, 142). It aids th e w riter in assuring his read ers o f G od’s saving activity on
th eir b eh alf an d thereby increases th eir know ledge o f the significance o f th at
activity. T h is know ledge, in tu rn , lays th e basis for the paraenesis which will
com e later. If th e readers have experienced this contrast betw een th eir past
an d th eir p resent, th en it m ust affect th e way they live (cf. 4:17– 24; 5:7– 10).
It should also be noted about th e particu lar use o f the schem a in E ph 2 : 1–7
that, while tem p o ral categories are to the fore in the contrast, spatial categories
have been interm ingled. T h e past is at th e sam e tim e depicted in term s o f
this w orld an d th e realm o f the air, an d the p re sen t in term s o f experience
o f th e heavenly realm s (cf. also Steinm etz, Protologische Heilszuversicht, 53–54).
T h ro u g h o u t 2 :1–10 th ere is variation in style betw een first person an d second
person plu ral form s. Particularly in re g ard to vv 1– 3, a n u m b er o f com m entators
hold th at “you” refers exclusively to G entile C hristians, while “we” has in view
Jew ish C hristians (cf. J. A. Robinson, 48; Schlier, 105– 6; B arth, 211– 12; Ernst,
303). Such a distinction is m ore plausible here, w here it is closer to the explicit
discussion o f Jew s an d G entiles in the second h alf o f the chapter, th an it was
back in 1:11–13, b u t it is still unconvincing. It is tru e th at the w riter thinks
o f his read ers as p redom inantly G entile C hristians (cf. 2:11) an d th at the w riter
him self could well be a Jew ish C hristian. B ut th e distinction betw een “you”
an d “we” is n o t in ten d ed to be one betw een G entile an d Jew so m uch as one
betw een th e read ers in particular an d C hristians in general, including the
w riter (cf. th e com m ent above on 1:13). W hat is said about those re ferred to
as “we all” in v 3 is no t som ething distinctive to Jew s ra th e r th an Gentiles,
an d it becom es clear from the rest o f the pericope th at the G entile-Jew distinction
cannot be m aintained consistently. T h e “we” who w ere dead th ro u g h trespasses
in v 5a are n o t Jew s as opposed to the G entiles w ho w ere dead th ro u g h tre s-
passes in v 1 o r as opposed to Gentiles w ho have been saved by grace in 5b.
Similarly th e “you” who have been saved by grace in v 8 are not G entile
C hristians as o p p osed to the Jew ish C hristians who are G od’s handiw ork in
v 10. In stead th e “you” o f vv 1, 2, 5, 8 is the style o f addressing the recipients
o f th e letter, which the w riter h ad taken u p in 1:13 an d used m ost recently
in 1:15 – 18. W hat was tru e o f th e re ad ers’ fo rm e r sinful state (v 1) was tru e o f
the past o f all believers, including the w riter, as the “we all” o f v 3 m akes
clear. T h e con tin u ation o f th e first person plural in vv 4, 5a, 7, 10 is th e style o f
confessional m aterial, which allows fo r a bro ad referen ce to all believers (cf.
also Gnilka, 112; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 108; H alter, Taufe und Ethos, 626
n. 4), an d th e in terchange betw een the “you” an d the “we” style has the
force o f m aking th e readers feel included in the C h u rch as a whole (cf. also
S chnackenburg, 89).
We have re ferred to the style o f confessional m aterial in vv 4– 10. Schille
 Form / Structure / Setting 89

would go m uch fu rth e r an d claim to have isolated an early C hristian “initiation

h ym n” which is cited in vv 4–7, 10 an d in te rru p te d by an interpretative prose
com m ent in vv 8, 9 (Frühchristliche Hymnen, 53–60, followed to a large extent
by B arth 211, 217– 218, who thinks, how ever, th at such a liturgical com position
could be P aul’s own; Fischer, Tendenz und Absicht, 121– 22, also claims th at vv
4– 7 involve a citation from a baptism al liturgy with the phrase “in the ages
to com e” in v 7 to be taken as th e w riter’s gloss to retain an eschatological
reserve). Schille later qualifies this by stating th at the text cited is not so m uch
an actual hym n as a piece o f baptism al liturgy (59). H e does, however, think
th at this liturgical piece contains fo u r stanzas, each o f which consists o f th ree
lines. H e asserts th at the first stanza, vv 4, 5a, which talks o f G od’s m ercy to
those dead th ro u g h trespasses, constitutes a confession o f guilt. T h e second
stanza, vv 5b, 6, which deals with being u n ited with C hrist in G od’s saving
acts, he calls a C hristological credo. T h e th ird stanza, v 7, treats the topic o f
the d em o n stratio n o f G od’s salvation before the powers (a ju d g m e n t d e p e n d en t
on his d o ubtful in terp re tatio n o f the aeons as personal powers), an d the fourth,
v 10, which m entions the ethical obligations o f the new life, is deem ed to
involve a statem ent o f self-com m itm ent (59). Verse 5c, “by grace you have
been saved,” on Schille’s analysis, is held to be a choral response within the
original liturgy, which is th e n taken u p an d in te rp re te d in the light o f Pauline
theology in v 8a (56– 57).
T h e following considerations tell fairly decisively against such a proposal,
however. It is n o t at all clear th at Schille’s descriptions o f each stanza really
fit the m aterial to be fo u n d in each an d th ere fo re th at the m aterial as a whole
takes us th ro u g h the stages o f the initiation liturgy th at he suggests. Verses 4
and 7 show th e w riter’s own typical style. Verse 10, with its discussion o f
works, has ap p ro p riate links with the preceding m aterial in vv 8, 9 and, with
its repetition o f 7rep17ra7‫־‬eu>, seems to offer a final deliberate contrast to vv 1–
3. B oth these factors indicate th at it is likely to be basically the w riter’s own
conclusion. T h e m ost decisive objection to Schille’s construction is th at v 6
provides the w riter’s deliberate parallel to th e creedal m aterial he has previously
used in 1:20. O f th e m aterial in vv 4 –7, 10, the clearest candidate for designation
as p refo rm u lated m aterial is v 5a, on which v 5b “by grace ,you have been
saved” ap p ears to be the w riter’s inserted com m ent.
A bout v 5a, “m ade us alive with C hrist even w hen we were dead th ro u g h
trespasses,” th ere are questions o f relationship with Colossians. In the light o f
the similarities betw een 2:1, 5a an d Col 2:13, as well as betw een 1:20 an d Col
2:13, J. T . Sanders (ZN W 56 [1965] 218– 23) has arg u ed th at it is a question
o f the relationship betw een E ph 1:20– 2:7 an d Col 2:10– 13. E ither the w riter
o f Ephesians ex p an d ed a n d re in te rp re te d the Colossians passage, while p reserv-
ing its liturgical an d hym nic character, o r E phesians an d Colossians draw in d e-
pendently on the sam e o r a highly sim ilar liturgical background, as Sanders
m aintains (cf. also Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen, 33, 55–56; K. W engst, Christo-
logische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums [G ütersloh: G. M ohn, 1972] 187–
88, who also arg u e for the dep en d en ce o f E ph 2:5 an d Col 2:13 on a com m on
liturgical source). B oth options, how ever, overestim ate both the liturgical charac-
ter o f E ph 2:3– 7 (see the preceding discussion) an d the liturgical character
o f Col 2:10– 13. T h e re is certainly no unanim ity am ong scholars in reg ard to
90 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 – 10

the existence o f an original liturgical piece u nderlying this p a rt o f Col 2

(Schweizer, Colossians, 135, believes its existence to be im probable; Lohse, Colos-
sians, 106– 7, holds th at such traditional m aterial exists only in 2 :13c - 15; Deich-
gräber, Gotteshymnus6 8–167 ‫י‬, claims th a t if th ere was such m aterial 2:13a
was no t p a rt o f it; Best, J S N T 13 [1981] 10, asserts the necessity o f skepticism
ab o u t such m aterial). T h e b reak in th o u g h t betw een Col 2:12 an d 2:13 (with
th eir differen t uses o f the referen ce to death, the alternation betw een first
an d second p erso n plural, th e change o f th e subject fo r th e verbs, an d th e
su d d en shift from the notion o f forgiveness to th a t o f victory over the powers),
while explicable in term s o f th e concerns an d the style o f Colossians as a
whole, seems unlikely in a unified p re fo rm ed liturgical piece involving Col
2:12 – 15. S anders’ second o ption o f th e in d e p e n d e n t use o f a com m on liturgical
source involves, th erefo re, the building o f a fu rth e r hypothesis on w hat are
already very unstable foundations. H e him self ap p ears to recognize (ZN W 56
[1965] 223, 232) th at it is m uch m ore likely th at E ph 2 is d e p e n d e n t on Col
2:10 – 13, which it has used a n d ex p a n d ed in line with its own concerns (cf.
also H alter, Taufe und Ethos, 234; Best, J S N T 13 [1981] 11). E ph 2:1, /cat upas
opra? venpovs rots 7rapa7r7chpacw, “a n d you being dead th ro u g h trespasses,” an d
E ph 2:5, /cat övras rjpäs venpovs rots 7rapa7rrcopaaa‫׳‬, “an d we being d ead th ro u g h
trespasses,” are d ep e n d e n t on Col 2:13, /cat upas veicpovs ovras rots 7rapa7rrchpaau>,
“an d you being dead th ro u g h trespasses.” T his relationship with Colossians
accounts best fo r the difficult /cat, “a n d ,” in both E ph 2:1 an d 2:5. O nly in
E ph 2:1 does th e second person p ro n o u n agree with Col 2:13 a n d in all th ree
references th e w ord o rd e r is slightly different. E p h 2:5, ovve^ojondi'qoev rep
Xptarcp, “m ade alive with C hrist,” is d e p e n d e n t on Col 2:13, awefcoo7rot77ae>
upas ovv avrep, “m ade you alive with h im ”; E ph 2:6, /cat ovvrjyeipev, “an d raised
u p w ith,” recalls Col 2:12, /cat ovvqyepdryre, “a n d you w ere raised w ith”; an d
the notion o f being seated with C hrist in the heavenly realm s in E ph 2:6 is a
draw ing o u t o f the im plications o f Col 3:1, 2. Similarly, E ph 2:2, ev als wore
7repte7rarr7aare, “in which you once lived,” takes u p the language o f Col 3:7,
ev ols /cat upels 7repte7rarT7aare 7rore, “in which also you once lived,” an d the
reference to G od’s w rath in E ph 2:3 recalls th a t in Col 3:6. In m any o f these
cases, th e su rro u n d in g context in Ephesians is d ifferen t from th at in Colossians,
b u t this featu re is characteristic o f the overall relationship betw een th e two
letters. In this way it can be seen that, ra th e r th a n having its source in an
already fo rm ed liturgical tradition, E ph. 2:1– 10, like m uch o f th e letter as a
whole, has Colossians as a m ajor source, while also reflecting the th o u g h t
an d language o f the m ajor P auline letters and, in particular, R om ans (cf. espe-
dally vv 8, 9).
N egative conclusions ab o u t a hym n o r liturgical u n it lying b eh in d 2:1– 10
m ean th at discussion ab o u t the baptism al setting o f such traditional m aterial
becom es superfluous. B ut the question rem ains w h eth er E ph 2:1– 10 as it stands
has baptism al connections. C ertainly the depiction o f the change G od has
accom plished fo r the readers a n d o f th e new life he has provided could be
seen as ati exposition o f the significance o f th eir baptism . T h e language o f
2 :1 ,5 ab o u t being dead th ro u g h trespasses h ad been used in its source in
Col 2:13 in th e context o f a reference to baptism (Col 2:12), an d this notion
o f p re-C hristian existence as a spiritual d ea th occurs again in E ph 5:14 in
 Comment 91

w hat is widely held to be a p a rt o f a baptism al hym n. A lthough it is n o t

possible to claim it as an exclusively baptism al m otif, the contrast betw een
past an d p resent, involving the use o f 7rore an d vvv, m ost probably originated
as p art o f p reach in g o r instruction associated with baptism (cf. T achau, “Einst”
und “Jetzt”, 80, 133–34). In addition, T itus 3:3–7, the exam ple with which
E ph 2 has m ost in com m on, is linked with baptism (cf. Luz, “R echtfertigung,‫״‬
370). In particular, the language o f 2:5, 6 about being m ade alive with C hrist
an d being raised with C hrist has associations with baptism . B oth expressions
follow o n im m ediately from the notion o f being b u ried with C hrist in baptism
in Col 2:12, an d in R om 6 :1–4 the notion o f participation in C hrist’s resurrection
life com es im m ediately after th e link betw een baptism an d participation in
C hrist’s d eath an d burial. Some w riters (e.g., J. D. G. D unn, Baptism in the
Holy Spirit [L ondon: SCM, 1970] 160–61; B arth, 234) deny an association o f
2 :5 ,6 with baptism . It is tru e th at th e prim ary reference o f these verses is
likely to be to th e spiritual tran sfo rm atio n b ro u g h t about th ro u g h believers’
un io n with C hrist. B ut conversion a n d initiation w ere seen as one com plex,
in which baptism expressed this faith-u n io n with C hrist, an d th erefo re it is
unnecessary to attem p t to divorce com pletely th e expression from the spiritual
reality expressed. M ost scholars th ere fo re relate the notions o f 2:5, 6 to baptism
(cf. Schlier, 109– 11; Schnackenburg, Baptism, 73–78; G. R. Beasley-M urray,
Baptism in the New Testament [London: M acmillan, 1962] 203 n. 3; Kirby, Ephe-
sians, 154 – 56; Steinm etz, ProtologischeHeilszuversicht, 41; Gnilka, 117, 126; Ernst,
305; H alter, Taufe und Ethos, 236– 37). T h e re is no direct o r explicit reference
to baptism in 2:1– 10, b u t th ere is also no reason to deny th at the way in
which the w riter talks about th e contrast betw een p re-C hristian past an d C hris-
tian present, ab o u t th e change w ro u g h t by G od’s m ercy, an d about believers’
participation in w hat h a p p e n e d to C hrist, w ould have recalled to his readers
the significance o f th eir baptism .
In the persuasive strategy o f th e w riter’s discourse, this pericope an d the
following one, 2 :1 1–22, function to g eth er as th e narratio. T h e narratio reports
th at which has been d one in the past in such a way as to p ersu ad e the audience
to base th eir th in k ing o r action u p o n it. By m eans o f the dram atic contrast in
this passage betw een the re ad ers’ past an d th eir present, a contrast addressed
directly to th e readers an d appealing to both th eir m inds an d em otions, the
w riter im presses o n th em how m uch they owe to w hat G od has done in Christ.
As they recall G od’s intervention on th eir b eh a lf an d th e full salvation they
now enjoy in contrast with th eir previous spiritual death, they are inevitably
m ade aw are o f th e radical re o rien tatio n th eir whole identity has u n d erg o n e.
Such an aw areness, to g eth er with the m ention o f good works as p a rt o f th eir
com plete salvation, p rep ares th em for th e ethical im plications o f the second
h alf o f th e letter, which the w riter will go on to draw from th eir status as a
new creation.

Comment

1 /cat Ujuä? ovras venpovs rot? 7rapa7rr0J*zaat1> /cat rat? a/uaprtat? vßtbv, “an d
you w ere dead th ro u g h your trespasses an d sins.” T h e w riter addresses his
readers directly again. T h e read ers are prim arily G entile C hristians (cf. 2:11)
92 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 – 10

b u t this is n o t deducible eith er from th e force o f the kol o r the use o f the
second p erson p lu ral as over against the first p erso n p lural (contra B arth, 211–
12; cf. th e discussion u n d e r Form/ Structure/ Setting above on the alternation
betw een “you” an d “we” in this passage). W hat is said about the addressees’
past condition is certainly no t exclusively tru e o f Gentiles as opposed to Jews.
T h e K a i at th e beg inning is probably d ep e n d en t, as is the rest o f th e clause,
o n Col 2:13a. As it now stands, it functions as a connective with th e whole o f
th e preced in g pericope ra th e r th a n with 1:23 specifically. As the rest o f this
passage will show, th e sam e pow er th a t was at w ork in raising an d exalting
C hrist from physical d eath has raised a n d exalted believers from spiritual death.
How is it th at th e re ad ers’ p re-C hristian past can be described as a condition
o f death? Such a description was a n atu ra l im plication o f the way o f thinking
in which th e d ea th a n d resu rrectio n o f C hrist was the tu rn in g p o in t o f history.
If C hrist’s resu rrectio n in tro d u ced th e life o f th e age to com e ah ead o f tim e,
th en o n e’s state p rio r to participation in th a t resu rrectio n life m ust, co m p ara-
tively speaking, be viewed as death. In addition, the notion o f participation
in th e events o f th e e n d ah ead o f tim e can be seen to have a reverse, negative
side. T h e d ea th which com es to all as th e wages o f sin (cf. Rom 6:23) an d
which in its final form involves physical d ea th an d the ju d g m e n t o f exclusion
from th e life o f G od is experienced partially in this life. Best (J S N T 13 [1981]
16) has called this “a realized eschatological conception o f d e a th .” T h e depiction
o f this life in term s o f an experience o f spiritual an d m oral death, while it
took o n special force in the light o f C hrist’s resurrection, was no t un iq u e to
the early C hristians. A lready in th e O T , particularly in the Psalms, a life in
disease, sin, alienation, captivity, o r u n d e r the rule o f o n e’s enem ies was seen
as a life in Sheol o r in the realm o f d ea th (e.g., Pss 13:1– 3; 30:3; 31:12;
88:3–6; 143:3; H os 13:14; Jo n a h 2:6; cf. C. B arth, Die Errettung vom Tode
[Zürich: EVZ, 1947] 9 1–122). T his way o f thinking is fo u n d also in th e Q u m ra n
writings in 1QH 3.19, “I th an k T h ee, O L ord, fo r T h o u hast red eem ed my
soul from th e Pit, a n d from the H ell (Sheol) o f A baddon T h o u hast raised
m e u p to everlasting h eig h t,” an d 1Q H 11.10– 14, “F or the sake o f T h y glory
T h o u hast purified m an o f sin . . . th a t bodies gnaw ed by w orm s m ay be
raised from th e d u st . . . th a t he m ay stand before T h e e with the everlasting
host . . . to be renew ed to g eth er with all th e living. . . .” T hese texts re fer
n o t to physical d ea th an d fu tu re resu rrectio n b u t to the com m unity m em b er’s
p resen t experience o f salvation. T h ey provide a rem arkable parallel to the
th o u g h t o f E phesians with th eir notion th a t en tran ce into th e com m unity is a
passing from d ea th to life a n d to participation in th e heavenly realm (cf. M uss-
ner, “C o n trib u tio n s,” 174 – 76; H .-W. K uhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges
Heil [G öttingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1966] 78– 90). L ater, the rabbis
could describe th e Gentiles o r the godless as d ead (cf. m. cEd. 5.2; y. Ber. 2.4;
b. Ber. 18a; Midr. Qoh. 9.5; Gen. Rab. 39.7). O utside Ju d aism Stoic w riters
used th e term “d ea d ” in a figurative sense, since they considered th at w hat
did n o t belong to th e highest in a person, to th e m ind o r the spirit, was n o t
worthy o f being described as alive (cf. M. A nt. 2.12.1; 12.33.2). T h a t which a
p erson h ad in com m on with th e anim al w orld a n d which separated him o r
h e r from th e divine was d eem ed to be d ead (cf. Epictetus, Diss. 1.3.3; 2.19.27).
In th e N T itself “d ea d ” is used m etaphorically in th e saying fo u n d in M att
 Comment 93

8:22 an d L uke 9:60 an d in the parable in Luke 15:24, 32. In 1 T im 5:6 an d

Rev 3:1 it is used o f m em bers o f th e C hristian com m unity w ho are n o t living
the new life as they ought. O utside th e P auline corpus the greatest similarity
to the usage in E ph 2:1, 5 is fo u n d in th e Jo h a n n in e literatu re w here th ere is
a strong realized eschatology o f life a n d d ea th (cf. Jo h n 5:24, 25; 1 J o h n 3:14).
L ater, H erm as em ploys th e term “d ea d ‫ ״‬o f th e state o f people before th eir
baptism (Sim. 9.16.3, 4), an d in Gnostic w ritings the n o n-initiate could be called
dead (cf. Gos. Phil. 70,10– 17; H ippolytus, Ref. 6.35.6).
Obviously th e m ost im m ediate influence on th e usage o f the w riter to the
Ephesians is Col 2:13. B ut lying b eh in d this are o th e r references in Paul which
depict d eath as a pow er o f th e old age a n d connect it closely with sin (e.g.,
Rom 5:12– 21; 6:23; 1 C or 15:56). In such references th e physical aspect o f
d ea th ’s pow er is very m uch to the fore, b u t th ere are also places w here the
spiritual aspect o f d e a th ’s reign is in view. In R om 6:13 believers are as those
who have been b ro u g h t from d ea th to life, an d in Rom 7:9, 10, 13 the person
u n d e r the law is in a state o f death. T h e realized eschatological view o f death
in Col 2:13 an d E ph 2:1 is a n atu ra l continuation o f such thinking, as the
past is contrasted with the p resen t experience o f resu rrectio n life. T h e sam e
concept occurs later in E phesians w hen the baptism al hym n is q uoted in 5:14,
“Awake, O sleeper, a n d arise from th e d ea d ,” an d 4:18 with its description o f
Gentile existence as “alienated from the life o f G od” provides a fu rth e r com m ent
on w hat th e w riter m eans w hen he says his readers w ere dead. It is a theological
assessm ent on th e p a rt o f the w riter, for w hom reality is d eterm in ed by o n e’s
relationship to G od an d who th ere fo re sees the tragic situation o f those who
are n o t in a living relationship to G od th ro u g h C hrist as one o f death.
T h e readers w ere d ead th ro u g h th eir trespasses a n d sins. In distinction
from th e statem en t in Col 2:13 on which it is d ep e n d en t, E p h 2:1 adds “sins”
to “trespasses” instead o f the phrase “the uncircum cision o f your flesh.” O n
7rapa7rTcbpa7‫־‬a, “trespasses,” a n d th e question o f the singular a n d plural o f words
for sin in Paul an d Ephesians, see the discussion o f 1:7. W hereas in Rom 5–7
it is sin, personified as a pow er in the singular, th at predom inates in the close
association with d eath (but cf. 5:16; 7:5), h ere it is acts o f sin in the plural.
apapriai, “sins,” simply adds a synonym to “trespasses,” form ing a hendiadys
(the use o f two words coupled by “a n d ” to express one concept). T h e singulars
o f both n o u n s are used interchangeably in R om 5:12–21, as are the plurals
in talking ab o u t “forgiveness o f sins” in Col 1:14 an d 2:13. T h e use o f the
two synonym s h ere provides a n o th e r exam ple o f the red u n d an cy o f style o f
Ephesians an d helps to convey an im pression o f th e im m ensity an d variety o f
the sinfulness o f th e re ad ers’ past. “T respasses an d sins” is in th e dative an d
has been tran slated “th ro u g h your trespasses a n d sins.” T his dative should be
seen as expressing both the cause a n d th e m anifestation o f d eath (cf. also
B arth, 212; Gnilka, 114; Best, J S N T 13 [1981] 19– 20). Trespasses a n d sins
both b rin g ab o u t the condition o f d ea th a n d characterize the existence o f
those who are spiritually dead.
2 ev al? 7Tore nepuenarrioaTe, “in which you once lived.” T his p a rt o f the
verse recalls th e w ording o f Col 3:7, ev 015 *at 7repte7rar77aare 7rore . . . ,
“in which you also once lived. . . .” O n th e p a rt 7rore plays in the contrast in
this passage, see Form/ Structure/ Setting above. T h e relative p ro n o u n is a fem inine
94 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1–10

plural because it has b een attracted to its m ost im m ediate antecedent, rat?
apapriat^, th o u g h it should be seen as re fe rrin g back to the whole phrase
“your trespasses an d sins.” nepinareiv, literally, “to walk” (cf. also v 10), is a
H ebraism com m on in the LXX in translating ‫ ה ל ך‬, halak, in its use for ethical
conduct o r a way o f living. T h e rabbis, o f course, used this term inology in
speaking o f teaching ab o u t ethical conduct — häläkä. T h e use o f nepmareiv in
this sense in th e N T is m ost characteristic o f P aul’s w ritings b u t also occurs
in the Jo h a n n in e literature. H ere in Ephesians it will becom e p ro m in en t again
later in th e paraenetical section o f th e letter (cf. 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15).
Kara tov aicova tov KÖapov rovrov, “in accordance with this w orld-age.” In
conjunction with nepinarelp, tcarä plus th e accusative designates the n o rm o f
conduct. B ut should aicov be taken in its usual sense o f “age” o r “tim e sp an ”
o r as th e nam e o f a personal pow er o r deity, Aion? T hose who see Ephesians
as in som e way in interaction with Gnostic th o u g h t, in which aicov was a technical
term , often o p t for th e personal referen ce here. B ut this latter in terp re tatio n
is n ot d ep e n d e n t on the later Gnostic m yth fo r its su p p o rt, for th e nam e
Aion for a god o f endless tim e is fo u n d in several Hellenistic religious an d
magical contexts, an d it is know n th at th ere was a cult fo r this deity in A lexandria
a ro u n d 200 b .c .e . (cf. M. Zepf, “D er G ott A ion in d e r hellenistischen T heologie,”
A R W 25 [1927] 225– 44; H. Sasse, “a t cbv,” T D N T 1 [1964] 198; an d the detailed
assessm ent o f the evidence by A. D. Nock, “A Vision o f M andulis A ion,” H T R
27 [1934] 53– 104, especially 78–99). It is a rg u ed th at the triple parallelism o f
v 2 requires a reference to a personal pow er alongside the ru le r an d the spirit
who are m entioned. Elsew here, Paul did associate such a personal pow er with
this age, an d in 2 C or 4:4 talked ab o u t th e god o f this age (cf. also 1 C or
2 :6 ,8 w here “rulers o f this age” m ay well be a reference to su p ern atu ral powers).
H ere in E ph 2:2 such a figure w ould be equivalent to the ru le r o f the realm
o f the air, to th e devil (6:11) o r th e evil one (6:16). Elsew here in the N T he
is associated with “this w orld,” as in o u r verse (cf. “the ru le r o f this w orld” in
J o h n 12:31; 16:11). T h e singular aicov is n o t h ere qualified by an adjective
such as “this” o r “com ing” an d is th ere fo re unlikely to have a tem poral force.
By th e tim e Ignatius w rote his Epistle to the Ephesians (19.1, 2) aicov ap p ears to
have been u n d ersto o d as having a personal reference. T his in terp re tatio n has
a n u m b er o f ad h eren ts am ong recen t w riters (cf. A. D. Nock, “A Vision o f
M andulis A ion,” H T R 27 [1934] 89; Schlier, 101; S teinm etz, Protologische Heilszu-
versieht, 61; Gnilka, 114; B arth, 214; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 56– 59, 109; H alter,
Taufe und Ethos, 235; S chnackenburg, 91; H. Sasse, “aicov,” T D N T 1 [1964]
207, thinks th at E ph 2:2 is p erh ap s the one instance w here this m ythological
conception from syncretism , which later cam e to play an im p o rtan t p a rt in
Gnosticism, has p en e trated into the NT).
A gainst this in terp re tatio n it m ust first be said th at the triple parallelism
claim ed for E ph 2:2 is by no m eans clear. T h e re is no Kara, “in accordance
with,” before th e reference to “spirit,” an d “spirit” is probably no t to be inter-
p reted as a referen ce to the sam e figure as the ru le r (see the discussion below).
T his w ould be th e only place in th e N T w here aicov refers to a personal power.
T h e p lu ral in E ph 2:7 an d 3:9, which som e suggest as su p p o rtin g references,
is extrem ely unlikely to re fer to personal forces. It is also unlikely th at the
w riter w ould switch from the tem poral force o f aicov in 1:21 to a personal
 Comment 95

reference in 2:2 a n d th e n back again to a tem p oral one in 2:7 w ithout giving
som e clearer indication o f an in ten d ed change o f m eaning. T o be sure, Paul
does talk ab o u t personal pow ers connected with this age, b u t he never uses
aicov itself fo r such powers. Instead he em ploys apxovres (1 C or 2 :6 ,8 ) o r
0eos (2 C or 4:4) to m ake his point. In E ph 2:2 good sense can be m ade o f
aicov with a tem p o ral force w ithout having to reso rt to a reference to the god
Aion. T h e expression “th e age o f this w orld” w ould be ju s t one m ore exam ple
o f th e piling u p o f synonym s in genitive constructions in the style characteristic
o f Ephesians. T h e following exam ples are also preceded by Kara: 1:5, Kara
rrjv evSodav rov deXriparos airrov; 1:11, Kara rr\v ßovXr/v rod 0eXr)paros airrov; 1:19,
Kara rr!v evepyetav rod Kparovs rf )5 icxxuos airrov. It should n o t be surprising
th at aicov an d KÖopos can also be trea ted as synonym s, since aicov had not
only tem poral b u t also spatial connotations. In th e LXX aicov appears as a
translation o f th e H ebrew ‫ ע ו ל ם‬, c6läm, which h ad a dual reference eith er to
“age” o r “w orld,” an d as th e G reek equivalent it was correspondingly pressed
into double service. In its sense o f “tim e o r d u ra tio n o f the w orld” it could
easily pass over into th e sense o f “w orld” itself an d becom e a synonym for
KÖopo5 . Paul in 1 C or 1:20; 2:6; 3:18, 19, fo r exam ple, em ploys aicov an d KÖopos
virtually interchangeably (cf. also H. Sasse, “aicov” T D N T 1 [1964] 202– 4). It
is m ore likely th e n that, in line with its o th e r usage in this letter an d with
this w riter’s red u n d an cy o f style, aicov is being used in 2:2 with a tem poral
m eaning th an th a t this verse provides the only N T instance o f its reference
to a deity (cf. also J. A. Robinson, 48, 153; A bbott, 40; Percy, Probleme, 259;
G augler, 85; M ussner, 59; Christus, 24– 27; C aird, 51; M itton, 83; Ernst, 203;
C arr, Angels and Principalities, 100– 101). T h e phrase “this w orld-age” thus be-
comes a way o f talking about bo th spatial a n d tem poral aspects o f fallen h u m an
existence. In stead o f being orien ted to the life o f the age to com e an d the
heavenly realm , th e past lives o f th e readers h ad b een dom inated by this present
evil age an d this w orld. T h e ir sinful activities w ere simply in line with the
norm s an d values o f a spatio-tem poral com plex wholly hostile to God.
Kara rbv äpxovra rijs ej;ov0ia<? rov depo?, “in accordance with the ru le r o f the
realm o f the air.” O nly now is the solidarity o f evil, o f which the recipients o f
the letter w ere once a p art, given a personal connotation. T h e ir lives were
u n d e r the control o f a ruler. S u p ern a tu ral pow ers hostile to h u m an welfare
an d to G od’s redem ptive purposes have already figured in 1:21 an d will do
so again in 3:10 an d 6:11, 12. In Ephesians, how ever, n o t only do such principali-
ties an d pow ers ap p ear, b u t equally p ro m in en t is an ultim ate personal pow er
o f evil b eh in d them , designated here as th e ru le r o f the realm o f the air, b u t
in 4:27 an d 6:11 as the devil, an d in 6:16 as th e evil one. For Paul too this
age h ad its god (cf. 2 C or 4:4), a n d th ere was a personal center to the pow er
o f evil. B ut in th e u n d isp u ted Pauline letters the designations fo u n d in Ephesians
do n o t ap p ear, an d th e nam e Satan is p re fe rre d instead. e%ovoia is used in
this verse fo r th e realm o r the sphere o f th e ru le r’s authority ra th e r th a n for
th at au thority itself. T his is th e way it h ad b een used in Col 1:13, which talks
o f deliverance from the dom inion o f darkness a n d transference to the kingdom
o f G od’s beloved Son. H ere the realm o f the ru le r’s authority is said to be
the air. Elsewhere in Ephesians, hostile pow ers inhabit the heavenly realm s
(cf. 3:10; 6:12). T his notion has its b ackground in O T an d Jew ish th o u g h t
96 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

w here angels an d spirit pow ers w ere often re p resen te d as in heaven (e.g.,
J o b 1:6; D an 1 0 :13,21; 2 Macc 5:2; 1 Enoch 61.10; 90.21,24); it was also
developed in Philo (cf. De Spec. Leg. 1.66; De Plant. 14; De Gig. 6, 7). W hat is
th e relationship o f “the air” to “th e heavenly realm s”? It m ay be th at the
w riter is using term inology from differen t cosm ological schemes, b u t it is fairly
certain th at he in tends the two term s to indicate th e sam e realm inhabited by
m alevolent agencies (pace W. W ink, Naming the Powers [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984] 84, who by asserting th at th e “pow er o f th e air” is no t th e locale o f
dem ons b u t th e w orld atm osphere, th e spiritual m atrix o f inauthentic living,
confuses th e force o f this expression with th a t o f the next phrase; his later
discussion o f “air” [91] also contradicts this assertion). If th ere is any distinct
connotation, it could be th at the “air” indicates the low er reaches o f th at realm
an d th ere fo re em phasizes the proxim ity o f this evil pow er an d his influence
over th e world. In later Ju d aism the air is in fact th o u g h t o f as the region
u n d e r th e firm am ent as in 2 Enoch 29.4, 5, “A nd I threw him o u t from the
h eig h t with his angels, a n d he was flying in the air continuously above the
abyss.‫( ״‬Cf. also T. Benj. 3.4; Targum of Job 5.7; a n d Asc. Isa. 7.9; 10.29; 11.23
w here th e firm am ent is called the air an d th e ru le r o f this w orld a n d his
angels are said to live in it. W ink, Naming the Powers, 83 an d n. 96, argues
th at th ere is no evidence fo r the idea o f evil spirits in the air p rio r to Paul,
b u t he has him self already re fu ted such an assertion earlier [25 n. 38].)
tov TTvevnaros tov vvv evepyovvros ev rot? otot? rf)9 d7ret0eta?, “o f the spirit th at
is now at w ork in those who are disobedient.‫ ״‬T h e re is m uch discussion about
the syntactical place an d the m eaning o f tov nvebpaTOs, “o f the spirit.” Some
take it as in apposition to tov apxovra , “the ru le r,” giving a n o th e r nam e for
the ru le r an d m aking clear th at he is a spirit pow er (cf. Gnilka, 115 n. 5;
Ernst, 303). B ut why th e n the genitive case ra th e r th a n the accusative which
w ould be expected in ag reem en t with tov apxovra ? It could be explained as a
genitive o f apposition (cf. BDF § 167) o r as an unconscious assim ilation
to the two im m ediately preceding genitives, b u t it rem ains an aw kward co n stru e-
tion. O th ers take tov nvevp aro? as in apposition to its m ost im m ediate an teced en t
tov depo?, “o f th e air” (cf. Schlier, 104; C aird, 51). T his in terp re tatio n can
account for th e genitive an d appeals to a connection betw een spirit an d air
on the basis o f th e fact th a t in H ebrew an d G reek one w ord could do service
for spirit, b reath , wind, air, an d atm osphere, tov 7rvevpaTOS, on this view, w ould
be a fu rth e r ex p lanation o f the air as the spiritual atm o sp h ere which pervades
those who are disobedient. T h e re is one m ore syntactical option, tov nvevpaTOs
could be parallel to rffr e£01x71a?, “o f th e realm ,” an d governed by töv apxovTa,
“the ru le r” (cf. M eyer, 98– 99; J. A. R obinson, 154; A bbott, 42). T his option
again accounts adequately for the genitive an d should be p re fe rre d as m aking
b etter sense o f the verse. O n this in terp re tatio n , the personal pow er o f evil is
the ru le r o f th e realm o f the air, th e ru le r o f the spirit th at is now at w ork in
the disobedient.
In references to the Spirit o f G od nvevpa often hovers betw een personal
arid im personal connotations. H ere also spirit may be m ore a reference to a
spiritual force o r influence th a n to a personal pow er. W hen the w riter speaks
o f evil spirit beings later in 6:12, he uses 7rvevpaT1Ka no t nvevpaTa. It is w orth
n oting som e sim ilarity to Q u m ra n teaching ab o u t the two spirits in which
 Comment 97

people walk (IQ S 3.13– 4.26), in which th e spirit o f falsehood is ru led by Belial,
the A ngel o f Darkness. Paul, in 1 C or 2:12, h ad recognized th at th ere is a
spirit at w ork in th e w orld which is in antithesis to the Spirit o f God. H ere in
Ephesians, th a t spiritual force is said to be u n d e r th e ru le o f the sam e evil
being who rules th e air. T h e w riter m akes clear th a t this ru le r’s evil influence
has both a cosmic an d a h u m an sphere. His spiritual influence is now at work
in those who are disobedient. T his assertion reinforces th e observation th at
the term inology used o f th e sinful opposition is sim ilar to th at used o f G od’s
activity in salvation. N ot only is irvevpa em ployed, b u t so also is evepyelv9which
has ju s t fe atu red in th e depiction o f the divine activity in 1:20. T h e m ention
th at this spirit is now at w ork m akes clear th a t alth o u g h th e w riter has attrib u ted
bondage to th e ru le r o f this w orld to his C hristian re ad ers’ past, this does no t
m ean th at th e ru le r’s pow er no longer exists. It is at w ork in the p resen t in
those who have n o t benefited from G od’s deliverance in C hrist. In fact, the
later paraenesis will re m in d believers th a t it still poses a th re a t to them (cf.
4:27; 6:10– 20). H ere we see som ething o f the “a lre ad y /n o t yet” tension so
characteristic o f P aul’s eschatological th o u g h t.
A lthough th e ru le r o f this w orld has been d efeated (cf. 1:20– 22), he is not
su rren d erin g w ithout a struggle an d w ithout still m aking his pow erful influence
felt. T h e expression “sons o f disobedience” fo r those in w hom th at influence
is operative is a H ebraism den o tin g m en an d w om en whose lives are character-
ized by disobedience. T h e rebellion against G od’s will which this term im plies
includes rejection o f the C hristian gospel, since th e w riter states th at it is occur-
rin g in th e present. B ut the disobedience is n o t to be lim ited to this an d involves
general d isreg ard fo r G od’s will (pace Schlier, 104; B arth, 216; C aird, 51).
T o g eth e r with the notion o f G od’s w rath (cf. 2:3), this expression “sons o f
disobedience” will be taken u p again in th e paraenesis in 5:6.
3 ev ot? Kai ripels 7rm‫׳‬7‫־‬e? äveorpä^pev 7rore, “am ong th em we all also once
lived.” ev 0 15 , “am o ng th em ,” has reference to the im m ediate an teced en t “those
who are disobedient” an d n o t to the trespasses a n d sins o f v 1 (contra J. A.
Robinson, 155; R am aroson, Bib 58 [1977] 397). N ot only the readers w ere to
be reckoned am o n g disobedient hum anity at one tim e, b u t th e sam e goes for
all believers, including the w riter, who is identifying with his readers— “we all
also.” In this depiction o f the past style o f life 7rore is rep eated from v 2, an d
avaarpecfreiv, “to live,” is used this tim e as a synonym for 7repmarelv to denote
ethical conduct. T h e n o u n ava0Tpo<lyq occurs again in the paraenesis o f 4:22
to re fer to the past way o f life. In th a t context it is also associated with the
notion o f “desires.”
ev raI5 emdvpiais rrfr oapKOS ripcov, mtovvres rd de\r\para rf)5 oapKÖs Kai tcjv
Stavoubv, “in th e passions o f o u r flesh, carrying o u t the wishes o f th e flesh
an d the th o u g h ts.” T h e m ajor characteristic o f the past sinful way o f life th at
is now taken u p is its o rientation to th e flesh. T h e term “flesh” occurs elsew here
in this letter in 2:11, 14; 5:29, 31; 6:5, 12. B ut only here, w here it occurs twice
in the sam e verse, does it have th e negative ethical connotations distinctive o f
a large n u m b er o f its uses in Paul. It should n o t be surprising th a t such connota-
tions p ertain here, since the expression “th e passions o f the flesh” echoes the
language o f Gal 5:16, 24, in the context o f which Paul contrasted life in the
Spirit an d its fru it with life in th e flesh an d its works (cf. also Rom 7:5; 13:14).
98 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

Flesh, in such a context, stands n o t sim ply for a p erso n ’s physical existence,
b u t for the sp h ere o f hum anity in its sinfulness an d opposition to God. It is
th e sp h ere in which a person n o t only displeases G od b u t is also in fact incapable
o f pleasing G od (cf. Rom 8:8). It is th e sp h ere in which life is lived in p u rsu it
o f o n e’s own ends an d in in d ep en d en ce o f God. As such, it is n o t lim ited to
indulgence in sensuality b u t can take on various form s, including allegiance
to th e law (cf. Gal 3:3). (O n “flesh” in Paul cf. especially R. B ultm ann, Theology
of the New Testament 1 [New York: C harles S cribner’s Sons, 1951] 232–46;
E. Schweizer, “aap£,” T D N T 7 [1971] 98– 151; R. Jew ett, Paul's Anthropological
Terms [Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1971] 4 9 – 166; R idderbos, Paul, 93– 104; H. Seebass
an d A. C. T hiselton, “Flesh,” N ID N T T 1 [1975] 671– 82; A. Sand, Der Begriff
“Fleisch” in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen [R egensburg: F. Pustet, 1967].)
As those whose lives w ere characterized by disobedience, th e readers o f
this letter w ere once u n d e r th e control o f the sphere o f the flesh. Its desires
do m in ated th eir lives an d h ad to be fulfilled. Sin pervaded th eir whole person
so th at th ere w ere no in n e r recesses u n ta in te d by it. Even th eir th o u g h ts (rcov
dtavoicbv) w ere c o rru p t an d controlled th eir actions. It has been suggested th at
the p lural o f Siavoia m eans senses o r im pulses, with LXX N um 15:39 cited in
su p p o rt (cf. BAGD 187). B ut th e re a p p e a r to be no g rounds fo r such an
in terp retatio n . T h e plural o f the n o u n should be translated, as one m ight
expect, as “th o u g h ts, dispositions, im aginations.” T h e context will indicate
w h eth er such th o u g h ts are seen as good o r evil. T his holds tru e o f LXX N um
15:39. By m aking “th o u g h ts” a separate category parallel to “flesh” in the
clause “carrying o u t the wishes o f the flesh a n d th e th o u g h ts,” how ever, the
w riter m ay well be m oving away slightly from P auline usage, w here the sphere
o f the flesh em braces the th o u g h ts as well as the senses (cf. the m ind-set o f
the flesh in Rom 8 :5–7 o r the m ind o f th e flesh in Col 2:18), a n d beginning
to confine “flesh” to the sensual (cf. also L indem ann, Aufhebung, 113; Percy
[Probleme, 2 6 1–62] attem pts to explain this as a stylistic variation b u t does no t
really m eet th e p o int th a t such a variation still leaves the re ad er with the
distinction betw een flesh an d thought).
Kai fifieQa retcva </>voe1 0p 7 fjg co? Kai oi X017T01, “a n d we w ere by n atu re children
o f w rath like th e rest.” W hen they once lived th eir lives in such total absorption
with th e flesh, th e w riter a n d all believers w ere reKva . . . 0p7 fft, “children o f
w rath.” T his is a H ebraism , like “sons o f disobedience” in v 2, which m eans
they w ere deserving o f an d liable to w rath. T his w rath is clearly G od’s w rath
(cf. E ph 5:6; also Col 3 :5 ,6 ) ra th e r th a n m erely an im personal process o f
cause an d effect o r a principle o f re trib u tio n in a m oral universe. T h e w rath
o f God is a concept which occurs frequently in P aul’s letter to the R om ans. It
refers to G od’s active ju d g m e n t going fo rth against all form s o f sin a n d evil
an d is evidence o f his absolute holiness (cf. Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9;
9:22; 12:19; 13:4, 5). T h e H ebraistic expression used h ere in E p h 2:3 rem inds
one o f the way in which in the O T a person deserving o f pu n ish m en t is spoken
o f as a “son o f stripes” (D eut 25:2) o r a p erson doom ed to die is spoken o f as
a “son o f d e a th ” (cf. 1 Sam 26:16; 2 Sam 12:5; Ps 102:20). It is also rem iniscent
o f the way in which in apocalyptic literatu re Cain, in being m arked o u t for
ju d g m e n t, is described as a “son o f w ra th ” (Apoc. Mos. 3). In th e N T also,
Jesu s is re p resen te d as con d em n in g the proselytizing o f th e Pharisees, declaring
 Comment 99

th at w hen they m ade a convert he was twice as m uch a “son o f G eh en n a” as

they them selves (M att 23:15). T h e children o f w rath, th en , are those who are
doom ed to G od’s w rath because th ro u g h th eir condition o f sinful rebellion,
they deserve his righteous ju d g m e n t.
As does Paul in Rom 1:18–3:20, the w riter m akes this category cover all
hum anity outside Christ, cos feai oi Xonrot m eans “like the rest o f hum anity,”
an d in this way the sinful condition an d its consequences, which the w riter
has been describing, becom e all-em bracing in th eir extent. W hat was once
tru e o f th e read ers (vv 1,2) was also once tru e o f all believers (v 3a), and
w hat was once tru e o f all believers is also tru e o f the rest o f hum anity (v 3b).
T h e h u m an condition o f being destined to ju d g m e n t in the day o f G od’s
w rath is a condition th at is “by n a tu re .” W hat is the force o f the term 0 u aa
here? Elsewhere th e n o u n 0 1 x719 can re fer to the n atu ra l o rd e r o f things (cf.
Rom 1:26; 1 C or 11:14), b u t the actual expression 0 u aa in the dative, “by
n a tu re ,” occurs elsew here in the N T in Gal 2:15, “we who are Jew s by n a tu re ,”
w here it refers to th at which com es th ro u g h b irth ra th e r th an th at which is
acquired later (cf. also €K 0 uaeco5 in Rom 2:27), in Gal 4:8, w here it m eans
“in reality,” an d in Rom 2:14, 15, w here it m eans “o f o n e’s own free will,
voluntarily, in d ep en d en tly .” 0 6 ae 1 in E ph 2:3 belongs with the first o f these
uses (cf. also A. B onhöffer, Epiktet und das N T [Giessen: T öpelm ann, 1911]
146– 54; BAGD 869; B arth, 231; contra Gnilka, 117). So, in th eir n atural condi-
tion, th ro u g h b irth , m en an d w om en are “children o f w rath .”
Some com m entators (e.g., J. A. R obinson, 50– 51; Gnilka, 117; B arth, 231)
wish to dissociate th e th o u g h t expressed in this verse from any notion o f original
sin. (On the history o f in terp re tatio n o f this verse in connection with th at
doctrine, as seen m ainly from a Catholic perspective, see M ehlm ann’s Latin
m o n o g rap h , Natura filii Irae.) B ut if original sin refers to the innate sinfulness
o f h u m an n atu re in h erited from A dam in consequence o f the fall, th en such
a notion is n ot entirely alien to the th o u g h t o f this verse w hen it speaks o f
the impossibility o f hum anity o f itself, in its n atu ra l condition, escaping G od’s
w rath. T o be sure, the verse does n o t explicitly teach original sin by m aking
a statem ent ab o u t how this tragic plight cam e to be h u m an ity ’s n atu ral condition.
Yet the idea o f th e n atu ral condition in which one finds oneself by birth being
a sinful state deserving o f G od’s ju d g m e n t surely presupposes som e such view
o f original sin as is fo u n d in Rom 5:12–21, w here Paul recognizes that, as
well as sinning them selves, m en an d w om en, in solidarity with A dam , in h erit
a sinful situation by sharing in the one sin o f the one m an (cf. also Schlier,
107; BAGD 869, w here E ph 2:3 is translated “we were, in o u r n atu ral condition
[as descendants o f Adam ], children o f w rath .”) “By n a tu re ” should not o f
course be taken to m ean th a t sinfulness is o f the essence o f h u m an nature.
In Pauline th o u g h t sin is always abnorm al, a disorder, b u t in a fallen world
the n atu ral condition o f h u m an beings involves experience o f th at abnorm ality
an d disorder. In this sense, E ph 2:1– 10 contains a contrast betw een n atu re
an d grace, betw een fallen h u m an existence in an d o f itself an d the divine
initiative req u ired if h u m an life is to be restored to w hat it was m ean t to be.
4 0 6 e 0605 7rX0 w7109 Cbv ev eXeei, h ä rr\v 7‫ז‬0\ \‫ ע ף‬ayan^qv avrov f!v ‫&דךו‬7‫ז‬7‫ן‬06‫ע‬
rJibta?, “B ut God, being rich in m ercy, o u t o f his great love with which he
loved us.” H ere the w riter begins to re tu rn to th e th o u g h t b egun in v 1 bu t
100 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

in te rru p te d by his expansion on w hat it m eans to be d ead th ro u g h trespasses

an d sins in vv 2, 3. H e has seen clearly th e hopeless condition o f hum anity in
sin an d p ain ted it in d ark colors. Yet th e explanation fo r the overall m ood o f
the first p a rt o f th e letter being one o f praise a n d thanksgiving to G od ra th e r
th an d esp air is su m m ed u p by th e elo q u en t little p h rase at the start o f v 4, 6
56 066 5 . . . , “b u t God. . . .” T h e adversative 86 introduces a contrasting situa-
tion b ro u g h t ab o u t because o f who G od is a n d w hat he has done. A n im plicit
v w , “now ,” can be seen as p a rt o f this contrast with th e 7r076‫־‬, “once,” o f vv
2 ,3 . T h e re is now in existence a whole new situation because o f G od’s initiative.
T his initiative is launched because G od is a G od n o t only o f righteous w rath
(v 3) b u t also o f m ercy, cov h ere is a circum stantial participle ra th e r th a n an
attributive o ne— “being rich in m ercy” o r “because he is rich in m ercy.” For
no o th e r reason th a n his m ercy, G od has rescued m en an d w om en from death
a n d given th em life. In fact he is “rich in m ercy.” A n equivalent H ebrew
description is used o f Y ahweh in, fo r exam ple, Exod 34:6 an d Ps 145:8. In
the LXX 6X6 0 5 , “m ercy,” norm ally rep resen ts th e term ‫ ח ס ד‬, hesed, which fre-
quently d enotes Y ahw eh’s steadfast covenant loyalty an d love, including the
m ercy o f forgiveness w hen Israel is u n fa ith fu l to the covenant. G od’s m ercy
is his overflow ing active com passion a n d is freely exercised, excluding all ideas
o f m erit on th e p art o f its object. It is noticeable th a t the notion o f G od’s
m ercy is a p ro m in en t p re sen t elem ent in several exam ples o f th e contrast
betw een th e p re-C hristian past an d th e C hristian p re sen t (cf. Rom 11:30– 32;
1 T im 1:13; T itu s 3:3– 5; 1 Pet 2:10). It plays an im p o rtan t p a rt in the apostle
P aul’s th in k in g ab o ut G od’s relationship to h um anity in Rom 9– 11 in particular
(c f. 9:15, 16, 18, 23; 11:30, 31, 32). T h e idea th a t believers’ experience o f salva-
tion is totally u n m erited on th eir p a rt a n d d u e solely to G od’s generosity will
be expressed again in th e m ention o f his love, a n d particularly th ro u g h the
term “grace,” which is synonym ous with “m ercy” an d provides the keynote
fo r th e latter p a rt o f the passage in vv 5, 7, 8.
T h e o th e r m ajor m otive cited for G od’s initiative in saving his people is
his attitu d e o f love. 51a plus th e accusative o f w ords fo r em otion indicates
m otivation. T h e w riter also uses a cognate accusative expression to reinforce
his th o u g h t— “th e great love with w hich he loved us” (cf. 1:6; 1 :1 9 , 20; 4:1,
which also em ploy cognate nouns a n d verbs). J u s t as th e richness o f G od’s
m ercy has been stressed, so h ere is th e greatness o f his love. A gain it is R om ans
am ong P aul’s letters w hich provides exam ples o f his reflection on G od’s love
for his people d em o n strated in C hrist (cf. 5:5, 8; 8:39). As in R om ans 5:8, so
h ere in E phesians the love o f G od will be show n to have its focus in the love
o f C hrist, which led to his d ea th on b eh a lf o f his people (cf. 5:2, 25). A gainst
th e b ack ground o f vv 1– 3, it is at once a p p a re n t th a t G od’s love is n o t conditional
on th e suitability o f th e objects o f th a t love.
5 ,6 Kai binas rjpa? veKpov<; rot? 7rapa7rrcbpaau> awefcoo7rot7?ae1> 7(1‫ נ‬Xptarcp,
“m ade us alive with C hrist even w hen we w ere d ead th ro u g h trespasses.” As
we have already n oted, it is only h ere th a t th e m ain verb, which governs the
th o u g h t o f th e passage to this point, is introduced. T o re m in d his readers o f
th e th o u g h t with which he h ad beg u n , th e w riter repeats his w ords from v 1,
om itting “a n d sins” a n d changing th e p erso n from the second to th e first
p erson plural. In line with th e progress o f th o u g h t in vv 1– 3, n o t only the
 Comment 101

readers b u t all believers are included in the assertion. T h e aw kward koi at

the b eginning o f this verse is probably best explained on the basis o f this
rep etitio n o f v 1, w here its occurrence is in tu rn to be explained as being in
dep en d en ce on Col 2:13 (cf. also B est, JSNT 13 [1981] 15). As it now stands,
it could be a sim ple connective betw een two elem ents, which side by side set
w hat God has do n e in full perspective: ou t o f his great love an d w hen we
were dead th ro u g h trespasses, he m ade us alive with C hrist (cf. M eyer, 109).
Alternatively, the Kai m ight well have the force o f intensifying th e participial
clause which it introduces in the light o f w hat has preceded it: “even w hen
we were dead th ro u g h trespasses” (cf. also A bbott, 47). G od’s m ercy a n d love
caused him to act on b eh alf o f m en an d w om en an d to do w hat was necessary
for them , even w hen they were in such a condition (cf. the sim ilar th o u g h t in
Rom 5:8, w here G od is said to show his love fo r us in C hrist’s death “while
we were yet sinners”).
Salvation fo r those whose plight is spiritual d eath m ust involve a raising to
life. T his is in fact w hat God has accom plished fo r believers. H e m ade them
alive with Christ. At this point also, E phesians is rem iniscent o f Colossians.
A fter the statem ent in Col 2:13 about the readers being dead th ro u g h tre s-
passes an d the m ention o f the uncircum cision o f th eir flesh (not taken u p by
E phesians until 2:11), th ere follows the assertion th at G od m ade th em alive
to g eth er with Christ, phrased only slightly differently from E phesians with the
preposition gvv before a p ro n o u n in addition to the gw - prefix to the verb—
Gwe^cooTTÖirpev upas gvv avr<i‫ג‬, “m ade you alive to g eth er with him .” aufcoo7ro1ea‫׳‬
is used in the N T only in these two places. T h e th o u g h t in both instances is
th at new life comes to believers because they share in w hat has h a p p e n e d to
Christ. A lthough th e sim ple verb {coonoielv, “to m ake alive,” is used in a n u m b er
o f places in connection with the resurrection o f believers from th e dead, it is
used directly o f G od’s activity on b eh alf o f C hrist only in 1 Pet 3:18, “p u t to
d eath in the flesh b u t m ade alive in th e S pirit.” T h e closest one com es to
such usage in th e Pauline corpus is 1 C or 15:22, 23 w here, after P aul’s statem ent
th at in C hrist all shall be m ade alive, he explains the stages o f this event o f
being m ade alive, starting with C hrist as the firstfruits. Clearly, C hrist’s being
m ade alive m ean t also for the w riter o f E phesians the resu rrectio n an d exalta-
tion, as th e next two verbs in v 6 confirm .
Believers’ participation in the event o f C hrist’s being m ade alive is expressed
in v 5 th ro u g h the aw - com pound an d the dative phrase rep Xptarcp. T h e
gw - prefix does n ot contain a reference to Jew s an d Gentiles sharing in a
com m on resurrection (pace B arth, 220; R am aroson, Bib 58 [1977] 402). T his
is not in view in vv 5, 6, w here the parallels with 1:20 show th at the relationship
betw een th e believer an d C hrist is the w riter’s in ten d ed focus. T h e idea o f
participation “with C hrist” is in continuity with the th o u g h t o f Colossians, as
we have seen, b u t also with th at o f o th e r places in Paul, gw - com pounds o r
expressions using the preposition gvv are frequently fo u n d in eschatological
contexts referrin g to living with C hrist at th e Parousia o r afte r death an d to
sharing his glory (cf. 1 Thess 4:14, 17; 5:10; R om 6:8; 8:17; 2 C or 4:14; Phil
1:23; Col 3:4). A relationship with C hrist is in view which affects believers’
fu tu re destinies because it involves sharing in C hrist’s destiny. Yet, characteristic
o f P aul’s th o u g h t is th at a sharing in C hrist’s glory an d resu rrectio n life is
102 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

conditional o n a sh aring in the o th e r aspect o f his destiny, his death. “W ith

C hrist” language is fo u n d in connection with two aspects o f sharing th at d eath —
sh aring in it as an event o f the past, a d ea th to th e old o rd e r an d its pow ers,
som etim es with explicitly baptism al overtones (cf. Rom 6:4, 5, 6, 8; Gal 2:19;
Col 2:12, 20; 3:1), an d sharing in its aspect o f p resen t suffering (cf. R om
8:17; Phil 3:10). As we shall see in discussion o f Gwrjyeipev in v 6, th ere is
some debate ab o u t how fa r “with C hrist” language was ex tended by Paul to
re fer to a past o r p resen t sharing in C hrist’s resurrection; but, ap a rt from
Col 2:12; 3:1, it can be arg u ed th a t th e notion o f a p resen t experience o f
this relationship is in view in 2 C or 13:4, a n d the notion o f a past experience
is im plicit in R om 6. T h e “with C hrist” relationship is closely linked in P aul’s
th o u g h t with his o th e r ways o f expressing solidarity with C hrist, such as “in
C hrist” o r th e notion, developed in R om 5:12– 21, o f C hrist as th e inclusive
representative o f th e new hum anity. (O n “with C hrist” in Paul, cf. E. L ohm eyer,
“ETN XPIET£2I,” Festgabe fü r A. Deissmann [T übingen: M ohr, 1927] 218–57; J.
D upont, ETN XPIET£2I: L ’Union avec le Christ suivant saint Paul [Bruges: Abbaye
de Saint-A ndre, 1952]; W. G ru n d m a n n , “au 1>–pera,” T D N T 7 [1971] 766– 97;
E. Schweizer, “Dying an d Rising with C hrist,” N T S 14 [1967– 68] 1– 14; R. C.
T annehill, Dying and Rising with Christ [Berlin: A. T ö p elm an n , 1967]; P. Siber,
M it Christus leben [Zürich: T heologischer V erlag, 1971].)
Passages such as Rom 4:17 an d 8:11, w here fGJ07rotea> is used o f fu tu re
bodily resu rrectio n , rem in d us that, with th e use o f the com p o u n d in the
aorist tense h ere, the w riter is talking ab o u t an experience o f the resurrection
life o f th e e n d-tim e ahead o f tim e. T his should no t be th o u g h t o f as totally
foreign to P aul’s use o f fcoo7roteZ1>, how ever. In 1 C or 15:45 it can be said th at
C hrist has already becom e creatively life-giving Spirit at his resurrection, an d
according to 2 C or 3:6 this Spirit is already at w ork giving life. In distinction
from the referen ce to having been m ade alive with C hrist in Col 2:13, in
E phesians th ere are no preceding references to participation in C hrist’s d eath
(cf. the circum cision o f C hrist, Col 2:11) o r his burial (Col 2:12). B ut, in C olos-
sians, having been m ade alive with C hrist is closely associated with the following
notions o f forgiveness o f sins an d liberation from cosmic powers. Since sins
an d bondage to an evil su p ern atu ral pow er are p resen t in the depiction o f
d eath in E p h 2:1– 3, it could well be th at forgiveness an d liberation are im plicit
h ere also in the rescue act o f m aking alive.
Xaptrt core aeacpapem, “by grace you have b een saved.” N o sooner has the
w riter at last reach ed the m ain verb th a n he im m ediately breaks off the flow
o f th o u g h t with a parenthesis addressing th e readers. It is an im passioned
u n d erlin in g o f w hat the confessional statem ents he is m aking should m ean
for his readers. It draws th eir atten tio n to the divine initiative, th e definite
accom plishm ent an d the continuing reality involved in having been m ade alive
to g eth er with C hrist. T h e ir new situation has b een b ro u g h t about by grace.
In line with P aul’s theologically rich use o f the term xapi?, “grace,” the w riter
asserts th at salvation has b een freely given by G od to the readers as undeserving
sinners.
In the O T , G od’s gracious a p p ro ach to his people is o ften expressed th ro u g h
the verb ]JT1, hänan, which is used particularly in th e Psalms in the context o f
Y ahw eh’s rescuing his people from disease, distress, death, o r Sheol, an d forgiv-
 Comment 103

ing th eir sins. How essentially such activity is characteristic o f Yahweh and
his sovereign freedom is indicated by a reference such as Exod 33:19, “I will
m ake all my goodness pass before you, an d will proclaim before you my nam e,
‘T h e L o rd ’; an d I will be gracious to w hom I will be gracious, an d will show
m ercy on w hom I will show m ercy.” T h e cognate n o u n ‫ ח ן‬, hēn , however, is
seldom used o f G od’s gracious action. Instead, it m ost frequently refers to
the favor one perso n finds in the eyes o f another. T h e n o u n which corresponds
m ost closely to the sem antic ran g e o f the verb ‫ ח נן‬is in fact ‫ ח ס ד‬, hesed, denoting
overw helm ing an d unexpected kindness, which w hen used in the context o f
the relationship o f Yahweh an d Israel refers to G od’s a b u n d a n t love, a m ajor
expression o f which is his covenant with his people (e.g., D eut 5:10; 7:9, 12;
Ps 89:28; Isa 5 4:8 – 10). In the LXX x<*p15 , with one o r two late exceptions,
does n o t norm ally translate ‫ ח ס ד‬b u t ra th e r ‫ ח ן‬. Instead ‫ ח ס ד‬is translated by
eXeo? (cf. v 4 above) and ‫ חנן‬by ekeew. Presum ably the LXX translators did
n o t consider th e use which xocpts h ad in classical G reek as ap p ro p riate en o u g h
for the contexts in which ‫ חנן‬an d ‫ ח ס ד‬appear. In classical G reek the term
had th ree basic m eanings: (i) a charm ing quality th at wins favor, (ii) a quality
o f benevolence th at gives favor to inferiors, an d (iii) a response o f gratitude
for a favor given. T h e second o f these m eanings h ad potential for use in
contexts o f Y ahw eh’s care for his people, b u t in classical G reek xccpis was not
a m ajor philosophical o r religious term an d h ad strong aesthetic connotations.
Yet xapis is the term especially characteristic o f the Pauline corpus, w here
it occurs ab o u t one h u n d re d tim es (m ost frequently in R om ans—tw enty-fo u r
times), an d w here m ore often th a n no t it points to the special n atu re o f G od’s
saving action as one o f gratuitous generosity to an undeserving sinful hum anity.
It is fo u n d in contexts w here it stands in antithesis to the law (e.g., Gal 2:21;
5:4; Rom 6:14) o r sin (e.g., Rom 5:20, 21; 6:1), o r w here it is associated with
Paul’s own call to becom e apostle to the Gentiles (e.g., Gal 1:15; 2:9; 1 C or
3:10; 15:10). T h e reason Paul could use this term is th a t xäp 19 becam e p o p u lar
in the religious sense am ong G reek-speaking Jew s aro u n d the tim e o f the
com pletion o f th e LXX. In W isdom a n d Apocalyptic literatu re xapis was increas-
ingly used fo r the eschatological rew ard o f the elect (e.g., Wis 3:9; 4:14, 15;
1 Enoch 99.13), as a m ajor term for the blessings o f the salvation o f the e n d-
time (cf. 1 Enoch 5.4–8), an d in association with the revealed wisdom to be
fo u n d in the T o rah . L ater G reek translations o f th e O T (e.g., Symm achus)
often re n d e r ‫ ח ס ד‬by xapt?. It appears, th en , th at Pauline term inology represents
a stage in the trajectory o f the usage o f xäpi? w here its religious connotations
have increased an d it can be seen as synonym ous with 6Xe09 o r even be p re ferred
to it. (On the b ackground o f x^pi? an d its use in Paul cf. H. C onzelm ann and
W. Zim merli, “xap19,” T D N T 9 [1974] 372– 402; G. P. W etter, Charis: Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte des ältesten Christentums [Leipzig: J. C. H inrichs, 1913]; J. W obbe,
Der Charisgedanke hei Paulus [M ünster: A schendorff, 1932]; R. B ultm ann, Theol-
ogy of the New Testament 1 [New York: C harles S cribner’s Sons, 1951] 281– 91;
D. J. D oughty, “T h e Priority o f Charis: A n Investigation o f the Theological
L anguage o f P aul,” N T S 18 [1972] 163– 80; K. B erger, “ ‘G nade’ im frü h e n
C h risten tu m ,” NedTTs 27 [1973] 1– 25; an d on the general concept o f grace
in Ju d aism an d Paul ra th e r th an the actual term xäp 19 cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul
and Palestinian Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] passim.)
104 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

H ere in E p h 2:5 th e em phasis on grace takes u p th at already fo u n d in the

berakah in 1:6, 7, an d it will occur again a n d be am plified in 2 :7–9. It is given
ad d ed force by contrasts suggested by th e context. As in Paul (e.g., Rom 5:12–
21), th e ab u n d an ce an d effectiveness o f grace is highlighted against a backdrop
o f sin a n d d ea th (vv 1,5). T h e reality an d generosity o f grace is appreciated
all th e m o re afte r a statem ent which shows how seriously G od takes h u m an
sinfulness, d eem in g it to be deserving o f his w rath (v 3). A nd from th e h u m an
standpoint, th e necessity o f an intervention o f grace is u n d erlin e d w hen set
in contrast to th e bankruptcy a n d doom o f a hum anity left to itself, left to
w hat it is “by n a tu re ” (v 3). “By grace you have b een saved” draw s the read ers’
atten tio n to G od’s sovereign freedom from obligation in saving them .
aecrcpa/mepoi, “having been saved,” is a p erfect passive participle. A p art from
th e rep etitio n o f this term in v 8, th e only o th e r places w here acpfetp is used
in th e perfect tense in the N T are in th e Synoptics, w here individuals are
told by Jesus, “y o ur faith has saved you” (cf. M ark 5:34 par.; 10:52 par.;
Luke 17:19). T h e one instance w here such a statem ent refers n o t to a healing
b u t to th e forgiveness o f sins is Luke 7:50. In Paul th e verb o ^ e i v is norm ally
fo u n d in th e fu tu re tense a n d th e n o u n acorrypta in a fu tu re context (e.g.,
Rom 5:9, 10; 10:9, 13; 13:11; 1 C or 3:15; 5:5), b u t th ere are also several re fer-
ences to salvation as a p resen t experience (cf. 1 C or 1:18; 15:2; 2 C or 2:15;
6:2; Phil 2:12). In two places salvation is described with an aorist tense. In 1
C or 1:21 an aorist infinitive is used in a past context, b u t this is in re g ard to
G od’s decision a n d cannot stand as evidence for a com pleted salvation (cf.
1:18). In R om 8:24 the aorist passive is em ployed, b u t with the significant
qualifying p h rase “in h o p e.” T h e difference betw een E p h 2:5 a n d th e u n d is-
p u ted P auline letters should, th en , be carefully noted, b u t no t exaggerated
(contra, e.g., H o u ld en , 283, w ho claims th a t it provides one o f th e best indications
th at the w riter is n o t Paul; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 137: “totally u n -P auline”).
For Paul salvation does have past, present, a n d fu tu re aspects. It w ould no t
be totally o u t o f place for him to use the perfect o f acpfeiv with its norm al
force o f em phasizing the contin u in g p re sen t effect o f a past action, as he
does with th e perfect o f o th e r aspects o f salvation in Rom 5:2; 6:7. Paul does
n o t use “by grace” o r “by faith ” with “to save” o r “salvation” b u t with “to
ju stify ” o r “justification.” It ap p ears th e n th a t E phesians takes u p Pauline
th o u g h t, b u t uses th e m ore general term inology. Sim ilar com binations o f the
notions o f grace a n d salvation can be fo u n d in Acts 15:11 a n d 2 T im 1:9.
Yet it m ust also be said th a t in Paul salvation can be a virtual synonym for
justification (in R om 10:10), a n d “to ju stify ” is used in th e fu tu re (Rom 2:13;
cf. also Gal 5:5), p re sen t (Rom 3:24), a n d aorist (Rom 4:2; 5:1, 9) tenses, b u t
is also fo u n d in th e perfect (Rom 6:7). N evertheless, it is probably fair to say
th a t Rom 5:9 is m ost characteristic o f P aul’s use o f justification an d salvation
term inology, w here the aorist o f the fo rm e r an d th e fu tu re o f the latter are
used. By using th e m ore inclusive term a n d indicating its com pletion, E phesians
constitutes a b reak with characteristic Pauline usage.
T h e p erfect tense o f “to save” in 2:5 should com e as no surprise after the
eulogy o f 1:3 – 14, which blesses G od fo r all th e blessings o f salvation with
which he has already graciously blessed believers (cf. also th e use o f aoxr'qpia
in 1:13). “T o save” h ere is an inclusive term characterizing G od’s acts o f m aking
 Comment 105

alive, raising u p , an d seating with C hrist as a deliverance from the plight o f

the old situation to all the benefits o f the new. T h e perfect tense draw s attention
to the co n tin u in g effects o f th at rescue act for the present, is in line with the
su rro u n d in g aorists an d the realized eschatology o f vv 5, 6, a n d will be balanced
by th e fu tu re perspective o f v 7.
Koi owr\ye 1pev Kai owemBvoev ev 767 019‫־‬rovpaviois ev Xptarcp ,I7/000, “an d raised
us u p with him an d seated us with him in the heavenly realm s in C hrist Jesu s.”
T h e ow - com pounds recall the sim ple form s eyeipas, “raised,” an d fca0taa?,
“seated,” o f 1:20. In contrast to the ow - co m pound in v 5 th ere is no accom pany-
ing dative; the rep Xptarcp o f v 5 is to be understood. T h e notion o f a relation-
ship with C hrist is reinforced this tim e by the accom panying phrase ev Xpiorcp
Ir/aoö. For a discussion o f the use o f ev Xpiorcp in Paul an d Ephesians, see
Comment on 1:3. It is possible th at the phrase h ere m eans simply “th ro u g h
the agency o f C hrist Jesu s” (cf. J. A. Allan, “T h e ‘In C hrist' F orm ula in E p h e-
sians,” N T S 5 [1958– 59] 58; Gnilka, 120), b u t it is m ore likely th at this is an
instance w here it has the stronger sense o f “having been in corporated into
C hrist.” T h e phrase, therefore, provides fu rth e r explanation o f how it can be
said th at w hat God did for C hrist he did at the sam e tim e fo r believers (cf.
a ls o j. A. Robinson, 156; Abbott, 50; Schnackenburg, Baptism, 76– 77; Schlier,
111; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 122). Believers are seen as included in C hrist, so
w hat God accom plished for C hrist he accom plished for him as the re p resen ta-
tive, the h ead o f a new hum anity. Since “with C hrist,” which is the force o f
the ow - prefix, an d “in C hrist Je su s” both suggest a relationship o f solidarity,
the com bination o f the two in v 6 is again characteristic o f E phesians’ red u n d an cy
o f style for th e sake o f em phasis. C ertainly the intim ate u n io n betw een C hrist
an d believers is given heavy stress in v 6. T h e statem ent th at God has both
raised u p believers with C hrist an d seated them with him in the heavenly
realm s spells o u t the im plications o f the relationship o f incorporation in C hrist
in th eir m ost developed form in the P auline corpus.
T h e notion o f resurrection with C hrist is not, o f course, un iq u e to E phesians
an d is fo u n d in Col 2:12 an d 3:1. T h e re , how ever, it is expressed in a passive
form ; believers have been raised with Christ. H ere th e form is active; God
has raised believers with Christ. T his suggests th a t the p re d o m in a n t influence
on the w riter’s form ulation has been the earlier statem ent o f 1:20 about God
raising Christ; he desires to provide a parallel in th e case o f believers. H ow ever,
the th o u g h t o f Col 2:12 an d 3:1 provided the background an d o p en ed u p
the possibility o f thinking o f this parallel to C hrist’s resurrection.
How far is such a parallel in line with the th o u g h t o f th e u n d isp u ted Pauline
letters? Some claim th at in Rom 6:1– 11 Paul views resu rrectio n with C hrist
as an event th at rem ains wholly fu tu re , so th at the assertion o f Colossians
an d E phesians th at believers have already been raised with C hrist contradicts
P aul’s eschatological reserve (e.g., E. K äsem ann, Leib und Leib Christi [T übingen:
M ohr, 1933] 143; Lohse, Colossians, 104, 134 n. 13, 180; Gnilka, 119, 122– 23;
L indem ann, Aufhebung, 125). T h e claim in this form cannot stand. It is tru e
th at in Rom 6 :5 ,8 the fu tu re tense is used, w hereas in Col 2:12; 3:1; an d
E ph 2:6 the aorist is to be found. B ut in Rom 6 th ere are two poles to P aul’s
th inking ab o u t resurrection life— it has been en tered on by the believer in
u nion with Christ, yet its consum m ation still lies in th e fu tu re. P aul’s m ain
106 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 – 10

em phasis in th a t context is on having died with C hrist to the dom inion o f

sin. B ut this is a p recondition which finds its in ten d ed com pletion in the sharing
o f th e new resu rrectio n life o f C hrist, “so th a t as C hrist was raised from the
dead by th e glory o f the F ather, we too m ight walk in new ness o f life” (6:4).
T his p resen t aspect o f sharing in C hrist’s resu rrectio n is seen also in 6:10,
11. T h ro u g h his resu rrectio n C hrist now lives to G od, an d since they are ev
Xptarcp 177(701) a n d identified with C hrist in bo th his d ea th a n d his resu rrectio n
life, believers are also to consider them selves alive to God. Unless th e apostle
th o u g h t o f believers as already having b een identified with C hrist in his re su r-
rection, this w ould simply be m ake-believe. T h e “already” pole o f P aul’s th o u g h t
ab o u t being raised with C hrist is clearly th ere in R om 6 (cf. also G. R. Beasley-
M urray, Baptism in the New Testament [London: M acmillan, 1962] 126–46;
C. E. B. C ranfield, Romans [E dinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1975] 1:299– 316, who
in th e light o f such considerations takes th e fu tu re tenses o f 6:5, 8 as re fe rrin g
to th e p re sen t m oral life o f believers). P aul’s reference to living with C hrist
in 2 C or 13:4, th o u g h expressed in th e fu tu re tense, has clear reference to
this life an d his relationship w ith th e C orinthians, et? upa?, “tow ard you.”
W hen such th o u g h t becom es explicit in Col 2:12; 3:1, it is difficult to see
why it should be considered u n-Pauline. T h e variation in tense a n d term inology
betw een R om ans a n d Colossians rem ains significant n o t so m uch fo r a u th o rsh ip
as fo r an indication o f th e d ifferen t em phases o f these two letters in response
to differen t situations (cf. Lincoln, Paradise, 122–23, 131– 34, for a fuller discus-
sion). T h e th o u g h t in E p h 2:6 o f G od’s having raised believers with C hrist
cannot th e n in itself be held to be o u t o f line with Paul. Aside from th e change
from passive to active form in th e form ulation, two contextual differences
betw een its occurrence h ere a n d in Colossians should, how ever, be noted.
W hereas in Colossians having been raised with C hrist rem ains in close associa-
tion with having d ied o r b een b u ried w ith C hrist (cf. 2:11, 12; 2:20; 3:3),
these aspects o f u n io n with C hrist are absent from Ephesians. In Colossians,
also, th e eschatological reserve is re ta in ed in explicit reference to sharing C hrist’s
resu rrectio n life, as a p re sen t hiddenness a n d a fu tu re consum m ation o f this
relationship are asserted in 3:3, 4, while in E p h 2 th ere is no m en tio n o f the
fu tu re aspect o f the resu rrectio n life fo r believers (though th ere is a m ore
general fu tu re referen ce in 2:7). T h ese differences suggest a developm ent in
E phesians from Colossians in its even sh a rp e r realized eschatological focus
on th e p resen t status o f believers.
N ow here is this m ore clearly seen th a n in the statem ent th a t G od has seated
believers with C hrist in th e heavenly realm s. T his is a m aking explicit o f w hat
in Col 3:1– 3 h ad only b een im plicit. T h e re th e believer is ex h o rted to seek
7‫־‬a iw 0J, “th e things above,” because C hrist is above a n d the believer’s life is
h id d en with C hrist in God. In Col 3:1 th e realm above is closely related to
th e sp here o f resu rrectio n existence, fo r those w hose w hole concern is to be
th e things above, w here C hrist is, are those who already share his resu rrectio n
life. Since resu rrectio n life is heavenly life, by being u n ited with C hrist in his
resu rrectio n believers participate in th e life o f th e realm above, an d th e im p era-
tives in 3:1, 2 can be seen to be based o n indicatives. T h e w riter o f E phesians
has grasp ed this th o u g h t clearly a n d h ere spells o u t its significance boldly. I f
believers have been given a share in C hrist’s resu rrectio n life, they can also
 Comment 107

be said to share in the triu m p h o f its heavenly aspect. A gain the desire to
com plete th e parallel with 1:20 dictates the form ulation, “a n d seated us with
C hrist in th e heavenly realm s,” an d th e Colossians b ackground opens the way
for th e th o u g h t b eh in d it. For th e force o f the p h rase “in th e heavenly realm s,”
see Comment on 1:3. It should be observed th at along with the parallel betw een
believers an d C hrist th ere rem ains also a distinction. T h e phrase ev 5 avrov,
“at his rig h t h a n d ,” in 1:20 is reserved for C hrist a n d no t re p eated in the
case o f believers in 2:6. A lthough believers share in C hrist’s exaltation, his
position in th e heavenly realm an d his relationship to G od are unique.
T h e m ost direct influence on th e w riter at this po in t ap p ears to be Colossians,
b u t are th ere any o th e r sources fo r o r parallels to his striking language in
2:6? We do find such language echoed an d ascribed to Paul in the C hristian
Gnostic text o f th e Treatise on Resurrection 45, “T h e n , indeed, as the Apostle
said, ‘We suffered with him , an d we arose with him , a n d we w ent to heaven
with him ’ ” (cf. The N ag Hammadi Library, ed. J. M. R obinson [New York:
H a rp e r an d Row, 1977] 51). T his later Gnostic use o f a com bination o f Rom
8:17 an d E p h 2:6 cannot, how ever, shed m uch light on the background o f
Ephesians. N o r is th e gnosticizing th o u g h t o f the Corpus Hermeticum, w hereby
a heavenly jo u rn e y liberates the initiate’s soul from th e m aterial w orld so th at
he perceives he is in heaven (cf. 10.25; 13.11), likely to have influenced this
notion o f G od’s having seated believers with C hrist in the heavenly realm s.
G reater light is shed on this notion by the m otif, which was fairly w idespread
in apocalyptic writings, o f the righteous en terin g into eschatological life an d
dom inion an d sitting on heavenly th ro n es (cf. D an 7:22, 27; Wis 3:8; 5:15, 16;
1 Enoch 108.12; Apoc. Elijah 3 7 .3 ,4 ; T. Job 33.3– 5; Asc. Isa. 9:18). In the N T
itself this trad itio n is reflected in passages such as M att 19:28, 1 C or 6:2, o r
especially Rev 3:21, “H e w ho conquers, I will g ra n t him to sit with m e on my
th ro ne, as I m yself co n q u ered a n d sat dow n with my F ath er on his th ro n e ”
(cf. also 20:4). T his tradition o f a fu tu re role for th e righteous an d particularly
the Rev 3:21 reference, w here this is expressed in term s o f being seated with
Christ, only serve to highlight by contrast th e fact th at E ph 2:6 claims th at
this has already been accom plished fo r believers. Closer to th e realized eschatol-
ogy o f E phesians, while rem ain in g w ithin th e developing tradition o f Jew ish
apocalyptic, is th e self-u n d ersta n d in g o f th e Q u m ra n com m unity th at as an
elect g ro u p o n earth , it already experienced the heavenly realm an d form ed
a liturgical com m unity with th e inhabitants o f heaven. 1QH 3.19–22 reads,
“I th an k T h ee, O L ord, fo r T h o u hast red eem ed my soul from the Pit, and
from th e H ell o f A baddon T h o u hast raised m e u p to everlasting height. . . .
T h o u hast cleansed a perverse spirit o f great sin th a t it m ay stand with the
host o f th e Holy O nes, an d th a t it m ay e n te r into com m unity w ith th e congrega-
tion o f the Sons o f H eaven” (cf. also 1Q H 11.10– 12; H .-W. K uhn, Enderwartung
und gegenwärtiges Heil [G öttingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1966] 44– 188;
M ussner, “C o n trib utions,” 164– 167; Gnilka, 123– 24).
Such ideas c u rre n t in Ju d aism h ad already b een ad a p te d by Pauline th o u g h t
an d b ro u g h t into contact with the cosm ological concerns o f Hellenistic syncre-
tism in dealing with the situation in Colossae. In Colossians, w here the claim
o f th e false teaching th rea ten in g th e ch u rch was th a t certain regulations h ad
to be observed an d certain techniques h ad to be practiced to achieve access
108 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

to the heavenly realm , the a u th o r h ad replied with a stress on th e realized

aspect o f his eschatology with its spatial elem ent, show ing th at believers already
participate in heavenly life in C hrist (cf. Lincoln, Paradise, 110– 34). T h e w riter
to th e E phesians can continue this em phasis. W hat is, o f course, distinctive
ab o u t th e p re sen t experience o f th e heavenly realm highlighted in E ph 2:6,
as o p p osed to th a t o f Q u m ra n , is th a t h e re it is totally d e p e n d e n t on C hrist’s
p rio r exaltation. T h e believer’s experience is a participation in C hrist’s life
an d reign in th e heavenly realm s. T h o u g h m ore p ro n o u n c ed in Ephesians,
this focus o n a p resen t experience o f heaven, on th e spatial aspect o f realized
eschatology, is n o t a new d e p a rtu re . N ot only is it in continuity with Colossians
b u t also with several passages in th e earlier P auline letters (cf. Gal 4:26;
1 C or 15:47– 49; 2 C or 12:2– 4; Phil 3:20; cf. also Lincoln, Paradise, passim).
If, as seems likely, Ephesians was addressed to churches o f Asia M inor, w here
syncretism w ith cosm ological concerns sim ilar to those which took specific form
in the Colossian philosophy was still prevalent, th e n this spatial em phasis contin-
u ed to be ap p ro p ria te as a m eans o f u n d erlin in g th a t G od h ad th ro u g h C hrist
do n e all th a t was necessary fo r believers’ salvation. T h e w riter is u n d e r no
illusion, how ever, th at th ere is no m ore o f significance to h a p p e n as regards
salvation, a n d th e realized em phasis o f 2:6 has to be balanced against th e
fu tu re elem ent in 2:7 (cf. also 1:14; 4:30; 5:5, 27; 6:8, 13).
It still needs to be asked w hat is m ean t w hen it is said o f believers w ho are
still in th eir m ortal bodies an d still on ea rth th a t G od has raised th em u p
with C hrist a n d seated th em with C hrist in th e heavenly realm s. W hen Paul
used th e lan g u ag e o f dying a n d rising with C hrist in R om 6 a n d Col 2 an d 3,
he h ad in view n o t prim arily som e subjective religious experience o n th e p a rt
o f believers b u t ra th e r th o u g h t o f believers as having been C hrist’s p artn e rs
in the events o f past redem ptive history. F or him , C hrist’s d eath was a d eath
to the old o rd e r, to th e pow ers o f this age, including sin, an d his resu rrectio n
was a com ing alive to a new o rd e r, in w hich he functioned as L ord with the
pow er o f God. C hrist’s d ea th a n d resu rrectio n changed th e pow er structures
in history. F or believers to have died a n d b een raised with C hrist was the
equivalent o f having been tran sferre d from th e old dom inion to th e new,
because in G od’s sight they h ad been included in w hat h ad h a p p e n e d to Christ.
T h e fact o f tem p o ral distance created no m ajor problem fo r Paul because he
did n o t th in k o f individuals as isolated from th e pow er sp h ere in which they
existed, b u t ra th e r viewed p re sen t existence as co n tin u in g to be d eterm in ed
by th e events o n which it was fo u n d ed . H e saw th e new dom inion as a whole
as participating in those events o f C hrist’s d ea th a n d resu rrectio n th ro u g h its
representative head. Similarly, w hen the w riter to th e Ephesians says G od
has raised believers u p with C hrist, he too m eans they have been assigned to
th e new reality in tro d u ced by C hrist’s resurrection. H e extends th e ran g e o f
events in th e history o f salvation in w hich believers are to see them selves in-
eluded, by th e reference to having been seated with C hrist in the heavenly
realm s. As 1:20– 22 m ake clear, C hrist’s exaltation involved his triu m p h an d
rule over hostile cosmic powers. A new situation in re g ard to these powers
was in au g u ra ted in history by C hrist’s victory. T h a t G od has seated believers
with C hrist m eans th ere fo re th a t they are p a rt o f th e new dom in io n ’s superiority
over th e old, p articipating in its liberation from th e pow ers a n d its restoration
 Comment 109

o f h arm ony to th e cosmos. T h e im agery o f being seated with C hrist is no t

associated with sharing a m eal, an d thereby a reference to enjoying fellowship
with God (contra M itton, 90). B oth the parallel with 1:20 an d th e depiction
o f the past in 2:2 as being u n d e r the control o f th e ru le r o f the realm o f the
air m ake clear th at this picture o f th e p resen t involves sharing C hrist’s victory
over such powers. In continuity with categories draw n from apocalyptic writings,
the past is seen as u n d e r the dom inance o f this age, this world, an d its ruler,
while p resen t salvation involves enjoying th e life a n d the rule o f the age to
com e m ade available already in heaven w here C hrist now is.
B eing raised u p an d seated with C hrist has as its basic m eaning being viewed
by G od as included in the events o f C hrist’s resurrection a n d exaltation d eterm i-
native for th e new dom inion, b u t believers are initiated into the new m ovem ent
within history an d ap p ro p riate its reality in th eir own tim e th ro u g h faith and
baptism . Since faith represents the believer’s com m itm ent an d baptism is its
expression, th ere is no reason to deny the suggestion o f m any com m entators
th at the readers are likely to have associated th e language o f being raised
an d seated with C hrist with the significance o f baptism in th eir own experience
(see the fu rth e r discussion o f a baptism al setting u n d e r Form I Structure I Setting
above). T h e new dom inion into which believers have been initiated is firmly
anch o red w ithin history. T h e w riter is u n d e r no illusion th a t sharing in C hrist’s
victory brings rem oval fro m the sphere o f conflict. T h e rest o f the letter provides
am ple evidence th at those who have been seated with C hrist in the heavenlies
are at th e sam e tim e those who m ust walk in the w orld (cf. 2:10; 4:1, 17;
5:2, 8, 15) an d stand in the m idst o f the continuing battle with th e powers
(cf. 6:11– 16).
7 Iva evöei^rjTaL ev rot? aidxnv rot? eirepxopevois ro m epßäW ov 7rXoüro? rf}?
xaptro? avrov ev xpr^orbr^n e<j> rjpa? ev Xptorcp ’Ir/aoö, “so th a t he m ight show
in the ages to com e the surpassing richness o f his grace in his kindness to us
in C hrist Jesu s.” T h ro u g h the lva 9 this clause concludes the flow o f th o u g h t
b egun in v 4 by indicating the p u rp o se o f the divine activity th at has been
depicted. W hat G od has done in m aking believers alive with C hrist, raising
th em u p with him an d seating th em with him in th e heavenly realm s, he has
d one n o t only fo r th eir sake b u t also as p a rt o f th e larger p u rp o se o f displaying
the richness o f his grace. Such a th o u g h t is fam iliar from th e berakah o f 1:3–
14, w here the ultim ate goal o f salvation was seen as th e glory o f God (cf.
1:6, 12, 14). In particular, 1:6 expressed the goal o f believers’ predestination
to be sons an d d au g h ters o f G od as “the praise o f th e glory o f his grace.”
T h e verb used in th e form ulation o f th e goal o f salvation here in 2:7 is evSebcwpi.
It goes far beyond the evidence to claim, as does B arth (222, 238– 42), th at
this is a technical juridical term being em ployed h ere to indicate th at God
puts forw ard believers as “p ro o f” in a cosmic lawsuit. It should be taken in
its general sense o f “to show, d em o n strate.” W hile in Rom 9:22 Paul can speak
o f God as show ing his w rath, h ere th e w riter has G od showing his grace. As
the w riter’s th o u g h t a n d style attem p t to cap tu re som ething o f the extravagance
o f G od’s display o f grace, it becom es n o t ju s t grace b u t “the richness o f his
grace” (cf. also 1:7), an d no t ju s t the richness o f his grace b u t “the surpassing
richness o f his grace.”
T h e p resen t participle o f vnepßäXkeiv is also used to describe the grace o f
110 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

God in 2 C or 9:14, a n d is fo u n d elsew here in Ephesians in connection with

th e love o f C hrist (3:19) an d the pow er o f G od (1:19). In relation to this last
reference an d in th e light o f the parallels betw een 1:19– 21 a n d 2:4–7 already
u n d erlin ed , it can be said th a t if th e raising o f C hrist from d ea th to sit in the
heavenly realm s was the su p rem e d em o n stratio n o f G od’s surpassing pow er,
th en th e raising o f believers from spiritual d ea th to sit with C hrist in th e
heavenly realm s is th e su p rem e d em o n stratio n o f G od’s surpassing grace (cf.
also B ruce, 51). T o th e term s already used fo r G od’s favorable disposition
tow ard his people, “m ercy” a n d “love” (v 4) a n d “grace” (vv 5, 7), is now ad d ed
Xpr?ar6r775, “k indness,” d en o tin g G od’s sym pathetic concern for th e w elfare o f
hum anity, his goodness active on its b eh a lf (cf. also R om 2:4, 11:22; T itus
3:4). T h e d em o n stration o f G od’s grace took place in his kindness to believers
in all th at h e accom plished for th em in a n d th ro u g h C hrist Jesus. It is w orth
no tin g how in 2:4– 7 the statem en t o f th e goal o f salvation corresponds to
th e statem en t o f its m otivation a n d origin, since “his kindness to u s” (v 7)
can be co m p ared with “rich in m ercy” (v 4) a n d “th a t he m ight show . . . the
surpassing richness o f his grace” (v 7) clearly m atches “by grace you have
been saved” (v 5).
T h e setting fo r th e m anifestation o f G od’s grace has b een disputed. W hat
is th e force o f th e phrase ev rot? alGxnv rot? e7repxope1>01?? Som e take aidwe? as
a referen ce to personal pow ers (cf. th e discussion on 2:2). T his requires taking
eirepxeaflat in th e sense o f “to attack,” a sense which it has in Luke 11:22 (cf.
also Jo sep h u s, Ant. 5.195; 6.23). T h e th o u g h t w ould th en be th a t G od’s grace
tow ard believers is a disclosure to th e hostile aeons th a t th e ir rule has b een
set aside a n d th a t believers now occupy a privileged position in th e cosmos
(cf. C onzelm ann, 97; H. H e g erm an n , Die Vorstellung vom Schöpfungsmittler im
hellenistischen Judentum und Urchristentum [Berlin: A kadem ie-V erlag, 1961] 150–
53; L in d em an n , Aufhebung, 121–29; Schlier [112 – 14] a n d B arth [223] wish to
com bine b o th p ersonal an d tem p o ral connotations). T his in terp re tatio n has
th e virtue o f being in line with th e th o u g h t o f 3:10, w hich speaks o f a disclosure
being m ade to th e principalities a n d pow ers, a n d can claim th at a revelation
to th e aeons is a fam iliar them e in C hristian Gnostic th o u g h t (e.g., Gos. Truth
I, 22.38–23.1; 27.5– 7). T h e m ajority o f scholars, how ever, reject this in te rp re ta-
tion an d agree th a t th e m ore n atu ra l sense o f th e ph rase is th e tem poral
one, “in th e ages to com e” (cf. H. Sasse, “aidw,” T D N T 1 [1964] 206– 7; G augler,
95; Schnackenburg, 97; LJ 2 [1952] 169– 70; M ussner, Christus, 25 n. 103;
Gnilka, 121; E rnst, 308; H alter, Taufe und Ethos, 239; Luz, “R echtfertigung,”
370). T h e p h rase begins with th e preposition ev a n d is no t simply a dative o f
indirect object which one w ould expect in th e case o f th e notion o f disclosure
to th e aeons, w hich one finds in 3:10, a n d w hich is th e m ost com m on construction
w hen evSeLKWfxt is used o f show ing som ething to som eone. e7repxope1>o? is fo u n d
elsew here with aicov only in Herm. Vis. 4.3, 5, w here it has tem poral force. It
is equivalent to epxope1>o? in 0 aicov 6 epxope^o?, “th e age to com e” (cf. M ark
10:30; Luke 18:30; H errn. Sim 4.8), a n d to peXXuw in 0 peXXco1>aicov, “th e age
to com e” (cf. M att 12:32; E p h 1:21; H eb 6:5). T h e fu tu re is seen, th en , in
E ph 2:7 in term s o f a plurality o f com ing ages, th o u g h th e p lural m ay stand
u n d e r th e liturgical influence o f the form ulae fo r eternity (cf. 3:21; also H.
Sasse, “aub 1>,” T D N T 1 [1964] 206– 7; contra M itton, 91, the reference is n o t
 Comment Ill

simply to com ing generations o f C hristians). T h e w riter’s th o u g h t is th at God

has accom plished the resurrection an d heavenly session o f believers with C hrist
in o rd e r to show th e im m ensity o f his grace in a fu tu re in which age succeeds
age.
T h e significance o f this assertion is threefold. First, th e new o rd e r which
has b eg u n has a fu tu re. T h e w riter knows him self to be in th e decisive period
o f G od’s redem ptive activity, which was in au g u ra ted by C hrist’s resurrection
an d exaltation, b u t which is yet to reach its consum m ation in th e com ing
ages. Second, th e divine activity o n b eh a lf o f believers was o f such finality
th at it will co n tin u e as the display o f his grace into those com ing ages. T h ird ,
w hat God has d o n e is now a reality for believers, b u t only in the com ing ages
will it be fully show n fo r w hat it is. O nly th e n will it becom e evident to all
w hat an ab u n d an ce o f grace a n d kindness G od has bestow ed on his people
th ro u g h Christ. T his th ird p o in t suggests th a t ju s t as E ph 2:6 draws o u t the
im plications o f Col 3:1– 3, so E ph 2:7 invites com parison with Col 3:3, 4, w here
believers’ lives are said to be at p re sen t h id d en with C hrist in heaven an d to
be revealed in glory only at th e Parousia.
8 ,9 rfi yäp xaptrt eore oeocpopevoi 51ä 7rtarecü5 , “fo r by grace you have been
saved th ro u g h faith.” T h e connective yap has the force o f providing su p p o rt
for th e w riter’s stress on th e surpassing richness o f G od’s grace to believers
in v 7. H e has been rig h t to focus on th e display o f such grace as central to
G od’s pu rp o se, for, as he h ad said earlier, it is by grace th at believers have
been saved. T h e rep etitio n o f th e g reat tru th with which h e h ad already inter-
ru p te d th e flow o f th o u g h t in v 5b serves as a lead into a statem ent about
the n atu re o f salvation in term s o f th e relationship betw een grace an d works.
It is a rep etitio n which has two variations from v 5b. T h e first is th a t this
tim e a definite article accom panies th e n o u n “grace,” helping to u n d erlin e
th at this is th e sam e grace o f which th e w riter has been speaking in v 7. T h e
second is th e ad d ition o f 81 a ?rtarecj?, “by faith.” T h e m ore frequently used
phrase in th e u n d isp u ted Paulines is g k 7riareco9, b u t th a t th e two phrases were
synonym ous fo r Paul is indicated by th eir interchangeability in Gal 2:16; Rom
3:25, 26; 3:30. E phesians prefers 6uz 7rtarecos (cf. 3:12, 17). As in Rom 3:22–
25, a passage central to P aul’s view o f justification, for this w riter also “by
grace” an d “by faith ” are inseparable com panions which to g eth er provide the
antithesis to any suggestion o f h u m an m erit. G od’s act o f grace is the g ro u n d
o f salvation an d faith is the m eans by w hich it becom es effective in a perso n ’s
life. In P aul’s th in k ing faith can never be viewed as a m eritorious w ork because
in connection with justification he always contrasts faith with works o f the
law (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2– 5, 9, 10; Rom 3:27, 28). Faith involves the ab an d o n m en t
o f any attem p t to justify oneself a n d an openness to God which is willing to
accept w hat he has d o n e in C hrist. T h e sam e applies h ere in re g ard to salvation.
Faith is a h u m an activity b u t a specific kind o f activity, a response which allows
salvation to becom e operative, which receives w hat has already been accom-
plished by G od in Christ.
Kai t o v t o oi)K e£ vpcov, deov t o Sobpov, “a n d this is no t from yourselves, it is
th e gift o f G od.” In the history o f in terp re tatio n t o v t o has been taken by
some to re fer specifically to the last w ord in the preceding clause, “faith”
(am ong recen t com m entators cf. C aird, 53), so th a t even faith itself is explicitly
112 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 – 1 0

said n o t to com e from a h u m a n source b u t from G od as his gift. B ut the

parallelism o f th e two clauses o f v 8b a n d v 9 suggests, ra th e r, th a t bo th are
com m ents ab o u t th e in troductory clause o f v 8a. 7 0 ‫־‬007‫ ־‬is probably best taken,
th erefo re, as re ferrin g to the p receding clause as a whole, a n d thus to the
whole process o f salvation it describes, which o f course includes faith as its
m eans (cf. also A bbott, 51; G augler, 98; B ruce, 51; Schlier, 115; Gnilka, 129;
M itton, 97; S chnackenburg, 98). “N ot from yourselves, it is th e gift o f G od”
can be seen as a fu rth e r explanation o f th e grace aspect o f salvation. T h e
precise w ording has no an teced en t in Paul, b u t th e th o u g h t reflects his belief
accurately. 6k h ere denotes origin, cause, o r source, so oi)K e£ vpcbv excludes
th e re ad ers’ causation o r au th o rsh ip o f th e ir salvation. T h e equivalent th o u g h t
in Paul is his setting th e righteousness th a t com es from G od over against
peo p le’s own righteousness based on law (cf. R om 10:3; Phil 3:9; cf. also R om
9:16). A literal re n d e rin g o f th e second p a rt o f v 8b w ould be “G od’s is th e
gift.” Oeov has b een placed first in th e w ord o rd e r fo r the sake o f an em phatic
contrast with th e i)n<Jbv. Salvation has its source n o t in the readers b u t in God,
an d it com es from him as a gift. 70‫ ־‬bcbpov is used only here in the Pauline
corpus. Elsew here in E phesians r) Scoped is the term em ployed fo r gift (cf.
3:7; 4:7), a n d it is this term which was, in fact, used by Paul to re fe r to th e
generosity o f G od’s activity in C hrist o n b eh a lf o f m en an d w om en (cf. Rom
3:24; 5:15, 17; 2 C or 9:15).
oi)K e£ epycov, iva p77 719‫ ־‬fcaux77a77rat, “it is n o t by works, lest anyone should
boast.” T his clause o f v 9 can be seen as a second com m ent on v 8a, which in
particu lar provides a fu rth e r explanation o f th e faith aspect o f salvation. In
Paul, as we n o ted above, works o f th e law are m ost frequently set in contrast
to faith a n d re g ard e d as excluding faith (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2–5 ,9 ,1 0 ; R om
3 :2 7 ,2 8 ; 4:2, 3, 5; 9:32), th o u g h in one passage, Rom 11:6, the contrast is
betw een works a n d grace. It should also be observed th a t the p h rase Paul
uses is “works o f th e law,” a n d in th e few places w here he simply uses th e
m ore g eneral term “works” th e context m akes clear th a t he still has the law
in view, even th o u g h he m ay be discussing the p atriarchs (cf. R om 4:2, 6;
9:11, 32; 11:6). In o th e r words, “n o t by w orks” in Paul belongs firm ly to the
contexts o f G alatians a n d R om ans a n d thus to th e apostle’s conflict with Ju daizers
over th e relation o f G entile converts to th e law a n d to his assessm ent o f the
role o f th e law in th e history o f salvation. B ut h ere in Ephesians, it is simply
the term “w orks,” n o t “works o f th e law,” th a t is em ployed. It is extrem ely
unlikely, in a letter to predom inantly G entile read ers, in which the only reference
to wpo?, “law” (2:15), occurs in a passage rem in d in g Gentiles o f w hat God
did in th e past to allow th em access to th e G od o f Israel, th a t “works o f th e
law” are still in view (contra Schlier, 116; M ussner, 67). Instead, th e w riter
has again tak en u p w hat h e believes to be a characteristically P auline them e
in such a way th at, rem oved from its original specifically polem ical context, it
now has a m ore g eneral reference (cf. also 2 T im 1:9; T itu s 3:5; 1 Clem.
32.3). “W orks” now stands for h u m an effort in general. Salvation is n o t achieved
by h u m an p erfo rm ance o r any attem p t to e a rn G od’s approval. It is n o t that,
in th e w riter’s m ind, works o f n atu ra l law have replaced works o f the Mosaic
law (pace M eyer, 115), n o r th at he believes th a t his G entile read ers are attem p tin g
to secure th eir salvation on th e basis o f th e ir new holiness o f life (pace A bbott,
 Comment 113

52). In reg ard to th e latter point, as th e paraenetical section o f the letter

clearly indicates, th e d a n g e r th e w riter sees is not th at his read ers are relying
on th eir o u tstan d in g ethical qualities for salvation, b u t th a t th e ir lives are being
conform ed to th e su rro u n d in g m ores a n d are no t holy eno u g h . It is simply
th at he wants th em to have an absolutely clear u n d ersta n d in g o f th eir privileged
position as recipients o f a salvation th a t is totally G od’s gracious work. T h e
false teaching attacked in Colossians h ad already provided an exam ple o f how
easily this principle can becom e obscured, as h u m an effort took the form o f
ascetic regulations a n d mystical techniques m ean t to en su re fullness o f salvation,
th o u g h , again, this w ould n o t have been specifically in view in the w riter’s
use o f th e general term “works” here.
G od’s p u rp o se in providing a salvation th a t is n o t based on h u m an effort
o r p erfo rm an ce is to exclude boasting. W ith this assertion the w riter again
takes u p a typically Pauline them e. Paul h ad claim ed in Rom 3:27 th at his
gospel o f justification by faith left no room fo r boasting. B oasting accom panies
works because they becom e the g ro u n d fo r self-congratulation an d p rid e in
the presence o f G od (Rom 3:27; 4:2), an d d ra g in th e notion o f m erit, o r
earn in g o n e’s rew ard (Rom 4:4). It was vital to P aul’s perspective on salvation
th at m en an d w om en should n o t be in th e position to claim even the least
degree o f credit fo r th eir acceptance by God. Instead, th e com m on deijom inator
in Paul’s objection to righteousness by law in R om ans an d his objection to
h u m an wisdom in 1 C orinthians (cf. 1:28– 31) is th a t bo th involve “boasting.”
His gospel with its focus on th e cross effectively deals with both the p red o m i-
nantly Jew ish an d the predom inantly G reek form s o f self-assertion. T o boast
is to glory in, to p u t o n e’s confidence in, th e flesh (cf. Gal 6:13; Phil 3:3).
Boasting perverts h u m an autonom y by m aking it th e object o f trust. P aul’s
gospel brings a new orientation which enables one instead to boast in the L ord
(cf. 1 C or 1:31; 2 C or 10:17; Rom 5:11; Phil 3:3), particularly in the cross
o f C hrist (cf. Gal 6:14), to recognize th a t w hatever one possesses one has
received as a gift (cf. 1 C or 4:7), a n d to glory in o n e’s weakness an d suffer-
ing as the o p p o rtu n ity fo r the display o f G od’s pow er (cf. 2 C or 11:30; 12:9;
Rom 5:2, 3). (O n “boasting” in Paul, cf. especially R. B ultm ann, “Kavxäopai,”
T D N T 3 [1965] 645–54; Theology of the New Testament 1 [New York: C harles
Scribner’s Sons, 1951] 240– 46, 264, 281, 315 – 16.) T h e w riter to the Ephesians
also clearly sees th a t salvation by grace th ro u g h faith destroys boasting; it
leaves people n o contribution o f th eir own which they can b rin g to God. H e
knows th at w hat is at stake in salvation is G od’s glory, particularly the glory
o f his grace, b u t th a t works w ould lead only to h u m a n glorying.
10 avrov yap eopev irdripa, KTioOevres ev Xpiorcp ’177oov eiri ipyots ayadols, “for
we are his work, created in C hrist Jesu s fo r good w orks.” As in v 8 the flow o f
th o u g h t is co n tin u ed th ro u g h th e connective yap . A fu rth e r reason is now
given why salvation can be said to be a divine gift, n o t o f h u m an origin o r by
h u m an works, a n d th ere fo re leaving no room for boasting. Since salvation is
seen as a creation in C hrist fo r good works, such works cannot be the cause
o f th eir salvation. Likewise, since salvation is God's creation, th ere could be
no h u m an works p rio r to th a t creation to which it could be attributed, 1rdr!pa
is often used in th e LXX as a synonym for epyov, th e o th e r term fo r “w ork”
used h ere in v 9 an d in the second clause o f v 10. In the LXX ndripa frequently
114 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1–10

refers to the creation as G od’s w ork (e.g., LXX Ps 91:4; 142:5), as it does in
its only o th er use in the N T in R om 1:20. H ere, how ever, as the context an d
particularly the following clause m ake clear, the reference is to believers as
G od’s new creation. In P aul’s letters believers are reg ard ed as G od’s w ork (cf.
Rom 14:20 an d Phil 1:6). In Ephesians the w riter has been talking o f G od’s
pow er at w ork for believers (1:19). H e can now say th at his readers no t only
benefit from th a t w ork b u t as new creatures are them selves the p ro d u ct o f
th at work. T h e stress in the G reek is on the first w ord in the clause, avrov,
“his.” T h e force is th a t it is God, n o t th e read ers them selves, w ho has m ade
them w hat they are as believers. For a sim ilar th o u g h t in re g ard to h u m an ity ’s
place in creation in general see Ps 100:3 (LXX 99:3). J u s t as hu m an s contributed
n o th in g to th eir own creation so also they co n trib u ted n o th in g to th eir new
creation; bo th are G od’s work.
As G od’s work, believers have been created in C hrist Jesus for good works.
“In C hrist Jesu s” h ere is sh o rth an d fo r “th ro u g h G od’s activity in C hrist.”
C hrist is seen as th e m ediator o f th e new creation ju s t as m uch as he was o f
the original o ne (cf. Col 1:16). Paul him self saw the salvation God h ad in au g u-
rated th ro u g h C hrist as a new creation (cf. Gal 6:15; 2 C or 5:17), an d th at
perspective is reflected in E phesians no t only h ere b u t also in 2:15 an d 4:24.
G od’s action o f m aking believers alive with C hrist, o f raising them u p an d
exalting th em with C hrist, provided a new start w ithin the w orld’s history. It
was m ore th an simply a restoration o f conditions before the fall; it involved,
ra th e r, the creatiou o f a new hum anity as m en an d w om en w ere b ro u g h t to
th at destiny G od h ad p u rp o sed b u t which before C hrist h ad no t been reached
(cf. also N. A. Dahl, “C hrist, C reation, an d the C h u rch ,” in The Background to
the New Testament and Its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies an d D. D aube [C am bridge:
C am bridge University Press, 1956] 422–43). T h e new creation, which in its
widest sense includes th e sum m ing u p o f all things in C hrist (cf. 1:9, 10), has
already b eg u n as a m ovem ent in history in th e lives o f m en an d w om en.
T hese lives are to be characterized by good works, em with the dative case
should be taken as signifying p urpose, goal, o r result. So good works are no t
the source b u t th e goal o f the new relationship betw een hum anity an d God.
Salvation is n o t “by w orks” b u t “for w orks.” T h e notion o f being created for
a life o f obedience fo r which G od alone is credited can be fo u n d in various
form s in Jud aism . 1QH 4.30–32 declares, “R ighteousness, I know, is no t o f
m en, n o r is perfection o f way o f the son o f m an; to the Most H igh G od
belong all righteous deeds. T h e way o f m an is n o t established except by the
spirit which G od created for him to m ake p erfect a way for the children o f
m en .” T h e re is also the saying fo u n d in m. Abot 2.9, “If th o u hast practiced
m uch T o ra h , take no credit to thyself; for th e re u n to th o u wast created .”
K. G. K uhn (“T h e Epistle to th e E phesians,” 128 n. 11) can claim, “ ‘C reated
for good works’ is a traditional Jew ish idea, an d ‘in C hrist Jesu s’ is its new
C hristian garb .” W hat is also distinctive ab o u t its new garb is th at the idea is
no longer simply synonym ous with obedience to th e T o ra h .
How does th e positive attitu d e to works in v 10, following on the negative
attitu d e o f v 9, relate to th e teaching o f Paul? Clearly, in Paul also, grace
always stands in antithesis to a life o f sin an d involves obedience a n d m oral
righteousness, as Rom 6 dem onstrates. Faith is only au th en tic w hen it is w orking
th ro u g h love (Gal 5:6). Believers can be u rg e d to do good (1 T hess 5:15; Gal
 Comment 115

6:10; 2 C or 5:10; Rom 13:3) a n d such conduct can be called good w ork (Rom
2:7; 13:3). T h e expression “every good w ork” is used in 2 C or 9:8 (cf. also
Col 1:10; 2 T hess 2:17), so the idea b u t n o t the actual expression “good works”
can be fo u n d in Paul. T h e plural epya ä y a d ä o r K dka ap pears to be a form ulation
characteristic o f post-Pauline writings (cf. 1 T im 2:10; 5 :1 0 ,2 5 ; 6:18; T itus
2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; Acts 9:36; H eb 10:24). T h e T itus 3:8 reference, in fact, has
a sim ilar context to E ph 2:10, for th ere also G od is said to have saved believers
according to his m ercy, no t by works which they did in righteousness (3:5),
yet those who have believed are to be careful to apply them selves to good
works (3:8). In relation to the u n d isp u ted P auline letters, E ph 2:10 is distinctive
in its use o f th e precise p h rase “good w orks” an d in its assertion th at such
good works are th e goal o f th e new creation.
015 n p o f ir d p a o e v 6 0605 Iv a ev a in o V ; 7repnraTrjo cope v, “which G od p re p are d in
advance in o rd e r th a t we m ight live in th em .” T his relative clause, which con-
cludes th e verse, underlines bo th the im portance an d the divine origin o f
these good works. T h e dative 015 is em ployed instead o f the expected a because
it has been attracted to th e case o f its antecedent. B ut how can good works
be said to exist in advance o f th eir being done? T o avoid the difficulty o f
such an assertion som e have suggested th a t 015 be taken as a dative o f reference
an d th at an im plicit t)mö5, “us,” is th e object o f th e verb (cf. A bbott, 54–55;
n e b , “th e good deeds, for which G od has designed u s”), so th at hum ans ra th e r
th an th eir works are the objects o f G od’s advance p rep aratio n . B ut n eith er
this n o r th e idea th a t G od has simply o rd ain ed th e circum stances which m ake
good works possible does justice to th e w riter’s th o u g h t; it is th e good works
them selves th a t G od has p re p a re d b eforehand. O thers suggest th at the 7rpo-
prefix to th e verb is simply a “b efo re” in re g ard to w alking in the good deeds
an d so has in view the m o m en t o f baptism , since with th eir baptism believers
are provided with th e potential for practicing the good works th at are in a
sense already theirs (cf. Schlier, 117; R. G. H a m e rto n -Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom,
and the Son of M an [Cam bridge: C am bridge University Press, 1973] 184; H alter,
Taufe und Ethos, 241, 629 n. 22). It is far m ore likely, as th e m ajority o f com m enta-
tors hold (e.g., M eyer, 116; H o u ld en , 285; B arth, 227, 249; E rnst, 310; Schnack-
en b u rg , 99– 100), th a t th e prefix indicates th a t G od’s p re p ara tio n precedes
n ot simply th e believer’s w ork b u t also th e fo u n d atio n o f the world. In its
only o th er use in th e P auline corpus irp o e ro tp a ^e iv is em ployed o f G od’s p red esti-
nation (Rom 9:23 cf. also LXX Wis 9:8), a n d we have already seen in the
berakah th at th e w riter to the E phesians puts th e origins o f believers’ experience
o f G od’s blessing back into preexistence (1:4, 5, 11, 12). W hat God has p u rp o sed
can be th o u g h t o f as already existing with him (cf. Apoc. Abr. 22, “w hatever I
h ad d eterm in ed to be, was already p lan n ed befo reh an d , an d it stood before
m e ere it was created, as th o u hast seen”). If believers are G od’s work, th en
th eir ethical activity m ust also proceed from G od a n d so can be th o u g h t o f
as already p re p a re d in G od’s counsel. N ot ju s t th eir initial reception o f salva-
tion, b u t the whole o f believers’ lives, including th eir practical ethical activity,
is to be seen as p a rt o f G od’s purpose. T h e th o u g h t o f 2:10 is th at the good
works w ere already th ere, a n d w hen, th ro u g h his grace, G od m ade believers
alive, raised th em u p , an d seated th em with C hrist, h e created th em for these
works.
T his fo rm u latio n is an em phatic way o f u n d erlin in g th e ethical dim ension
116 Ephesians 2:1– 10

already p resen t in the assertion o f 1:4 th a t G od chose believers before the

fo u n d atio n o f th e w orld, in o rd e r th a t they m ight be holy a n d blam eless before
him in love. T o say th a t G od has p re p a re d th e good works in advance in his
sovereign p u rp o se is also to stress in th e strongest possible way th a t believers’
good deeds can n o t be chalked u p to th e ir own resolve, b u t are d u e solely to
divine grace. It is grace all th e way. Even th e living o u t o f salvation in good
works is com pletely by grace. B ut this is n o t a total determ inism . G od has
p re p a re d th e good works in advance “in o rd e r th a t we m ight live in th em .”
T h e h u m an activity o f “w alking” is still necessary; the actual living o u t o f
G od’s p u rp o se in th e w orld has to take place. Karl B arth ’s dictum th a t “the
distinctive th in g ab out C hristian o r theological ethics is th a t we do n o t have
to do any carrying w ithout rem em b erin g th a t we are carried ” com es close to
th e perspective o f Ephesians (cf. Ethics, tr. G. W. B rom iley [E dinburgh: T . &
T . Clark, 1981] 516). A n inclusion on 7rep17ra7‫־‬eu> ro u n d s off the contrast which
th e pericope contains. In contrast to th e walking in trespasses a n d sins o f vv
1 ,2 , th e new situation brings a walking in good works. G od’s saving pow er
reaches its in ten d ed goal w hen th e re is a ch an g ed lifestyle. O nly in th e actual
practice o f good works is th e contrast betw een th e n a n d now, betw een d ea th
an d life, com pleted. Such a th o u g h t has im plicit paraenetic force, b u t the
w riter does n o t exploit this until th e second h a lf o f his letter.

Explanation

In th e thanksgiving p eriod th e w riter h ad told his readers th at his prayer

for th em was th a t they m ight know the surpassing greatness o f G od’s pow er
tow ard th em as believers. Now he plays his ow n p a rt in helping th em to gain
such know ledge by re m in d in g th em how G od’s pow er has affected th eir lives
a n d w hat an im m ense change it has w rought. His re m in d e r takes m uch o f its
force from th e parallel h e draw s betw een th e su p rem e d em onstration o f G od’s
pow er in th e resu rrectio n a n d exaltation o f C hrist (1:19–21) a n d his activity
o n b eh alf o f believers. H e w ants th em to realize th a t ju s t as C hrist was physically
dead b u t G od raised a n d exalted him , so they w ere spiritually d ead b u t G od
raised an d exalted th em with C hrist. T h e dram atic change th a t such an action
p ro d u ced is set o u t by m eans o f a contrast schem a which can be fo u n d elsew here
in the N T . It com pares th e p re-C hristian p ast (“th e n ”) w ith the C hristian p resen t
(“now ”) a n d could well have recalled fo r th e read ers m uch o f w hat th eir baptism
signified. T h e w riter’s statem ent o f th e significance o f w hat G od has d o n e for
his read ers em ploys an d elaborates on language from Col 2:10– 13, a n d takes
u p characteristic Pauline them es from elsew here, particularly from R om 3:24–
28 in vv 8, 9. His statem ent falls into th re e parts: a description o f th e re ad ers’,
an d in fact o f all h u m an ity ’s, sinful past in vv 1–3, which syntactically do no t
form a com plete sentence; an assertion in vv 4 – 7 o f G od’s loving initiative in
delivering h u m an s from th eir plight th ro u g h th e ir relationship with C hrist;
an d an elaboration on th e gracious n a tu re o f th e salvation th at has been accom-
plished in vv 8– 10.
T h ro u g h o u t th e pericope it is prim arily from th e vantage p o in t o f w hat
God has d o n e in C hrist th a t the w riter views hum anity. T h is applies n o t only
to the new h um anity, whose destiny is seen as in co rp o rated in th at o f C hrist,
 Explanation 117

b u t also to th e old hum anity. By contrast to th eir p re sen t enjoym ent o f resu r-
rection life, th e p re-C hristian existence o f his readers can only be reg ard ed
as death. As o ne w ho has experienced deliverance from it, th e w riter has the
ability to recognize an d describe th e p re-C hristian situation in all its tragic
seriousness. H e rem inds the readers, th erefo re, th a t at one tim e they w ere
already experiencing in this life th a t exclusion from a living relationship to
G od th ro u g h C hrist th at will eventually involve physical d ea th an d final ju d g
m ent. T his living d ea th was characterized by trespasses an d sins, which also
b ro u g h t it about, a n d tied u p with the trespasses a n d sins are the forces o f
the world, th e devil, an d th e flesh. T h e re ad ers’ sinful deeds w ere dictated by
the norm s o f “this world-age,” h u m an activity in this age a n d this w orld o rg a n
ized in opposition to the will o f the C reator. In m ore m ythological language,
b ehind these sins was “the ru le r o f the realm o f the air.” A n ultim ate personal
center o f evil (the devil; cf. 4:27; 6:11) is seen as influencing this age, particularly
th ro u g h the rebellious spirit still at w ork in disobedient hum anity. T his explana
tion o f sin does not, how ever, do away with h u m an responsibility, for in the
next b reath th e w riter can say th a t n o t only th e readers, b u t all believers,
were at one tim e those who chose n o t to obey, who instead gave th eir consent
to the inclinations o f th e flesh, an d who th ere fo re fully deserved G od’s w rath.
T h e ir existence was dom inated by the flesh, life lived in p u rsu it o f o n e’s own
ends, an d controlled by th eir c o rru p t thoughts. Left to th eir fallen natu ral
condition, they were, ju s t like all hum anity, deserving o f an d liable to G od’s
righteous ju d g m en t.
H aving depicted the re ad ers’ past as characterized by death, bondage, an d
condem nation, th e w riter now tu rn s to G od’s decisive action which reversed
th at condition. T h e m ood changes from one laden with doom to one o f exulta
tion. T h e m ention o f G od’s w rath has shown how seriously he takes h u m an
sinfulness. B ut against th e background o f the real possibility o f G od’s w rath,
his m ercy an d his love shine o u t in all th eir radiance. G od’s initiative to deal
with th e h u m an plight was launched, n o t on th e basis o f som e potential w ithin
the condition o f hum anity, b u t on th e basis o f his rich m ercy an d great love.
T h e divine reversal involved m aking m en a n d w om en alive with C hrist, raising
them u p an d seating them with C hrist in th e heavenly realm s. W hat G od did
for C hrist, th erefo re, he has also d one fo r believers. T his rescue act is not
simply parallel to th e events o f C hrist’s triu m p h , however. It takes place through
them . For w hat G od accom plished for C hrist in those events, he accom plished
for him as rep resentative o f a new hum anity, seen as included in him . T h e
w riter’s perspective on w hat has b een achieved fo r hum anity is in line with
Pauline th o u g h t about u n io n with C hrist in his d ea th an d resurrection, b u t
h ere the d ea th aspect o f th at relationship has been om itted, an d th ere is a
stro n g er em phasis on th e p resen t status o f believers resulting from the relation-
ship. U nion with C hrist is ex ten d ed to a u n io n with him in his exaltation to
heaven, sh aring his triu m p h over th e cosmic pow ers, an d such a notion is
the m ost developed form ulation o f realized eschatology in the Pauline corpus.
It serves to rem in d th e readers th at they have b een tran sferre d to a new do m in
ion in au g u rated by C hrist’s resu rrectio n an d exaltation, in which they can
experience new life a n d liberation from the pow ers which previously held
them enslaved. T his whole rescue p ro ced u re was designed to show G od’s grace.
118 Ephesians 2:1– 10

T h e w riter senses th a t w hat has h a p p e n e d to believers is th e su p rem e d em o n-

stration o f the overw helm ing richness o f th at grace, a d em o n stratio n which
will co ntinue to be effective into th e com ing ages, an d which in th e limitless
fu tu re will be recognized by all fo r th e m arvel th a t it is.
A lready this statem ent about G od’s decisive action on b eh a lf o f believers
has been in te rru p te d in v 5b by the w riter’s im passioned assertion th a t th e
salvation which God had provided fo r the readers, an d which h ad a continuing
effect in th eir lives, was b ro u g h t ab o u t by grace. Now, in the last section o f
th e pericope, this assertion is ex p an d ed in a sum m ary o f th e n a tu re o f salvation.
By this grace th e readers have been saved th ro u g h faith. W hat G od has d one
in C hrist is seen as a still-effective deliverance, liberation, o r rescue from th eir
previous state an d one th at is provided freely, as a gift, fo r u n deserving rebel
subjects. W ith grace as its g ro u n d an d faith as its m eans, this salvation can
have n o th in g to do with any notion o f m erit. T h a t it is “by grace” m eans th a t
it has n o t o riginated from a h u m an source b u t com es from G od as a gift.
T h a t it is “by faith ” m eans the exclusion o f h u m a n effort and, th erefo re, o f
any prid e o r boasting in the presence o f God. T h e w riter wants his read ers
to be absolutely clear th at it is God, an d n o t hum ans, who is to be given th e
credit fo r salvation, an d th at m eans the whole o f salvation, including believers’
good works. T h e notion o f “the self-m ade m an ” is totally o u t o f place in such
a perspective on C hristian existence. In fact, believers can be said to be m ade
by God, his work, his new creation, the goal o f which is th e life o f goodness
which was th e C reato r’s original design fo r hum anity. T his new way o f w alking
com pletes th e contrast with the walk in trespasses a n d sins m en tio n ed at th e
beg inn in g o f the pericope. T h e pow erful a n d gracious activity o f G od operative
on b eh alf o f believers finds its com pletion, as reg ard s h u m a n lives, in a goodness
th at is expressed in specific works. T h e w riter attem pts to m ake doubly sure
th at even these do no t becom e th e g ro u n d fo r boasting by describing them
as objects o f G od’s advance p rep aratio n . T h ey w ere already p re p a re d as p a rt
o f G od’s sovereign pu rp o se an d th ere fo re m ust be attrib u ted solely to grace.
It is w orth standing back from the flow o f th o u g h t a n d u n d erlin in g the
com pleteness o f th e contrast betw een p re-C hristian past a n d C hristian p re sen t
which shapes the m ajor p a rt o f the pericope. T h e m ovem ent from th e n to
now is a m ovem ent from d ea th to resu rrectio n life, from a lifestyle ch aracter
ized by trespasses, sins, sensual indulgence, a n d disobedience to one ch aracter
ized by good works, from this p resen t world-age to the heavenly realm s, an d
from bondage to the forces which ru le this w orld to victory with C hrist above
hostile powers. It is a m ovem ent from the sphere o f selfish autonom y to u n io n
with C hrist, from dom ination by the devil to a life controlled from start to
finish by God, from w hat hum anity is by n a tu re to w hat it becom es by grace,
an d from liability to G od’s w rath to experience o f his m ercy, love, kindness,
an d grace.
In the process o f developing these pow erful contrasts th e w riter sum m arizes
a n u m b er o f characteristic Pauline them es. T h e depiction o f the sinful h u m a n
condition u n d e r the w rath o f G od is rem iniscent o f Rom 1:18–3:20. Individual
elem ents in it have th eir c o u n te rp a rt in the m ajor Pauline letters: bondage to
this age in Gal 1:4 an d Rom 12:2, dom ination by a personal pow er o f evil in
2 C or 4:4, an d th e rule o f the flesh in Gal 5:16– 21 a n d Rom 7:5– 21. T h e
 Explanation 119

notion o f a u n io n with C hrist which effects a tran sfer o f dom inion, which
figures p ro m inently in vv 4–7, has points o f contact with Rom 6:1– 11 an d
Col 2:12, 13; 3 :1 ,2 . T h a t salvation is by grace a n d by faith with no works
an d no boasting involved (vv 8, 9) recalls R om 3:24–28; Gal 2:16; a n d 1 C or
1:29– 31, am o n g o th e r passages, while th e attem p t to relate ethical activity to
this salvation has som e links with passages such as Phil 2:12, 13 an d Gal 5:6.
B ut the Pauline disciple has n o t only provided a brilliant sum m ary o f som e
o f his m aster’s th o u g h t on salvation, he has also creatively shaped it fo r his
own purposes with som e significant shifts o f em phasis. “Flesh” in its negative
sense becom es a category distinct from “th o u g h ts.” U nion with C hrist can be
ex tended to em brace u n io n with him in his exaltation. Salvation can be seen
as a com pleted event. T h e discussion o f salvation an d works is generalized by
rem oval from its original Jew ish o r Jew ish C hristian context, so th at the key
concepts o f justification an d the law fo u n d in Rom 3:24– 28 are m issing here.
A nd, as co m p ared with the general stress in Paul on the necessity o f the believer’s
resp on d in g to grace by love a n d obedience in th e light o f the last ju d g m en t,
“good works” are specifically m en tio n ed h ere a n d attrib u ted solely to G od’s
grace, because h e has p re p a re d them in advance.
As in the preced ing eulogy an d thanksgiving period, th e m ajor foci o f the
w riter’s th o u g h t in this pericope rem ain God, C hrist, an d believers. H e begins
with a grim look at th e h u m an scene as he depicts th e past plight o f believers,
b u t moves to an exalted view o f a hum anity th at shares C hrist’s destiny and
triu m p h an d already experiences th e life o f heaven— a new hum anity th at is
G od’s work, created anew to live th e life o f goodness he has designed for
it. C hrist is clearly th e m ediator th ro u g h w hom this change for hum anity
has been accom plished. G od’s kindness has been show n to believers “in
C hrist Jesu s” (v 7), an d it is “in C hrist Je su s” th a t the new creation has taken
place (v 10). N ot only so, b u t believers’ solidarity “with C hrist” in his being
m ade alive, raised u p , a n d exalted (vv 5, 6) can also be said to be “in C hrist
Jesu s” (v 6). B ut it is th e theocentric elem ent in the w riter’s th o u g h t which is
m ost to th e fore. It is G od’s decisive initiative which launches salvation (“B ut
God . . . ,” v 4), an d his m ercy an d love are th e m otivating factors beh in d it.
It is G od’s grace which is the g ro u n d o f salvation, an d it is the display o f th at
grace which is its purpose. E verything ab o u t believers’ new lives, including
th eir good works, is G od’s w ork so th at he, an d n o t they, will receive the
glory.
W ithin this theocentric perspective the focus is particularly on G od’s grace,
as the rep etitio n o f the assertion “by grace you have been saved” (vv 5b, 8)
makes clear. Because o f the statem ents with which the preceding thanksgiving
period culm inated, asserting the significance o f the C h u rch ’s status an d role,
an d because o f th e statem ent here in v 6 th a t believers have been seated with
C hrist in th e heavenly realm s, som e have accused th e w riter o f a p ro u d triu m-
phalism in his view o f the C hurch. Yet, this passage suggests th a t the w riter
had do n e his u tm o st to prev en t such a m isin terp retatio n o f his form ulations.
H e is at pains to stress again an d again, an d in a variety o f ways, th a t believers’
salvation an d resulting situation is n o th in g at all ab o u t which they can boast.
Left to them selves they h ad been deserving only o f w rath (v 3). O nly th ro u g h
th eir relationship to C hrist has th eir fate changed (vv 5– 7, 10). T h e new life
120 Ephesians 2:1– 10

an d link with heaven th a t have resu lted from this relationship are theirs only
because o f G od’s m ercy a n d love (v 4), because o f his kindness (v 7), because
o f his grace (vv 5, 7, 8). T h e ir salvation is a p u re gift (v 8), an d th eir C hristian
existence, with an y thing good w hich it produces, they owe entirely to G od’s
work. T h e overall effect o f th e pericope is to leave its readers w ondering no t
at th eir own exalted position b u t at th e im m ensity o f G od’s grace w hich p ro d u ced
it. A nd they are left no room to p erv ert grace in an antinom ian way, because
th e final w ord is th a t this grace achieves its e n d in the good works th a t have
been p re p a re d fo r th em to live in. It could n o t be clearer th a t salvation com es
to sinful hu m an ity freely, generously, a n d undeservedly. All th a t believers
have received a n d ho p e to receive, they receive n o t as a rew ard fo r services
re n d ere d , b u t as a gift, whose source is th e G od w ho has graciously acted in
Christ.
T his central focus on w hat G od has achieved fo r the readers by his grace
has several effects. It adds to th e know ledge o f G od a n d o f his pow er at w ork
on th e ir b eh a lf th at th e w riter wishes fo r his readers (cf. 1:17– 19). T o g e th e r
with 2:11– 22, it is at the h e a rt o f the re m in d e r ab o u t believers’ privileged
relationship to G od which the first p a rt o f th e letter is m ean t to provide. As
a re m in d e r o f w hat G od has d o n e fo r th em a n d o f the co ntinuing results o f
his saving action, the pericope assures th e read ers o f th e reality o f th e p resen t
aspect o f th eir salvation. It could well be th a t this assurance com es because
the w riter perceives th e n eed to reinforce th e identity o f his readers as C hristian
believers. T h e ir vision o f w hat it m eans to be p a rt o f th e C hristian com m unity
was n o t as stro n g as it should have been, a n d they m ay have been inclined to
th in k o f them selves as simply belonging to one am ong the m any religious
g roupings in Asia M inor. A pparently, along with th e fading o f a clear sense
o f th eir calling h ad com e the tem p tatio n to conform to th e su rro u n d in g w orld,
to th e values o f “this w orld-age” an d o f “those who are disobedient” (cf. 4 :1 7–
24). In th e w riter’s attem p t to d ee p en th e aw areness o f th eir calling by rem in d in g
th em o f th e change G od has b ro u g h t ab o u t a n d by using language which
would recall th e significance o f th eir baptism th ere lies an im plicit ex hortation
to th em to live o u t th eir calling in a way th a t is ap p ro p ria te to th e distinctive
w ork o f G od o n th eir b eh a lf (cf. also 4:1). A fter all, they are now p a rt o f the
new dom inion; they are a new creation th a t has been designed to have the
distinctive quality o f goodness (v 10).
As one w ho has been grasped by P aul’s gospel a n d is sensitive to its diagnosis
o f th e h u m an condition, th e w riter recognizes th a t th ere is always the tem p tatio n
fo r hu m an s to fall back on th eir own resources an d to delude them selves
th at they can co n tribute som ething to th e ir ow n standing before God. Colossians,
which has influenced him so m uch, has reinforced fo r him the n eed to stress
grace, because it has show n th a t th e religious syncretism o f Asia M inor could
becom e ju s t as m uch o f a th re a t to P aul’s gospel o f grace as Ju d aizin g h ad
been in Galatia. Believers h ad b een m ade to th in k th a t w hat they h ad in C hrist
was n o t en o u g h a n d th a t observance o f ascetic regulations an d visionary experi
ences o f th e heavenly realm w ere n eed ed fo r fullness o f salvation. T his w riter
wishes, th erefo re, to m ake very clear th a t all th a t is necessary has been accom
plished in C hrist (“you have been saved”) a n d accom plished in such a way as
to allow God to have th e glory (“by grace”). B ut, as with m ost o f th e first h alf
 Explanation 121

o f Ephesians, th e didactic function o f the pericope does n o t stand by itself. It

is interw oven with th e doxological m ood carried over from th e eulogy an d
thanksgiving period, so th at this re m in d e r o f th e g reat salvation th at has been
accom plished fo r the readers is also designed to evoke w onder, gratitude, an d
praise in th e face o f G od’s m arvelous grace. T h e w riter knows too th at such
attitudes are often th e m ost pow erful m otivations fo r living differently. In
this way his stress on grace becom es a m ajor p a rt o f th e fo undation he is
laying for th e practical ethical ex hortation o f th e second h alf o f the letter. It
is grace th at enables people to play th eir roles in the C h u rch ’s life (cf. 4:7),
an d grace th a t is th e only adequate resource for a life o f good works in this
world, as v 10 already indicates so plainly.
The Gaining of the Gentiles' Privileges
of Participation in God's New Temple
Through Christ's Reconciliation

Bibliography

Barclay, W. “The One, New Man.” In Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology.
FS G. E. Ladd, ed. R. A. Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, 73–81. Barth, M.
“Conversion and Conversation: Israel and the Church in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.”
Int 17 (1963) 3–24. Burger, C. Schöpfung und Versöhnung: Studien zum liturgischen Gut
im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief. Neukirchen‫־‬Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1975, 117–57. Coggan,
F. D. “A Note on Ephesians 2:14.” ExpTim 53 (1941–42) 242. Deichgräber, R. Gotteshym
nus und Christushymnus, 165–67. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz und Absicht, 79–94, 131–37.
Gärtner, B. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965. Giavini, G. “La structure litteraire d’Eph 2:11–22.”
NTS 16 (1969– 70) 209– 11. Gnilka, J. “Christus unser Friede—ein Friedens-Erlöserlied
in Eph 2, 14–17: Erwägungen zu einer neutestamentlichen Friedenstheologie.” In Die
Zeit Jesu, ed. G. Bornkamm and K. Rahner. Freiburg: Herder, 1970, 190–207. Hanson,
S. The Unity of the Church, 141–48. Howard, J. E. “The Wall Broken: An Interpretation
of Ephesians 2:11–22.” In Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practices, ed. F. F. Kearley,
E. P. Myers, and T. D. Hadley. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986, 296–306. Jeremias,
J. “Der Eckstein.” Angelos 1 (1925) 65–70. --------. “Eckstein-Schlussstein.” ZN W 36
(1937) 154– 57. -------- . “ycowa.” TD NT 1 (1964) 791–93. -------- . “K60aX7? yuvias—
NKpoycjvialos.” ZN W 29 (1930) 264–8 0 .-------- . “\10o9.” TDNT 4 (1967) 119–59. Käse‫־‬
mann, E. “Epheser 2, 17–22.” Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Vol. 1. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1960, 280–83. Klinzing, G. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der
Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1971.
Lincoln, A. T. “The Church and Israel in Ephesians 2.” CBQ 49 (1987) 605–24; also
in The Best in Theology, Vol. 3, ed. J. I. Packer. Carol Stream, IL: C.T.I., 1989, 61– 79.
-------- . “The Use of the OT in Ephesians.” J S N T 14 (1982) 25–30. Lindemann, A.
Die Aufhebung der Zeit, 152–81. Lyall, F. “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul—Aliens
and Citizens.” EvQ 48 (1976) 3– 14. Martin, R. P. Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology.
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990, 157–98. McEleney,
N. J. “Conversion, Circumcision, and the Law.” N TS 20 (1974) 319–41. McKelvey,
R. J. “Christ the Cornerstone.” N TS 8 (1962) 352– 5 9 .-------- . The New Temple. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1969. Meeks, W. A. “In One Body: The Unity of Humankind
in Colossians and Ephesians.” In God’s Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. A.
Meeks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977, 209–21. Merklein, H. Christus und die Kirche.
Die theologische Grundstruktur des Epheserbriefes nach Eph 2, 11–18. Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1973.-------- . Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief. Munich: Kösel, 1973,
118–5 8 .-------- . “Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheser-
briefes.” In Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften, ed. K. Kertelge. Freiburg:
Herder, 1981, 25–69. -------- . “Zur Tradition und Komposition von Eph 2, 14–18.”
BZ 17 (1973) 79–102. Meuzelaar, J. J. Der Leib des Messias. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1961,
59– 101. Michel, O. “0 1*0 9 kt\ . ” TD N T 5 (1967) 119– 59. Moore, M. S. “Ephesians 2:14–
16: A History of Recent Interpretation.” EvQ 54 (1982) 163–68. Mussner, F. Christus,
das All und die Kirche, 76– 118. -------- . “Eph 2 als ökumenisches Modell.” In Neues
Testament und Kirche, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder, 1974, 325–36. Nauck, W. “Eph
 Translation 123

2, 19–22 – ein Tauflied?” E vT 13 (1953) 362–71. Pfammatter, J. Die Kirche als Bau.
Rome: Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1960. Rader, W. The Church and Racial
Hostility. Tübingen: Mohr, 1978. Ramaroson, L. “ ‘Le Christ, nôtre paix’ (Ep. 2, 14–
18).” ScEs 31 (1979) 373–82. Rese, M. “Die Vorzüge Israels in Rom 9,4f. und Eph
2,12.” TZ 31 (1975) 211–22. Roetzel, C. J. “Jewish Christian - Gentile Christian Relations:
A Discussion of Ephesians 2, 15a.” ZN W 4 (1983) 81– 89. Sahlin, H. “ ‘Die Beschneidung
Christi’: Eine Interpretation von Eph 2, 11–22.” SymBU 12 (1950) 5– 22. Sanders,
J. T. “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1–3.” ZN W 56 (1965) 216– 1 8 .-------- . The New
Testament Christological Hymns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, 14–15,
88–92. Schäfer, K. T. “Zur Deutung von äKpoycovtäios Eph 2,20.” In Neutestamentliche
Aufsätze, ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1963, 218–
24. Schille, G. Frühchristliche Hymnen, 24– 31. Schnackenburg, R. “Die Kirche als Bau:
Epheser 2:19– 22 unter ökumenischem Aspekt.” In Paul and Paulinism, ed. M. D. Hooker
and S. G. Wilson. London: S.P.C.K., 1982, 258– 70. ------–‫־‬. “Die Politeia Israels in
Eph 2, 12.” In De la Tôrah au Messie, ed. M. Carrez et al. Paris: Desclée, 1981, 467–
7 4 .-------- . “Zur Exegese von Eph 2, 11– 22 in Hinblick auf der Verhältnis von Kirche
und Israel.” In The New Testament Age. Vol. 2. Ed. W. C. Weinrich. Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press, 468– 75. Smith, D. C. “The Ephesian Heresy.” In Society of Biblical
Literature: 1974 Proceedings. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974, 45–5 4 .-------- . “The Two
Made One: Some Observations on Eph 2:14–18.” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 1
(1973) 34–54. Stegemann, E. “Alt und Neu bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen
(Kol-Eph).” E vT 37 (1977) 508– 36. Stuhlmacher, P. “ ‘Er ist unser Friede’ (Eph 2,14):
Zur Exegese und Bedeutung von Eph 2,14– 18.” In Neues Testament und Kirche. FS R.
Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder, 1974, 337–58 (ET in idem, Reconcilia
tion, Law, and Righteousness [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 182–200). Tachau, P. ‘Einst ”
und “Jetzt” im Neuen Testament, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 2, ed. G. Klein. 134–
43. Vielhauer, P. Oikodome. Munich: Kaiser, 1979. Wengst, K. Christologische Formeln
und Lieder des Urchristentums. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1972, 181– 86. Wilhelmi, G. “Der
Versöhner-Hymnus in Eph. 2:14 ff.” ZN W 78 (1987) 145– 52. Wolter, M. Rechtfertigung
und zukünftiges Heil. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978, 62–73.

Translation

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision in the flesh, made by hands,
12remembera that you were at that time apart from Christ, separated from the common-
wealth of Israel and aliens in regard to the covenants of promise, having no hope
and without God in the world.13But now in Christ Jesus you who at one time were
fa r off have come near through the blood of Christ.14For he is our peace, who has
made both one and has broken down the dividing wall,15having abolished in his
flesh the hostility,h the law of commandments and regulations, in order that he might
create the two in himselfc into one new person, thus making peace,16and might
reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, having put the hostility to
death in himself. 17And he came and preached the good news of peace to you who
were fa r off and of peaced to those who were near; 18 for through him we both have
access in the one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer aliens and
strangers, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household
of God,20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the
keystone being Christ Jesus himself,21in whom the whole buildinge being joined
together grows into a holy temple in the Lord,22in whom you also are built together
into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
124 Ephesians 2:11– 22

Notes

aör1, “that,” in v 12 takes up again the ört of v 11, so in translation the verb from v 11 has
been repeated in line with the writer’s resumption of the thought with which the pericope begins.
bTexts and translations vary in their decision about whether ‫ קןל־ל‬exdpav ev rf! oapid avrov, “the
hostility in his flesh,” belongs to the end o f v 14 or the beginning o f v 15. On the one hand, the
phrase can be taken as connected with the preceding participle Xuaa? in v 14, and as an elaboration
on the breaking down o f the dividing wall. On the other hand, it can be seen as connected with
the following participle Karapyryja^; in v 15, and therefore with the notion of abolishing the law
of commandments and regulations. Some of the difficulty in the syntax may well be caused by
the writer’s reworking of original material (see the discussion in Form !Structure I Setting). But as
regards the final form of his work, syntactical considerations favor the second option. It would
be very awkward to have the objects o f Xutras on either side o f it. It is more natural for phrases
which are in apposition to follow one another than to be interrupted by the participle. It is
better, therefore, to regard both participles as occurring at the end of the clauses they govern
and the phrase “the law o f commandments and regulations” as explanatory of the hostility which
Christ has abolished in his flesh (cf. also the comments on v 15; J. A. Robinson, 161; pace Percy,
Probleme, 280; Gaugler, 109).
cThe second edition of the UBS text has ev cdrrcp, accented with the rough breathing mark,
while the third edition has ev axrrcp. This reflects a debate about the generally accepted conventions
of Greek orthography (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 602, 616). The unaspirated form should
probably be preferred, since in Hellenistic usage it could function as a reflexive in addition to its
normal usage (cf. also BDF para. 564[ 1]). The variant ev eavrtp found in D G Marcion is an
interpretation designed to make the reflexive sense clear.
dThe second occurrence o f eipqvrjv, “peace,” in this verse is omitted in the Textus Receptus
in line with K L many minusucles syrP’h Marcion Origen al. But the external evidence for its
inclusion is strong, including p 4 6 ‫ א‬A B D F G P itd>8 vg copsa boh goth arm eth. On internal
grounds also, it is likely that the writer has reproduced the twofold reference to peace in the
underlying OT text (LXX Isa 57:19) but given it a different sequence.
e Should the text read iräaa oiKodopr} with ‫ * א‬B D E F G K ^ ‫ ׳‬many minuscules Clement Origen
Basil Chrysostom Theodoret or irdaa f! obcobopr! with ‫ א‬a A C P some minuscules Origen Chrysostom
Theophylact? The support for the former anarthrous reading is stronger. On internal grounds
it also constitutes the more difficult reading, since it might well be expected to mean “every
building,” which does not fit the writer’s emphasis on the unity o f the Church. It is likely, then,
that the article was added by copyists because it appeared to be needed by the sense. Justification
for interpreting the original anarthrous form in the sense normally associated with the arthrous
is found in Comment on v 21.

Form / Structure / Setting

In o rd e r to arrive at som e conclusions ab o u t how th e w riter’s th o u g h t has

been stru ctu red , it will be necessary first to evaluate som e o f the questions o f
form th at have arisen in connection with this pericope.
O n e o f th e p ro m in en t form al elem ents in 2:11– 22 is the 7rore. . . vw contrast
schem a, which we have already observed in 2 :1–10, w here it served to rem in d
the G entile read ers o f th eir past in term s o f spiritual d ea th with its various
aspects o f bo n d ag e to the world, th e devil, a n d th e flesh, an d o f the change
God h ad accom plished on th eir b eh a lf th ro u g h C hrist. T h e earlier discussion
o f the back g ro u n d o f this schem a a n d its use elsew here in the N T will be
assum ed as we analyze its place in this passage. W hereas in the earlier version
o f th e schem a th e vv v elem ent was im plicit, h ere bo th tem poral elem ents are
explicit. T h e p re-C hristian past is designated by 7rore, “th e n ,” in vv 11, 13
an d by its equivalent rep Kaipcb efcetpcp, “a t th a t tim e,” in v 12; it is set over
against th e C hristian present, described as vw i, “now ,” in v 13, an d in an
 Form / Structure / Setting 125

equivalent as ovk€ti, “no longer,” in v 19. T his contrast rem inds th e readers
o f th eir past in term s o f the im plications o f having been deprived G entiles,
as opposed to Jew s, in o rd e r to show again w hat has been do n e on th eir
b eh alf to change this situation an d in o rd e r to m ake th em aw are o f the privileges
they now enjoy. Some aspects o f the contrast are com pleted in vv 11–13, b u t
vv 14 – 18 in tervene before o th e r aspects o f th e p re-C hristian past m entioned
in v 12 are show n to have been reversed in v 19. T h e past was a tim e w ithout
C hrist (v 12), b u t the changed p resen t has been b ro u g h t about “in C hrist
Jesu s” (v 13), i.e., because o f th eir relationship to C hrist (though, contra T achau,
“Einst” und “Jetzt”, 140, this should n o t be claim ed as an absolute use o f “in
C hrist” language). At one tim e the readers w ere excluded from the com m on-
wealth o f Israel (v 12), b u t now they are fellow citizens with the “saints” (v
19). O nce they w ere seen as aliens in re g ard to th e covenants o f prom ise (v
12), yet they are no longer aliens a n d strangers (v 19). Previously they had
no ho p e an d w ere w ithout G od in the w orld (v 12), b u t currently they are
m em bers o f the h ousehold o f G od (v 19; th o u g h “having no h o p e,” strictly
speaking, has no direct parallel, an d oiaeloi tov deov, “m em bers o f the household
o f G od,” also contrasts with 7rapot/cot, “strangers,” in the previous p a rt o f v
19). O nce they w ere far off (v 13), b u t now they have com e n ea r (v 13). T his
last elem ent o f th e contrast indicates th a t it is n o t a purely tem poral one,
but, as we saw also in 2:1– 10, spatial categories— h ere “fa r” an d “n e a r”—can
be interw oven (cf. also T achau, “Einst” und “Jetzt”, 141). As we shall see below
in the discussion o f traditional m aterial beh in d the passage, this particular
instance o f the contrast schem a m ay well have th at fo u n d in Col 1:21– 23 as
its point o f d ep a rtu re.
Like o th er instances o f the schem a in the N T , this one is characterized by
its address to th e reader. T his featu re is particularly noticeable here, for the
second person plu ral fo u n d in vv 11–13, 19 contrasts with th e first person
plural, which begins an d ends the m aterial in vv 14– 18 (cf. T achau, “Einst”
und “Jetzt”, 141). W hat this use o f the schem a involves, th en , is n o t a general
depiction o f the place o f the Gentiles in the history o f salvation n o r a general
contrast betw een Gentiles an d Jew s, but, m ore specifically, a contrast betw een
the p re-C hristian past in its relation to Israel’s privileges a n d the C hristian
p resen t o f these particular G entile addressees. T h e schem a h ad already been
used in th e context o f G entiles’ relationship to Israel in Rom 11:30–32, b u t
p erh ap s th e o ne o th e r exam ple in the N T o f its use in such a context provides
a closer parallel. In 1 Pet 2:10 the readers are told, “O nce you were no people
b u t now you are G od’s people.”
It can be seen th at the 7rore . . . vvv schem a provides a m ajor structural
elem ent in th e th o u g h t o f E ph 2:11– 22, particularly since it shapes the key
sum m arizing verse (v 19: apa ovv . . . , “so th e n . . .”), yet it is also clear
th at it is su p p lem en ted by o th er m aterial. Verses 14– 18 provide an excursus
on how the re ad ers’ change o f situation was accom plished by C hrist, the b rin g er
o f peace, an d vv 20– 22 ex p an d on th e im agery for the new com m unity o f
the C h u rch in tro d u ced in v 19. It should also be pointed o u t th at the sum m ary
o f v 19 takes u p th e contrast afte r it has b een established in v 15 th at C hrist
has created a totally new entity, the “o ne new m an .” T h ereb y the reversal o f
the p re-C hristian situation which is set o u t is no longer only a sim ple direct
reversal, b u t a reversal which transcends the old categories a n d introduces a
126 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 1–22

new elem ent (cf. th e observations in Comment on “fellow citizens with th e saints”
an d the way in which J e w-G entile categories have largely faded from view in
the depiction o f th e new com m unity in vv 20–22). As in 2 : 1–10, th e p u r-
pose fo r which th e contrast schem a is em ployed is to serve as a re m in d e r (cf.
nvqixovevere, “rem em b er,” v 11) o f the privileges th e G entile readers now enjoy.
T h e past lack o f privilege in com parison w ith Israel is n o t depicted fo r its
own sake, b u t to assure the readers o f th e greatness an d reality o f th eir salvation
by h ig h lighting th eir highly privileged p re sen t situation as m em bers o f such
a com m unity as th e C h u rch is show n to be. T his prim ary p u rp o se o f the
schem a, an d th ere fo re o f th e pericope, m ust be k ep t in view.
T h e stance already taken on th e role o f the contrast schem a m eans also
th at decisions have been m ade ab o u t th e stru ctu re w hich tell against th e a ltern a-
tive view which sees th e passage as fo rm in g an elaborate chiasm us. Kirby (Ephe-
sians: Baptism and Pentecost, 156–57) claims th a t th e whole passage is a chiasm us
divided betw een v 15a a n d v 15b. T h e re are a n u m b e r o f elem ents a - K which
develop inw ardly to a clim ax an d th e n a series o f antithetical parallel elem ents
K ^ A 1 which m ove outw ards from this (cf. also K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant
[G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1976] 63, w ho m akes a sim ilar suggestion which
has v 15 at th e cen ter b u t six divisions on eith er side o f th e chiasm us). Giavini
(N TS 16 [1969– 70] 209 – 11) holds th a t vv 11–14a an d vv 17– 22 are a chiasm us
su rro u n d in g vv 14b - 16, which in tu rn consist o f parallel sets o f fo u r elem ents
su rro u n d in g th e central elem ent in v 15a. B oth these arran g em en ts are som e-
w hat contrived. Som etim es th e pro p o sed parallel elem ents are in term s o f
the w ording an d som etim es in term s o f the ideas involved, an d in a n u m b er
o f cases n eith er kind o f parallel is convincing. In addition, the last p a rt o f
the pericope poses problem s fo r bo th analyses. In re g ard to Kirby’s proposal,
it should be clear th at th ere are no substantial antithetical parallels betw een a
n u m b er o f th e elem ents at th e b eginning an d at the end, an d Giavini has to
treat vv 19–22 as one elem ent, m aking th e elem ents o f his chiasm us quite
uneven. T h e elem ent o f tru th on which these analyses have been built is th at
th e passage does m ake use o f som e w ords an d ideas m ore th a n once, b u t at
very best it is only loosely chiastic, a n d these “parallel” features have a m ore
obvious explanation. Verse 19 clearly takes u p aspects o f v 12, but, as we
have seen, this is as a sum m arizing conclusion to a contrast schem a, n o t as a
deliberate attem p t at chiasm us. E lem ents o f v 13 re cu r in v 17, b u t this is
because th e term inology o f v 13 an d o f w hat follows in vv 14 – 16 is associated
in the w riter’s m ind with a S cripture citation w hich incorporates this language.
Finally, vv 15, 16 contain w ords fo u n d in v 14, b u t this is because they provide
an elaboration o n the sam e topic. Parallel elem ents in these verses could well
be th ere as parallelismus membrorum (couplets) from original hym nic m aterial,
n ot because th e w riter has carefully a rra n g e d th em as p a rt o f a chiastic literary
device.
T his last p o in t brings us to a n o th e r m ajor area o f discussion in re g ard to
2:11– 22. Does it in corporate traditional m aterial which the w riter has m olded
for his own purposes? D ebate has revolved prim arily a ro u n d w h eth er hym nic
m aterial lies b eh in d vv 14– 18 o r vv 19– 22. T h e w riter’s use o f the O T text
Isa 57:19 falls o f course into th e category o f use o f traditional m aterial, b u t
this will be discussed m ore fully in the Comment on v 17. Discussion cannot
 Form / Structure / Setting 127

be p o stp o n ed altogether, how ever, fo r th ere are som e scholars who wish to
deny any redaction o f traditional liturgical m aterial in vv 14– 18 by proposing
ra th e r th at vv 13– 18 should be seen as a C hristian m idrash on o r exegesis o f
Isa 57:19 (cf. S tuhlm acher, “ ‘E r ist u n ser F riede,’ ” 347– 58; D eichgräber, Gottes-
hymnus, 167 n. 1; W o lter,Rechtfertigung, 62–70; Schnackenburg, 112). A n u m b e r
o f objections tell against such a proposal. Verse 13 does n o t quote Isa 57:19
(contra S tuhlm acher, “ ‘E r ist u n ser F riede,’ ” 347; B arth, 278). Instead, it speaks
o f those who w ere fa r off having now com e near, a notion not expressed in
Isa 57:19 itself b u t com m on in Jew ish discussions o f proselytism , an d a notion
whose language o f “fa r” an d “n e a r” th e n pro m p ts the reference to the different
use o f these term s in Isa 57:19, which does not, how ever, com e until v 17
(cf. also L in d em an n, Aufhebung, 84, 177). N or can avrb<; yäp eonv r! eiprivq
riiuQv, “for he is o u r peace,” in v 14 be held to be a reference to Isa 9:5, 6
(contra S tuhlm acher, “ ‘E r ist u n ser F riede,” ’ 345; B arth, 261 n. 36; W olter,
Rechfertigung, 72; Schnackenburg, 112– 13). T h e re is a strand in rabbinic exe-
gesis in which Isa 9:5, 6 an d 52:7 w ere linked to g eth er in a messianic in te rp re ta
tion (cf. Str-B 3:587), a n d it is certainly the case th at the w ording o f v 17
com bines Isa 52:7 with Isa 57:19. B ut it does n o t follow from eith er o f these
assertions th at Isa 9:5, 6 is being re fe rre d to here in v 14 o r th at th at text
provides the link betw een a reference to Isa 57:19 in v 13 an d its com bination
with Isa 52:7 in v 17. T h e g u lf betw een th e w ording o f Isa 9:5, 6 about the
prince o f peace, which in the LXX is to be fo u n d only in C odex A lexandrinus,
o r betw een th e general LXX re n d erin g o f eyco yäp ä£co eipr\vr\v em rou? apxovras,
“for I will b rin g peace u p o n the princes,” followed u p by m i rffr eipi\vr\<$
airrov ouk eonv opiov, “an d o f his peace th ere is no e n d ,” an d the w ording o f v
14 is too wide fo r even the claim o f a definite allusion to be substantiated
(contra S tuhlm acher, “ ‘E r ist u n ser F riede,’ ” 358). T h e m ost th at can be said
is th at Isa 9:5, 6 an d Jew ish in terp retatio n s o f it m ay have paved the way for
the sort o f attrib u tio n o f peace to a person th at is m ade here. Finally, the
passage simply does n o t read like a continuous exegesis. In fact, the flow of
th o u g h t, as we have seen, is such th a t v 19 follows on m ost naturally from v
13, an d vv 14 – 18 clearly introduce new m aterial before th ere is a re tu rn to
the p attern o f th in king o f vv 11–13. R ath er th an intro d u cin g a m idrash, v 13
is p art o f th e contrast schem a o f vv 11– 13. It is the beginning o f v 14, airrbs
yäp eonv . . . , “for he is . . . ,” which signals a break; th e n a fu rth e r subsidiary
break in the flow is signaled by m i eXOcbv, “a n d he cam e,” in v 17, which
introduces th e O T citation.
T h e way is now clear fo r som e discussion on its own term s o f the question
o f the use o f hym nic m aterial in vv 14 – 18. Some o f th e indications th at hym nic
m aterial could lie beh in d this section are the break with the su rro u n d in g context
o f the contrast schem a, the “we” style th a t in te rru p ts th e “you” style o f address
to the readers in vv 11– 13 an d vv 19– 22, th e o p en in g em phatic predication
(“he is o u r peace”), the pointedly Christological co n ten t o f the m aterial, the
heavy use o f participles, the a p p a re n t parallelismus membrorum, the piling u p
o f a n u m b er o f hapax legomena, an d aw kward syntax which suggests in te rp re ta
tion. Such features, in the light o f th e analysis which follows, have m ade it
seem m ore probable th at we are dealing with hym nic m aterial th at has been
rew orked (cf. also Schlier, 122– 23; Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen, 24– 31;
128 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

J. T . Sanders, Z N W 56 [1965] 216– 18; Fischer, Tendenz, 131– 37; Gnilka, 147–
52; idem , “C hristus u n ser F riede,” 190– 207; B arth, 261– 62; B urger, Schöpfung,
117– 33; W engst, Christologische Formeln, 181–86; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 156–
59; M artin, Reconciliation, 168 – 71) th a n with a straightforw ard arg u m e n t (pace
M ussner, Christus, 100– 101; M erklein, BZ 17 [1973] 79– 102; Ernst, 314–21;
S chnackenburg, 106– 7, 112).
B ut w hat is th e ex ten t o f such hym nic m aterial? A gainst those who w ould
include v 17 o r v 18 (cf. Schlier, 123; Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen, 24–31;
Gnilka, 147– 52; idem , “C hristus u n se r F riede,” 197–200; B arth, 276; Fisher,
Tendenz, 132; B u rg er, Schöpfung, 128– 33), it m ust be said th a t the language
an d concepts o f v 17 com e from th e O T passage Isa 57:19, clearly take u p v
13, a n d are fo rm u lated as an address to the readers (cf. the introduction o f
the second perso n plural vplv), a n d th at v 18 reads m ore like th e w riter’s own
sum m ary o f th e significance o f th e preceding verses in language rem iniscent
o f Rom 5:2. In addition, n eith er v 17 o r v 18 easily provides reconstructed
lines which w ould be o f an ap p ro p riate length fo r th e original hym nic m aterial
(cf. also W engst, Christologische Formeln, 182– 83). It is beh in d vv 14 – 16 th at
th ere may well be traditional m aterial which spoke o f C hrist as the one who
provides cosmic peace a n d reconciliation (cf. also J. T . Sanders, Z N W 56 [1965]
216– 18; W engst, Christologische Formeln, 181– 86; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 156–
59; M artin, Reconciliation, 172). A n attem p ted reconstruction o f this m aterial
follows, with th e lines n u m b ere d fo r ease o f reference, the position o f the
w riter’s glosses indicated by a raised letter above the text, an d the glosses
them selves placed in square brackets at th e e n d o f th e ap p ro p riate lines:
(1) A uto? eonv 7) eipr\v7) r\pobv
(2) 0 7r01T7aa5 r a ap<j)0Tepa ev
(3) Kai to peoöroixov* X6aa? [ aroö Qpaypov]
(4) tt!v exOpavh Karapyqoa*; [hev Tf! oapici tov vöpov tojv evToXcbv ev ööypaotv]
(5) iva tovs 560 ktloxj ev ainCp eis eva kcllvov avOpconov
(6) 7T0LC0V eip'qv'qv
(7) Kai anoKaraXXa^fi tovs apcfrorepovs ev evi ‫כסס‬p a n rep 6e0)c [c5uz tov OTavpov]
(8) anoKTeivas tt\v exOpav ev ainCo.
E phesians’ links with Colossians a n d its th o u g h t w orld becom e relevant at
this point. T his reconstructed m aterial has striking points o f contact with the
hym n to th e cosmic C hrist which, it is generally agreed, lies beh in d Col 1:15–
20, the last p a rt o f which also deals with cosmic reconciliation. anoKaTaXkaooew,
“to reconcile,” is fo u n d in Col 1:20 in connection with the cosmos an d here
in line 7 in connection with two unspecified entities. Also in Col 1:20 C hrist
is said to m ake peace betw een elem ents on ea rth a n d in heaven (eiprjvoTroipoa^)
an d h ere in line 6 it is said th a t he m akes peace betw een th e two entities
(ttoicov eiprjvqv). In Col 1:18 ocopa, “body,” h ad originally been a reference to
the cosmos, b u t the P auline gloss in te rp re te d it o f the C h u rch (cf. also o u r
discussion o f this p oint an d o f ocbpa in general at its occurrence in 1:23), an d
h ere also in line 7 it refers to the cosmos now seen as united, as does the
notion o f the one new person in line 5. It is likely, then, th at the original
hym nic m aterial b eh in d E ph 2 :14– 16 also has a cosmic context, an d th at the
two entities m en tio n ed (rä äpQÖTepa, “b o th ” in line 2 ; 7660 5<01‫־‬, “th e two” in
line 5 ; 7 9 <01‫ ־‬apQorepovs, “b o th ” in line 7) are the two parts o f the cosmos,
 Form I Structure / Setting 129

heaven an d earth . T h e n e u te r form ulation rd apQorepa is no t easy to explain

if the passage is treated purely on one level as a straightforw ard discussion
o f the relation betw een Jew ish C hristians an d G entile C hristians. T h e u p p e r
an d lower realm s o f the cosmos w ere often th o u g h t o f as in antithesis, with
h um ans in th e low er realm o f m atter experiencing the u p p e r realm a n d the
powers th at in h ab it it as hostile a n d th reaten in g . A ccording to th e hym n, in
o rd e r to b rin g ab o u t unity (lines 2, 5) a n d to achieve reconciliation in the
cosmos (lines 6 , 7), C hrist h ad to break dow n th e wall dividing the two realm s
(line 3) an d overcom e th e hostility betw een th em (lines 4, 8 ). T h e notion o f a
cosmic wall betw een heaven an d ea rth can be fo u n d no t only in later Gnosticism
(cf. Schlier, 129– 30; Fischer, Tendenz, 133) b u t also in earlier Ju d aism (cf. 1
Enoch 14.9; 3 Apoc. Bar. 2.1, 2; T. Levi 2.7).
T h e w riter o f E phesians finds this notion o f C hrist as the b rin g er o f cosmic
peace an d reconciliation a p p ro p riate fo r ad ap tatio n to his them e o f how C hrist
has b ro u g h t Gentiles n e a r an d has overcom e the b arrier th a t h ad existed betw een
them an d Israel. B ut before this m aterial from the hym n could be assim ilated
to the new context it did require som e ad aptation (contra Schlier, 123– 40,
an d B urger, Schöpfung, 133– 39, who see the J e w-G entile reference as p a rt o f
the original hym n). T h e additions m ade have left th eir m ark by producing
some ra th e r cum bersom e syntax, particularly at the beginning o f w hat we
have taken to be v 15 in the m aterial’s p resen t form . J u s t as in Col 1 the
Christological h y m n ’s notion o f cosmic reconciliation was im m ediately applied
to the reconciliation th e readers o f th e letter h ad experienced (cf. Col 1:21, 22),
so h ere in Ephesians cosmic reconciliation is m ade to apply to reconciliation
on the h u m an level betw een Gentiles an d Jew s, b u t this tim e by m eans o f
glosses on the hym nic m aterial itself. T h e re are in fact two categories o f glosses
used. T h e first category is th a t which applies th e m aterial to Jew s an d Gentiles
by explaining th e dividing wall as rod QpayiJLOV, the fence o r barrier, a term
which has associations with T o ra h (cf. th e com m ents on v 14), an d by in te rp re t
ing the hostility o r enm ity as th at caused by th e law with its com m andm ents
an d regulations, rbv vöpov rcbv evro\Cbv ev bbypaoiv. T h e wall th a t has to be
abolished, th e enm ity th a t has to be overcom e, in C hrist’s reconciliation o f
Gentiles an d Jew s is now seen to involve the law. T h e second category o f
gloss is th at which ensures th a t in its new application C hrist’s w ork is given
the context it requires in th e history o f salvation. T o this end, the w riter em p h a
sizes th at C hrist dealt with th e law ev rfl oapid, “in his flesh,” th at is, th ro u g h
his physical death. T h e sam e stress is achieved by the addition o f the penultim ate
line o f 51a rod oravpod, “th ro u g h th e cross.” T his final gloss is rem iniscent o f
Colossians’ concern to an ch o r the cosmic hym n b eh in d Col 1:15– 20 in C hrist’s
saving w ork in history by ad d in g “th ro u g h th e blood o f his cross” (cf. Col
1:20). T h e m ean in g o f th e final form o f the traditional m aterial in its new
context will o f course be discussed in Comment, b u t a w ord about the probable
background o f th e original hym nic m aterial should be said before we conclude
o u r discussion o f th e tradition history o f 2:14 – 16. Som e take its cosmic them es
to com e from a Gnostic background (cf. Schlier, 123– 40; Schille, Frühchristliche
Hymnen, 24– 31; Fischer, Tendenz, 132; W engst, Christologische Formeln, 185–
8 6 ; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 157– 70), b u t th e objections to th e existence o f a
full-fledged Gnostic H eavenly M an m yth which w ere raised in connection with
130 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

the b ackground o f 1:22, 23 are relevant h ere also. Since the m aterial has so
m uch in com m on with the hym n o f Col 1:15–20, it is likely th a t its background
will be similar. M any take th e back g ro u n d o f the Colossian hym n to be the
cosmological concerns o f H ellenistic Ju d aism (cf. Lohse, Colossians, 46– 55;
Schweizer, Colossians, 63–81), a n d it seem s probable th at such concerns have
shaped th e th o u g h t o f the traditional m aterial h ere also (cf. Gnilka, 150– 51;
B urger, Schöpfung, 133–39; cf. also o u r discussion o f the cosmic background
o f th e “h ea d ,‫“ ״‬body,” an d “fullness‫ ״‬language o f 1:22,23; fo r a survey o f
th e discussion o f the history-of‫־‬religions background cf. R ader, Church and
Racial Hostility, 177– 96).
It has been arg u ed by som e that, instead o f hym nic m aterial, w hat lies
b eh in d E p h 2:14 – 18, an d in d eed b eh in d 2:11– 22 as a whole, is Col 1:21–23,
an d th at th ere are close verbal sim ilarities betw een th e passages (cf. M erklein,
BZ 17 [1973] 79– 102; idem , “Paulinische T heo lo g ie,” 52– 62). W e have already
indicated som e sim ilarities betw een th e original hym n b eh in d E p h 2:14 – 16
an d its in terp re tatio n in the passage as it now stands an d the hym n o f Col
1:15– 20 a n d its in terp re tatio n in Col 1:21– 23. It should no t be th o u g h t th a t
it is a case o f th e tradition on which E p h 2:14 – 18 is d ep e n d e n t being eith er
hym nic m aterial o r Col 1:21–23. T h e influence o f the latter w ould n o t m ake
th e use o f th e fo rm er superfluous. T h e term s th a t E p h 2:14 – 18 an d Col 1:21–
23 have in com m on are äTtOKaraXkäooeiv, “to reconcile,” aco/ua, “body,‫ ״‬an d
aap£, “flesh.” B ut E phesians has amKaraWaooeiv in com m on with th e hym n
o f Col T. 15– 20 along with th e notio n o f peacem aking, aco/ma is used with a
d ifferent sense in Col 1:21– 23 th a n in E p h 2:14 – 18, an d E phesians’ use o f
acopa is parallel instead to th at o f th e hym n in Colossians. T his leaves only
aap£ as an exclusive verbal parallel betw een th e two passages, a n d we have
arg u ed th at this is p a rt o f E phesians’ gloss on the traditional m aterial, an d
this m ay well have been u n d e r th e influence o f Col 1:21– 23.
M ore th a n actual verbal links betw een E p h 2:14 – 18 an d Col 1:21–23, it is
th e parallels in th e sequence o f th o u g h t betw een E ph 2 :1 1–22 as a whole
an d Col 1:21– 23 th a t are striking. Col 1:21– 23 has a “th e n . . . now ” schem a
involving th e sequence alienation, reconciliation, a n d concern fo r believers’
holiness an d th eir being fo u n d ed on the apostolic gospel. E phesians has taken
u p the schem a a n d followed the sequence, as it continues to follow th e sequence
o f Colossians in th e next pericope, 3 :1–13, b u t it fills o u t the concepts it takes
u p an d m akes th em p a rt o f larg er concerns. E ph 2 uses the term aTrrjXkoTpuopivot,
“sep arated ,” b u t applies it to th e G entiles’ relationship to the Jew s. T o the
notion o f reconciliation it adds cosmic hym n m aterial sim ilar to th at o f Col
1:15– 20, which was also related to this notion. T h e concern for holiness a n d
for a relation to the n o rm o f the apostolic gospel is in co rp o rated in its new
tem ple im agery.
T h e proposal th a t th e m aterial in 2:19–22 constitutes a baptism al hym n
(cf. Nauck, E v T 13 [1953] 362– 71) can be dealt with m ore briefly. N auck
holds th at these verses can be divided into th ree strophes, th at th e change o f
status m en tio n ed in v 19 is a referen ce to reception into th e people o f God,
which takes place in baptism , a n d th a t a n u m b e r o f term s used in vv 2 0 – 2 2
belong to th e language o f baptism al liturgy (e.g., “to grow ,” “to be built”).
B ut th ere are no really clear allusions to baptism in this use o f im agery for
the C h u rch a n d th e G entile C hristian re ad ers’ p a rt in it in vv 19–22. A t very
 Form t Structure / Setting 131

best, som e o f th e term s used m ay have been em ployed elsew here with baptism al
associations (th o u g h th e baptism al connections o f m ost o f the parallel references
N auck provides w ould be disputed), b u t this w ould not m ean th at such associa-
tions m ust p erta in h ere also. T h e style o f these verses with th eir relative clauses
in vv 21, 22 is characteristic o f the w riter him self elsew here in the letter. Above
all, v 19 is far m ore adequately explained by seeing it as integral to the w riter’s
use o f the contrast schem a from vv 11– 13 an d as sum m arizing its conclusions
in the light o f his excursus in vv 14– 18 (cf. also M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt,
119– 20).
We are now in a position to see th at the overall stru ctu re o f th o u g h t in
2:11– 22 falls into th ree parts. Verses 11– 13 lay the foundation, as the w riter
uses the contrast betw een th eir p re-C hristian past in relation to Israel and
th eir C hristian p resen t to re m in d his G entile readers o f the privilege o f having
com e n e a r th ro u g h C hrist’s death. Verses 14 – 18 provide fu rth e r explanation
o f how this com ing n e a r was m ade possible th ro u g h C hrist’s work. T h e term s
“fa r” an d “n e a r” in v 13 rem in d th e w riter o f Isa 57:19, which speaks o f
peace for two such groups. H ow ever, before he introduces this citation, he
prep ares the way fo r its notion o f peace. H e does this th ro u g h the traditional
m aterial he has to h an d , which speaks o f C hrist as the em bodim ent o f peace
an d agent o f reconciliation for the divided cosmos. T his m aterial is rew orked
in vv 14– 16 in term s o f th e overcom ing o f the division betw een Jew an d Gentile
so th at v 17 can th e n introduce the Isa 57:19 quotation in com bination with
a fu rth e r referen ce to the proclam ation o f peace from Isa 52:7. Verse 18
ro u n d s off this m iddle section by encapsulating th e results o f C hrist’s peacem ak
ing in term s o f access to the F ath er for both Jew s an d Gentiles. Verses 19– 22
form the last p a rt o f th e passage; they take u p again, in a sum m arizing fashion
an d in the light o f th e m iddle section, th e contrast betw een the read ers’ past
an d present. It is taken u p in o rd e r to elaborate on the read ers’ privileged
new situation in term s o f a series o f w hat are prim arily building im ages for
the C h u rch an d for the re ad ers’ place in this new com m unity, which transcends
the division o f Jew an d G entile.
2 : 1 1 – 2 2 in its context in th e letter as a whole stands parallel to 2 : 1 – 1 0 .
T h e re th e contrast betw een the re ad ers’ p re-C hristian past an d C hristian p resen t
was stated in m ore general term s. H ere it is expressed in m ore specific term s
o f th eir relation to Israel’s previous privileged position in G od’s purposes for
salvation. B oth passages, with th eir rem in d ers o f the read ers’ changed situation
as a result o f w hat has h a p p e n e d in C hrist, can be seen as connected with
the desire expressed in the thanksgiving period o f 1:15– 23 th at the readers
should have an increased appreciation o f th e pow er o f God th at has been
operative on th eir behalf. In addition, th e last p a rt o f the thanksgiving period
has shown th at G od’s pow er was effective fo r his people as th e C hurch, described
as C hrist’s body an d his fullness. H ere in 2:11– 22 this them e is taken u p
again as the C h u rch is seen as th e p ro d u c t o f the creative pow er o f C hrist’s
reconciling w ork an d th e n described as G od’s household, a building in which
C hrist is th e keystone, a holy tem ple in the L ord, a n d G od’s dw elling place.
As has been n o ted in the Introduction a n d u n d e r Form/ Structure/ Setting on
2 : 1 – 1 0 , th e p resen t pericope functions to g eth er with th e previous one as a
narratio, which re p o rts th e past in such a way as to attem p t to influence its
audience to base th eir values a n d th eir actions u p o n it. T his second dram atic
132 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

contrast betw een th e re ad ers’ past a n d th e ir present, which calls on them to

reflect on th eir experience, has a pow erful rhetorical effect. As they recall
G od’s actions in C hrist on th eir b eh a lf a n d th e privileges they now enjoy in
com parison with th eir past deprivation, a n d as they see them selves as now
p a rt o f a com m unity th at is grow ing into a holy tem ple in the Lord, this is
m ean t to p ro d u ce an attitu d e o f p ro fo u n d thankfulness an d a m ind-set th at
will be ready to accept the ethical im plications o f being a new holy com m u
nity, w hen these are spelled o u t in the exhortations o f the latter p a rt o f the
letter.
T h e passage can also be seen to have two m ajor links with th e op en in g
berakah. First, th e blessings o f salvation set o u t th ere are o ften described in
ways which h ad been associated with Jew ish hopes o f salvation, a n d yet these
are th e blessings into which the read ers are said to have en te re d (1:13, 14).
Similarly h ere in 2 :1 1–22 th e re ad ers’ previous deficiencies over against Israel
have b een m o re th a n com pensated by th e new situation p ro d u ced by C hrist’s
reconciling work. Second, the u n itin g o f elem ents in heaven an d on ea rth in
a cosmic harm o n y has been seen as the goal o f G od’s plan in 1:10. T h e m ove
from cosmic unity to h u m an unity, in the use o f traditional m aterial in 2:14–
16, shows th a t th e two notions w ere associated in the w riter’s m ind, a n d it
will becom e a p p a re n t in his discussion in 3:9, 10 th at he regards th e unity
accom plished in th e C h u rch as an anticipation o f final cosmic unity. T h e them es
o f 2:11– 22 are taken u p in two m ore ways in 3:1– 13. In 3:5, 6 the m em bership
o f Gentiles in th e sam e body as Jew ish C hristians is said to be the m ystery
th at has only now been revealed, an d th e notion o f access to G od th ro u g h
C hrist is re p eated in 3:12. T h e issue o f G entiles’ relationship to Israel o r to
Jew ish C hristians is not, how ever, m en tio n ed in th e paraenesis o f the second
p art o f th e letter. 4 :1 7–24 does speak o f th e re ad ers’ p re-C hristian G entile
past an d re p e a t th e participle aTtrfiOwrpiOJixevoi, “sep arated ” (cf. 2 : 1 2 ), b u t in
n eith er instance in connection with Israel. Instead, th e paraenesis exploits in
m ore general term s th e notions o f unity in th e one body (cf. 2:15, 16) in
4 :3–5, o f peace (cf. 2:14, 15, 17) in 4:3 a n d 6:15, o f grow th to g eth er (cf. 2:21)
in 4:15, 16, an d o f building (cf. 2:20–22) in 4:12.
T h e discussion in Comment will show that, as elsew here in th e letter, the
w riter, in addition to his use o f th e O T , traditional m aterial an d Colossians,
again m akes use o f them es from th e o th e r Pauline letters. B ut to w hat use
does he p u t such m aterial? W hat is th e function o f this p a rt o f his com position?
In line with th e subject m atter in each o f th e th re e m ain preceding sections
o f the letter, th e p u rp o se h ere is first o f all a re m in d e r o f blessing in an
a ttem p t to d ee p en the re ad ers’ appreciation o f yet an o th e r aspect o f th eir
great salvation. T h e p re d o m in a n t contrast schem a an d particularly th e sum m a
rizing v 19 m ake it clear th at this is th e m ain point. T h e readers are to be
co n g ratulated o n th e fact th a t th ro u g h C hrist’s reconciling w ork they no longer
have d eprived status as com pared with Israel in th e outw orking o f G od’s plan
o f salvation, b u t have becom e fellow citizens with th e saints an d m em bers o f
G od’s household. In fact, they should realize th a t they are now p a rt o f the
new tem ple. T h e passage is n o t th ere fo re m ean t to be “an arg u m e n t fo r co rp o-
rate u n ity ” (pace M itton, 101; Roetzel, Z N W 74 [1983] 8 8 ) o r prim arily to be
an answ er to th e question “How can Jew s and G entiles be th e eschatological
people o f G od?”— how ever im p o rtan t th a t question m ight be (pace M erklein,
 Form / Structure / Setting 133

Christus, 28, 71– 72, 76). T h e attem p t to discover som e setting w here th ere
were problem s betw een Jew ish C hristians an d G entile C hristians which w ould
have called fo rth this pericope in response is also m isguided (pace P okorný,
Epheserbrief, 12, 13). Verses 14 – 18 do show th at th ro u g h C hrist’s w ork both
Jews an d Gentiles have been able to becom e p a rt o f the new person which
has replaced th e old entities. B ut this is som ething which has been com pleted,
an event which has taken place in the past, an d is in tro d u ced into the discussion
only to elaborate fo r the G entile C hristians w hat p ro d u ced the drastic change
in th eir status. Given th at old divisions w ere overcom e in o rd e r to achieve
the new situation, an obvious im plication w ould be th at any p resen t divisions
betw een the two groups are totally incongruous. B ut this is not an im plication
th at the w riter m akes any effort to draw . T h e adm ission o f Gentiles into the
C hurch on equal footing with Jew ish C hristians, over which th ere h ad been
so m uch struggle an d over which Paul h ad ex p en d ed so m uch energy, is taken
for g ran ted by this w riter. It is not an issue for which he has to argue.
It is no clearer from the text itself th a t the w riter is addressing a problem
at the o th er en d o f the spectrum , th at o f G entile C hristian arrogance tow ard
Jew s an d a superiority which looked dow n on Jew ish C hristians. T his was a
problem addressed by Paul in Rom 11:13– 32, an d one which a n u m b er o f
scholars have suggested as the setting for this passage (e.g., K äsem ann, “E p h e-
sians an d Acts,” 291; Fischer, Tendenz und Absicht, 79–94; M artin, Reconciliation,
160– 61, 166– 67). Again, an im plication o f vv 14– 18 could be th at th ere is no
room for superiority since both Jew ish C hristians an d G entile C hristians have
access to G od on an equal footing. B ut th at is no t th e p o in t o f these verses in
th eir context an d such an im plication is no t draw n. In this proposed setting
the rem in d er to G entile C hristians o f the reversal o f th eir situation an d o f
the trem en d o u s privileges they now enjoy as p a rt o f th e new com m unity,
which transcends Israel’s previous place in the outw orking o f G od’s purpose,
m ight well aggravate ra th e r th a n alleviate the problem s. A response sim ilar
to P aul’s in Rom 11, with its w arnings an d its exposition o f G od’s continuing
pu rp o se for Israel in an effort to deflate G entile p ride, w ould be far m ore
appro p riate.
It is significant, how ever, th a t the w riter chooses to help his G entile readers
appreciate th e greatness o f th eir salvation by setting it in the context o f Israel’s
fo rm er privileges an d th eir own fo rm e r deficiencies. H e does this not only
because he is in all probability a Jew ish C hristian, b u t also because he wants
his readers to be aw are th at th eir salvation has n o t taken place in a vacuum .
Salvation has a history, they have a place in th at history, an d th ere is a sense
in which in experiencing salvation they have en tered into the heritage o f Israel.
If one wishes to speak o f a problem to which this is the answer, th en th at
problem is n o t one o f G entile C hristian arrogance, b u t o f ignorance o f roots
an d th erefo re a deficient sense o f identity (cf. the sim ilar view o f M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 46– 47).
H aving recognized in this passage an elem en t o f continuity betw een G entile
C hristians an d Israel (and the very fact th at the Jew ish S criptures can be used
to address the readers in v 17 is p a rt o f this feature), we m ust re tu rn to its
m ain th ru st an d observe th at the g re ater em phasis is on the elem ent o f disconti
nuity. T h e new com m unity o f which the G entiles have becom e a p a rt is no t
simply a d evelopm ent o u t o f Israel, according to this w riter. Instead, it took
134 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 1–22

a new creation to produce it (v 15). T h e resulting one new person replaces

the two old entities— Israel a n d th e G entiles (v 15). T h e privileges the Gentiles
now enjoy n o t only m atch those w hich Israel experienced previously, b u t go
beyond th em (cf. vv 19– 22). T h is o pens u p a differen t perspective o n the
relation betw een th e C h u rch an d Israel from th a t fo u n d in Rom 9– 11. In
Rom ans, P aul’s position is m ore dialectical th a n it h ad been in th e h ea t o f
battle in G alatians. T h ro u g h o u t his arg u m e n t, he shows how both Jew an d
G entile are one u n d e r the pow er o f sin a n d th e w rath o f G od a n d one in
being ju stified by faith, an d how they are interlocked in G od’s purposes for
history in such a way th at both receive m ercy. Yet at the sam e tim e, as a Jew ,
he struggles with the question o f w h eth er G od still has a distinctive p u rp o se
for ethnic Israel. H e is utterly convinced o f th e new thing G od has d o n e in
C hrist w hereby Gentiles now in h erit Israel’s prom ises; b u t as h e m akes clear
in the face o f G entile arrogance, G entile C hristians have been ad d ed to a
given Jew ish base, G od’s election o f Israel still holds, a n d th ere will be a fu tu re
salvation for her. In Ephesians, how ever, P aul’s p ersonal agony has disappeared,
an d Gentiles in becom ing C hristians are n o t sim ply being ad d ed to a Jew ish
base, b u t they are jo in in g a new com m unity in which the question o f Israel’s
privileged position has b een transcended. T h e concept o f th e C h u rch h ere is,
in fact if n o t in nam e, th a t o f th e “th ird race,” n eith er Jew ish n o r G entile
(contra B arth, 310; on the d angers fo r the relationship betw een C hristians
an d Jew s which arose from later abuse o f th e concept, cf. R ader, Church and
Racial Hostility, 156, 171– 73, 228–34). Interestingly, the position o f E phesians
tu rn s o u t to be m o re like th a t p ro d u c ed by th e sh arp logic o f P aul’s polem ic
in Galatians, w ith its stress o n th e discontinuity in the history o f salvation
an d its assertions th at in C hrist th ere is n e ith e r Jew n o r G reek (3:28), th at
the heavenly Jeru salem has replaced the p re sen t Jeru sa lem in G od’s purposes
(4:25– 27), th at n eith er circum cision n o r uncircum cision count for anything,
b u t a new creation ( 6 :15), an d th a t b o th Jew ish C hristians a n d G entile C hristians
constitute th e Israel o f G od (6:16). P erhaps, th en , the w heel has tu rn e d full
circle in th e d evelopm ent o f P auline th o u g h t— from an em phasis on discontinu
ity betw een Israel a n d th e new th in g G od has d one fo r C hristian believers in
Galatians, to a g re ater stress on continuity a n d the fu tu re role o f Israel in
the context o f a crucial stage o f P aul’s ow n m ission a n d o f Jew ish C hristian/
G entile C hristian questions in R om ans, back again to m ore em phasis on discon
tinuity in th e perspective o f P aul’s disciple in Ephesians. T h e difference betw een
th e starting p o in t an d the finish is n o t one o f basic theological stance b u t o f
m ood an d setting. Galatians is h eated polem ic at a relatively early stage o f
conflict betw een Paul an d Ju d aizin g o p p o n en ts, w hen Jew ish C hristians still
h ad the g reater w eight in term s o f influence a n d probably also o f num bers.
E phesians has a cool d etach m en t from Jew ish C hristian/G entile C hristian con
flict, an d reflects a setting tow ard the e n d o f the first century w hen P aul’s
position on adm ission o f Gentiles h ad b een established, Jeru salem h ad fallen,
an d G entile C hristians in term s o f influence an d n um bers very m uch over-
shadow ed any Jew ish C hristians in the churches o f Asia M inor.
Comment
11 did pvr^povevere on 7rore r a edvr\ ev oapid, oi Xeyöpevoi änpoßvorla vtto
rf )5 Xeyopevris 7rep1T0 Mf?s ev oapid xe1po7ro1T7rou, “th e re fo re rem em b er th at at one
 Comment 135

tim e you Gentiles in the flesh, who are called th e uncircum cision by w hat is
called th e circum cision in th e flesh, m ade by h an d s.” Sto, “th ere fo re ,” links
this pericope with th e preceding one. In the light o f w hat has been said in
2:1– 10 ab o u t the change G od has w rought, the readers are now to rem em b er
th eir p re-C hristian state from a n o th e r perspective. W hat the readers have al
ready h ea rd becom es in this way th e po in t o f d e p a rtu re fo r fu rth e r reflection.
In th e biblical tradition, rem em b erin g can often involve the attitude (som etim es
expressed in cultic action, e.g., Exod 12:14; 1 C or 11:25) o f looking to the
past for its im plications fo r the p resen t an d future. H ere, too, th e rem em bering
the readers are called u p o n to do is m ean t n o t only to include m ental recall,
b u t also, in th e process, to lead to g reater appreciation o f—an d gratitude for—
w hat God has d o n e to change the past a n d for the p re sen t consequences o f
th at reversal.
Most o f the term s th e w riter uses in his designation o f the addressees can
be fo u n d clustered to g eth er in Col 2:11, 13 (“circum cision,” “uncircum cision,”
“flesh,” “m ade w ithout h an d s” as com pared to “m ade with h an d s” here). We
have already seen th at the first p a rt o f the description o f spiritual d eath in
Col 2:13 provided the w riter o f E phesians with th e form ulation with which
he began th e preceding pericope, 2:1– 10. It looks very m uch as if the second
p art o f th at description about “the uncircum cision o f your flesh” has provided
him with th e initial idea fo r th e b eginning o f this pericope. B ut th ere is a
striking difference. In th e passage in Colossians th e language o f circum cision
an d uncircum cision is used m etaphorically. His reflection on the text o f Colos
sians has p ro m p ted this w riter to give its term s a different direction an d to
use them in th eir literal sense. H e calls his readers “G entiles in the flesh.”
R om ans o r G reeks w ould no t call them selves “G entiles,” so this designation is
m ade from a Jew ish standpoint, as is the distinction betw een the “uncircum ci-
sion” (literally, “th e foreskin”), standing fo r the G entiles, a n d “the circum cision,”
rep resen tin g Jews, since circum cision was viewed as th e distinguishing m ark
o f belonging to G od’s elect people. T h e additional qualification “in the flesh”
u n d erlines th at th e w riter is m aking an ethnic distinction. In the context and
in the light o f th e fu rth e r qualification o f “the circum cision” as “m ade by
h an d s,” “in th e flesh” appears to indicate n o t only th at the distinction is based
on a real physical difference, b u t also th a t from the C hristian perspective o f
the w riter this no longer counts as religiously significant. So from the context
“flesh” h ere takes on som e overtones o f inferiority, b u t it does not have the
sam e strong negative ethical sense as in 2:3 (contra B arth, 254). It is no t the
case th at elsew here in E phesians edvrj, “G entiles,” simply m eans n o n-C hristians
an d th at w hen he is in ten d in g it to m ean “n o n-Jew s” as in P aul’s writings this
w riter finds it necessary to ad d “in the flesh” (contra B eare, 599; M artin, Reconcili
ation, 159– 60). T h e w riter’s use o f th e term eQvq in 3:1, 6 , 8 is clearly m eant
as a referen ce to n o n-Jew s in the sam e way th at Paul h ad used the term ;
4:17 provides th e one instance w here a som ew hat b ro a d er reference appears
to be in view.
Gentiles are called by the nam e “the uncircum cision,” which for a Jew often
an n o u n ced th e inferiority o r even sham e o f those so b ran d ed . T hey are called
this, the w riter points out, by those w ho are called “th e circum cision.” Xeyoiievris
used adjectivally with 7rep170pfft could m ean, as som e (e.g., Abbott, 56; Ernst,
312) in te rp re t it, “so-called” an d indicate th at fo r th e w riter the title “circum ci-
136 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

sion” fo r the Jew s is o f no account. B ut such a m eaning m ay be too derogatory

(cf. J. A. R obinson, 56; B arth, 254), a n d it could be th at Xeyopevi‫ ףן‬is simply a
variation on the m ore straightforw ard 01 Xeyopevoi, “who are called,” which
has b een used in connection with “th e uncircum cision.” B ut, in any case, the
form ulation “w hat is called the circum cision” does serve to p u t som e distance
betw een th e w riter an d this sort o f distinction, suggesting th at he is using it
to m ake a p o in t ra th e r th a n because it was n atu ra l to his own outlook. A
m ore negative evaluation o f th e title “th e circum cision” is, how ever, to be
fo u n d in th e term x^po 7rot7?ro5 , “m ade by h an d s.” T his term an d its opposite
are frequently used in th e N T fo r the contrast betw een external m aterial aspects
o f the old o rd e r o f Ju d aism a n d th e spiritual efficacy o f the new o rd e r (cf.
Col 2:11; also, fo r exam ple, M ark 14:58; Acts 7:48; H eb 9:11, 24). T o talk o f
circum cision in th e flesh m ade by h ands is th ere fo re to reflect th e Pauline
view th at this is no longer the real circum cision (cf. Rom 2:28, 29; Phil 3:2, 3;
Col 2:11).
T h re e im plications m ay be draw n from th e w riter’s addressing his readers
in th e way h e does in v 11. T h ese readers in churches o f Asia M inor tow ard
the last p a rt o f th e first century are to be th o u g h t o f as predom inantly, if no t
exclusively, G entile C hristian. T h e p erso n who writes from this perspective,
who ascribes to Gentiles in the following verse deficiencies they w ould no t
them selves have recognized, an d yet w ho at th e sam e tim e distances him self
from these distinctions, is likely to have b een a Jew ish C hristian disciple o f
Paul. T h e p o in t to be m ade in th e w riter’s discussion has to do n o t so m uch
with p resen t relationships betw een Jew ish C hristians an d G entile C hristians
in Asia M inor, o r betw een th e churches a n d th e synagogue, as with G entile
C hristians being asked to see th eir past in term s o f categories which w ere
valid at an earlier stage in th e history o f salvation, w hen G od’s p u rp o se was
cen tered in Israel.
12 o n ryre rep Kaipti eiceivcp xoipis Xpvorov, “(rem em ber) th at you w ere at
th at tim e ap a rt from C hrist.” o n picks u p the o n o f th e previous verse an d
resum es the train o f th o u g h t in te rru p te d by the lengthy way o f describing
the readers. T h e w riter is asking his G entile C hristian readers to u n d ersta n d
in retro sp ect th e deficiencies o f th eir fo rm e r p re-C hristian state, alth o u g h at
the tim e they w ould no t have app reciated th e privileges o f which Israel could
boast in relation to the Gentiles. H e wishes the readers to reflect on th eir
fo rm er condition in this way in o rd e r to appreciate all th e m ore the privileges
o f th eir own p re sen t situation. By detailing G entile deficiencies o f an earlier
tim e in such a fashion, the w riter m akes clear th at he holds th at Israel’s advan
tages at that time w ere real ones. Israel’s history did have validity, an d as G entile
C hristians th in k ab o u t th eir relationship to the salvation God has provided,
they should be aw are o f a significant heritage in Israel.
O u r translation takes xtopt? Xptorov predicatively as the first o f the G entile
C hristians’ fo rm er disadvantages, no t adverbially in connection with “at th at
tim e,” i.e., “re m e m b er th a t you were, at th a t tim e, a p a rt from C hrist,” no t
“rem em b er th a t you w ere, at th a t tim e w hen you w ere ap a rt from Christ,
separated . . .” (contra J. A. R obinson, 158). It w ould be a striking th o u g h t
for G entile C hristians to have to en tertain th a t having b een ap a rt from C hrist
can be set in parallel to having been sep arated from Israel. Yet th e w riter
 Comment 137

can m ake this p o in t because he conceives o f C hrist as the M essiah belonging

to Israel. His th o u g h t here, an d later in this verse, appears to be d ep e n d en t
on Rom 9:4, 5, w here Paul could say “an d o f th eir race, according to the
flesh, is th e C hrist.” (Yet, as has b een discussed in Form / Structure / Setting, the
different perspective from the Paul o f Rom 9 – 11 should be noted. F or Rom
9:4, 5 th e advantages o f Israel still play a role in the tim e after C hrist; in
contrast, fo r E phesians such advantages p ertain ed only fo r the tim e p rio r to
C hrist [cf. also Rese, TZ 31 (1975) 211– 22].) T h a t he should m ake this point
is indicative o f th e w riter’s Jew ish viewpoint; th at the m atter o f m essianic expec
tation should occur to him first is indicative o f his C hristian perspective on
Israel’s fo rm er advantages. C hrist could be th o u g h t o f in retrospect as p resen t
to Israel th ro u g h th e prom ise (cf. also 1 C or 10:4, th o u g h , how ever one u n d e r-
stands th at verse, the w ording here in E phesians does no t im ply “the p re-
existence o f th e M essiah in Israel,” contra B arth, 256).
ä7rr]XX0Tß1u)fxev01 rf )5 7roX17‫־‬d a ? rov loparjX tcai %ev01 rCbv diadrjKcov Tf!<; 67ra77eX1a<?,
“separated from the com m onw ealth o f Israel an d aliens in reg ard to the
covenants o f prom ise.” 7roX17da can m ean rig h t o f citizenship (e.g., Josephus,
Ant. 12.3.1; Acts 22:28), b u t it is m ore likely th at it has h ere the m eaning,
which 7r6X1s an d 7roXirevpa can also have, o f constitutive governm ent, state, or
com m onw ealth (e.g., T hucydides 1.127.3; Plato, Rep. 10.619c; Aristotle, Pol.
3 .6 .1278b, 1279a, w here noktreia an d mXirevpa are said to have the sam e force;
Aeschines 3.150; 2 Macc 4:11; 8:17). Israel is, th erefo re, being viewed as a
theocratically constituted nation. anaWorptow occurs in th e N T only in Colos
sians an d E phesians, b u t in its o th e r uses refers to estran g em en t from God
(cf. Col 1:21; E p h 4:18). Elsew here it is usually used o f estran g em en t from
th at with which one h ad previously been in relationship. B ut th at cannot be
the usage h ere, w here it has the general sense o f “n o t in relationship to, separated
fro m .” T his separation can be posited o f G entiles in re g ard to the com m onw ealth
o f Israel because G od h ad restricted his electing purposes to Israel. B eing
separated from th e com m onw ealth o f Israel is to be considered a grave disadvan
tage, n o t because Israel is already seen as re p resen tin g th e heavenly com m on-
wealth in view in v 19 (contra Gnilka, 135), b u t because o f all th at is involved
in being outside G od’s election, his covenant relationship, an d his line o f p ro m
ise, in short, in being “aliens in re g ard to the covenants o f prom ise.” T h e
only o th er place in the N T w here th e plural form “the covenants” is fo u n d is
Rom 9:4 w here Paul states, “to them belong . . . th e covenants . . . an d the
prom ises.” T h e w riter probably has in m ind a series o f covenants—with A bra
ham (Gen 15:7– 21; 17:1– 21), with Isaac (Gen 2 6 : 2 5 ‫) ־‬, with Jacob (Gen 28:13–
15), with Israel (Exod 24:1– 8), an d with David (2 Sam 7). All can be seen as
based on prom ise: the prom ises o f G od’s presence, o f descendants, an d o f
the land, which w ere so essential to Israel’s existence. P aul’s distinction betw een
the A braham ic covenant as one o f prom ise an d the Sinaitic covenant as one
o f law (cf. Gal 3:16– 22) is n o t in view here. Previously, then, the Gentiles
were outside th e line o f prom ise, but, as the w riter will po in t o u t in 3:6, they
now participate in th e prom ise th ro u g h C hrist (cf. also 1:13).
e \m 8 a pr! e x o v re s Kai äßeoi ev rep K0o p cp, “having no ho p e an d w ithout God
in the w orld.” T h e first p a rt o f this statem ent is rem iniscent o f 1 T hess 4:13.
T h e re it refers to lack o f belief in the resu rrectio n o f th e dead. T h a t is unlikely
138 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

to be its force h ere (contra M itton, 103). N or is it a statem ent th at G entiles

h ad no hopes fo r the fu tu re because th eir golden age was in th e past (contra
J. A. R obinson, 57). A variety o f hopes fo r th e fu tu re could be fo u n d am ong
G entiles, a n d this is an evaluation o f such hopes. T hey could be seen as no
ho p e because they w ere n o t th e tru e hope, based on the prom ise to Israel o f
the M essiah an d th e salvation o f th e e n d-tim e. It is only C hrist am ong the
Gentiles th at can p roduce h o p e (cf. Col 1:27), an d being rem in d ed th at in
reality in th e past they h ad no h o p e should cause the readers to appreciate
all th e m o re th a t h ope which they now enjoy (cf. 1:18; 4:4). T h e term a0eos,
“w ithout G od,” occurs now here else in th e N T o r LXX. W here it is used in
G reek w ritings, it can den o te e ith er a p erso n who does n o t believe in a deity,
an im pious person, o r a p erson forsaken by G od o r the gods. A gain th e w riter’s
language h ere is n o t th at o f a straightforw ard description in eith er o f the
first two senses, fo r Gentiles could have a p a n th e o n o f gods a n d be devoted
to th eir religion. T h e term is used as an evaluation. T h e G entile readers m ay
have believed in a god o r gods, b u t they did n o t have the tru e God, Israel’s
God. T his evaluation is sim ilar to th a t o f Paul in 1 C or 8:5, 6 ; Gal 4:8; 1
T hess 4:5. P erhaps this com es close to th e th ird usage m en tio n ed above, since
in com parison to Israel, with h e r relationship to the tru e G od, G entiles could
be considered as God-forsaken (cf. also M eyer, 124; Gnilka, 136; B arth, 260).
T h ey lived in a w orld w ithout tru e h o p e a n d w ithout the tru e God, which
m eans th at th eir w orld can be said to fall into th e category o f w hat Paul described
as “this w orld,” o r o f w hat this w riter in his earlier depiction o f the G entiles’
past called “this world-age” (2 :2 ).
13 w v i 8 e ev Xp 1a 7‫(־‬p I r p o v upds 0 1 7r07‫־‬e o w e s p a n p a v eyevriOrfre e y y v s ev rep
a i p a n tov XpiOTOV, “B ut now in C hrist Jesu s you w ho at one tim e w ere fa r off
have com e n e a r th ro u g h the blood o f C hrist.” A t this point, we find the second
p a rt o f th e contrast schem a: w v i, “now ,” d en o tin g the C hristian p re sen t after
the 7rore, “th e n ,” an d rep Katpep eiceiv ep, “a t th a t tim e,” o f vv 11, 12, b u t also set
over against a n o th e r 7rore in this verse, as th e past is sum m arized in d ifferen t
term inology a n d th e contrast com pleted, w v i de ev Xptarep ’1rjaov, “b u t now in
C hrist Jesu s,” has a sim ilar effect to 0 8e 0 ed5 , “b u t G od,” in 2:4, in an n o u n cin g
th e dram atic change in th e G entiles’ situation, ev Xptarep 1‫ סןז‬0‫ט‬, “in C hrist Jesu s,”
does indicate a reversal o f the condition o f being “a p a rt from C hrist,” b u t it
is n o t fo rm u lated in direct antithetical parallelism as a predicate (contra T ach au ,
“Einst” und “Jetzt”, 140; M ussner, 73). It qualifies the verb “to com e n e a r,”
m aking clear th at the change has taken place on th e basis o f w hat G od has
do n e in C hrist a n d o f believers’ being included in him .
y iv e o d a i e y y v s , “to com e n e a r,” is fo u n d only here in the N T , th o u g h it
occurs frequently elsew here (e.g., X en ophon, Anab. 4.7.23; 5.4.16; T hucydides
3.40.6). T h e use o f th e language o f “n e a r” a n d “fa r” h ere does n o t constitute
a q u o tation o f Isa 57:19 (contra B arth, 278; S tuhlm acher, “ ‘E r ist u n ser F riede,’ ”
347), o r even necessarily an allusion to it. T h e w riter speaks o f those far off
having com e n ear, a notion n o t fo u n d in Isa 57:19, b u t one w hich uses term in o l
ogy com m on in Jew ish discussions o f proselytism . T h e term inology from p ro
selytism does p ro m p t a reference to Isa 57:19 later, in v 17, b u t th a t O T text
is n o t yet in view in v 13. O ften in th e O T , th e G entile nations can be described
as “far o f f ’ (‫ ר ח ו ק‬, rāhoq; e.g., D eut 28:49; 29:22; 1 Kgs 8:41; Isa 5:26; J e r
 Comment 139

5:15), while Israel is th o u g h t o f as “n e a r” (HU j7, qārôb) to G od (cf. Ps 148:14).

T hese term s, “fa r” an d “n e a r,” later occur frequently in discussions about
proselytes. T h e related verbs H i p , qārēb, an d pm, rāhaq, could m ean respec-
tively “to b rin g a n o n -Israelite n e a r to G od,” th at is, to accept him as a proselyte,
an d “to hold a n o n -Israelite at a distance,” th a t is, to reject him as a proselyte.
O ne exam ple can be fo u n d in the Mekilta on Exod 18:5 – “R. Eliezer says:
T his was said to Moses by God: ‘I, I who said th e w ord by which the world
came into being, I am O ne who welcomes (Hip), not O ne who repels (pm)’.
As it is said, ‘B ehold, I am a G od th at brings n e a r (Hip), saith the L ord, and
n ot a God th at repels (p T ll)’ (Je r 23:23). ‘I am H e th a t b ro u g h t J e th ro n ear
(nip), n o t keeping him at a distance (j7TTI). So also th o u , w hen a m an comes
to you wishing to becom e a convert to Judaism , as long as he comes in the
nam e o f G od fo r the sake o f heaven, do th o u likewise, befriend him pip)
an d do n o t rep el him (pm)’ ” (cf. also Num. Rab. 8.4). Proselytes th en were
those who “cam e n e a r” the blessing an d com m unity o f Israel. T h e n o u n “prose-
lyte” is, o f course, derived ultim ately from the G reek verb npooepxeodat, “to
approach, com e n e a r” (cf. J. A. L oader, “A n E xplanation o f the T erm ‘prosēlu-
tos,’ ” N ovT 15 [1973] 270–77). H"lp is also used in th e Q u m ra n literature in
connection with th e notion o f en tran ce into the com m unity (cf. 1QH 14.14;
IQ S 6.16, 22; 8.18; 9.15, 16). Given w hat has been said about the relation o f
Gentiles to Israel in vv 11, 12, it is surely along the lines o f traditional proselyte
term inology th a t the w riter o f E phesians has form ulated his statem ent o f the
change th at has taken place. In this context, “far o f f ’ also sum s u p the previously
m entioned deficiencies o f th e G entile re ad ers’ past as being far off from Christ,
from the com m onw ealth o f Israel, from th e covenants o f prom ise, an d from
Israel’s tru e h o p e a n d tru e God.
B ut the language o f com ing n ea r undergoes a transform ation. Because o f
C hrist’s work, it can be used o f Gentiles in general, n o t simply o f proselytes
to Judaism . As th e rest o f the passage will show, it does no t m ean th at these
G entile C hristians, like proselytes, have now becom e m em bers o f the com m on-
wealth o f Israel, b u t ra th e r th a t they have becom e m em bers o f a newly created
com m unity whose privileges transcend those o f Israel, as vv 19– 22 in particular
m ake ap p a ren t. In addition, in the com ing n e a r o f which this w riter speaks,
th ere are o f course no special conditions to be fulfilled, since all th at is necessary
has already b een accom plished th ro u g h C hrist’s sacrificial death — ev rep aipari
tov XpuJTOV, “th ro u g h th e blood o f C hrist.” For com m ents on the significance
o f “the blood o f C hrist,” see the discussion o f 1:7. T h e proselyte background
does n o t m ean, however, th at the blood o f C hrist is to be associated with the
sacrifice th e proselyte h ad to b rin g to the tem ple (contra Kirby, Ephesians, 157–
58; M euzelaar, Leib des Messias, 99), o r with C hrist’s circum cision (cf. Col 2:11;
contra Sahlin, SymBU 12 [1950] 12; G. V erm es, Scripture and Tradition [Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1961] 178– 92; M artin, Reconciliation, 192). T h e expression “the
blood o f C hrist” is a fre q u e n t one in early C hristian an d especially Pauline
usage (cf. Rom 3:25; 5:9; 1 C or 10:16; 11:25; Col 1:20), an d it retains its
usual force here.
1 4 – 1 6 A n u m b e r o f th e term s in these verses a p p e a r to have a dual signifi-
cance— an original cosmic reference in th e hym nic m aterial an d a reference
to the J e w-G entile division in th e context in which the w riter is now using
140 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

th at m aterial. T h e com m ents which follow will concentrate on th e force o f

the language in its p re sen t context. A b rie f discussion o f its original force has
b een provided in Form / Structure / Setting.
A utos y a p e o n v r\ eipr\vr\ r\pGw, b Trotr/oas r a a p < fm ep a ev, “fo r he is o u r peace,
who has m ade b o th o n e.” F or th e fa r to com e n ear, peace need ed to be m ade
betw een bo th groups. T h a t peace has its source in, or, even stronger, is em bodied
in Christ. As becom es clear from vv 16– 18, auros, “h e ,” is to be seen as a
referen ce to C hrist an d introduces a train o f th o u g h t in which C hrist is the
central actor. T his is d ifferen t from th e p a tte rn o f th o u g h t o f each o f th e
th ree p reced in g sections o f th e letter, w here G od him self has been the m ajor
actor with C hrist as his agent. A gain, it ap p ears likely th at the use o f a C hristologi-
cal hym n has p ro m p ted the change in p a tte rn here. As is well know n, in the
O T th e notion o f peace (IDl'PlÜ, sälöm) involves m ore th an the absence o f w ar
o r cessation o f hostilities. It denotes also positive well-b eing an d salvation,
an d it is frequently seen as G od’s gift a n d as a m ajor elem ent o f eschatological
expectation. In this context in E ph 2, peace does, how ever, stand prim arily
fo r th e cessation o f hostilities an d th e resulting situation o f unity. It is a relational
concept which p resupposes th e overcom ing o f alienation (cf. vv 1 2 , 13) an d
hostility (cf. v 15) betw een G entiles a n d Jew s. It is possible th a t for a Jew
such a no tio n w ould recall th e vision o f eschatological peace which w ould
prevail w hen th e Gentiles jo in e d Israel in w orship in the tem ple in Zion, a
vision fo u n d in Isa 2:2–4 an d M icah 4 : 1–4, alth o u g h th ere is no conscious
effort to invoke such prophecies here. It is n eith er peace with G od (Rom
5:1) n o r cosmic peace (Col T.20) th a t is th e focus o f atten tio n in v 14, alth o u g h
it becom es clear in vv 16– 18 th at th e fo rm e r is foundational fo r this w riter
also. Peace, in v 14, is n o t m erely a concept n o r even a new state o f affairs, it
is b o u n d u p with a person. C hrist can be said to be no t only a peacem aker o r
a b rin g er o f peace b u t peace in person. T h e title “prince o f peace” in Isa 9:6
may have p re p a re d th e way for such an attrib u tio n o f peace to a person, b u t
th e language h ere is hardly an allusion to th a t verse (contra S tuhlm acher, “ ‘Er
ist u n ser F riede,’ ” 345). L ater rabbinic th o u g h t could call the nam e o f God
an d o f th e M essiah “peace” (cf. Str-B 3:587) b u t not, o f course, in specific
connection with Jew s a n d G entiles. T h a t C hrist him self is seen as the peace
betw een th e two g roups here in v 14 is in line with th e th o u g h t o f v 15 th at
the m aking o f peace, by creating one new p erson in place o f two, occurred
“in him self.” T his identification o f C hrist with th e blessings o f salvation th at
he brings can be fo u n d in o th e r places in th e Pauline corpus (cf. 1 C or 1:30;
Col 1:27; 3:4).
In th e clause “who has m ade b o th o n e,” “b o th ” a n d “o n e” are in th e n eu ter,
d en o tin g entities. T h e n e u te r can be used o f general categories o f people (cf.
1 C or 1:27,28), b u t this is strange h ere afte r the m asculine plural relative
p ro n o u n s an d participial endings in v 11– 13. It is best explained as a re m n a n t
o f th e traditional m aterial which originally re fe rre d to heaven an d ea rth (pace
M erklein, Christus, 30, 44, w ho claims th a t th e w riter thinks in term s o f the
realm o f the Jew s a n d th e realm o f th e Gentiles, a n d th at this is th e reference
here). In this context, how ever, th e referen ce is clearly to the two g roups o f
people previously discussed, th e G entiles a n d the Jew s. T h ey have n o t ju s t
been b ro u g h t into a m u tu al relationship, b u t have been m ade one in a unity
 Comment 141

w here b o th are no longer w hat they previously w ere (cf. vv 15, 16, 18). In
accom plishing this, C hrist has transcended one o f the fu n d am en tal divisions
o f the first-century world.
m i to peooroixov tov Q paypov X u a a g , tt\v exOpav ev rfi oap\d a in ov tov vöpov
evTÖktöv ev bbypaow KaTapyr)oa<;, “an d has broken dow n the dividing wall,
t Co v
the fence, having abolished in his flesh the hostility, th e law o f com m andm ents
an d regulations.” A justification for taking the syntax o f the G reek in this
way has been offered in the observations on the text in Notes. Such an a rran g e-
m en t m eans th at the second clause can be taken as a fu rth e r explanation o f
the first, t o peooroixov , “the dividing wall,” occurs only h ere in the N T. tov
Qpaypov, “th e fence,” is a genitive o f apposition — “the dividing wall, th at is,
the fence” (cf. also, e.g., M eyer, 127; A bbott, 61; Schlier, 124). We have already
suggested th at originally the dividing wall h ad reference to a cosmic wall.
T h e explanation th at it is a fence is th e w riter’s gloss in o rd e r to ad ap t the
concept to this new context. In m aking th e two groups one, C hrist dem olished
the fence betw een them .
T h ere are two m ain options as to w hat th e w riter in ten d ed by the fence
betw een Jew s an d Gentiles. Some take it as a reference to the tem ple balustrade
separating the C o u rt o f Gentiles from the in n e r courts an d the sanctuary in
the Jeru salem tem ple (cf. Jo sep h u s, Ant. 15.11.5; J. W. 5.5.2). In 1871 one o f
its pillars was fo u n d an d on it was th e w arning inscription: “No m an o f an o th er
race is to e n te r w ithin the fence an d enclosure a ro u n d the T em ple. W hoever
is caught will have only him self to th an k fo r the d eath which follows.” Such a
reference w ould pow erfully symbolize the alienation o f Gentiles from Israel,
and tem ple im agery is used w hen the w riter com es to speak o f th eir new
situation in vv 20–22 (cf. J. A. Robinson, 59–60, 158; A bbott, 51; H anson,
Unity, 143; McKelvey, The New Temple, 108; M ussner, Christus, 82– 84; H oulden,
290; M itton, 106). B ut how likely is it th a t G entile C hristians in Asia M inor
would have u n d ersto o d such an allusion (cf. Dibelius, 69)? How likely is it
th at know ledge o f it w ould have been com m onplace after the destruction of
the tem ple in 70 c .e .? A nd why does the w riter use the term <t>paypb<; for the
balustrade w hen th e term fo u n d both in the inscription an d in the references
in Jo sep h u s is 5 pu0 a/cro9 ? I f “having broken dow n the dividing wall, the fence”
is paralleled by “having abolished . . . the hostility, th e law. . . ,” th en it seems
m ore likely th at the fence is a reference to th e law. T h e notion o f the oral
tradition as providing a fence for T o ra h was a fam iliar one (cf. m. Abot 1.1,
2; 3.18), b u t T o ra h itself could be seen as providing a fence aro u n d Israel.
In the second century b .c .e . the Epistle of Aristeas declared: “o u r lawgiver
. . . fenced us ab o ut [7repi0paaaeu>] with im penetrable palisades an d with walls
o f iron to th e en d th at we should m ingle in no way with any o f the o th er
nations, rem ain in g p u re in body an d in spirit” (139) an d “so th at we should
be polluted by n o n e n o r be infected with perversions by associating with w o rth -
less persons, he has fenced us ab o u t [irepicfrpäooeiv] on all sides with prescribed
purifications in m atters o f food an d d rin k a n d touch an d h earin g an d sight”
(142). It can easily be seen th a t in functioning as a fence to protect Israel
from th e im purity o f the G entiles, the law becam e such a sign o f Jew ish p articu-
larism th at it also alienated Gentiles an d becam e a cause o f hostility (cf. also
Gnilka, 140; C aird, 58– 59; M artin, Reconciliation, 185– 87).
142 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

C hrist rem oved o r abolished this hostility. exOpa, “hostility,” which in the
traditional m aterial w ould have re fe rre d originally to the enm ity caused by
th e hostile powers in the cosmos, now refers to th e hostility betw een Jew s
an d G entiles th a t is b o u n d u p w ith th e law, as rov vopov, “th e law,” which
stands in apposition to rr\vcxBfxiv, m akes clear. T h e objective situation o f hostility
because o f th e law’s exclusiveness en g e n d e re d personal an d social antagonism s.
T h e laws which forbade eating o r in term arry in g with G entiles often led Jew s
to have a co n tem p t for G entiles w hich could re g a rd G entiles as less th an h u m an .
In response, G entiles w ould o ften re g a rd Jew s with g reat suspicion, considering
them inhospitable an d h ateful to n o n-Jew s, an d indulge in a n ti-Jew ish prejudice
(for a collection o f m aterial reflecting th e hostility from the Jew ish side o f
the divide cf. Str-B 1:359–63; 3:588– 91, a n d for an exam ple from th e G entile
side cf. T acitus, Hist. 5.1– 13). T his lively m u tu al anim osity was one o f the
uglier elem ents in th e G reco-R om an world.
C hrist n eutralized these negative effects o f the law by doing away w ith th e
law. A n u m b e r o f com m entators shrink back from such a fo rth rig h t assertion.
Some provide th e dogm atic gloss th a t it was only th e cerem onial a n d n o t the
m oral law th at was abolished (cf. H endriksen, 135). O th ers suggest th a t it is
simply th e legalistic, casuistic use o f th e law th a t is d o n e away with (cf. Schlier,
126). Still o thers h old th a t only one aspect o f th e law, th e law in its divisiveness,
b u t n o t the law itself, has been an n u lled (cf. B arth, 287–91). B ut these efforts
to absolve th e w riter from an alleged antinom ianism o r supposed contradiction
o f th e m ajor Paulines will n o t do as an in terp re tatio n o f top vopov tCjv evrokQv
ev böypaoiv KaTapyrpa^. T his lengthy form ulation—literally, “th e law consisting
o f com m andm ents which are expressed in regulations”—is characteristic o f
the style o f E phesians and, at the sam e tim e, conveys a sense o f the oppressive-
ness o f all th e law’s com m andm ents. B ut it is clearly th e law itself a n d all its
regulations, n o t ju s t som e o f them , which are in view. T h e form ulation m ay
be u n d e r th e influence o f Col 2:14, w hich is th e only o th e r instance o f th e
use o f th e term doypara in th e P auline corpus. T h e re it refers n o t so m uch
to th e T o ra h as to ascetic regulations (cf. also Col 2:20: doypan^eode), with
which C hrist dealt in his death. B ut in discussing how C hrist dealt with th e
law in his d eath h ere in Ephesians, th e w riter m ay have tran sferre d this term
with its pejorative overtones. Given the overall d ep en d en ce o f E phesians on
Colossians, such a transference is likely to have b een th e w ork o f the w riter
him self, ra th e r th an the gloss o f a later redactor, despite the variant re ad in g
in p46 which om its ev Soypaotv (contra Roetzel, ZN W 74 [1983] 8 6 ). B arth (287–
91) is, o f course, correct to m ake a close link betw een th e law an d its divisiveness;
this is d em an d ed by th e context. B ut to m ake divisiveness one aspect o f the
law, an d the only aspect w hich is abolished, misses the th ru st o f v 15. T h e
divisiveness was p ro d u ced by th e law as such, by the very fact th a t Israel
possessed th e T o ra h , an d so in o rd e r to rem ove the divisiveness C hrist has to
deal with its cause— the law itself. H e does this “in his flesh.” E phesians now here
else speaks o f C hrist’s flesh. T h e analogy with Col 1:22, “in th e body o f his
flesh,” suggests th a t by this phrase th e w riter intends a reference to C hrist’s
death. In his d eath C hrist abolished th e law (cf. Gal 3:13 an d Rom 7:4, which
associate C hrist’s d eath with breaking the law’s condem nation a n d power) an d
term in ated th e old o rd e r d o m in ated by th at law, which h ad p rev en ted the
Gentiles from having access to salvation.
 Comment 143

How does this relate to P aul’s view o f the law? T h e n a tu re o f P aul’s view
is a highly d isp u ted issue an d the limits o f space allow us only a b rief an d
th erefo re oversim plified response. For Paul too the p eriod o f the law h ad
com e to an en d (cf. Gal 2:19; 3 :2 4 ,2 5 ; Rom 6:14; 7:4– 6; 10:4). B ut, ju s t as
we have h ad cause to observe in re g ard to his attitu d e to Israel, in R om ans,
in particular, he is som ew hat m ore dialectical th a n this. H e can say th at believers
have been discharged (Karr]pyrfir}pev) from the law in Rom 7:6, b u t this is
d ifferent from saying th at the law itself has been annulled. In d eed in Rom
3:31 he is at pains to re b u t th at in terp re tatio n o f his teaching—“Do we th en
abolish [mrapyodpev] the law by faith? By no m eans! W e establish th e law.”
It is im p o rtan t to u n d ersta n d w hat Paul m eans by this last assertion in its
context. H e does n o t m ean th a t th e law still retains its validity for the new
people o f G od m ade u p o f Jew s an d G entiles. His p o in t is a narrow er one.
T h e law is established by faith, because, as h e goes on to show in the im m ediately
following passage (Rom 4:1– 25), th e law in G en 15:6 a n d in its depiction o f
A braham , already contains an exposition o f his gospel o f justification by faith.
T h o u g h he establishes the law only in th e sense o f show ing th at it supports
his teaching, it rem ains significant th a t Paul feels it necessary to deny th e
charge o f com pletely abolishing it, a n d th at later in Rom 7 he provides some
sort o f defense o f th e law in itself, an d in Rom 13:8– 10 insists th at love involves
the fulfilling o f th e law. We can say th a t at this p o in t Ephesians is in line
with th e clear stress on discontinuity in re g ard to th e law’s validity th a t can
be fo u n d in Paul. B ut, living in a period w hen th e strong influence o f the
Jeru salem ch u rch a n d o f Jew ish C hristianity is past, an d w hen Paul’s basic
perspective o n the law is taken for g ran ted by th e churches o f th e G entile
mission in Asia M inor, its w riter finds no n eed to trea d as delicately as the
Paul o f R om ans an d can p re sen t the logic o f his m aster’s position in an unq u ali-
fied fashion. It is, by th e way, n o t w ithout significance that, having m ade the
assertion ab o u t th e law an d its com m andm ents having been abolished, the
w riter can later draw on one o f those com m andm ents (evroXrj npurri ev ^ayyehiq.,
“the first co m m an dm ent with a prom ise,” 6 :2 ) for secondary su p p o rt for his
own paraenesis.
iva tovs 8i)o kt'oi xi ev airrCb et? eva kclivov avdpcoirov irotQv eipqvrjv, “in o rd e r
th at he m ight create the two in him self into one new person, thus m aking
peace.” R em oving the enm ity by abolishing the law has cleared th e g ro u n d
fo r som ething new. In fact, C hrist’s pu rp o se was n o th in g less th an a new
creation. We have already en c o u n te red this m otif in 2:10 w here believers w ere
seen as G od’s creation. H ere C hrist, particularly th ro u g h his d ea th (cf. rfj
oaptd airrov earlier in th e verse), is seen as the creato r o f a new hum anity.
Again, w hatever th e original force o f such language in relation to th e cosmic
C hrist, in this context the one new person stands fo r th e new hum anity seen
as a corp o rate entity. C hrist has created this corporate new person in him self;
the new h u m anity is em braced in his own person. T his notion is d ep e n d en t
on P aul’s A dam ic Christology, with its associated ideas o f C hrist as inclusive
representative o f the new o rd e r an d o f believers being inco rp o rated into him
(cf. 1 C or 12:12, 13; 1 5 :22,45– 49; Gal 3 :2 7 ,2 8 ; Rom 12:5; Col 3:10, 11). Al-
ready, in Paul, such a concept was em ployed to arg u e th a t divisions o f race
an d religion w ere a th in g o f the past (cf. Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). Now h ere in
E phesians it is said th a t C hrist has taken the two divisive elem ents—Jew s a n d
144 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 1–22

Gentiles—an d created one new person which transcends the two. T his is a
new creation (cf. Gal 6:15; 2 C or 5:17) which em bodies, on a h u m a n level,
th at sum m ing u p o f all things in unity which is p a rt o f this w riter’s perspective
(cf. T. 10). In com m on with P aul’s view o f this new creation in Gal 6:15, in it
n eith er circum cision n o r uncircum cision counts fo r anything. It needs to be
u n d erlin e d th at according to E ph 2:15 the n a tu re o f C hrist’s w ork was a creation,
a n d its p ro d u ct was som ething new. T h e separation o f the Gentiles from Israel
an d h e r election was a cleft so d eep th at it took the creative act o f C hrist’s
d eath to fill it. Yet C hrist has d one m ore th a n simply to b rin g G entiles into
Israel’s election. T h e “new p erso n ” he has created transcends those categories.
In its new ness, it is not m erely an am algam o f th e old in which th e best o f
Ju d aism an d th e best o f G entile aspirations have been com bined. T h e two
elem ents which w ere used in the creation have becom e totally tran sfo rm ed in
th e process. T his is “the th ird race” which is d ifferent from bo th Jew s an d
G entiles (cf. P aul’s language in 1 C or 10:32; cf. G augler, 111– 12; contra B arth,
310). It is possible th at in this context “new creation” language could provide
a fu rth e r association with the background o f proselyte term inology. In Joseph
and Asenath 61.4, 5 the proselyte A senath is said to be “m ade anew, freshly
created, a n d b ro u g h t to new life” from th e day o f h e r conversion, while in
Gen. Rab. 39.14 it is said th at if anyone brings a G entile n e a r an d m akes him
a proselyte it is as if he h ad created him . As in v 13, th e language o f proselyte
conversion w ould find w ider application, h ere to both Gentiles a n d Jew s as
they becam e p a rt o f the new hum anity in C hrist (cf. also N. A. D ahl, “C hrist,
C reation, an d th e C h u rch ,” in The Background to the New Testament and Its
Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies an d D. D aube [C am bridge: C am bridge University
Press, 1956] 437). A new creation has neutralized th e old hostility an d thereby
peace has been m ade. T h e peace in view at this p oint is betw een the two old
enem ies, n o t with God, an d m aking peace here, as in Col 1:20, is a synonym
fo r reconciling, th e notion which follows im m ediately.
Kai airoKaraWaZfl rovs anQorepovs ev evi oconan rep 0ecp 5td rod oravpov,
anoKreivas rr\v exOpav ev abr(i>, “an d m ight reconcile both to G od in one body
th ro u g h th e cross, having p u t the hostility to d ea th in him self.” U p to this
p o in t th e focus has been on peace on th e horizontal level, betw een Jew s an d
G entiles, b u t now this is com bined with a vertical perspective as th e notion o f
a reconciliation o f both Jew s a n d Gentiles to G od is introduced. It is m aking
too m uch o f th e fact th at reconciliation betw een Jew s an d G entiles is m entioned
before reconciliation with God to arg u e th at this reflects a m ajor theological
distinctive o f Ephesians, w hereby ecclesiology absorbs soteriology (pace M erk-
lein, Christus, 62– 71). T his claim ignores both th e influence o f th e traditional
m aterial o n th e w riter’s sequence o f th o u g h t a n d the fact th a t th e arg u m e n t
has been set u p by the w riter in vv 11–13 prim arily in term s o f th e contrast
betw een G entile an d Jew , so th at one w ould naturally expect th at issue to be
treated first. T h e previous horizontal perspective does n o t fade o u t o f the
p icture in v 16, fo r th e two groups are said to be reconciled in one body.
T h e w riter has taken w hat may well have b een originally a reference to the
cosmos as applying to the C hurch in this context. T h e qualifying adjective
“o n e ” m akes clear th at he has the C h u rch in m ind (cf. E p h 4:4; also Col
1:18; cf. also M eyer, 135–36; Best, One Body, 153; Gnilka, 143; M erklein,
Christus, 4 5–54; C aird, 59; M itton, 108; Schnackenburg, 117) an d n o t the physi-
 Comment 145

cal crucified body o f C hrist {contra Percy, Probleme, 281; B arth, 298) o r both
(contra H anson, Unity, 145–46; Schlier, 135).
T h e co m p o u n d verb am m ra)0^ujoeiv, “to reconcile,” occurs elsew here only
in Col 1:20, 22. T h e re the a u th o r h ad taken th e term from the hym n, w here
it involved the overcom ing o f cosmic hostility an d restoration o f harm ony
betw een heaven and ea rth ( 1 :2 0 ), an d applied it, instead o f the sim pler form
KaraXkcuJoeiv used in Rom 5:10 and 2 C or 5:18 (cf. also KaraXkayr}, “reconcilia-
tion,” in Rom 5:11; 11:15; 2 C or 5:18, 19), to the restoration o f sinful hum anity
to G od’s acceptance an d favor. T his provided a p re ced e n t for the w riter to
the E phesians in m aking a sim ilar transition from th e use o f the term in the
cosmic context o f the traditional m aterial to its application here to Jew s and
Gentiles. It is th e em phasis on this horizontal, social dim ension th at E phesians
contributes to the notion o f reconciliation which it takes u p from Paul. Such
a dim ension is n o t entirely absent from Paul, for, in its context, his appeal to
be reconciled to God in 2 C or 5:20 is at the sam e tim e an appeal for reconciliation
within the com m unity o f faith, an d specifically for a reconciliation betw een
the C orinthians an d him self. (O n reconciliation in Paul, see J. D upont, La
reconciliation dans la théologie de saint Paul [Paris: Desclée de B rouw er, 1953];
J. A. Fitzmyer, “Reconciliation in Pauline T heology,” in No Famine in the Land,
ed. J. W. F lanagan an d A. W. R obinson [Missoula, M T: Scholars Press, 1975]
155–77; O. Hofius, “E rw ägungen zu r G estalt u n d H e rk u n ft des paulinischen
V ersöhnungsgedankens,” Z T K 77 [1980] 186– 99; E. K äsem ann, “Some
T h o u g h ts on the T h em e ‘T h e D octrine o f Reconciliation in the New T esta-
m en t,’ ” in The Future of Our Religious Past, ed. J. M. R obinson [New York:
H a rp e r an d Row, 1971] 49– 64; D. L ü h rm an n , “R echtfertigung u n d V ersöh-
nung. Z ur Geschichte d e r paulinischen T ra d itio n ,” Z T K 67 [1970] 437– 52; I.
H. M arshall, “T h e M eaning o f ‘R econciliation,’ ” in Unity and Diversity in New
Testament Theology, ed. R. A. G uelich [G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1978] 117–
32; R. P. M artin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul's Theology; H. R idderbos, “T h e
Biblical M essage o f Reconciliation,” in Studies in Scripture and Its Authority [G rand
Rapids: E erdm ans, 1978] 72– 90; P. S tuhlm acher an d H. Class, Das Evangelium
von der Versöhnung in Christus [Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1979] (ET o f Stuhlm ach-
e r’s essay: “T h e Gospel o f R econciliation in C hrist— Basic F eatures an d Issues
o f a Biblical T heology o f the New T estam e n t,” H B T 1 [1979] 161– 90); V.
T aylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation [London: M acmillan, 1946].)
Reconciliation o f Gentiles an d Jew s in one body is a parallel th o u g h t to
th at o f the creation o f the two groups into one new person, an d w hat one
would expect as a resolution to the situation o f hostility m entioned in v 15.
Reconciliation o f b oth groups to God, how ever, adds an elem ent which does
n ot fit quite as sm oothly into the previous context. It is clear from th at context
th at the G entiles’ alienation from Israel involved alienation from God (v 12).
B ut w hat ab out Israel? Is no t the im pression given by vv 12, 13 th a t Israel’s
election m eans that, as distinct from the Gentiles, she is n o t alienated from
God, b u t ra th e r she is near? B ut now v 16 speaks o f bo th Jew s an d G entiles
being reconciled to God. T his som ew hat conflicting perspective is a n o th e r
indication th at vv 14– 18 introduce a new elem ent into the discussion, so th at
v 19 does n o t simply take u p w here v 13 left off with a straightforw ard reversal
o f the G entiles’ previous relationship to Israel. Verses 14 – 18 show th at w hat
p ro d u ced the reversal in the G entiles’ status was o f such a n a tu re as to relativize
146 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

the earlier categories an d even shed a d ifferen t light on w hat h ad a p p e are d

to be Israel’s status. T h o u g h he obviously does n o t spell it out, if he w ere
pressed to explain why Jew s are now said to be reconciled to God, th e w riter
w ould presum ably resp o n d th a t th e law w hich separated Gentiles from Israel,
an d from Israel’s God, can now be seen to have also separated Israel from
God, an d w ould p o in t to P aul’s teaching to this effect in Gal 3:10– 22; 2 C or
3:7– 11; Rom 3:19, 20; 7:7– 25; 9:30– 10:4. T h e w riter has him self already m ade
clear th at n o t only his G entile readers, b u t all hum anity, w ere u n d e r G od’s
w rath (2:3). B oth Jew s a n d G entiles, th en , w ere in a ru p tu re d relationship
with G od, at enm ity no t only betw een them selves b u t with God. Yet C hrist
has now reconciled bo th groups to G od th ro u g h the cross. T his em phasis on
the cross m ay well be, as we suggested earlier, the w riter’s addition to the
traditional m aterial, an d as such it w ould be in line with th e editorial additions
which m ention th e cross in Phil 2:8 a n d Col 1:20. C hrist’s d ea th is linked
with reconciliation in P aul’s th o u g h t in R om 5:10; 2 C or 5:18–21; an d Col
1:22. T h e focus on C hrist’s death , th ro u g h th e m ention o f th e cross h ere in
v 16, his flesh in v 15, an d his blood in v 13, is an im p o rtan t indication th at
a lth o u g h th e w riter draws atten tio n in th e m ain to the risen an d exalted C hrist
(cf. 1:19– 23; 2:5, 6 ), he is a faithful en o u g h follower o f Paul to insist on C hrist’s
sacrificial d ea th on the cross as the g ro u n d s o f reconciliation (cf. also the m ention
o f C hrist’s d ea th in 1:7; 5:2, 25). As th e rest o f th e ch a p te r shows, th e reconcilia-
tion to God th a t C hrist’s d ea th has achieved fo r b o th Jew s an d Gentiles involves
access to G od (v 18), m em bership in his family (v 19), an d being p a rt o f the
new tem ple in which h e dwells (v 2 2 ).
T h e last clause, “having p u t th e hostility to d ea th in him self,” stands as a
parallel to “having abolished th e hostility in his flesh” in v 15. Some take ev
airrcp in its p resen t context as a referen ce to the cross as the m ost im m ediate
an teced en t (e.g., Gnilka, 144; idem , “C hristus u n se r F riede,” 205). B ut in the
light o f th e force o f auros in its various form s th ro u g h o u t vv 14 – 16 it is b etter
to take this use as a reference to C hrist him self, th o u g h it will be his d eath
which is particularly in view (cf. ev rfi oapKi airrov, “in his flesh,” v 15). In his
own p erson given over to death, C hrist p u t to d ea th the hostility b o u n d u p
with th e law. It has been claim ed th a t th e hostility m en tio n ed here, in contrast
to its earlier reference in v 15, is now hostility betw een hum anity a n d G od,
since reconciliation to G od has ju s t been discussed (cf. B arth, 264, 291; G augler,
117– 18, believes b oth kinds o f hostility are in view). T his claim, how ever,
ignores th e fact th at the last clause with its aorist participle involves a backw ard
reference to C hrist’s action preced in g the reconciliation in one body a n d to
God (cf. also M eyer, 136). It ro u n d s off the th o u g h t at this p o in t by re m in d in g
o f the situation o f hostility described earlier in vv 11–13 a n d reem phasizing
th at C hrist’s d ea th has changed th a t past situation.
17 Kai eXdcov evrjyyeXioaro etprjvriv vplv rot? paicpäv Kai eipr)vr)v rot? eyyu?,
“an d he cam e a n d p reach ed the good news o f peace to you who w ere far off
an d o f peace to those who w ere n e a r.” H aving dw elt on C hrist’s w ork o f reconcili-
ation, the w riter can now take u p again th e proselyte term inology o f “fa r”
an d “n e a r” a n d in troduce th e O T citation such language h ad recalled. O f
course, th e original referen ce o f “fa r” a n d “n e a r” in Isa 57:19 was n o t to
G entiles an d Jew s b u t to two gro u p s o f Jew s, those in exile an d those who
 Comment 147

rem ain ed in th e land. In later Jew ish in terp retatio n s o f the text, however,
‘fa r’ an d ‘n e a r’ could re fe r to o th e r divisions w ithin Israel— those who th ro u g h
sin have fallen away from God an d the righteous (b. Ber. 34b) o r re p e n ta n t
sinners an d th e righteous (Num. Rab. 11.7; Mek. Exod. 20.25). B ut th ere was
also a trad itio n which in te rp re te d the “fa r” o f Isa 57:19 as Gentiles— G entile
proselytes (<contra M artin, Reconciliation, 191, who denies any application o f
the text to proselytes). Num. Rab. 8 has an ex tended discussion o f proselytes,
in which in one place on the basis o f the w ord o rd e r in Isa 57:19 a certain
advantage can even be attrib u ted to proselytes: “W hy all this? T o inform you
th at the Holy O ne, blessed be H e, brings nigh those th at are distant and
supports the d istant ju s t as the nigh. Nay m ore, H e gives peace to the distant
sooner th an to th e nigh, as it says, ‘Peace, peace to him th at is far off an d to
him th at is n e a r’ (Isa 57:19)” (Num. Rab. 8.4 cf. also Midr. Sam. 28.6). J u s t as
the w riter to th e E phesians h ad earlier, in v 13, b ro a d en ed the reference o f
the far who have com e n e a r from proselytes to all G entile C hristians, so here,
read in g his text in the light o f C hrist’s peacem aking work, he broadens its
application so th at it is no longer simply a reference to Israelites, as in the
O T an d parts o f rabbinic tradition, n o r to proselytes an d Israelites, as in o th er
parts o f rabbinic tradition, b u t to his G entile readers an d Jews. (This is far
m ore likely th a n th e speculative notion o f D. C. Sm ith, “E phesian H eresy,”
45– 54, followed by M artin, Reconciliation, 191– 92, th at the w riter cites Isa 57:19
because it was being exploited by G entile C hristian op p o n en ts, fo rm er proselytes
to Ju daism , who reasoned along the lines o f Num. Rab. 8.4 in o rd e r to su p p o rt
th eir claims o f superiority to ethnic Jews).
T h e LXX w ording o f Isa 57:19, which reflects the H ebrew construction o f
the M T, is eipj]vr\v en eipr\vxi rot? pcucpav /cat rot? 6 7 7 0 ? ovotv, “peace u p o n peace
to those who are far off an d to those w ho are n e a r.” T h e m ost significant
m odification o f this text in its appearan ce in E ph 2:17 is the creative com bination
th at has been m ade with th e notion o f preaching peace from Isa 52:7, w hereby
eiprjvqv, “peace,” becom es th e object o f ev'qyyeXioaro, “he proclaim ed.” T h e
LXX w ording o f this p a rt o f Isa 52:7 is evayyeXi^opevov aKor\v eiprjvij?, “preaching
the good news o f peace,” b u t in E ph 2:17 the construction o f the M T is a p p a r-
ently p re ferred to th a t o f th e LXX. T h e re is evidence o f th e messianic in te rp re ta -
tion o f this text in Pesiq. R. 35 (cf. also Str-B 3:9– 11), b u t th ere are questions
about how early an d w idespread this tradition is likely to have been. C ertainly
this aspect o f th e servant passages lent itself to Christological in terp retatio n
by th e early C hristians, an d h ere such an in terp re tatio n clearly enables the
w riter to link w hat he has said ab o u t C hrist as the em bodim ent o f peace and
about his w ork o f reconciliation in vv 14 – 16 to th e “peace to th e far and
n e a r” language o f the Isa 57:19 citation. H e also m akes use o f the langauge
o f Isa 52:7 in a different context in E p h 6:15.
O th e r significant differences ap p e a r w hen the w ording o f E ph 2:17 is com -
p ared to Isa 57:19. T h e twofold reference to peace at the beginning (eipr\vr\v
67r’ eipr\vxi, th e LXX “peace u p o n peace”) has been b roken u p so th at the rew ord-
ing, with th e second dpr\vr]v im m ediately before “to those who w ere n e a r,”
now em phasizes th at C hrist’s peace is proclaim ed to the two distinct groups,
Gentiles an d Jews. B ut w hat is th e n a tu re o f th e peace which is proclaim ed?
Is it peace betw een th e two groups o r is it peace with God, which v 16 has
148 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

b ro u g h t into th e picture? If th e w ording w ere “preach ed peace to the far

an d n e a r,” it could be taken to m ean prim arily an an n o u n c em en t o f peace
betw een th e two groups. H ow ever, th e w ording o f the verse, which in fact
has peace p reach ed to th e two groups separately, tips the scales against a
horizontal referen ce for peace as the prim ary one. T h e force o f the rew ording
is th a t a vertical reference fo r peace now becom es th e prim ary one. Since v
16 has m ade clear th at both groups, “th e n e a r” as well as “th e fa r,” require
reconciliation with God, it is likely th a t v 17, by talking o f a proclam ation o f
peace by C hrist to each o f th e groups, has this vertical dim ension prim arily
in view (cf. also M ussner, Christus, 101–2; M erklein, Christus, 59–60; B urger,
Schöpfung, 155; W olter, Rechfertigung, 71; contra B arth, 278). T h a t the vertical
referen ce fo r peace becom es d o m in an t in v 17 is reinforced by the elaboration
o f v 18 with its assertion th a t th ro u g h C hrist the two groups now have access
“to th e F ath er.” So C hrist proclaim s a peace with G od to each o f the groups.
B ut as the preced in g context m akes inescapably clear, this has inevitable re p e r-
cussions o n th e horizontal level fo r peace betw een Jew s an d Gentiles (Linde-
m an n , Aufhebung, 84, 177– 78, correctly sees this vertical em phasis, b u t is not
to be followed in his attem p t to rid th e passage o f any salvation-history perspec-
tive, n o r in his beliefs th a t the a u th o r m isunderstood the LXX w ording he
has chan g ed an d th at the citation does n o t fit its context in 2:14 – 18).
A fu rth e r addition to Isa 57:19 by th e w riter is th e v^xlp, “to you,” before
rots imicpav, “who w ere fa r off.” T his aspect o f address to G entile C hristian
read ers was clear in vv 11–13, a n d now v 17 takes u p again th e second person
p lu ral p ro n o u n from v 13, a fu rth e r indication th a t the m aterial in vv 14 – 16
provides a paren th etical p re p ara tio n fo r th e citation in v 17. It is also an
indication th at th e O T citation in this verse does n o t stand in its own rig h t as
a prediction o r p rophecy which is th e n said to be fulfilled, b u t ra th e r provides
the w ording used in address to th e readers. T h e w riter has n o t lost sight o f
th e fact th at his reflection on th e m essage ab o u t peace to Jew s an d G entiles
is p a rt o f his specific address to his G entile readers, rem in d in g th em o f the
new situation into w hich they have e n tered th ro u g h th eir C hristian confes-
sion.
T h e lead into the com bined citation at the b eginning o f v 17, “a n d he
cam e,” still needs com m ent. I f we are correct th a t vv 14 – 16 p re p a re the g ro u n d
fo r th e Christological in terp re tatio n o f Isa 52:7 a n d 57:19, th e n the Kai eXOcov
clause provides a transition w hich sum m arizes this p re p ara to ry m aterial. Such
a perspective o n th e flow o f th o u g h t in th e passage re n d ers re d u n d a n t m uch
o f the discussion ab o u t which specific aspect o f C hrist’s m inistry the clause
has in view. Some take it as a referen ce to th e proclam ation o f the earthly
Jesu s (cf. Fischer, Tendenz, 131– 32; M itton, 109), others as a reference to the
proclam ation o f th e exalted C hrist th ro u g h th e apostles (cf. A bbott, 6 6 ; Schille,
Frühchristliche Hymnen, 30; Gnilka, 146; C aird, 60; B ratch er an d N ida, Handbook,
59), an d oth ers as a telescoping to g eth er o f th e R ed eem er’s ascent, his m anifesta-
tion to the pow ers, a n d his m anifestation to th e w orld (cf. Schlier, 137–39).
Still o thers have taken it as a general referen ce to th e whole o f C hrist’s work
(cf. M ussner, 84 – 85; Christus, 101; S tuhlm acher, “ ‘E r ist u n ser F riede,” ’
353 n. 59; B u rg er, Schöpfung, 156; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 176–77). B ut it can
now be seen a little m ore specifically as a retrospective reference to vv 14– 16,
 Comment 149

i.e., to th at com ing o f C hrist which clim axed in his reconciling death. It is
the effect o f th at accom plishm ent on the cross (v 16) which can be identified
as a preach in g o f the good news o f peace to the far off, the G entiles, an d a
p reaching o f th at sam e good news to the near, the Jews.
18 o rt bi a ir r o v e x o fx e v T r\v T r p o o a y o jy r jv oi ä p ^ö rep o i ev e v i T xvevp a ri 717009 rov

7rarepa, “for th ro u g h him we both have access in th e one Spirit to the F ath er.”
on, “fo r,” introduces this statem ent as one which provides the grounds for
the assertion o f th e previous verse th at C hrist has proclaim ed peace to the
far off an d peace to the near. T his reinforces o u r in terp re tatio n o f the n atu re
o f the peace an n o u n ced to the two groups. Since both have access to the
F ath er th ro u g h C hrist in the one Spirit, the sam e good news o f peace with
God can be b ro u g h t to both. T h e language o f Rom 5 :1 ,2 appears to have
influenced th e w riter, for th ere also having peace with G od an d having access
to grace go together. T h e term rrpooaycjyw is taken u p again in Ephesians in
3:12, an d in all th ree instances o f its use in the N T it is best taken with the
intransitive sense o f “access” ra th e r th a n with th e transitive sense o f “in tro d u c-
tion.” For C aird (60) the im agery o f the term n p o o a y o r f r } is political ra th e r
th an cultic. H e claims th at “form erly the Jew s alone h ad th e rights o f citizenship,
including the rig h t o f audience with the King, while Gentiles lived in the
distant provinces o f G od’s em pire; b u t now Jew ish privilege has been abolished,
an d for both Jew an d G entile access to G od is available th ro u g h C hrist.” It is
tru e th at the term can be used for audience with a king (cf. X enophon, Cyr.
1.3.8; 7.5.45), an d in this context both v 12 an d v 19 contain political im agery.
Yet, the notion o f ap p ro ach to G od has obvious religious a n d cultic connotations
from th e O T , w here in the LXX n p o o a y e t v is used o f bringing offerings in
o rd er to com e before G od (e.g., LXX Lev 1:3; 3:3; 4:14). H ere in E ph 2,
w here v 13 contains sacrificial im agery an d vv 20–22 contain tem ple im agery,
the cultic associations o f n p o o a y o y y r i as u n h in d e re d access to the sanctuary as
the place o f G od’s presence m ust be ju s t as strong as, if n o t stronger than,
the political. It is w orth recalling som e o f the passages in th e O T w hich envisage
Gentiles acquiring access to God in the tem ple in o rd e r to pray an d worship.
Solom on’s p ray er o f dedication in 1 Kgs 8 :4 1–43 speaks o f the foreigner who
“comes an d prays tow ard this h o u se” an d asks G od “h e a r th o u in heaven thy
dwelling place,” while prophecies such as Isa 56:6–8 an d Zech 8:20–23 see
foreigners com ing to Zion to offer sacrifices, to seek the L ord an d en tre at his
favor in the tem ple which is a house o f p ray er for all peoples. T h e w riter o f
Ephesians asserts th at the privilege o f access, previously know n only to one
o f the parties, th e Jew s, has now been provided for both parties. Yet again it
is not simply th at the Gentiles can enjoy w hat the Jew s have enjoyed all the
tim e an d continue to enjoy. T h e old categories are transcended. T h e access
o f which the w riter speaks is th ro u g h C hrist an d is no t confined to a specific
locality such as th e tem ple.
It is also access to a new relationship to G od as F ath er th ro u g h the one
Spirit. T h ro u g h C hrist, G od is experienced as th e F ath er o f believers (cf. 1:5),
an d the Spirit plays his p art in m ediating a consciousness o f th at relationship
(cf. Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15, 16). T h e sphere o f th e flesh (cf. v 11) p ro duced only
division betw een G entile an d Jew , b u t now in th e sphere o f the Spirit both
have access (cf. also M erklein, Christus, 60–61). T h e em phasis on “the one
150 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 1 – 2 2

Spirit” is parallel to th a t on “th e one body” in v 16, a n d the two notions

occur to g eth er again in 4:4, “th e re is one body a n d one S pirit.” In th e one
body lives an d works the one Spirit. T his is a th em e which Paul h ad developed
in 1 C or 12:4 – 13, especially in v 13, “F or by one Spirit we w ere all baptized
into one body—Jew s o r G reeks, slaves o r free— an d all w ere m ade to d rin k
o f one Spirit.” T h e w riter has taken u p this them e in his own discussion o f
the u n itin g o f Jew s an d G entiles, a n d it is interesting to note how naturally
his th o u g h t expresses itself in th e “trin ita ria n ” p a tte rn o f “th ro u g h C hrist in
th e Spirit to th e F ath er” (cf. also 1:3, 17; 4:4– 6). Access to G od as F ath er
th ro u g h C hrist an d in th e Spirit is th e g ro u n d o f the peace proclaim ed to
b oth Jew s an d G entiles, b u t it is also tru e th a t th e exercise o f this new privilege
by b oth gro u p s in the one Spirit is th e sign o f th e peace betw een th em (on
the latter cf. also B arth, 312).
19 d p a ovv oi)K€Ti c o r e %evoi Kai napoiKOi, dXXd cure avpiroX lrat t Gw a y ic o v Kai
oiKeloi rod deov, “so th e n you are no lo n g er aliens an d strangers, b u t you are
fellow citizens with the holy ones a n d m em bers o f th e household o f G od.”
ä p a o vv , “so th e n ,” announces a sum m arizing statem ent o f th e m ain p o in t the
w riter has b een attem p tin g to m ake. T h e statem en t is m ade in such a way as
to provide at th e sam e tim e a transition to a fu rth e r developm ent o f th e a rg u -
m ent, as th e w riter elaborates o n th e im agery h e has introduced. It is fo rm u lated
in term s o f th e contrast betw een th e p re-C hristian past an d the C hristian presen t
o f th e readers, which the w riter h ad left in v 13 in o rd e r to explain in vv 14–
18 how this contrast h ad been m ade possible by C hrist’s w ork o f reconciliation.
His G entile re ad ers’ fo rm er status as %evot, “aliens,” an d napotKOL, “strangers,”
in relation to Israel (cf. v 12) has b een left behind. It is possible th a t th ere is
a distinction betw een these term s a n d th a t £ei>05 rep resen ts the foreigner, while
vapoiico 5 has in view the stran g er in th e land o r the resident alien. B ut th ere
is no clear difference betw een th e two w ords in the LXX, w here e ith er can
be used to translate th e H ebrew "U, g ēr, a n d w here napoiKOS also translates
both gôy, “G entile,” an d HIÜID, tôšāb, “resid en t alien,” an d so it could well
be th at h ere in E phesians also they are n o t m ean t to be sharply distingished
a n d that, in line with the style o f this letter, two term s are used, w here one
w ould have sufficed, in o rd e r to em phasize the G entiles’ previous “o u tsid er”
status.
B ut the read ers are no longer com pletely w ithout a hom eland; they are
no lo n g er even second-class citizens in som eone else’s hom eland. T hey now
have full citizenship in a n d belong firm ly to a com m onw ealth, fo r they are
fellow citizens with th e holy ones. B u t who are the ayioi in this reference?
Five d ifferen t in terp retatio n s have been p u t forw ard: (i) Israel o r th e Jew s
(cf. M euzelaar, Leib des Messias, 6 3–64; B arth, 269–70), (ii) Jew ish C hristians
(cf. O. Proksch, “0 7 1 0 5 ,” T D N T 1 [1964] 106; Roels, God's Mission, 145; V ielhauer,
Oikodome, 123; C aird, 60), (in) th e first C hristians seen as a golden g eneration
(cf. H o u ld en , 292), (iv) all believers (cf. M eyer, 141; J. A. R obinson, 67; A bbott,
69; S. H anson, Unity, 147; G augler, 120; M ussner, Christus, 105– 6; P fam m atter,
Die Kirche als Bau, 76–77; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 132; M itton, 110; E rnst,
322; B ratch er an d N ida, Handbook, 60–61), a n d (v) th e angels (cf. G ärtner,
Temple, 63– 64; Schlier, 140–41; M ussner, 89– 91; idem , “C ontributions,” 166,
reversing his previous view in Christus, 105–6; Steinm etz, Protologische Heilszuver-
sicht, 48 n. 63; Klinzing, Umdeutung, 185; Gnilka, 154; L indem ann, Aufhebung,
 Comment 151

183). In su p p o rt o f the first two in terp retatio n s it is arg u ed th at this phrase

in v 19 stands in contrast to “separated from th e com m onw ealth o f Israel” in
v 12. B ut n eith er o f these in terp retatio n s, a n d particularly the first, does en o u g h
justice to th e fact th at in the contrast the w riter presents, his G entile re ad ers’
new status transcends the old categories, an d th a t in the creation o f the one
new p erson J e w-G entile distinctions have been overcom e. In addition, the sec-
on d in terp re tatio n claims th at ayiot is used elsew here in the Pauline corpus
as a reference to Jew ish C hristians (cf. Rom 15:25, 26, 31; 1 C or 16:1; 2 C or
8:4; 9:1, 12). B ut, in fact, n one o f these instances, which occur in the context
o f P aul’s discussion o f the collection, re fe r to Jew ish C hristians in general,
b u t all re fer to th e Jeru salem church in particular. T h e th ird in terp retatio n
can appeal to the use o f 0 7 1 0 9 to describe the apostles an d pro p h ets in E ph
3:5, b u t this seems to be too narrow a focus for the phrase in 2:19, an d in
any case the re ad ers’ relation to the apostles an d p ro p h ets is specifically dealt
with in the different im agery o f 2 :2 0 .
T h e fo u rth an d fifth in terp retatio n s both recognize th at in the contrast
with v 1 2 a sim ple reversal is no t in view, an d it is difficult to decide betw een
them . In favor o f the reference to all believers are the facts th at in this w riter’s
view they now constitute the people o f G od as Israel did in the past, th at
elsew here in th e letter (X7 toi is used o f C hristians in general (cf. 1:1, 15, 18;
3:8; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18), an d th at the ovv- com pounds in vv 2 1 ,2 2 and in 3:6
have in view unity with th e rest o f the C hurch. In su p p o rt o f the reference
to angels it can be arg u ed th at the O T describes angels as “the holy ones”
(e.g., Jo b 15:15; Ps 89:5, 6 ), th at ayiot is used o f angels elsew here in the Pauline
corpus (cf. 1 T hess 3:13; 2 T hess 1:7, 10), an d th at its occurrence in Col
1:12 may well be a reference to angels. In addition, th ere ap p e a r to be strong
parallels in th e Q u m ra n writings, w here “the holy ones” are the angels in
heaven with w hom the elect com m unity on ea rth is jo in e d (cf. IQ S 11.7,8,
w here th e concept o f fellowship with the angels is closely linked to th at o f
the com m unity as the tem ple, also 1QH 3.21– 23; 6.10– 14; 1QM 12.1, 2). Paul
h ad m ade use o f the concept o f believers’ attach m en t to a heavenly com m on-
wealth (irokiTevna) in Phil 3:20 an d the notion o f citizenship o f heaven is a
fam iliar one in Philo (e.g., Confus. 78: irarpiSa piv top ovpavtov x&pov ev cp nokireva
ovrai, “the heavenly region, w here th eir citizenship lies, is th eir native lan d ”)
an d in early C hristian writings (e.g., Diogn. 5.9 w here believers on ea rth have
th eir citizenship in heaven: ev ovpavtp iroXirevovTai). Paul h ad also m ade use o f
the concept o f believers’ relationship to a heavenly city, the Jeru salem above,
in Gal 4:26. T h e w riter to th e H ebrew s com bines this concept with th at o f
fellowship with th e angels in H eb 12:22, “you have com e to M ount Zion and
to the city o f th e living G od, the heavenly Jeru salem , an d to innum erable
angels in festal g ath erin g .” Believers’ participation in the heavenly realm has
already been fe atu red in 2 :6 , an d it may ju s t be th at the idea o f a heavenly
citizenship with th e angels was w idespread e n o u g h fo r this to have been u n d e r-
stood by the read ers as the m eaning o f ovuiroXlrai tcjv ayiow. B ut the consistency
o f m eaning fo r ayiot in its o th e r appearances in E phesians m ust give one
pause before pro p osing a different reference in 2:19, a n d so it may well be
m ore p ru d e n t to o p t for th e fo u rth alternative. T h e readers are to see them selves
as fellow citizens with the rest o f believers.
N ot only so, b u t they are now also oiKeloi rod Oeov, “m em bers o f G od’s h o u se-
152 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 1–22

hold.” T h e re is a m ove h ere from th e political im agery o f th e state o f com m on-

w ealth to th e m o re intim ate picture o f a family. okefo9 ap p ears elsew here in
th e N T in Gal 6:10 a n d 1 T im 5:8. H ere its use can be seen as p a rt o f a
double contrast—b oth with v 12, w here Gentiles w ere said to be w ithout God,
God-forsaken, while here they are depicted as in the bosom o f his family,
a n d with th e term used earlier in this verse, which also has associations with
oko 9 , nam ely napoiKOt,, “those w ho are away from h o m e,” while now G entiles
are to see them selves as at hom e in G od’s household. In this way v 19 can be
reg ard ed as a restatem en t o f th e fa r an d n e a r contrast o f v 13. T h e G entile
read ers are no lo n ger far off from Israel a n d from G od as foreigners an d
outsiders. T h e ir proxim ity to G od now is such th at they are fellow citizens
with th e saints a n d m em bers o f G od’s ow n family (pace M erklein, Das kirchliche
Amt, 133– 34, an d M ussner, 92, who draw atten tio n to the cultic associations
o f oko 9 rod Oeov a n d see h ere already a reference to the tem ple, th e term
oiiceios itself is m ost naturally u n d ersto o d as a m em b er o f a household ra th e r
th an as a dw eller in th e tem ple).
20– 22 eiroLKoSoixriOevTes eni red de/jeXicp rtov airooroXcjv Kai nfxxfrriTcbv, “having
b een built o n th e fo u n d atio n o f the apostles a n d p ro p h e ts.” In these verses
the w riter introduces building a n d tem ple im agery fo r the new com m unity
o f th e C h urch, o f which his G entile C hristian readers h ad now becom e a
part. T his transition in his th o u g h t is facilitated by the ability o f oko? (cf.
okefoi in v 19) to re fe r to household, house, o r tem ple. T h e im agery at the
beg inning o f v 2 0 involves the re ad ers’ being depicted as bricks which have
been built u p in a building on to p o f a fo u n d atio n (cf. also v 22). T h e aorist
passive participle enoiicodoiJiriOevTes, “having b een built,” indicates both th a t this
being placed on a fo u n d atio n has already occurred fo r the readers, presum ably
in th eir conversion-initiation, an d th a t G od is to be u n d ersto o d now as the
one who has b ro u g h t this ab o u t (the “divine passive”; cf. also Gnilka, 155;
B arth, 271). V ariations on th e two term s used in this im agery occur in Colossians.
€TroLKo8ofxoviJL€vot is fo u n d in Col 2:7, a n d th e cognate verbal form from the
n o u n 0e/neAios, “fo u n d a tio n ,” re0e/ueXico/uei>ot, “h aving b een fo u n d e d ,” is used
in Col 1:23 (cf. also E ph 3:17); the contexts call on the readers to continue
in the faith they have received th ro u g h the apostolic gospel. T h e w riter to
the Ephesians m ay well have a sim ilar p u rp o se in view, b u t his language is
even m ore influenced by th a t o f 1 C or 3:9 – 17 th a n by th at o f Colossians.
T h e re Paul h ad used th e im ages o f a building (okoSo/ur), 1 C or 3:9) an d a
holy tem ple (raÖ9 rod deov <1 7 1 0 9 , 1 C or 3:17) o f th e C orinthian believers (cf.
E ph 2:21) an d h ad talked o f G od’s Spirit dw elling in th e tem ple (1 C or 3:16
cf. E p h 2:22). T h e re also can be fo u n d th e language o f building on a fo u n d atio n
(enotKodonelv, 1 C or 3:10, 12, 14; 0e/ueXtO9, 1 C or 3:10, 11). In th at context, Paul
h ad seen him self as th e m aster b u ild er who h ad laid the fou n d atio n — C hrist
him self—o n which Paul, Apollos, C ephas, a n d o th e r teachers an d p ro p h ets
w ere co n tin u in g to build. B ut h ere in E ph 2:20 the language o f 1 C or 3 is
p u t to a d ifferen t use as th e w riter m akes a significant change in the im agery.
T h e apostles a n d p ro p h e ts are no longer seen as those who lay the fou n d atio n
o f C hrist o r who build u p o n it b u t as the fo u n d atio n itself. Some have taken
the genitive as a subjective genitive, “th e fo u n d atio n laid by the apostles an d
p ro p h e ts” (e.g., M eyer, 142; n e b ; g n b ), b u t such an in terp retatio n , which is
 Comment 153

som etim es m otivated by the desire to harm onize E ph 2:20 with 1 C or 3:11,
introduces total confusion into the w riter’s use o f m etap h o r, because it m akes
C hrist both th e fo u n d atio n an d the keystone. W ith the vast m ajority o f com m en-
tators we should take the genitive as appositional, i.e., the fo u n d atio n which
the apostles an d p ro p h ets constitute.
T h e p ro p h ets are N T p ro p h ets (pace M ussner, Christus, 108, an d K. R engs-
torf, “dTTÖcrroXos,” T D N T 1 [1964] 441, who are am ong the few recent w riters to
su p p o rt a referen ce to O T p rophets; b u t see now M ussner, 93). T his identifica-
tion is confirm ed by the o rd e r o f the w ording (it is difficult to suppose O T
p ro p h ets w ould be placed second) an d particularly by the o th er references to
apostles an d p ro p h ets in 3:5 an d 4:11, w here N T p ro p h ets are unam biguously
in view. Some (e.g., P fam m atter, Kirche als Bau, 78– 97; Sahlin, SymBU 12 [1950]
18; D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy [London: M arshall, M organ an d Scott,
1979] 139) have claim ed th at the use o f one definite article to cover the two
words “apostles” an d “p ro p h e ts” indicates th at the sam e g ro u p o f people is
being re ferred to u n d e r two guises, the select g ro u p o f apostles who are also
prophets, the fo rm er term highlighting th eir m ission an d th e latter th eir m inistry
o f the word. B ut in E ph 4:11 apostles an d p ro p h e ts are quite clearly two
separate groups (rous anooTokovs, roi>s 5e cf. also 1 C or 12:28;
Rev 18:20), an d it is unlikely th at th e w riter is indulging in a special usage o f
the term s h ere in 2:20. T h e N T p ro p h e ts in view th e n are presum ably the
m en an d w om en who exercise the gift o f prophecy u n d e r discussion in 1 C or
11 an d 14 an d whose activities are m entioned elsew here in Rom 12:6; 1 Thess
5:20; Acts 11:27; 1 3:1,2; 15:32; 19:6; 21:9, 10; Rev 1:3; 10:11; 16:6; 18:20, 24;
19:10; 22:6– 10, 18, 19. T h e apostles an d p ro p h ets are foundational in the
sense o f being prim ary an d authoritative recipients an d proclaim ers o f revela-
tion. T h e apostles were those w ith special authority from th eir com m issioning
by the risen L ord, while th e p ro p h ets w ere those with charism atic authority.
Some apostles, like Paul, were also pro p h ets, b u t not all apostles were prophets,
an d certainly n o t all p ro p h ets w ere apostles. T h e apostles provided a fo u n d a-
tional link with th e risen C hrist and, to g eth er with th e pro p h ets, gave fo u n d a-
tional in terp retatio n o f w hat G od h ad d o n e in C hrist for the edification o f
the C h urch. T h e reference in Did. 11–13 to traveling apostles an d prophets,
whose teaching an d conduct have to be tested, clearly has in view a m uch
b ro ad er category o f apostles, m issionaries o r delegates from local churches,
an d n eith er g ro u p can be said to be considered as foundational for the universal
C hurch. T h e w riter to the E phesians has a narro w er view o f apostles, th o u g h
not as narrow as only the Twelve, and, as becom es clear from 3:5, sees the
first gen eratio n o f p ro p h ets as also crucial in establishing the basic outlines
o f the m eaning o f w hat G od h ad d one in C hrist, particularly in the adm ission
o f Gentiles into G od’s people (cf. Acts 13:1– 3 w here Luke appears to depict
p ro p h ets as having a role in the m issionary o u treach o f the A ntioch church).
H e believes the apostles an d p ro p h e ts (3:5), an d especially Paul (3:3), to have
had a fo u n dational role as those to w hom the m ystery o f C hrist was m ade
known in o rd e r th at it m ight be proclaim ed to the Gentiles.
A lthough it is no t im possible th at the im agery o f th e op en in g clause o f
2:20 was used by Paul him self, it is m ore likely th at it rep resen ts the perspective
o f a follower looking back at th e first generation o f recipients o f revelation.
154 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

W hereas in 1 C or 3:10, 11 Paul saw him self as th e m aster builder laying C hrist
as th e fou n d atio n , his disciple now sees Paul him self as p a rt o f th e foundational
gen eratio n with th e o th e r apostles a n d pro p h ets. T h e notion o f apostolic fo u n d a -
tions for th e C h u rch has affinities with o th e r N T texts such as M att 16:18;
Rev 21:14, a n d with th e role o f th e twelve apostles in the n arrative o f L uke -
Acts. H ere in E phesians, th e notion o f the fo u n d atio n o f th e apostles
an d p ro p h ets is an im p o rtan t p a rt o f th e w riter’s attem p t to give his G entile
C hristian read ers a stro n g er sense o f th e ir identity as p a rt o f th e C hurch.
It points th em to th eir roots a n d to th e source o f th e norm ative teaching th a t
is necessary if they are n o t to be confused a n d shaken by erro n eo u s ideas (cf.
4:14).
binos aicpoyojvimov aurov Xpiorov I tjaoü, “the keystone being C hrist Jesu s him -
self.” T his clause, with its p re sen t participle in th e genitive absolute an d its
em phatic avrov, “him self,” in referen ce to C hrist Jesus, serves to set off C hrist
b o th from th e fo u n d atio n o f th e apostles an d p ro p h e ts an d from those who
have been placed on th at foundation. It focuses atten tio n on his p re sen t status
an d function. T h e following clauses in vv 21, 22 will show how the one w ho
holds a distinctive position relates to th e building as a whole. B ut w hat is this
distinctive position? Since Jerem ias p ro p o sed th at the cornerstone is in fact
the final stone o f th e building, w hich was probably set over the gate, recent
scholarship has been divided over w h e th e r aKp&ycjvialos is to be taken as the
fo u n d atio n stone in the building (cf. Percy, Probleme, 328–32; P fam m atter,
Kirche als B a u , 143– 51; McKelvey, N T S 8 [1961– 62] 352– 59; idem , The New
Temple, 195–204; M ussner, 9 3–95; idem , Christus, 108– 11; idem , “C o n trib u -
tions,” 172 n. 59; Schäfer, “Z ur D e u tu n g ,” 218– 24; M erklein, Das kirchliche
Amt, 144 – 52; M itton, 113 – 14; S chnackenburg, 124–25; idem , “Die K irche als
B au,” 263–64) o r as th e crow ning stone o r to p stone o f the edifice (cf. Jerem ias,
Angelos 1 [1925] 65– 70; idem , Z N W 29 [1930] 264– 80; idem , Z N W 36 [1937]
154– 57; idem , T D N T 1 [1964] 791– 93; idem , T D N T 4 [1967] 268– 80; V ielhauer,
Oikodome, 125–28; D ibelius-G reeven, 72; Best, One Body, 165–66; S. H anson,
Unity, 131; Schlier, 142; Gnilka, 158; C onzelm ann, 101; H oulden, 293; F. F.
B ruce, “New W ine in O ld W ineskins: T h e C o rn er S tone,” ExpTim 84 [1972–
73] 232; C aird, 61; B arth, 271, 317 – 19; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 185–86 n.
213; cf. also th e definition offered in LPGL 6 6 , “(stone) as to p-m ost angle or
p o in t o f pyram id, obelisk etc. . . .”).
T h e evidence th a t can be adduced fo r the latter m eaning is to be fo u n d in
Ps 118:22 in Sym m achus; LXX 2 Kgs 25:17, w here it is used for th e h ead o f
a pillar; H ippolytus, Elenchos 5 .7 ,3 5 ; T ertu llian , Adv. Marc. 3.7; A phraates,
Horn. 1.6, 7; th e Peshitta description o f th e stone o f Isa 28:16 as th e “head o f
the wall,” a n d th e Testament of Solomon 22.7–23.3, from the second o r th ird
century c .e ., which depicts th e com pletion o f S olom on’s tem ple as follows:
“Now the tem ple was being com pleted, a n d th e re was a g reat co rn er stone
[Xt0os äKfxyycovvalo^ peyas] which I w ished to set as h ead o f th e co rn er [ets
KefjKLkriv ycjvias] by way o f com pleting th e tem ple o f G od . . . an d he w ent
u p the lad d er carrying th e stone a n d set it on th e sum m it o f the en tran ce to
the tem p le.” T h e exalted position ascribed to C hrist elsew here in E phesians
(cf. 1:20–23; 2:6; 4 :8 – 10) a n d th e special em phasis on C hrist’s position as
over against th e rest o f th e stru ctu re in 2:20 favor this in terp retatio n . As S.
H an so n {Unity, 131) puts it, “H e is n o t one o f th e stones o f th e fo u n d atio n in
 Comment 155

com m on with th e Apostles, even if H e is a cornerstone, b u t H e is the top

stone o f the pinnacle o f the building. . . . As C hrist is the KefaXri o f the ocbpa,
H e is th e aKpoyoivtaios o f the oiKodopri.”
A gainst such an in terp re tatio n a n u m b er o f objections can be m ade. T his
usage is n o t fo u n d in LXX Isa 28:16 o r quotations o f it which identify
aKpcyyojvuiljos with the fo u n d atio n stone, an d in the Q u m ra n writings th ere is
a close assocation betw een the cornerstone an d the fo u n d atio n as Isa 28:16 is
qu o ted (cf. IQ S 5.6; 8 .4 ,5 ). For this reason McKelvey (The New Temple, 201)
asserts, “aKpoycovialos stands in the sam e close relation to depeXios in Ephesians
2:20 as it does in Isaiah 28:16.” Some o f the evidence adduced for the top
stone in terp re tatio n is o f quite late date. It is also arg u ed th at the notion o f
C hrist as th e top stone is inconsistent with the dynam ic im agery o f a grow ing
an d unfinished building, an d th at it leaves th e relation o f C hrist to the apostles
an d p ro p h ets unclear. F u rth er, since the w riter rem ains close to 1 C or 3:10, 11
an d C hrist has a foundational role th ere, a sim ilar position for him should be
expected here. T h e cornerstone was placed first in the foundation an d all
the o th er stones in the foun d atio n w ere lined u p in accordance with it. Such
an in terp retatio n w ould m ake clear th at the apostles an d p ro p h ets have C hrist
as th eir norm .
T h e arg u m en ts are finely balanced. B ut som e o f these objections to the
in terp retatio n o f C hrist as the top stone can be reb u tted . For the w riter o f
Ephesians, th e notion o f a finished stru ctu re with C hrist as its head is not at
all incom patible with th e dynam ic im agery o f grow th. H e views the C hurch
as already C hrist’s fullness (1:23) an d yet at the sam e tim e as having to attain
th at fullness (4:13; cf. also 3:19). In 4:15, 16, the passage which repeats a
n u m b er o f the expressions fo u n d here in 2 :2 0 – 2 2 , the im agery is precisely
th at o f a body grow ing u p into C hrist as the head. So here, on the one hand,
the C h u rch is p ictu red as a finished stru ctu re with C hrist as the top stone,
an d yet, on th e o th e r han d , it m ust grow into a tem ple in him . O n such a
view, the relation o f C hrist to the apostles an d p ro p h ets is not unclear. As in
4 :7 – 16, they are in at the beginning o f the C hurch, b u t C hrist is the exalted
L ord over all. T h ey are foundational, b u t he is the keystone which crowns
the whole building.
T h e crucial question in com ing to an exegetical decision is w hether we
allow the LXX usage in Isa 28:16 a n d th e Christological im agery o f 1 C or
3 : 1 1 o r th e w riter’s own perspective from elsew here in this letter to be d eterm in a-
tive. T h e use o f aKpoywvialos h ere is probably n o t a direct allusion to Isa 28:16
anyway, b u t an ap p ro p riatio n o f the “stone” testimonia, which were in fairly
com m on use in th e early church. In particular, Ps 118:22, “T h e stone which
the builders rejected has becom e the h ead o f the c o rn er,”— h ad been seen as
an a p p ro p riate expression o f w hat G od h ad d one in exalting the crucified
Jesus to be L ord o f all. T h e rejected stone h ad becom e the keystone o f the
whole stru ctu re (cf. M ark 12:10; Acts 4:11). In Rom 9:32, 33 Paul em ploys a
conflation o f Isa 28:16 (which om its any reference to the cornerstone) an d
Isa 8:14, an d elsew here this conflation o f Isaiah texts is com bined with Ps
118:22 (cf. Luke 20:17, 18), an d all th ree texts are linked in 1 Pet 2:6– 8. Isa
28:16 h ad already, th en , b een com bined with Ps 118:22 an d thus with the
notion o f C hrist’s elevation to the crow ning stone o f the building. It w ould
n o t be surprising, th erefo re, if the w riter o f E phesians has p u t elem ents from
156 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

such a com posite testimonium to his ow n use a n d if aKpoyooviaios has sim ilar
force to KeQdkrj ycovia<; from Ps 118:22. W e have already noted that; while
em ploying language from 1 C or 3, th e w riter gives it his own distinctive twist,
an d once “fo u n d a tio n ” term inology is applied to th e apostles an d p ro p h ets
instead o f C hrist, it w ould be n atu ra l fo r him to give C hrist th e exalted position
attrib u ted th ro u g h o u t th e rest o f his letter. T h e w riter’s view o f C hrist as
heavenly L ord an d o f the C h u rch as grow ing tow ard him elsew here in E phesians
should, th erefo re, be ju d g e d determ inative for the use to which he has p u t
traditional m aterial h ere in 2 :2 0 .
ev cp 7raaa oiKoboprj ovvappoXoyovpevr} au£ei eis vaov äyiov ev Kvpicp, “in w hom
the whole b uilding being jo in e d to g eth er grows into a holy tem ple in the
L o rd .” W e have already arg u ed in Notes th a t the original text read wäaa oiKodopr/
an d n o t 7raaa r\ oiicoSopr). T his does n o t m ean, how ever, th at the w riter now
has in view every building in th e sense o f every local congregation (<contra
M eyer, 146–47; A bbott, 74; M itton, 115). R ather, in all probability, näoa o'ucoöopr}
should be taken as a H ebraism which has affected Koine usage an d be u n d e r-
stood as “all th e building” o r “th e whole building” (cf. LXX 1 C h ro n 28:8;
LXX Am os 3:1; Acts 2:36; 17:26; Rom 3:20; 11:26; cf. also M oule, Idiom-
Book, 94–95). H ere, as in the rest o f th e letter, the w riter has the universal
C h u rch in m ind. T his is the difference, as th e building an d tem ple im agery
for th e C h u rch becom e explicit, from th e use o f this im agery in 1 C or 3,
w here it re fe rre d to the local C orin th ian com m unity. oiKodoprj occurred in 1
C or 3:9 an d is fo u n d elsew here in E phesians in its m ore abstract sense o f
“u p b u ild in g ” o r “edification” in 4:12, 16, 29. m o? occurred in conjunction with
äytos in 1 C or 3:16, 17 (cf. also its use in 2 C or 6:16) with reference to the
C o rin th ian congregation, an d was used o f th e individual believer’s body in 1
C or 6:19. E phesians rep resen ts a fu rth e r stage in th e ap p ro p riatio n o f tem ple
im agery by th e early C hristians. N ot only th e individual believer o r th e local
church, b u t also all believers, the universal C hurch, can be held to be the
focus o f G od’s presence. T his tran sfo rm atio n in th e u n d ersta n d in g o f G od’s
tem ple h ad been p re p a re d n o t only by Paul a n d o th e r early C hristians, b u t
also earlier by th e Q u m ra n com m unity, which h ad seen itself as the tru e spiritual
tem ple in contrast to th e c o rru p t cultus in Jeru sa lem (e.g., IQ S 8.4 – 10; 9.5, 6 ;
4Q Flor 1.6, 7). E arlier still, elem ents in O T prophecy (e.g., Isa 56:6, 7) could
envisage th e tem ple in Jeru sa lem as th e universal tem ple, to which in the
e n d-tim e all nations w ould com e to w orship a n d pray. W h eth er o r no t the
w riter actually h ad such prophecies in m ind, in this context in Ephesians,
w here Gentiles are being re m in d e d o f th e heritag e into which they have e n tered ,
the tem ple im agery w ould certainly lend itself to an eschatological u n d e rsta n d -
ing. T h e read ers should perceive th a t they are living in the tim e w hen th ro u g h
C hrist they, as Gentiles, have been b ro u g h t near, given access, an d in fact
have becom e p a rt o f th e tem ple o f th e C hurch. B ut, again, it can be seen
th at w hat has taken place th ro u g h C hrist can n o t simply be depicted in categories
which are in straightforw ard continuity with O T expectations. T h e notion o f
a pilgrim age by Gentiles to a literal tem ple in Jeru sa lem has been com pletely
transform ed.
A n o th er stran d o f reflection on the tem ple gave it cosmic associations. O ne
does n o t have to tu rn only to Gnostic literatu re fo r such associations (cf. Schlier,
 Comment 157

Christus und die Kirche, 49– 60; V ielhauer, Oikodome, 125). In the O T an d in
apocalyptic literatu re Y ahw eh’s earthly abode in th e tem ple was seen as the
co u n terp art o f his heavenly abode, an d afte r the exile the ho p e o f the divine
presence in th e eschatological tem ple was increasingly tran sferre d to the heav-
enly Jeru salem a n d its heavenly tem ple (cf. Wis 9:8; 1 Enoch 90.29; 2 Apoc.
Bar. 4.2– 6; T. Dan 5.12, 13; Asc. Isa. 7.10). In rabbinic th o u g h t, via the concept
o f the sacred stone, which was connected with G en 28:17, the tem ple was
considered as the gate from ea rth to heaven an d as inhabited by heavenly
beings (cf. b. Yoma 54b; Gen. Rab. 4.2; 68.12 on G en 28:12; Yal. Gen. 120 on
G en 28:22; Pirqe R. El. 32.35; Num. Rab. 12.4). A t Q u m ra n th e link betw een
the elect com m unity on ea rth an d the inhabitants o f heaven was an intrinsic
p art o f the tem ple symbolism (e.g., IQ S 11.7, 8 ). Particularly if 2:20 sees C hrist
as the top stone o f the tem ple, the w riter’s use o f tem ple im agery in a letter
which frequently links the C h u rch with the heavenly realm may well also carry
heavenly connotations (cf. also S. H anson, Unity, 130; Schlier, 140; G ärtner,
The Temple, 64; M ussner, 95– 96; idem , “C ontributions,” 173; Gnilka, 155;
McKelvey, The New Temple, 119, 120, is am bivalent on this issue).
T h e m ajor em phasis in the use o f the tem ple im agery in v 21 is, however,
on the relationship o f the building to Christ. T h e C h u rch is constituted an d
functions only in relation to Christ, ev # , “in w hom ,” draw s attention to this
at the b eg inning o f the clause, an d ev kx)pup, “in the L o rd ,” does so at the
en d (pace M itton, 116, who takes the latter as a reference to God), ev <p may
re fer simply to C hrist him self as the im m ediate anteced en t ra th e r th an to his
function as the keystone, b u t the keystone bore the pressure o f the stones
form ing th e arch an d its rem oval could cause the collapse o f the whole (cf.
B arth, 318 n. 260). ev Kupicp at th e en d o f th e clause seems superfluous. Schnack-
en b u rg (“Die K irche als B au,” 265) suggests th a t “holy tem ple in the L o rd ”
may have been a fixed phrase for the C hurch, b u t it appears m ore likely th at
ev Kuptcp governs th e whole notion o f grow ing into a holy tem ple (cf. also
Schlier, 144) an d is a n o th e r exam ple o f E phesians’ red u n d an cy o f style. If
so, this variation m ay be seen to conform to an overall tendency in the Pauline
corpus for w hat believers are in relationship to C hrist to be stated as “in C hrist,”
an d for w hat they are to becom e o r to do in relation to C hrist to be stated as
“in the L o rd ” (cf. J . A. R obinson, 72; B arth, 273; C. F. D. M oule, The Origin
of Christology [C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1977] 58–60).
T h e participle ovvappoXoyovpevri, “being jo in e d to g eth er,” is m et with again
in the N T only in 4:16, an d the verb av^ei, “grows,” also occurs again to g eth er
with its cognate n o u n in 4:15, 16. B oth term s introduce the notion o f the
C hurch as an organism , which is m ore fully developed in 4:15, 16 an d which
has Col 2:19 as its m ost im m ediate inspiration. Gnostic ideas o f the prim al
m an ’s cosmic body as a heavenly b uilding provide som e parallels for the m ixture
o f the im ages o f building an d organic grow th (cf. Schlier, 143– 44; Christus
und die Kirche, 49– 58), b u t both they a n d E phesians are anticipated by Philo’s
com bination o f th e im ages (cf. H e g erm an n , Schöpfungsmittler, 189– 91), and
the Q u m ra n w ritings ju x tap o se im ages o f planting an d building (cf. IQ S 8.5, 6 ;
1QH 6.7). B oth term s also introduce a tem poral elem ent into th e w riter’s
perspective on the C hurch. T h e jo in in g to g eth er o f all th e elem ents th a t m ake
u p the total stru cture o f the C h u rch is a continuous p resen t activity. As the
158 E p h e s ia n s 2:11– 22

adjusting an d fitting to g eth er take place, th e C h u rch can be seen as in the

process o f grow th tow ard its ultim ate condition o f holiness (cf. also 5:27).
G row th an d holiness, here, are no t sim ply m atters for individual initiates p u rsu -
ing th eir own ends, b u t notions which have a clearly co rporate context. It is
the grow th o f th e com m unity, the whole C hurch, which is decisive, an d the
grow th is in this context a qualitative ra th e r th a n a quantitative concept. T h e
notion o f a grow ing C h u rch inevitably im plies bo th th at history a n d th e fu tu re
are im p o rtan t for this w riter, a n d n o t totally swallowed u p in his realized
eschatology, an d th at the C h u rch is as yet im perfect.
ev to teai v p e ls ovvotKoSopelode e is kcltolktjtTjpiov ro v deov ev irv ev p a rt, “in w hom
you also are built to g eth er into a dw elling place o f God in the Spirit.” ev <p in
this last clause in the pericope could re fe r back to eith er “the L o rd ” o r “a
holy tem p le” in th e preceding clause, b u t it is m ore likely th a t it stands parallel
with th e ev o f th a t clause an d th u s refers back to “C hrist Jesu s” in v 20. In
this way, v 22 can be seen as providing a general parallel to v 21: ovvoiKoSopelode,
“you are built to g eth er,” corresponds to o vv a p p d K o yo vp evri, “being jo in e d to-
g eth er”; th e goal o f the building process is now term e d a dwelling o f G od
ra th e r th an a holy tem ple; a n d ev ir v e v p a n , “in the S pirit,” perform s a sim ilar
function to th at o f ev Kvpicp, “in the L o rd .” T h e m ajor difference betw een the
last two clauses is th a t in v 22 th e read ers are directly addressed. T h e w riter
does n o t allow his picture o f th e C h u rch to rem ain in general term s, b u t
applies it to th e G entile C hristian recipients o f his letter as a re m in d e r o f
w hat they have becom e th ro u g h th eir relationship to C hrist. T hey n eed to be
aw are o f th e im m ensely privileged n a tu re o f th eir new situation. In C hrist
they are being built into the dw elling place o f G od him self. T hey are the
bricks th at are being built into G od’s new tem ple (cf. also 1 Pet 2:5). A gain,
th ere is the need for a co rporate aw areness. T h e a v v- co m pound h ere indicates
th at this is m ore th an an individual experience; th e process o f being form ed
into th e C h u rch has to take place in th e com pany o f fellow believers.
T h e n o u n t o K a r o i K T y r r i p i o v , w hich occurs elsew here in the N T only in Rev
18:2, is used in the LXX both o f G od’s abode in the tem ple in Jeru salem (cf.
1 Kgs 8:13) a n d o f his heavenly dw elling place (cf. 1 Kgs 8:39, 43, 49). Now
his dwelling place can be said to be n eith er a literal tem ple in Jeru sa lem n o r
simply heaven, b u t the C hurch, o f which the G entile C hristian readers in
Asia M inor w ere a part, ev n v e u p a rt m ay well color th e whole preceding clause
so th at th e G entile believers are th o u g h t o f as being built to g eth er into a
whole stru ctu re by the agency o f th e Spirit (cf. 4 :3 ,4 ). M ore particularly, the
Spirit is seen as th e m eans by which G od dwells in the C h u rch (cf. 1 C or
3:16). T h e re are obvious sim ilarities with th e description o f the C h u rch as a
spiritual house in 1 Pet 2:5. T h e em phasis on G od’s presence in the Spirit
can provide a re m in d e r th a t w hen we talk o f the “spiritualization” o f the concept
o f the tem ple, we are n o t talking o f invisibility or im m ateriality b u t o f the
reality o f m en an d w om en form ing the eschatological people o f God, dom inated
by his living pow er an d presence in the Spirit. As elsew here in the letter (cf.
1:3, 13, 14), it is the Spirit who provides the link betw een believers on ea rth
an d the heavenly realm a n d m akes the C h u rch the place w here the heavenly
an d earthly dw elling places o f G od m erge. T h e re ad ers’ experience as p a rt
o f th e C h u rch is described in this verse by m eans o f a “trin ita rian ” p a tte rn o f
 Explanation 159

th o u g h t—“in C hrist,” “dwelling place o f G od,” an d “in the Spirit” (cf. also
2:18). It could be th a t as well as com pleting such a p a tte rn o f th o u g h t, the
reference to th e Spirit should be seen as com pleting th e pericope by a contrast
to the em phasis on th e flesh at its beginning in v 11, an d as em phasizing
th at for th e G entile readers in th eir new situation in the Spirit previous distinc-
tions based o n physical a n d ethnic categories— “in the flesh”— no longer count
(cf. also J . A. R obinson, 72, 166). C ertainly by the en d o f the pericope Israel’s
privileges in proxim ity to God, which w ere tied u p with th e Jeru salem tem ple,
have com pletely faded from view as th e focus o f atten tio n has becom e G entile
C hristians’ role in the new tem ple o f G od in the Spirit.

Explanation

In the previous section, 2:1– 10, th e w riter had rem in d ed his G entile C hristian
readers o f the dram atic change G od h ad b ro u g h t ab o u t in raising them from
spiritual d eath to new life in C hrist. T his is now followed by a fu rth e r rem in d er
o f the change in th eir situation, th e reversal o f th eir fo rm e r status as deprived
Gentiles in com parison to Israel in favor o f the privileges they now enjoy in
th eir relationship to G od an d as m em bers o f his people. A gain, the contrast
o f the p re-C hristian past (“th e n ”) with the C hristian p resen t (“now ”) helps to
shape the passage, which falls into th ree m ain parts. Verses 11– 13 set ou t
the rem in d er in term s o f an initial contrast betw een th e G entiles’ fo rm er alien-
ation from Israel an d h e r God an d th eir now having com e near. Verses 14–
18 th en ad a p t a hym n to C hrist as b rin g er o f cosmic peace an d m ake use o f
a com bination o f Isa 57:19 an d Isa 52:7 in o rd e r to explain how Christ, th ro u g h
his w ork o f reconciliation, accom plished this change fo r the Gentiles. Verses
19–22 com plete th e section, as v 19 sum m arizes an d elaborates on the earlier
contrast an d leads into a depiction o f the C h u rch an d the G entiles’ p a rt in it
in term s o f building an d tem ple im agery in vv 20– 22.
As the passage begins, the readers, here explicitly described for the first
tim e as G entiles, are rem in d ed by this Jew ish C hristian follower o f Paul th at
th eir p re-C hristian state was one o f serious religious deprivation. T hey are
asked to reflect o n th eir fo rm er condition in term s o f categories valid at a
p rio r stage in th e history o f salvation in o rd e r to appreciate all the m ore th eir
p resen t privileges. It is obviously th e w riter’s view th at at one tim e Israel had
real advantages an d th a t Gentiles, in com parison, h ad at th at tim e no share
in Israel’s M essiah. B eing excluded from G od’s electing pu rp o se for the com -
m onw ealth o f Israel, from the covenant relationship an d the prom ise, they
were th erefo re destitute o f the tru e h ope an d tru e God. T h e dram atic reversal
th at has taken place for the G entile readers th ro u g h th eir relationship to C hrist
an d th ro u g h his sacrificial d ea th is described in the language o f Jew ish prosely-
tism as “having com e n ea r.” B ut as the rest o f the passage m akes clear, this
term inology is tran sfo rm ed to m ean no t m em bership w ithin Israel, b u t access
to G od him self an d m em bership in his newly created com m unity.
T h e m iddle section o f the pericope elaborates on how C hrist’s work m ade
this possible. T h e proselyte term inology o f “fa r” an d “n e a r” rem inds the w riter
o f an O T passage, Isa 57:19, which speaks o f peace fo r two such groups. Yet
before he draw s on this, he p rep ares the g ro u n d fo r its em phasis on peace
160 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 1 – 22

by applying hym nic m aterial depicting C hrist as the em bodim ent o f peace
an d b rin g er o f reconciliation for a divided cosmos to the situation o f a divided
hum anity. C hrist is now said to have m ade Jew s a n d G entiles one by dem olishing
the dividing wall an d source o f hostility betw een them , th at is, by abolishing
th e law an d all its regulations, a n d to have accom plished this th ro u g h his
death. T h a t d eath n o t only term in ated th e old o rd e r d om inated by th e law
b u t in tro d u ced in its place a new creation, a co rporate new hum anity (“one
new p erso n ”) which is em braced in his own person. Tw o aspects o f C hrist’s
reconciling w ork are now set forth. O n th e horizontal level, he has m ade
peace betw een th e two old enem ies, Jew s a n d Gentiles, an d reconciled them
in the one body o f the C hurch. A t the sam e tim e, on th e vertical level, he
has reconciled b oth groups to G od th ro u g h his d ea th on the cross, indicating,
in a way which th e o p en in g verses did not, th a t th ere is a fu n d am en tal sense
in which Israel too was alienated from God. T h e w riter is now able to introduce
th e O T citation which the earlier proselyte term inology recalled; he com bines
it creatively with Isa 52:7 to give a C hristological in terp retatio n , as C hrist’s
w ork on th e cross is seen as his proclam ation o f peace with G od to bo th the
G entile read ers an d the Jews. T h e elaboration on C hrist’s w ork concludes
with a statem en t encapsulating th e results o f C hrist’s peacem aking in term s
o f th e access he has provided to the F ath er fo r b o th Jew s an d Gentiles th ro u g h
the one Spirit.
In th e light o f w hat has been said ab o u t C hrist’s achievem ent, the contrast
betw een th e re ad ers’ past a n d pre sen t is restated in v 19 in term s which transcend
the old J e w-G entile division a n d which lead into a description o f the new
com m unity o f th e C h u rch an d th e re ad ers’ place in it. T hese G entile C hristians
are no lo n g er w ithout a hom eland o r com m onw ealth; they can now be said
to be fellow citizens in th e heavenly com m onw ealth with the saints a n d m em bers
o f the family o f G od him self. T hey have been built into G od’s tem ple as bricks
placed on th e fo u n d atio n o f the C h u rc h ’s apostles an d pro p h ets, an d they
are p a rt o f a stru ctu re which has th e exalted C hrist as its crow ning stone.
Jo in ed to g eth er with one an o th er, these bricks form a stru ctu re which is in
th e process o f grow th tow ard holiness. T h e w riter th e n com pletes his re m in d e r
to th e read ers by u n d erlin in g th a t they are to see them selves as being built in
C hrist into th e very place in which G od him self is p re sen t in the Spirit.
In two places in the w riter’s flow o f th o u g h t a “trin ita rian ” p a tte rn to his
reflections em erges. In v 18, Jew s’ an d G entiles’ access to G od is th ro u g h
C hrist an d in th e Spirit, a n d in v 22, as p a rt o f th e C hurch, the G entile readers
in C hrist form th e dw elling place o f G od in th e Spirit. D espite these two
references to th e Spirit, th e d o m in an t foci for th e w riter’s th o u g h t rem ain, as
in the earlier pericopes, God, C hrist, a n d hum anity. B ut w hereas in 2 :1–10
the theocentric perspective was .most to th e fore, here in 2:11– 22 C hrist’s
role is given m o re attention. A t the beginning, the contrast betw een the read ers’
past an d p resen t can be form ulated in term s o f “a p a rt from C hrist” an d “in
C hrist,” an d at th e end, the distinctive place o f C hrist as the keystone o f the
tem ple stru ctu re is stressed. B ut C hrist is the focus o f atten tio n prim arily because
the w riter has taken u p the hym n to C hrist in vv 14– 16, in which C hrist was
th e central actor ra th e r th a n sim ply the agent, a n d because the w ording o f
the O T citation in v 17 was also ap p ro p ria te to having C hrist as the subject.
 Explanation 161

T h e w riter’s m ore usual form ulation o f God acting on b eh a lf o f hum anity

th ro u g h C hrist does n o t em erge again until vv 20– 22, with th eir passive partici-
ples which have G od as the im plied subject, an d th eir rep etitio n o f “in w hom ”
in reference to C hrist as agent. T h o u g h C hrist is the keystone an d the one in
w hom the stru ctu re holds together, it is clear th at th e building as a whole is
G od’s, his dwelling place. T h e section begins with the h u m an situation, how ever,
an d th e contrast o f vv 11– 13, 19, because it form s p a rt o f th e address to G entile
Christians, has th e readers as the subject o f the verbs. T h e hum anity on beh alf
o f which C hrist acts is seen first o f all in term s o f Jew s an d Gentiles; then, as
a result o f his activity, th e one new p erson o f th e C h u rch is created; an d by
the en d o f the section the hum anity which experiences the w orking o f G od is
seen exclusively in term s o f this C hurch.
T h e change from p re-C hristian past to C hristian p resen t in the C hurch is
pro d u ced n ot by G od’s salvation as resurrection an d exaltation with Christ,
as in 2:1– 10, b u t by C hrist’s reconciliation. C hrist as peacem aker is the one
who has m ade th e difference. T h e w riter sets this o u t by changing the notion
o f C hrist’s cosmic peacem aking in the traditional m aterial an d giving it a histori-
cal setting, as he applies it to the J e w-G entile situation an d roots it in w hat
was accom plished on th e cross. In retrospect, C hrist’s d ea th on the cross can
be seen as effecting peace both on a horizontal an d a vertical level. First o f
all, by dealing with th e law as the source o f hostility, his d eath overcam e the
alienating divide betw een Jew s an d Gentiles an d was th e creative pow er which
pro d u ced a unified new hum anity from these two groups. T h e ju d g m e n t th at
in E phesians Christology has been swallowed u p by ecclesiology surely misses
the em phasis o f this passage, w here it is C hrist’s reconciling death on the
cross on which the very existence o f th e C h u rch depends. T h e Pauline notion
o f reconciliation has been applied, then, to the social sphere, as Jew s and
Gentiles with th eir ethnic an d religious differences are said to be reconciled
in the one body o f th e C hurch. B ut the vertical elem ent o f Pauline reconciliation,
restoration to G od’s acceptance an d favor, is n ot m issing, an d C hrist’s death
effected this at th e sam e tim e fo r both groups. N ot only Gentiles b u t also
Jews req u ired reconciliation to God, an d th ro u g h C hrist both now enjoy the
privilege o f access to his fatherly presence. C hrist’s whole m inistry clim axing
in his sacrificial d eath (cf. “the blood o f C hrist” in v 13) am ounts to a proclam a-
tion o f the good news o f peace with G od to both G entiles an d Jews. In fact,
C hrist is so closely linked to w hat he has achieved th at the whole notion o f
peace takes on a personal quality an d is identified with Christ: “he is o u r
peace” (v 14). T h e C h u rch is the aren a w here the results o f C hrist’s peacem aking
are to be seen— th e one new person (v 15) an d th e one body (v 16). T h e
peace gained at th e cost o f C hrist’s d ea th a n d realized in the C h u rch is to be
preserved an d d em o n strated (cf. 4:3) a n d to be proclaim ed (cf. 6:15) by the
C h u rch in th e world. As the rest o f the letter indicates, w hat has been achieved
in the C h u rch in th e overcom ing o f th e m ajor division w ithin hum anity in
the first century is an anticipation o f G od’s p u rp o se for the still-divided cosmos
(cf. 1:10; 3:10). T h a t m ajor division can be seen as a prototype o f all divisions
(cf. Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). If the C h u rch in E ph 2 stands for the overcom ing o f
th at fu n d am en tal division o f hum anity into eith er Jew o r G entile, it stands
for th e overcom ing o f all divisions caused by tradition, class, color, nation, or
162 E p h e s ia n s 2 :1 1 – 22

groups o f nations. A nything less w ould be a denial o f th at n a tu re o f th e C h u rch

which this w riter takes as axiom atic.
Soteriology in term s o f reconciliation, which is the co n ten t o f 2:14 – 18, leads
to ecclesiology, which is the co n ten t o f 2:19– 22, b u t which has already b een
in tro d u ced in th e earlier section. In d eed , th e pericope as a whole contains a
rich variety o f im ages o f th e C h u rch , em bracing th e categories o f people o f
God, body o f C hrist, an d tem ple o f th e Spirit, an d setting fo rth th e C hurch
as one, holy, catholic, an d apostolic.
T h e C h u rch is a new creation w hich replaces the older o rd e r with its divided
hum anity. It form s instead th e “new p erso n ,” a new hum anity included in
C hrist as th e rep resentative h u m a n being, thereby constituting his “body.”
T his new com m unity is, as we have seen, characterized above all by its unity
(“o n e” in v 14, “one new m a n ” in v 15, a n d “o ne body” in v 16). It is the
sp here in which hostility has b een overcom e, reconciliation has been achieved,
an d peace bears its fruits, and, as such, form s a visible sign o f unity fo r the
world. T h e C h u rch is no t only the place o f reconciliation betw een Jew s an d
G entiles, it is also the place w here reconciliation betw een hum anity a n d G od
is experienced, w here harm ony betw een heaven an d ea rth has been restored,
an d w here access to the F ath er is enjoyed. T h e high G od o f heaven has chosen
to m ake it his dw elling place o n e a rth , a n d th e C hrist who has b een exalted
to heaven form s the crow ning stone in its structure. T h e C h u rch is w here
m en an d w om en experience a sense o f being at hom e, o f belonging, n o t only
to one a n o th e r in a unified hum anity as fellow citizens, b u t also to G od him self
as p art o f his h o usehold o r family. T his new society is also a building, a tem ple,
w here h u m an s are the building m aterial which G od the b uilder has already
m ade into his dwelling place. N o longer th e literal tem ple in Jeru sa lem b u t
the com m unity o f the C h u rch is th e focus for G od’s presence in the world.
T h e C h u rch is already the tem ple in which G od dwells. Yet, it is at th e sam e
tim e a building u n d e r construction, w here, th ro u g h th eir relationship to C hrist
an d to one an o th er, believers are still being shaped into a fit sanctuary for
God. It is to be characterized by grow th a n d holiness as it becom es w hat it
already is. N one o f these elem ents co n trib u tin g to the w riter’s vision o f the
C h u rch are th ere as p a rt o f an abstract description. T h ey are instead taken
u p into his address to his readers. T h ey are to see them selves as the building
m aterial G od has chosen to utilize fo r his tem ple o f the e n d-tim e p ervaded
by th e Spirit (v 22), a n d thereby to gain a g re ater sense o f th eir identity as
those with a privileged role to play in th e w orking o u t o f G od’s purposes in
this world.
T h e ir new privileged position in th e C h u rch owes everything to C hrist.
H e is th e o ne who m ade access possible, the one w ho is the keystone o f the
tem ple stru ctu re, th e one in w hom th e whole stru ctu re coheres an d into w hom
they are being fitted, an d the one who enables th em to grow into w hat they
are m ean t to be. T h e ir position also owes m uch to the apostles a n d prophets.
T hey are th e fo u n d atio n on which G entiles could be built into the C hurch,
fo r th eir proclam ation a n d in terp re tatio n o f th e significance o f w hat G od h ad
do n e in C hrist m ediated th e good news o f peace. T h ey serve now as the norm
for traditions ab o u t th a t good news.
T h e passage which finishes with such lofty assertions ab o u t the place o f
 Explanation 163

G entile believers in the new com m unity o f the C h u rch h ad b egun by stating
the hopeless deficiencies o f th eir fo rm er state in com parison with the advantages
enjoyed by Israel as G od’s people. W hat th e n is the relationship betw een Israel
as G od’s people an d the C h u rch as G od’s new people according to this writer?
T o do justice to th e w riter’s th o u g h t we m ust stress a basic discontinuity betw een
the C h u rch an d Israel, an d yet note at th e sam e tim e an elem ent o f continuity.
From the contrast with which the passage begins as it speaks o f the alienation
o f Gentiles from Israel, h e r M essiah, an d h e r God, we m ight have expected a
changed situation in which Gentiles now e n te r into the covenant relationship,
which continues with Israel, o r at least Israel as re p resen te d by Jew ish Christians,
m uch as Paul in Rom 11 sees th e G entiles as wild olive branches who are
grafted into th e olive tree. B ut these expectations are n o t fulfilled. It m ight
be held th at in co rporation o f the traditional m aterial with its language o f
creation an d a new person com plicated the w riter’s arg u m en t, b u t he continues
its em phasis on discontinuity in the rest o f the passage, an d even in v 11,
with its term inology o f “in th e flesh” a n d “m ade by h an d s,” h ad already distanced
him self from the validity o f the distinctions he used. As the text stands, the
G entiles’ fo rm er disadvantages have been reversed, n o t by th eir being incorpo-
rated into Israel, even into a renew ed Israel o f Jew ish C hristians, b u t by their
being m ade m em bers o f a new com m unity which transcends the categories
o f Jew an d Gentile, an entity which is a new creation, n o t simply a m erging
o f the fo rm er groupings. W hen it appears th at the earlier contrast o f vv 11–
13 will be taken u p again in v 19, we discover th at it has been reform ulated
so th at in th e depiction o f the G entiles’ p resen t privileges the com parison
with Israel has been transcended. Gentiles no longer lack a com m onw ealth.
Yet this is n o t because they are now p a rt o f the com m onw ealth o f Israel, b u t
because they are fellow citizens with all the saints in the C hurch. In the im agery
which follows, describing th e C h u rch o f which they are now a p a rt as G od’s
family, building an d tem ple, the explicit com parison with Israel has d ro p p e d
from view. W hatever th e dangers for the relationship betw een C hristians and
Jew s which arose from later abuse o f the concept, th ere is no escaping the
conclusion th a t E p h 2 depicts th e C h u rch in term s o f a new th ird entity, one
which transcends th e old ethnic an d religious identities o f Jew an d G entile.
T his is a perspective different from th at o f Rom 9 – 11, b u t with strong affinities
to the sh arp logic o f P aul’s polem ic in Galatians (e.g., Gal 3:28; 6:15, 16).
T h e discontinuity betw een Israel, as the people o f God, an d the C h u rch is
evidenced also by vv 16, 17, w here Jew s as well as Gentiles are said to be
reconciled to G od by C hrist, an d w here “th e n e a r” n eed peace with G od p ro -
claim ed to th em as well as “the fa r.” D espite w hat he believed to have been
th eir real advantages, this w riter holds also th at Israel too was alienated from
h er God. T his perspective o f a discontinuity with Israel is associated with the
attitude o f discontinuity with th e law fo u n d in v 15. T h a t which was the distin-
guishing m ark o f Israel u n d e r the old o rd er, the T o ra h , has been abolished.
As the symbol o f the particularity an d exclusiveness o f Israel’s election, and
thereby th e source o f hostility a n d alienation betw een Jew s an d Gentiles, it
was quite u nable to p roduce peace, b u t with its rem oval th ro u g h C hrist’s d eath
reconciliation was able to take place on a new basis. T h e w riter does n o t spell
o u t how Israel too was alienated from G od an d n eed ed reconciliation; b u t we
164 E p h e s ia n s 2 : 1 1–22

should probably assum e that, as a good disciple o f Paul, he believed th at the

law which sep arated Israel from th e G entiles h ad also com e to separate Israel
from G od an d to hold h e r in a state o f slavery an d condem nation (cf. Gal
3:10– 22; 2 C or 3:7– 11; Rom 3:19, 20; 7:7– 25; 9:30– 10:4).
W hy, th en , does he choose to begin this p a rt o f his re m in d e r to G entile
C hristians in term s o f th eir previous deficiencies as over against Israel? It is
n o t simply th a t Israel serves as a convenient symbol for the sphere o f salvation
from which Gentiles w ere form erly excluded. As a Jew ish C hristian this w riter
actually believes th a t at one tim e Israel did have real advantages in th e history
o f salvation as G od’s chosen people, alth o u g h she h ad forfeited them . Yet
even h ere his C hristian perspective is evident, for m ost o f th e advantages he
lists look tow ard th e fu tu re (cf. “M essiah,” “prom ise,” “h o p e ”). T h e re h ad
been a p otential continuity because Israel stood u n d e r the prom ise. T his is
w here th e focus o f continuity lies. T h e h o p e o f the prom ised M essiah has
been realized, an d it is th ro u g h him th a t th e G entile C hristian readers now
have a place in th e history o f salvation th a t has its roots back in G od’s covenants
with Israel. Yet, because Israel was u n p re p a re d fo r the way in which th e h ope
was realized, th ere is no straightforw ard continuity betw een h e r a n d G od’s
new people. T h o se who w ere n e a r a n d who receive th e peace proclaim ed to
th em en ter, along w ith those w ho w ere far off a n d received the sam e proclam a-
tion, into G od’s new com m unity. In this com m unity, th o u g h the law has been
abolished, th e Scriptures, in te rp re te d in th e light o f the realization o f the
ho p e in C hrist, still speak (cf. v 17). A bout th e destiny o f those Jew s who do
n o t accept C hrist an d about th e fu tu re o f Israel, this w riter has n o th in g to
say. Unlike th e Paul o f Rom 9– 11, who speaks o f the continuing election an d
fu tu re salvation o f Israel, he ap p ears to view G od’s purposes as now cen tered
exclusively in th e C hurch. C ertainly this passage cannot be treated as providing
the basis fo r conversation betw een C h u rch a n d synagogue on the g rounds o f
th eir com m on election. T h e unity o f which the passage speaks is n o t one
betw een C h u rch a n d synagogue, b u t one betw een G entile C hristians an d Jew ish
C hristians w ithin th e one body o f th e C hurch, th o u g h , as we have seen, w ithin
th e context o f th e whole letter this can be seen as the first visible step tow ard
the b rin g in g o f th e whole cosmos into unity in C hrist (cf. 1:10).
It is often assum ed th a t th e whole o f E ph 2:11– 22 is simply ab o u t unity
betw een G entile C hristians a n d Jew ish C hristians. O n this assum ption a life-
setting for th e letter is sought which will explain this concern with unity eith er
in term s o f a co n tinuing struggle ab o u t th e status o f G entile C hristians o r in
term s o f a situation o f G entile arrogance tow ard Jew ish C hristians. B ut vv
14 – 18 with th eir exposition o f th e unity C hrist has pro d u ced th ro u g h his
reconciling d ea th m ust n o t be isolated from th eir overall context. T h e w riter
sees the unity o f which they speak as already achieved by C hrist an d as a
fu n d am en tal d atu m o f th e C h u rc h ’s existence, u p o n which he can build his
m ain p o in t—th e re m in d e r to G entile C hristians o f the privileges they enjoy
as m em bers o f this universal C hurch. Verses 14 – 18 are fram ed by the contrast
betw een past an d present, fo rm ulated so as to address directly the G entile
C hristian readers, a n d th e passage ends with a depiction o f G od’s new tem ple,
which also addresses th e read ers, rem in d in g th em th at this is the n a tu re o f
the com m unity o f which they have becom e a part. T h e setting which best
 Explanation 165

corresponds to th e th ru st o f the passage is th at o f predom inantly G entile

churches in Asia M inor tow ard the en d o f th e first century, w hen Jew ish C hris-
tian/G en tile C hristian struggles w ere past an d w hen th ere was a dim inishing
aw areness o f th e C h u rch ’s roots an d th ere fo re a deficient sense o f th eir identity
on th e p a rt o f G entile C hristians. A Jew ish C hristian Paulinist is in a good
position to speak to this lack an d wants to do so in such a way as to build u p
his read ers’ assurance o f th eir salvation. T his is in accord with his desire reflected
in the thanksgiving period o f 1:15– 23 th at the addressees’ know ledge o f the
greatness o f G od’s pow er tow ard th em as believers should be increased. T hey
are to rem em b er th eir own history in term s o f the history o f salvation, n o t in
o rd e r to dwell on th eir old identity in distinction from Israel o r on any continuing
distinction from Jew ish C hristians, b u t in o rd e r to ap preciate th eir new identity
as p art o f th e o ne new hum anity. As in th e preceding pericope, 2:1– 10, this
rem in d er o f the im m ense change b ro u g h t about in th eir situation is in ten d ed
to d eep en th e re ad ers’ aw areness o f both the privilege o f th eir calling as p a rt
o f G od’s new tem ple an d the responsibility to live u p to th a t calling th ro u g h
th eir co rp o rate grow th in holiness. In this way, E ph 2:11– 22 functions, and
can continue to function, as a re m in d e r to a predom inantly G entile C hurch
not to take its blessings fo r granted. Its relation to th e C hrist who is Israel’s
Messiah, its listening to the H ebrew S criptures as its own Scriptures (cf. v
17), its access to th e F ather, its links with all believers, a n d its participation in
the spiritual tem ple which has replaced the Jeru salem tem ple are only possible
because th e creative dynam ic o f C hrist’s d eath has enabled those who were
far off to com e near. Such reflections are designed to lead the readers to a
renew ed appreciation of, an d gratitu d e for, th e pow erful n atu re o f C hrist’s
reconciling work, b u t for which they w ould have rem ain ed w ithout G od an d
w ithout h o p e in the world. T hey are designed to give them an incentive to
becom e w hat they already are as the com m unity w here divisions have been
healed an d G od’s presence is m ade know n in the world.
T his exposition o f the privileged situation into which Gentiles have en tered
can be seen as p re p ara tio n for w hat follows in chap. 3, both for the prayer
th at believers may be em pow ered to fulfill th eir role in C o d ’s purposes (cf.
vv 14–21) an d for th e parenthetical depiction o f P aul’s special role in receiving
an d m aking know n the m ystery o f G entile inclusion in th e people o f G od (cf.
vv 1–13). It serves particularly as a dem o n stratio n o f the insight into this
m ystery which th e w riter claims to possess (cf. v 4).
Paul as Minister of the Mystery to the
Gentiles (3:1–13)
Bibliography

Best, E. “The Revelation to Evangelize the Gentiles.” JT S 35 (1984) 1–31. Brown,

R. E. The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1968, 56– 66. Garagounis, C. C. The Ephesian Mysterion, 52–56, 72– 74, 96–
112. Coppens, J. “ ‘Mystery’ in the Theology of St. Paul and Its Parallels at Qumran.”
In Paul and Qumran, ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor. London: Chapman, 1968, 132–58. Dahl,
N. A. “Das Geheimnis der Kirche nach Eph 3:8– 10.” In Zur Auferbauung des Leibes
Christi, ed. E. Schiink and A. Peters. Kassel: Johannes Stauda, 1965, 63– 75. Davies,
L. “I Wrote Afore in Few Words (Eph 3,3).” ExpTim 46 (1934–35) 568. Fischer,
K. M. Tendenz und Absicht, 95– 108. Gnilka, J. “Das Paulusbild im Kolosser- und Epheser-
brief.” In Kontinuität und Einheit, 179–93. Kim, S. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Tübingen:
Mohr, 1981, 20– 25. Klein, G. Die Zwölf Apostel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht,
1961, 69–72. Lincoln, A. T., Paradise Now and Not Yet, 154–55. Lindemann, A. Die
Aufhebung der Zeit, 221–30. Lührmann, D. Das Offenbarungsverständnis bei Paulus und in
den paulinischen Gemeinden. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965, 119–33.
Mare, W. H. “Paul’s Mystery in Ephesians 3.” BETS 8 (1965) 77– 84. Merklein, IL
Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief, 159–224. -------- . “Paulinische Theologie in
der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes.” In Paulus in den neutestamentlichen
Spätschriften, 27–31. Meyer, R. P. Kirche und Mission im Epheserbrief, 58– 60, 64– 65.
Minear, P. S. “The Vocation to Invisible Powers: Ephesians 3:8– 10.” In To Die and to
Live. New York: Seabury, 1977, 89– 106. Mussner, F. Christus, das All und die Kirche,
144–47. Orbe, A. “Una variante heterodoxa de Eph 3, 5a.” Greg 37 (1956) 201– 19.
Percy, E. Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, 342–53. Pesch, R. “Das Mysterium
Christi (Eph 3, 8– 12, 14– 19).” Am Tisch des Wortes 18 (1967) 11– 17. Ryrie, C. C. “The
Mystery in Ephesians 3.” BSac 123 (1966) 24–31. Thompson, G. H. P. “Eph 3, 13
and 2 Tim 2, 10 in the Light of Col 1, 24.” ExpTim 71 (1959– 60) 187–89. Wink, W.
Naming the Powers. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984, 89–96.

Translation

1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus fo r the sake of you Gentiles—
2assuming that you have of course heard about the stewardship of the grace of God
which was given to me fo r you, ^that the mystery was made known to me according
to revelation, as I have already written briefly.a 4In accordance with this you will
be able, when you read, to perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which
was not made known to peopleh in other generations as it has now been revealed to
his holy apostlesc and to prophets by the Spirit, 6and which involves the Gentiles'
being joint heirs and joint members of the body and sharers in the promise in Christ
Jesus through the gospel. 7 O f this gospel I became a servant according to the gift of
God's grace, which was given to me through the working of his power. 8 To me, the
very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the good
news of the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to alld what is the
administration of the mystery, which was hidden fo r ages in God who created all
things,e 10in order that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God should
 Form / Structure/ Setting 167

now be made known to the principalities and authorities in the heavenly realms,
11according to the eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,
12in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in him. 131 beg
you, therefore, not to become discouraged because of my sufferings on your behalf,
which are your glory.

Notes

aVerses 2– 7 in the Greek form one sentence. This is not reflected in the translation.
bLiterally, “the sons o f men.”
cIn v 5 äirooTÖkois is omitted by B Ambrosiaster, but the clear witness o f all the other texts is
to be followed. Presumably it was omitted in order to conform the wording to that o f Col 1:26.
dThere is a textual question about the inclusion o f navras, “all.” 0cjrtaat, “to make plain,”
without an object would be quite unusual. It could be argued that this is, therefore, the more
difficult reading and original, but if it were, one would expect other variants as well as irävras in
an effort to make it easier. Since, also, the witnesses which have the object, p 4 6 Nc B C D G R P
'P it vg syrP’h cop sa>1,0 Marcion Tertullian, are weightier than those without it, N * A 1739 Origen
Augustine, navras is probably to be taken as original. Some who accept the shorter reading interpret
the administration of the mystery as the object. But this ignores the pronoun rts, “what,” and
the fact that ot/copo/uta, “administration,” is in the nominative case (cf. also Gaugler, 141; pace
J. A. Robinson, 170; Gnilka, 171; Lindemann, Aufhebung, 222 n. 99; Schnackenburg, 139 n. 334).
eIn a number of texts, including D c K L P many minuscules syrh**, the phrase 6ta Irjaoö
Xptorov, “through Jesus Christ,” is added after Krioaim, “created.” If the phrase was original,
there appears to be no good explanation for its later omission. Since the external evidence clearly
supports a reading without it (cf. p 46 N A B C D* F G P 33 1319 most versions and patristic
quotations), it is best to see the phrase as a later addition in line with Pauline thought about the
role of Christ in creation.

Form/Structure/Setting

3 : 1– 13 is form ally a digression on P aul’s apostolic m inistry to the Gentiles

an d on the m ystery which h ad been revealed to him a n d was at the h ea rt o f
his m inistry. T h e original intention o f the th o u g h t b eg u n in 3:1 is n o t com pleted,
because th e reference in it to Paul as a p riso n er for the sake o f the Gentiles
leads to an expatiation on this them e. 3 : 1, then, is anacoluthic, an d the repetition
o f th e o p en in g p h rase tovtov xäptv, “for this reaso n ,” in 3:14 suggests th a t at
th at p o in t the w riter takes u p again the in ten tio n with which he h ad started
o u t in 3 : 1, which can now be seen to be to intercede on b eh alf o f his G entile
C hristian readers. In this case, the original tovtov xäpw o f 3:1 provides a link
with th e th ru st o f the preceding pericope, 2:11– 22, an d particularly the last
p art, vv 18– 22 . If his G entile C hristian readers are no longer outside the
scope o f th e history o f salvation, b u t have been privileged to be p a rt o f G od’s
new tem ple, th en the w riter sees them as in n eed o f being em pow ered to
fulfill th eir role in G od’s purposes, o f being enabled to becom e w hat they
are, an d gives an account o f his p rayer to th at effect. Since this inten tio n
begins in v 1 b u t is not taken u p again until v 14 , it is in fact, strictly speaking,
vv 2– 13 which form the digression on P aul’s m inistry to the Gentiles w ithin
the intro d u ctio n to an intercessory prayer. In P aul’s letters, connected with
th e thanksgiving period o r its equivalent with its intercessory prayer-re p o rt
168 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1–13

concerned with the situation o f the readers, th ere is often a statem ent focusing
on the w riter an d his situation (cf. Rom 1:11–15; 2 C or 1:8 – 14; Phil 1:12–
26; Col 1:24– 29; 1 Thess 2:1– 12). In Ephesians the co rresp o n d in g featu re
ap p ears to be this digression, in which th e m inistry o f th e one in whose nam e
th e letter is w ritten is the cen ter o f attention.
T h e digression falls into th ree sentences, two lo n g er ones a n d th e n one
sh o rt final sentence. T h e two longer sentences, vv 2– 7 an d vv 8 – 12, provide
parallel statem ents about the m ystery which is central to the gospel with which
Paul was en tru sted . T h e first statem ent is fram ed by references to P aul’s apostle-
ship in term s o f grace and, in line with the reflections o f 2:11– 22, focuses on
th e m ystery o f th e G entiles’ participation in G od’s people, th e C hurch, while
th e second statem ent links the m ystery w ith th e C h u rc h ’s role in G od’s purposes
fo r th e cosmos an d thereby recalls the earlier association o f m ystery with G od’s
p lan fo r th e cosmos in 1:9, 10. In its talk o f the recipients o f th e revelation
o f th e m ystery, th e first statem ent speaks o f Paul alongside the holy apostles
a n d p ro p h ets, while in the second statem ent the focus narrow s to Paul alone
as th e proclaim er o f the m ystery. T h e final sentence, v 13, ro u n d s off th e
digression neatly by taking u p from v 1, b u t in a different form ulation, the
n otion o f th e suffering apostle fo r the G entiles, which h ad caused the digression
in th e first place (cf. also C aragounis, Mysterion, 72– 74; contra Gnilka, 179,
w ho takes v 13 as p a rt o f the following pericope).
T his pericope in particular highlights the pseudonym ous form o f the letter
as a whole. In its th irteen verses we find in concentrated form the w riter’s
identification with the apostle (cf. the discussion o f this p h e n o m en o n in the
Introduction). T h ro u g h this follower o f Paul th e apostolic tradition is continued,
a n d Paul speaks again to the churches o f Asia M inor: “I, Paul, th e p riso n er
o f C hrist Je su s” (v 1), “the adm inistration . . . given to m e” (v 2), “th e m ystery
was m ade know n to m e,” “as I have already w ritten” (v 3), “my insight” (v 4),
“I was m ade a m inister,” “G od’s grace which was given to m e” (v 7), “to
m e who am th e very least o f all the saints” (v 8), “I beg,” an d “my sufferings” (v
13). T h e effect o f the apostle speaking again to the churches is m aintained
also by the form o f direct address to th e G entile C hristian readers which con-
tinues from chap. 2, th ro u g h o u t which it has been dom inant: “you G entiles”
(v 1), “assum ing th at you have indeed h e a rd ,” “fo r you” (v 2), “you will
be able, w hen you re a d ” (v 4), “I beg you,” “on your behalf,” an d “yo u r glory”
(v 13).
T h e style o f th e passage, like the rest o f the letter to this point, involves
th e stringing to g eth er o f relative clauses, rep etitio n (cf. especially “the grace
given to m e” in vv 2, 7, 8, “m ystery” in vv 3, 4, 9, an d “to m ake know n” in vv
3 ,5 , 10), an d liturgical language (cf. especially vv 11, 12). T his continuity in
style, to g eth er with the points o f continuity o f substance with th e earlier p a rt
o f th e letter, argues against th e view th a t th e digression was a later insertion
into p refo rm ed liturgical m aterial fo r the sake o f conform ity to epistolary style
(contra Kirby, Ephesians, 129– 32).
T h e pericope has a n u m b e r o f parallels with Col l:2 3 c - 28 (cf. M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 160 – 71, fo r a detailed discussion o f th e literary relationship).
T h e relation betw een the two passages can be set o u t in term s o f w ording
a n d o f them es.
 Form / Structure / Setting 169

(i) W ording:
Colossians Ephesians
1:23c eyco IlaöXo? bucLKOVo*; 3:1 eyco riaöXo? 6 öeapio?
1:24a m e p vpCbv 3:1 m e p vpcbv
1:24b ra v o r e p p p a r a tcov 0Xti//eoot> 3:13 ev rat? 0Xti//eoti> p o v v ir ip
toOX p ia r o v e v Tjj o a p td p o v vpcbv
m e p tov o c o p a ro s airrov
1:25a fis eye vo p rjv eyco 8 ulkovo<; 3:7a ov e y e v p ß r p biän ovos
1:25b tt \v oiKOVopiav tov deov 3:2 TTjv oiKOVopiav T ijs xaptro?
tt)v bodeioav p o t et? üpä? tov deov r tf s bodeiorjs p o i
et? upa?
1:26a TO PVOTTIPIOV TO 3:4b, 5a r ip p varrjpicp tov X p ia r o v , b
airoK etcpvppevov a n d tcov erepat? y e v e a ls ovk eyvcopiadrj
aioovoov m i airb tcov yevecbv
3:9 tov pixjTTjpiov tov airoK eK pvppevov
airb tcov aicovcov
1:26b v vv be iijxivepcodri rot? 3:5b v vv aireKaXixjidrj rot? 07101?
crytot? airrov airooroX oi ? a v r o v Kai irpofynrais
1:27,28a y vc o p io a i rt to 7TXouro? 3:8b tois ed veo iv e v a y y e X io a o d a i
rr)? 5o£t?? tov p va rrjp io v to ave^ixviaoTO v irXouro?
Toirrov ev rot? edveoiv, o i o r i v tov X p ia r o v
Xptoro? ev vpvv . . . bv rj/Ltet?
K d T a yyeX k o p ev
1:29b K a ra ttiv e vep yeva v a v r o v 3:7c K a ra ttjv e ve p ye va v rf)?
tt\v ivep yo vp evT jv ev epot b v va p e co s airrov
ev b v vä p e i

(it) T hem es:

Col 1:23c Introduction of Paul Eph 3:1
Col 1:24 Suffering of Apostle Eph 3:1, 13
Col 1:25 Office of Apostle Eph 3:2
Col 1:26 Revelation of Hidden Mystery Eph 3:4, 5, 9
Col 1:27 Content of Mystery Eph 3:6
Col 1:28 Proclamation of Content Eph 3:8,9

As regards th e them es, Ephesians can be seen to follow the sam e sequence
as Colossians. E ph 3:1– 13 appears clearly to be d ep e n d e n t on Col l:2 3 c - 28
an d to be an in terp re tatio n o f it. T h e two m ajor changes th e w riter has m ade
in his use o f Colossians are the focusing o f the co n ten t o f the m ystery on
G entiles’ m em bership in the C hurch com posed o f Jew s an d G entiles, n o t ju st
on C hrist am ong the Gentiles (3:6; cf. Col 1:27), an d the specifying, an d thus
narrow ing down, o f the recipients o f the m ystery to th e holy apostles an d
p ro p h ets (3:5; cf. Col 1:26). B oth reflect the distinctive em phasis o f Ephesians
on th e C h u rch an d on the role o f the apostles an d p ro p h e ts as its foundation.
E phesians’ focus on the C hurch can at the sam e tim e allow a b ro ad en in g o f
perspective in com parison with Colossians, for w hereas in Col 1:26 th e m ystery
is simply m ade know n by G od to believers, in th e second statem ent ab o u t the
m ystery in E p h 3 it is m ade know n by G od th ro u g h the C h u rch to the principali-
ties an d authorities in the heavenly realm s.
170 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1 – 13

E phesians’ use o f Colossians incorporates Colossians’ own use o f a “revelation

schem a” in Col 1:26, 27. Such a schem a, in which a previously h id d en m ystery
is said to be disclosed in the present, ap p ears to have been fairly com m on in
early C hristianity’s ap p ro p riatio n o f term inology from the Jew ish apocalypses.
T h e m o tif first ap pears in 1 C or 2:7– 10, th e n in Col 1:26,27, here in E ph
3:4, 5, 9, 10, an d also in the n o n -Pauline doxology ad d ed to the en d o f R om ans
in Rom 16:25– 27. T h e language o f 2 T im 1:9, 10; T itus 1:2 ,3 ; 1 Pet 1:20
(cf. also 1 T im 3:16) about p re sen t m anifestation o f th at which existed p re -
viously m ay also be an echo o f the sam e m otif. (For discussion o f th e possible
use o f th e revelation schem a in early C hristian proclam ation, see N. A. Dahl,
“F orm -Critical O bservations on Early C hristian P reaching,” in Jesus in the
Memory of the Early Church (M inneapolis: A ugsburg, 1976) 32– 33; L ü h rm an n ,
Offenbarungsverständnis, 124– 33.) W hatever its origins, this schem a ap p ears to
have becom e p o p u la r am ong P aul’s disciples. T h e form ulation o f the schem a
in E phesians is distinct from th e o th e r exam ples in th e N T ; it cannot th e re -
fore be traced to traditional m aterial, b u t ra th e r derives from th e a u th o r’s dis-
tinctive rew orking o f the Colossians passage (cf. also M erklein, Das kirchliche
Amt, 165– 70).
How does th e m aterial in this digression on th e apostolic m inistry relate to
o th e r p arts o f th e first h alf o f th e letter? It is the im m ediately preceding section,
2:11– 22, which feeds m ost directly into its depiction o f Paul as th e m inister
o f the m ystery o f Gentiles having becom e p a rt o f the one body o f the C hurch.
P aul’s m inistry was only possible because C hrist’s w ork o f reconciliation h ad
first created th at one body o r one new p erso n (2:15, 16). T h e new status which
results fo r G entile C hristians is described by m eans o f a aw - co m p o u n d in
2:19 an d by th ree such com pounds in 3:6, while the access to G od provided
by C hrist’s reconciling activity (2:18) is celebrated again in th e p resen t pericope
in 3:12. B oth passages are addressed directly to th e G entile readers (2:11;
3:1), an d b oth look back to the key role o f apostles an d p ro p h e ts in G od’s
purposes (2:20; 3:5).
In th at Paul is seen as th e vehicle o f salvation fo r the G entiles, it is no t
surprising th at aspects o f the blessings o f th a t salvation m entioned in th e eulogy
o f 1:3 – 14 are to be fo u n d again h ere in the digression. In particular, inheritance
an d prom ise figure in th e form ulation o f 3:6 (cf. 1:13, 14), an d “m ystery” as
a description o f th e salvation provided in C hrist in 3:3, 4 has b een preceded
by th e sam e designation in 1:10. T h e c o n ten t o f the earlier reference to m ystery,
th e cosmic sum m ing u p in C hrist, can in fact be seen to be anticipated in
th e one C h u rch o u t o f Jew s a n d Gentiles, which is the co n ten t o f th e m ystery
in this digression. In bo th contexts, th e relation o f th e m ystery to G od’s etern al
pu rp o se, which centers in C hrist, is very m uch to th e fore (cf. 1:9, 10; 3:11).
In the thanksgiving perio d o f 1:15–23 th e w riter h ad requested for all his
readers the Spirit o f wisdom an d revelation in th e know ledge o f G od (1:17)
an d know ledge o f the w orking o f G od’s m ighty stren g th (1:19). B ut in 3:1–
13 Paul as fo u n d ational apostle is seen as the one w ho has experienced p a r
excellence such insight a n d revelation (cf. vv 3–5, 7–9) a n d such w orking o f
G od’s pow er (cf. v 7). As P aul’s apostolic insight a n d revelation are passed on
(vv 3, 4), th e w riter is in stru m en tal in fulfilling his ow n req u est fo r his readers.
It was in th e intercessory prayer-re p o rt th a t th e concepts o f the C h u rch an d
 Form / Structure / Setting 171

th e C h u rch as th e body were first explicitly introduced, an d these occur again

in this pericope in 3:6 an d 3:10. T h e relation o f the C h u rch to the cosmos
an d its powers, first treated in 1:21– 23, is taken u p again h ere in 3:10. In
T.l - 10 th e em phasis was on salvation as G od’s gift an d all o f grace; h ere in
3 :1–13 this em phasis is carried over to the notion o f P aul’s apostleship, which
is similarly seen as G od’s gift an d all o f grace (3:2, 7, 8).
As we have already noted, the passage is connected with the p ray er which
follows in 3 :14– 21 by the repetition o f the op en in g p h rase o f 3:1 in 3:14.
T h e re are no specific points o f contact betw een the co n ten t o f the digression
an d th e co ntent o f the prayer, which is finally re p o rte d after the digression
has been b ro u g h t to a conclusion, b u t th ere is a general link. T h e p rayer
shows the w riter’s concern th at the apostolic roots o f the gospel recalled in
the digression be effectively ap p ro p riated by his readers. In addition, the digres-
sion functions as an elaboration on the person who prays (cf. also C aragounis,
Mysterion, 55– 56)— in this case the au th o r, who has taken on the role o f his
m aster, Paul—an d secondarily as an elaboration also on those for w hom he
prays— th e G entile readers. It also suggests the im portance o f the relationship
betw een them . T h e digression is related in a sim ilar way to the paraenesis o f
the second p a rt o f the letter. It supports the pseudonym ous fram ew ork on
which the paraenesis rests, so th at 4:1 an d 6:20 take u p the notion o f Paul as
p riso n er (cf. 3:1), an d 6:19 takes u p the language o f “m ystery” an d “m aking
know n” with reference to P aul’s m inistry (cf. 3:3– 5, 9, 10).
In discourses designed to persuade, th e digressio was frequently fo u n d in
association with the narratio, an d could com e at the beginning, in the m iddle,
o r at the en d o f the narratio. It was m ean t to treat a them e relevant, th o u g h
n o t logically necessary, to the case being m ade, an d to do so in such a way as
to secure th e aud ience’s favor (cf. Q uintilian 4.3.1, 14). H ere, at the end, it
increases the goodwill o f the recipients by rem in d in g them o f the suffering
apostle’s m inistry on th eir behalf. It underlines for th e G entile readers th at
they owe th eir participation in the salvation th a t h ad been prom ised, th eir
m em bership in th e sam e body as Jew ish C hristians, th eir p a rt in the C h u rch ’s
cosmic role, an d th eir access to God, to th e gospel th at was originally revealed
to an d proclaim ed by Paul. Since the w riter is addressing his readers in P aul’s
nam e, th e digressio strengthens the bond betw een w riter an d readers, increasing
the read ers’ willingness to accept the w riter’s authority an d his extensive ex h o rta-
tions to ap p ro p riate conduct, which will follow in the second p a rt o f the letter.
In w hat setting was a digression to develop such an im age o f Paul necessary?
T h e Introduction, which treats the general setting o f the letter in m ore detail,
is relevant to this question. Suffice it to say h ere th a t for the sake o f his readers,
the w riter is concerned to stren g th en the bonds betw een them an d th e Pauline
tradition. In o rd e r to do so he builds on the prevailing positive im age o f
Paul as th e suffering im prisoned apostle on b eh a lf o f the G entiles. O f course,
P aul’s apostleship to the Gentiles is clearly attested in his own w ritings (cf.
Gal 1:16; 2:7– 9; Rom 1:5, 13, 14; 11:13; 15:16, 18), as are his sufferings (cf.
Gal 6:17; 1 C or 4:9– 13; 15:30– 32; 2 C or 1:3– 11; 4:7– 11; 6:3– 10; 11:23– 33;
12:7– 10; Phil 3:7– 10; Col 1:24), an d his im prisonm ents (cf. 2 C or 6:5; 11:23;
Phil 1:7, 12– 14, 17; Philem 1 ,9 , 10, 13,23; Col 4:3, 10, 18) in th e course o f
carrying o u t his apostolic m inistry. B ut now this com posite picture, a picture o f
172 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1–13

one who was im prisoned an d suffered as C hrist’s ag en t in bringing th e gospel

to th e Gentiles, helps to enhance the au th o rity o f the apostolic tradition fo r
the w riter’s G entile readers.
It is P aul’s distinctive contribution in the past th at is in view. H e is not
being used as a m odel for the C h u rch ’s m issionary activity (contra M eyer, Kirche
und Mission, 5 8 – 60), n o r is the reference to his being the very least o f all the
saints (v 8 ) in ten d ed to m ake the point th at his conversion is now paradigm atic
fo r all believers (contra M. C. de B oer, “Im ages o f Paul in th e Post-Apostolic
P eriod,” CBQ 42 [1980] 374). Instead, to rem em b er the distinctive w ork o f
Paul is to rem em b er the unity an d catholicity o f th e C hurch. As th e previous
pericope (2 : 1 1 – 2 2 ) d em onstrated, th e w riter knows th at ultim ately th e un io n
o f Jew a n d G entile was effected by the reconciling w ork o f C hrist, so w hat
are attrib u ted to Paul are the insight into, a n d the proclam ation o f w hat h ad
already b een accom plished. His picture o f Paul as the ag en t o f an alread y-
achieved unity gives no h in t o f the intense struggle over the issue with certain
Jew ish C hristians, in which Paul was engaged u ntil the e n d o f his life. W hat
is b ro u g h t out, instead, by th e stress on Paul as th e recipient o f revelation (vv
3 , 5 ) an d on th e distinctive gracing o f his m inistry (vv 2, 7, 8 ) is th e authoritative
an d revelatory status o f th e apostolic tradition, thereby u n d erlin in g th e notion
o f th e apostolic fo undation already in tro d u ced in 2:20. At th e sam e tim e, to
rem em b er th e w ork o f the apostle to th e G entiles helps to reinforce th e sense
o f identity o f G entile C hristians. Setting P aul’s w ork in th e whole schem a o f
revelation can reinforce th eir sense o f identity in re g ard to the heritage o f
Jud aism . H ighlighting the cosmic scope o f th e m ystery e n tru sted to Paul can
reinforce th at sense o f identity in re g ard to the w ider w orld in which G entile
C hristians fo u n d them selves.

Comment

1 roirrov xäpw ejco IlaüÄos 6 Seopios rod Xpiarov Irjoov imep vpcov tcjv edvtbv— ,
“fo r this reason I, Paul, the p riso n er o f C hrist Jesu s fo r the sake o f you
G entiles— .” T his verse should no t be m ade into a sentence by supplying eipi
an d treatin g ö öea/iio? as the predicate (contra th e Peshitta; C hrysostom ; M eyer,
153– 54; an d H o u ld en, 297). As n oted in the previous section, this verse contains
an incom plete statem ent an d its th o u g h t is not taken u p again until v 14. It
ap p ears to be th e beginning o f an account o f a p ray er asking th at the G entile
C hristian read ers be enabled to live o u t th eir privileged role in G od’s purposes,
a p ray er in which the introductory phrase, “fo r this reason,” refers back to
th e depiction o f th at role in 2:18– 22 in particular. T h e incom plete sentence,
with its em phasis on th e person o f Paul, “I, P aul,” a n d its reference to him
as C hrist’s p riso n er on b eh alf o f th e Gentiles, in fact serves as the basis o f
th e im p o rtan t digression on P aul’s apostolic m inistry which follows.
T h e ph rase roirrov x&piv is n o t fo u n d in th e m ajor Paulines. A p art from its
use in this verse an d v 14, it occurs elsew here in th e N T only in T itu s 1:5.
6 7 co naüXos can be used by Paul him self (cf. 1 T hess 2:18; Gal 5:2; 2 C or
10:1; Philem 19; cf. also Col 1:23), an d so can n o t in itself be held to suggest a
m agnified focus o n the apostle typical o f pseudonym ity. B ut it is the com bination
o f the em phatic self-reference with a fu rth e r self-designation h ere, “th e p riso n er
 Comment 173

o f C hrist Jesu s,” which m arks this reference off from th e others an d which
justifies th e claim th at this is a “form al an d som ew hat m agisterial” way o f
stating P aul’s relation to G entile C hristians (cf. H oulden, 296).
“T h e p riso n er o f C hrist Jesu s” (cf. 4:1, “th e p riso n er in the L o rd ”) has
replaced P aul’s description o f him self as a m inister o r servant o f the gospel
in Col l:2 3 f, on which this passage is based. It takes u p P aul’s self-designation
in Philem 1 ,9 , Seapios Xpiorov ’Irjaoü, b u t adds to it the definite article and
thereby heightens the distinctiveness o f P aul’s apostolic im prisonm ent (cf. also
2 T im 1:8). T h e P hilem on references an d Phil T. 12– 17, w here his im prisonm ent
is seen as ev XpiorCb, show th a t Paul h ad already reflected on his captivity
theologically. H e can use the term “p riso n er” in both a literal an d m etaphorical
sense at the sam e tim e, so th at his physical im prisonm ent can be seen as simply
the consequence o f his spiritual captivity to Christ. T his latter m etaphorical
sense is sim ilar to P aul’s use o f SoüXos, “slave,” to speak o f his unconditional
allegiance to his Lord.
T h ere is a fu rth e r theological significance attached to P aul’s im prisonm ent.
It can be said to be “for the sake o f you G entiles.” m ep vpcov r(bv eOvobv could
in fact be taken as the p art o f the intro d u ctio n to the in te rru p te d prayer th at
designates those for w hom the p ray er is offered (cf., fo r exam ple, Col 1:9, “we
do n ot cease to pray for you [mep upclw]”). B ut it is probably preferable to
take th e p h rase h ere as m ore closely related to its im m ediate antecedent, the
notion o f th e apostle’s im prisonm ent. P aul’s im prisonm ent was integral to his
special apostolic m inistry o f proclaim ing the gospel to the Gentiles. Historically,
his advocacy o f a law-free G entile m ission was w hat provoked the opposition
which led to his arrest an d im prisonm ent. Now it is no t ju s t Gentiles in general,
b u t the read ers in particular, who are to see them selves as indebted to the
sort o f apostleship which w ould suffer in this way, as the form o f direct address,
“you G entiles,” is con tin u ed from the previous pericope.
2 el ye riKovoare tt ]v oiKovopiav rrfc xäpt t o s t o o Qeov rffc 8odeior)<; pot d ? upa?,
“assum ing th at you have o f course h ea rd about the stew ardship o f th e grace
o f God which was given to m e for you.” T h e w riter in his identification with
Paul now begins his digression on P aul’s m inistry for the sake o f the Gentile
readers by capitalizing on th eir know ledge o f the apostle’s work, ei ye, which
occurs elsew here in the N T only in E p h 4:21; Gal 3:4; 2 C or 6:3; an d Col
1:23, introduces a statem ent which m akes explicit an assum ption lying behind
a preceding assertion. It dep en d s on the context w h eth er such a stren g th en ed
“if” im plies d o u b t o r confident assum ption (cf. BDF § 454 [2]; M oule, Idiom-
Book, 164). H ere the latter m eaning is clear. A reference o f this sort to the
read ers’ know ledge o f his apostolic w ork m akes little sense in a letter from
Paul him self to th e church at E phesus (contra M eyer, 154– 55, who takes it as
a delicate referen ce to P aul’s earlier preach in g to the readers). If Ephesians
is held to be a circular letter from Paul w ritten to churches in Asia M inor no t
known personally to him b u t fo u n d e d by his co-w orkers, th en sense can be
m ade o f the rem ark, alth o u g h it still seem s quite unnecessary an d ra th e r strange
for Paul to have to speak o f his m inistry in this way. T h e re m ark becom es
m ore u n d erstan d able w hen it is seen as p a rt o f the device o f pseudonym ity.
T h e m ean in g o f otnovopia is d ebated (cf. th e earlier discussion o f its use in
1:10). H ere, ra th e r th a n the actual act o f adm inistrating as in 1:10 (cf. also
174 E p h e s ia n s 3:1– 13

3:9), o r th at which is adm inistered (so M eyer, 155; A bbott, 79; Schlier, 148;
Gnilka, 163; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 173– 74; S chnackenburg, 132), its
specific connotation in connection with P aul’s apostolic role m ay well be the
office o f adm inistrating, i.e., the stew ardship (cf. J . R eum ann, “Oikonomia =
‘C o v en an t’: T erm s for Heilsgeschichte in Early C hristian U sage,” N o vT 3 (1959)
282; “OtKO^ojia-T erm s in Paul in C om parison w ith L ukan Heilsgeschichte,” N T S
13 [1966– 67] 147– 49; H oulden, 297; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 79). T his in te rp re -
tation ru n s co u n ter to the expectation o f a unified usage o f the term in E p h e-
sians. Yet it should no t be th o u g h t u n u su al for th e w riter to use th e term in
o ne way w hen it is m ore closely connected with G od’s activity (1:10; 3:9),
an d in an o th e r way w hen it is m ore closely connected with P aul’s apostleship,
especially w hen in the latter case he inherits a particu lar usage. T h a t usage is
fo u n d in th e parallel passage in Colossians on which this verse is based. Col
1:25 has d eterm in ed the connotation h ere in E p h 3:2 with its reversion to
th e earlier P auline usage o f 1 C or 9:17 (cf. also 1 C or 4:1, 2 w here Paul uses
oiKovopos o f his apostleship).
In Col 1:25 P aul’s m inistry was described as “th e stew ardship o f G od which
was given to m e for you.” B ut h ere it is “th e stew ardship o f th e grace o f
G od” an d in th e G reek text “which was given to m e fo r you” now m odifies
grace ra th e r th an stew ardship. G race has as its specific focus the special favor
g ra n te d Paul in qualifying him to be apostle to th e Gentiles (cf. also vv 7, 8 ).
T h e slight change o f em phasis from Col 1:25 is in line both with this w riter’s
earlier general stress on G od’s grace (cf. 2 :5 – 8) a n d with P aul’s own p articu lar
association o f th at grace with his apostleship (cf. Gal 1:15; 2:9; 1 C or 3:10;
15:10; Rom 1:5; 12:3; 15:15). As in v 1, th e read ers are explicitly related to
P aul’s apostleship. T h a t apostleship m ediates grace. T h e grace was given to
Paul, b u t it was fo r the ultim ate benefit o f these G entile C hristians— “fo r you.”
T his assertion und erlines th at the subject o f th e digression is n o t sim ply Paul
him self, b u t his m inistry for the G entile readers.
Some com m entators argue th at the language o f this verse suggests th a t
teaching ab o u t Paul was already p art o f th e instruction th e readers h ad received.
T h ey p o in t in su p p o rt to the sim ilar language ab o u t C hrist in a context o f
in struction in 4:21 (cf. Schlier, 148; Gnilka, 163; E rnst, 327). B ut th e ir inference
ab o u t specific catechetical teaching is by no m eans a necessary one, a n d th e
w riter’s form ulation m akes ju s t as good sense w hen taken as a referen ce to
his re ad ers’ general know ledge o f Paul.
3 o n K a ra an o K a k v^ iv eyvojpioQ r] /not to fju xjrrjp io v, k a ßcos T tpoeypa^ a ev öXiycp,
“th at the m ystery was m ade know n to m e according to revelation, as I have
already w ritten briefly.” T h e special favor g ra n te d Paul in his office o f apostle
was th at th e m ystery was m ade know n to him . F or the b ackground a n d usage
o f the term inology “to m ake know n a m ystery,” see th e com m ents on 1 :9 , 1 0 ,
w here it was m ade clear th a t the secret G od has disclosed to Paul has as its
p resupposition th e fulfillm ent o f G od’s plan o f salvation in C hrist. T h e com -
m ents on v 2 have already recalled the earlier use o f th e oiKOuofjia w ord g ro u p
in connection with P aul’s apostleship in 1 C or 4 :1 ,2 , an d in fact h e speaks
th ere o f him self, Apollos, an d C ephas as “stew ards o f th e m ysteries.” H ere,
in all probability u n d e r the influence o f Col 1:26, 27, th e term “m ystery” is
in th e singular, and, as becom es clear from v 6 , it has as its specific focus the
 Comment 175

inclusion o f th e Gentiles in G od’s accom plishm ent o f salvation in C hrist. In

Col 1:25 the stew ardship received by Paul was spelled o u t in term s o f his
active proclam ation o f th e gospel, b u t h ere in v 3 th ere is a different em phasis
as it is elaborated instead in term s o f his passive reception o f revelation.
It is this n otion o f revelation w hich receives em phasis by the placing o f
the p h rase K a ra anoKakoxIJiv, “according to revelation,” at the beginning o f the
clause (cf. also th e use o f the verb in v 5), an d by the way this placem ent
reinforces th e idea o f disclosure already p re sen t in “was m ade know n.” K a ra
airoK akv^iv should n o t simply be translated “by revelation,” indicating the m eans
by which th e m ystery was m ade know n, as m ost com m entators assum e, since
this is a m ean in g which is n o t attested for K a ra with the accusative. Instead,
this is an exam ple o f the use o f K a ra with the accusative to indicate the n orm
and, at the sam e tim e, the reason o r g ro u n d (BAGD 407; cf. also M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 198). In Gal 1:12, 16, Paul h ad talked o f “a revelation o f
Jesus C hrist” in connection with his reception o f the gospel an d o f the purpose
o f this revelation being the preaching o f C hrist am ong the Gentiles. Presum ably
it is this initial form ative revelation on the D am ascus ro ad which provided
the w riter’s inspiration for the link h ere with the disclosure o f the mystery.
At th e sam e tim e, “revelation” appears to have becom e a m ore general concept
for this w riter, so th a t “in accordance with revelation” n o t only underlines
P aul’s role as th e recep to r o f revelation b u t also indicates the norm ative status
the w riter attributes to P aul’s in terp re tatio n o f the gospel.
T h e last clause o f v 3 has p ro m p ted speculation ab o u t th e w riter’s reference.
A m ong th e m ore unlikely suggestions are th a t w hat has already been “w ritten
briefly” is a reference to Gal 1:12, 16 (H oulden, 298), th at it is a reference
to Rom 16:25– 27, which also m entions the revelation o f the m ystery, an d
thus su p p o rts th e claim th at R om ans 16 was originally addressed to E phesus
(Davies, ExpTim 46 [1934– 35] 568), an d th at it is a reference to the o th er
letters in th e Pauline corpus an d to be connected with the view th at Ephesians
is the in tro d u ctio n to the Pauline letter collection (G oodspeed, Meaning, 41–
42, followed by M itton, Epistle, 233–36). In re g ard to th e last suggestion, it is
difficult to see w hat is w ritten in th e rest o f the Pauline corpus as “brief,” a
description which m akes sense as a slightly depreciatory way o f re ferrin g to
w hat stands earlier in the sam e d o cu m en t (cf. 1 Pet 5:12; also H eb 13:22),
b u t n o t as a referen ce to several docum ents. So, as th e m ajority o f com m entators
propose, the clause is best taken as a reference back to th e earlier chapters o f
the p resen t letter and, m ore specifically, 1:9, 10 a n d 2:11– 22 with th eir discus-
sions o f th e disclosure o f the m ystery an d th e inclusion o f the Gentiles. Verse
3 b indicates th e w riter’s concern to preserve th e form al features o f a letter,
an d at th e sam e tim e, suggests th at he sees the sort o f in terp retatio n he has
provided in 2:11– 22 as p a rt o f the co n ten t o f Pauline revelation (cf. M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 215– 16).
4 irpbs 6 bvvaoQe avayivC xjK O vres vof]oai rr\v o v v e o iv fxov ev rco pvorripicp ro v
X p ta r o v , “in accordance with which you will be able, w hen you read, to perceive
my insight into th e m ystery o f C hrist.” T h e readers are expected to recognize
the w riter’s special insight from w hat he has already w ritten earlier in the
letter, irpo? with th e accusative can indicate a sim ple connection (“with reg ard
to,” “with referen ce to”), b u t it can also m ore specifically suggest a standard
176 E p h e s ia n s 3:1– 13

o f evaluation o r ju d g m e n t (“in accordance w ith”), an d the latter ap p ears to

be th e case h ere (cf. BAGD 710[5d]; cf. also Gal 2:14; 2 C or 5:10). T h e
recipients o f th e letter are to m ake th eir ju d g m e n t w hen they read, a n d in all
probability it is the situation o f the public read in g o f th e letter in th e assembly
which is in view (cf. Col 4:16; contra W estcott, 45, w ho speaks o f study o f
copies o f th e letter by individual C hristians). W hat the w riter expects to becom e
clear from such a read in g is his insight, his grasp o f th e significance o f th e
secret which G od has disclosed in C hrist. T h e notion o f insight into m ysteries
being given to those who have received revelations o r visions is a fre q u e n t
one in apocalyptic literature (cf. D an 10:1; 4 Ezra 5:22; 14:40,47; T. Levi
2.3; 18.1,7). In addition, as, for exam ple, K. G. K u h n (“T h e Epistle to th e
E phesians,” 118– 19) points out, the term inology in the Q u m ra n hym ns (cf.
1QH 2.13; 12.13) has strong parallels with th a t o f Ephesians. T h e term caveats
was em ployed in Col 1:9; 2:2 as a quality which Paul desired fo r th e whole
com m unity, an d earlier in Ephesians itself, th o u g h with th e use o f synonym s
(0 poi>?7ais in 1 : 8 an d emyvoxns in 1:17), th e w riter has em phasized such u n d e r-
stan d in g as being fo r all believers. B ut now in E ph 3 th e re is a differen t
focus, as th e apostle him self is p resen ted as th e m ediator o f spiritual insight.
T his is n o t dissim ilar to the role o f th e teach er o f righteousness at Q u m ra n ,
to w hom insight was given which was for the benefit o f the whole com m unity
(cf. IQ S 9.18). T h e insight for others with which the apostle is credited is
insight into th e m ystery o f C hrist (cf. Col 4:3, also 1:27), the m ystery o f w hich
th e co n ten t is Christ. T h e particular aspect o f w hat God has do n e in C hrist
which is in view becom es clear in v 6 . It is how the G entiles have becom e
included in th e disclosure o f G od’s secret. Col 1:27 has again been influential
in th e developm ent o f the w riter’s th o u g h t ab o u t th e m ystery. N ot only has
Colossians already reduced the m ysteries to one which centers in C hrist, b u t
it relates this to the Gentiles— C hrist am o n g th e Gentiles. W hile the em phasis
in Colossians is still on the Christological aspect o f this statem ent, E p h 3 develops
th e latter, G entile elem ent in an ecclesiological direction.
T h e tex t’s presentation o f Paul as proclaim ing his own insight raises the
question o f w h eth er th e g enuine Paul w ould have boasted o f his u n d ersta n d in g
in this way. O n th e one han d , it can be said th at Paul was certainly n o t reticent
ab o u t th e special revelation o f the gospel to him w ith its accom panying apostolic
role (e.g., Gal 1 an d 2) o r about his spiritual au th o rity as an apostle (e.g., 1
C or 14:37, 38). Yet, on the o th e r han d , Paul p arad ed his credentials only
w hen u n d e r provocation o r attack, an d his reluctance to engage in such an
en terp rise is particularly clear in 2 C or 10– 13. T his passage differs from o th ers
because its com m endation o f P aul’s own insight is so unp ro v o k ed a n d u n q u ali-
fied. It is th ere fo re best explained as fu rth e r evidence o f a pseudonym ous
w riter looking back at the apostle’s contribution an d boosting th e claims o f
his teaching au th o rity fo r a later time. Yet, in som e ways, the pseudonym ity
is at its m ost tran sp a ren t here. T h e special insight attrib u ted to Paul is th at
o f th e w riter, an d consists o f his in terp re tatio n a n d developm ent o f P aul’s
th in k in g ab o u t the place o f the G entiles, as set o u t particularly in such letters
as G alatians an d R om ans. T his inspired insight, which builds on Paul an d
which has been seen particularly in 2 : 1 1 – 2 2 , in all likelihood belongs to one
whose role in th e com m unity is th at o f teach er (cf. 4:11), who looks back to
 Comment 177

the revelation given to the apostles an d p ro p h e ts as foundational, a n d who

sees his own gift as perception o f the significance o f th at revelation (cf. M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 218– 20; S chnackenburg, 134). Since it is in close continuity
with th at original revelation, the w riter can attrib u te his insight to the apostle
him self, an d in this way pseudonym ity enables his in terp re tatio n o f Paul to
be au thorized by Paul himself.
5 o e r e p a is y e v e a is ovk eyvcopiodr) rot? vio is rcbv avO pow oov c5? vv v a7reKa\v<l>0ri
Töis 6 7 10 19 d7rooröXot9 airrov Kai 7rpo077ra i? ev n vev ^ a rt, “which was no t m ade know n
to people in o th er generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles
an d to p ro p h ets by the Spirit.” B efore the w riter elaborates fu rth e r on the
co ntent o f the m ystery, he sets it in the context o f the revelation schem a
(discussed u n d e r Form/Structure/Setting), an d he does this u n d e r the influence
o f Col 1:26 {contra B arth, 331, who, in taking this verse as a quotation from
a hym n o r confession, fails to take adequate account o f these factors). Colossians
an d Ephesians have in com m on at this point the basic contrast betw een a
period in which the m ystery was no t revealed an d the p resen t period o f its
revelation. B ut instead o f “hid d en for ages an d g enerations” the w riter o f
Ephesians has “was not m ade know n in o th e r generations,” adds “to people”
(literally, “to the sons o f m en)” an d does no t use “h id d en fo r ages” until v 9.
In the second h alf o f the contrast Ephesians adds co?, replaces (/xzvepovv by
airoKaXimTeiv , restricts rot? 6 7 10 19 airrov with th e addition o f apostles an d prophets,
an d includes a m ention o f the m eans o f revelation, ev irvevixan.
T h e contrast in the verse has th ree parts to it. T h e first an d m ost basic
focuses on th e revelation o f the mystery: “was n o t m ade know n”/ “has been
revealed.” T h e passives o f the verbs are divine passives. His plan to have one
C h u rch o u t o f Jew s an d Gentiles was som ething th at h ad to be disclosed by
God himself. In this form ulation the contrast is a stark an d absolute one. It
is n ot as if previously th ere was a partial know ledge o f G od’s plan. T h e w riter’s
notion o f “m ystery” involves a hid d en pu rp o se o f G od th at has only now
been revealed an d not before. Even the O T w riters were ig n o ran t o f the sort
o f blessing th at was to com e to the Gentiles. Some com m entators have attem p ted
to weaken the force o f such an assertion by suggesting th at o5? indicates a
gradual com parison an d th at the th o u g h t is simply th at in the past the m ystery
was n o t know n as clearly as it is now (cf. W estcott, 45; A bbott, 82; M are,
B E TS 8 [1965] 77– 84; C aragounis, Mysterion, 102 an d n. 24). B ut th e co? does
n ot indicate a relative difference o r difference o f degree; it m arks the occurrence
o f som ething com pletely new (so also Schlier, 150; Steinm etz, Protologische
Heilszuversicht, 58; G augier, 132; Ryrie, BSac 123 [1966] 24– 31; Gnilka, 167;
M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 166; Schnackenburg, 134). T h e clear distinction
betw een past an d p resen t in the revelation schem a o f Col 1:26 has n o t been
altered. For this w riter some sort o f participation o f the nations in the salvation
o f the e n d-tim e, as foretold in the O T , does n o t am o u n t to this new thing,
the C h u rch in which Gentiles an d Jew s are on equal footing on the basis o f
faith in C hrist. It m ust be rem em b ered from the discussion o f 2:11– 22 th at
for Ephesians th ere is a striking elem ent o f discontinuity betw een the C h u rch
an d Israel, w hereby the C hurch is a new creation which transcends the categories
o f Jew an d G entile. B arth is typical o f those who have problem s with this
verse’s perspective on the O T because they fail to b ear this consideration in
178 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1–13

m ind. H e writes, “Verse 5 m akes an affirm ation which seems difficult to reconcile
with th e p ro p h etic an d Psalm quotations used in Ephesians: n o t even th e
elect m en o f Israel knew o f the secret th at is now revealed” (333), and, “If
the a u th o r o f E phesians w ere pressed to say w h eth er he really w anted to
deny th a t th e p ro p h e ts a n d psalm ists o f Israel knew about the G entiles’ access
to G od an d his people, he w ould probably re fe r to his O T allusion an d q uotation
in 2:13, 17. F or him Isa 57:19 p redicted the ap p ro ach o f the nations” (334 n.
45; cf. also Schlier, 149– 50; C aragounis, Mysterion, 102 n. 24). In the end,
B arth has recourse to th e hypothesis th a t th e idiosyncracy o f the subject m atter
o f th e verse derives from its being a quotation used by Paul. H e has neglected
to take account o f E phesians’ perspective on the relation betw een th e C h u rch
an d Israel, an d failed to recognize th a t this letter’s use o f quotations from
th e psalm s an d p ro p h ets, even th e Isa 57:19 quotation, is n o t d eterm in e d by
a prediction an d fulfillm ent schem a. As an investigation o f the w riter’s use o f
the O T shows, th e th o u g h t o f this verse an d the letter’s han d lin g o f S cripture
are fully com patible (cf. Lincoln, J S N T 14 [1982] 16– 57).
T h e second p art o f the verse’s contrast m akes the tim e elem ent explicit:
“in o th e r g en eratio ns”/ “now .” T h e dative e r e p a t ? yeveals is used h ere to specify
a p erio d o f tim e (cf. 2:12; BDF § 200 [4]; J. H. M oulton an d N. T u rn e r, A
Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3 [E dinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1963] 151–
52). In the light o f the discussion ab o u t th e O T above, th ere is an interesting
later textual variant, fo u n d in H ippolytus a n d in Gnostic texts cited by him ,
which replaces e r e p a t ? by 7 rp o rep a t? , “earlier,” in an attem p t to m ake clear
th at the patriarchs an d p ro p h ets a n d n o t ju s t the Gentiles w ere in view an d
thereby to en su re su p p o rt fo r th eir own notion o f a total break betw een the
O T an d th e N T (cf. O rbe, Greg 37 [1956] 2 0 1–19). B ut in the text we have,
previous history can simply be described as “o th e r generations” in contrast to
the all-im p o rtan t “now ,” the decisive tim e afte r the d eath an d resurrection o f
Christ, which is th e period o f th e C h u rch (cf. also Steinm etz, Protologische
Heilszuversicht, 58; Gnilka, 166; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 184 – 85).
T h e th ird an d p erh ap s climactic p a rt o f the contrast, an d th at which m ost
distinguishes this verse from Col 1:26, is th a t identifying the recipients o f the
revelation (or in th e fo rm e r case, potential recipients): “to the sons o f m en ”/
“to his holy apostles an d to p ro p h e ts.” T h e form ulation o f the first h a lf o f
this contrast is o f course a H ebraism fo r h u m an s (e.g., LXX G en 11:5; Pss
11:1, 8 ; 44:2; 48:2, an d see M ark 3:28 fo r the only o th e r N T exam ple o f the
plural). Know ledge o f G od’s p u rp o se was previously inaccessible to hum anity
as such, b u t in th e new p eriod he chose a special g ro u p o f people to be recipients
o f his disclosure, the apostles an d p rophets. T h e narrow ing o f the recipients
o f revelation from all believers in Col 1:26 to a p articu lar g ro u p is striking
an d is clearly connected to the a u th o r’s already expressed in terest in th e fo u n d a -
tional role o f th e apostles a n d p ro p h e ts in th e C h u rch (cf. 2:20). T h e re are,
however, questions o f syntax an d m eaning which arise o u t o f the w riter’s descrip-
tion o f this g ro u p . First o f all, w hat is th e reference o f auroö, an d do avrov
an d ayiois qualify only airoaroXot? o r both d7roaröXot? a n d 7rpo0T7rat?P It could
be arg u ed th at th e closest explicit an teced en t o f airrov is C hrist in v 4, an d
this referen ce fits the close relationship betw een C hrist a n d his apostles (cf.
W estcott, 46; Schnackenburg, 135). O n th e o th e r han d , the passive form o f
 Comment 179

the verb in this clause has as its im plied subject God, an d since this w ould
also retain th e original reference o f avrov from its source in Col 1:26, this
in terp retatio n may well be p referable (cf. also M eyer, 160). It is noticeable
th at the avrov divides the phrase “apostles an d p ro p h e ts” instead o f com ing
after it, which one m ight expect if it w ere m ean t to qualify both term s. T his
suggests, therefo re, th at both it an d ayiois m odify only “apostles” ra th e r th an
“apostles an d p ro p h e ts” (so A bbott, 82; G augler, 133; M erklein, Das kirchliche
Amt, 187– 88; Schnackenburg, 135; contra Schlier, 150). T h e syntax suggests,
then, th at in in terp re tin g rot? ayiois avrov in Col 1:26 it is prim arily the apostles
th at the w riter has in m ind as recipients o f revelation an d those who deserve
to be designated as “holy.” T h e n , as in 2:20, it becom es n atu ral to include
the p ro p h ets also because o f th eir intim ate connection with revelation. W hile
the u n d isp u ted letters o f Paul ap p e a r to distinguish betw een the revelation
o f the C hrist-event to Paul an d charism atic revelations to prophets, Ephesians
brings both types to g eth er u n d e r th e one rubric o f revelation.
T h e designation o f the apostles as “holy” has attracted considerable com m ent.
T h e very fact th at the term is used h ere o f a restricted g ro u p m arks it off
from the general P auline use o f it o f all believers as set a p a rt for God (pace
A bbott, 82; Schlier, 150; C aird, 65). It is th e particular status o f these individuals
th at is now in view. A n u m b er o f factors contribute to this designation o f the
apostles as “holy.” O n e is the w riter’s d ep en d en ce on th e source he is in te rp re t-
ing, Col 1:26. N ext, “holy” in its use here m ust be seen as retaining its basic
m eaning o f “set ap a rt for G od.” It is simply th at the context colors this so
th at the apostles are now characterized as specially set ap a rt by God to receive
revelation (cf. also P aul’s self-description in Gal 1:15, 16; Rom 1:1; cf. M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 189– 90). Yet, inevitably, the term also suggests reverence
on the p a rt o f som eone looking back at this privileged role played by the
apostles, who w ere thereby set off from o th e r believers (cf. also Ign. Magn.
3.1, which can speak o f “the holy presbyters”; cf. Gnilka, 167).
It is n o t only th e singling o u t o f apostles as a holy g ro u p th at m akes the
sentim ents o f this verse unlikely to have com e from Paul him self, b u t also
the willingness to attrib u te to the o th e r apostles the reception o f the distinctive
revelation o f th e place o f the G entiles in the C hurch, which he reg ard ed as
his special com m ission. O n both counts, a post-apostolic setting for Ephesians
provides a b etter explanation.
W hat is th e relation o f the reception o f the m ystery by Paul to its reception
by the holy apostles an d the prophets? By the am o u n t o f space devoted to
each, the w riter m akes clear th at alth o u g h he is concerned about the apostles
an d p ro p h ets as norm s o f revelation in th e C hurch, he regards the revelation
to Paul as having prim acy (cf. vv 3, 4, 7, 8 ). It may well be th at he is aw are o f
two distinctive traditions ab o u t the revelation concerning the Gentiles, which
are fo u n d elsew here in the N T (on this, cf. B est, JTS 35 [1984] 1– 31). T h e re
is the trad itio n ab out P aul’s u n iq u e role as the apostle to the G entiles an d
an o th er tradition, which raises historical questions, about a com m issioning o f
the Twelve to preach to the Gentiles (cf. M att 2 8 :1 9 ,2 0 ; Luke 24:47; Acts
1:8). E phesians ap pears sim ply to com bine the two, while retaining P aul’s
p red o m in an t role. In fact, th e insight o f Paul ab o u t G entiles being on equal
footing with th e Jew s in th e C h u rch seem s to have b een accepted eventually
180 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1–13

by th e o th e r apostles, b u t only afte r som e tensions an d conflicts. E phesians is

u n co n cern ed ab o u t this actual historical process an d is co n ten t to attribute
original revelation on this to those o th e r apostles an d p ro p h ets as well as
Paul. T h e re is no evidence for th e speculative historical hypothesis o f C aird
(65) th at “th e revelation m ust have com e to o th e r apostles an d p ro p h ets th ro u g h
an inspired u tteran ce o f th e p ro p h e t Paul, which they w ere able to recognize
as th e guidance o f the S pirit.”
O n e final aspect o f v 5 requires com m ent— the force o f ev nvevfxari. Does
this ph rase qualify only the preceding n o u n “p ro p h e ts,” so th at “p ro p h ets in
the Spirit” corresponds to “holy apostles” (cf. Schlier, 150– 51; G augler, 134;
M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 189; S chnackenburg, 135)? T h e re is clearly an
intim ate link betw een prophecy an d the Spirit (cf. 1 T hess 5 :1 9 ,2 0 ; 1 C or
12:9, 10), an d yet this also tells against in te rp re tin g “p ro p h e ts in the Spirit”
as a unit, since it goes w ithout saying th a t tru e p ro p h e ts speak in th e Spirit.
T h e alternative is to take ev irvev^xan as qualifying the verb, so th a t th e revelation
to the apostles an d p ro p h ets is said to have taken place th ro u g h o r by the
Spirit (cf. M eyer, 160; J. A. Robinson, 78; A bbott, 83; Gnilka, 167; M ussner,
102). E p h 1:17 has already m ade a close connection betw een the Spirit an d
revelation (cf. also 1 C or 2:10). It seems best to see th at as in view here,
th o u g h inevitably th e phrase is likely to color particularly th e term to which
it is adjacent as well as to qualify the verb in the clause. It should be noted
th at this is exactly the way th e w riter used ev Trvevixan, w hen th e phrase occurred
at th e en d o f 2 :2 2 .
6 eiva i r a edvr] ovyick rip o vo p a /cat auaacopa /cat aupperoxa r f ft e n a y y e T d a s ev
Xptarcp I r p o v 8 ta tov exxvyye'hiov, “a n d which involves the Gentiles being jo in t
heirs an d jo in t m em bers o f the body a n d sharers in the prom ise in C hrist
Jesus th ro u g h th e gospel.” T h e w riter now com es to an explicit statem ent o f
the co n ten t o f th e m ystery he has m en tio n ed earlier (v 4). T h e infinitive eiva i
is epexegetical, clarifying w hat is m ean t by the m ystery. W hat is concealed in
English translation is th at th e co n ten t o f the m ystery, the full inclusion o f
the Gentiles in th e C hurch, is described by m eans o f th ree adjectives which
each begin with th e prefix o v v - . As is likely to have been the case in 2:19 an d
was certainly th e case in 2 :2 1 , 2 2 , th e o v v- prefix has in view a relationship
with o th e r believers, b u t since th e subject o f the clause is rd edvr] , “the G entiles,”
those o th er believers m ust prim arily be those o f Jew ish birth. It is im p o rtan t
to grasp rightly th e w riter’s em phasis. H e is no t celebrating the relationship
o f Gentiles with Israel o r the Jew ish people as such (contra B arth, 337). W ith
the term s he uses he directs atten tio n to unity w ithin th e C h u rch ra th e r th an
unity with Israel an d h e r past. For, as has already been observed from 2 :1 1–
22, th e w riter views th e C h u rch as a new entity which transcends old divisions
an d categories, a n d w hat for him is at the h e a rt o f G od’s disclosure is th at
the Gentiles are an essential constituent o f this new entity.
T his em erges particularly clearly from th e second o f the th ree adjectives,
ouaacopa, which is evidenced now here else in the literatu re o f the tim e an d
m ight th erefo re be a term which th e w riter has coined for the occasion. T h e
closest equivalent to be fo u n d is the use o f th e passive o f th e verb o vo o c o im ro m ie lv
in Pseudo-A ristotle, D e mundo 396a, 14. T h e best literal translation is “ ‘concorpo-
ra te ,’ th at is, sharers in the one B ody” (J. A. R obinson, 78). T h e G entiles
 Comment 181

have n o t been ad d ed to an already existing entity; they are fully equal jo in t

m em bers, totally necessary for the life o f the body, which w ithout th em w ould
n o t exist (cf. the notion o f the one body in 2:16; 4:4, a n d th e com m ents on
th e C h u rch as C hrist’s body in 1:23). T hey have n o t only becom e jo in t m em bers
o f the body with Jew ish C hristians b u t also ovyKkqpovopa, “jo in t heirs.” T h e
inheritance in which they share is for E phesians an im age fo r the full salvation
God has p re p are d fo r his people, which they have already b eg u n to enjoy
th ro u g h the Spirit, who is the gu aran tee o f com plete fu tu re possession (cf.
1:14; 5:5, an d note th at in 1:18 Kkr\povopia is used o f G od’s inheritance ra th e r
th an th at o f believers). So, central to the m ystery is th e G entiles’ full an d
equal share in th e inheritance o f the blessings o f salvation. ovyKXripovopos occurs
elsew here in the N T in Rom 8:17; H eb 11:9; an d 1 Pet 3:7. T h e m ajor difference
from P aul’s use in Rom 8:17 is th at th ere the focus is C hristological, believers
as jo in t heirs with C hrist, while h ere the focus is ecclesiological, G entile C hris-
tians as jo in t heirs w ithin the C hurch with those who w ere once Jews, ow -
com pounds can, however, be used with a Christological focus in Ephesians,
as we have seen in 2:5, 6 .
T h e th ird description, which m akes a p oint sim ilar to those which the first
two have m ade, is ovpperoxa rffr e i r a y y “sharers in the prom ise.” C ertainly
for th e w riter th ere was a tim e w hen Israel possessed th e prom ise th ro u g h
the covenant relationship with Yahweh (cf. 2:12). B ut as 2:11– 22 m akes clear,
the way in which th e prom ise was fulfilled an d h ope realized in C hrist b ro u g h t
ab out an elem ent o f discontinuity with the past so th at th e fulfillm ent in C hrist
m eans th at for the new com m unity the prom ise now has its own distinctive
C hristian content, and, in this, G entile C hristians are participants to g eth er
with Jew ish Christians, with no difference betw een them .
ev Xpiorcp Irpov is no t to be related simply to the notion o f prom ise b u t
qualifies all th ree o f the previous descriptions, characterizing th e sphere in
which G entile in co rporation takes place, an d thus in which G od’s p u rp o se is
realized (cf. also 1:3, 9, 10) an d salvation is accom plished (cf. also 2:6, 7). (Cf.
E rnst, 330; C aragounis, Mysterion, 104; Schnackenburg, 136.) It is because o f
w hat has taken place in an d th ro u g h C hrist (cf. 2:13, 18) th at G entile inclusion
in the C hurch can be celebrated, b u t it is also because o f the proclam ation o f
this in th e gospel, 8ia tov evayyeTdov. As the G entiles h ea rd the gospel, G od’s
p u rp o se was being realized (cf. 1:13), an d as the gospel is proclaim ed fu rth e r,
th at p u rp o se continues to be accom plished (cf. 6:15, 19).
T h e co n ten t o f the m ystery which is revealed th ro u g h the proclam ation o f
the gospel, an d which has been stated in 3:6, is n o t u n re la ted to the co n ten t
o f the m ystery as expressed in 1 : 1 0 in term s o f sum m ing u p all things in
heaven an d on ea rth in C hrist. T h e fo rm er provides th e m odel fo r the latter.
In o th er words, th e bringing to g eth er o f the cosmos in C hrist finds its p resen t
anticipation in the bringing to g eth er o f hum anity in C hrist in the one C h u rch
o u t o f Jew s an d Gentiles. T his connection will be taken u p in v 10.
7 ov eyevr\dr\v biaicovos Kara ttjv bcopeav rfft xäpiro s rod deov r ift boOetor]^ pot
Kara rr\v evepyetav rffr bvvd/ueco? avrov, “o f this gospel I becam e a servant accord-
ing to the gift o f G od’s grace, which was given to m e th ro u g h the w orking o f
his pow er.” T h e w riter ro u n d s off the first m ajor statem ent about th e m ystery
w ithin th e digression o f 3:1– 13 by re tu rn in g to the th o u g h t an d language
182 E p h e s ia n s 3:1– 13

with which he h ad b egun it in vv 1, 2. W ith th e m ention o f th e gospel in th e

previous verse Paul can now be b ro u g h t back to the fore as th e servant o f
th at gospel. T his designation is taken u p from Col 1:23 w here Paul is also
called a servant o f the gospel (cf. also 1:25 w here he is a servant o f th e C hurch).
T his exact term inology is no t used by Paul in th e u n d isp u ted letters, in which
he does, however, draw an intim ate connection betw een him self a n d th e gospel
(e.g., Rom 1:1: Gal 1:11) a n d does th in k o f him self as a servant in th e cause
o f th e gospel (cf. 1 C or 3:5; 2 C or 3:6; 6:4; R om 15:16). E phesians sees P aul’s
service o f proclam ation o f th e gospel as decisive in G od’s revelation o f th e
m ystery. At th e sam e tim e, it celebrates Paul n o t as a h ero in him self, b u t as
th e in stru m en t o f G od’s grace. P reserving th e perspective o f Paul him self (e.g.,
1 C or 15:10), it sees him as exercising his m inistry only th ro u g h th e gift o f
grace bestow ed on him . Kara rr\v Scopeäv rfjs xaptro? rod deov rffr 5o0etarj9 pot,
“according to th e gift o f G od’s grace which was given to m e,” virtually repeats
th e language o f v 2, which was in tu rn d e p e n d e n t o n Col 1:25, w ith th e sim ple
exception o f Scopeav in place o f obcovopiav. W e have already com m ented on
th e specific focus o f x^pis in relation to P aul’s apostleship in v 2. W ith the
use o f Scoped (cf. also 4:7) G od’s graciousness is u n d erlin ed . It is a term also
em ployed by Paul to speak o f the generosity o f G od’s activity in C hrist o n
b eh a lf o f hum anity (cf. Rom 3:24; 5:15, 17; 2 C or 9:15). T h e grace experienced
by Paul in his m inistry flowed o u t o f th e m ighty pow er o f G od, Kara rr\v
evepyeuav rf)<> SiMxpeco? airrov, “according to th e w orking o f his pow er.” T his
ph rase qualifies Sofletarjs ra th e r th a n being coordinate with th e previous Kara
clause an d in direct relationship with eyevr^r\v S u lkovos (contra W estcott, 47;
C aragounis, Mysterion, 105). B oth term s used fo r G od’s pow er are already
p re sen t in the sim ilar form ulation Col 1:29 em ploys fo r th e enabling o f the
apostolic m inistry. T hey occur also earlier in Ephesians in 1:19 with its piling
u p o f synonym s fo r G od’s pow er in connection with raising C hrist from the
dead. F or th e w riter, the pow er o f G od w hich raised C hrist from th e dead
a n d is at work in believers was also th e pow er operative in conveying grace
to th e apostle. In this way the realization o f the m ystery concerning th e Gentiles
can also be traced back th ro u g h P aul’s apostleship to th e pow er o f G od (cf.
also Schlier, 151– 52; B arth, 339).
8 epoi rip eXaxiOTorepoj irävroov ayicov eööör? 77 xdpts oöttj, rots edveoiv
evayyeXioaodai to avefyxviaorov 7rXoöros rod Xptarov, “to m e, the very least o f all
th e saints, this grace was given, to p reach to the G entiles th e good news o f
th e unsearchable riches o f C hrist.” T h e first statem ent o f the m ystery proclaim ed
th ro u g h P aul’s apostleship began an d en d e d w ith a reference to th at apostleship
in term s o f grace (cf. vv 2, 7). Now th e th ird reference to grace in the pericope
introduces a fu rth e r elucidation o f th e m ystery w ith w hich P aul’s apostleship
was uniquely connected. “T his grace” is in fact explained in w hat follows in
term s o f P aul’s apostleship to th e Gentiles. It consists in th e p reach in g o f th e
good news to th em (cf. Gal 1:16).
J u s t as the em phasis on grace in re g ard to P aul’s apostleship echoes th e
th o u g h t o f 1 C or 15:10, so th e self-designation “th e very least o f all th e saints”
recalls th a t o f 1 C or 15:9, “th e least o f the apostles.” T h e language o f this
self-evaluation has evoked quite diverse responses with respect to th e issue o f
authenticity. B ruce (Ephesians, 53) can write, “to us th e words are a very hallm ark
 Comment 183

o f apostolic authenticity. N o disciple o f P aul’s w ould have d ream ed o f giving

the apostle so low a place,” while for M itton (125) “this sounds a little like
false m odesty . . . artificial an d exaggerated. T h e words are m ore easily u n d e r-
stood as those o f th e later disciple who w ished to m ake his m aster ap p e a r as
excelling in penitence an d hum ility as well as insight.” Clearly, the im pression
conveyed by th e w ords o f this verse is an insufficient basis on which to draw
conclusions ab o u t auth o rsh ip . How the w ords are h ea rd will, in any case, largely
be d eterm in ed by such conclusions which will already have been m ade on
o th er grounds. N evertheless, it can be po in ted o u t th at in relation to the words
o f Paul in 1 C or 15:9, th e form ulation h ere in E phesians involves both intensifi-
cation an d generalization. T h e intensification is twofold. W hereas in 1 C or
15:9 Paul uses th e superlative o f him self, eXaxtaro?, “least,” here in Ephesians
a superlative with a com parative en d in g is em ployed fo r g reater em phasis,
ekaxiGTorepos, “very least” (cf. BDF § 60 [2]; 61 [2]). Again, w hereas in 1 C or
15:9 Paul com pares him self with the o th e r apostles, h ere the com parison
is ex tended to o ne with all believers (contra G augler, 139 an d C onzelm ann, 103,
who wish to restrict the reference o f aytoov to those who are called “holy” in v
5, nam ely, th e apostles a n d prophets). It should be n o ted th at Ignatius is
capable o f sim ilar sentim ents: “R em em ber the church o f Syria in your prayers.
I am n o t w orthy to be a m em ber o f it: I am th e least o f th eir n u m b e r” (Trail.
13.1). B ut this intensification also fits the tendency o f th e post-apostolic churches
to accentuate th e unw orthiness o f the apostles in o rd e r to highlight the greatness
o f C hrist’s grace in th eir lives (cf. 1 T im 1:15, w here Paul now becom es not
ju s t the least w orthy C hristian, b u t th e forem ost o f sinners; also Bam . 5.9:
“B ut it was in his choice o f the apostles, who w ere to preach his gospel, th at
he truly show ed him self the Son o f God; fo r those m en w ere ruffians o f the
deepest dye, which proved th a t he cam e not to call saints b u t sinners”). T h e
generalization in com parison with 1 C or 15:9 can be seen in th at here
in E phesians th ere is no m ention o f P aul’s violent persecution o f believers,
which in 1 C or is given as the specific reason for his talk o f him self as
the least o f th e apostles, which m ay also have b een his taking u p o f the
ju d g m e n t o f his critics (cf. also eicrpco/ua, “prem aturely b o rn ” o r “abortion,” in
the previous verse). In Ephesians, the self-designation “the very least o f all
the saints” is quite u n provoked an d stands in the context o f a general re -
flection on th e apostle’s m inistry. In its jux tap o sitio n with “the unsearchable
riches o f C hrist,” it serves to give g re ater em phasis to the m easure o f G od’s
grace with which Paul was endow ed in o rd e r to be fitted to proclaim such
wealth.
A lthough 7rXoöro? is used elsew here in E phesians (1 :7 ,8 ; 2:7; 3:16), the
particular p h rase to äve%ixviaorov 7tXoüto5 too Xpiorov, “the unsearchable riches
o f C hrist,” is u n iq u e to this verse, ctyejixwacrro? “suggests the picture o f a
reservoir so d eep th at soundings cannot reach th e bottom o f it. No limit can,
th erefo re, be p u t to its resources” (M itton, 124). It is used in LXX Jo b 5:9;
9:10; 34:24 an d in Rom 11:33 for the inscrutability o f G od’s ways, b u t now
the w riter o f E phesians can em ploy th e term in connection with C hrist. “T h e
riches o f C hrist” could be taken as a subjective genitive re ferrin g to the salvation
o f which C hrist is th e possessor a n d bestow er (cf. M eyer, 164), b u t the o th er
uses o f 7TXoüros in Ephesians, a n d th e w riter’s d ep en d en ce on the th o u g h t o f
184 E p h e s ia n s 3:1– 13

Col 2:3, “in w hom are hid all th e treasures o f wisdom an d know ledge,” an d
Col 1:27, “th e riches o f the glory o f this m ystery, which is C hrist am ong you,”
m ake it far m ore likely th a t it is to be in te rp re te d as an objective genitive.
C hrist him self constitutes th e co n ten t o f th e riches o f the gospel, a n d the
w ealth o f th e salvation to be fo u n d in him is unfathom able. Yet, fo r all the
glory attrib u ted to C hrist by this form ulation, in the context its th o u g h t is
subo rd in ated to th e m inistry o f th e apostle. It is to Paul th at grace has been
given to m ake these glorious riches o f C hrist available to the Gentiles.
9 , 1 0 Kai 0cjrtaat iravras ris r ) oiKOVopia tov pvoTriptov, “a n d to m ake plain
to all w hat is th e adm inistration o f th e m ystery.” T h e grace given to Paul
eq u ip p ed him n o t only to proclaim th e unsearchable riches o f C hrist b u t also
to en lig h ten all ab o u t how G od has chosen to w ork o u t his secret purpose.
O n th e inclusion o f iravras in th e original text, see Notes. Its inclusion is also
in line with th e em phasis on th e proclam ation o f the m ystery to all in the
Colossians passage which has so m uch influenced th e digression (cf. Col 1:28).
0cjrifeu>, literally, “to en lig h ten ,” has b een used earlier in the intercessory prayer-
re p o rt (see Comment on 1:18). T h e re the w riter h ad prayed fo r his re ad ers’
enlig h ten m en t. H ere it becom es evident th a t fo r th e w riter such en lig h ten m en t
is inextricably linked with th e apostle P aul’s m inistry, which was in ten d ed to
pro d u ce this effect. His com m ission was to m ake plain to all w hat was involved
in th e adm inistration o f th e m ystery. T h e m eaning o f oiKOVopia has been dis-
cussed in th e com m ents on 1:10 an d 3:2. H ere it refers to G od’s act o f adm inister-
ing, how h e has chosen to disclose a n d accom plish his pu rp o se (pace n iv an d
C aragounis, 107, who take it to re fer to P aul’s adm inistration). For th e back-
g ro u n d a n d m ean ing o f pvoTT\piov, see the com m ents on 1:9, 10 an d 3:3. T h e
p articular cosmic aspect o f th e m ystery which th e w riter has in view this tim e
is set o u t in v 10.
tov aTTOKeKpvppevov ano tlov aitovoov ev rep deep rep ra rravra Krioavri, “which
was h id d en for ages in G od who created all things.” As in v 5, the m ystery is
described in term s o f a revelation schem a (see th e discussion o f this u n d e r
Form I Structure! Setting). T h e two descriptions ru n parallel an d are both d e p e n -
d e n t on Col 1:26. “H id d en fo r ages” corresponds to “was n o t m ade know n in
o th e r g en eratio n s” (v 5) an d takes u p the actual w ording o f Col 1:26. T h e
contrasting elem en t “should now be m ade know n” corresponds to “has now
been revealed” (v 5), a n d its use o f yvoipi^ew fo r th e positive side o f th e contrast
reflects its use in th e elaboration on th e Colossians schem a in Col 1:27.
In th e stru ctu re o f the revelation schem a ebro tlov aicovoiv should be taken
as contrasting with vvv in v 10 (as also in Col 1:26; cf. Lohse, Colossians, 74;
Schweizer, Colossians, 108; Gnilka, Kolosserbrief, 101; O ’B rien, Colossians, 84)
ra th e r th a n as a contrasting parallel to rat? apxal? Kai rah; e£oixriais as the
recipients o f revelation (cf. th e force o f “ages” in th e revelation schem as o f 1
C or 2:7 an d Rom 16:25). In o th e r words, “ages” here, as in its earlier uses in
1:21; 2:2, 7, has tem poral force an d does no t re fe r to personal powers. (Cf.
the discussion o f 2:2 an d 2:7; so also M asson, 175 n. 3; G augler, 142; M ussner,
Christus, 25– 26; Gnilka, 172; E rnst, 332; S chnackenburg, 140; contra Schlier,
153 – 58; B eare, 670; Steinm etz, Protologische Heilszuversicht, 63–64; L indem ann,
Aufhebung, 223. It is interesting to note, with R. McL. W ilson, “T h e T rim o rp h ic
P ro ten n o ia,” in Gnosis and Gnosticism, ed. M. K rause [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977]
 Comment 185

54 n. 13, th at this Gnostic text also ap p ears in fact to have taken the phrase
“hid d en from th e ages” in a tem poral sense.)
T h e m ystery is described n o t only as h id d en for ages, b u t also as hidden
in God. As in Col 3:3, w here it could be said o f believers th at th eir life is
hid d en with C hrist in God, ev rep deep has a locative sense. G od has kept the
m ystery h id d en in him self. T his em phasis on its divine source suggests its
security, b oth in term s o f inaccessibility an d o f the certainty th at accom panies
its realization. T h a t the m ystery h ad its place from the beginning in G od’s
creative plan is u n d erlin e d by the following liturgical form ula about G od as
creator o f all. Previously, Kri^etv h ad been used by the w riter to describe the
new creation (cf. 2:10, 15), b u t in this traditional form ulation the reference is
clearly to the original creation. Sim ilar form ulations can be fo u n d in the wisdom
literature (e.g., Wis 1:14; Sir 18:1; 24:8), in the w orship o f th e Q u m ra n com m u-
nity (e.g., 1QH 1.9– 11; 16.8^ 1QM 10.8) an d in C hristian liturgy (Did. 10.3;
1 Clem. 60.1; cf. 19.2– 20.12; 33.2– 6). C ertainly the th o u g h t o f this verse, along
with those o f 3:15 a n d 4:6, m akes clear th a t for the w riter th ere is no cosmic
dualism , b u t ra th e r the G od o f creation an d the G od o f salvation are one.
B ut the clause is unlikely to be a consciously polem ical aside {pace Schlier,
155; H o ulden, 301). R ather, in the context o f the ensuing m ention o f principali-
ties an d authorities, it functions as a re m in d e r th at G od is able, because he is
creator, to carry th ro u g h his pu rp o se o f salvation as it affects all creation,
including the rebellious powers.
Iva yvojpiodi] vvv rat? apxat? Kai rat? e£ouatat? ev rot? enovpaviois 5ta rfj? e/c^Xryata?
r\ 7roXo7rot/ctXo? ao0ta tov deov, “in o rd e r th at th ro u g h the C h u rch the m anifold
wisdom o f God should now be m ade know n to the principalities an d authorities
in the heavenly realm s.” T his pu rp o se clause beginning with Iva is best taken
not so m uch as directly d ep e n d e n t on the first clause in the revelation schem a,
“which was h id d en . . . in o rd e r th at th e m anifold wisdom o f God should
be m ade know n . . .” (cf. M eyer, 167; A bbott, 88; W estcott, 48), b u t as linked
with th e two previous infinitives, evayyeXioaxjdai an d 0<onaat, indicating the
pu rp o se o f P aul’s “preach in g ” an d “m aking plain.” In this way the pu rp o se clause
is ultim ately d e p e n d e n t on eboOrj at th e beginning o f v 8. Grace was given to
Paul to p reach an d to m ake plain the gospel, an d the goal o f such preaching
and m aking plain was th at the wisdom o f G od should be m ade know n (cf.
also Schlier, 153; G augler, 143; Gnilka, 174; C aragounis, Mysterion, 73, 108).
W hereas previously in this ch a p te r th e m ystery can be said to have been
m ade know n to Paul (v 3) an d to the apostles an d p ro p h ets (v 5), an d to
have been proclaim ed by Paul to the Gentiles (vv 8, 9), now the wisdom o f
God, which serves as a functional equivalent to m ystery in v 9, is said to have
as the recipients o f its disclosure th e principalities an d authorities in the heavenly
realm s. For a discussion o f the background o f these term s an d the hostile
n atu re o f th e powers, see the com m ents on 1:20, 21. M ussner (105) connects
the th o u g h t o f this verse with th at o f 1 Pet 1:12, w here m ore well-disposed
angels are said to desire to look into the gospel, an d claims th at the m ention
o f the principalities an d authorities, th erefo re, serves simply to u n d erlin e the
significance o f w hat G od has done in the p re sen t tim e. B ut since o th e r references
m ake clear th at fo r E phesians the spiritual pow ers are evil forces who need
to be subjected (cf. 2:2; 6:12), the notion o f m aking know n in relation to
186 E p h e s ia n s 3 : 1 – 1 3

th em has g reater affinities with a passage such as 1 Pet 3:19–22, w here the
victory o f C hrist over such adversaries is proclaim ed to them . H ere, how ever,
it is n o t the victory o f C hrist as such (cf. 1:20– 23), but, as we shall see, th e
consequences o f th at victory in the brin g in g into existence o f the C h u rch th a t
is th e focus o f the disclosure to the powers.
T h e principalities an d authorities are located “in the heavenly realm s.” F or
a discussion o f this phrase, see Comment on 1:3. T h a t the w riter can conceive
o f n o t only C hrist an d believers, b u t also hostile pow ers, in the heavenly realm s
is again to be explained against the background o f the cosmic heavens in the
O T an d in the Jew ish apocalypses, w here angels a n d spirit pow ers w ere often
re p resen te d as in heaven (e.g., Jo b 1:6; D an 10:13,21; 2 Macc 5:2; 1 Enoch
61.10; 90.21, 24), a concept which was also developed in Philo (cf. Spec. 1.66;
2.45; Plant. 14; Gig. 6, 7). F or E phesians, G od has placed in th e heavenly
realm creatures in family groupings, ju s t as he has d one on ea rth (cf. 3:15).
Since, like Paul, th e w riter has in h erited the two-age eschatological perspective
often fo u n d in th e apocalypses, a perspective which inco rp o rated heaven an d
ea rth in each age, he could think o f the p re sen t overlap o f th e ages, b ro u g h t
ab o u t by G od’s action in C hrist, as a p erio d in which heaven was still involved
in th e p resen t evil age, so th at th o u g h th e pow ers h ad already b een defeated,
they w ould n o t be totally vanquished until th e consum m ation.
T h e term vυv, “now ,” is significant in this verse. N ot until this particular
tim e in th e history o f salvation has th e m ysterious plan o f G od been disclosed
to th e spiritual powers, an d as in v 5, this “now ” is clearly th e p erio d o f the
C hurch. In fact, the C hurch is the m eans by which G od m akes know n his
wisdom to th e powers. T his is only the second use o f the actual term eKKXrjaia
in th e letter (see the discussion on its earlier use in 1:22). In th e im m ediate
context, its occurrence here recalls th e ecclesiological co n ten t o f th e m ystery
from v 6, nam ely, G entile C hristians as fellow m em bers o f th e sam e body
with Jew ish C hristians. It is th ro u g h this new entity, th e one C h u rch o u t o f
Jew s an d Gentiles, th at the m ystery is m ade know n, as G od’s wisdom is d em o n -
strated to th e principalities an d authorities. T h e w riter does n o t spell o u t exactly
how the C h u rch m akes know n G od’s p u rp o se to th e powers. C onzelm ann
(104) claims th at it is th ro u g h th e C h u rc h ’s preaching, a n d this sam e assum ption
misleads W ink (Naming the Powers, 89 – 96), who connects 3:10 with 3:8 a n d
argues th at th e reference is to th e preach in g to th e angels o f th e G entile
nations, which has to accom pany the proclam ation o f th e good news to the
G entiles. B ut th e text does n o t m ention preaching, a n d W ink’s discussion ignores
th e function o f th e earlier reference to P aul’s p reach in g the good news to
th e Gentiles an d its relation to the th o u g h t o f 3:6 th a t Gentiles have becom e
jo in t m em bers o f the body. W ink also misses the fact th a t th e C h u rch is n o t
th e subject o f th e m aking know n b u t th e m eans th ro u g h which it takes place,
an d fails to note th at this un d erm in es his suggested in terp re tatio n , because it
is th ro u g h th e C hurch, m ade u p o f Jew ish C hristians a n d already-converted
G entiles, th at th e disclosure is m ade to the powers. D ahl (“Das G eheim nis,”
73–74) suggests th at the C h u rch m akes know n G od’s p u rp o se to th e pow ers
th ro u g h its w orship, in which th e angels are p re sen t (cf. 1 C or 11:10). B ut it
is by no m eans clear th at the angels p re sen t in w orship can be identified with
hostile powers.
 Comment 187

T h e w riter’s th o u g h t is, therefore, best un d ersto o d as being th at by h e r

very existence as a new hum anity, in which the m ajor division o f th e first-
century w orld has been overcom e, the C hurch reveals G od’s secret in action
an d heralds to th e hostile heavenly powers the overcom ing o f cosmic divisions
with th eir d efeat (cf. also M inear, “T h e V ocation to Invisible Pow ers,” 94 –
101). T h e syncretism com bated in Colossians appears to have claim ed th at it
was necessary fo r believers to placate the powers controlling the heavenly realm ,
in o rd e r to gain access to mysteries. T h e reflections o f the w riter to the E phesians
m ove in quite th e reverse direction. T h e m ystery is disclosed in the C hurch
an d th ro u g h h e r is being m ade know n to these very pow ers th at th eir m align
regim e, particularly over th at p art o f hum anity, the G entile world, th o u g h t
to be especially u n d e r th eir sway, has com e to an end.
In the G reek text the subject o f the clause, indicating the content o f the
disclosure, the m anifold wisdom o f God, is delayed until th e en d for the sake
o f em phasis. G od’s adm inistering o f the m ystery is seen in term s o f his wisdom.
As C aragounis (Mysterion, 108) rem arks, “T h e mysterion is shaped by G od’s
wisdom, it is a p ro d u ct o f it. A t the sam e tim e G od’s wisdom is reflected and
revealed in th e mysterion.” T his interconnection recalls 1 C or 2:6 – 8, w here
Paul h ad linked th e notion o f the wisdom o f God with th at o f m ystery (ao0ta
ev lAWTTipicp) an d w here this wisdom is said to have been hidden, to have been
decreed by God before the ages, an d no t to be know n by the rulers o f this
age. E arlier in Ephesians the w riter has em ployed ao0ta in connection with
G od’s gift o f wisdom to believers (cf. 1:8, 17), b u t his speaking o f the wisdom
o f God itself in this verse has led som e to see the W isdom m ythology o f H ellenis-
tic Ju d aism o r Gnosticism as having influenced him (cf. Schlier, 159– 66; U.
Wilckens, “ao0ta,” T D N T 7 [1971] 465– 76, 4 96– 528, fo r discussion o f such
m aterial). T h e re is no need to posit a background in Gnostic th o u g h t, w here
Sophia, on h e r descent from the heavenly realm o f light into the darkness
an d chaos o f th e m aterial world, has to pass th ro u g h interm ediary powers
an d thereby becom es know n to them . Motifs o f hiddenness (cf. Jo b 28:12–
22; B ar 3:9– 4:4; 4 Ezra 5:9; 2 Apoc. Bar. 48.36) an d m aking know n to specially
chosen ones o r to Israel (cf. Sir 4:11; 6:18, 19; 14:20 – 15:8; 24:8– 23; B ar 3:9 –
4:4) are used o f wisdom in the O T an d Jew ish literature. T h e accom panying
adjective in E p h 3:10, noXunoLKikos, is a hapax legomenon in the N T , b u t th ro u g h
it Schlier (159– 66, followed less cautiously by W ilckens, T D N T 7 [1971] 524,
an d C onzelm ann, 104) believes he can trace links with Hellenistic th o u g h t
ab o u t Isis-Sophia, who constantly changes appearan ce an d yet rem ains the
sam e goddess. H e holds th at Jew ish Gnostic in terp re tatio n o f this Isis theology
has influenced Ephesians, w here G od’s wisdom is seen as having a p p e are d in
d ifferent form s an d yet rem aining one. B ut, against this, it has to be pointed
o u t th at Schlier gives no exam ples o f the actual use o f Trdfomdia\o<; o f Isis or
Sophia. His case depends instead on seeing this term as com pletely synonym ous
with 7roXujuöp0os, “m ultiform ,” an d D ahl (“Das G eheim nis,” 66 – 69) has exposed
th e problem s o f such an assum ption. In addition, any notion o f a sequence
o f d ifferen t ap p earances o f wisdom is foreign to Ephesians, which simply has
in view th e one wise pu rp o se o f God, which was once h id d en b u t has now
com e to expression th ro u g h the C hurch. (For fu rth e r criticism o f Schlier’s
hypothesis, cf. Dahl, “Das G eheim nis,” 66– 71; Schnackenburg, 141– 42). Dahl
188 E p h e s ia n s 3:1– 13

(“Das G eheim nis,” 69 – 70) suggests th a t 7roXu7rot/aXo5 recalls the cosmic role o f
W isdom as ag en t in creation a n d refers to th e colorful splendor o f W isdom ’s
ways in th e created world, finding su p p o rt in T heophilus, Ad Autolycum
1.6; 2.16 an d po in ting to o th e r places in Ephesians w here cosmological term i-
nology has been given a soteriological o r ecclesiological twist. B ut in all
likelihood b o th Schlier an d D ahl have attem p ted to build too m uch on
this one term an d to be too specific about th e background o f the phrase as
a whole.
T h e p h rase should be u n d ersto o d m ore generally, since in Ephesians the
wisdom o f G od is n o t personified in the way it is in the wisdom literatu re o r
in Gnosticism. It is best taken as th e wise divine pu rp o se in the o rd e rin g o f
history. In this sense, it is analogous to the connotations o f wisdom in the
Q u m ra n literatu re (cf. IQ S 4.18, 19, “B ut in the m ysteries o f his u n d erstan d in g ,
an d in his glorious wisdom, G od has o rd a in e d an en d for falsehood, an d at
th e tim e o f th e visitation H e will destroy it for ever. T h e n tru th , which has
wallowed in th e ways o f wickedness d u rin g the dom inion o f falsehood until
the ap p o in ted tim e o f ju d g m e n t, shall arise in th e w orld for ever”), a n d m ore
particularly to th e wisdom which is praised by Paul, w hen in R om ans 11 he
reflects on th e outw orkings o f G od’s plan o f salvation in history for Jew s an d
Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:33). As fa r as th e term 7roXwrot#aXo5 is concerned, the
prefix noXv- m erely intensifies w hat is m ean t by the sim ple noudXos (“diversified”
o r “m an y-colored”), an d produces th e sense o f “richly diverse” o r “m ultifaceted.”
As the description o f it in Wis 7:22, which includes the w ord TroXujuepe?, m akes
clear, G od’s wisdom has a host o f characteristics, a n d it is to this highly variegated
sp lend o r a n d gloriously intricate design o f G od’s wise pu rp o se in history th at
the w riter o f E phesians draw s attention.
Verses 9 an d 10 are highly significant fo r the way in which they link the
latter’s ecclesiological an d cosmic em phases. O ne can see why C aird (66) claims
in reg ard to v 10, “It is hardly an exaggeration to say th at any in terp re tatio n
o f Ephesians stands o r falls with this verse.” (Yet C aird is in d a n g e r o f failing
his own test w hen he reads into th e verse a whole theology o f the link betw een
the powers an d th e state, an d holds th a t the w riter is saying “th at even such
structures o f pow er a n d authority as th e secular state are capable o f being
b ro u g h t into h arm ony with the love o f G od” [67].) It is no accident th at the
term s used in these verses fo r th e disclosure o f the m ystery— yvcopL^eiv, obcovopia,
pvoT'qpvov—are those em ployed in the earlier discussion o f the m ystery in 1:9, 10,
w here its co n ten t was th e sum m ing u p o f all things in C hrist, n o r th at the
th o u g h t o f these verses ab o u t th e C h u rch brings to m ind the o th e r discussion
o f the m ystery in 3 :3 – 6, w here its co n ten t is the one C h u rch o u t o f Jew s an d
Gentiles. T h e w riter has rew orked Col 1:26– 28 in the light o f these two earlier
discussions, so th a t the existence o f th e C hurch, u n itin g hostile sections o f
hum anity in one body, can be seen as p ro o f to th e pow ers th a t G od is in fact
sum m ing u p all things in C hrist. T his integration o f cosmic an d ecclesiological
perspectives is rem iniscent o f the way th e two w ere b ro u g h t to g eth er earlier
in 1:21– 23, w here C hrist’s lordship over th e cosmos is show n to be on b eh alf
o f the C h u rch an d the C h u rch has a special role as th e m edium o f C hrist’s
presence an d ru le in th e cosmos. H e re in 3:9, 10 also, we should u n d ersta n d
th at it is because the C h u rch alone is C hrist’s body an d fullness th at only
 Comment 189

th ro u g h th e C h u rch can th e principalities an d authorities be shown with clarity

the claim o f C hrist’s lordship.
11,12 K a ra npödeoiv rcbv aiojvoov r\v enoir^oev ev rep X p io rc p Irjoov rep Kvpicp
r\pCyv, “according to th e eternal p u rp o se which he accom plished in C hrist Jesus
o u r L o rd .” T h ese w ords should be connected with the whole o f the previous
clause, and, with v 12, add to th e m ain th o u g h t ab o u t th e co n ten t o f the
m ystery the liturgical flourishes we have com e to expect o f this w riter’s style.
In term s o f style, the w riter’s designation o f C hrist involves an un usual com bina-
tion, with the article before “C hrist Je su s” an d again before “L ord,” which is
followed by th e possessive adjective. T h e closest equivalent is fo u n d in Col
2:6, w here, how ever, th ere is no possessive adjective. W hat has been m ade
know n th ro u g h the C h u rch is tied to G od’s eternal pu rp o se in the sam e way
as the benefits o f salvation w ere traced back to G od’s purposes th ro u g h o u t
the eulogy o f 1:3– 14. In fact, th e phrase K a ra n podeoiv occurred earlier in th at
context in 1:11. In the expression irpodeoiv rcbv a io iv o jv , literally “pu rp o se o f
the ages,” “ages” should again be u n d ersto o d to have tem poral force (pace
Schlier, 157– 58; Steinm etz, Protologische Heilszuversicht, 63– 64; L indem ann, Auf -
hebung, 228, who u n d ersta n d the expression as an objective genitive m eaning
th at God has included the personal aeons in his purpose). T h e m eaning is
not so m uch th at G od’s pu rp o se ru n s th ro u g h the ages (pace Abbott, 89– 90),
as th at it is before all tim e an d eternal. In this way the expression is taken as
a H ebraism in which the genitive functions as an adjective, here as the equivalent
to akhwos (cf. also 3:21; 1 T im 1:17, an d BDF § 165 [1]).
T h e re is a fu rth e r question o f m eaning in re g ard to th e use o f the verb
iTOtelv with ir p o d e o tv . It could m ean eith er to conceive o r achieve a purpose.
Some p re fer the form er, claim ing th at this w ould be m ore in line with the
th o u g h t ab out th e ultim ate origins o f the m aking know n o f the m ystery in
1:9 an d th at one w ould expect a stro n g er term if the notion o f achievem ent
were in view. O n this in terp retatio n , C hrist Jesus o u r L ord is u n d ersto o d as
the preexistent m ediator o f the divine pu rp o se (cf. A bbott, 90; J. A. Robinson,
171– 172; Schm id, Epheserbrief, 232– 33; Schlier, 157; G augler, 146; Gnilka,
177; Ernst, 334; C aragounis, Mysterion, 110; M ussner, 106). B ut the m eaning
o f achievem ent o r accom plishm ent seems to suit the context in this passage
better, w here the m aking know n o f the m ystery has been described as realized
th ro u g h the existence o f the C hurch, an d w here w hat follows will speak o f
th at which has been accom plished in term s o f access. T h e m ention o f C hrist’s
lordship suggests th e execution o f G od’s purpose. K a r a n p ö d e o iv is connected
with accom plishm ent in its earlier use in 1:11 (“according to the p u rp o se o f
him who carries o u t all things . . .”). T h e usage o f n o i e l v elsew here in Ephesians
also su p p o rts this latter in terp retatio n . In 2:3 n o i o v v r e s r a O e X r ip a r a m eans
“carrying o u t th e wishes,” an d w here th ere are periphrastic form ulations with
iro ielp , as in 1:16 an d 4:16, they take th e m iddle ra th e r th a n the active form
o f the verb (cf. also M eyer, 170 – 71; W estcott, 49; B eare, 673; B arth, 346–
47; C aird, 67; M itton, 128; Schnackenburg, 143).
ev (1) ex o p e v rrjv irappr^olav Kai irp o o a y o jy rjv ev TreTTOiOrpeL 5td rffc m o reen s a v ro v ,
“in w hom we have boldness a n d confident access th ro u g h faith in him .” Since
the term s “boldness” an d “access” are governed by one article in the G reek
text, they may well form a hendiadys to em phasize the notion o f bold access.
190 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1–13

ev ireiroidrpei, “in confidence,” w hich is to be taken with Trpooayooyr), th e n bolsters

this notion fu rth e r to give th e force o f “the boldness o f confident access.”
For discussion o f the b ackground a n d force o f the im agery o f access, see th e
com m ents o n 2:18, w here th e term ap p e are d earlier.
TrapprpLa, which occurs again in 6:19 a n d in th e form o f its verbal cognate
in 6:20, was used originally in classical G reek for “freed o m o f speech,” the
dem ocratic rig h t “to say everything” one w ished to say. It also took on co nnota-
tions o f openness an d frankness in speech, a virtue th at was highly valued in
connection with friendship, a n d o f boldness o r courage in speech, which could
som etim es tu rn into insolence. In H ellenistic Ju d aism the term also cam e to
be used in th e context o f a p erso n ’s relationship w ith G od, especially in pray er
(cf. LXX J o b 22:26; 27:9, 10; Philo, Spec. 1.203, which speaks o f th e w orshiper
praying boldly from a p u re conscience, as does Jo sep h u s, Ant. 2.4.4; cf. also
Ant. 5.1.3). In th e N T the two m ain connotations o f th e term are a sim ilar
jo y fu l confidence before G od, b u t now based on C hrist’s saving work, a n d a
bold an d o p en proclam ation o f th e gospel. It is th e fo rm er w hich is in view
h ere, a n d it reflects th e attitu d e o f those w ho lack any fear o r sham e a n d
have n o th in g to conceal, because they are assured o f G od’s gracious disposition
tow ard th em in Christ. (For fu rth e r discussion, cf. E. P eterson, “Z ur B ed eu tu n g s-
geschichte von Uappr^oiaf in Reinhold Seeberg Festschrift, Vol. 1, ed. W. K oepp
[Leipzig: D. W ern er Scholl, 1929] 283–97; D. Sm olders, “L’A udace de l’a p ôtre
selon Saint Paul: Le th em e de la parresia,” Collectanea mechliniensia 43 [1958]
16– 30, 117– 33; W. C. van U nnik, “T h e C hristian’s F reedom o f Speech in
the New T estam e n t,” a n d “T h e Semitic B ackground o f I1APPH2IA in th e New
T estam en t,” in Sparsa Collecta, P art 2 N ovT S up 30 [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980]
269 – 89, 290 – 306; S. B. M arrow , “P arrhesia a n d th e New T estam e n t,” CBQ
44 [1982] 431– 46.)
7TC7rot077at9, which occurs six tim es in th e Pauline corpus (cf. also 2 C or 1:15;
3:4; 8:22; 10:2; Phil 3:4), b u t now here else in th e N T , intensifies th e subjective
elem ent in th e relationship with G od th ro u g h th e notion o f confidence. T his
new found confidence th ro u g h C hrist was a strong note in P aul’s faith and, if
anything, th e w riter o f E phesians, with his alliterative h eap in g u p o f term s
an d com bination o f Pauline em phases from Rom 5:2 an d 2 C or 3:12, has
increased its force. Since this attitu d e fo u n d particular expression in prayer,
it is n o t su rprising th at alm ost im m ediately th e w riter will re tu rn to p ray er in
vv 14 – 21. A sim ilar celebration o f boldness o f access into the very presence
o f G od can be fo u n d in H eb 4:16; 10:19– 22. T h e ev d) phrase at the beginning
o f v 12 indicates th e gro u n d s for believers’ confidence o f access— it is because
o f the new situation G od has b ro u g h t ab o u t in a n d th ro u g h C hrist—while
the p hrase at th e e n d o f th e verse, 5td rf)? more cos avrov, “th ro u g h faith in
him ,” indicates th e m eans by w hich believers ap p ro p riate the new situation
for them selves. Som e take the latter phrase, along with sim ilar ones in Paul,
to re fer to C hrist’s faith o r faithfulness (cf. B arth, 347; M itton, 128; G. E.
H ow ard, “T h e ‘Faith o f C hrist,’ ” ExpTim 85 [1973 – 74] 212– 15). B ut th e m ajority
o f com m entators see rightly th a t it is faith in C hrist which is in view. In P aul’s
trea tm e n t o f access in R om 5:2 it is a consequence o f justification by faith,
an d th e re ad ers’ faith has already been m en tio n ed earlier in this letter in
1:13, 15, 19; an d 2:8.
 Comment 191

T h e fu nction o f this celebration o f access to G od in th e w riter’s flow o f

th o u g h t is sim ilar to th a t o f its earlier trea tm e n t in 2:18. B oth passages highlight
the consequences o f the outw orking o f G od’s salvific purposes fo r the p resen t
situation o f believers, th o u g h in each case the context provides a distinctive
nuance. W hile in 2:18 the access was the com m on access o f two previously
divided groups, h ere in 3:12 th e access can be seen as one no longer im peded
by the m enace o f hostile principalities an d authorities (cf. also Schnacken-
burg, 143).
13 5io air ovum /lit) ejKaicelv ev rat? OXtyeoiv pov imep vpcbv, rjn? eoriv 5o£a
vpüv, “I beg you, th erefo re, n o t to becom e discouraged because o f my sufferings
on your behalf, which are your glory.” 5i6 refers back to all th at has been
said in vv 2– 12, n o t ju s t to v 12 (contra B ratcher an d N ida, Handbook, 80). It
is in the light o f th e significance o f P aul’s m inistry as a whole th at the readers
are begged n o t to becom e disheartened. It is the readers o f w hom this request
is m ade an d n o t G od (pace B arth, 348). T h e beginning o f the prayer to God
is m arked clearly in v 14. T his also rules o u t the possible in terp retatio n th at
Paul is requesting G od th at he, Paul, should n o t becom e disheartened, which
in any case w ould be o u t o f line with the whole ten o r o f vv 2– 12, an d particularly
the confident note struck in v 12 (pace T h o m p so n , ExpTim 71 [1959–60] 188;
N. B aum ert, Täglich Sterben und Auferstehen [M unich: Kösel, 1973] 324– 25).
T h e verb eyicanelv occurs elsew here in P aul’s letters in 2 C or 4:1, 16; Gal 6:9;
an d 2 T hess 3:13, w here it has the connotations o f eith er becom ing discouraged
o r grow ing weary.
T h e possible cause o f discouragem ent for the readers is P aul’s sufferings
on th eir behalf. Since it is unlikely th a t readers no t know n personally to Paul
would actually n eed reassurance for th eir own faith because the apostle is
suffering o r h ad suffered, the request o f this verse serves, ra th e r, as an apologetic
device to show how even P aul’s sufferings an d m artyrdom are no cause for
sham e, b u t fit th e m agnificent scope o f his apostolic m inistry th at has ju st
been set fo rth (cf. also Gnilka, 180; E rnst, 335; M ussner, 106). His sufferings
im m ediately receive an in terp re tatio n which reinforces for the readers the
greatness o f his apostleship: they are “for you” an d indeed “your glory.” S uffer-
ing, particularly apostolic suffering, is a significant topic in P aul’s letters, and
0Xii//i? is the term he m ost frequently uses in this connection. B ut it is in particular
the th o u g h t o f Col 1:24 which has influenced E ph 3:13. W hile Ephesians has
ev rat? dX^eoiv pov imep vpcov, Colossians h ad ev rot? naOppaow m ep vpcbv and
em ployed th e term 0Xti//t? for C hrist’s afflictions which the apostolic suffering
com pleted. T h e E phesians form ulation appears flatter an d less dram atic because
it om its this latter em phasis o f Col 1:24b, “in my flesh I com plete w hat is
lacking in C hrist’s afflictions for the sake o f his body, th at is, the C h u rch .”
Yet th e dynam ic o f this notion may well lie b eh in d the u n u su al way in which
Ephesians states th at the apostle’s sufferings are the re ad ers’ glory, which is
an additional statem ent n o t fo u n d in Colossians.
B ut this d ep en d s on how one in terp rets So£a. As C aragounis (Mysterion,
112 n. 61) says, “T h e m eaning o f ‘glory’ has puzzled all in terp re ters.” Even J. A.
R obinson (80– 81) co ntented him self with asserting th at this verse contains “a
logic which we can hardly analyze. . . . It is the language o f the h e a rt.” M itton
(129) is u n u su al am ong m o d ern com m entators in th at he believes the second
192 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1–13

clause in v 13 refers n o t ju s t to th e apostle’s sufferings, b u t to th e whole o f

th e first clause, so th a t “fo r th e read ers to find courage ra th e r th a n discourage-
m en t from th e th o u g h t o f P aul’s ordeals, courage to be willing to share them
. . . this is th eir glory . . . som ething o f which they can be truly p ro u d .”
M eyer (174) h ad long ago dism issed such an explanation as too general an d
com m onplace. T h e w riter’s th o u g h t is in d eed likely to be m ore p ro fo u n d th an
th at Paul set an exam ple which should stim ulate others. It is certainly m ore
n atu ral to take th e relative clause to re fe r to th a t which im m ediately precedes,
P aul’s sufferings. In this case, does “your glory” m ean “fo r your h o n o r o r
prestige”? M eyer (173) offered the in terp re tatio n th at P aul’s suffering fo r the
read ers re d o u n d e d to th eir h o n o r. B ut if the apostolic sufferings are held to
be th e cause fo r th eir prestige o r glorying, one w ould expect the use o f navxqpa
ra th e r th a n 6o£a to express this, as in Phil 1:26. C ould it be th e n th a t “y our
glory” simply m eans “for your benefit”? A bbott (92), following C hrysostom ,
espouses this line o f th o u g h t; P aul’s sufferings on his m ission have all been
in o rd e r th at G entile C hristians m ight obtain the great blessings o f salvation.
It ap p ears m uch m ore likely, how ever, th a t we should take o u r clue for the
m eanin g o f 5o£a from the fact th a t w hen in Paul, as here, suffering an d glory
are ju x tap o sed , it is eschatological glory w hich is in view, the glorification o f
believers. (O n this topic, cf. C. M. Sm ith, “Suffering a n d Glory: Studies in
P aul’s Use o f th e M otif in th e L ight o f Its Early Jew ish B ackground,” Ph.D.
dissertation, University o f Sheffield, 1988.) In its appearances so far in E phesians
glory has been related to G od ra th e r th a n believers (cf. 1:6, 12, 14, 17, 18),
b u t it is used in association with believers in Col 1:27 an d 3:4, an d in those
cases also it d enotes eschatological glory. In P aul’s th o u g h t one o f the relation-
ships betw een suffering an d glory is th a t th e fo rm er is a precondition o f the
latter (cf. 2 C or 4:17; Rom 8:17, 18). B ut the one who suffers is th e one who
is later glorified, while h ere in E p h 3:13 th e one w ho suffers is Paul b u t those
who are glorified are believers. Such a relationship, w hereby apostolic suffering
m ediates salvation to others, is p re sen t in P aul’s th o u g h t b u t expressed in
d ifferen t term s in 2 C or 1:6 (“if we are afflicted, it is for your com fort an d
salvation”) a n d 2 C or 4:12 (“so d ea th is at w ork in us, b u t life in you”). It is
this concept o f P aul’s afflictions m ediating the salvific benefits o f C hrist’s suffer-
ings to believers th at is expressed h ere in Ephesians in term s o f his sufferings
a n d th eir glory. Suffering still m ust com e before glory for the readers, b u t it
is Paul who has fulfilled the condition o f suffering fo r them , virep vpCov. If
this is the case, th e n the th o u g h t o f this verse is sim ilar to Col 1:24 after all,
for Paul is seen as th e one who contributes to m aking u p the quota o f m essianic
woes, o f eschatological tribulation, p rio r to the consum m ation o f salvation in
glory (cf. O ’B rien, Colossians, 75–81; b u t cf. also C. M. Sm ith, “Suffering an d
Glory,” 193 – 209). It is in this way th a t Ephesians sees P aul’s sufferings as
brin g in g G entile believers the experience o f glory (cf. also Schlier, 166; Gnilka,
180; C aird, 67; T h o m p so n , ExpTim 71 [1959 – 60] 187–89). A sim ilar th o u g h t
ab o u t P aul’s m inistry can be fo u n d in 2 T im 2:10, “T h e re fo re I e n d u re every-
th in g fo r th e sake o f the elect, th a t they also m ay obtain salvation in C hrist
Jesu s with its etern al glory.” W ith v 13, this section o f E phesians ends as it
began, by recalling fo r the G entile C hristian readers th eir intim ate links with
the apostle Paul, im ep vpCbv h ere takes u p th e virep vpcbv r(bv edvcov o f v 1 an d
the et? vpäs o f v 2.
 Explanation 193

Explanation

In this rew orking o f m aterial from Col l:2 3 c - 28 the w riter, afte r breaking
o ff from the b eginning o f an intercessory p rayer in v 1, depicts P aul’s apostolic
m inistry to th e Gentiles. In each o f the two m ain sentences o f w hat is strictly
a digression, the apostolic m inistry is linked with the m aking know n o f the
m ystery o f C hrist, an d in each this m ystery has its focus in th e C hurch. T h e
first tim e, the m ystery, which was n o t even know n to the O T p ro p h ets bu t
was revealed to th e apostles a n d p ro p h ets a n d particularly to Paul, is h ighlighted
in term s o f th e G entiles’ becom ing jo in t m em bers o f the body, the C hurch,
on equal term s with Jew ish C hristians a n d jo in t heirs an d sharers in the prom ise.
T h e second time, the m ystery involves the existence o f th e C h u rch as in itself
a disclosure o f G od’s wise design to th e principalities an d authorities. T h e re
is also th e rem in d er th at God has accom plished his pu rp o se in C hrist an d
because o f him believers can have confident access to God. T h e digression is
ro u n d e d o ff with an exhortation no t to lose heart, because the sufferings in-
volved in P aul’s apostolic m inistry contribute to the G entile C hristian re ad ers’
glorification.
T h e digression functions n o t only to elaborate on the identity o f the one
who prays an d his relationship to those for w hom he prays (cf. 3:1, 14), a
com m on featu re in P aul’s letters, b u t also to develop the device o f pseudonym ity
on which this letter as a whole rests (cf. 1:1; 4:1). By speaking in the nam e
o f Paul an d having Paul reflect on the significance o f his m inistry, the w riter
can develop his own u n d ersta n d in g o f the m ystery o f the C hrist event and,
at the sam e tim e, back his insights with th e apostle’s authority.
T h e features in the description o f Paul th at are relied on for such a trea tm e n t
are his im p riso n m ent for the sake o f C hrist (v 1), his G entile m ission (vv
1, 8), his im p riso n m ent an d suffering on b eh a lf o f the Gentiles (vv 1, 13), his
special insight as a recipient o f revelation (vv 3 – 5, 9), a n d his service in the
cause o f the gospel (v 7). T hese are o f course general aspects o f P aul’s m inistry
an d m ight have been expected in such a portrait. B ut th ree fu rth e r elem ents
em erge strongly an d are em phasized by the w riter in his identification with
Paul. T h e first is P aul’s indebtedness to the grace o f G od for his apostolic
m inistry (vv 2, 7, 8). Ephesians has already stressed th a t salvation is all o f grace
(2:8– 10). Now it m akes clear th at the apostleship which was instrum ental in
b ringing th at salvation to the Gentiles was also all o f grace. As the readers
have b een rem in d ed in chap. 2 o f w hat they have becom e th ro u g h G od’s
grace, so now in chap. 3 they are also rem in d ed o f w hat the apostle becam e
th ro u g h th at sam e grace. T h e paradox o f grace in his life was th at to this
one who h ad no claim to any b u t the lowest status am ong believers (v 8) was
en tru sted a great task o f cosmic dim ensions. T h e second elem ent to be noted
is the depiction o f Paul as apostle an d theologian o f the C hurch. T his ecclesiolog-
ical context o f P aul’s w ork is clear from the fact th at the m ystery, which it is
his task to m ake known, is twice explained as centering on the C hurch. It is
this em phasis th at also provides the reason fo r intro d u cin g th e apostles an d
p ro p h ets alongside Paul in the first statem ent ab o u t the reception o f the revela-
tion o f the mystery. T hose w hom the w riter has already described as th e fo u n d a-
tion o f th e C h u rch are m entioned in o rd e r to set P aul’s m inistry firmly in the
context o f th e C h urch as a whole. T h o u g h Paul is quickly seen to be a far
194 E p h e s ia n s 3:1– 13

m ore d o m in an t figure and, fo r this w riter, th e leading an d norm ative in te rp re te r

o f w hat God has done in C hrist, he has now b een established as a pillar o f
th e C hurch, so th at to rem em b er the w ork o f Paul is now also to re m e m b er
th e o ne C hurch, its com ing into being a n d its role in the w orld. T his brings
us to th e th ird notew orthy elem ent in th e depiction o f Paul—his m inistry
takes on a cosmic significance. It is th ro u g h the C h u rch o f Jew s a n d Gentiles
th a t G od’s wisdom is exhibited to the powers. Since Paul played such a p ro m in en t
p a rt in b rin g in g this sort o f C h u rch into being, an d since his task is also to
m ake plain to all th at this is G od’s way o f w orking, his apostolic m ission is
seen to be cau g h t u p in the d ra m a o f G od’s cosmic purpose.
It is in vv 9, 10, with th eir talk o f disclosure o f the m ystery to th e principalities
a n d authorities, th at the two m ain aspects o f the discussion o f th e m ystery
(and th u s two o f the m ajor em phases o f the first th re e chapters) com e together.
T h e elaboration o n P aul’s apostleship supplies th e context for in teg ratin g the
letter’s ecclesiological an d cosmic perspectives, explicitly b ro u g h t to g eth er ea r-
lier only in 1:21– 23. W hat now becom es clear is th at th e C h u rch provides
hostile cosmic powers with a tangible re m in d e r th at th eir au th o rity has b een
decisively bro k en an d th at all things are subject to C hrist. T h e overcom ing o f
th e barriers betw een Jew s an d Gentiles, as they are u n ited th ro u g h C hrist in
th e C h urch, is a pledge o f the overcom ing o f all divisions w hen the universe
will be resto red to harm ony in C hrist (cf. 1:10). In this way the C h u rch as
th e focus o f G od’s wise plan could give th e readers an essential clue to th e
m ean in g o f this w orld’s history.
In com parison with the trea tm e n t o f “m ystery” in Colossians a n d with P aul’s
th o u g h t in general, in E phesians the C h u rch clearly has a far m ore p ro m in en t
place. Yet this developm ent from Paul is m ade in th e m idst o f restatem ents
o f authentically Pauline em phases such as grace, G entile inclusion th ro u g h
th e gospel, boldness, access, faith, an d apostolic sufferings.
D espite th e co n centrated atten tio n paid to P aul’s m inistry a n d the trem en d o u s
significance attached to the C hurch, these h u m a n instrum ents have n o t taken
over th e w riter’s th o u g h t com pletely. E lem ents o f th e o th e r d o m in an t foci in
th e earlier sections o f the letter, th e Christological a n d the theological, still
rem ain. T h e co n ten t o f the m ystery is spelled o u t in term s o f its ecclesiological
im plications, b u t it rem ains th e m ystery o f C hrist (v 4) a n d G od’s p u rp o se in
his disclosure th ro u g h th e C h u rch is, in fact, accom plished “in C hrist Jesu s
o u r L o rd ” (v 11). Paul him self is subject to C hrist as his p riso n er (v 1), a n d
th e good news he preaches to the Gentiles is o f “th e unsearchable riches o f
C hrist” (v 8). A nd th o u g h Paul is given so m uch credit for his insight into
G od’s p u rposes in form ing the C hurch, it should n o t be fo rg o tten th a t th e
w riter has already stated in 2:15 th at it is C hrist w ho is th e creato r o f th e
C hurch. It is C hrist also who provides th e g ro u n d s fo r believers’ confidence
in th e presence o f G od a n d is the object o f th eir faith (v 12). Similarly, it is
only because God chooses to reveal th e m ystery th a t it can be know n by h um anity
(v 5). T h e m ystery has its beginning a n d e n d in him . T h e ultim ate source o f
its w orking o u t is G od the C reato r o f all (v 9). It is in accordance with his
etern al pu rp o se, which he has accom plished (v 11), a n d it serves to exhibit
th e m ultifaceted splendor o f his wisdom (v 10). T h e sam e goes fo r P aul’s
m inistry, th e vehicle for the disclosure o f th e m ystery; it too is d e p e n d e n t
th ro u g h an d th ro u g h on G od’s grace an d pow er (vv 2, 7, 8).
 Explanation 195

T his section o n Paul as m inister o f the m ystery to the G entiles—with its

ecclesiological focus, its cosmic backdrop, an d its Christological a n d theological
elem ents— is m ean t ultim ately to stren g th en th e bonds betw een the letter’s
G entile C hristian readers an d th e Pauline tradition as th e w riter u n d erstan d s
it. In o rd e r to effect this aim the readers are rem in d ed th a t th e revelation o f
the m ystery o f C hrist and, as p a rt o f this, th eir own existence as th e C hurch
an d the C h u rch ’s role in the universe are inextricably b o u n d u p with the
apostle Paul an d th e com m ission en tru sted to him . T hey can verify from reading
w hat has been w ritten (cf. vv 3 ,4 ) th at Paul h ad in d eed been given revelation
an d special insight fo r them . T h e “for you” at the b eginning an d en d o f the
section drives this hom e. T o the readers has been m ediated, th ro u g h P aul’s
apostleship, n o t only grace (v 2) b u t also glory (v 13).
Further Prayer—fo r the Completeness
of the Readers9Experience of God—
with Doxology (3:14–21)
Bibliography

Arnold, C. E. Ephesians: Power and Magic, 85– 102. Caragounis, C. C. The Ephesian
Mysterion, 74– 77. Dahl, N. A. “Cosmic Dimensions and Religious Knowledge (Eph
3:18).” In Jesus und Paulus, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1975, 57–75. Deichgräber, R. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus, 25–40. Du-
pont, J. Gnosis: La Connaissance religieuse dans les Ép îtres de Saint Paul. Paris: J. Gabalda,
1949, 476–528. Ernst, J. Pleroma, 120–35. Feuillet, A. Le Christ, Sagesse de Dieu. Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1966, 307– 19. “L’Église plérôme du Christ d’après Ephés., 1, 23,” N R T 78
(1956) 593– 610. Milling, D. H. “The Origin and Character of the NT Doxology.”
Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, 1972. Mussner, F. Christus, das All und die Kirche, 7 1–75. Pesch,
R. “Das Mysterium Christi (Eph 3 ,8 – 12, 14– 19).” Am Tisch des Wortes 18 (1967) 11–
17.

Translation

14For this reason I kneel before the Father,a 15from whom every family b in heaven
and on earth derives its name,16in order that according to the riches of his glory
he might grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner
person,17that Christ might dwell in your hearts through faith, that you might be
rooted and grounded in love,c 18in order that you might be empowered to grasp
with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,19and to
know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, in order that you might be filled
up to all the fullness of God.d
20Now to him who is able to do infinitely more abundantly abovee all that we
ask or think in accordance with the power which is at work within us,21 to him
belongs glory in the Church andf in Christ Jesus throughout all generations and
fo r evermore. Amen.

Notes

aSome manuscripts have the words rod Kvpiov rmcw Irjaov XpujroO, “o f our Lord Jesus Christ,”
after mrepa, “Father.” They include Nc D G K ^ 88 itd*g vg syrP>h. But this is in all likelihood
an addition in line with 1:3 and similar liturgical formulations. Since there would be no reason
for omitting the words, it is all the more probable that the shorter text found in such weighty
manuscripts as p 4 6 K* A B C P 33 81 1739 syrPal copsa boh is the earlier.
bThe Greek text has a play on words between irarpui, here rendered as “family” and naripa,
“Father,” in the previous verse, which an English translation is not able to capture.
cThe position o f the phrase “in love” in the Greek text is such that it could be connected
with the clause that precedes it, “that Christ might dwell through faith in your hearts in love,”
or, as in our translation, with the clause that follows it, “that you might be rooted and grounded
in love.” With most commentators (contra J. A. Robinson, 85, 175; n e b ) we have preferred the
latter because the participles appear in need o f qualification (cf. their use in Col 1:23 and 2:7).
dN A C D G K P t i t v g syrP>h>Pal cop00 goth all have n k q p o j d f f r e et? n e w t o n X r j p c o ^ a t o v dcov,
the reading reflected in the translation above, “(that) you might be filled up to all the fullness o f
 Form / Structure / Setting 197

God.” There is, however, a major variant, witnessed by p 46 B 462 copsa, which reads TrXrfpcjöfl
Trap t o TrXrjpco/ua t o v Oeov, “(that) all the fullness o f God may be filled up.” Presumably this variant
is the result of a desire to provide an easier syntactical construction or to avoid what were felt to
be theological difficulties about humans possessing the total fullness of deity.
e Several witnesses, p 4 6 D E F G itd-g vg Ambrosiaster, omit virep, “above.” Probably it was
thought that imep was redundant and that its omission would provide a smoother construction.
fThe K a i, “and,” is witnessed by N A B C vg, but some manuscripts omit it (Dc K L P), and
others reverse the order of the Church and Christ so that Christ is given the priority (D* F G).
Both variants are attempts to deal with what was perceived to be a theological difficulty, but the
more difficult reading must be regarded as the original (<contra Meyer, 152).

Form / Structure / Setting

In its form th e whole passage is a prayer-re p o rt, which divides into two
particular fo rm s— an intercessory prayer-re p o rt (vv 14– 19) an d a doxology
(vv 20, 21).
T h e intercessory prayer-re p o rt constitutes one long sentence in Greek. It
has been possible to retain this featu re in the translation w ithout lapsing into
incom prehensibility o r too great an aw kw ardness o f style. T h e style o f the
original contains m any o f the syntactical features already no ted in connection
with the earlier eulogy an d thanksgiving period. T h e stru ctu re o f th o u g h t in
the intercessory p rayer-re p o rt is as follows. Verses 14, 15 introduce the prayer
an d vv 16– 19 relate its content. T h e co n ten t falls into th ree m ain requests,
each o f which is in tro d u ced by iva. T h e first m ain request itself begins with
iva 8(1) Ujuip, “th at he m ight g ra n t you . . . ,” an d this is followed by two parallel
infinitive clauses an d a participial clause. T h e first infinitive clause, with
KfxiTai03df\vai, elaborates th at w hat the readers are to be g ran ted is “to be
stren g th en ed with pow er th ro u g h his Spirit in the in n e r m an .” T h e second,
with Karoucrjoai, provides a fu rth e r equivalent, “th at C hrist m ight dwell in your
hearts th ro u g h faith.” Verse 17b, with its two perfect passive participial form s,
is best taken as a fu rth e r subsidiary request, “th a t you m ight be rooted and
g ro u n d ed in love.” It could be in te rp re te d as a result clause, d e p e n d e n t on
the two infinitives, which, in tu rn , provides the condition for the next request,
i.e., “so th at you, having been ro o ted an d g ro u n d e d in love, m ight be em pow -
e red ” (so r sv , j b ; also C aragounis, Mysterion, 75). B ut elsew here in the N T ,
participles can function to express wishes o r com m ands (cf. BDF § 468 [2]),
and in the context o f a prayer it is ap p ro p riate to u n d ersta n d them as having
the force o f a pray er-wish (so g n b ; also G augler, 155; Gnilka, 185 ; Schnacken-
burg, 152; B ratch er an d N ida, Handbook, 86). T h e second m ain request, with
Iva, also asks fo r strengthening, this tim e using e^toxbar^re, “th at you m ight
be em pow ered.” A gain the iva clause is followed by two infinitive clauses,
which in all probability express parallel th o u g h ts (see the com m ents on vv
18, 19). T h e em p o w erm ent is in o rd e r fo r the readers to grasp (KaTaXaßeaOat)
all the dim ensions (of love) an d to know (yvcbvai) the love o f C hrist which
surpasses knowledge. By the tim e the th ird iva clause has been reached, the
p rayer has g ath ered rhetorical m om entum , an d the final req u est becom es the
climactic one— “th at you m ight be filled u p to all the fullness o f G od.”
T h e form al features o f an intercessory prayer-re p o rt have b een considered
earlier, in the discussion o f 1:15– 23 u n d e r Form/ Structure/ Setting. As one m ight
198 E p h e s ia n s 3 : 14–21

expect, th e re p o rt here in chap. 3, particularly w hen its in tro d u ctio n in v 1 is

included, contains th e following basic elem ents: (i) m ention o f the person
who prays, “I, Paul, the p riso n er o f C hrist Jesu s” (v 1); (ii) the verb o f praying,
“I kneel” (v 14); (in) m ention o f the person to w hom p ray er is m ade, “before
th e F ath er” (v 14), who is described fu rth e r in v 15; (iv) m ention o f th e persons
fo r w hom o n e prays, which is no t fo u n d h ere with th e verb o f praying b u t
becom es explicit with the vfxlp in v 16, “m ight g ra n t you,” w hich has earlier
been elab o rated as “you G entiles” (v 1); an d (v) th e co n ten t o f the prayer,
which is often expressed by m eans o f a final clause, here th e Iva clauses o f vv
16, 18, 19b. It differs from th e earlier intercessory prayer-re p o rt in th e thanks-
giving perio d o f 1:15– 23 in th at the verb fo r praying is n o t in participial
form , th ere is no clear link with thanksgiving as in 1:16, 17, a n d th e re is no
eschatological climax as in 1 :2 1 b.
T h e doxology also consists o f one sentence. V erse 20 begins with th e m ention
o f th e one to w hom glory is ascribed, rep be bwayevcp . . . , “now to th e one
who is able . . . ,” b u t its elaboration on G od’s pow er becom es a lengthy one,
m aking it necessary to begin the doxology again in v 2 1 with a rep etitio n o f
th e one to w hom the praise is addressed, this tim e using the p ro n o u n aurep.
T h e link betw een the doxology a n d th e p receding prayer-re p o rt is fo u n d in
th e th o u g h t o f v 20 th at G od “is able to do infinitely m ore abun d an tly above
all th at we ask,” which reflects the transition from request to praise. In an
u n u su al form ulation o f the co n ten t o f the praise, glory is ascribed to G od in
th e C h u rch an d in C hrist, an d th en two m ore usual features, an affirm ation
th a t such glory will last fo r ever an d an A m en, ro u n d off th e doxology.
In term s o f form , doxology is being used h ere as th e designation fo r ascrip-
tions o f som e noble quality o r qualities to G od o r C hrist. T h e quality m ost
freq uently ascribed to God, particularly in th e N T , is glory, hence the term
doxology. B ut o th er words, synonym s fo r öo£a such as Tifxr\, “h o n o r,” o r words
fo r pow er, can also be used. T h e re are two basic types o f doxology: those
which em ploy a verb o f ascription, e.g., Ps 96:7, 8 , “Ascribe to th e L ord the
glory d u e his n am e . . .” (cf. the N T term inology o f “giving glory to G od”
using bibövai in Luke 17:18; J o h n 9:24; Acts 12:23; R om 4:20; Rev 4:9; 11:13;
14:7; 16:9; 19:7), an d those which simply em ploy a n o u n , e.g., 1 C h ro n 29:11,
“T h in e, O L ord, (is) the greatness, a n d th e pow er, an d the glory, a n d the
victory, an d th e m ajesty.” It is the latter type which is d o m in an t in th e N T ,
an d o f which E p h 3:20, 21 is an exam ple. In this type, th e quality ascribed is
th e subject o f th e sentence, the person addressed is usually in th e dative case,
th e verb “to b e” is generally om itted (occurring in the N T only in 1 P et 4:11
a n d th e variant read in g o f M att 6:13), an d the conclusion m ost frequently
involves a form ula for eternity an d an A m en. T h e com bination o f a possessive
dative with om ission o f the verb “to b e” is ra re in secular Greek. It reflects
H ebrew usage, in which 7, lě, can be em ployed w ithout a verb to express th e
fact th at people, things, o r qualities belong to God (cf. D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus,
25). In O T ascriptions which use this form an d om it the verb, glory as the
quality which is attrib u ted to God occurs only once, in 1 C h ro n 29:11. In the
N T , how ever, glory occurs in such ascriptions tw enty-one times. A scriptions
o f glory w ithout a verb were becom ing m ore freq u en t in Ju d aism (cf. 1 E sdr
4:59; P r M an 15; 4 Macc 18:24; cf. also 2 Enoch 67.3), a n d this factor, to g eth er
 Form / Structure / Setting 199

with th e influence o f ascriptions o f glory with a verb an d the eschatological

an d C hristological connotations o f 66%a in early C hristian usage, m ay help to
explain the dom inance o f this particular attrib u te in the N T ascriptions which
em ploy only a n o u n (cf. Milling, Origin, 146– 47).
T h e form ula for eternity, followed by A m en, occurs in only two types o f
praise, th e eulogy an d the doxology which simply em ploys a n o u n . T h e latter
may well have taken over this featu re from the form er, fo r th ere are a n u m b er
o f O T blessings which have it (cf. 1 C h ro n 16:36; Pss 41:13; 72:19; 89:52;
106:48), b u t the ascriptions with it a p p e a r later (cf. P r M an 15; 4 Macc 18:24;
2 Enoch 67.3). T h e feature occurs elsew here in the N T , in ascriptions in M att
6:13; Rom 11:36; 16:27; Gal 1:5; Phil 4:20; 1 T im 1:17; 6:16; 2 T im 4:18;
H eb 13:21; 1 Pet 4:11; 5:11; 2 Pet 3:18; J u d e 25; Rev 1:6; 5:13, 14; 7:12;
19:1– 4. T h e stan d ard form ulation is ei<; tovs aicovas. aprjv (“for ever. A m en.”)
o r ei? rou? a to m ? t Q v aiaivcov. apr}v (“fo r ever an d ever. A m en.”). It is unusual
to diverge from these standard form s, an d E ph 3:21 is un iq u e in the N T in
its inclusion o f yevea, “g eneration.”
In E ph 3:21, th e ascription o f glory follows on from th e intercessory prayer-
rep o rt. Ascriptions at the en d o f various p rayer form s can be fo u n d also in
Pss 3:8; 68:34; J o n a h 2:9; P r M an 15; 1 T im 1:17; H eb 13:20,21; Did. 8.2;
9.2– 4; 10.2– 5; 1 Clem. 64.
W ith its intercessory prayer-re p o rt an d its doxology, this pericope com bines
form al features fo u n d separately in some Pauline letters. In term s o f its contents,
it has some similarities with the intercessory prayer-re p o rt o f Phil 1:9– 11,
which em phasizes love as w hat is desired fo r the readers, b u t also m entions
know ledge, being filled (with the fru it o f righteousness), an d G od’s glory. B ut
again Colossians is the letter on which this w riter is m ost d ep e n d en t. In 3:1–
13 he h ad em ployed Col l:2 3 c - 28. Now he has in m ind th e last p a rt o f th at
passage, an d w hat follows on from it in 1:29– 2:10. T h e p h rase to nXovros rtfs
5 o£t7?, “the riches o f glory,” in Col 1:27 appears in E ph 3:16, while Col 1:28c,
“th at we m ight p resen t every m an m atu re in C hrist,” can be seen as parallel
to th e goal o f th e whole prayer o f E ph 3:14– 19, alth o u g h its term inology for
m aturity o r com pleteness (reXeto?) is replaced h ere by “fullness” language,
an d reXeto? itself is no t taken u p until E ph 4:13. Col 1:29, Kara rr\v evepyetav
axrrov ttjp evepyovpevrjv ev epoi ev dvväpei, “in accordance with his energy which
is at work in m e in pow er,” is echoed in the w ording o f E ph 3:20, Kara rr\v
bvvapiv tt\v evepyovpevr\v ev riplv, “in accordance with th e pow er which is at
work w ithin us.” From Col 2:2, ai mpSiai avrcbv . . . ev ayairj}, “th eir hearts
. . . in love,” an d eis emyvaxnv rov pvorrjpiov rov Oeov, Xpiorov, “to the know ledge
o f G od’s m ystery, C hrist,” m ay be reflected in E ph 3:17, ev rat? m pSiais vptov,
ev ayann . . . , “in your hearts, in love . . . ,” an d E ph 3:19, yvoovai re Tr\v
virepßäkXovoav rfj? yvöxjeoj^ äyärrqv tov Xpiorov, “to know the love o f C hrist
which surpasses know ledge.” T h e language o f Col 2:7, eppi^copevoi m i
erroiKoSopovpevoi ev airrcp, “ro o ted an d built u p in h im ,” com bined with th at o f
Col 1:23, redepeXuopevoi, “g ro u n d e d ,” has clearly influenced th e form ulation
o f E p h 3:17, ev £767177 eppifapevoi m i reOepeXiojpevoi, “ro o ted an d g ro u n d ed
in love.” Finally, the term inology o f Col 2:9, 10 – evainCp mroiKelTTavro nXripcopa
rfj? deÖTT}T0<z . . . m i eore ev airrcp irenX^pcopevoi, “in him the whole fullness o f
deity dwells . . . an d you are filled in h im ” is picked u p in two ways, in E ph
200 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1 4 – 21

3:17, KaroiKijoai rov XptüTÖv, “th at C hrist m ight dwell,” a n d in E p h 3:19, lva
Tfkqpo^dfjfre eis näv tö irXripcopa tov deov, “th a t you m ight be filled u p to all the
fullness o f G od.” In this way, language which is used in Colossians m ainly in
ex h o rtations with a Christological focus is taken u p again in E phesians in th e
context o f p ray er with a theological fram ew ork.
T h e intercessory prayer-re p o rt an d the doxology are liturgical elem ents
which h ad th eir original setting in the p ray er a n d praise o f early C hristian
w orship. In com m on with early C hristian pray er in general, bo th th e intercession
an d th e doxology are addressed to God. O nly a few exam ples o f e ith er p ray er
form are addressed to Christ. In bo th Jew ish a n d early C hristian w orship,
th e eternity fo rm ula functioned as a vocal signal to which th e A m en was the
con g reg atio n ’s confirm atory response (cf. 1 C h ro n 16:36; Ps 106:48; cf. also
1 C or 14:16). In th eir p resen t setting in th e letter, these elem ents from th e
early C h u rc h ’s w orship function as th e conclusion o f th e first p a rt o f th e letter.
As J . T . Sanders (ZN W 56 [1965] 214) asserts, “. . . th e doxology at th e e n d
o f ch. 3 is a closing liturgical elem ent, ju s t as th e blessing a n d thanksgiving in
ch. 1 are o p en in g liturgical elem ents.” Since E phesians does n o t have the
usual body o f th e Pauline letter, the intercessory prayer-re p o rt should n o t be
classed as one within the body o f the letter (contra G. P. Wiles, Paul's Intercessory
Prayers [C am bridge: C am bridge University Press, 1974] 156 n. 3, 300) b u t as
one w ithin a thanksgiving period, in fact in continuity with the previous interces-
sory p ray er-re p o rt o f 1:15– 23 w ithin th e ex ten d ed thanksgiving p erio d form ed
by th e first th ree chapters.
In a rhetorical analysis o f the letter, th e intercessory prayer-re p o rt a n d the
doxology can be seen as the transitus betw een the narratio o f 2:11– 22 an d
th e exhortatio o f 4 :1–6:9, an d as functioning as a new exordium. A gain, the
goodwill o f th e readers is m aintained, as the em otive depiction o f th e w riter
kneeling in p ray er on th eir b eh alf an d the extravagance o f th e im agery a n d
lan guage o f his p ray er show his d eep concern fo r th eir welfare. T h e doxology
encourages th em to identify with the praise o f G od’s pow er in th em a n d o f
his glory in th e com m unity, with the “A m en ” in p articu lar inviting th eir partici-
pation an d assent. In term s o f the letter’s persuasive pow er, it is both crucial
an d effective fo r w riter an d readers to be in harm o n y at this high p o in t o f
praise o f God, before the w riter moves on to m ake his appeal to th e readers
ab o u t how they are to conduct th eir lives.
In th eir content, the intercessory prayer-re p o rt an d doxology h ark back to
som e o f th e them es o f 1:15– 23, a n d do n o t reflect explicitly the m ajor them es
in th e interv en in g m aterial, th o u g h the notion o f G od’s presence in believers
th ro u g h th e Spirit (3:16) has surfaced previously in 2:22, a n d the privilege
o f being p a rt o f th e C h u rch has been elaborated on in chap. 2. T h e re ad ers’
relationship to “all the saints” is m entioned in 1:15 an d in 3:18. T h e F ath er
an d glory are intim ately linked in 1:17 an d 3:16 (cf. also 3:21). K now ledge
figures in 1:17 an d 3:19, an d the notion o f n am ing heavenly pow ers occurs
in 1:21 an d 3:15. T h e language for G od’s pow er in believers (Svvapts, Kparos,
ivepyeia) in 1:19 is recalled in 3 :1 6 ,2 0 (Swapis, KparaicoOfivaL, evepyovpevriv),
and, o f course, nXripcopa, “fullness,” a n d its cognate verb are fo u n d in both
1:23 an d 3:19. T h e earlier intercession fo r th e read ers em phasized th eir n eed
fo r know ledge o f God an d o f the blessings o f salvation th a t w ere theirs, especially
 Comment 201

G od’s pow er d em onstrated in C hrist’s resurrection an d exaltation a n d now

m ade available fo r them . T his pericope repeats the request for know ledge in
3:18, 19, th o u g h the form ulation focuses on know ledge o f the love o f C hrist,
an d is p h rased m ore paradoxically, in th at the object o f the desired know ledge
is, in fact, a quality which surpasses knowledge. T h e w riter is also still concerned
th at believers experience G od’s pow er, now m ore specifically linked with the
Spirit (3:16), an d this concern surfaces again in the language o f the doxology
in 3:20. It is in the focus on love in 3:17– 19 (though cf. the m ention o f the
read ers’ love in th e thanksgiving period in 1:15), an d in th e extravagant p ray er
fo r a total filling o f believers by God, th at th e second intercessory prayer-
re p o rt moves beyond the first.
If th e w riter’s em phases in his p ray er for his readers m ay be seen as to
som e extent reflecting by contrast the re ad ers’ needs as he perceives them ,
th en this pericope reinforces the general view o f the setting o f the letter th at
has already em erged. T h e p ray er for in n e r strength, roots, foundations, C hrist
dwelling in the heart, faith, knowledge, love, an d com plete experience o f God,
an d the quite u n u sual stress on the C h u rch in the doxology, suggest a vari-
ety o f needs am ong the readers. T h e re m ay well be tendencies to rootless-
ness an d instability, to inferiority, o r at least confusion, in the face o f the
claims o f others to know ledge an d fullness, to an insufficient sense o f th eir
identity as p art o f the C hurch, an d to an in adequate appreciation o f the
pow er an d love available to enable them to live as G od’s new people, the
C hurch.

Comment

14,15 Tovtov xäßLV Käpirrco ra yovara pov irpos rbv narepa, ov naoa narpta
ev ovpavoV; Kai eiri y ffr bvopa^erai, “For this reason I kneel before the F ather,
from w hom every family in heaven an d on ea rth derives its n am e.” Tovtov
Xäpiv harks back to th e use o f the sam e phrase at the beginning o f 3:1, w here
it h ad signaled th e w riter’s intention o f continu ing to express his concern for
his readers before God, having set o u t fo r them th eir privileges as a result o f
w hat G od h ad do n e for them in Christ. Now th at the inten tio n is taken up,
the following p ray er for the enabling o f the readers is inevitably colored by
th e digression o f 3:2– 13, with its statem ent o f the re ad ers’ debt to Paul, contain-
ing fu rth e r rem in d ers o f th eir p a rt in th e C h u rch an d the C h u rch ’s p a rt in
G od’s cosmic plan.
T h e m ention o f the posture o f kneeling in the term inology fo r p ray er is
significant, since the m ore usual Jew ish an d early C hristian practice was to
pray standing (cf. M ark 11:25; Luke 18:11, 13). K neeling in the ancient world
could signify subordination, servility, o r w orship, as well as being the posture
o f a su p p lian t before the gods. T h e last usage, as p a rt o f prayer, is attested
m ore in Ju d aism th an in G reco-R om an writings. K neeling fo r p ray er is fo u n d
in the G reek versions o f D an 6:10 [11] T h eo d . (Kapirreivem ra yovara), 3 Kgdm s
8:54 LXX (<k\a^eiv eiri ra yovara), an d 1 C h r 29:20 LXX (Kapirreiv ra yovara),
while in th e N T references to kneeling an d p ray er occur m ainly in L uke -
Acts (Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60; 9:40; 20:36; 21:5, using nOevai ra yovara), b u t
also in M ark 1:40; 10:17; M att 17:14 (using yownerelv). T h o u g h used in the
202 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1 4 – 21

LXX for prayer, the term inology h ere in E phesians, Kapirreiv rd 7 ovara, is
used elsew here in the N T to convey th e notion o f hom age o r w orship. T his
occurs only in th e P auline corpus, a n d each tim e as p a rt o f an O T citation
(cf. Rom 11:3 citing 1 Kgs 19:18, a n d R om 14:11; Phil 2:10, both citing Isa
45:23). Intercessory p ray er a n d w orship are obviously not m utually exclusive
activities, a n d it could well be th a t b o th connotations com bine h ere in E ph
3:14 to suggest an attitu d e o f d eep reverence fo r G od the F ather, w ho is
addressed. It could also be th a t describing th e activity o f pray er in term s o f
kneeling w ould have h ad m ore em otive force a n d conveyed a g re ater fervency
o f entreaty o n th e w riter’s p a rt th a n th e earlier reference to his praying
in 1:16.
God, to w hom th e p ray er is m ade, is described as th e F ath er (cf. also 1:2, 3, 17;
2:18; 4:6; 5:20; 6:23). As in th e earlier intercessory prayer-re p o rt in 1:17
(“F ath er o f glory”), th ere is an expansion h ere on th e notion o f G od’s fa th e rh o o d
in line w ith th e letter’s elaborate liturgical style. T h e re has been m uch discussion
o f th e m ean in g o f th e relative clause containing this expansion a n d o f the
play o n w ords it introduces: 7rarpta, “fam ily,” relates back to 7rari7p, “fa th e r.”
Som etim es th e m ain po in t o f th e in tro d u ctio n o f the clause, viz. th a t it is the
w riter’s attem p t to extol the fa th e rh o o d o f God, is lost sight o f in th e discussion
o f th e details. 7rarptd stands fo r a g ro u p derived from a single ancestor an d
in its use in th e LXX can den o te a family, o n e ’s fa th e r’s house, a clan, a
tribe, o r even a nation. Elsew here in th e N T th e term is em ployed only in
L uke - Acts. In L uke 2:4 it is synonym ous with oko?, “house,” in th e phrase
“o f the house a n d family (line) o f D avid,” while in Acts 3:25, q uoting G en
12:3, it is used o f “all the families o f th e e a rth .” It is best taken h ere in E phesians
as re ferrin g to every family o r family grou p in g , ttana irarpia is n o t to be in te r-
p re te d as “th e whole fam ily.” N orm al G reek gram m atical usage w ould req u ire
th e article fo r such a m eaning (cf. th e discussion o f this u n d e r 2:21). N ev erth e-
less, C aird (69) seem s to p resu p p o se som e such m eaning, for he in terp rets
every family o n ea rth as the one h o u sehold o f faith, o f which Jew s a n d Gentiles
have becom e m em bers, a n d every family in heaven as the pow ers who have
been reconciled. M itton (1 3 1–32; Epistle, 237– 39) similarly restricts th e scope
o f this description to the realm o f red em p tio n . H e attem pts to do justice to
the plurality o f th e families on earth , how ever, by seeing th em as each local
congregation w ithin th e family o f th e whole C hurch, yet still loses sight o f
th e plurality o f th e families in heaven w hen he suggests th at the referen ce is
to the com pany o f d e p a rte d C hristians. B ut these restrictions to red eem ed
families have to be re a d into th e text.
“Every family in heaven,” which is m en tio n ed first, is best taken as re ferrin g
to family g ro upings o r classes o f angels (see th e discussion o f angelic pow ers
an d references to th e ir groupings u n d e r 1:21). T his need n o t be taken to
im ply any no tio n o f pro creatio n am o n g th em (cf. M ark 12:25), th o u g h the
p hrase “sons o r children o f the angels” occurs in 1 Enoch 69.3, 4; 71.1; 106.5,
b u t simply th a t all such groupings have th eir origin in th e O ne who created
such beings an d is th eir F ather. It is n o t only good angels w ho are in view
(pace Schnackenburg, 149). F or this w riter all such spirit powers, even th e
rebellious ones, owe th eir origin to God. T h e rabbis later could talk o f the
u p p e r family a n d low er family, re fe rrin g to th e angels a n d Israel respectively,
 Comment 203

th o u g h G od was seen m ore as the m aster o f the house th a n as F ath er in

reg ard to these families (cf. b. Sank. 98b; also Str-B 1:744; 3:594). H ere in E p h e-
sians, “every family on e a rth ” should be taken straightforw ardly as a general
reference to family groupings, a n d thus to th e basic relationship structures
o f h u m an existence.
T h e notion th at all such family groupings, heavenly an d earthly, derive
th eir nam e from the F ath er n o t only underlines the play on words, b u t also
evokes som e o f th e O T connotations o f “n am in g ” in term s o f exercising dom in-
ion over o r even b ringing into existence (cf. Eccl 6:10, “w hatever has com e
to be has already b een n am ed ,” o r Ps 147:4 an d Isa 40:26, w here G od’s calling
the stars by nam e shows him as th eir C reato r an d Lord). T h e F ather, then, is
C reato r an d L ord o f all family groupings; th eir existence an d significance is
d ep e n d en t o n him .
Some have attem p ted to p ush th e th o u g h t o f the verse fu rth e r an d to read
it as an assertion th a t G od is the archetype o f all fath erh o o d , th at h u m an
fath erh o o d is a m ore o r less im perfect reflection o f his perfect fatherhood,
an d th at to call G od F ath er is th ere fo re n o t to project h u m an language onto
God b u t simply to acknow ledge w hat he ultim ately is in him self. T his view
can be fo u n d in A thanasius, who claims, “God as F ath er o f the Son is the
only tru e F ather, an d all created paternity is a shadow o f the tru e ” (Orat.
contra Arian. 1.23, 24). J. A. R obinson (84) spells o u t the linguistic aspects o f
such a view: “So far from reg ard in g th e Divine fath e rh o o d as a m ode o f speech
in reference to th e G odhead, derived by analogy from o u r conception o f h u m an
fath erh o o d , th e A postle m aintains th at the very idea o f fath e rh o o d exists p rim ar-
ily in the Divine n atu re , a n d only by derivation in every o th e r form o f fa th e r-
hood, w h eth er earthly o r heavenly” (cf. also K. B arth, Dogmatics in Outline
[London: SCM, 1949] 43; B ruce, 67; idem , “N am e,” N ID N T T 2 [1976j 655–
56). B ut this in terp re tatio n moves fa r beyond the text on th e basis o f a m istaken
re n d erin g o f narpia as “fa th e rh o o d .” T h e latter is an abstract concept which
narpui never denotes in the LXX. Even if narpia could m ean “fath e rh o o d ,”
w hat w ould be th e m eaning o f “every fath e rh o o d in heaven” (cf. also Meyer,
175)?
T o extol G od the F ath er as fa th e r o f all family groupings in heaven an d
on earth is to set his fath e rh o o d in th e context o f creation an d o f the cosmos.
T h e idea o f th e cosmic fa th e r o f all w ho is creato r o f all can be fo u n d elsew here
in, fo r exam ple, Plato, Timaeus 28C, 37C, 41A; Philo, Spec. 2.165; 3.189;
o r Corpus Hermeticum 5.9; 11.6 – 8; 12.15b; 14.4. Explicit statem ents o f G od’s
universal fath erh o o d are n o t fo u n d elsew here in th e Pauline corpus, b u t a
sim ilar fo rm ulation occurs again later in this letter in 4:6, “one G od and
F ath er o f all,” an d the th o u g h t has b een p re p a re d fo r by the reference in
3:9 to “G od who created all things.” It is certainly n o t surprising th a t it is
Ephesians, which has already firmly set its C hristology an d its ecclesiology in
a cosmic context, th at also sets the fa th e rh o o d o f G od in such a context. God
is n o t only F ath er as R edeem er b u t also as C reator. Yet the two notions cannot
be held a p a rt fo r th e w riter o f Ephesians. T h e G od who is F ath er o f all families
is the sam e G od who is F ath er o f Jesus C hrist (cf. 1:3, 17) an d who is at work
to red eem a cosmos which has becom e alienated from him (cf 1:10, 21, 22;
3:10). Some have seen the significance o f the reference to God the F ath er as
204 E p h e s ia n s 3:14–21

C reato r an d L ord o f all families at the begin n in g o f this prayer-re p o rt in

relation to the earlier them e o f the inclusion o f th e Gentiles, suggesting th at
th e universal scope o f salvation is u n d erlin ed , because G od calls all families
by th eir nam e, n o t ju s t Israel (cf. M ussner, 109). B ut this is no t a m ajor concern
o f th e p ray er th a t follows, an d if such a th o u g h t w ere in m ind, th ere were
certainly available m uch clearer ways o f expressing it. A lthough by its relating
o f creation a n d re d em p tio n E phesians leaves no room for cosm ological dualism ,
th ere is no com pelling reason for seeing this particu lar form ulation as a deliber-
ate corrective to Gnostic m isu n d erstan d in g (pace Schlier, 168). O thers have
suggested th a t this reference is to be linked with th e letter’s m ention o f cosmic
powers, a concern reflected m ore explicitly in Colossians (cf. E rnst, 336). T h e re
may be som ething to be said fo r this suggestion in th at “every family in h eaven”
is m en tio n ed first, a n d since ju s t p rio r to this in 3:10 the C h u rc h ’s cosmic
role as a witness to the pow ers has been asserted, it could well be th a t w hen
th e w riter tu rn s now to his p ray er for this C h u rch th a t cosmic context is still
in m ind. Probably th e prim ary reason fo r this elaboration in the address to
God, however, is simply th at it serves to stress th e F a th e r’s greatness. Elsew here
in th e N T , L uke has the early C hristians praying to G od as C reato r w hen
they n eed to rem in d them selves th a t th ere is no opposing pow er th a t does
n o t com e u n d e r the su p erio r sovereignty o f its C reato r (cf. Acts 4:24 – 30).
H ere too, w here the w riter is ab o u t to pray for th e C hurch with its big role
an d in tends to pray big prayers fo r its m em bers (cf. vv 18, 19), he begins, as
he ends in vv 20, 21, with a re m in d e r in th e address th at he is praying to a
big G od, th e scope o f whose influence as F ath er extends over every g ro u p in g
in the cosmos because he is th e C reato r a n d L ord o f them all.
16, 17a Iva dtp vpw Kara to 7t\ o0tos rffc Sof-rjs airrov, in o rd e r th at according
to th e riches o f his glory he m ight g ra n t you. . . . ” T his first m ajor request
o f th e prayer-re p o rt recalls th e language o f th e earlier prayer-re p o rt in chap.
1, especially 1:17, iva . . . Scbfl £>/\xlv, “th at . . . he m ay give you,” an d 1:18,
6 7TXoüto? rffr 56£tjs, “th e w ealth o f the glory.” Ephesians is fond o f using 7rXoöro?
with a following genitive (cf. 1:7, 18; 2:7; 3:8) and, as in contem porary G reek
usage, its g en d e r alternates betw een m asculine an d n eu ter. T h e phrase “the
riches o f (his) glory” occurs in Paul in Rom 9:23 (cf. also Phil 4:19) an d in
Col 1:27. Glory can be synonym ous with pow er (cf. R om 6:4, w here C hrist is
said to have been raised from the d ead by th e glory o f th e F ather, an d especially
Col 1:11, which asks th a t th e Colossians be em pow ered w ith all pow er according
to th e m ight o f his glory). H ere the term incorporates elem ents o f both radiance
an d pow er as it conveys the perfection o f G od’s activity. Kara, “according to,”
indicates th e n o rm o r m easure o f G od’s giving. F or this w riter, G od’s giving
corresponds to th e inexhaustible w ealth o f his radiance an d pow er available
to hum anity, an d th a t alone sets th e lim it fo r his prayer. In this way the w riter’s
form ulation o f his req u est is m ean t to evoke fu rth e r the confidence o f the
readers in G od’s ability to g ra n t w hat is asked in a fashion m ore th an adequate
for th eir needs.
bvväpei Kparaudifivai 5td rou nvevpaTOs airrov ei$ top eaco avOponrov, “to be
stren g th en ed with pow er th ro u g h his Spirit in the in n e r p erso n .” T h e earlier
prayer-re p o rt contained a re m in d e r o f th e pow er available to believers, which
 Comment 205

was described as the sam e pow er with which G od raised C hrist from th e dead
(1:19). T h e apostle P aul’s m inistry is said to be energized by such pow er (3:7),
an d the w riter will later ex h o rt his readers to be strong in the battle against
evil (6:10). H ere th ere is a direct pray er for th eir strengthening, rem iniscent
o f th at in the thanksgiving period o f Colossians (1:11). T h e tautologous style—
“to be stren g th en ed with pow er”— is again sim ilar to th at fo u n d in the Q u m ra n
writings (e.g., 1QH 7 .1 7 ,1 9 ; 12.35; 1QM 10.5; cf. also K. G. K uhn, “T h e
Epistle to th e E phesians,” 117, 118). Power is to be m ediated to believers by
the Spirit, who has been previously m en tio n ed as the one by w hom believers
are sealed, as th e g u aran tee o f the full salvation o f the age to com e (1:13, 14),
an d as the m eans by which G od is p resen t in the C h u rch (2:22). Spirit an d
pow er were closely associated in P aul’s writings (cf. 1 T hess 1:5; 1 C or 2:4;
15:43,44; 2 C or 6:6, 7; Rom 1:4; 15:13), the Spirit being seen as the pow er
o f the age to com e, an d th at association is co ntinued here. T h e strengthening
th ro u g h the Spirit is to take place in “th e in n e r p erso n ,” a notion in p o p u lar
use derived from Hellenistic anthropology o f a dualistic variety. Plato had
talked similarly o f rod avdpconov b evrb<$ apdpconos, “the p erso n ’s inw ard perso n ”
(Rep. 9.589a), an d Philo w rote also o f 6 a vO pcom s ev avdpoM cp, “the person
within the p erso n ,” which he equ ated with ö poüs, “the m in d ” (Congr. 97; cf.
also Plant. 42; Deter. 23). In the Corpus Hermeticum this in n e r person is held
to be im prisoned in A dam ’s earthly body (1:15; 9:5; 13:7, 14), while in later
Gnostic anthropology, according to th e ch u rch fathers, it is used as one o f
the term s for th e divine spark w ithin hum anity (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.21.4, 5;
H ippolytus, Ref. 5.7.35, 36; cf. also K. R udolph, Gnosis, tr. R. McL. Wilson
[E dinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1983] 88– 113). T h e term inology is fo u n d in Paul
in 2 C or 4:16 an d Rom 7:22, an d R. Jew ett (Pauls Anthropological Terms [Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1971] 391– 401) has in fact arg u ed th at Paul took over the term
from C o rin th ian Gnostics. It is ju s t as likely, how ever, th at he was fam iliar
with th e ph rase “th e in n er p erso n ” from its p o p u lar usage an d chose to use
it for his own p u rp o ses— in 2 C or 4:16 in connection with the believer, an d
in Rom 7:22 in connection with the Jew u n d e r the law. In 2 C or 4:16, it
stands for th e in n er p a rt o f a p erso n ’s being, no t accessible to sight, w here
the renovating pow er o f the age to com e is now in operation. It appears to
be equivalent to th e term “h e a rt” used in the su rro u n d in g context in 2 C or
4:6; 5:12. Elsew here, in Rom 12:2, it is the m ind, in particular, th at is said to
be renew ed. In Rom 7:22, the in n e r p erson is equivalent to the m ind (cf. vv
23, 25), an d th e focus is on th e ability to m ake value ju d g m en ts. O f course,
context determ ines w h eth er the use o f such language conveys dualistic co n n o ta-
tions. In Paul these are no t present, fo r the in n er person appears to b eth at
p art o f a perso n which is accessible to G od b u t which, in the case o f the
person u n d e r th e law, is ultim ately in bondage to th e pow ers o f the flesh and
sin, and, in th e case o f the believer, is being constantly renew ed. H ere in
Ephesians the concept is used in a sim ilar way. It is no t to be equated with
the new perso n o r new hum anity o f E ph 4:24 (contra Schlier, 169), b u t is
instead th e base o f o p eratio n at the cen ter o f a p erso n ’s being w here the
Spirit does his stren g th en in g an d renovating work. In th e parallel clause in v
17a its equivalent is again the h eart, a n d in 4:23 it is th e spirit o f the m ind
206 E p h e s ia n s 3:14–21

which is said to be renew ed. 1 Pet 3:4 has an interesting variation on this
term inology w hen it speaks o f ö Kpvnrbs rffr Kap&a? ävdpoynos, “the h id d en
perso n o f th e h e a rt.”
B arth (369, 391– 93) translates th e last p a rt o f this clause as “(to grow) tow ard
the In n e r M an,” in serting the notion o f grow th from 2:21 an d 4:15, 16, an d
arg u in g th at this alone does justice to th e force o f the preposition eis, th at
In n e r M an is a designation fo r C hrist, who is th e goal o f believers’ stren g th
(cf. 4:15, 16), an d th a t in th e following parallel clause th e referen ce to C hrist
is the explanatory equivalent o f th e In n e r M an in this one. B ut in th e n ext
clause th e h eart, a n d n o t C hrist, is th e obvious functional equivalent to the
in n er person; now here else in the N T is a designation o f this sort used for
C hrist; an d w ithin the N T d ? frequently replaces ev in a local sense (cf. BDF
para. 205), a fact which B arth him self adm its (390). It ap p ears th a t th e prim ary
m otive b eh in d such a novel a n d u n fo u n d e d in terp re tatio n is B arth ’s desire to
avoid finding any anthropology which m ight suggest openness to transcendence
as a p otential in h e re n t w ithin hum anity. T h e prayer, how ever, is clearly one
which asks G od th ro u g h the Spirit to vitalize an d stren g th en believers in th at
p a rt o f th em which is n o t accessible to sight b u t w hich is o p en to his energizing
influence.
KaTOucrfiai to p Xpiorou 8ta 7775 m ore co? ev ra ls KapSiai5 vp u v, “th at C hrist m ight
dwell in y o u r h earts th ro u g h faith.” In this second infinitive clause, which
ru n s parallel to the preceding one a n d elaborates on w hat th e w riter desires
his read ers to be g ran ted , n o t only is “in y o u r h ea rts” equivalent to “in the
in n er p erso n ,” b u t also C hrist functions as equivalent to th e role o f the Spirit.
T his reflects th e P auline view in which in believers’ p resen t experience th ere
is no real difference betw een C hrist an d th e Spirit (cf. 1 C or 15:45; 2 C or
3:17; Rom 8:9, 10; also Gal 4:6). Believers do n o t experience C hrist except
as Spirit an d do n o t experience th e Spirit except as C hrist. T h e im plication,
as far as this p ray er is concerned, is th a t g re ater experience o f th e S pirit’s
pow er will m ean th e character o f C hrist increasingly becom ing th e hallm ark
o f believers’ lives.
T h e notion o f “dw elling in,” using otfcelz^, is in fact applied by Paul to the
Spirit in relation to individual believers in Rom 8:9, 11 an d in relation to the
com m unity in 1 C or 3:16. H ere Ephesians transfers this notion to C hrist,
using KJOLTOiKjew, which m ay well have been taken u p from th e passage in C olos-
sians, 1:29– 2:10, on which this section is m ost d ep e n d en t, in particular from
2:9 (cf. 1:19). E phesians has also earlier used kcltoiktyttipiov in 2:22 fo r the
C h u rch as G od’s dwelling place in th e Spirit. T h e verb indicates th a t th e focus
o f th e p ray er req u est is no t on an initial reception o f C hrist b u t on believers’
experience o f his constant presence.
T his co n tin u in g presence o f C hrist is to be experienced “in your h ea rts.”
As in the O T , so in Paul a n d now h ere in E phesians, the h ea rt is u n d ersto o d
as the cen ter o f th e personality, th e seat o f th e w hole p erso n ’s thinking, feeling,
an d willing. T h e w riter has talked o f believers’ having th e eyes o f th eir hearts
enlig h ten ed (1:18), a n d he will go on to speak o f unbelievers’ hardness o f
h ea rt (4:18) (cf. also the references to the h e a rt in 5:19; 6:5, 22).
J u s t as faith has played its p a rt in believers’ a p p ro p riatio n o f the salvation
(2 :5 ,8 ) an d access to G od (3:12) th a t have been accom plished fo r them , so
 Comment 207

also it is “th ro u g h faith ” th at C hrist’s dwelling in th e h e a rt rem ains a reality

for them . Faith involves a relationship o f tru st betw een two parties, an d so
th ere can be no im plication th at th e notion o f C hrist living in the center o f a
believer’s personality m eans the absorption o f th at individual personality or
the dissolving o f its responsibility. T his is clear also from the original form ulation
o f this sort o f relationship by Paul him self in Gal 2:20, w here, on the one
han d , he can state, “It is no longer I who live, b u t C hrist who lives in m e,”
but, on the o th er, im m ediately explains this by saying, “a n d the life I now
live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son o f God, who loved me an d gave
him self for m e.” J u s t as Paul could talk both o f believers as being in C hrist
an d o f C hrist as being in believers (Gal 2:20; Rom 8:10), so this w riter, before
in tro d u cin g the latter concept here, has already em ployed the fo rm er (see
Comment on 1:3).
“C hrist in th e h e a rt” is a p o p u lar notion in certain traditions o f piety. It is
interesting to note, th erefo re, th a t it is fo u n d in this particular form ulation
only h ere in th e N T . W hat is its significance in the w riter’s prayer for his
readers? Its force is th a t the character o f C hrist, the p attern o f the C hrist-
event, should increasingly dom inate an d shape the whole orientation o f th eir
lives.
17b ev ayaTTfl epptfcojueuot Kai reflepeXtcope^ot, “th at you m ay be rooted and
g ro u n d ed in love.” For reasons for construing “in love” with this clause, see
u n d e r Notes, an d fo r reasons for in te rp re tin g the clause as a fu rth e r subsidiary
request, see u n d e r Form I Structure! Setting. T h e participles “ro o ted ” and
“g ro u n d e d ,” with th eir im ages o f plan tin g an d building, are taken over from
Col 2:7 an d 1:23, passages w here, in the face o f false teaching, they are closely
connected with “th e faith .” H ere in E phesians love is th e soil in which believers
are to be ro o ted an d grow, th e fo u n d atio n on which they are to be built.
T h ere is debate am ong the com m entators as to w h eth er this love is G od’s
love in C hrist (e.g., Schnackenburg, 152) o r believers’ love (e.g., M eyer, 182;
Abbott, 98, who speaks o f “th e grace o f love in general as the ‘fu n d am en tal’
principle o f the C hristian ch aracter”; Gnilka, 185). In favor o f the fo rm er is
its su p p o rt in Pauline th o u g h t, w here it is G od’s love in C hrist th at provides
the secure basis fo r C hristian living (e.g., Rom 5:5, 8; 8:35–39). Also, here in
E phesians, stress has been placed on salvation’s having its origin in G od’s
great love (cf. 2:4, also 5:2, 25), an d in th e n ext p a rt o f this prayer the love
o f C hrist will be specifically m en tio n ed (v 19). In favor o f the latter is the
fact th at one w ould norm ally expect a defining genitive if G od’s o r C hrist’s
love w ere in view, an d yet this is absent. Also, elsew here in the letter, th ere is
the m ention o f believers’ love (cf. 1:4, 15; 4:2, 16; 5:2; 6:24). It may well be
a mistake, how ever, to draw such a sh arp distinction betw een these two aspects
o f love (cf. also E rnst, 338). Love is the fu n d am en tal principle o f the new
age, o f C hristian existence in general an d n o t ju s t o f C hristian character. As
in P aul’s hym n to love in 1 C or 13, love is to be seen as G od’s love em bodied
in C hrist an d m ediated by the Spirit, b u t also as th e pow er th at moves believers
to love o thers with no expectation o f rew ard.
18, 19a Iva e^ioxvoryre K a ra X a ß eo d a i o v v iracnv rot? trytot? rt to 7rXdro? Kai pfjKO?
Kai vipos Kai ß ä 0o?, “in o rd e r th at you m ight be em pow ered to grasp with all
the saints w hat is the b re ad th an d length an d height an d d e p th .” T his second
208 E p h e s ia n s 3 : 1 4 – 2 1

m ajor req u est presupposes a n d builds u p o n th e first. T h e em pow ering o r

enabling (and this is th e only tim e this p articu lar co m p o u n d verb is fo u n d in
th e N T ) necessary fo r co m prehension is th e sort which com es from being
stren g th en e d by th e Spirit, indw elt by C hrist, a n d ro o ted an d g ro u n d e d in
love. Karcckaßiodai, “to grasp, co m p reh en d , perceive,” is fo u n d elsew here
in th e N T in Acts 4:13; 10:34; 25:25. D u p o n t (Gnosis, 501– 21) argues th a t in
o th e r references it frequently occurs as p a rt o f philosophical term inology, d e n o t-
ing exact o r certain know ledge, a n d was used by th e Stoics in contexts sim ilar
to those in which they discussed th e contem plation o f th e dim ensions o f the
universe, while Feuillet (N R T 78 [1956] 598) points to its use in connection
with W isdom (cf. LXX J o b 34:24; Sir 15:1,7). B ut as th e Acts references
show, its use was by no m eans confined to such specific contexts.
In w hat is, fo r th e m o d ern in te rp re te r, a puzzling form ulation, th e object
o f th e co m p reh en sion desired for th e read ers is described simply in term s o f
th e fo u r dim ensions. Is this a form ula fo r th e dim ensions o f the cosmos? O r
do these dim ensions m erely stand fo r all th e aspects, th e inexhaustible greatness
o f som e o th e r object, a n d if so, which? O r has p erh ap s w hat was originally a
form ula fo r cosmic dim ensions now been tran sferre d to this o th e r object?
Scholars are in disarray as they attem p t to answ er such questions. Q uite n a tu -
rally, w here th e object does n o t a p p e a r to have been clearly spelled out, they
have looked to m aterial from the su rro u n d in g th o u g h t world— the O T , early
Jew ish literatu re, H ellenistic philosophy, H erm etic writings, m agical papyri,
an d also later C hristian a u th o rs— fo r clues to w hat th e language o f “b read th ,
length, height, an d d e p th ” m ight have m ean t fo r th e w riter an d his readers.
Valuable as such m aterial is, it has n o t yet provided such clear parallels as to
be decisive in th e in terp re tatio n o f this verse. Probably m ore determ inative
ultim ately will be ju d g m e n ts ab o u t th e context o f the language here, and, in
particular, th e w riter’s sequence o f th o u g h t.
Som e o f th e attem pts at in terp re tatio n , a n d th e parallels adduced, will now
be surveyed, b eg in ning with those which seem less likely, an d th e n interacting
to a g reater ex ten t w ith th e m ore probable options. T h e fo u r dim ensions have
been eq u ated with th e fo u r arm s o f C hrist’s cross, som etim es in association
with th e m o re g eneral in terp re tatio n , which we shall consider below, o f a
reference to C hrist’s love, a n d som etim es in association with the in te rp re ta -
tion which sees h ere a reference to the Gnostic A nthropos, C hrist as w orld-
encom passing A n th ro p o s on a w orld-encom passing cross (cf. Acts of Andrew
[Martyrium Andreae prius] 14; Acts of Peter 9 [Actus Vercellenses 38]; Acts of Philip
140; Iren aeu s, A dv. Haer. 5.17.14; A ugustine, Epist. 112.14; 120.26,36; De
Doctr. Christ. 2.41; Schlier, 174; H o u ld en , 304– 5). A lthough in E ph 2:14– 16
C hrist’s reconciling d ea th can be said to have b o th vertical an d horizontal
dim ensions, in th e one place th e cross itself is m en tio n ed (2:16) it is no t treated
as a symbol in its own right. It is unlikely th a t such highly developed symbolism
would have attach ed itself to the cross by this stage a n d b een readily u n d ersto o d
by m eans o f this cryptic allusion. A nd as fo r th e association with th e universal
A n thropos, while, o f course, cosmic C hristology is a m ajor facet o f this w riter’s
thinking, we have fo u n d no reason to believe th a t this is d e p e n d e n t on a
Gnostic A n th ro p o s m yth.
A n o th er symbol, m ore likely to have b een available to th e w riter at this
tim e, which is som etim es suggested as th e referen ce here, is th a t o f th e heavenly
 Comment 209

Jerusalem . In Rev 21:16 (cf. Ezek 48:16) its length, b readth, an d height are
m entioned, as the w riter pictures the city in cubic form . W hen the sam e im age
is em ployed in H erm as, Vis. 3.2.5, it rep resen ts the C hurch in its ideal state.
T h e earlier intercessory prayer-re p o rt did ask th a t believers m ight know the
hope o f th eir calling (1:18), b u t a specific reference to the heavenly Jeru salem
seems u n p re p a re d fo r an d ou t o f place as th e object o f th eir know ledge in
3:18. If the im age now stood for th e C hurch, as in H erm as, it m ight be th o u g h t
som ew hat m ore ap p ro p riate. A fter all, the im agery o f the city has been used
in passing in connection with the C h u rch in 2:19, the w riter wants his readers
to appreciate b o th th eir place in the C h u rch an d the C h u rch ’s cosmic role,
an d the C h u rch will have a p ro m in en t position in th e doxology which follows.
However, the ecclesiological elem ent in this verse is supplied by the phrase
“with all the saints,” the im agery is n o t likely to have been w idespread en o u g h
to have been u n d ersto o d simply th ro u g h this language, an d besides, the cubic
form involves only th ree dim ensions, n o t four.
T h e fo u r dim ensions do featu re in m agic texts, as is often pointed o u t by
com m entators. In these texts (cf. PGM 4 :960– 85), the cosmological connotations
o f the fo u r dim ensions have been p u t to use in spells, in which b readth, d epth,
length, an d h eig h t are m entioned betw een light a n d brightness. Reitzenstein
sees them as p a rt o f a form ula in ten d ed to create a space o f light into which
to draw dow n th e deity (cf. R. R eitzenstein, Poimandres [Leipzig: T eu b n e r,
1904] 25– 26). In his espousal o f the view th at these texts form the direct
background to E p h 3:18, A rnold (Ephesians, 89– 96) disputes R eitzenstein’s
in terp retatio n an d claims th at in the m agical papyri the dim ensions are spiritual
hypostases o r expressions for pow er. H e goes on to arg u e th at they should,
th erefore, be u n d ersto o d in E phesians as a reference to G od’s power. His
strongest su p p o rtin g arg u m e n t from the context in the letter is th at this would
th en provide a parallel stru ctu re to the first two petitions o f 3:14– 19. B oth
could now be seen as involving a request about pow er followed by a request
about love. It should n o t be forgotten, how ever, th at these magical texts are
probably to be d ated in the fo u rth century c .e . (cf. P reisendanz, in his in tro d u c-
tion to PGM [64]). O n e ’s evaluation o f this suggestion will also d ep e n d som ew hat
on the evaluation o f A rnold’s overall thesis ab o u t the relevance o f magic practices
as a b ackground to the m ajor concerns o f the letter (on this, see Section 4 o f
the Introduction). T his specific exegetical proposal dep en d s on the read ers’
intim ate know ledge o f the m agical form ulae, b u t th a t also constitutes a problem
for it. If the read ers w ere as fam iliar with these m agical traditions as A rnold
supposes, th en , because th e dim ensions in E phesians have no qualifying object,
the prayer could be readily in te rp re te d as a request fo r the read ers’ know ledge
o f these spiritual hypostases. O ne w ould have expected the w riter to signal in
a m uch clearer way th at alth o u g h he has taken u p such term s, they are no
longer to have th eir original connotations b u t are now simply to be th o u g h t
o f as a general reference to G od’s power.
Gnilka (188) has offered a new in terp re tatio n th at com bines aspects o f som e
o f those already m entioned. N oting th a t in 2:14– 17 the w riter h ad taken a
hym n ab out C hrist u n itin g th e cosmos in his own p erson an d h ad corrected
it with his em phases on th e cross a n d the C hurch, he suggests th at a sim ilar
process has been at work here. W hat w ere originally the dim ensions o f the
cosmic C hrist are now corrected by th e focus in the context on th e love o f
210 E p h e s ia n s 3 :1 4 – 21

C hrist (shown in the cross) a n d by being in te rp re te d as the space filled by

this love o f Christ, th at is, as the C hurch. B ut G nilka’s in terp re tatio n m ust be
ju d g e d as oversubtie, assum ing an original use o f this language an d th e re ad ers’
know ledge o f it, for which th ere is no clear evidence. “T h a t you m ight be
em pow ered to grasp the C h u rch as th e space filled by the love o f C hrist” is
hardly a straightforw ard read in g o f th e text.
A n o th er recen t com m entator, M ussner (112; also Christus, 71– 74), argues
th at this clause is d e p e n d e n t both gram m atically a n d for its m ean in g on the
earlier infinitive clause, “th at C hrist m ight dwell in your hearts th ro u g h faith .”
H e claims, th erefo re, th at the language o f th e fo u r dim ensions, a rhetorical
fo rm u latio n taken over from the O T a n d Stoicism, refers to C hrist a n d to
th e whole fullness o f salvation given in Christ. M ussner’s a rg u m e n t ab o u t th e
g ram m ar o f the passage is no t a decisive one, a n d reasons have already been
given u n d e r Form / Structure / Setting for seeing the th ree Iva clauses as th e m ain
syntactical dividers, so th ere are no firm g ro u n d s fo r holding this p articu lar
iva clause to be directly d e p e n d e n t on the earlier infinitive clause 1 O nce th e
referen ce is b ro ad en ed from C hrist him self, how ever, an d becom es th e m ore
g en eral one o f salvation in C hrist, the in terp re tatio n becom es m ore plausible
a n d finds o th e r su p p o rters (cf. Percy, Probleme, 310; E rnst, 339). It also becom es
th e equivalent o f the view th a t th e reference is to th e m ystery o f C hrist, for
this is th en frequently defined in term s o f G od’s g reat plan o f salvation (cf.
C hrysostom ; J. A. R obinson, 176; G augler, 157; Pesch, Am Tische des Wortes
18 [1967] 16; Schnackenburg, 154). In favor o f these m ore general references
is th e fact th at th e w riter has been w anting to instill in his readers an appreciation
o f th e greatness o f th eir salvation th ro u g h the eulogy a n d thanksgiving period
o f chap. 1 an d th ro u g h the two m ajor rem in d ers th at constitute chap. 2. W ithin
th at general pu rp o se, know ledge o f th e m ystery has been a specific factor
th at has been m en tioned as recently as 3:9 (cf. also 1:9; 3 :3 ,4 ). W hat they
fail to explain, however, is why this particu lar language o f the fo u r dim ensions
has been em ployed an d why the w riter did n o t find it necessary to w rite the
genitive p h rase “o f salvation” o r “o f the m ystery” in his form ulation.
A n explanation th at does b etter justice to th e language o f th e fo u r dim ensions
is th at which notes th e freq u en t use o f this term inology o r sim ilar term inology
in cosmological contexts an d claims th at th e dim ensions should retain th e ir
cosmic connotations here (cf. D upont, Gnosis, 4 76– 93; Dahl, “Cosmic D im en-
sions,” 57– 75). T exts from th e wisdom literatu re (Job 11:8,9; Sir 1:3), from
apocalyptic m aterial (1 Enoch 60.11; 9 3 .1 1–14), from Stoic philosophy, w here
th e dim ensions are associated with the m o tif o f ovpavoßarelv, walking in heaven
in o rd e r to contem plate it an d com e to know ledge o f God, since it is G od
w hom one knows in u n d ersta n d in g th e universe filled by him (Seneca, Nat.
Quaest. 1.12; Cicero, Tusc. 1.64; 5.69), from P lutarch (Moral. 939A), a n d from
Gnostic th o u g h t (Corpus Hermeticum 10.25; 11.20; Pistis Sophia 133 cf. also
130, 148) can all be cited in this regard. F or D u p o n t (Gnosis, 4 8 9 ,4 9 7 ), the
dim ensions retain th eir cosmic reference fo r th e a u th o r o f E phesians, w hom
he reg ard s as Paul, b u t in this soteriological context they are now to be seen
as th e heavenly spheres to which C hrist has been exalted. F or D ahl, the w riter
m entions th e cosmic dim ensions as a pream ble to his m ain point, as do som e
o f th e texts cited, and, like the apocalyptists a n d herm eticists, envisages th em
 Comment 211

is a possible object o f revealed knowledge. “H e wants his readers to u n d ersta n d

everything w orth un d erstan d in g , all m ysteries, even the dim ensions o f the
universe. B ut the one th in g th at m atters is to know th e love o f C hrist” (“Cosmic
D im ensions,” 75). T his in terp re tatio n certainly has th e m erit o f being consistent
with th e greatest n u m b er o f parallels, an d D ahl’s version o f it, in particular,
u n d erlines th e p rep arato ry role o f the dim ensions in the sequence o f thought.
T h e m ain problem with it, how ever, is in im agining the w riter being concerned
to pray fo r his read ers’ know ledge o f the dim ensions o f th e universe, even if
this is prelim inary to a g reater concern. N ow here else in this letter is h e interested
in th e cosmos fo r its own sake. Such interests seem to have been a factor in
leading th e Colossians astray earlier. In fact, as we have seen earlier in this
letter, in 2 :14– 16, the w riter appears to have th o u g h t it ap p ro p riate to ad a p t
a hym n with a m ainly cosmic focus by em phasizing C hrist’s d eath in history
an d tran sferrin g it to the J e w-G entile issue. P erhaps, th en , this in terp retatio n
is concerned to pin dow n the reference o f th e fo u r dim ensions too precisely
an d fails to observe th at the w riter o f Ephesians is often carried away in rhetorical
flourishes. M ight n ot this particular flourish simply be his expatiation on the
vastness o r greatness o f an object in sim ilar fashion to the tautologous expres-
sions o r piling u p o f synonym s we have n o ted earlier?
T h a t object could well be the W isdom o f God. In fact, as D ahl him self
concedes in his essay (“Cosmic D im ensions,” 61, 73), in a n u m b e r o f the parallels
cited the reference to the dim ensions is rhetorical an d serves to point u p the
real concern, which is an em phasis on W isdom o r the know ledge th at God
reveals. T his can be seen in Jo b 11:5– 9, one o f the few parallel passages th at
actually m entions all fo u r dim ensions: “B ut oh, th at G od w ould speak, an d
o p en his lips to you, an d th at he w ould tell you th e secrets o f wisdom! For
h e is m anifold in u n d erstanding. . . . C an you find o u t th e d eep things o f
God? C an you find o u t the limit o f the Alm ighty? It is h ig h er th an heaven—
w hat can you do? D eeper th an Sheol—w hat can you know? Its m easure is
lo n g er th an th e earth , an d b ro ad er th an the sea.” T h e sam e holds tru e o f Sir
1:3, “W ho can find o u t the height o f heaven, an d the b re ad th o f the earth ,
an d th e deep, an d wisdom ?” Cf. also Jo b 28:12– 14, 21, 22; 1 Enoch 93.11– 14;
2 Apoc. Bar. 5 4 .1–4. T h e pu rp o se o f such texts is n o t to speak about the
dim ensions o f th e universe b u t to speak o f th e infinite dim ensions o f W isdom .
Feuillet (N R T 78 [1956] 600; Christ Sagesse, 310) asserts th at w hereas the Stoics
would say that, in contem plating the universe, one knows God, these texts
indicate th at it is im possible to know the universe entirely, an d even if one
could, one w ould still no t know W isdom , whose dim ensions are infinite. If
th e m ention o f th e dim ensions in such texts is m ean t to conjure u p the vastness
o f G od’s W isdom , m ight it n o t be th at the w riter o f E phesians has in view
n o t actual cosmic dim ensions b u t th e m etaphorical dim ensions o f th e infinite
W isdom o f God, which he has earlier in th e ch a p te r described as m ultifaceted
(3:10)? We have already no ted th at this pericope is heavily d ep e n d e n t on Col
1:29– 2:10, a passage which contains th e wish th a t the readers m ight know
C hrist, “in w hom are hid all the treasures o f wisdom a n d know ledge” (Col
2 :2 ,3 ), an d earlier in Ephesians wisdom has been seen both as a blessing
already received (1:8) an d as the object o f pray er (1:17). Paul, in Rom 11:33 –
36, h ad already spoken o f th e incom prehensibility o f G od’s W isdom , using
212 E p h e s ia n s 3:14–21

the term |3d0os, “d e p th ,” before breaking into a doxology, as the w riter does
h ere in vv 20, 21. Feuillet (N R T 78 [1956] 601; Christ Sagesse, 311) points o u t
th at such an in terp re tatio n fits th e context h ere in E p h 3, since a n u m b er o f
elem ents with a W isdom b ackground occur. N ot only is W isdom itself m entioned
(3:10), b u t also m en tio n ed are th e adjective d ^ t x ^ a a r o ? (3:8), which is fo u n d
in LXX Jo b 5:9; 9:10; 34:24, an d in R om 11:33 fo r th e inscrutability o f G od’s
W isdom (cf. also the use o f the verb e%ixvia$eiv in LXX Jo b 5:27; 8:8; 13:9;
28:27; Eccl 12:9; Wis 6:22; 9:16; Sir 1:3; 18;4, 6; 24:28), a n d th e language
o f filling an d fullness (3:19), which is partially derived from wisdom literatu re
(cf. Comment o n 1:23). I f it is objected th a t in th e wisdom literatu re the d im en -
sions suggest th e incom prehensibility o f W isdom , yet h ere the w riter prays
for th e know ledge o f these dim ensions, it can be co u n tered th at the paradox
o f know ing w hat is too vast to know is fo u n d in th a t literatu re (e.g., Sir 24:28, 29)
an d is spelled o u t h ere in th e n ext verse, v 19. B ut for this in terp re tatio n to
be absolutely persuasive one m ight wish th a t in the background parallels cited,
th e link betw een th e dim ensions an d W isdom itself w ere m ore direct, instead
o f prim arily p rep aratory.
N evertheless, th ere is only one o th e r in terp re tatio n th at m atches this last one
for plausibility. It em phasizes th a t since th e fo u r dim ensions are governed by
only one article in the G reek they are to be trea ted as a unity, a totality which
evokes th e im m ensity o f a particu lar object, a n d th a t object is n o t m ade explicit
until the next an d parallel clause, nam ely, th e love o f C hrist (cf. n e b ; n i v ;
O rigen; Calvin; M eyer, 184; A bbott, 100; Roels, God's Mission, 176– 78; H oulden,
304 – 5; van R oon, Authenticity, 262 – 66; C aird, 70; M itton, 134; C aragounis,
Mysterion, 75 n .7; B ratcher a n d N ida, Handbook, 87). So, on this view, the b read th
an d len g th an d h eig h t an d d e p th simply register the dim ensions o f th e real
object o f com prehension. Instead o f ad d in g th a t object im m ediately by m eans
o f the genitive expression rffr ayairq*; rod Xpiorov, “o f the love o f C hrist,” the
w riter has in tro d u ced a climactically parallel clause, which explains b u t also
advances on th e vaguer rhetorical language o f this one. yvGwai, “to know ,”
corresponds to K arakaßioda t, “to grasp,” b u t advances on it in th a t it can suggest
n ot ju s t intellectual ap p reh en sio n b u t personal know ledge, while “which su r-
passes know ledge” is the m ore specific functional equivalent to the p o in t m ade
by th e term inology o f th e fo u r dim ensions ab o u t im m ensity an d incom prehensi-
bility. T h e objection is som etim es leveled against this in terp re tatio n th a t one
w ould norm ally expect th e particle re, in v 19, to in troduce a new object o f
know ledge (cf. Feuillet, Christ Sagesse, 308). B ut this objection is u n fo u n d ed .
T h e paratactic conjunction simply indicates th e close connection betw een the
clauses it links (cf. BDF § 443). T his in terp re tatio n th a t sees the all-em bracing
love o f C hrist as expressed by th e fo u r dim ensions can claim som e su p p o rt
from earlier P auline m aterial, since in R om 8:35– 39 two o f the dim ensions
are m en tio n ed in close association with th e love o f C hrist. Its m ajor advantage,
how ever, is th at it is able to provide an explanation from the im m ediate context
which also clarifies the developm ent o f th o u g h t in th e passage. T h e real object
re p resen ted by th e dim ensions is im m ediately stated in the next clause b u t
has already b een p re p a re d fo r by th e em phasis on love in the preceding clause.
In fact, on this in terp re tatio n the sequence, which m oves from th e notion o f
being ro o ted a n d g ro u n d e d in love (v 17b), to th a t o f being em pow ered to
 Comment 213

grasp (v 18a), to th e vast dim ensions an d incom prehensibility o f love (vv

18b, 19a), itself illustrates the all-encom passing n a tu re o f the love ab o u t which
it speaks.
O n e is h a rd -pressed to choose betw een W isdom an d the love o f C hrist as
the reference o f th e dim ensions. Obviously, o th e r com m entators have felt this
dilem m a, since W estcott (52) in terp rets th e dim ensions to m ean “th e whole
ran g e o f the sp h ere in which the Divine wisdom an d love find exercise,” an d
B arth, in o ne place, opts for a reference to the dim ensions o f C hrist’s love
(373), yet, in an o th er, supports the in terp re tatio n o f the W isdom o f God (397).
In th e end, th e choice depends on w h eth er one places m ore w eight on likely
associations from th e W isdom background o r on im m ediate contextual factors.
How language functions in its p resen t context is prim arily determ inative o f
its m eaning, an d on these grounds a reference to the love o f C hrist is probably
to be p referred .
If th e love o f C hrist is in view, it is n o t surprising th a t th e grasping o f his
all-em bracing love is an activity shared with o th e r believers an d th at the context
in which it takes place is, indeed, th at o f the whole C hurch, “with all the
saints.” ayioi h ere refers to C hristians, n o t angels (cf. 1:1, 15; 3:8; 6:18, an d
earlier discussions o f 1:18 an d 2:19; pace Dahl, “Cosmic D im ensions,” 73).
T h e com prehension the w riter desires fo r his readers is n o t som e esoteric
know ledge on th e p art o f individual initiates, no t som e isolated contem plation,
b u t th e shared insight gained from belonging to th e com m unity o f believers.
H e will develop this th o u g h t fu rth e r in 4:1– 16, particularly in v 13, “until we
all attain to th e unity o f the faith an d o f the know ledge o f th e Son o f G od.”
yvGwai re rrjv imepßäXkowav Tijs yvcooecos ayanr^v rod Xptarov, “a n d to know
the love o f C hrist which surpasses know ledge.” T h e way in which this clause
parallels b u t advances on the preceding one has already b een treated in the
discussion o f th e fo u r dim ensions, particularly in th e exposition o f the final
option, which we p referred , o f taking the dim ensions to re fe r to the love o f
Christ. T h e im plication o f “which surpasses know ledge” being a m ore precise
functional equivalent to the reference to th e dim ensions, in poin tin g to the
im m ensity an d incom prehensibility o f C hrist’s love, is th a t it should not, th e re -
fore, be read as a polem ical re m ark contrasting love a n d know ledge as ways
to God in the face o f Gnostic thinking (contra H oulden, 305; E rnst, 340).
Instead th e oxym oron o f this clause should be taken seriously. U nlike 1 C or
8:1– 13 o r 13:2, 9 – 13, w here th ere is a contrast betw een believers’ know ledge
an d th eir love, h ere any com parison is betw een believers’ know ledge a n d C hrist’s
love. T his p ray er in no way denigrates know ledge. As elsew here in the letter
(cf. 1:9, 17, 18; 3:3– 5, 9; 4:13; 5:17), revealed know ledge is o f utm ost im p o r-
tance to th e w riter an d it is som ething th at he desires as a prim ary goal for
his read ers’ grow th, requesting it twice in this p ray er (v 18 an d v 19a). It is
simply th at th e su prem e object o f C hristian know ledge, C hrist’s love, is so
p ro fo u n d th at its d ep th s will never be sounded a n d so vast th at its ex ten t will
never be encom passed by the h u m an m ind. T h a t which it is absolutely necessary
to know, in fact, surpasses knowledge. T h e re is a note o f ultim ate m ystery
ab o u t the divine in tervention o f which C hrist’s love is th e m anifestation, yet,
as C aird (70) says, “the attem p t to know th e unknow able is a p aradox which
is at th e h ea rt o f all tru e religion.”
214 E p h e s ia n s 3 : 1 4 – 2 1

In P aul’s th o u g h t G od’s love a n d C hrist’s love are two sides o f th e sam e

coin, an d in his great clim ax to R om 8 he can ask, “W ho shall separate us
from th e love o f C hrist?” (v 35) a n d reply th a t absolutely n o th in g “will be
able to separate us from the love o f G od in C hrist Jesu s o u r L o rd ” (v 39). In
two o th e r places he focuses specifically on C hrist’s love: in Gal 2:20, “th e Son
o f C o d w ho loved m e a n d gave him self fo r m e,” an d in 2 C or 5:14, “fo r th e
love o f C hrist controls us.” H ere in Ephesians th e w riter’s earlier em phasis
has been o n G od’s love in 2:4, b u t now th e focus becom es the love o f C hrist
(cf. also 5:2, 25). J u s t as in P aul’s letters to know a n d love G od is to be know n
by him (cf. Gal 4:9; 1 C or 8:3), so in Ephesians to know the love o f C hrist
involves being know n by C hrist an d being controlled by his love. L ater, the
reflection o r im itation o f his love will be a significant m otive to which appeal
is m ade in th e paraenesis (cf. 5:2).
19 b Iva 7rX77pcodifre et<? iräv t o ir'K'qpcopa rod deov, “in o rd e r th at you m ight
be filled u p to all th e fullness o f G od.” F or discussion o f th e b ackground an d
m ean in g o f th e term t o n\ripcjp.a, see Comment on 1:23. H ere th e language o f
filling an d fullness form s the clim ax to the w riter’s intercessory prayer-rep o rt.
In 1:23 th e C h u rch was said to be th e fullness o f C hrist who fills the cosmos
in every respect. H ere, how ever, it is th e fullness o f G od him self which is in
view, an d th e p ray er is th at believers should attain to th at fullness, et? does
n ot so m uch signify th a t with which one is filled, as it conveys m ovem ent
tow ard a goal, a being filled u p to th e m easure o f G od’s fullness (cf. also
4:13, which speaks o f attaining to th e stature o f the fullness o f C hrist, an d
thus gives th e th o u g h t a “teleological a n d eschatological” orientation; cf. B arth,
373). It is this eschatological perspective th a t explains how the C hurch, which
is already the fullness (cf. 1:23; also Col 2:10), is still to be filled an d to attain
to th e fullness (cf. also 4:13; 5:18). T h e relation ship betw een w hat th e C h u rch
is an d w hat th e C h u rch is to becom e, like th e relationship betw een the indi-
cative an d im perative, reflects ultim ately th e tension betw een th e “already”
an d the “n o t yet” which this w riter has in h erited from Pauline eschatology.
W hat th e C h u rch already is in principle, it is increasingly to realize in its ex-
perience.
J u s t as this pericope as a whole is d e p e n d e n t on Col 1:29 – 2:10, so this
clause in p articu lar is d e p e n d e n t on Col 2:9, 10. T h e re th e notion o f the fullness
o f God, o r ra th e r o f th e fullness o f deity (7rai> t o n X r ip c o p a T i öeorr/ro?), also
occurs, as this is said to dwell in C hrist a n d believers are said to be filled in
him . T h e fullness o f God, which is best explained as his presence an d pow er,
his life an d rule, im m an en t in his creation, has b een m ediated to believers
th ro u g h C hrist, in w hom th e fullness was p re sen t bodily. T his p a tte rn o f th o u g h t
is assum ed as th e w riter now expresses his desire fo r his readers to be filled
(pace E rnst, 340 – 41; Pleroma, 120 – 25, w ho w ants to find an ecclesiological
elem ent in his definition o f pleroma h ere in 3:19). It is expressed in the passive
an d in absolute form . Presum ably this is a divine passive—they are to be filled
by God— a n d presum ably if they are to be filled u p to th e fullness o f G od, it
is with this fullness th at they are to be filled. W hat has com e before in the
p ray er can be seen as giving fu rth e r co n ten t to this th o u g h t. As believers are
stren g th en ed th ro u g h the Spirit in th e in n e r person, as they allow C hrist to
dwell in th eir hearts th ro u g h faith, a n d as they know m ore o f th e love o f
Christ, so th e process o f being filled u p to all the fullness o f th e life an d
 Comment 215

pow er o f G od will take place. R esponse to the im perative o f 5:18, “be filled
with th e Spirit,” will also be p a rt o f th e realization o f this process.
T his final clause o f the w riter’s p ray er is both bold an d climactic. In his
vision fo r his read ers n o th in g can exceed attainin g to th e divine fullness. In d eed
J. A. R obinson (89) could write, “N o pray er th at has ever been fram ed has
u ttere d a b o ld er request. It is a noble exam ple o f nappr^oia, o f freedom o f
speech, o f th at ‘boldness an d access in confidence’ o f which he has spoken
above.” So bold is th e request, in fact, th a t it m ight well leave the m o dern
C hristian asking w h eth er th ere is any difference in kind betw een the fullness
o f deity th at dwelt in C hrist an d th a t which is available to believers. Even
th o u g h it is th e eschatological goal o f th eir existence, believers can becom e
filled to capacity with all the divine fullness th at can be com m unicated and
th at they can receive w ithout ceasing to be hu m an . T h o u g h Oeorris, “deity,
divine n a tu re ” (cf. Col 2:9), is no t used in connection with believers, and th o u g h
C hrist is the su p rem e em bodim ent in history o f this fullness an d is its m ediator
to believers, is an y thing less involved in this vision o f believers’ potential th an
is involved in th e case o f C hrist’s relationship to th e divine fullness? T his sort
o f issue is one th a t could only arise after later dogm atic form ulations. T h e
need to m ake precise distinctions in this re g ard in his use o f language would
n o t have o ccurred to this w riter, who w ould have believed, with Paul, th at
C hristians are to be fully conform ed to the im age o f C hrist (cf. 2 C or 3:18;
Rom 8:29). T h e last p a rt o f his p ray er is climactic also in m oving from the
th o u g h t o f th e love o f C hrist to th at o f th e fullness o f G od as the goal o f
salvation. O nce th e love o f C hrist has m ediated th at which God has in store
for hum anity, th e ultim ate focus o f atten tio n can be on G od him self (cf. 1
C or 15:28; cf. also Gnilka, 190– 91).
20, 21 rep Se bvvapevcp virep irävra noiffqai imepennepinoov cbv airovpeda fj voovpev
Kara rr\v bw apiv rr\v evepyovpevr\v ev riplv, “now to him who is able to do infinitely
m ore ab u ndantly above all th at we ask o r th in k in accordance with the pow er
which is at w ork w ithin us.” O th e r ascriptions o f glory to God which begin
with rep 5e bwapevcp, “now to him w ho is able,” can be fo u n d in Rom 16:25
(part o f w hat is in all likelihood a post-Pauline addition to the letter); J u d e
24, 25; an d Mart. Pol. 20.2. T h e English translation obscures the link th ere is
in the G reek text h ere in v 20 betw een this verbal form bwapevcp, “is able,” an d
its cognate n o u n bvvapis, “pow er.” T h e preceding prayer h ad asked th at the
readers be stren g th en e d th ro u g h the Spirit with pow er (v 16). Now the doxology
praises th e one who possesses this pow er th at is already at w ork in them , and
at work in a way th a t is far in excess o f anything they could request in th eir
prayers o r could even im agine. Interestingly, it was at such a point, a description
o f G od’s pow er, th at the w riter’s first intercessory prayer-re p o rt had begun
to digress, “w hat is th e surpassing greatness o f his pow er tow ard us who believe,
according to th e w orking o f his m ighty stren g th ” (1:19). B efore re tu rn in g to
the them e o f G od’s pow er in the second intercessory prayer-re p o rt an d in
this doxology, th e w riter has earlier declared how G od has d em onstrated th at
pow er in raising an d exalting C hrist, in doing the sam e for believers who
were spiritually dead, in including G entiles in his w ork o f salvation, in creating
one new h u m anity o u t o f Jew s an d Gentiles in th e C hurch, an d in energizing
the m inistry o f th e apostle Paul, who proclaim ed this accom plishm ent o f God
in Christ. E arlier, G od’s pow er, effective tow ard believers (1:19), was said to
216 E p h e s ia n s 3 : 1 4 – 2 1

be actually at w ork (ev ep ye lv ) w ithin C hrist (1:20). Now th a t language is used

o f believers— rr\v e v e p y o v p e v q v ev riplv, “w hich is at w ork w ithin us.” N. B au m ert
('Täglich Sterben und Auferstehen [M unich: Kösel, 1973] 276– 79) has arg u ed th at
this clause should be taken with “ask o r th in k ” ra th e r th a n “d o ,” so th at the
m ean in g w ould be th a t G od is n o t even b o u n d by th e m easure o f his own
pow er w ithin us, by which we pray o r think, b u t is able to do m ore. In addition
to th e proxim ity in w ord o rd e r, B au m ert claims th a t th e tautological n atu re
o f the usual in terp retatio n , a n d th e strangeness o f th e notion th at G od’s pow er
at w ork in us does m ore th a n we ask, favor his alternative. B ut these are weak
arg um ents. In term s o f syntax, it is m ore likely th a t “in accordance with the
pow er which is at w ork w ithin u s” qualifies “is able to d o ”; tautologous expres-
sions are quite usual in th e rhetorical style o f Ephesians; an d it is n o t at all
strange th a t G od’s pow er at w ork in believers retains a tran sc en d en t elem ent
an d is n o t sim ply identified with believers them selves.
W hereas th e p rayer-re p o rt is expressed in the first person singular (cf. v
14), th e doxology em ploys th e first p erso n p lu ral in this clause. In this way,
th e read ers are d raw n fu rth e r into sharing the w riter’s p ray er concerns— “we
ask”— an d his praise. T h ey are also draw n fu rth e r into the b re ad th o f his
vision o f G od’s pow er. N ot even th e boldness o f his earlier petition com es
n ea r to taxing such pow er. N eith er the boldest h u m a n p ray er n o r the greatest
pow er o f h u m an im agination could circum scribe G od’s ability to act. U nlike
G od’s ability to act, th e w riter’s own rhetorical ability is stretched to breaking
p o in t as h e attem p ts to express his vision. H e gropes for th e highest form o f
com parison available an d finds th e very ra re co m p o u n d adverb, v ir e p e K ir e p ia o o v ,
used by Paul in 1 T hess 3:10; 5:13. S om ething o f the force o f the w riter’s
rh eto ric can be ca p tu red by show ing th e build-u p o f the th o u g h t reflected by
his language. G od is said to be able to do w hat believers ask in prayer; he is
able to do w hat they m ight fail to ask b u t w hat they can think; he is able to
do all ( i r a v r a ) they ask o r think; he is able to do above all ( v ir e p i r a v r a ) they
ask o r think; he is able to do abun d an tly above all (ir e p v o o o v v i rep i r a v r a ) they
ask o r think; he is able to do m ore abun d an tly above all ( e K ir e p io o o v v ir e p i r a v r a )
they ask o r think; he is able to do infinitely m ore abundantly above all
( v ir e p e K ir e p u jo o v v ir e p i r a v r a ) they ask o r think. A nd w hat is m ore, says the w riter,
this inexpressible pow er is at w ork w ithin us!
avrcp r) 8o£a ev rfi eKKkrpiq. Kai ev XpvarCb ’Irjaoü et? 7raaa? rd ? yeveäs rod aicbvos
rcbv aiojvcov. a pqv, “T o him belongs glory in th e C h u rch an d in C hrist Jesus
th ro u g h o u t all g enerations a n d for everm ore. A m en.” A fter the rhetorical
flourish th a t developed in describing th e pow er o f the one addressed, the
in tro d u cto ry elem ent o f th e doxology p ro p e r now has to be rep eated by m eans
o f th e p ro n o u n aurcp, “to him .” F or general discussion o f the form o f the
doxology, see Form / Structure / Setting, a n d for textual issues raised by this verse,
see Notes. A scriptions o f glory which sim ply em ploy a n o u n are best treated
as predicative possessive statem ents ra th e r th a n as wishes, so th at th e copula
verb which is o m itted should be th o u g h t o f as in th e indicative ra th e r th an
th e optative (cf. BDF § 128 [5]; A. Stuiber, “D oxologie,” RAC 4:215; Milling,
“O rig in ,” 268– 71; Gnilka, 192 n. 4; S chnackenburg, 159; pace G augler, 159, 283
n. 4; D eichgräber, Gotteshymnus, 30– 32; C aragounis, Mysterion, 77). T h e doxol-
ogy involves h u m an acknow ledgm ent a n d praise o f th at w hich properly belongs
 Comment 217

to God. In such ascriptions 5o£a prim arily denotes the splendor o f G od’s exalted
status o r h o n o r, b u t its o th er connotations o f his radiance an d pow er w ould
n ot be entirely m issing (cf. especially 1:17, “th e F ath er o f glory”; 3:16, “the
riches o f his glory”).
W hat is so striking about this particular doxology is the way in which the
w riter’s d o m in an t interests have shaped it, so th at it becom es the only doxology
in the N T to include both a reference to the C hurch an d the p h rase “in
C hrist Jesu s” (some have “th ro u g h Jesus C hrist”; cf. Rom 16:25 – 27; J u d e
24, 25). Striking also, as the textual history witnesses, is the o rd e r in which
the C h u rch an d C hrist are m entioned. In line with the w riter’s earlier em phasis
on the C h u rch as the sphere o f G od’s presence an d rule (e.g., 1:22b, 23; 2:22;
3:10), his doxology sees the C hurch as the sphere in which G od’s glory is
acknowledged. Glory is ascribed to God in the w orship an d praise o f the re -
deem ed com m unity, b u t this will be no t only in its cultic activity b u t also in
the whole o f its existence (cf. 1:6, 12, 14). T h e re is an eschatological aspect to
this, for God will only be perfectly glorified in the C h u rch w hen it fully shares
in his glory (cf. 3:13; 5:27). G od’s glory is also acknow ledged in a n o th e r locus,
“in C hrist Jesu s.” For discussion o f this w riter’s use o f “in C hrist,” see Comment
on 1:3. Because believers have been in corporated into C hrist, he can be seen
as the sphere in which th eir glorification o f God takes place. T his is the w riter’s
way o f stressing th at the C h u rch ’s ascription o f glory to G od is d e p e n d e n t on
Christ, both as th e m ediator o f G od’s activity to hum anity in the first place
an d as the m ediator o f h um anity’s response o f praise to G od (cf. also 5:20).
As fo r th e sequence in which the C hurch is m entioned before C hrist, it is
n o t u n u su al for this w riter to m ove in his th o u g h t from the p resen t visible
sphere o f G od’s activity on ea rth to th at on which it is ultim ately d e p e n d e n t
(cf. especially 4 :4 – 6, “one body . . . one L ord . . . one G od an d F ath er”). So
h ere glory is ascribed to God in the C hurch, which is the body o f C hrist an d
the prim ary sp h ere o f his p resen t activity, an d in C hrist Jesu s him self, who is
the exalted H ead o f this C hurch an d th e one u p o n w hom its activity an d
indeed its very existence depend.
T h e re are o th er unique features o f this doxology. It stands alone am ong
the N T doxologies in its inclusion o f the term yeveä, “g en eratio n ,” an d in its
com bination o f th e singular an d plural form s o f aicov. T h e re are o th e r early
C hristian doxologies which use som e form o f yeveä. 1 Clem. 61.3 has ets yeveäv
yevecbv Kai eis-rovs aicbvas rcbv aicovcov. which is sim ilar to the LXX idiom for
“to all g en erations” (cf. LXX Isa 51:8; Jo el 2:2; 3:20; J d t 8:32; Sir 39:9), an d
Mart. Pol. 21 has Ö7TÖ yeveäs eis yeveäv, an o th e r LXX idiom , “from generation
to g en eratio n ” (cf. LXX Ps 10:6; 85:5). T h e usual N T form ulation, which
repeats aicov, com bines two plurals, ets rou? aicbvas rcbv aicovcov, b u t the com bina-
tion o f th e singular with the plural does occur twice in th e LXX (cf. LXX
D an 3:90; 7:18). As we have com e to expect, E phesians in its liturgical style
shows a p referen ce for the use o f ttö?, “all” (which is fo u n d in o th e r doxologies
in J u d e 25; also LXX T o b 8:5, 15; 11:14; 13:4, 16; D an 3:52), a n d for piling
u p synonym s. T his particular instance appears to be th e w riter’s own refinem ent
o f term inology derived from the LXX idiom et? 7racra? ra ? yeveas rod aicbvo<;
(cf. LXX T o b 1:4; 13:10; 14:5) an d the do m in an t early C hristian form ula for
eternity et? rovs aicbvas rcbv aicovcov. Its sonorous language is simply in ten d ed
218 E p h e s ia n s 3:14–21

to u n d erlin e th e eternity o f G od’s glory a n d should n o t be analyzed too precisely,

as in in terp retatio n s which suggest th a t spiritual pow ers are in view o r th at
the singular m eans th at th e p re sen t aeon encom passes all others (pace Schlier,
177; E rnst, 342). yeveä has been used earlier in th e letter in 3:5 an d aicov in
1:21; 2:7; 3:9, 11, an d in line with this earlier usage, the m eaning h ere is
th at glory is d u e to G od fo r generations to com e a n d as one age follows on
an o th er into infinity.
T h a t glory belongs to G od in th e C h u rch a n d in C hrist Jesus in history
an d on into eternity is to be confirm ed by th e readers with th eir “A m en.”
Originally A m en was n o t th e en d in g fo r p ray er o r a way o f stren g th en in g
o n e’s own prayer, an d in th e N T aixr\v is nearly always used after a doxology.
W hen th e p a tte rn used h ere o f intercessory p ray er followed by doxology becam e
th e usual p a tte rn for concluding prayer, th e n A m en occurred at the e n d o f
prayers an d o u t o f this cam e th e custom o f concluding every p ra y er with
A m en. T h e first instance in early C hristian usage o f som eone closing his own
p ray er with A m en is fo u n d in M art. Pol. 15.1. T his doxology with its A m en
can be seen to be an entirely a p p ro p ria te en d in g for the first p a rt o f th e
letter, as th e w riter encourages his read ers yet again to share his vision o f th e
God whose final goal in accom plishing salvation in history is his own etern al
glorification, th e sam e vision th a t h ad d o m in ated the berakah with which the
w riter h ad b eg u n in 1:3– 14.

Explanation

T h e p rayer-re p o rt in th e nam e o f Paul h ad b eg u n in v 1 b u t h ad th e n

been in te rru p te d by th e digression on the apostle’s m inistry; it is now carried
th ro u g h in two p a rts—an intercession (vv 14– 19) a n d a doxology (vv 20, 21).
Each p a rt consists o f one sentence and, n o t surprisingly in explicitly liturgical
m aterial, exhibits th e sam e linguistic style we have n o ted th ro u g h o u t th e first
p art o f th e letter, particularly in th e earlier berakah a n d thanksgiving period.
J u s t as th e digression h ad been d e p e n d e n t on Col 1:23c - 28, so now this prayer-
re p o rt is d e p e n d e n t on th e next section o f th a t letter, Col 1:29– 2:10.
T h e digression on th e apostle’s stew ardship o f the m ystery h ad developed
the notion o f th e C h u rch as G od’s in stru m en t fo r dem o n stratin g to the pow ers
his p u rp o se o f unifying th e cosmos. T h e w riter senses th a t if th e C h u rch is
going to becom e in history an effective preview o f G od’s purposes fo r the
en d o f history, th e n G od is going to have to h elp it in a big way. A dopting
an attitu d e o f d eep reverence a n d fervent entreaty, he m akes th re e m ajor
requests, with a subsidiary one betw een th e first a n d second. As he begins
the intercessory prayer-re p o rt, how ever, he first extols G od the F ath er as th e
C reato r an d L o rd o f all family groupings in th e cosmos a n d th en , as he launches
into the first request, rem inds him self a n d his read ers th at this G od’s giving
in response to supplication is in accord with th e inexhaustible w ealth o f his
glory, th at is, o f his radiance a n d pow er active on b eh a lf o f hum anity. T his
first m ain req u est is th at the read ers should be stren g th en e d th ro u g h the
Spirit in th eir in n e r persons, which need to be renew ed constantly by th e
S pirit’s energy. T h e request is th e n spelled o u t in d ifferen t term s as th e w riter
asks th at C hrist m ight take u p p e rm a n e n t residence in th eir hearts, at th e
 Explanation 219

cen ter o f th eir personalities, so th at th ro u g h a relationship o f faith C hrist’s

ch aracter an d the p attern o f his d eath an d resurrection increasingly shape
th eir values an d th eir living. A subsidiary p ray er follows, which asks th at the
readers be ro o ted in the soil an d built on the fo u n d atio n o f the love th at is
th e principle o f th e new age.
T h e second m ajor request concerns the re ad ers’ know ledge. T h e w riter
desires that, as they are strengthened, they will be enabled to grasp in com pany
with th e whole C h urch the vast dim ensions o f the all-em bracing love o f C hrist
an d th en , stating a sim ilar wish, that, despite its ultim ate incom prehensibility
an d m ystery, they m ight know this love o f C hrist personally an d in a way
th at controls th eir lives. T h e final an d climactic request is th at the recipients
o f the letter be filled u p to all the fullness o f God, th at they experience to
th eir capacity th e life an d pow er o f God him self.
T h ese are no small petitions; b u t both at the beginning o f this section, in
th e address to God as cosmic F ather, an d now at the end, as he moves from
intercession to doxology, the w riter expresses his conviction th at he has a
g reat God. H e ascribes glory th ro u g h o u t history an d fo r everm ore to the
G od whose pow er infinitely transcends all h u m an praying o r im agining. T his
is no m erely theoretical statem ent about the o m nipotence o f G od as an attribute,
b u t an assertion o f praise th at springs from experience. For, as the w riter
says, this inexpressible pow er o f God is the sam e pow er th at believers know
to be at work w ithin them . T h e w riter’s own characteristic ecclesiological an d
C hristological em phases m ark off this doxology from any Jew ish co u n terp art.
Glory is d u e to G od in the C hurch an d in C hrist Jesus. It belongs to G od in
th e C h u rch as C hrist’s body, the one new com m unity o u t o f Jew an d Gentile,
an d it belongs to him in C hrist Jesus as the H ead, th e one th ro u g h w hom
this com m unity cam e into being an d on w hom it dep en d s fo r its life.
T h e m ajor requests o f the intercessory prayer-re p o rt can be seen as reflecting
w hat th e w riter believes to be m ajor needs o f th e churches to which he writes.
His concern fo r th eir stren g th en in g (v 16; cf. also v 18, “in o rd e r th at you
m ight be em p o w ered”) suggests some weakness o r vacillation on th eir p art
(cf. also 4:14; 6:10). H e wants to see instead vigorous C hristians who are
effective because o f th eir quality o f in n e r stren g th derived from th e energizing
o f G od’s Spirit. His concern for th eir being ro o ted an d g ro u n d e d in love an d
for th eir know ledge o f C hrist’s love suggests a lack o f appreciation, on the
p a rt o f the readers, o f the significance o f w hat is central to the gospel, resulting
in an instability an d in an insufficient sense o f th eir identity a n d security.
T h e w riter wants to see, instead, C hristians who in the com pany o f fellow
believers know them selves, because they know th e all-encom passing love o f
C hrist an d have th erefo re been accepted an d affirm ed at the h ea rt o f reality.
T h e concern th at th e readers be filled u p to the fullness o f G od him self can
be read as th e w riter’s wish to com pensate fo r any sense o f inadequacy an d
insufficiency o n th eir part, perh ap s in th e face o f syncretistic claims to have
p en e trated to th e pleroma. T h e w riter wants to see, instead, C hristians who,
conscious o f th eir significant role, have ap p ro p ria te d to th eir capacity all the
resources o f th e fullness o f God.
In m any ways th e substance o f the d ifferent requests am ounts to the sam e
thing. T o be stren g th en ed th ro u g h the Spirit, to be indw elt by C hrist, to be
220 E p h e s ia n s 3:14–21

ro o ted in love, to know the love o f C hrist, a n d to be filled to th e fullness o f

G od involve d ifferent aspects o f the experience o f the sam e reality. P erhaps
th e central p a rt o f the prayer, in which th e quality o f love dom inates, indicates
th at h ere th e w riter sees th at reality as best sum m ed u p in th e costly, self-
giving love o f C hrist.
C ertainly it is th e em phasis on love th at is the m ost noticeable difference
betw een this intercessory prayer-re p o rt an d th e earlier one in the thanksgiving
p erio d o f 1:15– 23. B oth include a stress on know ledge an d pow er. T h e first
asked fo r g re ater knowledge, a p a rt o f which was to be know ledge o f G od’s
pow er. T h e second begins with the concern th at believers be stren g th en e d by
pow er, an d th en indicates th at it is this em pow ering th at will enable c o m p re h en -
sion. Clearly, the w riter holds th at the relationship betw een u n d ersta n d in g
a n d being stren g th en ed works both ways, th a t intellectual know ledge a n d actual
experience o f G od’s pow er are m utually sustaining.
God, C hrist, an d the Spirit all receive m ention in this section. In th e one
referen ce to th e Spirit in v 16 it becom es clear th at in the believer’s p re sen t
experience his role in the in n er person is functionally equivalent to th a t o f
C hrist in th e heart. B ut, as in o th e r sections o f this first p a rt o f the letter, th e
triad th at dom inates the w riter’s perspective is th at o f God, C hrist, an d the
C h urch. His intercessory prayer-re p o rt is on b eh a lf o f his readers as m em bers
o f th e C h urch, as those with its calling to fulfill, an d they are explicitly rem in d ed
o f th at ecclesiological context th ro u g h the p h rase “with all the saints” in v
18. T h e C h u rch will becom e m ore w hat it o u g h t to be as it experiences m ore
o f th e one who m ediates G od’s purposes in salvation, m ore o f C hrist’s presence
th ro u g h th e Spirit, a n d m ore o f his all-em bracing love th a t surpasses know ledge.
B ut th e p ray er is addressed to God the cosmic F ath er w ho is able to g ra n t its
requests and, despite the substantial sim ilarity o f the realities requested, the
theocentric language o f the final climactic petition is significant. Even g re ater
th an know ledge o f the incom prehensible love o f C hrist, fo r which th e w riter
can ask, is participation in th e fullness o f G od him self. T his p a tte rn o f relation-
ship betw een God, C hrist, an d the C h u rch is sum m ed u p by th e doxology.
How striking an d how characteristic o f this w riter’s belief in th e im portance
o f th e C h u rch th at it should be m en tio n ed in th e doxology as th e locus for
G od’s glory! Yet th e glorification o f G od in the C h u rch is im m ediately said to
be d e p e n d e n t o n the glorification o f G od in C hrist Jesus, and, o f course, the
doxology is addressed n eith er to th e C h u rch n o r to C hrist b u t to God. T h e
theocentric perspective rem ains ultim ate as the doxology u nderlines th at w hat
has h a p p e n e d in history for the salvation o f th e C h u rch th ro u g h C hrist is for
G od’s own glory an d will re d o u n d to th at glory th ro u g h o u t eternity.
In this way, th e first p a rt o f the letter ends o n th e sam e note with which it
h ad b eg u n —a note o f w orship a n d praise o f the G od who is n o t only the
initiator o f salvation b u t also its final goal. T h e w riter’s m ajor concerns in
this h a lf o f the letter have been taken u p into his p ray er a n d praise. J u s t as
th e o p en in g eulogy was m eant to draw his readers into appreciation o f a theologi-
cal perspective th at could be a vital inspiration to them , so also th e closing
doxology is in ten d ed to function in this fashion. In th e second h alf o f the
letter he will ex h o rt his readers to carry o u t th eir distinctive calling to be the
C h u rch in th e world. H e knows, how ever, th at n o th in g sh o rt o f an experience
 Explanation 221

o f th e generous love o f Christ, which roots an d gro u n d s th em in love, will

enable th em to walk in th e love to which he will ex h o rt th em (cf. 4:2, 15, 16;
5:2, 25, 28, 33; cf. also 6:23, 24). H e knows also th at n o th in g sh o rt o f an ex p eri-
ence o f th e greatness o f the pow er o f G od at w ork w ithin th em a n d n o th in g
sh o rt o f a vision o f th e glory th at belongs to God will sustain th em in fulfilling
th e task to which G od him self has called them . In o th er words, he has w ritten
to th em in this particular way because he is aw are that, ultim ately, th e p ro fu n d ity
o f th eir theological appreciation, ap p ro p riated in w orship, will be far m ore
effective in help in g them to be w hat they w ere m eant to be th an m erely piling
m oral ex h o rtatio n u p o n m oral exhortation.
The Church’s Calling to Maintenance of the
Unity It Already Possesses (4:1– 16)
Bibliography

Barth, M. “Die Parusie im Epheserbrief, Eph 4, 13.” In Neues Testament und Geschichte.
FS O. Cullmann, ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke. Zürich: Zwingli, 1972, 239– 50.
Benoit, P. “Eph 4, 1–24: Exhortation ä l’unite.” AsSeign 71 (1963) 14– 26. Best, E. One
Body in Christ, 148– 52. Bieder, W. Die Vorstellung von der Höllenfahrt Jesu Christi. Zürich:
Zwingli, 1949, 81–90. Bjerkelund, C.J. Parakalô. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967. Bony,
P. “L’épître aux Éphésiens.” In Le ministère et les ministères selon le Nouveau Testament,
ed. J. Delorme. Paris: Seuil, 1974, 74–92. Caird, G. B. “The Descent of Christ in
Ephesians 4:7– 11.” SE 2. Tu 87 Berlin: Akademie, 1964, 535–45. Cambier, J. “La
Signification Christologique d’Eph. 4:7– 10.” NTS 9 (1963) 262– 75. Dubois, J.-D. “Ephe-
sians IV 15: alētheuontes de or alētheian de poiountes. On the Use of Coptic Versions for
New Testament Textual Criticism.” NovT 16 (1974) 30–34. Engelhardt, E. “Der Gedan-
kengang des Abschnittes Eph 4, 7– 16.” TSK 44 (1871) 107–45. Ernst, J. Pleroma, 135–
49. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz und Absicht, 21– 78, 137– 39. Fung, R. “The Nature of the
Ministry according to Paul.” EvQ 54 (1982) 129–46. Hadidian, D. Y. “Tous de euangelistas
in Eph. 4:11.” CBQ 28 (1966) 317–21. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos, 242–48. Hamann,
H. P. “The Translation of Ephesians 4:12– A Necessary Revision.” Concordia Journal
14 (1988) 42–49. Hanson, A. T. The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture. London:
S.P.C.K., 1980, 135–50. Hanson, S. The Unity of the Church, 148–61. Harris, W. H.
“The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:7– 11: An Exegetical Investigation with Special
Reference to the Influence of Traditions about Moses Associated with Psalm 68:19.”
Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 1988. Howard, G. “Head/Body Metaphors of Ephe-
sians.” NTS 20 (1974) 354– 55. Käsemann, E. “Epheser 4, 11– 16.” In Exegetische Versuche
und Besinnungen. Vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1970, 288–92. Kirby,
J. C. Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost, 61–69, 90– 100, 138–46. Klauck, H.-J. “Das Amt
in der Kirche nach Eph 4, 1– 16.” Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 (1973) 81– 110. Lincoln,
A. T. Paradise Now and Not Yet, 155–6 3 .———. “The Use of the OT in Ephesians.”
JSN T 14 (1982) 18– 25. Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic. London: SCM, 1961,
51–59. Martin, F. “Pauline Trinitarian Formulae and Christian Unity.” CBQ 30 (1968)
199–219. Merklein, H. Das kirchliche Amt, 57– 117, 332–401. ———. “Eph 4, 1–5,20
als Rezeption von Kol 3, 1– 17.” In Kontinuität und Einheit, ed. P. G. Müller and W.
Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981, 194– 210. Meyer, R. P. Kirche und Mission, 65– 77.
Moore, W. E. “One Baptism.” NTS 10 (1963–4) 504– 16. Peri, I. “Gelangen zur Vollkom-
menheit. Zur lateinischen Interpretation von Karavraco in Eph 4, 13.” BZ 23 (1979)
269– 78. Porter, C. H. “The Descent of Christ: An Exegetical Study of Eph. 4:7– 11.”
In One Faith, ed. R. L. Simpson. Oklahoma: Phillips University Press, 1966, 45–55.
Rubinkiewicz, R. “PS. LXVIII 19 (=EPH. IV 8): Another Textual Tradition or Tar-
gum?” NovT 17 (1975) 219–24. Schnackenburg, R. “Christus, Geist und Gemeinde
(Eph. 4:1– 16).” In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973, 279–9 6 .———. “Er hat uns mitaufer-
weckt.” Liturgisches Jahrbuch 2 (1952) 159– 82. Smith, G. V. “Paul’s Use of Ps. 68:18 in
Eph. 4:8.” JETS 18 (1975) 181– 89. Steinmetz, F. J. Protologische Heilszuversicht, 117–
21. Theron, F. T. “Christus, die Gees, Kerk en Kosmos volgens Ef. 4:7– 10.” Nederduitse
Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 14 (1973) 214–23. Tromp, S. “ ‘Caput influit sensum
et motum.’ Col. 2, 19 et Eph. 4, 16 in luce traditionis.” Greg 29 (1958) 353–66. Warnach,
V. “Taufwirklichkeit und Taufbewusstsein nach dem Epheserbrief.” Liturgie und Mönch-
 Notes 223

tum 33/34 (1963/64) 36–51. Wengst, K. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristen-
tums. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972, 131–43. Whitaker, G. H. “owappoXoyovpevov Kai
owßißaiöpevov. Eph. iv. 16.” /T S 31 (1930) 48–49. White, L. M. “Social Authority in
the House Church Setting and Ephesians 4:1– 16.” Restoration Quarterly 29 (1987) 209–
28. Williams, R. R. “Logic versus Experience in the Order of Credal Formulae.” NTS
1 (1954–55) 42–44.

Translation

11, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you, therefore, to lead a life worthy of the
calling with which you were called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience,
bearing with one another in love, 3making every effort to maintain the unity of the
Spirit by the bond of peace. 4 There is d one body and one Spirit, just as you were
also called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one
God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.h
7 To each one of us, however, grace has been given in the proportion allotted by
Christ's giving. 8 Therefore it says,
“When he ascended on high, he led a host of prisoners captive, he gavec gifts to
men. ”
9Now, the expression “he ascended ” what does it imply except that he also descendedd
to the lower regions,e to the earth? 10He who descended is himself the one who also
ascended fa r above all the heavens in order that he might fill the cosmos. 11And it
was he who gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers
12fo r bringing the saints to completion, fo r the work of service, fo r the building up
of the body of Christ 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge
of the Son of God, to the mature person f to the measure of the stature of the fullness
of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth by waves,
and gusted here and there by every wind of teaching, by human cunning, by craftiness,
in the scheming of error, 15but rather, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in
every way to him who is the head, Christ, l^from whom the whole body, joined and
brought together by every ligament which gives supply, makes bodily growth, according
to the activity commensurate with each individual part, for the purpose of building
itself up in love.%

Notes

aThe Greek formulation contains no verb and simply begins “one body and one Spirit. . . .”
The words “there is” have been added for the sake of a smoother translation.
bOne variant reading has r\iäv after iräoiv, “all of us,” in line with the first person plural which
follows in v 7; cf. D F G R L ^ 181 326 917 920 itd s vg syrP h goth arm al. Another variant,
preserved in the Textus Receptus, has vulv instead after itcujlv, “all of you,” in line with the second
person plural which has preceded in vv 1,4; cf. 489 Chrysostom Theodoret al. But both are
glosses restricting the reference of “all” to believers, and the reading which omits them has by
far the strongest external support, including p 46 N A B C P 08^ 33 88 104 copsa>1x5 eth.
cSome texts, including Nc B C*>3 D c K P 4* 81 104 181 326 330 436 syrP«h goth arm eth
Origen Victorinus-Rome Chrysostom, have /cat eöojKev, “and he gave.” But this looks like an attempt
to improve the more difficult syntax of the reading without the Kai, which is attested in such
witnesses as p 46 N* A C 2 D* G 33 88 it vg copsa bo Marcion Justin Irenaeuslat Tertullian.
d An important textual variant has irpcbrov after Kare(3tj, “he descended first,” and has been
influential in the history of interpretation o f vv 9,10. The variant is read i n N c B C c K P 4 ' 8 8
104 181 614, the majority of the Latin manuscripts, and Ambrosiaster, and, via the Textus Receptus,
224 E p h e s ia n s (4:1– 16)

is reproduced in the k j v . It is omitted, however, in p 46 N* A C * D G I vid 082 33 81 Irenaeuslat

Clement Tertullian Origen, and thus on the weight of the manuscript evidence it is certainly not
original. Evidently an early copyist felt it necessary to add this interpretative gloss because he
wished to make clear that the descent preceded the ascent, whereas in the original the sequence
of the ascent and descent could be taken either way. In a similar fashion the r s v translation of
Kareßrj as a pluperfect, “he had descended,” is an interpretation which obscures the ambiguity of
the original.
e/nepq is included after rd /carcbrepa by N A B C D c K L P vg arm Chrysostom Theodoret
Augustine but omitted by p 4 6 D* E F G it syrP>h goth eth copsa Irenaeus Theodotus Clement
Origen. The latter reading could well be original (though Harris, “Descent,” 59– 64, considers it
the result of accidental omission), but the variant here makes no substantial difference to the
meaning, since some such term as /uepi? needs to be supplied anyway.
fA literal translation of the Greek et<? ävbpa rekeiov would be “to the mature man,” but the
emphasis of the phrase is not so much on the maleness, as such, as on becoming a mature
person in contrast to the immature children mentioned in the following verse. For further discussion,
see Comment on v 13.
gVv 11– 16 form one long sentence in Greek and this stylistic feature has been retained in
the translation.

Form/Structure/Setting

T his pericope begins the section o f the letter which is one o f the m ost
ex tended pieces o f paraenesis in any o f th e letters o f the Pauline corpus. As
has been n o ted in the Introduction, in E phesians the paraenesis form s an exhorta-
tio, which replaces the argumentatio fo u n d in m ost persuasive discourses. T h e
various elem ents in the build-u p o f the rhetoric to this point—the exordium,
the narratio, th e digressio, an d the transitus, which is a renew ed exordium— all
p erfo rm th eir own function in re m in d in g the readers o f who they are as the
C h u rch in C hrist, b u t they also p re p a re m ost effectively for the exhortatio which
now follows. T h ey secure the audience’s goodwill, inspire them , convince th em
o f the rightness o f the w riter’s perspective on th eir situation, an d dispose them
to carry o u t th e specific injunctions o f this exhortatio.
4:1– 16 as a whole does n o t have a clearly defined form . It begins as a
piece o f paraenesis in tro d u ced by irapaKaXco ovv vpas, “I ex h o rt you th ere fo re .”
T h e participial form s o f the verbs which follow in vv 2b, 3 are also a com m on
featu re o f p araen etic style. B ut, instead o f continuing the paraenesis, th e w riter
is led by his ap peal for conduct characterized by harm ony (vv 1– 3) to ex p an d
on th e th em e o f unity, first in term s o f th e realities on which the C h u rch is
based (vv 4– 6) an d th e n th ro u g h depicting how the diversity o f C hrist’s gifts
to the C h u rch provides for its building u p an d grow th in love an d unity (vv
7– 16). T his expansion m eans th at th e direct exh o rtatio n with which the passage
began tem porarily fades into the background to be replaced by theological
assertion an d has to be rein tro d u ced in v 17 after this trea tm e n t o f the C h u rch ’s
unity has been ro u n d e d off. A fu rth e r indication o f this transition in th e form
is the change from th e second person p lu ral o f direct address (vv 1,4) to the
first perso n p lural o f the later statem ents (vv 7, 13– 15). A lthough th e form
o f direct paraenesis does not shape th e whole passage, the w riter’s depiction
o f the goals o f th e C h u rc h ’s unity a n d m aturity in vv 13– 15 an d o f the p ro p e r
fu nctioning o f the C h u rch as a body in v 16 nevertheless constitutes an indirect
 Form / Structure / Setting 225

appeal to the read ers to play th eir p a rt in enabling the C h u rch to becom e
w hat it should be. T his com bination o f directly paraenetical elem ents an d
m ore discursive m aterial was no t un u su al in epistolary paraenesis. Prescriptive
an d descriptive form s are, for exam ple, often m ixed in Seneca’s epistles (cf.
H. Cancik, Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales [H ildesheim : Olm s, 1967]
16– 17).
T h e expansion o n the them e o f unity reflects, o f course, this w riter’s distinc-
tive interest in th e topic o f th e C hurch. A t the sam e tim e it exhibits elem ents
o f his distinctive style which pervaded the first p art o f the letter. Verses 11–
16 in particular consist o f one long overladen sentence in which prepositional
phrase is piled u p o n prepositional phrase, clauses in troduced by participles
are interm ingled with clauses in tro d u ced by conjunctions, a n d these all culm i-
nate in a com plex relative clause, which itself contains two participles and
five prepositional phrases.
In term s o f its stru ctu re o f th o u g h t, th e passage falls into two m ain parts.
T h e first p art (vv 1– 6) can itself be divided into two sections. It begins with
the ex h ortation to the readers to live w orthily o f th eir calling, an exhortation
g ro u n d ed in th e first p a rt o f the letter a n d one which soon focuses in the
appeal to m aintain the unity o f the Spirit (vv 1– 3). T his leads on to an assertion
o f the unifying realities o f the faith on which such an appeal is based (vv 4–
6), which m akes use o f confessional m aterial. T hese verses are also linked
with th e p receding ones th ro u g h the w riter’s reference in v 4b back to the
calling to which he h ad appealed in v 1. T h e beginning o f the second p a rt o f
the passage (vv 7– 16) an d o f a distinct train o f th o u g h t is m arked by evi 5e
eKaorcp ryxCov. . . , “to each one o f us, how ever, . . .” T his introduces the
note o f diversity in th e distribution o f grace by C hrist to each individual m em ber
o f the C hurch. As becom es clear, this new note does not m ean the ab an d o n m en t
o f the earlier m o tif o f unity. Instead, diversity is seen to contribute to unity,
as the w riter goes on to show th at th e p u rp o se o f the diverse gifts o f C hrist
to the C hurch, particularly the gifts o f apostles, p rophets, evangelists, pastors,
an d teachers, is to build u p the whole body, to enable it to attain m aturity
an d unity (v 13), a unity in which th ere is still an integral role for the individual
(cf. ckcujtov again in v 16). As regards this flow o f th o u g h t, v 11 w ould follow
on quite naturally from v 7, as it takes u p the concept o f giving an d elaborates
on the variety in C hrist’s gift. Verses 8– 10 a p p e a r to com plicate the arg u m en t
unnecessarily. How th en do they fit into its structure? V erse 8, with its citation
o f Ps 68:18, functions as a scriptural confirm ation o f th e notion o f the exalted
C hrist giving gifts with ävaßäs, “h e ascended,” a n d ebuKev Soyara, “he gave
gifts,” as th e key su p p o rtin g term s from each line o f the citation. T h e re th en
follows an in terp re tatio n o f each line. Verses 9, 10, which in m any texts an d
translations are placed in parentheses an d th e n treated by m any com m entators
as a digression with little ag reem en t ab o u t th eir purpose, provide a m idrashic
in terp retatio n an d identification o f th e psalm ’s w ords ab o u t the one who as-
cended. Possibly th e m ost likely explanation for th e details o f the m idrash is
that, since th e psalm m entions only an ascent in connection with giving gifts,
the w riter felt it necessary to show th a t the ascent also im plies a descent in
o rd e r to establish his p o in t th a t th e C hrist who ascended is the giver o f gifts
226 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1–16)

in the C h u rch (cf. Comment on vv 9, 10). In this way the m idrash fulfills a
typical fu nction o f H aggadah, filling o u t possible gaps in th e m eaning o f a
text. T h e identity o f the ascender a n d th e descender having been established,
vv 11– 16 can th en in te rp re t th e second line o f th e citation in v 8, ex p an d in g
first o n th e n atu re (v 11) an d th e n o n the p u rp o se (vv 12– 16) o f the exalted
C hrist’s gifts w ithin th e context o f the whole C hurch. T h e gifts tu rn o u t to
be a variety o f particular people, all o f w hom have m inistries involving som e
form o f proclam ation o f the w ord. T h e re are questions about th e syntax o f v
12 (cf. Comment), b u t its th ree prepositional phrases m ost likely describe th ree
aspects o f th e p u rp o se o f such gifts— th e eq u ip p in g o f others, service, an d
the building u p o f the C hurch. T h e tem p o ral clause o f v 13 fu rth e r defines
this last aspect in term s o f all the C h u rc h ’s m em bers attaining a goal, which
again th ree prepositional phrases explain from th re e different angles—unity
o f faith an d know ledge, m aturity, an d a m aturity which is m easured by the
fullness o f C hrist. As if this w ere n o t en o u g h , th e p u rp o se o f the building u p
o f th e C h u rch an d o f th e gifts in stru m en tal in this process is now elaborated
negatively in v 14 by m eans o f a iva clause, which indicates the n eed to m ove
away from a p resen t im m aturity in the re ad ers’ reception o f teaching, an d
positively in v 15 th ro u g h th e addition o f a participial clause, w hich speaks
o f th eir grow ing u p into C hrist who is th e head. T h e concluding verse, v 16,
consists o f a relative clause, which recalls in sum m ary fashion th e already
m en tio n ed p u rposes o f th e grow th a n d building u p o f the body, the C hurch,
while u n d erlin in g th at these processes have th eir source in C hrist an d th at
they req u ire th e activity o f each p a rt o f th e body.
T h e p araenetic section o f th e letter is in tro d u ced in 4:1 by a particular
form , the parakalō clause, characteristic o f P aul’s letters (cf. 1 T hess 4:1, 10;
5:14; 1 C or 1:10; 4:16; 16:15; 2 C or 2:8; 6:1; 10:1; Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17;
Philem 8– 10). It has been investigated extensively by B jerkelund (Parakalô),
alth o u g h som e o f his analyses a n d conclusions are unsatisfactory (cf. also R.
H asenstab, Modelle paulinischer Ethik [Mainz: G rünew ald, 1977] 73– 80). H e
has isolated a p a tte rn which predom inates in P aul’s usage, consisting o f the
verb in th e first person singular o r plural, followed by th e conjunction ow,
“th ere fo re ,” o r Se, “b u t,” by an object in th e second p erso n p lu ral u/ias, “you,”
frequently in connection with th e vocative dSeX0ot, “b ro th ers a n d sisters,” by
a prepositional ph rase containing e ith er Suz, “th ro u g h ,” with the genitive, o r
ev, “in,” with th e dative, an d by th e co n ten t o f th e ex h o rtatio n expressed by
m eans o f an infinitive o r an im perative o r a Iva clause (Parakalô, 13– 19). H e
has also shown th at a sim ilar form ulation was n o t uncom m on in G reek letters,
particularly in official diplom atic letters w here it indicated an issue o f concern
to th e w riter a n d som etim es followed an expression o f thanksgiving fo r o r
praise o f th e addressee in re g a rd to such an issue (cf. Parakalô, 34–74). As
far as P aul’s letters are concerned, B jerkelund correctly notes th a t the parakalō
clause m arks th e transition to a new section o f the letter, which sets o u t a
m atter o f som e concern to the apostle b u t w hich is n o t necessarily the paraenetic
section (cf. Parakalô, 112–90; cf. also T . Y. M ullins, “Petition as a L iterary
F orm ,” N o vT 5 [1962] 46– 54).
T h e w riter o f E phesians takes u p th e parakalō clause a n d em ploys it, as
 F orm / S tru ctu re / S ettin g 227

Paul h ad d o n e in 1 T hess 4:1 an d Rom 12:1, to begin the m ajor paraenesis

o f the letter (pace B jerkelund, Parakalô, 140, 170, 189, who, on the basis o f
an artificial distinction, argues th at the parakalō clauses in 1 T hess 4:1 and
Rom 12:1 are purely form al epistolary transitions an d n o t actually p a rt o f
the new paraenetic sections which they m ark; he th erefo re claims th at E ph
4:1 dep arts from the earlier Pauline function o f such clauses). T h e re are two
ways, however, in which the form ulation in E ph 4:1 is dissim ilar to the character-
istic Pauline usage. First, unlike m any o f the Pauline references, this verse
does n ot contain th e vocative d5eX0ot (cf. also B jerkelund, Parakalô, 221 n 19;
E. Schweizer [“Z ur F rage d e r E chtheit des Kolosser—u n d des E pheserbriefes,”
Z N W 47 (1956) 287] has arg u ed th at th e overall om ission o f this term in
Colossians an d E phesians is one o f the factors w eighing against the authenticity
o f these letters). Second, unlike m ost o f the uses o f the clause by Paul, E ph
4:1 om its the accom panying prepositional phrase an d instead has such a phrase,
ev Kvpiq.;, “in th e L o rd ,” in connection with th e designation o f the apostle— “I,
the priso n er in th e L o rd ”—w here it underlines the apostolic authority b ehind
the exhortation. B jerkelund (Parakalô, 186) believes this to be a m ajor d e p a rtu re
from au th en tic Pauline usage, since he holds th at in such usage the parakalō
clause always assum es a relationship o f intim acy an d tru st betw een Paul and
his addressees an d is n o t em ployed in a context in which apostolic authority
has to be stressed. B ut th e use at 2 C or 10:1 with the em phatic self-designation
auro? 6e eyco IlaüXos, “B ut I, Paul, m yself,” dem onstrates th a t such a generaliza-
tion ab out th e Pauline m aterial will n o t hold. T h e form ulation in E ph 4:1
can scarcely be said to betray an inadequate know ledge o f the conventions o f
the G reek letter form (pace B jerkelund, Parakalô, 187). R ath er it exhibits
both the continuities an d th e m inor discontinuities one m ight expect from a
follower o f Paul, who wishes to retain a fam iliar featu re from the paraenetic
section o f the apostolic letter as he starts his own paranaesis in the apostle’s
nam e.
In addition to retain in g th e Pauline parakalō form ulation, th e w riter em ploys
o th er traditional m aterial, m uch o f it Pauline, in 4 : 1–16. We shall exam ine
this in th e o rd e r in which it ap pears in this passage. T h e form ulation o f the
initial m ajor ex h o rtation, to walk w orthily o f the calling to which the readers
have been called, is d ep e n d e n t on the ideas an d language o f 1 Thess 2:11, 12,
w here Paul recalls his m inistry am ong the T hessalonians in term s o f exhorting,
encouraging, an d charging them to walk worthily o f God who calls them into
his kingdom an d glory. irapaKaXelv, “to ex h o rt,” Trepmarelp, “to walk w or-
thily,” an d KaXelP, “to call,” featu re in both passages, b u t in Ephesians, in line
with th e earlier reference in 1:18, it is th e call itself ra th e r th an the one who
calls th at receives the em phasis.
In specifying w hat living worthily o f th e call should m ean for the com m unity,
the w riter is, as earlier in th e letter, heavily d e p e n d e n t on Colossians. Most
recently he has m ade use o f Col l:2 3 c - 28 in 3:1– 13 an d o f Col 1:29–2:10 in
3:14– 21. Now th e paraenesis o f E p h 4:1– 5:20 takes u p th at o f Col 3:1– 17
(cf. M erklein, “E ph 4, 1– 5 ,2 0 ,” 194– 210), an d in particular vv 2– 4 o f this
passage take u p Col 3:12– 15. T h e correspondence in the w ording o f the two
passages can be shown as follows:
228 E p h e s ia n s (4:1– 16)

Colossians Ephesians
3 :1 2 ran eivo fp p oovvqv, n p a v n y r a , 4:2 juerd näarjg TaweiPCXßpoovPTis Kai
p a K p o d vp ia v irpavrrjTO^, nera paKpoQvpias
3:13 ävexopevoi äXXrjXojp 4:2 ävexöpevoi äXXrjXcjv
3 :1 4 67Tt 7rafftp Öe t o v t o is t t jp 4:2 ev äyänxi
äyänrjv
3 :1 4 ö e<mp o v v d e o p o s Ti)<; 4:3 ev r<p avp8eap(p rfj<; eiprjvrjs
reXetÖTTTro?
3 :1 5 7? e i p r j v r j t o v X p i a r o v 4:3 6P rep owdeapco Tf)s eiprjprjs
3 :1 5 ct? t)p K a i e K X r / d r j r e 4:4 koOw K a i iKXrfirjre (also 4:1,
rffr KXrpeoJS 779 eKXrfirp-e)
3 :15 ev evi o c o p a n 4:4 ep aco/ua

T h e Colossians passage has been condensed an d its key words taken over in
this w riter’s own com position. It looks as th o u g h , th ro u g h the notion o f calling
in v 1, th e w riter has fastened onto bo th th e idea an d the w ording o f Col
3:15, “you w ere called in th e one body.” T h e n , betw een v 1 an d the intro d u ctio n
o f “one body” a n d the rep etitio n o f th e them e o f calling in v 4, he has woven
to g eth er the m ain term s from th e preceding verses o f Col 3 in th e sam e sequence
in which they are fo u n d there. T his involves red u cin g th e list o f five virtues
from Col 3:12 to th e last th ree an d om itting the exhortation about forgiveness
from Col 3:13. T h e item s om itted h ere are, how ever, draw n on later in the
E phesians paraenesis in 4:32. In the original Colossians paraenesis, Col 3:12–
15 was d e p e n d e n t on the earlier m ajor exh o rtatio n in Col 3:8 – 10 about p u ttin g
off th e old h u m anity an d p u ttin g on th e new. T h a t E phesians only later em ploys
this passage, which h ad com e earlier in Colossians (cf. especially Col 3 :8 – 10
in E p h 4 :2 2–24), an d th at before doing so it selects instead Colossians m aterial
ab out co rp o rate h arm ony an d th en includes a passage about gifts o f m inistries,
which is alto g eth er lacking from Colossians, underlines its m ajor concern with
the C h u rch a n d its unity.
T h e re is discussion w h eth er a n d to w hat ex ten t traditional creedal form ula-
tions are q u o ted in vv 4–6. T h e oneness o f the basic elem ents o f the faith is
set o u t in a series o f acclam ations, which at th e sam e tim e serve as rem inders
to th e read ers o f w hat they already know (cf. also Gnilka, 200). D espite the
sevenfold n a tu re o f these acclam ations, it is highly unlikely th a t vv 4–6 as a
whole are a confession o r hym n com posed by the a u th o r ( pace B arth, 429) o r
th at they constituted an earlier u n it which has sim ply been inco rp o rated here.
A lthough they are difficult to reconstruct with any certainty, it is m ore likely
th at b eh in d th e passage lie one o r two pieces o f creedal m aterial th a t the
w riter has tak en u p in his ow n rhetorical stress o n unity. Verse 4 ap p ears to
be th e w riter’s own form ulation. As we have seen, “one body” com es from
the Colossians passage, o n which vv 2–4 are d e p e n d en t, an d is a distinctive
them e o f th e w riter’s, trea ted earlier in th e letter (cf. 2:16). In th at context, it
was also associated closely with “one S pirit” (cf. 2:18), the phrase which follows
in v 4. It is all th e m ore n atu ra l fo r th e w riter’s th o u g h t here to move from
one body to one Spirit, since he has ju s t m en tio n ed th e unity o f th e Spirit in
v 3, an d since one body an d one Spirit com plem ent each o th e r in 1 C or 12:11–
13, a passage which will influence w hat follows in vv 7– 16. T h e Kaflcos clause
 F orm / S tru ctu re l S ettin g 229

which concludes v 4 does no t fit the style o f creedal m aterial (cf. also W engst,
Christologische Formeln, 141; S chnackenburg, 162), b u t is characteristic o f the
w riter’s own style earlier in the letter, an d it treats th e concepts o f h ope and
calling which are again distinctive concerns o f this w riter (cf. 1:18; 2:12; 4:1).
Verse 5, with its “o ne L ord, one faith, one baptism ” an d its alternation o f
expressions fo r “o n e ”— et?, pia, ev—moves away from the m ore im m ediate
concerns o f th e w riter an d reads m uch m ore like a traditional confessional
acclam ation which h ad its origin in a baptism al setting (cf. S. H anson, Unity,
159–61; M oore, N T S 10 [1963– 4] 514–5; W engst, Christologische Formeln, 142;
Schnackenburg, 162). T h e th ird p a rt o f the acclam ation, “one baptism ,” suggests
this setting, an d in this light “one faith ” is to be seen as the baptism al confession
o f faith in th e one L ord. C onfession is linked with the acclam ation o f Jesus
as L ord an d with faith in Rom 10:9, 10. So it is v 5 th at contains m ost clearly
traditional m aterial, an d it is likely th at its form , th at o f acclam ation, has influ-
enced the w riter’s form ulation in both v 4 an d v 6, w ithout his attem pting to
m ake these verses exact parallels (cf. W engst, Christologische Formeln, 142). T h e
form ulation o f v 6, with its description o f G od as one an d its relating him to
all things th ro u g h prepositional phrases with ttavra, is rem iniscent o f o th er
creedal o r liturgical expressions such as 1 C or 8:6 o r R om 11:36. It may have
been one such tradition fam iliar to the churches o f Asia M inor which has
been used as the climax to this assertion o f the unity o f the faith. Yet it should
n o t be fo rg o tten th at the w riter o f E phesians is him self fond o f expressions
with 7ra?, an d has already d em onstrated his concern to relate C hrist, the C hurch,
and God to all things.
Verses 7– 16, with th eir discussion o f the diversity o f gifts within the one
body o f the C h urch, im m ediately b ring to m ind the sim ilar discussions by
Paul in 1 C or 12 an d Rom 12. T h a t both passages, in fact, influenced this
w riter seems clear from a com parison betw een th eir w ording an d th at o f vv
7, 11– 16 in particular. We have already no ted th at irapaK akcb o w i)p ä sf “I exhort
you th ere fo re ,” in E ph 4:1 occurs earlier in Rom 12:1, w here Paul h ad gone
on to speak o f the one body in 12:4. Rom 12:3, which talks o f each receiving
the p ro p o rtio n o f faith allotted by God, using eicaGTOs, “each,” an d p e r p o v ,
“p ro p o rtio n o r m easure,” an d Rom 12:6, which m entions “gifts th at differ
according to the grace given to us,” are both reflected in E ph 4:7, which
speaks o f grace being given to each one o f us according to the p ro p o rtio n
allotted by C hrist’s giving. T h en , am ong the gifts listed in Rom 12:6–8 are
prophecy, service (SiaKOvia), an d teaching (cf. E ph 4:11, 12). At this point,
however, it is 1 C or 12:28 th at provides the closer parallel, since it talks o f
God placing in th e C hurch not ju s t activities b u t persons, “first apostles, second
p rophets, th ird teachers.” We have already n oted the term inology o f one body
an d one Spirit earlier in the ch a p te r (12:12, 13), an d earlier still th ere has
again been talk o f different gifts (12:4), service (12:5), prophecy (12:10), and
allotting to each one individually (12:11). Interestingly, Paul moves th ro u g h
the sequence, “th e sam e Spirit,” “the sam e L o rd ,” “the sam e G od” (12:4–6)
in precisely the sam e o rd e r as th at in which “one S pirit,” “one L ord,” “one
G od” are placed in E ph 4:4–6. Finally, in term s o f similarities, all th ree passages
p u t a stress on love in the context o f th eir discussion o f the diversity o f gifts
(cf. Rom 12:9, 10; 1 C or 13; E ph 4:2, 15, 16).
230 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1–16)

W hile all th re e passages deal w ith b o th unity an d diversity in th e body, in

1 C or 12 a n d Rom 12 it is on th e diversity th a t P aul’s m ain em phasis is placed,
w hereas in E p h 4 the diversity o f gifts plays a subordinate role to the m ajor
them e o f unity (cf. also Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1973] 105). E p h e-
sians is also distinctive in th a t it does n o t em ploy th e term xäptapa, p re ferrin g
xapts, an d in d ep en d en ce on Ps 68, b o p a ra . O f the th ree passages, it is u nique
in applying th e im age o f the body to th e universal C hurch, in relating the
concept o f C hrist as h ead to th a t o f th e C h u rch as body, an d in seeing specific
m inisters as gifts o f th e exalted C hrist to th e C h u rch (contrast the form ulation
o f 1 C or 12:28 w here God places such persons in th e C hurch). T h e gifts listed
in Rom 12 a n d 1 C or 12 cover a b ro a d e r ran g e o f activities, including adm inistra-
tion, deeds o f m ercy, speaking in tongues, a n d w orking miracles, but, alth o u g h
E phesians recognizes th at all believers are gifted (vv 7, 16), it has narrow ed
its focus. In its concern for the establishm ent o f doctrinal stability, it has placed
g reater em phasis o n leaders w ho are m inisters o f th e w ord an d has ex ten d ed
this category by adding evangelists a n d pastors, w ho are n o t fo u n d in the
o th e r lists. R ath er th a n being a specific gift, 5uiKOvia, “service,” is now m ost
probably a general description o f th e function o f all the m inisters m entioned.
W hereas in Paul apostles a n d p ro p h e ts are p re sen t in the churches, here it is
likely th at they are viewed as belonging to the foundational first generation
o f the C hurch. Unlike the P auline passages, Ephesians also elaborates on the
relation betw een the m inisters it nam es a n d its vision for th e C h u rch as a
whole.
W ithin this second m ajor p a rt o f th e passage th ere are fu rth e r uses o f
traditional m aterial. T h e citation o f Ps 68:18 in v 8 is, o f course, to be counted
as such, b u t th e m idrash p esh er re n d e rin g o f th e text an d its Christological
an d ecclesiological exposition will be discussed in som e detail u n d e r Comment.
A lthough th e co n ten t o f the m ajor section o f this passage is no t paralleled in
Colossians, th at letter has influenced th e language here, particularly in v 16
bu t also in v 14. B ehind the w ording o f v 14 lies Col 2:22, öiöaaKaXtas tow
avOpoMOJV, “h u m an teaching”— to w hich E phesians has ad d ed its ow n im agery
an d in serted a p repositional phrase, so th a t it now speaks o f “every w ind o f
teaching th ro u g h h u m a n cu n n in g ,” nam i äveptp rffr bibaoKaXias ev rfj Kußeiq,
Tcbv avOptOTTOiv. A m uch g re ater p a rt in shaping th e w riter’s form ulation has
been played by Col 2:19 in E p h 4:15, 16. Col 2:19 reads Tr\v Ke(t>a\r}v, ov
new to ocopa 8ia t Gjv atjxJdv Kai ovvdeopcov emxop'qyovpevov Kai ovpßißa£6pevov
av%ei rr\v av^rfaip rod öeoü, “the head, from w hom th e whole body, su p p o rted
an d knit to g eth er th ro u g h its ligam ents an d jo in ts, grows with a grow th th a t
is from G od.” T o this E phesians has ad d ed th e nam e C hrist at the e n d o f v 15
after Ke^aXr), “h ea d ,” an d before th e relative clause in v 16. In this clause it
substitutes ovpappokoyovpepop (cf. E p h 2:21) fo r emxoprjyovpepop, using th e latter’s
cognate n o u n with th e p h rase about ligam ents, which it has m odified by its
characteristic p reference fo r 7ra? with the singular form o f the n o u n — 5uz 7rdar/5
a 0 f}5 rr )5 emxopriyia 5 , “by every su p p o rtin g ligam ent.” By m eans o f such changes,
an d also by m oving this p h rase to a position afte r th e two participles an d
om itting th e accom panying referen ce to jo in ts (ovp&opoi), E phesians gives the
p hrase g reater em phasis th a n in th e Colossians original a n d m akes likely the
in terp re tatio n th a t links this p articu lar im age with the m inisters nam ed in v
 F orm / S tru ctu re / S ettin g 231

11 (see Comment o n v 16). F u rth e r elem ents in E phesians’ redaction o f Colossians

at this p o in t are its use o f 7roieo>, “to m ake,” with “grow th,” instead o f
th at n o u n ’s cognate verb an d its addition o f a n u m b er o f prepositional phrases
at the end, which ro u n d off th e discussion by recalling th e language an d ideas
o f the p reced in g m aterial in vy 7 – 15.
In reg ard to th e setting o f 4:1– 16 in the letter, m ost com m entators recognize
th at th e oΰv, “th ere fo re ,” o f v 1 indicates th a t the paraenesis in general an d
this p a rt o f it in p articular are based on w hat has preceded in the first h alf o f
the letter (pace B jerkelund, Parakalô, 183, who denies any close connection
betw een th e two halves o f the letter). It is no t only this specific connective
b u t also the concept o f calling which points to this relationship. T h e paraenesis
appeals to th e read ers to live worthily o f th eir calling (4:1), a n d th eir u n d e rsta n d -
ing o f aspects o f th a t calling has already been a concern o f the w riter in the
intercessory p rayer-re p o rt (1:18). In fact, chaps. 1– 3 as a whole can be seen
as a thanksgiving for an d re m in d e r o f th e significance a n d privileges o f th eir
calling as p art o f the C hurch. Now the paraenesis spells o u t the way o f life
th at is consistent with such a calling, th e responsibilities th a t m ust accom pany
the privileges. J u s t as in Paul, w here an ethical section o f a letter often builds
on earlier theological reflection (e.g., R om 12:1), so h ere the ethical exhortation
has its fo u n d atio n in the earlier thanksgiving with its didactic function. T h e
“walking,” which is th e com m on m etap h o r for this way o f life used by the
w riter in v 1, has been anticipated by him earlier w hen he rem in d ed his readers
o f the good works which G od h ad p re p a re d fo r them to walk in (2:10) an d
the contrast o f these to the trespasses an d sins in which they had previously
walked (2:2). N u m erous o th e r links u n d erlin e the way in which this first section
o f the paraenesis builds on the co n ten t o f the earlier p a rt o f the letter. T h a t
love is to characterize believers’ living (4:2, 15, 16) has already been m ade
clear from 1:4, 15; 3:17, 19. T h e peace an d unity expected from those who
share th e one Spirit in th e one body (4 :3 ,4 , 13) recalls the discussion and
language o f 2:14 – 18; 3:6. T h e language o f the C h u rch as body an d C hrist as
head (4:12, 15, 16) takes u p th at o f 1:22,23. T h e interrelationship o f the
C h u rch ’s m em bers an d its co rporate grow th (4:15, 16) have already been in
view in 2:21, an d the im portance o f its apostles an d p ro p h ets (4:11) has been
stressed earlier in 2:20; 3:5. T h e goal o f know ledge (4:13) reflects the interests
o f 1:9, 17, 18; 3:18, 19, while ‘’fill” an d “fullness” language (4:10, 13) has been
em ployed in 1:23; 3:19. T h e provision o f grace for believers (4:7) has been a
m ajor em phasis earlier in 1:6, 7; 2:5, 7, 8, an d th eir hope, which is m ade a
focus o f p articu lar atten tio n th ro u g h its links with th e term inology o f calling
rep eated from th e o p en in g verse (4:4), has already been the object o f sim ilar
reflection in 1:18; cf. also 1:12; 2:12. B ut, above all, its m ain them e o f the
C h u rch ’s unity links this pericope with w hat has preceded. F or the w riter, as
we have seen, th e one C h u rch o u t o f Jew s an d Gentiles is bo th a pledge o f
the ultim ate cosmic unity G od will achieve a n d a witness to the hostile cosmic
powers th at G od’s cosmic purposes are already in the process o f realization
(cf. 3:9, 10). If the readers are to em body such a vision in th eir corporate
life, th en it is im perative th at they m aintain th e unity th at was in h ere n t in
the C h u rch ’s creation. D espite these various links with the first h alf o f the
letter, the ex h o rtation o f the second h alf does not, how ever, for the m ost
232 E p h e s ia n s ( 4 :1 – 1 6 )

p art, build directly o r explicitly on w hat has com e before. R ather, the w riter
relies prim arily on th e persuasive force o f w hat has been said to this point,
o n th e stren g th o f the identification he has p ro d u ced in his readers with his
own perspective on th eir identity in C hrist a n d th eir role as the C hurch, so
th at th e ethical im plications will now be accepted as flowing from this perspective
as a whole.
T h e place o f 4:1– 16 in the letter is also significant in relation to the rest
o f the paraenesis. M ajor concepts are trea ted h ere which will be taken u p
again later. T h e exhortation to a “walk” th at is a p p ro p riate to the re ad ers’
calling (4:1) has its negative c o u n te rp a rt in 4:17 in the appeal to cease an
in ap p ro p ria te walk, th at o f the Gentiles, an d is rep eated in 5:2, 8, 15, w here
the ap p ro p riate walk is associated respectively with love, light, an d wisdom.
T h e love to be practiced by all (4:2, 15, 16) reap p ears n o t only in th e general
context o f th e believer’s walk in 5:2, b u t also in the m ore specific context o f
the ho u seh o ld code as th e ap p ro p riate attitu d e o f a hu sb an d to his wife (cf.
5:25, 28, 33). It is also in this latter context in 5:23, 30 th at the h ea d /b o d y
im agery fo r th e relationship betw een C hrist an d the C h u rch (4:12, 15, 16) is
reiterated. T h e im age o f th e body from this earlier pericope has left its m ark
on th e form u latio n in 4:25 ab o u t being “m em bers one o f a n o th e r.” T h e notion
o f tru th (4:15) occurs again in 4:21, 24, 25; 5:9; 6:14, as does th at o f C hrist
as the m easure o r stan d ard (4:13) in 4:20, 21. B ut in a fuller way th a n th at
which can be seen m erely in the rep etitio n o f particular term s, 4:1– 16 serves
as an in tro d u cto ry fram ew ork fo r th e rest o f th e paraenesis. T h e unity, stability,
grow th, an d m aturity w ithin the C hurch, for which it calls, will provide m ajor
resources fo r th e C h u rch ’s attem p t to live distinctively w ithin society, which
is the concern o f the ethical exhortations th at follow. T h e pericope’s stress
on th e role o f m inisters o f th e w ord serves both to assert an d to safeguard
th e authority o f th e C hristian tradition, including its ethical teaching. A ppeal
will be m ade to this as a n o rm fo r the paraenesis in 4:20, 21.
T h e re rem ains the issue w h eth er any particu lar life-setting can be discerned
beh in d th e pro m in ence given to this pericope at the beginning o f th e paraenesis.
T h e re is no clear polem ical th ru st th at w ould enable us to identify specific
o p p o n en ts who th rea ten the C hurch. T h e reference to false teaching in 4:14
is m uch too general an d principial to be used in this way. B ut two obvious
questions still arise o u t o f the text—why its em phasis on unity an d why its
u n d erlin in g o f th e significance o f the role o f the m inisters o f the w ord nam ed
in v 11? T h e questions may be obvious, yet the am o u n t o f data, beyond the
text itself, which is available for shaping th e answers, is sparse. T h e re is a
d an g er o f m aking such answers far m ore specific th a n the co n ten t o f the text
really w arrants. Some scholars believe th e cause o f the exhortation to unity
lies in a situation o f disunity betw een Jew ish C hristians an d G entile C hristians
which the w riter wishes to resolve. Fischer (Tendenz, 79– 94, 201– 2) claims
th at G entile C hristians are arrogantly disparaging Jew ish C hristians an d no
longer allowing th em a place w ithin the C h u rch on th eir own term s, while
M erklein (“E ph 4, 1– 5, 20,” 209) relates this problem m ore closely to the p arae-
nesis an d argues th at G entile C hristian libertinism is constituting the th rea t
to com m unal life with Jew ish C hristians. B ut we have already h ad cause to
deny th at a specific Jew ish C hristian - G entile C hristian problem lies beh in d
 F orm I S tru ctu re I S ettin g 233

the explicit discussion o f G entile C hristians’ relation to Israel earlier in the

letter (see discussion o f 2:11– 22 u n d e r Form I Structure I Setting), an d here th ere
is n ot even any explicit m ention o f eith er G entile o r Jew ish Christians. A call
to unity betw een these ethnic groups simply has to be read into the text.
Fischer (Tendenz, 2 1–39, 2 0 1–2) also has a very specific answ er to o u r second
question. A ccording to him , the m aterial about m inisters has been w ritten
for a post-Pauline situation in which th e attem p t is being m ade to im pose a
hierarchical episcopal stru ctu re on the churches o f the Pauline mission. T h e
w riter wishes to resist this m ove an d to preserve instead the m ore charism atic
ecclesiology o f P aul’s own time. For this reason he recognizes only apostles
an d p ro p h ets as th e foun d atio n o f th e C h u rch an d in this passage com pletely
omits any m ention o f bishops, presbyters, o r deacons. Even allowing for Fischer’s
insistence th at the w riter is concerned to be irenic ra th e r th an polem ical in
setting o u t his alternative, this hypothesis is highly im plausible, since the pastors
who are m en tio n ed ap p e a r to be the equivalent to bishops o r elders. N ow here
else in the letter is th ere the slightest trace o f a tension betw een the ecclesiastical
structures o f the earlier Pauline m ission an d those o f later episcopacy. T h e
only evidence th at can be m arshalled in favor o f it is this arg u m e n t from
silence from v 11.
T o relate any response to the questions about life-setting to the m ore general
situation o f the Pauline churches o f Asia M inor in th e period after the death
o f the apostle is to be less adventurous b u t also to rem ain closer to plausibility.
In this p eriod th e sort o f cohesion p ro d u ced by the presence an d activities o f
the apostle an d his co-w orkers is likely to have largely disappeared, an d this
has affected the sense o f belonging to g eth er am ong the local C hristian groups
(cf. also Fischer, Tendenz, 42– 46; M ussner, 116). So the issues o f church life
th at the w riter o f Ephesians is addressing are how, w ithout the apostle, the
Pauline churches can rem ain unified an d how, w ithout the apostle, they can
rem ain apostolic. His response reveals th a t to his m ind the solutions to these
issues are related. In response to the form er, he exhorts his readers to unity
as he rem inds th em o f the givens o f th at unity (vv 1– 6, cf. also 2:14 – 18;
3:6). In response to the latter issue, he underlines the significance o f the bearers
o f the trad itio n o f the Pauline gospel, who, along with the foundational apostles
an d pro p h ets, now include evangelists, pastors, an d teachers. T hese m inisters
are to be seen as no less th an gifts o f the exalted C hrist to his C hurch, who
will play a vital role both in th e m aintenance o f its unity an d in the preservation
o f its tru e teaching, the apostolic tradition o f the gospel o f C hrist (vv 7– 16,
cf. also 4:20, 21). Since the w riter o f Ephesians him self attem pts such a role,
he presum ably views him self as a teacher in the C h u rch an d the perspective
o f this passage w ould th erefo re also function, like the device o f pseudonym ity,
to lend au thority to his own application o f the Pauline gospel (cf. also M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 395). R ath er th a n taking his discussion o f m inisters as designed
to com bat episcopal developm ents, it should probably be seen as an exposition
pro d u ced in d ep en dently o f such developm ents. Any structure o f m inistry it
presupposes is som ew hat m ore developed th an th at reflected in the Pauline
hom ologoum ena b u t n o t as regulated as th at o f Luke an d the Pastorals with
th eir elders/bishops (cf. Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; 1 T im 3:1, 2, 5; 4:14; 5:17, 19;
T itus 1:5,7), which led eventually to th e m onepiscopacy an d the threefold
234 E p h e s ia n s ( 4 : 1 – 1 6 )

o rd e r o f bishop, presbyters, an d deacons, first m en tio n ed in the letters o f

Ignatius o f A ntioch (cf. also Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1973]
107– 8).

Comment

1 irapaKäko) ovv vpäs, “I ex h o rt you th erefo re. . . .” T h e verb irapaKaXelp

has th ree m ajor senses in its N T usage. It can m ean “to ask fo r help, beseech,
e n tre at,” “to co m fort,” or, as here, “to e x h o rt” (cf. A. G rabner-H aider, Paraklese
und Eschatologie bei Paulus [M ünster: A schendorff, 1968] 4– 30; O. Schmitz
an d G. Stählin, “7rapafcaXeco,” T D N T 5 [1967] 773– 99). As n oted u n d e r Form /
Structure /Setting, the parakalō clause with this last sense is a characteristic featu re
o f P aul’s letters an d has b een taken over with m inor m odifications here. It
expresses a pastoral appeal to the re ad ers’ will a n d actions, an d Paul often
m ade clear th at such an ap p eal derived from th e co n ten t o f his gospel (e.g.,
2 C or 5:20). T h e im peratives o f ethical ex h o rtatio n w ere based on the indicatives
o f th e eschatological salvation in a u g u ra ted in C hrist (cf. also V. P. F urnish,
Theology and Ethics in Paul [Nashville: A bingdon, 1968] 224–27; A. G rab n er-
H aider, Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus; H. Schlier, “Vom W esen d e r apostol-
ischen E rm a h n u n g ,” in Die Zeit der Kirche [Freiburg: H e rd er, 1956] 74–89;
idem , “Die E igenart d e r christlichen M ah n u n g nach dem A postel P aulus,” in
Besinnung a u f das Neue Testament [Freiburg: H e rd er, 1964] 340– 57). As in Rom
12:1, so h ere in E p h 4:1 the ovv, “th ere fo re ,” indicates th at this ethical ex h o rta-
tion has its source in the earlier ch a p te rs’ depiction o f w hat G od has d one in
C hrist fo r h u m an well-being.
eyco ö beopios ev fcvpicp, “I, the p riso n er in th e L o rd ” (cf. 3:1, “I, Paul, the
p riso n er o f C hrist Jesu s,” an d see Comment on th at verse an d discussion o f
th e im age o f Paul as im prisoned apostle u n d e r Form / Structure /Setting o f 3 :1–
13). A sim ilar im age is fo u n d elsew here in post-P auline w ritings (cf. 2 T im
1:8; 2:9; also Acts 16:26; 20:23; 23:29; 26:29, 31). “T h e p riso n er in the L o rd ”
is a som ew hat stylized expression b u t m ay still reflect the notion that, since
for Paul the whole sp h ere o f C hristian living was “in th e L o rd ,” his im prisonm ent
was to be seen as no exception. T h e ph rase functions h ere to lend P aul’s
au thority to th e w riter’s pastoral ap p eal an d to u n d erlin e the seriousness with
which it is in ten d ed . It should be n o ted th a t this explicit featu re o f pseudonym ity
begins an d ends th e paraenetical section o f th e letter (cf. 6:19, 20) b u t does
n o t surface w ithin it.
ä£tco? Ttepvnarfipai rffr Kkrpeco? rfc eKkrßrrre, “to lead a life w orthy o f the
calling with which you w ere called.” T h e relative p ro n o u n in the last clause
has been attracted to the case o f its an teced en t n o u n , an d the use o f a cognate
n o u n an d verb to g eth er continues a stylistic featu re typical o f the first p a rt o f
the letter (cf. 1:3, 6, 19, 20, 23; 2:4; 3:19, 20). O n Trepiirareip fo r a “way o f life,”
see also Comment on 2:2, 10. T his is again characteristic P auline term inology
(cf. 1 T hess 2:12; 4:1, 12; Gal 5:16; Rom 6:4; 8:4; 13:13; 14:15; 1 C or 3:3;
7:17; 2 C or 4:2; 5:7; 10:2,3; 12:18; Phil 3:17, 18; Col 1:10; 2:6; 3:7; 4:5).
d£t0J 5 , “w orthily,” introduces the stan d ard o r criterion to which the re ad ers’
living is expected to conform (cf. Phil 1:27, “w orthy o f the gospel o f C hrist”;
Col 1:10, “to lead a life w orthy o f th e L o rd ”; a n d th e reference closest to o u r
 Comment 235

verse in its w ording, 1 T hess 2:12, “to lead a life w orthy o f th e G od who
calls”). H ere in E phesians the criterion an d the d eterm in in g factor for believers’
living is to be th e call itself. T h e notion o f this call (cf. also 1:18) is sim ilar to
th at fo u n d in Paul, w here it can be used, for exam ple, fo r G od’s activity in
m aking believers’ p redestination effective (cf. Rom 8:30) a n d in b ringing them
into the fellowship o f his Son (1 C or 1:9). H ere the passive form o f the verb
is a “divine passive,” u n d erlin in g w hat is already in h e re n t in th e idea o f the
call: G od’s initiative in bringing hum anity to the goal for which he in ten d ed
it. T h e past tense looks back particularly to the read ers’ reception o f the gospel
an d o f the Spirit, re fe rre d to in 1:13. T h e use o f the language o f calling in
the context o f his ethical appeal indicates th at fo r this w riter G od’s sovereign
initiative an d h u m an responsibility for living appropriately go h an d in hand,
so th at he w ould no t fo r one m o m en t have expected his earlier stress on
predestination an d election (1:3, 4), an d even on G od’s p re p ara tio n o f believers’
good works ah ead o f tim e (2:10), to u n d erm in e the seriousness with which
his ex h ortation was to be taken. T h e appeal to live w orthily o f G od’s calling
presupposes th at G od’s gracious initiative requires a continuous h u m an re -
sponse an d th at his call bestows bo th high privilege an d high responsibility.
(On the relation betw een th e concept o f calling an d ethics in Paul’s theology,
see R. H asenstab, Modelle paulinischer Ethik [Mainz: G rünew ald, 1977] esp.
151– 83.) T h e high privileges o f the call have been delineated in the first p art
o f the letter. Believers have been called into all the blessings o f salvation an d
into experience o f the pow er o f th e G od who raised C hrist from the dead
an d who b ro u g h t them from death to life an d to a share in C hrist’s reign in
the heavenly realm s. T hey have been called into th e new hum anity o u t o f
Jew s an d G entiles, into the new tem ple, the one body (cf. Col 3:15, “called in
the one body”) o f th e C hurch, an d thus called to be p a rt o f G od’s purposes
for cosmic unity. In ex h o rtin g to a way o f life th at corresponds to such a
calling, this first verse provides a fram ew ork designed to ensure th at w hat
follows will n o t be seen as m ere m oral advice b u t as an appeal to the read ers’
experience o f th e theological h ea rt o f the gospel.
2,3 T h e ex h o rtation continues with two prepositional phrases with nera,
“w ith,” an d two participial clauses w ith im peratival force. T his is m aterial which,
as has been noted, builds on Col 3:12 – 15 an d which spells o u t the qualities
necessary fo r those called to be the one body th at exhibits to the powers G od’s
plan for th e unity o f th e cosmos.
ixera ttgkjtjs TanetvoQpoovvTis m i 'npavrryro^, nera ijaKpodvidas, “with all hum ility
an d gentleness, with patience.” T h e 7ras, “all,” which qualifies the first two
ethical qualities is characteristic o f th e w riter’s rhetorical style an d functions
to u n d ersco re th e significance he attaches to these concepts. TaiteivoQfioovvri,
“hum ility,” is literally “lowliness o f m in d ,” an d to be contrasted th erefo re with
being high -m in d ed o r haughty (cf. v\jjrjka fypovew in Rom 11:20; 12:16). As is
frequently observed, hum ility was an attitu d e th at was re g ard e d prim arily nega-
tively in the G reco-R om an w orld a n d associated with contem ptible servility
(e.g., Jo sep h u s, J.W . 4.9.2 § 494; Epictetus, Diss. 1.9.10; 3.24.56). It takes on
positive connotations in Jew ish th o u g h t, how ever, w here it is associated with
the piety o f th e cänäwim, the poor, an d th ere are n u m ero u s O T references to
G od’s activity in bringing dow n the p ro u d an d a rro g an t an d exalting the hum ble.
236 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1–16)

A spirit o f hum ility was also valued at Q u m ra n , e.g., IQ S 4.2 (cf. also W.
G ru n d m an n , “Taneivös” T D N T 8 [1972] 1– 26). In Phil 2:3 Paul describes it
fu rth e r as th e ability to count others as b e tte r th a n oneself an d gives it a
specifically C hristian coloring w hen he illustrates this from the p a tte rn o f C hrist’s
existence (cf. Phil 2:6 – 11). It should be clear th a t this virtue th at is indispensable
for C hristian com m unity (cf. also 1 Pet 5:5) assum es a p ro p e r sense o f self-
w orth, n o t weakness o f character, a n d th a t a p ro p e r evaluation o f oneself is
based on a realization o f o n e’s own d ep en d en ce on the grace o f G od a n d on
the w orth o f o n e ’s b ro th ers an d sisters in his eyes, npavrris, “gentleness,” could
be used in its adjectival form along with “h u m b le” in the LXX translation o f
the category o f the p o o r an d oppressed in th e O T , an d again was a quality
valued by th e Q u m ra n com m unity, e.g., IQ S 2.24; 3.8; 5.3, 25; 11.1 (cf. also
F. H auck an d S. Schulz, “ 7rpaÖ5 ,” T D N T 6 [1968] 645–51). It involves the
courtesy, considerateness, an d willingness to waive o n e’s rights th a t com e from
seeking th e com m on good w ithout being concerned for personal re p u ta tio n
o r gain. Paul recognizes it as a characteristic o f C hrist (2 C or 10:1) an d a
fru it o f th e Spirit (Gal 5:23) an d contrasts his com ing to the C orinthians with
a ro d to his com ing with love in a spirit o f gentleness (1 C or 4:21). T h e Pastorals
also rate this quality highly as one which is to replace any tendency to q u arrel-
som eness in relationships with o p p o n en ts (2 T im 2:24, 25; T itus 3:2). It is
w orth no tin g th at M atthew too expects bo th gentleness an d hum ility from
disciples (cf. 5:5; 18:4; 23:12) an d sees these qualities em bodied in Jesu s him self,
whose invitation is “L earn from m e; for I am gentle a n d lowly in h e a rt” (11:29).
paicpodvpia, “patience,” is literally “long te m p e r” in contrast to a short tem p er
an d can have th e sense o f steadfastness o r forbearance. Since relationships
with o thers are in view, it is the latter sense th a t is relevant here, as th e following
clause also m akes clear. T his ability to m ake allowance fo r o th ers’ shortcom ings,
this tolerance o f o th ers’ exasperating behavior is a fru it o f the Spirit (Gal
5:22) an d again a quality essential fo r com m unal living (cf. 1 T hess 5:14;
also 1 C or 13:4; 2 C or 6 :6 ; Col 1:11). T h e th ree virtues singled o u t h ere
have been taken from the list o f five in Col 3:12, w here they also functioned
in the context o f an appeal for peace a n d harm ony in th e com m unity. T h e
stru ctu re o f th e ex h ortation in E p h 4 m eans th at these virtues are now subordi-
nated m ore distinctively to the th em e o f th e re ad ers’ calling to be the one
body o f th e C hurch.
avexopevot aXkrjKojv ev £ 767177 , “bearin g with o ne a n o th e r in love,” is an am plifi-
cation o f w hat is m ean t by patience. W hen this verb has a personal object,
th at object is expressed in the genitive case—hence aNKr{K(jOV, “o ne a n o th e r”
(cf. BDF § 176 [1] on verbs o f em otion). T h e w riter knows th a t in the m idst
o f tensions an d conflicts the patience re q u ired will n o t be passive resignation
b u t th e positive attitu d e tow ard others th a t he will ex p an d on later in 4:32.
T his type o f ethical ex hortation dem onstrates th at the w riter’s visionary concep-
tion o f the C h u rch an d its role is accom panied by a realism about the problem s
o f com m unity life with its inevitable clashes o f character, attitudes, an d actions.
T o th e straightforw ard “b ear with one a n o th e r” o f Col 3:13 he has ad ded “in
love,” a concept em phasized later a n d in a d ifferent way in Col 3:14, “A nd
above all these p u t on love.” H ere in E p h 4:2 love is seen as th e only m eans
o f C hristian forbearance. B earing with o thers m eans fully accepting th em in
 Comment 237

th eir uniqueness, including th eir weaknesses an d faults, an d allowing them

w orth an d space. It is only the love th at is the pow er o f the new age (cf. Gal
5:14, 22; 1 C or 13), supplied by the Spirit o f th at age (cf. Rom 5:5), th at can
enable one to b ear with others w ithout expectation o f rew ard so th at th eir
concerns weigh m ore heavily th an o n e ’s own desires for personal fulfillm ent
an d peace o f m ind. Via the m ention o f love, the o p en in g exhortation moves
to the them e o f unity th at will dom inate the rest o f the passage. T h e transition
is an ap p ro p riate one, fo r the absence o f love always leads to the loss o f unity.
oirovda$ovre<; rrjpelv rrjv evorrjTa rod nvevf.iaro<; ev rCp ovvSeopcp rffr eipr\vr\<;,
“m aking every effort to m aintain the unity o f th e Spirit by the bond o f peace.”
T his clause is parallel to the previous one in th at it too begins with a participle
an d ends with a prepositional phrase with ev. T h e unity o f the Spirit involves
not the h u m an spirit b u t the Holy Spirit, as v 4 m akes clear, an d is a reference
n ot to the congeniality o f som e social g ro u p in g b u t to the unity which G od’s
Spirit gives an d which is the g ro u n d o f the C h u rch ’s existence. T h e term
eiwrjs, “unity,” occurs in the N T only here an d in v 13 b u t it becom es a
basic C hristian concept later in Ignatius (e.g., Eph. 4.2; 5.1; 14.1; Phld. 2.2;
3.2; 5.2; 8.1; 9.1). So w hereas Col 3:14, 15 re fer generally to love an d peace,
Ephesians distinctively an d m ore specifically speaks o f unity. A lthough this
unity is already given an d is no t th erefo re the re ad ers’ own achievem ent, it
m ust be preserved an d protected. In fact, th e force o f the participle OTTOvdä$ovTes
suggests th at th e m aintenance o f the unity is to be a m atter o f the utm ost
im portance an d urgency—“Spare no effort; m ake it a priority fo r your corporate
life to m aintain th e unity o f the S pirit.” Such an exhortation also m akes plain
th at the unity o f the Spirit is a reality th at is to be dem o n strated visibly.
In com parison with Col 3:14, 15, w here love is the perfect bond an d the
peace o f C hrist is to rule, Ephesians speaks o f “the bond o f peace.” T h e m eans
o f m aintaining an d d em onstrating th e unity o f th e Spirit is th ro u g h peace,
which has a b o n d ing effect. Since Col 3 is the w riter’s source, it is highly
unlikely th at he has consciously tran sfo rm ed speculation about the Logos as
cosmic bon d from Philo (pace Gnilka, 199– 200; Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit
36 [1973] 8 8 ). E arlier C hrist has been depicted as the personification o f peace
who b ro u g h t reconciliation with God a n d reconciliation betw een Jew an d G entile
(2:14 – 18), b u t now believers are to be agents o f peace an d reconciliation w ithin
the com m unity in o rd e r to preserve its unity. Paul h ad treated this practice
o f peace as a fru it o f the Spirit (Gal 5:22; cf. also Rom 8 :6 ; 14:17; 15:13 for
the relation betw een peace an d the Spirit in Paul). T h e a p p ro p riate response
to being called into the situation o f peace an d reconciliation created by the
gospel is a life o f peace an d reconciliation. Living in this fashion binds believers
to g eth er an d thereby m aintains the unity o f the Spirit.
4–6 T h e C h u rch ’s unity, already expressed in term s o f the unity o f the
Spirit, is now asserted th ro u g h a series o f seven acclam ations o f oneness. T hese
fall into two groups o f three, plus a concluding acclam ation o f the one God
with its own fo u rfold repetition o f the w ord “all.” F or discussion o f the use
o f traditional m aterial here, see Form / Structure /Setting. T h e sequence o f th o u g h t
can be said to move from the C hurch, as th e w riter’s m ost im m ediate concern,
on to the C h u rch ’s L ord an d th e n on to G od him self. T his sequence corresponds
to a n u m b er o f the p atterns o f th o u g h t earlier in the letter. B ut the precise
238 E p h e s ia n s (4 : 1 – 16)

sequence is dictated m ore by com positional a n d rhetorical factors th a n by

any deliberate preference for experiential ra th e r th a n logical o rd e r in creedal
form ulation (pace Williams, N T S 1 [1954–55] 42–44). T h e re is a Hellenistic
Jew ish back g ro u n d to form ulations ab o u t oneness in general a n d form ulations
ab o u t th e oneness o f G od (v 6 ) in particular. F or exam ple, 2 Apoc. Bar. 85.14
can state, “T h erefo re, th ere is one law by O ne, one w orld a n d one en d for
all who exist,” while Philo, Spec. 1.67, talks o f th ere being one sanctuary because
th ere is only one God. T h e oneness o f G od was, o f course, a topic in Jew ish
diaspora p ro p a g an d a (cf., e.g., 2 Macc 7:37; Philo, Leg. Alleg. 2.1; Jo sep h u s,
Ant. 5.1. 25 § 97; 8.13.6 § 343; Ag. Ap. 2.23 § 193; Sib. Or. 3.11; 3.629; cf.
also E. P eterson, 'EIΣ Θ EOΣ [G öttingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1926] esp.
141– 48, 254–56). Particularly interesting as parallels are passages which derive
th e unity o f th e Jew ish people from th e oneness o f God. Philo, Virt. 7.35,
asserts th a t “th e highest a n d greatest source o f this unanim ity is th eir creed
o f a single God, th ro u g h which, as from a fountain, they feel a love fo r each
oth er, u n itin g th em in an indissoluble b o n d ” (cf. also Spec. 1.52; 4.159, a n d 2
Apoc. Bar. 48.23, 24, which claims “we are all one people o f the N am e; we,
w ho received one law from th e O n e ”). F or th e w riter o f E phesians also th ere
is a clear link betw een the unity o f th e C h u rch an d the various acclam ations
o f oneness in vv 4–6. T h e behavior fo r which he has called, th e m aintenance
o f the unity o f the Spirit, can now be seen to be th e only consistent practical
expression o f th e foundational unities he en u m erates here. A t the sam e tim e,
by rem in d in g his readers o f these distinctive realities to which they are com m it-
ted, he reinforces b o th the sense o f cohesion he w ants th em to have as m em bers
o f th e C h u rch an d the sense o f th eir distinctive identity vis-ä–vis the su rro u n d in g
society.
ev acopa Kai ev nvevixa, mOcb? m i eKXrjdrjre ev ihql eXmdi rift KXrpeu)^ viiGjv,
“o ne body an d one Spirit, ju s t as you w ere also called to the one h o p e o f
your calling.” It is n o t surprising th a t m en tio n o f the unity o f th e Spirit in v
3 should lead to th e concept o f the one Spirit in v 4. Col 3:15 refers to being
called in the one body, while in 1 C or 12:13 Paul h ad w ritten o f bo th one
body an d o ne Spirit. T h e traditional m aterial associated with baptism in v 5
has probably suggested the acclam ation form . It should be noted, how ever,
th at the w riter has in any case already trea ted each o f th e unities in this first
triad separately in the first p a rt o f th e letter. D esiring to raise his readers*
consciousness o f belonging to the body o f C hrist a n d o f participating in th e
Spirit, b o th o f which are one a n d indivisible, h e first recalls these realities.
See Comment on 1:23 fo r th e body im agery fo r th e C hurch, on 2:14– 16 for
the notion o f th e one body o u t o f th e two fo rm er groupings o f Jew s a n d
Gentiles, an d on 2:18 for the one Spirit.
T h e clause “ju s t as you w ere also called in the one h o p e o f your calling” is
clearly an im p o rtan t one fo r the w riter, since it breaks u p the form o f the
acclam ations an d repeats th e idea o f calling from v 1, w here it provides the
conceptual fram ew ork w ithin which th e rest o f the paraenesis is to be u n d e r-
stood. T h e h o p e o f his calling earlier in the letter in 1:18 is a reference to
the sam e reality as th e h ope o f your calling here. It is sim ply th at the fo rm er
describes it in term s o f the one who calls; the latter, in term s o f those who
are called. B ut w hat is th e relation o f calling, oneness, a n d h o p e presu p p o sed
 Comment 239

by this clause? For th e w riter o f Ephesians, w hen G od calls believers, he calls

them to a p articu lar hope. O nce his read ers w ere separated from C hrist an d
had no real h o p e (2 : 1 2 ), b u t now they can be described as those who have
h o p ed in C hrist (1:12) an d have a h o p e th at is certain because it rests on
G od’s call, G od’s initiative (1:18). W hat th at h o p e ultim ately is can be expressed
in traditional term s in 5:5 as “th e kingdom o f C hrist a n d o f G od,” b u t has
been spelled o u t earlier in 1:9, 1 0 in this w riter’s own m ore distinctive term inol-
ogy as “his good pleasure which he p u rp o se d in C hrist for the adm inistration
o f the fullness o f tim e, to sum u p all things in C hrist, things in heaven and
things on ea rth in h im .” T h e eschatological dim ension to the call can now be
seen to set the ex h ortation to unity in th e C h u rch in a b ro a d er context, since
it recalls th e cosmic unity which is th e goal o f the salvation God provides in
Christ. T h e em phasis on realized eschatology in E phesians has not m ean t a
break with th e “apocalyptic” h ope o f P aul’s gospel. T h e one h ope o f E phesians
is n o t som ething individual an d private b u t corporate an d public, hope for a
cosmos th at is unified an d reconciled, a w orld in which everything is b ro u g h t
to g eth er in harm o ny th ro u g h th a t which G od has do n e in C hrist. T his hope
has already been related to th e C h u rch an d its unity in 3:9, 10, w here, as we
have seen, th e existence o f the C h u rch is G od’s an n o u n c em en t to the principali-
ties an d powers in the heavenly realm s th a t he is going to m ake good on his
m ultifaceted an d wise plan for cosmic unity. T h e C h u rch is depicted as providing
the powers with a tangible re m in d e r th at th eir authority has been decisively
broken an d th at everything is going to be u n ited in C hrist. It can play this
role because it is th e one new hum anity in place o f two (2:15) an d th e one
body (2:16). F or this w riter the existence o f th e C hurch, in which the basic
alienation betw een Jew an d G entile h ad been overcom e, is a pledge th at the
one h o p e in its full cosmic scope will also be b ro u g h t into being. T h e one
h ope is an ap p ro p riate reality with which to u n d erg ird th e call to m aintain
unity, because it is ho p e w hich, in giving m en a n d w om en a sense o f expectancy,
directs an d unifies th eir actions. T h e w riter recognizes th a t w hat his readers
ho p e fo r in th e e n d will d eterm in e w hat they practice in th e present. T h e
one hope o f final cosmic unity is th erefo re m ean t to produce the u rg e n t effort
to m aintain an d d em onstrate the anticipation o f this in the C hurch.
el? #o;pi0 9 , (da mart?, iv ßannona, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism .” In
the G reek th ere is a striking change from the m asculine to the fem inine to
the n e u te r o f th e nu m eral one, which gives the whole triad a ringing quality.
O n an original baptism al association for this triad, see Form /Structure /Setting.
“L o rd ” was a favorite title for C hrist in Paul, who shared with the earliest
C hristians th e affirm ation o f Jesu s as L ord on th e basis o f his resurrection
an d by virtue o f his exaltation (cf., e.g., 1 C or 8 :6 ; 12:3; Rom 10:9; 14:8,9;
Phil 2:9– 11). T h e tran sfer o f this title fd>pio? from Y ahw eh to C hrist is likely
to go back to G reek-speaking believers in earliest Palestinian C hristianity (cf.
especially J. A. Fitzm yer, “T h e Semitic B ackground o f the New T estam en t
Xynos-T itle,” A Wandering Aramean [Missoula, M T: Scholars Press, 1979] 115–
42; idem , “New T estam en t Kyrios a n d Maranatha a n d T h e ir A ram aic Back-
g ro u n d ,” in To Advance the Gospel [New York: C rossroad, 1981] 218–35). For
Ephesians, C hrist is the one L ord who fills all things with his sovereign rule
(1:23; 4:10) an d who, as the head, has been given to th e C h u rch (1:22; 4:15, 16).
240 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1–16)

In connection with baptism , th e “o ne faith ” is likely to have in view the

baptism al confession o f Jesus as L ord, so that, as the m ajority o f com m entators
hold, its prim ary reference w ould be to th e co n ten t o f faith, the unifying
belief in th e one Lord. Faith also has the m eaning o f th at which is believed
later in th e passage in 4:13 (cf. also Col 1:23; 2:7). T h e “one baptism ” is
w ater baptism , th e public rite o f confession o f the one faith in the one Lord.
T his baptism is one, n o t because it has a single form o r is adm inistered on
only o ne occasion, b u t because it is th e initiation into C hrist, into the one
body, which all have u n d erg o n e a n d as such is a unifying factor. T h e connection
betw een baptism an d unity is also to be fo u n d in Paul (cf. Gal 3:27, 28;
1 C or 12:13). T h e absence o f th e eucharist from this series o f seven unifying
factors is often noted. It is n o t particularly significant, since the w riter was
n o t attem p tin g to be com prehensive, a n d m ention o f the eucharist n eith er
fo rm ed p a rt o f th e traditional m aterial he uses n o r fits th e rhetorical p attern
he builds u p from th a t m aterial.
el? 0eo? m i irarrip iravrcov, 6 eni ttovtojv Kai Siä nävrojv Kai ev iraaiv, “one G od
an d F ath er o f all, who is above all a n d th ro u g h all an d in all.” B ehind this
acclam ation lies th at o f Paul in 1 C or 8 :6 , which was in tu rn a C hristian m odifica-
tion o f th e Shem a o f D eut 6:4. It contains the characteristically C hristian way
o f speaking o f th e one G od as F ath er (cf. also Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). H ere in
E phesians it is basically an affirm ation o f bo th G od’s suprem e transcendence,
“above all,” an d his pervasive im m anence, “th ro u g h all an d in all.” A n u m b er
o f scholars p re fe r to take the “all” references as m asculine ra th e r th a n n e u te r
an d th erefo re as d en o tin g those in th e C h u rch , holding th a t the preceding
context o f a discussion o f th e C h u rch ’s unity requires th at any original cosm olog-
ical m ean in g has now been tran sferre d to believers (cf. M eyer, 201; A bbott,
109; S. H anson, Unity, 155; M asson, 187; Schlier, 189; Ernst, 349; M itton,
143; M ussner, 120; Schnackenburg, 170). B ut E phesians does no t com pletely
collapse cosmological categories into ecclesiological ones, an d it may well be
b etter to take “all” as n e u te r an d as co ntinuing its cosmic connotations from
1 :1 0 ,2 2 ,2 3 ; 3:9, which will also occur in 4:10 (cf. also J. A. R obinson, 93–
94, 179; H o u ld en , 309; Gnilka, 204; B arth, 471). F orm ulations about G od
which use “all” have a cosmic reference in Paul (cf. 1 C or 8 :6 ; 15:28; Rom
11:36), an d th e elaboration on th e universal fa th e rh o o d o f G od earlier in
E ph 3:14, 15 surely tips the balances against restricting the scope o f th at fa th e r-
hood here. F orm ulations relating G od to all things m ay well have been m ediated
to the C hristian com m unity via th e Hellenistic synagogue from Stoicism (cf.
M arcus A urelius addressing N atu re in Medit. 4.23, etc gov navra, ev ool navra,
et? oe iravra, “All things are from you, all things are in you, all things are to
you”; an d fo r fu rth e r discussion o f the notion o f G od perm eatin g all things,
see Comment o n 1:23). T h e G od acclaim ed by believers is the universal F ath er
who is at w ork th ro u g h o u t his world. T his confession o f the one universal
God m eans that, despite its distinctiveness from the w orld which will be stressed
later in the paraenesis, th e C hurch continues to exist fo r th e world. T h e w riter’s
prim ary p u rp o se m ust, how ever, not be forgotten. T h e climactic acclam ation
o f the one G od in his universality is m ean t to provide the m ost p ro fo u n d
g ro u n d for th e C h u rch ’s unity. Paul him self h ad reflected on the significance
o f G od’s oneness for the unity o f Jew a n d G entile in Rom 3 :2 9 ,3 0 . As we
 Comment 241

noted above, this is sim ilar to Jew ish th o u g h t in which m onotheism was seen
as the source o f Israel’s unity (cf. S. H anson, Unity, 5– 23; W. A. Meeks, The
First Urban Christians [New H aven: Yale University Press, 1983] 165–68). For
Ephesians, it is no longer Israel, n o r i$ it th e w orld with its alienations and
divisions, b u t it is the C h u rch th a t is th e expression o f G od’s unity. T h e re is
an obvious corollary to such a notion. W hen the C hurch fails to m aintain
and express unity, it radically un d erm in es the credibility o f its belief in the
one God.
7 'Evi 8e eKäorco r\pQv eöödr} r\ xäpis Kara ro perpov rift Scopea? tov Xpiarov,
“T o each one o f us, however, grace has been given in th e p ro p o rtio n allotted
by C hrist’s giving.” T his verse begins the second p a rt o f the overall discussion
on unity by so unding the note o f diversity in C hrist’s distribution o f grace.
W hereas “o n e” h ad been used in vv 4– 6 to signify unity, now it is em ployed
to refer to the individuals who m ake u p th a t unity. T h e verse also m arks a
change o f style from th e earlier direct address with “you” to the m ore inclusive
“we,” which, as previously, denotes the w riter’s identification with all his readers
(contra M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 62, who holds th at the w riter is identifying
him self with th e m inisters n am ed in v 11). P erhaps the key concept in the
flow o f th o u g h t is th at o f giving. It is this which sparks off the Scripture
citation an d which provides the link betw een v 7 an d v 1 1 (cf. “has been
given,” “C hrist’s giving” [v 7], “he gave gifts” [v 8 ], an d “it was he who gave”
[v 1 1 ]). T h e citation an d th e accom panying m idrash in vv 9, 10 underline
th at it is C hrist who is the giver o f gifts, an d vv 11– 16 spell o u t the n atu re
and role o f those gifts. Since with his reference to grace here the w riter has
in view its outw orking in a variety o f ways in individual believers, it is equivalent
to the use o f xaptapa in 1 C or 12:4 an d Rom 12:6. T h e unity o f the C hurch,
which has been p ro m in en t to this point, is now show n to be th a t o f an organism
in which C hrist’s sovereign distribution o f grace produces the diversity. In
the parallel passage in 1 C or 12:4, th e charism ata are explicitly said to be
from the Spirit. Elsewhere in th e N T Scoped, “gift,” can re fer to the Spirit (cf.
Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17). Yet here the term involves a m ore general
reference to th e exalted C hrist’s giving o f grace, th o u g h this, o f course, w ould
n o t exclude th e S pirit’s agency. Previously, grace is said to have been given
to the apostle for his m inistry to th e G entiles (cf. 3:2, 7, 8 ), b u t now it can be
said to be given to each individual believer, n o t sim ply for his o r h e r own
sake b u t for th e good o f th e whole, as th e passage will go on to show. T h e
gifts in the form o f m inisters specified in v 11 illustrate the variety in C hrist’s
giving an d are accorded special significance. B ut despite the closely knit structure
o f the a rg u m e n t in vv 7– 11, w hereby v 1 1 in terp rets the scriptural citation
which su pports v 7, these m inisters are n o t in ten d ed to delim it the reference
to “each one o f us” in v 7 (contra E ngelhardt, TSK 44 [1871] 113; Schlier,
191; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 59–60; M ussner, 122; S chnackenburg, “C hris-
tus,” 290– 91, th o u g h his later com m entary, 177– 78, reverses this position).
T h e difference in em phasis betw een v 7 an d v 11 is n o t to be ignored. In the
form er, grace is said to be given by C hrist to each; in the latter, those nam ed
are them selves C hrist’s gifts to th e C hurch. T h e variety o f the operation o f
grace in individuals is to be traced to th e sovereign way in which the exalted
Christ app o rtio n s his giving—“in th e p ro p o rtio n allotted by C hrist’s giving”
242 E p h e s ia n s ( 4 : 1 – 1 6 )

(cf. th e sim ilar concepts in R om 12:3 w here G od m easures o u t different degrees

o f faith an d 1 C or 12:11 w here it is the Spirit w ho sovereignly distributes the
various charism ata). T h a t th e differing p ro p o rtio n s o f grace are p a rt o f the
overall p u rp o se o f enriching th e whole body will be b ro u g h t o u t in v 16,
w here th e term perpo? recurs a n d w here grow th is said to take place “according
to the activity ap p ro p riate to each individual p a rt.”
8 5io Xeyei, “th ere fo re it says.” T h e w riter finds su p p o rt fo r his statem ent
ab out C hrist’s giving in Ps 68:18 (LXX 67:19; M T 68:19), which he introduces
with this form ula. T h e sam e introductory form ula ap p ears in 5:14 w here it
p rep ares fo r th e citation from a hym n, Xeya is used elsew here in the Pauline
writings with scriptural citations in Gal 3:16 a n d Rom 15:10. T h e m ost likely
im plied subject is S cripture itself. T h e form ula r) ypaQri Xeyei, “S cripture says,”
does occur six tim es in th e Pauline corpus (Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; Gal
4:30; 1 T im 5:18), although elsew here G od can be the subject (Rom 9:15; 2
C or 6:2, 16) o r a psalm can be in tro d u ced with “David says” (Rom 4:7, 8 ;
11:9, 10 which in fact cites Ps 6 8 ). In any case, in th e P auline w ritings “it
says,” “S cripture says,” “G od says,” an d “David says” are only different ways
o f saying th e sam e thing, th at is, th at th e qu o ted words have divine authority.
’Ai>a(3d? ei? in//o?, “w hen he ascended o n h ig h .” T h e V aticanus text o f the
LXX already has th e aorist participle instead o f the second person singular
o f the aorist tense, an d this m ore easily p rep ares the way fo r the alteration
from th e second person singular o f the original to the th ird p erson in the
rest o f th e citation. T h e original referen ce o f the statem ent in the psalm was
to Y ahw eh’s triu m p h a n t ascent o f M ount Zion afte r he h ad delivered his people.
In th e light o f his earlier discussion o f C hrist’s exaltation in 1:20–22, the w riter
can expect his read ers to u n d ersta n d readily his Christological application o f
th e psalm ’s language.
O nce it is seen th at the language o f ascent is derived from the O T citation,
it will be ap p reciated th at this passage is n o t the m ost ap p ro p ria te for ascertain-
ing the w riter’s aw areness o f an ascension trad itio n in the sense o f the Luke-
Acts accounts, th o u g h he clearly held th a t the language o f ascent could be
applied to the resu rrectio n-exaltation com plex o f events on which he focuses
(cf. G. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu [M unich: Kösel, 1971] 87).
XiXixdkojTewev aix^dkoxjiav, “he led a host o f prisoners captive.” T h e person
o f th e verb h ere has been changed from second to th ird in this cognate accusative
expression. Since it is the triu m p h a n t ascent an d th e gifts which particularly
interest the w riter as parallels, he does n o t develop explicitly the concept o f
leading captive a host o f prisoners. H ow ever, such a concept certainly fits the
earlier depiction o f C hrist’s exaltation over the pow ers in 1:21, 22, which these
words from th e psalm m ay well have con ju red u p again (cf. also Col 2:15).
eScoKeu Sößara rot? dp0 pco7rot?, “he gave gifts to m en .” T his is w here th e m ajor
m odification o f th e LXX text has taken place so th a t in fact eXaße?, “you re -
ceived,” in th e original has becom e edcoKev, “he gave.” It has been held th at
this m odified form o f th e text closely follows the Syriac Peshitta, b u t the reading
at this p o in t in th e Peshitta m ay be a co rru p tio n , which m akes its value as
evidence precarious (cf. L indars, Apologetic, 52 n. 2). M ore significant, however,
is the fact th at in th e T a rg u m on the Psalms the concept o f receiving has
been ch an g ed to th at o f giving in th e sam e way as in E ph 4 :8 – “You have
ascended to heaven, th a t is, Moses th e p ro p h e t; you have taken captivity captive,
 Comment 243

you have learn t th e words o f the T o ra h ; you have given it as gifts to m en .”

Since the T arg u m on the Psalms is a late work, it is probable th at the w riter
has m ade use o f an ancient rabbinic tradition which th e T arg u m has also
preserved (pace Rubinkiewicz, N ovT 17 [1975] 219–24, who argues for direct
use o f an original sh o rter version o f the T arg u m , b u t whose evidence for
this from T. Dan 5.10, 11 will n o t b ear the w eight he places on it). It is also
probable th at this tradition has in terp re ted the H ebrew Tip1?, lāqah, “to take,”
ra th e r th an reflected a variant textual tradition which h ad p7Tl, hālaq, “to
distribute.” (For a careful exam ination o f the likely date o f the tradition p re -
served in th e T arg u m , see H arris, “D escent,” 92 – 194.) T h e tradition has been
taken over by this w riter an d in corporated into a m idrash p esher re n d erin g
o f the text in which he integrates his exposition o f its m eaning in the light o f
fulfillm ent in C hrist into the actual quotation, a p ro ced u re which is, o f course,
n ot un u su al in th e contem porary Jew ish exegetical techniques or elsew here
in the use o f th e O T in th e N T (cf. also Lindars, Apologetic, 53; Ellis, Paul's
Use of the OT, 144; pace M itton, 145–46, who surprisingly finds it h ard to
believe a C hristian w riter w ould deliberately change a text o f S cripture to
su p p o rt his own contention).
T his use o f Ps 68:18 in re g ard to C hrist is in contrast to the use m ade o f
it in rabbinic tradition w here it could re fe r to an ascension to heaven by Moses
(cf. the T arg u m ; Midr. Těhillîm on Ps. 68.11; 5Abot R. Nat. 2.2a; and for an
extensive discussion o f th e traditions o f M oses’ ascent in a variety o f sources
cf. also H arris, “D escent,” 110– 92). Ps 68:18 was linked with Moses going u p
Sinai an d in terp re ted as an ascent to heaven to receive no t only the T o ra h
bu t also o th er heavenly secrets. T h e “Moses mysticism” with which this in te rp re -
tation o f th e psalm is to be associated was w idespread. It can be fo u n d elsew here
in the rabbinic writings (e.g., Midr. Těhillîm on Ps 24:1 an d Ps 106:2; b. Šabb.
8 8 b) an d in Philo (e.g., Quaest. Ex. 2.40, 43; Mos. 1.158; Poster. 14; Somn. 1.186–
8 8 : cf. also W. Meeks, The Prophet-King [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967] 122– 25, 205–
9). A lready Philo h ad used this tradition to speak to H ellenistic cosmological
concerns, an d it is possible th a t it was c u rre n t in the religious syncretism o f
Asia M inor an d used to su p p o rt a p en c h an t fo r heavenly visions. If this were
the case, the w riter m ight be relating C hrist to the sim ilar interests o f his
readers an d in a “new M oses” typology show ing th at C hrist has provided a
link with th e heavenly w orld th at could n o t be m atched by Moses (cf. J. Jerem ias,
“Meoixrffr,” T D N T 4 [1967] 848– 49; C am bier, N T S 9 [1963] 265; Ernst, 351;
A. T . H anson, New Testament Interpretation, 137). As a g reater th an Moses,
C hrist has ascended far above all heavens in o rd e r to fill all things (cf. v 10).
His gift is n o t th e T o ra h b u t his grace (v 7). N or are his various special gifts
heavenly secrets for the en lig h ten m en t o f a few b u t people whose m inistries
will build u p th e whole body (vv 11– 16).
T h e application o f Ps 68:18 to C hrist’s ascent an d his distribution o f gifts
by th e Spirit m ay well have been aided by the psalm ’s association with Pentecost
(cf. C aird, “D escent,” 544; Kirby, Ephesians, 138– 39, 146; H arris, “D escent,”
195– 234, who provides the m ost th o ro u g h evaluation o f the evidence). As we
have seen, th e psalm citation was connected with Moses an d the giving o f the
law, an d Pentecost, besides celebrating harvest, was m ore an d m ore com ing
to be re g ard ed as the feast which com m em orated th e law-giving at Sinai. T h ere
is good reason to believe th at this association existed from the m iddle o f the
244 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1 – 16)

second century b . c . e . T h e Book of Jubilees, which is usually dated betw een 135
an d 105 b .c . e ., m akes Pentecost o r th e Feast o f W eeks th e m ost im p o rtan t o f
the an n u al festivals in th e Jew ish liturgical year, associating it with the institution
o f the various covenants in Israel’s history b u t above all with the covenant at
Sinai (cf. 1.5; 6.11, 17; 15.1– 24). T h e Q u m ra n com m unity followed the calendar
o f th e Book of Jubilees an d celebrated an an n u al renew al o f the covenant, in
all probability com bining it with the an n u a l renew al o f th e m em bers’ own
oath o f en try into the com m unity which took place at Pentecost (cf. IQ S 1.7–
2:19; cf. also J. van G oudoever, Biblical Calendars [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959]
139– 44; B. Noack, “T h e Day o f P entecost in Jubilees, Q u m ra n an d Acts,”
A S T I 1 [1962] 73– 95; Kirby, Ephesians, 61– 69). A dditional evidence is available
from th e synagogue liturgy, which may have been in existence at the tim e o f
the w riting o f E phesians. In the triennial cycle o f readings, both Exod 19, 20
an d N um 17, 18 w ere read at Pentecost, while according to the Megilla (b.
Meg. 31a), rep resen tin g the tradition w hich replaced the triennial cycle, the
psalm s for th e day were 29 a n d 6 8 (cf. G oudoever, Biblical Calendars, 201;
C aird, “D escent,” 54 n. 1; Kirby, Ephesians, 92– 94). T o g e th e r with these factors,
the two central them es o f the C hristian in terp re tatio n o f the psalm citation,
the exaltation o f C hrist an d his distribution o f gifts, suggest th at Pentecost
lies in the b ackground o f th e citation’s use here. It is also w orth noting th at a
n u m b er o f scholars hold th at Ps 68:18 lies b eh in d Acts 2:33 (cf., e.g., H. J.
C adbury, “T h e Speeches in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 5, ed.
F. J . Foakes Jackson an d K. Lake [London: M acm illan, 1933] 408– 9; G. Kretsch-
m ar, “H im m elfah rt u n d Pfingsten,” ZKG 6 6 [1954 – 55] 209–53; Lindars, New
Testament Apologetic, 42– 45; J. D upont, “Ascension d u C hrist et d o n de l’Esprit
d ’apres Actes 2:33,” Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. B. Lindars an d
S. S. Smalley [C am bridge: CUP, 1973] 219– 28; H arris, “D escent,” 219– 33).
9 ,1 0 to de 'Aveßq r i eon v ei /lit) o n Kai Kareßr] eis rä Kar corepa rffr y fft, “Now,
the expression ‘h e ascended,’ w hat does it im ply except th at h e also descended
to th e lower regions, to th e earth ?” W h e th e r the Christological m idrash o f
these verses fits the arg u m e n t o r w h eth er it is to be ju d g e d m erely as an
in terru p tio n o r digression dep en d s on how its details are in te rp re te d an d in
p articular on th e reference o f the descent which is in troduced into the discussion.
As can be seen from the discussion o f th e text u n d e r Notes, this question o f
the reference o f th e descent can be ap p ro ach ed w ithout prejudice ab o u t its
tem poral relation to an ascent (contra L indem ann, Aufhebung, 85 n. 110). A
good case can be m ade for each o f th ree m ain in terp retatio n s—a descent into
H ades, the descent o f th e preexistent C hrist in his incarnation, an d the descent
o f the exalted C hrist in th e Spirit. (O n th e history o f in terp re tatio n o f the
descent, see H arris, “D escent,” 4 – 48.)
(1) A descent into H ades (E nglehardt, TSK 44 [1871] 128; M eyer, 213– 14;
J. A. R obinson, 180; B enoit, R B 46 [1937] 348; F. Büchsei, “#carcj,” T D N T 3
[1965] 641– 42; O deberg, View of the Universe, 17, 18; Schneider, “/uepo?,” T D N T
4 [1967] 597–98, who was convinced by B üchsel’s article an d changed the
view he h ad expressed in “ävaßaivco,” T D N T 1 [1964] 521– 22; J. D. G. D unn,
Christology in the M aking [London: SCM, 1980] 186– 87; A. T . H anson, New
Testament Interpretation, 135–50). T his in terp re tatio n is som etim es associated
with th e traditional doctrine o f a descensus ad inferos o r som etim es, as in the
 Comment 245

m ore appealing case m ade by Büchsei, seen simply as a reference to C hrist’s

death. It is held by som e th at if ra mroyrepa 7–779 7775, “the lower regions [of]
the e a rth ,” is to be in genuine contrast with vnepavoo navroiv tojv ovpavQv,
“far above all th e heavens,” this requires a reference to an underw orld. B ut
the contrast in these verses appears to be betw een an ascent to heaven an d a
descent from heaven, while th e descent involved in th e traditional view o f a
descent into H ades is n o t so m uch from heaven b u t from ea rth to the underw orld
o r the realm o f th e dead. Besides, if the w riter h ad h ad th ree levels in m ind
an d m ean t th at C hrist descended to th e deepest level ju s t as he ascended to
the greatest height, he w ould have been m ore likely to have used a superlative
th an a com parative. In fact, the psalm passages (63:9 an d 139:15) which talk
about the un d erw orld as the dep th s o f th e ea rth are translated in the LXX
by the superlative rd Karcorara 7775 7775, no t by the com parative. In addition,
a th re e-story cosmology does n o t fit the worldview we en co u n ter elsew here
in Ephesians, w here the cosmos is seen as simply having two m ain parts—
heaven an d earth. T his in terp re tatio n can how ever appeal to a Pauline passage,
Rom 1 0:6,7, w here ascent into heaven is contrasted with descent into the
abyss, which is explicitly said to be b ringing C hrist u p from the dead. In the
Rom ans passage, P aul’s in terp re tatio n o f th e O T also has similarities with a
T arg u m on th e passage, which speaks about Moses ascending to heaven to
receive the law. B ut while the use o f Karaßaiveiv, “to descend,” in Rom 10:6, 7
dem ands a referen ce to C hrist’s death, this is by no m eans tru e o f E ph 4:9, 10
(cf. also 1 T hess 4:16 w here the verb refers to C hrist’s parousia). In fact, it is
quite difficult to see how such a descent into H ades could be logically deduced
from C hrist’s ascent, which, after all, ap p ears to be the force o f the arg u m en t
here. If the m idrash has any particular reason for stressing the identity o f
the descender an d the ascender, again on this in terp re tatio n it is h ard to see
w hat th at is.
T h e objections to this in terp re tatio n constitute som e o f the reasons why
m any scholars have held th at it is preferable to take 7779 7775, “the e a rth ,” as a
genitive o f apposition which fu rth e r defines th e preceding noun. T his gram m ati-
cal featu re occurs a n u m b er o f times in E phesians (cf. 2:14, 15, 20; 6:14, 16, 17).
O n this view th e lower regions are n o t the lower parts o f the ea rth b u t ra th e r
the lower parts o f the cosmos, th at is, the earth , an d the w riter is speaking o f
a descent to th e earth. T hose who agree with this point can su p p o rt eith er o f
the following views, which differ not on the local b u t the tem poral reference
o f the descent. (For a fuller discussion o f the syntax o f th e genitive phrase,
see H arris, “D escent,” 65– 78.)
(2) T h e descent o f the incarnation (cf. Percy, Probleme, 273– 74; C am bier,
N T S 9 [1963] 262– 75; Schlier, 192– 93; G augier, 172; H. T ra u b , “o u p a w ,”
TD N T 5 [1967] 525; Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1974] 94– 95; Gnilka,
209; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 6 8–69; E rnst, 352; M itton, 147–48; L inde-
m ann, Aufhebung, 84–8 6 ,2 1 8–21; M ussner, 123; Christus, 2 8 ,4 1–44; Schnacken-
burg, 180– 81; idem , “C hristus,” 288–89; while B ieder, Vorstellung, 89; an d
B arth, 433– 34, w ant to include a reference to the crucifixion w ithin this in te rp re -
tation). T h e in terp re tatio n which takes th e reference o f the descent to be a
p rio r descent in th e incarnation has th e advantage o f following the o rd e r in
the original m ean ing o f the psalm . T h e descent to be in ferred from the ascent
246 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1 – 16)

o f Yahweh to M ount Zion w ould be th a t o f his first descent to deliver his

people an d triu m p h over his enem ies before going u p to his dwelling place.
O n this view, th e passage can be seen as a typical instance o f a descent-ascent
Christology to be fo u n d elsew here in th e N T , especially in th e F o u rth Gospel
(cf. J o h n 3:13; 6:62), b u t also re p resen te d in Paul by th e hum iliation-exaltation
m otif o f th e hym n in Phil 2:6– 11. W hen asserted o f C hrist, “he ascended”
could certainly im ply a previous descent, yet it is h a rd to see w hat th e w riter’s
p o in t in stressing this w ould be— “th e expression ‘he ascended,’ w hat does it
im ply except th a t h e also descended?” T his stress could be n o th in g m ore th an
a convenient rhetorical way o f in tro d u cin g the descent, which, since the psalm
does n o t explicitly m ention th e M essiah, will h elp to identify its subject as
Christ. Yet this identification seems to be an obvious one p resu p p o sed by the
very use o f th e citation. It ap p ears strange to have to spell it o u t in this ra th e r
to rtu o u s fashion, th o u g h , as we have seen, this w riter is n o t the m ost econom ical
with words. T his ex planation also presupposes th a t the reference o f th e descent
will be obvious to th e read ers a n d will h elp th em to identify the less obvious
ascent. B ut is this th e case? Does n o t th e w ording o f v 9 suggest th at the
ascent is the know n factor from which th e descent, as a less obvious elem ent,
is to be inferred?
(3) T h e descent in th e Spirit (cf. H . von Soden, Der Brief an die Epheser
[Freiburg, 1891] 132; A bbott, 116; Roels, God's Mission, 162–63; J. J. M euzelaar,
Der Leib des Messias [Assen: V an G orcum , 1961] 136– 37; C aird, 73– 75; idem ,
“D escent,” 536– 43; P orter, “D escent,” 47; Kirby, Ephesians, 187 n. 51; H oulden,
310 – 11; M artin, “E phesians,” 156; H arris, “D escent,” 235– 65). O n this in te rp re -
tation, which takes the descent as subsequent to th e ascent an d thus as a descent
in th e Spirit, it is arg u ed th a t the ascent a n d th e giving o f gifts can m aintain
th eir central fu nction in the passage. T h e descent fits easily betw een th e two
an d is seen to be a necessary a n d logical d eduction in connecting th e one
who ascended to heaven with th e gifts he has given to his C h u rch on earth.
In o th er words, it is suggested, th e m ovem ent o f th o u g h t from C hrist’s ascent
to his gifts in th e C h u rch requires a descent in th e Spirit. It would be n atu ral
th at th e w riter, having spoken o f th e S pirit’s w ork in th e unifying o f the body
in vv 3, 4, in arg u in g from C hrist’s gift via his ascent to the gifts he has given
to help m aintain unity, should include th e vital connecting link o f th e com ing
o f the Spirit. T h a t /azreßrj, “h e descended,” is p receded by Kai, “also,” in v 9
may indicate, th o u g h it obviously does n o t necessitate, th a t the chronological
o rd e r o f an ascent an d th en also a descent was in view. It is this o rd e r which
is followed in th e exegetical tradition which applied the psalm to Moses an d
which is in th e background here. A fter Moses ascended he w ould have to
descend before being able to give the law (cf. Exod 19:3, 14; 19:20, 25; 24:18
an d 32:15; 34:4, 29). It is interesting th a t Philo also used M oses’ ascent followed
by a descent at Sinai to suggest th e necessity o f a subsequent descent after
the ascent o f a mystical experience (cf. Quaest. Gen. 4.29). C aird holds th at
fo r th e a u th o r o f E phesians Ps 6 8 is no lo n g er to be viewed as a Jew ish Pentecostal
psalm concerning Moses b u t as “a C hristian Pentecostal psalm , celebrating
th e ascension o f C hrist an d his subsequent descent at Pentecost to bestow
spiritual gifts u p o n th e ch u rch ” (“D escent,” 541; cf. also the discussion o f the
probable role o f Ps 68:18 in the form ation o f the th eologoum enon “th e gift
 Comment 247

o f the Spirit” in L indars, Apologetic, 51– 59). T his descent o f C hrist in the Spirit
to give gifts w ould be in line with one o f the w riter’s sources, 1 C or 12, w here,
in reg ard to th e variety o f gifts w ithin th e one body, the Spirit is m ost p ro m in en t
in th eir distribution (vv 4, 7, 8 , 11, 13). T h e m ain difficulty o f this th ird in te rp re -
tation, however, is th a t it is un u su al for the Pentecostal event to be th o u g h t
o f as a descent o f Christ (cf. M itton, 148; Schnackenburg, “C hristus,” 287;
J. D. G. D unn, Christology in the Making [London: SCM, 1980] 331 n. 89). Yet
a close association, an d indeed virtual interchange, betw een C hrist an d the
Spirit is evidenced elsew here in Ephesians. In 1:13 the believer is sealed in
C hrist with th e Spirit, while in 4:30 he o r she is said to be sealed in the
Spirit. In 3:16 th e Spirit is in the “in n e r p erso n ,” while in th e following verse,
3:17, C hrist dwells in the heart. In 1:23 the C h u rch is the fullness o f Christ,
while in 5:18 believers can be ex h o rted to be filled with the Spirit. In Paul,
in 1 C or 15:45 th e last A dam is said to becom e life-giving Spirit, an d in Rom
8:9– 11 C hrist an d Spirit are used interchangeably (cf. also the m ore disputed
2 C or 3:17). A n o th er objection to this th ird view is th at the climactic statem ent
in v 1 0 to th e effect th at the ascent is in o rd e r to fill all things rules o u t the
th o u g h t o f a subsequent descent being in the w riter’s m ind (cf. Schnackenburg,
“C hristus,” 287). B ut to this it can be replied that, once the inference o f a
subsequent descent has been m ade, the a u th o r re tu rn s to the ascent as his
m ain notion an d th e one explicit in the psalm . In addition, the assertion o f v
1 0 b no m ore rules o u t a subsequent descent th an it rules o u t a subsequent
giving o f gifts.
It is difficult to choose betw een the second an d th ird interpretations. T h e
incarnation provides w hat is on the surface the m ost obvious reference for
the descent; b u t th e descent in th e Spirit, although it is still the m inority view,
may well be p referable if, as seems to be the case, the m idrash is m aking a
m ore com plex point. It w ould explain why the inference o f a descent from
an ascent is necessary in the flow o f the w riter’s a rg u m e n t an d b etter fits the
probable back g ro u nd an d associations o f the psalm citation. W hichever in te rp re -
tation one takes, how ever, th e real stress in the progress o f th o u g h t is on the
ascent. T h e concept o f a descent, th o u g h it inevitably attracts so m uch discussion
in an exegesis o f the passage, was only b ro u g h t in by the w riter to help m ake
his p o in t ab out C hrist’s ascent in the context o f his giving o f gifts.
ö Kara)3d? airros e o r iv icai b ä v a ß ä s , “he who descended is him self the one
who also ascended.” Some who hold to the second in terp re tatio n o f the descent
have suggested th at the reason for em phasizing the identity o f descender and
ascender is to g u ard against Docetism , b u t traces o f such a notion are not
reflected elsew here in this letter. It is b etter on this in terp re tatio n to take the
clause as simply u n d erlin in g th a t th e psalm citation applies to Christ, the one
who descended an d ascended, an d to note th at th e w riter often labors points
unnecessarily. O n the th ird in terp re tatio n o f the descent, to which we are
inclined, th e identity w ould be a m atter fo r em phasis, since it w ould bring
hom e to the read ers once m ore the C h u rch ’s link with its exalted Lord. T h e
one who by his Spirit is active in giving gifts to the C hurch an d equ ip p in g it
for its role is th e sam e one who by virtue o f his ascent becam e cosmic Lord.
As K äsem ann points o u t in re g ard to the w riter’s discussion o f gifts, “the
p resupposition o f this chain o f reasoning is th e principle . . . th at the Giver
248 E p h e s ia n s ( 4 : 1 – 1 6 )

is n ot to be sep arated from his gift b u t is really p re sen t in it” (“M inistry an d
C om m unity in th e N T ,” in Essays on N T Themes [London: SCM, 1964] 74).
As over against any cosm ological dualism on which the w riter m ay have an
eye, fo r th e C h u rch th ere can be no chasm betw een heaven an d earth , because
th e C hrist w ho has been exalted to heaven is integrally linked with his C hurch
on ea rth th ro u g h th e Spirit in w hom he has descended.
mepavfjj iraim^v t Gw ovpavCbv, “fa r above all the heavens.” T his phrase in
the application co rresponds to et? v\//0 5 , “on h ig h ,” in the citation. F requently
in th e N T th e p lu ral o f oupcwos, “h eaven,” can be explained on the basis o f
the translation o f the H ebrew plural. “All,” how ever, indicates th at a n u m b er
o f heavens are in view here. W h e th e r his read ers th in k th ere are th ree, seven,
o r m ore heavens (for discussion o f the n u m b e r o f heavens in first-century
cosmologies, see my Paradise, 78– 80), the w riter asserts th at C hrist is above
them all. T h e u n iq u e status ascribed to Y ahw eh in the O T an d here in v 6
(“above all”) as th e high G od w hom th e heavens cannot contain is now ascribed
to th e exalted C hrist. It is interesting to note the paradoxical language used
o f C hrist’s exaltation in Ephesians. H e can be viewed both locally as in heaven
(cf. 1:20; 6:9) an d at th e sam e tim e as above th e heavens, beyond th a t which
can be conceived in term s o f created reality.
Iva 7rXTjpcixxfl rä nävra, “in o rd e r th at he m ight fill the cosm os.” M any scholars
link this clause with both the descent a n d ascent in o rd e r to arg u e that, by
having C hrist descend to the low er p arts o f the cosmos an d th en ascend to
heaven, th e req u irem ents for filling th e universe are m et. In this way they
in te rp re t th e filling in a quasi-physical sense. Strictly speaking, how ever, the
Iva clause is connected to the statem ent ab o u t C hrist’s ascent an d not to both
the descent an d the ascent. N oting this enables one no t to be m isled by the
concept o f filling an d to see th e parallel with 1 :2 2 , 23, w here it is by virtue o f
his exaltation th at C hrist can be said to fill th e universe in every respect as
he pervades it with his rule (cf. Comment on 1:23 fo r discussion o f this m eaning
o f “to fill”).
11,12 Kai auros edcoaev, “a n d it was he who gave.” T h e auro? picks u p the
auros o f v 1 0 , m aking plain th a t he o f w hom th e psalm said “he gave gifts to
m en ” is th e exalted C hrist who fills th e universe. T h e psalm citation with its
re in te rp reta tio n continues to dom inate the passage, for the gifts are now ex-
plained as th e m inisters w hom th e w riter lists. T h ey are seen as the royal
largesse which C hrist distributes from his position o f cosmic lordship after
his triu m p h a n t ascent. In fact C hrist has given these m inisters as p a rt o f the
overall p u rp o se for which he ascended— th a t his w ork o f filling all things m ight
be b ro u g h t to com pletion. T h e link with th e previous verse indicates th at in
the w riter’s vision C hrist’s giving o f m inisters o f the w ord to build u p the
whole body into his fullness is interw oven with th e goal o f his pervading the
cosmos with his presence a n d rule. T his u nderlines the p o in t the w riter has
already m ade in 1:22, 23. G od gives C hrist as head over all to the C hurch,
an d it becom es his in stru m en t in carrying o u t his purposes for the cosmos.
T h e readers are to see them selves as p a rt o f this C h u rch which has a universal
role an d which is to be a pledge o f the universe’s ultim ate unity in C hrist.
Now, th e o n e who has been given to th e C h u rch as cosmic L ord, him self
gives to the C h u rch to equip it fully fo r its cosmic task. A nd to assert th at
the m inisters are gifts o f the exalted C hrist, ra th e r th a n m erely officers created
 Comment 249

by the C hurch, is clearly m ean t to en hance th eir significance in the eyes o f

the readers. As in 1:22, the verb 5 t5 Ö7 at retains its general sense o f “to give”
ra th e r th an “to ap p o in t” (see Comment on 1:22).
roi>9 pev äirooTÖXovs, rou? 5e irpo^ ra^, tovs be evayyeX toräs, rovs be noipevas tcdi
bibaoKakovs, “the apostles, the p rophets, the evangelists, the pastors an d teach-
ers.” As o u r translation indicates, in the expression rou? pev . . . rous be . . . f
since it comes with a list o f differing nouns, the article is m ost probably to be
in terp reted as simply an article which belongs directly with the following nouns
an d n o t as a substantive used absolutely with th e n o uns serving as predicates.
In o th er words, the b etter translation is “it was he who gave, on the one
h and, the apostles, on the other, the p ro p h e ts” o r simply, as above, “it was
he who gave th e apostles, the p ro p h e ts,” ra th e r than, as in m ost versions, “it
was he who gave som e to be apostles, som e to be p ro p h e ts.” T h e p re ferred
translation is in line with the m ost freq u en t force o f the article with pev . . .
be . . . i n the N T and m eans th at the w riter’s m ain concern is with listing the
nouns them selves (cf. the full discussion o f this gram m atical point in M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 73– 75; also Schnackenburg, 183). W hat does the exalted
C hrist give to the C hurch? H e gives people, these particular people who p ro -
claim the w ord an d lead. In relation to vv 7, 8 b, he gives no t ju s t grace to
people, b u t he gives specific people to people. In Rom 12 gifts were m inistries
o r functions an d this is the way the term had been em ployed in 1 C or 12,
th o u g h in the latter passage in vv 28, 29 Paul could also speak o f G od appointing
m inisters as well as giving m inistries. In contrast to both passages, here in
E ph 4 the focus is narrow ed to particular m inisters o f the w ord (as we shall
see, even “pastors” cannot be com pletely separated from such proclam ation
o f the word).
T h e first two g roups o f m inisters listed, the apostles an d the prophets, also
ap p ear first in P aul’s list in 1 C or 12:28 an d have already been singled o u t as
the object o f the w riter’s reflection in E ph 2:20 an d 3:5 (see Comment on 2:20
and 3:5 for a discussion o f th eir identity an d th eir foundational role as recipients
and proclaim ers o f revelation). In these earlier references the apostles, as di-
vinely com m issioned m issionaries an d planters o f churches, an d the prophets,
as specialists in m ediating divine revelation, were viewed as norm s from the
past. It is likely th at th e sam e perspective is at w ork here. Draw ing conclusions
about the historical conditions o f the churches in Asia M inor from the w riter’s
theological reflections is a hazardous en terprise. So w hether th ere were still
pro p h ets o p eratin g in the churches to which he writes cannot be ascertained
with any certainty (pace Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1973] 96, 97 and
Schnackenburg, 185, who state ra th e r categorically th at both apostles and
pro p h ets w ould have been no longer active). B ut even if the w riter is aw are
o f p ro p h ets still exercising th eir gifts (cf. Did. 11–13; 15:1,2; H errn., Man.
1 1 ), it ap p ears th at for him the period o f th eir significance was in the past,
an d the developm ent w hereby p ro p h ets becam e increasingly m arginalized in
the C hristian m ovem ent as th eir leadership role was taken over by the m ore
stable teaching an d ruling m inistries is one th at fits in with the theological
em phasis o f this passage. (O n the relation o f p ro p h ets to o th er leaders cf.
also M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 350–61; D. E. A une, Prophecy in Early Christianity
[G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1983] esp. 203– 11).
It has been suggested th at the triad o f apostles, prophets, an d teach-
250 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1 – 16)

ers, en u m erated by Paul in 1 C or 12:28 by m eans o f “first . . . second . . .

th ird . . . rep resents a tradition about church leadership w hich can be traced
back beyond Paul to the A ntioch ch u rch th ro u g h the sources b eh in d Acts
13:1– 3; 14:4, 14 (cf. M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 249– 87), b u t it is unlikely
th at the m eager evidence will su p p o rt such a hypothesis (cf. the reservations
o f F. H a h n in his review o f M erklein’s w ork in TRev 72 [1976] 2 8 1–86 an d
the objections o f H. S chürm ann, “ ‘. . . u n d L e h re r,’ ” Orientierungen am Neuen
Testament [Düsseldorf: Patm os, 1978] 135 n. 90). In any case, to this g ro u p
th e w riter o f E phesians has added two fu rth e r categories o f m inisters, the
evangelists an d th e pastors. In the post-apostolic period it is th e evangelists
who continue to carry o u t m any o f the activities o f the apostles an d it is the
pastors who now exercise the leadership role, alongside the teachers, previously
held by the p ro p h ets (cf. also Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1973]
97). As th e nam e suggests, evangelists w ere involved in th e proclam ation
o f th e gospel. T h e term is used o f Philip in Acts 21:8 in th e context o f m is-
sion (cf. also Acts 8:14– 17 w here Luke depicts Philip’s m issionary activities as
d e p e n d e n t on th e apostles). It is used also in 2 T im 4:5, w here it m ay well be
in ten d ed to be seen as p a rt o f the w ork o f a church leader. Since the term
“p astors” covers ch urch leadership in E ph 4, it is likely th at here “evange-
lists” are to be seen as those engaged in m ission an d the fo u n d in g o f churches
and, therefo re, as having responsibilities beyond the local congregation. A
fu rth e r reason for th eir m ention here could be th at the churches in Asia M inor,
which are being addressed, w ere no t fo u n d ed directly by Paul b u t by ju s t
such people, co-w orkers an d followers o f Paul who co ntinued his type o f
m issionary activity (cf. also Schlier, 196; Ernst, 354). It is in this sense th at
the term is used m uch later by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.37.2 3; 5.10.2. T h e
view, first proposed by O ecum enius, th at the reference in E ph 4:11 is to
“th e office o f gospel w riter” (cf. H adidian, CBQ 28 [1966] 317– 21) is quite
im probable.
T h e definite article, which has been em ployed for each o f th e th re e categories
m en tio n ed so far, is rep eated before “pastors” b u t om itted before “teachers.”
W hat significance should be attached to this? Some have claim ed th at it indicates
th at th e two groups are in fact identical (e.g., B arth, 438–39, who holds th at
one m inistry only is being described, th at o f “teaching sh ep h e rd s”). In Acts
13:1 those designated “teachers” in A ntioch are show n exercising leadership,
while in th e Pastorals teaching is a m ajor role o f the church leader (cf. 1 T im
3:2; 5:17; T itus 1:9). B ut it is doubtful w h eth er this is en o u g h to dem onstrate
th at the two m inistries w ere always exercised by the sam e people. It is m ore
likely th at they w ere overlapping functions, b u t th at while alm ost all pastors
were also teachers, no t all teachers w ere also pastors. W h eth er the two functions
were p erfo rm ed by a single individual w ithin a particular local situation m ay
well have d ep en d ed on w hat gifted persons w ere p resen t in th at situation.
T h e o ne definite article is th erefo re best taken as suggesting this close association
o f functions betw een two types o f m inisters who both o p erate w ithin th e local
congregation (cf. also J. Jerem ias, “minriv,” T D N T 6 [1968] 497; M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 362–65).
T h o u g h the n o u n noinrjv, “sh ep h erd , p asto r,” is used o f C hrist him self in
J o h n 10:11, 14; H eb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25, it is em ployed fo r ch u rch leaders
only h ere in th e N T. T h e cognate verb does, how ever, describe th eir function
 Comment 251

in Acts 20:28 an d 1 Pet 5:1– 4 an d P eter’s activity in re g ard to the C hurch in

J o h n 21:16. It suggests the exercise o f leadership th ro u g h n u rtu re , care, and
guidance. Significantly, the concept o f the sh ep h e rd an d tending the flock is
often fo u n d in association with th at o f the bishop o r overseer and overseeing
(cf. J e r 2 3 :2 ; Ezek 34:11; Zech 11:16; CD 13.7 – 11, w here th e měbaqqēr, “g u ard -
ian, overseer,” in the Q u m ra n com m unity is likened to a sh ep h erd with his
flock; Acts 20:28, w here those ap p o in ted bishops o f the church at E phesus
are to sh ep h erd the church o f God; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:2; Ign. Rom. 9.1; Phil. 2.1,
w here the bishop is also called a pastor). It is probable, then, th at the pastor
o f E ph 4:11 fulfills the functions d en o ted in P aul’s writings by such term s as
Ttpov3Tr\ixi, “to rule, m anage” (1 T hess 5:12; Rom 12:8), Kußepi^at?, “adm inistra-
tion” (1 C or 12:28), an d emoKonos, “bishop, overseer” (Phil 1:1). emoKOiros was
a term taken from the H ellenistic world, b u t because the general notion o f
overseeing h ad close associations with the sh ep h erd in Jew ish thought, it is
un d erstan d ab le th at the term “p asto r” could becom e interchangeable with
“bishop” in the C hristian m ovem ent. It is the equivalent to 7rpeaßurepo?, “elder,”
o f Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1 T im 4:14; 5:17, 19; T itus 1:5; 1 Pet 5 :1 ,5 ; Jas 5:14
(see M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 362–78, for an extended discussion). T h a t
bishops an d deacons are no t m entioned here, th o u g h they are in Phil 1:1;
Did. 15.1; H errn. Vis. 3.5.1; Mart. Pol. 16.2, illustrates the variety o f structures
in the early ch u rch an d the difficulty o f obtaining any clear overall picture.
B ut it justifies n eith er the assertion th at “the churches h ere addressed had
not yet reached th at stage o f developm ent reflected in Phil 1:1” (pace Caird,
76) n o r the speculation th at the w riter is opposed to these particular structures
(pace Fischer, Tendenz, 2 1–39, 2 0 1–2, an d see th e discussion u n d e r Form!Struc-
ture /Setting).
T h e teachers, with w hom the pastors are so closely associated, already had
a special role in P aul’s tim e (cf. 1 C or 12:28,29; 14:26; Rom 12:7) and are
m entioned specifically elsew here in early C hristian w ritings (cf. H eb 5:12; Jas
3:1; Acts 13:1; 1 T im 3:2; 4 :1 1 ,1 3 ,1 6 ; 5:17; 2 T im 2 :2 ,2 4 ; 3:16; 4 :2 ,3 ;
T itus 1:9; 2 :1 ,7 ; Did. 13.2; 15.1,2). T h e ir function appears to have been
preserving, transm itting, expounding, in terp retin g , an d applying the apostolic
gospel an d trad itio n along with the Jew ish Scripture. T hey w ere specialists in
the inculcation o f C hristian norm s an d values an d the conduct ap p ro p riate to
them , an d in this way becam e particularly associated with the qualities o f wisdom
an d knowledge. (For a discussion o f the teaching m inistry in the early church,
see F. V. Filson, “T h e C hristian T ea ch er in the First C entury,” JB L 60 [1941]
317– 28; H. S chürm ann, “ ‘. . . u n d L eh rer,’ ” 116– 56.) W isdom an d knowledge
a re qualities which this w riter has desired for his readers in the intercessory
prayer-rep o rts (cf. 1:17, 18; 3:18, 19), an d know ledge o f the Son o f God form s
p art o f the goal o f the C h u rch ’s existence here in 4:13. T eachers, then, are
in strum ental in th e C h u rch ’s grow th in these qualities. T h a t teachers instructed
in practical C hristian living is also clear from the im m ediate context in E ph
4:20, 21. In Colossians, over against the syncretistic philosophy, the im portance
o f the apostolic tradition o f teaching (1:5– 7 ,2 3 ; 2 :6 ,7 ) an d its m ediation
th ro u g h such people as E paphras (1:7; 4:12), Tychicus (4:7), an d A rchippus
(4:17) h ad been em phasized. Now in E phesians also, the w riter stresses the
vital significance o f such m inisters in building u p th e body o f C hrist, a signifi-
cance th at is u n d erlin e d in relation to th e false teaching which he m entions
252 E p h e s ia n s ( 4 : 1 – 1 6 )

in v 14. In this passage th e w riter’s m ajor concern is with the unity an d m aturity
o f the C hurch. So, o f the m inisters listed w hom C hrist has given to the C hurch,
it is particularly th e pastors an d teachers active in his own day whose w orth
he wishes to assert. T his could be seen as self-serving, for the w riter him self
is surely to be re g ard e d as a gifted teach er who transm its an d in terp rets the
Pauline trad itio n on th e basis o f his own special insights (cf. also M erklein,
Das kirchliche Amt, 351; S chürm ann, “ ‘. . . u n d L e h re r,’ ” 151). B ut th e context
m akes clear th at he is n o t o u t to pro m o te his own position o r th at o f any
particu lar individuals. His b u rd e n is for the well-b eing o f the C h u rch as a
whole. H e genuinely believes th a t th e preservation o f the apostolic tradition
is essential fo r such well-being an d th a t pastors an d teachers are the C hrist-
given m eans fo r accom plishing it. B ecause o f th e special foundational place
given by this w riter to th e apostles an d p ro p h ets, in effect a new triad o f
m inisters, in com parison with the triad o f 1 C or 12:28, em erges as active in
the churches o f his tim e— evangelists, pastors, an d teachers. Interestingly, it
is the teachers w ho retain th eir place. W hile the evangelists carry on the m ission-
ary activity o f th e apostles an d the pastors take over th e earlier leadership
functions o f th e p ro p h ets, evidently the role o f the teachers has been consoli-
d ated as they provide the m ajor elem ent o f continuity in m inistry, the bridge
betw een th e apostolic an d post-apostolic periods.
It is often asked w h eth er functions o r offices are involved in the list o f
4:11. T h e superficial answ er is neither. T h e w riter talks about groups o f persons,
n o t ab out eith er th eir activities o r th eir positions. B ut obviously the question
can th en be p u rsu ed. Do these persons receive the nam e they have been given
simply because they p erfo rm certain functions from tim e to tim e o r also because
they occupy som e clearly defined position w ithin th eir com m unities? T h e discus-
sion o f this question has often been p lagued by im posing on the evidence
false dichotom ies betw een “dynam ic” an d “static” categories, betw een charism a
an d institution, betw een m inistry as event an d m inistry as office. T h e answers
given are highly d isputed, an d it m ay simply be the case th at a question is
being asked o f th e text fo r which th e re is n e ith e r en o u g h data in the text
n o r sufficient know ledge o f ch u rch organization at this tim e an d in this area
to provide a convincing answ er. B ut p erh ap s a n u m b e r o f general points can
be established. O n the one han d , th ere is no h in t in Ephesians o f ordination
to office o r o f th e sort o f legitim ation o f office by th e church which is reflected
in the Pastorals. O n the o th e r han d , evangelists, pastors, an d teachers were
so called because they regularly exercised th eir m inistries, an d such m inistries
would have req u ired acceptance an d recognition by th eir churches, fo r even
in P aul’s tim e th e exercise o f charism ata re q u ired evaluation an d recognition
on th e p a rt o f the congregation, a n d certain congregations recognized clearly
defined leaders (cf. the bishops a n d deacons o f Phil 1:1). So, if the o rd e red
reg u lar n atu re o f a m inistry a n d its recognition by a local church m akes it an
office, th en the m inisters in 4:11 w ho are active in the w riter’s own day are
officers. If, in addition, an office has to be constitutive for the life o f the
C hurch, th en in this w riter’s theological perspective the m inisters he lists fall
into this category, since they are seen as the representatives an d g uarantors
o f th e apostolic revelation a n d trad itio n which provide the norm s for the
C h u rch ’s existence (pace Schweizer, w ho in his com m ent as a P rotestant w ithin
 Comment 253

S chnackenburg’s EKK com m entary [195] an d in his own com m entary on C olos-
sians [164 n. 41] plays dow n the ex ten t to which these m inisters are singled
o ut in v 1 1 an d in a m inim alist in terp re tatio n claims they only provide ex-
am ples o f gifts given to every m em ber o f the com m unity). W h eth er in the
churches to which he w rote th ere w ere explicit ecclesiastical structures
which co rresp o n d ed to his theological vision an d w hat sort o f institutions
h ad been developed for the acceptance an d recognition o f re g u lar m inis-
tries are questions to which we do n o t know the answer. (For an extensive
discussion o f these an d related issues, see M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 79– 80,
348– 92.)
7rpos tov Karapnopov t Cjv aylojv eis epyov Sicucovias eis oiKobopriv rod ocoparos
tov XPWTOV, “for b ringing the saints to com pletion, fo r the w ork o f service,
for the building u p o f the body o f C hrist.” W hy does the exalted C hrist give
the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors an d teachers? T h re e
reasons follow, each o f which has a slightly different focus. B efore we p ursue
the different nuances o f each, we should note th at this exegesis has not been
univerally accepted by scholars an d th at th ere is an issue su rro u n d in g the
in tend ed relationship o f the th ree prepositional phrases and, therefore, the
p u n ctu atio n o f any translation. T h e view has becom e p o p u lar th at the second
prepositional p hrase is not to be seen as distinct from the first an d th at the
two taken to g eth er contain one idea, nam ely th at the m inisters have been
given to equip the saints to carry o u t th eir service. In carrying o u t th eir service,
the saints play th eir p a rt in building u p the body— the force o f the th ird preposi-
tional phrase. In su p p o rt o f this view, appeal is m ade to the change in preposition
from 7rpos to eis betw een the first an d second phrases, as a sign th at the phrases
are n o t coordinate, to v 7 with its notion th at all have received grace for
service, an d to v 16 with its em phasis th at building u p the body is the work
o f all believers (cf. W estcott, 62–63; J. A. R obinson, 9 8–99; Roels, God's Mission,
192; Bruce, 8 6 ; K äsem ann, “E pheser 4, 11– 16,” 290; Gnilka, 213; Klauck,
Wissenschaft und Weisheit 36 [1973] 100; B arth, 439, 479– 81; C aird, 76; M itton,
151; M ussner, 127; B ratcher an d N ida, Handbook, 102). H ow ever, the change
o f preposition cannot bear the w eight o f such an arg u m en t, an d th ere are, in
fact, no gram m atical o r linguistic g rounds for m aking a specific link betw een
the first an d second phrases. A n active role for all believers is safeguarded by
vv 7, 16, b u t the prim ary context here in v 1 2 is the function an d role o f
C hrist’s specific gifts, the m inisters, not th at o f all the saints. In line with this,
as we shall see, Karapruopos, “com pletion,” has a m eaning which does not require
su p p lem en tin g by a fu rth e r phrase, an d 5iaKOvia, “service,” is m ore likely to
refer to the ministry o f the ministers ju s t nam ed. W hat is m ore, to string to g eth er
a n u m b er o f prepositional phrases, all d e p e n d e n t on the m ain verb an d coordi-
nate with each oth er, is a characteristic featu re o f this w riter’s style. T h re e
such phrases are fo u n d in 1:3; 1:20, 21; 2:7 and, significantly, in the following
verses here, 4:13 an d 4:14, as well as fo u r in 6:12 an d five in 1:5,6. It is
certainly preferable, therefore, to see th e th ree prepositional phrases here as
each d ep e n d en t on the notion o f the giving o f m inisters, and h ard to avoid
the suspicion th at optin g for the o th er view is too often m otivated by a zeal
to avoid clericalism an d to su p p o rt a “dem ocratic” m odel o f the C h u rch (cf.
also Abbott, 119; Dibelius, 82; S. H anson, Unity, 157; M asson, 192– 93; Schlier,
254 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1 – 1 6)

198–99; E rnst, 356; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 76; S chnackenburg, 186;
“C hristus,” 295; H am an n , Concordia Journal 14 [1988] 42–49). T h e re is no
reason, however, fo r m aking a distinction betw een the pastors an d teachers
an d th e o th e r th ree groups o f m inisters a n d deciding eith er th at th e first two
prepositional phrases relate only to th e pastors a n d teachers, while th e th ird
applies to th e task o f all five types o f m inisters (Dibelius, 82), o r th a t th e last
two phrases describe th e role o f all th e m inisters, while the first relates only
to th e pastors an d teachers (M asson, 192– 93). T h e w riter is taking a general
view o f all th e m inisters given by C hrist a n d describes the activity such m inisters
were in ten d ed to p erfo rm in th ree d ifferen t ways, with the .change from trpos
to et? in the in tro d uctory preposition m ost likely being simply a variation in
style.
T h ey are to b rin g the saints to com pletion. O n th e term 0 7 1 0 1 , “saints,” see
the earlier discussion o f 1:1, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:8. T h e n o u n narapriayLO^ occurs
only h ere in th e N T . T h e verb Karapri^eiv is fo u n d in Paul, how ever, in 1
T hess 3:10; Gal 6:1; 1 C or 1:10; 2 C or 13:11; Rom 9:22 (cf. also H eb 13:21;
1 Pet 5:10) w here its ra n g e o f m eaning includes “to com plete,” “to resto re,”
an d “to p re p a re .” It is the notion o f m aking com plete, which can include
m aking com plete by resto rin g o r training, th at best fits the context, w here, in
the next verse, d ifferent im ages for th e C h u rc h ’s com pletion will be used.
T h e use o f the n o u n in this sense is evidenced later in C lem ent, Strom. 4.26;
Basil, Hex. 9.1; A m m onius, Ac. 18.25; a n d C hrysostom , Horn. 2.1 in Tit. In terest-
ingly, th e verb is used o f th e task o f the ph ilo so p h er o r ed u cato r in the Hellenistic
world (cf. P lutarch, Cato Minor 65.5; Alex. 7.1; Them. 2.5–6; Epictetus, Diss.
3.20.10; 4.9.16). All believers are to be b ro u g h t to a state o f com pletion, an d
it is the m inisters C hrist has given w ho are th e m eans to this e n d as they
exercise th eir m inistries o f proclam ation, teaching, an d leadership. T h ese offi-
cers are C hrist’s gifts to the C hurch, b u t again it becom es clear th at such a
perspective on th eir role should never lead to self-glorification. T hey have
been given to carry o u t the w ork o f service, a n d it is service which provides
the fram ew ork for u n d ersta n d in g any m inisterial function o r office (cf. also
M ark 9:35; 10:42–45, w here service is a basic re q u irem en t o f discipleship).
In Rom 12:7 service is a particular charism a, while in 1 C or 12:5 the term
has a m ore general reference, as “varieties o f service” stand parallel to “varieties
o f charism ata.” H ere in E phesians, th e m inisters n am ed are seen as engaged
in öiaKoria in this m ore general sense. T h e re is p re ced e n t in P aul’s writings
for an association betw een specific leaders, n o t simply all believers, an d 6 tanovia.
T h e term is used o f the m inistry o f Paul him self in 2 C or 3:8, 9; 4:1; 5:18;
6:3; Rom 11:13 an d o f th at o f his co-w orkers in 1 C or 16:15, w here S tephanas
an d his household are said to have devoted them selves to the service o f the
saints, an d in Col 4:17 with reference to A rchippus. T h e prim ary focus o f
this service fo r th e m inisters o f E p h 4:11 has already b een expressed in th e
preceding p h rase—bringing th e saints to com pletion. Like th a t o f S tephanas
an d his household, th eir leadership in th e various com m unities will be character-
ized by devotion to th e service o f th e saints. T h e reason for the giving o f
m inisters can also be sum m ed u p as “fo r th e building u p o f the body o f C hrist,”
a p h rase th at com bines body a n d building im agery. T h e w riter h ad em ployed
the biological im agery o f grow th w hen talking o f the C h u rch as a building in
 Comment 255

2:21; now he em ploys building im agery w hen talking o f the C hurch as a body.
O n the C h u rch as th e body o f C hrist, see v 4 earlier in this pericope an d the
ex tended Comment on 1:23. T h e notion o f building u p o r edifying the body
h ad been a m ajor criterion in P aul’s evaluation o f various m inistries (cf. 1
C or 14:3–5, 12, 26). Now this is seen as the goal for which the m inisters o f
the w ord w ere given to the C hurch. A lthough this building u p is also the
task o f all th e m em bers o f the body (v 16), the m inisters have a distinctive
an d particularly significant role to play in it. T h e ir transm ission an d in te rp re ta -
tion o f the apostolic gospel an d tradition are w hat will prove especially construc-
tive for the rest o f the body.
13 juexpt m r a v r r io o jp e v oi irä v re s ei? evörrjTa rffr mareco? m i tt)? em yv co o e o is
tov viov tov deov, “until we all attain to the unity o f the faith an d o f the knowledge
o f the Son o f G od.” T o th e setting o u t o f th ree purposes fo r which the m inisters
were given is now ad d ed a statem ent w hich incorporates a threefold description
o f the goal o f the C h u rch ’s existence. T h e first p a rt o f this description features
the unity o f the C h u rch ’s faith an d know ledge, uexpt, “u n til,” has both a prospec-
tive an d a final force (cf. BDF § 383[2]). T h e m inisters are to carry ou t th eir
task both until th e whole C h u rch reaches this goal an d in o rd e r th at it m ight
reach this goal. T hey are seen in the context o f the en tire C hurch (“we all”;
cf. also 3:18, w here it was stressed th at grow th in com prehension takes place
in the com pany o f all G od’s people), an d this C hurch is depicted as on the
way to its goal (cf. also the use o f m r a v r a v , “to com e to, attain to,” in Phil
3:11). B arth (484– 96, “Die P arusie,” 248– 49) has an un u su al in terp retatio n
o f this verse in which he claims to find a reference to believers going out to
m eet C hrist at his parousia as king an d bridegroom . B ut although the related
substantives viravTTiois an d amzwTjai? can m ean a procession to m eet som eone
(cf. M att 25:1, 6; 1 T hess 4:17), such a m eaning is no t in view with the use
o f the verb h ere an d has to be read into it. Besides, although this m eaning
would fit with his in terp re tatio n o f the second prepositional phrase as a reference
to C hrist as the “p erfect m an ,” it snakes no sense at all to speak o f processing
to m eet th e unity o f the faith an d know ledge o f the Son o f God.
As in v 12, th e th ree prepositional phrases in this verse are all d ep e n d en t
on the verb ra th e r th an on each other. T h e first one takes u p again the them e
o f unity from the earlier p a rt o f the pericope. T h e re we have already seen
th at the unity given still has to be m aintained, an d here we discover th at the
unity given is also still to be attained. T his is particularly clear in the case o f
the first elem en t o f this unity— faith. In v 5 “one faith ” was spoken o f as a
given, b u t now th e w riter’s th o u g h t ap pears to be th at th e full ap p ro p riatio n
o f th at oneness o f the faith lies in the fu tu re. As in v 5, m an?, “faith,” used
h ere in the context o f an em phasis on the teaching m inistry an d the m ention
o f false teaching, is likely to have an objective connotation. In o th er words, it
is n ot prim arily believers’ exercise o f faith th at is in view b u t ra th e r the content
o f th at faith (cf. also Col 1:23; 2:7). T h e idea is o f the whole C hurch m oving
tow ard the ap p ro p riatio n o f all th at is contained in its one faith. Similarly,
attaining to th e unity o f the know ledge o f the Son o f God is likely to m ean
ap p ro p riatin g all th at is involved in the salvation which centers in C hrist (cf.
Col 2:2, 3, which speaks o f th e know ledge o f C hrist in w hom are hid all the
treasures o f wisdom an d know ledge), an d since th ere is one L ord (v 5), full
256 E p h e s ia n s ( 4 : 1 – 1 6)

knowledge o f w hat is given in him will also have th e quality o f oneness. E arlier
in his two intercessory prayers, th e w riter has spelled o u t a n u m b e r o f aspects
o f this one know ledge th at he desires his readers to possess (cf. 1:17– 19; 3:16–
19). In th e earlier passages such know ledge was re g ard e d prim arily as a gift
to be received, b u t now it is also viewed as a goal to be reached.
Syntactically, th e Son o f G od is likely to be th e object o f know ledge only
an d n o t also o f faith, because th e definite article is rep eated before emyvoxjis,
“know ledge.” T his particular C hristological title, Son o f God, occurs now here
else in Ephesians, b u t too m uch should n o t be read into this. It is m ore likely
th at th e w riter has simply taken u p a traditional Pauline Christological title
(cf. 1 T hess 1:10; Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4 :4 ,6 ; 1 C or 1:9; 2 C or 1:19; R om 1:3, 4, 9;
5:10; 8 :3 ,2 9 ; Col 1:13) th a n th a t th ere w ere divergent views ab o u t C hrist’s
divine sonship tro ubling his readers (pace M ussner, 128). N evertheless, the
unity o f C hristian faith an d know ledge does provide a contrast to the m ention
o f diverse winds o f teaching in th e next verse, an d it is the task o f the pastors
an d teachers, who are C hrist’s gifts to his C hurch, to en su re th a t th ere is a
progressive m ovem ent tow ard the goal o f full a p p ro p riatio n o f the one faith
an d o f the one know ledge o f C hrist (cf. also M eyer, 222; S. H anson, Unity,
161; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 103). It is w orth noting th at w hat em erges
from the w riter’s trea tm e n t o f the unity o f faith an d know ledge h ere is a
version o f th e Pauline eschatological tension betw een the “already” an d the
“n o t yet” applied to th e life o f the C hurch. T h e unity o f faith an d know ledge
is already possessed in C hrist, b u t at the sam e tim e it still rem ains to be attained,
an d to be attain ed th ro u g h the effective utilization o f the gifts th at are an
elem ent o f th at which is already possessed.
ets ävbpa rekeiov, et? perpov rfkiKia^ tov ir\r)p6jpaTO<; rov Xpinrov, “to the m atu re
person, to th e m easure o f the stature o f the fullness o f C hrist.” T h ese last
two goals to which all believers are to attain are expressed in term s which
describe th e C h u rch in its com pleted state. T h e C h u rch in this state is seen
as a co rp o rate entity, n o t as disparate individuals. A com parison with Col
1:28 is instructive at this point. T h e re th e apostle’s aim is “th a t we m ay p resen t
every p erson m atu re in C hrist,” a n d the focus is clearly on each individual.
H ere in E phesians th e focus has shifted onto the whole C h u rch seen as a
unified entity. “W e all” are to m ove tow ard “the m atu re perso n ” (pace M itton,
154, an d M ussner, 129, who hold th a t th e individual believer is in view with
this latter term ; B ratcher an d N ida, Handbook, 103– 4, who recognize the corpo-
rate elem ent b u t m isleadingly still wish to translate as “we shall becom e m atu re
p eo p le”). Som e scholars have th o u g h t to find affinities betw een this term u n d e r-
stood as “th e perfect m an ” a n d th e Gnostic A nthropos figure (cf. P. V ielhauer,
Oikodome, 135– 36; P okorný, Epheserbrief, 78; Schlier, 200– 201), b u t the expres-
sion is quite explicable w ithout recourse to this speculation an d in any case
em ploys avr\p ra th e r th a n ai>0pco7ros. reXeto? has the nuance o f m atu re ra th e r
th an perfect (cf. also 1 C or 2:6: 14:20; H eb 5:14), while avr\p denotes here
an ad u lt m ale, a full-grow n m an. T h e em phasis is on the m atu re ad ulthood
o f this perso n in contrast with th e children to be m en tio n ed in the next verse.
T h e C h u rch , which has already been depicted as one new person (avdpoMOs)
in C hrist (2:15), is to attain to w hat in principle it already has in him — m aturity
an d com pleteness.
 Comment 257

T his p attern o f th o u g h t also helps to explain the language in which the

th ird goal is depicted. T h e goal is no t so m uch C hrist him self in his perfect
qualities (pace M itton, 154– 55; M ussner, 129) as the C h u rch as his fullness.
B oth the m atu re person an d th e fullness o f C hrist are prim arily term s for
the C hurch, yet n eith er can be totally separated from C hrist, since for this
w riter the C h u rch is always seen as in co rp o rated in him . T h e w riter has already
described th e C h u rch as the fullness o f C hrist (see Comment on 1:23), and
now the sam e expression can also serve in this portrayal o f the C h u rch ’s goal.
As Best puts it, “w hat in 1:23 was a statem ent o f fact is now a standard o f
attain m en t” an d “the C hurch is th e dwelling place o f C hrist’s attributes and
powers an d yet m ust seek m ore an d m ore to give room for those very attributes
an d powers to dwell in it” (One Body, 141 an d n. 2). T his goal can also be
com pared with th at w hich th e w riter h ad expressed in his pray er for his readers
in 3:19, “th at you m ight be filled u p to all the fullness o f G od.” T h e full
description is in tro duced by the phrase “to the m easure o f the statu re.” T h e re
is some debate ab o ut w h eth er to take r\\u d a as a reference to age o r to bodily
size, as it can den o te eith er aspect o f m atu re d grow th. Since the context contains
the contrast betw een children an d adults, som e in te rp re t it in term s o f age as
a fu rth e r p a rt o f this contrast an d as an explanation o f w hat was m eant by
the “m atu re p erso n ” (cf. Abbott, 120; BAGD, 345; Percy, Probleme, 321; M uss-
ner, 129). It seems preferable, how ever, to trea t this th ird depiction as in tro d u c-
ing a new im age o f com pletion an d to recognize th at nXripcjpa, “fullness,”
m ore naturally has spatial connotations, so th at “statu re” is probably the m ore
ap p ro p riate in terp re tatio n (cf. S. H anson, Unity, 160; Schlier, 201; Gnilka,
215; Ernst, 357; M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 106; Klauck, Wissenschaft und
Weisheit 36 [1973] 101). T h e stan d ard for believers’ attain m en t is the m atu re
p ro p ortions th at befit th e C h u rch as the fullness o f C hrist. A gain, we should
recall th at this is a continuation o f the discussion o f C hrist’s gifts an d th at it
is th ro u g h his gifts o f m inisters th a t C hrist enables th e C h u rch to attain to
the com plete realization o f w hat it already is. M inisters are im p o rtan t fo r the
period o f the “n o t yet,” in which the C h u rch has to be helped to progress
tow ard the eschatological goals o f unity an d m aturity.
14 Iva prjKen &pev vrjmoi, KXvdcoviZopevoi Kai irepicfrepo^evoi na m ävepcp rffc
öiöaa/caXtas, “so th at we m ay no longer be children, tossed back an d fo rth by
waves, an d gusted h ere an d th ere by every w ind o f teaching.” W ith a m ixture
o f m etaphors th e w riter now illum inates by negative contrast the significance
o f C hrist’s giving o f gifts to th e C h u rch an d th e progress tow ard its goals
th at these gifts enable it to m ake. T h ro u g h th e building u p an d bringing to
com pletion th at th e gifts effect, im m aturity an d instability can increasingly be
left behind, vrjmot, “children,” contains a double contrast to “the m atu re p erso n .”
N ot only do silly infants contrast with th e m atu re ad u lt (cf. 1 C or 2:6; 3:1;
H eb 5:13, 14), b u t the plural o f “ch ild ren ” also contrasts with the singular o f
“the m atu re p erso n ,” individualism being a sign o f childishness, unity a sign
o f m aturity (cf. also Best, One Body, 148). F or this w riter im m aturity is evidenced
in instability, rootlessness, lack o f direction, an d susceptibility to m anipulation
an d erro r. kXvSojv denotes ro u g h w ater o r waves, an d th e passive participle
o f the cognate verb m eans “tossed by waves.” So the picture conjured u p by
the two participles is o f a little storm -tossed boat o r o f swirling flotsam and
258 E p h e s ia n s ( 4 : 1 – 1 6)

jetsam entirely at the m ercy o f the waves an d the wind. In eith er case, the
confusion an d lack o f direction evoked contrasts strongly with the goal-orien ted
language o f the previous verse. T h e use o f the im agery o f wind an d waves
fo r instability was com m on an d is fo u n d elsew here in the N T in Jas 1:6, w here
it depicts the instability o f doubt. B ut th e sort o f vocabulary contained in this
passage is also em ployed in w arnings against false teachers in J u d e 12, 13
an d H eb 13:9. H ere in Ephesians, it is every wind o f teaching th at is pictured
as gusting im m atu re believers about. T h e use o f the singular o f 8i8aoKa\ia,
“teaching,” an d o f the definite article with it, has been seen as an indication
th at it is th e C hristian teaching th at is in view, th o u g h this teaching is being
used for p erv erted ends (cf. M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 107, followed by
S chnackenburg, 189). It is tru e th at the singular is em ployed w hen C hristian
teaching is u n d e r discussion in Rom 12:7; 15:4 an d becom es alm ost a technical
term in th e Pastorals, th o u g h frequently accom panied by the adjective “so u n d ”
(cf. 1 T im 1:10; 4:6, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1; 2 T im 3:16; 4:3; T itus 1:9; 2 :1 ,7 ),
w hereas th e plu ral is used o f false teaching in M att 15:9; M ark 7:7; Col 2:22;
an d 1 T im 4:1. B ut this does not sufficiently take into consideration the influence
o f Col 2:22 on the w ording o f E ph 4:14 (see above u n d e r Form!Structure!
Setting) an d ignores the force o f the adjective “every” in the p h rase “every
wind o f teaching,” which suggests any an d all kinds o f teaching in contrast to
th e unity o f faith an d know ledge o f which th e w riter has spoken. It is better,
th erefo re, with the m ajority o f com m entators to take this as a reference to
false teaching in th e guise o f the various religious philosophies which th rea ten ed
to assimilate, an d thereby dilute o r u n d erm in e, the Pauline gospel. T h e only
o th e r clue in the letter about the n a tu re o f this teaching, the w arning o f
5:6– 13, suggests th at the w riter was p erh ap s m ore w orried ab o u t its ethical
consequences th an anything else. T h e lack o f specificity ab o u t such teaching
does n ot m ean th at it was th o u g h t o f as only a rem ote possibility. It is m ore
likely th at the w riter deem ed it a constant general threat. A fter all, he knew
w hat h ad h ap p e n ed in the case o f the Colossian church. In d eed , the w arnings
o f Acts 20:29, 30; 1 T im 1:3, 4; 6:3– 5, 20 attest to problem s with false teaching
in the churches o f this area in the post-apostolic period.
ev rfi Kvßeiqi t Cjv avdptoircov ev navovpjLQL irpös rr\v pedoöeiav rfft TrXävr}^, “by
h u m an cunning, by craftiness, in the schem ing o f e rro r.” T his fu rth e r sequence
o f th ree prepositional phrases asserts th at beh in d the th rea ten in g teachings,
m aking th em so dangerous, are deceitful people, ready to m anipulate an d
take advantage o f im m ature an d unstable believers. Küßeia, translated h ere as
cunning, literally m eant the throw o f the dice. In the ancient w orld dice-playing
frequently h ad negative connotations o f trickery, an d the player was th o u g h t
o f as a wily an d cu n n in g custom er (e.g., E pictetus, Diss. 2.19.28). “H u m a n ”
h ere also has negative connotations as th a t w hich is purely h u m a n a n d opposed
to th at which is in Christ. T h e w riter h ad fo u n d such a contrast already in
Col 2:8 (“according to h u m an tradition . . . an d no t according to C hrist”)
an d 2:20– 22 (“with C hrist . . . = according to h u m an com m andm ents an d
teachings”). H ere h u m an cu n n in g can be seen as opposed to the fullness o f
C hrist (4:13) o r th e tru th in Jesus (4:21). Ttavovpyia is th e craftiness o r u n sc ru p u -
lousness by which false teachers p u rsu e th eir ends o f leading the im m atu re
astray. Interestingly, this vice heads a massive list in Philo, Sacrif. 32, an d in
 Comment 259

2 C orinthians Paul h ad contrasted his apostolic m inistry with the practice o f

cu n n in g (4:2) an d attrib u ted the latter to the serp en t in his deception o f Eve
(11:3). T h e n o u n nedobeia, “schem ing,” occurs elsew here in the N T only in
this letter—in 6:11 in connection with th e devil. Its force can be ascertained
from the cognate verb pedobeveiv, “to devise o r schem e (evil)” (cf., e.g., LXX
2 Sam 19:27; Ign., Phil. 7.1). F or this w riter, such schem ing produces error.
Again, Paul h ad placed the vice o f ifkävq, “e rro r o r deceit,” in contrast to his
apostolic practice in 1 T hess 2:3 an d m ore generally in contrast to the tru th
in 2 T hess 2:11, 12. H ere also in E ph 4:14 th ere is a contrast to the reference
to tru th in th e following verse. “E rro r” is frequently used o f false teaching
(cf. J u d e 11; 1 J o h n 4:6; 2 Pet 2:18; 3:17). T hese parallel references p ro m p t
the reflection th a t the attitude to false teaching reflected here in E phesians is
sim ilar to th at fo u n d in the so-called Catholic epistles an d in the Pastorals. A
clear-cut difference betw een the apostolic tradition an d all o th e r teachings is
assum ed. T h e re is no attem p t to interact with o r even to refu te the content
o f any o f these teachings, as h ad taken place in Colossians. Instead, attack is
deem ed the best form o f defense, an d the p ro p o n e n ts o f o th er teachings are
accused o f evil in tentions an d o f being ready to m anipulate the weaknesses
o f believers to th eir own erro n eo u s ends (cf. also esp. 2 T im 3:1– 9; T itus
1:10– 16; 2 Pet 2:10– 22).
In the context o f 4:7– 16 this negative picture o f v 14 is m eant to u n derline
the im portance o f C hrist’s giving o f m inisters to the C hurch. Im m aturity on
the p a rt o f believers cannot be treated as a n eu tral state which will be outgrow n
in du e course. It is a highly d angerous condition because it lays them o pen
to m anipulation by cu n n in g people an d the forces o f erro r. B ut it is fo r precisely
such a situation th at pastors a n d teachers have been provided—to prevent
believers in th eir im m aturity from falling prey to false teaching and to lead
them from th e instability which ends in e rro r to the stability o f the tru th .
15a, b akr)devovre<; be ev a y 67177, “b u t ra th e r, speaking the tru th in love.”
T h e w riter re tu rn s to the positive side o f his portrayal o f th e C h u rch ’s m ovem ent
tow ard its goals. H e describes grow th instead o f im m aturity, a grow th which
takes place as believers speak the tru th in love instead o f being taken in by
those who p ro p ag ate e rro r th ro u g h th eir u nscru p u lo u s craftiness. T his contrast
betw een the first p a rt o f v 15 an d the last p a rt o f v 14 can be seen to have a
chiastic stru ctu re with akr)devovre<;, “speaking th e tru th ,” in opposition to rffr
irXavris, “o f e rro r,” an d ev 0767177 , “in love,” in opposition to ev navovpyiqL, “by
craftiness” (cf. also Schnackenburg, 190). Some argue th at akqdeveiv refers
n ot simply to speaking the tru th b u t to doing the tru th o r living according to
the tru th (cf. A bbott, 123; W estcott, 64; J. A. Robinson, 185; M itton, 156;
B ratcher an d N ida, Handbook, 105). T h e re is in fact a textual variant akr\deuav
be noiovvres “ra th e r doing the tru th ” (cham pioned by Dubois, N ovT 16 [1974]
30– 34), alth o u g h th e m anuscript evidence for it is very weak (FG). B ut akrjdevew
is used consistently in the LXX (cf. G en 20:16; 42:16; Prov 21:3; Isa 44:26;
Sir 31:4) an d in Philo (cf. Mos. 2.177; los. 95; Abr. 107; Decal. 84) with a
verbal connotation, m eaning “to speak th e tru th ,” an d th a t is its m ost likely
force h ere in E phesians (cf. also Schlier, 205; Gnilka, 217; B arth, 444; Schnack-
en b u rg , 190). J u s t as in G alatians P aul’s claim to be telling th e tru th to his
readers (4:16) is inextricably b o u n d u p with his proclam ation o f the tru th o f
260 E p h e s ia n s (4:1– 16)

the gospel (2:5, 14), so in E p h 4:15 th e C h u rc h ’s speaking the tru th is determ in ed

by th at w ord o f tru th which is the gospel o f salvation (1:13; cf. also 6:14). In
line with this, believers can n o t m ake use o f th e sam e m eans o f m anipulation
an d deceit as those who are ready to lead believers astray. Instead, they proclaim
the tru th by m eans o f love.
T h e ph rase ev ayanfl, “in love,” which occurs six tim es in this letter, has
been connected syntactically by a few scholars (e.g., M eyer, 230) with the follow-
ing verb av^rfoco^ev, “we m ay grow u p in love,” an d thereby paralleled with
the notion o f grow th in love in v 16. B ut th e m ajority o f com m entators connect
the p h rase with th e preceding verse. T h e chiastic stru ctu re o f th e contrast to
the en d o f v 15, which, as has been n o ted above, this clause th e n provides,
adds to th e likelihood th at this is the rig h t construal. A conceptual link with
the n o tion o f grow th is to be fo u n d h ere in any case, since the whole clause,
“speaking th e tru th in love,” should be u n d ersto o d as the m eans o f the C h u rch ’s
grow th. T h e association o f tru th a n d love in this clause is a significant one.
Any claim to loyalty to tru th which results in lack o f love to those perceived
to be disloyal stands as m uch co n d em n ed as any claim to all-em bracing love
which is in d ifferen t to tru th . B ut it is no t as if two com peting claims o r two
quite differen t qualities have to be held in balance. U ltim ately, at the h ea rt
o f the proclam ation o f the tru th is love, a n d a life o f love is the em bodim ent
o f th e tru th . T h e C h u rch reflects this relationship w hen its witness to the
tru th has love as its style an d as its pow er (cf. also Schnackenburg, 191).
av%rpoiixev ei? ainov ra navra, “m ay grow u p in every way to him .” Some
scholars u n d ersta n d th e syntax o f this clause differently, taking th e verb in a
transitive sense, which it has for exam ple in 1 C or 3:9 o r 2 C or 9:10, an d
seeing rd 7rdin a , in te rp re te d as the cosmos, as the verb’s object (cf. Schlier,
205–7; Steinm etz, ProtologischeHeilszuversicht, 120; E rnst, 358–59; H ow ard, ATS
20 [1974] 355– 56; M eyer, Kirche und Mission, 72– 76). T h e verse w ould th en
be tran slated “b u t ra th e r, speaking th e tru th in love, we m ay let the cosmos
grow u p o r cause th e cosmos to grow u p to him who is its h ea d ” an d would
speak o f th e C h u rch ’s role in b ringing th e cosmos to G od’s purposes fo r it in
Christ. As Schlier (“Ke^aXrj,” T D N T 3 [1965] 681) puts it, “W hen -as th e risen
L ord H e takes control o f the w orld in His body, H e is simply actualizing His
real pow er over creation. . . . H ence, the C h u rch as His body, w hen it relates
the w orld to itself, is simply in process o f taking over w hat truly belongs to
it.” In favor o f such an in terp re tatio n are th e p re d o m in a n t use o f rd navra as
the cosmos elsew here in the letter, th e fact th at th e letter’s earlier reference
to C hrist as h ead is m ost im m ediately in relation to the cosmos (1:22), an d
the w riter’s concern with th e C h u rc h ’s cosmic role. B ut w h eth er th e rest o f
the letter’s teaching ab o u t the C h u rc h ’s cosmic role is rightly described in
these term s an d w h eth er this role is in view at all h ere is highly questionable.
N ow here else in E phesians is th ere talk o f th e C h u rc h ’s active influence on
the cosmos, an d now here else is th e cosmos said to grow u p to C hrist (cf.
also M erklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 111; S chnackenburg, 191). In fact, grow th
is posited only o f th e C hurch, n o t o f the cosmos. In this context the preceding
verses have been ab o u t th e C h u rch grow ing to m aturity, a n d the following
verse will discuss the grow th o f th e body, so everything points to the grow th
in this verse being th at o f the C hurch. As in 2:21, the verb should th ere fo re
 Comment 261

be taken intransitively ra th e r th a n transitively (cf. BDF § 101, 309 [2]; BAGD

121), an d rd nävTa should be u n d ersto o d as an adverbial accusative, m eaning
“in every way” an d having the sam e force as the dative expression ev naotp in
1:23 (cf. BDF § 160; BAGD 633).
So C hrist’s giving o f gifts to the C h u rch is to enable the C hurch to m ove
tow ard its goals, an d th at m ovem ent is seen in term s o f believers’ grow th
tow ard Christ. In P aul’s letters, believers’ faith can be said to grow (cf. 2 C or
10:15; 2 T hess 1:3), an d grow th is used o f the developm ent o f the local C orin-
thian ch urch an d credited to G od in 1 C or 3:6, 7. T h e concept occurs m ore
often in Colossians, w here it is em ployed o f the w ork o f the gospel itself in
1:6, o f believers’ know ledge o f God in 1:10, an d o f the whole body o f the
C hurch, which is said in 2:19, the verse on which E ph 4:15, 16 is m odeled,
to “grow with a grow th th at is from G od.” H ere in Ephesians, then, the notion
o f the C h u rch ’s grow th is elaborated, an d 4:15 has affinities with 2 :20,21
where, as we have seen, C hrist is presen ted as the keystone o f a building in
the process o f grow th. T h e earlier statem ents o f the C h u rch ’s goals in 4:13
were prim arily descriptions o f the C h u rch itself in its state o f com pletion, b u t
now it is specifically C hrist who is the stan d ard o f m aturity, indicating again
th at for this w riter ecclesiology rem ains d eterm in ed an d m easured by C hristol-
ogy. T h e C h u rch is in C hrist an d has to grow u p tow ard him . T his underlines
th at the C h u rch ’s grow th is n o t being th o u g h t o f in term s o f quantity, a num erical
expansion o f its m em bership, b u t in term s o f quality, an increasing ap p ro x im a-
tion o f believers to Christ. In the face o f the schem ing o f erro r, believers are
not only to stand firm , as will be em phasized in 6:13, 14, b u t also to m ake
progress. T h a t p ro p e r grow th an d progress is to take place in every way,
th at is, in every aspect o f the C h u rch ’s life an d particularly in those aspects
singled o u t earlier, in unity, in know ledge, an d in speaking the tru th in love.
W hile E phesians m akes reference to an en d o f history (e.g., 4:30; 5:5; 6:13),
the im m inence o f th at en d is no t in view in the sam e way as it is in some o f
Paul’s letters. T h ese notions o f m ovem ent tow ard a goal, o f progress, o f m a tu r-
ing, an d o f grow th m ay well function as E phesians’ equivalent to som e o f the
fu tu re elem ents in P aul’s eschatology (cf. also Steinm etz, Protologische Heilszuver-
sicht, 114–21). T h ey certainly suggest th a t the C h u rch ’s fu tu re in history is
being taken seriously.
15c, 16 0 5 eonv r) K€(txxkri, Xpioros, ov näp to ocbpa . . . tt\v av^qoiv tov
oojuaros notelrai, “who is the head, C hrist, from w hom the whole body . . .
m akes bodily grow th.” In 1:22, 23 the w riter h ad already spoken o f C hrist as
head over all things for the C hurch, described as his body. Im plicit was the
idea th at he was also head over the C hurch. Now this relationship is m ade
explicit, as the o ne tow ard w hom believers grow is identified as Christ, the
head. T h e term inology o f Col 2:19 is taken u p so th at Christ, the head, can
be seen as b o th the goal an d the source o f the C h u rch ’s growth. T h e focus is
m ore exclusively on C hrist as the source o f grow th th a n in Colossians, since
Colossians h ad also included a reference to the grow th com ing from God,
b ut this w riter om its tov deov, “o f G od,” after the n o u n “grow th.” In fact, he
reworks Col 2:19 in such a way as to convey an d sum m arize some o f his own
em phases from earlier in the pericope. T his has resulted in an overloading
o f the relative clause in v 16 an d explains th e awkward syntax with its five
262 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1–16)

prepositional phrases. T h e reason for th e re d u n d a n t genitive rov acoparos,

“o f th e body” or “bodily,” as p a rt o f th e verbal expression “m akes bodily grow th,”
is its distance from the first m en tio n o f “body” as the subject o f the clause
(cf. also J . A. R obinson, 188). F or fu rth e r discussion o f the dep en d en ce on
m odification o f Col 2:19 in E p h 4:15c, 16 see Form!Structure!Setting.
T h e m etap h o r o f C hrist as h ead was originally in d e p e n d e n t o f th e m etap h o r
o f th e C h u rch as body, b u t th e two are b ro u g h t to g eth er in Colossians an d
E phesians, w here the C h u rch as body is seen as receiving its life from C hrist
an d C hrist’s head sh ip is u n d ersto o d in th e sense o f bo th rule an d origin. For
m ore extensive discussion o f th e likelihood o f the w riter having taken u p Colos-
sians’ fusion o f two separate m etaphors, fo r which Hellenistic th o u g h t about
the cosmos provided the catalyst (e.g., Philo, Praem. 125, “the virtuous one
. . . will be th e head o f th e h u m a n race an d all th e others like th e m em bers
o f a body which are anim ated by the pow ers in the head an d above”), an d
for trea tm e n t o f the developm ent o f th o u g h t, w hereby grow th can be said to
com e from th e head because o f the connotations o f Ke^äkrj as determ inative
source, see Comment on 1:22b, 23. “B ody” im agery fo r the C h u rch has been
em ployed already in this passage in vv 4, 12. H e re in v 16, in com parison
with its use by Paul in 1 C or 12 an d R om 12, w hich also talk ab o u t the m u tu al
contributions o f th e body’s m em bers, th e w riter’s em phasis is on the necessity
for co rp o rate grow th ra th e r th a n o n in terd e p en d en c e itself. T h ro u g h th e p ro p e r
functioning o f the parts, th e whole body is to be active in p ro m o tin g its own
grow th, alth o u g h ultim ately it is C hrist w ho is seen as providing th e m eans
for th e body to carry o u t such activity. F rom this perspective, relating C hrist
as head to th e C h u rch as his body becom es an ap p ro p riate way to sum u p
the m ain th ru st o f vv 7 – 16. As th e one w ho has been exalted to sovereign
ru le over all things, C hrist is in th e position an d has the pow er to supply his
C h u rch with th e leadership, th e life, a n d the love th at are the requisites for
its grow th.
ovvapixoXo'yovfxevov tcai ovpßißa$öpevov dia naoris d 0 ffr rffr emxopr)yia<;, “jo in e d
an d b ro u g h t to g eth er by every ligam ent which gives supply.” T h e first participle,
ovvapp.6koyovp.evov, “jo in e d to g eth er,” has b een used by this w riter earlier in
2:21 as p art o f his architectural im agery fo r th e C h u rch ’s life, while the second,
ovpßtßa$öpevov, “b ro u g h t to g eth er,” has b een taken over from Col 2:19 (cf.
also Col 2:2) an d is a term th a t was frequently em ployed in a context o f reconcilia-
tion (cf. H ero d o tu s 1.74.3; T hucydides 2.29.6; Plato, Prot. 337E). T h e two
p resen t participles are virtually synonym ous (pace W hitaker, J T S 31 [1930]
48– 49, who claim ed, “the first participle speaks o f position, th e second o f
m ovem ent; th e first o f relation to C hrist, th e second o f th at relation in action”),
and, taken to g eth er, u n d erlin e forcefully th at for the unified grow th o f the
body its m em bers have to be involved in a process o f continual m u tu al adjust-
m ent. T his interaction o f the m em bers is assisted “by every ligam ent which
gives supply.” acprj has been in te rp re te d as sense o r sensation (cf. M eyer, 234),
contact (cf. A bbott, 126; B arth, 449), a n d jo in t o r ligam ent (cf. m ost com m enta-
tors). T h e last in terp re tatio n is alm ost certainly th e rig h t one, since in Col
2:19 d 0?7 is linked th ro u g h th e use o f a com m on article with ovvdeopos, which
h ad a recognized physiological connotation as a jo in t, an d since it is also em -
ployed in this way in A ristotle for the connection betw een parts o f th e body
 Comment 263

(cf. Metaph. 4.4; 10.3; Phys. Ausc. 4.6; De Gen. et Corr. 1.6, 8 ; De Caelo 1.11; cf.
also esp. Lightfoot, St. P aul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 196– 97,
who concludes th at the term refers to “the joinings, the ju n ctu re s. W hen applied
to the h u m an body they w ould be ‘j o in ts,’ provided th a t we use the w ord
accurately o f th e relations betw een contiguous links, an d n o t loosely [as it is
often used] o f th e parts o f the limbs them selves in the neig h b o u rh o o d o f the
contact”). Each ligam ent is seen as a m eans o f su p p o rt o r supply for the o th er
parts o f the body, emxopr\yia occurs elsew here in the N T only in Phil 1:19,
w here it m eans “h elp ,” “supply,” o r “su p p o rt.” B ut the cognate verb, in addition to
its participial form in Col 2:19, is fo u n d in P aul’s w ritings in Gal 3:5 an d 2
C or 9:10, w here it is best translated as “to supply.” H ere the genitive phrase
rf )5 emxopriyias, literally “o f supply,” should be u n d ersto o d in an active sense,
referrin g to the ligam ents giving supply ra th e r th an th eir being supplied to
the body (cf. also Schlier, 208; Gnilka, 219; Klauck, Wissenschaft und Weisheit
36 [1973] 103; Schnackenburg, 192). In this way, the w riter pictures the liga-
m ents functioning to provide the connections betw een the various parts and
thereby m ediating life an d energizing pow er th ro u g h o u t the body. In the
light o f the earlier p a rt o f th e pericope, this is to be seen as an im age o f the
m inisters who have been given to help m aintain unity an d enable grow th to
m aturity (cf. also Schlier, 207– 8; M asson, 199; Gnilka, 220; Klauck, Wissenschaft
und Weisheit 36 [1973] 103; M erklein, Das kirchliche A mt, 114 – 15; Schnackenburg,
193; M ussner, 131). It is tru e th at m inisters are unlikely to be the reference
o f the jo in ts an d ligam ents o f Col 2:19 (cf. Schweizer, Colossians, 164; O ’B rien,
Colossians, 147). B ut th e w riter o f E phesians has placed m uch g reater em phasis
on this aspect o f the body m e tap h o r by adding to ?, “every” o r “each,” by
m oving this prepositional phrase to a position after th e two participles an d
im m ediately before the verbal expression, “m akes bodily grow th,” by om itting
the accom panying reference to joints, an d by u n d erlin in g the m ediating func-
tion o f the ligam ents th ro u g h the addition o f the substantive expression “o f
supply” in com parison with the cognate participial form ulation o f Col 2:19.
T hese m odifications an d the context in E ph 4 m ake it highly probable th at
what is being h ighlighted is the role o f the m inisters in the whole body ruled
an d n o u rish ed by C hrist an d that, ju s t as in v 11 the giving o f C hrist was
em bodied in p articular persons, so h ere in v 16 the grow th from C hrist is
m ediated by p articular persons.
n a f evepyeiav ev per pep evos enaorov pepovs, “according to the activity com m en-
surate with each individual p a rt.” T hese two prepositional phrases are p art o f
the w riter’s additions to Col 2:19 an d recall both the phrase Kara rr\v evepyeiav
in 1:19 an d 3:7, w here G od’s pow er w hich raised C hrist was said to be operative
in believers an d in the apostle Paul, an d the term inology o f the earlier p art
o f the pericope in v 7 (cf. Kara to perpov an d evi de enaorcp). So in this sum m arizing
picture o f v 16 bo th particular m inisters an d every m em ber find a place. Each
p art o f the body receives th e energizing pow er it needs, an d the p ro p e r grow th
o f the whole body is in p ro p o rtio n to an d ad ap ted to each part. Each m em ber
has his o r h e r distinct role in the well-being o f the whole, an d the unity in
diversity depicted earlier in the passage is seen to be essential for the p ro p e r
grow th o f th e C hurch.
et? oiKodoprjv eavrov ev äyäirxi, “for th e pu rp o se o f building itself u p in love.”
264 E p h e s ia n s (4:1– 16)

O n th e n otion o f th e building u p o f th e body, see Comment on its earlier

occurrence in this passage in v 1 2 , w here the m inisters w ere u n d ersto o d as
having been given for th e edification o f th e C hurch. It now becom es clear
that, how ever significant the w riter deem s th eir role to be in this reg ard , m inisters
do n o t have exclusive claims to this function. In th e building u p o f itself the
whole body is involved. T h e eavrov, “o f itself,” adds to the previous reference
the note o f th e C h u rch ’s active participation an d is in line with the earlier
em phasis o f th e verb on th e C h u rch ’s pro m o tio n o f its own grow th, th o u g h
ultim ately th e source o f th at grow th is C hrist, the head. T h e final prepositional
p hrase o f th e pericope— “in love”— recalls its o p en in g exhortation, particularly
the clause in v 2 – “bearing with one an o th e r in love” (cf. also v 15a). If any
co rp o rate grow th o r building u p is to take place, love is the indispensable
m eans. T h e climactic stress on this perform s a function h ere sim ilar to th at
o f P aul’s h ym n to love in th e m idst o f his discussion o f th e p ro p e r w orking
o f th e body o f C hrist in 1 C or 12– 14. Love is the lifeblood o f this body, and,
therefo re, th e ultim ate criterion for th e assessm ent o f the C h u rch ’s grow th
will be how fa r it is characterized by love.

Explanation

T his passage stands at th e fore o f th e second, explicitly p araenetic h alf o f

the letter. As v 1 indicates, its ethical exh o rtatio n is based on th e first h a lf’s
thanksgiving for an d re m in d e r o f the re ad ers’ calling, a calling which has at
its h ea rt m em bership o f the one body o f C hrist, the C hurch. In this op en in g
to th e letter’s second half, th ro u g h a m ixture o f direct exhortation a n d theologi-
cal assertion, th e w riter appeals to his read ers to play th eir p a rt in enabling
the C h u rch to attain to the unity an d m aturity which rightly belong to it.
T h e ap p eal stresses the p a rt all m em bers m ust play an d the necessity o f love
if they are to fu nction in harm ony, b u t it singles o u t in particular the vital
role o f th e m inisters o f the w ord in brin g in g ab o u t unity an d m aturity.
4 :1–16 consists o f two m ain sections— vv 1–6 a n d vv 7– 16. T h e first section
is a call to unity. U sing th e Pauline fo rm u la o f appeal, “I ex h o rt . . . ,” with
m in o r m odifications an d taking u p m aterial from Col 3:12 – 15 in such a way
as to u n d erlin e his distinctive concern for the C h u rch an d its unity, the w riter
appeals to th e recipients that, as a m atter o f the utm ost urgency, they m ake
every effort to preserve th e unity already given by th e Spirit. If they are to
m aintain an d d em o n strate this unity a n d be b o u n d to g eth er as agents o f peace
an d reconciliation, the qualities th e readers will need to display are th e hum ility
which springs from a realization o f th eir own dep en d en ce on G od’s grace
an d th e w orth o f th eir fellow believers, the gentleness which issues in consider-
ation o f th e needs o f others, an d th e patience which is to leran t o f the shortcom -
ings o f others. W hat will be necessary, in short, is a m utual forbearance th at
is only possible th ro u g h th e pow er o f love. T his ethical exhortation to show
the virtues req u ired for unity is given a theological fram ew ork an d thereby
linked to th e first p a rt o f the letter th ro u g h th e introductory appeal to live
worthily o f th eir calling from God. Lives which contribute to th e unity o f the
C h u rch are, th erefo re, seen as the only ap p ro p ria te response to the divine
initiative in accom plishing all the blessings o f salvation an d to the divine pu rp o se
 Explanation 265

for cosmic unity which has its p resen t focus in the C hurch. F u rth e r theological
u n d erg ird in g o f th e call to unity is provided as the w riter shifts from direct
appeal to assertion and, in a series o f seven acclam ations, rem inds his readers
o f the fu n d am en tal unities on which th e existence o f the C h u rch depends.
H e builds aro u n d traditional confessional m aterial associated with baptism ,
as he moves from the oneness o f the C h u rch th ro u g h the oneness o f its L ord
to the oneness o f its God. As th e letter has already m ade clear, the C h u rch is
one body o u t o f Jew s an d Gentiles (cf. 2:16; 3:6), an d in th a t one body lives
an d works the one Spirit by w hom all w ere initiated into the body an d are
given access to th e F ath er (cf. 1:13; 2:18). In a sim ilar way, the re m in d e r o f
the one h o p e o f th e read ers’ calling takes u p n o t only the em phasis on G od’s
calling from earlier in this passage b u t also the notion o f h ope from earlier
in the letter (cf. 1:18). T h e calling to live lives th at contribute to the unity o f
the C h u rch can be seen to co rresp o n d to the one h ope for a unified and
reconciled cosmos (cf. 1:9, 10) which is anticipated in th e existence o f a unified
C hurch (cf. 3:9, 10). T h e series o f fu n d am en tal unities continues as believers
are rem in d ed th a t they acknow ledged one L ord o f th e C h u rch an d cosmos
w hen they confessed th eir one faith in C hrist in the unifying initiation rite o f
the one baptism . T hese unities, which form the grounds for the initial appeal
for th e practice o f unity, climax in the acclam ation o f the oneness o f the God
who in his su p rem e transcendence an d pervasive im m anence is the universal
Father. T h e C h u rch is to be the em bodim ent not only o f the final cosmic
unity p lan n ed by G od b u t also o f th e unity o f this G od him self.
T h e second section o f the passage, vv 7 – 16, indicates how the diversity o f
C hrist’s giving o f grace, an d particularly his gifts o f various m inisters o f the
word, is m ean t to contribute to th e unity an d m aturity o f the C hurch. In
developing this point, the w riter cites an d expounds Ps 68:18 in the light o f
w hat he wants to say about C hrist an d th e C hurch an d em ploys for his own
ends m aterial from 1 C or 12, Rom 12, a n d Col 2:19. A lthough it functions
as an indirect ap p eal to the readers, the section continues with theological
assertions and, n o t surprisingly, takes on th e characteristic style o f the first
h alf o f the letter, particularly in the long overladen sentence o f vv 11–16.
T o each individual w ho belongs to the C h u rch C hrist has given grace in
various p ro portions. T his notion o f giving sets the direction for the rest o f
the passage, as first it is su p p o rted by S cripture, next the identity o f th e giver
is u n d erlin ed , an d th e n the n a tu re a n d purposes o f the gifts are set out. Ps
68:18, which m ay well have h ad associations with Moses an d the giving o f
the law, is now seen to speak o f C hrist’s triu m p h a n t ascent, which results no t
in receiving, as in the original, b u t in giving gifts. In a m idrashic exposition
the w riter goes on to show th a t an ascent also im plies a descent, eith er the
p rio r descent o f the incarnation or, p erh ap s m ore likely, a subsequent descent
in the Spirit to give the gifts. T h e identity o f the giver is thus established. It
is the ascended L ord, whose ru le pervades the universe, who by his Spirit is
active in th e C h urch, giving it the necessary gifts to equip it for its task o f
being th e pledge o f the universe’s ultim ate unity in him . T h e specific gifts o f
the exalted C hrist m entioned in the psalm citation are now identified as p articu-
lar people— the apostles, th e pro p h ets, the evangelists, an d the pastors and
teachers. T h e apostles an d p ro p h ets are again in a foundational role, an d the
266 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1–16)

evangelists carry on th e w ork o f m issionary proclam ation a n d fo u n d in g o f

churches in th e post-apostolic period, while th e pastors an d teachers pass on
the apostolic trad ition in such a way as to preserve the unity an d prom ote
the m aturity o f th e C hurch. T h e responsibilities o f pastors a n d teachers overlap,
b u t are n o t identical. Pastors, as equivalents to those elsew here designated
bishops o r elders, exercise leadership th ro u g h n u rtu re a n d guidance, a n d teach-
ers, as they ex p o u n d the apostolic traditions a n d the S criptures, contribute to
the C h u rch ’s grow th in wisdom an d know ledge.
T h e w riter has u n d erlin e d th e significance o f these m inisters by describing
th em as gifts o f the exalted C hrist. H e now explains th a t significance fu rth e r
by asserting th at they have b een given to b rin g individual believers to a state
o f com pletion an d to build u p the whole body o f C hrist. T h ese are th e m ajor
aspects o f th e w ork o f service they are to carry o u t until the C h u rch reaches
its goal a n d in o rd e r th a t it m ight reach its goal. T h e goal is depicted in
th ree ways: (i) as a p p ro p riatin g th e unity contained in its one faith a n d in its
one know ledge o f C hrist, the divine Son, (ii) as becom ing the m atu re person,
reaching a full ad u lth o o d which is n o t individual b u t corporate, an d (iii) as
conform ing to th e m easure o f th e stature o f th e fullness o f C hrist, taking on
the m atu re p ro p o rtio n s th a t befit th e C h u rch as the place o f C hrist’s presence
an d rule. As they help th e C h u rch to attain to th e com plete realization o f
th at which it already is, the m inisters o f th e w ord enable believers to leave
b eh in d th e im m aturity o f those who are children an d the instability o f those
who are tossed to an d fro by false teaching an d are susceptible to the u n sc ru p u -
lousness an d schem ing o f e rro r o f its p ro p o n en ts. G row th tow ard th e C h u rch ’s
goal will instead be characterized by th e proclam ation o f the tru th which is
em bodied in a life o f love. T h e final depiction o f th e C h u rc h ’s goal in this
passage m akes clear th at the stan d ard o f com pleteness tow ard which it is to
move is n o t ju s t som e potential in h e re n t in its ow n existence b u t is C hrist
him self, th e C h u rch ’s head. In a sum m ary o f th e passage’s em phases o n unity
in diversity an d o n a grow th in love, in w hich n o t only each believer in general
b u t also m inisters in particu lar have a p a rt to play, the w riter re tu rn s at the
en d to the body im agery fo r th e C hurch. T h e whole body is to be active in
p ro m o tin g its own building u p a n d grow th in th e quality o f its life, as every
p art o f th e organism functions in harm o n y th ro u g h a process o f continual
m u tu al adjustm ent. B ut the ligam ents in particular, re p resen tin g th e role o f
th e m inisters, will provide connections betw een th e o th e r parts an d m ediate
energizing pow er. T h e grow th o f th e body is characterized by love, th e body’s
lifeblood. C hrist is n o t only the goal o f the grow th b u t also its ultim ate source,
supplying all th at is necessary fo r th e body’s well-being.
It is often p o in ted o u t th a t in the acclam ations o f oneness in vv 4– 6, “one
G od an d F ath er,” “o ne L o rd ,” a n d “one S pirit” in close ju x tap o sitio n provide
the elem ents o f later trin itarian teaching. B ut it was n o t the w riter’s inten tio n
to relate these th ree unities in any confessional form ulation. In fact, his em phasis
in th e series o f seven unities falls m ore o n “one body,” “one L o rd ,” a n d “one
G od an d F ath er.” T his corresponds with earlier sections o f th e letter in which
th e th ree d o m in an t foci have ten d ed to be God, C hrist, an d the C hurch. H ow ever
in th e passage as a whole it is n o t su rp risin g that, as th e w riter begins to
direct his atten tio n m ore specifically to his re ad ers’ lives a n d interrelationships,
 Explanation 267

it is th e C h u rch in particular th at dom inates. B ut the C hurch has no t becom e

the exclusive focus. T h e exalted C hrist in his relation to the C h u rch also rem ains
very m uch to th e fore in the w riter’s perspective. T h e role o f the Spirit is
su b o rdinated to th at o f th e C h u rch an d o f Christ. T h e unity o f the C hurch
th at is to be m ain tained can be called th e unity o f th e Spirit (v 3), an d the
one Spirit is linked to the one body (v 4). T h e role the Spirit had in the
giving o f gifts, according to 1 C or 12, is now taken by C hrist (vv 7, 11), and
the Spirit’s descent u p o n the C h u rch m ay well have to be presupposed as
lying beh in d th e notion o f C hrist’s descent (vv 9, 10). Similarly, G od’s initiative
in salvation an d in th e bringing into being o f th e C hurch, stressed in the first
h alf o f th e letter, is now presu p p o sed ra th e r th an m ade explicit, except in
connection with th e notion o f calling (vv 1,4), w here th e passive form o f the
verbs indicates th at G od is the one w ho calls. T h e m ention o f G od’s universal
fath erh o o d in v 6 is prim arily to provide the climactic g ro u n d for the appeal
for the C h u rch ’s unity.
So E ph 4 : 1–16 concentrates heavily on the C hurch. In fact, no o th er section
o f the letter is so directly an d intensively devoted to the C h u rch ’s life and
purpose. T h e C h u rch is the sphere into which the readers have en tered th ro u g h
th eir faith an d th eir baptism , the context in which they live ou t th eir calling.
T h e m ajor im age fo r this com m unity, as earlier in th e letter, is th at o f the
body (vv 4, 12, 16) and, as earlier, this im age can be com bined with the language
o f building (vv 12, 16). T h e C hurch is also the fullness o f C hrist (v 13), again
taking u p an earlier description, an d in its final state can be seen as “the
m atu re p erso n .” All this is p a rt o f a dynam ic picture o f a corporate entity
which grows as its individual m em bers are involved in a continual process o f
m utual adju stm en t an d which is on th e m ove tow ard unity, com pleteness,
m aturity, an d conform ity to Christ. T h e unity o f this society (vv 2– 6, 13, 16)
and, closely linked with this, its m aturity (vv 12– 16) are clearly the w riter’s
m ajor concerns. T h e C h u rch is n o t a chance collection o f individuals; it has a
unity already given by G od’s Spirit, an d th e top priority on its agenda m ust
be to preserve this. B ut at th e sam e tim e, this unity is no t a m onochrom e
uniform ity; th e variety in C hrist’s distribution o f grace to all ensures its rich
diversity. As long as th ere is m u tu al forbearance, this differentiation can be a
factor th at prom otes ra th e r th a n hinders unity. As the w riter stresses, both at
the b eginning (v 2) an d at th e e n d (vv 15, 16) o f th e passage, the essential
ingred ien t fo r the achievem ent o f the harm ony o f unity in diversity is love.
Love is th e energizing pow er beh in d th e com m unity’s drive to m aintain unity,
at th e h ea rt o f its proclam ation o f tru th an d all the way th ro u g h its process
o f co rp o rate grow th.
T his passage’s distinctive contribution to the notion o f the unity in diversity
o f the C h u rch as the body o f C hrist is its em phasis on a stru ctu red unity,
which can contain the diversity o f th e essential contributions o f each individual
m em ber (vv 7, 16) while highlighting th e particularly significant role o f certain
people— th e apostles, p ro p h ets, evangelists, pastors, an d teachers (vv 11– 16).
T h e im portance an d authority o f these leaders a n d m inisters o f the w ord are
und ersco red as they are depicted as th e bounty which flows to the C hurch as
the result o f th e triu m p h o f its ascended Lord. T h e position o f the evangelists,
pastors, an d teachers o f th e w riter’s own tim e is also stren g th en ed by their
268 E p h e s ia n s (4 :1–16)

being listed alongside th e foun d atio n al apostles an d prophets. In this w riter’s

perspective, th e gifts o f th e exalted C hrist com e in th e form o f particular
people, an d these m inisters are C hrist’s m eans o f eq u ip p in g the C h u rch to
attain to its goals o f unity a n d m aturity. T h ey are to b rin g both individual
believers an d th e entire C h u rch to a state o f com pletion. As ligam ents in the
body, they play a vital, cohesive role in th e C h u rch ’s grow th. T h e ir m inistries
are viewed n o t simply as spontaneous a n d h ap h a zard functions b u t m ore as
offices th a t are constitutive for the life o f a C h u rch o n th e move tow ard becom ing
w hat it already is as the fullness o f C hrist. T h ese offices are, above all, character-
ized by service which unifies, which builds u p , which stabilizes, an d which
enables grow th tow ard Christ. Evangelists, pastors, a n d teachers p roduce unity
an d m aturity as they proclaim , preserve, a n d apply the apostolic tradition.
T h e w riter is particularly concerned w ith th e p a rt they have to play in co n trib u t-
ing to the unity o f faith a n d know ledge, in providing an antidote to false
teaching, an d in b ringing ab o u t a com m unity th a t proclaim s the tru th in love.
A lthough th e C h u rch is at th e fo re fro n t o f th e w riter’s th o u g h t in this
passage, it should again be clear th a t ecclesiology has n o t swallowed u p C hristol-
ogy. C hrist rem ains th e one L ord o f th e one C h u rch (v 5), who from his
exalted position o f cosmic L ordship gives bo th grace to individuals an d m inisters
o f the w ord to th e C hurch. T h e C h u rch is his fullness (v 13) a n d his body (v
12) an d as its h ead C hrist is both its b eginning a n d its end, the source an d
the goal o f its grow th (vv 15, 16). In this way we see again th at fo r th e w riter
to the Ephesians the C h u rch could never be th o u g h t o f simply as a new religious
cult o r social gro u p ing, a n d th a t its real ch aracter could only be appreciated
w hen it was con tem plated from th e perspective o f its relationship to its Lord.
T h e C h u rch ’s confession o f one universal G od (v 6) m eans th at it continues
to exist fo r his one world. B ut it is th e C h u rch ’s relationship to its cosmic
L ord th at d eterm ines the shape o f this relationship to the cosmos. T h e focus
o f th e passage is on th e C h u rc h ’s in n e r grow th ra th e r th an on its m ission,
b u t th e quality o f its co rp o rate life has everything to do with the C h u rch ’s
fulfilling its role in the world. T h e w riter’s belief is th at C hrist’s ascension far
above all th e heavens was in o rd e r th a t h e m ight fill the cosmos with his
sovereign ru le a n d th a t his w ork in his C h u rch is p a rt o f the carrying o u t o f
th at rule (vv 10, 11). C hrist has been exalted to fill th e cosmos, b u t at p re sen t
only th e C h u rch is his fullness. So w here th e C h u rch is increasingly a p p ro p ria t-
ing w hat it is an d attaining to th e m easure o f th e statu re o f the fullness o f
C hrist (v 13), it is allowing C hrist to take m ore a n d m ore possession o f the
world over which he is L ord. In particular, as it em bodies the unity it already
possesses, th e C h u rch fulfills its calling to be th e paradigm o f fu tu re cosmic
unity (cf. vv 1, 4). U nity in th e C h u rch is a statem en t to the rest o f th e cosmos
an d its pow ers o f G od’s p u rp o se for his world.
Final cosmic h arm ony a n d the C h u rc h ’s unity as a pledge o f this are w hat
is involved in this passage’s em phasis on th e one h o p e o f believers’ calling (v
4). T his no tio n o f h o p e reflects an eschatological perspective which looks beyond
the C h u rch to th e cosmos (cf. 1:9, 10). B ut it is n o t simply th at the C hurch
constitutes th e realized elem ent in th e w riter’s eschatology; th ere are both an
“already” a n d a “n o t yet” to the C h u rc h ’s ow n existence. I f in the first h alf o f
the letter th e realized eschatology was such th a t it m ight have ap p e are d th at
 Explanation 269

the C h u rch already possessed full salvation, it now becom es clear th at a p p ro p ri-
ating w hat has already been provided is a continual process. In fact, in the
latter p art o f this passage, it is the C h u rch ’s final state o f com pletion th at
occupies th e fu tu re horizon. T his goal can be pictured in term s o f grow ing
u p tow ard C hrist him self (v 15), b u t as the C hurch becom es w hat it already
is in Christ, the en d is viewed prim arily in term s o f the attain m en t o f its
unity an d m aturity ra th e r th a n in the characteristically Pauline term s o f the
parousia o f C hrist. G row th is the m ajor im age fo r this eschatological perspective,
which takes seriously the C h u rch ’s fu tu re in history an d which arises from
the need to supply a vision o f its continuing task an d goals.
As a teacher in the generation after the death o f Paul, the w riter believes
th at the Pauline churches o f Asia M inor need to regain a sense o f cohesion
arid purpose. His appeal to them to m aintain the C h u rc h ’s essential unity
an d to progress to m aturity an d his vision o f the C h u rch ’s calling on which
this appeal is based are in ten d ed to achieve this end. Vital to the actual attain -
m en t o f such unity an d m aturity, he is convinced, will be the role o f o th er
m inisters like him self in faithfully an d creatively transm itting the apostolic
message in a post-apostolic situation. T h e priority o f this concern about the
C h u rch ’s consciousness o f its calling an d o f its unity as p aram o u n t within
th at calling an d the continuity o f this concern with th at o f the first h alf o f
the letter account for the focus on ecclesiology at the outset o f the paraenetical
section. T h e con tinued concentration on the overall picture o f the C h u rch ’s
calling precedes fu rth e r practical exhortation, as the corporate dim ension o f
believers’ existence is m ade foundational to th eir living in the world. Clearly
in the view o f this w riter, C hristian ethics is first o f all a call to participate in
a distinctive com m unity, the C hurch. Unity, stability an d progress tow ard m atu -
rity w ithin the C h u rch are necessities if this C h u rch is to provide the responsible
witness to the su rro u n d in g society fo r which the rest o f the paraenesis will
ask. B ut even afte r beginning his ethical appeal, the w riter is constrained to
show th at the exalted C hrist has in fact supplied w hat is necessary fo r the
C hurch to becom e w hat it is m ean t to be. His vision o f the C h u rch an d o f its
calling in th e w orld is not to be th o u g h t o f as a totally im possible ideal. H e
m aintains th at th e resources have been given for the C h u rch to be able to
dem onstrate its unity, to proclaim the tru th in love, an d to attain to com pleteness
in Christ.
Exhortation to Live According to the New
Humanity Rather Than the Old (4:17–24)
Bibliography

Benoit, P. “Eph 4, 1–24: Exhortation ä l’unite.” AsSeign 71 (1963) 14–26. Coune, M.

“Revetir l’homme nouveau (Ep 4,23– 28).” AsSeign 74 (1963) 16–32. Fischer, K. M.
Tendenz und Absicht, 147–50, 152–61. Gnilka, J. “Paränetische Traditionen im Epheser-
brief.” In Melanges Bibliques. FS B. Rigaux, ed. A. Descamps and A. de Halleux. Gembloux:
Duculot, 1970, 397–410. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos, 248– 56. Jervell, J. Imago Dei.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1960, 236–56, 288–92. Larsson, E. Christus als
Vorbild: Eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten. Uppsala: Almquist
& Wiksells, 1962, 223– 30. Merklein, H. “Eph 4, 1–5, 20 als Rezeption von Kol 3, 1–
17.” In Kontinuität und Einheit, ed. P. G. Müller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder,
1981, 194– 210. Potterie, I. de al. “Jesus et la verite d’après Eph 4,21.” AnBib 18
(1963) 45–57. Wegenast, K. Das Verständnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropauli-
nen. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961, 131– 32. Wild, R. A. ‘“ Be Imitators of
God’: Discipleship in the Letter to the Ephesians.” In Discipleship in the New Testament,
ed. F. F. Segovia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985, 127–43.

Translation

17 This, then, I solemnly declarea in the Lord, that you are no longer to lead
your lives as do the Gentiles,b in the futility of their minds, 18being darkened in
their thinking, separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in
them, because of the hardening of their hearts.c 19 Their moral sensitivity having
become dulled,d they indeed have given themselves over to debauchery in order to
pursue every kind of impurity with covetousness.e 20But that is not the way you
learned Christ— 21 assuming that you have heard of him and were taught in him,
as the truth is in Jesus, 22 that, as regards your former way of life, you should put
o ff{ the old person who is being corrupted because of the desires which come from
deceit,g 23 that you should be renewed as regards the spirit of your m indh 24and
that you should put on the new person who is created in God's likenessi in the
righteousness and holiness which come from the truth.

Notes
aA literal translation of the Greek text, which contains two verbs, would be “I say and testify,”
but the function of the latter verb is to emphasize the importance to be attached to the former.
bThere is a variant reading rd Xourä eQvr\, “the other Gentiles,” in Nc D b’c K L P ^ syrP goth
arm. Xourd appears to be an interpretative intrusion which weakens the force o f the designation
that omits it. The latter is the more difficult reading and has the clear external support o f p 46
N * A B D * F G 082 33 88 255 256 263 itd-g vg copsa>bo eth (<contra Meyer, 191–92).
cThe Greek text of this pericope contains two sentences—vv 17– 19 and vv 20–24. In the
Translation the former has been broken up, although in the Greek v 19 continues with the relative
pronoun derives, “who indeed.”
dD F G P 1241 it syrP goth arm eth Irenaeus have airriXmK&res, “despairing,” instead of
äTrrjXyriKÖTes, lit. “having ceased to feel pain, become callous,” which has the far stronger support
of P 46 N A B syrh copsa’150 Clement Origen. The former is probably a straightforward scribal
error because of the similarity of the words, although it might also be an interpretation o f the
original, possibly under the influence of the description of the Gentiles in 2:12.
 Form! Structure / Setting 271

eev irXeove^lqL, “with covetousness,” could be taken as qualifying et? epyauiav, “in order to practice,
pursue,” i.e., “in order to pursue with an insatiable desire.” But in view o f the later relationship
of irXeove^ia to amdapoia, “impurity,” in 5:3 (cf. also 5:5) and the way the term is used in Col
3:5, to which this passage is also related, it has been construed here as an independent accompanying
object of the pursuit. For this use o f ev with the force of nm as part of the writer’s characteristic
Semitic style, see K. G. Kuhn, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” 120.
fThere is much dispute about how the three infinitives in vv 22– 24 should be construed and
translated. This translation takes them as infinitives of content qualifying e5i0dx0T?re, “you were
taught,” rather than as imperatives, though even on this construction they retain something of
an imperatival force. For fuller discussion of the syntax, see under Comment on v 22. In fact, in
the case of the second infinitive, the imperative ävaveovoQe can be found in the inferior variant
of p46 d K 33 69 it syrP. Similarly, in the case o f the third infinitive, the imperative evdvaaade is
found in some manuscripts (p 46 N B* K it syr).
g7ffr d7rdrr?5 has been taken as a genitive o f origin, “the desires which come from deceit,”
rather than as a genitive o f quality, “the deceitful desires.” Such a translation also brings out the
contrast of this expression with the genitive rfft akrtfeias in the depiction o f the new person in v
24, which involves “the righteousness and holiness which come from the truth” (cf. esp. Murphy-
O’Connor, “Truth: Paul and Qumran,” 207– 10).
hThe Greek expression here is rep irvev^an not ev rep nvev^an as found in p 49 B 33 1175 1739
1835 1881, and is taken as a dative of respect rather than an instrumental dative.
‘/card deöv, lit. “in accordance with God,” could mean “according to God’s will” or “similar to
God, like God.” For discussion of this, and justification for preferring the latter force, see Comment
on v 24.

Form / Structure / Setting

In term s o f its structure an d sequence this pericope has two parts— the
exh o rtatio n n o t to live like the Gentiles (vv 17– 19) an d a m ore positive co u n ter-
p a rt setting o u t the type o f life th at is in accord with th e C hristian tradition
(vv 21– 24). Each p a rt can be fu rth e r divided into two subsections. T h e basic
exhortation, no lo nger to live as the Gentiles, is expressed in a form ulation
indicating the im portance, urgency, an d authority the w riter attaches to his
ex h ortation (v 17ab). T his is followed by an extended negative depiction o f
Gentile thinking an d conduct, in which the w riter, in characteristic fashion,
strings to g eth er participial clauses, prepositional phrases, an d a relative clause
(vv 17c—19). Distinctively C hristian thinking an d conduct is first encouraged
by contrast an d in term s o f tradition— “B ut th at is no t the way you learned
C hrist”—w here C hrist stands for the C hristian tradition in which the readers
were tau g h t (vv 20,21). T h a t tradition in its ethical aspects is th en spelled
o u t th ro u g h th e use o f th ree infinitives, the first again em phasizing the differ-
ence from the read ers’ previous way o f life an d involving p u ttin g off the old
person, the second and th ird finally expressing the w riter’s positive expectations
an d involving being renew ed an d p u ttin g on th e new person characterized
by righteousness an d holiness (vv 22– 24).
T his pericope is sim ilar to o th er paraenetical m aterial which defines a com m u-
nity by m arking it off from o th er groups. T h e m ain form al characteristics o f
such m aterial include explicit prohibitions o r o th e r negative assertions with
ho rtato ry force an d the setting o u t o f the relation betw een the addressees
an d outsiders in antithetical form ulations which m ay include m ention o f virtues
an d vices o r o f a tem poral relationship (e.g., once/now ; no longer) o r take
the form “not this, but th at.” H ere in 4:17– 24 we find the prohibition “you
are n o t to lead your lives . . .” (v 17), the contrast betw een believers an d the
272 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

Gentiles (v 17), the negative picture o f th e Gentiles an d th eir vices (vv 17–
19) which is set over against “learning C hrist” an d “the tru th in Je su s” (vv
20, 21), the tem poral references “n o lo n g er” (v 17) an d “your fo rm e r way o f
life” (v 22), an d th e antitheses betw een p u ttin g off the old p erson (v 22) an d
p u ttin g o n th e new person (v 24), an d betw een “th e desires which com e from
deceit” (v 22) a n d “the righteousness a n d holiness which com e from th e tru th ”
(v 24). E ph 5:3– 14 an d 5:15– 20 also contain this type o f m aterial, as do
1 T hess 4:3– 8 an d 5:1– 11. T h e re are also parallels in the paraenesis o f H elle-
nistic philosophical literature, e.g., The Epistles of Crates 6, 7, 18, 19, 21 (cf. K.
B erger, “H ellenistische G attungen im N eu en T estam e n t,” A N R W 2.25.2
[1984] 1340– 41).
B ut th ere are n o t only analogies with Hellenistic ethical exhortation. T h e
n o tion th at th e people o f G od are to “walk” differently from the su rro u n d in g
nations was central to Ju d aism (cf., e.g., th e H oliness C ode o f Leviticus, esp.
18:1– 5, 24– 30; 20:23). Because o f the contrast betw een two ways o f life, th ere
are also inevitably affinities with o th e r early C hristian catechetical m aterial
which uses this m o tif an d with its Jew ish antecedents. T his contrast betw een
two ways o f life occurs, fo r exam ple, in M att 7:13, 14 a n d in th e “Tw o W ays”
o f Did. 1– 5 an d B am . 18–20 (cf. also H errn. Man. 6.1; Ign. Magn. 5; 2 Clem.
4), an d again has its background in th e O T an d Jew ish literatu re (cf., e.g., Ps
1; D eut 11:26– 28; 30:15– 20; J e r 21:8; T. Ash. 1.3,5; IQ S 3 ,4 ). It m ay well
also be th e case th at the passage reflects th ree features from an u nderlying
early C hristian baptism al catechesis. T hey are (i) im agery o f the new life en tered
u p o n th ro u g h conversion an d baptism , h ere as new person an d new creation
in v 24 (cf. also Rom 6:4; Gal 6:15; 2 C or 5:17; Col 3:10; T itus 3:5; 1 Pet
1:22; 2:2; Jas 1:18), in close connection with (ii) a statem ent o f the n eed to
ab an d o n the characteristics o f the old life using the verb anorideodat “to p u t
away, p u t off,” h ere in v 22 (cf. also Rom 13:12; Col 3:8; 1 Pet 2:1; Jas 1:21),
an d also accom panied by (in) the m ention o f vices to be p u t away a n d virtues
to be acquired, which are fo u n d m ore extensively in Col 3:5– 12 b u t also here,
vices in vv 19, 22 an d virtues in v 24 (cf. P. C arrington, The Primitive Christian
Catechism [C am bridge: CUP, 1940] 31– 65; E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St.
Peter [L ondon: M acmillan, 1946] 384– 461; King, ExpTim 63 [1952] 275– 76;
E. K am lah, Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament [T übingen:
M ohr, 1964] 34 – 38, 183– 89; on catalogues o f virtues an d vices, see fu rth e r
th e discussion u n d e r Form/Structure/Setting fo r 4:25– 5:2). In considering the
relation o f this passage to such m aterial, as well as to th e traditional baptism al
im agery o f “p u ttin g o ff” a n d “p u ttin g o n ” (cf. 1 T hess 5:8; Gal 3:27; Rom
13:12– 14; Col 3:8– 12), its dep en d en ce on Col 3:5 – 11, w here these features
are also fo u n d , m ust be b orne in m ind. It is necessary to reckon both with
th e prim ary m ediation o f such paraenetical topics th ro u g h Colossians (see
below) an d with the w riter’s aw areness an d use o f elem ents com m on to early
C hristian catechesis an d fo u n d elsew here th a n in Colossians (pace Jervell, Imago
Dei, 239, who finds no dep en d en ce o f E phesians on Colossians here, b u t only
d ep en d en ce o f both on earlier catechetical m aterial). T h e characterization o f
G entile lifestyle an d its vices in vv 17– 19, for exam ple, has parallels with Col
3:5 and, in com m on with Col 3:5, with 1 T hess 4, b u t also in d ep en d en tly o f
Colossians with Rom 1, 1 Peter, a n d earlier Jew ish literature, such as the Testa-
 Form / Structure / Setting 273

ments of the Twelve Patriarchs an d the Q u m ra n literatu re (see Comment on vv

17– 19 for details).
In this section o f the letter, ju s t as in the previous sections, th ere are a
n u m b er o f similarities to the th o u g h t an d language o f the earlier Paulines.
T h e m ost striking is th at o f vv 17– 19 to Rom 1:21, 24, which can be set o u t
as follows:

Romans Ephesians
1:21 e p a ra ic o d n o a v ev rolg 4:17c ev p a ra io r u T i ro d voog a vrcb v
b ia X o yio polg avrCbv
1:21 Kai eoKOTLodr] r) a a v v e r o g 4:18a eoK O Tupevoi rfi biavoiq. o vreg
a vrcb v Kapbia
1:24 irapebcjKev a v r o v g 6 deog . . . 4:19 e a v ro v g napebcoK av . . . eig
eig a K a d a p o ia v e p y a o ia v a K a d a p o ia g Tracrqg

For fu rth e r analysis o f this relationship, see Comment on vv 17c - 19.

As has been indicated, it is again Colossians, an d in particular Col 3:5– 11,
on which the w riter is m ost dep en d en t. T h e earlier paraenesis o f 4:2– 4 has
already taken u p Col 3:12 – 15. Now, after his own special em phasis on the
C h u rch ’s unity an d m aturity an d the role o f its teachers in ensuring th eir
realization, the w riter re tu rn s to use the preceding section o f Col 3. T h e corre-
spondence betw een th e two letters at this point can be set o u t as follows:

Colossians Ephesians
3:5 n o p veia v , a K a d a p o ia v , 7rd0o?, 4:19 eig e p y a o ia v a m d a p o ia g n dar??
e m d v p ia v KaKrjv, Kai rrjv ev 7rXeove^iq. (cf. also 5:3, 5)
TrXeovefyav tjti? e a r iv 4:22 K a ra r a g e m d v p ia g rf)? aTrarr??
eiboSkoX arpia
3:7 ev oig Kai vp elg 4:17 pT)K£Ti v p a g TtepiTrarelv Kadtog
n e p ie n a rn a a r e wore Kai r a edvr) Trepm arel
3:8 vvvi be än ödeade Kai vp elg . . . 4:22 airodeodai v p ä g K a ra rr\v
3:9 aneKbuoapevoL t o p n aX aiov irp o rep a v avaaT po^ rjv tov
a v d p a m o v a v v ra lg n p a i-eo iv . . . 7raXaiop a v d p c jn o v
3:10 Kai evb va a p e vo i tov veov 4:24 Kai iv b v o a o d a i tov Kaivov
avdpcoirov
3:10 top a va K a ivo vp evo v eig 4:23 a v a v e o v o d a i be rep n vevp a T i
em yvaxnv tov voog vpcbv
3:10 K ar eiKÖva tov K rio a vro g 4:24 tov K a ra Qeov KTvoOevra
airrov

As can be seen, the prohibition against living any longer in the m a n n e r o f

the Gentiles in v 17 is rem iniscent o f Col 3:7, while the last p a rt o f the character-
ization o f th at previous way o f living in v 19 takes over th e vices o f a n a d a p o ia ,
“im purity,” an d 7r\eope£ia, “covetousness,” from th e list in Col 3:5. In describing
the co n ten t o f th e C hristian tradition as p u ttin g off the old person in v 22,
the w riter m akes use o f this designation from Col 3:9, b u t substitutes airorideoO ai
from Col 3:8 for aneicSveodai in 3:9. W hereas Col 3:9 talks in general term s
o f the practices o f the old person, v 22 gives a m ore colorful description which
draws on th e term e m d v p ia fo u n d in Col 3:5. In speaking o f being renew ed
274 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

an d o f th e new person in vv 23, 24, the w riter provides a variation in the use
o f K a iw an d veos a n d th eir cognate verbs, reversing th at fo u n d in Col 3:10,
so th at w here Colossians has veo<; for the new p erson a n d apaicaivovv fo r “to
renew ,” E phesians has Kaivos for th e adjective an d avaveovv fo r the verb. Finally,
v 24 expresses slightly differently th e notion o f the new p erso n ’s creation in
relation to God, th e m ore cryptic Kara deöv, lit. “according to G od,” replacing
kclt eiKOva, “according to th e im age” from Col 3:10.
Tw o fu rth e r observations should be m ade about the relation o f this passage
to Colossians. T h e use o f th e participle aTrrjXkoTpuopevoi, “separated, alienated,”
in the depiction o f the Gentiles in v 18 has m ore in com m on with th e use o f
the sam e participle in describing th e Colossians’ fo rm er way o f life in relation
to G od in Col 1:21 th a n it does with its earlier use in relation to the people
o f G od in E p h 2:12. T h e n the m aterial w hich has no parallel in Col 3:5– 11,
the discussion in vv 20, 21 about learn in g a n d being tau g h t in th e C hristian
tradition, w here th e tradition is seen as sum m ed u p in C hrist an d as significant
for th e C hristian “walk,” in fact owes m uch to the th o u g h t o f Col 2:6, 7. “Re-
ceived C hrist Jesu s,” w here TrapaXapßäveiv is th e sem itechnical term fo r receiving
som ething delivered by tradition, is th e equivalent o f “learn ed C hrist” here
in E ph 4. T his trad ition is related to C hristian conduct—“as you received C hrist
Jesus the L ord, so walk in him ”— an d th e verb ebibaxBryre, “you w ere ta u g h t,”
is em ployed in 2:7 (cf. E ph 4:21).
It can now be seen th at the overall effect o f the w riter’s rew orking o f the
paraenetical m aterial o f Col 3:5– 11 is to replace its original fram ew ork o f the
contrast betw een heavenly an d earthly life, w here it illustrated th e ethical conse-
quences o f tru e heavenly-m indedness (cf. Lincoln, Paradise Now, 122–31), with
th at o f a sh arp contrast betw een G entile life a n d life in accordance with the
C hristian trad itio n (cf. also M erklein, “E ph 4 : 1–5:20,” 202–4). It is th ro u g h
the initial p ro h ibition in v 17ab, a n d th e n th e addition both o f m aterial about
th e Gentiles in vv 17c—19a a n d o f th e form ulations about the tradition in
vv 2 0 ,2 1 , th at th e w riter gives his paraenesis its distinctive fram ew ork an d
em phasis.
T his stress on the tradition which th e read ers n eed to rem em b er provides
one o f the m ajor links with th e p receding pericope o f 4 : 1–16. T h e significance
attached th ere to th e m inisters a n d th e ir role in passing on th e apostolic tradition,
an d thereby co n tributing to the building u p a n d m atu rin g o f the body o f
Christ, can now be seen to be p re p a rin g for th e re m in d e r o f th at tradition
which will be th e vehicle for the w riter’s paraenesis. A ttaining to the unity o f
the know ledge o f the Son o f G od (4:13) a n d grow ing into C hrist (4:15) involve
learn in g C hrist a n d the tru th in Jesu s (vv 20, 21). T h e o th e r m ajor link with
the p reced in g pericope is th ro u g h the notion o f “w alking.” T h e direct appeal
to the readers to live a life a p p ro p ria te to th eir calling b eg u n in 4:1– 3 had
led into th e m aterial on th e unity o f th e C h u rch an d the gift o f m inisters to
enable it to achieve its goals. O nly now in v 17 does th e paraenesis re tu rn to
the form o f direct address, as it is m ade clear th a t the style o f living ap p ro p riate
to the re ad ers’ calling is n o t th a t o f the Gentiles.
T h e notion o f “w alking” also provides th e m ain link betw een this pericope
an d the next th ree sections o f paraenesis— 4:25– 5:2 (cf. 5:2), 5:3– 14 (cf. 5:8),
 Form / Structure / Setting 275

an d 5:15–20 (cf. 5:15). 4:25– 5:2 will illustrate m ore specifically w hat it m eans
to p u t away the vices o f the old person an d p u t on th e new person, while
5:3– 14 an d 5:15– 20 will explicitly re p eat the n eed fo r differentiation from
the conduct o f outsiders. T h e them e o f darkness from v 18 recurs in 5:8, 11
an d later in 6:12, an d th at o f deceit from v 22 in 5:6. T h e vices o f im purity
an d covetousness in v 19 are m entioned again in 5:3, 5, an d the virtues o f
righteousness an d tru th in v 24 are taken u p again in 5:9 an d later in 6:14.
M ore fundam entally, 4:17– 24 should be seen as providing, along with 4:1–
16 an d its em phasis on the C hurch, the basic fram ew ork for the rest o f the
letter’s paraenesis.
In relation to the first p a rt o f the letter, 4:17– 24 has m ost in com m on
with 2:1– 10 an d 2:11– 22, an d can be seen as an ethical version o f the contrast
in both o f those passages betw een the read ers’ p resen t privileges an d th eir
G entile past. In fact, 2:1– 10 has already expressed the contrast in term s o f
two d ifferent walks (cf. vv 2 an d 10). T h e G entile past is described in term s
o f d eath in 2:1, 5 an d being w ithout God in 2:12, conditions which are sum m ed
u p in the phrase “separated from the life o f G od” in 4:18. B oth in 2:3 and
in 4:22 evil desires characterize this fo rm er m a n n e r o f life. T h e C hristian
p resen t is seen in term s o f a new creation in 2:10, 15 an d here in 4:24, while
the term inology o f kclivos &>0pco7ro?, “new p erso n ,” fo u n d with a corporate
connotation in 2:15, re tu rn s in 4:24. A nticipations o f the th o u g h t an d language
o f 4:17– 24 can also be fo u n d back in the eulogy o f 1:3– 14. T h e re the goal
o f the election o f believers is seen as holiness (1:4; cf. 4:24), an d they are
described as those who have h ea rd the w ord o f tru th (1:13; cf. 4:22).
T hese, th en , are the m ain features o f the setting o f 4:17– 24 in the letter
as a whole. B ut can the th o u g h t o f this pericope shed any light on the read ers’
setting? Recently M erklein (“E ph 4:1– 5:20,” 208) has arg u ed th at the em phases
o f both 2:11– 22 an d 4:17– 24 have a com m on d en o m in ato r—the m isu n d er-
standing o f P aul’s law-free gospel on the p a rt o f post-P auline C hristians, which
has resulted in the dow nplaying o f the significance o f Israel on the one h an d
an d in the d an g e r o f ethical libertinism on the other. B ut this hypothesis
goes far beyond any clear evidence from the letter itself. It fails to convince
ab out 2:11– 22, w here the stress on the G entiles’ heritage in relation to Israel
is m ore likely m ean t to deal with G entile C hristians’ ignorance o f th eir religious
roots th an to be specifically connected with an erro n eo u s view o f the law. In
any case, to go beyond Paul an d talk o f “abolishing the law” (2:15) seems a
strange way to correct attitudes based on draw ing too radical consequences
from P aul’s teaching on the law. T h e n , th ere is no h in t in the paraenesis,
with th e possible exception o f 6:3, th at a w rong attitu d e to the law has provoked
the w riter’s ex ten d ed exhortations. Paraenesis in P aul’s letters tends to be the
m ore traditional an d m ore general m aterial, used in su p p o rt o f an d adap ted
to P aul’s situational an d contextual focus in o th e r parts o f the letter. It is
som ew hat hazardous, therefore, to use the m ore general p a rt o f w hat is already
a fairly general letter from a follower o f Paul to draw very specific conclusions
ab o u t the situation o f the addressees. Probably the m ost th at can be ascertained
from th e w riter’s em phases here is that, along with the d an g e r o f forgetting
th eir status an d privileges as m em bers o f the C hurch, th ere is the d a n g e r o f
276 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

the assim ilation o f the readers to the su rro u n d in g w orld in th eir m a n n e r o f

life. T h e stress on the C hristian tradition is m ean t to rem in d these read ers o f
the distinctive ethical im plications o f th eir conversion a n d baptism .

Comment

17ab Toüro ow Xeyco m i paprvpopat ev Kvpico, “T his, th en , I solem nly declare

in th e L o rd .” T h e ow , “th ere fo re ,” has resum ptive force, as the w riter takes
u p again from 4:1– 3 his direct exhortation o f the readers. paprvpopat, “I testify,”
does n o t have h ere the specific connotation o f b earing witness o r o f speaking
u n d e r oath, b u t in its m ore general force o f “I affirm , declare” still attaches a
sense o f solem nity an d significance to w hat is to be stated. U sed h ere in conjunc-
tion with \eyoj, “I say,” it serves to stren g th en the im portance an d urgency
o f th e ex h o rtatio n (cf. 1 T hess 2:12; also J d t 7:28; Jo sep h u s, Ant. 10.7.2 §
104). ev KOpicp, “in the L ord,” also functions to lend authority to th e exhortation.
T h e w riter exhorts with C hrist’s authority in the sam e way th at Paul h ad done
(cf. 1 T hess 4:1; also earlier in this ch a p te r in 4 : 1 – “the p riso n er in th e L o rd ”).
T h e initial rovro, “this,” has reference to th e co n ten t o f the ex h o rtatio n which
is to follow.
(j.7]K6Ti vpäs neptnarelv mQcos m i ra edvr\ nepurarel, “th at you are no longer
to lead yo u r lives as do th e G entiles.” O n nepnrarelv, “to walk, lead a life,” see
th e earlier discussion o f its usage in 2:2, 10;4:1. T h e infinitive with the accusative
is em ployed h ere for the im perative in indirect speech (cf. also Acts 21:2, 4).
T his prohibition, which differentiates sharply betw een th e way o f life o f the
read ers an d th at o f the m em bers o f the su rro u n d in g society, u nderlines the
distinctive quality necessary to any living th at is to be w orthy o f believers’
calling (cf. 4:1). T h e prjKert, “no lo n g er,” rem inds one o f th e tem poral nore
. . . vvv, “once . . . now ,” contrast schem a in both p arts o f chap. 2. T h e change
o f status fo r th e G entile readers, which was indicated th ere, has to be accom pa-
nied by a change o f “walk” (cf. also 2:2, 10). T h ey cannot continue in th eir
actual conduct as they h ad d one in the past an d as th o u g h no n e o f the im m ense
changes th e w riter has recalled in chap. 2 h ad taken place. C ontinual effort,
an d th erefo re co n tinued exhortation, is n eed ed if they are to ap p ro p ria te the
effects o f those changes. T h e prohibition is couched in term s o f n o t living
like th e G entiles, ra edvr\. T his is an interesting form ulation, since earlier the
w riter has called the readers simply “you G entiles” (3:1) b u t also “you Gentiles
in th e flesh” (2:11), den o tin g an ethnic distinction which no lo n g er counts as
religiously significant. T h e latter perspective is a p p a re n t here, w here the desig-
nation, “th e G entiles,” stands for n o n-Jew ish outsiders to the C hristian com m u-
nity an d w here C hristians who are ethnic Gentiles are ex h o rted not to live
like Gentiles. T his underscores the “th ird race” m entality o f this w riter, which
em erg ed from 2:11– 22 w here the C h u rch was depicted as a new creation, as
one new perso n replacing the two old ethnic entities o f Israel an d th e Gentiles
(cf. also 1 C or 10:32, w here Paul him self could divide hum anity into th ree
g roups—Jew s, Greeks, an d the church o f God).
17c—19 T h e picture o f the Gentiles style o f life is pain ted in th e blackest
colors. T h e w riter is no t interested in a balanced analysis th a t w ould p oint
o u t positive features o f G entile life, n o r is his p u rp o se to enable his read ers
 Comment 277

to feel superior. Instead he wants to provide decisive reasons why they should
be distinctively C hristian, an d the m ore drastic th e contrast, the m ore effective
is his ex h o rtatio n likely to be. In this sort o f characterization he is in line
with traditional Jew ish apologetic (cf. Wis 12– 15; 18:10– 19; Ep. Arist. 140, 277;
Sib. Or. 3.220– 35), which was taken over by o th e r early C hristians, including
Paul him self in Rom 1. T h e elem ents in the characterization are stru n g to g eth er
by the w riter in the style typical o f th e earlier p art o f the letter, m ixing preposi-
tional phrases with participial an d relative clauses. It is beside the point to
attem p t to w ork o u t a logically subordinate relationship for each p a rt o f the
syntax (pace Schlier, 213; M ussner, 134– 35). W ith the exception o f the two
5td, “because of,” phrases, each o f which provides th e reason for the im m ediately
preceding p art o f the description, the o th e r elem ents o f the syntax should be
treated as coordinates. T h e re is, how ever, an overall m ovem ent o f th o u g h t
which first treats the G entiles’ thinking an d in n er disposition before dealing
with th eir conduct. It is w orth notin g th at this m ovem ent is rep eated on the
positive side w hen m ention o f renew al as it affects the m ind (v 23) precedes
any delineation o f the virtues (v 24).
ev naraiÖTriTi rod vobs ainGw, “in the futility o f th eir m inds.” juaraiorTj? denotes
not m erely finitude o r transitoriness b u t the em ptiness, folly, an d ultim ate
pointlessness th at has affected the G entiles’ faculty o f intellectual an d m oral
perception. In Rom 1:21 Paul h ad talked o f h u m an s’ becom ing futile in th eir
thinking because o f th eir refusal to acknow ledge God. H ere too this condition
o f futility o f m ind is inevitably connected with th at later described as being
“separated from the life o f G od.” Rom 1:21 is itself d ep e n d e n t on Wis 13:1
(cf. also Ps 94:11; J e r 2:5; IQ S 5.19). Elsew here in early C hristianity believers’
form er m an n er o f life is characterized as futile in 1 Pet 1:18 (cf also Did. 5.2;
Barn. 4.10; 20.2; 1 Clem. 7.2; H errn. Man. 9.4; 11.8; 12.6; Ign. Trail. 8.2).
So, because it lacks the rig h t relationship to God, G entile thinking suffers
from a fatal flaw. It has lost its grasp on reality an d fallen prey to folly.
A n o th er way o f describing this condition is eoKorojpevot rfi diavoiq. oi^re?, “being
dark en ed in th eir thinking.” T h e ra re r verb okotow is em ployed h ere ra th e r
th an (TKorifeiv. It is fo u n d elsew here in the N T only in Rev 9:2; 16:10. btavoia ,
“thinking, m in d ,” is often interchangeable with Kapöia, “h e a rt,” in the LXX
for the cen ter o f h u m an perception an d is fo u n d as a translation o f the H ebrew
w here one m ight have expected the latter (cf., e.g., G en 8:21; 17:17; 24:45;
27:41; Exod 28:3). T h e light has gone o u t in the seat o f G entiles’ u n d ersta n d in g
so th at they are no longer capable o f ap p re h e n d in g ultim ate tru th . T h e re is
a clear contrast with believers, who have been given know ledge an d the eyes
o f whose hearts have been enlightened; (1:17, 18; cf. also the sustained contrast
betw een darkness an d light in 5:8– 14). A gain Rom 1:21, “th eir senseless hearts
were d ark en ed ,” provides the im m ediate background for the form ulation here.
(For the use o f this im agery elsew here in Ju d aism , cf. T. Reub. 3.8; T. Gad
6.2; T. Dan 2.4; T. Levi 14.4; Jo sep h u s, Ant. 9.4.3; IQ S 3.3.)
aTrrjXXoTpiGjpevoi rf}? fcoffr rod Oeov, “separated from the life o f G od.” T h e
flawed percep tio n o f reality th at has been described accom panies a broken
relation to the source o f th at reality, God. O n aTTrjXkorpiovv, see Comment on
2:12 an d note th e use o f the term in Col 1:21, w here it also describes alienation
from God. “T h e life o f G od is th a t life which answers to the n atu re o f G od
278 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

an d which h e com m unicates to his ch ild ren ” (W estcott, 66). “S eparated from
th e life o f G od” is, o f course, equivalent to the earlier description o f th e re ad ers’
fo rm e r condition as “d ea d ” (2 :1 ,5 ) a n d “w ithout G od” (2:12). Loss o f light
can now be seen to am o u n t to th e sam e th in g as loss o f life (cf. also J o h n
1:4; 8:12).
T h e reason for the G entiles’ estran g em en t from the life o f G od is now
indicated. It is 5uz tt \ v a yv o va v rrjv o vo a v ev airroh >, “because o f th e ignorance
th a t is in th em .” T his ignorance does n o t provide an excuse for th e broken
relationship with God. In the tradition o f Jew ish apologetic o f which it is a
p a rt (cf. Wis 1 3 :1 ,8 ,9 ; T. Gad 5.7), G entile ignorance is viewed as culpable,
an d elsew here in Jew ish th o u g h t ignorance is linked with sin (cf. Sir 23:3;
28:7, 8). T his is certainly also the perspective o f th e m ore ex ten d ed a n d p ro -
fo u n d analysis o f Rom T. 18– 23, w here know ledge o f G od becom es futility
an d folly an d therefore, in effect, ignorance, because o f a failure to h o n o r
G od as God. H ere in Ephesians, th e G entiles’ responsibility fo r th e ir own
ignorance com es o u t m ore explicitly in th e following characterizations, b u t is
p erh ap s h in ted at in the form ulation “the ignorance th at is in th em .” T h e
ignorance can n o t be blam ed on o th e r factors; it has its roots w ithin th em (cf.
also B arth, 501; pace C aird, 79, who takes the m eaning as “prevailing am ong
th em ”). Elsew here in the N T 1 Pet 1:14 describes the p re-C hristian lives o f
its recipients in term s o f “the passions o f your fo rm e r ig n o ran ce” (cf. also
Acts 17:30).
6td rrjv 7rcbpcooiv tt )<; K apdtas a irr u v , “because o f the h ard en in g o f th eir h earts.”
T his prepositional phrase now m akes clear th a t the G entiles’ ignorance is culpa-
ble. A t th e cen ter o f th eir thinking, feeling, an d volition, they have h a rd e n e d
them selves to God an d to the know ledge o f him th a t was available to them .
T h e connection with the im m ediately preceding statem ent is m ore likely th an
th a t with th e participial clause ab o u t separation because o f the preced in g ri]v
o vo a v ev a v r o is, “th at is in th em ,” instead o f the sim ple avrCbv, “th e ir” (cf. also
M eyer, 240). 7rcbpoxjt5 (or the verb TTCopovv) is fo u n d in connection with the
h e a rt elsew here in the N T in M ark 3:5; 6:52; 8:17; J o h n 12:40 (cf. also Rom
11:7, 25; 2 C or 3:14), and is m ost frequently used o f Jew ish response to the
gospel. H ere it is seen to be a concept equally applicable in a m ore general
sense to Gentiles. T h e notion o f h ard en in g is, o f course, em ployed frequently
in the O T an d Jud aism , e.g., Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; Ps 95:8; Isa 6:10; 63:17;
T. Levi 13.7; IQ S 1.6; 2.14, 26; 3.3; 5.4; CD 2.17, 18; 3.5, 11; 8.8. Its focus is
on a progressive insensitivity an d obtuseness in relation to God. J. A. R obinson,
in an ex ten d ed note (264–74), attem pts to arg u e for th e m eaning o f blindness
ra th e r th an h ard en ing, b u t in the various uses o f th e term it is difficult to
exclude th e no te o f willful obstinacy from its connotations.
T h e portrayal o f the G entiles’ lifestyle concludes by stressing th e m oral
b an kruptcy th at accom panies th eir lack o f tru e insight. T h e relative p ro n o u n
olrtve^, “being those indeed w ho . . . ,” m ay well have the function o f em phasiz-
ing a characteristic quality which confirm s a preceding statem ent (cf. BAGD,
587). T h e idea o f insensitivity o r callousness involved in “the h ard en in g o f
th eir h ea rts” is co n tinued in the use o f the perfect participle aTrrjKyriKOTe*;, lit.
“having ceased to feel p ain ” an d th erefo re in this context “th eir m oral sensitivity
having becom e d u lled.” T his is the only use o f this verb in th e N T (cf. T hucydides
 Comment 279

2.61; Polybius 1.35.5; 9.40.4). In this depiction, the lack o f m oral feeling an d
d iscernm ent on the p art o f the Gentiles m eans an inability to exercise any
restrain t in th eir plunge into deg rad in g activities. T h e ir p a rt in actively p u rsu in g
an d seeking o u t evil is b ro u g h t o u t in both ei? epyaoiav, “for the practice,
p u rsu it,” an d eaurovs irapeöcoKap, “they have given them selves over.” W hereas
Rom T. 24– 32 em phasizes G od’s continued involvem ent in h u m an ity ’s tu rn in g
away from him with its threefold “God gave them over,” in accord with the
needs o f paraenesis this verse stresses the m oral responsibility o f the Gentiles.
T h e evil th at characterizes th eir conduct is n o t som e dark fate th a t has overtaken
them w ithout th eir consent. T his evil is typified th ro u g h the use o f th ree
term s th at occur frequently in catalogues o f vices. aoeXyeia, “debauchery, licen-
tiousness,” occurs in M ark 7:22; Rom 13:13; 1 Pet 4:3; H errn. Vis. 2.2.2; 3.7.2,
an d with aKadapoia, “im purity,” in 2 C or 12:21; Gal 5:19. It is also used in
polem ic against false teachers in 2 Pet 2:2, 7; J u d e 4. T h e term encom passes
generally riotous an d excessive living, b u t frequently has u n re strain ed sexual
behaviour in view. As in Rom 1:24–32, the abuse o f sexuality is highlighted
in illustrating th e d egradation resulting from failure to acknow ledge the C reator.
For the use o f the term in Jew ish literature, cf. Wis 14:26; 3 Macc 2:26; T.
Jud. 23.1; Jo sep h u s, Ant. 4.6.12 § 151; 8.10.2 § 252; 8.13.1 § 318; 20.5.3 §
112; Philo, De Vit. Mos. 1.305. aKadapoia, “im purity, im m orality,” features again
in 5:3 (cf. also Wis 2:16; 3 Macc 2:17; T. Levi 15.1; T. Jud. 14.5; IQ S 4.9– 11;
Rom 1:24; 2 C or 12:21; Gal 5:19; 1 T hess 2:3; 4:7; Col 3:5). Sexual im m orality
may well be prim arily in view, b u t again the reference is n o t lim ited to this;
aKa0a/xrias7rdcFT?5, “all kinds o f im purity,” are included. nXeopetya, “covetousness,”
the vice which Dio C hrysostom , Or. 67.6, 8, calls both the greatest cause o f
evils an d th e greatest evil, concludes v 19. It is m entioned frequently in the
O T an d in Jew ish literature (cf., e.g., Ps 119:36; J e r 22:17; Ezek 22:27; H ab
2:9; 2 Macc 4:50; IQ S 4.10, 11; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 4.5; De Vit. Mos. 2.186),
an d appears also in N T an d early C hristian lists (cf. M ark 7:22; 1 C or 5:10, 11;
Rom 1:29; Col 3:5; 2 Pet 2:3; Did. 5.1; 1 Clem. 35.5; Bam . 20.1; H errn. Man.
6.2, 5; 8.5). L ater in Ephesians, the term is again associated with aKadapoia
(5:3; cf. also 5:5) an d is related to idolatry (cf. 5:5; Col 3:5, an d see Comment
on 5:5). Its use h ere suggests th a t Gentiles o u t o f p ro p e r relationship to God
live in excess b u t can never be satisfied. T h e ir insatiable greed m akes them
oblivious o f the needs o f others an d o f the consequences for others.
20,21 vpels de ovx ovrcos epaOere top Xpiorop, “B ut th at is no t the way you
learn ed C hrist.” T h e contrast to the read ers’ previous G entile lifestyle begins
forcefully— u/izefe 6e ovx . . . , lit. “b u t you not. . . .’’ Yet the im m ediate contrast
th at follows is m ade not th ro u g h an equivalent depiction o f C hristian conduct
b u t th ro u g h a re m in d e r o f the read ers’ instruction in th at conduct. T h e first
form ulation o f the rem in d er in term s o f learning C hrist (papdapeip with a p e r-
sonal object) is w ithout parallel. Significantly, it is Col 2:6, 7, w here 7rapeXäßere
top XpiOTÖP ’Irioovp m eans “you received the tradition ab o u t C hrist Jesu s,” th at
provides the closest approxim ation. In both passages C hrist stands for the
tradition about him an d is b ro u g h t into direct relation with C hristian conduct,
an d in both passages these notions are associated with being tau g h t (pace W ege-
nast, Das Verständnis der Tradition, 131– 32, who sees no notion o f instruction
in tradition in these passages). L earning C hrist is, in fact, being on the receiving
280 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

en d o f th e process th at in Acts 5:42 can be spoken o f as teaching Christ.

E ls e w h e re , fxavdavew is used for learning th e gospel tradition— in Col 1 :6 ,7
in connection with atcoveiv , “to h e a r,” a n d akr\Qeva , “tru th ,” two term s also
used h ere in vv 20, 21; in Phil 4:9 in connection with TrapaXaixßäveiv an d äicoveiv,
an d in Rom 16:17 an d 2 T im 3:14. J u s t as a Jew learn ed T o ra h , so now a
C hristian can be said to learn Christ. B ut th e personal object in the latter
case does m ake a difference. Since C hristians believed th at C hrist was a living
perso n whose presence was m ediated by the proclam ation an d teaching about
him , learn in g C hrist involved no t only learn in g about, b u t also being shaped
by, th e risen C hrist who was the source o f a new way o f life as well as o f a
new relationship with God.
ei 7 6 airrov riKOVoare Kai ev aurcp eöi&zxö^re, “assum ing th at you have h ea rd
o f him an d were tau g h t in him .” T h e introductory et y e im plies confident
assum ption (see th e discussion o f the sim ilar use in 3:2), while the concepts
o f h earin g o f C hrist an d being tau g h t in him fu rth e r explain th e learning
C hrist o f th e previous verse. B eing ta u g h t in him , i.e., ab o u t him , is, as we
have seen, th e o th e r side o f learning about him a n d involves receiving instruction
in th e gospel trad ition (cf. also Larsson, Christus, 224– 25). In re g ard to h earin g
o f C hrist, in the G reek text the p ro n o u n for C hrist is in th e accusative with
aKOveiP , “to h e a r.” W ith a m v e w , the person whose words one hears stands in
th e genitive, th e person about w hom one hears stands in th e accusative (cf.
BDF § 173). So to h ear about C hrist is to be on the receiving en d o f the
proclam ation ab o u t C hrist (cf. 1 C or 1:23; 2 C or 1:19; Gal 1:16; Phil 1:15;
Col 1:28). T h e reference is prim arily to th e re ad ers’ initial reception o f this
m essage (cf. 1:13, “having h eard the w ord o f tru th , the gospel o f your salvation”;
also Rom 10:14; 15:21; Col 1:6, 23). E arlier th ere has been em phasis on the
apostolic tradition an d its transm ission by evangelists, pastors, an d teachers
(cf. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). Now, in a context w here in particular the ethical aspects
o f th e trad itio n are in view, “h ea rin g ” draw s atten tio n prim arily to the first
stage o f its transm ission, while “being ta u g h t” highlights th e fu rth e r stage o f
catechesis.
Kdflcb? e o r iv aXr\deva ev rep 'Irpov, “as the tru th is in Jesu s.” Because o f the
an a rth ro u s dAr^eia, the use o f the nam e Jesus, an d questions about the relation
o f kccOojs to w hat precedes, scholars have m ade heavy w eather o f the syntax
an d in terp re tatio n o f this clause (cf., e.g., the spirited correspondence ab o u t
it betw een W estcott an d H o rt, re p ro d u ce d in the fo rm e r’s com m entary [70–
71], w here H o rt felt forced to propose an em endation; the article by I. de la
P otterie in AnBib 18 [1963] 45– 67, which provides discussion o f som e o f the
issues; an d B arth, 505, 533–36, who resorts to taking /caflcb? as an introductory
form ula for a citation which begins, “T ru th in Jesu s!” an d includes vv 22– 24,
ap p aren tly ig n o rin g the dep en d en ce o f these verses on Colossians). T h e tran sla-
tion given above— “as the tru th is in Je su s”— ap p ears to be the m ost straig h tfo r-
w ard an d to m ake the m ost sense (cf. also a v , rsv ). O th e r m ajor translations
sense rightly th at th e gist o f th e clause is ab o u t th e co n ten t o f C hristian tru th
being sum m ed u p in Jesus. B ut from the translations which m ake the tru th
th e direct object o f “w ere ta u g h t” an d d ro p “in h im ” from th e previous clause
(cf. n e b , “were . . . tau g h t the tru th as it is in Jesu s”; j b , “w ere tau g h t w hat
th e tru th is in Jesu s”; g n b , “were tau g h t th e tru th th at is in Je su s”), the re ad er
 Comment 281

w ould never suppose th at the original contained th e adverb KaOcos. T h e objection

th at is often raised against o u r translation, how ever, is th at since akrideia is
w ithout an article it cannot be the subject o f the clause b u t has to be the
predicate (cf. de la Potterie, AnBib 18 [1963] 48; Gnilka, 228 n. 3; C aird, 80).
Certainly, one o f the m ajor reasons for akrideia being an a rth ro u s here could
be th at it form s the predicate, b u t if so a subject needs to be supplied. T h e
only real options for this clause w ould be “as he is tru th in Jesu s,” re ferrin g
back to the “him ,” i.e., Christ, o f the preceding clause, o r the m ore general
“as th ere is tru th in Jesu s.” T h e m eaning “as C hrist is tru th in Jesu s,” despite
its su p p o rt from de la Potterie (AnBib 18 [1963] 48) an d possibly Schlier (216)
is barely intelligible, even on w hat we shall see is th eir unlikely assum ption
th at this is a polem ical statem ent against a Gnostic C hristology. It is m ade
m ore unlikely still w hen de la Potterie has to introduce a com m a after “tru th ”
to achieve his p ro posed m eaning o f “in the way th at C hrist is tru th , nam ely
in Jesu s.” T h e m eaning o f “as th ere is tru th in Je su s” (cf. W estcott, 67, 70)
is clear; the problem with it is th at it seems to be too indefinite an assertion
to have been in ten d ed here, “a strange u n d ersta te m en t,” as H o rt puts it (W est-
cott, 71).
Given the unconvincing n atu re o f these alternatives, it becom es necessary
to look again at th e issue o f the an a rth ro u s akrideia an d to ask w hether any
explanations o f it o th er th an as a predicate are possible. It th e n becom es clear
th at the objection to o u r translation has been stated too strongly. äXrJöeta,
like o th er nouns, can be used anarthrously in the Pauline corpus for a n u m b er
o f d ifferent reasons—as a predicate (2 C or 7:14c), with a verb o f speaking
(Eph 4:25; Rom 9:1; 2 C or 12:6; 1 T im 2:7b), after a preposition (Eph 5:9;
6:14; Rom 2:2; 2 C or 7:14; Col 1:6; 1 T im 2:7c), in genitive constructions
(Rom 15:8; 1 C or 5:8; 2 C or 6:7; 11:10; 2 T hess 2:13; 1 T im 2:4; 2 T im
2:25; 3:7; T itus 1:1), with adverbial force (Phil 1:18), and, apparently, simply
because it is an abstract n o u n (Gal 5:7). It is this last usage which is m ost
instructive for discussion o f the syntax o f E ph 4:21. Paul frequently om its
the article with abstract nouns such as “sin” o r “grace” (cf. BDF § 258), an d
the w riter o f E phesians can, for exam ple, alternate betw een the a n a rth ro u s
an d the arth ro u s use o f in 2:5, 8. T h e re is, therefore, no decisive gram m ati-
cal reason why äkrfieia in E ph 4:21 should n o t be seen as an instance o f this
sort o f usage an d be treated as the subject o f th e clause (cf. also M oule, Idiom-
B o o k 111– 12, who concludes th at “in such instances it is h a rd to avoid the
im pression th at usage [i.e., o f the article] is arb itrary ” an d finds no objection
to construing akrideia in E ph 4:21 as th o u g h it h ad been r) akrideia).
Similarly, too m uch should not be m ade o f the use o f the nam e Jesus. It is
likely to be a stylistic variation an d should n o t im m ediately be assum ed to
have m ajor theological significance. T o hold such a view is to swim against
the stream o f recent scholarship. It is usually asserted th at since this is the
only instance o f the nam e Jesus by itself in Ephesians, the w riter’s change to
this appellation m ust not only be deliberate b u t also theologically significant.
T h e re are two views o f w hat this significance is. T h e first has been m entioned
already. It argues th at the clause is aim ed at Gnostic teaching th at m ade a
sh arp divide betw een the heavenly C hrist an d the earthly Jesu s (cf. Schlier,
217; de la Potterie, AnBib 18 [1963] 53; Gnilka, 228). T h a t som e such C hristologi-
282 E p h e s ia n s 4 : 1 7 – 2 4

cal p oint n eed ed to be m ade in som e contexts in the first century is possible
(cf. 1 J o h n 2:22; 4:3), b u t w h eth er th e teaching it w ould be aim ed at is best
described as Gnostic is a n o th e r m atter. It is also a n o th e r m atter w h eth er such
a polem ical p o in t is likely in a letter which now here else ap p ears to com bat
Gnosticism , in a context w here the em phasis is n o t Christological b u t paraenetic,
an d w here th ere is no indication th at G entile attraction to the im m orality
described in vv 17– 19 is because o f som e m istaken C hristology. It is also in a
form so cryptic as to m ake one w onder w h eth er the original readers w ould
have cau g h t its force. T h e second view also argues th at the change to the
n am e Jesu s is to draw atten tio n to th e earthly Jesu s ra th e r th a n th e risen
C hrist, b u t th at th e point being m ade is th a t the tru th o f the tradition, an d
particularly its ethical aspects, is no t ju s t d eterm in ed by the idea o f C hrist
b u t has its roots in the life an d death o f the historical Jesu s o r contains teaching
from th e historical Jesus (cf. Larsson, Christus, 226 n. 2; E rnst, 363; M itton,
163; S chnackenburg, 203; M ussner, 136). (Caird, 80, has his own version o f
a referen ce to th e historical Jesus, arg u in g th a t th e w riter’s p o in t is th a t the
teaching ab o u t p u ttin g o ff the old p erson a n d p u ttin g on the new first took
place literally in the d eath a n d resu rrectio n o f Jesus— “ju s t as was literally
tru e in the case o f Jesu s.” B ut C aird’s in terp re tatio n requires fa r too m uch
eisegesis, an d th e syntax will simply n o t su p p o rt it.) I f th ere w ere to be any
significance at all to the variation in nam e, th en this latter view w ould be
preferable, alth o u g h som e versions o f it are in d an g e r o f re ad in g back too
m uch o f th e m o d ern debate about the historical Jesus. B ut alth o u g h this is
th e only occasion on which the sim ple nam e Jesu s ap p ears by itself in E phesians
(but cf. “L ord Je su s” in 1:15), it m ust be d o u b ted w h eth er the variation is in
fact capable o f b earing this weight. In Paul th e sim ple nam e Jesu s ap p ears in
1 T hess 1:10; 4:14; Gal 6:17; 1 C or 12:3; 2 C or 4:5, 10, 11, 14; 11:4; Rom
3:26; 8:11; Phil 2:10. In som e o f these texts it is clear th at Paul is draw ing
on a traditional form ulation, b u t despite various scholarly assertions to the
contrary (e.g., Schlier, 217 n. 3; de la Potterie, AnBib 18 [1963] 53), in the
others an d particularly in 2 C or 4 th ere is no clearcut theological reason fo r
the shift betw een C hrist an d Jesus. N or for th a t m atter is th ere any special
significance in the shift betw een eith er o f these an d C hrist Jesu s o r Jesu s
Christ. T h e best explanation for the variation in Paul as well as h ere in E ph
4 :2 0 ,2 1 is stylistic (cf. also B ruce, Epistles, 357: “it is difficult to discern any
distinction in em phasis betw een ‘in C hrist’ an d ‘in Je su s’ ”). H aving described
th e trad itio n in which the readers w ere tau g h t in term s o f C hrist (vv 20, 21a),
th e w riter can now also talk o f th at sam e tradition as sum m ed u p in Jesu s (v
21b). In o th e r words, to learn the gospel trad itio n is to be ta u g h t in C hrist o r
to be tau g h t th e tru th in Jesus.
Probably m ore significant th an th e use o f the nam e Jesu s is th e in tro d u ctio n
o f th e concept o f tru th in this context. As has been noted, akrfieva occurred
earlier in connection with aKOveiv in 1:13, “having h e a rd th e w ord o f tru th ,”
w here this w ord o f tru th was im m ediately explained as “th e gospel o f your
salvation” (cf. also Col 1:5, 6), an d “tru th ” has this sam e force in Paul in Gal
2:5, 14; 5:7; 2 T hess 2:10, 12, 13. T ru th as the co n ten t o f th e gospel a n d o f
th e apostolic trad ition th ro u g h which th at gospel is tran sm itted becom es the
m ain focus o f akrjdeia as th at term is used in the Pastorals (cf. 1 T im 2:4, 7;
 Comment 283

3:15; 4:3; 6:5; 2 T im 2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8; 4:4; T itus 1:1, 14). From the s u rro u n d -
ing context in E ph 4:17– 24, it becom es clear th a t the tru th o f the gospel
tradition th at can be sum m ed u p in Jesus, according to v 21, controls the
whole o f believers’ lives an d includes the ethical im plications o f the gospel as
they h ad been developed in the C h u rch ’s catechesis. (See Comment on 4:15
about believers proclaim ing this tru th instead o f being taken in by those who
p ro p ag ate erro r, an d on the notion o f tru th here com pare also E. Hoskyns
an d F. N. Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament [London: Faber and Faber,
1931] 26– 31; R. B u ltm ann, “dA ^eta,” T D N T 1 [1964] 238– 47; M u rp h y-O ’Con-
nor, “T ru th : Paul an d Q u m ra n ,” 179– 230; A. C. T hiselton, “T ru th ,” N ID N T T
3 [1978] 874– 901.)
It rem ains to note th at KjClOg j ? in this clause functions syntactically to qualify
the preceding clause an d to indicate a com parison. It suggests, therefore, th at
the tru th o f the gospel tradition, as sum m ed u p in Jesus, was the norm in
accord with which th e readers h ad h ea rd o f C hrist an d been tau g h t in him
(cf. also N iv, “in accordance with th e tru th th at is in Jesu s”). In term s o f the
w riter’s train o f th o u g h t, this clause contrasts with the oi>x outgjs, lit. “not
th u s,” o f v 20. H e asserts th at his readers h ad no t been instructed in the
C hristian trad itio n falsely according to th e G entile p a tte rn o f life he has depicted
in vv 17 – 19 b u t h ad been instructed according to the p ro p e r content o f th at
tradition, th at is, th e tru th in Jesus.
22 aiTodeodai vpäs Kara rr\v irporepav a v a o rp o ^ v top naXaiov avdpGJirov top
(föeipöpevov Kara r a s em dvpias rrfr dTrdrrj?, “that, as regards your fo rm er way
o f life, you should p u t off the old person who is being co rru p ted because o f
the desires which com e from deceit.” T h e w riter is d ep e n d e n t on Col 3:8– 10
for his paraenetic m aterial h ere in vv 22–24 (see Form/ Structure/Setting), bu t
am ong the differences from th at passage is the syntax. anoOeodai, “to p u t off,”
is the first o f th e th ree infinitives o f vv 22– 24. B efore any com m ent can be
m ade on the co n ten t o f the verses, a decision about the place o f these infinitives
in the syntax m ust be m ade. T h e re are fo u r m ain options, (a) T h e infinitives
can simply be taken as im peratives. T h e infinitive can occasionally function
as an im perative in the N T (e.g., Rom 12:15; Phil 3:16), an d D. D aube has
arg u ed th at a variety o f im peratival form s, including participles an d infinitives,
is typical o f H ebrew ethical codes (“Participle an d Im perative in 1 P eter,” in
E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter [London: M acmillan, 1946] esp. 480–
81). T h e infinitive as im perative is also a com m on featu re o f Pseudo-Phocylides.
W hat m akes such a gram m atical featu re less likely here, how ever, is th at v 22
contains n o t a sim ple infinitive b u t an infinitive plus an accusative— u/ua?, “you”
(cf. also BDF § 389). (b) T h e accusative an d infinitive could be p a rt o f a final
clause, indicating pu rp o se a n d d ep e n d e n t on eöiöaxörjre, “you w ere tau g h t.”
T h e readers w ere tau g h t in o rd e r th at they m ight p u t off the old person and
p u t on the new. (c) A n o th er possibility is th at th e accusative an d infinitive
form p a rt o f a consecutive o r result clause. T h e readers w ere tau g h t with the
result th at they have, in fact, p u t off the old person, are being renew ed, and
have p u t on th e new (cf. J. M urray, Principles of Conduct [G rand Rapids: E erd-
m ans, 1957] 214 – 19). (d) T h e fo u rth m ain option is th at the infinitive accom pa-
nied by the accusative is epexegetic, explaining the co n ten t o f the teaching
m entioned in v 21 (cf. also J. A. R obinson, 190; M oule, Idiom-Book, 127, 139;
284 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

H o u ld en , 318; C aird, 80; B ruce, Epistles, 358 n. 127). Any o f th e last th ree
options is possible, b u t one w ould have th o u g h t th at if the w riter h ad w anted
to m ake clear th a t th e teaching h ad already resulted in a definitive p u ttin g
on an d o ff in th e past, he w ould have d o n e so by using chare, “so th a t.” As it
is, th e fact th at th e xadcos clause, “as the tru th is in Jesu s,” already qualifies
an d defines “you w ere ta u g h t,” m akes it m ost likely th a t th e infinitives are to
be taken as a fu rth e r explanation o f the co n ten t o f th e teaching. Some m ake
the infinitives directly d e p e n d e n t on th e KaOchs clause (cf. M eyer, 244– 46;
Gnilka, 229). T his w ould m ake very little difference to the sense, b u t it is less
n atu ral syntactically th a n relating th em to the m ajor verb “were ta u g h t.” Because
o f th eir context in w hat is a piece o f paraenesis, these infinitives do take on
some im peratival force (cf. also S chnackenburg, 203).
T h e read ers h ad been tau g h t th a t becom ing believers involves a radical
break with th e past, th e p u ttin g off o f th e old person. T h e im agery o f p u ttin g
o ff th e old perso n an d p u ttin g on th e new is th a t o f decisive change. Its m eaning
can be co m p ared to th a t o f th e Synoptic lang uage o f re p e n tin g because o f
th e com ing o f th e kingdom (e.g., M ark 1:15). anoriOeadai is em ployed in relation
to a variety o f sins in Rom 13:12; Col 3:8; E ph 4:25; H eb 12:1; Jas 1:21;
an d 1 Pet 2:1. B ut h ere it is n o t ju s t particu lar vices th at are to be p u t off
b u t th e whole old person who was leading a life d om inated by sin.
T h e back g ro u n d fo r th e “p u ttin g o f f ’ can be trea ted to g eth er with th at
for th e “p u ttin g o n ” language. T h e connection o f this im agery with the notion
o f th e old o r new person can th e n also be explored. B ehind the language
an d concepts o f this passage lies Col 3:8– 10 (Ephesians, how ever, has replaced
the aneKSveadai o f 3:9 with th e änorideodat o f 3:8), an d beh in d th at lies a cluster
o f passages in th e u n d isp u ted Paulines. “P u ttin g o ff” is, as we have seen,
fo u n d in Rom 13:12 w here it is in close ju x tap o sitio n with “p u ttin g on the
L ord Jesu s C hrist” in Rom 13:14. “P u ttin g o n ” is again em ployed in an ex h o rta-
tion in 1 T hess 5:8, while in Gal 3:27 to have p u t on C hrist is equated with
to have been baptized into C hrist. N ow here in th e u n d isp u ted Paulines is
this clothing im agery linked w ith th e notion o f th e old o r new person. In
fact, the only occurrence o f th a t notion is in Rom 6:6 w here it is said th at
the believer’s old person was crucified with C hrist. It is frequently asserted
th at the language o f p u ttin g o ff the old p erson a n d p u ttin g on the new derives
from th e practice o f the rem oval o f clothing before en terin g the w ater in
baptism an d th e subsequent reclothing in a new g arm e n t (e.g., W. A. Meeks,
The First Urban Christians [New H aven: Yale U niversity Press, 1983] 155). T his
may have been th e case, b u t the evidence is by no m eans decisive. Obviously,
th e clothing im agery cannot be confined to a baptism al context. In the O T
th ere is the idea o f being clothed with salvation (2 C h r 6:41) o r with m oral
qualities (e.g., righteousness in Jo b 29:14; Ps 132:9). T h e picture o f p u ttin g
o ff vices is w idespread in G reek w riters (e.g., D em osthenes) 8.46; Lucian, Dial.
Mort. 10.8, 9; Ep. Arist. 122; P lutarch, Cor. 19.4) as is th a t o f p u ttin g on virtues
(e.g., Philo, De Conf. Ling. 31; Corpus Hermeticum 13:8, 9). In addition, in th e
m ystery religions the initiate can be described as becom ing clothed with the
pow ers o f th e cosmos an d th e divine life (cf. A puleius, Metamorph. 11.24).
B ut th ere is no exact parallel to th e language o f p u ttin g off the old person
^n d p u ttin g on th e new, which is first fo u n d in Colossians (cf. the discussion
 Comment 285

in Jervell, Imago Dei, 240– 48). P. W. van d e r H orst (“O bservations on a Pauline
E xpression,” N T S 19 [1972– 73] 181– 87) has draw n atten tio n to w hat is probably
the closest linguistic usage in a frag m en t o f A ntigonus o f Corystus about P yrrho
o f Elis, preserved in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 14.18.26, an d D iogenes L aertius
9.66. Pyrrho, u n d e r attack from a dog, adopts norm al p attern s o f behavior
an d seeks refuge, but this is inconsistent with his p resen t philosophical convic-
tions, an d w hen he is m ocked about this, he claims xaAenbv eoTiv tov avdpomov
enSvvai, “it is difficult to p u t off the p erso n .” A lthough this tradition can be
dated early en o ugh, it is no t easy to im agine th at it h ad any decisive influence
on th e form ulation found in Colossians, which ap pears instead to have been
a com bining o f two im ages th at had earlier functioned independently for Paul.
Since both had had clear baptism al associations (cf. Gal 3:27; Rom 6:6), it
could well be th at it was the actual practice o f baptism th at was the catalyst
in this new usage. B ut since o u r evidence th at early C hristian baptism al practice
included d erobing an d th en robing in a new g arm en t afterw ard can be dated
no earlier th an the second century c .e ., it is probably safer to say th at this
im agery is entirely ap p ro p riate to w hat we know o f later baptism al rites. If, as
is arg u ed by J. Z. Sm ith (“T h e G arm ents o f S ham e,” H R 5 [1965] 217– 38),
Gos. Thom. 37 contains an allusion to C hristian baptism al practice, th en this
would be the earliest evidence, possibly from the first h alf o f th e second century
c . e . O f o th er relevant m aterial, Gos. Phil. 101 is dated betw een the second
h alf o f the second century and the second h alf o f the third, H ippolytus’ Apostolic
Tradition reflects R om an practice at the en d o f the second century, an d Cyril
o f Jeru sa lem ’s Mystagogical Catechesis II, which contains a reference to the p rac-
tice, is d ated c. 350 c .e ., while the Syriac Acts of John in which the rite is
fo u n d goes back only to the en d o f the fo u rth o r beginning o f th e fifth century
c . e . (cf. A. F. J. Klijn, “An A ncient Syriac B aptism al L iturgy in the Syriac
Acts o f J o h n ,” in XAPIΣ KAI ΣOΦIA, FS K. H. R engstorf, ed. U. Luck [Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1964] 216– 28).
T h e change o f clothing im agery signifies an exchange o f identities, and
the concepts o f the old and the new persons reinforce this. T hese old and
new persons are n ot simply A dam an d C hrist as representatives o f the old
an d new orders (pace B arth, 539), n o r m ore specifically A dam in the in n er
person an d C hrist in the in n er person (pace Jervell, Imago Dei, 240–48). T hey
are individuals, as those individuals are identified eith er with the old o r with
th e new o rd e r o f existence. T h e old person is the person living u n d e r the
dom inion o f the p resen t evil age an d its powers, an d this previous identity
has to be dealt with decisively. If, as we have argued, the epexegetic infinitive
has some h o rtato ry force here, th en th ere is a slight shift o f em phasis betw een
Ephesians an d earlier references to the old person. W hereas both Rom 6:6
an d Col 3:9 (cf. O ’B rien, Colossians, 188– 89) assert th at the definitive break
with the old person has been m ade in the past, Ephesians extends the tension
betw een th e indicative and the im perative to the notion o f p u ttin g off the
old person. P utting off the old person has already taken place th ro u g h baptism ,
which tran sferred believers to the new order. T his injunction is no t an ex h o rta-
tion to believers to rep eat th at event b u t to continue to live o u t its significance
by giving u p on th at old person th at they no longer are. T h ey are new people
who m ust becom e in practice w hat God has already m ade them , and th at
286 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

involves the resolve to p u t off the old way o f life as it attem pts to im pinge.
T his is m ade clear by th e qualifying p h rase which precedes th e m ention o f
th e old p erson— “as regards your fo rm er way o f life.” T h e use o f apaorpoQri,
“way o f life,” recalls the use o f the cognate verb in th e earlier depiction o f
th e G entile read ers’ past in 2:3. It should now be plain to them th a t learn in g
C hrist m eans giving u p th a t G entile past an d its practices.
It m akes no sense to continue with th a t fo rm e r way o f life, since it has no
fu tu re. As opposed to the new person, who is in a process o f renew al, the
old p erson is in a process o f m oral co rru p tio n (cf. also the use o f the n o u n
00opd in Rom 8:21; Gal 6:8), a rottenness an d decay which will e n d in the
final destruction o f death (cf. also 1 C or 3:17b; 2 Pet 2:12). T h e old way o f
life has already been described as one o f d ea th in 2:1, 5. 2 Pet 1:4 links the
co rru p tio n in th e w orld with emOvfda, “d esire.” T h e sam e link is fo u n d here
in v 22 as th e old p erson is depicted as being co rru p ted because o f th e desires
which com e from deceit. Again, th ere is a rem iniscence o f th e earlier portrayal
o f th e G entile past in 2:3, w here it is the desires o f the flesh th a t characterize
th e old life (for emdvfjia with negative force cf. also Col 3:5; R om 1:24; 6:12;
7 :7 ,8 ; 13:14; Gal 5 :1 6 ,2 4 ; 1 T hess 4:5). anarri, “deceit,” is fo u n d elsew here
in the Pauline corpus only in 2 T hess 2:10, w here it stands in opposition to
th e tru th , an d in Col 2:8, w here as p a rt o f th e false philosophy en sn arin g
some. It can also be seen as in contrast to the gospel as the w ord o f tru th (cf.
1:5; fo r o th er uses cf. M ark 4:19; M att 13:22; H eb 3:13; 2 Pet 2:13; 2 Clem.
6.4; H errn. Man. 8.5; 11.12; H errn. Sim. 6.2.1; 6.3.3; 6.4.4; while in Cebes
Tablet 23–24 deceit dom inates the catalogue o f vices, an d in IQ S 4.2–26 it
plays a significant role in the discussion o f th e two spirits). A false perspective
on reality generates a confusion o f desires which can never be satisfied because
they have lost touch with w hat is true. Such desires serve th e pow er o f deceit,
an d so are them selves ultim ately illusory an d contribute to th e ru in o f the
old person.
23 avaveovodm 8 e tlo –nvebixan rod p o o s VfxcbP, “th at you should be renew ed
as reg ard s th e spirit o f your m in d .” By m aking the notion o f renew al an in d e p e n -
d e n t elem ent in the discussion in contrast to its function in Col 3:10, th e
w riter highlights the aspect o f continual challenge for the believer a n d in this
reg ard brings the th o u g h t m ore into line with the ex hortation o f Rom 12:2,
“Be tran sfo rm ed by the renew al o f your m in d .” Elsew here, apaucupovodai o r
its cognate n o u n is em ployed for the process o f renew al— in Col 3:10 (of the
new person), in 2 C or 4:16 (of th e in n e r person), an d in Rom 12:2 (of the
m ind). H ere, ävaveovoQai is used for renew al a n d Kairos for th e new person.
A bbott (138) an d S chnackenburg (204) arg u e fo r a deliberate distinction
w hereby the new person is kjclipös, qualitatively d ifferen t an d re q u irin g th e
divine initiative to create, while the process o f renew al em ploys a cognate o f
peos, involving rejuvenation an d encom passing h u m an activity. B ut R. A. H a rris-
ville (“T h e C oncept o f Newness in the New T estam e n t,” JB L 74 [1955] 69–
79) shows the synonym ity o f these words for new ness, bo th o f w hich can have
eith er qualitative o r tem poral connotations; thus the variation h ere is m erely
stylistic (cf. also B ruce, Epistles, 358 n. 126).
T h e renew al is to take place “in the spirit o f your m in d .” T h e double expres-
sion t l o irvevnan t o v p o o s VfxcbP has g en erated m uch discussion. T h e m ajority
 C om m ent 287

o f recent com m entators (cf. Schlier, 220; Gnilka, 230; H oulden, 319; H alter,
Taufe, 254– 55; Ernst, 365; S chnackenburg, 204; M ussner, 137) o p t for a re fe r-
ence to th e divine Spirit on the g rounds th at now here else in E phesians does
7Tvevfxa re fer to th e h u m an spirit, an d elsew here in th e letter it is the Spirit
who controls believers (cf. 1:17; 3:16; 4:3; 5:18; 6:18). Also in T itus 3:5 the
Holy Spirit is th e explicit agent o f renew al. H o u ld en (319) even translates
th e verse “Be renew ed by the Spirit in your m in d .” B ut this is no t w hat the
G reek text says. It speaks about the spirit of your m ind. Since this is so, we
m ust agree th at “it is im probable th at G od’s Spirit w ould be described as ‘o f
your m in d ’ ” (M itton, 165). T h e Spirit can be said to be “o f C hrist” o r “o f
G od,” b u t now here else is the divine Spirit depicted as belonging to a h u m an
being o r to p art o f a h u m an being. In E phesians’ characteristic style o f pleonastic
accum ulation o f synonym s, both spirit an d m ind are em ployed to designate a
p erso n ’s in n erm o st being (cf. also M eyer, 249; A bbott, 137; J. A. R obinson,
191; W estcott, 68; B arth, 508; M itton, 165; B ratcher an d Nida, Handbook,
114– 15; r sv ; n e b ). In this way, the reference is sim ilar to th at o f 3:16 to the
in n er person. In Philo “th e person w ithin th e p erso n ” is identified with the
vovs (cf. De Congress, quaer. erud. grat. 97). So the new person is no t yet totally
new. T h e p resen t tense o f this infinitive underlines the continuous n atu re o f
th e renew al th at is still required, an d the passive voice suggests th a t this takes
place as believers allow them selves to be renew ed. In line with P aul’s thought,
the p resen t focus for renew al is not the body b u t the in n e r person, the m ind,
alth o u g h as th e n ext verse m akes clear, this has consequences for external
actions. T h e idea here is functionally equivalent to th at o f Col 3:10, which
speaks o f “being renew ed in know ledge.” T h e re is to be a constant developm ent
o f believers’ percep tion which will result, in practice, in th eir ability to choose
the good.
24 m i evbvoaodai tov Kaivbv avOpconov tov Kara deov Knodevra ev diKaioowfl
m i boibrr\Ti 7fft aXr?0das, “an d th at you should p u t on th e new person who is
created in G od’s likeness in the righteousness an d holiness which com e from
the tru th .” For this w riter, the notion o f “the new p erso n ” has both corporate
an d individual connotations. T h e corporate aspect o f the new hum anity has
been seen in 2:15, w here the one new person replaces the two separate entities
o f Jew s an d Gentiles. B ut this new hum anity also com es to expression individu-
ally. J u s t as th e old person is the person u n d e r the dom inion o f this p resen t
age, so the new person is the person u n d e r the dom inion o f the new creation
an d its life. O n the basis o f w hat God has accom plished in C hrist, this new
identity m ust be ap p ro p riated — “p u t o n ”—in such a way th at its ethical dim en -
sions becom e ap p aren t. T h e notion o f the new creation is explicit in the descrip-
tion o f the new person as “created in G od’s likeness.” tov K a ra deov KTiodevra,
lit. “created like G od,” is E phesians’ version o f Col 3:10, kclt eiicbva tov KnoavTOs
airrov, “according to the im age o f the one who created it,” with its allusion to
the language o f G en 1:26. T h e reference in E phesians also shares these connota-
tions o f the m o tif o f the new A dam in w hom the im age o f G od is restored,
b u t as th e following phrase, which is an addition to Colossians, shows, its
focus is m ore on the new creation as involving a life which is p attern ed after
G od’s (cf. also 5:1), an existence in conform ity to the divine will. T h e goal o f
conduct could be form ulated as living Kara deov in Jo sep h u s, Ant. 4.6.10,
288 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

143 (cf. also Sentences of Sextus 2 0 1 ,2 1 6 ,3 9 9 ; W ild, “ ‘Be Im itators,’ ” 135).

T h e believer is already in principle, an d is becom ing in practice, p a rt o f G od’s
new creation (cf. 2:10, 15; cf. also 2 C or 5:17; Gal 6:15). H ere, th e language
reflects a perspective in which th ere is a com bination o f G od’s gracious initiative
an d h u m an responsibility, as it is m ade clear th at the new p erson is created
by G od b u t m ust be p u t on by the believer.
T h e new hum anity has been created by G od to be like him “in th e rig h teo u s-
ness an d holiness which com e from the tru th .” T his latter p h rase in th e G reek
text im m ediately follows the adjectival participle KTiodevra, “c reated ,” a n d this
m akes it highly likely th at the w riter in ten d ed the virtues he m entions to be
th o u g h t o f prim arily as G od’s creation (cf. also S chnackenburg, 205). T h e
th o u g h t recalls his earlier form ulation in 2:10, w here believers are said to be
“created for good works which God p re p a re d b efo reh a n d .” A t the sam e tim e,
as we have already seen, the m ention o f the virtues h ere in 4:24 is in an
overall paraenetical context, in which it is m ade clear th at believers m ust a p p ro -
priate th e new h um anity an d its ethical qualities. T h e choice o f righteousness
an d holiness as th e ethical qualities th at are specified u nderlines th e p o in t
th a t th e new h u m anity has been recreated to be like God, because bo th are
characteristics o f G od in LXX Ps 144:17 an d D eut 32:4 (cf. also Rev 16:5).
As the new creation in G od’s likeness, believers are to be righteous as he is
rig h teo u s an d holy as he is holy, boibrr}*;, “holiness,” occurs elsew here in the
N T only in Luke 1:75 w here it is again in conjunction with öucaioowri, “rig h teo u s-
ness.” T h e latter term denotes in E phesians n o t G od’s p u ttin g hum anity in a
rig h t relationship with him self n o r th at rig h t relationship itself, th e characteristic
Pauline usages, b u t an ethical virtue (cf. also 5:9; 6:14). Schlier (221– 22) opts
fo r th e distinction already fo u n d in Plato, Gorgias 507B, an d Philo, De Abr.
208, w hereby righteousness is doing rig h t in relation to hum anity, while holiness
is being rig h t in relation to God. Such a distinction is an overdraw n one for
N T usage w here each term has both m oral an d religious connotations. It is
probably best to see the two term s used to g eth er as “a sum m ary o f h u m an
virtu e” (cf. A bbott, 139), as in Wis 9:3 an d Luke 1:75 (cf. also the use o f the
cognate adverbs in 1 T hess 2:10 an d adjectives in T itus 1:8). F u rth e r su p p o rt
is len t to this in terp re tatio n by the fact th at m ost frequently in Plato (Apology
35D; Crito 54B; Theatetus 172B, 176B) an d in Philo (De Sacr. 57; De Spec. Leg.
1.304; 2.180; De Virt. 50) both the adjectival an d nom inal form s o f th e two
term s are em ployed to g eth er to d enote virtuous living in general. It is also
significant th at in Plato’s Theatetus 176B a n d its citation in Philo, De Fug. 63,
this p aired expression explains w hat it m eans to becom e like God. H ere
too in E phesians, the new hum anity displays these qualities th at belong to
God, because it has been recreated to be like G od (cf. Wild, “ ‘Be Im itators,’ ”
134– 35).
T h e evil desires which characterized the old person sp ran g from deceit
(v 22). Now, by contrast, the virtues which characterize the new p erson can
be said to com e from the tru th . T his tru th is ultim ately divine reality which
has been disclosed in the gospel an d the apostolic tradition (cf. 1:13; 4:21).
By its very n atu re it gives rise to such virtues as righteousness a n d holiness.
In th e Q u m ra n literature, tru th is frequently contrasted with deceit o r falsehood
(e.g., IQ S 5.10; 1QH 1 .2 6 ,2 7 ,3 0 ), a n d in IQ S 4.2– 26 this contrast form s
 E x p la n a tio n 289

p art o f the discussion o f the two spirits an d th eir two ways, as it does in T.
Jud. 20.1– 3 (cf. also T. Jud. 14.1). Also in the Q u m ra n m aterial, th e lives o f
the “sons o f tru th ” can be said to be characterized by ways o f righteousness
o f tru th (IQ S 4.2; cf. also M u rp h y-O ’C onnor, “T ru th : Paul a n d Q u m ra n ,”
208– 10). H ere in 4:24, the p o rtra it o f the new person as created in G od’s
likeness in the righteousness an d holiness which com e from th e tru th functions
as a challenge to the readers to e n te r into an d to live ou t th at which th ro u g h
th eir baptism they already know them selves to be. In this way, it is m ade
clear to them th at G od has not accom plished som e instant o r total transform ation
b u t has m ade it possible for them to participate in the tru th an d thereby
p roduce those ethical qualities a p p ro p riate to being like God.

Explanation

T his passage, as a piece o f direct exhortation about both w hat is in ap p ro p ria te

an d w hat is ap p ro p riate to the believer’s calling, continues the address to the
readers beg u n in 4 :1–3. G od’s calling o f these particular readers has taken
them o u t o f th eir previous situation as G entiles, with all th e negative connota-
tions the w riter has attached to th at identification, into a new creation in which
ethnic differences are no longer the significant factor, into a body which tra n -
scends the J e w-G entile divide (cf. chap. 2). Now they m ust walk worthily o f
such a calling by no longer living as they did before the call took effect, by
no longer living as Gentiles. T h e positive side o f the w riter’s exhortation to
ap p ro p riate conduct appeals to the tradition o f teaching the readers have re -
ceived, an d particularly those aspects o f th e tradition th at have ethical im plica-
tions. T his concern has been p re p are d for in the preceding passage, no t only
th ro u g h the notion o f living worthily o f the calling b u t also th ro u g h the im p o r-
tance attached to those m inisters whose task is to pass on the apostolic tradition
an d thereby enable the C hurch to grow into m aturity.
T h e form the exhortation takes, with its d enunciation o f th e re ad ers’ fo rm er
way o f life, which is at the sam e tim e a denunciation o f the p resen t way o f
life o f outsiders to the C hurch, an d its continual contrasts betw een such conduct
an d th at which should characterize those who have been tau g h t the C hristian
tradition, has certain parallels with both Jew ish an d Hellenistic ethical m aterial.
T h e con ten t o f the exhortation owes som ething to early C hristian baptism al
catechesis, b u t m ore im m ediately is d ep e n d e n t on Col 3:5– 11. W hereas in
Colossians the ethical appeal su p p o rted th e contrast betw een heavenly an d
earthly life an d th e com parison with the read ers’ fo rm er lifestyle was secondary
(cf. 3:7, 8), in E phesians it is the latter contrast which gives the w riter’s adaptation
o f the m aterial its distinctive shape an d force.
So he begins in vv 17– 19 with the strong insistence th at his readers are
n o t to fall back into the p atterns o f thinking an d resu ltan t behavior which
characterize the su rro u n d in g G entile world. In line with traditional Jew ish
apologetic, he draws a drastic contrast betw een such thinking an d living an d
th at which God in tended. W hat G entile C hristians should have left b eh in d is
an existence in which intellectual perception is totally distorted and, having
lost its grip on reality, has becom e perm eated by folly an d futility. In such a
state, in which the addressees’ su rro u n d in g society still finds itself, peo p le’s
290 E p h e s ia n s 4:17– 24

th inking has becom e d ark en ed so th at they are blind to the tru e p u rp o se o f

life an d incapable o f ap p re h e n d in g tru th . T h e ir relationship to th e source o f
life, God him self, has becom e broken. T his is on account o f th eir culpable
ignorance, th eir h a rd en in g o f them selves to the sense o f G od available to
them . A ccom panying this lack o f basic insight is a m oral bankruptcy, since
dullness o f ethical sensitivity has in tu rn led to general debauchery a n d u n re -
strained sexual behaviour, to the active p u rsu it o f all kinds o f im m orality,
an d to an insatiable greed which disregards the w elfare o f others.
T h e transition from this general d enunciation o f G entile conduct to w hat
is expected o f C hristian believers com es in vv 20, 21, as th e read ers are told
in a striking tu rn o f phrase th at all this type o f behavior certainly has n o th in g
to do with how they “learned C hrist.” B etw een th em an d th eir fo rm e r G entile
lifestyle stands th e teaching which can be sum m ed u p in C hrist, the instruction
in th e tradition th ro u g h which the risen C hrist shapes th e ch aracter a n d lives
o f believers. T h e w riter is assured th at they have no t been instructed falsely
in such a way as w ould re p ro d u ce the G entile p a tte rn o f life b u t according to
th e tru th in Jesus, the n o rm which should call fo rth th e desired quality o f
life. T h re e fu n d am en tal aspects o f th at life are set o u t in vv 22– 24. First, it
involves strip p in g o ff the ro ttin g g arm en t o f th e old hum anity. T h e old person
is in a process o f decay which will lead to final ru in , a process b ro u g h t ab o u t
th ro u g h th e evil desires gen erated by deceit, by an ultim ately illusory view o f
life. Believers m ust live o u t the significance o f w hat has already taken place
th ro u g h baptism an d ab andon the old p erso n th a t they no longer are. Second,
since they are n o t yet com pletely new, they m ust allow them selves to be co n tin u -
ally renew ed in the in n er person, particularly in the m ind. T h ird , this restoration
to rig h t th inking will result in rig h t conduct, because th e read ers are to p u t
on th e fresh clean clothing o f the new hum anity with its ju s t a n d holy living.
T h e new identity, already achieved fo r believers, has to be ap p ro p ria te d so
th at its distinctive ethical qualities will becom e evident. T h e new p erson is
created to be like God, an d this likeness is exhibited in th e righteousness an d
holiness th at epitom ize a life in a rig h t relationship to G od a n d hum anity
a n d also recall characteristics o f this G od him self. T h e existence o f th e new
perso n is ultim ately related to the tru th o f the gospel a n d o f th e apostolic
tradition, a m oral tru th able to give rise to the virtues o f righteousness an d
holiness in those who receive it.
N aturally, because o f both th e form a n d co n ten t o f the passage as an ethical
ex h o rtation, believers an d th eir lives are the focus o f the w riter’s attention.
In b oth th eir previous an d th eir p re sen t state it is th eir relationship to God
th a t is em phasized— separated from th e life o f G od in the fo rm e r case an d
created in G od’s likeness in the latter. In the w riter’s discussion o f th e existence
o f th e new person, divine initiative an d h u m an responsibility go h a n d in hand.
T h e decisive tran sference from th e old hum anity to th e new has already been
accom plished by G od’s action, b u t believers m ust a p p ro p riate this fo r them selves
by ab an d o n in g th e old person, taking on th e new an d its activities, a n d allowing
them selves to be renew ed. A Christological elem ent is n o t absent from this
section, since it is th ro u g h C hrist or, m ore precisely, th ro u g h the catechetical
trad itio n which can be sum m ed u p in C hrist o r in Jesu s th at th e p a tte rn o f
life o f th e new creation is passed on.
 E x p la n a tio n 291

T h e re are a n u m b er o f o th er significant aspects o f the th o u g h t o f this passage.

O utsiders to th e G entile C hristian m em bership o f the C h u rch are designated
Gentiles, which reinforces the im pression already gained from earlier in the
letter, an d particularly from 2:11– 22, th at the w riter him self is a Jew ish C hris-
tian. T his Jew ish C hristian is im pressed by the way in which thinking leads
to doing in both negative an d positive contexts, by the pow er o f ignorance o f
G od in p ro d u cin g m oral corruption, an d by the pow er o f a m ind renew ed in
the tru th in g en erating virtue. H e also places great im portance on the role o f
C hristian tradition an d o f instruction in th at tradition in effecting ap p ro p riate
C hristian conduct. C learest o f all is his conviction th at being a C hristian m eans
having u n d erg o n e a radical change— from the old person to the new, from
futility o f m ind to renew al o f m ind, from the service o f deceit to the service
o f tru th , from a process o f co rru p tio n to one o f renew al, from a life o f u n re -
strained passions to one o f righteousness an d holiness. T his stress on the change
o f identity from the old to the new person is in line with Colossians an d with
earlier Pauline th o u g h t b u t may well introduce a variation. H ere only is the
tension betw een indicative an d im perative ex tended to the term inology o f
th e old an d new persons, so th at believers can be ex h o rted to p u t off the old
person th at they no longer are an d to p u t on the new person th at they already
are.
Obviously, h o rtatory m aterial is in ten d ed to effect a particular p attern o f
life in those to w hom it is addressed. H ere, the denunciation o f G entile lifestyle,
the appeal to C hristian catechetical tradition, an d the antithetical form ulations
which characterize the passage are all m eant to reinforce th e new identity o f
believers, which is foundational to th eir new lifestyle, an d to g u ard against
th eir becom ing conform ed to the ethos o f the su rro u n d in g society. T h e use
o f traditional m aterial m eans th at instruction about the distinctive ethical im pli-
cations o f the new identity can take place by way o f re m in d e r o f w hat the
readers should already know. T his passage lays the essential groundw ork on
which the m ore detailed an d specific ethical exhortations th a t follow in the
next section, 4 :2 5–5:2, d epend. Only from these will it becom e clear how far
an d in w hat ways th e conduct advocated by this w riter really is new an d distinctive
in relation to ethical attitudes an d behavior in the su rro u n d in g society.
Practical Injunctions About the Old and
New Life (4:25–5:2)
Bibliography

Agrell, G. Work, Toil and Sustenance. Verbum: Hakan Ohlssons, 1976, 126–32. Coune,
M. “Revêtir l’homme nouveau (Ep 4,23–28).” AsSeign 74 (1963) 16–32. Findlay, J. A.
“Ephesians 4.29.” ExpTim 46 (1934–35) 429. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos, 256–69. Merk-
lein, H. “Eph 4,1– 5,20 als Rezeption von Kol 3,1– 17.” In Kontinuität und Einheit, ed.
P. G. Müller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981,194– 210. Sampley, J. P. “Scripture
and Tradition in the Community as Seen in Eph 4:25 ff.” ST 26 (1972) 101–9. Schweizer,
E. “Gottesgerechtigkeit und Lasterkataloge bei Paulus (inkl. Kol und Eph).” In Rechtferti-
gung. FS E. Käsemann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen:
Mohr, 1976, 461–77. Wild, R. A. “ ‘Be Imitators of God’: Discipleship in the Letter
to the Ephesians.” In Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. F. F. Segovia. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985, 127–43.

Translation

25Therefore, put offfalsehood and let each one speak the truth with his neighbor,
fo r we are members of one another. 26I f you are angry,a do not sin; do not let the
sun go down on your anger 27and do not give an opportunity to the devil. 2SLet
the thief no longer steal, but rather let him work hard, doing good with his own
hands, ° so that he might have something to share with the person in need. 29Do not
let any evil talk come out of your mouth, but whatever is good fo r building up as
the need arises, c so that it may benefit those who hear. 30And do not grieve the holy
Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed fo r the day of redemption. Let all bitterness
and rage and anger and shouting and slander be removed from you along with all
malice. 32Be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as
God in Christforgave you. d 5:1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children,
2and live in love, just as Christ loved u se and gave himself up for us as a fragrant
offeringf and sacrifice to God.

Notes

aA literal translation would be “Be angry and do not sin,” but the first imperative can have
concessive force. See Comment on v 26.
bO f the numerous textual variants for this clause, six main ones should be noted. The two
fullest readings are rctf? i&ai? x^poiv tö äyadöv (N* A D G 81 104 itc>d>f vgcl syrP goth arm eth),
and, with the two parts in reverse order, to äyadöv rat? iStai? xepoiv (K 436 1877 syrh Theodoret).
Then there are readings which have both of these sequences but omit i&ai? in each case: rat?
Xepoiv tö äyadöv (p46,49vid Nc B itar>e»x vgww copsa ms,bo) anci Tq ayadbv rat? x^poiv ('I' 88 326 614
Chrysostom). Finally, there are variants which omit one of the elements of these last two readings,
where either tö äyadöv stands by itself (P 33 1739 itm Clement) or rat? xcpoiv is found alone
(copsa Tertullian). These shortest texts could well have come about as a result of the belief that
manual labor and achieving good simply do not belong together. O f the other readings, the
sequence in which tö äyadöv appears second has by far the stronger support from the external
evidence. If a scribe had wanted to change the order, he is more likely to have moved tö äyadöv
closer to the participle than further away from it. What is not so clear, however, is whether tStai?
is likely to be original or an interpolation on the basis of 1 Cor 4:12. Because Ephesians, in any
 Form / Structure / Setting 293

case, uses phrases from the Pauline letters, because it would be natural to omit tStais as superfluous,
and because it has fairly strong external support, rats iöiais xepoiv tö äyadöv should probably be
preferred as the original reading.
CA later copyist (D* F G 181 it vgcl Tertullian Cyprian Ambrosiaster) has changed the original
strange combination of words (lit.—“for building up of need”) to the expression “for the building
up of faith (iriorecos).” See Comment below.
d Should the final pronoun o f this verse be vplv, “you,” or ripa>, “us”? The former has the
support of p 46N A G P 81 326 614 al it copsa bo goth eth Clement Tertullian. Also in its favor is
the fact that the second person plural has been used consistently from v 29 onward and continues
into 5:1. The latter is read in P49vid ß D sr K 4* 33 88 630 1739 syrP>h arm Origen. Since it
interrupts the flow of the second person plurals, r)plv is the more difficult reading, and it is
possible that this clause reflects the “we”–style of traditional formulations. But a traditional formula-
tion is more clearly in view in the two clauses of 5:2 (see Notes e and f). Because Col 3:13b, on
which this passage appears dependent, reads exapioaro vpiv and the writer o f Ephesians would
have no cause to alter the pronoun in this context, and because vplv has strong external support
and better fits the imperatival style of the surrounding paraenesis, it has been preferred.
e There is again a textual question about the person o f the plural pronoun at this point. Consider-
ation of the question will also need to take into account the next, and related, textual issue in
the same verse. tj/luz?, “ u s ,” has the slightly stronger external evidence (p 46 Xc D G K ^ 3 3 88 614
630 1739 majority of it syrP>h goth arm Aphraates). Since it can be explained as part of the
“we”–style of the traditional formulation that probably continues as far as rcb deep, and since it is
in such close connection with Tjpcvv in the same formulation, which has by far the stronger support
in comparison to its variant, it should be preferred to vpäs, “you” (K* A B P 81 few Old Latin
copsa bo eth).
fSome manuscripts transpose the word order. Instead of mep ripcbv npooffropav m i dvoiav, “for
us as an offering and sacrifice,” N has mep ripcöv dvoiav m i irpoofopav and D 1984 1985 have
irpoo^pav mep ripcöv m i dvoiav. The reading of 1241, mep riptov ev (pdopq., is the result of a transcriptional
error. On the issue of whether vpCov, “you,” (B 31 69 442 itmmon copsa bo eth Origen) should be
read instead of i)pcov, “us,” the decision is fairly clear-cut. The latter better suits the style of a
traditional formulation and has much superior attestation (p46,49 n A D F G K L P ^ 33 81 614
1739 itd’g vg syrP h goth arm Clement Aphraates).

Form / Structure / Setting

H aving laid the groundw ork about the distinction betw een the way o f life
o f the old hum anity and th at o f the new in 4 :1 7–24, the w riter now provides
specific injunctions which illustrate this distinction. T h e first g ro u p o f these
consists o f the m aterial in 4:25– 5:2, an d its structure can be analyzed as follows.
First, fo u r distinct an d undesirable aspects o f behavior are treated — lying (4:25),
an g e r (4:26, 27), stealing (4:28), an d evil talk (4:29). In each case a course o f
action is advocated and th en su p p o rted by a m otivating clause. W ith the first,
third, an d fo u rth o f these topics, the course o f action is expressed first in
negative term s an d th en in positive. In the case o f an g e r th ere are two p ro h i-
bitions before the m otivating clause, which is also fram ed negatively as a p ro h i-
bition. T h e o th er m otivating clauses are expressed positively. 4:25 has a causal
clause with on, while 4:28,29 have pu rp o se clauses with lva. A fter the fo u rth
injunction a fu rth e r prohibition follows in 4:30, “A nd do n o t grieve the holy
Spirit o f G od.” T h e p attern o f exhortation followed by m otivation suggests
th at this prohibition may also serve as a m ajor m otivation fo r all th e preceding
injunctions, th o u g h it is m ost closely associated with the im m ediately preceding
advice about speech. It parallels the m otivating elem ent in 4:27,28 which also
took the form o f a prohibition. T h e p attern which we have observed continues
into 4:31, 32, w here the rem oval o f a list o f negative features associated with
294 E p h e s ia n s 4:25– 5:2

an g e r an d th eir replacem ent by positive qualities necessary for forgiveness is

called for. T his is followed by a m otivating clause in which the com parative
tcadcos has causal force— “ju s t as God in C hrist forgave you.” Som e com m entators
(e.g., Gnilka, 233, 242; B arth, 525, 555; E rnst, 370; M ussner, 138– 41) suggest
th at this first u n it o f m ore specific paraenesis ends in fact at 4:32. B ut ra th e r
th a n m arking a new beginning, yiveode ovv, “Be . . . th ere fo re ,” in 5:1 draw s
o u t th e consequences o f th e exhortation o f 4:32 with its o p en in g yiveode. If
th e recipients o f the letter are to forgive one a n o th e r ju s t as G od in C hrist
forgave them , th at m eans, as 5:1 elaborates, th a t they are to be im itators o f
God. T h e u n it ends on a positive note as 5:1, 2 contain two positive exhortations
followed by a m otivating clause sim ilar to th a t o f 4:32 expressed in positive
term s an d with an introductory Kadtos, “ju s t as C hrist loved us an d gave him self
u p for u s.” T h e second exhortation, to live in love (5:2), can now be seen as
a g eneral sum m ary o f the m ore specific adm onitions which have preceded.
Its m otivating clause about C hrist’s d ea th with its traditional form ulation an d
cultic im agery provides a rhetorical climax for th e pericope. It is only in 5:3,
with its change o f subject m atter to sexual m orality an d its adversative 6e,
th at th e b eg inning o f a new series o f injunctions is m arked (cf. also Schnacken-
b u rg, 208).
It has becom e com m on am ong N T scholars to classify as topoi the individual
stereotyped ethical motifs in such series o f loosely connected paraenetical m ate-
rial. D. G. B radley defined th e topos as “th e trea tm e n t in in d e p e n d e n t form
o f th e topic o f a p ro p e r th o u g h t o r action, o r o f a virtue o r a vice, etc.” an d
held th at it functioned as a general answ er to re cu rrin g ethical problem s (cf.
“T h e Topos as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis,” JB L 72 [1953] 240; cf. also
T . Y. M ullins, “T opos as a New T estam en t F orm ,” JB L 99 [1980] 5 4 1–47).
T h e re are how ever th ree m ajor problem s in the discussion to date. Is the
topos really a paraenetical form ? S hould it be assum ed th at the topos only gives
general advice an d never addresses specific situations? A nd is no t topos a confus-
ing term to use fo r the p h en o m en o n u n d e r discussion anyway? A p a rt from
th e m atter o f in d ependence o f treatm en t, B radley (JB L 72 [1953] 238–46)
h ad in fact w orked in term s o f co n ten t m ore th a n form a n d h ad ad d u ced
m aterial from Isocrates, M arcus A urelius, an d the Testament of Judah as parallels.
M ullins (JB L 99 [1980] 541– 47) n oted th e problem ab o u t form an d attem p ted
to solve it by analyzing B radley’s parallels in o rd e r to isolate those w hich h ad
the sam e form . H e thereby red u ced th e m aterial to be included u n d e r this
category to th at which has th ree essential features— an injunction, a reason
for th e injunction, an d a discussion o f its consequences. O n this definition,
n o n e o f th e topics treated in E ph 4:25– 5:2 w ould qualify as a topos, because
n o n e o f th em contains a discussion o f the consequences o f the injunction.
T h o u g h M ullins isolated one particular form th a t paraenetical m aterial can
take, his sam pling o f ethical m aterial was som ew hat lim ited, an d he gave no
reason why the m aterial which has his th ree essential features should be desig-
n ated by the term topos, n o r why only th at m aterial an d n o t o th e r form s o f
paraenesis could be involved in the trea tm e n t o f a topos. M ore recently J. C.
B ru n t (“M ore on the topos as a New T estam en t Form ,” JB L 104 [1985] 495–
500) has arg u ed convincingly th at it is invalid to claim th at th e topos p h e n o m en o n
 Form / Structure / Setting 295

as such shows th at advice is n o t directed to a specific situation. H e also argues

that, in fact, in ancient classical rhetoric the term topos h ad a d ifferent an d
m ore specialized m eaning. It was used o f the stereotyped lines o f arg u m e n t
th at could be applied to specific courtroom cases. B ru n t claims that, because
o f the disparity betw een its ancient an d m o d ern usage, the choice o f this term
for th e p h en o m en o n B radley wished to isolate is u n fo rtu n a te . T his latter point
is n o t so convincing, however, since B ru n t does no t do justice to the fact th at
in ancient rh eto ric topos was used in both a b ro a d er an d a narro w er sense to
d en o te both a com m on them e em ployed in a variety o f form s an d a line o f
arg u m en tatio n (cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.4– 15; 2.22– 23; Q uintilian 5.10.20;
10.5.12; cf. also D. E. A une, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [Phila-
delphia: W estm inster, 1987] 172– 74,189).
In this light, if the term topos is em ployed o f paraenetic m aterial, it w ould
ap p e a r wise to restrict its use to the designation o f the trea tm e n t o f an in d ep en -
d en t general ethical them e an d to avoid both applying it to any particular
form al characteristics o f such trea tm e n t an d m aking assum ptions about the
generality o r specificity o f its function in a given context. It m ay well be better,
however, to see the m aterial in 4:25– 5:2 as a collection o f sententiae, sentences,
frequently in th e form o f im peratives, which give a rule for conduct in daily
life (cf. K. B erger, “Hellenistische G attu n g en im N euen T estam e n t,” A N R W
2.25.2 [1984] 1049– 74; H. L ausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik [M unich:
Max H u eb er, 1960] §§ 872– 79; cf. also H. D. Betz, Galatians [Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979] 291– 93). C om position o f such ethical sentences was com m on
am ong Hellenistic philosophers, such as Dem ocritos, Isocrates, Ps.-Isocrates,
D iogenes L aertius, an d Seneca, an d h ad been ad o p ted by Hellenistic Judaism .
If, then , we talk ab out 4:25– 5:2 as epistolary paraenesis carried o u t by m eans
o f sentences o n various topics, the type an d form o f each sentence can be
analyzed in its own right. As we have seen from o u r discussion o f structure
above, this pericope has seven sentences, an d five o f those seven sentences
(4:25; 4:26, 27; 4:28; 4:31, 32; 5:1, 2) take the form o f two exhortations followed
by a m otivating clause. It could be arg u ed th at a sixth sentence (4:29) also
takes this form , since although its exhortation only has one verb, a second
exh o rtatio n is im plied. In fo ü r o f these sentences (4:25; 4:28; 4:29; 4:31, 32),
an ex h o rtatio n with negative form o r content is followed by one with positive
form o r co n ten t before the m otivation is supplied. In 4:28 the contrast is
m arked by ßT]K€Tt. . . näW ov 6e, an d in 4:29 by pi] . . . dXAd, while in 4:31, 32
it is carried th ro u g h by m eans o f a variation on the form o f a series o f vices
followed by a series o f virtues. In 4:26, 27 the exhortations are both prohibitions,
as is the m otivating clause, an d in 5:1, 2 the exhortations are both expressed
positively. T h e sentence in 4:30, like a n u m b er o f the earlier im peratives,
takes the form o f a prohibition.
As has already been m entioned, the contrast o f the sentences in 4:31, 32
m akes use o f w hat is a com m on form in paraenesis— the catalogue o f vices
an d virtues. In fact, as we shall note below, the w riter is d e p e n d e n t for his
use o f this form on Col 3:8, 12. In both sentences the w riter has changed the
verb from th at fo u n d in Colossians. B ut o f the five vices in Col 3:8 fo u r ap p e a r
h ere in E ph 4:31. Only aioxpoXoyia , “foul talk,” is m issing (but cf. E ph 5:4),
296 E p h e s ia n s 4:25–5:2

an d E phesians has ad d ed m icpta , “bitterness,” an d K p a vyrj , “shouting.” W ith

the virtues in 4:32, E phesians has red u ced th e five nouns o f Col 3:12 to two
an d given th em an adjectival form before going on to take u p one o f the
participles o f Col 3:13. T h e o th e r n o uns an d participle from Col 3:12, 13
have already been em ployed in E ph 4:2. A lthough w hat we have in E ph 4:31, 32
is clearly a variation on a form m ediated by Colossians an d alth o u g h a catalogue
o f vices will ap p e a r again in this letter in 5 :3–5 an d virtues will be m entioned
in 5:9, th e close ju x tap o sitio n o f elem ents o f both a vice list an d a virtue list
h ere m ake this an ap p ro p riate p o in t at which to discuss briefly this p h en o m en o n ,
on which a n u m b er o f scholars have w ritten (cf. B arth, 550– 53; K. B erger,
“H ellenistische G attu n g en im N eu en T estam e n t,” A N R W 2.25.2 [1984] 1088–
92, 1201–4; J . B ergm an, “Z um Zwei-W ege-Motiv: Religionsgeschichtliche u n d
exegetische B em erk u n g en ,” SEÄ 41/42 [1976–77] 27–56; H. D. Betz, Lukian
von Samosata und das Neue Testament [Berlin: A kadem ie-V erlag, 1961] 185–94,
206– 11; G. E. C annon, The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians [M acon,
GA: M ercer University Press, 1983] 51– 94; P. C arrington, The Primitive Christian
Catechism [C am bridge: CUP, 1940]; B. S. Easton, “New T estam en t Ethical Lists,”
JB L 51 [1932] 1– 12; E. K am lah, Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen
Testament [T übingen: M ohr, 1964]; G. Klein, Der älteste christliche Katechismus
und die jüdische Propaganda-Literatur [Berlin: G. R eim er, 1909]; N. J . McEleney,
“T h e Vice Lists o f th e Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ 36 [1974] 203– 19; O ’B rien,
Colossians, 179–81; E. Schweizer, “G ottesgerechtigkeit u n d L asterkataloge bei
Paulus [inkl. Kol u n d E ph],”in Rechtfertigung, ed. J. F riedrich, W. P öhlm ann,
an d P. S tuhlm acher [G öttingen: V andenhoeck 8c R uprecht, 1976] 461– 77; E.
Schweizer, “T rad itio n al Ethical P atterns in the P auline an d Post-Pauline L etters
an d T h e ir D evelopm ent [lists o f vices a n d h ouse-tables],” in Text and Interpreta-
tion, ed. E. Best an d R. McL. W ilson. [C am bridge: CUP, 1979] 195–209;
M. J. Suggs, “T h e C hristian Tw o Way T rad itio n : Its A ntiquity, Form , a n d F unc-
tio n ,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. A une
[Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972] 60– 74; J. T hom as, “Form gesetze des B egriffs-Katalogs
im N .T .,” TZ 24 [1968] 15–28; A Vögtle, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im
Neuen Testament [M ünster: A schendorff, 1936]; S. W ibbing, Die Tugend- und
Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament [Berlin: A. T ö p elm an n , 1959]). T h e re are
two m ain ways in which the lists a p p e a r in the N T . Vices o r virtues can be
p art o f a descriptive list which functions in an apologetic o r paraenetic context
(cf. M att 15:19; M ark 7:21, 22; Rom 1:29– 31; 1 C or 5:10, 11; 6:9, 10; 2 C or
6 :6 ,7 ; 12:2 0 ,2 1 ; Gal 5:19– 23; 1 T im 1:9,10; 3 :2 ,3 ; 6 :4 ,5 ; 2 T im 3:2– 5;
T itus 1:7, 8; 3:3; Jas 3:17; 1 Pet 4:3; Rev 21:8; 22:15), o r they can be p a rt o f
an actual exh o rtation, as here in 4:31, 32 (cf. also 5:3, 4; Col 3:5, 8, 12; Rom
13:13; Phil 4:8; 1 T im 6:11; 1 Pet 2:1; 3:8; 2 Pet 1:5– 7). It is frequently an d
quite plausibly suggested th at m uch o f this w idespread early C hristian use o f
ethical lists is likely to have o riginated in baptism al catechesis. Particularly
w hen such lists are linked with the language o f “p u ttin g off the old p erso n ”
an d “p u ttin g on th e new ,” as in Col 3:8, 12 an d h ere in E ph 4:31, 32 with its
connection with 4:22– 24, a re m in d e r o f th e significance o f the read ers’ baptism
m ay well be in view.
T h e ultim ate origin o f lists o f virtues an d vices an d th e ro u te by which
 Form / Structure / Setting 297

they en tered into C hristian usage are m ore deb ated issues. N um erous analogies
can be fo u n d in both Jew ish an d G reco-R om an literature, b u t as yet no h y p o th e-
sis ab out a single source o r about the tradition history o f the m aterial has
won the day. Some hold the prim ary influence to be the O T (e.g., th e Holiness
Code o f Lev 18, 19 o r the lists o f blessings an d curses in D eut 27– 30) an d
the Tw o Ways p attern in Ju d aism (cf. C arrington, C annon). Some wish to
em phasize, in particular, Jew ish proselyte catechism s, which they have at-
tem p ted to reconstruct (cf. Klein, C arrington). For others, the D ead Sea Scrolls
(e.g., IQ S 3.13– 4.26) deserve to be recognized as an especially influential source
within Ju d aism (cf. W ibbing, Kam lah), which, it is claim ed, h ad in its tu rn
been affected by th e dualistic cosmology o f Iran ian religion (cf. Kamlah). O thers
still have fo u n d parallels in Stoicism an d p o p u lar G reco-R om an philosophy
to be the closest (cf. Easton, Vö gtle, Betz, B erger), while it can also be pointed
o u t th at such m aterial h ad already influenced Hellenistic Judaism , for exam ple
in Wis 14:25, 26 an d Philo, De Sacrif. 20–45 (cf. Easton, W ibbing, Kam lah,
Berger).
W hat is m ore im p o rtan t for o u r p resen t purpose, how ever, is the use to
which Paul an d the w riter o f Ephesians p u t these ethical lists. G enerally in
Paul, these typical an d som ew hat ran d o m lists are no t changed to rep resen t
ethical values th at could be considered distinctively C hristian. In this regard,
they reflect his assum ption th at the behavior o f believers should at least m atch
th at enjoined by the conventional ethical wisdom o f his day. As in the case o f
the taking over o f o th er types o f traditional m aterial, the expectation th at
these standards will receive general consent adds to the persuasiveness o f P aul’s
appeal. T h e distinctive aspect o f th eir use comes from th e overall context in
which they are placed, a context which brings them into relation with the
eschatological an d Christological dim ensions o f P aul’s gospel. C onsequently,
on the one h an d , the vices are seen as the m anifestations o f the old sinful
o rd e r and, on the other, the virtues are p ro duced by th e new spiritual o rd e r
in au g u rated th ro u g h Christ. In this way, they provide inclusive an d concrete
norm s, which do not m erely await achievem ent b u t whose accom plishm ent
has already b een set in m otion because o f believers’ new situation in Christ.
From w hat has already been seen o f the ethical groundw ork the w riter to the
Ephesians has laid in 4:17– 24, it is clear th at the sam e general considerations
apply to his variation on the lists o f vices an d virtues from Colossians in this
passage. M ore specifically, an d in keeping with th e letter’s concern for the
unity an d edification o f the C hurch, the vices an d virtues selected are those
which will eith er d isru p t o r enhance the life o f a com m unity. T h e lists also
suggest an abundance, th o u g h no t a com pleteness, o f sim ilar characteristics
an d would appeal to a w riter whose pleonastic style has dom inated the first
p art o f th e letter.
T his pericope continues the p attern o f dep en d en ce on Colossians th a t was
n o ted in the previous section an d in earlier passages o f th e letter. E ph 4 :1 7–
24 h ad been d ep e n d en t on m aterial from Col 3:5– 11, an d earlier 4:2– 4 had
draw n on Col 3:12– 15. Now the w riter re tu rn s to o th e r elem ents in these
sections (Col 3:8, 9a, 12– 14a) as the m ain source o f his paraenesis. T h e extent
o f the relationship can be set o u t as follows:
298 E p h e s ia n s 4:25– 5:2

Ephesians Colossians
4:25 6to anodepevoi to i//eüöo? 3:8a wvi be airodeade m i vpeis rä navra
3:9a pi] \pevbeode et? aXXijXovs
4:26 o p yi^ eo d e m i p i] a p a p r a v e T e 3:8b opyi]v
4:29 7ra? Ä0709 aanpbs e/c roö arö/uaro? vpCbv 3:8b aioxpoXoyiav £k tov aro/maro? vpcjv
pi] eKnopeveodco
4:31 7raaa 7rt/cpta m i d v p o s m i o p y i] m i 3:8b öpyi]P , dvpöv, kcucuw, ßXaaQripiav
K p a v yi] m i ßXaoQripia a p d ijr o j cuf> vpCbv
ovv noon mniq.
4:32 7 ti>ecr0e et? dXXrJXoi/? xp^Ta^ot, 3:12 evbvoaoQe . . . onXayxva oiKTippov,
e<X77rXa7 XPOt, xaptföpepot eaurot? Kaöcb? XPVOT&rrjra
/cat 0 0eo? ep Xptarcp exaptaaro vpiv 3:13 xctptfo/nepot eavrois . . . Ka0ch? /cat 6
Kvpios exapiaaro vpip outgj? m i vpei<;
5:1 co? re/cpa a y a n r jr a 3:12 co? €KXeKToi tov Qeov, <17101 /cat
riyanripevoi
5:2 /cat nepurarelTe ev äyänxi 3:14a e7rt 7räau> Ö6 toi/toi? tt\v ayanr]v

As can be seen, E ph 4:25 takes u p the notions o f p u ttin g off an d lying o r

falsehood from Col 3:8, 9a. T h e injunction ab o u t an g e r in 4:26 can be linked
with th e n o u n “an g e r” in Col 3:8b. “Evil talk o u t o f your m o u th ” in 4:29
em ploys th e th o u g h t an d som e o f the language o f the sam e verse in Colossians,
an d fo u r o f th e six vices in 4:31 are also listed in Col 3:8b. T h e virtues o f
kindness an d com passion expressed in adjectival form in 4:32 are fo u n d in
nom inal form in Col 3:12, an d “forgiving one an o th er, ju s t as G od in C hrist
forgave you” is E phesians’ version o f “forgiving one a n o th e r . . . , ju s t as
th e L ord forgave you, so also should you forgive” in Col 3:13. “As dearly
loved ch ild ren ” in E ph 5:1 replaces “as G od’s chosen ones, holy a n d dearly
loved” in Col 3:12, while the em phasis on living in love in E p h 5:2 recalls
th e sim ilar em phasis o f Col 3:14a.
In line with th e prim arily traditional an d unoriginal n a tu re o f paraenesis
in Hellenistic writings, the w riter no t only relies o n Colossians b u t also fills
o u t his ex h o rtatio n with additional traditional m aterial. In 4:25, 26 this includes
O T m aterial, LXX Zech 8:16 an d LXX Ps 4:5, in all probability m ediated
th ro u g h Jew ish paraenetic tradition (see Comment on these verses; cf. also L in-
coln, “T h e Use o f the O T in E phesians,” J S N T 14 [1982] 42, 43). 4:30 m ay
well contain an allusion to Isa 63:10. T h e notion o f the im itation o f G od
fo u n d in 5:1 was traditional in Hellenistic Ju d aism (cf. T. Ash. 4.3; Philo, De
Sacr. 68; De Spec. Leg. 4.73; De Virt. 168). T h e language a n d im agery o f sacrifice
in 5:2 also recall scriptural term inology— 7rpoa0opd kjcu d va ia (cf. LXX Ps 39:6)
an d ei? ixjpr\v eveo&a? (cf., e.g., LXX Exod 29:18; Ezek 20:41), th o u g h the
latter h ad already been em ployed by Paul in Phil 4:18 (cf. also 2 C or 2:14–
16). L anguage from o th e r Pauline letters also form s p a rt o f th e w riter’s
traditional m aterial. T h e last p art o f 4:25 takes u p the p h rase äXXriXcov peXq,
“m em bers o f one a n o th e r,” fo u n d in Rom 12:5. T h e notions o f w orking
h ard an d do in g som ething with o n e’s own hands in 4:28b take u p th e te r-
m inology o f 1 C or 4:12 (cf. also 1 T hess 4:11). T h e form ulation in 5:2,
“C hrist loved us an d gave him self u p for us,” recalls the sim ilar w ording o f
Gal 2:20.
 Comment 299

W hen connections are sought betw een this pericope an d the rest o f the
letter, th en clearly the closest links are with the im m ediately preceding pericope,
4:17– 24. T h e negative and positive injunctions an d m otivating statem ents can
all be related to the two basic notions which carry over from 4:22– 24 – the
negative one o f “p u ttin g off the old p erso n ” an d the positive one o f “p u ttin g
on th e new p erso n .” In fact 4:25, with its anorideodai, “to p u t o ff” (cf. 4:22),
an d akrideia, “tru th ” (cf. 4:24), has specific verbal links with bo th these notions.
In addition, th e call to be im itators o f G od in 5:1 is in h e re n t in the th o u g h t
th at the life o f th e new creation is one th at is p attern ed afte r G od’s (cf. 4:24).
T h e foundations for this p ericope’s em phasis on living in love, as 5:2 sum m arizes
it, have been laid in 4:1– 16, w here love itself has been seen to be the essential
in g red ien t in th e life o f the C hurch (cf. 4:2, 15, 16), w here the notion o f the
body an d the in terd ep en d en ce necessary for its grow th (cf. 4:16) prepares
for th e th o u g h t o f being m em bers o f one an o th e r in 4:25, an d w here the
stress on building u p others (cf. 4:12, 16) anticipates its m ention in 4:29. Several
concepts in 4:25– 5:2 take us all the way back to the o p en in g berakah: sealing,
the Spirit, an d re d em p tio n in 4:30 take u p the term inology o f 1:13, 14, while
G od’s forgiveness m entioned in 4:32 may recall 1:7. Looking ahead to w hat
follows in the rest o f the paraenesis, we see th at ex hortation by m eans o f
contrasting pattern s o f behavior continues th ro u g h o u t 5:3– 20. T h e language
o f “w alking” for this behavior in 5:2 will be taken u p again in 5:8, 15; the
appeal to the exam ple o f C hrist’s love in 5:2 will featu re again in the passage
on m arriage (cf. 5:25– 28); an d the devil m entioned in 4:27 will be given prom i-
nence again in the discussion o f believers’ spiritual battle (cf. 6:11; also 2:2;
6:16).
T h e n atu re o f the pericope’s paraenesis, with its traditional m aterial o f g en -
eral applicability, m eans th at inferences which m ove directly from individual
exhortations to the supposed setting o f the recipients are to be avoided. It
should n ot be assum ed, fo r exam ple, on the basis o f 4:25, 28 th at the w riter
knows specifically th at th ere are thieves an d liars am ongst his readers who
need to be confronted. N or does the basic n a tu re o f such paraenesis m ean
th at it is being addressed to those who are newly baptized o r converted (cf.
also Schlier, 223; Gnilka, 234; idem , “P aränetische T ra d itio n en ,” 400– 401, 405;
H alter, Taufe, 257). T h e links o f som e o f the m aterial with baptism , noted
above, are far m ore indirect. W hat the addressees are being told w ould no t
have b een new to them . Early C hristian paraenesis often consists o f rem inders
to believers, th ro u g h selected exam ples, o f w hat they h ad learn ed at the tim e
o f th eir baptism an d o f the sort o f behavior expected o f them as new persons.
T h e fact th at b oth this passage an d 5:3– 20 are given over to this sort o f re m in d e r
does suggest, how ever, th at the w riter was less th a n satisfied with the general
level o f ethical attain m en t o f his G entile C hristian readers an d w anted them
n o t only to be m ore aw are o f th eir responsibilities b u t also to carry them o u t
m ore effectively. In particular, his choice an d g ro u p in g o f issues such as speaking
the tru th , dealing with anger, h a rd w ork an d sharing, edifying speech, kindness,
an d love, show, as we know already from 4:1– 16, how concerned this w riter
is with th e C h u rch ’s dem onstration o f its unity in love a n d the practical actions
necessary for th e realization o f this ideal.
300 E p h e s ia n s 4:25– 5:2

Comment

25 Ato anodenevoi t o \Isev8os XaXelre aXr\6euav e K a o r o s pera t o v nXrjotov avrov,

ori eoyiev äXXrjXcop peXri, “T h e re fo re p u t o ff falsehood, an d let each one speak
the tru th with his n eighbor, fo r we are m em bers o f one an o th e r.” T h e op en in g
5i6 m arks b o th th e link with th e p receding pericope an d a m ove from the
m ore general to the. m ore specific, as the deeds ap p ro p riate to those newly
created in G od’s likeness are outlined. T h e link is both verbal (cf. “p u t o ff”
in v 22 an d “tru th ” in v 24) an d conceptual. T o p u t off the old person, c o rru p ted
by th e desires b o rn o f deceit, is to p u t off falsehood. Since the new person is
created in th e righteousness an d holiness which com e from tru th , it is speaking
the tru th th at m ust take the place o f lying. T h e aorist participle anodenevoi
could be tran slated as a participle— “having p u t off falsehood, let each one
speak th e tru th ”— o r be taken as above (cf. also Schnackenburg, 210) as one
o f th e N T instances o f the use o f the participle for th e im perative. In Col
3:9 th e p ro h ib itio n against lying h ad b een based on the indicative (in the
form o f an aorist participle) o f having p u t off the old person. Does “having
p u t off lying” now form a sim ilar indicative here? W hat tells against this in
th e context o f E phesians is th at th e notion o f p u ttin g off the old person has
already been discussed by this w riter, and, as we have seen, the infinitive form
in which it occu rred in 4:22 h ad im peratival force. T his suggests th a t the
specific act o f d oing away with lying m ay also be seen by the w riter n o t so
m uch as one which has already been accom plished b u t m ore as one which is
still in cu m b en t on his readers. It is held by som e (e.g., M ussner, 139) th at
the singular t o \jjev8o<; refers to deception as a way o f life. B ut bo th th e d e p e n -
dence o n Col 3:8, 9 an d th e fact th a t this singular is frequently used collectively
for “lies” tells against such an in terp re tatio n . T h e exh o rtatio n n o t to lie does
n o t occur in th e u n d isp u ted Pauline letters b u t is fo u n d elsew here in early
C hristian literatu re in Did. 3.5.
Speaking th e tru th with o n e ’s neig h b o r is to be cultivated in place o f the
old negative action o f lying. T his positive injunction is fram ed in the words
o f Zech 8:16, th o u g h th e LXX has rrpo? t o p ttX tiolop instead o f /nerd t o v irXrioiop.
Sam pley (ST 26 [1972] 107– 9) has a rg u ed th at the original context in Zech 8
has influenced th e form o f this pericope in Ephesians. B ut the parallels he
adduces are very strained, an d he has failed to convince others (cf. also Agrell,
Work, 215 n. 25; H alter, Taufe, 634 n. 5). It m ust even be d oubtful w hether
the w riter has m ade direct use o f th e O T at all. It m ay well be that, instead,
he is d ep e n d e n t o n Jew ish ethical tradition which h ad already taken u p the
O T w ording in its form ulation (cf. Gnilka, 234; Ernst, 367). Indeed, in T.
Dan 5.2 th e precise LXX w ording o f Zech 8:16 is fo u n d in conjunction with
a w arning ab o u t an g e r an d lying, as h ere in E phesians (cf. also T. Benj. 10.3,
“Do the tru th each o f you to his n eig h b o r,” which has peTä plus th e geni-
tive). T h e trad itio n conveys th e m essage th a t o n e’s neig h b o r has a rig h t to
th e tru th . It can also be said th at to rob o n e’s neig h b o r o f th at right, an d
th ere by o f th e freedom to resp o n d to th e real situation, is to dehum anize
him o r her.
T h e ex h o rtatio n to tell th e tru th ra th e r th a n lies is backed by an appeal to
solidarity in term s o f being m em bers o f one an o th er. Clearly this assum es
 Comment 301

the notion o f th e C hurch as the body o f C hrist which has been em ployed
earlier in the letter, th o u g h its im plications for the m utual d ep en d en ce o f
the m em bers o f the body, central to P aul’s use o f the im age in 1 C or 12:12–
27 an d Rom 12:4, 5, were no t exploited until 4:15, 16, an d the term s “m em bers”
an d “body” will n ot be b ro u g h t to g eth er in E phesians until 5:30. T h e neighbor
o f the exhortation, who in Ju d aism would have been a com panion in the
covenant, now takes on the specific shape o f a fellow m em ber o f the body o f
Christ. In this body, which is a paradigm o f harm onious h u m an relationships,
th ere is no room for lies which poison com m unication a n d breed suspicion
instead o f m u tu al trust. As Mackay (God's Order, 185) puts it graphically, “a
lie is a stab into the very vitals o f the body o f C hrist.” T h e p oint has already
been established a little earlier in 4:15, w here the w riter insists th at the essential
m eans o f building u p the body o f C hrist is speaking the tru th in love.
26, 27 öpyi^ eode m i pr\ a p a p r a v e r e , “If you are angry, do no t sin.” T his
ex h ortation is in the words o f LXX Ps 4:5 (ET Ps 4:4). T h e original H ebrew
text, with its injunction about an attitu d e tow ard God, m ay well speak o f trem -
bling ra th e r th an anger, b u t this is irrelevant to the use o f the G reek version
by the w riter to the Ephesians. It is in any case difficult to tell w h eth er his
use o f the LXX is a direct o r an indirect one. Since the ju x tap o sitio n o f injunc-
tions ab out lying and an g er form ed p a rt o f paraenetic tradition (cf. T. Dan
5.2), it could well be that, like Zech 8:16 in 4:25, this scriptural w ording was
also cu rren t in C hristian paraenesis which drew on both Jew ish an d Hellenistic
sources.
It is usually agreed th at the first im perative in this form ulation should be
construed as having concessive force an d that, in the syntax, parataxis is em -
ployed instead o f a subordinate concessive clause (cf. BDF § 387 [1]; Schlier,
224 n. 3). It is im p ortant, however, to be clear about the force o f this construc-
tion. It is n ot g ran tin g perm ission to be angry. A lthough v 26b recognizes
th at an g er will occur, v 27 indicates how dangerous it is an d v 31 repudiates
all an g e r (cf. also 6:4). T h e focus o f v 26a, then, is on n o t sinning by indulging
in anger. Its paradoxical form ulation was no t m ean t to encourage speculation
about w hat types o f an g er m ight be perm issible. W hatever the m erits o f the
traditional notion o f righteous an g e r at injustice o r th e m o d ern notion o f the
healthiness o f expressing ra th e r th an suppressing anger, they should n o t be
th o u g h t to have su p p o rt in the concessive aspect o f this prohibition. Its force
may be conveyed by a paraphrase, “A nger is to be avoided at all costs, b u t if,
for w hatever reason, you do get angry, th en refuse to indulge such an g e r so
th at you do n ot sin.” In this way, the exhortation is very m uch in line with
the view o f an g er elsew here in the N T . Jas 1:1 9 ,2 0 has sim ilar force, “Let
every m an . . . be slow to anger; for the an g e r o f m an does n o t w ork the
righteousness o f G od” (cf. also M att 5:22; Gal 5:20; Col 3:8; 1 T im 2:8; T itus
1:7). T h e re is also an overw helm ingly negative evaluation o f an g er in wisdom
sentences from a variety o f sources (cf. Prov 15:1, 18; 22:24; 29:8, 11; Eccl
7:9, “Be n o t quick to anger, for an g e r lodges in the bosom o f fools”; Sir
1:22; 27:30; T. Dan 2.1– 5.1; Lucian, Dem. 51; Seneca, De Ira; Dio, Orat. 32;
Ps-Phocylides 63– 64; Did. 3.2, “N ever give way to anger, for an g er leads to
m u rd e r”; b. Ber. 29b, “Do not flare up, so th a t you do n o t sin”). For Ephesians,
an g er an d the estrangem ent which accom panies it, both as cause an d result,
302 E p h e s ia n s 4:25–5:2

are incom patible with th e new relationships o f those who are m em bers o f
one a n o th e r in th e body o f C hrist (cf. v 25).
6 rjXto? jur) em Sverco en i n a p o p y iü ^ Q vixcov, “do n o t let the sun go dow n on
y our an g e r.” n a p o p y io n o s is a hapax legomenon in the N T . Elsew here, it is used
m ost frequently to re fe r to provocation to anger, b u t here, as in LXX J e r
21:5, it has passive force an d denotes th e an g e r th a t has been provoked. Stylistic
variation accounts fo r the use o f this term , a n d no real difference o f m eaning
from 6/0717 should be read into it. If th ere is any connotation o f less p e rm a n e n t
an g e r o r irritation, th at com es from the context ra th e r th an th e term itself
(pace M eyer, 255; A bbott, 140; B arth, 514). S unset was th o u g h t o f as the
tim e limit fo r a n u m b e r o f activities (cf., e.g., D eut 24:15) a n d is th e tim e
lim it fo r dealing with an g e r in a form ulation th a t h ad becom e associated with
the P ythagoreans, b u t which m ay well have b een com m onplace. P lutarch says,
“W e should n ex t p attern ourselves afte r th e Pythagoreans, who, th o u g h related
n o t at all by b irth , yet sharing a com m on discipline, if ever they w ere led by
an g er into recrim ination, never let th e sun go dow n before they jo in e d rig h t
h ands, em braced each oth er, a n d w ere reconciled” (Moralia 488c). A sim ilar
practice is en joined on the Essenes in the D am ascus R ule—“T h ey shall rebuke
each m an his b ro th e r according to th e co m m an d m en t an d shall b ea r no ran co r
from one day to th e n ex t” (CD 7.2, 3). So th e second prohibition reinforces
th e first. Sin is to be avoided by en su rin g th a t anger, if it occurs, is b rief an d
is expelled im m ediately. It so easily becom es destructive o f harm ony th a t it
certainly m ust n o t be allowed to sm older overnight.
O n th e basis o f sim ilarities with texts from th e Q u m ra n literatu re like the
one q u o ted above (cf. CD 7.2, 3; 9.6; IQ S 5.26– 6:1), G nilka (235– 36) argues
th at th e prim ary reference o f vv 26, 27 is to an g e r against an e rrin g m em ber
o f the com m unity a n d th a t in fact th e verses function as a positive re m in d e r
o f believers’ responsibilities tow ard others in th e com m unity. H e is followed
by Agrell (Work, 129), who finds a connection with th e ex h o rtatio n o f v 28
ab out w ork a n d thence also with 2 T hess 3:15 an d its discussion o f th e disciplin-
ing o f those who will n o t work, yet in such a way as to trea t them no t as
enem ies b u t as b ro thers. C ertainly these verses w ould be applicable to dealing
with an g e r against an e rrin g b ro th e r o r sister, a n d it is interesting th a t E ph
4:26 is qu o ted in the context o f a discussion o f discipline in Pol. Phil. 12.1.
B ut to narrow th e reference o f th e prohibitions to an g e r in disciplinary cases
is unw arran ted . T h e re w ould surely have h ad to be fa r m ore indications from
the context fo r th e readers to have taken this as th e m eaning (cf. also Ernst,
367; Schnackenburg, 211 n. 499).
/Lxr/Se ötSore töttov rep öiaßökco, “a n d do no t give an o p p o rtu n ity to th e devil.”
T his th ird p ro h ibition provides a m otivation fo r the preceding two (pace Ernst,
368, an d M ussner, 139, who wish to trea t it indep en d en tly o f the topic o f
anger). B efore th e quotation o f Zech 8:16 in T. Dan 5.2, which we have already
noted, an g e r is associated n o t only with lying b u t also with the devil. “Avoid
w rath, an d h ate lying, in o rd e r th at the L ord m ay dwell am ong you, an d
Beliar may flee from you. . . . A nger an d falsehood to g eth er are a double-
edged evil, an d w ork to g eth er to p e rtu rb th e reason. A nd w hen the soul is
continually p ertu rb ed , th e L ord w ithdraw s from it a n d B eliar rules it” (T.
Dan 4 .7–5.1, cf. also 1.7, 8 ; 3.6). A sim ilar association can be fo u n d later in
H errn. Man. 5.1.3, “For th e L ord dwells in lo n g-suffering an d th e devil dwells
 Comment 303

in ill tem p er.” H ere in E phesians also, indulgence in an g er is seen as giving

free scope to th e devil. T h e w riter thinks in term s o f a personal pow er o f
evil, which is pictu red as lurking a ro u n d angry people ready to exploit the
situation (cf. also 1 T im 3:7; 2 T im 2:26; 1 Pet 5:8). D espite w hat he has
said ab out believers having been seated with C hrist in the heavenly realm , he
deem s it necessary for th em to be on th eir g u ard against th e devil (cf. also
6 :11). In particular, an g e r in the com m unity is “a kind o f ‘fifth-colum n’ available
for cooperation with the enem y” (M itton, 169). In 2 C or 2:11 Paul in a sim ilar
vein had claim ed th at forgiveness prevents a designing Satan from gaining
the advantage over believers. It is noticeable th at th e u n d isp u ted Paulines
speak only o f Satan (cf. also Rom 16:20; 1 C or 5:5; 7:5; 2 C or 11:14; 12:7; 1
T hess 2:18), while th e term “th e devil” occurs in E phesians (cf. also 6:11), as
well as in the LXX a n d later N T an d early C hristian writings (cf. 1 T im 3:7;
2 T im 2:26; Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8; M art. Pol. 3.1; 2 Clem. 18.2; Ign. Eph. 10.3;
Smyrn. 9.1).
28 ö kXctttcovfjtrjKen K \e 7rrerco, päXkov Se Komäroj epya$öpevo<; rats iötais xepoiv
to ayaOov, Iva exv peradidovai rep xp^iav exom , “Let the th ief no longer steal,
b u t ra th e r let him w ork h ard , doing good with his own hands, so th at he
m ight have som ething to share with th e p erson in n ee d .” It is som etim es
claim ed th at the p re sen t participle kXctttcjv represents action preceding the
m ain verb which has frequentative o r durative force an d can be translated as
an im perfect, “he w ho used to steal” (cf. BDF § 339 [3]; M oule, Idiom-Book,
206). A b etter explanation, how ever, is th a t with th e definite article the present
participle virtually becom es a n o u n a n d has a timeless force (cf. M oulton,
Grammar 1:126– 27; Schlier, 225 n. 6 ; Agrell, Work, 215 n. 36). Injunctions
against th eft are o f course fo u n d in the D ecalogue (Exod 20:15; D eut 5:19)
an d the Holiness C ode (Lev 19:11) an d are rep eated in the N T sum m aries
o f the law (M ark 10:19; Rom 13:9). T h e ft w ould n o t have been uncom m on
am ong slaves, in particular, in first-century society (cf. Gnilka, 271), an d it
could well be th at Philem 18 indicates th a t O nesim us was guilty o f it. B ut the
m ain reason fo r its m ention here is th at it was a traditional topic in paraenetic
m aterial an d could serve as a n o th e r typical activity o f the old sinful hum anity
which the readers are to p u t off (cf. also Rom 2:21; 1 C or 6:10; 1 Pet 4:15;
Did. 3.5).
Stealing is to be replaced by h a rd work. A sim ilar relationship betw een
these two topics can be fo u n d in a n u m b er o f places, e.g., Ps-Phocylides 153–
54, “W ork h a rd so th a t you can live from your own m eans; for every idle
m an lives from w hat his hands can steal”; an d b. Qidd. 29a, “R. J u d a h [c. 150
c .e .] said: H e who does n o t teach his son a craft teaches him to be a robber.”
T h e high value placed on w ork in this exhortation was shared by a variety o f
ethical traditions with which the w riter a n d his readers may have been fam iliar
(cf. Exod 20:9; Sir 7:15; E pictetus, Diss. 1.16.16 – 17; 3.26.6– 7; Ps-Phocylides
153– 74; Dio, Orat. 7.112, 124– 25, who recom m ends th e u rb a n p o o r to w ork
with th eir hands). For a study o f w ork in th e N T an d a com parison with O T
an d early Jew ish m aterial, see G. Agrell, Work, Toil and Sustenance, an d for
insight into P aul’s own attitudes to work, see R. F. Hock, The Social Context of
Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). It h ad been P aul’s policy to su p p o rt
his m issionary activity by his w ork as an artisan, m aking tents from leather,
an d he ex h o rted his congregations also to w ork with th eir hands (1 Thess
304 E p h e s ia n s 4:25–5:2

4:11, 12; cf. also 2 T hess 3:6 – 12). T h e form ulation h ere in E phesians com bines
expressions from 1 C or 4:12 (“we w ork h a rd with o u r own h an d s”) a n d Gal
6:10 (“let us do good”). In its p re sen t setting th e em phasis on w orking with
o n e’s han d s also plays its p a rt in the contrast with th eft which is accom plished
with o n e ’s han d s (cf. th e citation above from Ps-Phocylides 153– 54).
Paul h ad em ployed th e verb kotticlp a n d its cognate n o u n in his depiction
o f his apostolic sufferings in the e n d-tim es (cf. 1 C or 4:12; 2 C or 6:5; 11:23, 27).
T h e taking u p o f this verb h ere enables th e effort, the toil, an d th e trouble
o f w ork to be h ig hlighted a n d suggests that, despite its predom inantly realized
eschatology, this letter has n o t lost sight o f th e struggle an d th e laborious
aspect o f w ork (cf. also Agrell, Work, 132). T h e expression “to do good” had
been used in Gal 6:10 in the general sense o f th at which is m orally w orthy
an d beneficial to others. A grell (Work, 129) argues, how ever, th at since in
E p h 4:29 epya^ eoQ ai is com plem ented by th e p h rase “with his ow n h an d s”
an d th e last clause suggests th at th e results o f such w ork are to be shared,
e p y a f r o d a i t o ä y a d ö v should be u n d ersto o d as “to m ake a good p ro d u c t.” B ut
it is probable th a t this is too narrow an in terp re tatio n , fo r in the very next
verse an d later in E ph 6 : 8 an d th e n elsew here in th e Pauline corpus in the
various form ulations in which believers are ex h o rted to do good (e.g., 1 T hess
5:15; 2 T hess 2:17; 2 C or 9:8; Col 1:10; 1 T im 6:18), “the good” has the
sam e m ore general sense as in Gal 6:10, a n d in som e contexts th a t can include
the generous giving o f m aterial resources. H ere also, w orking h a rd with o n e’s
h ands is th o u g h t o f as doing som ething good, because it produces th at which
becom es th e m eans o f sharing.
T his is the explicit m otivation provided fo r w ork in the last p a rt o f the
verse. It is th e m edium for caring fo r the needy person. E xhortations to share
with th e p o o r an d needy are n o t u n com m on in early Jew ish an d early C hristian
literatu re (e.g., T. Iss. 7.5; T. Zeb. 6 .1–8; Ps-Phocylides 22; 1 T im 6:18; Did.
4.5– 8). In Rom 12:13 Paul h ad u rg ed , “C on trib u te to th e needs o f th e saints”
(cf. also 2 C or 8 , 9). Given the context, th e needy person here in E ph 4 is
also likely to have been th o u g h t o f prim arily, th o u g h n o t necessarily exclusively,
as w ithin th e C h u rch (cf. v 25). So “th e ft an d indolence cause dam age to
C hrist an d his body, w hereas work, by enabling th e w orker to aid the needy,
builds u p th e body o f C hrist” (Agrell, Work, 128). T h e m otive for w ork is no t
individual profit b u t ra th e r com m unal well-being. T his is different from th e
explicit reasons given for w orking in the discussions in 1 an d 2 Thessalonians,
nam ely to retain the respect o f outsiders a n d n o t to becom e d e p e n d e n t on
others, an d is p erh ap s m ore directly related to the ideal o f C hristian love.
W hen this ethical sentence is taken as a whole, it illustrates beautifully the
radical change involved in th e call to p u t off the old hum anity an d p u t on
the new. T h e th ie f is to becom e a p h ilanthropist, as the illegal taking o f the
old way o f life is replaced by th e generous giving o f th e new.
It is becom ing com m on to contrast th e view o f w ork in E phesians as p a rt
o f the unqualified positive ap p ro ach o f the d e u te ro-P auline m aterial (cf. also
2 T hess 3:10; Acts 20:34–35) with the m ore am biguous perspective on w ork
o f Paul him self (cf. Agrell, Work, 104, 115, followed by Hock, The Social Context
of Paul's Ministry, 17). Som etim es, how ever, this contrast is taken too far. It is
tru e th at in 1 T hessalonians an d in 1 C orinthians Paul treats w ork as a necessary
elem ent in a C hristian existence conditioned by an im m inent eschatological
 Comment 305

hope, an d th at such im m inence has receded in Ephesians, so th at despite the

recognition o f th e negative aspect o f toil, th e re is n o th in g in this letter th at
corresponds to “Let those w ho buy live as th o u g h they h ad no goods, an d
those who deal with th e w orld as th o u g h they h ad no dealings with it” in
1 C or 7:30, 31. B ut to arg u e th a t Paul never expressly says th a t w ork is G od’s
will an d shows no positive interest in w ork as a socially vital elem ent an d a
prerequisite for generosity (cf. Agrell, Work, 105, 216 n. 53) evidences an atom is-
tic an d dogm atic ap p ro ach to the letters th at fails to do justice to the connection
betw een 1 T hess 4:11, 12 an d th e preceding m aterial in 4:1, 2, 9, 10a. It likewise
fails to account fo r passages such as Rom 12:3 an d 2 C or 8 , 9 an d presses
occasional paraenetical texts fo r a whole theology o f w ork which they are
incapable o f providing.
29 7Ta? X0 70 9 oairpos eK too aro/uaro? vpcov /lit) eKiropeveodoo, äXXä el n ? äyadös
7rpo? oiKoboprjv rffr xpeta?, iva 5gj yjipiv rot? anovovoiv, “Do n o t let any evil talk
com e o u t o f y our m outh, b u t w hatever is good for building u p as the need
arises, so th at it may benefit those who h e a r.” T h e contrasting m iddle section
o f this sentence, in fact, serves as a second exhortation once the verb from
the initial prohibition is supplied. W ith its m otivating pu rp o se clause, following
two clauses with h o rtatory force, this sentence can th en be seen to be following
the d o m in an t p a tte rn we have observed for the pericope— two exhortations
followed by a m otivating clause. T h e Semitisms o f the G reek, including the
use o f 7Ta? to g eth er with oi) o r pr\ (cf. E ph 5:5; J o h n 3:16; 6:39; 12:46; Acts
10:14; Rom 3:20; 1 C or 1:29; cf. also M oulton, Grammar 3:196– 97), the trad i-
tional language o f “proceed o u t o f the m o u th ” (e.g., LXX N um 32:34; D eut
8:3; J e r 17:16; cf. also M att 4:4; Luke 4:22; Jas 3:10), an d the topic o f speech
fo u n d so frequently in Jew ish wisdom literatu re (e.g., Prov 10:31, 32; 12:17–
19; 15:2,4; Sir 5:10– 14; 18:15– 19; 2 1 :2 5 ,2 6 ; cf. also IQ S 7.9; CD 10.17, 18)
suggest th at h ere again the w riter m ay well have taken over traditional Jew ish
paraenetical m aterial (cf. also T. Isaac 4.14, 17 – “Be careful th at an evil w ord
does n ot com e fo rth from your m outh. . . . See th at you do not m ake sport
with your to n g u e lest an evil w ord com e fo rth from your m o u th ”).
T h e term o a n p ö s is em ployed elsew here in th e N T in its literal sense o f
“ro tte n ” o r “decaying”— o f a tree an d in contrast to ä ya O ö s in M att 7:17, 18
(cf. also M att 12:33,34) an d o f fish an d in contrast to KaXo? in M att 13:48
(cf. C. L indhagen, “Die W urzel SAIL im N T u n d A T ,” UUA 40 [1950] 27–
69, on such contrasting w ord -groups). H ere, how ever, it is likely to have its
m ore general figurative sense o f evil o r unw holesom e, unless the force o f the
salt im agery in “speech . . . seasoned with salt” in Col 4:6 is as a preservative
an d the w riter has th at text in m ind. W hat is prohibited u n d e r the category
o f evil talk (cf. Col 3:8; E ph 5:4) includes obscenity, abusive language, and
spreading malicious gossip. T h e focus is on the destructive pow er o f words
an d the h arm they can produce in com m unal life.
W hat is req u ired instead is the use o f words in a constructive fashion—
th at which is good fo r building up. J u s t as th e m inisters o f the w ord an d the
whole C h u rch have building u p as th eir goal (cf. 4:12, 16), so individual believers
m ust m ake this the aim o f th eir com m unication with each other. In term s o f
speech, th at which is m orally good (cf. the use o f a y a d o s in the previous verse
an d a ya d o x jvvr} in 5:9) is th at which builds u p others ra th e r th an tears them
down. T his includes n o t only th e addressing o f one a n o th e r in psalm s and
306 E p h e s ia n s 4:25–5:2

hym ns an d spiritual songs m en tio n ed in 5:19, b u t also any words th a t build

the confidence o f o n e’s sisters a n d bro th ers, encourage th em in th eir tasks,
an d create goodwill. T h e additional ph rase rffr xpetas, which presum ably cam e
to th e w riter’s m ind as a result o f th e use o f th e sam e n o u n in th e previous
sentence, is difficult to classify gram m atically. A later copyist alleviated the
difficulty by substituting 7ixarecos for xpetas (see Note c). As it stands, th e phrase
could be an objective genitive— fo r th e building u p o f w hat is need ed o r w hat
is lacking (cf. A bbott, 143; BAGD, 885; Gnilka, 238)— o r a genitive o f quality,
w here th e n o u n supplies an attributive th a t w ould ordinarily be provided by
an adjective— fo r th e n eed ed building u p (cf. Schlier, 226; B arth, 519). O u r
translation—“fo r building u p as th e n eed arises”—is m ean t to convey this latter
sense. Findlay (ExpTim 46 [1934– 35] 429) takes a quite d ifferent line, arg u in g
for xpeta in th e sense used by th e rhetoricians o f “poin ted saying” o r “good
story,” an d translates, “Let no unclean speech issue from your lips, b u t such
witty talk as is useful fo r edification.” B ut attractive as such a sentim ent m ight
be, the suggestion involves taking rfft xpeia<; with X0 7 0 9 , an d they are too far
ap a rt fo r this to be possible.
T h e m otivating pu rp o se clause, “so th a t it m ay benefit those w ho h e a r,”
reinforces th e ex h o rtatio n b u t is strictly speaking re d u n d a n t, since w hat builds
u p others will be o f benefit to them . T h e force o f x& pw bibbvai is “to do a
favor” o r “to co nfer a benefit.” In stead o f h arm in g others with th eir words,
believers are to en su re th at th eir language has a beneficial effect on th eir
listeners. H u m an words can be vehicles o f divine grace, b u t it should no t be
assum ed on th e basis o f th e use o f th e term xäpi<$ th at the w riter has such a
th o u g h t in m ind here.
It can now be seen th at th e sentence o f v 29 has links with th at o f v 28.
ä y a d o s an d xpeta function as catchw ord links: the contrast betw een evil an d
good is rep eated b u t now associated with speech ra th e r th an action, with the
m o u th ra th e r th a n the hands, an d in bo th cases the well-being o f o thers is
th e goal. So with th eir m ouths as well as with th eir hands believers are to
accom plish w hat is good, an d w hat is good is w hat is beneficial to others.
30 Kai prj Xvirelre to n vevpa to a y io v to v deov, ev cb eo^ p a yio d ryre ets rtp ep a v
andkvTpGXJecos, “A nd do no t grieve the holy Spirit o f God, in w hom you w ere
sealed fo r th e day o f re d em p tio n .” T h e D am ascus D ocum ent contains th e
notion o f defiling o n e ’s holy spirit (CD 5.11; 7.2); Paul exhorts believers no t
to quen ch th e Spirit (1 T hess 5:18) a n d n o t to disregard G od w ho gives his
Holy Spirit (1 T hess 4:8), while Acts speaks o f resisting the Holy Spirit (7:51).
B ut this strikingly p h ra sed prohibition, u n iq u e to Ephesians in th e N T , ap p ears
to take u p th e th o u g h t o f Isa 63:10, “B ut they rebelled an d grieved his holy
Spirit.” It is closer to the M T, w hich uses th e verb cä$ab, “to h u rt, pain,
grieve,” th a n to th e LXX, which has irapo^w etu, “to provoke to w rath, irritate”
(cf. also Sam pley, S T 26 [1972] 104 n. 13). T h e closest LXX w ording is to be
fo u n d in 2 Sam [2 Kgdms] 13:21, which says th a t David did n o t grieve the
spirit (oi)K e\im r)p ev t o irvevpa) o f his son A m non. T h e language o f grieving
th e holy Spirit is fo u n d later in H errn. Man. 10.2.4; 10.3.2; T. Isaac 4.40,
“B ut you shall take care a n d be alert th a t you do n o t grieve the Spirit o f the
L o rd ”; an d in an ag rap h o n preserved in Ps-C yprian, De Aleat. 3, “Do no t
grieve th e Holy Spirit who is in you, a n d do n o t extinguish th e light which
has b een lit in you.” N ot only does th e language o f saddening o r disappointing
 Comment 307

the Spirit by o n e’s wayward actions provide a pow erful personal m etaphor,
b u t the identity o f the one offended is also u n d erlin e d forcefully. T h e one
who is grieved is th e holy Spirit o f God—th at Spirit who is characterized by
holiness a n d who is G od him self at w ork in believers. It is n o t a question o f
some offense aim ed directly at the Spirit b u t ra th e r th a t believers by com m itting
the sort o f sins th at have been m entioned in th e earlier sentences, sins which
d isru p t com m unal life, are thereby d isru p tin g an d opposing the w ork o f the
Spirit in building u p th e C h u rch (cf. 2:22; 4:3, 4; cf. also H alter, Taufe, 261).
W hen believers act in a way th at harm s th eir b ro th ers an d sisters, God is
h u rt. B arth (548) is quick to p oint o u t the obvious theological im plication—
“the G od proclaim ed in E phesians is n o t an unm oved m over.”
Believers’ sinful w ords an d deeds are all th e m ore grievous to the Spirit
because they have been sealed in the Spirit for the day o f redem ption. O n
the notion o f sealing, see Comment on 1:13, an d on th at o f redem ption, see
Comment on 1:7 an d 1:14. T h ro u g h th eir reception o f th e Spirit, associated
with th eir baptism , believers are those who have been stam ped with the holy
character o f th eir ow ner. T his is a g u aran tee o f his taking final an d full possession
o f them (cf. 1:14). T h e reference to “the day o f red em p tio n ” is unique to
Ephesians. In Rom 2:5 (cf. 2:16) Paul h ad spoken o f the day o f w rath an d in
Rom 13:11, 12 o f the day, i.e. o f salvation, b u t his m ore usual form ulation
for the last day an d its accom panying consum m ation o f salvation an d ju d g m e n t
was “the day o f th e L o rd ” (cf. 1 T hess 5:2; 2 T hess 2:2; 1 C or 1:8; 5:5;
2 C or 1:14) o r “th e day o f C hrist” (cf. Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16). T h e w riter to the
E phesians avoids these phrases, b u t th e term “day” retains its tem poral force
as a reference to the goal o f history (pace M itton, 172, who holds th at since
th ere is no expectation o f an im m inent parousia in Ephesians, this is simply
a reference to th e fullness o f life which awaits the believer in heaven, and
L indem ann, Aufhebung, 230– 32, who recognizes the fu tu re reference b u t at-
tem pts to play dow n any notion o f a final red em p tio n which involves m ore
th an th e believer already enjoys) an d as such takes its place alongside o th er
references to th e fu tu re in 1:14; 2:7; 5:5, 27; 6 :8 , 13. Believers’ p resen t experi-
ence o f re d em p tio n involves the forgiveness o f sins (1:7), b u t the fu tu re day
o f red em p tio n will presum ably include, as it did for Paul in Rom 8:23, the
red em p tio n o f th eir bodies. D espite th e fu tu re perspective which em erges in
the last p a rt o f this verse, the em phasis is, in fact, on believers’ p resen t relation-
ship to th e Spirit, who guarantees th eir fu tu re an d w hom they should therefore
not grieve.
In this way th e prohibition functions as a strong C hristian m otivation for
believers. B ut w hat is its connection with the su rro u n d in g verses? Is it to be
associated with any o f the o th e r exhortations in particular? E rnst (368– 69)
sees no im m ediate links a n d holds th a t this sentence m ust be treated in its
own right. O th ers believe th at its closest relationship is to the verse th at follows
an d th at it is such vices as bitterness an d w rath th at grieve the Spirit and
d isru p t h arm ony (cf. Schlier, 228; M itton, 172; M ussner, 140). B ut the loose
connective Kai at th e beginning o f th e prohibition m akes it m ore likely th at
those who see a relationship to th e preceding verses an d to v 29, in particular,
are rig h t (cf. A bbott, 143; J. A. R obinson, 113; Gnilka, 238; Schnackenburg,
214; B ruce, Epistles, 363). In CD 5.11, 12 defiling o n e’s holy spirit is connected
with sins o f th e m o u th — “they defile th eir holy spirit an d o p en th eir m outh
308 E p h e s ia n s 4:25– 5:2

with a blasphem ing to n g u e against the laws o f the covenant o f G od”—an d

bo th 1 T hess 5:18, 19 an d E phesians itself (in 5:18, 19 an d 6:17) reflect the
intim ate link betw een speech a n d th e Spirit. J. A. R obinson (113) is correct,
therefo re, w hen he claims, “T h e m isuse o f the org an o f speech is accordingly
a w rong do n e to, an d felt by, th e Spirit w ho claims to control it.” U sing h ateful
words against o n e’s sisters an d b ro th ers in the com m unity o f faith distresses
th e Spirit who binds th at com m unity together. In this way, v 30 can be seen
to stand in th e sam e reinforcing relationship to v 29 as the m otivation about
giving no o p p o rtu n ity to the devil in v 27 stands in to the prohibition against
an g e r o f v 26.
3 1 ,3 2 Verses 31 a n d 32, which, as we saw u n d e r Form /Structure /Setting,
are d ep e n d e n t on Col 3:8, 12, 13, should be taken together, because in line
with th e d o m in an t trip artite p a tte rn observed in this pericope they contain
an ex h o rtatio n fram ed in negative term s (the call for th e rem oval o f vices),
an ex h o rtatio n expressed positively (the ap p eal fo r certain virtues), an d a con-
cluding m otivating clause.
7raaa mKpka m i 9vpb<; Kai ö p jr j Kai K p a vyfi m i ßXaocfrripia apOrjrco d0’ vpcbv o v v
n äofl m td q ., “L et all bitterness a n d rage a n d an g e r a n d shouting an d slander
be rem oved fro m you along with all m alice.” T h e w riter re tu rn s to th e topic
o f an g e r he has already in tro d u ced in v 26. A lthough two o f the vices listed
show an g e r in expression in speech, the exh o rtatio n is n o t a continuation o f
the em phasis on speech in vv 29, 30, providing a fu rth e r description o f evil
talk (pace B ruce, Epistles, 364). Instead, th e d angers o f an g er are now u n d erlin ed
in a fresh a n d decisive fashion. It is to be com prehensively ro o ted o u t o f the
read ers’ lives. Five d ifferen t aspects o f an g e r an d “all m alice,” the generalizing
addition at th e en d (note also the n ä u a at the beginning o f the list), are to be
rem oved, a ip e iv, “to rem ove,” is used by Paul in his exhortation to the C orinthi-
ans in 1 C or 5:2 (cf. also its later use in paraenetic m aterial in H errn. Vis.
2.2.4; H errn. Man. 10.1.1; 10.2.5; Barn. 21.4). H ere in E ph 4:31 it has sim ilar
force to th e earlier use o f airorideodaL, “to p u t off, p u t away,” in 4:22, 25.T he
passive form o f th e im perative is n o t a divine passive, to m ake the point th at
the activity re q u ired is G od’s ra th e r th a n h u m an ity ’s (pace B arth, 522), b u t is
simply a stylistic variation. T h e first on th e list o f vices to be rem oved is
m K pta, “bitterness,” which indicates the h a rd-heartedness th at harbors resen t-
m en t ab out th e past (cf. Diog. Laert. 4.46; Rom 3:14; Acts 8:23; H eb 12:15;
cf. also Jas 3:14, ffjXo? 7ru<pös, “b itter jealousy”). T h e cognate verb m K paiveiv is
em ployed in Col 3:19, w here husbands are ex h o rted n o t to be em bittered
against th eir wives. Ovpbs, “rag e” (cf. also 2 C or 12:20; Gal 5:20) an d opyr\,
“a n g e r” (cf. also 1 T im 2:8; Jas 1:19,20) w ere distinguished by th e Stoics
(cf., e.g., Diog. L aert. 7.114; Seneca, De Ira 2.36), th e fo rm er den o tin g an
initial explosion o f rage an d the latter a m ore settled feeling o f gnaw ing hostility.
B ut the two term s could also be used synonym ously, as in Col 3:8 w here
they occur in reverse order. I f th e w riter’s listing o f the various aspects o f
an g e r is m ean t to evoke intensification (see th e discussion below), th en it could
well be th at th e change o f o rd e r from Colossians is significant an d the Stoic
distinction is to be retain ed here. K pavyr\, “sh o u tin g ,” is used only h ere in the
N T to indicate a vice, th o u g h it occurs with different connotations in M att
25:6; Luke 1:42; Acts 23:9; H eb 5:7; a n d Rev 21:4. It suggests the lack o f
 Comment 309

restraint which eru p ts in angry yelling, while ßXavQrjpia, “slander,” indicates

the m ore specific form this can take, nam ely the abuse an d vilifying o f others
(cf. Col 3:8; M ark 7:22; 1 T im 6 :4; cf. also 2 T im 3:2). T h e sum m arizing term Kaiaa,
“m alice” (cf. Col 3:8; Rom 1:29; 1 C or 5:8; 14:20; T itus 3:3; 1 Pet 2:1, 16;
Jas 1 :2 1 ), takes in any attitude o r action which intends h arm to o n e ’s neighbor.
A listing o f vices associated with an g e r can be fo u n d in Philo, De Ebr. 223,
b u t reflection on the different form s an g e r can take is m ost characteristic o f
Stoicism (cf. esp. C hrysippus, frag. 395; Seneca, De Ira 1.4). H ere the w riter
m akes use o f this sort o f tradition in his com prehensive indictm ent o f an g er
as a m ajor characteristic o f the old person which is to be shu n n ed . It may
well be, as a n u m b er o f com m entators have suggested (cf. W estcott, 74; Schlier,
228; B arth, 521; Schnackenburg, 215), th at his indictm ent h ad ad ded rhetorical
force, because w ithin the com prehensive listing th ere is also a progression
from an g e r’s in n er center (irucpta) th ro u g h its initial eru p tio n (0u/u6 ?) an d steady
festering (öpyrf) to its external expression (Kpavyrj) an d dam aging o f others
(ßXao^rjpia). Certainly, a little later in early C hristian paraenesis, this notion
o f the intensification in the varieties o f an g e r h ad becom e explicit (cf. H errn.
Man. 5.2.4, “. . . th en from silliness comes bitterness [nacpia], from bitterness
w rath [dvpös] from w rath rage [öpyrj], an d from rage fury [pfjvis]; th en fury,
being com p o u n d ed o f such great evils, becom es great an d inexpiable sin”).
yiveode ei? äXXfkovs x p v o rd , evoTrXayxvot, xaptfopevoi eavrols, “Be kind to
one ano th er, com passionate, forgiving one an o th e r.” In form ulating the virtues
th at are to replace the preceding vices, the w riter has red u ced the five nouns
o f Col 3:12 to two an d given them adjectival form an d th en taken u p one o f
the participles o f Col 3:13. In line with these changes, the m e tap h o r o f pu ttin g
on from Col 3:12 has been ab andoned for the straightforw ard im perative
“be” o r “becom e.” In contrast to the vices so destructive o f harm onious relation-
ships, the qualities now enjoined are those conducive to com m unal living.
T h e use o f äXXfjXovs, “one a n o th e r,” an d the stylistic variation on this with
eavrols (cf. Col 3:13; 1 Pet 4:9, 10; cf. also BDF § 287) u n d erlin e the corporate
dim ension o f the exhortation. K indness has been attrib u ted to God in 2:7,
an d the consideration o f the needs an d interests o f others th at it entails is
now req u ired o f h u m ans (cf. also Col 3:12; Gal 5:22; 2 C or 6 :6 ). B eing sym pa-
thetic to o th ers’ needs is also the essence o f com passion, which to g eth er with
mercy an d kindness is frequently held u p as an exem plary virtue in the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs (e.g., T. Zeb. 5.1; 7.2; 8.1; T. Sim. 4.4) an d in addition
to Col 3:12 occurs elsew here in the N T in the list o f virtues in 1 Pet 3:8.
Xaptfopevoi has th e specific force o f “forgiving” ra th e r th an the m ore general
m eaning o f “g ran tin g favors” (cf. Col 2:13; 3:12; 2 C or 2:7, 10; 12:13).
Kaders Kai 6 0eo? ev XpiorCp exaptoaro vplv, “ju s t as God in C hrist forgave
you.” In Jew ish and early C hristian paraenesis the m otivation for h um ans
being com passionate and forgiving could be in o rd e r th at God m ight forgive
them (e.g., T. Zeb. 8.1; M att 6:14; M ark 11:25) o r because G od had forgiven
them (e.g., T. Zeb. 7.2; 1 J o h n 4:11). H ere th e m otivating clause takes the
latter form . Such statem ents introduced by Kadcb? Kai have been called “the
conform ity p a tte rn ” an d function w ithin exhortations to show C hrist’s or G od’s
saving activity as prototypical for believers’ conduct (cf. N. A. Dahl, “F orm-
Critical O bservations on Early C hristian P reaching,” in Jesus in the Memory of
310 E p h e s ia n s 4:25– 5:2

the Early Church [M inneapolis: A ugsburg, 1976] 34). H ere, as in later instances
in 5:2, 25, 29, icadcos has both com parative a n d causal force. W hat G od has
do n e in C hrist fo r believers, which has b een th e th em e o f th e first h a lf o f the
letter, now provides bo th the n o rm a n d th e g ro u n d s fo r believers’ ow n behavior.
G od’s forgiveness o f th em becom es th e parad ig m for th eir m utual forgiveness.
W hereas in th e sim ilar statem ent o f Col 3:13 it is 6 icupios who has forgiven
th e readers, a n d th e L ord is alm ost certainly C hrist, h ere in E p h 4:32 it is
G od in C hrist who has b ro u g h t ab o u t th e forgiveness th a t m ust now be w orked
o u t in believers’ relationships.
5:1, 2 As has been n o ted earlier, th e pericope as a whole ends on a positive
note with two ex h o rtations fo rm u lated in positive term s an d a m otivating clause
sim ilar in form to th e one in 4:32 w hich has ju s t been exam ined.
yiveode ow piprjrai tov Oeov, cos reKva ajam yra, “Be im itators o f G od, th erefo re,
as dearly loved ch ild ren .” B oth th e ow, “th e re fo re ,” an d the rep etitio n o f the
sam e im perative yiveode, “be,” from 4:32, m ake clear th a t this ex h o rtatio n is
draw ing o u t th e consequences o f th e previous one. T h e re ad ers’ forgiving o f
one an o th er, ju s t as G od in C hrist forgave them , entails th eir becom ing im itators
o f God. T h ey are to m ake G od’s activity th e p a tte rn fo r th eir lives. T h e ir
depiction as G od’s dearly loved children m akes clear the basis on w hich the
d em an d for im itation is m ade (cf. also M eyer, 263–64; Schlier, 230; M itton,
175; H alter, Taufe, 266; S chnackenburg, 216; W ild, “ ‘Be Im itators,’ ” 143 n. 60).
Believers have been ad o p ted into G od’s family (cf. 1:5) a n d should exhibit
th e family resem blance. It w ould be incongruous to be G od’s dearly loved
child an d n o t to w ant to becom e like o n e ’s loving F ather. In fact, the new
child -F ath er relationship n o t only requires b u t also enables im itation to take
place, as th e children live th eir lives o u t o f th e love they have already experienced
from th eir F ather.
A freq u en t featu re in ancient paraenesis was th e provision o f m odels for
im itation (cf., e.g., Seneca, Epp. 6.5, 6 ; 11.9, 10; 95.72; Ps-Isocrates, Demonicus
11.36; T. Benj. 3.1; 4.1; Pliny, Ep. 8.13). T h e w riter o f E phesians chooses the
highest m odel possible a n d in so d oing supplies th e only passage in th e N T
w here th e explicit language o f im itation o f G od is em ployed. (O n the idea o f
im itation in th e N T cf. E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship [London: SCM,
I960]; A. Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen [M unich: Kösel-V erlag, 1962];
H . D. Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament [T übingen:
M ohr, 1967]. B. L indars’ article, “Im itation o f G od an d Im itation o f C hrist,”
Theology 76 [1973] 394– 402, which asserts th a t the idea o f the im itation o f
G od “is n eith er biblical n o r tru e to th e ethical position o f Jesus a n d th e early
C hurch, in so fa r as these can be recovered from the New T estam e n t” does
n o t take into account th e language o f E p h 5:1.) Paul, o f course, urges his
churches to im itate o th e r churches (cf. 1 T hess 2:14), to im itate him (cf.
1 C or 4:16, w here he uses the fa th er-child im agery in connection with this
im itation; 1 C or 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 T hess 1:6; 2 T hess 3 :7 ,9 ), an d to im itate
C hrist (1 T hess 1:6), b u t not to im itate God. T his language occurs elsew here
in early C hristian literatu re only later (cf. Ign. Eph. 1.1; Ign. Trail. 1.2; Diogn.
10.4–6). T h e actual language o f im itation is very ra re in th e LXX (cf. Wis
4:2; 9:8; 15:9; 4 Macc 9:23; 13:9) an d never used with reference to im itation
o f God. T h e re are, how ever, functionally equivalent notions in th e O T such
 Comment 311

as following Yahweh (e.g., N um 14:24; 3 2 :1 1 ,1 2 ; Jo sh 1 4 :8 ,9 ,1 4 ; 1 Sam

12:14; 1 Kgs 11:6; 14:8) o r th e th em e fo u n d frequently in the H oliness Code,
e.g., Lev 19:2, “You shall be holy, for I th e L ord your G od am holy.” Similarly,
th ere are functional equivalents in the N T . In term s o f content, the closest
parallel is with Luke 6:35, 36 (cf. also M att 5:44–4 8 ), w here G od’s kindness
an d m ercy are m ade the n o rm for h u m a n conduct. B ut w hereas in Luke the
eschatological rew ard for im itating these divine qualities will be to becom e
sons o f th e M ost H igh, in E phesians this relationship has already been given
an d is w hat enables the im itation to take place.
For instances o f th e use o f th e actual language o f im itating God one m ust
tu rn to H ellenistic Jew ish writings w here this notion was traditional (cf. T.
Ash. 4.3; Philo, De Sacr. 68; De Spec. Leg. 4.73, 187– 88; De Virt. 168; cf. also
Gnilka, 243; B arth, 556 n. 10, 588– 92; an d esp. W ild, “ ‘Be Im itators,” ’ 128–
33; pace Fischer, Tendenz, 140, who strangely claims th a t th ere is no m ention
o f im itation o f God even in Hellenistic Judaism ). De Virt. 168 shows th at Philo
equated im itation o f G od with the ethical goal o f assim ilation to G od (o/uotoxn?
0ecp), a p h rase which in M iddle Platonism was seen as the statem ent o f the
pu rp o se o f h u m an existence (cf. J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists [London: D uck-
w orth, 1977] 44, 122, 145, 192, 299). In De Fug. 63 Philo cites Plato’s Theatetus
176a - B on this: “T h e re fo re we o u g h t to flee from ea rth to heaven as quickly
as we can. T his flight m eans to becom e like G od as far as is possible. In tu rn
this becom ing like him m eans with the h elp o f insight to becom e ju s t and
holy [opolcoois 5e öIkcliov Kai öolop perä ^poprjoeoj^ yeveodai].” W e have already
n o ted th at E ph 4:24 also holds th at being in conform ity to G od (Kara deov)
involves justice a n d holiness. T h e likelihood th a t the w riter is fam iliar with
sim ilar traditions to those used by Philo is increased w hen it is observed th at
in De Spec. Leg. 4.72– 73, as here in E ph 4:32– 5:1, im itating G od is seen in
term s o f show ing kindness a n d forgiving. T h e tradition o f th e im itation o f
God has been m ade to serve th e w riter’s perspective, in which a new relationship
with God is n eed ed for this im itation to be accom plished, an d th at relationship
is based on G od’s saving activity in C hrist.
Kai irepurarelre ev ayanfl, Kadtos Kai 6 Xpioros rjyaiTrjoev i)pä<; Kai napeScoKev
eavrop virep r\pCyp npootyopav Kai Ovoiav rep deep ei$ oopr\v evoibias, “a n d live in
love, ju s t as C hrist loved us an d gave him self u p fo r us as a frag ran t offering
an d sacrifice to G od.” T h e idea o f th e im itation o f G od in 5:1 is defined both
by w hat precedes (G od’s activity in forgiveness) an d by w hat follows (his love,
the essential characteristic o f his activity in C hrist). In fact, the im itation o f
God tu rn s o u t to be the im itation o f C hrist, as in th e m otivating clause it is
the latter’s love a n d self-giving th a t are the g ro u n d an d the n o rm for the
behavior req u ired o f believers (see th e discussion o f 4:32 for the force o f
Kadcos Kai an d th e “conform ity p a tte rn ”). T h e su d d en change o f focus from
God in 5:1 to C hrist in 5:2 should be seen in the light o f the dual reference
to G od’s activity in C hrist in the m otivating clause o f 4:32, although its im m ediate
cause may well be simply th a t C hrist was the subject in the traditional fo rm u la-
tion which cam e to the w riter’s m ind (cf. Gnilka, 244). T h e love involved in
the events o f salvation can be attrib u ted bo th to God, as it is in 2:4, an d to
C hrist, as it is here. T h e im perative th at believers should live in love is g ro u n d ed
in the indicative o f C hrist’s costly self-giving, which is the historical m anifestation
312 E p h e s ia n s 4 : 2 5 – 5 :2

o f the love o f God. T h e im perative em ploys th e verb 7repi7rareü>, lit. “to walk”
(see th e discussion o f the earlier use o f this term in 2:2, 10; 4:1), which is
fo u n d in each section o f th e paraenesis until the household code— 4:1 in 4:1–
16, 4:17 in 4:17– 24, 5:2 in 4:25– 5:2, 5:8 in 5:3– 14, an d 5:15 in 5:15– 20.
T h e language o f walking in love h ad b een used by Paul in his ex h o rtatio n in
Rom 14:15. H ere, walking in love is th e way in which one im itates God. T h e
stress on th e necessity o f love is sim ilar to th a t at th e beginning o f the paraenesis
in 4:2, 15, 16 an d reflects th e em phasis it is given in Col 3:12– 14, the text on
which the w riter draws. C ertainly the sacrifice o f o n e ’s own interests o u t o f
concern fo r th e w elfare o f o th ers is th e quality above all th a t fosters harm ony
in the com m unity.
T h e description o f C hrist’s love is in traditio nal language, which gives the
pericope a concluding rhetorical flourish. T h e com bination o f verbs in the
assertion th a t C hrist loved believers a n d gave him self u p fo r th em occurs later
in 5:25, h ad been em ployed by Paul in Gal 2:20, a n d m ay have links with
form ulations in th e earliest com m unity ab o u t C hrist giving him self u p (cf.
M ark 9:31; 10:33; 14:41). T h o u g h th e language is likely to be traditional,
th ere is no com pelling reason for assigning it to a hym n ( pace B arth, 557).
T h e form u latio n states th at C hrist gave him self u p m ep r\pCov, “fo r us,” on
b eh alf o f believers. H e did this as th eir representative, an d som etim es the
notion o f re p resen tatio n involves th a t o f substitution (cf. also Gal 3:13; 2 C or
5:14, 21). C ertainly the sacrificial n a tu re o f C hrist’s d eath becom es explicit in
the liturgical tu rn s o f p h rase th at now featu re in this w riter’s effusive style.
7rpoa0 opd Kai dvaia (cf. LXX Ps 39:6) is a hendiadys em ploying two general
term s, b o th o f which included all kinds o f sacrifices, grain an d anim al, while
eis öopr\v eucoöta? utilizes the fre q u e n t LXX m etap h o r for a sacrifice which
was particularly pleasing to G od (e.g., Exod 29:18; Lev 2:9, 12; Ezek 20:41).
Some com m entators (cf. Schlier, 232; Gnilka, 245 n. 6) connect rep QeCp with
the latter ra th e r th a n the fo rm er phrase, b u t because o f its place in the sentence
this is n o t as likely a construction (cf. also M eyer, 264; A bbott, 147). T h e
im agery perfo rm s a doxological function at th e e n d o f th e sentence, as th ro u g h
it th e w riter indicates th a t C hrist’s sacrifice o f love was suprem ely pleasing
an d glorifying to God. B ut th e rh eto ric still serves the paraenesis, an d the
readers are rem in d ed th a t C hrist’s sacrificial love should find a response in
analogous acts o f love tow ard each oth er. It is significant th a t Paul, in Phil
4:18, could in fact speak o f the P hilippians’ sacrificial love for him in the
sam e term s th a t this w riter uses for C hrist’s sacrifice, “a fra g ra n t offering, a
sacrifice acceptable a n d pleasing to G od.”

Explanation

T h e preced in g section o f th e letter h ad dealt with th e distinctive conduct

re q u ired o f C hristian believers in strong b u t general term s, choosing to u n d e r-
line th e change from th eir previous behavior an d th eir identity as new people,
an identity which m ust be continually ap p ro p ria te d ethically. Now, by m eans
o f a series o f h o rtato ry sentences on a n u m b e r o f topics, th e w riter states
m ore specifically w hat this involves. All b u t one o f th e seven sentences take
th e form o f two exhortations followed by a m otivating clause (a second ex h o rta-
 Explanation 313

tion is im plicit in 4:29), an d the rem ain in g fifth sentence o f 4:30 functions as
a sum m arizing m otivating clause for w hat has preceded. Colossians (3:8b,
9a, 12– 14) again serves as the basic source fo r the co n ten t o f five o f the seven
sentences b u t has been elaborated on by m eans o f o th e r traditional m aterial
from the LXX, H ellenistic Judaism , Stoicism, an d Paul.
T h e ex h o rtatio n o f the first ethical sentence in v 25 follows u p the w riter’s
talk o f p u ttin g o ff th e old person an d p u ttin g on the new person, whose way
o f life is derived from the tru th , by an appeal to p u t off the lying characteristic
o f the old life an d instead to speak the tru th . T h e g rounds for this appeal
are th en stated—believers are fellow m em bers o f the body o f Christ. T h e ir
solidarity requires the m utual tru st e n g e n d ere d by tru th fu l com m unication.
N ot only lying, b u t also anger, presents an obstacle to harm onious relationships,
an d the second sentence takes u p this topic in vv 26, 27. T h e readers are to
avoid an g er at all costs, an d if they do becom e angry, they are no t to indulge
th eir anger, an d thereby sin, b u t are instead to expel it im m ediately. T h e
reason given for this counsel is th at an g e r which is indulged gives the devil
op p o rtu n ity to exploit its effects.
Verse 28 treates a th ird topic th at is illustrative o f the change from the old
to the new way o f living. Instead o f using th eir hands to steal, believers will
use them to work h a rd an d produce the resources to do good. T h e m otive to
which appeal is m ade in this call to engage in th e toil an d struggle o f w ork is
the well-being o f o thers in th e com m unity. T h e h a rd w orker will have som ething
to share with those in need. T h e fo u rth sentence o f v 29 re tu rn s to the topic
o f speech b u t this tim e em ploys th e categories o f good (taken u p from the
preceding sentence) an d evil instead o f tru th an d falsehood. W hat is prohibited
is the use o f words in an unw holesom e an d destructive fashion, an d w hat is
encouraged is th eir constructive use w henever th e n eed for building u p an o th er
person arises. T h e m otivation an d criterion for the rig h t use o f language is
to be its beneficial effect. In v 30 the readers, who have been stam ped with
the holy ch aracter o f the Spirit o f G od an d g u aran teed the fu tu re aspect o f
th eir red em p tio n , are u rg e d to do n o th in g to distress th e Spirit. T his fifth
sentence functions as a fu rth e r m otivation su p p o rtin g th e preceding ex h o rta-
tions. T h e re is a p articular link with th e im m ediately preceding topic, since
the Spirit who binds the com m unity to g eth er is especially grieved w hen words
are used in a way th at is d etrim en tal to his work.
J u s t as th e fo u rth sentence re tu rn e d to the topic o f the first, so now the
sixth sentence in vv 31, 32 re tu rn s to the topic o f th e second—anger. V arious
vices associated with anger, an d which may well progress from its in n er core
o f bitterness th ro u g h its initial e ru p tio n an d steady festering to its external
expression in yelling an d the vilification o f others, are all to be rem oved. In
th eir place is to com e th e practice o f the virtues o f kindness, com passion,
an d forgiveness. A m otivation for such action is attached to the last o f these
qualities an d directs the read ers’ atten tio n to the h e a rt o f th eir experience o f
salvation, nam ely th a t G od in C hrist has already forgiven them . T h e concluding
sentence in 5:1, 2 exhorts the readers to be im itators o f G od in the activities
described prim arily in 4:32 b u t th e n also in 5:2 – forgiveness an d love. T h e
general call to live in love can be seen as a positive sum m ary o f th e passage’s
earlier adm onitions. W alking in love includes thinking, talking, an d w orking
314 E p h e s ia n s 4 : 2 5 – 5 :2

in love. Costly, sacrificial love is to becom e th e distinguishing m ark o f the

read ers’ lives because, as th e traditional form ulation em bellished by th e w riter’s
rhetorical flourish puts it, C hrist loved th em a n d gave him self u p for th em as
a frag ran t offering a n d sacrifice to God.
T h e earlier p a rt o f the letter has reinforced fo r th e readers th eir identity
as p a rt o f a m ovem ent th a t is th e focus w ithin history o f a new reality with
cosmic dim ensions. Now the a ttem p t is m ade to show how this body o f C hrist
comes to concrete expression a n d w hat exactly is re q u ired o f its m em bers in
th eir daily living. Because o f its general n atu re , the m aterial in this passage
can provide no clues to the specific circum stances o f the letter’s recipients.
Clearly, how ever, th e w riter considers th a t his G entile C hristian read ers need
a re m in d e r o f som e o f th e basic attitudes a n d actions necessary if they are to
play th eir p a rt in th e C h u rch ’s grow th in unity an d love. T h e topics chosen
are illustrative o f conduct befitting h arm onious relationships. T h e function
o f the traditional m aterial in th e exhortations, an d particularly o f the m otivating
clauses, is to foster the desired conduct by ap pealing to various assum ptions
th at the w riter an d his readers have in com m on as a result o f th eir allegiance
to th e apostolic gospel an d tradition.
W hat the w riter in this passage expects o f his re ad ers’ practical conduct
can now be sum m ed up. Negatively, the lives o f th e G entile C hristians o f the
Pauline churches in Asia M inor will be characterized by the absence o f lying,
destructive talk, stealing, an d indulgence o f an g e r o r any o f its associated
vices. Positively, they will be m arked by tru th fu l an d edifying speech, h a rd
work enabling th em to do good deeds, kindness, com passion, forgiveness, an d
love. T h e values an d beliefs which are to sustain this quality o f life em erge
from th e w riter’s m otivating clauses. P ro m in en t am ong these is a p ro fo u n d
respect fo r th e co rporate n a tu re o f C hristian existence which derives from
his earlier vision o f a unified C hurch; believers are m em bers o f one a n o th e r
(4:25), who are co ncerned ab o u t sharing with those o f th eir n u m b e r in n eed
(4:28) an d ab o u t th e beneficial effect o f th e ir w ords o n th e rest o f the com m unity
(4:29). Also involved are beliefs ab o u t th e roles o f God, C hrist, th e Spirit,
an d the devil in th eir lives. T h e experiential know ledge o f G od’s forgiveness
o f th em in C hrist (4:32), o f C hrist’s sacrificial love fo r th em (5:2), a n d o f the
Spirit’s sealing o f th em a n d personal involvem ent in th eir com m unal life (4:30)
a n d the aw areness o f a personal pow er o f evil able to exploit sinful situations
(4:27) are all invoked to shape th e response re q u ired o f th e readers in th eir
everyday living.
E arlier in th e letter, the w riter has depicted th e contrast betw een his re ad ers’
previous way o f life in th e su rro u n d in g society a n d th eir p re sen t existence as
C hristians in black an d white term s. B ut how d ifferen t from the su rro u n d in g
m ores are th e standards p ro posed in this passage? M any o f the m oralists o f
his own day w ould have co n cu rred with th e w riter’s assessm ent a n d advice.
J u s t as th e form o f th e w riter’s exhortations— th e use o f ethical sentences,
contrasting negative an d positive injunctions, lists o f vices a n d virtues, m otivat-
ing clauses— can be fo u n d in G reco-R om an a n d Hellenistic Jew ish literature,
so also the co n ten t in re g ard to th e specific behavior advocated can be fo u n d
in th at literatu re. In particular, sim ilarities with th e Stoics, Philo, a n d th e Testa-
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs have figured prom inently in th e detailed discussion
 Explanation 315

o f the sentences. How m any people lived u p to the aspirations o f the m oralists
an d w h eth er C hristians, in fact, achieved any g reater success in this reg ard
are questions which do n o t adm it o f easy answers. Tw o points are clear, however.
It is th e fram ew ork o f m otivations supplied by his gospel th at m akes this
w riter’s ethical teaching co h eren t an d distinctively C hristian. H e, at least, is
convinced th at th e pow er at work in th e apostolic gospel should enable his
readers to fulfill his aspirations fo r them , resulting in qualitatively different
lives.
Because o f th e n a tu re o f th e ho rtato ry m aterial, in this section as in the
previous one, th e focus o f atten tio n is on the readers an d th eir actions. T h e
ecclesiological perspective dom inates the early sentences, since th ree o f the
first fo u r m otivating clauses have in view the well-b eing o f th e C hristian com m u-
nity. In the o th e r m otivating clauses atten tio n is draw n first to the devil and
th en to the Spirit. W ith the ex hortation o f 5:1 to be im itators o f God and
with the m otivations supplied in 4:32 an d 5:2, th e last p a rt o f the section
shows th at even in his ethical instruction the w riter has no t lost his theological
an d Christological perspectives. In d eed , if the com m and to love can be said
to sum u p the o th e r injunctions, th e n th e notion o f the im itation o f God
which accom panies it can also stand as an encapsulation o f the theocentric
focus o f the w riter’s ethical thinking. As elsew here in th e letter the theological
an d the C hristological go h a n d in han d , fo r the G od o f w hom the w riter
speaks is the G od who has acted to forgive hum anity in an d th ro u g h the love
o f C hrist whose sacrifice was suprem ely pleasing to him . In this way, for believers,
im itation o f G od also tu rn s o u t to be im itation o f C hrist in his sacrificial love.
T h e concerns o f this passage about both the words an d deeds o f the readers
continue into th e n ext section o f ex hortation w here they focus on sexual m orality
in particular an d are related to th e im ages o f light a n d darkness. T h e aw areness
o f w hat is necessary for com m unal life will com e to the fore again in the last
p art o f 5:15– 20, an d the th em e on which the pericope closes, h u m an love as
a reflection o f C hrist’s love, will be taken u p an d elaborated in a striking fashion
w hen the w riter addresses wives a n d husbands in 5 :2 1–33.
From Darkness to Light (5:3–14)
Bibliography

Casel, O. “Euxaptana—evxapma (Eph. 5, 3 f).” BZ 18 (1929) 84–85. Dahl, N. A. “Der

Epheserbrief und der verlorene erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther.”In Abraham
unser Vater. FS O. Michel, ed. O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1963, 65–77. Dölger, F. J. Sol Salutis: Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum. Münster:
Aschendorff, 1925, 364–410. Engberg-Pedersen, T. “Ephesians 5, 12– 13: eXeyxew and
Conversion in the New Testament.” ZN W 80 (1989) 89– 110. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz
und Absicht, 140–46. Giblet, J. “Les fruits de la lumière (Eph 5, 1–9).” AsSeign 80 (1964)
18–25. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos, 269– 81. Horst, P. W. van der. “Is Wittiness Unchris-
tian? A Note on eirrpaneXia in Eph. v. 4.” In Miscellanea Neotestamentica. Vol. 2, ed. T.
Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, and W. C. van Unnik. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978, 163– 77. Kuhn,
K. G. “The Epistle to the Ephesians in the Light of the Qumran Texts.” In Paul and
Qumran, 115–31. Merklein, H. “Eph 4, 1–5,20 als Rezeption von Kol 3, 1– 17.” In
Kontinuität und Einheit, ed. P. G. Müller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981, 194–
210. Noack, B. “Das Zitat in Eph 5, 14.” ST 5 (1952) 52–64. Schille, G. Frühchristliche
Hymnen, 94–101. Schnackenburg, R. “ ‘Er hat uns mitauferweckt.’ Zur Tauflehre des
Epheserbriefes."LiturgischesJahrbuch 2 (1952) 160–66. Siber, P. Mit Christus leben. Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1971,200–205.

Translation

3 But fornication and every kind of impurity or covetousness should not even be
mentioned among you, as befits saints, 4nor obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking,
which are notfitting, a but rather thanksgiving. 5For be very sure of this, b nofornicator
or impure or covetous person (such a person is an idolater)c has any inheritance in
the kingdom of Christ and of God. d
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, fo r because of these things the wrath
of God comes upon those who are disobedient. e 7 Therefore do not become partners
with them; sfo r once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; live as
children of light 9 – for the fru it of lightf consists s in all goodness, righteousness,
and truth— 10discovering what is pleasing to the Lord. 11And do not take part in
the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them, 12for it is shameful even to
speak of what is done by them in secret. 13But everything exposed becomes illuminedh
by the light, 14for everything that becomes illumined is light. Therefore it is said,
“Awake, O sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine upon you.”1

Notes

aThe verb in Greek, avqKev, is in the imperfect tense, but in expressions of necessity, obligation,
or what is proper the imperfect could be used for assertions about the present (cf. also Col 3:18;
cf. BDF § 358(2); Moulton, Grammar 3:90–91).
bThis clause in Greek has two verbs o f knowing—tare, the imperative from ot5a, and ytvdxjKOvres,
the present participle from jivgxjküj. It has been taken as a Hebraism (cf. also LXX 1 Kgs [3
Kgdms] 20:3; Hexapla Jer 49:22; 1 Clem. 12.5) which reinforces the idea o f the verb, and has
therefore been translated in such a way as to convey emphasis (cf. BAGD 556; BDF § 422;
Moulton, Grammar 3:156–57).
c Behind this parenthetical clause lie both a textual question and a syntactical question. Some
texts (A D K L P and most minuscules) have 6? eonv instead o f 6 ionv, but this appears to be a
 Form / Structure / Setting 317

later scribal attempt to be more accurate and to make the relative pronoun agree with the preceding
noun, which it qualifies. In fact, the latter reading with the neuter 6 has far stronger support
(P46 N B F G 'k 33 81 it vg goth) and the neuter could be used where strictly a masculine or
feminine was required (cf. BDF § 132 [2]). However, this does not necessarily mean that the
reference of the neuter here is to the whole of the preceding clause rather than to its single
antecedent (cf. BDF § 132 [2]; pace Moule, Idiom-Book, 130–31). The similar relationship between
covetousness and idolatry in Col 3:5, on which Ephesians is dependent, supports the view that
here too it is the covetous person who is seen as an idolater.
dThis unusual double expression about the kingdom is clearly the original reading, although
it gave rise to a number of variants, p 46 1245 2147 read simply Oeov, possibly as a result of
scribal oversight, but more probably under the influence of the more usual phrase “kingdom of
God” (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 607). Others have reversed the order under the same
influence and read t o v 6eov Kai Xpiarov (Fsr G its Ambrosiaster) or make the idea singular by
substituting the definite article for Kai: t o v Xpiorov t o v Oeov (1739* eth Theodoret).
eA literal translation o f the Greek phrase would be “sons of disobedience” (cf. 2:2).
fThere is a variant which reads nvevpaTOs instead of 0cjto? at this point and which finds support
in p 46 D c K 'F 88 104 614 1739ms. But 0ojro?, which fits the context better (note especially the
contrast with rot? epyot? rot? mcapirois t o v o/cörou?, “the fruitless deeds o f darkness,” in v 1 1 ), has
stronger attestation (cf. p 49 N A B D* G P 33 81 1739* it vg syrPH331 cop83’150 goth arm eth Origen).
The variant is likely to have entered the textual tradition because of the phrase in Gal 5:22.
gThere is no verb in the original. A functional equivalent for the verb “to be” has been supplied
in translation.
hThe passive form of the verb <j>avepow would be translated literally as “to be revealed, become
visible, appear.” Because o f its relation in this context to the term “light,” what is meant is “to
become visible through being lit up,” i.e., “to become illumined” (cf. also n e b ; pace Schnackenburg,
232).
‘The translation follows what is clearly the best-attested text, but there is an early, weakly
attested variant (D* itb Victorinus-Rome Ambrosiaster Jerome) im\paixj€i<; t o v XpujTOV, “you will
attain to Christ, have a part in Christ.”

Form / Structure / Setting

A fter the discrete ethical sentences o f 4:25– 5:2, which culm inate in the positive
ex h ortation to love, th ere is a change o f style a n d o f co n ten t in this pericope.
5 :3 – 14 form s far m ore o f a connected arg u m e n t an d begins by reverting to a
negative note as it introduces the topic o f sexual im m orality. T h e verb irepiTrarelP,
“to walk, live,” which m arks each section o f the paraenesis u p to the household
code, occurs h ere in the im perative in 5:8.
T h e exhortation, which draws o u t the ethical consequences o f belonging
to the C hristian com m unity, proceeds in two m ain stages— vv 3–6 with th eir
prohibition o f talk about sexual vices a n d th eir w arning about those who practice
such vices, an d vv 7– 14 with th eir d o m in an t im agery o f light an d darkness.
Verse 7 provides th e connection betw een th e two parts. T h e o p en in g ex hortation
o f vv 3, 4, in fact, has an antithetical form — pride . . . aXKa paXKov . . .— but
reads p redom inantly like a prohibition, because two sets o f th ree vices are
listed before th e one contrasting virtue is set over against them . Verses 5, 6
add to the prim arily negative atm osphere o f the first h a lf o f the pericope by
u n d erlin in g the prohibition aspect o f vv 3, 4 (cf. the yap at th e beginning o f
v 5 ) with th eir two severe w arnings about the consequences for those who
are im m oral an d disobedient—exclusion from the kingdom o f C hrist an d o f
God an d experience o f the w rath o f God. A new prohibition is in troduced in
v 7, b u t it is linked to the preceding m aterial th ro u g h o w , “th ere fo re .” Since
the consequences for those who indulge in sexual im m orality are so dire, believ-
318 E p h e s ia n s 5 :3 – 14

ers are n o t to jo in in with them . A fu rth e r w a rran t for this prohibition is

provided in v 8 a (cf. the connective y dp) by m eans o f th e 7ro re . . . v w contrast
schem a which introduces th e im ages o f light a n d darkness. T h e exh o rtatio n
o f vv 8b - 10 m akes use o f the im age o f light in a positive fashion. T h e readers
are to live as children o f light. W hat this involves is illustrated in th e paren th etical
statem en t o f v 9, with its triad o f virtues, a n d the participial clause o f v 10
ab o u t discovering w hat is pleasing to the L ord. T h e h o rtato ry sentence which
follows in vv 11, 12 again has an antithetical form (pr\ . . . päXkov . . .). W hile
reinforcing th e earlier prohibition against participating in im m oral activities,
it also m oves th e exhortation on with its positive com m and to expose such
deeds o f darkness. B oth parts o f the m ain clause are given fu rth e r w arran t
th ro u g h the explanatory clause with yap in v 12. Verses 13, 14 ro u n d o ff th e
pericope by elaborating on th e notion o f exposure an d linking it with the
effect o f light. T h e citation o f the hym n o r hym nic frag m en t in v 14b both
provides su p p o rt for this statem ent an d re tu rn s the re a d e r to th e C hristological
basis for th e w riter’s use o f the im age o f light from v 8 onw ards.
W ithin this paraenesis the w riter em ploys th ree particu lar form s to which
atten tio n should be draw n, (i) T h e re are lists o f vices (cf. vv 3– 5) a n d virtues
(cf. v 9). For discussion o f such lists, see u n d e r Form/Structure/ Setting fo r 4 :2 5–
5:2. (ii) T h e re is the irore . . . vvv contrast (cf. v 8 a). F or discussion o f this
“once . . . now ” schem a, its likely origin a n d its function earlier in th e letter,
see u n d e r FormIStructure/ Setting fo r 2:1– 10 a n d 2:11– 22. (Hi) T h e re is also
the citation in tro d u ced by the form ula 8io \eyei, “th ere fo re it says,” in v 14b.
A b rief discussion o f its form will follow here. M ore on th e background o f its
ideas an d the m eaning an d function o f th e m aterial in its p re sen t context in
the paraenesis will be fo u n d u n d e r Comment on v 14. T h e q uotation is a rhythm ic
tristich which uses the rhetorical device o f the first two lines having sim ilar
sou n d in g endings. It has a Semitic style with th e verbs at th e beg in n in g o f
th e lines, the two im peratives linked by kol, a n d th e n the Kai leading into the
fu tu re tense o f the th ird line (cf. also Gnilka, 260). T h e first two lines o f
synthetic parallelism constitute a sum m ons to ethical aw areness, while th e last
line offers th e prom ise o f C hrist’s aid.
It is m uch easier to describe the form these th ree lines take th a n to say
with any certainty w hat th eir origin was. T h e difficulties becom e a p p a re n t
w hen one looks at the attem pts o f the ch u rch fathers. T h re e m ain options
soon em erged. Because E ph 4:8 uses th e intro d u cto ry form ula fo u n d here
with ä scriptural citation, som e attem p ted to trace the lines to th e O T (e.g.,
H ippolytus). O thers looked fu rth e r afield to apocryphal w ritings (e.g., E p ip h an-
ius), while for others still (e.g., O rigen, Severian, T h eo d o ret) an early C hristian
hym n seem ed th e m ost likely option. W hen th e attem p t is m ade to find the
origin o f th e citation in the O T , the m ost likely candidate is Isa 60:1, possibly
in a m ixed q u o tation with Isa 26:19. B ut at best the lines in E phesians w ould
provide only an indirect allusion to such passages. A n allusion to J o n a h 1:5, 6
a n d a descensus ad inferos (adduced by A. T . H anson, The New Testament Interpreta-
tion of Scripture, L ondon: S.P.C.K., 1980, 142– 43) ap p ears even less likely. If
the lines w ere from an apocryphal scripture, it w ould have to be one which
is now unknow n to us. E piphanius (Haer. 42.12.3) ascribed the lines to the
Apocalypse of Elijah, b u t the closest passage is 3:3 – “T h e whole w orld will behold
 Form / Structure / Setting 319

him like th e sun which shines From the eastern horizon to the w estern”— and
is quite rem ote from the language o f E ph 5:14. C lem ent o f A lexandria (Protr.
9.84.2) is exceptional in suggesting th at the passage is a w ord o f the L ord
an d in providing a fu rth e r th ree lines— “T h e sun o f resu rrectio n ,/B eg o tten
before th e d ay-star,/W ho has given life with his own beam s.” T h e additional
lines presum ably owe th eir origin to him (cf. also S chnackenburg, 233 n. 571),
b u t they do raise the question w hether the th ree lines in E phesians are in
fact p a rt o f an original larger whole. As the m ajority o f m o d ern com m entators
suggest, the m ost likely hypothesis is th at the citation is o f an early C hristian
hym n o r hym nic fragm ent th at would have been fam iliar to the readers. Because
o f th eir content, these lines cam e in all probability from an early C hristian
baptism al liturgy. T h e ir w ording m ight, o f course, have been influenced by
Isa 60:1 o r have involved a rew orking o f it. T hey are form ed not as praise o f
God o r C hrist b u t as a challenge and prom ise to the believer. T h e ir language
o f exhortation an d com bination o f the m etaphors o f sleep, death, an d light
applied to the life o f the believer w ould have form ed an ap p ro p riate chant
with which th e congregation could greet the newly baptized convert. T h e re
are possible associations betw een light an d a baptism al setting in Col 1:12, 13;
H eb 6:4; 10:32 an d clear links in Ju stin , Apol. 61.12, 13; 65.1 an d in the Syrian
Didascalia Apostolorum 21, a baptism al text which speaks o f C hrist as the light
th at has shone on believers (cf. Dölger, Sol Salutis, 366– 67). N oack (ST 5 [1952]
esp. 62– 64) argues th at the th ree lines were originally an eschatological hym n
which re ferred to the resurrection o f the dead at the Parousia b u t which later
h ad a secondary application in a baptism al context. B ut is no t a call to aw aken
at th e Parousia far m ore likely to have been in the plural, an d w hat sort o f
p u rp o se w ould have been served in the com m unity’s g ath erin g for w orship
by the singing o f such a hym n (cf. also Gnilka, 260 n. 3)? N oack’s view simply
involves one problem atic an d unnecessary hypothetical reconstruction too
many.
T h e previous pericope, E ph 4:25–5:2, h ad been d e p e n d e n t on Col 3:8–
14a. T h e early p art o f this pericope is d e p e n d e n t on the im m ediately preceding
m aterial in Colossians 3:5– 8.

Ephesians Colossians
5:3 iropveia 5e m i ä m d a p o i a ira o a 3:5 n o p v e ta v , a m d a p o ia v . . . m i
rj nXeove%ia ttjv 7TX eoveQ av
5:4 m i a ia x p m r js 3:8 a io x p o X o y ia v
5:5 irXeoveKTi/9, 6 e o n v 3:5 m i ttjv irXeovefyav fir 19 e o r iv
eib(jSko\aTpT}<; eidoSXoXarpia
5:6 5td r a m a 'yap i p x m a i 77 öpyrj 3:6 5i a e p x m a i 77 o p yrj tov deov
tov deov
5:8 7TOT6 . . . vvv 3:7,8 7T0T6 . . . vvvi

As can be seen, the w riter o f Ephesians takes u p a n u m b er o f vices from the

lists in Colossians. T h e re is a stylistic difference in th at he prefers groups o f
th ree term s (cf. vv 3, 4, 5; cf. also the th ree virtues in v 9). T h e re is also a
shift o f em phasis in the depiction. In Colossians, the vices w ere previously
believers’ own an d now m ust be p u t away from them . In Ephesians, these
320 E p h e s ia n s 5 :3 – 14

vices belong characteristically to those outside, with w hom th ere m ust be no

p artn ersh ip , alth o u gh in v 8 th e em phasis o f Col 3 is re tain ed tem porarily in
th e “once . . . now ” contrast which is ad a p te d from Col 3:7, 8 . T h e actual
co n ten t o f th e contrast which is in tro d u ced —th e opposition betw een light a n d
darkness— has, however, no parallel in the equivalent section o f Colossians
(th o u g h cf. Col 1:12, 13). T h e m otivating clause ab o u t the w rath o f G od in
E p h 5:6 is sim ilar to th at in Col 3:6. (O n th e relation betw een Ephesians an d
Colossians at this point cf. also M erklein, “E ph 4, 1– 5, 20,” 206– 7; M itton,
Epistle, 304 – 5.)
O th e r m aterial in this passage is d e p e n d e n t on form ulations from elsew here
in Colossians an d the Pauline letters. T h e language o f n o t in h eritin g th e king-
dom o f G od in 5:5 occurs after a sim ilar list o f vices o r those w ho com m it
th em in Gal 5:19– 21 an d 1 C or 6:9. T h e fornicator, the covetous person,
a n d th e idolater are also included in the lists o f 1 C or 5:9– 11. T h e notion o f
thanksgiving which is u n d erlin ed in 5:4 has a sim ilar centrality in Col 2:7,
while th e w arning about being deceived th ro u g h em pty w ords in 5:6a recalls
th e language o f Col 2:8 (cf. also Col 2:4). T h e exh o rtatio n o f 5:7, 8 , which
prohibits p artn e rsh ip with the disobedient a n d th e n elaborates on this in term s
o f darkness an d light, picks u p on the language an d th o u g h t o f 1 T hess 5:5
an d 2 C or 6:14. G oodness is am ongst the fru it o f th e Spirit in Gal 5:22, an d
h ere in Ephesians it is am ongst the fru it o f light (5:9). T h e form ulation “discover-
ing w hat is pleasing to the L o rd ” (5:10) ap p ears to com bine tu rn s o f phrase
from Rom 12:2 an d Col 3:20, while the phrase “deeds o f darkness” (5:11) is
fo u n d earlier in th e Pauline corpus in Rom 13:12. T h e idea o f exposing an d
m aking visible w hat is h id d en in relation to unbelievers in 5:11– 13 is anticipated
in 1 C or 14:24, 25.
O n th e basis o f the similarities betw een this pericope a n d 1 C or 5 an d 6 ,
D ahl has arg u ed th at it contains in only slightly m odified form w hat m ust
have been in P aul’s first lost letter to the C orinthians. B oth re p resen t rew orkings
o f th e sam e original piece o f Pauline catechesis (cf. “D er E p h eserb rief,” 70).
It is certainly possible th at the lost letter to th e C orinthians contained advice
som ething like th at in this passage, which was m isin terp reted by th e C orinthians,
b u t th e inevitably speculative n a tu re o f any reconstruction o f such advice tells
against using th e hypothesis to arg u e against any literary d ep en d en ce o f E ph
5:3– 14 on Col 3:5– 8. It rem ains m ost likely th a t th e w riter has su p p lem en ted
his d ep en d en ce on Colossians with his know ledge o f paraenetical traditions
cu rre n t in th e Pauline com m unities an d reflected in som e o f the Pauline letters
(pace Dahl, “D er E pheserbrief,” 71– 72).
In its setting in the letter, this passage, n o t surprisingly, has m ost links
with th e su rro u n d in g paraenetic m aterial, especially 4:17– 24. T h e re is a sim ilar
black an d white contrast betw een the ethical behavior o f believers a n d th a t o f
outsiders in 4:17– 21, in which the pairing o f im purity an d covetousness has
already featu red (4:19; cf. 5:3). In 4:22– 24 this contrast h ad given way to
th at betw een th e old an d new hum anities. H ere in 5:3– 14, an equivalent contrast
is th at betw een th e disobedient o r those w ho belong to th e d ark a n d th e children
o f light. In fact, 4:18 h ad described G entile outsiders in term s o f “being d ark en ed
in th eir th in k in g .” O n the positive side, righteousness a n d tru th figure in the
triad o f virtues in 4:24 as well as h ere in 5:9. T h e concern with speaking
 Comment 321

ab out sexual vices in 5:3– 14 has links with th e exhortations about sins o f
speech which featu red so prom inently in 4:2 5–5:2, while the m ention o f th an k s-
giving (5:4) will be developed in th e following pericope, 5:15–20. T h e w riter’s
und erly in g m otivation in this type o f paraenesis, th at the C h u rch should be
holy, becom es explicit later in 5:27, as it h ad also been earlier in 1:4 an d
2:21. L ight im agery h ad been used o f believers in 1:18. B ut th e m ajor connection
with th e early p a rt o f the letter is with 2 : 1 – 1 0 an d its com parison betw een
the believer’s past an d present. T h e connection can be seen in th at passage’s
use o f th e contrast schem a with 7rore, its use o f th e phrase “sons o f disobedience”
(2:2; cf. 5:6), its m ention o f good works (2:10; cf. 5:9), an d its d eath and
resu rrectio n m etap hors for salvation from sin (2:1, 5, 6 ; cf. 5:14).
T o talk ab out the pericope’s setting in the letter is one thing; to assign it a
specific setting in life is another. As was the case with 4:25– 5:2, this pericope
contains general ethical m aterial, m uch o f which serves as a re m in d e r o f the
baptism al paraenesis the readers will have received at som e earlier stage. T h e
w riter’s use o f it now to u n d erlin e the necessity o f believers’ lives being m orally
distinctive simply shows th at he recognizes th at th ere was a constant tem ptation
for Gentile C hristians to lapse into m oral laxity, especially in m atters o f sexuality,
u n d e r pressure from the m ores o f the su rro u n d in g society.

Comment

3 ,4 m p v e ia 8e m i a m d a p o ia rraoa fj ir\eove%ia pride dvopa^eodco ev vplp, m d c o s

Tipeiret 6 7 1 0 1 5 , “B ut fornication an d every kind o f im purity o r covetousness
should n o t even be m entioned am ong you, as befits saints.” T h e adversative
5e m arks th e m ove from the topic o f self-sacrificial love to th at o f self-ind u lg en t
sensuality. Sexual sins now dom inate the vices m en tio n ed in vv 3–5 an d are
prim arily w hat is m eant by the language o f “deeds o f darkness” an d “w hat is
done in secret” in vv 11, 12. W ith this prohibition, the w riter also re tu rn s to
the them e o f th e contrast betw een the C hristian com m unity an d outsiders
fo u n d earlier in the paraenesis in 4 :1 7–24. In d eed , two o f the triad o f vices
listed h ere— a m d a p o ia , “im purity,” an d nXeovetya, “covetousness”—are con-
tained in the earlier triad in 4:19. (For discussion o f these term s, the Comment
on 4:19 should be consulted.) a o e X y e ia , “debauchery,” at the beginning o f
the triad has h ere been replaced by m p v e ia , “fornication,” in line with Col
3:5. m p v e ia is a bro ad term , signifying general sexual im m orality b u t especially
adultery an d intercourse with prostitutes (cf. F. H auck an d S. Schulz, “m p v r i ”
T D N T 6 [1968] 579– 95; the discussion in B. M alina, “Does Porneia M ean F orni-
cation?” N ovT 14 [1972] 10– 17; a n d j . Jen se n , “D o esPorneia M ean Fornication?
A C ritique o f B ruce M alina,” N ovT 20 [1978] 161– 84). Fornication o f various
sorts is co n dem ned in the O T an d in Hellenistic Ju d aism (cf. Sir 23:16– 27;
T. Reub. 1.6; 2.1; 3.3; 4.6; 5 .1 ,3 ; 6.1; T. Sim. 5.3; T. Iss. 7.2; Philo, De Spec.
Leg. 3.51), an d Paul him self h ad w arned believers, especially the C orinthians,
ab o u t indulging in it (cf. 1 C or 5:1; 6:12– 20; 7:2; 10:8; 2 C or 12:21; Gal
5:19; 1 T hess 4:3; cf. also Col 3:5). T h e ex hortation here in E phesians has
no specific situation in view b u t generalizes ab o u t “all im purity.” a m d a p o ia is
usually associated with sexual sin, an d fo u r o f the above references have the
term in com bination with m p v e ia (cf. 1 T hess 4:3, 7; Gal 5:19; 2 C or 12:21;
322 E p h e s ia n s 5:3 – 14

Col 3:5). Because o f th e context, nkeoveQa, “covetousness,” should also be

taken as th e sort o f u n re strain ed sexual greed w hereby a person assum es th at
others exist fo r his o r h e r own gratification. T h e te n th co m m andm ent contains
the injunction against coveting o n e ’s n eig h b o r’s wife; the com bination o f the
ideas o f covetousness an d fornication is fo u n d in T. Levi 14.5, 6; T. Jud. 18.2;
IQ S 4.9, 10; CD 4.17, 18; an d th e cognate verb nXeoveicretv has sexual co n n o ta-
tions in 1 T hess 4:6.
T h e w riter wishes to stop such vices before they gain access to the com m unities
to which he writes, an d so he asserts th a t they m ust no t even be nam ed. It is
som etim es claim ed (e.g., Schlier, 233; B ratch er an d Nida, Handbook, 125– 26)
th at th e p ro h ib itio n is n o t to be taken literally an d simply m eans th a t the
vices are n o t to occur. B ut th e use o f the em phatic /lvqbe and, in particular,
the rep etitio n o f this notion in v 12 – “it is sham eful even to speak o f w hat is
do n e by th em in secret”— suggest th a t th e w riter actually m ean t th a t these
sins should n o t even be talked about. B elievers’ distancing from such vices
m ust ex ten d to th eir conversation. Presum ably, the assum ption b eh in d this
p rohibition is th a t thinking an d talking ab o u t sexual sins creates an atm osphere
in which they are to lerated an d which can indirectly even pro m o te th eir practice.
It w ould n o t occur to th e w riter, as it m ight to us, th at strictly speaking he is
breaking his ow n prohibition by m en tio n in g these sins in his letter! W hat he
is really attem p tin g to discourage is sexual sin becom ing the object o f interest
in conversation.
T h e m otivation to which the w riter appeals fo r the avoidance o f such conver-
sation is w hat is fitting fo r saints, irpenei, “befits,” is em ployed in sim ilar fo rm u la-
tions in 1 T im 2:10; T itus 2:1; an d B am . 4.9, while in v 4 a sim ilar m otivation
uses avfitcev. T his appeal to w hat is fitting was a featu re o f Stoic ethics an d
m ediated to early C hristianity th ro u g h H ellenistic Ju d aism (cf. M. Pohlenz,
“T o npe7roi>,” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philoi -
Historische Klasse 1933, vol. 1 [Berlin: W eidm ann, 1933] 53–92; H . Schlier,
“di^Kei,” T D N T 1 [1964] 360; idem , “kclOtiku ,” T D N T 3 [1965] 437– 40). T h e
absence o f th e article with äyiois, “saints,” places stress on th e qualitative d im en -
sions o f the term , the holiness o f those set a p a rt fo r God, an d serves as a
rem in d er o f believers’ calling as th a t is depicted in 1:4. P aul’s paraenesis in 1
T hess 4:3– 7 h ad also explicitly linked th e call to holiness with sexual m orality.
Kai aioxporris Kai pojpoXoyia 77 evrpaneXia, d ovk ävf\Kev, dXXd paXKov euxapiaria,
“n o r obscenity, foolish talk, o r coarse joking, which are n o t fitting, b u t ra th e r
thanksgiving.” Som e com m entators (e.g., Schlier, 233; Gnilka, 247; Schnacken-
burg, 223) arg u e th at th e verb from th e previous verse does n o t govern these
new vices an d th a t one should supply “th e re should n o t b e,” because now
types o f speech them selves becom e th e subject o f being nam ed. B ut this is to
dem an d a precision o f th o u g h t an d style on th e p a rt o f the w riter th a t m ay
well be alien to him . T h e new triad o f vices should be seen as simply continuing
the th o u g h t o f th e previous verse by m aking explicit the sort o f nam ing o f
sexual sins th at is being forbidden. T h e contrasting “thanksgiving” at the en d
o f th e verse can also still be seen to be governed by the earlier verb (with
n iv ; contra r sv , n e b ). T h e th o u g h t o f th e verse is a variant on 4:29, “Do n o t
let any evil talk com e o u t o f yo u r m o u th , b u t w hatever is good fo r building
u p .” T h e th ree term s fo r sinful speech in 5:4, which are hapax legomena in
 Comment 323

the N T , elaborate on “evil talk,” an d “thanksgiving” now substitutes as the

positive elem ent in the exhortation. T h e first an d the last two term s in the
triad are m utually illum inating. T h a t the last two term s involve speech indicate
th at the first aioxporns is not ju s t obscenity o r sham efulness in general but
obscene speech. T h e Colossians passage (aioxpoXoyia, Col 3:8) also suggests
th at this is th e connotation the w riter has in m ind. Similarly, the notion o f
obscenity colors the o th er two term s, so th at it is foolish talk an d coarse jo k in g
ab out sex th at are in view. T h e re were rigorous regulations about uncontrolled
speech at Q u m ra n with various penances attached: “w hoever has spoken fool-
ishly: th ree m onths . . . w hoever has guffaw ed foolishly shall do penance for
thirty days” (IQ S 7.14– 18). In fact IQ S 10.21– 23 provides a close parallel to
b oth the negative an d positive elem ents o f E ph 5:4: “In my m outh shall be
h eard no folly. . . . T h e fru it o f holiness shall be on my to n g u e an d no abom ina-
tions shall be fo u n d u p o n it. I will op en my m o u th in songs o f thanksgiving.”
T h e last o f the vices listed, evrpaneXia, has occasioned m uch discussion, not
least because A ristotle treats it as a virtue, as the ready wit which is essential
to social flexibility. In Eth. Eud. 3.7.1234a.4–23 he talks o f this wittiness as “a
m iddle state, an d the witty m an as midway betw een the boorish o r stiff m an
an d the buffoon.” W hat p ro m p ted the different evaluation o f wittiness on
the p art o f th e w riter to the Ephesians? O r did eirrpaireXia u n d erg o a shift o f
m ean in g from an original earlier sense o f “ready wit” with favorable connota-
tions to a later sense o f suggestive ribald jesting? In a fascinating address to
the E ton L iterary Society, M atthew A rnold used his analysis o f this te rm ’s
history as a sp ringboard for a survey o f G reek culture with application to
education in n in etee n th-century B ritish society. H e claim ed th at the A thenian
genius fo r flexibility gradually lost its grasp on m oral ideas, an d “th en the
new an d refo rm in g spirit, the C hristian spirit, which was rising in the world,
tu rn e d sternly u p o n this gracious flexibility, changed the sense o f its nam e,
b ran d ed it with infam y, an d classed it, along with ‘filthiness an d foolish talking,’
am ong ‘things which are no t convenient’ ” (“A Speech at E ton,” in Irish Essays
and Others [London: Smith, Elder, an d Co., 18912] 148). W hatever the m erits
o f A rn o ld ’s opinions about G reek culture, his b rief analysis o f the history o f
usage o f eurpaneXia is ra th e r m isleading. A m uch m ore reliable guide to its
usage is provided by van d e r H orst (“Is W ittiness U nchristian?” 163–77). H e
shows th at even A ristotle is aw are th at the term also has negative connotations
(cf. Eth. Nie. 4 .8 .1 128a. 14– 15; Rhet. 2 .1 2 .1389b. 10– 12, w here it is listed am ong
the excesses o f youth), th at in Isocrates it has both a negative (Areop. 49) an d
a positive m ean in g (Antid. 296), an d th at from the fifth century b .c .e . onw ard
positive an d negative m eanings can be fo u n d side by side, th o u g h the positive
predom inates. In connection with conversation th e negative connotation “may
be buffoonery o r som e kind o f in h u m an e o r deg rad in g je stin g ” (“Is W ittiness
U nchristian?” 175). V an d e r H orst adm its that, alth o u g h th ere is no clear
instance o f this force elsew here, the context o f the use in E ph 5:4 suggests
th e m eaning o f “dirty jokes.” H e does p oint out, how ever, th at th ere is one
place in Aristotle which hints th at the witty m an is characterized by his in n u en d o ,
his insinuations in the direction o f sham eful things (cf. Eth. Nie. 4 .8 .1 128a.23–
24). So in E phesians, the coarse jo k in g prohibited may well involve the use
o f suggestive language an d double entendres. A gain, such conversation is d e-
324 E p h e s ia n s 5:3 – 14

scribed as n ot fitting (see above), an d again, for this w riter, the reason ap pears
to be th at to treat sexual m atters as a topic o f am u sem en t is n o t to take them
seriously en o u g h an d is likely to lead to an atm o sp h ere in which the actual
practice o f sexual vices is also accepted too easily.
W hat is to replace the six vices an d to be at th e h e a rt o f C hristian speech
is thanksgiving, which ap pears like an oasis in a d esert o f negatives. T h e re is
no need to find this strange and, with O rigen an d Je ro m e in th eir com m entaries
on this text (followed by Casei, BZ 18 [1929] 84–85), to o p t instead fo r euxaptria,
“graciousness,” as a coined expression (cf. J. A. Robinson, 198– 99). e v x a p io r ia
is chosen as th e virtue not only because o f its play on words with evrpan eX ia
b u t also because it was a traditional contrast (cf. IQ S 10.21– 23) a n d one which
expressed a p ro fo u n d difference betw een values. As H o u ld en (Paul's Letters,
324) puts it, “w hereas sexual im purity a n d covetousness bo th express self-
cen tered acquisitiveness, thanksgiving is the exact opposite, an d so th e antidote
req u ired ; it is the recognition o f G od’s generosity.” Philo saw thanksgiving as
a p re em in en t virtue which could encapsulate th e whole o f a p erso n ’s religious
obligation (cf. De Plant. 126, 131), an d in P aul’s w ritings too (cf. 1 T hess 5:18;
1 C or 10:30; 14:16, 17; 2 C or 4:15; 9:11, 12; Rom 1:21; 14:6; Phil 4:6; cf.
also Col 1:12; 2:7; 3:17; 4:2) “thanksgiving was alm ost a synonym for the
C hristian life” (cf. P. T. O ’B rien, “T hanksgiving in P auline T heology,” in Pauline
Studies, ed. D. A. H a g n er an d M. J. H arris [G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1980]
62). B ehind th e contrast o f E ph 5:3, 4 lies a fu n d am en tal issue. W hat is acknowl-
edged as ultim ate— God o r som e aspect o f being in the world, such as sexuality
o r sensual gratification (cf. also Rom 1:21)? For this w riter an d fo r th e J u d e o-
C hristian tradition, thanksgiving is an essential aspect o f the faith th at acknowl-
edges God as the ultim ate source o f all th at is, the creator, sustainer, an d
re d eem er o f life. T h e w riter will elaborate on th e n eed fo r thanksgiving in
5:20, b u t it has already becom e clear from the o p en in g berakah (1:3 – 14) an d
thanksgiving section (1:15–23) th at he believes this to be the p ro p e r response
o f those who have experienced the grace o f G od in C hrist.
5 Tovro yap lore yivoxTKOvre*; o n nas nöpvos rj at<a6apTO<; rj wXeoveKTTjs, 6 eonv
eiboSXoXarpjjs, oi)K exei KXr)povopiav ev rfi ßaatXdg: rov Xpiarov Kai Oeov, “F or be
very sure o f this, no fornicator or im p u re or covetous person (such a person
is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom o f C hrist an d o f G od.”
T h e re follows this solem n w arning about the dire consequences fo r those who
practice th e vices listed in v 3. T his tim e th ere is the additional th o u g h t th at
the person who is characterized by u n re strain ed sexual greed is, in fact, an
idolater (cf. the link betw een covetousness an d idolatry in Col 3:5). In Ju d aism
T. Jud. 19.1 h ad linked covetousness with idolatry (cf. also Philo, De Spec.
Leg. 1.23, 25), while fornication an d sexual lust are associated with it in Wis
14:12; T. Reub. 4.6; T. Jud. 23.1. As L. T. Jo h n so n (Sharing Possessions [Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1981] 5 2 ,5 5 ) says, “T h e im p o rtan t idolatries have always
cen tered on those forces which have en o u g h specious pow er to be truly c o u n ter-
feit, an d th erefo re truly dangerous: sexuality (fertility), riches, an d pow er
(glory). . . . All idolatry is a form o f covetousness, for by refusing to acknowl-
edge life an d w orth as a gift from the C reator, it seeks to seize them from
the creation as booty.” Sexual lust elevates th e desired object, w h eth er a p erso n ’s
own gratification o r an o th e r person, to th e cen ter o f life an d is antithetical to
th e thanksgiving which recognizes G od at th e center.
 Comment 325

T hose who are idolaters o f this sort will no t in h erit the kingdom o f C hrist
an d o f God. A ssurance about believers’ fu tu re inheritance h ad been given in
1:14, 18, b u t now exclusion from the kingdom , which is m en tio n ed in P auline
paraenesis in 1 C or 6:9, 10 an d Gal 5:21 an d in a different context in 1 C or
15:50, is held o u t as a th rea t to this particular class o f people. T h e fornicator,
the covetous person, an d the idolater are also m entioned in the lists in 1 C or
5:9– 11 an d 6:9, 10. T his particular double form ulation about the kingdom is
un iq u e in th e N T (though cf. Rev 11:15). T h e kingdom is linked with C hrist
in 2 T im 4:1, 18 an d 2 Pet 1:11 (cf. also 2 Apoc. Bar. 39:7), an d in som e
places the kingdom o f C hrist represents the p resen t aspect o f G od’s ru le (cf.
1 C or 15:24– 28; Col 1:13; cf. also E ph 2:6). B ut the notion o f two successive
form s o f G od’s rule should no t be read into E ph 5:5 from 1 C or 15:24– 28.
Instead, th ere is h ere an identity o f the two kingdom s in term s o f th eir tim e
an d th eir n atu re (cf. also Gnilka, 249; B arth, 564; pace C aird, Paul's Letters,
85). T h e kingdom o f C hrist is the kingdom o f God an d has both p resen t an d
fu tu re aspects from which the fornicators an d the im p u re an d covetous persons
are excluded. T hose in bondage to th eir sexual appetites are no t those over
w hom C hrist an d God rule.
T h e w riter assum es th at his readers are no t am ong such people. T o describe
this verse, th erefo re, as a w arning to believers th at they can lose th eir salvation
(cf. E rnst, 372) does not do justice to its function in the context. It provides a
fu rth e r m otivation for the readers no t even to m ention these vices, nam ely,
th at those who actually p erp etrate them are in a realm totally antithetical to
the kingdom o f C hrist an d God (contra B arth, 564, who takes the passage to
be referrin g to ch urch discipline an d claims, “T h e im m oral persons m entioned
in 5:3 ff. are m em bers o f the congregation, no t people outside th e C h u rch ”).
6 jur/Set? u/ua? äiraräTco nevoid X0 70 19 , 5ta ravra yap epxerai 17 6pyr\ rod deov
eiri rou? viovs rift aireiddas, “Let no one deceive you with em pty words, fo r
because o f these things the w rath o f God com es u p o n those who are disobedient.”
T h e m otivation o f v 5 is now underlined. Believers are n o t even to m ention
the vices listed previously, because they are so serious th at on account o f them
G entile outsiders will no t only be excluded from the kingdom b u t will also
experience the w rath o f God. T hose u p o n w hom this w rath will com e are
the disobedient, th e unbelieving Gentiles from am ongst w hom the readers
have been saved (cf. 2:2, 3; 5:7, 8 ). T h e readers are n o t to be led astray by
anyone who asserts th at th ere will be no ju d g m e n t on sin. T h e w ords o f such
a person are em pty, devoid o f tru th (cf. Col 2:4, 8 ; cf. also LXX Exod 5:9;
D eut 32:47; T. Naph. 3.1). In Colossians sim ilar language h ad been used o f
those p ro m u lg atin g the false teaching, b u t h ere the reference is far m ore
general. If any g ro u p is particularly in view, it is no t so m uch likely to be
C hristians with a libertine o r gnosticizing tendency (pace A bbott, 152; Schlier,
236; B arth, 565– 66; M itton, 181; M ussner, 143) as unbelieving G entiles who
claim ed they h ad no need to worry an d attem p ted to justify th eir vices as
m atters o f indifference (cf. M eyer, 269; W estcott, 77; S chnackenburg, 225).
T his in terp retatio n also m aintains the in sid er/o u tsid e r contrast th at ru n s
th ro u g h o u t the passage. G od’s w rath, his holy an g e r against sin an d the ju d g -
m en t th at results from it, is real, an d it is com ing on th e disobedient. T h e
p resen t tense o f epxeoQai often has a fu tu re m eaning, an d th a t is m ost probably
the case here. Most com m entators allow for both p resen t a n d fu tu re aspects
326 E p h e s ia n s 5 :3 – 14

o f w rath in 5:5 (cf. Abbott, 152; Schlier, 236; B arth, 566; E rnst, 374; Schnacken-
b u rg, 226; M ussner, 144), b u t M eyer (270) m ay well be rig h t to insist o n the
fu tu re aspect. Elsewhere, traditional form ulations ab o u t the com ing o f w rath
have a fu tu re reference (cf. 1 T hess 1:10; 5:9; Col 3:6). T h e children o f w rath
in 2:3 are those doom ed to experience G od’s w rath on the day o f ju d g m e n t,
an d E phesians shows no interest in developing any p resen t aspects o f w rath
in th e m a n n e r o f Rom 1:18– 32.
7 pr\ ow ytveode ovpperoxoi amCov, “th ere fo re do no t becom e p artn e rs with
th em .” T h e co n ten t o f this fresh prohibition m akes explicit th e assum ption
b eh in d th e preced ing verses, nam ely, th at th e antithesis betw een the believing
read ers an d im m oral persons a ro u n d them is one which m ust rem ain. By
m eans o f th e ovv, “th ere fo re ,” the prohibition also builds on vv 5, 6 . Since
th e consequences fo r the im m oral are so severe, the readers are n o t to becom e
p artn e rs with them . aw Q v, “with th em ,” is to be taken as a referen ce to people
ra th e r th an vices (cf. M eyer, 270; A bbott, 152; Schlier, 236; S chnackenburg,
226; contra Gnilka, 250; Ernst, 374, is undecided), an d “the disobedient” is
the m ost im m ediate an teced en t (contra B ratch er an d N ida, Handbook, 129, who
o p t fo r those attem p tin g to deceive the readers, an d B arth, 567, who thinks
errin g ch u rch m em bers are involved), ovpperoxos occurs in th e N T only h ere
an d in 3:6, an d in both places has the connotation o f intim ate involvem ent
an d participation with the o th e r party. It is n o t possible for th e readers to be
sharers with Jew ish C hristians in the prom ise in C hrist Jesu s th ro u g h the
gospel (cf. 3:6) an d at the sam e tim e to be sharers with im m oral Gentiles (cf.
also J . A. R obinson, 200; B ruce, Epistles, 373). How fa r is th e separation u rg e d
u p o n th e read ers to be taken? S hould it lead to th e radical separatism on th e
p art o f th e com m unity reflected in the Q u m ra n w ritings (cf. IQ S 1.4, 5; 5.10, IT,
CD 6.14, 15)? T h e closest parallel in the Pauline corpus is 2 C or 6:14–7:1,
which has links with the Q u m ra n m aterial b u t which is suspected o f being an
interp o latio n an d n o n -Pauline (on these issues, see m ost recently V. P. F urnish,
2 Corinthians [New York: D oubleday, 1984] 3 7 1–83; R. P. M artin, 2 Corinthians
[Waco, TX: W ord, 1986] 190– 95). T h e context h ere in E phesians m akes clear
th at w hat is involved is n o t a general distancing from all aspects o f life in the
G entile world b u t in particular a separation from its im m oral aspects. T h e
readers are n o t to becom e p artn e rs with disobedient G entiles in th eir sins
an d thereby also in the ju d g m e n t th at will com e on them .
8 – 10 fire yäp irore okötos, pvv 8e 0 co? ev Kupicp- cos reuva 0 corös TTeptnarelTe,
“fo r once you w ere darkness, b u t now you are light in the L ord; live as children
o f light.” A m ore positive reason fo r n o t jo in in g in with the disobedient is
now adduced— th e change th at took place in the readers because o f th eir conver-
sion-initiation. T h e connecting yäp gro u n d s the previous prohibition b u t also
introduces the im agery which dom inates the rest o f the pericope. T h e com bina-
tion o f the 7rore . . . vvv contrast schem a (cf. 2:1– 10; 2:11– 22) an d th e im agery
o f darkness an d light suggest th at baptism al paraenesis is being em ployed,
which at th e sam e tim e as re m in d in g the readers o f th eir conversion also
draw s im plications for th eir p resen t attitu d e to the world. Im ages o f darkness
an d light occur frequently in connection with conversion (e.g., Joseph a n d Asenath
8.10; 15.13; Philo, De Virt. 179; Acts 26:18; Col 1:12, 13; 1 Pet 2:9; Odes Sol.
14.18, 19; cf. also H eb 6:4; 10:32). A lready in the O T , light can stand for
 Comment 327

th e life o f God an d the salvation th at comes from G od (e.g., Ps 27:1; Isa 9:2;
10:17; 42:6, 16; 49:6; 51:4; 60:1), while darkness stands fo r death, Sheol, an d
G od’s ju d g m e n t (e.g., Ps 49:19; Isa 5:30; 9:2; 47:5; 59:9; 60:2). In th e Q u m ra n
literatu re, o f course, this im agery is freq u en t an d depicts two ways o f life in
relationship to God, no t only in 1QM with its “W ar o f the Sons o f Light
against th e Sons o f D arkness” (cf. 1.1– 16; 3.6, 9; 13.16; 14.17) b u t also in IQ S
1.9, 10; 3.13, 19– 2 1 ,2 4 ,2 5 (cf. K. G. K uhn, “T h e Epistle to the E phesians,”
esp. 122– 24). A sim ilar ethical dualism o f light an d darkness is fo u n d in The
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (“C hoose fo r yourselves light o r darkness,
th e law o f th e L ord o r the works o f B eliar,” T. Levi 19.1; cf. also 14.4; T.
Benj. 5.3). In th e N T , the Jo h a n n in e w ritings m ake particular use o f this im agery
(cf. 1:4, 5, 7– 9; 3:19– 21; 8:12; 9:5; 1 2 :3 5 ,3 6 ,4 6 ; 1 J o h n 1:5; 2:8), while in
Paul it occurs in 1 T hess 5:5; 2 C or 4 :4 ,6 ; 6:14; Rom 13:12, 13 an d Col
1:12, 13. (For fu rth e r discussion cf. S. A alen, Die Begriffe ‘L icht’ und ‘Finsternis’
im Alten Testament, im Spätjudentum und in Rabbinismus [Oslo: I. K om m isjon
Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1951]; R. B ultm ann, “Z ur Geschichte d e r Lichtsym bolik
im A ltertu m ,” Philologus 97 [1948] 1– 36; L. R. Stachiowak, “Die A ntithese
Licht-Finsternis: Ein T h em a d e r paulinischen P aränese,” TQ 143 [1963] 385–
421.) Ideas an d form ulations from Q u m ra n m ay well have influenced C hristian
baptism al paraenesis at an early stage, an d paraenesis colored in this way appears
to have been taken u p in 2 C or 6:14 – 7:1 an d here in Ephesians. In Ephesians,
darkness already represents ignorance (cf. 4:18), an d now in this context it
rep resen ts the im m orality th at has ju s t been described, while light represents
tru th an d know ledge (cf. 1:18) an d now holiness. B ut w hat is striking is that
people are n o t m erely depicted as being in the realm s o f darkness o r light
b u t as them selves actually being darkness o r light. T hose governed by the
dom inion o f darkness o r light re p resen t th at dom inion in th eir own persons
(pace E n g b erg-P edersen, Z N W 80 [1989] 102, th ere is no reason, how ever, to
identify darkness an d light with in n er m ental attitudes). So the readers are
n ot ju s t su rro u n d e d by the light b u t are identified with it. T hey have becom e
identified with th e light because o f th eir identification with Christ. In the Q u m -
ra n writings, a rigorous acceptance o f the law separated the sons o f light from
the sons o f darkness. In Ephesians, it is being “in the L o rd ” (cf. also 2:21;
4:1, 17; 6:1, 10) th at distinguishes light from darkness. Elsew here in the Pauline
corpus th ere is a general tendency for ev Kvpicp, in com parison with ev Xptarcp,
to be used in paraenetic contexts to re fer to w hat believers are to becom e or
to do in relationship to C hrist (cf. M. B outtier, En Christ [Paris: Presses U niversi-
taires, 1962] 54–61; C. F. D. M oule, The Origin of Christology [C am bridge: CUP,
1977] 58– 60). H ere, th o u g h in a paraenetic context, it refers to the indicative
o f w hat believers are in relation to C hrist. T h e im perative follows in the next
clause. If th e readers are light, th en they are to walk o r live (cf. 2:2, 1 0 ; 4 : 1 , 17;
5 :2 ) as children o f light, a designation which contrasts with “the sons o f disobedi-
ence” in v 6 . T h e ir behavior is to conform to th eir identity. As at Q u m ran ,
th e light-darkness dualism in Ephesians concerns two ways o f life an d differs
from th e substantial dualism o f later Gnosticism with its notion o f the re tu rn
o f the soul to its original existence in the transcendental realm o f light.
6 yäp Kapms rot) 0 cjto<? ev naoxi ayadoxiwxi Kai biKxuoovvxi Kai akrjdelqL, “for
the fru it o f light consists in all goodness, righteousness, an d tru th .” T his p a re n -
328 E p h e s ia n s 5 :3 – 14

thesis o f v 9 with its triad o f general virtues elaborates o n w hat it m eans to

live as children o f light. L ight is seen as a fertile pow er which produces fruit.
T h e fru it o f light is the equivalent to w hat Gal 5:22 calls the fru it o f th e
Spirit (cf. also Phil 1:11 – the fru it o f righteousness) an d stands over against
th e fruitless deeds o r works o f darkness o f v 11, as th e fru it o f th e Spirit
stands over against the works o f the flesh in Gal 5:19. T h e list o f th e th ree
virtues which m ake u p th e fru it o f light has som e parallels in th e O T a n d in
th e Q u m ra n writings. 2 C h ro n 31:20 describes H ezekiah as doing “w hat was
good an d rig h t an d faithful before the L ord his G od”; Mic 6 : 8 talks o f doing
good, justice, an d steadfast love; an d IQ S 1.5 has the w ording “th at they
may . . . hold fast to all good; th at they m ay practice tru th , righteousness,
an d ju stice u p o n e a rth ” (cf. also IQ S 8.2). M oral goodness can be described
as virtue in general by Philo (cf. Leg. Alleg. 1.163) an d is listed by Paul as
am o n g th e fru it o f the Spirit in Gal 5:22 (cf. also Rom 15:14; 2 T hess 1:11).
Col 1:10 spoke ab out “bearing fru it in every good w ork,” while earlier in
E phesians th ere has been m ention o f the good works for which believers have
been created in C hrist Jesus (2:10). R ighteousness involves doing rig h t in rela-
tion to both God an d hum anity (see Comment on 4:24; cf. also 6:14). T ru th
has been m en tioned with a broad m eaning in 4:21, 24 an d in a reference to
speaking th e tru th in 4:25. H ere, in the light o f the O T parallels to the triad
an d o f th e Q u m ra n background, it m ay well have the force th a t J1T3K, ’emet,
frequently has, nam ely, “faithfulness” o r “loyalty” (cf. also J. M u rp h y-O ’C onnor,
“T ru th : Paul an d Q u m ra n ,” in Paul and Qumran, 202– 5). Each o f these th ree
virtues is very general in its range an d could in fact stand for the whole o f
th e C hristian life (cf. J. T hom as, “Form gesetze des B egriffs-Katalogs im N T ,”
TZ 24 [1968] 18– 19).
öoKinä$ovT€<; TL eonv eväpeoTöv rep Kvpicp, “discovering w hat is pleasing to
th e L o rd .” öoKi/udfopres, “discovering,” is taken in this translation as a participle
which fu rth e r defines the walking as children o f light called fo r in v 8 , ra th e r
th a n as a separate im perative. T h e verb 5oja/udfeu> has the force o f testing o r
finding o u t in th e circum stances th e ethically rig h t course o f action. It was an
im p o rtan t term in Stoic ethics, w here the testing was according to reason (cf.
esp. Epictetus, Diss. 1.20.7; 2.23.6, 8 ; 4.5.16; 4.6.13; 4.7.40). In Paul, the term
is fo u n d in 1 T hess 5:21; Phil 1:9, 10; an d Rom 12:2, which has o th e r linguistic
links with this passage—“discovering w hat is the will o f God, w hat is good [ro
ayadov], an d acceptable o r pleasing [evapeorov].” Previously, in Rom 2:18, Paul
h ad spoken o f th e Jew s as know ing G od’s will an d app ro v in g o r discovering
w hat is excellent because o f th eir instruction in the law. W hen the Q u m ra n
literatu re m entions seeking G od’s will, it refers to re tu rn in g to every co m m an d -
m en t o f the law o f Moses (cf. IQ S 5.9). B ut Paul holds th at believers are able
to discover th e will o f G od in the concrete situations they face, as they place
th eir whole beings at G od’s disposal. C ullm ann (Christ and Time [London: SCM,
1962] 228–29) stresses the significance o f this term : “T h e w orking o f the Holy
Spirit shows itself in the testing (doKißäfav), th at is in the capacity o f form ing
th e correct C hristian ethical ju d g m e n t at each given m om ent. . . . T his ‘testing’
is th e key o f all New T estam en t ethics.” In the Pauline tradition, th en , the
testing is according to the will o f God, now revealed m ost fully in C hrist.
H ere, th a t notion is form ulated in term s o f “w hat is pleasing to th e L o rd .”
 Comment 329

Because the readers are light in the L ord, they will w ant to discover w hat
pleases th eir Lord. T h e idea o f pleasing God o r the L ord is fo u n d frequently
in the LXX (e.g., G en 5:22, 24; 6:9; Sir 44:16) an d as the goal an d m otivation
o f C hristian living in Paul (cf. Rom 12:2; 14:18; 2 C or 5:9; Phil 4:18; Col
3:20). If the read ers’ m otivation is to please th eir Lord, th en living as children
o f light will involve exercising a responsible freedom an d developing an intuitive
sense ab out how to act in a given situation.
1 1 ,1 2 Kai iii] GVjKOtvcovelre rot? ep7 0 i? rot? d/cdp7rot? rod o kotovs, päXkov 6 e
feat e \e 7 xere, “A nd do not take p a rt in the fruitless deeds o f darkness, but
ra th e r expose th em .” It is now u n d erlin ed th at living as children o f light (v
8 ) n ot only involves p roducing the fru it o f light (v 9) b u t also, since light and
darkness are incom patible, inevitably excludes participation in the fruitless
deeds o f darkness. It also becom es clear th at “do n o t becom e p artn e rs with
th em ” in v 7 refers to taking p art in the vices o f the disobedient. By nam ing
these vices “fruitless deeds o f darkness” (cf. also Rom 13:12) in contrast to
the virtues which are the fru it o f light, the w riter shows his aw areness th at
darkness also produces, b u t produces only “works” (epya; cf. Gal 5:19, “works
o f the flesh”) which are sterile, lacking direction, an d futile (cf. M ark 4:19;
T itus 3:14; 2 Pet 1:8; J u d e 12). In o th er words, darkness spreads only darkness.
It could be th at ju s t as the reference o f light alternates betw een the sphere
o f pow er an d those who re p resen t it, so also darkness here stands no t m erely
for th e realm b u t also for those who re p resen t it an d who p erfo rm the fruitless
deeds. A fter all, th e w riter has previously said th at the readers w ere darkness
(cf. th e observations above about the personal focus o f th e im agery o f v 8 )
an d will go on to speak in personal term s in v 1 2 o f w hat is do n e by them (cf.
S chnackenburg, 230). In any case, the readers are not to engage in deeds o f
darkness b u t are to expose them .
O f the ran g e o f m eanings th at eXeyxeiv can have, such as “to convict,” “to
rep ro v e,” “to discipline,” in this sentence it is the m eaning o f “to expose”
th at is m ost ap p ro p riate (cf. BAGD 249). E n g b erg-P edersen (ZN W 80 [1989]
95 – 101) criticizes B auer for placing this m eaning first on his list, alth o u g h he
adm its th at it is a sense th at eheyxeiv acquired. E n g b erg-P edersen prefers to
em phasize the core m eaning o f the verb as “confro n tin g som ebody o r som ething
with the aim o f showing him o r it to be, in som e determ in ate respect, at
fau lt.” H e claims th at the two crucial factors in its use are “th at th ere is a
question as to w h ether some person o r th in g conform s to som e stan d ard o f
rightness an d w rongness an d th at the person o r th in g is being directly con-
fro n ted (as opposed to being allowed to pass unnoticed) by som e o th er person
o r th in g in such a way th at the answ er to the question becom es clear.” In
this context, however, w here the object o f th e verb is n o t n am ed in the G reek
text b u t should be assum ed to be the deeds m en tio n ed in the previous clause,
an d w here these deeds will be said to have been done in secret, to co n fro n t
them in such a way as to show th eir w rongness is the sam e as to expose them .
T h a t th e object o f the verb is the fruitless deeds o f darkness also m akes it
less likely th at eXeyxew should be taken as a reference to verbal re p ro o f o r
rebuke on analogy with LXX Lev 19:17; Sir 19:13– 17 a n d passages in the
Q u m ra n literatu re such as IQ S 5.24, 26; CD 7.2; 9.8; 20.4 which speak o f
rep ro v in g a n eighbor o r m em ber o f the com m unity. Because o f the Q u m ra n
330 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 3 – 14

texts an d because the im perative o f eXeyxnv is frequently used in the N T fo r

ad m onishing m em bers o f the C hristian com m unity (cf. M att 18:15 – 17; 1 T im
5:20; 2 T im 4:2; T itus 1:9, 13; Rev 3:19), G nilka (255– 56, followed by H alter,
Taufe, 276) claims th at the reference h ere is to th e correction a n d rebuke o f
fellow believers who fall into sin. B ut this does no t fit the use o f th e darkness
im agery an d th e arg u m e n t o f the passage to this point, which has been with
referen ce to th e sins o f outsiders (cf. also E rnst, 375– 76; S chnackenburg, 230 n.
559; E n g b erg-P edersen Z N W 80 [1989] 90– 91). P aul’s discussion in 1 C or
14:24, 25, which uses vocabulary sim ilar to th a t em ployed h ere in o rd e r to
speak ab o u t som eone who is convicted a n d whose secrets becom e illum ined
o r revealed, refers to an outsider, an d in Jo h n 16:8 it is th e unbelieving w orld
th at the Paraclete convicts ab o u t siri. K. G. K uhn (“T h e Epistle to the E phesians,”
124–31) takes E ph 5:11 as re q u irin g a verbal sum m ons to the sin n er to be
converted. B ut Prov 9:7; 15:12; IQ S 9.16 w arn against verbal correction o f
outsiders. As we have seen, it is m ore likely th at eXeyxeiv refers to exposure
o f th e sin n er’s deeds, an d that, since v 1 2 discourages even speaking ab o u t
such deeds, this exposure is m ean t to take place th ro u g h th e re ad ers’ behavior.
As they refuse to jo in in evil actions an d display a d ifferen t quality o f life,
they cast th eir illum inating beam into th e d ark recesses o f th e su rro u n d in g
society an d will invariably show u p its im m oral practices fo r w hat they are.
rd yap icpvQfj yivopeva m ainCbv aioxpov eonv Kai Xeyeiv, “fo r it is sham eful
even to speak o f w hat is done by them in secret.” A fu rth e r reason is given
(cf. 7 dp) for bo th th e positive an d the negative aspects o f the previous ex h o rtatio n
o f v 11. T h e deeds o f darkness are so a b h o rre n t th at it is sham eful even to
speak o f them . T h ey are described as “w hat is d o n e in secret.” T his refers to
th e sam e sexual vices th at have been discussed earlier, an d th ere is no reason
fo r th in k in g th at the expression has som e special connection with libertine
rites at m ystery cults (pace Schlier, 239). inf avrCbv, “by th em ,” is to be u n d ersto o d
in term s o f those who belong to th e darkness th a t has been m en tio n ed in
v 11 (cf. also BDF § 282 [2]), w ho are the sam e as th e disobedient o f vv 6 , 7.
T h e ir activities are no t even to be m en tio n ed (cf. v 3; cf. also Philo, De Op.
Mund. 80, fo r a sim ilar way o f u n d erlin in g wickedness). Instead, th e light
m ust simply be allowed to have its effect o f exposure a n d illum ination. T h e re
is no n eed to im p o rt into the arg u m e n t at this p o in t th e notion th a t th e h id d en
deeds retain a d an g erous attraction fo r believers (pace E n g b erg-P edersen, Z N W
80 [1989] 102). T h e focus o f the passage is on w hat light does to th e d ark
deeds o f unbelievers, not on how it can fortify believers against th eir in n e r
inclination tow ard such deeds (pace E n g b erg-P edersen, Z N W 80 [1989] 103).
1 3 ,14a rd 5e navra eXeyxopeva imo rod 0coros (jxwepovrai, nav yap to
(txwepovpevov eonv, “B ut everything exposed becom es illum ined by the
light, fo r everything th at becom es illum ined is light.” T h e force o f these asser-
tions in su p p o rt o f the w riter’s exhortation is n o t im m ediately obvious, a n d
they have given rise to a n u m b er o f d ifferen t in terp retatio n s. Som e clarity is
achieved, how ever, if it is seen th at th e m ovem ent o f th o u g h t progresses from
th e no tio n o f exposure, taken u p from v 1 1 , th ro u g h th at o f illum ination by
th e light to a concentration on the light itself, vito tov 0cjt6?, “by th e light,”
could be taken eith er with eXeyxopeva, “exposed” (cf. A bbott, 155; J. A. R obin-
son, 201; W estcott, 79; Gnilka, 258 n. 1; B ratcher a n d N ida, Handbook, 132), o r
 Comment 331

f/xwepovrai, “becomes illum ined” (cf. M eyer, 275; Schlier, 239; B arth, 572; Ernst,
376; M ussner, 145; Schnackenburg, 231). T his m akes little substantial difference
to the sense, b u t it may well be th at since light is not explicitly m entioned
with the notion o f exposure in v 1 1 , it does no t accom pany th a t idea w hen it
is fo u n d again in v 13 bu t awaits the introduction o f th e concept o f becom ing
visible o r illum ined. O n this construction also, a m ove is m ore easily m ade
from light as a reference to believers, which it has been u p to this point in
the passage, to light as a reference to C hrist, which it becom es in v 14b. CD
20.3– 5 com bines the notions o f being exposed an d being revealed, as does
J o h n 3:19– 21, which talks, on the one h and, o f the failure o f the person in
darkness to com e to the light lest his deeds be exposed (tva pr} ekeyxdfl ra
epya avrov) but, on the other, o f the one who does the tru th com ing to the
light in o rd e r th at his deeds m ight be revealed for w hat they are (iva 0 ai>epco0 f)
avrov ra epya). Light in this latter passage has both negative an d positive effects.
Negatively, it exposes evil, an d positively, it illum ines good. Similarly, in reg ard
to v 13 here, J . A. R obinson (200– 201) argues th at “since ekeyxeodai and
<pavepovadai are a p p ro p riate respectively to the evil an d the good . . . , the
transform ation o f the one into the o th e r is m arked by the change o f the verbs.”
T h e process by which darkness is transform ed into light is spelled out. As
the children o f light expose the deeds o f darkness by th eir living, so w hat is
exposed itself becom es illum ined by the sp h ere o f light. In fact, as the fu rth e r
explanation asserts, w hatever becom es illum ined in this way is th en itself p art
o f the sphere o f light. T h e participle (/xivepovpevov is taken as passive in line
with the verb in the first clause, ra th e r th an as m iddle with active force. T h e
force o f the m iddle, an assertion th at “w hatever reveals o r illum ines is light”
(cf. Abbott, 156), w ould be, as M oule (Idiom-Book, 25) says, “a not very illum inat-
ing rem ark !” T h e exposure carried o u t th ro u g h believers’ lives enables others
to see the n atu re o f th eir deeds an d resp o n d to the light in such a way th at
they are them selves light (cf. Schlier, 239–40; pace S chnackenburg, 232, who
holds th at this is an o v erinterpretation o f v 14a). T his is a transform ation the
readers h ad them selves experienced. As v 8 p u t it, “once you w ere darkness,
b u t now you are light in the L ord.” J. B. Phillips’ version brings o u t this
force well: “It is even possible (after all, it h a p p e n e d with you!) for light to
tu rn th e th in g it shines u p o n into light also.” T h e citation th at follows rem inds
the read ers o f th eir experience.
14b &o Xeyei, "Eyetpe, 6 Kadevöcov, Kai äväxjra ck tCjv veKpCov, Kai emc/xivoei
oot ö Xpiarös, “T h erefo re it is said, ‘Awake, O sleeper, an d rise from the dead,
an d C hrist will shine u p o n you.’ ” T h e lines from th e baptism al hym n rem ind
the readers o f the sum m ons an d prom ise they received at baptism . O n the
form an d origin o f these lines, see the discussion u n d e r Form/Structure/Setting.
T h e in troductory form ula öiö Xeyei, “th erefo re it is said,” is used w ith a Scripture
citation in E ph 4:8 (cf. also Jas 4:6). Its em ploym ent h ere presum ably indicates
th at fo r the w riter the C hristian liturgical m aterial, from which his citation
was in all probability taken, was also an authoritative tradition which could
provide forceful su p p o rt for his exhortation. T h e 5i6 , “th ere fo re ,” provides a
link m ost im m ediately with v 14a b u t also with v 8 , which began the w riter’s
train o f th o u g h t here. A ttem pts have been m ade to explain the contents o f
the lines from a n u m b er o f possible backgrounds. Some look to th e m ystery
332 E p h e s ia n s 5:3–14

religions, w here th ere was often a call to aw aken issued to the initiate (cf.
A ristophanes, Ranae 340– 42; Orph. Hymn. 50.90; cf., e.g., Fischer, Tendenz, 142–
4 4 , who has to attem p t a hypothetical reconstruction o f initiation in a m ystery
cult in o rd e r to provide the analogy according to which the baptism al call
h ere in E phesians would have been form ed). O th ers have claim ed the hym nic
frag m en t is to be u n d ersto o d in the light o f Gnostic th o u g h t, instancing the
second stro p h e o f a Z arathustra song in a T u rfa n frag m en t an d the “H ym n
o f the P earl” in Acts of Thomas 110.43– 48 (cf. R. R eitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-
Religions, tr. J. E. Steely [Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978] 58; P okorný, Der
Epheserbrief 119; L indem ann, Aufhebung, 234 n. 167). B ut n o th in g in th e th ree
lines d em an d s th at th eir fram ew ork be the call for the spark o f light in the
soul to aw aken o u t o f its d ru n k e n sleep o f being in the m aterial w orld a n d to
rem em b er its im m ortal heavenly hom e. It is early C hristianity’s heritage in
th e O T an d early Ju d aism that, in fact, provides th e background fo r u n d e rsta n d -
ing n o t only this im age b u t also the o th e r m ajor aspects o f the citation. 1QH
3.19–21 contains im agery about being rescued from the d ea th o f sin. Sleep
was o f course a euphem istic im age for physical d eath (e.g., J o b 14:12), an d
in Pss. Sol. 16.1– 4 both sleep an d d eath stand for sin an d its consequences
(cf. also K. G. K uhn, “T h e Epistle to the E phesians,” 126– 30). T his is tru e in
Paul also, w here sleep is the condition o f forgetfulness an d d ru n k en n ess which
is p a rt o f belonging to th e sinful darkness (cf. 1 T hess 5:5– 8; Rom 13:11–14)
an d w here baptism is a rising from the d eath o f sin (Rom 6:13; cf. 6:4). E p h e-
sians’ own perspective on the im agery o f d ea th as h u m an ity ’s situation o f sin
(cf. 2:1, 5; cf. also Col 2:13) should surely be decisive in favor o f this sort o f
in terp retatio n . T h e association o f C hrist with a shining light can be seen to
have its b ackground in the use o f this im age fo r Yahweh com ing to save o r
help his people (cf. D eut 33:2; Ps 50:2; 80:1– 3, 7, 19 – the rep etitio n o f “let
your face shine, th at we may be saved!”; 1QH 4.5, 6 , 23; 9.31; CD 20.25, 26;
T. Zeb. 9.8) an d in its application to the M essiah (cf. T. Levi 18.2– 4; T. Jud.
24.1). C hrist is depicted as a shining light elsew here in the N T (e.g., Luke
2:32; J o h n 1:4, 5, 9; 3:19– 21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; Rev 1:16) an d in early C hristian-
ity (cf. esp. Odes Sol. 15.2, “Because he is my sun, an d his rays have restored
me; an d his light has dism issed all darkness from my face”; for extensive
discussion o f th e symbol o f light with reference to C hrist in early C hristianity,
see D ölger, Sol Salutis, 342– 410).
T h ese w ords h ea rd at th eir baptism function now to rem in d th e readers
o f the pow er o f the light, o f the transform ation to th eir new status th at has
taken place, a n d o f its ethical im plications. Given th e w riter’s earlier em phasis
in this letter on G od’s gracious sovereignty in th e accom plishm ent o f salvation,
it m ay well be th at the call o f the first two lines should now be u n d ersto o d
n o t simply as issuing from the congregation to th e newly baptized convert
b u t as echoing G od’s call. T h e ir baptism , th en , signified a m ovem ent from
th e sleep o f spiritual death into the light o f life in response to th e divine call.
B oth divine initiative an d h u m an effort are re p resen te d in th eir conversion-
initiation according to these lines. T h e re was the call th a t broke in u p o n them
in th e first place, dem an d in g a response (cf. also 1:18; 4:1); th ere was the
response o f tu rn in g away from the sleep an d d eath o f the old life; an d th ere
was th e gracious an d pow erful light o f C hrist th at cam e to th em in th a t response.
 Explanation 333

P erhaps in relation to the previous verses, the first two aspects are w hat takes
place as the light does its w ork o f exposure, while th e th ird corresponds to
its work o f illum ination. In any case, in ro u n d in g o ff this section o f exhortation,
th e lines are m ean t to have the effect o f stren g th en in g the re ad ers’ confidence
in th e pow er o f the light an d th eir determ in atio n to live o u t o f th at power.

Explanation

T h e previous section o f the letter h ad singled o u t seven topics on which to

ex h o rt the readers about how the difference betw een th e old life an d the
new should com e to expression in th eir speech an d conduct. Now the contrast
is n o t so m uch betw een the old an d the new as, in sim ilar fashion to 4:17–
21, betw een the believing com m unity an d sinful outsiders. T h e stark contrast
has to do first with m atters o f sexual m orality. T h e n its black an d white n atu re
is ap propriately rep resen ted in the symbols o f darkness an d light.
T h e paraenesis falls into two parts. Verses 3– 6, which m ake use o f lists o f
vices an d those who p erp etrate them , are prim arily d ark in tone, dom inated
by prohibitions an d w arnings o f ju d g m en t. T h o u g h v 7 m akes the bridge
into the second p art with a n o th er prohibition, draw ing o u t the consequences
o f the previous verses, vv 7– 14 as a whole with th eir contrast schem a, list o f
virtues, an d citation o f a hym n fragm ent becom e m ore an d m ore positive, so
th at th eir d o m in an t tone is light. T h e first p art is prim arily d ep e n d en t on
Col 3 :5–8, while the contrast betw een light an d darkness o f the second p art
develops m ore extensively im agery Paul had already em ployed in his ethical
exhortations.
In vv 3, 4 the w riter stresses th at sexual im m orality is totally alien to the
C hristian way o f life by prohibiting even the m ention o f any form o f im purity.
For those who are called to be holy, w hat is ap p ro p riate is a radical distancing
from the gross sensuality an d sexual greed o f the su rro u n d in g world. T h e ir
conversation is to be distinctive an d to avoid obscenity an d foolish talk an d
coarse jo k in g ab out sex. T h e one positive note in these verses is struck at the
end, w here thanksgiving is contrasted with the preceding vices an d enjoined
as the essential characteristic o f C hristian speech. Instead o f the self-cen tered -
ness which characterizes sexual im purity, thanksgiving em bodies a recognition
o f the C reato r an d his goodness. Tw o w arnings, which are m ean t to provide
m otivation to take note o f the prohibitions, follow in vv 5, 6 . F ornicators an d
im p u re an d covetous persons are excluded from the kingdom o f C hrist an d
God. In fact, such disobedient outsiders will also experience the w rath o f God.
No one, therefo re, should be m isled by those who claim th at o n e ’s sexual
activities are a m atter o f indifference. Such a claim could n o t be fu rth e r from
the tru th , for G od’s ju d g m e n t will fall on all sinful conduct. In v 5 in line
with traditional Jew ish th o u g h t, the sexually covetous person is deem ed an
idolater. T his underlines why thanksgiving has been p resen ted as the contrasting
virtue. Instead o f the latter’s recognition o f the C reato r at the center o f life,
the idolatry o f sexual lust m akes som e o th e r desired object suprem e.
T h e w riter sum s u p the significance o f his prohibitions an d o f the im plications
o f his w arnings as he urges his readers n o t to becom e p artn e rs with disobedient
G entile outsiders in th eir sinful activities (v 7). T his tim e th e prohibition is
334 E p h e s ia n s 5:3–14

backed by a re m in d e r o f the change th a t has taken place in the re ad ers’ lives

(v 8 ). O nce they were identified with th e dom inion o f darkness, b u t now th ro u g h
th eir relationship to th eir L ord they have becom e identified with th a t o f the
light. T o becom e involved in im m orality w ould be a total contradiction o f
everything th e readers now are because o f th eir baptism . T h e im plication o f
this change o f identity is now p u t positively. If the readers are light, th e n
they are to live as children o f light. W hat th a t involves is first indicated in v 9
by m eans o f a triad o f virtues— goodness, righteousness, an d tru th —which
are depicted as light’s fruit, th e ethical outcom e o f its pow er. B ut since the
change in the read ers’ identity was also a change o f dom inions (they becam e
light in the Lord), living as children o f light will also m ean discovering in the
specific situations they face w hat pleases th eir L ord (v 10). T h e old dom inion
o f darkness was sterile in its effects, an d so w hat is absolutely clear is th at
living as children o f light will exclude participation in the fruitless deeds o f
darkness. Instead, an d m ore positively, it will m ean exposing by a contrasting
quality o f life such secretly executed deeds, o f which it is sham eful even to
speak (vv 11, 12). W hat is exposed in this fashion, in fact, becom es illum ined
by th e light o f the C hristian sphere o f living. W hat is m ore, w hatever becom es
revealed o r lit u p is th en p art o f the realm o f light (vv 13, 14a). T h e readers
o u g h t to know this, because, as the w riter now rem inds them by his citation
from a baptism al hym n (v 14b), they them selves h ad experienced th e light in
ju s t such a way. B aptism h ad involved th eir w aking o u t o f th e sleep o f the
old life, th eir rising from the d ea th o f sin, as the light o f C hrist shone on
them . T h ey should be assured th a t the light th a t h ad tran sfo rm ed th eir darkness
h ad lost n o n e o f its power.
W hat specifically constitutes C hristian behavior according to this passage?
Negatively, it will be characterized by the absence o f any talk ab o u t fornication
o r sexual im purity, any dirty jokes o r sexual in n u en d o , let alone any participation
in im m oral acts. Positively, it will m ean thanksgiving, goodness, righteousness,
tru th , discovering w hat is pleasing to th e L ord, an d exposing sinful activity.
T h e w arrants fo r exhortation to this p a tte rn o f life can be as general as “w hat
is fitting” (v 4), b u t this should be in te rp re te d in the light o f th e m ore specifically
C hristian m otivation, “as befits saints,” to be w hat is ap p ro p ria te for those
called to be holy (v 3). O th e r aspects o f th e fram ew ork o f m otivations include
ju d g m e n t (exclusion from the kingdom o f C hrist an d G od an d experience o f
th e w rath o f God), believers’ change o f status th ro u g h th eir conversion-initiation
an d th e ethical im plications this carries, an d assurance ab o u t the pow er o f
th e light an d its source, Christ.
It can be seen th at E ph 5:3 – 14 reflects the early C hristian concern ab o u t
the use o f language th at has already been p ro m in en t in 4:25–5:2. T h a t sexual
im m orality should no t even be a subject o f conversation am ong believers is
asserted twice (cf. vv 3, 12). In fact, in vv 3 ,4 sexual vices are condem ned
an d the virtue o f thanksgiving is recom m ended, b u t all at one rem ove th ro u g h
th e topic o f speech about these m atters. T h e w riter attaches significance to
the spoken w ord as a key elem ent in the sequence— th o u g h t, speech, action—
believing th at talking about sexual sins prom otes an ethos w hich will be to leran t
o f th eir practice. For the contem porary read er, how ever, n o t even m entioning
sexual vices m ight well be th o u g h t p ru d ish a n d at odds with th e honesty an d
openness ab o u t sexual m atters th at are nowadays considered virtues.
 Explanation 335

B ut the light an d darkness im agery suggest the uncom prom ising n a tu re o f

this w riter’s ethical dem ands. T h e re ap pears to be no room for shady gray
areas. T h e d ifferen t references o f his use o f the im age o f light in this passage
can p erh ap s be com bined in an overall picture. C hrist, as the cen ter o f G od’s
sp h ere o f influence, beam s o u t its light on the darkness o f this world, like a
spotlight playing on the stage o f a d ark en ed theater. Believers stand in the
beam an d becom e identified with an d live in its light. As they do so, the light
is reflected off them , showing u p the darkness aro u n d . As they see the light
reflected, some who sit in darkness choose to e n te r the light. In this way, the
beam o f light extends its influence, b u t th e edge o f its circle o f light rem ains
clearly defined. T h e draw ing o f specific b o u ndaries betw een the C h u rch and
the world is a task th at each generation o f C hristians has to p erfo rm for its
own tim e an d place, b u t if continuity with the perspective o f this w riter is to
be retained, the light o f the gospel o f C hrist, ra th e r th a n the gloom o f the
w orld’s values, will always be m ade the determ inative factor in such an endeavor.
Again believers an d th eir conduct, this tim e especially vis-à–vis the outside
world, are the cen ter o f attention in the section. B ut the w riter’s theological
a n d Christological perspectives on h u m an action are not to be missed. It is
the theological th at predom inates in the first p a rt o f the passage, w here the
contrast betw een thanksgiving, on the one hand , an d covetousness o r idolatry,
on th e o th er, recalls the basic structures o f the C reator-creatu re relationship,
an d w here th e notion o f G od’s ju d g m e n t on disobedience is invoked. Even
here, how ever, the kingdom from which im m oral people will be excluded is
said to be th at o f both C hrist an d God. In the second p a rt o f the section,
with its darkness an d light im agery, it is the Christological th at is to the fore.
C hrist as L ord is at the center o f the dom inion o f light. H e can be seen as
the source o f its light—“C hrist will shine u p o n you.” It is he who determ ines
believers’ status—they are “light in the L o rd ”—an d it is w hat m eets with his
approval th at determ ines th eir conduct—“w hat is pleasing to the L o rd .”
T his paraenetic m aterial functions prim arily to give the readers a clearer
sense o f th eir own identity by draw ing sharply defined boundaries, especially
in reg ard to sexual purity, betw een th eir life an d behavior an d those o f the
su rro u n d in g society. T h e w riter wants his readers to realize th at the C hurch
is to live by values as radically opposed to th at society’s values as light is opposed
to an d incom patible with darkness. Yet it is interesting to note th at this clear
sense o f being d ifferent from others is no t m ean t to lead the C hurch into
isolationism o r defeatism in relation to the world. R ath er th a n being co rru p ted
by th e su rro u n d in g darkness, believers are u rg e d to exercise th eir influence
on it. T h e readers are to be n o th in g less th an a com m unity whose conduct
shines as a beacon to others, illum inating how life should be lived. Indeed,
the w riter suggests in vv 11– 14 th at as the C h u rch in the m idst o f society is
tru e to its own distinct identity as the light, so th at light is able to transform
the darkness aro u n d it. In its conflict with th e light, the darkness cannot ulti-
m ately prevail, since the light has the risen C hrist as its source. T his optim istic
note is in line with the letter’s universal hopes. Yet if the C h u rch has some
sort o f m issionary role in this passage, it is not th ro u g h proclam ation by w ord
b u t th ro u g h its very existence as the sphere o f light (cf. also 3:10).
T h e conflict betw een light an d darkness will em erge again later as believers
are depicted in battle against the pow ers o f darkness (6 : 1 2 ), an d in th at sam e
336 E p h e s ia n s 5:3 – 14

section o f exh o rtation the qualities o f tru th an d righteousness will again be

singled o u t, this tim e as p a rt o f the believer’s arm o r for th e battle (6:14).
M ore im m ediately, however, in the next section o f th e letter th e notions o f
do in g w hat th e L ord wishes (5:17; cf. v 10) a n d o f thanksgiving (5:20; cf.
v 4) provide a continuity, while th e focus o f th e exh o rtatio n shifts to the corporate
dim ension o f Spirit-filled living.
Wise and Spirit-Filled Living (5:15–20)
Bibliography
Adai, J. Der heilige Geist als Gegenwart Gottes, 217–31. Hengel, M. “Hymns and Christol-
ogy.” In Between Jesus and Paul. London: SCM, 1983, 78–96. Lindemann, A. Die Aufhebung
der Zeit, 232–34. Martin, R. P. Worship in the Early Church. London: Marshall, Morgan
and Scott, 1964, 39–52. Rogers, C. L. “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18.”
BSac 136 (1979) 249–57.

Translation
15 Pay careful attention then to howa you live, not as unwise people but as wise,
16making the most of the time, because the days are evil. 17Therefore do not be
foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18And do not get drunk with
wine, leading toh dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another
in psalms and hymns and songs inspired by the Spirit, c singing and making music
to the Lord in your heart, 20always giving thanks fo r everything in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father.d

Notes
aSome texts read ircos äKptßcös, which would associate the adverb “carefully” with “walking”
rather than “watching” (cf. D sr G K P ^ 88 181 syrP’h>Pal arm Ambrosiaster Victorinus-
Rome). The external evidence for axpißcos ircos, the reading reflected in the translation, is, however,
stronger (cf. p 46 N* B 33 81 104 copsa Origen Chrysostom). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 608)
suggests that ircbs may well have been omitted after –ßcös and then reinserted in the wrong place.
There are also less well attested variants of both sequences containing the term äöeXepoi, “brothers
and sisters.” It is highly unlikely that this was original, since apart from the poor manuscript
support, there is no obvious reason for the omission of the term.
bThe literal translation o f this clause would be “in which is dissipation.” The thought is that
to become drunk involves one in an action which is characteristic o f a dissipated life.
c iruevpariKais, “spiritual, inspired by the Spirit,” is omitted in p 46 B itd e Ambrosiaster, and it
is disputed whether this reading is to be preferred or not. J. K. Elliott, “The United Bible Societies’
Textual Commentary Evaluated,” NovT 17 (1975) 145, argues for the shorter text and holds
that the longer reading found in N D sr G K P 4* 33 81 88 itar,c,dem,f,g,mon,x,z Vg SyrP’h>Pal COpsa,bo
goth arm has been added through assimilation to Col 3:16. Certainly the even longer reading,
unique to A, with ev xäpin after irvevpariKals, is an assimilation to the Colossians parallel. But
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 608, and J. R. Royse, “The Treatment o f Scribal Leaps in Metzger’s
Textual Commentary,” NTS 29 (1983) 539–44, who claims “the longer t ext . . . is ‘virtually certain,’ ”
argue that irvevpariKals was accidentally omitted because of homoeoteleuton. This scribal error of
leaping from –als to –als may well be the more likely occurrence in this case.
dThe translation of this last phrase reflects the presence o f Kai between deep and irarpi in the
Greek text, where, in the light of the earlier references in the letter in which Kai is used to link
these two nouns (1:3; 4:6), it may well have more emphasis than a simply epexegetical Kai (cf.
also J. A. Robinson, 122– 23; n e b ). There is also a textual question at this point, since some
witnesses read decp Kai irarpi (N A B D b I K P ^ 33 81 614 vg syrPh copsabo), while others
reverse the nouns and have irarpi Kai deep (p 46 D*>c G itd>g syrPal goth arm). While the latter
could be considered the more difficult reading, the former is more widely supported and follows
the sequence found elsewhere in the letter (cf. 1:3; 4:6; also 1:2, 17; 6:23).

Form/Structure/Setting
T h e citation o f hym nic m aterial ro u n d e d off the preceding section o f
paraenesis with its use o f the darkness an d light symbolism to draw the ethical
338 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 1 5 – 2 0

contrast betw een believers an d the su rro u n d in g world. A new pericope is also
signaled by yet a n o th er use o f th e verb Trepmarew, “to walk, live,” in the o p en in g
ex h o rtatio n (cf. its use in each o f the earlier sections— 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8 ). T his
tim e the readers are called u p o n to live wisely, an d th en the focus o f the
paraenesis m oves to life w ithin the com m unity an d in particular its w orship.
B ut w here does this section end? In term s o f content, the focus on life w ithin
the com m unity continues th ro u g h o u t the household code. In term s o f syntax,
the participial clause o f v 2 1 , on which th e exh o rtatio n to wives a n d husbands
in vv 22–33 d epends, is itself, in fact, d e p e n d e n t on the m ain verb ifkqpovode,
“be filled,” in v 18. T h e re is a strong case, th erefo re, for seeing this particu lar
ex h o rtatio n ab o u t conduct, “w alking wisely,” as including the h ousehold code
an d ex ten d in g from 5:15 to 6:9 (cf. also Schlier, 242; Gnilka, 264– 65). In
term s o f th e stru ctu re o f th e letter, 5:15–6:9 is th e next overall unit. B ut for
convenience o f analysis in this com m entary, such a large u n it needs to be
divided. T his division is being m ade prim arily according to th e topics treated ,
alth o u g h th ere are also structural indicators. T his still leaves a question about
v 21. It is certainly transitional, b u t in com parison with vv 19, 20 it contains a
new topic which has the sam e subject m atter as the verses which follow—
subm ission. For o u r purposes, th en , w hat tells against m aking v 21 p a rt o f
this section ra th e r th an the following one is the fact th at w ithout it the ex h o r-
tation to wives in v 22 w ould lack any verb. In addition, th e form ulation
“in th e nam e o f o u r L ord Jesus C hrist to o u r G od a n d F ath er” can be
seen as providing a fitting rhetorical conclusion to this section, while the
notion o f fear fram es vv 21– 33, being fo u n d in both the o p en in g an d the
closing verses.
It is noticeable th at each o f the th ree m ain exhortations in th e pericope
contains a pi] . . . aXXd contrast. In v 15 this is ad d ed afte r the ex h o rtatio n
to th e readers to pay attention to how they live— n o t as unwise people b u t as
wise, while in vv 17, 18 th e exhortations them selves have two p a rts—a negative
with pr\ an d a positive which follows afte r dXXd.
T h e section can be seen to fall into th ree parts g ro u p e d a ro u n d these th ree
m ain exhortations. In vv 15, 16 the call to a wise walk is followed, as we have
noted, by the pr\ . . . dXXd phrase which is d e p e n d e n t on it, as is the participial
clause o f v 16a which spells o u t w hat wise living m eans in re g ard to the attitu d e
to time. T his clause is in tu rn followed by the m otivating clause o f v 16b
ab o u t th e days being evil. V erse 17 provides a fresh generalizing exh o rtatio n
b u t one which is based on vv 15, 16 (cf. 5td tovto an d the notion o f folly). It
has negative (“do n o t be foolish”) an d positive (“b u t u n d e rsta n d w hat the will
o f the L ord is”) halves. T h e th ird part, vv 18– 20, begins with the p rohibition
against getting d ru n k , which is followed by a m otivating clause elaborating
on th e vice involved. “Be filled with the S pirit,” the exh o rtatio n which contrasts
with th e initial prohibition, th e n determ ines the rest o f the passage, as w hat
this involves is indicated by the fo u r participles o r th ree participial clauses
which follow. As we have seen, w hen th e transitional v 21 is b ro u g h t into the
picture, the n u m b er o f participles a n d participial clauses d e p e n d e n t on
7T\r\povode, “be filled,” becom es five a n d fo u r respectively.
T his section o f Ephesians is d ep e n d e n t on Col 3:16, 17; 4:5, as is set o u t
below:
 Form / Structure / Setting 339

Ephesians Colossians
5:15 . . . nebs n ep m a re iT e, pr) co? aao0ot 4:5 ev ockJ^ql irepnrareiTe npos
aXX’ cj? ao0ot T O V S €%GJ
3:16b ev n ä o fl oo& q.
5:16 i^ayopa^öpevoi t ö v Katpov . . . 4:5 t ö v Kxupbv e% ayopat;öpevoi

5 : 19a XaXovvres eavrois ev ipaXpols 3:16b . . . bibaaKO vres Kai

Kai vpvois Kai cpöat? v o v d e r o v v r e s e a v r o v s ^/aXpoZ?,
TrvevpariKäis v p v o is , cpöaZ? nvev/jccTiKals
5:19b fydovres Kai ipaWovres rfi 3:16c ev xd p trt QÖovres ev ra t?
KapSiqc v/jlcjv rep Kvpicp K a p ö ia is VfjiGJv rep 0ecp
5:20 evxapiOTOvvref; navrore imep 3:17 7rotfjre . . . n a v r a ev o v o p a r i
7TävTcov ev o v o p a n rod Kvpiov Kvpiov ’It7aoö, evxapu JT ovvres
rjpcbv ’Irjaoö Xpiaroü rep 0eep rep 0eep 7ra7pt 6i* aüroö
/cat 7ra7pt

T h e ex h o rtatio n with which the pericope begins is based on Col 4:5. B ut

w hereas Colossians has in view believers' relationship to outsiders, this aspect
o f wise behavior is no longer explicit in Ephesians, w here, as we have observed,
the w riter’s atten tio n is now m oving m ore tow ard relationships within the
com m unity. H e does, how ever, keep one eye on the outside world in his re fo rm u -
lation o f the p h rase “in w isdom ” in term s o f a com parison betw een the unwise
an d the wise. W hat wise behavior m eans in re g ard to attitu d e to tim e is expressed
in the sam e way in both passages. E phesians simply inverts the w ord o rd e r in
the participial clause from Colossians an d adds a m otivating clause. It may
well be the notion o f wisdom th at led the w riter to think o f taking u p Col
3:16, 17 after ad d in g in d ep en d e n t m aterial in vv 17, 1,8, since “in all wisdom ”
introduces th e Colossians ex hortation about psalm s, hym ns, an d spiritual songs.
W hen it em ploys this exhortation, E phesians om its the second reference to
wisdom, however, an d changes “teaching an d adm onishing one a n o th e r”
to “speaking to o ne a n o th e r.” T h e w riter th en m akes m inor m odifications to
the following participial clause from Col 3:16c. H e om its the introductory ev
XäpiTi, “with th an kfulness,” to göo^re?, “singing,” adds a second participle
ipäX kovres, “m aking m usic,” uses the dative singular o f K apdia instead o f ev
plus the dative plural, an d m akes the one to w hom w orship is addressed “the
L o rd ” instead o f “G od.” E ph 5:20 has th e n taken th e participle evxapiOTOVvre 5 ,
“giving th an k s,” from the second h alf o f Col 3:17, b u t to this it has added
the p hrase “in the nam e o f o u r L ord Jesus C hrist,” which is its version o f “in
the nam e o f th e L ord Jesu s,” from the first h alf o f Col 3:17, w here it had
been associated n o t with giving thanks b u t with doing all things. T h e “all
things” from Colossians has also been tran sferre d to the clause about giving
thanks, w here it is reflected in the term inology n ä v ro re vn ep iravrcov, “always
for all th ings.” M itton (The Epistle to the Ephesians, 246) describes the use o f
Colossians in E p h 5:20 as “a curious instance o f the m erely accidental association
o f words prevailing over th e m eaning which they w ere originally used to convey.”
T his pro m p ts him to ask (81), “Is this m echanical re p ro d u ctio n o f words, in
violation o f th eir original sense, w hat we should expect o f Paul in a second
letter closely m odelled on an earlier one an d w ritten im m ediately after it?
. . . Is it not, o n the o th e r han d , ju s t the kind o f p h en o m en o n th at betrays
the h an d o f an im itator . . . ?”
340 E p h e s ia n s 5 :1 5 – 2 0

O f th e m aterial in E phesians n o t ad a p te d from Colossians, v 17 with its

“u n d ersta n d w hat the will o f the L ord is” is rem iniscent o f R om 12:2 an d its
“prove w hat th e will o f G od is,” while v 18 with its contrast betw een d ru nkenness
an d being filled with the Spirit recalls the language o f L uke’s Pentecost (Acts
2:4, 15). B u t in n eith er case is th e co rrresp o n d en ce close en o u g h to suggest
literary dep en d en ce. T h e w ording o f the first p a rt o f the exhortation o f v 18,
“Do n o t get d ru n k with w ine,” is held by m any com m entators to be a citation
o f Prov 23:31 (e.g., J. A. R obinson, 121; H o u ld en , P aul’s Letters, 238; B ruce,
Epistles, 379), th o u g h L in d em an n {Die Aufhebung der Zeit, 82) contends th at
the ex h o rtatio n is an everyday one an d the ag reem en t is coincidental. T h e
m ost likely view, how ever, is th a t th e use o f Prov 23:31 is indirect an d has
been m ediated th ro u g h Jew ish ethical traditions (cf. also Gnilka, 28, 269). It
is the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs which provide a parallel, because there,
as h ere in E p h 5:18, w arnings against d ru n k en n ess are closely linked with
w arnings against debauchery (cf. T. Iss. 7 .2 ,3 ; T Jud. 11.2; 12.3; 13.6; 16.1).
T h e w arning in T . Jud. 14.1 has exactly th e sam e w ording as th at o f Ephesians,
ixr\ [xedvoKeoOe otpcp, in ag reem en t with the A text o f LXX Prov 23:31, ra th e r
th an th e B text with ev oivois, o r th e K text with oivois.
A n ex h o rtatio n concerning w orship follows earlier exhortations about re -
no u n cin g th e old life an d precedes th e household code both here in Ephesians
an d in Colossians. B ut th ere is no clear evidence th at th ere is a d ep en d en ce
o f b oth o n an original early C hristian holiness code, in w hich the th ree elem ents
were always in this sequence {pace A. C. King, “E phesians in the L ight o f
Form C riticism ,” ExpTim 63 [1952] 276, who follows E. G. Selwyn, The First
Epistle of St. Peter. [L ondon: M acmillan, 1946] 400– 406). Jas 1:27 a n d 1 Pet
2:4–9, which are cited as the parallel sections o f th e sequence in o th e r N T
letters, scarcely co unt as equivalent instructions ab o u t the c h u rch ’s w orship.
So one is simply left with th e d ep en d en ce o f E phesians on Colossians for
such a sequence. T h e m aterial in 5:15–20, how ever, is general in n a tu re an d
on th at account likely to be typical o f early C hristian paraenesis. No conclusions
can be draw n from its contents about, for exam ple, the readers o f this letter
having specific problem s o f sloth o r drunkenness.
In its setting in the letter, this pericope has links bo th with w hat precedes
an d with w hat follows. Living as wise people (5:15) follows from living as
children o f light (5:8) a n d living in love (5:2). T h e contrast betw een wise an d
unwise o r foolish people is consistent with the th o u g h t o f the earlier p a rt o f
the letter, w here believers are described as having wisdom bestow ed on them
(1:9, 17) an d p ag an G entiles as futile in th eir thinking an d ig n o ran t (4:17, 18).
T h e m otivation fo r the ex h o rtatio n to m ake the m ost o f the tim e speaks o f
the days being evil (5:16), while the later passage ab o u t the C hristian’s arm o r
will m ention an evil day th at has to be faced (6:13). T h e necessity o f thanksgiving
(5:20) has already been highlighted in th e im m ediately preceding pericope
(5:4; cf. also 1:16). At the h e a rt o f this passage stands the exhortation to be
filled with th e Spirit, a n d this can be seen as taking u p an em phasis on the
believer’s relationship to the Spirit which is pervasive in this letter (cf. 1:3, 13,
14, 17; 2:18, 22; 3:16; 4:30; 6:17, 18). It is also, o f course, on this exhortation
ab o u t th e Spirit th at the key transitional verse ab o u t m u tu al subm ission, which
introduces th e im m ediately following household code, dep en d s (cf. 5:21).
 Comment 341

Comment

15 ,16 ßXeneTe obv änpißcbs 7rcl>? 7repi7ramre, pr\ cos äao0ot aXX’ co<? ao0ot, “Pay
careful atten tio n th en to how you live, not as unwise people b u t as wise.”
T h e obv, “th ere fo re ,” links the new instruction in a general way with the previous
overall ex h o rtatio n to walk as children o f light an d to expose the works o f
darkness. T his can only be obeyed if believers take care th at th eir conduct is
characterized by wisdom. T h e new ex hortation is no t simply “walk/live as wise
people,” b u t its im portance an d urgency are reinforced by the use o f both
ßXenere, “w atch,” an d dKpiß(Z)s, “carefully.” As has been noted, the notion o f
“walking wisely” has been taken over an d generalized from Col 4:5, w here it
h ad specific reference to believers’ behavior in relation to outsiders. T h e contrast
betw een the walk o f wise people an d th a t o f unwise people has its roots, o f
course, in th e wisdom tradition with its contrast o f two ways an d o f the wise
person an d th e fool (cf., fo r exam ple, Prov 4:10– 14; 9; 10:8, 14). In the Q u m ra n
literature, those who have been contrasted as the sons o f light and the sons
o f darkness in IQ S 3.19–25 are th en said to walk in wisdom on the one h an d
and walk in foolishness on th e o th e r in IQ S 4.24 (cf. also K. G. K uhn, “T h e
Epistle to the E phesians,” 125– 26). T o live as a wise person is not ju s t to
have know ledge b u t to have skill in living, to have the sort o f perception th at
authenticates itself in practice. T his requires ethical insight into G od’s will.
W hereas for th e Jew ish wisdom tradition such wise living was living in accor-
dance with T o ra h (cf. T. Naph. 8.10, “So be wise in the L ord an d discerning,
know ing the o rd e r o f his com m andm ents, w hat is ord ain ed for every act”),
now in E phesians it is a living inform ed by an u n d ersta n d in g o f the will o f
the L ord (cf. v 17), m eaning th e will o f C hrist, an d this is som ething no longer
identical with T o rah .
e%ayopa$opevoi rov naipov, o n ai r\pepai TTOvripai eioiv, “m aking the m ost o f
the time, because the days are evil.” T hose who have insight will have the
right attitu d e to tim e, using it to discover an d practice the will o f the Lord.
B ut it is disp u ted w hat exactly this rig h t attitu d e to tim e is. LXX D an 2:8 has
a sim ilar clause— Kaipbv vpels e^ayopä^ere, “you are buying tim e,” i.e., “you
are attem p tin g to gain tim e.” It is ju s t possible th at the words have a sim ilar
m eaning in E phesians. T h e force w ould be th a t because they are living in
the last days, which are both evil an d short, believers should attem p t to gain
time in o rd e r to be able to continue to do w hat is good an d rig h t an d tru e
(cf. v 9). O n th e basis o f Mart. Pol. 2.3 an d its use o f the m iddle o f the verb
in the sense o f “to buy off,” BAGD (271) suggests as a possible m eaning th at
tim e presents w rathful dem ands (cf. 1 C or 7:29– 32) which m ust be satisfied
o r b o u g h t off. In Gal 3:13 an d 4:5 the verb is used o f C hrist’s act o f redem ption,
an d some hold th at it retains th at force here (e.g., J. A. R obinson, 201– 2 –
“ransom the tim e from its evil b o n d ag e”; B arth, 578). B ut as C. F. D. M oule
(The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 134) says, “It seems, how ever,
slightly bizarre to trea t o Kaipos as a person need in g help . . . an d it is perh ap s
m ore n atural, after all, to trea t it as a com m odity to be eagerly b o u g h t.” T his
latter m eaning is the one favored by the m ajority o f com m entators (cf. also
R. M. Pope, “Studies in Pauline Vocabulary: R edeem ing the T im e,” ExpTim
22 [1910– 11] 552– 54; F. Büchsei, “dTopdfco, efcryopafco,” T D N T 1 [1964] 124–
342 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 1 5 – 2 0

28, who defines the force o f the verb as “an intensive buying, a buying which
exhausts th e possibilities available”). T h e usage is th a t o f th e com m ercial lan -
guage o f th e m arket place, an d the prefix ck- intensifies th e force o f the verb.
So Kaipos h ere refers to tim e in the sense o f the o p p o rtu n ities it offers, each
o f which is to be capitalized u p o n , to be exploited (cf. also Gal 6:10, “So
th en , as we have o p p o rtu n ity [Kcupos], let us do good”).
T h e m otivation for the exhortation to m ake th e m ost o f the tim e is th at
th e days are evil. In Jew ish an d early C hristian tradition evil was seen as charac-
teristic o f th e last days in general (e.g., T. Dan 5.4; T. Zeb. 9.5, 6; 2 T im 3:1;
2 Pet 3:3). It is possible th at for som e o f its force th e notion o f evil days h ere
retains th e im plications o f its use in th e apocalyptic tradition, w here these
evil days are th e last days, are precarious, an d will only e n d u re for a lim ited
period. T his w ould produce a sense o f urgency ab o u t th e re m ain in g p re sen t
a n d its o p p ortunities. H ow ever, this in terp re tatio n m ay sound a n o te o f th e
im m inence o f the en d which w ould be atypical fo r Ephesians. It is m ore likely
th a t fo r this w riter the notion has a m ore general, th o u g h still eschatologically
o riented, force. For him , from one perspective the p resen t is still u n d e r the
control o f th e prince o f the pow er o f the air (2:2) a n d p a rt o f this evil age
(cf. Gal 1:4). T h erefo re, believers still have to live o u t th e life o f th e age to
com e, which they already enjoy, in a su rro u n d in g m oral clim ate which is p re -
dom inantly evil. From a n o th e r perspective, how ever, the p resen t is th e tim e
o f o p p o rtu n ity for believers—the acceptable tim e o f salvation an d o f response
to th at salvation (cf. 2 C or 6:2), the tim e in which to p roduce the good works
(cf. 2:10) to co u n teract the evil a ro u n d them . M aking the m ost o f th e tim e to
do good in the m idst o f evil would th e n be parallel to the notion o f the preceding
pericope ab o u t the positive effects o f living as light in the m idst o f darkness.
It m akes it all the m ore im perative to exploit every p re sen t o p p o rtu n ity fo r
good, if the evil days in which believers live are going to increase in intensity
an d culm inate in a climactic evil day (cf. 6:13). As A bbott (160) parap h rases
this verse, “T h e m om ents for sowing on receptive soil in such evil days being
few, seize th em w hen they offer them selves.” It is the overall eschatological
perspective on the flow o f history in G od’s p u rp o se in C hrist which u n d erg ird s
th e wise use o f daily oppo rtu n ities an d which distinguishes this w riter’s ex h o rta-
tion from general m axim s such as Seneca’s “g ath er an d save your tim e” (Epist.
1.1). A ccording to this explanation, Kaipös is a n eu tra l term a n d n o t to be
eq u ated with th e evil days, which are p a rt o f the eschatological explanation
for the exh o rtatio n (cf. also Gnilka, 267– 68; pace L indem ann, Aufhebung, 232–
33, who equates th e two in a ra th e r forced explanation th at the wise p erson
does n ot have to show respect to tim e, if it is evil, a n d can th ere fo re exploit it
to the full; for M ussner [148] th e clear tem poral connotations o f the m otivation
o f this verse shows the absurdity o f L in d em an n ’s desire to talk ab o u t die Aufhe-
bung der Zeit, “the abrogation o f tem poral categories,” in Ephesians).
17 dia tovto /lit) ylveode a<j>pove<;, aXXa owiere n to QeKripa tov KUptov, “T h e re -
fore do n o t be foolish, b u t u n d e rsta n d w hat the will o f th e L ord is.” T hose w ho
have already been ex horted not to live as unwise people in v 15 are now
again w arned n o t to succum b to folly, axfrpcov, frequently used in the LXX for
the fool as a d en ier o f God (cf. G. B ertram , ktX.,” T D N T 9 [1974] 220–
35), is a variation on aao0o? o f v 15. T h e contrast betw een wise an d unwise is
 Comment 343

now replaced by th at betw een being foolish an d having understan d in g . Ju st

as the children o f light will learn w hat is pleasing to the L ord (5:10), so those
who are wise will u n d ersta n d w hat th e will o f th e L ord is. Indeed, u n d ersta n d in g
the will o f th e L ord is the h e a rt o f wisdom (cf. also Col 1:9, “filled with the
knowledge o f his will in all spiritual wisdom an d u n d ersta n d in g ”). For believers,
wise living involves a practical perception d ep e n d e n t on the direction o f th eir
Lord. U n d erstan d in g n to OeXripa tov Kuptov, “w hat is the will o f the L ord,”
h ere can be co m p ared with discovering ri to dekqpa rod öeoü, “w hat is the will
o f G od,” in Rom 12:2, alth o u g h Kupios in E phesians always refers to C hrist
ra th e r th an G od (pace M itton, 188). W hat the will o f C hrist entails, the readers
have already been tau g h t (cf. 4:20, 21) an d the w riter him self is in the m idst
o f elaborating. M ost im m ediately (cf. 8ia tovto, “th e re fo re ”), u n d erstan d in g
the L o rd ’s will for th e p resen t tim e an d avoiding folly m eans recognizing the
n atu re o f th e tim es in which one lives an d m aking the m ost o f opportunities
for good in th e overlap o f the ages.
18 m i prj pedixJKeode oivcp, ev cp eonv äocoria, äXkä irXripovode ev nvevpan,
“A nd do n o t get d ru n k with wine, leading to dissipation, b u t be filled with
the Spirit.” T his is the final im perative in the series with its jut) . . . dXXd
contrast an d leads into the chain o f participles which are all subordinate to
its second half. T h e relationship o f the w ording o f its first h alf to Prov 23:31
an d to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs has been discussed u n d e r Formt
Structure / Setting. Its m ore specific force introduces a change from the general
n atu re o f th e preceding exhortations which at first appears quite surprising.
Is th ere som e particular reason for the prohibition o f drunkenness, o r is it
simply included as p a rt o f a general paraenetic tradition an d because it provides
a n eat contrast with th e positive im perative about being filled with the Spirit?
Some suggest th at it is directed against m isconduct in th e assembly, such as
th at indicated in 1 C or 11:21 (cf. Schlier, 246; Gnilka, 269; H oulden, 328;
J. D. G. D u n n , Jesus and the Spirit [London: SCM, 1975] 238; Adai, Der heilige
Geist, 223, 226). It is tru e th a t this passage goes on to deal with w orship in
the assembly, b u t th ere is no evidence at all th at the earlier problem s in C orinth
were being duplicated in the churches which this letter is addressing, an d the
p rohibition’s su p p o rtin g clause seems too weak an d in ap p ro p ria te for such
an offense (cf. also M eyer, 284; A bbott, 161; S chnackenburg, 241). O thers
hold th at th e injunction has in view the pagan m ystery cult celebrations in
which som e o f th e G entile C hristian readers w ould previously have indulged
(cf. E rnst, 379; M ussner, 148), an d som e (cf. Rogers, BSac 136 [1979] 249–
57; M. H engel, Between Jesus and Paul, 188 n. 7) suggest the Dionysian cult is
particularly in view. B ut alth o u g h such cults w ere w idespread, th ere is again
no clear evidence th a t they h ad a continuing negative influence on the churches
o f Asia M inor. O thers still attem p t to link the prohibition with the earlier
th o u g h t o f v 16 an d claim th at the w riter is saying th at dru n k en n ess is no
solution to th e difficulties o f living in evil days an d th at it is only the Spirit
th at enables a person to cope (cf. B arth, 581; M itton, 188–89; Adai, Der heilige
Geist, 223, 230). It is far m ore likely, how ever, th at any link with the su rro u n d in g
m aterial is first with the basic contrast betw een folly an d wisdom an d beyond
th at with th e earlier contrast betw een darkness an d light fo u n d in th e im m edi-
ately p receding section o f paraenesis. In both 1 T hess 5 an d Rom 13, which
344 E p h e s ia n s 5:15–20

lay b eh in d th at contrast, Paul h ad talked o f d ru n k en n ess as a prim e characteristic

o f th e darkness. In 1 T hess 5:6– 8, sobriety by contrast is seen as a quality o f
th e light. In Rom 13:12, 13, drunkenness, as here in E ph 5, is associated with
debauchery. It looks, then, as th o u g h the w riter m ay well have gone back to
these sources, as he will do again later in 6:11– 17 for his im agery o f the
believer’s arm o r, an d have draw n on th em to continue the contrast from the
b eg in n in g o f this section betw een the foolish behavior o f unbelievers an d the
wise conduct o f believers. O th e r references in the N T to d ru n k en n ess include
M att 24:49; L uke 12:45; 1 C or 5:11; 6:10; 1 T im 3:8; T itus 2:3; an d 1 Pet
4:3. H ere in E ph 5:18, dru n k en n ess is said to lead to dissipation, th a t is, to
sexual excess an d debauchery, aaoyria is used elsew here in the N T only in
T itu s 1:6 an d 1 Pet 4:4, w here it is in close association with the m ention o f
d ru n k en n ess in the preceding verse, while th e cognate adverb is used to describe
th e way o f life o f the prodigal son in Luke 15:13. T h e use o f the term here
rem inds one o f the w riter’s earlier sw eeping condem nation o f n o n-C hristian
G entile lifestyle in 4:19, w here the synonym aoeXyeia, “d ebauchery,” was em -
ployed. A gain th ere is no need, with R ogers (BSac 136 [1979] 256, followed
by Adai, Der heilige Geist, 223, 225), to be too precise a n d connect this vice
specifically with the Dionysian cult.
T h e shift from the notion o f dru n k en n ess to th at o f being filled with the
Spirit is n o t as a b ru p t as it may ap p e a r at first sight. T h e fo rm er rep resen ts
folly; th e latter is the prerequisite for wisdom. B oth involve the self com ing
u n d e r the control o f an external pow er, an d th e states o f alcoholic an d o f
religious intoxication were often com pared. L uke’s Pentecost narrative, w here
th e earliest believers’ experience o f being filled with the Spirit is m istaken for
d ru n k en n ess (cf. Acts 2:4, 13, 15), is frequently cited in this connection, alth o u g h
th ere is no evidence th at the w riter o f E phesians is actually draw ing on the
Acts passage (pace M itton, Epistle, 205–6). B ut Philo’s reflections on dru n k en n ess
are equally illum inating. N ot only does he identify dru n k en n ess with spiritual
folly (cf. De Ebr. 11, 95, 125–26, 154), b u t he also sees a com parison betw een
it an d being possessed by God: “Now w hen grace fills the soul, th at soul thereby
rejoices an d smiles an d dances, for it is possessed an d inspired, so th at to
m any o f th e u n en lig h ten ed it may seem to be d ru n k e n , crazy, an d beside
itself. . . . For with the God-possessed no t only is the soul w ont to be stirred
an d goaded as it w ere into ecstasy b u t th e body also is flushed an d fiery . . .
an d th u s m any o f the foolish are deceived an d suppose th at the sober are
d ru n k . . . an d it is tru e th at these sober ones are d ru n k in a sense” (De Ebr.
146– 48). In all probability, it is this sort o f com parison th at lies beh in d E phesians’
contrast betw een d ru n k en n ess an d being possessed by the Spirit o f God.
T h e im perative is in the p resen t tense, indicating th at believers’ experience
o f the Spirit’s fullness is to be a continuing one. T h e use o f ev with irXripovodai
in an in stru m en tal sense is unusual (cf. also A bbott, 161– 62; J. A. R obinson,
204; Schnackenburg, 242 an d n. 598). Believers are to be filled by the Spirit
an d th u s also filled with the Spirit. T h e idea o f being filled with the Spirit
recalls th at o f being filled u p to all the fullness o f God in 3:19 an d th at o f
th e C h u rch as th e fullness o f C hrist in 1:23 (cf. also 4:13). Clearly, the Spirit
m ediates th e fullness o f God an d o f C hrist to th e believer. T h e com m and to
be filled with th e Spirit stands in the cen ter o f the passage a n d has links with
 Comment 345

w hat precedes— wisdom—as well as with w hat follows—worship. T h e Spirit

provides the pow er for both aspects o f C hristian living. Believers, w ho have
already been rem in ded o f th eir sealing by th e Spirit (1:13; 4:30) an d enjoined
n ot to grieve the Spirit (4:30), are now exh o rted to allow the Spirit to have
the fullest control th at they are conscious o f in th eir lives an d to o p en them selves
continually to the one who can enable them to walk wisely an d to u n d ersta n d
C hrist’s will an d who can inspire th eir w orship an d thanksgiving. T h e pow er
o f the Spirit in the in n er person has already been m entioned in 3:16, an d
earlier still, in the letter in the intercessory p ray er re p o rt in 1:17, the Spirit
has been linked to wisdom. T h e connection betw een being filled with the
Spirit an d worship, which em erges th ro u g h the subordinate participles o f vv
19, 20, should n o t be in terp re ted as m eaning th at participation in the c h u rch ’s
liturgy is w hat produces the experience o f the fullness o f the Spirit (pace Adai,
Der heilige Geist, 225– 26, who reads a particular theology into the text). T h e
following participles are best in terp re ted as the consequences o f the experience
ra th e r th an its m eans.
1 9 ,2 0 XaXovvres eavröis ev \jjaXpöi<; Kai vpvois Kai epSals irvevparLKäis, q.öovres
Kai \jjaXKovre<; rf) Kapdiq, vpcbv rep Kvpttp, eoxapuarodvre? iravrore imep nävrojv ev
övöpan tov Kvpiov r\pCov 'lr]oov Xptorov rep deep Kai narpt, “speaking to one an o th er
in psalms an d hym ns an d songs inspired by the Spirit, singing an d m aking
music to the L ord in your heart, always giving thanks for everything in the
nam e o f o u r L ord Jesus C hrist to o u r God an d F ath er.” D runkenness leads
to disorderly an d dissolute behavior, b u t being filled with the Spirit produces
very d ifferent results— praise, thanksgiving, and, w hen th e participle o f v 21
is also included, m utual subm ission.
A lthough the first participial clause m entions hym ns, its focus in fact is
not on praise o f God. T h e psalms, hym ns, an d spiritual songs are p a rt o f
believers’ addressing o f one an o th er in the assembly, serving as a m eans o f
edification, instruction, and exhortation (cf. also Col 3:16, “teaching an d ad m o n -
ishing one a n o th e r”). In this regard, it is significant th at m uch o f w hat is
taken to be hym nic in the Pauline corpus has a didactic an d paraenetic function
in its p resen t form an d context (e.g., Phil 2:6 – 11; Col 1:15– 20; 1 T im 3:16).
As m ost scholars hold, it is difficult to draw any h a rd an d fast distinctions
am ong the th ree categories o f psalms, hym ns, an d spiritual songs m entioned
both h ere an d in the m aterial in Col 3:16 from which this w riter draws. A part
from these two passages, ipaXpös, “psalm ,” is used elsew here in the N T to
re fer to O T psalm s in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:33, an d in all probability
to a C hristian song in 1 C or 14:26; vpvos, “h ym n,” is used now here else, th o u g h
the cognate verb is fo u n d in M ark 14:26; M att 26:30; Acts 16:25; H eb 2:12;
an d cp5r), “song,” is em ployed for the songs o f heavenly w orship in Rev 5:9;
14:3; 15:3. Some have m ade an attem p t to distinguish betw een them . R. P.
M artin (Worship in the Early Church [London: M arshall, M organ an d Scott,
1964] 47 [though cf. M artin, Colossians, 115– 16, for a different view]; cf. also
M itton, 191; Bruce, Epistles, 158– 59, for a sim ilar classification) suggests th at
the “psalm s” may re fer to C hristian odes p attern ed on the O T psalter, “hym ns”
to longer com positions, parts o f which are actually cited in the N T , an d “spiritual
songs” to snatches o f spontaneous praise p ro m p ted by the Spirit. J. D. G.
D u n n (Jesus and the Spirit [London: SCM, 1975] 238– 39) thinks th at all th ree
346 E p h e s ia n s 5:15–20

categories probably re fe r to charism atic hym nody a n d th at even if “spiritual”

refers only to “songs,” th e distinction betw een psalm s a n d hym ns, on th e one
h an d , an d spiritual songs, on th e o th er, is n o t betw een established liturgical
form s a n d sp o n tan eous song, b u t betw een spontaneous singing o f intelligible
words o r fam iliar verses an d sp ontaneous singing in tongues. In fact, the th ree
term s used h ere are best seen as a n o th e r exam ple o f this w riter’s fondness
for piling u p synonym s, which in this case he has been able to take over
from Colossians. T hey are th e th re e m ost com m on term s in the LXX for
religious songs an d occur th ere interchangeably in the titles o f th e psalm s.
Elsewhere, Jo sep h u s associates i){uwh, “hym ns,” with xjjdk^oi, “psalm s,” in Ant.
12.7.7 § 323 an d with cpdai, “songs,” in Ant. 7.12.3 § 305. T h e ir synonym ity
m akes it all th e m ore likely th at th e adjective irvevixariKais, “spiritual,” alth o u g h
ag reeing in g en d e r with only the last in th e series, em braces all th ree term s
(cf. BDF § 135 [3]). T h e songs which believers sing to each o th e r are spiritual
because they are inspired by th e Spirit a n d m anifest the life o f th e Spirit.
B ut spirituality should no t necessarily be identified with spontaneity, an d all
form s o f C hristian hym nody fo u n d in th e early ch u rch are likely to have been
in view, from liturgical pieces th a t h ad already established them selves in the
chu rch es’ w orship, o f which Phil 2:6– 11; Col 1:15– 20; E ph 5:14; 1 T im 3:16
may provide som e exam ples which have fo u n d th eir way into th e N T , to
snatches o f song freshly created in th e assembly. Given th at these songs are
described as being addressed by believers to one an o th er, it is likely, how ever,
th at it is intelligible singing ra th e r th a n singing in tongues th a t is in view (cf.
1 C or 14:15 w here Paul contrasts singing with the Spirit, probably singing in
tongues, with singing with the m ind, i.e., with intelligible words).
T h e second participial clause builds u p th e sentence in the w riter’s characteris-
tic style by em ploying th e verbal form s o f two o f th e previous no u n s— COÖ77,
“song,” an d i//aX/u09 , “psalm .” A lthough its original m eaning involved plucking
a stringed in stru m ent, i//aXXco h ere m eans to m ake m usic by singing (cf. also
1 C or 14:15; Jas 5:13), so th a t th ere is no referen ce in this verse to in stru m en tal
accom panim ent (cf. the discussion in BAGD 891; pace B arth, 584). If th e singing
involved in th e first participial clause has a horizontal a n d corporate dim ension,
th at o f th e second clause has a m ore vertical an d individual focus. T h e singing
is now directed to the L ord, who, as in v 17, is C hrist (a change from Col
3:16 w here th e singing h ad b een addressed to God). Pliny’s account (Epistles
10.96.7) o f C hristians who “recited to one a n o th e r in tu rn s a hym n to C hrist
as to G od” is o ften cited in connection with these songs directed to C hrist.
Believers who are filled with th e Spirit delight to sing the praise o f C hrist,
an d such praise com es n o t ju s t from th e lips b u t from th e individual’s innerm ost
being, from th e h eart, w here th e Spirit him self resides (cf. 3:16, 17, w here
the Spirit in th e in n e r p erson is equivalent to C hrist in th e heart).
In addition, believers who are filled with th e Spirit will give thanks. T h e
w riter still has in view prim arily thanksgiving in public w orship (cf. also
1 C or 14:16, 17), which, as well as spiritual songs, could well include m aterial
like th at fo u n d in his o p en in g berakah. B ut the attitu d e o f thanksgiving th a t is
expressed in th eir w orship will also be one th a t perm eates believers’ whole
lives. T h ey will give thanks n o t ju s t som etim es fo r som e things b u t always for
everything (cf. also 1 T hess 5:18). A nd this tim e th eir thanks is directed to
 Explanation 347

the ultim ate giver o f all good things, to th e one who is both God an d Father,
an d offered in the nam e o f the L ord Jesus C hrist—a form ulaic expression
with liturgical connections (cf. 1 C or 5:4; Phil 2:10; 2 T hess 3:6) b u t one
whose significance goes beyond such settings. So the Spirit inspires thanksgiving
to God the F ather, an d everything fo r which th ere is cause for thanks is sum m ed
u p in an d m ediated th ro u g h Christ. For fu rth e r discussion o f the p ro fo u n d
im portance o f thanksgiving, see Comment on 5:4 (cf. also Col 3:15– 17, w here
the need for thankfulness is stressed th ree times). T h e use o f the participle
evxapiOTOVvre*; is in a general, n o t a technical, sense, such as is fo u n d in Did.
9.2, 3; 10.1– 4 o r Ju stin , Apol. 67.5, an d is no t a sufficient reason for holding
th at the specific w orship setting in view in these verses is the celebration o f
the eucharist. N or, as we have seen, does connecting the prohibition against
dru n k en n ess with the m isuse o f the agape m eal add anything substantial to
this supposition (pace Schlier, 248, 250; Adai, Der heilige Geist, 226– 28).

Explanation

T his section o f paraenesis continues the contrast o f 5:3 – 14 betw een the
behavior o f the believing com m unity an d th at o f unbelieving outsiders. W hereas
the previous section h ad carried this o u t in term s o f sexual m orality an d the
antithesis betw een light a n d darkness, 5:15–20 begins with the contrast betw een
wisdom an d folly. Wise living is th e n shown to be Spirit-filled living, which is
described prim arily in term s o f its consequences for the com m unity’s corporate
w orship.
T h e section is organized aro u n d th ree m ain exhortations— vv 15, 16; v 17;
vv 18–20 – each o f which contains a contrast betw een negative an d positive
behavior. In th e last, the positive elem ent is p red o m in a n t an d is spelled o u t
by m eans o f th ree (or four, if the transitional v 21 is included) participial
clauses. T h e first ex hortation urges th e readers to take care th at they live as
wise ra th e r th an unwise people. It explains th at this will involve a wise attitude
to time, which does no t idle it away b u t m akes the m ost o f the opportunities
it offers to do good, thereby counteracting the evil m oral clim ate o f the p resen t
age. T h e second ex hortation continues b u t varies the contrast o f the first, as
the readers are told this tim e n o t to be foolish b u t to gain practical u n d ersta n d in g
o f w hat th eir L ord requires. T h e th ird adm onition, not to be d ru n k b u t to be
filled with th e Spirit, is a n o th e r variation on the sam e them e, since traditionally
dru n k en n ess was associated with folly an d th e Spirit was seen as the m ediator
o f wisdom. T h e jo yful celebration th at is to characterize the lives o f believers
will com e n o t from an excess o f wine b u t from th eir continual openness to
the influence o f th e Spirit. T his Spirit-filled living will m anifest itself in th eir
corporate w orship, as they address an d edify one a n o th e r by m eans o f all the
types o f songs th at th e Spirit inspires, as they sing th eir praise o f C hrist from
the heart, an d as they in C hrist’s nam e offer thanksgiving to th eir G od and
F ath er fo r all th e blessings he has bestow ed u p o n them . In term s o f both the
stru ctu re an d th e co n ten t o f th e passage as a whole, v 18, with its contrast
betw een being d ru n k with wine an d being filled with the Spirit, can be seen
to be at the center, providing th e link betw een the w isdom /folly contrast o f
the first p a rt an d the focus on w orship o f the last part.
348 E p h e s ia n s 5:15–20

In developing his exhortation, th e w riter has ad a p te d traditional m aterial

to fit his own em phasis on the necessity o f th e com m unity’s experience o f
the Spirit. H ere, as elsew here, he draw s prim arily o n Colossians (3:16, 17;
4:5). H e is also d e p e n d e n t on the wisdom trad itio n ’s contrast betw een two
ways, a n d his p ro h ibition against d ru n k en n ess in v 18 draws on Prov 23:31,
as m ediated in Jew ish ethical traditions (cf. also T .Jud. 14.1), an d is influenced
by P aul’s trea tm e n t o f this topic in 1 T hess 5:6– 8 an d Rom 13:12, 13.
T h e focus o f th e passage is again on believers an d the conduct th at is req u ired
o f th em if they are to be distinct from th e su rro u n d in g society. T his conduct
can be sum m ed u p in term s o f a wise living th a t discerns th e tim es an d the
L o rd ’s will, an openness to an d ap p ro p riatio n o f the pow er o f the Spirit, an d
a participation in co rporate w orship th a t is full o f song, praise, an d thanksgiving.
T h e explicit em phasis on the C h u rc h ’s jo y fu l celebration in w orship in vv
19, 20 is distinctive to this section o f the letter. T h e th ree participial clauses
inco rp o rate several aspects o f w orship, highlighting the im portance o f song,
indicating th e role this can play in co rp o rate edification (“speaking to one
a n o th e r . . .”), stressing the need for w orship to com e from the individual’s
h eart, telling o f praise addressed to C hrist an d thanksgiving directed to God,
an d above all m aking clear the indispensable function o f the Spirit. T h e m ention
o f “speaking to one a n o th e r” in v 19 recalls this w riter’s concern in earlier
sections to contrast outsiders’ sinful speech with believers’ edifying discourse.
As o pposed to the coarse an d em pty w ords o f outsiders (5:4, 6), believers’
speech is characterized by the psalm s, hym ns, an d songs the Spirit puts in
th eir m ouths.
A “trin ita rian ” dim ension to the com m unity’s consciousness o f the transcen-
d en t em erges clearly. C hrist’s divine status is im plicit. H e is th e L ord whose
will th e com m unity is to u n d ersta n d (v 17), an d to him w orship is directed
(v 19). Yet, at th e sam e tim e, he is th e m ed iato r betw een G od the F ath er and
believers, as thanksgiving is offered in his nam e to th e one who is the ultim ate
source o f all goodness a n d salvation (v 20). Even m ore central to the passage
is th e S pirit’s m ediation o f the divine pow er a n d presence. It is the Spirit
who produces th e wisdom an d u n d ersta n d in g called fo r in the first two ex h o rta-
tions, an d it is th e Spirit who p ro m p ts a n d pervades the w orship elaborated
on in th e th ird , so m uch so th at th e very songs believers sing can be called
spiritual. It is no w onder th e n th at the central call o f the passage is for believers
to be continually filled with this Spirit, the m otivating force for th eir distinctive
life o f wise co nduct an d glad w orship.
B eing filled with th e Spirit is th e functional equivalent o f w hat the w riter
elsew here thinks o f as being filled with C hrist (cf. 1:23; 4:13) o r being filled
with G od (cf. 3:19). As we have seen, fullness was a notion p ro m in en t in
H ellenistic syncretism . R eaders o f this letter are being re m in d ed in a n u m b er
o f ways th a t th e fullness o f th e presence o f G od is no t som ething to which
they have to p en e trate th ro u g h visionary experience o r ascetic techniques,
b u t is p a rt o f th eir C hristian experience to be ap p ro p riated . B eing filled with
the Spirit involves n o t simply private mystical experiences b u t corporate w orship
an d relationships. T h e singing p ro m p te d by th e Spirit is an addressing o f
fellow believers, a n d th e m u tu al subm ission o f v 21 is also a m anifestation o f
th e S pirit’s fullness. T h u s believers’ being filled with th e Spirit m eans, on the
 Explanation 349

one han d , th eir praising C hrist an d th an k in g the F ath er to g eth er and, on the
other, th eir speaking an d subm itting to one an o th er. A ccording to this w riter’s
perspective, th erefo re, th e fullness o f the Spirit can only be properly experienced
in com m unity.
Again, a prim ary pu rp o se o f this paraenetic m aterial is to give the readers
a clearer sense o f th eir distinctive identity by contrasting the qualities which
should characterize th eir conduct with the folly an d dru n k en n ess o f the world.
T h e Spirit-filled w orship which th e w riter enjoins also contributes to the com m u-
nity’s sense o f identity an d cohesion th a t he is attem p tin g to foster. T h e spiritual
songs, the praise, an d the thanksgiving all help to shape believers’ attitudes
an d to form th e com m unity’s ethos. T h e developm ent o f the a rg u m e n t in
this section suggests, how ever, th a t the em phasis on the experience o f the
Spirit an d on th e com m unity’s w orship is n o t in ten d ed by th e w riter to lead
to an obsession with religious enthusiasm for its own sake o r to an absorption
by the com m unity in its own life an d a co rresponding re tre a t from the world.
O n the contrary, as has been noted, tfie passage links Spirit-led w orship with
the wisdom req u ired for living in this p resen t evil age. It is precisely the experi-
ence o f being filled with the Spirit th at gives believers u n d ersta n d in g o f th eir
L o rd ’s will, an d it is the spiritual songs th a t are a m eans o f prom oting the
knowledge o f th at will. In this way the com m unity’s w orship can be seen to
m ake a vital co n tribution to its wise living in th e world.
T his wise an d Spirit-filled living in th e w orld will be fu rth e r elaborated in
the relationships o f th e household code th a t follow in 5:21– 6:9. T h e w riter’s
treatm en t o f th e C hristian w arfare against the powers o f evil in 6:10–20 provides
an o th er indication th a t w ithdraw al from the w orld is n o t p a rt o f his vision
and at the sam e tim e takes u p the notions o f believers’ relationship to the
Spirit (6:17, 18) an d the evil n a tu re o f the e n d-tim e (6:13; cf. 5:16).
Household Relationships—Wives and
Husbands (5:21–33)
Bibliography

Baltensweiler, H. Die Ehe im Neuen Testament. Zürich: Zwingli, 1967, 218– 35. Batey,
R. “ ‘Jewish Gnosticism’ and the ‘Hieros Gamos’ of Eph. v. 2 1–33.” NTS 10 (1963) 12–
2 7 .------- . “The pita aap£ Union of Christ and the Church,” NTS 13 (1966–67) 270–
81. ------- . New Testament Nuptial Imagery. Leiden: Brill, 1971, 20–37. Best, E. One
Body in Christ, 169–83. Bouwman, G. “Eph V 28 – Versuch einer Übersetzung.” In
Miscellanea Neotestamentica. Vol. 2, ed. T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, and W. C. van Unnik.
Leiden: Brill, 1978, 179–90. Cambier, J. “Le Grand Mystere concernant le Christ et
son Eglise: Eph. 5:22–33.” Bib 47 (1966) 43– 90, 223–4 2 .-------- . “Doctrine paulinienne
du marriage chretien: Etude critique de 1 Cor 7 et d’Eph 5:21–33 et essai de leur
tradition actuelle.” Eglise et theologie 10 (1979) 13–59. Chavasse, C. The Bride of Christ.
London: Faber, 1940. Clark, S. B. Man and Woman in Christ. Ann Arbor: Servant
Books, 1980, 7 1–87. Fennema, D. “Unity in Marriage: Ephesians 5, 21–33.” Reformed
Review 25 (1971) 62– 71. Feuillet, A. “La dignite et le role de la femme d’apres quelques
textes pauliniens.” NTS 21 (1975) 157–91. Fischer, K. M. Tendenz und Absicht, 176–
200. Greeven, H. “Der Mann ist des Weibes Haupt.” Die neue Furche 6 (1952) 99– 109.
Hahn, F. “Die christologische Begründung urchristlicher Paränese.” ZNW 72 (1981)
88–99. Halter, H. Taufe und Ethos, 281– 86. Howard, G. E. “The Head/Body Metaphors
of Ephesians.” NTS 20 (1975) 350– 56. Kahler, E. Die Frau in den paulinischen Briefen.
Zürich: Gotthelf, 1960, 88– 140. Kamlah, E. “TrcoräooeaQai in den neutestamentlichen
‘Haustafeln.’ ” In Verborum Veritas. FS G. Stählin, ed. O. Bocher and K. Haacker. Wupper-
tal: Brockhaus, 1970, 237–43. Lincoln, A. T. “The Use of the OT in Ephesians.”
JSN T 14 (1982) 16–57. Maillet, H. “Alia . . . plen.” ETR 55 (1980) 566–74. Meeks,
W. A. “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity.”
History of Religions 13 (1974) 165– 208. Miletic, S. F. “One Flesh”: Eph. 5.22–24, 5.31:
Marriage and the New Creation. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988. Muirhead, I.
A. “The Bride of Christ.” SJT 5 (1952) 175–87. Munro, W. “Col. iii. 18–iv.l and Eph.
v.21–vi.9: Evidence of a Late Literary Stratum?” NTS 18 (1972) 434–47. Mussner, F.
Christus, das All und die Kirche, 147–60. Neuhausier, E. “Das Geheimnis ist gross: Einfüh-
rung in die Grundbegriffe der Eheperikope Eph 5, 22–29.” BibLeb 4 (1963) 155–67.
Pagels, E. “Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church.” In The New Testament and Gnosis.
FS R. McL. Wilson, ed. A. H. B. Logan and A. J. M. Wedderburn. Edinburgh: T. 8c
T. Clark, 1983, 146–75. Perkins, P. “Marriage in the New Testament and Its World.”
In Commitment to Partnership, ed. W. Roberts. New York: Paulist, 1987, 5–30. Rengstorf,
K. H. “Die neutestamentlichen Mahnungen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuord-
nen.” In Verbum Dei. FS O. Schmitz. Witten: Luther Verlag, 1953, 131–45. Sampley,
J. P. “And the Two Shall Become One Flesh”: A Study of Traditions in Eph 5:21–33. Cambridge:
CUP, 1971. Schnackenburg, R. “ ‘Er hat uns mitauferweckt.’ ” LJ 2 (1952) 178– 83.
Schüssler, Fiorenza E. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian
Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983, 266– 70. Small, D. H. Marriage as Equal Partnership.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Terrien, S. Till the Heart Sings. Philadelphia: Fortress,
184–88. Walker, W. O., Jr. “The ‘Theology of Woman’s Place’ and the ‘Paulinist’ Tradi-
tion.” Semeia 28 (1983) 101– 12. Wall, R. W. “Wifely Submission in the Context of
Ephesians.” Christian Scholar’s Review 17 (1988) 272–85. Witherington, B. Women in
the Earliest Churches. Cambridge: CUP, 1988, 54–61.
 Notes 351

Translation

21Submit to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, submita to your husbands
as to the Lord, 23for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ also is the head
of the church and is himselfh the Savior of the body. 24But as the church submits to
Christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands,
love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up fo r her, 26 in
order that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by washing in waterc through
the word, 27 in order that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without
spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but rather that she might be holy and blameless.
28 In the same way husbands also should love their wives as their own bodies. He
who loves his wife loves himself 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes
it and cherishes it, as Christ also does the church, 30since we are members of his
bodyfl 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. ”e 32 This mystery is great, but I am
speaking about Christ and about the church. 33In any case, let each one of you also
so love his wife as he loves himself, and let the wife fear her husband.

Notes

aAlthough the verb “submit” has been supplied for the sake of the English translation, it is
most likely that the best Greek text has no verb and was dependent for its sense on the participle
in the previous verse. This is the reading found in p 46 B Clement172 Greek mss acctoJerome Jerome
Theodore. Other traditions actually supply some form of morhooeiv, “to submit,” after either
yvvaiKes, “wives,” or ävbpamv, “husbands.” The second person plural imperative imorcujoeoQe is
placed after ywauces in D G 1985 lect55 itd e and after ävbpaxnv in K 181 326 614 629 630 1984
syrP>h Chrysostom, while the third person plural form viroraooeodcjoav is placed after yvvauce*; in
4^ copsa’bo and after ävbpäow in N A I P 33 81 88 104 330 436 451 it^,c,dem,{ Vg SyrPal goth arm
eth Clement172 Origen. But these longer readings are all best explained as scribal additions for
the sake of clarity.
bA similar consideration applies here. For the sake of smooth translation a conjunction and
verb have been supplied in English. The best Greek texts simply have aürö? ouyrr\p tov acb/uaro?,
lit. “himself Savior of the body,” after the previous clause. The alternative reading with m i and
eoriv in Nc D b syr arm goth Basil Chrysostom should again be seen as a later expansion for the
sake of clarity and style.
cIn the Greek text this phrase is preceded by the definite article—Tip \ovrpCp tov v5clto<», lit.
“by the washing of water.”
dThe best-attested text ends at this point before the quotation of Gen 2:24 in the next verse
(cf. p 46 K* A B 048 33 81 1739* 1881 copsabo eth Origenlat Methodius Euthalius Ps-Jerome),
but there are variants which expand the verse and which appear to have been formulated in the
light of Gen 2:23. The most popular of these is £k tifr oapms avrov m i in rCbv ootcgjv avrov, “of his
flesh and of his bones,” found in Nc D G P ^ 88 104 181 326 330 436 451 614 630 it vg syrP>h
arm Irenaeus^131Ambrosiaster Victorinus-Rome Chrysostom Jerome. It is possible that the shorter
reading could have come about through homoeoteleuton with a scribe moving from avrov to
avrov. But this ending has stronger external support and is favored by the internal evidence,
since the longer reading raises problems for the consistency of the use of “body” imagery in the
letter as well as problems of sense (what does it mean to be members of Christ’s bones?). The
longer reading is most plausibly explained as a later addition under the influence of the OT
citation in v 31. Irenaeus shows knowledge of it in a context in which he deals with Gnostic
opponents of the real physical existence of Christ and of the bodily resurrection (Adv. Haer.
5.2.3), and it could be that anti-docetic convictions prompted the expansion in the first place (cf.
also Schlier, 261 n. 1; Gnilka, 286).
eThere are variant readings o f the OT quotation. Marcion Origen Cyprian omit the clause
352 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

m i 7rpot7KoXXi7Ö7?aerat 7rpö? tt \v ywcüKa avrov, “and be joined to his wife.” This could have resulted
from haplography, from a desire to get straight to the point of the quotation or from the influence
o f Mark 10:7, where the best-attested reading (N B ^ 892* lect48 syrs goth) also omits this clause
from its citation of Gen 2:24. Among those texts which do contain the clause, there is also a
variation in the wording which reflects variation in the LXX texts. Some have irpö? rr?v yvvawa,
“to his wife,” while others simply have the dative rfj yvvaud. It could be that the latter, which
agrees with the Alexandrian Codex of the LXX and with the citation of Gen 2:24 in Matt 19:5
and is supported here by p 4 6 N * A D * G 3 1 33 462 Chrysostom, is in fact the better-attested
reading for Ephesians. The decision does not, however, affect the meaning.

Form IStructure / Setting

5 :2 1–33 can be seen as a unit. Its first verse acts as a link, com pleting the
th o u g h t o f 5:18– 20 about being filled with the Spirit an d at the sam e tim e
in tro d u cin g a new topic, subm ission, which is to be developed in the rest o f
the passage. Its in troductory function is twofold. N ot only does the adm onition
o f v 2 2 d ep e n d on the participle o f v 2 1 for its sense, b u t the notion o f fear
in th e latter verse also provides the op en in g elem ent o f an inclusio which will
be com pleted in v 33.
T h e w riter’s exhortations to m arriage p artn e rs are closely related to w hat
he has said earlier in the letter about the relationship o f C hrist an d the C h u rch
an d ab o u t the C h u rch ’s calling in the world. It is not surprising th at his vision
o f th e exalted C hrist’s relationship to the C hurch, p ortrayed particularly pow er-
fully in 1:20– 23, colors his perspective on h u m an relationships. T o be sure,
his prim ary aim in the pericope is to give instructions about m arriage, b u t he
bases these on assertions about the relationship o f the heavenly bridegroom ,
Christ, to his bride, the C hurch. T h ro u g h o u t the passage th ere is this interplay
betw een th e two relationships. It is indicated by the use o f com parative p a rti-
cles— co? (vv 23, 24), ofrrco? (vv 24, 28), an d kctöoj? (vv 25, 29). A lthough, as
we shall see, this does not do adequate justice to the syntactical stru ctu re o f
the pericope, one way o f viewing its arg u m e n t is to note the m ovem ents back
an d fo rth betw een m arriage an d C hrist an d th e C h u rch (cf. also Sam pley,
“And the Two ” 103–8). T h e wife-hu sb an d relationship is set o u t in vv 22, 23a
an d su p p o rted by exposition o f the C hrist-C h u rch relationship in vv 23b, 24a.
H u m an m arriage is the focus o f vv 24b, 25a, an d C hrist an d the C h u rch again
provide a w arran t in vv 25b - 27. W hat is said about this relationship in tu rn
supplies th e m odel for the attitu d e o f the hu sb an d to his wife called for in vv
28, 29a, which is com pared once m ore in vv 29b, 30 to the way in which C hrist
an d the C h u rch relate. T h e two relationships are b ro u g h t to g eth er in vv 31, 32
via th e reference to G en 2:24, an d the w riter finally underlines his m ain p u rp o se
by sum m arizing his instructions on m arriage in v 33.
T his perspective on the pericope m akes clear that, while the two relationships
are inextricably interw oven in the arg u m en t, an d although th e u n io n o f h u m an
m arriage can be seen as pointing to the u n io n betw een C hrist an d the C hurch
in vv 3 1 ,3 2 , the standard an d prototype for th e w riter’s instructions about
h u m an m arriage is the bond betw een the heavenly bridegroom an d his bride
(cf. also Miletic, “One Flesh,” 27, who suggests the C hrist-C h u rch relationship
is “analogically p rio r” to the h u sb an d-wife relationship). Chavasse (The Bride
of Christ, 77) rightly observes, “H e is arg u in g from the H eavenly M arriage to
 Form / Structure / Setting 353

h u m an m arriages, not vice versa; he is seeing the h u m an in the light o f the

heavenly, an d th erefore will have the h u m an m odel itself on the heavenly.”
B ut he is certainly not correct in concluding from this th at “his th o u g h t is
n ot prim arily o f m en and w om en in th eir earthly m arriages. T hese are only
shadows o f the one great archetypal M arriage.” G oodspeed (M eaning, 60– 62)
draws a similarly m istaken conclusion w hen he claims th at the w riter is not
so m uch interested in the m arriage relationship as he is in the un io n betw een
C hrist an d th e C hurch, an d th at he is m ore concerned about m arriage as a
symbol th an he is about right relationships in m arriage. A fter all, this passage
begins an d ends with exhortations to husbands an d wives; it is p a rt o f the
household code; an d it is in the m idst o f the letter’s serious paraenesis about
believers’ behavior in the world.
A lthough th ere are no excessively long sentences in this pericope, the in te r-
weaving o f perspectives m eans th at it is n o t always easy to unravel the th read
o f the w riter’s arg um ent. T o obtain a clear view o f the structure, it is best to
see the paraenesis as falling into fo u r m ain parts. T h e re is first o f all in 5:21
the exhortation to all believers to subm it to one an o th e r in the fear o f Christ.
T his is th en followed in 5:22–24 by the exhortation to wives to subm it to
th eir husbands as to the Lord. Verse 22 contains the initial exhortation, which
is su p p o rted by the w arrant o f v 23 (cf. on, “fo r”) th at the husb an d is head
o f the wife, as C hrist is head o f the C h u rch an d him self the Savior o f the
body. T h e ex h ortation is rep eated in v 24 an d reinforced with ev iravri, “in
everything,” b u t this tim e the sequence o f th o u g h t is reversed. T h e elem ent
from th e analogy is given first, “as the C hurch is subject to C hrist,” an d this
leads into “so wives should be subject to th eir husbands in everything.”
T h e th ird m ain section o f the arg u m en t, an d the longest one, is the ex h o rta-
tion to husbands in 5:25–32, which itself has two parts. In vv 25–27 the w riter
exhorts husbands to love th eir wives as C hrist loved the C hurch. T h e actual
exhortation is fo u n d in v 25a. T h e analogy o f C hrist’s love for the C hurch
functions as the w arrant in vv 25b—27, which depict C hrist’s love in term s o f
his sacrificial death. T h re e final clauses with iva (v 26, to sanctify her; v 27a,
to p resen t h e r to him self in splendor; v 27c, to enable h e r to be holy and
blameless) spell o u t the p u rpose o f this sacrificial love as the C h u rch ’s holiness,
the notion rep eated in the first an d th ird clauses. T h e second p a rt o f this
section, vv 28– 32, reiterates the exhortation to husbands to love th eir wives.
T his tim e the w arrant comes in a com bination o f the analogies o f a perso n ’s
love for him self an d C hrist’s love for the C hurch. Verse 28a states husbands’
obligation to love th eir wives, an d v 28b supports this by a com parison with
th eir love for th eir own bodies. T h e use o f oQpa, “body,” here suggests th at
the com parison m ight well already be associated in the w riter’s m ind with his
m ajor analogy o f C hrist’s love for his body, the C h u rch (cf. vv 23, 30). How ever,
m ost im m ediately in vv 28c - 29b the com parison is elaborated on by the state-
m en t th at “he who loves his wife loves h im self” an d the fu rth e r su p p o rtin g
assertion (cf. yap in v 29a) th at no one hates his own body (this tim e actp£,
“flesh”), b u t instead nourishes an d cherishes it. T his pro m p ts a re tu rn in vv
29c, 30 to the analogy o f C hrist an d the C hurch, as C hrist also is said to
n ourish an d cherish the C hurch. In v 30 a su p p o rtin g statem ent (on, “because,
since”) is added, which includes w riter an d readers in its scope, “since we are
354 E p h e s ia n s 5 :2 1–33

m em bers o f his body.” In this way a p erso n ’s loving his own body is now
explicitly related to C hrist’s trea tm e n t o f his body. Verses 31, 32, with th eir
q u o tation an d in terp retatio n o f G en 2:24, are som etim es seen as a separate
stage in th e arg u m en t, b u t they are best taken as providing a fu rth e r justification
(the a m to vtov , “for this reason,” o f the quotation offering an ap p ro p riate
link) fo r the appeal to husbands to love th eir wives as th eir ow n bodies. T h e re
is a sense in which wives are th eir h u sb an d s’ bodies, since G en 2:24 declares
th at m arriage m akes h usband an d wife one body. adp£, “flesh,” is the term
used, b u t adp£ an d acopa, “body,” are interchangeable here (cf. th e shift betw een
th e two in vv 28, 29). T his leads the w riter to assert th at basing his paraenesis
ab o u t m arriage on the relationship betw een C hrist an d th e C h u rch is entirely
ap p ro p riate, because he in terp rets G en 2:24 as a reference to th e p ro fo u n d
m ystery o f th e u n io n betw een C hrist an d the C hurch.
T h e fo u rth an d final section o f the arg u m e n t is constituted by 5:33. T h e
previous th o u g h t could lead the w riter beyond his im m ediate objective, an d
so he breaks o ff and concludes with a sum m arizing rehearsal (indicated by
the in troductory n\rjv, “how ever, in any case”) o f his basic exhortations to
both husbands an d wives. T his tim e, following on the im m ediately preceding
discussion o f vv 25– 32, husbands are addressed first, “Let each one o f you
also so love his wife as he loves him self.” T h e th o u g h t has been set o u t in vv
28, 29, b u t now th e w ording is varied an d is rem iniscent o f the com m and to
love o n e’s neig h b o r as oneself in Lev 19:18. T h e w ording o f the exhortation
to the wife is also different. She is to fear h e r husband. T h e use o f the verb
“to fe ar” ra th e r th an “to subm it” enables the w riter to ro u n d off the passage
with an inclusio, because the notion o f fear, fear o f C hrist, was the m otivation
in th e o p en in g appeal to m utual subm ission back in v 21. In this way, vv 21
an d 33 provide th e fram e fo r this pericope’s m arriage paraenesis.
T h e previous section o f Ephesians, 5:15– 20, h ad m ade use o f Col 3:16, 17
in conjunction with Col 4:5. Now E ph 5 :2 1–6:9 uses the next section o f Colos-
sians, its household code, from 3:18–4:1. T h e trea tm e n t o f the sam e th ree
pairs o f household relationships follows the sam e basic sequence a n d has the
sam e basic content, th ough, as we shall see, th e w riter to the E phesians has
ex p an d ed on this m aterial in his own creative fashion. W hereas Colossians
puts its em phasis on the last pair, the slave-m aster relationship, E phesians
concentrates m ost attention on the first, the wife-h u sb an d relationship. E ph
5:21– 33, in particular, is d e p e n d e n t on Col 3:18, 19, an d as in Colossians
this topic follows on from exhortations ab o u t singing an d giving thanks. (T h ere
is little to be said in favor o f W. M u n ro ’s com plicated hypothesis [NTS 18
(1972) 434– 47] that, although E phesians as a whole is d e p e n d e n t on Colossians,
th e household code in Colossians is d e p e n d e n t on th at in Ephesians.) Like
Colossians, E phesians has the appeal to wives before th at to husbands. Col
3:18 reads ai yvvaiKes, imoraooeode rol? ävSpäoiv, co? ävf\Kev ev Kopie*), “Wives,
subm it to y our husbands, as is fitting in the L o rd .” In com parison with this,
in E ph 5:21– 24 the w riter has ad ded the exh o rtatio n to m u tu al subm ission
in v 2 1 , which im m ediately gives the passage a d ifferent flavor, because in the
Colossians original the notion o f subm ission is only applied to the wives. Also,
in his address to the wives, he om its the verb so th a t the notion o f subm ission
has to be carried over from the p resen t participle o f th e previous clause. H e
th en adds iStot?, “ow n,” before ävbpäow, “h u sb an d s,” an d instead o f co? avqKev
 Form/Structure/Setting 355

eu KopieJ, “as is fitting in the L ord,” has the m ore direct cos rep Kvpicp, “as to
the L o rd .” T h e force o f the additional i&ois, “ow n,” n eed no t be em phatic.
T h e adjective often functions in the sam e way as a personal p ro n o u n , here
substituting for vpcbv, “your,” o r it could be seen as the equivalent o f eavreou,
“th e ir” (cf. v 28). W hile in Colossians the C hristian w arrant for wives’ subm ission
is simply th at this is fitting in the Lord, the rest o f the ex hortation in Ephesians
spells o u t how this is fitting in term s o f the C h u rch ’s relation to Christ, and
in so doing expands the original from one verse (Col 3:18) to th ree an d a
h alf (Eph 5:22– 24, 33b) o r from nine to fo rty-seven words in Greek. It should
also be n o ted th at in the repetition o f the exhortation in v 24b the w riter
adds ev nauri, “in everything,” to the Colossian original. Colossians does not
have an absolutizing o f its exhortation to wives b u t has this p h en o m en o n instead
in its appeal to children an d slaves (cf. Kara naura in 3:20, 22).
In the appeal to husbands, Col 3:19 has oi äudpes, ayairare r a s 7 vualKas Kai
pr\ mKpaiueode ttpos aura?, “husbands, love your wives an d do no t be em bittered
with th em .” In E ph 5:25 the first five words are rep eated , b u t the injunction
against bitterness is om itted (the w riter has, however, listed mKpia, “bitterness,”
as a vice in 4:31). Instead, w hat it m eans to love is elaborated on in term s o f
the analogies with C hrist’s love for the C hurch an d o n e’s love for oneself (vv
25b - 33a). T en words addressed to husbands in Colossians becom e one h u n d re d
fo rty-th ree in Ephesians. So while in Colossians equal w eight is placed on the
duties o f wives an d husbands, the w riter to the Ephesians addresses over th ree
times as m uch o f his appeal to husbands, the dom in an t p artn ers, as to wives,
th e subordinate ones. T h e re are o th er rem iniscences o f Colossians in the w riter’s
expansion o f the original, b u t these are instances w here he has already m ade
use o f the language and concepts earlier in his letter. 5:23, which depicts
C hrist as h ead an d the C hurch as his body, recalls Col 1:18, “H e is th e head
o f the body, the ch u rch ,” but this has already been developed in E ph 1:22, 23
an d 4:15, 16. Col 1:22 speaks o f “p resen tin g ” the readers “holy an d blam eless,”
an d these term s are taken up separately in E ph 5:27, although the latter pair
o f adjectives has already been em ployed in E ph 1:4. All in all, this w riter’s
treatm en t o f th e first p art o f the household code should probably be ju d g e d
as m ore thoroughly C hristian th an th at o f Colossians (but see the Explanation
for an evaluation o f it in its own right). It is tru e th at Colossians sets the
relationship “in the L ord” an d requires husbands to love, b u t Ephesians adds
explicitly the qualifying notion o f m utual subm ission an d reinforces the sacrifi-
cial an d d em an d in g n atu re o f the love req u ired o f husbands th ro u g h its C hristo-
logical analogy.

As we have seen, the m ajor elem ent in the form o f this pericope (and o f
the m aterial in 6:1– 9)— a household code—is taken over from Colossians and
adapted. For an overview o f som e o f the earlier discussion o f the background
o f the household code an d the occasion o f its use in Colossians, see the W ord
Biblical C om m entary on Colossians (P. T . O ’B rien, Colossians, Philemon [Waco,
TX: W ord, 1982] 214– 19). For fu rth e r, m ore detailed discussion o f household
codes an d o f th eir use in the N T , see the following:

Balch, D. L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981. ------- . “Household Codes.” In Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament,
356 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1 – 3 3

ed. D. E. Aune. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988, 25–50. Berger, K. Formgeschichte
des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984, 135–41. Cannon, G. E. The
Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983,
95– 131. Carrington, P. The Primitive Christian Catechism. Cambridge: CUP, 1940. Crouch,
J. E. The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1972. Elliott, J. H. A Home for the Homeless. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981, 165–
266. Fiedler, P. “Haustafel.” RAC 13 (1986) 1063– 73. Gnilka, J. Der Kolosserbrief. Frei-
burg: Herder, 1980, 205– 16. Goppelt, L. “Jesus und die ‘Haustafel’–Tradition.” In
Orientierung an Jesus. FS J. Schmid, ed. P. Hoffmann. Freiburg: Herder, 1973, 93–
106. Hartman, L. “Code and Context: A Few Reflections on the Paraenesis of Col
3:6–4:1.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. FS E. Earle Ellis, ed.
G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, 237–47. Hunter, A. M.
Paul and His Predecessors. London: SCM, 1962, 52– 57, 128– 31. Kamlah, E. “'Tnoraxsoeodai
in den neutestamentlichen Haustafeln.” Verborum Veritas. FS G. Stählin, ed. O. Böcher
and K. Haacker. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970, 237–43. Lillie, W. “The Pauline House-
Tables.” ExpTim 86 (1975) 179–83. Lohse, E. Colossians and Philemon. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971, 154–57. Lührmann, D. “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln und antike Ökon-
omie.” NTS 27 (1980) 83–97. MacDonald, M. The Pauline Churches. Cambridge: CUP,
1988, 102–22. Martin, R. P. “Haustafeln.” NIDNTT 3 (1975) 928–32. Müller, K.-H.
“Die Haustafel des Kolosserbriefes und das antike Frauenthema: Eine kritische Rück-
schau auf alte Ergebnisse.” In Die Frau im Urchristentum, ed. G. Dautzenberg et al.
Freiburg: Herder, 1983, 263–319. Rengstorf, K. H. “Die neutestamentlichen Mahnun-
gen an die Frau, sich dem Manne unterzuordnen.” In Verborum Dei. FS O. Schmitz.
Witten: Luther Verlag, 1953, 131–45. Sampley, J. P. ‘And the Two Shall Become One
Flesh/’ Cambridge: CUP, 1971, 17–30. Schräge, W. “Zur Ethik der neutestamentlichen
Haustafeln.” NTS 21 (1975) 1–22. Schroeder, D. “Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testa-
ments.” Dissertation, Hamburg, 1959. Schweizer, E. “Die Weltlichkeit des Neuen Testa-
ments—die Haustafeln.” In Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. FS W. Zimmerli,
ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart and R. Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht,
1977, 397–4 1 3 .-------- . The Letter to the Colossians. London: S.P.C.K., 1982, 213–220.
-------- . “Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters and Their
Development (lists of vices and house-tables).” In Text and Interpretation. FS M. Black,
ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge: CUP, 1979, 195–209. Selwyn, E. G. The
First Epistle of St. Peter. London: Macmillan, 1946, 419– 39. Strobel, A. “Der Begriff
des ‘Hauses’ im griechischen und römischen Privatrecht.” ZNW 56 (1965) 91– 100.
Thraede, K. “Zum historischen Hintergrund der ‘Haustafeln’ des Neuen Testaments.”
In Pietas. FS B. Kötting, ed. E. Dassmann. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980, 359–68. Verner,
D. C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1983. Weidinger, K. Die Haustafeln: Ein Stück urchristlicher Paränese. Leipzig: J.
C. Hinrichs, 1928. Wendland, H.-D. “Zur sozialethischen Bedeutung der neutestamentli-
chen Haustafeln.” In Botschaft an die soziale Welt. Hamburg: Furche, 1959, 104–14.
Wicker, K. O. “First Century Marriage Ethics: A Comparative Study of the Household
Codes and Plutarch’s Conjugal Precepts.” In No Famine in the Land. FS J. L. McKenzie,
ed. J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975, 141–53.
Yoder, J. The Politics ofJesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972, 163–92.

For o u r purposes o f setting this w riter’s exhortations in th eir contem porary

context, we shall focus attention briefly on som e o f the conclusions o f m ore
recen t discussion about the background o f this form a n d its use in early C hris-
tianity. We shall th en re tu rn at the en d o f this section, in o u r trea tm e n t o f
the life-setting o f 5 :2 1–33, to w hat was said ab o u t m arriage relationships in
such household codes an d m ore broadly in the ancient world.
 Form / Structure / Setting 357

W ith the work o f C rouch as its m ost detailed exposition, a consensus (cf.
also Lohse, M artin, O ’B rien, Schräge, Schweizer) prevailed in study o f the
origins o f the household code th at m aintained th at its im m ediate source was
n ot Stoic m oral philosophy (pace Dibelius, W eidinger) n o r was it a C hristian
creation (pace R engstorf, S chroeder, G oppelt) b u t th at instead it was m ediated
to early C hristianity from H ellenistic Judaism . U n d e r th e influence o f the
Hellenistic tradition o f “u nw ritten laws” an d in an attem p t to show th at th ere
were Jew ish laws which were equally valid for G entiles, Jew ish propagandists
such as Philo (Hypothetica 7 .1–14; De Decal. 165–67; De Post. Caini 181), Jo sep h u s
(c. Ap. 2.22– 28 §§ 190– 210), and Ps.-Phocylides (175– 227) w ere able to show
links betw een the social duties o f Judaism , with th eir special interest in wives,
children, an d slaves, an d H ellenism as re p resen ted by p o p u lar Stoic philosophy.
In all probability, this type o f Hellenistic Jew ish m aterial was m ediated to
early C hristianity via the Hellenistic synagogues (cf. C rouch, Origins, 95– 101).
In the early ch urch the catalyst for its use was a response in th e Pauline churches
to enthusiastic excesses on the p art o f som e w om en an d slaves which appealed
to the sort o f baptism al form ulation fo u n d in Gal 3:28. T h e household code
o f Colossians could th en be seen as confirm ing qualifications th at Paul had
already m ade in 1 C orinthians and as safeguarding good o rd e r in his churches
(cf. C rouch, Origins, 120– 51).
M ore recently, however, it has been arg u ed convincingly, especially by Balch
(cf. also T h ra ed e, V erner, L ü h rm an n , Elliott, b u t for a d ifferent hypothesis,
see B erger), th at this sort o f analysis does not do en o u g h justice to the im p o rtan t
influence o f the discussion about the topic o f household m anagem ent in the
ancient world. T his discussion, which treats h u sb an d-wife, p a re n t-child, and
m aster-slave relationships, focuses on authority an d subordination within these
relationships, an d relates the topic o f the household to the larger topic o f the
state, can be fo u n d as early as the classical G reek philosophers (cf. Plato, Leges
3.690a - D; 6.771E— 7.824C; Aristotle, Pol. 1.1253b, 1259a). It is w orth noting
how A ristotle introduces his discussion o f the topic: “Now th at it is clear w hat
are the com p o n en t parts o f the state, we have first o f all to discuss household
m anagem ent; for every state is com posed o f households. . . . T h e investigation
o f everything should begin with the smallest parts, an d the prim ary an d smallest
parts o f the household are m aster an d slave, husb an d an d wife, fa th e r an d
children; we o u g h t therefore to exam ine the p ro p e r constitution an d character
o f each o f these th ree relationships, I m ean th at o f m astership, th at o f m arriage
. . . , an d thirdly the progenitive relationship” (Pol. 1.1253b). T h e continuity
o f the discussion o f household m anagem ent, retaining its A ristotelian outline
dow n into the later R om an period, is dem o n strated by its use, for exam ple,
in the Peripatetic Magna Moralia, by A erius Didym us, Dio C hrysostom , A riston,
H ecaton, Seneca, Hierocles, an d Dionysius o f H alicarnassus, an d by I^eopytha-
goreans such as Bryson an d Callicratidas. Philo an d Jo sep h u s also ad ap ted
A ristotle’s outline o f household subordination in th eir in terp re tatio n an d praise
o f Mosaic law (cf. Balch, Wives, 23– 62). Jo sep h u s could write, “T h e w om an,
it [the Law] says, is in all things inferior to the m an. Let h e r accordingly be
obedient, n ot for h er hum iliation, b u t th at she m ay be directed; for God has
given authority to the m an ” (c. Ap. 2.24 § 199), while Philo instructs, “Wives
m ust be in servitude to th eir husbands, a servitude no t im posed by violent
358 E p h e s ia n s 5 :2 1–33

ill-trea tm e n t b u t prom oting obedience in all things” (Hyp. 7.3). Typical o f the
co n ten t o f all these discussions is the notion th at th e m an is in ten d ed by n a tu re
to rule as husband, father, an d m aster, an d th at no t to ad h e re to this p ro p e r
hierarchy is detrim ental no t only to the household b u t also to th e life o f the
state.
T h e re m in d e r o f the links betw een discussion o f the household a n d discussion
o f the state in th e G reco-R om an world, w hereby the household was viewed
as the fo u n d atio n o f the state, is extrem ely significant fo r in terp re tatio n o f
the early C hristian use o f household codes. It reveals th at p ro p e r household
m an ag em en t was generally re g ard e d as a m atter o f crucial social a n d political
concern an d th at any upsetting o f th e traditional hierarchical o rd e r o f the
household could be considered a potential th re a t to the o rd e r o f society as a
whole.
T h e religious dim ension o f this situation was also crucial. In G reco-R om an
culture, wives, children, an d slaves were expected to accept the religion o f the
m ale h ead o f the household, the paterfamilias, an d so religious g roups th at
attracted w om en an d slaves w ere particularly seen as potentially subversive
o f societal stability. W riters in G reco-R om an society singled o u t the cults o f
Dionysus an d Isis, which attracted w om en devotees, an d also Ju d aism , since
Jew ish slaves rejected the w orship o f th eir R om an m asters’ gods, for stereotyped
criticism o n g rounds o f p roducing im m orality a n d sedition. Dionysius o f H alicar-
nassus, criticizing foreign m ystery cults an d su p p o rtin g R om an virtues, praised
R om an h o usehold relationships with th eir insistence on the obedience o f wives,
children, an d slaves (Rom. Ant. 2.24.3– 2.27.4). A nd in response to slanders
ab o u t the Jews, Jo se p h u s’ apology in c. Ap. 2.24, 27, 30 §§ 199, 206, 216 (cf.
also Philo, Hyp. 7.3.5) stresses subordination w ithin the th ree household relatio n -
ships to show th at Ju d aism did, in fact, accept the ethic d em an d ed by G reco-
R om an society an d was n o t subversive o f it (cf. Balch, Wives, 6 3–80).
As C hristianity spread in the R om an w orld an d w om en an d slaves converted
to this new religion, it too becam e the object o f sim ilar suspicion an d criticism.
Social tensions betw een C hristians an d th e rest o f society, as well as tensions
w ithin th e early C hristian m ovem ent, need, th erefo re, to be given th eir d u e
in any account o f the em ergence o f C hristian household codes. It m ay well
have been external factors, the need to resp o n d to accusations from outsiders
an d to set standards in line with com m on notions o f propriety, as m uch as
in tern al ones, the need to resp o n d to enthusiastic dem ands for freedom on
the p art o f believers, th at led C hristians to take u p the household code. It
can be shown th at 1 P eter in its particular use o f th e household code, set in
an apologetic fram ew ork (cf. 1 Pet 2:12; 3:15, 16), insists th at despite th eir
conversion to a new religion, C hristian wives an d slaves should still be subordi-
n ate an d thereby silence criticisms (cf. Balch, Wives, 81– 116). W hat is certainly
a factor by the tim e o f the code’s use in 1 P eter m ay also have been an elem ent
in its em ergence within early C hristianity in the first place. H ow ever, the precise
reason fo r early C hristians’ taking u p this topic originally an d the exact relation
betw een in n er an d o u ter social tensions in such a m ove m ust rem ain m atters
o f conjecture. Colossians contains the first ex tan t C hristian household code,
and, in its setting in th at letter, n eith er the attem p t to com bat gnosticizing
enthusiasm based on an over-realized eschatology n o r an apology in the face
o f society’s criticisms is the prim e factor in its use. O ver-realized eschatology
 Form / Structure / Setting 359

was n o t an elem ent in the beliefs the letter is com bating, an d although the
paraenesis does later have an eye on relationships with outsiders (cf. 4:5),
this is n o t a m otivation directly connected with the household code. Instead,
its intro d u ctio n is ap p ro p riate, because devotees o f the false teaching, with
its stress on ascetism an d visionary experiences, n eeded to be recalled to the
significance o f earthly life with its dom estic duties. For the a u th o r o f Colossians
these are integral to the ethical consequences o f tru e heavenly-m indedness
an d an appreciation o f C hrist’s lordship (cf. Lincoln, Paradise, 130– 31;
Schweizer, Text, 204; H artm an , “C ode an d C ontext,” 243).

W hatever the original reason for the introduction o f the code into a letter
like Colossians, it rem ains tru e that, given the d o m in an t ethos about the house-
hold in the G reco-R om an world, the specific co ntent assigned to the dom estic
duties w ould be b o u n d to have a bearing on believers’ relationship to the norm s
in th eir su rro u n d in g society. T h e sam e holds tru e for Ephesians, w here th ere
is no m ention o f relationships with outsiders in connection with the household
code itself, b u t the w riter does see its injunctions as p a rt o f believers’ wise
conduct in the world, which m akes the m ost o f oppo rtu n ities for good and
un d erstan d s the will o f the L ord for p resen t circum stances (cf. 5:15– 17). Some
(e.g., T h ra ed e, M üller) have claim ed th at the early C hristian codes take a
m oderate, progressively conservative position betw een two m ore extrem e o p -
tions, the egalitarianism o f M usonius an d Plutarch, on the one hand, an d the
unqualified patriarchy o f Philo and the N eopythagoreans, on the other. B ut
this involves a m isrepresentation o f these o th er views, all o f which contained
m uch m ore o f a m ixture o f patriarchal an d egalitarian elem ents (cf. esp. Balch,
“H ousehold C odes,” 29– 33; Wives, 139– 49, who points o u t th at the significant
social contrasts are not within G reco-R om an society b u t betw een th at society
an d foreign E gyptian p atterns an d betw een its codes an d the earlier Jesus
m ovem ent in Palestine). M usonius’ ideal for m arriage is often quoted, an d it
does a p p e ar m ore egalitarian th an th at o f Ephesians: “B ut in m arriage th ere
m ust be above all perfect com panionship an d m utual love o f hu sb an d an d
wife, both in health an d sickness an d u n d e r all conditions, since it was with
desire for this as well as for having children th at both en tered u p o n m arriage.
W here, th en , this love for each o th er is perfect an d the two share it com pletely,
each striving to ou tdo the o th er in devotion, the m arriage is ideal an d w orthy
o f envy, for such a u nion is beautiful” (M usonius R ufus, Or. X IIIA ; C. Lutz,
Musonius Rufus [New H aven: Yale U niversity Press, 1947] 89). B ut it needs
to be rem em b ered th at this stands alongside m aterial which argues th at m en
should work outside the house an d w om en inside (Or. IV), which assum es
th at m en are th e rulers an d superior while w om en are the ru led an d inferior
(Or. XII), an d which refers to the wife as a great help, who m ust be willing
to serve h er husb and with h e r own hands (Or. I ll; cf. also O. L. Y arbrough,
Not Like the Gentiles [Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985] 55– 56). T h e early
C hristian codes, despite th eir distinctive C hristian m otivations, tu rn o u t in
practice to be in line with the variety w ithin the consistent patriarchal p attern
th ro u g h o u t G reco-R om an society, w here subordination o f wives to husbands,
children to parents, an d slaves to m asters was the overarching n o rm (cf. also
V erner, Household, 27– 81, who notes som e differences in the legal status o f
w om en u n d e r G reek, R om an, an d Jew ish law bu t concludes th at in both G reece
360 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1 – 3 3

an d Rom e “the household was conceived as a patriarchal institution, whose

m ale h ead . . . exercised sweeping, alth o u g h n o t entirely un restricted authority
over th e o th er m em bers” an d th at “from th e social stru ctu re alone, one w ould
have a difficult tim e distinguishing pagan from Jew ish households in th e cities
o f H ellenistic-R om an D iaspora” [79– 80]). T hey reflect a stage in which C hris-
tians w ere conscious o f criticisms o f subverting society an d o f the n eed to
adjust to living in the G reco-R om an w orld w ithout unnecessarily d isru p tin g
th e status quo.
T h e household codes o f Colossians an d Ephesians can be seen as p a rt o f
th e process o f stabilizing com m unal relations in the Pauline churches (cf. esp.
M acDonald, The Pauline Churches, 102– 22). In so doing, they continue the
“love-patriarchalism ” o f the early Pauline m ovem ent (cf. G. T heissen, The Social
Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982]
esp. 107). As M acDonald (The Pauline Churches, 102– 3) observes, “O n th e one
h an d , the ru le-like statem ents reflect a m ore conservative attitu d e tow ard the
role o f subordinate m em bers o f the household; they leave m uch less room
fo r am biguity and, consequently, for exceptional activity on the p a rt o f certain
m em bers. O n th e o th er hand, the instructions are n o t incom patible with P aul’s
own teaching ab out w om en an d slaves (cf. 1 C or 11:2– 16; 1 C or 14:34– 36; 1
C or 7:20– 24; Philem 10– 20).” D espite the C hristian m odifications he provides
for conduct w ithin the household, which at tim es p roduce tensions with the
n otion o f p atriarchal dom ination (see Comment on v 25), an d despite w hat he
has said earlier ab out the radical contrast betw een believers an d unbelievers,
the w riter o f Ephesians, like the w riters o f o th e r early C hristian household
codes, assum es th at in this area the basic p a tte rn o f C hristian conduct will
have th e sam e hierarchical stru ctu re as th at prevailing in society as a whole.
T h e d eath o f the apostle Paul an d th e delay o f th e parousia w ould both have
been factors co n tributing to Pauline C hristians taking a lo n g-term perspective
on th eir ch u rches’ need to assim ilate to life in society while preserving th eir
essential identity. T h e form the code takes in E phesians reflects its w riter’s
a ttem p t to contribute to this process.
A lthough discussions o f the traditional topic o f household m an ag em en t
influenced th e early C hristians’ taking u p o f this topic, th ere is o f course no
one m odel from the G reco-R om an w orld, including the ad aptation o f the h o u se-
hold code in Hellenistic Judaism , on which C hristian codes are directly d e p e n -
dent. A p art from the exam ples in Colossians an d Ephesians, o th e r early
C hristian codes th at focus specifically on the household, th o u g h not addressing
each m em b er o f all th ree pairs, can be fo u n d in 1 Pet 2:18– 3:7; 1 T im 6:1, 2;
T itus 2:1– 10; Did. 4.9– 11; Bam . 19.5– 7; 1 Clem. 21.6– 9; Ign. Pol. 4.1– 6:1;
Pol. Phil. 4.2– 6:3. Despite th eir variations, these early C hristian codes share a
p articu lar p attern o r schem a, over an d above any distinctive C hristian content.
T h e re are fo u r m ajor elem ents in this schem a: an address to a particular
social g ro u p , an im perative th at is often accom panied by an a p p ro p riate object,
an am plification o f the im perative th at often takes the form o f a prepositional
phrase, an d a reason clause providing m otivation o r theological w arran t (cf.
esp. V erner, Household, 86–87). V ern er (Household, 86–87) may have overstated
the distinctiveness o f this schem a. Balch (“H ousehold C odes,” 36– 40) offers
som e criticisms, n o t all equally telling ones, o f V e rn e r’s discussion, an d provides
 Form / Structure / Setting 361

some parallels to the form o f the individual exhortations in the codes. T h e

closest parallel is w hat is stated about m asters an d slaves in Philo, De Spec.
Leg. 2.67– 68. B ut w hat appears to rem ain distinctive in C hristian usage is the
application o f this schem a in a series o f exhortations to different groups w ithin
the household. A lthough th ere is direct literary dep en d en ce only betw een the
E phesians an d the Colossians code within early C hristianity, it appears that,
once it h ad developed, the sam e basic p attern was taken u p an d applied differ-
ently for d ifferent situations. If the Colossians code is close to the earliest
form , th en later users o f the p attern felt free to ad a p t an d develop it by singling
o ut p articular groups for treatm ent, by ex p an d in g the am plification an d reason
sections, by sandw iching o th er types o f exhortation betw een th at addressed
to the particular household groups, and, especially in the later exam ples, by
m erging household concerns with those o f church organization (cf. also V erner,
Household, 89, 92– 107).
A p art from its use o f Colossians an d its household code, E ph 5:21– 33 draws
on o th er traditions. Sam pley’s m o n o g rap h “And the Two Shall Become One Flesh”
is, as its subtitle indicates, “a study o f traditions in E phesians 5 :2 1–33” and
should be consulted critically for a fuller trea tm e n t o f som e o f the issues (cf.
esp. 16– 85, 158– 62). T h e form ulation o f v 25, th at C hrist “loved the church
an d gave him self u p for h e r,” takes over via its earlier use in 5:2 the com bination
o f the sam e verbs from Gal 2:20, w here Paul had spoken o f “the Son o f God,
who loved m e an d gave him self for m e.” T h e term inology in v 27 about the
C h u rch being holy an d blam eless has also been used earlier in 1:4. It reflects
P aul’s concerns for the purity o f his churches (cf., e.g., 1 T hess 4 :3–8; 1 C or
7:14; 2 C or 6:14– 7:1; 11:2), which in tu rn reflects concerns fo r holiness preva-
lent in the O T an d Judaism , w here the language o f cultic purity, th at d em an d ed
o f the priests an d the sacrifices, could also be applied to Israel as a whole.
T h e im agery o f headship, as applied to the h u sb an d ’s relationship to his wife
(v 23), recalls Paul’s discussion in 1 C or 11:3, while the term inology o f body
an d m em bers o f the body, as applied to believers (vv 28–30), n o t only recalls
the earlier statem ents o f 1:23; 3:6; 4:16, 25 b u t also is rem iniscent o f P aul’s
language in 1 C or 12:27 an d Rom 12:4, 5. A m ajor piece o f tradition fo u n d
in o u r passage is LXX G en 2:24, cited in v 31 an d underlying the exhortation
o f vv 28– 30, a text used ra th e r differently by Paul in 1 C or 6:16 (cf. Lincoln,
J S N T 14 [1982] 30– 36, an d Comment fo r fuller discussion). B oth Sam pley (“And
the Two 51– 61, 96– 102, 110– 14) an d Miletic (“One Flesh,” 18– 22, 47– 66,
112 – 14) overestim ate the extent o f the influence o f G en 2:24 on the w riter’s
argum ent. Miletic (esp. 48) m isunderstands my earlier discussion. I do not
assum e th at subordination has n o th in g to do with m utuality, n o r dispute th at
the two notions can be com bined theologically, n o r deny th at th e w riter holds
them both to g eth er in this passage. I simply dispute th a t the quotation from
G en 2:24 perform s this function in the w riter’s argum ent. Instead, it functions
in a m ore lim ited way an d is b ro u g h t in to m ake his point about only one o f
these notions— the m utual “one flesh” relationship. A n o th er O T text which
has influenced the w riter’s form ulation in v 33, “let each one o f you also so
love his wife as he loves him self,” is Lev 19:18, “you shall love your neighbor
as yourself.” Its influence on the w riter’s language is clear here, b u t no t in
v 28 (pace Sampley, “And the Two,” 32– 34, 139– 42).
362 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1–33

Finally, E ph 5 :2 1–33 takes u p w hat are know n as hieros gamos o r “sacred

m arriag e” traditions. T h e term is used to cover a ra n g e o f diverse relationships—
th e u n io n betw een divine or celestial beings, th e u n io n betw eeen a divine
being an d an earthly one, the u n io n o f the representatives o f th e divine an d
th e earthly, o r th e ritual en actm ent o f th e u n ion o f celestial beings in the
sexual u n io n o f two hum ans. A sacred m arriage betw een a divine being an d
an earthly one is the im agery in which Y ahw eh’s covenant relationship with
Israel is som etim es depicted by the p ro p h ets (e.g., Isa 54:1, 5, 6 ; 62:4, 5; J e r
2:2, 3, 32; Ezek 16; 23; Hos 2:19, 20; Mai 2:14). In Ephesians, th e im agery is
used o f th e exalted Christ, now a heavenly being, an d his relationship with
the C hurch, to which believers on ea rth belong, although because o f its relatio n -
ship to C hrist this C hurch has heavenly connections (cf. esp. 2:6). In E phesians
this un io n betw een Christ, the bridegroom , an d th e C hurch, his bride, is also
seen as th e archetype for h u m an m arriage, the “one flesh” relationship b e-
tw een h u sb an d an d wife. Some scholars have correctly observed th at because
o f this latter elem ent, E phesians’ use o f the sacred m arriage im agery goes
beyond th at o f its O T antecedents. T hey have gone on to claim th at in this
re g ard its w riter has been influenced by ideas from a Gnostic th o u g h t w orld.
(Cf. Schlier’s lengthy excursus, 264 – 76, which concludes th a t the ideas th at
form th e background to Ephesians “com e mostly from the en v iro n m en t o f a
Gnosis connected with hellenistic Ju d a ism ” [275]. Batey, N T S 10 [1963] 121–
27, claims m ore specifically th a t E phesians was w ritten in a m ilieu influenced
by Jew ish Gnosticism like th at fo u n d in Ju stin the G nostic’s Baruch, w here
th e m arriage betw een Elohim an d E den serves as a p a tte rn fo r h u m a n m arriage
relationships; Fischer, Tendenz, 181– 200, adds to th e m aterial cited by Schlier
N ag H am m adi texts such as Exeg. Soul 132–34; Gos. Phil. 64–72, 76, a n d con-
cludes th at while in Gnosticism the u n io n betw een th e Savior an d Sophia serves
ascetic tendencies, E ph 5 can be u n d ersto o d as a correction o f th e Gnostic
m ystery [195]. H owever, both these texts are d ep e n d e n t on Ephesians.) T h a t
th e w riter o f E phesians knew som e earlier form o f a Gnostic Sophia m yth
th at related heavenly syzygies to h u m an sexual relationships has, how ever,
n o t been dem o n strated by such scholars (cf. also Gnilka, 290– 94). T h e re is
n o th in g th at parallels the conception in Philo’s writings either. T h e closest
similarity is a discussion o f taking A braham a n d Sarah allegorically to stand
for th e u n io n betw een the good m ind o r soul a n d virtue, a u n io n which,
how ever, is th en sharply contrasted with physical m arriage (cf. De Ahr. 99–
102; De Somn. 1.200). It is o f course possible th at the w riter h ad som e general
know ledge o f th e links th at w ere m ade betw een m arriages o f the gods an d
h u m an m arriages in the m ystery religions, w here, fo r exam ple, the m arriage
o f Zeus an d H era was th o u g h t o f as a p attern for h u m an m arriage in term s
o f p ro creation an d fecundity, an d w here the sacred m arriage could be enacted
in a h u m an ritual (cf., e.g., W. K. C. G uthrie, The Greeks and Their Gods [London:
M ethuen, 1950] 53–73). It is also often observed th at in th e Villa Item the
w edding o f Dionysus and A riadne m ay well be re p resen te d as a m odel for
the fu tu re m arriage o f devotees (cf. E. Stauffer, “7 a/ueco,” T D N T 1 [1964] 653).
W hat can be said m ore definitely is this. T h e w riter has ad a p te d P aul’s
picture o f th e C o rinthian church as a p u re bride fo r C hrist from 2 C or 11:2
with its language o f presentation an d applied it to C hrist’s relationship to th e
 Form / Structure / Setting 363

universal C hurch. T his is related to o th er N T n uptial im agery, which portrays

the salvation o f the en d-tim e as a m arriage feast o r m ore specifically as a
m arriage betw een C hrist and the C hurch depicted as the heavenly Jeru salem
(cf. M ark 2:18– 22; M att 22:1– 14; 25:1– 13; Rev 19:7– 9; 2 1 :2 ,9 ; 22:17). T his
im agery has parallels in Jew ish apocalyptic m aterial (cf. 4 Ezra 9:26– 10:59).
C haracteristically, in Ephesians, with its m ore realized eschatology, the m arriage
betw een C hrist an d the C hurch is now viewed as a p resen t relationship. In
depicting this union, the w riter in vv 26, 27 also draws on the prophetic picture
o f Y ahw eh’s m arriage to Israel in Ezek 16:8 – 14 with its notions o f cleansing,
b athing with w ater, an d the splendor o f the bride (cf. also Sam pley, “And the
T w o ” 38– 43; Canticles and Ps 45 are, however, n o t direct sources for E phesians’
depiction, pace Sampley, “And the Two , ” 45– 51). T h e application o f “sacred
m arriag e” im agery to paraenesis about m arriage appears to be this w riter’s
distinctive contribution to the tradition. It is possible th at he knew o f ascetic
tendencies in the churches o f Asia M inor (cf. Col 2 :1 8 ,2 0 – 23 an d Comment
on E ph 5:29, 31, 32) an d th at this was the catalyst th at led to this new direction
o f thought. B ut m aking the m arriage o f C hrist an d the C h u rch the archetype
for C hristian m arriage has no antecedent an d is E phesians’ unique addition
to the early C hristian household code tradition.
As such, it is also a m ajor contribution to the whole process o f the “sacralizing”
o f m arriage. It needs to be rem em b ered th at within the world o f the first
century c .e . m arriage was prim arily a contractual relationship. A lthough usually
accom panied by som e form o f feast, it was a contractual agreem ent, an d not
any fu rth e r legal o r religious cerem ony, th at constituted a m arriage. W ithin
Ju daism , o f course, it was presum ed th at the perm anence o f the relationship
was G od’s intention, th at m arriage w ould be w ithin the Jew ish com m unity
an d n o t with Gentiles, an d th at it w ould be w ithin the p erm itted degree o f
kinship. Ephesians, th o u g h it does no t talk o f m arriage as a “sacram ent” as
did later C hristian theology, does introduce a perspective on the relationship
quite distinct from o th er contem porary views by linking it so closely to the
m ystery o f C hrist an d the C hurch an d giving it so p ro m in en t a place in the
outw orking o f salvation (cf. esp. Perkins, “M arriage,” 6 – 11,23). As Perkins
(“M arriage,” 26) puts it, “the incorporation o f the household code into a larger
vision o f th e C h u rch as the ‘beloved’ b rid e/b o d y o f C hrist in Ephesians opens
u p the d o o r for a qualitatively new perception o f m arriage. It participates in
an d reflects th e new reality o f grace which is at the h e a rt o f salvation.”
As we have noted, in its setting in the letter this ex hortation to wives and
husbands is linked via the introductory exhortation about m u tu al subm ission
to the previous pericope (5:15– 20), so th at its injunctions are to be seen as
specific exam ples o f the wise living in the fullness o f the Spirit th at this w riter
requires o f believers. T h e form ulations an d them es o f 5:21– 33 also have links
with th e w riter’s earlier discussion. T h e exhortation to m utual subm ission is
a fu rth e r variation on previous calls to bear with one a n o th e r in love (4:2), to
be kind an d forgiving to one an o th er, an d to walk in love (4:32– 5:2). T h e
“one flesh” unity o f the m arriage relationship is a fu rth e r instance o f the
unity m otif th at has previously been expressed in re g ard to the cosmos (1:10)
an d the C h u rch (2:14– 18; 4:1– 16). T h e analogy to h u m an m arriage o f C hrist’s
relationship to the C hurch, w here he is the h ead an d the C h u rch is the body,
364 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1 – 3 3

recalls the w riter’s earlier use o f this im agery in 1:22,23 a n d 4:15, 16 (cf.
also 2:16; 3:6), an d w hen believers are said to be m em bers o f his body
(v 30), this is language th at has already been used o f th em in 4:25. C hrist’s
unity with his C h urch is called a “m ystery” (v 32). O th e r aspects o f G od’s
h id d en p u rp o se have already been ex p o u n d e d as m ysteries in 1:9; 3 :3 ,4 , 9,
an d the term will be taken u p again with reference to the gospel in 6:19.
T h e w riter’s depiction o f C hrist’s love an d self-giving for the C h u rch (v 25)
em ploys a form ulation en co u n tered earlier in 5:2. T h e depiction o f the results
o f th at love in term s o f the C h u rch ’s sanctification a n d glory repeats the notions
o f 1:4 “th at we should be holy an d blam eless,” an d o f 1:18 an d 3:21, which
speak o f th e glory involved in G od’s possession o f his people an d in th e C hurch.
Providing a m otivation for household relationships w here both parties are to
carry o u t th eir responsibilities as p art o f th eir obedience to C hrist will, o f
course, continue to be the focus o f the w riter’s concern in the re m a in d er o f
the household code in 6:1– 9.
W hy has this w riter placed such a heavy stress on the m arriage relationship,
an d why has he d one so from the distinctive perspective fo u n d in this passage?
As with o th er such issues in Ephesians, th ere are frustratingly few clues about
any actual life-setting for such an exposition. T h e re are th ree possible ways
in which m arriage m ight not have been held in the re g ard which this w riter
th o u g h t was its due. It could simply be that, as with o th e r aspects o f th eir
conduct, th e readers w ere n o t realizing th e im portance o f living o u t th eir
distinctive calling and th at som e o f the m arried m em bers o f the churches
addressed were n o t relating this area o f th eir lives to th eir faith, b u t viewing
m arriage simply as a n atu ral relationship an d treatin g it no differently from
th e way th at th eir n o n-C hristian neighbors treated it (cf. M ussner, 156). For
this reason, the w riter w ould be at pains to relate it to the h ea rt o f his in te rp re ta -
tion o f the C hristian m essage an d to em phasize the distinctiveness p ro d u ced
by C hristian m otivation. It could also be th at th e sexual im m orality inveighed
against in 4:19; 5:3– 6, 12, 18 was seen by the w riter as a real th re a t a n d that,
th erefo re, the stress on the special status o f C hristian m arriage was a fu rth e r
m eans o f com bating such a m enace. O n the o th e r h an d —an d this is probably
the m ost likely o f the th ree options, since we know o f ascetic tendencies th at
h ad to be com bated in Colossians (cf. 2:16–23), o f ascetic in terp retatio n s o f
G en 2:24 th at m ight have been c u rre n t (see Comment on vv 31, 32), an d o f
the co n tin u in g attraction o f C hristian asceticism in Asia M inor (cf. 1 T im 4:1–
3 an d Acts of Paul and Thecla)— this passage’s extolling o f m arriage could have
been in th e face o f its denigration th ro u g h such attitudes (cf. M acDonald,
The Pauline Churches, 118 – 19). H aving said all this, it may yet also be the case
th at the w riter n eeded no particular occasion o r difficulty ab o u t m arriage to
cause him to elaborate in this way. His vision o f life in the w orld is one which
is particularly concerned with unity— the ultim ate unity o f the cosmos in C hrist
an d th e p resen t anticipation o f th at in the unity o f the C hurch. A n essential
aspect o f unity in the C hurch is harm ony in the C hristian household, an d
th e p airin g w ithin th e household th at lends itself m ost to the exposition o f
unity is clearly th at o f h usband an d wife. T h e re m ay also be an equivalent
h ere in Ephesians to the link betw een household an d state in traditional discus-
sions, w here th e household was seen as a subunit o r m icrocosm o f th e polis.
 Comment 365

Now the household is reg ard ed as th e subunit o r m icrocosm o f C hristian society,

the C hurch, which this w riter has described as G od’s household (2:19). In
Ephesians, th en, m arital unity serves as an instance o f C hurch unity, an d
C hurch unity serves as an instance o f ultim ate cosmic unity. As Sam pley (“And
the Two, ” 149) puts it, “for the au th o r o f Ephesians, the m arriage relationship
is tran sp a ren t to G od’s purposes on a larger scale . . . no o th e r relationship
within th e family so fully m irrors G od’s purposes in the universe.” For this
w riter, n ot only can m arriage provide a superb exam ple o f th e m utual subm is-
sion th at is necessary for harm ony in the C hurch, b u t also, th ro u g h its specific
roles o f loving headship an d voluntary subm ission, it can reflect the way an o th er
m ajor unity, the fu ndam ental unity betw een C hrist an d his C hurch, is expressed.
As we have seen, this p attern o f C hristian m arriage w ould not have been
viewed as strange o r upsetting w ithin the cities o f Asia M inor. Despite its
distinctively C hristian elem ents, in term s o f the actual roles it enjoins it falls
well within norm al expectations about the patriarchal household in the G reco-
R om an world.

Comment

21 vmraooöpevoL äXkrjkois ev 0ö|3cp Xpvarov, “Subm it to one a n o th e r in the

fear o f C hrist.” As has already been pointed out, this verse is transitional,
com pleting the series o f participles which are d e p e n d e n t on th e verb nXrjpovoOe,
“be filled,” from v 18, while itself providing the verbal form on which the
first injunction in the following household code is d ep en d en t. T his enables it
to be the ap p ro p riate link betw een the w riter’s appeal to th e whole com m unity
an d his advice to specific groups within it. I f believers are filled with the Spirit,
this should m anifest itself in th eir m utual subm ission. T h e re are sim ilarities
with th e earlier paraenesis in 4:2, 3, w here “bearing with one an o th e r in love”
stands parallel to “m aking every effort to m aintain the unity o f the S pirit,”
an d in 4:30, w here it is clear from the context th at w hat grieves the Spirit
are the words an d deeds o f believers th at are disruptive o f com m unal life.
T h e call to m utual subm ission “dem ands readiness to ren o u n ce o n e’s own
will for the sake o f others, i.e., ayanri, an d to give precedence to o th ers”
(G. Delling, “viroräooco” TD N T 8 [1972] 45). It is significant th at although, as
we shall see, th ere are sim ilar injunctions in the w ritings o f Paul, only here
in th e Pauline corpus is the actual verb “to subm it” em ployed for m utual
relationships am ong believers. Elsewhere the notion o f subm ission is only used
for the attitu d e o f specific groups—w om en (1 C or 14:34; Col 3:18; 1 T im
2:11; T itus 2:5), children (1 T im 3:4), an d slaves (Titus 2:9)— o r for the attitude
of believers to the state (Rom 13:1, 5; T itus 3:1).
B ut how does the injunction to m utual subm ission relate to w hat follows?
O n the one h an d , it is possible to take it as a general heading for w hat follows.
In o th er words, th ere is to be subjection to one an o th er, an d th en the specific
subjection m ean t is spelled o u t as wives to husbands, children to parents, and
slaves to m asters (cf. Clark, M an and Woman, 74 – 76, who holds th at there is,
th erefo re, no appeal for m utual subordination an d th at w hat is m ean t is “let
each o f you subordinate him self o r herself to the one he o r she should be
subordinate to ”). B ut this does not do en o u g h justice to th e force o f this verse.
366 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1 – 3 3

O n the o th er h an d , it is possible so to em phasize this verse th a t it is th e n

u n d ersto o d as com pletely relativizing w hat follows. Sam pley (“And the Two ”
117), for exam ple, goes too fa r in asserting th a t it is a critique o f th e rest o f
th e passage an d th at the ensuing household code contains a view point with
which th e w riter does n o t entirely agree. Yet if he disagreed with it, why
w ould th e w riter have m ade such ex ten d ed use o f it as is m ade in this letter?
Ju stice has to be done both to the force o f v 21 and to the force o f th e specific
types o f subm ission in the household code. M odern in terp re ters m ight perceive
th e first adm onition as u n d erm in in g o r deconstructing the others, b u t clearly
the original w riter did no t find them incom patible. T h e re is an interesting
parallel in 1 Pet 5:5, w here the ex hortation “you th at are yo u n g er be subject
to the elders” is followed im m ediately by the fu rth e r appeal “clothe yourselves,
all o f you, with hum ility tow ard one a n o th e r.” T h e latter adm onition was n o t
m ean t to cancel o u t the form er. R ather, the w riter holds th at th ere is a general
sense in which elders are to serve th eir flock, including its y o u n g er elem ent,
in a submissive attitude, b u t th at m utuality goes along with a hierarchical
view o f roles. T h u s th ere is a specific sense in which the flock in general an d
th e yo u n g er in p articular are to be obedient to th e elders. Similarly, h ere in
E phesians m u tu al subm ission coexists with a hierarchy o f roles w ithin the
household. Believers should no t insist on getting th eir own way, so th ere is a
general sense in which husbands are to have a submissive attitu d e to wives,
p u ttin g th eir wives’ interests before th eir own, a n d similarly p aren ts to children
an d m asters to slaves. B ut this does n o t elim inate th e m ore specific roles in
which wives are to subm it to husbands, children to parents, an d slaves to
m asters. As Schüssler Fiorenza (Memory, 269) correctly notes, “T h e general
injunction for all m em bers o f th e C hristian com m unity, ‘Be subject to one
a n o th er in th e fear o f C hrist,’ is clearly spelled o u t for the C hristian wife as
req u irin g subm ission an d inequality.”
Paul h ad called for m utual subm ission an d service in such passages as Gal
5:13b an d Phil 2:3, 4. In fact, in the latter passage, the qualities o f selflessness
an d a re g ard for others th at does no t insist on o n e’s own rights th at the apostle
desires to see are linked to the h ea rt o f his gospel by being g ro u n d e d on the
p attern o f C hrist’s life. H e did n o t insist on the equality with G od th at was
his by rights b u t becam e a servant. A nd in the light o f this, the Philippians
are ex h o rted to live out th at sort o f p a tte rn o f salvation in fear a n d trem bling
in the face o f G od’s activity am ong them (cf. Phil 2:5– 13). H ere in Ephesians,
the g ro u n d an d m otivation fo r believers’ m u tu al subm ission, th e placing o f
them selves at one a n o th e r’s disposal for which the w riter calls, is m ore specifically
the fear o f Christ. B arth (608, 662– 68) is rig h t to insist th at translations should
n ot tone dow n 0o|So? to the w eaker notion o f respect. “F ear” n eed n o t involve
frig h t o r te rro r b u t conveys a m ore serious sense o f reverence an d obligation
th an “respect.” In the O T , the fear o f the L ord was th e ap p ro p riate attitude
o f a creatu re to the C reator, p ro d u cin g obedience to his will (cf. also H. R.
Balz, “ 0 o (3o5 ,” TD N T 9 [1974] 189–219). In P aul’s w ritings “fear o f the L o rd ”
o r “fear o f C hrist” is virtually interchangeable with “fear o f G od.” 2 C or 5:11
sounds an eschatological note, “know ing the fear o f th e L ord, we p ersu ad e
p eo p le,” while 2 C or 7:1 exhorts th a t holiness should be m ade p erfect in the
fear o f God (cf. also Phil 2:12). Col 3:22 h ad talked ab o u t “fearing th e L o rd ”
as a m otivation for slaves, b u t here it is the attitu d e all believers are to have.
 Comment 367

J u s t as in the O T the guiding principle for wise living w ithin the covenant
was the fear o f Yahweh, so now the w riter o f E phesians indicates th at the
overriding m otivation for wise living (cf. v 15) an d relationships w ithin the
new com m unity m ust be the fear o f Christ. T his is an attitu d e th at looks
to C hrist in awe at his overw helm ing love an d at his pow er an d th at also
lives in th e light o f his sovereign claim an d righteous ju d g m e n t (cf. also
6:8, 9). T h e m u tu al subm ission req u ired d epends on all parties’ having this
attitud e to Christ, an d the specific relationships w ithin m arriage th at are
set o u t are also to flow from an d be an expression o f such fear (cf. also the
later references to the wife’s fear an d to slaves’ fear an d trem bling in 5:33
an d 6:5).
22 At yw auces rot? idiots avbpaaiv co? rep Kuptcp, “Wives, subm it to your h u s-
bands as to the L o rd.” W ithin the m arriage relationship, wives are addressed
first. It should be noted th at in this household code those who are to be subordi-
nate, wives, children, an d slaves, are addressed as m oral agents. A lthough
some elem ents o f the Pauline gospel (cf. Gal 3:28) m ight have led w om en
an d slaves in the Pauline churches to different conclusions about th eir roles
in the church an d in society, this w riter asks wives voluntarily to subordinate
them selves to th eir husbands. It is o f course notew orthy, as we have already
seen, th at this verse does no t actually contain the verb m orrmoeodai , “to be
sub o rd in ate.” N or for th at m atter does the syntax o f v 24b apply the verb
directly to the wife. B ut in both cases, this is so clearly to be u n d ersto o d from
the preceding clauses th at it is doubtful w hether any theological significance
should be read into its omission. T h e w riter’s theological fram ew ork can be
discerned from w hat he says explicitly an d does no t need to be in ferred from
an ellipsis (pace Miletic, “One F lesh” 7, 17, 27– 30, 99– 101). viroraooeoOai m eans
to take a subordinate role in relation to th at o f a n o th er (cf. Delling, “m o ra o o co ”
T D N T 8 [1972] 39– 46; Kam lah, “m o rä o o eo d a i” 239– 40). W hat it involves m ore
specifically will d ep e n d on the relationship to which it is applied an d the social
expectations attached to th at relationship. In o th e r words, in its concrete m ani-
festation, subordination takes a particular shape in the relation o f citizens to
the state, a n o th er in the relation o f slaves to m asters, an d yet a n o th e r in the
relationship o f wives to husbands. In the N T , the term is used o f this last
relationship in Col 3:18; T itus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1. O utside the N T , th ere are,
however, only two exam ples o f the use o f the actual verb vnoraooeodat for
the wife’s attitu d e tow ard h e r husband, P lutarch, Conj. Praec. 33 {Moralia 142e),
an d Ps-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. M agni 1.22.4 (cf. R engstorf, “Die neu testam en tli-
chen M ah n u n g en ,” 132), th o u g h the call for wives to obey husbands was com -
m on in Hellenistic Ju d aism (cf., e.g., Philo, Hyp. 7.3; Josep h u s, c. Ap. 2.24 §
2Ö1).
B ut does the fact th at th ere are varieties o f subordination an d th at the
subordination is willing m ean th at a distinction should be m ade, as is done
by som e (e.g., B arth, 714), betw een subordination an d obedience? In su p p o rt
o f such a distinction, it is pointed ou t th at the verb used for the attitude
req u ired from wives is viroraooeodat, “to subm it, be su b o rd in ate,” while th at
em ployed in the case o f children and slaves is m a m v e iv , “to obey.” B ut this is
to drive a wedge betw een term s th at are frequently synonym ous. T o be sure,
“to subm it” is the b ro ad er term , but to subordinate oneself to a n o th e r may
well entail being willing to obey th at person, an d such obedience w ould certainly
368 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1 – 3 3

have been seen as p a rt o f a wife’s role in relation to h e r hu sb an d in m ost

parts o f th e ancient world. C ertainly also, th e C h u rc h ’s subordination to C hrist,
on which th e wife’s subordination to h e r hu sb an d is based in v 24, w ould be
seen as involving glad obedience (cf. also Clark, M an and Woman, 82). T h e re
is obviously a difference betw een willing subm ission an d im posed obedience
b u t hardly a m ajor distinction betw een voluntary subordination a n d voluntary
obedience. H ere th e obedience o f children an d slaves is to be seen as p a rt o f
th e m u tu al subordination enjoined in v 21. Elsew here in the N T , in 1 Pet
3 :5 ,6 , subm ission o f wives to husbands an d obedience o f wives to husbands
are explicitly paralleled.
T h e wife is to be subject to h e r hu sb an d as to th e Lord. H e r subordination
is called fo r n o t ju s t because it is the role society has allotted h e r b u t because
this is th e way she can serve h e r L ord (cf. also C aird, Paul's Letters, 88). T h e
“L o rd ” is n o t a direct reference, as som e have suggested, to the h u sb an d as
lord o f the wife in line with 1 Pet 3:6, “S arah obeyed A braham , calling him
lo rd ” (pace M ussner, 156; idem , Christus, 148; G augler, 207– 8; Sam pley, “And the
T w o ”112,
, 122, holds th at the w riter is being deliberately am biguous in his
use o f Kupios). G reek g ram m ar w ould d em an d th e plural “as to th eir lords”
instead o f th e singular co? rep Kvpicp. As the next verse will explain, w hat is
involved h ere is th at in voluntarily su bordinating h erself to h e r hu sb an d the
wife is to see this as done in subordination to the L ord, because in the m arriage
relationship h e r h u sband reflects the L ord while she reflects th e C hurch. F ear
o f C hrist (v 21) becom es in the concrete m arriage situation subm ission to the
h u sb an d , even fear o f the husb an d (v 33). B ut in this specific situation the
sam e m otivation is to be m aintained as in the general adm onition o f v 21;
th at is, subm ission is to be practiced as if to the L ord him self. As Schüssler
Fiorenza (Memory, 269) observes, “T h e instruction to th e wives clearly reinforces
th e p atriarchal m arriage p attern an d justifies it christologically” (contra Wall,
CSR 17 [1988] 280, who claims, “T h e spiritual hierarchy in effect dism antles
th e social h ierarch y ”).
23 o ri avr)p e o n v KecjxzXrj r f ft yvvatKÖ s co? m i ö X p io r o s Ke0aX?7 rfft etackrioias,
“fo r th e h u sb an d is the head o f the wife as C hrist also is the h ead o f the
ch u rch .” In th e flow o f the arg u m e n t this statem ent provides the reason for
th e wife’s subm ission. T h e ort, “fo r,” is to be noted. T his link suggests fairly
clearly, th erefo re, th at for the w riter the h u sb an d ’s headship, especially w hen
seen in th e light o f the analogy with C hrist’s head sh ip in th e second h alf o f
th e statem ent, involves a role o f authority. A lthough the m eaning w ould co rre-
spo n d with the th ru st o f the passage, it is d o u b tfu l th a t the actual w ords cos
m i , “as also,” have the force o f “only in the sam e way th a t” an d indicate th at
th e h u sb an d ’s h eadship is to be lim ited by the way in which C hrist exercised
his (pace B arth, 613– 14). R ather, they simply have com parative force an d serve
to in tro d u ce th e analogy. T h e analogy takes u p a concept the w riter has already
em ployed earlier in the letter. As we have seen, in 1:22 /cc0 aXr7, “h e a d ,” is
used with the significance o f leader o r ru ler, which it som etim es has in the
LXX, to express C hrist’s suprem acy an d authority over the cosmos. T his h ea d -
ship is th o u g h t o f as a position o f pow er which he now exercises on b eh alf o f
th e C h u rch (cf. also Col 1:18: 2:10). In its LXX usage, w here it translated
th e H ebrew IÜN1, rö’s, /ce0aXri also took on at tim es the fu rth e r connotations
 Comment 369

o f th at H ebrew term and h ad the force o f determ inative source o r origin.

T his connotation to a large extent explains the w riter’s reference in 4:15 (cf.
also Col 2:19), w here C hrist as the C h u rch ’s h ead is also viewed as the source
o f its life. T h e apostle Paul had m ade use o f the concept o f headship in 1
C or 11:3, w here, in the context o f a response to a problem about w om en
participating in w orship with th eir heads uncovered, he set o u t an o rd e r o f
headship— God as head o f Christ, C hrist as head o f m an, an d m an as head
o f wom an. W h eth er the apostle em ployed Kefjaki) th ere to m ean ru ler o r source
or, m ore likely, a m ixture o f both is still highly disputed. (For som e recent
discussion o f the term , cf. W. G rudem , “Does Kec/xxXrj (‘H e ad ’) M ean ‘S ource’
o r ‘A uthority over’ in G reek L iterature? A Survey o f 2, 336 Exam ples,” Trinity
Journal 6 [1985] 38– 59; G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [G rand
Rapids: E erdm ans, 1987] 502– 5; C. C. K roeger, “T h e Classical C oncept o f
Head as ‘Source,’ ” in G. G. Hull, Equal to Serve [Old T ap p a n , NJ: Revell,
1987] 267– 83.) H ere th ere can be little doubt, in light o f the usage in 1:22,
o f the general context o f the authority stru ctu re o f the G reco-R om an household
(see Form!Structure!Setting on the household code), an d o f the specific context
o f the subm ission o f wife to husband within m arriage in vv 22–24, th at the
w riter has the role o f leader o r ru ler an d with th at the notion o f authority in
view in his use o f the term “h ea d ” {pace, e.g., Wall, CSR 17 [1988] 281). T his
perspective is no different from w hat w ould have been the d o m in an t expectation
about the role o f th e paterfamilias in the ancient w orld (cf. A ristotle, Pol. 1255b,
“T h e rule o f the household is a m onarchy, for every house is u n d e r one h ea d ”;
cf. also Plutarch, Moralia 142e). D espite th e fact th at by the tim e o f the early
em pire m ost m arriages in Rom e took place sine manu (w ithout pow er tran sferred
to the husband), and th at G reek w om en also h ad g reater legal independence,
writings about the household retained this patriarchal stru ctu re as necessary
for the stability o f society (cf. also, e.g., V erner, Household, 27– 81; pace K roeger,
“T h e Classical C oncept,” 280– 82, th ere are no reasons for seeing sine manu
m arriage as leading to nonhierarchical definitions o f headship an d subm ission
in the early C hristian codes). In light o f the o th er earlier reference to C hrist’s
headship o f th e C hurch in association with his being the source o f its life
an d grow th (cf. 4:15, 16), the connotation o f source m ight also in theory be
included h ere as p a rt o f w hat is involved in th e h u sb an d ’s headship o f the
wife. O ne could certainly talk in a general way about the h u sb an d ’s providing
for his wife’s well-being, bu t it is difficult to see w hat it could m ean to say
th at the husb an d is the source o f the wife’s life, particularly w hen at this
point th e background o f Eve com ing into being th ro u g h A dam in th e creation
story is n o t p art o f the argum ent, as it h ad been in 1 C or 11. It is no t at all
clear th at one should read into the use o f “h ea d ” here in 5:23 all o f P aul’s
arg u m en t from creation in 1 C or 11. T h e w riter is not arg u in g from the
creation story b u t from the relationship o f C hrist to the C hurch. T o be sure,
he later brings Gen 2:24 into his paraenesis, b u t to m ake a different point
{pace Miletic, “One F lesh” esp. 67– 79). It should also not be supposed that,
ju s t because the w riter has applied the term “h ea d ” to C hrist in E ph 1:22b
after an Adam ic allusion th ro u g h the quotation o f Ps 8:6 in 1:22a, “A dam ic”
connotations can be read into the term w hen it is em ployed in the d ifferent
context o f E ph 5:23 (pace Miletic, “One F lesh” 79– 87). T h e w riter’s p oint is
370 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1 – 3 3

this: th e h u sb an d ’s headship o r authority, which the wife is to recognize, is

one th at is p attern ed on the u nique character o f C hrist’s h eadship over the
C h urch, and, as the rest o f the passage will m ake clear, th at sort o f headship
included C hrist’s giving his life for the C hurch.
avrbs otjrrip tov ocoparos, “an d is him self the Savior o f the body.” T h e re is
a question w h eth er this latter p a rt o f v 23 refers solely to th e relationship
betw een C hrist an d the C hurch (cf., e.g., A bbott, 166; Dibelius, 93; B arth,
614– 17; S chnackenburg, 252; Miletic, “One Flesh, ” 40, 102) o r is also p a rt o f
the analogy with the h usband an d wife, so th at the hu sb an d is even to be
u n d ersto o d as in some sense the savior o f his wife as C hrist is th e Savior o f
the body (cf., e.g., J. A. Robinson, 124; W. Foerster, “ooyrr\p” TDNT 7 [1971]
1016; H endriksen, 248– 49; Wall, CSR 17 [1988] 281– 82; B ruce, Epistles, 385,
who allows th at this may be “a reference to th e h u sb an d ’s role as his wife’s
p ro tecto r”). T h e only o th er place in the N T w here the concept o f salvation is
used o f the h u sb an d ’s relation to the wife is in 1 C or 7:16, w here, if a believing
h u sb an d stays in a m arriage with an unbelieving wife, he m ay save his wife.
B ut this reference is o f no help, since the context shows th a t this salvation is
in term s o f evangelization, the sam e is said o f a believing wife’s relation to an
unbelieving h u sband, an d here in E phesians it is clear th a t bo th h u sb an d
an d wife are assum ed to be believers. T obit 6:18 re p o rts R aphael as saying
th at T obias’ m arriage to Sarah will save her. B ut again th ere is a specific
context which disqualifies this as in any way an analogous concept, for Tobias
at th e sam e tim e as he m arries Sarah saves o r rescues h e r from the pow er o f
a d em o n (cf. also B ruce, Epistles, 385). W hat argum ents, then, can be adduced
in favor o f this latter interpretation? It can be claim ed th at “Savior” should
be taken in th e general sense o f p ro tecto r o r provider for w elfare an d o rd e r
in the way it would have been applied to the em p e ro r in its H ellenistic usage.
T his would suit the close conjunction with KefaXrj, “h ea d ,” for earlier in 4:15, 16
C hrist as head h ad been depicted as providing fo r the n o u rish m en t an d w elfare
o f the body. T his m ore general sense could include connotations o f rule, which
would also suit th e m ain point o f this p a rt o f the analogy. It can be arg u ed
fu rth e r th at later in the passage the wife is in fact seen as the h u sb an d ’s body
(vv 28–30), an d this is explicitly paralleled to C hrist’s relationship to his body,
th e C hurch. So if C hrist is Savior o f his body, should n o t the analogy hold at
this earlier point also an d the h usband be seen as the savior o f his body, the
wife? T h e w riter m ight well have been willing to accept this extension o f his
analogy, b u t the syntax suggests th at this is no t th e specific point he is m aking
at this stage o f his discussion. O n in tro d u cin g his analogy betw een C hrist
an d the h usband, he has prim arily h ad the notion o f “h ead sh ip ” in m ind an d
th e n as an additional th o u g h t has provided a fu rth e r description w hich applies
to C hrist as h ead o f the C hurch. T h e place an d force o f auros, “him self,” in
this additional statem ent indicate th at C hrist is the focus o f atten tio n an d
th at the w riter did not in ten d this description to serve also as a m odel fo r the
h u sb an d ’s role in m arriage. T his conclusion is reinforced by th e fact th a t the
adversative dXXd, “b u t” (see Comment on v 24), precedes th e re in tro d u ctio n o f
th e analogy betw een the C h u rch ’s relationship to C hrist a n d th e wife’s relation-
ship to h e r h u sb an d in the next sentence an d by the specifically redem ptive
connotations th at ad h ere to the notion o f salvation earlier in the letter in
1:13 an d 2:5, 8 an d later in 6:17.
 Comment 371

T h e re is little to be said for the ra th e r startling claim o f Mile tic (“One F lesh”
43– 45) th at v 23c “is both the structural core an d theological cen ter o f the
address to th e wives.” T h e structural elem ents to which he appeals can equally
well be explained on the supposition th at v 23c is an additional th o u g h t th at
disturbs the flow o f the arg u m en t, an d the theological cen ter o f th e appeal is
surely the analogy with C hrist an d the C hurch in term s o f subm ission and
h eadship. O nce the pu rp o se o f this latter p art o f v 23 is seen to be simply to
provide an additional description o f C hrist’s relationship to the C hurch, th ere
is also no need to claim th at it functions as a deliberate qualification o f the
h u sb an d ’s authority (pace Sampley, “And the T w o ,” 125–26).
T h e concept o f C hrist as “Savior o f the body” is fo u n d now here else in
the N T . T his has p ro m p ted some scholars to suggest th at it is d e p e n d e n t on
Gnostic th o u g h t, in which th ere can be fo u n d variations on th e them e o f a
preexistent Sophia falling an d being saved th ro u g h u n io n with the R edeem er
in a heavenly syzygy (cf. Schlier, 266–76; Fischer, Tendenz, 176, 194). B ut the
alternation betw een bride an d body as im ages o f the C h u rch in relation to its
head cannot be clearly derived from such m aterial. Fischer (Tendenz, 186–
94), who finds strong similarities betw een 5:21– 33 an d the Exeg. Soul in its
bridal im agery, has to adm it th at th ere is no parallel to the h ead-body language
in th at docum ent. T h e only o th er place in which the two im ages o f bride
an d body are ju x tap o sed is 2 Clem. 14, which may well be d e p e n d e n t on E p h e-
sians fo r this com bination. In addition, it m ust be noted th at th ere is no clear
parallel in E phesians to the notion o f the preexistence o f the redeem ed bride
(see Comment on 1:4). T h e em phasis in this letter is m ore on the C h u rch ’s
being created th ro u g h C hrist’s reconciling death (cf. 2:15). T o call C hrist the
Savior o f the body does not necessarily im ply th at the latter was in existence
before its salvation (pace Schlier, 255). It need m ean no m ore th an th at those
who at p resen t m ake u p th at body w ere at one tim e in a situation from which
they need ed to be saved (cf. 2 :1–5).
It m akes m ore sense, therefore, to see the w riter as simply com bining the
title “Savior” for C hrist with his own characteristic term “body” for the C hurch.
“Savior” as a title for C hrist occurs in Paul in Phil 3:20 (pace M itton, 200,
who asserts it is n o t fo u n d in the genuine Paul). T h e re is an elem ent o f similarity
in th at th ere it is used in conjunction with a n o th er title o f rule, Kuptos, “lo rd ,”
which features h ere also in E ph 5:22. B ut th ere is also an elem ent o f difference
in th at in Phil 3:20 the focus is on C hrist’s activity at the Parousia w hereas
here, in line with E phesians’ characteristic realized eschatology, C hrist is already
the C h u rch ’s Savior. T h e use o f the title Savior for C hrist increased tow ard
the en d o f the first century (cf. 2 T im 1:10; T itus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11;
2:20; 3:2, 18), possibly as p art o f C hristians’ stance tow ard its free application
to em perors. N evertheless, its roots are in the O T conception o f Yahweh as
the Savior o r D eliverer o f his people (cf., e.g., LXX D eut 32:15; 1 Sam 10:19;
Ps 24:5; Isa 12:2; 45:15; 62:11; Mic 7:7; H ab 3:18). W hat it m eans for C hrist
to be Savior has been seen in the depiction in 2:1– 10 o f the divine act o f
deliverance in which C hrist is the agent, an d is spelled o u t fu rth e r in vv 25–
27. It involves his sacrificial death (cf. also 5:2) th at enables him to m ake the
C h u rch holy. Miletic (“One F lesh” 53– 66) is n o t co n ten t with such an explanation
an d claims th at the notion o f C hrist as Savior is “A dam ic” an d should be
in terp re ted in the light o f w hat is said o f C hrist’s d eath in 2:14 – 18. T h a t
372 E p h e s ia n s 5 :2 1 – 3 3

passage illum inates the salvation b ro u g h t by C hrist in a general way, b u t in it

C hrist in his reconciling d eath is seen as C reator, “A dam ic” language is used
o f th e C h u rch (“one new perso n ”) an d no t o f C hrist, an d w hat his d eath
creates is n o t a new Eve (pace Miletic, “One Flesh,” 53) b u t a new Adam! For
C hrist in his saving death to be the C reato r an d the new A dam at th e sam e
tim e w ould be a strange an d awkward m ingling o f im ages, even for E phesians
(pace Miletic, “One Flesh,” 66).
2 4 aXXd co? 77 eKKXrjaia vnoräoaerai rep Xpiorcb, ovtcos Kai ai yvvaiKes rot?
ävbpäow ev navri, “B ut as the C hurch subm its to C hrist, so also should wives
subm it to th eir husbands in everything.” As has been suggested above, dXXd,
“b u t,” is best taken as an adversative, providing a contrast with the im m ediately
preced in g words in v 23c. In relation to th eir additional distinctive th o u g h t
ab o u t C hrist, it provides th e link back to th e m ain analogy an d has the force
o f “notw ithstanding the difference” (cf. A bbott, 166; B arth, 619; Maillet, E T R
55 [1980] 570; pace J. A. Robinson, 124, 205, who claims it simply has a re su m p -
tive force, focusing on the m ain aspect o f the previous arg u m en t, an d Miletic,
“One Flesh,” 102 n. 6, who holds it has consecutive force).
So v 24 restates, an d in the process reinforces, the ex hortation a n d its w a rran t
in th e analogy o f C hrist an d the C hurch th at has preceded in vv 22, 23. In
th e new form ulation, the analogy is stated first an d in a way th at corresponds
to the role o f wives, “as the C hurch subm its to C hrist, so. . . .” T h e C h u rch ’s
subm ission to C hrist is certainly willing an d free ra th e r th an coerced an d th e re -
fore u n d erlines w hat has been said about the wife’s subm ission as voluntary
in th e com m ents on v 22. If one asks w hat the w riter thinks is involved in
the C h u rch ’s subordination to C hrist, one can look for an answ er to th e way
in which he depicts the C h u rch ’s relation to C hrist in the rest o f the letter.
T h e C h u rch receives G od’s gift o f C hrist as h ead over all on its b eh a lf (1:22).
In the building im agery o f 2:20, 21 the C h u rch looks to C hrist as the crow ning
stone o f its stru ctu re an d th e one who holds it all together. It opens itself to
his constant presence (3:17) an d comes to know his all-encom passing love
(3:19). T h e C h u rch receives his gift o f grace (4:7) an d his gifts o f m inisters
for its own up b u ild ing (4:11, 12). It grows tow ard its h ead an d receives from
him all th at is necessary for such grow th (4:15, 16), including teaching about
him (4:20, 21). T h e C hurch im itates C hrist’s love (5:2) an d tries to learn w hat
is pleasing to him (5:10) an d to u n d ersta n d his will (5:17). It sings praises to
him (5:19) an d lives in fear o f him (5:21). T h e C h u rch ’s subordination, then,
m eans looking to its head fo r his beneficial rule, living by his norm s, experiencing
his presence an d love, receiving from him gifts th at will enable grow th to
m aturity, an d resp onding to him in g ratitude an d awe. It is such attitudes
th at the wife is being encouraged to develop in relation to h e r husband. Miletic
(“One Flesh,” 43) sum s u p the way in which the analogy g rounds the exhortation
in his assertion th at “the C h rist/c h u rch relationship provides direction (‘to
th e L o rd ’), percep tion (husband as ‘h ea d ’ as C hrist is ‘h ea d ’) a n d exam ple
(church as paradigm ) for the wife’s act o f su b ordination.”
It is an interesting theological idea th at the C h u rch is depicted as showing
to C hrist th e subordination which, according to 1 C or 15:28, C hrist will show
to God, b u t it is unlikely th at the w riter has deliberately tr a n s f e r r e d the Pauline
n otion o f C hrist’s subordination to G od to w hat he now sees req u ired o f the
 Comment 373

C h u rch (pace Miletic, “One Flesh,” 88– 94). It is far m ore likely th at the notion
o f subm ission suggested itself to the w riter for his depiction o f the C h u rch ’s
attitu d e to its head because this was the term fo u n d in the household code in
Col 3:18 on which he is d ep en d en t, the term which he has already taken u p
in 5:21, an d the term on which the exhortation to wives in 5:22 is d ep en d en t.
T h e elem ent o f reinforcem ent in the new form ulation o f the exhortation
to wives is provided by the concluding phrase ev irau ri , “in everything.” A lthough
the w riter has ju s t m ade an assertion distinctive o f C hrist, this does not at all
qualify his basic ex hortation to wives (pace Sam pley, “And the Two, ” 125– 26).
Instead, full an d com plete subordination is required. It is notew orthy th at
Ephesians calls for com plete subm ission o f wives to husbands, w hereas Colos-
sians, with its use o f K a ra n a v r a in 3:20, 22, had called for com plete obedience
o f children to parents and slaves to m asters (cf. also Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory,
269). T h ere is to be no limit to the subm ission expected o f wives, ju s t as
th ere is no limit to the C h u rch ’s obedient service o f Christ. In this ideal picture
o f C hristian m arriage, the possibility is n o t even considered th at wives’ subm is-
sion to th eir husbands m ight conflict with th eir subm ission to Christ. O n the
o th er h and, it m ust be said th at in Ephesians the C h u rch ’s subm ission to C hrist
is for the C h u rch ’s benefit, enabling its grow th, unity, an d m aturity, so th at
the wife’s subordination to h e r h usband also presupposes th at it is p a rt o f a
relationship in which the husband has h e r w elfare constantly in view. As the
following verses will m ake explicit, full an d com plete com m itm ent o f the h u s-
ban d to his p articular role o f loving is also req u ired (cf. also Schlier, 254;
Gnilka, 277; Schnackenburg, 252– 53; Miletic, “One Flesh,” 105, “subordination
is to selfless love— expressed th ro u g h the h u sb an d ’s headship— an d n o t to the
whims o f the h u sb an d ”). So in this w riter’s vision o f C hristian m arriage w hat
is called for from wives is com plete subordination to com plete love (cf. also
Miletic, “One Flesh,” 111, “both roles d em an d total self-ren u n ciatio n ”).
C ertainly in this exhortation to wives the w riter has no inten tio n o f doing
away with the hierarchical structure o f family life in the ancient world, an d it
looks at this p o in t as if the analogy with C hrist an d the C hurch, although
offering a distinctive m otivation, is simply being used to reinforce the conven-
tional social m ores (cf. also Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory, 269). B ut w hether
this can stand as a ju d g m e n t about the entire passage will need to be reexam ined
later, since the ex hortation to husbands suggests th at the relation betw een
the w riter’s ideals for C hristian behavior an d conventional m arital expectations
may be not quite so clearcut as this. In th at light, does wifely subm ission
have different overtones w hen it is reg ard ed as voluntarily serving a p a rtn e r
who in tu rn gives him self in loving service?
25 Oi ä vö p es, a y a n a r e rd? y w a l x a s , KaOcb? /cat 6 X p io r o s r jy a m p e v rr\v
eKKÄrpiav Kai ea v ro v ifapebooKev m e p aurfft, “H usbands, love your wives, as C hrist
also loved the C h u rch and gave him self u p fo r h e r.” A fter the exhortation to
wives to subm it, with its depiction o f husbands as heads, w hat m ight well
have been expected by contem porary readers w ould be an exhortation to h u s-
bands to rule th eir wives (cf. Schräge, ATS 21 [1975] 13). Instead the exhortation
is for husbands to love th eir wives. T his takes u p the first five words o f Col
3:19, om itting the injunction “do not be em bittered with th em ” an d replacing
this with a Christological g ro u n d in g an d a fu rth e r lengthy elaboration, in the
374 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

course o f which the exhortation to love occurs twice m ore. T h e re is no contrast

with th e Colossians passage, w here “m asculine love is an em otion o f in n er
a ttitu d e” an d “m en are invited to feel love,” while Ephesians calls fo r a d ifferen t
quality o f love (pace T errien , Till the Heart Sings, 185). R ath er b o th passages
see th e love req u ired as involving an act o f the will (cf. also Col 3:12 – 14). It
is sim ply th at Ephesians reinforces this by show ing the radical ex ten t o f th at
love th ro u g h its analogy with C hrist’s love fo r th e C hurch.
Elsew here in the letter, love has been seen as an essential quality in C hristian
living (cf. 1:4; 3:17; 4:2, 15, 16). Significantly, the call to all to loving sacrifice
fo r o ne a n o th e r in 5:1, 2 takes a sim ilar form to th at directed to husbands
h ere in 5:25, since in both places th e analogy with C hrist’s own self-sacrificing
love provides th e w arrant for the appeal. T h e exh o rtatio n to sacrifice o n e ’s
own interests for the w elfare o f others, which is so necessary for th e h arm ony
o f th e com m unity, now finds a m ore specific application in the h u sb an d ’s
role in co n trib u tin g to m arital harm ony. H usbands are asked to exercise the
self-giving love th at has as its goal only th eir wives’ good an d th at will care
fo r th eir wives w ithout the expectation o f rew ard. It can now be seen clearly
th a t fo r this w riter the exhortation to wives to subm it is n o t to be separated
from this call to husbands to give them selves in love an d th a t any exercise o f
head sh ip on th e p a rt o f husbands will n o t be th ro u g h self-assertion b u t th ro u g h
self-sacrifice (cf. also Gnilka, 279). T h e parallel to the love o f C hrist fo r the
C h u rch m eans, o f course, th at the h u sb an d ’s love is one th at will m ake even
the ultim ate sacrifice o f life itself. In the m arriage relationship this love d e -
m an d ed in term s o f the m ost p ro fo u n d self-sacrifice is no t separate from , b u t
takes place in an d th ro u g h , n atu ra l affection a n d sexual love.
E xhortations to husbands to love th eir wives are fo u n d outside the N T ,
b u t they are fairly in fre q u en t (Ps.-Phocylides 195– 97 uses th e verb orepyco in
com m anding husbands to love th eir own wives, while in the rabbinic tradition
b. Yeb. 62b is “concerning a m an w ho loves his wife as h im self”). It is notew orthy,
how ever, th at wyairav does not occur in G reco-R om an household codes in
setting o u t the h u sb an d ’s duties. So in term s o f contem porary instructions on
m arriage, this w riter’s exhortation to husbands is by no m eans conventional
o r m atter o f course. In any case, he m akes it distinctive by radicalizing the
love for which he calls, as he m odels it on th at o f C hrist for the C hurch.
Schü ssler Fiorenza (In Memory of Her, 269– 70) can, th erefo re, rightly assert,
“the p atriarch al-societal code is theologically m odified in th e ex h o rtatio n to
the husband. . . . P atriarchal dom ination is thus radically questioned with
referen ce to th e paradigm atic love relationship o f C hrist to the ch u rch .”
T h e analogy with C hrist’s love for th e C h u rch is in troduced by Kadcb?, which
in addition to its prim ary com parative force also has causal connotations. C hrist’s
love for the C h u rch no t only presents the m odel b u t also provides th e grounds
fo r th e h u sb an d ’s love for his wife. O n the traditional form ulation o f the
language o f C hrist’s loving an d self-giving, see Comment on 5:2. W hat is unique
ab o u t its use h ere in 5:25 is th at the recipient is the C h u rch as a corporate
whole. T h a t th e C h u rch can be linked to C hrist’s d ea th in this way does not
m ean th at the w riter believed it to have been already in existence w hen C hrist
died (pace Schlier, 255– 56). T his is a retrospective way o f talking ab o u t the
significance o f C hrist’s death for the p resen t C h u rch (cf. also Schnackenburg,
 Comment 375

“E r h at uns auferw eckt,” LJ 2 [1952] 178). C hrist’s d eath is seen as the particular
point in history at which his love for the C hurch was dem o n strated an d at
which his loving relationship with h e r began (cf. also 2:13– 16). For the w riter
to the E phesians, this love o f C hrist for the C hurch should find its reflection
within th e C hristian com m unity, particularly in the love o f husbands for th eir
wives.
26 Iva avrrjv ayiaojj KaOapioas tlo Xovrpü) rov vöaros ev pr\pan, “in o rd e r
th at he m ight sanctify her, cleansing h e r by w ashing in w ater th ro u g h the
w ord.” T h e w riter now elaborates on the goal o f C hrist’s love for the C hurch
in th ree Iva clauses. In this first one, the pu rp o se o f th at love is seen as the
C h u rch ’s sanctification. As W estcott (85) p u t it, “C hrist loved the C hurch
n ot because it was perfectly lovable, bu t in o rd e r to m ake it such.” Sanctification
in the light o f its O T cultic background involves a setting ap a rt to effect a
state an d condition o f m oral purity. T h ro u g h C hrist’s d eath on th eir behalf,
believers have been separated from the sinful w orld an d tran sferred to the
sp here o f G od’s holiness. T h e w riter has repeatedly draw n attention to this
aspect o f the read ers’ identity th ro u g h his use o f the term ayios, “holy” (cf.
1 :1,4, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:18; 4:12; 5:3). Sam pley (“And the Two,”42– 43, 129) m akes
the interesting observation th at in rabbinic literature the H ebrew term for
“to sanctify,” Ü7j7, qādaš, can m ean “to espouse a wife,” b u t this specific
den o tatio n is n o t the force o f ayia^etv, “to sanctify,” here, n o r likely to have
been in the w riter’s m ind as a secondary allusion in term s o f m arital im agery.
Instead, sanctification is explained as a cleansing th at takes place th ro u g h
w ashing with water. T h e action o f the aorist participle, KaOapioa5 , “cleansing,”
is best taken as coincident with th at o f the m ain verb, ayiaofi, “sanctify”; hence
the translation “cleansing” ra th e r th an “having cleansed.” T h e definite article
(lit., “the washing in w ater”) m ay well indicate a specific event, an d the readers
are scarcely likely to have taken this as anything o th er th an a reference to
th eir experience o f baptism . In 1 C or 6:11 w ashing an d sanctifying occur
to g eth er as m etap h ors o f salvation, with an allusion to baptism highly probable.
B ut here, the explicit m ention o f w ater suggests not simply an extended m eta-
p h o r for salvation (pace B arth, 6 9 1–99) b u t a direct reference to w ater baptism
(cf. also Acts 22:16; H eb 10:22), not to baptism by the Spirit (pace J. D. G.
D u n n , Baptism in the Holy Spirit [London: SCM, 1970] 163; B arth, 698). Sanctifi-
cation an d cleansing had also been linked with ritual w ashing at Q u m ra n (cf.
IQ S 3.4, 8– 10; 1QH 11.10– 12). Again, in line with the w riter’s perspective in
this passage, the C hurch as a whole, an d n o t m erely individual believers, can
be seen as having been sanctified th ro u g h baptism as a washing. If C hrist’s
d eath is the p o in t in history at which his love was dem onstrated, baptism is
the p oint at which the C hurch experiences C hrist’s continuing purifying love
for h e r as his bride. Indeed, the language o f “the w ashing with w ater” is likely
to have as a secondary connotation the notion o f the bridal bath. T his w ould
reflect b oth Jew ish m arital custom s with th eir p ren u p tial b ath an d the m arital
im agery o f Ezek 16:8– 14 which stands beh in d this passage. In Ezek 16:9 Yah-
weh, in en terin g his m arriage covenant with Jerusalem , is said to have b athed
h e r with w ater an d w ashed off the blood from her. (A m ong those who su p p o rt
an allusion to th e bridal bath here are M eyer, 295, 298; A bbott, 168– 69; O.
Casel, “Die T au fe als B rautbad d er Kirche,”Jahrbuch fü r Liturgie und Wissenschaft
376 E p h e s ia n s 5 :2 1–33

5 [1925] 144–47; D unn, Baptism, 162– 63; B ruce, Epistles, 387; H alter, Taufe,
282.)
T h e C h u rch ’s sanctification takes place n o t only th ro u g h a cleansing involving
a w ashing in w ater b u t also ev jyqpan, “th ro u g h the w ord.” It is difficult to
decide w h eth er this phrase is m eant to be taken as linked closely to the w ashing
o f w ater an d related specifically to baptism , o r as connected with th e aorist
participle Kadapioas, “cleansing” (this is m ore likely th a n a connection with
aytaoxi, “sanctify”; pace t e v ; M eyer, 295; C am bier, Bib 47 [1966] 75; Schnack-
en b u rg , 255) an d having in stru m en tal force. If it is th e form er, as th e m ajority
o f com m entators hold, an d is taken as signifying accom panying o r a tte n d a n t
circum stances, th en pffpa is best u n d ersto o d n o t as a reference to th e baptism al
confession o f faith (pace W estcott, 84; B ruce, Ephesians, 116; idem , Epistles,
388; Kirby, Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost, 152; M itton, 203) b u t as a reference
to th e baptism al form ula p ro n o u n ced over the candidate (cf. A bbott, 169;
J. A. R obinson, 125, 206– 7; Schlier, 257; Sam pley, “And the Two,” 132; Gnilka,
282; H alter, Taufe, 284; M ussner, 158). T his w ould have included a reference
to th e nam e o f C hrist (cf. Acts 2:38; Jas 2:7) a n d thus to w hat h ad been
achieved th ro u g h him on b eh alf o f believers. I f “th ro u g h the w ord” is to be
taken m ore closely with “cleansing,” th en pf\pa could have the m ore general
sense o f th e gospel m essage (cf. also M eyer, 295; Batey, New Testament Nuptial
Imagery, 28; C aird, Paul's Letters, 89; H endriksen, 252). T his is the way the
term is em ployed elsew here in Ephesians in 6:17, w here it is the preached
w ord o f the gospel th at the Spirit uses as his sword (cf. also Rom 10:8, 17;
H eb 6:5; 1 Pet 1:25). T h e w riter w ould th en be saying that, as well as being
cleansed th ro u g h baptism , the C hurch is cleansed th ro u g h the purifying w ord
o f the gospel (cf. also J o h n 15:3; 17:17 fo r notions o f being cleansed an d
sanctified th ro u g h the word). O n eith er o f these in terpretations, this w riter
sees th e C h u rch ’s cleansing from the m oral pollution o f sin being carried out
n o t th ro u g h baptism only b u t th ro u g h baptism accom panied by the w ord which
points to Christ. Sanctification takes place th ro u g h both w ater an d the word.
27 iva Trapaorriofl avrbs eamCp evbo^ov rrjv eKKXrioiav, /lit) ixovoav oirikov 17 pvriba
7? Ti T&v roioimav, dXX’ Iva fl äyia Kai äpcopos, “in o rd e r th at he m ight p resen t
the ch u rch to him self in splendor, w ithout spot o r w rinkle o r any such thing,
b u t ra th e r th a t she m ight be holy an d blam eless.” C hrist’s giving o f him self
in love fo r the C h urch has as its fu rth e r goal his p resentation o f this C hurch
to him self as his p u re bride. At this point in th e depiction o f th e relationship
betw een C hrist an d the C hurch, the bridal im agery for the C h u rch com es
m uch m ore to the fore. O n possible backgrounds for the idea o f a m arriage
betw een C hrist an d the C hurch, see Form/ Structure/ Setting. W hat is im p o rtan t
to note h ere is th at the w riter takes u p th e m ore general notion o f presen tin g
believers holy an d blam eless from Col 1:22 an d com bines it with th e p resentation
language th at h ad a specific m arital context in P aul’s use in 2 C or 11:2. T h e re ,
Paul asserted th at he had b etro th ed the local C orinthian ch u rch to C hrist in
o rd e r to p resen t h e r to h e r one husb an d as a p u re virgin o r bride (napOevov
ayvr\v napaorfioai) an d saw his own role as eith er th at o f the b rid e’s fa th e r o r
th at o f the escort friend o f the groom (cf. also J o h n 3:29). In Ephesians,
how ever, th e bride is the universal C hurch, an d C hrist as the bridegroom
does n o t need som eone else to p resen t his bride; he does so him self.
 Comment 377

H e presents his bride to him self evSoi-ov, “in splendor, glorious.” T h e im agery
may well again reflect Ezek 16 w here in vv 10– 14 Yahweh decks o u t his bride
in m agnificent clothing and jew elry, so th at she displays regal beauty an d
perfect sp lendor (cf. n”l i r n 71'?D, kālîl bahădāri, “perfect by my sp len d o r,”
Ezek 16:14). Elsewhere in Ephesians, the C hurch is seen as G od’s glorious
inheritance (1:18) and the sphere in which his glory is acknow ledged (3:21).
H ere, the glory with which the C hurch as the bride is ad o rn ed will be elaborated
on in term s o f h e r m oral perfection. T h e b rid e’s beauty is to be all-encom passing
an d is not to be spoiled by anything, by the least spot o r wrinkle. om \o<; could
m ean a stain o r defect o f any sort, b u t to g eth er with purl?, which denotes a
wrinkle in the skin, may well re fer to a spot on the body o r a physical defect
(cf. also BAGD 762). T hese term s fit not so m uch with the notion o f purifying
(after all, spots an d wrinkles do not wash off!) b u t with the im age o f a young
an d lovely bride. T h e picture is o f C hrist p re p arin g a bride for him self th at
has no physical blem ish. B ut it th en becom es crystal clear from the final iv a
clause th at this b rid e’s beauty is m oral. She is to be holy an d blameless, the
two term s fo u n d so frequently in O T contexts o f cultic an d ethical purity,
used with the language o f presentation in Col 1:22, an d already taken u p
earlier in this letter in 1:4, w here the display o f such holiness an d blam elessness
is seen as the pu rp o se o f G od’s election o f believers from before the foundation
o f the world. Im p urity is w hat characterizes outsiders (cf. 4:19; 5:3); purity is
the distinguishing m ark o f C hrist’s C hurch.
T h e re are no grounds for deducing from the w ording o f this verse th at
C hrist’s p resentation o f his p u re bride to him self awaits the parousia, th o u g h
m any com m entators have assum ed this (e.g., M eyer, 297; B ruce, Epistles, 389;
H endriksen, 252– 53; B arth, 6 2 8 ,6 6 9 ,6 7 8 ). M uirhead (SJT 5 [1952] 184) is
w rong to claim, “It is only in the E nd th at the C hurch becom es the Bride.
. . . We cannot correctly speak o f the C hurch being now th e B ride; ra th e r is
it w hat she shall be.” T his ignores the fact th at later in v 32 the “one flesh”
m arriage u nion is applied to the present relationship betw een C hrist an d the
C hurch an d th at th ro u g h o u t the passage the past an d p resen t relationship
betw een C hrist an d his C hurch is the m odel for husbands an d wives to follow
in th eir m arriages. H ere, in line with this w riter’s m ore realized eschatology,
glory an d holiness are seen as present attributes o f the C hurch, an d C hrist’s
activity o f endow ing the C hurch with these qualities is a p resen t an d continuing
one (cf. also Schlier, 258; S chnackenburg, 256). A fter all, in 1:4 holiness and
blam elessness, along with love, are presen t aspects o f C hristian existence. His
loving an d sanctifying have already secured fo r C hrist a com pletely glorious
an d p u re bride, and his continuing care will m aintain h e r m oral beauty. In
this way, the perspective on the C hurch is sim ilar to th at o f 4:1– 16, w here
the C hurch is already the fullness o f C hrist an d already one, yet is also to
grow into com pleteness and unity.
W hat is im p o rtan t for the paraenesis to husbands, as the re tu rn to the
notion o f love in v 28 will confirm , is the stress on C hrist’s love in v 25. Ju st
as the w riter h ad earlier, in v 23, elaborated on C hrist’s headship with an
additional statem ent about his being the Savior o f the body, so here, in vv
26, 27, he has elaborated on C hrist’s love with additional statem ents about
his work o f sanctification. T h e depiction o f his sanctifying activity has illustrated
378 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

the n atu re o f his love but, as we concluded also in the case o f v 23c, was
probably n ot in ten d ed by the w riter to apply to the h u sb an d ’s responsibility
fo r his wife (pace M ussner, 158, who claims th at the h u sb an d ’s love for his
wife also serves h e r sanctification). T h e fact th at vv 25– 27 go beyond the
strict req u irem en ts o f the paraenesis an d contain som e traditional language
is n o t sufficient evidence th at the w riter is quoting a hym n at this p o in t (pace
B arth, 622– 23).
28a 0ÖTGJ5 öfeiXovoiv m i oi ävöpes ayairav rd ? eamibv yvvalKas c0 5 rd eavrcbv
ocopara, “In th e sam e way husbands also should love th eir wives as th eir own
bodies.” C hrist’s love for the C h u rch set o u t in vv 25– 27 now serves as the
m odel (cf. o&tcj?, “in the sam e way”) fo r the w riter’s second assertion o f h u sb an d s’
obligation to love th eir wives. T h e earlier use o f outgj? in v 24, its place here
at th e b eg inning o f the sentence, a n d th e passage’s constant links betw een its
paraenesis an d the underlying analogy, all suggest th at outgjs in this verse
has referen ce to w hat precedes ra th e r th an simply being taken as p a rt o f the
sentence’s later com parison in a ofrrco? . . . cj? construction, as in v 33a w here
th e o rd e r o f th e syntax is, how ever, different (pace Schlier, 260; Schnackenburg,
257; alth o u g h C am bier, Bib 47 [1966] 60– 61, an d B ouw m an, “E ph. V 26,”
179– 90, can even argue in su p p o rt o f the reference o f ourco? to w hat precedes
th a t it functions as the apodosis to the mOcb? o f v 25b). T h e w riter varies this
second assertion by introducing the th o u g h t th at h u sbands’ love fo r th eir wives
should be as th eir love for th eir own bodies. J u s t as a hu sb an d cares for his
body’s needs, so his love for his wife should be o f the sort th a t cares for h e r
needs an d facilitates h e r grow th an d developm ent. Som e (e.g., M eyer, 300;
Abbott, 170– 71; W estcott, 85; B arth, 629– 30; M ussner, 159) object to this
explanation as too banal o r d em eaning to wives in its com parison a n d arg u e
that, instead, th e G reek m eans th at husbands should love th eir wives “as being
th eir own bodies.” B ut th ere is little to be said for this objection, since cos rd
eavTCbv otopara, “as th eir own bodies,” is equivalent to cos eavrov, “as him self,”
in v 33a. In th e latter instance, as we shall note, the language reflects th at o f
Lev 19:18, “you shall love your neig h b o r as yourself,” so th at th e p h rase with
cos m ust m ean “as you love yourself” no t “as being y o u rself” (cf. also B ratcher
an d N ida, Handbook, 178 n. 74). In fact, vv 28, 29 are able to brin g to g eth er
both a m ore m u n d an e an d pragm atic w arran t for the exh o rtatio n to love
an d th e p ro fo u n d one o f C hrist’s love fo r the C hurch. T h e notion o f husbands
loving th eir wives as th eir own bodies reflects the fact th at in the Christological
m odel C hrist’s love for the C h u rch can also be seen as his love fo r his body
(cf. v 23 an d also v 30). It also anticipates an d is d e p e n d e n t on the idea spelled
o u t m ore fully later in th e w riter’s citation o f G en 2:24 in v 31. It is because
o f th e claim o f the Genesis text th at the act o f m arriage m akes h u sb an d an d
wife one flesh th at he can m ake the com parison o f the wives to th eir h u sb an d s’
bodies. T h e q uotation in v 31 has th e term adp£, “flesh,” b u t aap£ an d ocbpa,
“body,” are equivalent in the w riter’s purposes here, as the shift to adpf in v
29a before the citation indicates (cf. also the interchangeable relation betw een
these two term s w hen Paul cites G en 2:24 in 1 C or 6:16). Since from the
G en 2 perspective m arriage declares th at hu sb an d an d wife are, in fact, one
body, the h u sb an d can be said to be u n d e r the obligation to love his wife as
his own body.
 Comment 379

Plutarch (Praec. Conjug. 142E) has a som ew hat sim ilar com parison o f the
wife to th e body, w hen he says, “T h e husband, how ever, should rule his wife,
n ot as a m aster his property, bu t as the soul the body. . . It should, o f
course, be n o ted that, unlike Ephesians, this is d e p e n d e n t on the soul-body
distinction an d is p a rt o f an instruction to the hu sb an d to rule, no t to love,
his wife. It has been arg u ed (cf. Sampley, “And the T w o ” 32– 34, 139– 42)
th at Lev 19:18, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” has influenced
the w riter’s th o u g h t in both parts o f v 28, b u t such an allusion is no t necessary
for u n d erstan d in g the flow o f the arg u m en t at this p o in t an d becom es m ore
ap p ro p riate as an explanation for the form ulation o f v 33a, “let each . . .
love his wife as h im self” (cf. also S chnackenburg, 258).
28b - 30 ö ayairtbv rrjv eavrov yvvalKa eavrov ajang., ovSeis y a p iTore rr\v eavrov
o ä p m epio'qoev, aXXd eKrpefyei Kai dakiret avrr\v , KaOcbs Kai b Xpiorbs rrjv eKK\r\qiav,
ori pe\r\ eapev rov acoparo*; avrov , “H e who loves his wife loves him self, for no
one ever hated his own flesh, b u t nourishes it an d cherishes it, as C hrist also
does the church, since we are m em bers o f his body.” In line with his adoption
o f the G en 2 perspective, w here husbands an d wives can be seen as a single
entity, one person, the w riter continues his arg u m e n t by asserting th at he
who loves his wife loves him self. Again, he com bines this th o u g h t with a m ore
m u n d an e observation. Everyday experience should show, he claims, th at o rd i-
narily no m an hates him self, th at is, his own flesh (the change to adp£ is now
in p rep aratio n for the citation in v 31). O n the contrary, he nourishes an d
cherishes it. It is possible th at in m aking this observation the w riter also has
an eye on ascetic tendencies (cf. Pagels, “A dam an d Eve, C hrist an d the C h u rch ,”
150; M acDonald, The Pauline Churches, 119, who see it as a direct response to
ascetic extrem ism ), b u t the prim ary force o f this point, alth o u g h its explicit
statem ent will be delayed until v 33a while the analogy to C hrist an d the
C hurch is resum ed, is that, therefore, th ere is every reason fo r a husband to
love his wife as himself.
In the resum ed analogy, C hrist is said also to nourish an d cherish the C hurch,
an d in the clause o f v 30 the readers are now explicitly rem in d ed th at the
C hurch is C hrist’s body, o f which they with all believers are m em bers (cf.
1:23; 3:6; 4:16, 25; fo r the language o f being m em bers o f the body in Paul,
cf. Rom 12:4, 5; 1 C or 12:27). At this point, two o f the w riter’s m ajor im ages
for the C h u rch — the body an d the bride—are explicitly b ro u g h t together. T h e
verb eKrpe<peiv, “to n o u rish ,” occurs again w ithin the household code in 6:4,
w here it is used o f the bringing u p o f children, an d the verb dakireiv, “to
cherish,” was used by Paul in 1 T hess 2:7 o f a n u rse’s care o f children. A lthough
these verbs (€k) tpeQeiv an d däkneiv can be closely associated with children, outside
the N T they are used in a variety o f contexts (cf. the com bination rpeQei Kai
0dX7ret in Vit. Aesopi 1, c.9 [BAGD 246]). It is a distortion o f the w riter’s analogy
to suggest th at believers are being th o u g h t o f as the offspring o f the m arriage
betw een C hrist an d the C hurch (pace Best, One Body, 178 n. 1, 181 n. 1). It
m ight rem ain closer to the analogy to consider the C h u rch as a child-bride
who is being b ro u g h t to m aturity by the brid eg ro o m ’s care. Most relevant to
E ph 5:29, however, is the ap pearance o f the two verbs in reverse o rd e r to set
o u t th e h u sb an d ’s duties to his wife in a m arriage contract, däkneiv Kai rpe<j>eiv
Kai ip a rifa v avrrjv , “to cherish an d nourish an d clothe h e r” (Preisigke-Kiessling,
380 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, 1:460; cf. Gnilka, 285). In any case,
th e im agery as applied to C hrist’s trea tm e n t o f the C h u rch is m ean t to recall
his constant provision for an d building u p o f his body (cf. 4 :1 1–16) a n d his
sanctifying an d cleansing it th ro u g h baptism an d the w ord (cf. 5:26). It is
unlikely th at the language also alludes to the eucharist (pace M ussner, Christus,
154; Schlier, 261).
T h e intro d u ctio n o f the first person p lural into the discussion in v 30 with
eopev, “we are,” may well be in ten d ed to u n d erlin e fo r th e letter’s recipients
th eir own participation in the reality o f C hrist’s loving care for his body an d
to em phasize th at w hat has been said in the preceding arg u m e n t ab o u t the
C h u rch applies to them , because they are, in fact, m em bers o f this privileged
com m unity, C hrist’s body (cf. also Sam pley, “And the T w o ”146; , Schnackenburg,
259). U n d e r Notes, we have already concluded th at the addition to v 30 fo u n d
in som e m anuscripts, “flesh o f his flesh, bone o f his bo n e,” is to be rejected,
an d so th ere are no grounds fo r finding in this verse a reference to the C h u rch
as th e second Eve deriving h e r being from the second A dam (pace S. Bedale,
“T h e T heology o f the C h u rch ,” in Studies in Ephesians, 72).
3 1 , 3 2 avri t o v t o v KaraXei\j/ei avOporiros t o p ixarepa Kai tt )p prjrepa Kai
TipooKoXX'qQ'qqerai npös ttjp ywauca airrov, Kai eooprai oi övo eis aäpKa piav. t o
pwTTipiop t o v t o peya eoTtp, eyco 8e Xeyco eis XpiOTÖP Kai eis tt \ p eKKXrjoiap, “For
this reason a m an shall leave his fa th e r a n d his m o th er an d be jo in e d to his
wife, an d the two shall becom e one flesh. T his m ystery is great, b u t I am
speaking ab out C hrist an d about the ch u rch .” G en 2:24, which has influenced
the w riter’s arg u m en t from v 28, is now qu o ted w ithout any in troductory fo r-
m ula, possibly because the o p en in g phrase o f the citation itself provides an
in tro d u cto ry link. T h e w ording differs at only two insignificant points from
th at o f the LXX. a m t o v t o v , “for this reaso n ,” replaces eveKev t o v t o v , “for this
reason ,” an d the possessive p ro n o u n airrov, “his,” is om itted afte r irarepa, “fa-
th e r,” an d pryrepa, “m o th er.” T h e w riter asserts th at he refers this citation to
C hrist an d th e C h u rch (for parallels to the som ew hat un u su al use o f et?, “about,
with referen ce to ,” with Xeyetp, “to say,” cf. Acts 2:25). H e does n o t m ean
th at every p a rt o f the citation applies to C hrist an d the C hurch. All allegorizing
in terp re tatio n to the effect th at C hrist left his heavenly F ath er an d his m other,
seen as eith er th e heavenly Jeru salem o r M ary at the cross, in o rd e r to cleave
to his C h u rch is o u t o f place (pace W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the
Gentiles [C am bridge: CUP, 1939] 200; J. Jerem ias, “pvpQrj,” T D N T
4 [1967] 1104 – 5). Because the w riter is concerned with the u n io n betw een
C hrist an d th e C hurch, it is only th e latter p a rt o f the quotation, Kai eoovrai
oi Svo eis oäpKa piav, “an d th e two shall becom e one flesh,” th a t serves his
p u rp o se here. T h e fu tu re tense does no t m ean th at the u nion betw een C hrist
an d the C h u rch is seen as h ap p e n in g in th e fu tu re , at the parousia (pace
M eyer, 304– 8), b u t instead is eith er a gnom ic fu tu re (cf. BDF § 349[1]; also
B arth, 639) o r reflects the way categorical injunctions o r statem ents o f w hat
should be th e case are som etim es re n d e re d in the LXX (cf. BDF § 362).
O f th e statem ent in v 31, it is th e n claim ed in v 32 th a t “this m ystery is
g re at,” with peya, “g reat,” indicating the m ystery’s significance an d profundity.
T h e re is m uch discussion, however, w h eth er pvarripiop, “m ystery,” has a m eaning
distinct from its o th e r uses in this letter. Some hold th at it is a reference to
m arriage as such from which mystical a n d symbolic tru th is to be draw n (cf.
 Comment 381

W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles [C am bridge: CUP, 1939] 183–
84; M itton, 207– 8). A long sim ilar lines, the L atin V ulgate in te rp re te d this as
a reference to m arriage an d used the translation sacramentum, which led to
this verse being em ployed as scriptural su p p o rt for the doctrine th at m arriage
is a sacram ent. B ut the reference o f “m ystery” is not to m arriage b u t to the
C hrist-C h u rch relationship. T h e re can th erefo re be no question o f a sacram ental
in terp retatio n as the original m eaning o f the text, b u t th ere do rem ain questions
about the special relationship betw een h u m an m arriage an d the redem ptive
sphere o f C hrist's relationship with his C hurch, which som e Catholic theologians
wish to form ulate in sacram ental term s (cf. the discussion in Gnilka, 289; B arth,
344– 53; Schnackenburg, 261– 62; 346– 49, who prefer, how ever, covenantal
ra th e r th an sacram ental categories for a theological in terp re tatio n o f m arriage).
O thers take the term simply as a reference to a d ee p er m eaning o f the S cripture
passage (cf. M eyer, 308; G. B ornkam m , “pvorr\piovf T D N T 4 [1967] 823;
R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968] 65– 66; M ussner, 160; idem , Christus, 152; B arth,
642– 44; C aird, Paul's Letters, 89; B ruce, Epistles, 394), b u t this sense w ould be
unparalleled n ot only in Ephesians b u t also in the N T , although it can be
fo u n d at Q u m ran (cf. the use o f H , raz, “m ystery”) an d in som e second-century
Christian writings, including Ju stin . In the o th e r five occurrences o f the term
in E phesians (cf. 1:9; 3 :3 ,4 , 9; 6:19), “m ystery” has reference to the once-
h id d en p u rp o se o f God which has now been revealed in Christ. D ifferent
aspects o f this m ystery can be highlighted according to th e context (cf. C. C.
C aragounis, The Ephesian ‘Mysterion’ [L und: G leerup, 1977] esp. 136– 46, for
a fuller discussion, th o u g h he believes 5:32 to contain a special usage re ferrin g
simply to the incom prehensibility o f the u n io n o f the C h u rch an d Christ; cf.
59 n. 15), an d in chap. 3 it has a particular focus in the com ing to g eth er in
C hrist o f Jew s an d Gentiles in the one C hurch. It is m ost likely, then, th at
h ere in 5:32 the term has the sam e C hrist-event in view, highlighting the
aspect o f it which has been central in this passage, nam ely th e intim ate union
betw een C hrist an d his C hurch (cf. also J. C oppens, “ ‘M ystery’ in the Theology
o f St. Paul an d Its Parallels at Q u m ra n ,” in Paul and Qumran, 147; Schlier,
262– 63; C am bier, Bib 47 [1966] 84–89; Sam pley, “And the T w o 90– 96; Gnilka,
287– 88). B oth the O T passage an d the m arriage relationship o f which it speaks
are connected with the mystery, b u t th eir connection is th at they p o in t to the
secret th at has now been revealed, th at o f the relationship betw een C hrist
an d the C hurch. “M ystery,” therefore, is no t any d ee p er m eaning o f an O T
text b ut precisely this m eaning o f C hrist an d the C h u rch posited by this w riter.
Similarly, the m ystery is no t any m arriage o r m arriage itself, b u t the special
m arriage relationship o f C hrist an d the C hurch. T his is n o t a denial o f the
straightforw ard reference o f G en 2:24 by any m eans. Indeed, as we have seen,
th at in terp retatio n o f G en 2:24 underlies the exhortation to husbands in vv
28– 30. B ut even th at use o f G en 2:24 d ep e n d ed for its force on the ultim ate
reference th e w riter believed it had to the archetypal un io n betw een C hrist
an d the C h u rch (for fuller discussion o f the extent a n d n atu re o f the use o f
the Genesis text in this passage, see Lincoln, J S N T 14 [1982] 30– 36). It was
because th e C h u rch was C hrist’s body which was one with him , a relationship
which was the m odel for h u m an m arriage, th at wives could be seen in term s
o f th eir husb an d s’ bodies.
382 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

T h e em phatic eyio an d the particle be in v 32b m ake clear th at th e w riter

is stressing th at this particular in terp re tatio n o f G en 2:24 as a reference to
th e p ro fo u n d m ystery o f the un io n betw een C hrist an d th e C h u rch is his
own. If, in fact, it also originated with him , th e n presum ably he reach ed it
th ro u g h a typological exegesis, resting on a correspondence betw een creation
(Gen 2:24) an d red em ption (C hrist a n d the C hurch). C hrist has already been
seen in Adam ic term s in E ph 1:22 (the C h u rch is his body), an d so a text
th at refers to A dam ’s bodily un io n can now be claim ed fo r C hrist’s u n io n
with th e C hurch. eyeo be \eyoj, “b u t I am speaking,” occurs also in the antitheses
o f th e S erm on o n the M ount in M atthew 5, w here it serves to in tro d u ce an
in terp re tatio n contrary to the generally accepted in terp re tatio n o f th e S cripture
passage in view. H ere also it sets the typological exegesis o f G en 2:24 which
is offered over against o th er interpretations. B ut does it simply set the w riter’s
in terp re tatio n over against th at which limits the m eaning o f G en 2:24 to the
physical u n io n betw een a m an an d a w om an, as in M ark 10:7; M att 19:5;
1 C or 6:16 (cf. R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery ’ in the
New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968] 65 n. 190)? Does it show th at
th e w riter is aw are o f a variety o f o th e r in terp retatio n s w hich w ere c u rre n t
(Dibelius, 95; Gnilka, 288, 294; B arth, 735; S chnackenburg, 261)? O r does it
have m ore polem ical overtones an d show th at the w riter was opposed to som e
particu lar in terp retations o f G en 2:24 (cf. G. B ornkam m , “pvorripiov,” T D N T
4 [1967] 823; Schlier, 262; Sam pley, “And the Two,” 52, 87– 89)? It is difficult
to decide this question.
C ertainly, th ere were in terp retatio n s o f G en 2:24 which could have been
c u rre n t in the syncretistic religious en v iro n m en t o f Asia M inor an d associated
with m ysteries o th er th an the one this w riter is advocating. In Gnostic an d
E ncratite circles in the second an d th ird centuries, the h u m an plight was seen
in term s o f th e differentiation o f the sexes, an d correspondingly salvation
involved the restoration o f the original androgynous unity. N ot surprisingly,
G en 2 figured prom inently in the elaboration o f this p a tte rn o f salvation (for
an illum inating survey o f second-century controversies concerning m arriage
an d th eir use o f Genesis 1 an d 2, see E. H. Pagels, “A dam an d Eve, C hrist
an d the C h u rch ,” in The New Testament and Gnosis, ed. A. H. B. L ogan an d
A. J . M. W ed d erb u rn [E dinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1983] 146– 75). A n u m b e r o f
th e docum ents in the N ag H am m adi library, including the Gospel of Thomas,
the Gospel of Philip, the Hypostasis of the Archons, a n d the Exegesis on the Soul,
reflect this schem a (for a discussion o f ethical im plications draw n from Genesis
1 an d 2 in some o f the N ag H am m adi docum ents, see E. H . Pagels, “Exegesis
an d Exposition o f the Genesis C reation A ccounts in Selected T exts from N ag
H am m ad i,” in N ag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, ed. C. W. H edrick
an d R. H odgson, J r. [Peabody, MA: H endrickson, 1986] 257– 85). In Gospel of
Philip 70 it is said, “B ecause o f this C hrist cam e to re p a ir the separation which
was from th e b eg inning an d again unite the two. . . . B ut the w om an is u n ited
to h e r h u sb an d in the bridal cham ber. In d eed those who have u n ited in the
bridal ch am ber will no longer be separated. T h u s Eve separated from A dam
because she was never u n ited with him in th e bridal ch am b er” (cf. J. M. Robinson,
ed., The N ag Hammadi Library [Leiden: Brill, 1977] 141– 42). “G reat is the m ystery
o f m arriag e,” says Gospel of Philip 64. T h e spiritual, sacram ental u n io n in the
bridal ch am ber is also called a m ystery in Gospel of Philip 67, 71 an d has its
 Comment 383

archetype in th e u n io n o f the Savior with Sophia. T h ro u g h it, also, the Gnostic

receives a foretaste an d assurance o f ultim ate u n io n with an angelic heavenly
co u n terp art. T h e re is som e debate about w hether this V alentinian Gnosticism
involved an acting o u t o f the sacred m arriage in a ritual o f sexual intercourse,
alth o u g h the early church fathers believed th at it did (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.
1.6.3, 4; C lem ent o f A lexandria, Strom. 3.1.1; 3.5.1; T ertullian, De Jejun. 17;
cf. Meeks, History of Religions 13 [1974] 191; Batey, N T S 13 [1966–67] 276;
B arth, 729 an d n. 462; Fischer, Tendenz, 192; Pagels, “A dam an d Eve, C hrist
an d th e C h u rch ,” 169). T h e Gospel of Philip probably dates from the second
h alf o f the th ird century, b u t the notion o f the restoration o f the androgynous
im age can be fo u n d earlier in the Gospel of Thomas, usually d ated aro u n d the
m iddle o f the second century an d associated with the E ncratite C hristianity
o f eastern Syria. In logion 22 o f the Gospel of Thomas one o f the m ysteries
Jesu s utters is, “W hen you m ake the two one, an d w hen you m ake the inside
like the outside an d the outside like the inside an d the above like the below,
an d w hen you m ake the m ale an d the fem ale one an d the same, so th at the
m ale n o t be m ale n o r the fem ale fem ale . . . th e n will you e n te r the K ingdom ”
(cf. J. M. Robinson, ed., The N ag Hammadi Library, 121). In Encratite circles
this u n io n o f m ale an d fem ale represents a renunciation an d neutralization o f
sexuality (cf. Meeks, History of Religions 13 [1974] 193–97; Fischer, Tendenz,
192– 93; Pagels, “A dam an d Eve, C hrist an d the C h u rch ,” 151– 52). T his sort
o f notion o f the unification o f m ale an d fem ale m ay be traced fu rth e r back
to C hristians in C orinth, w here a “realized eschatology” probably suggested
to the C o rinthian pneum atics th at they were already enjoying resurrection
existence an d were thus equal to the angels who n eith er m arry n o r are given
in m arriage (cf. Luke 20:34– 36). M any in terp re ters hold th at such a view lies
beh in d the sexual libertinism , the sexual asceticism, an d the confusion about
the role o f w om en reflected in 1 C orinthians (cf. Meeks, History of Religions
13 [1974] 199– 204). It can also be arg u ed th at Paul him self in Gal 3:28 used
a baptism al reunification form ula which reverses the “m ale an d fem ale” distinc-
tion o f G en 1:27 (cf. Meeks, History of Religions 13 [1974] 180– 86; H. D. Betz,
Galatians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 195– 200). A n androgynous in te rp re ta -
tion o f Genesis— w hereby the “m an ” in G en 1 was bisexual, was th en divided
into two w hen his rib was taken an d Eve was form ed, an d was finally re u n ite d
into “one flesh” by God w hen he led the w om an to the m an in G en 2:24 –
can also be fo u n d in Philo (cf. Leg. Alleg. 2.13, 19– 50; Quis Div. Her. 164; Quaest.
in Gen. 1.25). Given the early existence o f such androgynous in terpretations
o f Genesis an d the ethical im plications th at w ere draw n from them , an d given
the likelihood th at som e h ad fo u n d th eir way into the Pauline com m unities,
it could well be the case th at the w riter to the E phesians is at least asserting
his own in terp retatio n o f G en 2:24 in the face o f in terp retatio n s which linked
this text with o th er types o f spiritual u n io n a n d /o r drew from it im plications
which he deem ed were detrim ental to a p ro p e r reg ard fo r m arriage.
It is also w orth noting th at in so doing this w riter’s in terp re tatio n o f G en
2:24 as a reference to a spiritual as well as a sexual un io n is quite different
from th at o f Paul in 1 C or 6:16– 17. T h ere, the apostle h ad contrasted the
sexual “one flesh” relationship with the u n io n betw een C hrist a n d believers,
which he talks o f instead o f as iv nvevna, “one spirit” (cf. fu rth e r Lincoln,
J S N T 14 [1982] 36).
384 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

33 Tr\f)v Kai ujxels oi Kaff eva iKaoros rr\v eavrov yvvaixa ourcos ayairarcj cbs
eavrov, r) 8e yvvri Iva 0o(3flrat rbv ävöpa, “In any case, let each one o f you also
so love his wife as he loves him self, a n d let the wife fear h e r h u sb an d .” W ith
th e irXriv at th e b eginning o f this sentence, th e w riter brings his readers back
to th e gist o f his exhortation on m arriage. ifKr\v can be adversative (“b u t,”
“how ever”) or, as here, be used to ro u n d off a discussion a n d accentuate its
m ain p o in t (“now ,” “in any case”; cf. also 1 C or 11:11; Phil 3:16; 4:14; cf.
BDF §449[2]; Sam pley “And the T w o ” 106; Maillet, E T R 55 [1980] 570). In
this way, th e w riter rem inds his readers th a t the exalted depiction o f m arriage
in th e light o f the relationship o f C hrist a n d the C h u rch is m ean t to serve
the pu rp o se o f practical exhortation. In doing so, this tim e he addresses the
h usbands first an d directly, “let each one o f y o u ,” an em phatic inclusion o f
every hu sb an d , an d the wives second an d only indirectly, “let the wife.” T h e
literary unity o f th e passage can be seen in th at it contains a bro ad chiasm us.
T h e re is an exh o rtation to wives (vv 22–24), an ex hortation to husbands (vv
25– 32), an ex h o rtation to husbands again (v 33a), a n d a second exh o rtatio n
to wives (v 33b; cf. also Sampley, “And the T w o ” 147). T h e unity is reinforced
th ro u g h th e literary device o f inclusio with the m ention o f fear in v 21 a n d in
v 33.
T h e injunction to husbands to love th eir wives as them selves n o t only sum m a-
rizes th e line o f arg u m e n t from v 28 in term s o f loving wives as th eir own
bodies b u t also incorporates the arg u m e n t from v 25 about loving wives as
C hrist loved th e C hurch. T h e w riter has now show n explicitly in vv 3 1 ,3 2
th at C hrist’s love for the C h u rch involves the C h u rch ’s becom ing one body
with him , so th at C hrist can be seen as loving the C h u rch as him self. H e can
conclude th erefo re by telling the hu sb an d to love his wife as him self. At this
p o in t th e language clearly reflects th a t o f Lev 19:18 with its com m and to
love o n e’s neig h b o r as oneself (cf. also Sam pley, “And the Two ” 30; B arth,
704–5). T h e additional ourcos is p a rt o f a outgo? . . . cb? construction which
reinforces the com parison (cf. also 1 C or 4:1; 9:26a, b; Ja s 2:12; cf. BAGD
598). N eith er th e com m and to love o n e’s neig h b o r as oneself n o r th e com m and
to love o n e’s wife as oneself involves a fu rth e r com m and, nam ely, to love
o n e ’s self. T h erefo re, n eith er anticipates m o d ern psychological theories th at
p eople m ust first learn to accept them selves in o rd e r to be able to accept
others. B oth simply assum e th at love o f self is p resen t in all (cf. v 29) an d
th e n d em an d th at this be transcended by a love th at is directed to a n o th e r in
th e sam e way. H ere, the wife is the special instance o f the neighbor. As B arth
(719) puts it, “th e special form o f agape betw een hu sb an d an d wife flourishes
w ithin th e fram ew ork o f a general love for neighbors an d enem ies, is the
school an d test case o f the latter, an d publicizes its reality an d pow er. T h e
wife is th e h u sb an d ’s prim ary an d exem plary n eig h b o r.”
In th e w riter’s sum m ary o f the wife’s duties, the construction with iva an d
the subjunctive replaces a com m and o r im perative (pace B arth, 648, who claims
it functions as a wish ra th e r th an as an im perative). M any translators an d
in terp re ters attem p t to m ake the w riter less patriarchal a n d m ore palatable
to m o d ern readers by substituting “respect” for “fe ar” in the com m and to
wives (cf. B arth, 648, 662). As in the earlier instructions, the wife’s attitu d e to
h e r h u sb an d is to be m odeled on th e C h u rc h ’s attitu d e to C hrist. H e r fear o f
h e r h u sb an d reflects the fear o f all believers for C hrist (cf. v 21). T his fear
 Explanation 385

certainly includes having respect, b u t is stro n g er th an this, th o u g h no t the

fear o f a slave (cf. J. A. R obinson, 127 “the fear o f the C h u rch fo r C hrist—
which is th e p attern o f the fear o f th e wife for h e r hu sb an d — is no slavish
fear, b u t a fear o f reverence”). In the case o f h u m an relations, as we noted
with the notion o f subordination also, fear involves observance o f the a p p ro p ri-
ate authority structures, w hether o f citizens tow ard the state (cf. Rom 13:3, 4, 7),
children to p arents (Bam. 19.5; Did. 4.9), slaves to m asters (Eph 6:5; 1 Pet
2:18; Did. 4.11), or, as here, wives to husbands (cf. also 1 Pet 3:2). As Balz
(“0 o|3o5,” T D N T 9 [1974] 217– 8) observes, “fear can den o te the obedience d e -
m an d ed by the su perior authority o f m asters o r husbands as lords” an d “has
a settled place in household tables.” Since the fear o f C hrist (v 21) is believers’
ap p ro p riate response to his overw helm ing love an d pow er, the wife’s fear is
h e r ap p ro p riate response to h e r h u sb an d ’s headship exercised in self-sacrificial
love.
T h e sum m arizing exhortations in v 33 indicate the high status this w riter
accords to m arriage. T h ro u g h the love, on the one han d , an d the fear, on
the other, which m arriage involves, h usband an d wife are to m irro r the great
m ystery itself, the u nion betw een C hrist an d his C hurch. A t the sam e time,
for th e m o d ern re ad er the form an d content o f this verse u n d erlin e the passage’s
m asculine perspective and its acceptance o f a patriarchal structure, an d yet
they retain within them the radical em phasis on the h u sb an d ’s love with its
potential for th eir transform ation.

Explanation

In this letter the w riter’s exhortations about household relationships form

the m ajor p a rt o f the paraenesis about wise living which begins at 5:15. T h e
prim ary resource for such living is the Spirit, with w hom believers are to be
filled, resulting in m utual edification, w orship, constant thanksgiving, an d m u -
tual subm ission. T h e exhortation to m utual subm ission form s a transition be-
tween the p receding injunctions in 5:15– 20 an d the instructions to wives an d
husbands in 5:22– 33. Its participle is d e p e n d e n t on the m ain verb o f 5:18,
“be filled,” and, in tu rn , the exhortation to wives in 5:22 is d ep e n d e n t on
this participle for its sense, since it contains no verb. T hese intricate syntactical
links suggest a close conceptual connection betw een the two sections o f p a -
raenesis. F or this w riter, not only should the wise living th at com es from being
filled with th e Spirit w ork itself o u t w ithin the structures o f th e household,
b u t also both th e com m unal w orship, which, o f course, took place in houses,
an d the attitu d e o f thanksgiving, flowing from the Spirit, should be seen to
have th eir effects on all the o th er relationships occurring in such houses.
T h e exh o rtatio n to all the m em bers o f th e household to subm it to one
a n o th er (v 21) is this w riter’s distinctive introduction to the specific duties o f
the household code which follow. It is a re m in d e r that, w hatever roles are
ap p ro p riate because o f the structures im posed by the household, th ere rem ains
th e overarching d em and th at in all lowliness an d m eekness w ith patience believ-
ers should b ear with one an o th er in love (cf. 4:2). F or the w riter o f Ephesians,
this pow erful initial appeal to all, w hatever th eir status in the household, to
display th e selfless reg ard for others which puts oneself at th eir disposal, sits
perfectly com patibly with the requirem ents fo r particular subordination th at
386 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

he goes on to m ake. T h e introductory injunction also sets th e tone fo r the

en su in g household code th ro u g h its Christological m otivation. Each g ro u p
w ithin th e household will be encouraged to fulfill its role as p a rt o f its relationship
to C hrist, an d h ere the all-em bracing claim u p o n th em for m u tu al subm ission
has as its m otivation “the fear o f C hrist,” a living in awe at bo th his sovereignty
an d his overw helm ing love.
In taking u p the specifics o f the household code, E phesians is directly d e p e n -
d e n t on Col 3 :18–4:1, which was, in tu rn , influenced by a tradition o f discussions
o f h o usehold m an agem ent in G reco-R om an writings, stem m ing from A ristotle.
In such discussions, the th ree pairs— h u sb an d-wife, p a re n t-child, a n d m aster-
slave—w ere treated, with, as m ight be expected, th e fo rm e r m em b er being
given the authoritative an d the latter th e subordinate role. T his patriarchal
an d hierarchical conception o f household m an ag em en t was seen as crucial
for th e stability o f society as a whole. W hereas in its ad ap tatio n o f this discussion
Colossians devotes m ost atten tio n to the m aster-slave relationship, E phesians’
u n iq u e co n tribution to early C hristian household codes is in its sustained tre a t-
m en t o f the h u sb and-wife relationship, which it com pares to th e relationship
betw een C hrist an d his C hurch. J u s t as earlier in the letter believers’ lives
an d hum anity as a whole are to be viewed from th e vantage po in t o f w hat
God has d o n e in Christ, so now the sam e holds tru e for the m arriage relationship.
T h e analogy betw een h u m an m arriage a n d C hrist’s relationship to his C hurch,
in which th e latter provides the archetype fo r the form er, dom inates th e p a -
raenesis o f 5:22– 33 with the m ovem ent o f th o u g h t continually shifting betw een
th e two relationships before they are b ro u g h t to g eth er in the q uotation an d
in terp re tatio n o f G en 2:24 in vv 31, 32.
In th e m arriage paraenesis, wives are addressed first in vv 22–24. As responsi-
ble m oral agents, they are asked by m eans o f two exhortations, th e second o f
which (v 24) intensifies the first (v 22), to subordinate them selves to th eir
husbands in everything. Subm ission is called for in this code no t sim ply because
it is th e conventional role allotted to wives in society, b u t because in voluntarily
su b o rd in atin g them selves to th eir husbands wives are to see this as p a rt o f
th eir subordination to th eir L ord. In th e w arran t fo r this exhortation, th e
analogy with C hrist an d the C hurch is in tro d u ced in v 23 an d th e n becom es
th e basis for th e repetition o f the exh o rtatio n in v 24. In the application to
h u m an m arriage, the husb an d takes the role o f C hrist an d the wife th e role
o f th e C hurch. So the husb an d is th e h ead o f the wife, as C hrist is th e h ead
o f th e C hurch, an d the wife subm its to the h usband, as th e C h u rch subm its
to Christ. Discussion o f both C hrist’s a n d the h u sb an d ’s “h ead sh ip ” has in
view prim arily th eir authority, as the readers w ould have expected, although,
o f course, the w riter will also indicate in the appeal to husbands th a t it is an
au th o rity th at expresses itself in self-giving love. C om plete subm ission by both
the C h u rch an d th e wife involves willing obedience. In this w riter’s ideal depic-
tion, ju s t as th e C h u rch ’s subordination to C hrist is to a beneficial a n d loving
ru le th at enables grow th, so the wife’s subordination to h e r h u sb an d is th o u g h t
o f as taking place in the context o f a sim ilar rule. T h e w riter’s analogy to the
relation o f C hrist to the C hurch leads him in v 23 to an additional th o u g h t
th at applies to C hrist b u t n o t to the husband. E m ploying a title used by Paul in
Phil 3:20 an d which was becom ing increasingly p ro m in en t in the early church,
 Explanation 387

the w riter sees C hrist as “him self the Savior o f the body” as well as the head.
H e occupies his position as head uniquely as a result o f having rescued those
who constitute his body, the C hurch, from a previous situation o f death, sin,
an d alienation (cf. 2:1– 10; 2:14– 18; 5:2).
It is th e role o f husbands to which the w riter devotes the m ajor p a rt o f his
atten tio n in the m arriage paraenesis. H e does so in two stages— vv 25–27 and
vv 28– 32. In b oth stages the exhortation is for husbands to love th eir wives,
an d in both th e w arrant involves C hrist's love for the C hurch. It is significant
th at following on th e adm onition to wives to subm it, the corresp o n d in g adm oni-
tion to husbands is no t to rule b u t to love th eir wives (v 25). W hat has previously
been seen as an essential quality in the lives o f all believers (cf. 1:4; 3:17;
4:2, 15, 16; 5:2) is now req u ired specifically o f husbands in relation to th eir
wives. T hey are asked to exercise the self-giving love th at acts for the good
o f th eir wives w ithout the expectation o f rew ard. Ju s t as in 5:2 C hrist’s self-
giving love provided the m odel in the appeal to all believers to live in love,
so h ere in vv 25b - 27 C hrist’s love an d self-giving for the C h u rch form s the
m odel an d the gro unds for the appeal to husbands to love th eir wives. T his
time, n o t co n ten t with a bare statem ent about C hrist’s love, the w riter goes
on to elaborate on its purpose. T h e pu rp o se o f C hrist’s sacrificial death, in
which his love for the C hurch was d em onstrated, was th at th at C hurch m ight
be holy. T ak in g u p im agery from both Ezek 16:8– 14, which depicts Y ahw eh’s
relationship with Jeru salem in m arital term s, an d from Paul in 2 C or 11:2,
w here th e C o rin th ian church is to be presen ted to C hrist as a p u re bride, the
w riter explains th at C hrist’s love fo r his bride, the C hurch, was in ten d ed to
sanctify h e r th ro u g h a w ashing o f w ater so th at he m ight p resen t h e r to him self
in glory an d m oral perfection. T h e language o f w ashing with w ater evokes
n o t only bridal bath im agery b u t also prim arily believers’ experience o f baptism .
T h e ir transference into the sphere o f G od’s holiness has taken place th ro u g h
both water, baptism , an d the word, the purifying m essage o f the gospel. T h e
bride C hrist presents to him self is depicted in term s o f a beauty u n m a rre d by
any physical defect. T his beauty, the w riter im m ediately indicates, is to be
seen as the m oral purity an d blam elessness o f th e C h u rch p ro d u ced by C hrist’s
sanctifying activity. T h e elaboration on this sanctifying activity has illustrated
the n atu re o f C hrist’s love, b u t it is th at love itself which has all the im port
for th e paraenesis to husbands. It has the radicalizing force o f indicating th at
the h u sb an d ’s love for his wife should also be o f the sort th at is willing to go
to the ultim ate ex tent o f laying dow n his life fo r her.
C hrist’s love fo r the C hurch portrayed in vv 25–27 serves as the m odel at
the beginning o f the second stage o f the w riter’s exhortation to husbands
with its fu rth e r assertion o f h u sbands’ obligation to love th eir wives (cf. “in
th e sam e way,” v 28a). As this section (vv 28– 32) progresses, the w arran t changes
to w hat m ight at first ap p e a r to be a m ore m u n d an e analogy o f h u sbands’
love for th eir own bodies (vv 28, 29a) before re tu rn in g to the p ro fo u n d one
o f C hrist’s love for his body, the C hurch (vv 29b, 30). B oth analogies are closely
associated in the w riter’s m ind, as both the “body” term inology in each case
an d th e “flesh” language for each relationship (cf. vv 29, 31) indicate. Ju s t as
husbands care for all th eir own bodies’ needs, so th eir love for th eir wives
should be o f th e sort th at cares for all th eir needs. T h e com parison becom es
388 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

an exten d ed one with two fu rth e r assertions: first, th at the person who loves
his wife loves him self, and, second, in a form ulation th at w ould leave no room
fo r ascetic extrem ism , th at no one ever h ated his own flesh b u t instead nourishes
an d cherishes it. T his prom pts the explicit re tu rn to the analogy o f C hrist
an d th e C hurch. T h e readers are re m in d ed th a t the body o f which they are
m em bers can also be said to be n o u rish ed a n d cherished by C hrist, as he
lovingly provides for its grow th an d sanctifies an d cleanses it. T h e various
th read s o f th e second stage o f th e ex hortation to husbands are b ro u g h t to g eth er
in the citation an d in terp retatio n o f G en 2:24 in vv 31, 32, which constitute a
final justification fo r the appeal th at husbands should love th eir wives as th eir
own bodies. For this w riter the perspective o f G en 2:24, which has shaped
his th o u g h t from v 28 onw ards, suggests, first o f all, th at th ere is a sense in
which wives are th eir h usbands’ bodies, since h u sb an d an d wife are “one flesh.”
B ut m ore th an that, basing his paraenesis about m arriage on th e relationship
betw een C hrist an d the C hurch has been entirely ap p ro p riate, because he, in
the face o f o th er c u rre n t in terp retatio n s which m ay have draw n quite different
im plications from it, in terp rets G en 2:24 as re ferrin g to the p ro fo u n d m ystery
th at G od has now revealed in Christ, nam ely, the u n io n betw een C hrist an d
th e C hurch.
T h e m arriage paraenesis can now be ro u n d e d off in v 33 with the sum m ariz-
ing exhortations, which, in line with the recent sequence o f th o u g h t, this tim e
address h usbands first an d th e n wives. D espite the ex ten d ed expositions o f
the analogy with C hrist an d the C hurch, th ere can be no d o u b t fo r the re ad er
th at ultim ately th eir point has been to drive hom e the duties o f husbands
an d wives. T ak in g u p the language o f Lev 19:18 an d building on the arg u m e n t
o f vv 28–32, th e w riter calls on th e h u sb an d to love his wife as him self. His
concluding appeal to the wife involves a variation on the earlier language o f
subordination. J u s t as elsew here in early C hristian paraenesis citizens are to
fear th e state, children th eir parents, a n d slaves th eir m asters, the wife’s a p p ro -
p riate response to h e r h u sb an d ’s authority exercised in love should be fear o f
h e r husband. By m eans o f this form ulation the w riter provides an inclusio
with his in troductory exhortation to m utual subm ission in v 21, which had
“fear o f C hrist” as its m otivation.
So in this distinctive piece o f teaching ab o u t C hristian m arriage, the w riter
has creatively com bined the theological an d the ethical concerns evidenced in
th e letter as a whole, as he m akes the u n io n betw een C hrist a n d the C h u rch
th e p ro totype fo r the relationship o f believing husbands an d wives. In the
process he builds o n w hat has been said earlier in th e letter ab o u t C hrist an d
ab o u t the C hurch. H ere, as earlier, C hrist is th e exalted h ead (cf. 1:22; 4:15).
H e is th e one who loves an d gives him self for believers (cf. 3:19; 5:2), who
brings the C h u rch into being by his saving d ea th (cf. 1:7, 13; 2 :5 ,6 ; 2:14–
18), who cares fo r its needs an d grow th (cf. 4:11, 16), who is intim ately re -
lated to th e C h u rch as he fills it, dwells in believers’ hearts, an d is the
source o f th eir life (cf. 1:23; 2:21; 3:17; 4:15, 16). B ut now these elem ents
are given a new focus as C hrist is specifically called Savior (v 23), as his care
fo r th e C h u rch is talked o f in term s o f no u rish in g an d cherishing it (v 29), as
his sanctifying activity is elaborated (vv 26, 27), a n d as h e is seen as th e b rid e-
groom whose concern is for his b rid e’s glory a n d purity (v 27) an d whose
 Explanation 389

relation to his C h u rch can be depicted as a spiritual m arriage u n io n (vv 31, 32).
H ere, as earlier, the C hurch is C hrist’s body (cf. 1:23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4, 12, 16),
is associated with glory (cf. 1:6, 12, 14, 18; 3:21), an d is to be holy a n d blam eless
(cf. 1:4; 2:21; 4:24; 5:3– 14). W hat h ad been assum ed previously in depicting
C hrist as head an d in talking o f learning C hrist (cf. 4:20, 21) is now expressed
explicitly— the C h u rch is subject to C hrist (v 24). As with C hrist’s side o f th eir
intim ate relationship, so with the C h u rch ’s— the m arital im agery adds a new
focus. T h e C h u rch is now to be seen as the bride who is n o t only subordinate
to C hrist b u t in union with him (vv 31, 32). In line with the letter’s earlier
perspective on believers’ salvation an d its view o f the C h u rch as already being
C hrist’s fullness an d yet n eeding to attain to th at fullness, o f already having
unity an d yet still needing to realize it com pletely, th ere is an “already” an d a
“not yet” to the im age o f the C hurch as bride, with the stress on the fo rm er
aspect, as the “o ne flesh” m arriage u nion is applied to th e p resen t relationship
betw een C hrist an d his C hurch.
T h e w riter’s th o ughts about the two relationships— C hrist an d the C hurch,
h u sband an d wife—have influenced each other. T h e form ulations about each
are p art o f this two-way process. B ut paraenesis is his prim ary concern, and
in the en d the Christological an d ecclesiological form ulations serve th at purpose.
T h e focus o f the pericope is believers’ conduct. A lthough all is u n d e r the
b an n e r o f m u tu al subm ission, the specific conduct req u ired can be sum m ed
u p fo r the wife as subm itting to an d fearing h e r h u sb an d ’s loving headship
an d for the hu sb and as treating his wife with the sam e care th at he expends
on him self and, even m ore, with the quality o f love th at w ould enable him to
sacrifice his life for her. F or both p artn ers th ere is a Christological m otivation
which comes m ainly th ro u g h the analogy with C hrist an d th e C h u rch b u t is
also form ulated in o th er ways. T h e wife is to view h e r h u sb an d ’s headship in
the light o f C hrist’s headship o f the C hurch (v 23). In addition she is to subm it
“in the fear o f C hrist” (v 21) and “as to the L o rd ” (v 22). T h e hu sb an d is also
to subm it “in the fear o f C hrist” (v 21), while his self-giving love is to be
m odeled on th at o f C hrist for the C h u rch (v 25), an d his nou rish in g an d
cherishing love for his wife as for his own body will reflect th e love o f C hrist
for his body, the C hurch (v 29).
T h e new elem ent in this passage’s exposition o f the roles o f C hrist an d o f
the C hurch is its striking em phasis on th eir unity, b ro u g h t o u t by the quotation
o f Gen 2:24 an d the depiction o f the u nion as a p ro fo u n d m ystery. E arlier in
the letter, th e language o f m ystery had also been applied to the notion o f
unity: to cosmic unity in C hrist (1:9, 10), to the unity o f Jew an d G entile in
the one body, the C hurch (3:3– 6), an d to the way in which th e latter unity
acts as an an n o u n cem en t about the fo rm er (3:9, 10). Now n o t only do believers
form a unity in Christ, bu t as the C hurch th eir relationship to C hrist is one
o f unity. J u s t as o th er aspects o f the relation betw een C hrist an d th e C hurch
form a p rototype for believers’ m arriages, so does this fu n d am en tal aspect o f
unity. It is because a h usband an d wife are one flesh o r one body th at the
hu sb an d can be u rg ed to love his wife as his own body. In this way, the unity
o f C hrist an d the C hurch can be em ployed to u n d erlin e the unity o f husb an d
an d wife, an d m arital unity within the household can be seen to be an essential
p art o f the expression o f the unity o f G od’s household, the C hurch. Again, if
390 E p h e s ia n s 5 : 2 1–33

the C h u rch ’s display o f unity is to act as a pledge o f G od’s purposes o f unity

for th e cosmos, th e n m arital unity in particular will also be a reflection o f
G od’s cosmic purposes. J u s t as m aintenance o f th e C h u rch ’s unity encom passes
a diversity o f gifts an d roles in love, so th e m aintenance o f m arital unity involves
diversity o f roles— loving headship an d fearing subordination—w ithin m utual
subm ission.
W h eth er it is because o f its value as a fu rth e r expression o f th e C h u rc h ’s
unity fo r which he is so concerned, o r w h eth er it is also because o f actual
th reats to th e status o f m arriage w ithin the churches he addresses, such as its
disp arag em en t by those attracted by ascetic teachings, th e w riter o f E phesians
has chosen to provide his m ajor elaboration on th e household code o f Colossians
in reg ard to this relationship. T h e way in which he does so un d erlin es its
p ro fo u n d significance. T his constitutes a quite d ifferent perspective on m arriage
from th at o f 1 C or 7, w here, although both husbands a n d wives have conjugal
rights, because o f the im m inence o f the parousia an d because o f th e need to
give undivided devotion to th e L ord, Paul m akes clear th at the p re fe rre d state
is celibacy an d th at those who have wives should live as th o u g h they h ad
none. W ith a different perception o f th e C h u rc h ’s stage in history, the w riter
o f Ephesians does no t trea t m arriage as a second-best optio n b u t instead, by
relating it so intim ately to C hrist’s u n io n with his C hurch, gives it an exalted
status an d lays the fo undation for the developm ent o f th e C hristian “sacralizing”
o f th e relationship.
For th e readers, this analogy which serves as a prototype w ould have been
th o u g h t o f n eith er as an abstract illustration n o r as m ere theological rhetoric,
b u t as a reality which was p a rt o f th eir experience. C hrist’s love was for a
C h u rch o f which they w ere a part, his giving o f him self fo r th em h ad taken
place on a cross in relatively recent history, an d they w ere enjoying th e privileges
o f experiencing the continuing love o f th eir exalted L ord as he cared for
them by dwelling in th eir hearts, giving gifts o f m inistry, an d providing resources
o f life, love, an d power. T h e o th e r side o f this prototype relationship was
equally real fo r them as they attem p ted to subm it to th eir h ead by learn in g
w hat actions pleased him , by being thankful, by conducting them selves blam e-
lessly, an d by living in awe o f him . Since they w ere participating in the reality
o f this relationship, the w riter’s appeal to them to m odel th eir m arriages on
it, so th at those m arriages w ould be an equally real reflection o f its dynam ic,
w ould have h ad a pow erful effect.
In term s o f external roles an d duties, the m arriages o f those who accepted
this w riter’s invitation w ould have looked no d ifferent from those o f the m ajority
o f people in the G reco-R om an world. So from one angle the analogy with
C hrist an d th e C h u rch can be seen as simply reinforcing the traditional h ie ra r-
chical p attern o f m arriage o f the patriarchal household. T h e household codes
o f b oth Colossians a n d Ephesians do reflect a stage in the life o f the Pauline
churches in which they w ere com ing to term s with th eir co ntinuing existence
over an ex ten d ed period in society an d accom m odating to the structures th at
were held to provide the stability o f th eir society. T h ey reflect n o t only an
ex tern al accom m odation bu t also, as p a rt o f th e sam e process, th e in tern al
stabilizing o f th e structures o f com m unity life which w ould aid th e ch urches’
coexistence with o th er m em bers o f society. B ut th e acculturation o f m inority
 Explanation 391

Pauline churches to the d o m in an t G reco-R om an society was n o t simply a o n e-

way process. T h e w riter o f Ephesians brings a distinctive vision o f m arriage
to th e process, and, although the roles an d duties o f believers who shared
this vision w ould from the outside have been h a rd to distinguish from those
in o th er m arriages, the internal ethos an d dynam ic o f such m arriages w ould
have felt quite different. T o have fulfilled o n e’s role an d carried o u t o n e ’s
duties u n d e r th e guidelines o f m utual subm ission, an d as a wife to have subordi-
n ated oneself voluntarily to a husband who cherishes one with a self-sacrificial
love, would have b een to experience a very different reality th a n th at suggested
by th e traditional discussions o f household m anagem ent.
W hile th ere may have been gains for som e w om en from this w riter’s vision
o f m arriage, one o f its consequences was losses fo r others. A lthough th ere is
some continuity in this household code with P aul’s instructions about w om en
in relation to m en in th eir conduct in the C orinthian assembly (cf. 1 C or 11
an d 14), th ere is evidence from P aul’s letters o f some w om en having leadership
roles. B ut the instructions about subordination in the household code would
have h ad im plications for the role o f w om en in th e general life o f the churches
an d have co n trib u ted to the identification o f positions with any authority as
m ale prerogatives, m aking it h a rd e r for the acceptance o f the leadership abilities
o f exceptional w om en (cf. also M acDonald, The Pauline Churches, 119–20). T h e
results o f this can be seen already in the Pastorals, w here, as the household
becomes th e d o m in an t m odel for the C hurch, w om en are excluded from a u th o r-
itative teaching roles (cf. 1 T im 2:8– 3:15; cf. also Wall, CSR 17 [1988] 273,
“within the Pauline corpus the Ephesians han d lin g o f the tension betw een
g en d er differentiation an d equality occupies a m ediating point som ew here
betw een G alatians 3:28 and the Pastorals”).
A lthough G reek religion could link m arriage betw een gods an d h u m an
sexual union, th e use o f “sacred m arriag e” im agery as an archetype in paraenesis
ab out h u m an m arriage appears to be the distinctive contribution o f Ephesians.
C om m entators have, however, differed widely in th eir assessm ent o f the effec-
tiveness an d success o f this contribution as a whole. B arth, for exam ple, who
devotes 147 pages o f his com m entary to this passage, can claim th at “a greater,
wiser an d m ore positive description o f m arriage has n o t yet been fo u n d in
C hristian literatu re” and “this ch ap ter belongs am ong the ou tstan d in g literary
docum ents th at provide a ch a rter o f liberty an d responsibility to both p artn ers
in m arriage, based u p o n the dignity, peace an d unity given to them by God
th ro u g h Jesus C hrist” (715,753). O n the o th er han d , M itton, for exam ple,
holds th at despite the rhetoric o f the passage, “if it is studied in detail, it is
fo u n d to be lacking in systematic construction an d in strong in tern al connexions”
an d its use o f traditional m aterials “is n o t one o f the m ore successful parts o f
the letter” (210). In reply to M itton, it m ust be said th at o u r detailed study
has revealed a piece o f exhortation which is rem arkably creative in its use o f
the analogy o f C hrist and the C hurch as the m otivation an d g rounds fo r the
conduct o f husbands an d wives an d th at this creativity is com bined with a
th oroughly co h erent arg u m e n t (cf. also Sam pley, “And the Two, ” 163: “E ph
5:21– 33 is indeed an elaborate passage, b u t no t labored. T h e a u th o r pursues
very carefully an d judiciously an intricate train o f th o u g h t, with careful literary
balance an d stru cture from beginning to e n d ”). B arth ’s assessm ent, however,
392 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

takes us well beyond descriptive exegesis an d calls fo r a som ew hat m ore ex ten d ed
response. T h e re are obviously questions about how all the m essage o f E phesians
is to be ap p ro p riated (see th e b rief discussion in the Introduction u n d e r Theology
and Impact), b u t since, on the one han d , this passage has served an d still serves
fo r m any, such as B arth, as the m odel fo r C hristian m arriages, while, on the
o th e r h an d , in th e egalitarian an d fem inist clim ate o f co ntem porary society it
provides fo r oth ers a source o f som e em barrassm ent o r offense, it w ould be
rem iss o f a co m m entator in this series n o t to reveal at least briefly his o r h e r
own evaluation o f this particular passage an d how it m ight be a p p ro p ria te d
in an overall theology o f C hristian m arriage.
Seen w ithin its own setting, this creative paraenesis provides at one an d
th e sam e tim e an acceptance o f the basic fram ew ork o f the traditional codes’
trea tm e n t o f m arriage an d yet a distinctive C hristian m odification o f it. B oth
th e w riter’s call to m utual subm ission an d his depiction o f the h u sb an d ’s exercise
o f h ead sh ip in term s o f loving sacrifice give th e traditional roles a quite different
dynam ic (cf. also Mile tic, “One F lesh,” 116: “T h e patriarchal stru ctu re rem ains
intact [i.e., th e wife is subordinate to the husband], b u t the dynam ics w ithin
th at stru ctu re are radically refocused on the wife’s well-being”). Im plicitly,
o u r exegesis has indicated th at n o th in g is to be gained by a revisionist an d
anachronistic in terp re tatio n o f the passage which attem pts to conform it to
m o d ern sensitivities an d to m ake the w riter an egalitarian before his tim e,
eith er by treatin g the injunction to m utual subm ission as a radical critique o f
all th at follows, o r by em ptying the concept o f h eadship o f all suggestions o f
authority, o r by redefining subordination to the hu sb an d to m ean “identification
w ith” him . O n the o th er han d , n o th in g is to be gained by p re te n d in g th at
the analogy with C hrist an d the C h u rch m akes this piece o f paraenesis a timeless
an d universal prescription for m arriage th ro u g h th e ages. F or a start, this
idealized picture o f m arriage, even w ithin its ow n tim e, is lim ited in its scope
an d does no t address im p o rtan t practical questions. It assum es th a t both p artn e rs
have th e sam e C hristian com m itm ent an d d ep en d s on a m u tu al acceptance
o f the roles it requires. T h e re is no advice about w hat to do w hen this is no t
the case: w hen m utuality breaks dow n o r w hen the wife is faced with a husb an d
who does n o t exercise his headship in the way C hrist treats the C h u rch in
love. By building so exclusively on the m odel o f C hrist’s relationship with the
C h u rch , n o t en o u g h account can be taken o f th e sinful reality in which all
h u m an relationships are caught u p an d which can be experienced particularly
intensely in th e m ost intim ate relationship o f m arriage. M ore im portantly,
from th e perspective o f the m o d ern reader, the w riter’s use o f the analogy o f
C hrist an d the C h u rch reveals th at the point o f view o f the passage is pervasively
androcentric. W hy should it simply be assum ed th at the m odel o f C hrist is
for th e h u sb an d an d the m odel o f the C h u rch fo r the wife? W hy should no t
a wife be able to ta k e C hrist as h e r m odel for m arriage, an d why should love
only be expected o f the hu sb an d an d no t o f the wife? W hy should the wife
be likened to h e r h u sb an d ’s body an d the h u sb an d no t also be th o u g h t o f as
his wife’s body?
It is best, th en , to see this vision o f m arriage for w hat it is— conditioned by
th e cultural assum ptions o f its tim e— an d to ap preciate w hat it attem pts to
accom plish in its own setting—bringing its in terp re tatio n o f the Pauline gospel
 Explanation 393

to b ear on the household structures o f its society to p roduce a distinctive

ad ap tatio n o f those structures. C ontem porary C hristians can best a p p ro p riate
it by realizing th at they are to attem p t to do som ething sim ilar in th eir own
setting—to b rin g to bear w hat they hold to be th e h ea rt o f the C hristian m essage
on the m arriage conventions o f th eir time. T hose who consider love an d justice
to be the central th ru st o f the Bible’s ethical teaching will, th erefo re, w ant to
work o u t a view o f m arriage w here both p artn e rs are held in equal regard,
w here justice will require th at traditional m ale dom inance can n o t be tolerated
(cf. also Miletic, “One Flesh, ” 116– 20, who argues th at since th e text challenges
m ale dom ination even in its own androcentric setting, it can continue to speak
powerfully to the tem ptation to dom ination in contem porary m arriage), an d
w here love will en sure th at the relationship does no t d eg en erate into a sterile
battle over each p a rtn e r’s rights to his o r h e r own fulfillm ent.
By candidly acknow ledging o n e ’s own contem porary C hristian perspective,
one is free n o t to allow the w riter’s analogy with C hrist an d the C hurch, which
was illum inating an d to som e extent liberating in its application to the h ie ra r-
chical p attern s o f his tim e, to straitjacket subsequent reflection on the passage,
b u t instead to decide which elem ents o f his vision m ight rem ain o f value and
which are now outm oded. A n ap p ro p riatio n o f the text which respects historical
exegesis, b u t is n o t b o u n d by it, m ight well reject th e hierarchical elem ents
in the ex h ortation about roles an d the co rresponding application o f the h ie ra r-
chical elem ents o f the relationship betw een C hrist an d the C h u rch to m arriage
an d instead p o n d er the im plications o f the concept o f un io n which is so im p o r-
tan t in this w riter’s overall concerns. T h e p erm a n en t “one flesh” un io n o f
G en 2:24 which underlies the w riter’s exhortation to husbands, as well as being
the vehicle for his distinctive in terp re tatio n o f C hrist an d the C hurch, will
rem ain the C hristian ideal for m arriage, providing the secure context for com -
m itm ent, trust, an d grow th, an d challenging the notion th a t relationships exist
for personal profit an d can be discarded w hen they fail to yield enough. Such
an ideal for m arriage can still be seen to be a reflection o f the reality o f the
un io n betw een C hrist an d the C hurch an d thus to have a “sacram ental” d im en -
sion. In continuity with Ephesians, m arriage can be exalted, n o t because it is
so different from the rest o f life b u t because in the m idst o f everyday life it
provides a special focus for d em onstrating the sort o f unity th at is at the
cen ter o f G od’s purposes for all hum anity an d the cosmos, th a t at presen t is
realized in the u n io n betw een C hrist an d his C hurch, an d th at for its outw orking
in the relationship betw een a h usband a n d a wife needs the su p p o rt o f the
Pauline gospel o f grace.
Instead o f assigning love to the husb an d an d subm ission to the wife, a
contem porary a p p ro p riatio n o f Ephesians will build on this passage’s own in tro -
ductory exh o rtatio n (v 21) an d see a m utual loving subm ission as the way in
which the unity o f the m arriage relationship is dem onstrated. Indeed, Ephesians
itself elsew here asks both love (cf. 5:2) an d subm ission (cf. 4:2) o f all. B oth
wife an d h u sb an d can look to C hrist as the m odel for the sacrificial kind o f
love req u ired (cf. 5:2). In this way, subm ission an d love can be seen as two
sides o f the sam e coin—selfless service o f o n e’s m arriage p artn e r. W hat is
req u ired o f both p artn ers is costly care an d com m itm ent, thereby challenging
o th er assum ptions about love as purely a rom antic feeling o r ecstatic experience.
394 E p h e s ia n s 5:21– 33

W hat is req u ired o f both p artn e rs is the submissive attitu d e that, p resu p p o sin g
th e freedom an d dignity o f both, will voluntarily subordinate th eir own interests
to those o f th e other, thereby challenging o th e r assum ptions th a t result in
relationships o f self-centered com petition fo r control. A co n tem p o rary read in g
o f E p h 5:21– 33 cannot afford to ignore w hat this passage sees as th e necessary
m otivation fo r m u tual subm ission— “th e fear o f C hrist”—a n d will w ant to stress
th at th e en co u rag em ent for w orking tow ard th e C hristian ideal fo r m arriage
com es from loolung to C hrist’s overw helm ing love, draw ing resources from
his an d th e Spirit’s pow er (cf. also 5:18), and, particularly w hen falling sh o rt
o f the ideal, relying on his cleansing an d sanctifying activity.
Household Relationships—Children and
Parents {6:1–4)
Bibliography
Gärtner, M. Die Familienerziehung in der alten Kirche. Cologne: Bohlau, 1985, 32–38.
Lincoln, A. T. “The Use of the OT in Ephesians.” JS N T 14 (1982) 37–40.
Translation
1 Children, obey your parents in the L o rd ,afo r this is right. 2 “Honor your father
and mother”— which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “that it may go
well with you and that you may live long on the earth” 4And fathers, do not make
your children angry, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Notes
aSome weighty witnesses (B D* G itd*e>f*g Marcion Clement Tertullian Cyprian Ambrosiaster
[Pelagius]) omit the phrase ev Kuptcp, “in the Lord,” and a few interpreters (e.g., neb; Caird,
Paul’s Letters, 89–90) believe this shorter reading to be original. Others (e.g., Schlier, 281– 82;
Houlden, Paul’s Letters, 336; Mussner, 162; Bruce, Epistles, 397) are not so decisive and simply
consider the authenticity of the phrase to be quite doubtful. It could be argued that the words
were inserted later to conform to 5:22 and 6:5, so that each injunction to the subordinate party
had a Christological motivation. But in that case, why was it not cos r<p Kupup or cos rep Xptartp
that was added, as in these other two instances? An alternative explanation would be that the
phrase was added in assimilation to the wording o f Col 3:20. But in Col 3:20 ev Kupicp comes at
the end of the warrant for the exhortation to children, “for this is pleasing in the Lord,” and so
one would have expected such a scribal addition here in Ephesians to have come at the end of
the verse—“for this is right in the Lord.” In addition, it is possible that Marcion, the earliest
witness to the omission, may have found the link between the Christological motivation and the
warrant from the OT commandment inappropriate and emended his text accordingly (cf. Gnilka,
295). B, which omits this phrase, also omits eoriv from the original of v 2. The evidence for the
longer reading is widespread and also includes early and strong testimony— p 46 N A B c K P
33 81 88 104 181 itar,c,d em ,m o n ,x ,z Vg syrP<h cop*53’150 arm eth Origen Ambrosiaster Basil Chrysostom
Jerome. On internal grounds, one would expect a Christological motivation for the exhortation,
and this reading provides it in a stylistic variation from both 5:22 and 6:5 that is most likely the
writer’s intentional adaptation of his Colossian source. Since, as has been noted, the explanations
for a later addition are not compelling, this reading with ev Kupicp is to be preferred as the original
(cf. also Meyer, 311; Abbott, 176; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 609; Barth, 654 n. 194,755;
Mitton, 210–11; Gnilka, 295; Schnackenburg, 267).

Form /Structure /Setting

Following on from the exhortations to wives an d husbands in 5:22– 33, the
next groups within the household to be addressed are children an d parents.
It should be rem em bered th at the instructions given are to be seen both as
p art o f the wise an d Spirit-filled living th at the w riter h ad discussed in 5:15–
20 an d as com ing u n d e r the um brella o f the exhortation to m utual subm ission
th at h ad intro d u ced the household code in 5:21.
As in the earlier p art o f the code, the subordinate group, here th e children,
is addressed first. T h e stru ctu re o f the ex hortation in v 1 follows the p attern
th at we have seen to be d o m in an t in these early C hristian codes. T h e re is
first the address to the particular g roup, “ch ild ren ,” th en follows an im perative
396 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 1 – 4

with th e ap p ro p riate object, “obey yo u r p aren ts,” a n d th e n th e am plification

o f the im perative with a prepositional phrase, “in th e L o rd .” T his is followed
by a reason clause providing the m otivation o r w arrant, “fo r this is rig h t.”
T h e q u o tatio n in vv 2, 3 functions in two ways. It provides a fu rth e r m otivation
o r w arran t from S cripture, a n d this is u n d erlin e d by the inserted com m ent
in v 2 th a t it is th e first co m m an d m en t in th e decalogue th a t contains a prom ise.
Yet at th e sam e tim e, th e actual w ording o f S cripture contains a second ex h o rta-
tion to th e children, “h o n o r your fa th e r a n d m o th er,” an d two m otivating
clauses in tro d u ced by the single iva, “th a t it m ay go well with you a n d th a t
you may live long o n the e a rth .” W hen th e w riter appeals to th e parents, it is
simply th e fath ers who are singled o u t fo r address in v 4, an d th e instructions
are m uch briefer, with a straightforw ard exhortation. T his exh o rtatio n is in
two parts with a negative im perative, “do n o t m ake your children an g ry ,”
followed by a positive one, “b u t b rin g th em u p in th e train in g an d adm onition
o f the L o rd ,” in a pi] . . . dXXd construction (cf. also 4:29; 5:17, 18). It is no t
am plified by a prepositional ph rase o r a m otivating clause.
In his paraenesis in these verses, the w riter is again d e p e n d e n t on th e form
o f th e h o usehold code as m ediated by Colossians. O n the household code
an d its origins, see u n d e r Form!Structure!Setting o n 5 :2 1–33. Again, E phesians
works creatively with its original in Col 3:20, 21 (pace Schlier, 280, w ho u n co n -
vincingly argues th a t th e differences ru le o u t im itation o r literary dependence).
In th e ex h o rtatio n to children, th e address, a n d basic im perative have the
sam e w ording. H ow ever, E phesians om its Kara irävra, “in everything,” from
Col 3:20, adds th e possessive adjective vpüv, “y o u r,” to “p aren ts,” a n d moves
ev Kvpicp, “in th e L ord,” from th e m otivating clause in Col 3:20 to m ake it the
prepositional p h rase th a t elaborates on the im perative. T h e m otivating clause
in E ph 6:1 is tovto yap io n v dhcaiov, “fo r this is rig h t,” instead o f C olossians’
tovto yap eväpeoTÖv i o n v i v Kvpico, “fo r this is pleasing in the L o rd .” T his rew ork-
ing o f Colossians is a far m ore likely explanation th a n Col 3 :20 being a conflation
o f E ph 5:10 with 6:1 (pace W. M unro, Authority in Paul and Peter [C am bridge:
CUP, 1983] 31). J u s t as E phesians’ expansion o n the paraenesis to wives an d
husbands h ad contained an O T qu o tatio n (Gen 2:24) with b rie f com m ents
on it, so its distinctive expansion on the instructions to children contains an
O T quotation (Exod 20:12) with b rief com m ent o n its significance. E phesians
connects th e ex h o rtation to fathers m ore closely to th a t to children by adding
Kai, “a n d ,” before th e address a n d changes th e negative im perative from pi]
ipedi^ere, “do n o t irritate” (Col 3:21), to pi] napopyi^eTe, “do n o t m ake angry.”
W hereas the negative im perative in Colossians is co ntinued by the clause Iva
pi] advpdxnv, “lest they becom e discouraged,” in E phesians it is followed by
the positive ex h o rtation dXXd eicrpe^ere au ra ev TraiSdg Kai vovdeoiq, Kvpiov, “b u t
bring th em u p in th e train in g an d adm onition o f the L ord.” It can be seen,
th erefore, th at as in its use o f the paraenesis for wives an d husbands in Colos-
sians, E phesians expands on its Colossians original. In so doing, it strengthens
the C hristianizing o f th e m aterial by m oving “in th e L o rd ” to link it with the
im perative to ch ildren to obey a n d by ad d in g som ething specifically C hristian
to th e ex h o rtatio n to fathers, a featu re m issing in Colossians, nam ely, the
m ention o f “th e train in g a n d adm onition o f th e L o rd .”
A p art from its use o f Colossians, this pericope in Ephesians em ploys a n o th e r
m ajor piece o f tradition, a co m m an d m en t from th e decalogue. Scholars have
 Form / Structure / Setting 397

differed ab o u t which version o f the fifth co m m andm ent the w riter quotes.
E. E. Ellis (Paul's Use of the Old Testament [E dinburgh: O liver & Boyd, 1957]
152, 185) an d B ruce (Epistles, 298), fo r exam ple, believe D eut 5:16 to be in
view, while M artin (“E phesians,” 171) considers the citation to be a com plex
conflation o f Exod 20:12; D eut 5:16; an d D eut 22:7. It is tru e th at the clause
“th at it m ay go well with you” is no t fo u n d in the M assoretic text o f Exod
20:12, w hereas it is in D eut 5:16 an d 22:7. H ow ever, this clause is fo u n d in
LXX Exod 20:12. T h e citation in E ph 6:2, 3, th erefo re, stands very close to
the LXX version o f Exod 20:12. It is closer to this text th an to LXX D eut
5:16. In th e case o f both texts, E phesians w ould have replaced iva, “th at,”
an d y&xi, “may b e,” in th e clause ab o u t living in th e land with eoy, “m ay be,”
an d om itted th e specific description o f the land after rfjs Tffc, “the lan d .” B ut
in the case o f LXX D eut 5:16, it w ould have h ad to m ake fu rth e r alterations,
om itting th e oov, “y our,” afte r pr^repa, “m o th e r” (this is only in the B text o f
LXX Exod 20:12) an d also d ro p p in g th e clause ov rpomv evereiXaro oot Kvpios
b 0e6? oov, “as th e L ord your G od com m anded you,” after prjrepa oov. T h e
text in E ph 6 :2 ,3 is, th erefo re, a m odified citation o f LXX Exod 20:12. As
has been noted, th e citation om its th e specific description o f the land as th at
“which the L ord y our G od gives you,” which tied th e original prom ise to the
land o f C anaan. T his om ission was com m on in Jew ish tradition once the question
o f the prom ised land was no longer a c u rre n t one (cf. Str-B 3:614), b u t this
is n o t sufficient evidence for the view th at E phesians’ use o f the O T at this
point is n ot a direct one an d th at the w riter is simply taking u p general Jew ish
C hristian tradition (pace L indem ann, Aufhebung, 87).
As has been noted, th e m ost im m ediate ties o f this passage to its setting in
the letter as a whole are to 5:15–20 an d 5:21, b u t th ere are o th er links with
the su rro u n d in g paraenesis. T h e injunction to children to obey anticipates
the sam e com m and to slaves in 6:5. T h e Christological m otivation for this
th ro u g h the phrase “in the L ord” is sim ilar to the C hristological m otivation
used for the wives’ subordination, “as to the L o rd ” (5:22), an d the slaves’
obedience, “as to C hrist” (6:5). T h e general w arran t o f v 1, “for this is rig h t,”
has some similarity with the earlier general appeal to w hat is o r is not fitting
in 5:4, alth o u g h th ere the w riter h ad m ade this criterion m ore specifically
C hristian by talking o f w hat was fitting for saints in 5:3. T h e use o f O T m aterial
as su p p o rt in th e paraenesis is fo u n d elsew here in 4 :2 5 ,2 6 ; 5:18; 5 :3 1 ,3 2 ;
and 6:14– 17. T h e w riter’s ex hortation to fathers no t to m ake th eir children
angry echoes his earlier concern ab o u t an g e r in 4:26, 27, 31, an d the positive
instructions ab o u t bringing children u p in the train in g an d adm onition o f
the L ord recall his earlier em phasis on learning the tradition o f C hristian
teaching in 4:20, 21.
T h e re is n o th in g specific in the situation o f the churches to which E phesians
is addressed th a t p ro m p ted this advice to children an d parents. It is included,
in dep en d en ce on Colossians, because it is one o f the th ree basic household
relationships treated in th e discussion o f household m an ag em en t in the A ristote-
lian tradition. W e noted previously (see u n d e r Form/ Structure/Setting on 5 :2 1–
33) apologetic factors at w ork in the code’s use in Hellenistic Ju d aism an d in
its possible original adoption by early C hristians. T hese apply also to this particu-
lar relationship. T acitus (Hist. 5.5) attacked the Jew s as a subversive threat,
saying, “T h o se who converted to th eir ways follow the sam e practice, an d the
398 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 1 – 4

earliest lesson they receive is to despise th e gods, to disown th eir country,

an d to reg ard th eir parents, children, an d b ro th ers as o f little account.” W hen
he m akes the p o in t th at th e Jew s are n o t im pious, Philo (Hyp. 7.14) can say,
“Any o f th em w hom you attack with inquiries ab o u t th eir ancestral institutions
can answ er you rapidly an d easily. T h e hu sb an d seems com petent to transm it
know ledge o f th e laws to his wife, the fa th e r to his children, th e m aster to
his slaves.” Attacks on C hristians also talked o f th eir subversion o f children.
It is w orth n o ting th e later v ariant readings o f Luke 23:2 w here Jesus is indicted
for “leading astray bo th w om en an d ch ild ren .” A lthough th ere are gospel
traditions which p o int o u t th at som e Pharisaic traditions obscure the fifth com -
m an d m en t an d which place great value on children (cf., e.g., M ark 7:9– 13;
10:13– 16), th e radical dem ands o f discipleship in the Jesus m ovem ent h ad
also cut across th e norm al obligations o f family life (cf., e.g., M ark 3:31– 35;
10:29, 30; 13:12; Luke 9:59– 62; 14:26). B ut, as with the use o f the code as a
whole, E ph 6 : 1–4 reflects th e stage o f th e stabilizing o f com m unal relations
in the Pauline churches an d the accom panying accom m odation to som e o f
the basic traditional structures o f su rro u n d in g society. T h e u n d isp u ted Pauline
letters have scarcely anything to say directly ab o u t the relationship betw een
paren ts an d children. In 1 C or 7:14 th e apostle h ad m ade it clear th at he
took for g ran ted th at the children o f a m arriage betw een a believer an d an
unbeliever w ere n o t unclean b u t holy. In R om 1:30 he lists disobedience to
p aren ts as one o f th e signs o f G entiles’ lack o f acknow ledgm ent o f th eir C reator.
B ut his m ain in terest in the fa th er-child relationship is its use as a m etap h o r
for his own relationship to believers in the churches he h ad founded. P aul’s
use o f this m etap h o r reflects the usual assum ptions o f his day about the fa th e r’s
authority an d th e need fo r the fa th e r to adm onish his children an d correct
them with th e ro d as well as about p a re n ts’ love an d provision fo r th eir children
(cf., e.g., 1 C or 4:14, 15, 21; 2 C or 12:14, 15). Som e o f these assum ptions in
the ancient w orld about p aren ts a n d children an d children’s u p b rin g in g can
be sketched fu rth e r as th e background against which the instructions h ere in
E phesians can be seen.
Barclay, W. Educational Ideals in the Ancient World. London: Collins, 1959. Bertram,
G. “7raiöeuco ktX.” TDNT 5 (1967) 596–625. Blomenkamp, P. “Erziehung.” RAC 6 (1966)
502–59. Bonner, S. F. Education in Ancient Rome. London: Methuen, 1977. Gärtner,
M. Die Familienerziehung in der alten Kirche. Cologne: Bohlau, 1985. Jentsch, W. Urchrist-
liches Erziehungsdenken: Die Paideia Kyriou im Rahmen der hellenistisch-jüdischen Welt. Güter-
sloh: G. Mohn, 1951. Lacey, W. K. The Family in Classical Greece. London: Thames &
Hudson, 1968. Marrou, H. I. A History of Education in Antiquity. London: Sheed &
Ward, 1956. Oepke, A. “Trat? ktX.” TD NT 5 (1967) 636–54. Schrenk, G. “7rarr?p kt\ . ”
TDNT 5 (1967) 945– 1022.

By the first century c .e ., G reco-R om an society h ad becom e heavily influenced

by traditional R om an notions o f family life an d education. T h e alm ost absolute
legal pow er o f th e father, the patria potestas, is a well-know n feature. Dionysius
o f H alicarnassus (Rom. Ant. 2.26.4) could write in praise o f it, “T h e law-giver
o f the Rom ans gave virtually full pow er to the fa th e r over his son, w hether
he th o u g h t p ro p e r to im prison him , to scourge him , to p u t him in chains,
an d keep him at w ork in the fields, o r to p u t him to death; an d this even
th o u g h the son w ere already engaged in public affairs, th o u g h he were n u m-
 Form / Structure / Setting 399

bered am ong the highest m agistrates, an d th o u g h he were celebrated for his

zeal for the com m onw ealth.” T h e fa th e r functioned as a m agistrate w ithin
the family, able to im pose these various penalties. T h e paterfamilias also had
the authority to decide on the life an d d eath o f his new born children. W eak
an d defo rm ed children could be killed, usually by drow ning, an d unw anted
d au g h ters were often exposed o r sold. All his children w ere reckoned to be
u n d e r his control, not only those living with him , an d also the children o f his
sons. T h e m other, on the o th er h and, had no legal pow er. T h e fa th e r’s pow er
also carried responsibility, since he was legally liable for the actions o f m em bers
o f his household. T h e ju rist Gaius could write, “T h e pow er which we have
over o u r children is peculiar to R om an citizens an d is fo u n d in no o th er n atio n ”
(Inst. 1.55). T h e extent o f the fa th e r’s powers was laid dow n clearly in the
form ulae o f adoption which spoke o f his powers o f life an d death over the
son (cf. Cicero, De Domo 29.77). In Rom e the fa th e r’s pow er en d ed with his
death. In Greece, w hen he reached the age o f about sixty, he usually han d ed
over authority to his eldest m arried son.
Fathers often rem arried, in which case the children o f th eir various wives
grew u p in the sam e household, since by law, both in th e case o f divorce or
the d eath o f a wife, fathers retained the children. T h e ir own children were
often b ro u g h t u p with the slave children in the household. It is w orth noting
th at a R om an m aster could only sell a slave once, b u t if a R om an fa th e r sold
his child an d the child becam e free at a later stage, the fa th e r could sell the
child again. As Dionysius says, R om an law gave “g reater pow er to the fath er
over his son th an to the m aster over his slaves” (Rom. Ant. 2.27.1).
It is, o f course, im p o rtan t to distinguish betw een these legal powers and
the ex ten t to which they were actually em ployed in everyday life. It is clear
th at on some occasions the m ost extrem e punishm ents w ere carried out, and
Dionysius could note th at R om an fathers were at times so severe th at “Greeks
reg ard ed the R om ans as cruel an d h arsh ” (Rom. Ant. 2.27.1). B ut with the
passage o f tim e public opinion becam e hostile to excessive severity. T eren ce’s
com edy Adelphoe has as a m ajor elem ent the conflict betw een fathers an d sons
an d w hether D em ea’s severe disciplinary m ethods o r Micio’s m ore liberal atti-
tu d e is m ore likely to achieve the desired results with o n e’s sons. P seudo-P lutarch
(De Lib. Educ. 12) advocated the use o f praise an d blam e an d o th e r verbal
m eans o f instruction ra th e r th an beatings, an d one o f the m ost p o p u lar debates
in rhetorical education becam e how far a fa th e r’s legal powers could reasonably
extend in practice (cf. Q uintilian 7.4.27).
Hellenistic Ju d aism also stressed the status an d authority o f parents. Philo
talks o f p aren ts as belonging to the su p erio r class which com prises seniors,
rulers, benefactors, and m asters, while children occupy the inferior position
with ju n io rs, subjects, receivers o f benefits, an d slaves (cf. De Decal. 165–67;
De Spec. Leg. 2.227). Parents are in fact like gods to th eir children: “Parents,
in my opinion, are to their children w hat God is to th e world, since ju s t as
H e achieved existence for the n o n-existent, so they in im itation o f His pow er,
as far as they are capable, im m ortalize the race. A nd a fa th e r an d m o th er
deserve h o n o u r, n ot only on this account, b u t for m any o th er reasons” (De
Spec. Leg. 2.225, 226; cf. also De Decal. 119, 120). T h e O T h ad legislated the
d eath penalty for the dishonoring o f parents (cf. Lev 20:9; D eut 21:18– 21),
an d this was reem phasized as a p u n ish m en t fo r children who failed to d em on-
400 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 1 – 4

strate th o ro u g h g o in g obedience to th eir parents: “A fa th e r is em pow ered to

u p b raid o r beat his children, to im pose h arsh p unishm ents on them an d keep
th em locked up. B ut in case th e children nevertheless rem ain o b d u ra te . . .
th e Law has even authorized p aren ts to go so far as to im pose the d ea th
pen alty ” (Philo, De Spec. Leg. 2.232; cf. also Hyp. 7.2); “h o n o u r to p aren ts th e
Law ranks second only to h o n o u r to God, an d if a son does n o t re sp o n d to
th e benefits received from them —for the slightest failure in his duty tow ards
th em — it han d s him over to be sto n ed ” (Josephus, c. Ap. 2.27 § 206; cf. also
Ant. 4.8.24 § 264). Again, th ere are questions ab o u t the relation o f such state-
m ents to actual practice, and, again, voices w ere raised occasionally against
too severe use o f force by fathers (cf. Ps.-Phocylides 207– 9: “Do n o t be harsh
with y our children, b u t be gentle. A nd if a child offends against you, let the
m o th er cut h e r son dow n to size, o r else th e elders o f the family o r the chiefs
o f the p eo p le”). O f course, w ithin Ju d aism , w here children w ere seen as gifts
from God, a fa th e r h ad no rights over the lives o f new born children, an d the
pag an practices o f abortion an d exposure w ere attacked (cf. Philo, De Spec.
Leg. 3.108– 19; Hyp. 7.7; Jo sep h u s, c. Ap. 2.24 § 202; Ps.-Phocylides 184– 85).
In R om an society, as far as the bringing u p an d the education o f children
were concerned, th e fa th e r’s influence was p aram o u n t. A lthough th e m o th er
was th e m ain influence on a son for his first seven years, th e father, particularly
in the early days o f the em pire, th en took over as his teacher a n d close com panion
(cf. th e depiction o f Cato as a good fa th e r in P lutarch, Cato Maior 20). T his
co n tin u ed until th e boy was about sixteen, w hen he was placed in the charge
o f som e distinguished o r tru sted friend for a year o r two. Even later w hen,
u n d e r th e G reek influence, it becam e the general practice for children to go
to school from the age o f seven an d to be accom panied by a pedagogue, the
fa th e r was still considered to be the child’s real teacher, an d an im p o rtan t
p a rt o f education was the praecepta paterna, “p atern al precepts.” In G reco-R om an
society, such education included ethical an d religious instruction. First th ro u g h
th e w om en o f th e household an d th e n u n d e r th e charge o f th e fath er, children
listened to stories o f the gods an d learn ed the p ro p e r cultic p rocedures in
w orship devoted to the household gods, especially in re g ard to practices associ-
ated with meals (cf., e.g., P rudentius, C. Symm. 1.197– 214). T h a t paren ts som e-
tim es failed to live u p to these ideals for th e u p b rin g in g o f th eir children can
be seen from the way in which Tacitus bem oans the c u rre n t situation in com pari-
son with th e good old days: “T h e paren ts them selves m ake no effort to train
th eir little ones in goodness an d self-control; they grow u p in an atm o sp h ere
o f laxity an d pertness, in which they com e gradually to lose all sense o f sham e,
an d all respect b oth for them selves an d o th e r p eo p le” (Dial. 29.1– 3).
W ithin Ju d aism the em phasis was heavily on the religious u p b rin g in g o f
children, an d this was seen as ultim ately the responsibility o f the father. Again,
children were taken to school by th eir fathers from the age o f seven, bu t
ideally the real cen ter o f education rem ained th e hom e. A t th e h e a rt o f the
instruction was the T o rah , which itself enjoined the teaching o f the com m and-
m ents to children (cf. D eut 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 32:46). T h e duty o f parents to
instruct an d particularly to discipline th eir children features prom inently in
th e wisdom literature: “T ra in u p a child in the way he should go, an d w hen
he is old he will n o t d e p a rt from it” (Prov 22:6). Severe discipline (with Tratdeveiu
 Form / Structure / Setting 401

used in this sense in the LXX) an d beatings were seen as p a rt o f an u p b rin g in g

th at h ad the child’s ultim ate m oral well-b eing at heart: “H e who spares the
ro d hates his son, b u t he who loves him is diligent to discipline [TraiSevei] him ”
(LXX Prov 13:24); “Do no t w ithhold discipline [7raibeveiv] from a child; if you
beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will
save his life from Sheol” (LXX Prov 23:13, 14; cf. also 19:18; 29:15, 17; Sir
7:23). In an exten ded passage, Sir 30:1– 13 contends th at a loving u p b rin g in g
o f a son should involve severe discipline, including w hipping, ra th e r th an
p am p erin g o r playing an d laughing with him . Later, Hellenistic Ju d aism contin-
ued to stress th e im portance o f the education o f children. Philo could write,
“Since Jew s esteem th eir laws as divine revelations, an d are instructed in the
knowledge o f them from th eir earliest youth, they b ear the im age o f the Law
in th eir souls. . . . T hey are taught, so to speak, from th eir sw addling-clothes
by th eir parents, by th eir teachers, an d by those who b rin g them up, even
before instruction in the sacred laws an d th e unw ritten custom s, to believe in
God, the O ne F ath er an d C reator o f the w orld” (Leg. ad Gaium 31; cf. also De
Spec. Leg. 2.228; Hyp. 7.14). Jo sep h u s could say, “O u r g ro u n d is good, and
we work it to the utm ost, b u t o u r chief am bition is for the education o f o u r
children. . . . We take m ost pains o f all with the instruction o f children, an d
esteem the observation o f the laws, an d the piety co rresponding with them ,
th e m ost im p o rtan t affair o f o u r whole life” (c. Ap. 1.12 § 60; cf. 2.18 § 178;
2.25 § 204). As n o ted earlier in discussing the fa th e r’s authority, severe discipline
co n tin u ed to be seen as an essential p art o f such instruction (cf. Philo, De
Spec. Leg. 2.232; Hyp. 7.2; Josephus, c. Ap. 2.27 § 206; Ant. 4.8.24 § 264).
C ertainly the m ain practical effect o f the R om an patria potestas was th at
children took it for gran ted th at they should do w hat they were told by th eir
father. A n em phasis on children’s obligations tow ard th eir parents was wide-
spread in the G reco-R om an world. Most com m only, this was spoken o f in
term s o f h o n o rin g parents, although h o n o rin g was assum ed to include obeying.
So, for exam ple, according to Dionysius (Rom. Ant. 2 .2 6 .1–4), children are to
h o n o r an d obey parents in all things. H o n o rin g parents is fo u n d alongside
h o n o rin g the gods as chief am ong the virtues in th e “u nw ritten laws” (cf. the
frag m en t o f E uripides preserved in Stobaeus, Anth. 3.1.80; X en o p h o n , Mem.
4.4.19, 20; Plato, Resp. 4.425b). H ierocles in “How to C o n d u c t O neself tow ards
P arents” instructs th at parents are to be h o n o red as earthly gods an d th at the
duty to p aren ts includes all o th er duties, because they are the im ages o f the
gods, benefactors, relatives, m asters, an d friends (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.25.53; cf.
also Cicero, De Offic. 1.58; D iogenes L aertius 7.108, 120; Epictetus, Diss. 2.17.31;
3.7.26). Philo (De Spec. Leg. 2.236) states th at children should be willing to
obey p aren ts in everything th at is ju s t an d profitable, an d w ithin Ju d aism the
duty o f h o n o rin g o n e’s parents, em bodied in the fifth co m m an d m en t (Exod
20:12; D eut 5:16) and u n d erlin ed in a variety o f ways in th e wisdom literature
(cf., e.g., Prov 19:26; 20:20; Sir 3:1– 16; 7:27, 28), is rep eated frequently (cf.,
e.g., T ob 4:3, 4; Ep. Arist. 228; Jub. 7.20; Philo, De Ebr. 17; De Mut. Nom. 40;
De Vit. Mos. 2.198; De Post. Caini 181, w here am ong “th e best things in the
w orld” is listed first “h o n o u r paid to p aren ts”; Josep h u s, c. Ap. 2.27 § 206).
It can be seen th at E phesians upholds th e authority stru ctu re o f the family
b u t m akes this subservient to the overall obedience to C hrist as L ord o f both
402 E p h e s ia n s 6 :1–4

children an d paren ts and, even m ore strikingly, to som e sort o f m utual subm is-
sion o f both groups in the fear o f C hrist (cf. 5:21). It treats children as thos$
who in th eir own right have a relationship with this L ord which both transcends
an d includes the duty to th eir parents. A long with both the G reco-R om an
w orld an d Jud aism , it m akes fathers ultim ately responsible for th e religious
u p b rin g in g o f th eir children. In its exh o rtatio n to fathers, Ephesians provides
restraints on p atern al authority, g u ard in g against its abuse, an d focuses instead
on th e C hristian training fathers are to provide. It is w orth n o tin g th a t this
em phasis is d ifferent from th at o f th e later Pastoral Epistles, w here, alth o u g h
slaves are given duties (cf. 1 T im 6:1, 2), children are not, b u t a p p e a r instead
as th e objects o f discipline (cf. 1 T im 3 :4 ,5 , w here a bishop “m ust m anage
his own household well, keeping his children submissive an d respectful in
every way”; cf. also 3:12; T itus 1:6). E phesians’ em phasis on th e need for
C hristian train in g fo r children can be fo u n d in o th e r early C hristian w ritings
(cf. 1 Clem. 21; Pol. Phil. 4:2; H errn. Vis. 1.3.1, 2; 2.3.1).

Comment

1 Td reKva, vnaKOvere rot? yovevoiv vycov ev Kvpitp, “C hildren, obey your p a r-

ents in th e L o rd .” A ddressing instructions to children is no t in itself unusual,
b u t it is distinctive in relation to discussions o f household m an ag em en t in the
G reco-R om an world, w here it was the m ale ad u lt free p erso n who was addressed
ra th e r th an the subordinate parties. C h ild ren ’s duty to obey paren ts was, as
we have seen u n d e r Form/Structure/Setting, taken for g ra n te d th ro u g h o u t the
ancient world. Elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, disobedience to paren ts is
considered a sign o f G entile depravity (Rom 1:30) o r a sign o f th e evil o f the
last days (2 T im 3:2). H ere in Ephesians, th e duty o f obedience is owed to
b oth parents, despite 6:4 being addressed to fathers only. W hereas Col 3:20
asks for obedience to parents in everything (Kara 7xavra) w ithout qualification,
Ephesians calls for an obedience “in the L o rd ” (for th e use o f this p h rase
elsew here in th e letter cf. 2:21; 4:1, 17; 5:8; 6:10, 21). T his has sim ilar force
to the m otivation attached to the wives’ subordination a n d to the slaves’ obedi-
ence; it is to be carried o u t n o t simply because the o th e r party has su p erio r
au th o rity an d status b u t as p a rt o f th eir C hristian discipleship a n d th ere fo re
“as to the L o rd ” o r “as to C hrist” (cf. 5:22; 6:5). T h e ir relationship to th eir
p aren ts presents children with a sp h ere in w hich to carry o u t obedience to
th eir L ord. As was arg u ed earlier (see Comment on 5:22), it is dou b tfu l w h eth er
any m ajor im plications can be draw n from positing a substantial distinction
betw een obedience enjoined on children (and slaves) a n d subordination e n -
jo in e d on wives (contra C aird, P aul’s Letters, 89– 90, who uses this a n d th e claim
th at “in th e L o rd ” was no t in th e original text to arg u e th at th e subjection o f
children to paren ts was seen as p a rt o f the n atu ra l o rd er, w hereas th e su b o rd in a-
tion o f wife to h u sband was not, an d th at this suggests P aul’s progressive
views o n w om en’s equality).
In Ju d aism , ch ildren’s attitu d e to th eir parents was often set alongside an d
seen as p a rt o f th eir relationship to God. Sib. Or. 3.593 says o f th e Jew s, “they
h o n o r only th e Im m ortal who always rules, an d th e n th eir p aren ts,” while
Ps.-Phocylides 8 exhorts, “H o n o r God forem ost, a n d afterw ard your p a re n ts”
 Comment 403

(cf. also Philo, De Spec. Leg. 2.224– 25; 2.235–36; Josep h u s, c. Ap. 2.27 § 206;
T o b 4:3– 5; T. Reub. 3.8). Now fo r C hristian children th ere is a sim ilar ju x tap o si-
tion betw een obedience to parents an d obedience to the Lord. It is unlikely,
however, th at E phesians has in view the response to pagan p aren ts o f C hristian
children, who m ay need to be rem in d ed to p u t obedience to C hrist before
obedience to p arents (pace M itton, 210– 11). It should be assum ed th at the
p arents are C hristian parents (cf. also Gnilka, 295– 96; B ruce, Epistles, 397)
an d th at the ex h o rtation is m aking clear th at the relationship to parents is as
m uch a p a rt o f subm itting to one a n o th e r in the fear o f C hrist (5:21) an d o f
obedience to th e L ord as any o th er relationship o r conduct.
So these children are seen as fully p a rt o f the C hristian com m unity, able
to exercise th eir C hristian obedience in this way an d to view th eir conduct as
d eterm in ed n o t ju s t by social convention b u t in the light o f th eir L o rd ’s will
(cf. also 5:10, 17). T hey are addressed as am ong those w ho w ould h ea r the
letter as it was read at m eetings o f believers for w orship in various households.
T h e text is, however, irrelevant for discussion o f the issue o f w h eth er infants
were baptized as p art o f households in the early church (cf. also M eyer, 314;
A bbott, 176; Gnilka, 295 n. 6 ). retcvov, “child,” prim arily denotes relationship
ra th e r th an age an d can be used o f adults as well as small children. From the
context, the children in view here have to be old en o u g h to be conscious o f a
relationship to th eir L ord an d to be appealed to on the basis o f it, b u t young
en o u g h still to be in the process o f being b ro u g h t u p (cf. 6:4). As M itton
(2 1 1 ) puts it, this exhortation “could only re fer to older children (perhaps
w hat we should call teenagers) who w ere o f an age to m ake a personal com m it-
m en t to Christ, b u t still young en o u g h to be living at hom e with th eir p aren ts”
(cf. also G ärtn er, Die Familienerziehung, 36– 37, who m aintains, how ever, th at
Col 3:20 has ad u lt children in view).
tovto yap eonv öinaiov, “for this is rig h t.” T h e children are appealed to no t
only on the basis o f th eir C hristian com m itm ent b u t also on the basis o f w hat
is rig h t o r ju st. Such a m otivation replaces “for this is pleasing in the L ord”
from Col 3:20. T his w riter h ad already talked o f discovering w hat is pleasing
to the L ord in th e general paraenesis in 5:10. H e h ad also used righteousness
in 4:24 as a virtue th at is p a rt o f the new h u m an ity ’s having been created in
G od’s likeness, b u t this specifically C hristian connotation to the notion does
n ot carry over to the adjective here (pace M ussner, 162, w ho in terp rets “this
is rig h t” as “this is ap p ro p riate to the p ro p e r C hristian o rd e rin g o f the com m u-
nity”). T h e ap p eal to w hat is generally held to be rig h t o r ju s t was com m on.
It is found, fo r exam ple, in Stoic teaching (cf. E pictetus, Diss. 1.22.1; 2.17.6)
an d elsew here in the N T in Luke 12:57; Phil 4:8; an d Col 4:1. Jo sep h u s
defined th e rig h t as obedience to G od’s com m andm ents (cf. Ant. 6.8.1 § 165;
8.7.7 § 208; 9.4.3 § 58). This, to g eth er with th e citation o f th e co m m andm ent
in the following verse, has led som e to claim th at “this is rig h t” m eans this
“corresponds to the righteous divine o rd e r enjoined by the com m an d m en t”
(cf. G. Schrenk, “St/cato?,” T D N T 2 [1964] 188; cf. also J. A. Robinson, 127).
B ut from w hat we know o f the universality with which the obedience o f children
to paren ts was u p h eld, it is far m ore likely th at the w riter’s appeal is to this
general sense o f w hat was fitting an d right, to which he th en gives fu rth e r
biblical su p p o rt in vv 2, 3.
404 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 1–4

2, 3 r ip a top n a r e p a aov Kai rrjv p rjre p a , r?rt? e o r iv evroXrj ttplott) ev en a yyeX iq .,

iv a ev ooi yevryrat Kai eoj} p a K p o x p o vto s eiri rffr 7 ffr, “H o n o r your fa th e r a n d
m o th e r’’—which is the first com m andm ent with a prom ise— “th at it m ay go
well with you an d th at you m ay live long on the e a rth .” So fa r the m otivation
fo r ch ild ren ’s obedience tow ard th eir p aren ts has been twofold; it is p a rt o f
th eir C hristian com m itm ent, “in th e L o rd ,” a n d it is generally th e rig h t an d
p ro p e r th in g to do. Now a th ird justification is provided by th e citation o f
LXX Exod 20:12. As we have noted u n d e r Comment on v 1, m aking an association
betw een w hat is rig h t an d w hat is in the law w ould have been in line with
Hellenistic Jew ish thinking (cf. also Schnackenburg, 267). O bedience to p aren ts
is a scriptural injunction. W hat is m ore, a fo u rth reason, alth o u g h it is a subdivi-
sion o f th e th ird , is th at this is a particularly im p o rtan t scriptural injunction,
since it is th e first com m andm ent with a prom ise.
T his description inserted into the citation has puzzled com m entators. How
can the fifth co m m andm ent be said to be th e first co m m an d m en t with a prom ise,
w hen th e second com m andm ent in Exod 20:4–6 also ap p ears to include a
prom ise ab o u t God show ing steadfast love to those who love him an d keep
his com m andm ents? Some suggest th at th e w riter m ust view the fifth co m m and-
m en t as the first after the fo u r chief com m andm ents which deal with a p erso n ’s
relationship to God, pointing to a sim ilar view in Philo (De Spec. Leg. 2.261,
alth o u g h De Decal. 121 treats the fifth co m m an d m en t as the last o f those con-
cern ed with specific duties tow ard God; cf., e.g., Gnilka, 297, who claims th at
w hat is m ean t is th at the com m andm ent stands in the first place in re g ard to
duties tow ard o th e r hu m an s an d it possesses a prom ise). O thers (e.g., Schlier,
281 n. 3; E rnst, 393) argue th at “first” should n o t be u n d ersto o d num erically
b u t in term s o f th e im portance o r difficulty o f the co m m an d m en t (cf. th e use
in M ark 12:28, 29, th o u g h with reference to a different com m andm ent). T hey
also draw atten tio n to the rabbinic tradition preserved in Deut. Rab. 6 on D eut
22:6, which holds th a t G od has provided the m ost difficult a n d th e easiest
com m andm ents with a prom ise. T h e m ost difficult is said to be th e fifth com -
m an d m en t, an d th e easiest is said to be D eut 22:7, which states th at if one
com es across a b ird ’s nest with both m o th er an d young in it, one is to let the
m o th er go b u t may keep the young. B oth com m andm ents have th e sam e
prom ise attached, “th at it m ay go well with you, a n d th at you m ay live long.”
N eith er o f these explanations is com pelling, a n d it m ay be best to question
th e assum ption th at has led to th eir having been p roduced, nam ely, th a t the
second co m m an d m ent has a prom ise attached. Strictly speaking, th e words
“b u t showing steadfast love to thousands o f those w ho love m e an d k ee p my
co m m an d m en ts” in Exod 20:16 are n o t a prom ise connected with “you shall
n ot m ake for yourself a graven im age” in Exod 20:4, b u t are the positive
side o f th e description o f Yahweh as a jealo u s G od which follows in Exod
20:5. It is n o t surprising, therefore, for Exod 20:12 to be th o u g h t o f as the
first co m m an d m en t with a prom ise. I f it is objected th at this w ould m ake the
fifth co m m an d m en t no t simply the first b u t the only co m m an d m en t with a
prom ise, it m ust be replied th at the w riter views the decalogue as b u t the
beg in n in g o f the m any com m andm ents contained in the T o ra h (cf. also M eyer,
314; J . A. Robinson, 210; Dibelius-G reeven, 95; C aird, P aul’s Letters, 90; M itton,
211– 12).
 Comment 405

As does the injunction o f the household code itself in v 1, so th e fifth

co m m an d m en t lays an obligation on children tow ard both parents. T hey are
to h o n o r an d respect (n^ap) fa th e r an d m other. As we have n oted (see Form /
Structure / Setting), this was the m ost com m on form ulation o f th e obligation in
both Jew ish, presum ably influenced by the w ording o f th e com m andm ent,
an d G reco-R om an writings. It was un d ersto o d as involving n o t only a respectful
attitu d e b u t also care for the p aren ts’ physical needs w hen they becam e old.
So for children still in the fa th e r’s house it w ould m ean obedience to parents,
an d for those who had left hom e it w ould m ean co ntinued deference to and
care for aging parents.
T his co m m andm ent is fo u n d elsew here in the N T in M att 15:4; 19:19;
M ark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20, b u t only h ere in E ph 6 :2 ,3 is the attached
prom ise also cited. T h e w riter’s w ording o f the prom ise om its the clause “which
the L ord your God gives you” from LXX Exod 20:12, which linked the original
prom ise to the land o f C anaan. T his om ission, o f course, has the effect o f
m aking the prom ise m ore generally applicable. T h e prom ise is now o f well-
being an d long life on the earth. B ut this raises fu rth e r questions. H as the
prom ise m erely been included to em phasize the im portance o f the com m and-
m en t (so Gnilka, 297; S chnackenburg, 268)? O r does the w riter expect his
readers to apply it to them selves? T h e actual citation o f this p a rt o f the verse
an d its m odification in the direction o f general applicability (although as noted
u n d e r Form / Structure / Setting the latter was fairly com m on in Judaism ) certainly
allow for the w riter intending it still to have force for his readers. B ut if so,
w hat is th at force? Philo (De Spec. Leg. 2.262) h ad spiritualized the prom ise
by taking “well with you” to be the virtue a person possesses th ro u g h obeying
the com m andm ents an d “live long” to be im m ortality. B ut th ere is no h in t o f
such a m eaning being in ten d ed here. In P aul’s writings, the O T prom ises
about the seed an d the land are seen as fulfilled in the salvation provided in
C hrist an d the inheritance which th at provides (cf. Gal 3 an d 4; Rom 4 and
8 ), an d earlier in Ephesians the notion o f inheritance has been in te rp re te d in
a sim ilar way (cf. 1:14; 3:6). So som e com m entators (e.g., Schlier, 282) have
tied the prom ise to this soteriological in terp re tatio n o f inheritance. B ut unlike
the w riter’s re in terp retatio n o f G en 2:24 in 5 :3 1 ,3 2 , th ere is no indication
from 6:3 o r its im m ediate context th at he has im posed such a C hristian perspec-
tive on this text. It probably does m ore justice to this verse to take it at its
face value as prom ising well-being an d long life on the ea rth an d to ju d g e
that, since it h ad been in troduced to reinforce the com m andm ent, th e w riter
may n ot have in tegrated its Jew ish th is-worldly perspective consistently with
his in terp retatio n o f inheritance in the first h alf o f the letter. T h e use o f the|
O T to su p p o rt earthly rew ards for C hristian obedience seems foreign to Paul,
who, w hen he does em ploy talk o f rew ards as p a rt o f his ethical motivation,j
has in view a fu tu re life after the ju d g m e n t (cf. 1 C or 3:12– 15; 2 C or 5:10).
It is closer to the perspective o f the Pastorals, w here godliness can be said to
be “o f value in every way, as it holds prom ise for the presen t life an d also
for the life to com e” (1 T im 4:8). T o take the prom ise in a com m unal sense
to m ean th at a society in which the aged are respected an d cared for by th eir
children is a healthy and stable one is a m o d ern re in te rp reta tio n (as Mitton^
213, who suggests this, acknowledges). In the passage itself, the rew ards o f
406 E p h e s ia n s 6 :1–4

well-b eing an d long life are held o u t to individual children w ho h o n o r th eir

parents. It is also w orth noting th at n o t only th e prom ise o f earthly rew ard
b u t also the specific content o f th at rew ard, long life on earth , w ould be alien
to th e Paul who expected an im m in en t parousia, even if this Paul h ad com e
to term s with his own death before th at event. It is m ore likely to have been
p e n n e d by a Jew ish C hristian follower o f the apostle who has becom e m o re
acclim atized to a longer period o f th e ch u rch ’s existence on ea rth before th e
parousia.
4 Kat oi T ta r e p e s /lit) irapopyi^ere r a reKva vpcov, äXkä e m p i r e a vra ev naiSeiqL
Kai vovdeoiq. Kvpiov, “A nd fathers, do n o t m ake your children angry, b u t b rin g
th em u p in th e training an d adm onition o f th e L o rd .” T h e link betw een th e
ex hortations to b oth halves o f the pairing, children an d fathers, is u n d erlin e d
by th e m i, “an d ,” at the beginning o f v 4. B oth groups, n o t ju s t th e sub o rd in ate
one, have obligations. T h e p lural ot narepes, “fa th ers,” can re fe r to p aren ts in
general an d n o t ju s t fathers (cf. H eb 11:23), an d som e suggest th at this m ay
be th e m ean in g h ere (cf., e.g., BAGD 635; S chnackenburg, 268). B ut the
change o f w ording from yovels, “p aren ts,” in v 1, the om ission o f th e m ention
o f m others after this has been explicit in the co m m an d m en t o f v 2, a n d the
fact (as we have observed u n d e r Form / Structure / Setting) th at in the ancient
w orld in b o th G reco-R om an an d Jew ish w ritings it is fath ers in particular
who are held responsible for the education o f th e children, m ake it fa r m ore
likely th a t E phesians is in conform ity with this way o f thinking a n d is addressing
m ale heads o f households in th eir role as fathers. In later Ju d aism this point
was m ade expressly: “All the obligations o f a fa th e r tow ard his son enjoined
in th e Law are in cum bent on m en b u t no t on w om en, an d all obligations o f
a son tow ard his fa th e r enjoined in the Law are incum bent bo th on m en an d
on w om en” (m. Qidd. 1.7).
T h e exh o rtatio n to fathers in Col 3:21 rem ain ed in th e negative, “Do no t
provoke (em bitter) your children, lest they becom e discouraged,” a n d the first
p a rt o f E ph 6:4 is sim ilar in th o u g h t b u t em ploys different term inology. “Do
n o t m ake your children angry” continues this w riter’s concern with an g e r from
earlier in the paraenesis. T h e verb napopyi^eiv is used elsew here in th e N T
only in Rom 10:19 o f God m aking Israel angry, b u t the n o u n irapopyujpo^
occurs earlier in this letter in 4:26, w here it denotes an g e r th at has been provoked
an d th at can give the devil o p p o rtu n ity if it is no t dealt with quickly. F athers
are m ade responsible for en su rin g th at they do n o t provoke a n g e r in th eir
children. T his involves avoiding attitudes, w ords, an d actions which w ould
drive a child to angry exasperation o r re sen tm e n t an d thus rules o u t excessively
severe discipline, unreasonably h arsh dem ands, abuse o f authority, arb itra ri-
ness, unfairness, constant nagging an d condem nation, subjecting a child to
hum iliation, an d all form s o f gross insensitivity to a child’s needs a n d sensibilities.
T h e sentim ents o f Ephesians are in line with such advocates o f m o deration
as M en an d er—whose sayings (e.g., “a fa th e r who is always th rea ten in g does
n ot receive m uch reverence” o r “one should correct a child n o t by h u rtin g
him b u t by p ersu ad ing him ”) are preserved in th e section “How F athers O u g h t
to Behave to T h e ir C h ild ren ” in Stobaeus, Anth. 4.26.7, 13 – a n d Ps.-Phocylides
207, “Do n o t be harsh with your children b u t be g entle.” So this w riter does
n o t ex h o rt fathers to exercise th eir authority. Instead, he presupposes th at
 C om m ent 407

au thority an d th en sets the bounds for its use. H e also presupposes th at children
are n ot ju s t p ro p erty over w hom the fa th e r has legal rights. T hey are owed
dignity as h u m an beings in th eir own right.
In th e positive addition to its Colossians co u n terp art, Ephesians also calls
on fathers to b rin g u p th eir children in a distinctively C hristian way. T h e
verb €KTp€<t>eiv h ad been used earlier in 5:29 with the force o f “to n o u rish ,”
b u t here it has th e m ore general sense o f “to rear, b rin g u p .” In fact, with!
his fondness for sim ilar term s, the w riter em ploys here th ree closely related
words. T h e verb eurpefaiv with iraiSeia, “training, u p b rin g in g ,” is virtually tau to -
logical— “b ring u p your children in the u p b rin g in g ”—an d som e scholars (e.g.,
B ertram , T D N T 5 [1967] 624) consider watSeia an d vovdeoia, “adm onition,” a
hendiadys. T h e latter two term s are used to g eth er elsew here (cf., e.g., Philo, |
Quod Deus 54, w here it is said th at anth ro p o m o rp h ism s used o f God are “for
train in g an d adm o nition,” o r De Spec. Leg. 2.239, w here the cognate verbs
occur to g eth er o f children who “are subject to instruction an d adm onition”;
cf. also 4.96), b u t it is probable th at here they have slightly d ifferent nuances.
A lthough in th eir b ro ad er G reek usage they re ferred to education in general
an d to its goal o f culture, in the LXX, watSeia an d its cognates acquired the
sense o f discipline an d chastisem ent. As we have seen from the sketch o f
views o f education u n d e r Form! Structure I Setting, these words w ere used o f the
train in g o f children, eith er th ro u g h instruction or frequently th ro u g h correction
o r p u n ish m en t. At the „sam e time, in the LXX wisdom literatu re iraiSeia is
often linked with ao0ta, “w isdom ” (cf., e.g., Sir 1:27, “For the fear o f the L ord
is wisdom an d in struction”; 23:2, “O th at whips w ere set over my thoughts,
an d the discipline o f wisdom over my m ind!”; cf. also B ertram , T D N T 5 [1967]
608– 12). For b oth Philo an d Josep h u s, the naiSeia w ord g ro u p continues to
have the sense o f education, which can involve discipline, an d is one o f the
concepts which form s a bridge betw een the law an d G reek culture (cf. B ertram ,
T D N T 5 [1967] 612 – 17). In the N T also, the w ord g ro u p can have both the
m ore com prehensive m eaning o f education o r train in g (cf. Acts 7:22; 22:3;
2 T im 3:16; T itus 2:12) an d the m ore specific sense o f discipline o r chastisem ent
(cf. 1 C or 11:32; 2 C or 6:9; H eb 12:5, 7, 8, 11). H ere in E ph 6:4, it is m ost
likely th at the general sense is in view an d th at vovdeoia th en denotes the
m ore specific aspect o f this training th at takes place th ro u g h verbal adm onition
o r correction (cf. also Abbott, 178; Gnilka, 298; S chnackenburg, 268; G ärtner,
Die Familienerzeihung, 38; for an older discussion o f the relation betw een these
two term s cf. also R. C. T ren ch , Synonyms of the New Testament [C am bridge:
M acmillan, 1854] 125– 29). A dm onition is seen as an essential p a rt o f a fa th e r’s
train in g o f his children in the LXX (cf. Wis 11:10; 12:25,26; 1 Sam 3:13,
w here Eli is said to have failed in this respect with his sons). T h e n o u n vovdeoia
occurs elsew here in the N T only in 1 C or 10:11 an d T itus 3:10, while the
verb vovderelv, “to adm onish,” is fo u n d m ore frequently. In 1 C or 4:14 Paul
states th at he is w riting to adm onish the C orinthians as his beloved children,
an d in Col 1:28 adm onishing an d teaching are seen as central to his m inistry.
T his is also an activity th at believers engage in with one a n o th e r (cf. Rom
15:14; Col 3:16, w here the verb again occurs with 8i8aoK€iv, “to teach”). T h e
activity o f adm onishing can take place th ro u g h enco u rag em en t o r reproof;
b u t usually im plies th at th ere is som e difficulty o r problem in the attitu d e o r
408 E p h e s ia n s 6:1–4

behavior o f those receiving the adm onition th at needs to be resolved o r som e

opposition to be overcom e. As H. C rem er said o f vovdeoia, “Its fu n d am en tal
idea is th e well-in tentioned seriousness with which one w ould influence the
m ind an d disposition o f a n o th e r by advice, adm onition, w arning, p u ttin g rig h t
according to circum stances” (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek
[E dinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1895] 442; cf. also J. B ehm , ‘Votuereco, vovdeoia,”
T D N T 4 [1967] 1019– 22).
T h e train in g an d adm onition to be given by fathers is described fu rth e r as
“o f th e L o rd ” (icvpiov). Some (cf. M eyer, 318; B ertram , T D N T 5 [1967] 624;
M ussner, 163) see this as a subjective genitive re ferrin g to w hat the L ord
does th ro u g h th e fathers as his representatives. T his in terp re tatio n w ould also
reflect th e force o f 7raiSeia icvpiov, “discipline o f th e L o rd ,” in LXX Prov 3:11,
w here th e L o rd ’s discipline is the discipline he exercises. B ut we have already
claim ed th a t th e sense o f 7rai5eta here in E phesians is b ro a d er th a n discipline,
an d it is m ore likely th at the genitive is a genitive o f quality, indicating th at
the train in g an d adm onition is th at which is in th e sp h ere o f th e L ord o r has
th e L ord as its reference point, i.e., C hristian instruction (cf. M itton, 213,
“truly C hristian, com patible with loyalty to C hrist as L o rd ”; cf. also Schlier,
283; Gnilka, 298–99; G ärtner, Die Familienerziehung, 38). T h e phrase ev Xpuxrcp,
“in C hrist,” functions in a sim ilar way in 1 Clem. 21.8, which states th at chil-
d re n are “to participate in C hristian instruction” (rffr ev Xptarcp irat,8eia<;
peraXapßäveiv). By specifying th at the various form s o f instruction are to be
“o f th e L o rd ,” the w riter underlines th at the education th at goes on in the
household has a new orientation. T h e learning C hrist a n d being tau g h t in
him spoken o f in 4:20, 21 is to be an activity th at takes place no t only in the
C hristian com m unity in general b u t also specifically in the family, with the
fathers as those who teach th eir children the apostolic tradition ab o u t C hrist
an d help to shape th eir lives in accordance with it.

Explanation

T h e second section o f E phesians’ household code, after th at dealing with

the m arriage relationship, treats the second pairing often fo u n d in discussions
o f household m an agem ent in the ancient world, th at o f p aren ts an d children.
T h e w riter is again reliant on the form o f the household code m ediated by
Colossians (cf. Col 3:20, 21), and, as with the m aterial on wives a n d husbands,
he changes an d expands his Colossian original, in particular by ad d in g the
O T citation an d his com m ent on it in his exh o rtatio n to the children in 6:2, 3.
J u s t as previously th e w riter h ad addressed th e subordinate g ro u p , th e wives,
first, so h ere again he follows a sim ilar p attern , appealing first to th e children
to obey th eir parents. T h ey are to do this, because it is p a rt o f th eir com m itm ent
to th e L ord, because such behavior is generally held to be right, an d because
h o n o rin g fa th e r an d m o th er is enjoined on children by the fifth com m andm ent.
A dditionally this co m m andm ent is the first in the law th at has a prom ise attached
to it. T h e prom ise, whose w ording the w riter th e n cites afte r th e first p a rt o f
the co m m an d m en t from LXX Exod 20:12 an d to which a generalized force
is given th ro u g h the om ission o f the original reference to the land o f C anaan,
holds o u t well-being an d long life on ea rth fo r those who h o n o r th eir parents.
 E x p la n a tio n 409

T h e w riter’s b riefer exhortation to parents continues the an d ro cen tric p erspec-

tive o f th e code, since it is not addressed to both parents b u t to fathers only,
an d rem inds them not o f th eir authority b u t o f th eir responsibility, which is
linked to th eir C hristian faith. T his responsibility is expressed bo th negatively
an d positively. T hey are no t to abuse th eir authority by m aking th eir children
angry. Instead, th eir re arin g o f th eir offspring should be m arked by the sort
o f train in g an d verbal adm onition th at is determ in ed by th eir relationship
to th eir L ord an d th at educates th eir children in the tradition about this
Lord.
T h e advice th e w riter gives rem ains general, b u t is m ore elaborate, m ore
positive, an d m ore distinctively C hristian th an in the parallel passage in Colos-
sians. T h e au thority structure o f the ancient household is m aintained. B ut
children are n o t seen as totally subject to the pow er o f th eir parents. It is
significant th at th e w riter treats them as responsible m oral agents to w hom
appeal needs to be m ade an d th at they are given fo u r reasons for subm itting
to th eir p aren ts in obedience. T h e prim ary one is th at such behavior is a p p ro p ri-
ate to th eir ultim ate allegiance to th eir L ord. T h e w riter is, how ever, eclectic
in his choice o f w arrants. A fter the first C hristological one, he adds the appeal
to “natu ral law,” to w hat was seen to be fitting in the ancient world, an d th en
the appeal to the Jew ish law. In his appeal to fathers, p atern al authority is
assum ed, b u t w hat is stressed is not fath ers’ rights o r pow ers b u t the n eed to
have reg ard for th e dignity o f the children by not m aking th em angry th ro u g h
excessive harshness. H ere, the C hristological m otivation is contained in the
reference to th e L ord in the second h alf o f the exhortation about bringing
u p children in the training an d adm onition o f the Lord. C orporal p u n ish m en t
is not m entioned, as it would have been in m uch contem porary advice from
G reco-R om an an d Hellenistic Jew ish w riters about the rearin g o f children.
Instead, w hat is called for is teaching an d correcting o f children th ro u g h practical
exam ple an d th ro u g h words th at are aim ed at prod u cin g lives shaped by the
tradition ab out C hrist the Lord.
As in the exh o rtation about m arriage, this C hristian paraenesis both adapts
to an d m odifies the values o f the su rro u n d in g society. It adapts to the patriarchal
h ousehold, an d the specific behavior enjoined, which balances obedience on
the p art o f children with the restrain t o f harsh p atern al authority, would have
been the m o d erate line endorsed by m any outside the churches. B ut the n atu re
o f the teaching to be given by fathers an d the overriding Christological m otiva-
tion would have given the relationship betw een C hristian children an d parents
a distinctive ethos, particularly w h en it is rem em b ered that, from this w riter’s
perspective in 5:21, the relationship was to be seen as a specific case o f the
m utual subm ission o f believers to each oth er, which should characterize the
C hristian com m unity as a whole.
T h e w riter wants his readers to realize th at the child-p a re n t relationship
provides a n o th er specific sphere in which th eir obedience to th eir L ord is to
be lived o u t in a society with varying ideals o f w hat this relationship should
entail an d varying levels o f attain m en t to those ideals. As we have seen with
the previous section o f the household code ab out m arriage, th e specifics o f
th e code are tied to th eir own tim e an d social setting. B ut again, the w riter’s
creative stance can be suggestive for contem porary C hristian families as they
410 E p h e s ia n s 6:1–4

attem p t to express and live o u t the m u tu al h o n o r, respect, an d loving adm onition

at th e h ea rt o f th e C hristian m essage in a w orld w here, on the one h an d ,
p aren tal pow er can be frequently abused, including even the sexual abuse o f
children, and, on the o th er h an d , attem pts to exercise m oral discipline o r
correction o f a child can frequently be d en o u n ced in the nam e o f a child’s
freedom o r autonom y.
Household Relationships—Slaves and
Masters (6:5–9)
Translation

5 Slaves, obey your earthly a masters with fear and trembling in singleness of heart,
as you would obey Christ, b 6not to catch their eyec as those who please men,d but as
slaves of Christ doing the will of God wholeheartedly, e 7serving with enthusiasm, as
you would the Lord and not men , f 8knowing that each person, if he does something
good, will be recompensed for this by the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9And
masters, do the same to them, abandoning the use of threats, knowing that both
their and your Masterg is in heaven, and there is no partiality with him.

Notes

aThe Greek text describes the masters as Kara oäptca, “according to the flesh.” This sets up an
implicit contrast with another sort of relationship to a master, and since in v 9 that other Master
will be described as in heaven, “earthly” becomes an appropriate translation for the phrase used
of the relationship to human masters.
bThis clause provides a smoother translation of the Greek phrase cj? rep XpiorQ than the
literal “as Christ.”
cThis translates the Greek phrase wax o<l)ddkpo5ov)dav, literally, “according to eyeservice.”
dd^0pcj7ro? and its compound ävdpojnäpeoKoi need not be translated specifically as masculine
terms, but the perspective o f the passage is androcentric and those that the slaves would be
pleasing are the masters, the male heads of households.
eThe phrase in Greek is ex \Iajxvs, literally, “from the soul.”
fSee Note d.
gThe Greek text has xupios in this reference to Christ. It would normally be translated as
“Lord” but is here translated as “Master” to bring out the deliberate contrast with earthly masters
(iKvpioi). See also Note a.

Form / Structure / Setting

T h e th ird pairin g in the household code is th at o f m asters an d slaves. Again,

it should be rem em b ered th at the paraenesis o f this p a rt o f the code is in ten d ed
as p art o f th e instruction ab o u t wise an d Spirit-filled living (cf. 5:15– 20) and
is a specific instance o f the m utual subm ission th at is a consequence o f being
filled with the Spirit (cf. 5:21).
T h e outline o f the form al stru ctu re o f th e paraenesis is sim ilar to th at noted
in the earlier sections o f the code, with the m ost variation occurring in the
section o f am plification on the im perative. Again, the subordinate group, here
the slaves, is addressed first (v 5a). T his is followed by the im perative an d its
ap p ro p riate object (here in the dative case after the verb viranoveiv, “obey your
earthly m asters”— v 5b). T h e am plification o f the exhortation begins in v 5cd
with two prepositional phrases, “with fear a n d trem bling” an d “in singleness
o f h ea rt,” an d is followed by the com parative expression “as C hrist,” which
introduces the note o f Christological m otivation (v 5e). T his is explained n eg a-
tively (“n o t to catch th eir eye as those who please m en ,” v 6a) an d positively
(“b u t as slaves o f C hrist,” v 6b) an d th e n with the help o f two participial
clauses, “doing th e will o f G od w holeheartedly” (v 6c) an d “serving with en th u si-
412 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 5 – 9

asm as you w ould th e L ord an d n o t m e n ” (v 7), o f which the latter one repeats
th e m otivation o f vv 5e, 6ab. Finally, a reason clause beginning with eiööre?
on, “know ing th a t,” introduces the w arran t in v 8, which is “each person, if
he does som ething good, will be recom pensed for this by the L ord, w h eth er
he is a slave o r free.” T h e m ention o f “free” provides the transition to the
advice to m asters which now follows. T his ex hortation to th e su p erio r social
g ro u p in g is sim ilar, with an address, “a n d m asters” (v 9a), an im perative with
7Tpo? avrovs, “to th em ,” functioning as the indirect object in reference to the
slaves, “do th e sam e to th em ” (v 9b), am plification o f this by m eans o f a participial
clause, “ab an d o n in g the use o f th rea ts” (v 9c), an d a w arrant, again in tro d u ced
by eiööre? on, “know ing th a t,” which is fo rm ulated as “both th eir an d your
M aster is in heaven, an d th ere is no partiality with h im ” (v 9de).
T his section o f the household code, like the o th e r two, is d e p e n d e n t on
the form o f th e code m ediated by Colossians. O n the household code in general
an d its origins in particular, see u n d e r Form/ Structure/ Setting on 5 :2 1–33. As
in the case o f th e o th e r two sections, th e w riter o f Ephesians again adapts his
source m aterial creatively, here from Col 3:22– 4:1.

Ephesians Colossians
6:5 d öoüXot, maKovere 3:22a oi öoüXot, vncucovere K a ra
n a vra
rot? K a ra a ä p K a K vpiois 3:22b rot? Kara oäpica Kvpiois
p e r ä 0ö|3ov Kai rp ö p o v 3:22e <j>oßovpevoi rov Kvpiov
ev ä n X ö rrin rrj? /capÖta? vpcbv 3:22d äXX'ev äirXbrriri Kap&as
cö? rcp XpiorCp
6 : 6 /lit) K ar dpOäXpobovXiav co? 3:22c pri ev d^aXpobovXig. cb?
ävdpum äpeoK O i avOpowapeoKoi
äXX' cö? SovXoi XpixjTOd
TTOiovvres to OeX'qpa tov deov 3:23a b e ä v Tioifjfre,
£k \lwxns 3:23b €K \p v x v s ep yä ^ eo d e,
6:7 p e f evvda<; b ovX evovres,
cb? rep Kvpico Kai ovk ävdpojirois 3:23c co? rCb Kvpicp Kai oi)K avdpcoiroLS,
6:8 eiööre? ört eicaaro?, 3:24a etÖore? on airo Kvpiov
äiro\rjp\l/€ode tt)v a v ra n o b o o iv
rfj<; K X ripovopias
3:24b rep Kvpicp X p u jrcp bovX evere
eäv Ti Ttovqpxi oyadöv, 3:25a b y a p abiKCov
tovto KopiaeTat irapa Kvpiov, K o p ia era i ö rjbiKT^oev,
ehe öoüXo? ehe eXevdepos. 3:25b Kai ovk e o n v TrpoocorroXripipia.
6:9 Kai d Kvptot, 4:1a d Kvpioi,
rä avrä noieVre ttpo? airrovs, to d tca io v Kai ri]V io& rrjra
ävievres ttjv äneiXrjv, rot? öouXot? Tra p ex^ ode,
eiööre? ört 4:1b eiööre? ört
Kai airrCbv Kai vpcbv b KÖpio? Kai v p e ls exere Kvpiov
eonv ev ovpavov?, ev ovpavCb.
Kai TrpoocjiroXrjp\pia oi)K eoTiv 3:25b tcai ovk e o n v Trpooom oXrißtya.
nap avrcp.

T h e address to slaves, th e im perative, an d th e description o f m asters as

Kara oäpica, “earthly,” in E p h 6:5 are taken over from Col 3:22ab, b u t Kara
 Form / Structure / Setting 413

navra, “in everything,” is om itted. Ephesians th en has the prepositional phrase

“with fear an d trem bling,” which appears to be an adap tatio n o f the participial
clause “fearing th e L o rd ” from Col 3:22e. In Col 3:22 “b u t with singleness o f
h e a rt” had followed on as a contrast to “not to catch th eir eye as those who
please m en ,” b u t in E ph 6:5 the fo rm er phrase is in tro d u ced first in its own
rig h t with the addition o f the definite article (rfft) before a n d the second person
plural possessive adjective (vpQv) after Kapttas, “h e a rt.” T h e Christological re fe r-
ence o f Col 3:22e in term s o f “the L o rd ” is th en taken u p at the en d o f E ph
6:5 in “as C hrist.” At this point, in 6 :6 , the w riter o f Ephesians brings in the
expression “n o t to catch th eir eye as those who please m en ,” w hich h ad ap p e are d
earlier in the Colossians paraenesis in 3:22c. H e also introduces a slight varia-
tion in w ording with K af df^aXpobovXiav, “to catch th eir eye,” replacing ev
(xföaXpoSovXiqL, “by catching th eir eye.” W hereas in Colossians the contrast to
this expression h ad been “b u t in singleness o f h e a rt” (3:22d), in E ph 6 : 6 the
contrast is aXX’o5? bovXoi Xpiorov, “b u t as slaves o f C hrist,” term inology distinctive
to the E phesians’ paraenesis b u t clearly building on the clause fo u n d later in
the Colossians’ pericope in 3:24b, rep Kvpito Xpiurcp bovXevere, “you are serving
the L ord C hrist.” Col 3:23ab had exhorted slaves ö eäv mifjfre, £k \jwxvs epya^eode,
“w hatever you do, work w holeheartedly,” an d E ph 6 : 6 elaborates on w hat it
m eans to be slaves o f C hrist by tu rn in g the Colossians’ exhortation into a
participial clause which relates the work o f slaves to the will o f God, irotovuTe^
to OeXripa tov Oeov £k i/w x T h “doing the will o f God w holeheartedly.” W hereas
Col 3:23c im m ediately states th at the slaves’ work is to be d one “as to the
L ord an d n ot to m en ,” E ph 6:7 adds a n o th e r participial clause before rep eatin g
this sam e w ording. T h a t clause, per evvoias SovXevovres, “serving with en th u si-
asm ,” is distinctive to the passage in Ephesians b u t can again be related to
Col 3:24b, “you are serving the L ord C hrist.” W hen it com es to the m ajor
w arran t for the ex hortation to slaves, both E ph 6 : 8 an d Col 3:24a introduce
this in the sam e way, eiSore? on, “know ing th at,” an d th e central concept is
the same, th at o f being recom pensed by the Lord. Colossians puts this both
positively (änb Kvpiov änoXrip^eode rr\v avranobooiv rffc KXripovopiw?, “from the
L ord you will receive the rew ard o f in h eritan ce,” 3:24a) an d negatively (6
yap adiKcbv Kopioerai ö r\8u<rioev, “for he who does w rong will be recom pensed
for the w rong he has d o n e,” 3:25a), while E ph 6 : 8 sim ply has a m ore basic
positive statem ent, e/<aoro9, £av n Troirjaxi äyadöv, tovto Kopioerai irapa Kvpiov,
“each person, if he does som ething good, will be recom pensed fo r this by the
L o rd .” It om its Col 3:24b, “you are serving the L ord C hrist,” having already
m ade this p o in t in a d ifferent way, an d replaces Col 3:25b, “an d th ere is no
partiality,” which it will use in its exhortation to m asters, with a sim ilar th o u g h t
th at the principle o f recom pense applies “w hether a p erson is a slave o r free”
(ehe SovXos ehe eXevdepos). T his last phrase o f E ph 6 : 8 m ay well take u p the
language o f Col 3:11 w here it is said th at in the new hum anity, am ongst
various o th er categories, 60 ÖX09 , “slave,” an d eXevOepos, “free,” no longer count,
b u t instead C hrist is all in all.
T h e re is a sim ilar relationship o f dep en d en ce an d m odification in the ex h o rta-
tion to m asters in the two letters. E ph 6:9 underlines the link with the exhortation
to slaves bo th by the addition o f Kai, “a n d ,” in the address a n d by form ulating
its m ain im perative as “do the sam e to th em ” instead o f the stro n g er im perative
414 E p h e s ia n s 6 :5 – 9

in Col 4:1a, “show justice an d fairness to yo u r slaves.” Ephesians is, how ever,
m ore specific in its instruction to m asters in th e participial phrase “ab an d o n in g
the use o f th reats” (avtevreg rr\v äneikriv). A gain, th e w arrants for the exhortations
to m asters are in troduced in the sam e fashion by eiSoreg on, “know ing th a t”
(E ph 6:9 an d Col 4:1b), an d both contain the sam e concept, th at th e m asters
have th eir own L ord o r M aster in heaven. B ut while Col 4:1b has th e basic
assertion m i vpeig exere iwpiov ev ovpavcb, “you also have a M aster in h eaven,”
E ph 6:9 varies this with the plural expression ev ovpavolg , lit. “in the heavens.”
E phesians also strengthens the notes o f m u tu al relationship an d jo in t account-
ability in th e slave-m aster pairing by describing the M aster in heaven as m i
avrcjv m i vpcbv ö fcvpiog, “b oth th eir an d yo u r M aster,” an d ad d in g “a n d th ere
is no partiality with him ,” a form ulation virtually the sam e as th at w hich h ad
been em ployed in th e w arran t to slaves in Col 3:25b.
T his pericope also contains ideas an d w ording rem iniscent o f the u n d isp u ted
Pauline letters. T h e additional phrase “with fear an d trem bling” in 6:5 is fo u n d
in 2 C or 7:15 (cf. also 1 C or 2:3) a n d Phil 2:12, an d in the latter instance
also m odifies th e verb “to obey” (vnam veiv ). T h e term inology “slaves o f C hrist”
is used o f Paul in Rom 1:1 an d o f Paul an d T im othy in Phil 1:1. In addition,
w hen Paul calls him self a slave o f C hrist in Gal 1:10, he contrasts this with
the notion o f pleasing people, as does the w riter h ere in 6:6. In the discussion
o f the situations o f slave an d free in 1 C or 7, the person who was free w hen
called is said to be a slave o f Christ, an d both groups are called on n o t to
becom e slaves o f m en (cf. 7:22, 23). T h e belief th at each person will be recom -
p ensed fo r th e good he or she has d o n e is fo u n d in bo th 2 C or 5:10, w here
the verb Kopi^eiv also occurs, an d in Rom 2:6– 11. In the latter case th ere is
also th e w ording “for th ere is no partiality with G od,” which, m ediated via
Col 3:25b, is now applied to C hrist in the ex ho rtation to m asters in 6:9. T h e
language “w h eth er he is a slave o r free” o f 6:8, as has been noted, takes u p
m ost im m ediately the variation on the baptism al form ulation o f Gal 3:28 in
Col 3:11, b u t it m atches m ore exactly the variation on th at form ulation in
1 C or 12:13. In each case, this occurrence o f additional Pauline term inology
from th e u n d isp u ted Pauline corpus is best explained by the hypothesis o f
E phesians’ expansion o f m aterial from Colossians, ra th e r th a n finding in Col
3:22– 4:1 an edited version o f E ph 6:5– 9 (pace W. M unro, Authority in Paul
and Peter [C am bridge: CUP, 1983] 27–29).
As is to be expected, 6:5– 9 has its closest ties w ithin the letter to the s u rro u n d -
ing paraenesis, although th ere are also one o r two links with the first p a rt o f
th e letter. T h e notion o f the subordinate g ro u p w ithin the household obeying
the g ro u p with su p erior status (6:5) has already been e n c o u n te red in th e case
o f child ren ’s attitu de to parents in 6:1, an d the response o f fear (6:5) has
also been m et already in the case o f wives’ attitudes to husbands (5:33; cf.
also 5:21). T h e m otivation “as C hrist” (6:5) corresponds to th e earlier m otivation
in the code “as to the L ord (5:22) an d “in the L o rd ” (6:1). “D oing the will o f
G od” (6:6) is rem iniscent o f the exh o rtatio n in 5:17 ab o u t u n d ersta n d in g the
will o f the L ord an d o f the talk o f G od’s will in the address (1:1) a n d in the
op en in g eulogy (1:5, 9, 11). Again, the idea o f doing good (6:8) rem inds one
o f th e ex h o rtatio n to the erstw hile th ie f in 4:28 to do good with his own
h ands an d o f th e earlier em phasis on good works (2:10) an d w hat is good
 Form / Structure / Setting 415

(5:9). Finally, w hen m asters are told th at both they an d th eir slaves have a
M aster in heaven (6:9), this can be seen as in continuity with the letter’s cosmic
perspective in which atten tio n has been focused on C hrist as the heavenly
L ord (cf. 1:20; 2:6; 4:10).
T h e paraenesis to slaves an d m asters clearly has a general setting in life in
the institution o f slavery in the first-century G reco-R om an world. T h e re are
questions ab o u t the m ore specific setting o f the early C hristians’ relation to
this institution an d the conditions th at m ay have called fo rth the em phases
o f the household codes o f both Colossians an d Ephesians. Only a few o f the
salient features o f first-century slavery can be described here, an d for this
purpose S. S. B artchy’s m o n o g rap h has proved particularly helpful. (For o th er
discussions see th e following works.)

Bartchy, S. S. MAAAONXPFTEAI: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians

7:21. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1973. Buckland, W. W. The Roman Law of Slavery. Cam-
bridge: C.U.P., 1970. Finley, M. L, ed. Slavery in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: W.
Heffer, 1960. Gayer, R. Die Stellung des Sklaven in den paulinischen Gemeinden und bei
Paulus. Bern: H. Lang, 1976. Gülzow, H. Christentum und Sklaverei in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1969. Laub, F. Die Begegnung des frühen Christentums
mit der antiken Sklaverei. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982. Schweizer, E. “Zum
Sklavenproblem im Neuen Testament.” E vT 32 (1972) 502–6. Stuhlmacher, P. Der
Brief an Philemon. Zürich: Benzinger, 1975, esp. 42–48. Urbach, E. E. “The Laws Regard-
ing Slavery as a Source for Social History of the Period of the Second Temple, the
Mishnah and Talmud.” Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies (London), ed. J. G. Weiss.
Jerusalem, 1964, 1:1–94. Vogt, J. “The Structure of Ancient Slave Wars.” Ancient Slavery
and the Ideal of Man. Tr. T. Wiedemann. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1975, 39– 102.
Westermann, W. L. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity. 3rd Edition. Philadel-
phia: American Philosophical Society, 1964. Wiedemann, T. Greek and Roman Slavery.
London: Croom Helm, 1981. Zeitlin, S. “Slavery during the Second Commonwealth
and the Tannaitic Period.” JQR 53 (1962–63) 185– 218.

T h e early C hristians’ a p p a re n t indifference to the institution o f slavery has

to be seen in the light o f the prevailing attitudes to slavery. H ardly anyone
considered the system optional o r th o u g h t o f an alternative. In fact, although
th ere were debates about how slaves should be treated (e g., Seneca, Ep. 47),
slavery as a social, legal, an d econom ic p h en o m en o n seldom becam e the object
o f reflection at all. N o ancient governm ent th o u g h t o f abolishing the institution,
an d none o f th e slave rebellions h ad as its goal the abolition o f slavery as
such (cf. B artchy, First-Century Slavery, 63, 116– 17). “T h e institution o f slavery
was a fact o f M ed iterranean econom ic life so com pletely accepted as a p a rt o f
the labour stru ctu re o f the tim e th a t one cann ot correctly speak o f the slave
‘p roblem ’ in antiquity” (W esterm ann, Slave Systems, 215).
As we have seen, the m aster-slave relationship was m entioned in the trad i-
tional discussions o f household m an ag em en t w here the focus was on how a
m aster should ru le his slaves. A ristotle (Pol. 1.1253b - 1254a) deals with this
relationship at g reater length th a n with the o th e r two, an d Philodem us (Concern-
ing Household Management 30.18– 31.2) is fairly typical w ith his advice th at slaves’
work, food, an d p u n ish m en t should be kept m oderate. Elsewhere, A ristotle
416 Ephesians 6 :5–9

expo u n d s his view th at the relationship betw een m aster a n d slave in th e ho u se-
hold is one in which it is in ap p ro p ria te to talk about justice, because th ere
can be no injustice in relating to things th at are o n e ’s own, an d a slave is a
m a n ’s chattel (cf. Eth. N ic. 5.1134b). H e can say, “for w here th ere is n o th in g
com m on to ru le r an d ruled, th ere is n o t friendship either, since th ere is n o t
justice; e.g., betw een craftsm an an d tool, soul a n d body, m aster an d slave;
th e latter in each case is benefited by th a t which uses it, b u t th ere is no frien d sh ip
n o r justice tow ards lifeless things. . . . For th ere is n o th in g com m on to the
two parties; th e slave is a living tool an d th e tool a lifeless slave” (Eth. N ic.
8.1161ab). L ater Stoic views were, how ever, m uch m ore h u m an itarian . Seneca
(Ep. 47) provides the m ost well-know n discourse on treatin g slaves as h u m an
beings: “ ‘T hese people are slaves.’ No: they are h u m an beings. ‘T h ese people
are slaves.’ No: they are those with w hom you share your roof. ‘T h ese people
are slaves.’ No: w hen you consider how m uch pow er C hance can ex ert over
you both, they are fellow-slaves.” Seneca goes on: “I d o n ’t w ant to let m yself
go on this vast topic, an d give you a hom ily on how to trea t your slaves: we
behave tow ard them in a p ro u d , cruel an d insulting fashion. T h e sum o f
w hat I wish to preach is this: treat those whose status is inferior to your own
in the sam e m an n er as you w ould wish your own su p erio r to trea t you.” Im p re s-
sive as this rhetoric is, Seneca did n o th in g to try to change the actual institution
o f slavery, an d W iedem ann’s com m ent (Greek and Roman Slavery, 233) is th at
in practice “Seneca is m uch m ore interested in w riting exciting Latin th a n in
im proving the conditions o f his read ers’ slaves.” Palestinian Ju d aism accepted
th e institution o f slavery, with slaves being viewed as the p ro p erty o f th eir
m asters. A ccording to Philo, the T h e ra p e u ta e an d the Essenes rejected it (cf.
Philo, Quod Omnis 79; De Vita Cont. 70). As far as the Essenes are concerned,
this attitu d e to slavery probably holds only fo r the core com m unity in the
d esert an d n ot for any Essenes who, like the early C hristians, co n tin u ed to
live in society, since the Dam ascus Rule contains instructions on the trea tm e n t
o f slaves (cf. CD 11.12; 12.10 – 12; cf. also S tuhlm acher, Philemon, 47). A lthough
Jo sep h u s (c. Ap. 2.3 § 215 – 17) can call fo r slaves to receive severe pu n ish m en ts
for th eir offenses, in general Hellenistic Jew ish writings reflect contem porary
Hellenistic appeals to m asters to treat th eir slaves reasonably (cf. Sir 4:30;
7:20, 21; 33:31; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 2.66– 68, 89– 91; 3.137– 43; Ps.-Phocylides
224). Philo saw slaves as indispensable, “for the course o f life contains a vast
n u m b er o f circum stances which d em an d th e m inistrations o f slaves” (De Spec.
Leg. 2.123). A lthough he does no t address slaves directly, he talks o f instructions
given “to servants on re n d erin g an affectionate loyalty to th eir m asters, to
m asters on showing the gentleness an d kindness by which inequality is equal-
ized” (De Decal. 167).
M odern readers need to free them selves from a n u m b er o f assum ptions
ab out first-century slavery, including the assum ptions th at th ere was a wide
separation betw een the status o f slave an d freedperson, th at all slaves were
badly treated, an d th at all who w ere enslaved w ere trying to free them selves
from this bondage. It is tru e th at R om an law distinguished sharply betw een
the status o f slave an d free in term s o f th e legal powerlessness o f the slave,
b u t in practice th ere was a broad con tin u u m o f statuses betw een slave an d
free in both R om an an d G reek society. For exam ple, slaves o f G reek ow ners
 Form / Structure / Setting 417

could own p roperty, including th eir own slaves, an d could obtain perm ission
to take o th er em ploym ent in addition to th eir duties as slaves. G reek law defined
fo u r elem ents o f freedom — freedom to act as o n e’s own legal person, freedom
from being seized as property, freedom to ea rn a living in the way one w anted,
an d freedom o f m ovem ent, including the rig h t to live w here one wished. B ut
to establish freed p erson status only the g ran tin g o f the first o f these was neces-
sary. In practice any o th er aspects o f freedom were often greatly curtailed in
favor o f th e fo rm er slave ow ner, because before slaves w ere m anum itted they
h ad to sign a contract which could require them to m ake a re g u lar paym ent
and provide various services to th eir previous ow ners an d which would specify
what w ould h ap p e n to them an d th eir pro p erty if they failed to do so. Slaves
o f R om an m asters also continued to have specific obligations to th eir patrons
after m anum ission, an d so the step from the status o f slave to freedperson
was often a very small one in practice (cf. B artchy, First-Century Slavery, 40–
44, 73– 74, 115). T h e change in legal status was, how ever, an im p o rtan t one
for m ost people, affecting th eir own sense o f social identity an d the perception
o f th eir social status by others, an d so m any slaves did w ork h ard to achieve
m anum ission. D u ring the first century c .e . th ere was an increase in the ease
an d frequency o f m anum ission, an d this relieved th e sort o f pressures th at
m ight have provoked slave revolts. Dom estic an d u rb a n slaves could expect
to be m an u m itted as a rew ard for h ard w ork after serving th eir ow ners for
ten to twenty years. It was also frequently in the ow ners’ own interests to
m an u m it th eir slaves, since th eir labor could be obtained m ore cheaply if they
were freedpersons. It should be noted, however, th at while th ere w ere a n u m b er
o f ways in which slaves could encourage ow ners to m anum it them , th ere were
no ways in which they could refuse freed p erso n status if ow ners decided to
m an u m it them , since they had no legal rights (cf. B artchy, First-Century Slavery,
98, 104, 118– 19). D espite the general picture o f increasing m anum ission in
the first-century Greco-R om an world, it seems to have taken place less frequently
in Asia M inor, in whose cities freedpersons w ould have been a sm aller p ro p o r-
tion o f the p o p ulation than, fo r exam ple, in R om e (cf. V erner, Household of
God, 44, 63).
A lthough th e R om an “paterfamilias h ad com plete control over all slaves ow ned
in his familia, th e pow er o f p u n ish m en t by w hipping an d by confinem ent in
the ergastulum, an d the rig h t o f execution o f the d eath penalty” (W esterm ann,
Slave Systems, 76), daily life was usually m uch b etter th a n this legal situation
m ight suggest, especially for dom estic slaves. Inevitably, a p erso n ’s experience
as a slave d ep e n d ed prim arily on the character an d social status o f his o r h er
m aster. B ut in general slaves w ere treated reasonably well, if only because
th eir m asters recognized th at this was the way to get the best ou t o f them .
An ow ner’s trea tm e n t o f his slaves was frequently sim ilar to his trea tm e n t o f
his children, an d the m aster who was considerate tow ard his children would
behave similarly tow ard his slaves. T his is not, o f course, to p ain t a picture
o f paradise as descriptive o f the dom estic slave’s situation. T h e re w ere u n d o u b t-
edly far too m any cases o f cruelty, brutality, an d injustice, b u t th ere was no
general clim ate o f u n rest am ong slaves (cf. B artchy, First-Century Slavery, 85–
8 7 ,1 1 5 ).
O n e-th ird o f the population o f Greece an d Italy was enslaved. T h e work
418 Ephesians 6:5– 9

o f these slaves covered the whole ran g e o f activities in th e ancient w orld—

from privileged positions in the household o f th e em p e ro r to w orking in the
m ines. In betw een cam e such w ork as the civil service, m edical care, teaching,
accountancy, business, dom estic work, an d agricultural em ploym ent. By the
first century c .e ., the m ain supply o f slaves was no longer th ro u g h w ar o r
piracy b u t ra th e r th ro u g h b irth in th e house o f a slave ow ner. T his p ro d u c ed
a differen t social clim ate, as B artchy notes: “T hese house-b o rn slaves w ere
given train in g for a wide variety o f dom estic, industrial an d public tasks o f
increasing im portance an d sensitivity. R om an legal practice kept pace with
this d evelopm ent by gu aran teein g to those in slavery m ore h u m an e tre a tm e n t”
(First-Century Slavery, 117). M any slaves in the G reco-R om an w orld enjoyed
m ore favorable living conditions th an m any free laborers. C ontrary to the
supposition th at everyone was trying to avoid slavery at all costs, it is clear
th at som e people actually sold them selves into slavery in o rd e r to climb socially,
to obtain particu lar em ploym ent o p en only to slaves, an d to enjoy a b etter
stan d ard o f living th an they h ad experienced as free persons. B eing a slave
h ad th e benefit o f providing a certain personal an d social security (cf. B artchy,
First-Century Slavery, 46, 116).
Some scholars (e.g., C rouch, Origins, 126– 27; Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory,
214– 18) have arg u ed th at C hristian talk o f “freed o m ” an d th e baptism al fo rm u -
lation re p resen ted in Gal 3:28 w ould have aroused expectations o f m anum ission
in the m inds o f slaves an d th at the paraenesis ab o u t the slave-m aster relationship
in th e household codes should th ere fo re be viewed as a reaction against such
u n rest am o n g C hristian slaves. B ut as has been said, th ere was no general
desire to obtain m anum ission at all costs. In a situation w here th e m ajority o f
slaves were b o rn in the house o f th eir ow ners, talk o f freed o m in the sense
o f an in n er o r spiritual freedom could receive a sym pathetic hearing. Stoics
h ad already been teaching th at tru e freedom was d e p e n d e n t on o n e ’s in n e r
attitu d e ra th e r th an outw ard circum stances (cf., e.g., Epictetus, Diss. 4.1; cf.
also Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, 65– 67, 117). It m ay well be th a t Gal 3:28
was un d ersto o d by the C orinthian women in term s o f an em ancipation in th eir
social roles. It is certainly significant th at Paul does n o t include the m ale-fem ale
p airin g in th e variation on the traditional form ula in 1 C or 12:13. B ut th e re
is no evidence th at the form ula was u n d ersto o d in a sim ilar way by slaves. In
fact, Paul was able to em ploy the circum cision-uncircum cision a n d slave-free
pairings as illustrations o f his m ain p oint in 1 C or 7:17–24, precisely because
these were n o t th e source o f problem s in C orinth. As Balch (Wives, 107) observes,
“If Gal 3:28 was n ot u n d ersto o d by the C orinthian slaves as m odifying th eir
social role, the assum ption th at this baptism al form ula stim ulated such ‘u n re st’
am o ng slaves th at it form ed th e background against which the household code
m ust be u n d ersto o d is w ithout fo u n d a tio n ” (cf. also M acD onald, Pauline
Churches, 112).
C hristian slaves posed no direct political th re a t to society by calling for
em ancipation, b u t th ere was one m ajor area in which th ere was potential for
causing offense. Dom estic slaves w ere considered p a rt o f the household and,
th erefo re, w ere generally expected to share th e religion o f th e paterfamilias.
B ut those slaves who converted to C hristianity refused to participate in the
w orship o f th e traditional gods. Balch (Wives, 90) claims, “In this sense C hristian-
 Form / Structure / Setting 419

ity, following Jew ish precedent, b ro u g h t a new u n d ersta n d in g o f perso n h o o d

to slaves by teaching th at they had a rig h t to choose th eir own G od.” T his
may, however, be an overstatem ent o f the case, since u n d e r the principate
R om ans, in fact, becam e m ore tolerant about slaves’ participation in o th er
cults, an d th ere was considerable freedom fo r slaves to practice th eir own
religion (cf. Laub, Begegnung, 56–62).
Paul h ad treated the distinction betw een slave an d free as irrelevant for
life in th e new com m unity (cf. Gal 3:28; 1 C or 12:13). H e recognized some
advantages in m anum ission and advised slaves whose m asters set them free
to m ake use o f this new opp o rtu n ity (1 C or 7:21), b u t if th ere was no chance
o f such freedom this did not m atter, since “h e who was called in the L ord as
a slave is a freed m an o f the Lord. Likewise, he who was free w hen called is a
slave o f C hrist” (1 C or 7:22). In the church, slaves w ere to be seen as full
b ro thers an d sisters in the L ord, an d m asters were to accept them in this way
(cf. Philem on). Colossians continues with a sim ilar em phasis. Col 3:11 repeats
the notion o f th ere being no distinction betw een slave a n d free in the new
com m unity, while the Colossian household code m akes clear th at the w riter
saw a difference betw een status in the church an d roles in th e C hristian house-
hold, w here the hierarchical social structures still pertain. W hat is perh ap s
m ost striking ab out the codes o f Colossians an d Ephesians, how ever, is th at
slaves are addressed no t simply as m em bers o f the household b u t as full m em bers
o f the church. N o r is it simply, as in som e o th e r societies o r cults, th at th ere
was no distinction betw een m asters an d slaves in the ritual activities, b u t these
codes reflect th e life o f a com m unity in which, despite the differences in th eir
duties, both slaves and free can equally fully practice th eir faith in everyday
life. V irtues are en couraged in slaves not only, as in the traditional discussions
o f household m anagem ent, because these will enhance the well-being o f the
household an d its head, b u t because slaves are valued as persons whose obedi-
ence to C hrist is as im p o rtan t as th at o f o th e r social groups in the church
into which they have been fully integrated (cf. also Laub, Begegnung, 91– 93).
T h ere has been discussion about why in the Colossian code so great a p ro p o r-
tion o f the paraenesis is addressed to slaves as com pared with th at addressed
to m asters. Some have attem p ted to relate this p h en o m en o n to the case o f
O nesim us (cf. esp. J. Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul [Chicago: C hicago
University Press, 1935] 13–24; b u t against this cf., e.g., C rouch, Origins, 11).
B ut it may be th at it reflects the social com position o f the ch u rch addressed,
which contained m ore slaves th an slave owners. A lternatively, it m ay be th at
the code reflects the perspective o f the leaders o f the com m unity, “a n d the
ethos o f the leaders is ra th e r m ore th at o f the ow ners th a n o f the slaves” (W.
Meeks, The First Urban Christians [New H aven: Yale University Press, 1983]
64). M acDonald (Pauline Churches, 114– 15) also argues th at this em phasis in
Colossians may re p resen t a tightening o f organizational structures in th e post-
Pauline churches, restricting any leadership on the p a rt o f slaves an d p u ttin g
pow er m ore firmly in the hands o f m asters. H ow ever, this view m ay b lu r too
m uch the distinction these Pauline churches still seem to have been able to
m ake betw een w hat w ent on in the com m unity’s gatherings fo r w orship an d
w hat w ent on in th e everyday life o f the household in closer contact with the
su rro u n d in g society (cf. also Meeks, First Urban Christians, 161–62, on the am bi-
420 Ephesians 6 :5–9

guity o f the relation betw een the reality p resen ted in C hristian ritual an d
everyday reality). In devoting m ore atten tio n to slaves, E phesians is simply
following th e p reced en t o f Colossians, in which also fo u r verses are addressed
to slaves an d one to m asters. In term s o f reciprocity, both Colossians an d
E phesians fare b etter th an the later Pastorals (cf. 1 T im 6:1, 2; T itus 2:9– 10),
w here m asters are no t addressed at all ab o u t th eir duties tow ard slaves, w here
th e a u th o r clearly writes from the perspective o f the householder, a n d w here
th e ch u rch itself is now un d ersto o d on the m odel o f the patriarchal household.

Comment

5 ot öoöXoi, vnaKovere rot? Kara oäpKa Kupiois perä 0ößou Kai rpöpov ev äirXörriTi
Tfjs KapStas vpcbv cb? rep Xptarcp, “Slaves, obey your earthly m asters with fear
an d trem bling in singleness o f heart, as you w ould obey C hrist.” As has been
noted, advice ab o u t how slaves should conduct them selves can be fo u n d else-
w here, b u t w hat does seem to be u n p re ced e n te d about th e advice to slaves in
the Pauline corpus is its direct address to th e slaves them selves (cf. also 1 C or
7:21; Col 3:22). In this version o f the household code, the w riter m akes clear
th at he views slaves as ethically responsible agents an d appeals to them to
obey th eir earthly m asters. T h e designation “earthly m asters” points to the
play on th e term s /o>pio?, “lord, m aster,” a n d SoüXo?, “slave,” th at ru n s th ro u g h
th e pericope. T hose addressed, who are literally slaves (v 5), are also asked to
see them selves as m etaphorically slaves o f C hrist (v 6), an d th eir obedience to
th eir literal m asters (v 5) is to be seen as p a rt o f th eir obedience to th e tru e
L ord (vv 7, 8). In fact, the contrast betw een the fleshly o r earthly m asters (v
5) an d the L ord o r M aster in heaven (v 9) ties the passage together. For
C hristian slaves th ere was ultim ately only one KÜpios, an d re m in d in g th em o f
this by calling th eir m asters Kara oäpKa in distinction from the M aster in heaven
im m ediately sets the social structures o f the household in a C hristian perspective
an d limits th eir significance. Despite this relativizing o f the relationship, slaves’
obedience to th eir m aster is to be thoroughgoing. W hat is involved in such
obedience will be explained positively (v 5b), negatively (v 6a), an d th e n positively
again (vv 6b, 7). It is to be carried o u t no t ju s t with fear, the attitu d e re q u ired
o f wives in relation to th eir husbands in 5:33 an d 1 Pet 3:2, o r o f citizens in
relation to th e state in Rom 13:7, o r elsew here o f slaves in relation to th eir
m asters in 1 Pet 2:18, Did. 4.11 an d B am . 19.7, b u t “with fear a n d trem bling,”
a p h rase fo u n d frequently in the LXX (e.g., G en 9:2; Exod 15:16; D eut 2:25;
Ps 2:11; Isa 19:16), th ree tim es in Paul (1 C or 2:3; 2 C or 7:15; Phil 2:12),
an d in a verbal form in M ark 5:33, an d which functions h ere to intensify the
attitu d e o f respect for the authority o f m asters. It em phasizes the obedience
owed to h u m an m asters, no t to God o r C hrist (pace C aird, 90, who reads Col
3:22, “fearing the L ord,” into E ph 6:5). P ro p er obedience will also be carried
o u t “in singleness o f h e a rt,” a phrase which underlines th e purity o f m otivation
which should characterize slaves’ relationship to th eir m asters. T h e heart, seen
as the in n er cen ter which determ ines attitudes a n d actions, is to have integrity
an d singleness o f purpose. For this virtue o f uprig h tn ess o r integrity o f heart,
th e “sim ple goodness, which gives itself w ithout reserve” (BAGD 86) see, e.g.,
1 C h r 29:17; Wis 1:1; 1 Macc 2:37; T. Iss. 3.1– 6; 4.1– 6 :1; T. Reub. 4.1;
 Comment 421

T'. Sim. 4.5; 2 C or 11:3; Col 3:22. T his sort o f in n e r com m itm ent is m ade
possible by slaves seeing in th eir obedience to th eir m asters obedience to C hrist,
the heavenly M aster. T his perspective does n o t m ean th at earthly m asters
stand in C hrist’s stead as his representatives, as in Did. 4.11 (pace Schlier,
284). R ather, in th eir service to th eir m asters, slaves are to see th e o p p o rtu n ity
to serve C hrist an d to p erform th eir w ork as if they w ere doing it for Christ.
T his Christological m otivation is a m ajor factor in the paraenesis to slaves
an d is fo u n d n o t only here in cos rep Xptarcp, “as to C hrist,” b u t also in cos
SoüXot XpiOTOV, “as slaves o f C hrist” (v 6), cos rep /cuptep, “as to the L o rd ” (v 7),
and 7rapei Kvpiov , “by the L ord” (v 8). In this way, everyday w ork is related to
the lordship o f Christ, an d the instructions provide a specific application o f
the exhortation fo u n d in Col 3:17, “W hatever you do, in w ord o r deed, do
everything in the nam e o f the L ord Jesu s.”
6, 7 fJLT] tcaf 6<j)daKpodovXtav cos avdpumapeoKOL, “n o t to catch th eir eye as
those who please m en .” T h e integrity called for will exclude the dissim ulation
an d faw ning re ferred to in term s o f trying to catch th eir m asters’ eye o r to
find approval with them . 000aXpo5ooXta, literally “eyeservice,” is a w ord no t
attested earlier th an its two N T occurrences, here an d in Col 3:22. In context
here it indicates the sort o f service carried o u t by slaves in o rd e r to attract
th eir m asters’ attention. It could also re fer to doing only w hat the m asters
can see and, th erefore, acting differently an d cutting corners w hen th eir backs
are tu rn e d (cf. C. F. D. M oule, “A N ote on oQOaXpodovXia” ExpTim 59 [1947–
48] 250). T h e expression “as those who please m en ” continues the notion o f
currying favor with the m asters, an d this idea o f pleasing m en is fo u n d elsew here
(e.g., Ps 52:6; Pss. Sol. 4 .7 ,8 , 19; Gal 1:10; 1 T hess 2:4; Col 3:22; 2 Clem.
13.1; Ign. Rom. 2.1; Ju stin , Apol. 1.2).
dXX’ eo? SovXot Xpiorov notow res to 6eXr\pa tov deov etc ipvxvs, “b u t as slaves o f
C hrist doing th e will o f God w holeheartedly.” T hose who are simply ou t to
please th eir m asters are slaves o f m en, b u t the w riter wants his addressees to
see them selves prim arily as slaves o f Christ. T h e ir allegiance lies ultim ately
not to o th er people b u t to Christ, an d th eir aim should be n o t to please m en
b u t “to learn w hat is pleasing to the L o rd ” (cf. 5:10). T h e designation “slaves
o f C hrist” intensifies the idea o f carrying o u t obedience to m asters as p a rt o f
obedience to C hrist from 6:5. T his way o f speaking can be com pared with
Paul’s relativizing o f the social status o f slave an d free in 1 C or 7:20– 22, w here
he calls the free m an a slave o f Christ. H ere the w riter does no t explicitly call
slave owners slaves o f Christ, although this is im plicit in th e re m in d e r th at
will com e to them th at they have a M aster in heaven. Believing slaves who
p erfo rm th eir household duties as slaves o f C hrist will also be doing the will
o f God, since th at will has been expressed suprem ely in C hrist. For this w riter,
the will o f God which has its focus in C hrist is concerned no t only with his
plan for salvation an d the cosmos (cf. 1 :5 ,9 , 11) b u t also with the everyday
life o f household work and duties. T hose who see them selves as slaves o f
C hrist will carry o u t G od’s will in the sphere o f the household etc \lwxns, lit.
“from th e soul” (cf. sim ilar expressions in T. Gad 2.1; T. Benj. 1.5). T h e re is
a shift from the m ention o f the h ea rt in the previous verse to the soul as the
in n er center. T h e two term s are virtually synonym ous in the LXX version o f
the great co m m an dm ent in D eut 6:5, “you shall love the L ord your God with
422 E p h e s ia n s 6 :5 – 9

all your heart, an d with all your soul, an d with all yo u r m ight” (cf. also M ark
12:30 an d pars.). A gain the em phasis is on an in n e r m otivation th a t is w hole-
h ea rted an d un reserved an d th at contrasts with the earlier “eyeservice” m oti-
vated by ex ternal considerations. F or slaves to have th eir hearts a n d souls in
do in g th e will o f God in th eir work w ould m ake possible an experience o f
in n er in d ep en d en ce within th eir situation.
per ewdas doukevovres, to? rep Kvpicp Kai ovk ävQpümois, “serving with en th u si-
asm, as you w ould the L ord an d n o t m en .” T his clause un d erlin es th e points
th e w riter has already m ade in his paraenesis. Slaves’ service is to be d one
n o t ju s t fo r th eir m asters bu t instead is to be d eterm in ed by th eir obedience
to the one Lord. T his will m ean th at th eir service is p erfo rm ed enthusiastically
ra th e r th an grudgingly o r o u t o f sheer necessity, evvoia, “good will, enthusiasm ,
zeal,” is seen as a virtue o f slaves in Lucian, Bis Accus. 16; Ecclus, On Justice
78.10– 11; an d POxy 494.6, a papyrus dated 156 c .e . in which in a m aster’s
will a n u m b er o f slaves are to be set free because o f th eir enthusiasm a n d
affection (ka f evvoiav icai (friXoaropyiav) in serving th eir m aster (for a translation
o f this will, cf. W iedem ann, Greek and Roman Slavery, 101).
8 eiSore? ori imaros, eäv n itovqpxi äyaQöv, tovto Kopioerai irapa icupiov, etre
SoüXo? etre eXe60epo?, “know ing th at each person, if he does som ething good,
will be recom pensed for this by the L ord, w h eth er he is a slave o r free.” T h e
p receding participles an d the whole ex h o rtatio n to obedience are g ro u n d e d
in the rem in d e r th at the L ord will rew ard each one fo r th e good th a t he
does. Some discussions o f household m an ag em en t recom m ended m otivating
slaves by holding o u t various rew ards, fo r exam ple, m ore praise, m ore food,
b etter clothing, an d shoes (cf. X enophon, Oec. 13.9 – 12). T his code attem pts
to m otivate C hristian slaves by holding before them the prospect o f eschatologi-
cal rew ard: no good deed will go u n reco m p en sed (on Kopi^eodai an d the w riter’s
use o f th e idea o f the connection betw een d eed a n d rew ard to u n d erlin e the
relationship betw een a way o f life an d its ultim ate outcom e, see S. H. Travis,
Christ and the Judgment of God [London: M arshall Pickering, 1966] 110 – 113).
Even if work seems to go unrecognized by earthly m asters, this is no reason
to start trying to catch th eir eye, because the heavenly M aster sees all th at is
do n e an d will resp ond accordingly. T his latter th o u g h t holds fo r both slave
an d free. In reg ard to rew ard from the heavenly M aster, earthly social status
m akes no difference. T h e concept o f rew ard, particularly at the final ju d g m e n t,
was a com m on one in Ju d aism an d is taken over in the N T . In th e light o f
the allusion in th e next verse (via Col 3:25) to the im partiality o f G od in
Rom 2:11, it may well be th at the th o u g h t o f Rom 2:6– 10 ab o u t rew ard fo r
the one who does good has also been an influence here (cf. also 2 C or 5:10).
It is surprising, how ever, in light o f its use earlier in this letter (cf. 1:14, 18;
5:5) th at the w riter does no t take over the notion from Col 3:24 o f the rew ard
as “the in h eritan ce.” It is notew orthy th at w hen the concept o f rew ard becom es
m ore specific in th e parallel passage in Col 3:25, the focus is on th e negative
an d it functions as a threat, “fo r the w rongdoer will be paid back for th e
w rong he has d o n e.” B ut h ere in Ephesians the positive form ulation o f being
recom pensed for d oing som ething good acts as an encouragem ent. H ow ever,
the em phasis is n o t ju s t on rew ard at th e final ju d g m e n t as consolation for
slaves. T h e stress in v 8 is on “each o n e,” an d rew ard fo r good applies equally
 Comment 423

to bo th slave an d free (cf. also Gnilka, 301). T h e expression “w h eth er slave

o r free” may well allude to the early C hristian baptism al tradition which p ro -
n o u n ced th at th ere was no distinction betw een slave an d free in C hrist (cf.
the form ulations in Col 3:11; 1 C or 12:13, w here this expression is fo u n d in
the plural; an d Gal 3:28). In this application o f the tradition to the household,
the em phasis is on the equal standing o f slave an d free at the fu tu re ju d g m en t.
T h e C hristian household retains the distinctive social statuses o f slave an d
free, b u t in light o f the com ing ju d g m e n t they are ultim ately insignificant.
9 Kai oi Kvptot, rä airra noielre npos avrovs, avievre*; rr\v äneikqv, eiööres ori
Kai avrcbv Kai vpQv 6 Kvptos eonv ev ovpavöüKai 7rpoooj7ro\r]p^ia ovk eonv 'nap
ainCp, “A nd m asters, do the sam e to them , aban d o n in g the use o f threats,
knowing th at b oth th eir an d your M aster is in heaven, an d th ere is no partiality
with h im .” By m eans o f both the m ention o f the free at the e n d o f the previous
verse an d the connective Kai, “a n d ,” the w riter ties the paraenesis to slaves
an d th at to m asters closely together. T h e link is stren g th en ed fu rth e r by the
m ain im perative to m asters being fram ed as “do the sam e to th em .” In com pari-
son to the equivalent im perative in Col 4:1, this im perative seems ra th e r color-
less, b u t the w riter’s m ain concern is to foster a sense o f reciprocity an d in
his paraenesis to place the two groups as nearly as possible on the sam e footing.
“Do the sam e” does not re fer specifically to doing good in v 8, b u t ra th e r to
having a corresp o n ding attitu d e to th at req u ired o f the slaves, nam ely, m aking
th eir service o f the one heavenly M aster determ inative fo r th eir actions. B oth
m asters an d slaves have the sam e L ord, and, therefore, both have the sam e
stan d ard o f conduct in th eir relationship to each other. W hereas Seneca (Ep.
47; see u n d e r Form/ Structure/ Setting for this quotation) h ad rem in d ed m asters
th at they were u n d e r the sam e pow er, C hance, an d w ere th erefo re fellow
slaves, this w riter rem inds C hristian m asters th at they are u n d e r the sam e
L ord, Christ, as th eir slaves, an d are, therefore, his fellow slaves. If m asters
realize this, it will m ean that, although they have pow er, they will no t abuse
it by heavy-h an d e d threats o f punishm ent, treatin g th eir slaves as pro p erty
on w hom they can arbitrarily w ork out th eir frustrations (Seneca’s com m ents
on the im portance o f m asters’ controlling th eir an g e r illustrate the vulnerability
o f slaves to th eir m asters’ m oods; cf. De Ira 3.24.2; 3.32.1, an d W iedem ann,
Greek and Roman Slavery, 179– 80). A ngry th rea ten in g w ould simply hum iliate
slaves an d w ould at best produce “eyeservice.” It would n o t encourage obedience
from th e h ea rt o r serving with enthusiasm . T h e m utual relationship o f m aster
an d slave before th eir L ord (cf. 5:21) is stressed twice m ore, an d each tim e
the insistence on this is m uch m ore explicit th an the equivalent paraenesis in
Colossians. First, the w riter rem inds m asters th at “both th eir an d your M aster
is in heaven,” w hereas Col 4:1 simply has “you also have a M aster in heaven.”
T h e n he adds “an d th ere is no partiality with him .” T his th o u g h t has now
been em ployed in connection with both groups in E phesians (cf. the equivalent
“w h eth er slave o r free” in v 8) in contrast to Colossians, w here it is only used
in reg ard to slaves. M itton (217) notes the ap p ro p riaten ess o f the em phasis
on im partiality being used in the address to m asters ra th e r th an to slaves,
since the h ig h er u p in social status people feel them selves to be, the m ore
likely they are to expect to be accorded special consideration.
T h e n o u n TrpoocjOTroXrip^ia, “partiality” (cf. Col 3:25; Rom 2:11), com es from
424 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 5 – 9

th e H ebraistic verbal expression npooGMOv \a n ß aveiv, “to show partiality, to

ju d g e purely at face value o r on the basis o f external factors” (cf. Lev 19:15;
D eut 10:17; Sir 4 :2 2 , 27; 1 Esd 4:39; Luke 20:21; Gal 2:6; Barn. 19.4; Did.
4.3). In the O T an d Jew ish writings, im partiality in ju d g m e n t is attrib u ted to
G od (cf. esp. Sir 35:11– 13; Jub. 5.15– 19; Pss. Sol. 2.18; cf. also R om 2:11;
1 Pet 1:17), b u t h ere an d in Colossians this is tran sferre d to C hrist as Lord. In
Rom 2:11, th e notion o f th ere being no partiality with G od is associated explicitly
with th e last ju d g m en t. T his association m ay be im plicit here, b u t the assertion
o f C hrist’s im partiality functions m ore to m ake m asters conscious o f th eir p resen t
accountability, which they share equally with th eir slaves, to th eir heavenly
L ord (pace Schü sser Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 268, it cannot be stated in an
unqualified fashion th at “while the a u th o r insists on the m utuality, unity an d
equality o f uncircum cised an d circum cised here an d now, he m aintains such
equality fo r slaves an d freeb o rn only for the eschatological fu tu re ”). In Divine
Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982,
esp. 178–83), J. M. Bassler analyzes the way in which Paul ad a p te d th e tradition
ab out G od’s im partiality an d m ade it the theological axiom beh in d his advocacy
o f th e equality o f Jew an d Gentile in the church. She also notes correctly th at
the apostle’s vision o f im partiality was reapplied in the household code in a
way th at was n ot foreign to his own statem ent in Gal 3:28: “I f social conditions
did n o t p erm it o r encourage at th at tim e a full em ancipation m ovem ent to
realize in history th e program m atic ‘n eith er slave n o r free,’ yet it is clear th at
th ere was w ithin the C hristian com m unities a m ovem ent, ap p aren tly ra th e r
w idespread, to relax the distinction betw een m aster an d slave an d to am eliorate
the conditions o f servitude” (ibid., 183). T his attitu d e reflected in the codes
could also appeal to the divine im partiality which now has C hrist as its agent.
In E ph 6:9, the assertion o f C hrist’s im partiality is p a rt o f the w arran t th at
gro u n d s the exh o rtation to m asters, rem in d in g them th at th eir h ig h er social
status gives th em no advantage in C hrist’s eyes an d th at they are to trea t
th eir slaves in this light as fellow servants o f th e heavenly M aster (cf. also
Gnilka, 302; Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 178).

Explanation

W hat is tru e o f the household code as a whole, nam ely th at its injunctions
are to be seen as illustrating the wise living an d m utual subm ission o f those
who are filled with the Spirit (cf. 5:15, 21), needs to be kept in m ind in consider-
ing its th ird an d final part, th e exhortations to slaves an d m asters. F or this
section, th e w riter again adapts the equivalent p a rt o f th e Colossians code
(3:22– 4:1). H e adds some expressions fam iliar from the u n d isp u ted Pauline
letters, an d in the process he develops his own distinctive advice.
As in the previous two pairings, the subordinate g ro u p is addressed first.
In a fashion u n p reced en ted in the traditional discussions o f household m anage-
m ent, slaves are appealed to directly. T hey are treated as ethically responsible
persons who are as fully m em bers o f the C hristian com m unity as th eir m asters.
In line with the expectations o f the traditional household code, they are ex horted
in v 5 to obey th eir m asters an d to carry o u t th eir obedience both with deep
respect for the m asters an d with a com m itm ent characterized by integrity an d
 Explanation 425

singleness o f purpose. T h e C hristian perspective o f this paraenesis em erges

clearly th ro u g h the rem in d er th at th eir m asters are earthly (in com parison
with the M aster in heaven, v 9) an d th ro u g h the appeal to carry o u t the
obedience as obedience to Christ. T h e w riter elaborates fu rth e r on the call to
obedience with integrity in v 6 by pointing out, on the negative side, th a t this
should n o t involve a superficial w orking aim ed only at attracting the attention
o f m asters an d gaining th eir favor and, on th e positive side, th at it will instead
m ean p erfo rm in g th eir duties in the light o f th eir ultim ate allegiance to C hrist,
as they see them selves as C hrist’s slaves who are o u t to please him by doing
G od’s will w holeheartedly and unreservedly. T h e sam e basic points are u n d e r-
scored in v 7, as slaves are exhorted to serve enthusiastically an d in a way
th at shows they are ultim ately serving n o t h u m an m asters b u t the one L ord
o r M aster. Finally, in v 8 these appeals are g ro u n d e d in the re m in d e r th at
slaves will be recom pensed for the good th at they do, n o t by earthly m asters
offering praise, m aterial benefits, o r even m anum ission b u t by the M aster rew ard-
ing th eir good service at the final ju d g m en t. T h e enco u rag em en t to w hole-
h earted service, which this th o u g h t offers, applies, however, n o t only to slaves
b u t also to freedpersons and m asters. In the light o f the fu tu re ju d g m e n t
an d its rew ards, both slave an d free stand on equal footing.
T his notion also provides a neat transition to the appeal to m asters which
follows m ore briefly in v 9. T h e re is a striking note o f reciprocity in the call
to m asters to do the sam e to slaves as slaves are to do to them . In o th er
words, th eir attitudes and actions, like those o f the slaves, are to be determ in ed
by th eir relationship to the heavenly L ord they have in com m on. A specific
consequence o f this will be the aban d o n in g o f any attem pts to m anipulate,
dem ean, o r scare th eir slaves by threats. T h e w arran t on which these appeals
to m asters are g ro u n d ed is twofold. First, they are re m in d ed th at th e one
who is both th e slaves’ M aster an d th eir own M aster is in heaven, so th at as
fellow slaves both groups are equally accountable to him . Second, they are to
rem em b er th at this heavenly M aster is im partial, so th at in his eyes th eir hig h er
social status gives them no advantage an d they should expect to receive no
special consideration in com parison with th eir slaves.
As regards actual practice in the household, the w riter’s advice rem ains
general. Slaves are enjoined to obey th eir m asters an d to serve with the p ro p e r
attitudes o f fear, integrity, w holeheartedness, an d enthusiasm . Because o f the
vagueness o f the im perative, “do the sam e to th em ,” w hat is asked o f m asters
is a m ixture o f the even m ore general trea tm e n t o f slaves with a corresponding
C hristian attitude, an d the very specific ab an d o n m en t o f threats. In itself an d
ap a rt from the very significant fact th at slaves are appealed to directly, w hat
is called for h ere does not differ substantially from the practice expected in
o th er appeals in the ancient world for m oderation in the m aster-slave relation-
ship. Again, it is, o f course, the m otivations for such behavior which give the
paraenesis its distinctiveness an d which alter the whole dynam ic o f the relation-
ship. A Christological m otivation is pervasive, an d the phrases o r clauses which
express this are “as you w ould obey C hrist” (v 5), “as slaves o f C hrist” (v 6),
“as you would th e L o rd ” (v 7), “by the L o rd ” (v 8), “both th eir an d your
M aster” (v 9), an d “no partiality with h im ” (v 9). T his Christological em phasis
brings to the fore the question o f o n e ’s ultim ate allegiance. For both slaves
426 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 5 – 9

an d m asters, this allegiance is to C hrist as the tru e L ord o r M aster. R elating

to th e o th er party becom es an o p p o rtu n ity for serving him . Slaves need to be
conscious o f b oth his p resen t lordship an d his lordship at th e fu tu re ju d g m e n t,
w hen h e will rew ard the good th at they do. C oncentration on this ultim ate
allegiance also produces a m otivation th a t is d eterm in ed by in n e r com m itm ent
ra th e r th an by external factors, obedience th at is rooted in the h eart, an d
devotion to G od’s will th at is “from the soul” ra th e r th a n service th a t is o u t
to catch the eye o f m asters an d please th em at any cost. M asters too should
b ear this fu tu re lordship in m ind; it is relevant to slave an d free. T h ey should
also be conscious th at at p re sen t they have an im partial heavenly M aster.
As in the equivalent Colossians passage, h ere too the focus on C hrist as
L ord relativizes the social distinction betw een slaves an d m asters. T his is m ade
explicit by th e contrast which fram es th e passage betw een h u m an o r earthly
m asters (v 5) an d the M aster in heaven (v 9). T h e fact th at th e sam e w ord
Kbpios is used for the m aster as fo r C hrist as L ord m eans th a t th ere is a play
o n words in the b ackground w hen th e L ord, i.e., the tru e M aster, is m en tio n ed
in vv 7, 8. Asking slaves to see them selves as slaves o f C hrist (v 6), a designation
which Paul h ad used o f him self, produces a sim ilar relativizing effect an d
intensifies this em phasis which h ad already been p re sen t in Colossians. E p h e -
sians also intensifies the note o f reciprocity. Focusing on C hrist as L ord o r
M aster puts slaves an d m asters on equal footing in relation to him , an d the
w riter reflects this as he links the two g roups in a variety o f form ulations. H e
points o u t th at the notion o f rew ard fo r good holds fo r both slave a n d free,
adds “a n d ” in th e address to m asters, m akes his m ain im perative to m asters
“do the sam e to th em ”, tells them in re g ard to th eir slaves th a t “both th eir
an d y our M aster is in heaven,” an d un d erlin es th a t this M aster m akes no
partial ju d g m en ts on the basis o f social distinctions.
T his p a rt o f th e household code indicates th at n o t only m arriage a n d family
life b u t also o th e r household relationships an d the sphere o f w ork com e w ithin
the scope o f C hrist’s lordship an d are thereby related to G od’s good will. T his
perspective was m eant to give C hristian slaves in th eir w ork, as well as C hristian
m asters in th eir m anagem ent o f the household, the o p p o rtu n ity o f tu rn in g
th eir duties into acts o f faith a n d w orship by doing th em for th e tru e M aster.
It could pro d u ce also for slaves a sense o f in n e r freedom in th e m idst o f
th eir particu lar social circum stances. B ut unlike th e in n e r freedom advocated
by m any Stoics, w hich was aim ed at liberating people from all ties an d p ro d u cin g
an indifference to social conditions, this freedom paradoxically com es from
an enslavem ent to C hrist, which enables slaves to give full w eight to external
ties an d in d eed to throw them selves w holeheartedly an d enthusiastically into
h o n o rin g th eir relationship with th eir m asters.
W hat strikes m ost m o d ern readers ab o u t this p a rt o f the code is its reinforce-
m en t o f th e subordination o f slaves w ithin the household. B ut p erh ap s m ost
striking to co n tem porary readers in a setting w here th e re was no questioning
o f such social structures was th e w riter’s address to slaves as full m em bers o f
th e C hristian com m unity who are seen as equally responsible with th e ir m asters
to th eir com m on L ord. N ot ju s t while engaged in cultic rituals, b u t in everyday
life in society, b o th groups are to live o u t this responsibility, in differen t social
roles to be sure, b u t fundam entally as fellow slaves o f the sam e heavenly M aster.
 Explanation 427

T h e m u tu al su b ordination called for earlier in 5:21 is effectively reinforced

in such paraenesis. In this way, this p art o f the code, like th e two preceding
sections, both accom m odates to an d m odifies the G reco-R om an patriarchal
household. T h e household relationships o f those who lived o u t its specific
instructions m ight not differ very m uch externally from those in n o n-C hristian
households ru n by the m ore h u m an e m asters, b u t again the ethos o f the C hris-
tian households w ould be likely to be quite different. It is the ethos o f “love-
patriarchalism ,, which allows social differences to stand b u t transform s the
relationships w ithin them according to the new life in C hrist. T h e w riter o f
E phesians has in view C hristian households, w here those who m odel being a
good servant th ro u g h enthusiastic service an d being a good m aster th ro u g h
the n o n th rea ten in g exercise o f authority do this because they also trea t each
o th er as bro th ers an d sisters in C hrist, as fully accountable fellow servants o f
the sam e Lord.
T h e “love-patriarchalism ” o f this passage, which recognizes yet transcends
the existing social structures, continues the perspective th at Paul him self h ad
b ro u g h t to b ear on the topic o f slavery. T h e d isproportionate am o u n t o f advice
offered to slaves in com parison with th at offered to m asters in this code, as
in Colossians, m ay well reflect the point o f view o f som eone who is socially
m ore aligned with the m asters th an with the slaves. B ut the w riter’s d eterm in ed
effort to em phasize the reciprocity o f the relationship m akes it h ard to believe
th at he would sanction any exclusion o f slaves from positions o f responsibility
in the church, including pastors an d teachers (cf. 4:11). N evertheless, this
may have been one o f the unforeseen later consequences o f the household
groupings being taken over into the paraenesis fo r th e C hristian com m unity.
By th e tim e o f the Pastoral Epistles, in which the view o f the C h u rch an d the
m odel o f the household have becom e m ore fully identified, the perspectives
o f the ch urch leaders an d m asters o f households have also becom e closely
identified. C onsequently, the note o f reciprocity is absent, as it is only slaves
an d n o t m asters who are ex horted about th eir duties.
In the exhortations to slaves an d m asters, the m ore relevant the w riter’s
specific instructions are to his re ad ers’ first-century social setting, the less rele-
vant they are to th at o f contem porary C hristian readers. Such readers need
to avoid two d ifferent tendencies. T h e first is to try to rescue the passage for
today by ig noring the distance betw een the situation o f m asters an d slaves in
the G reco-R om an w orld an d em ployers a n d em ployees, m an ag em en t an d labor,
in m ore dem ocratic societies o f the p resen t day. T h e second is to dismiss the
passage o u t o f h an d on the basis o f th e totally unrealistic expectation th at
the early C hristians should have overthrow n th e existing structures o f th eir
society by attem p tin g to abolish the whole system o f slavery. B ut once these
tendencies are set aside, the general th ru st o f th e w riter’s arg u m e n t rem ains
to be ap p ro p riated . Like Paul, this w riter still argues from elem ents at the
cen ter o f his gospel, h ere particularly the lordship o f C hrist, an d applies them
in a way th at n eith er im m ediately dem olishes n o r baptizes as C hristian the
social structures o f his tim e b u t ra th e r transform s them from within. T h e
E phesians household code, an d particularly this p a rt o f it, serves as a re m in d e r
th at C hristians will always need to b rin g to b ear the lordship o f C hrist on
th eir everyday life in its social an d econom ic concreteness, even th o u g h specific
428 E p h e s ia n s 6 : 5 – 9

expressions o f this will becom e obsolete as social conditions change a n d new

form s o f obedience need to be found. R ecognizing th at C hrist’s lordship m olds
a com m unity in which all believers, regardless o f social status, are fully m em bers
an d equally responsible to him will m ean th a t C hristians will, how ever, always
be p a rt o f a m ovem ent away from ow ner-slave econom ies, w hatever form
they take, tow ard free an d equal h u m a n com m unity. As p a rt o f this m ovem ent,
they will also attem p t to m ake th eir em ploym ent an d the social structures in
which they find them selves op p o rtu n ities for serving th eir L ord a n d to play
th eir role in en su rin g th at the relationships w ithin th eir churches em body
th eir L o rd ’s ultim ate disregard fo r any distinctions based on social status.
Concluding Appeal to Stand Firm in the Battle
Against Spiritual Powers (6:10–20)
Bibliography

Adai, J. Der Heilige Geist, 134–46; 231–43; 260–72. Arnold, C. E. Ephesians: Power and
Magic, 103–2 2 .———. “The ‘Exorcism’ of Ephesians 6:12 in Recent Research.” JS N T
30 (1987) 71–87. Carr, W. Angels and Principalities. Cambridge: CUP, 1981, 93– 111.
Fischer, K.-M. Tendenz und Absicht, 165– 72. Harnack, A. Militia Christi. Tr. D. Gracie.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981, 27–64. Jones, P. R. “La Prière par l’Esprit. Ephesians
6:18.” RevRef 27 (1976) 128– 39. Kamlah, E. Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen
Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 1964, 189–96. Lash, C. J. A. “Where Do Devils Live? A
Problem in the Textual Criticism of Ephesians 6.12.” VigChr 30 (1976) 160–74. Lincoln,
A. T. Paradise Now and Not Yet, 164–6 6 .———. “A Re-Examination of ‘the Heavenlies’
in Ephesians.” N TS 19 (1972– 73) 468–8 3 .———. “The Use of the OT in Ephesians.”
JSN T 14 (1982) 42–43. Lindemann, A. Die Aufhebung der Zeit, 63–66, 235–36. Lövestam,
E. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1963, 64–77. O’Brien,
P. T. “Principalities and Powers: Opponents of the Church.” In Biblical Interpretation and
the Church, ed. D. A. Carson. Exeter: Paternoster, 1984, 110–50. Oepke, A. “ottXo^
ktX.” TDNT 5 (1967) 292–315. Pfitzner, V. Paul and the Agon Motif. Leiden: Brill, 1967,
157–64. Pierrou, J. “Être armés pour le combat chrétien (Eph 6, 10– 17).” AsSeign 76
(1964) 14–28. Whiteley, D. E. H. “Expository Problems: Eph 6:12: Evil Powers.” Exp Tim
68 (1957) 100– 103. Wild, R. A. “ The Warrior and the Prisoner: Some Reflections on
Ephesians 6:10– 20.” CBQ 46 (1984) 284–98. Wink, W. Naming the Powers. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984, 84–89.

Translation

10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty strength. 11Put on the fu ll
armor of God in order that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the
devil: 12for oura battle is not against flesh and blood,b but against the principalities,
against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual
forces of evil in the heavenly realms. c 13Therefore take up God’s fu ll armor, so that
you may be able to withstand on the evil day, and having accomplished everything,
to stand. 14Stand therefore, having fastened the belt of truth around your waist, d
and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and having fitted your feet
with the readiness of the gospel of peace; 16besides all these having taken up the
shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the burning arrows of
the evil one. 17And receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God, 18through every prayer and petition, praying at all times
in the Spirit, and to this end keeping alert in all perseverance and petition for all
the saints, 19and for me, that when I open my mouth the word may be given to me,
to make known boldly and openlye the mystery of the gospel, f 20for which I am an
ambassador in chains, that I may talk of it boldly and openly as I ought to speak.

Notes
aThere is weak evidence (copsa Origenlat) for the omission of the personal pronoun, but strong
external evidence (p 46 B D* GΨ 81 several Old Latin mss syrp, pal goth eth Ambrosiaster Lucifer
430 E p h e s ia n s 6:10– 20

Ephraem Priscillian) for vplv r\ näkrj, “your battle.” There is also good evidence (N A D c I K P
0230 33 88 104 181 several Old Latin mss vg syrh copbo arm Clement Tertullian Origen gr,lat
Cyprian Methodius Eusebius) for r \p w t) n a k r j, “our battle.” Since the rest o f the paraenesis in
this section is in the second person plural, this last reading could be judged the more difficult,
and for the same reason it is more likely that scribes would have altered ripHv, “our,” to vpiv,
“your,” than vice versa.
bThe Greek text has this phrase in the reverse order—“blood and flesh.”
cLash (VigChr 30 [1976] 161– 74) draws attention to an early Syrian alternative tradition (though
this had already been noted at the turn o f the century by J. A. Robinson, 214). The tradition
reflects a Greek reading ev rot? UTroupavtot?, “in the realms under the heavens,” which would fit
the idea of 2:2 but is clearly a scribal emendation designed to explain the difficult notion o f evil
powers in the heavens. A similar motive accounts for the omission o f the phrase ev rdis c7rou/xtwot?,
“in the heavenly realms,” in p 4 6 .
dA literal translation would be “having belted your waist with truth.”
eThe Greek text reads ev Trappnoiq, and this has been translated by two adverbs to give the
connotations of the Greek term. The same has been done for the cognate verb in v 20. See
Comment on v 19.
fIt could be argued that the reading which omits rod evayyeXiov, “of the gospel” (B G it g’mon
Tertullian Ambrosiastercomm Victorinus-Rome Ephraem) is more likely to be original and that
these words are a scribal gloss. However, the evidence for their inclusion is strong and widespread
( N A D I K P Ψ3 3 8 1 88 104 181 various Old Latin mss vg syrp,h copsa,bo goth arm Ambrosiastertxt
Chrysostom Jerome), and as Metzger (Textual Commentary, 610) also points out, there are no
other variant readings, such as tov Xpujrov, “o f Christ,” or rov deov, “o f God,” as in Col 2:2, which
might have been expected if the longer reading were a copyist’s addition. It is, therefore, quite
likely that in this case the longer reading is original and that the omission was made in the light
of Eph 3:3, 9, where “mystery” can stand by itself because the surrounding context explains its
content.

Form / Structure / Setting

From 5:15, the appeal to the readers to conduct them selves in th e w orld
in a way th at is w orthy o f th eir calling has been in term s o f living wisely in
th eir household relationships. Now in conclusion, th e appeal is for believers
to preserve an d ap p ro p riate all th at has been d one for th eir salvation an d
th eir conduct by God in C hrist, an d to do so in the face o f evil, seen from
the perspective o f its ultim ate tran scen d en t source. T his is not, o f course, the
language the w riter him self uses. Instead, he pictures this ap p ro p riate C hristian
living in term s o f a battle against cosmic spiritual pow ers in which believers
m ust p u t on th e a rm o r which G od supplies in o rd e r to w ithstand an d prevail.
T h e pericope o f 6:10– 20 falls into th ree subsections: (i) vv 10 – 13 which
stress th e necessity o f p u ttin g on G od’s full arm o r in o rd e r to be strong an d
to stand in th e battle against the spiritual powers; (ii) vv 14– 17 which detail
th e pieces o f th e arm o r th at m ust be p u t on; (iii) vv 18– 20 which em phasize
in addition the need for constant p ray er an d w atchfulness, the p ray er including
intercession for all believers b u t especially fo r the im prisoned apostle’s bold
proclam ation o f th e mystery.
As regards content, vv 10– 17 o f this passage, with th eir trea tm e n t o f the
eq u ip p in g o f believers for battle, seem to form a u n it in them selves, while vv
18– 20, which take over m aterial from Colossians, m ove on to the d ifferent
topic o f prayer. B ut as regards syntax, vv 18– 20 are clearly jo in e d to w hat
has p receded th ro u g h the two participial clauses o f v 18. T his m akes clear
th a t th e them es o f spiritual w arfare an d w atching a n d praying are in fact
closely connected. T h e re is a fu rth e r conceptual link betw een the two units
 Form / Structure / Setting 431

th ro u g h the notion o f the Spirit, which form s a bridge betw een v 17 an d

v 18.
T h e transition to the concluding p a rt o f the paraenesis is m ade th ro u g h
rod Xoi7rou, “finally,” which introduces the first im perative evSvvanowOe, “be
stro ng ,” which is th en followed by a com bination o f two prepositional phrases
indicating the source o f the strength, ev Kvpicp, “in the L o rd ,” and, in the by
now fam iliar style o f synonym s linked in a genitival construction, ev rep Kparei
rfft ioxvos airrov, “in his m ighty pow er.” How the first im perative is to be carried
o u t is explained in v 11 by a second im perative, evbvoaaOe rr\v navoirXiav rod
deov, “p u t on the full a rm o r o f G od.” T h e pu rp o se o f d o n n in g the arm o r is
delineated by m eans o f an accusative an d infinitive construction introduced
by 7Tpos, “in o rd e r th at you may be able to stand against the schem es o f the
devil.” T h e reason for p u ttin g on the a rm o r is fu rth e r u n d erlin e d by the on
clause o f v 12, which m akes clear th at the battle in which believers are engaged
is not one against h u m an foes b u t one against spiritual cosmic powers. Verse
12 does n ot function as the central elem ent in 6:10– 20, as Wild (CBQ 46
[1984] 285– 86) claims. R ather, it has a supportive role, explaining the ex h o rta-
tion to p u t on the full arm o r o f God in o rd e r to stand (cf. also A rnold, Ephesians,
105, 202 n. 8). T h e paraenesis progresses in a circular fashion. T h e im perative
to p u t on G od’s arm o r has been justified in vv 11b, 12, an d now th at justification
serves as the gro u n ds {biarovro, “th ere fo re ,” v 13) on which the earlier im perative
is rep eated in a d ifferent form , ävaXäßere rrjv navoirXiav tov deov, “take u p the
full arm o r o f G od.” Again, the pu rp o se o f this is th a t the readers may be
able to stand, b u t the second tim e a ro u n d this th o u g h t is expressed by m eans
o f a iva clause an d in a m ore em phatic fashion with both avnarfivai, “to w ith-
stan d ,” an d orftvai, “to stand.”
T h e w riter builds on the rep eated call to p u t on G od’s arm o r in o rd e r to
stand (cf. ovv, “th erefo re,” in v 14) an d m oves on to describe various pieces
o f this arm or. So far, the idea o f standing has figured as p a rt o f pu rp o se
clauses, b u t now it is expressed as an im perative, orffre, “stand,” which represents
the m ain th ru st o f the pericope’s exhortation. It is followed in vv 14 – 16 by
fo u r clauses with aorist participles. T hese state the actions believers n eed to
have taken if they are to stand, b u t because o f the context, they could also be
taken as participles with im peratival force. T h e first th ree clauses are linked
by Kai, “an d ,” an d the fo u rth is introduced by ev naoiv, “besides all these.”
T hey talk o f “having fastened the belt o f tru th aro u n d your waist,” “having
p u t on the breastplate o f righteousness,” “having fitted your feet with the
readiness o f the gospel o f peace,” an d “having taken u p the shield o f faith .”
In reg ard to the last, a relative clause explains th at this shield enables believers
to extinguish the b u rn in g arrows o f the evil one. Still in connection with the
pieces o f arm o r, a new im perative, parallel to the preceding participles an d
linked by a Kai, “a n d ,” is introduced in v 17, be^aode, “receive.” T h e two fu rth e r
pieces o f arm o r to be received are the helm et o f salvation an d the sword o f
the Spirit, which is identified as the w ord o f God. Following directly in v 18,
b u t m ore loosely connected with w hat im m ediately precedes (they may well
relate back to the m ain im perative or fire, “stan d ,” in v 14 ra th e r th an to be^aade,
“receive,” in v 17), are two clauses with p resen t participles su rro u n d e d by
prepositional phrases. T hese stress the need for continual praying in the Spirit
432 E p h e s ia n s 6:10– 20

an d fo r keeping alert with perseverance an d petition. T h e re is a question o f

w h eth er the first prepositional phrase in v 18 8ia 716(7779 irpooevxvs koli Ser^oeoj^,
“th ro u g h every p ray er an d petition,” should be associated syntactically m ore
closely with v 17 and, therefore, be seen eith er as the m eans o f receiving the
helm et o f salvation an d the sword o f the Spirit o r as the accom panying circum -
stances o f th eir reception. B ut given this w riter’s style, which has earlier com -
bined cognate n o u ns an d verbs (cf. 1:6 ,2 3 ; 3:19; 4:1) an d tends tow ard the
tautological, it is m ore likely th at this p hrase goes with the following participle
npooevxoixevoi, “p raying.” T h e prepositional phrase at the en d o f v 18 speaks
o f petition being m ade for all believers, an d v 19 adds th at it should also be
m ade for th e w riter. Tw o Iva clauses th en indicate the co n ten t o f such a prayer.
It is th at th e w riter may be given th e w ord to enable him to m ake know n th e
m ystery o f th e gospel boldly. T h e stress on boldness an d openness despite
his im p riso n m en t is u n d ersco red by th e p u rp o se clause at th e en d o f v 20,
“th at I m ay talk o f it boldly an d openly as I o u g h t to speak.”
6:10– 20 is b oth the concluding elem ent o f the paraenesis w hich h ad beg u n
in 4:1 an d the concluding section o f the m ain p a rt o f th e letter as a whole.
In term s o f a rhetorical analysis o f th e letter as a persuasive com m unication
th at w ould be read o u t loud to its recipients, this section functions as the
peroratio. In the peroratio (cf. Q uintilian 6.1.1) an a u th o r n o t only sought to
b rin g his address to an ap p ro p riate conclusion b u t also to do so in a way
which would arouse the audience’s em otions. A ccording to A ristotle (Rhet.
3.19) th e epilogos— his equivalent term — h ad fo u r parts: m aking the audience
well-disposed tow ard the speaker an d ill-disposed tow ard any opposition, m agni-
fying o r m inim izing leading facts, exciting the re q u ired kind o f em otion in
the hearers, an d refreshing th eir m em ories by m eans o f recapitulation. T h e re
is no p articu lar reason why all these factors should be fo u n d in this conclusion,
b u t they can provide a convenient point o f com parison, an d th e w riter does
a p p e a r to have fashioned his own version o f them .
T his is especially clear in the case o f the th ird factor, an ap p eal to the
re ad ers’ wills via th eir im aginations an d em otions. A ppeals to be strong, stand
firm , pray, an d be alert can be fo u n d in P aul’s w ritings (e.g., 1 T hess 5:6–8;
1 C or 15:58; 16:13; Rom 13:11– 14), b u t h ere they are m ore elaborate an d
intense. H o u ld en (Paul’s Letters, 337) has n oted th at th e w riter’s “w ords form
an inspiring exh o rtation . . . they help to p u t Ephesians into the category o f
liturgy o r o rato ry .” T h e passage is a rousing call to th e readers to sum m on
all th eir energies in firm resolve to live o u t the sort o f C hristian existence in
the world to which the whole letter has pointed. T h e battle im agery arouses
a sense o f urgency an d intensity. A t the sam e tim e, the passage does no t
provoke any feeling o f panic o r fear b u t conveys th e sense o f confidence an d
security th at th e readers can have in the m idst o f a b itter com bat. For those
fam iliar with th e Scriptures, the passage’s O T allusions w ould lend it both
ad d ed au thority an d effect.
In this peroratio, the readers are m ade ill-disposed no t tow ard any particular
h u m an opposition bu t tow ard the spiritual forces th at are at th e source o f all
opposition, tow ard the ultim ate enem y. T hey are m ade well disposed tow ard
the au th o r, as he takes on the identity o f th e apostle im prisoned fo r the cause
o f th e gospel which has changed th eir lives, an d who, th o u g h in chains, desires
 Form / Structure / Setting 433

to proclaim th at gospel boldly an d openly. T his p o rtra it o f Paul arouses both

sym pathy an d adm iration.
R ecapitulation takes place as various concerns, them es, an d term inology
from earlier in the letter are taken up. It is n o t so m uch th at assertions o r
exhortations are restated b u t th at they re cu r in a different form . T h e sam e
issues—believers’ identity, th eir relation to C hrist an d to th e resources o f pow er
in him an d in God, th eir need both to ap p ro p riate salvation from G od and
to live a righteous life in the world, the cosmic opposition to G od’s purposes
for h u m an well-being—ap p e a r again bu t now u n d e r new im agery (for m ore
detailed discussion see below on the setting o f the passage in th e letter). T h ro u g h
th eir recapitulation in this guise, these leading them es o f th e letter are m agnified.
T his particular peroratio takes the form o f a call to battle or, to be m ore
precise, a call both to be ready for battle an d to stand firm in the battle th at
is already in progress. As such, it also, not surprisingly, has features in com m on
with speeches o f generals before battle, u rg in g th eir arm ies to deeds o f valor
in face o f the im p ending dangers o f war. T hese h o rtato ry speeches, called
napaiveois, “paraenesis,” o r irporpeiTTiKbs X0 7 0 ?, “advisory w ord o r speech,” can
be fo u n d frequently in G reek literature, an d w ere considered p a rt o f the epideic-
tic g enre o f rhetoric (cf. esp. T . C. Burgess, “Epideictic L itera tu re,” Studies in
Classical Philology 3 [1902] 209– 14, 231– 33). R epresentative o f the range o f
these m ilitary speeches are those o f Phorm io in T hucydides 2.89, C yrus in
X enophon, Cyrop. 1.4, H annibal an d Scipio in Polybius 3.63, Postum ius in
Dionysius o f H alicarnassus 6 .6 , Nicius in D iodorus Siculus 18.15, A lexander
in A rrian, De Ex. Alex. 2.83, C aesar in Dio Cassius 38.36– 46, A ntony an d
A ugustus Caesar in Dio Cassius 50 . 16– 30, an d Severus in H ero d ian u s 3.6
(cf. Burgess, “Epideictic L iteratu re,” 212– 13). A m ong the topics dwelt on in
these speeches are the soldiers’ heritage, including th eir glorious achievem ents
in the past, an exh ortation not to disgrace this heritage by suffering defeat, a
com parison with enem y forces with a re m in d e r th at it is ultim ately valor and
n ot n um bers th at will prevail, a detailing o f the prizes th a t await the victors,
a pointing to favorable auspices an d to the gods as allies, an appeal to patriotism ,
a rem in d er th at this enem y has been conquered before, a depicting o f the
wrongs inflicted by the enem y, an d praise o f the co m m ander as su p erio r to
the leaders o f the opposing forces. Such speeches in the various histories were
well known as places w here writers indulged th eir rhetorical powers, som etim es
to excess. Plutarch (Praec. Ger. Reip. 6.7.803B) rem arks o f som e o f them , “b u t
as for the rhetorical orations an d periods o f E phorus, T h eo p o m p u s, an d A naxi-
m enes, which they m ade after they had arm ed an d a rran g e d th eir arm ies,
one may say: ‘N one talk so foolishly so n e a r the sw ord.’ ”
Seen in this light, the w riter’s com bination an d adap tatio n o f O T traditions
(see below) takes as its overall shape w hat also tu rn s o u t to be an ad aptation
o f a well-know n hortatory form . H e has thereby created an extrem ely effective
peroratio. It too dwells on the need for valor with its exhortations to be strong,
p re p are d an d alert, an d to stand firm. It points o u t the dangers an d strengths
o f the enem y. It braces its soldiers for a successful outcom e o f the battle by
rem in d in g them o f the superior strength, resources, an d eq u ip m en t they pos-
sess. It m akes clear no t only th at they have G od on th eir side b u t also th a t he
has p u t his own full arm o r at th eir disposal. It gives th em a m odel for triu m p h
434 E p h e s ia n s 6:10–20

in an em battled situation by bringing to th eir consciousness th e boldness an d

freedom o f proclam ation o f the im prisoned apostle. T his battle speech has
rhetorical force b u t is restrained ra th e r th a n overindulgent. A m ong its rhetorical
features are: th e com bination o f synonym s in a genitive construction for em p h a -
sis (v 1 0 ); rep etitio n o f the verb “to stan d ” (vv 1 1 , 13, 14), including the effective
sequence o f vv 13b, 14, “so th at you m ay be able to w ithstand on th e evil
day, an d having accom plished everything, to stand. S tand th ere fo re . .
rep etitio n o f r\ navoir)la rod Oeov, “the full arm o r o f G od” (vv 11, 13), an d o f
th e verb Svvaodai, “to be able to ” (vv 11, 13, 16); th e build-u p in the depiction
o f th e enem y forces with its rep etitio n o f npos, “against” (vv l i b , 1 2 ); the
pow erful cum ulative effect o f the m etap h o rs linking th e individual pieces o f
a rm o r with gifts o f salvation o r C hristian virtues (vv 14– 17); th e plero p h o ry
th ro u g h the fourfold use o f tta?, “all” (v 18); th e alliteration o f w ords b eginning
with 7T– (v 18), to which both the plero p h o ry a n d com bination o f cognate
n o u n an d verb contribute; an d th e pathos a n d en c o u rag em en t o f th e vision
o f the triu m p h a n t m inistry o f the im prisoned apostle (vv 19, 20).
T h e em ploym ent o f ex ten d ed battle im agery in an appeal to his read ers to
stand firm is th e distinctive contribution o f the w riter o f E phesians. It stands
o u t as u n iq u e in com parison with his m odel in Colossians, alth o u g h th e o p en in g
ex h o rtatio n o f 6:10, evSvvapovade . . . ev rep Kpärei rrjs ioxvos airrov, “be strong
in th e stren g th o f his m ight,” has som e sim ilarities with Col 1:11, ev näoxi
dvvapei bvvapovpevoi Kara ro Kparos rijs 60^775 airrov, “being stren g th en e d with
all pow er according to the stren g th o f his glory.” His instructions to th e m em bers
o f th e household h ad been based on Col 3:22– 4:1, b u t w hereas Colossians
im m ediately m oves on to a call to p ray er in general, a n d pray er for th e apostle
an d his co-w orkers in particular in 4 :2–4, E phesians only takes u p a sim ilar
call at th e en d o f this passage in vv 18–20. A t this point, th ere are again
striking similarities with, as well as som e divergences from , the Colossians
original. B oth use the n o u n an d the verbal form for p ray er in close ju x ta p o si-
tion— rfj npooevxfl. . . irpooevxbpevot, “in p ray er . . . praying” (Col 4:2, 3), an d
5td 7rda 775 npooevxfis . . . irpooevxbpevoi, “th ro u g h every p ray er . . . pray in g ”
(E ph 6:18). B ut w hereas Colossians links this with th e notion o f thanksgiving
which h ad preced ed its household code in 3:16, 17, E phesians associates it
with th e Spirit, who has been m entioned in the preceding verse at the e n d o f
the elaboration on the believer’s arm or. E phesians also adds in 6:18 th a t p ray er
is to be offered for all G od’s people, all the saints (cf. also 3:18). B oth passages
m ention perseverance an d vigilance together. In Col 4:2 this is do n e th ro u g h
an im perative followed by a participle: irpooKaprepelre ypryyopovvre^, “persevere,
being w atchful.” In E ph 6:18 the o rd e r o f the two concepts is reversed, the
synonym ous participle aypmvovvres, “keeping alert,” replaces ypriyopodvres,
“being w atchful,” an d the cognate n o u n replaces the im perative in th e case
o f perseverance: aypmvovvre*; ev naan npooKapreprpet, “keeping alert in all p e r-
severance.” W hen it com es to the appeal to pray for the apostle, Colossians
includes P aul’s co-w orkers (cf. ripcbv . . . r\pw, v 3) in addition to Paul him self.
In E phesians, th e focus is exclusively on the apostle. B ut the co n ten t o f w hat
is to be req uested for them is virtually the sam e in each letter, alth o u g h the
expression varies. From Col 4:3 “th at G od m ay o p en to us a d o o r fo r the
w ord,” th e term s for “o p en in g ” an d “the w ord” are taken over, b u t the whole
 Form / Structure / Setting 435

now becom es “th at w hen I op en my m o u th the w ord m ay be given to m e”

(Eph 6:19). In b oth cases, w hat is to be prayed fo r is the declaration o f the
m ystery, the m ystery for the sake o f which Paul is im prisoned. In Col 4:3, 4
th e fo rm er notion is expressed as XaXfjaai to pvorripiov tov Xptarov . . . Iva
(jxLvepdoooi amo, “to speak the m ystery o f C hrist . . . th at I m ay m ake it clear,”
while E p h 6 :1 9 ,2 0 varies the verbs, m akes the m ystery the m ystery o f the
gospel, an d adds the distinctive note o f boldness o r openness— ev TrapprjoiqL
yvcopioai to pvoTT]piov tov evayyeXiov . . . Iva ev avrcp napprioiäocopai, “to m ake
know n boldly th e m ystery o f the gospel . . . th at I may talk o f it boldly.”
E ph 6:20 repeats verbatim from Col 4:4 the notion th at this is how the apostle
believes he o u g h t to speak—co? Set pe XaXf\pai, “as I o u g h t to speak.” P aul’s
im p risonm ent for the sake o f the m ystery is expressed in Col 4:3 by St’ ö Kai
SeSe/uat, “on account o f which I am b o u n d ,” an d in E ph 6:20 by m ep ov npeoßevco
ev dXwxei, “for which I am an am bassador in chains.”
For his discussion o f the C hristian w arfare, w here he has m oved away from
Colossians, the w riter is d ep e n d en t for th e idea o f associating pieces o f arm o r
with aspects o f C hristian existence prim arily on inspiration from Paul, and
he elaborates o n this with allusions to the a rm o r o f G od an d his M essiah in
O T passages from Isaiah. T h e re is, o f course, m ore general background in
ancient m ythologies an d religions (particularly B abylonian an d Iranian) for
the concepts o f th e rep resen tatio n o f th e gods as w arriors an d o f wise o r
righteous people participating in battles as soldiers o f the gods (cf. D ibelius-
G reeven, 96–97; O epke, T D N T 5 [1967] 296–98; K am lah, Form, 85–92, 102),
b u t any influence from such sources on this w riter has already been m ediated
by th e O T an d Hellenistic Judaism . Eschatological strands in the literatu re o f
Second-T em p le Ju d aism depicted an en d-tim e w ar with extrem e tribulation
for the faithful b u t ultim ate victory in G od’s h an d (cf., e.g., T. Sim. 5.5; T.
Dan 5.10, 11; 1 Enoch 55.3– 57.3; 4 Ezra 13:1– 13; 1QM; 1QH 3.24– 39; 6.28–
35), b u t again this notion would have been m ediated via Paul. P aul’s use o f
m ilitary im agery for the C hristian life can be fo u n d in 1 T hess 5:8; 2 C or
6:7; 10:3,4; Rom 6 :1 3 , 23; 13:12, an d the first an d last o f these references
are in the context o f an im m inent expectation o f the end. T h e appeal o f 1
C or 16:13, “Be w atchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be stro n g ,”
an d the b rief detailing o f the believer’s arm o r in 1 T hess 5:8, “p u t on the
breastplate o f faith an d love, an d for a helm et the h o p e o f salvation,” may
well have given this w riter the ideas for his exp an d ed an d m ore elaborate
appeal.
Some (e.g., O epke, T D N T 5 [1967] 301) claim th a t in his elaboration the
w riter is guided first an d forem ost by w hat he knows about the arm o r o f the
R om an legionary. Polybius 6.23.2 lists as belonging to this eq u ip m en t th e shield
(dvpeos), th e sword (päxcupa), the helm et (trepiKefaXaia), two spears o r javelins
(wool), greaves o r a rm o r fo r below the knees (:wpoKvqpis), an d the breastplate
(#cap8 io0 uXa£) or, for the m ore wealthy, the coat o f mail (dXixnScoro? 0copa£) (cf.
also D iodorus Siculus 20.84.3). E phesians in com parison opts for the term
0 cjpa£ fo r breastplate, om its greaves an d javelins, an d adds the m ilitary belt
an d sandals, bo th o f which were probably p a rt o f the general clothing o f the
soldier an d n o t peculiar to the heavily arm ed soldier, the öttXltti*;. C ertainly
th e term navoirXia, “full arm o r,” w ould have b ro u g h t to m ind for G entile readers
436 E p h e s ia n s 6:10– 20

in w estern Asia M inor the suit o f arm o r o f the R om an soldier. B ut th e w riter

is n o t concerned with an accurate o r detailed description o f such arm or. As
we have seen, h e om its som e key item s an d includes o th e r m ore general
eq u ip m en t, an d in this his ultim ate focus is on th e C hristian realities to which
he desires to point. For this pu rp o se he is aided m ore by his know ledge o f
O T im agery th an by his observation o f R om an soldiers (cf. also J. A. R obinson,
133).
As far as th e O T is concerned, traditions th at picture Y ahw eh as a w arrior
(e.g., Isa 42:13; H ab 3:8, 9; Ps 35:1– 3) an d his agents as in n eed o f his stren g th
o r pow er fo r th eir battles (e.g., Ps 18:1, 2, 32, 39 [LXX 17:1, tax*)?; 17:32, 39,
bwapu;]; 28:7; 59:11, 16, 17; 68:35; 89:21; 118:14; Isa 52:1) m ay well stand
in th e background, b u t it is the depictions o f the arm o r o f Y ahweh an d his
M essiah in Isa 11:4, 5 an d Isa 59:17 th at are in the fo reg ro u n d fo r th e w riter.
T h e fo rm er passage (according to th e LXX) declares o f the M essiah, “he shall
sm ite th e ea rth with the w ord [rep \ 0 7 cp] o f his m o u th , an d with th e b reath
[ev TTvevfiaTi] th ro u g h his lips he shall slay the ungodly. W ith righteousness
shall h e be girded aro u n d his waist [81 Kaioovvfl efcoopevos rr\v ooQvv avrov ], an d
with tru th [äArjödg] b o u n d aro u n d his sides.” T h e latter passage (according
to th e LXX) states o f Yahweh, “H e p u t on righteousness as a breastplate
[evebvoaro biKaioovvriv gjs Ocopatca], an d he placed a helm et o f salvation
[nepuceflxikaiav acjrrifxov] u p o n his head, an d he p u t on a cloak o f vengeance
an d the covering.” T h e two passages can account fo r E phesians’ m ention o f
having th e belt o f tru th a ro u n d the waist, th e breastplate o f righteousness,
th e h elm et o f salvation, the w ord, an d the Spirit. In addition, LXX Isa 49:2,
which says o f th e servant, “he m ade my m o u th like a sh arp sw ord [cos paxdtpav
o£e«m>],” may provide via the m ention o f the m o u th the link with Isa 11:4
an d the association o f w ord an d Spirit with the sword. Wis 5:17–20a, which
is already d e p e n d e n t on Isa 59:17, states th at “the L ord will take his zeal as
his whole arm o r [navoirTdav], an d will arm all creation to repel his enem ies;
he will p u t o n righteousness as a breastplate, an d w ear im partial justice as a
helm et; he will take holiness as an invincible shield [demöa], an d sh arp en stern
w rath as a sw ord.” T his text w ould supply fo r E phesians th e term navoTrXia,
which does n o t a p p e a r in the Isaiah passages, an d th e idea o f the shield,
alth o u g h it uses a d ifferent term , 01771x9 , d en o tin g th e sm aller ra th e r th an the
larg er shield, Ovpeos. T h e only rem aining p a rt o f the eq u ip m en t in E phesians
to be accounted for is the footw ear. H ere a n o th e r text from Isaiah com es
into play. LXX Isa 52:7 m entions both feet an d the gospel o f peace— C09 7ro5e9
€vayye\i$opevov aKorjv eiprivrp>, “as the feet o f one preaching the good news o f
a re p o rt o f peace.” L in d em an n ’s claim (Aufhebung, 89) th at th ere are no conscious
rem iniscences o f O T texts o r form ulations in this passage seems clearly w rong,
b u t th ere is no consensus am ong scholars ab o u t th e exact relationship o f the
m aterial in Ephesians to these texts. W hile som e arg u e th at the use o f the
O T is indirect by way o f traditions (e.g., Gnilka, 28, 310), others claim th at
th e w riter is actually citing Isa 1 1 :4 , 5 an d 59:17 (e.g., B arth, 788 n. 175).
M ore likely to be rig h t are those who suggest conscious allusion o r inexact
recollection ra th e r th an actual citation (e.g., Schlier, 294 97; C aird, – P aul’s Letters,
93; M itton, 224; S chnackenburg, 283). If Paul in 1 T hess 5:8 also h ad Isa
59:17 in m ind, he did not tran sfer the divine arm o r directly to believers bu t
 Form / Structure / Setting 437

fo u n d corresp o n d ing h u m an qualities— the triad o f faith, love, a n d hope. E p h e-

sians m akes a m uch closer identification o f the divine arm o r a n d believers’
eq u ip m en t (cf. also Kam lah, Form, 190–91). T h e O T allusions function as
scriptural confirm ation for the w riter’s contention th at believers have at th eir
disposal n ot ju s t any arm o r o r w eapons b u t those o f G od him self (cf. also
Schnackenburg, 283).
It has som etim es been suggested th at E ph 6:10– 20 is d e p e n d e n t for its
battle im agery on sim ilar ideas in Stoicism o r in the Q u m ra n literature. A lthough
th ere can be no question o f any direct dependency, the com parison with this
m aterial rem ains worthwhile. Military im agery was used in a tran sferre d sense
by philosophers, adherents o f the m ystery cults, an d orators (cf. H. Em onds,
“Geistlicher Kriegsdienst: D er T opos d e r ‘Militia spiritualis’ in d e r antiken
Philosophie,” in Heilige Überlieferung, FS I. H erw egen, ed. O. Casel [M ünster:
A schendorff, 1938] 2 1–50; J. Leipoldt, “Das Bild vom K riege in d e r griechischen
W elt,” in Gott und die Götter, FS E. Fascher, ed. G. Delling [Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1958] 16– 30; A. J. M alherbe, “A ntisthenes an d Odysseus, and
Paul at W ar,” H T R 76 [1983] 143– 74). Its use to describe the life o f the wise
m an was especially p o p u lar am ong the Stoics. It is encapsulated in the dictum
o f Seneca—vivere militare est, “life is a battle” (Ep. 96.5; cf. also Ep. 107.9).
Seneca was confident th at the wise m an could w ithstand every attack an d not
be inju red (De Const. Sap. 3.4–5). B ravery is his fortress, an d su rro u n d e d by
it he can use his own strength as his w eapons (Ep. 113.27–28). If his in n er
defenses are stren g thened, he may be attacked b u t will no t be cap tu red , espe-
cially if he em ploys reason as a w eapon (Ep. 74.19–21). P rotected by philosophy,
he stands on unassailable g ro u n d (Ep. 82.5). T h e following excerpts from Epicte-
tus (Diss. 3.24, 25) also provide points o f com parison with E phesians’ elaboration
o f the m etaphor:
Do you n ot know th at h u m an life is a warfare? th at one m an m ust keep
watch, an o th er m ust go o u t as a spy, and a th ird m ust fight? . . . Every
m an ’s life is a kind o f w arfare, an d it is long an d diversified. You m ust
observe the duty o f a soldier an d do everything at the n od o f the general;
if it is possible, divining w hat his wishes are: for th ere is no resem blance
betw een th at general and this, n eith er in stren g th n o r in superiority o f charac-
ter. . . . B eing ap p o in ted to such a service, do I still care about th e place
in which I am , o r with w hom I am , o r w hat m en say ab o u t me? an d do I
n ot entirely direct my thoughts to G od an d to His instructions an d com m ands?
H aving these things always in hand, an d exercising them by yourself, an d
keeping them in readiness, you will never be in w ant o f one to com fort
you an d stren g th en you. . . . For we m ust n o t shrink w hen we are engaged
in the greatest com bat, b u t we m ust even take blows. F or the com bat before
us is n o t in wrestling and the P ancration . . . b u t th e com bat is for good
fo rtu n e an d happiness themselves.
W hile for m any Stoics the p h ilosopher’s arm o r was reason, virtue, o r wise
words, m ore rigorous Cynics claim ed th at th eir characteristic dress o f the th re a d -
bare cloak w orn w ithout a tunic an d with a staff an d a wallet was the arm am en t
th at they had received from the gods (cf. Ps.-C rates, Epp. 19, 23; Ps.-Diog.
Ep. 10.1). N ot surprisingly, given the com m on use o f the m ilitary m etap h o r,
a n u m b er o f th e individual m otifs overlap with those in Ephesians, b u t w hereas
438 E p h e s ia n s 6:10–20

th e p red o m in an t em phasis in the Stoic-Cynic m aterial is on the self-sufficiency

o f th e wise m an, in E phesians it is on th e sufficiency th at derives from d e p e n -
dence on divine resources th at are at th e disposal o f all believers.
T h e Q u m ra n texts also depict a whole com m unity’s role in the w orld in
term s o f battle im agery an d m ake clear th at for the com m unity all pow er
an d help com e from G od (cf. esp. 1QM; 1Q H 3.24–39; 6.28–35). H ow ever,
alth o u g h th e battle envisaged in the Q u m ra n literature has angels fighting
on eith er side, it is an actual one with real w eapons fo u g h t against h u m an
enem ies, w hereas E phesians treats the w eapons m etaphorically an d spiritually.
Also fo r th e Q u m ra n com m unity the battle lies in the fu tu re still, while for
E phesians it is already taking place a n d th e decisive victory has already been
won by Christ.
In its setting in the letter, this pericope concludes the paraenesis. T h e focus
o f th e paraenesis began with life in the C h u rch (4 :1–16), m oved o u t to living
th e life o f the new hum anity in society (4:17–5:14), th e n back into th e w orship
an d household living o f the com m unity (5:15–6:9), an d now o u t again to
C hristian existence in the face o f the pow ers o f evil (6:10–20). Believers an d
th e C h u rch have b een placed in a cosmic setting an d related to the cosmic
pow ers in th e first h alf o f the letter, b u t this is th e first tim e th e paraenesis is
related to this setting in any ex tended fashion (but cf. 4:27). At first sight,
M itton’s rem arks (218 – 19) ap p e a r apposite: “T his striking portrayal o f the
C hristian life as a continuing struggle . . . seems to break u p o n th e re a d e r
w ithout m uch w arning. . . . T h e re is little to p re p a re us fo r th e su d d en rousing
call to p rep ared n ess.” A lthough he is rig h t about th e change o f m ood o f this
ex h o rtatio n with its increase in intensity, fu rth e r reflection on its co n ten t reveals
substantial continuity with w hat has com e before.
T h e perico p e’s place in the letter is obviously related to its function as a
peroratio, w hereby it sum s u p som e o f the bro ad them es o f th e letter in effective
fashion u n d e r new im agery. T hese have been suggested in o u r earlier discussion,
a n d now m ore specific links can be detailed. T h e im perative to be strong
(6:10) with its indication o f th e resources for stren g th — in th e L ord a n d his
pow er—recalls th e stress on the availability fo r believers o f G od’s pow er m ani-
fested in C hrist’s resurrection an d exaltation (1 :1 9 , 20), th e relating o f th at
pow er to P aul’s apostleship (3:7), the connection o f believers’ stren g th en in g
with th e Spirit (3:16), an d the praise o f G od’s pow er at w ork am ong believers
(3:20). E arlier em phasis on all th at has been achieved for believers, on the
C h urch, an d on th e life o f the new hum anity h ad n o t been totally triu m p h alist
o r u to p ian b u t had recognized th at this life o f the new age was being experienced
in th e m idst o f th e continuation o f the p re sen t evil age an d th e pow ers b eh in d
it. C hrist has triu m p h ed over the pow ers, b u t they still exist (1:21; 3:10);
indeed, th e ru le r o f the realm o f the air is at p resen t at w ork in those who
are disobedient (2:2), an d the new life o f believers is frequently contrasted
with th e su rro u n d in g darkness, alienation, an d im m orality o f G entile life in
the evil days o f th e p resen t th ro u g h o u t 4 :1 7–5:14. Now th e fact th a t C hristian
existence takes place on a b attleg ro u n d betw een the old age a n d the new,
betw een darkness an d light, betw een evil an d good, is b ro u g h t m ore explicitly
to the fore, b u t the accent rem ains on believers’ participation in th e victory,
on th eir prevailing in the battle. Some o f th e depiction o f the opposition to
 Form / Structure / Setting 439

be faced is fam iliar from earlier in the letter. T h e readers have been w arned
ab out schem ing against them in 4:14, b u t th ere it was h u m an schem ing; h ere
it is the schemes o f the devil (6 : 11), who was singled o u t fo r m ention previously
in 4:27. O f the cosmic spirit forces listed in 6:12, the principalities an d the
authorities have ap p e are d earlier in 1:21 an d 3:10, an d the sphere in which
they o p erate is described as the heavenly realm s both h ere in 6:12 an d in
3:10 (cf. also “the air” o f 2:2). T h e p resen t age over which they hold sway is
depicted in term s o f darkness in 6:12, b u t also previously in 5:8, 11 (cf. also
4:18). E arlier this p resen t age was seen in term s o f evil days (5:16), an d here
it is conceived o f as culm inating in “the evil day” (6:13).
T h e realities re p resen ted by the pieces o f arm o r have already been draw n
to the read ers’ attention. T h e term “tru th ” has occurred in 4:25 and 5:9 (cf.
also the use o f the verb in 4:16 an d the use o f the n o u n with a different
connotation in 1:13; 4:21, 24), an d “righteousness” in 4:24 an d 5:9. “T h e read i-
ness o f the gospel o f peace” recalls the peace greeting in 1 :2 , the discussion
o f peace an d reconciliation in 2:14 – 18, an d the m ention o f “the bond o f peace”
in 4:3. T h e notion o f peace will be evoked again in the wish o f peace in
6:23. T h e read ers’ “faith” (6:16) has frequently been in view (cf. 1:1, 13, 15, 19;
2:8; 3:12; 4:5, 13) an d will be m entioned again in connection with the peace
wish o f 6:23. “Salvation” here in 6:17 is to ooyrr\pvov in the G reek text, b u t
the cognate n o uns an d verb (<uoyrr}pia, ocorijp, an d ocpfav) have featu red before
in the letter in 1:13; 2:5, 8 ; an d 5:23. T h e designation o f the gospel as pfipa
öeoü, “the w ord o f G od,” w ould rem ind the readers o f the m ention o f ptfpa in
5:26, w here it probably has the sam e force, an d also o f the description o f the
gospel as “the w ord o f tru th ” (6 X0 7 0 5 rfft dXriOeias) in 1:13.
A gain, in the call to prayer in 6:18–20, som e o f the term inology has already
been em ployed in earlier contexts: the language o f “p ra y er” itself was used
in the w riter’s intercessory prayer-re p o rt in 1:16; the notion o f belonging to
“all th e saints” occurred in 3:18; the term “m ystery” has o f course been p ro m i-
n en t in 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; an d 5:32; the notion o f “boldness” was em ployed in
the context o f believers’ relationship to God in 3:12; an d P aul’s im prisonm ent
has been alluded to in d ifferent term s in 3:1 an d 4:1.
It is w orth no tin g th at a good n u m b er o f the links in them e an d term inology
are with chap. 1 an d its eulogy an d thanksgiving section. T h e re is a co rresp o n -
dence betw een the beginning an d en d o f the letter in th at w hat God has
been praised fo r an d asked for is now to be preserved by believers against all
opposition. T h e attitude o f p rayer which fram es the first h alf o f the letter is
now u n d erlin ed by the call to constant pray er at th e end. N ot only are th ere
links with w hat has preceded th ro u g h the restatem en t o f m ain them es and
the explicit rep etition o f term inology, b u t th ere is also a m ore im plicit connection
with th e paraenetical section o f which this pericope form s the conclusion.
T h e appeals for unity an d m aturity, for living o u t the life o f th e new hum anity,
for tru th fu l an d edifying talk, for honest work, for love, for purity in w ord
an d deed, an d for wise an d Spirit-filled living in m arriage, family, an d w ork
all d ep e n d on believers ap p ro p riatin g the resources they have in God an d
C hrist an d resisting the forces th at pull in the opposing direction. B ehind all
such forces stands the su p erh u m a n pow er o f the devil (cf. 2 :1–3; 4:27). Wild
(CBQ 46 [1984] 298) is quite right, th erefo re, in suggesting th at fo r the w riter
440 E p h e s ia n s 6:10–20

o f E phesians “the individual w ho engages in productive w ork o r w ho speaks

the tru th o r who loves his wife is successfully resisting an d standing his g ro u n d
in th e fight against the pow ers.”
A n u m b e r o f settings in life have been suggested for this concluding call
to stand firm in the battle. Some see a baptism al situation, poin tin g to the
language o f “p u ttin g o n ” the arm o r as parallel to th at o f “p u ttin g o n ” the
new h u m anity (cf. 4:24) an d designating the pericope as “baptism al paraenesis”
(e.g., K am lah, Form, 192; Gnilka, 305). No d o u b t the pericope could form an
ap p ro p riate p art o f a hom ily to baptism al candidates, b u t th ere are no p artic u -
larly com pelling reasons for thinking th at it is such people who are being
addressed by th e m aterial in its p resen t form an d position in th e letter. T h e re
are o thers who speculate th at som e o f the m aterial m ay have com e originally
from baptism al catechesis. Fischer (Tendenz, 165–66) m akes too m uch o f a
tension betw een two d ifferent eschatological perspectives in the pericope an d
argues from this tension th at the m ore apocalyptic m aterial o riginated in baptis-
mal catechesis in which baptism was viewed as arm o r to protect believers in
the e n d-tim e battle. C arrington (The Primitive Christian Catechism [C am bridge:
CUP, 1940] 3 1–57) believed he had fo u n d a com m on p attern in the paraenesis
o f Colossians, E phesians, 1 Peter, an d Jam es, centering on the im peratives
“p u t off,” “be subject,” “w atch,” an d “resist,” which w ere used to catechize
baptism al candidates. A part from the fact, which C arrin g to n concedes, th at
Colossians does n ot contain the last o f these im peratives, th ere may be som e
value in this hypothesis. Yet at best it leads one back to an original setting
for the calls to watch an d to resist, an d cannot adequately explain the reason
fo r this w riter’s distinctive an d creative elaboration on these basic appeals .
O n e explanation fo r this is to posit a persecution setting. T h e n eed to stand
firm an d the m ention o f the evil o n e ’s flam ing arrow s m ight suggest th at the
readers were facing persecution, b u t these w ould be the only such hints in
th e letter. T h e re is no clear evidence fo r this setting (pace L indem ann, “B em er-
k u n g en zu d en A dressaten u n d zum Anlass des E pheserbriefes,” Z N W 67
[1976] 242– 43, who holds th at the readers w ere in a situation o f persecution
u n d e r D om itian in 96 c .e .).
T h e stress on th e n atu re o f the opposition as evil spiritual pow ers reflects
a lively aw areness o f these forces on the p art o f both w riter an d readers. B ut
w hereas in Colossians, on which this letter is based, these pow ers h ad played
a specific role in th e false teaching addressed, h ere th ere is no such controversy
in view. T h e significant p a rt which the pow ers played in the consciousness o f
th e G entile readers an d in particular th eir continuing m alevolent influence is
simply assum ed. W h eth er the attention given to these evil pow ers indicates
th at the passage is addressed to readers who can be specifically identified as
those who h ad participated in the A rtem is cult an d practiced magic, as A rnold
(Ephesians, 122) holds, m ust be considered fa r m ore doubtful.
W hat can be said w ithout indulging in too m uch speculation is th at this
pericope, like the letter as a whole (see also Introduction on “T h e Purposes
an d Setting o f E phesians”), reflects th e w riter’s response to w hat he perceives
to be a crisis o f confidence on the p a rt o f his readers. T h ro u g h his distinctive
use o f m ilitary im agery an d the em phasis on the resources o f pow er, arm am ent,
an d prevailing in the battle, the w riter is concerned to bolster his re ad ers’
 Comment 441

confidence by rem inding them again o f th eir identity an d w hat this m eans
for being enabled to m aintain an a p p ro p riate lifestyle in the m idst o f an alien
society an d in the face o f the pow erful forces th at lie behind it. W hat is necessary
is th at the readers should be stren g th en ed in th eir resolve, an d for this they
are pointed to G od’s pow er which stands at th eir disposal. In addition, the
p o rtrait o f Paul with his desire to proclaim the gospel boldly an d openly even
in the adversity o f im prisonm ent reflects w hat the w riter wishes fo r both him self
an d his readers— the fearless living o u t o f C hristian existence in the m idst o f
a hostile world.

Comment

10 Toü \ olitov evöwafjiOVoQe ev Kuptcp m i ev rep Kparet rfjs ioxvos avrov , “Finally,
be strong in the L ord an d in his m ighty stren g th .” T his verse with its call for
valor an d firm resolve an d its indication o f the resources available for exercising
these qualities introduces the them e an d sets the tone fo r th e rest o f the pericope.
T h e battle is yet to be depicted, bu t the op en in g exhortation encourages the
readers to be strong by rem inding them o f th eir position o f strength—in the
L ord—an d th eir source o f strength— his power.
tov Xoiitov, “finally,” m arks this as the concluding section o f the w riter’s
exh o rtatio n to his readers. T h e phrase m ore usually has tem poral force— “from
now on, in the fu tu re ” (cf. Gal 6:17)—an d som e com m entators op t fo r this
m eaning here, believing th at the stren g th needed is fo r fu tu re conflict, an
im p en d in g crisis (cf. W estcott, 92; Schlier, 289; B arth, 759–60; C aird, P aul’s
Letters, 92). to Xolttov, “finally,” which m ight have been expected here (cf. Phil
4:8; 2 C or 13:11; 1 Thess 4:1; 2 T hess 3:1), can itself som etim es have a fu tu re
force (cf. 1 C or 7:29; H eb 10:13) an d so appears to be interchangeable with
rov Xourov. A lthough the battle will becom e even fiercer, it is taking place now
an d the need for strength is a p resen t one. It th erefo re seems m ore likely
th at tov Xonrov has the sense o f “finally” in this context (cf. also BAGD 480;
Gnilka, 304; Schnackenburg, 277 n. 694).
T h e call to “be stro n g ” in the context o f battle is rem iniscent o f sim ilar
calls to, for exam ple, Jo sh u a—“Be strong an d o f good courage” (Josh 1:6, 7, 9)—
o r the Q u m ran com m unity— “Be strong an d valiant; be warriors! . . . Do
n o t fall back” (1QM 15.6–8). Paul also had appealed at th e close o f 1 C orinthians
for the readers to be strong (cf. 1 C or 16:13, Kparaiovode). A lthough the im p era-
tive could be construed as a m iddle (cf. B ruce, Epistles, 403), it is m ore likely
th at it should be taken as a passive with the sense o f “be stren g th en ed , be
em pow ered,” reinforcing the notion th at the stren g th is to be draw n from an
external source an d corresponding to the passive in the prayer o f 3:16, övvänei
KfKLTai(jjdf\vai, “to be stren g th en ed with m ight.” H ere the external source is
“the L o rd ,” an d the w ording is again rem iniscent o f the O T (cf. 1 Sam 30:6,
“David stren g th en ed him self in the L ord his G od”; Zech 10:12, “I will m ake
th em strong in the L o rd ”). Now, how ever, th e L ord is C hrist. T h e relationship
to him is described in term s o f ev Kvpicp, “in the L o rd ” (cf. also 2:21; 4:17;
5:8; 6 : 1 , 21), which conform s to the overall tendency in this letter for w hat
believers are in relation to C hrist to be expressed in term s o f ev Xptarcp, “in
C hrist,” an d w hat they are to becom e o r to do in relation to him to be expressed
442 E p h e s ia n s 6:10– 20

in term s o f ev KVpicp, “in the L o rd ” (see Comment o n 2:21). Believers’ relationship

to C hrist gives them access to his pow er. T h e exh o rtatio n takes u p th e language
o f th e intercessory prayer-re p o rt o f Col 1:11, “being stren g th en e d with all
pow er according to the m ight o f his glory.” B ut it recalls also th e ideas o f
this letter’s earlier prayer-reports ab o u t the experience o f th e pow er o f G od
operative in C hrist’s resurrection an d exaltation a n d in th e rescue o f believers
from th e d eath an d bondage o f the past (cf. 1:19–2:10 with its earlier com bina-
tion in 1:19 o f th e sam e synonym s in a genitive construction, “th e stren g th
o f his m ig h t”) an d about stren g th en in g th ro u g h the Spirit (cf. 3:16). Now
this final re m in d e r is o f the need to ap p ro p ria te an d rely on C hrist’s pow er.
11 evbvoaade rr\v rravonXiav rod Oeov irpös to SvvaaOai vpas arrival rrpbs r a s
/ne0o5da? rod SiaßöXov, “P ut on the full arm o r o f G od in o rd e r th a t you m ay
be able to stand against the schem es o f th e devil.” It now becom es clear th at
th e readers need to be strong because they are in a battle whose ultim ate
antagonists are God an d the devil (cf. th e im plicit contrast betw een th e arm o r
o f God an d th e schem es o f the devil). I f they are to prevail in th e face o f the
devil’s attacks, they m ust p u t on G od’s “full a rm o r.” T h e notion o f p u ttin g
on th e arm o r is the functional equivalent o f p u ttin g on th e new hum anity
(cf. 4:24). From 4:25 onw ard, the w riter h ad elaborated on p u ttin g off the
old hum anity, an d now the detailing o f the arm o r to be w orn can be seen as
the w riter’s developm ent o f the idea o f p u ttin g on th e new. rravorrXia, “full
arm o r,” is th e term used fo r the full eq uipm ent, both defensive an d offensive,
o f th e heavily arm ed foot soldier (cf. also Polybius 6.23; T hucydides 3.114;
J d t 14:3; 2 Macc 3:25; Luke 11:22). D espite the fact th at n o t every piece o f
the arm o r will be listed, the em phasis is on th e full protection it provides
ra th e r th an on its a d o rn m e n t o r sp len d o r (pace B arth, 793–95). T h e genitive
“o f G od” certainly indicates th at the a rm o r is supplied by God, b u t in view o f
the O T passages which depict Yahweh as a w arrior in sim ilar a rm o r (see u n d e r
Form/ Structure/ Setting), it is h ard to avoid the im pression th a t m ore is in ten d ed
an d th at the arm o r given by God to believers is in som e sense his own. T his
w ould u n d erlin e b oth the serious n a tu re o f th e battle an d th e w riter’s belief
th at believers are only able to prevail th ro u g h the protection an d pow er o f
God him self. T h e point is sim ilar to th at o f Paul in 2 C or 10:4, “th e w eapons
o f o u r w arfare are no t fleshly b u t have divine pow er.”
W hat has been described here in term s o f being able to prevail is, o f course,
spoken o f in th e text as being “able to stan d .” 5vvaoQai, “to be able to ,” recurs
in vv 13, 16, an d the notion o f ability o r en ab lem en t is related to those o f
stren g th an d pow er, b u t it is auxiliary to infinitives o f m ain verbs a n d should
n ot be o v erin terp reted (pace A rnold, Ephesians, 107, who claims it “bears the
full significance o f bvvaixis”). M ention o f the need to stand also recurs twice
(cf. vv 13, 14) an d can be seen as sum m ing u p the m ain th ru st o f this p erico p e’s
exhortations. It involves standing firm , holding o n e ’s position, resisting, not
su rre n d erin g to the opposition b u t prevailing against it. It is a m istake to
in te rp re t th e call to stand as im plying th at the battle is o p en-en d e d an d its
result in doubt. L indem ann (Aufhebung, 65) is rig h t to insist th a t victory is
assured, over against Schlier (294), b u t no t to see all tem poral assum ptions
ab o u t the battle as being done away with an d believers having no historical
responsibilities because victory is autom atic. T h e decisive victory has already
been won by God in Christ, an d the task o f believers is n o t to win b u t to
 Comment 443

stand, th at is, to preserve an d m aintain w hat has been won. It is because this
victory has been won th at believers are involved in th e battle at all. T hey are
in a decisively new situation in contrast to th eir previous condition described
in 2:2, 3, w here th ere could be no battle o r resistance because they w ere in
total bondage to the enem y. So the call to th e readers to stand against the
powers is also a re m in d e r o f th eir liberation from the tyranny o f these powers.
T h e m ajor victory has been achieved, b u t the eschatological tension with its
indicative an d im perative characteristic o f P aul’s th o u g h t rem ains. Believers
m ust ap p ro p riate w hat has already been gained for th em an d do so against
continuing assaults, an d this is no t autom atic. In d eed th ere m ay be m inor
defeats along the way; hence the urgency o f the im peratives. T h e w riter’s
focus, however, is not on the possibility o f such m inor defeats b u t on the
ability o f his readers to m ake the assured outcom e o f the overall battle th eir
own by standing an d m aintaining the g ro u n d th at has been won.
T h e rest o f the verse begins the depiction o f the enem y th at believers are
u p against. H ere “the devil” is singled o u t as the prim ary enem y, the chief o f
the opposing arm y, so th at the forces o f evil which lie beh in d h u m an activity
are seen as having a personal center. T h e pow er o f evil is operative th ro u g h
h u m an beings (cf. 2:2; 4:14) b u t cannot be reduced to o r explained solely in
term s o f th eir activities. O n the use o f “devil” as opposed to “S atan,” the
d o m in an t term in Paul, see Comment on 4:27 (for o th er depictions o f the devil
as the enem y who wages w ar on G od’s people, see, e.g., 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 12,
esp. v 17). In 4:14 h u m an schem ing had been m entioned; h ere it is the schemes
o f the devil against which believers have to stand. T his language m akes clear
th at the devil does not always attack th ro u g h obvious h ead-on assaults b u t
em ploys cu n n in g an d wily stratagem s designed to catch believers unaw ares.
T h e w riter has already m entioned one such ploy in 4 :2 7 – exploiting an g er
in o rd e r to sow disruption in the com m unity.
12 o n o v k eoTtv rjpW r) irä k r ] 7rpo? alpa Kai o ä p m , äXXä 7rpö? rd? dpxd? . . .
ev rol? enovpaviois , “for o u r battle is no t against flesh an d blood, b u t against
the principalities . . . in the heavenly realm s.” T his verse, which sets o u t the
n atu re o f th e enem y, explains fu rth e r why it is th at believers n eed the divine
arm o r if they are to stand. T h e spiritual an d cosmic n atu re o f the opposition
m akes such arm o r absolutely necessary. T his is the only place in the Pauline
corpus w here believers are explicitly said to be in a battle against evil spirit
powers. B ut its uniqueness does no t m ean th at the verse can o r should be
treated as an in terpolation (pace C arr, Angels and Principalities, 104 – 10). T h e re
is no m an uscript evidence at all for its om ission, an d its view o f the powers
as evil is n ot o u t o f line with the rest o f the letter o r the Pauline corpus (cf.
A rnold, J S N T 30 [1987] 71– 87, for a th o ro u g h g o in g critique o f C a rr’s theory,
an d for fu rth e r discussion o f the n atu re an d in terp re tatio n o f the powers,
see u n d e r Comment on 1:20, 21). In conform ity with the contem porary w orld-
view, the w riter depicts h u m an existence as u n d e r th e influence o f powers
th at w ork evil. O thers tried to deal with these powers in various ways th at
included resignation to fate, magical practices, an d initiation into m ystery cults.
B ut this w riter sees them as having been defeated by C hrist, yet still attem p tin g
to m ake inroads into the lives o f believers an d to thw art the advance o f the
gospel before th eir final subjugation.
T h e term iraXr), “battle,” usually denotes a w restling m atch, an d som e have
444 E p h e s ia n s 6:10–20

suggested th at it should retain th at force here, so th a t th e w riter w ould be

saying, “O u r battle against the powers o f darkness is n o t like the contest o f
th e w restler, for he can easily com e to grips with his o p p o n e n t” (cf. Pfitzner,
Paul, 159). How ever, the contrast is n o t betw een a battle an d a w restling m atch
b u t betw een h u m an an d spiritual opposition. T h e athletic term could in any
case be tran sferre d to m ilitary contexts an d could stand for any contest o r
battle (cf. E uripides, Heracl. 159; Philo, De Abr. 243; 2 Macc 10:28; 14:18;
15:9), an d this is m ost likely th e force o f the term here. T h e C hristian’s battle
is n o t ultim ately “against flesh an d blood.” As in H eb 2:14, th e term s are in
th e reverse o rd e r—blood an d flesh—b u t the m eaning is th e sam e as the m ore
usual phrase, viz., hum anity in its weakness an d transitoriness (cf., e.g., Sir
14:18; 17:31; M att 16:17; Gal 1:16; 1 C or 15:50). T h e real enem y is n o t so
easily resisted an d disposed o f as such h u m an opposition.
T h e evil powers, who are opposing believers an d who are listed in this
verse, ap p e a r to be subject to th e devil (v 11), to th e ru le r o f th e realm o f
th e air (2:2). T hey include the “principalities” an d “au th o rities” already m en -
tioned in 1:21 (cf. also 3:10) as those over w hom C hrist rules n o t only in this
age b u t also in the age to come. Because this age continues an d believers live
in it as well as enjoying the benefits o f the age to com e, these pow ers are still
able to th rea ten an d m enace them . Also listed are “the w orld rulers o f this
darkness.” T h e term KOOnoKparopes, “w orld ru lers,” originated in astrological
discussion w here it re ferred to the planets an d th eir d eterm in atio n o f h u m an
fate an d world affairs. T h e sun in the m agical papyri an d o th e r planets in
later M andaean Gnosticism (cf. Ginza 99.15– 32; 104.5,6; 105.24–33) are d e-
scribed in this way. Also in the magical papyri, gods such as Sarapis an d H erm es
are called world rulers, an d the use o f this term for evil spirit pow ers here
may indicate th at the w riter shares the view o f Paul in 1 C or 10:20 th a t pagan
gods are closely linked with dem onic forces (cf. A rnold, Ephesians, 65–67).
T h e second-century c .e . Testament of Solomon also em ploys this term fo r evil
spirit powers. In it the dem ons introduce them selves to Solom on in 8.2 as
stoicheia who are w orld rulers an d in 18.2 (probably u n d e r the influence o f
the language o f E phesians) call them selves “th e w orld rulers o f the darkness
o f this age.” In E phesians, darkness has already been associated with th e past
from which believers have been delivered, with the life o f outsiders (5:8, 11),
with those who are u n d e r the sway o f this world-age (cf. 2:2). “T his darkness”
th erefo re has reference to this presen t age, this w orld (cf. also Col 1:13, “the
dom inion o f darkness”). Personal pow ers o f evil are also associated with such
a sp here o f darkness in the Q u m ra n literature, w here the com m unity will be
in an e n d-tim e battle against the angel o f darkness an d his hosts (cf. esp.
1QM 13; 16.11–16; 17.5–9) an d w here it is said th a t “all the children o f falsehood
are ru led by th e A ngel o f D arkness an d walk in th e ways o f darkness” (1QS
3 .2 0,21).
T h e last g ro u p in g in the list o f o p ponents, ra irvevpariKa rr)? irovqpias ev
rot? eirovpaviois, “th e spiritual forces o f evil in the heavenly realm s,” serves
n ot so m uch to designate a separate class o f cosmic pow ers b u t as a general
term for all such powers an d an indication o f th eir locality. It is equivalent to
th e term “evil spirits” found, for exam ple, in Jub. 10.3, 5, 13; 11.4, 5; 12.20;
1 Enoch 15.8 – 12; T. Sim. 4.9; 6 .6 ; T. Levi 18.12. T h e w riter has listed different
 Comment 445

groups o f evil forces no t for the sake o f som e schem atic classification o r com plete-
ness, b u t in o rd e r to bring hom e to the consciousness o f his readers the variety
an d com prehensiveness o f the pow er the enem y has at his disposal. T h e phrase
“in the heavenly realm s” refers prim arily to the sphere o f the evil powers
an d n ot to th at in which believers are fighting (cf. also Percy, Probleme, 182).
However, the statem ent th at the fighting is no t against flesh an d blood indicates
n o t only the spiritual n atu re o f the adversary b u t also the spiritual character
o f believers’ com bat. O n the relationship betw een the heavenly realm s and
the air (2:2) as the location o f the m alevolent agencies an d the Jew ish background
for the idea o f hostile angelic o r spiritual powers in heaven, see Comment on
2:2 (cf. also Lincoln, N T S 19 [1973] 475– 76). A lthough th e opposing forces
are form idable, the fact th at they are in the heavenly realm s need no longer
pose a th reat to believers, because they are not fighting to break th ro u g h the
hold o f such powers an d p en etrate to the heavenly realm them selves, as some
in Colossae attem p ted, b u t are to see them selves as fighting from a position
o f victory, having already been seated with C hrist in the heavenly realm s (cf.
2 :6 ).
13 5uz rovro ävaXäßere rr\v navonXiav rod Oeov, iva dvvridrjre avnorf\vai ev rfi
ripepq. rfi ttovrjpqL m i airavra mrepyaoapevoi arrival, “T h erefo re take u p G od’s
full arm or, so th at you may be able to w ithstand on the evil day, an d having
accom plished everything, to stand.” T h e readers have now been w arned about
the fierce opposition they face. Earlier in the letter, the w riter had dispelled
any need for th em to fear such an enem y by rem in d in g them o f th eir relationship
to C hrist an d his all-pow erful rule, o f the benefits o f th eir salvation, and o f
th eir p art in th e C hurch, all o f which have rem oved them from the dom inion
o f this p resen t age an d its spirit rulers. It has becom e clear, how ever, th at he
does not w ant them to be com placent in the face o f the threats o f evil powers.
T hey are to take them seriously because such powers still n eed to be resisted.
B ut even here in the paraenesis, the earlier note o f assurance is sounded. All
the resources are available for a successful resistance. T hese resources are
divine an d are sum m ed u p as the “full a rm o r” o f God, which is m entioned
for the second tim e (cf. v 11). All th at believers need to do is to “take u p ”
the arm o r to ap p ro p riate the resources.
“T o w ithstand” (avrtarfivai; cf. the calls to resist the devil in Jas 4:7; 1 Pet
5:9) will be especially necessary “on the evil day.” T h e reference o f this phrase,
“the evil day,” is disputed, and th ere are fo u r m ain com peting interpretations.
(i) Some hold th at the reference is to a particular tim e o f special tribulation
im m ediately p receding the en d o f the world. M eyer (331) claims th at the em -
phatic designation could suggest to the readers only a single evil day well
known to them , and th at is shortly before the parousia, “the day in which
the Satanic p o w e r . . . puts forth its last an d greatest o u tb reak ” (cf. also D ibelius-
G reeven, 98; Schlier, 292– 93; Kirby, Ephesians, 144; H oulden, P aul’s Letters,
339; C aird, Paul’s Letters, 92). (ii) O thers believe any tim e o f crisis o r special
tem ptatio n is in view (cf. Abbott, 184; Percy, Probleme, 259; M itton, 223). (iii)
Still others see the term inology as a reference to the whole o f the p resen t
age (cf. M ussner, 168; B ruce, Epistles, 406; A rnold, Ephesians, 114, who treats
it as synonym ous with “the evil days” o f 5:16; an d L indem ann, Aufhebung,
64, 235– 36, who, in a strange arg u m en t, disputes th at “the evil day” is a recog-
446 E p h e s ia n s 6:10–20

nized concept in apocalyptic writings b u t th en claims the w riter has taken a

traditional eschatological concept an d m ade it a p resen t reality), (iv) A fo u rth
position attem pts to do justice to the strengths o f the first an d th ird in te rp re ta -
tions an d is to be p referred . It recognizes th at th e term inology w ould carry
clear connotations o f a final tim e o f evil at the en d o f history. J e r 1 7 :7 , 8
talks o f “th e day o f evil” th at is to com e, Am os 5:18–20 o f the day o f the
L ord brin g in g with it darkness an d ju d g m e n t, D an 12:1 o f a tim e o f trouble
before a tim e o f deliverance, 1 Enoch in a variety o f ways o f a day o f tribulation
(cf. 50.2; 55.3; 63.8; 96.2; 99.4) , Jub. 23.16–25 o f a final gen eratio n o f great
evil before th e tim e o f salvation, T. Dan 5.4–6 o f the evil an d apostasy o f the
last days, T. Lev. 5.5 o f the day o f tribulation, 2 Apoc. Bar. 48.31 o f a tim e o f
affliction, an d Apoc. Abr. 29.9 o f the tw elfth h o u r o f im piety. Particularly signifi-
cant is th e com bination o f th e language o f a final tim e o f evil with th at o f
battle in 1QM 1.10 – 13: “for th at shall be th e day ap p o in ted from ancient
times for th e battle o f destruction o f th e sons o f darkness. . . . O n th e day
o f calamity, the sons o f light shall battle with th e com pany o f darkness am id
the shouts o f a m ighty m ultitude an d the clam our o f gods an d m en to (m ake
m anifest) the m ight o f God. A nd it shall be a tim e o f (great) tribulation for
the people which G od shall redeem ; o f all its afflictions n one shall be as this,
from its su d d en b eginning to its en d in etern al red em p tio n .” Paul also talks
o f a tim e o f distress (1 C or 7:26) an d o f the day o f the L ord bringing with it
su d d en destruction (1 T hess 5 :2–4; cf. also 2 T hess 2 :3 – 12 with its tim e o f
rebellion an d lawlessness before the day o f the Lord). Yet at th e sam e tim e
as the term inology o f Ephesians carrying these overtones, the call to p u t on
the arm o r o f God an d the orientation o f the battle are present. T h e two p erspec-
tives o f p resen t an d fu tu re overlap. T h e readers are to realize th at they are
already in the evil days (cf. 5:16), b u t th at these will culm inate in a climactic
evil day, w hen resistance will be especially necessary (cf. also Gnilka, 308;
B arth, 804–5; pace S chnackenburg, 282, who opts for a com bination o f p resen t
an d indefinite future). Ju s t as re d em p tio n is already experienced b u t th ere
will be a final day o f red em p tio n (1:7 an d 4:30), so evil is already p re sen t b u t
th ere will also be a final day o f evil. T h e w riter’s point should no t be fo rg o tten
in the debate ab out the tim e reference. It is to u n d erlin e the efficacy o f G od’s
arm or, an d he does so with particular reference to the fu tu re. T h e a rm o r is
the only th in g th at enables believers to prevail bo th now an d w hen the final
evil day arrives.
W hat is all-im p o rtan t it th at believers should stand firm. Every action should
be geared tow ard this end. mrepya^eodai m ost frequently m eans “to d o ” o r
“to accom plish,” b u t in som e contexts it can m ean “to overpow er” o r “to over-
com e.” Some com m entators believe th at th e latter is its force here. M eyer
(3 3 1–32) claims th at the picture is o f “th e victor, who, after th e fight is finished,
is n o t laid p ro strate, o r p u t to flight, b u t stands” (cf also Schlier, 293; M itton,
223). B ut since the verb is used tw enty-one tim es in the P auline corpus an d
all with the fo rm er m eaning, an d since this m akes good sense here, it is to be
p re ferred (cf. also W estcott, 95; A bbott, 184; J. A. R obinson, 214; Gnilka,
309; S chnackenburg, 282). H aving accom plished all th a t is necessary in p re p a ra -
tion fo r th e battle an d being fully arm ed, believers are to stand firm . “T o
stan d ” does n o t re fer to receiving G od’s approval at the ju d g m e n t (pace Schlier,
 Comment 447

293). In the contexts in which the verb has this force, it is followed by a
prepositional phrase which m akes such a connotation clear (e.g., 1QS 11.16, 17;
1QH 4.21; Luke 21:36; Rom 14:4; cf. also Schnackenburg, 282).
14 OTrjre ovv nept^oxjäfxevoi rr\v ö o Q w vixcbv ev äXrjddqL, Kai evö voän evoi t 'ov
O copam rffr diKaioovwqs, “Stand therefore, having fastened the belt o f tru th
aro u n d y our waist, an d having p u t on the breastplate o f righteousness.” T h e
ex h ortation ab out the need to “stan d ” is reiterated (cf. vv 11, 13c an d also
“to w ithstand” in v 13b), b u t this tim e it takes the form o f an im perative.
T h e verb has the sam e force th ro u g h o u t (cf. also Gnilka, 310; pace Meyer,
333), suggesting the stance o f the soldier in com bat, standing firm , resisting,
an d prevailing against the enem y. It is clearly a vital notion for the w riter,
an d it is w orth no ting th at it was also im p o rtan t in P aul’s writings. 1 T hess
3:8 speaks o f standing fast in the Lord, while 2 Thess 2:15 exhorts “stand
firm ” an d Gal 5:1 “stand fast th ere fo re .” In 1 C orinthians Paul speaks o f
som e who think they stand n eeding to take heed lest they fall ( 1 0 : 1 2 ) an d o f
the gospel in which the C orinthians stand (15:1), an d exhorts them to stand
firm in th eir faith (16:13; cf. also 2 C or 1:24). In R om ans he talks o f “this
grace in which we stan d ” (5:2) an d w arns G entile C hristians th at they “stand
fast only th ro u g h faith . . . stand in aw e” (11:20). In Philippians the apostle
wants to know th at his readers stand firm in one spirit, n o t frig h ten ed by
th eir o p p o n en ts (1:27, 28), an d exhorts them to stand firm in the L ord (4:1).
In Col 4:12 E p ap h ras’ p rayer for the Colossians is th at they may stand m a-
tu re an d fully assured in all the will o f God. H ere in Ephesians, the th o u g h t
also is o f the readers taking u p by faith an d occupying steadfastly the p o -
sition which is theirs th ro u g h th eir experience o f the gospel o f G od’s grace in
Christ.
T h e discussion o f the different parts o f the believer’s arm o r which now
follows is illustrative o f the w riter’s m ain p oint about the total eq u ip m en t
provided by God, shows w hat it m eans to have accom plished everything neces-
sary for battle, an d explains how it is th at one stands. T h e first action necessary
is fastening “the belt o f tru th aro u n d your waist.” T o fasten clothing securely
a ro u n d the waist m ade rap id m ovem ent easier an d was vital p re p ara tio n for
any vigorous activity. In Luke 12:35, 37; 17:8, fo r exam ple, girding o n e’s loins
is a sign o f readiness for service. As we have seen u n d e r Form/Structure/ Setting,
the prim ary influence on the w riter’s choice o f term inology at this point is
LXX Isa 11:5, w here the Messiah -King is said to have righteousness girding
his loins an d tru th clothing his sides. If the R om an soldier is also specifically
in view, then, since it is the first item o f eq u ip m en t m entioned, the girdle
will n ot be the m etal-studded belt w orn over the a rm o r o r the sword-belt,
b u t ra th e r the leath er ap ro n w orn u n d e r the arm o r like breeches (cf. O epke,
T D N T 5 [1967] 303, 307). O th e r m etaphorical uses o f th e term inology in the
O T include Yahweh being girded with m ight (Ps 65:6) an d Yahweh girding
th e psalm ist with strength for battle (Ps 18:32, 39), an d in the N T the awkward
m ixed m etap h o r o f 1 Pet 1:13 about girding u p the loins o f o n e ’s m ind. E.
Levine (“T h e W restling-Belt Legacy in the New T estam e n t,” N T S 28 [1982]
560–64) claims th at all such references still carry allusions to the belt-wrestling
practices o f the ancient N ear East an d th a t th e w restling belt becam e symbolic
o f soldiers ready for battle. H ere in Ephesians, the belt which provides su p p o rt
448 E p h e s ia n s 6 :1 0 – 2 0

an d braces the soldier ready for action is tru th . Since in LXX Isa 11:5 tru th
re ferred to faithfulness an d loyalty an d w hat was said th ere o f th e M essiah is
now applied to believers, it is likely th at th at is also the force o f “tru th ” in
this verse. T h e qualities to which the various pieces o f a rm o r p o in t are used
ra th e r generally an d loosely an d cannot always be p in n ed dow n precisely.
T h e in te rp re te r has to attem p t to discover an acceptable ra n g e o f m eaning
from th e context an d the use o f the term s elsew here in the letter. Since the
next th ree qualities m entioned all ap p e a r to be those th at the believer m ust
exercise, it is probable th at tru th here refers to an elem ent o f ch aracter an d
activity to be d em o nstrated by the readers (cf. 4:25; 5:9; cf. also M eyer, 333;
W estcott, 95; Abbott, 185) ra th e r th a n the tru th o f the gospel (cf. T. 13; 4:21, 24;
pace Schlier, 295; O epke, T D N T 5 [1967] 307– 8), th o u g h to be sure th e m oral
rectitu d e an d faithfulness dem an d ed by th e gospel is also m ade available
th ro u g h th at gospel.
“T h e breastplate o f righteousness” was p a rt o f Y ahw eh’s arm o r in the depic-
tions fo u n d in Isa 59:17 an d Wis 5:18 (cf. also Isa 11:5, w here righteousness
is the M essiah’s girdle). T h e righteousness o r justice o f Y ahweh is an attrib u te
th at it is now essential for the believer to display. T his is n o t th e justifying
righteousness o f Rom 3:21– 26 (pace B arth, 796; O epke, T D N T 5 [1967] 310)
b u t an ethical quality (cf. th e earlier use o f the term in 4:24; 5:9 an d biKaios
in 6:1; cf. also M eyer, 334; W estcott, 96; A bbott, 185; Schnackenburg, 284).
In term s o f th e a rm o r o f the R om an soldier, the 0copa£ was the frontal m etal
piece vital for th e protection o f chest, lungs, an d heart. D oing rig h t a n d practic-
ing justice is equally vital for the C hristian soldier in his o r h e r battle against
the pow ers o f evil. In 1 T hess 5:8 Paul h ad m ade the virtues o f faith an d
love th e C hristian’s breastplate, b u t he also depicted righteousness as necessary
fo r th e battle w hen he spoke o f “the w eapons o f righteousness fo r th e rig h t
h an d an d the left” in 2 C or 6:7.
1 5 m i moSrioänevoi tovs nobas ev erot/uaatg rod eixiyyeXiov rffr etpr^Tjs, “an d
having fitted y our feet with the readiness o f th e gospel o f peace.” P ro p er
footw ear is req u ired if the soldier is to be ready fo r com bat, mobruxara, “sandals,”
could be used o f m ilitary sandals (cf. X enophon, Anab. 4.5.14; Jo sep h u s, J.W .
6.1.8), an d th e R om an soldier frequently w ore th e caliga, a h alf-boot, which
was p a rt o f the eq u ip m en t fo r long m arches a n d which could be stu d d ed
with sh arp nails to enable a firm grip. B ut it is significant th a t the w riter
does n o t re fe r directly to the footw ear an d instead talks o f th e feet being
fitted o r shod, showing again th at he is prim arily influenced by th e language
o f an O T passage which m entions feet in connection with proclaim ing the
gospel o f peace. T h e text in question is LXX Isa 52:7, “as th e feet o f one
p reach in g glad tidings o f peace” (cf. also N ah 1:15). P aul h ad used this verse
in connection with the p reach er o f th e gospel in Rom 10:15, b u t this w riter
links th e eq u ip p in g o f the feet no t with the proclam ation o f th e gospel o f
peace b u t with the erotpaata, “readiness,” o f the gospel o f peace. T h e force
o f this term is disputed. Som e (e.g., A. F. Buscarlet, “T h e ‘P rep a ratio n ’ o f
the G ospel o f Peace,” ExpTim 9 [1897] 38–40, followed by E. H . Blakeney,
ExpTim 55 [1944] 138; J. A. F. G regg, ExpTim 56 [1944] 54; B arth, 797–99)
link it with one o f the connotations it has in the LXX o f a p re p a re d o r solid
fo u n d atio n (cf. LXX Ps 88:14; Ezra 2:68) an d tran sfer it to m ean “firm footing”
 Comment 449

o r “steadfastness.” In this way, a connection can be m ade with the overall

exh o rtatio n to stand. B ut the term now here actually m eans “firm footing,”
an d its m ore usual sense is readiness, preparedness, o r p re p ara tio n (cf., e.g.,
LXX Ps 9:17; Wis 13:12; Ep. Arist. 182; Jo sep h u s, A nt. 10.1.2 § 9 v.l.). T h e
reference is, therefore, not to readiness to proclaim the gospel (pace Schlier,
296; O epke, T D N T 5 [1967] 312; Gnilka, 3 1 1–12; Ernst, 400) b u t to the readiness
o r prep ared n ess fo r com bat an d for standing in the battle th at is bestow ed
by th e gospel o f peace (cf. also M eyer, 334–35; A bbott, 185; H endriksen,
277). T h e w riter’s em phasis is paradoxical. It is the a p p ro p riatio n o f the gospel
o f peace th at m akes one ready for war. As we have seen from 2:14 – 18, the
gospel o f peace is em bodied in C hrist who “is o u r peace,” an d this is a peace
with both vertical an d horizontal axes: peace with G od the F ath er an d peace
betw een h u m an beings, Jew s an d Gentiles, who w ere form erly at enm ity. Since
such peace is the pledge o f fu tu re cosmic harm ony (cf. 1:10; 3:10), its realization
in the C h u rch n o t only sounds the d eath knell fo r opposing cosmic powers
b u t also, in the m eantim e, leads to the intensification o f th eir opposition. A
continuing preservation an d ap p ro p riatio n o f the gospel o f peace is, therefore,
necessary if the powers are to be resisted an d if believers are to be ready to
m ake th eir stand in the world, the stand th at is in line with th eir calling.
Believers’ p rep aratio n for standing firm an d prevailing against the alienating
an d frag m en tin g powers o f evil is the harm ony p ro duced by th e gospel.
16 ev naxnv ävaXaßövres top Ovpeov rf)s more cos, ev cb dvvqoeoOe irävra ra ßeXr]
tov mvqpov rä ireiwpcopeva aßeoat, “besides all these, having taken u p the shield
o f faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the b u rn in g arrow s o f
the evil o n e.” F u rth e r arm o r is necessary. A lthough ev iraow could m ean “in
all circum stances,” it m ore probably has th e force o f “besides o r in addition
to all (these).” T h e last o f the pieces o f spiritual arm or, which are virtues or
attitudes to be practiced by the believer, is “the shield o f faith.” In the O T ,
the shield was used as an im age for G od’s protection o f his people (cf., e.g.,
G en 15:1; Pss 5:2; 1 8 :2 , 3 0 , 35; 28:7; 33:20; 35:2; 59:11; 91:4; 115:9– 11;
144:1). H ere the term em ployed is Qvpeös o r scutum, the large shield, fo u r
feet in length an d two an d a h alf feet in w idth, which is described by Polybius
6.23.2 as the first p a rt o f the R om an navonXia an d which protected the whole
body. T his R om an shield was generally m ade o f wood with a thick coating o f
leath er (cf. also H om er, //. 5.452; H ero d o tu s 7.91; Pliny 8.39). It is to be
distinguished from the äanis o r clipeus, a small ro u n d buckler, w hich is the
term fo u n d in the depiction o f Y ahw eh’s a rm o r in LXX Wis 5:19. Faith is
m entioned th ro u g h o u t the letter (cf. 1:13, 15; 2:8; 3:12, 17; 4:5, 13; 6:23),
an d in this context it is the confident tru st in an d receptiveness to C hrist an d
his pow er th at protects the whole person (pace O epke, T D N T 5 [1967] 314,
who claims it is “an objective, divinely given reality”). Faith takes hold o f G od’s
resources in the m idst o f the onslaughts o f evil an d produces the firm resolve
which douses an y thing the enem y throw s at the believer (cf. also 1 T hess
5:8, w here faith is p art o f the breastplate, an d 1 Pet 5:8, 9, w here firm faith
is necessary for resisting the devil).
Faith will enable the believer “to extinguish all the b u rn in g arrows o f the
evil o n e.” T h e fu tu re bvvrjoeode, “you will be able,” relates to the effect o f
taking u p the shield an d does n o t indicate th a t the conflict itself is fu tu re
450 E p h e s ia n s 6:10–20

(pace M eyer, 337). “T h e evil o n e ” is a title for th e enem y which is n o t fo u n d

elsew here in th e Pauline corpus (though p erh ap s it is in view in 2 T hess 3:3),
b u t occurs in M att 13:19; J o h n 17:15; 1 J o h n 2:13, 14; 5:18, 19. “B u rn in g
arrow s” featu re in the O T in Ps 7:13 an d Prov 26:18 a n d are elsew here called
(JeXr? iwfxl>6pa (D iodorus 20.96) o r 7rup0opot otcrrot (T hucydides 2.75.4). T hey
are th e malleoli, arrow s tip p ed with inflam m able tow o r pitch an d shot o ff
afte r being lit. Livy (Hist. 21.8) graphically describes how these arrow s, even
w hen n o t hittin g th e body b u t cau g h t by th e shield, caused panic because
they blazed fiercely an d tem p ted soldiers to throw dow n th eir b u rn in g shields
a n d becom e vulnerable to the spears o f th eir enem ies. Some w riters (e.g.,
O epke, T D N T 5 [1967] 314; Schnackenburg, 285) claim th a t th e shields could
n o t deal effectively with the b u rn in g arrow s an d th at this is a place w here
th e w riter’s m etaphorical language breaks with reality. B ut in T hucydides 2.75.5
skins an d hides w ere used to protect w orkm en from incendiary arrow s, a n d
th e leath er coating o f each shield was soaked in w ater before battle. T his
m ean t th at th e wood o f the shield was n o t set on fire a n d th e destructive
pow er o f th e arrow s was neutralized. H e re th e b u rn in g arrow s re p re se n t every
type o f assault devised by th e evil one, n o t ju s t tem p tatio n to im p u re o r unloving
conduct b u t also false teaching, persecution, doubt, an d despair. Faith is the
pow er which enables believers to resist an d triu m p h over such attacks.
17 Kai rr\v iTepiKe<t>a\atav rod ocorr^piov 8e%aode, Kai tt\i>n ä xa tfxzv rod irvevpaTOS,
ö eon v pffpa Oeov, “A nd receive the helm et o f salvation, an d the sword o f th e
Spirit, which is the w ord o f G od.” Believers are to “receive,” i.e., from God
(v 13) who offers them , “the h elm et” a n d “th e sw ord.” W ild (CBQ 46 [1984]
297) is rig h t to claim th at “the shift from th e string o f participles in 6:14– 16
to dexasthe in 6:17a is m eant to signal a shift from a listing o f virtues in a
som ew hat conventional sense as qualities which involve a certain deg ree o f
h u m an effort to objects which are gifts in the p u re st sense, ‘salvation’ a n d
‘th e w ord o f G od.’ ” T h e o rd e r o f this verse, with th e helm et being received
before th e sword, m akes good sense, because th e soldier w ho is being depicted
already grasps th e shield with his left h and. I f he h ad taken the sw ord first,
th ere would be no h an d free to receive a n d p u t on th e helm et (cf. also M eyer,
338). T h e helm et, which fo r the R om an soldier was m ade o f bronze a n d h ad
cheek pieces, provided protection fo r a n o th e r vital part, the head. T h e language
o f “the helm et o f salvation” alludes again to LXX Isa 59:17 (cf. “th e breastplate
o f righteousness” in v 14). It is this allusion th at explains th e use o f ooyrppvov
ra th e r th an ocorripia. T h e fo rm er term , which was em ployed frequently in
the LXX for salvation, occurs now here else in the P auline corpus (but cf.
Luke 2:30; 3:6; Acts 28:28). In the O T G od is him self salvation a n d deliverance
fo r those o ppressed (cf. also, e.g., Pss 18:2, 46– 48; 35:3; 37:39, 40; 65:5; 70:4, 5;
Isa 33:2, 6; 45:17; 46:13; 51:5, 6; J e r 31:33), an d h ere in Ephesians believers
are to receive the divine salvation. Paul in 1 T hess 5:8 h ad talked o f the
h elm et as th e h o p e o f salvation, b u t in line with his m ore realized eschatology
this w riter again thinks o f salvation as a p resen t reality (cf. esp. 2:5, 8; pace
Schlier, 297, who reads the idea o f ho p e into 6:17, an d B arth, 776, w ho claims
th at a decision betw een p resen t a n d fu tu re salvation cannot be m ade). For
him , w hat ultim ately protects believers is th at God has already rescued them
from b ondage to the prince o f the realm o f th e air a n d seated th em with
 Comment 451

C hrist in th e heavenly realm s (cf. 2:1– 10). By ap p ro p riatin g this salvation as

th eir helm et, believers have every reason to be confident o f the outcom e o f
the battle.
W ith the final piece o f equipm ent, the w riter’s em phasis shifts from the
defensive to th e offensive. T h e sh arp short sword (päxcupa as opposed to popcjxüa,
th e long sword) was the crucial offensive w eapon in close com bat. T h e re is a
corresp o n d in g stylistic shift. W hereas with the breastplate o f righteousness,
the shield o f faith, o r the helm et o f salvation, the fo rm er elem ent represents
the latter, this is n o t the case with “th e sword o f the S pirit.” T h e sword stands
n o t for the Spirit b u t for “the w ord o f G od.” In fact, the relative p ro n o u n ö
in the following clause, “which is the w ord o f G od,” refers back to the whole
phrase “the sword o f th e S pirit.” T h e Spirit is no t so m uch th e one who supplies
the sword (pace M eyer, 339)—both the helm et an d the sword are to be received
from God—b u t th e one who gives it its effectiveness, its cutting edge (cf. also
Schnackenburg, 286). Since the w riter has already draw n on Isa 11:5 for v
14, he may well have been influenced in this verse by the im agery an d language
o f LXX Isa 11:4, w here the Spirit o f G od rests on the M essiah who “shall
smite th e ea rth with the w ord [X0 70 9 ] o f his m outh, an d with the b re ath [irvevpa]
th ro u g h his lips shall he destroy the ungodly.” I f this is so, an assertion about
the Messiah w ould again be tran sferre d to the C hristian. Isa 11:4 is also taken
u p in 2 T hess 2:8, w here the L ord Jesus will slay the lawless one with the
b re ath o f his m outh. In Revelation C hrist wages w ar with th e sword o f his
m o u th , an d his w ord reveals peo p le’s deeds for w hat they are (cf. 1:16; 2 :1 2 ,1 6 ;
19:13, 15). In E phesians, how ever, w hen the C hristian solider wields the sword
o f th e w ord, it is n o t first o f all the w ord o f ju d g m e n t b u t the good news o f
salvation. pf\pa here, no t X0 7 0 9 , refers to the gospel (cf. also 5:26; Rom 10:18;
1 Pet 1:25). T his is “the w ord o f tru th , the gospel o f your salvation” (1:13),
“the gospel o f peace” (6:15). T his form o f the w ord o f G od is also a sharp
sword (cf. H eb 4:12), and the Spirit gives it its pow er an d p en e tratio n (cf. 1
T hess 1:5). As believers take hold o f an d proclaim the gospel, they are enabled
to overcom e in the battle. A nd as regards the powers, th at gospel does sound
a note o f ju d g m e n t, for it announces th eir defeat. T h e p aradox again is th at
it is the gospel o f peace an d reconciliation th at is the sword th at enables the
militia Christi to advance. As the C h u rch continues to be the reconciled an d
reconciling com m unity, the gospel conquers the alienating hostile powers an d
brings ab out G od’s saving purposes.
18 8iä Träoris ttpooevxvs Kai öerjoecos npooevxopevoi ev iravri Katpcö ev irvevpari,
KCLi eis avro äypvnvovvres ev iräoxi TrpooKapreprpei Kai derlei nepi navroov tlov ayioov,
“th ro u g h every p rayer an d petition, praying at all tim es in the Spirit, an d to
this en d keeping alert in all perseverance an d petition fo r all the saints.” S tanding
ready for com bat is to be com bined with prayer. T h e participles “praying”
an d “keeping alert” are probably to be connected with the verb o f th e m ain
ex h o rtatio n in v 14, arfjre ovv, “stand th ere fo re ,” ra th e r th an with th e intervening
öei-aude, “receive,” in v 17, which should be seen as subordinate to orifre (cf.
also M eyer, 341; Abbott, 187). B ut prayer is no t the seventh piece o f spiritual
a rm o r as som e claim (pace Schlier, 298, 300; G augler, 228). T h e m ilitary m eta-
p h ors are lim ited to vv 14– 17. Instead, the close link betw een the m aterial
on p ray er an d w hat has preceded, th ro u g h the participles an d öuz, “th ro u g h ,”
452 E p h e s ia n s 6 :1 0 – 2 0

u n d erlines th e spiritual n atu re o f believers’ com bat. T his is m ore th a n a worldly

o r a h u m an conflict. T h e w riter has taken over m aterial from Col 4 :2–4 a n d
em ployed it differently as an elaboration on w hat it m eans for the C hristian
soldier to stand firm an d be strong in the L ord. P uttin g on, taking u p , an d
receiving G od’s arm o r all require an attitu d e o f d ep en d en ce on God. P rayer
fo r stren g th en in g from G od can be seen as a m ajor way in w hich believers
ap p ro p riate th e divine arm o r an d are enabled to stand. T h e expression fo r
p ray er is a double one, using th e two term s 7ipooevxv an d Serjat?. Paul h ad
also used this twofold expression in Phil 4:6, “in everything by p ray er an d
petition with thanksgiving let your requests be m ade know n to G od” (cf. also
LXX 3 Kgdm s 8:45; 2 C h ro n 6:19 [twice]; 1 T im 2:1; 5:5; Ign. Magn. 7.1).
T h ey are em ployed to g eth er here prim arily fo r the sake o f intensification,
b u t usually th e fo rm er term has a m ore general a n d com prehensive reference,
while th e latter indicates m ore specifically the request o r petition aspect o f
prayer. In this verse, the two elem ents are taken u p separately: first, “praying
at all times in th e S pirit,” an d th en “to this en d keeping alert in all perseverance
an d petition fo r all the saints.”
T h e need to pray “at all tim es” is a them e fo u n d frequently in the P auline
writings, th o u g h the expression m ay vary (cf. navrore, “always,” in Phil 1:4;
Col 1:3; 4:12; 2 T hess 1:11, an d äötaXebrrco?, “unceasingly,” in 1 T hess 5:17;
R om 1:9, 10). E arlier in E ph 5:20, giving thanks is also an activity which is
to take place always (naurore). T h e w riter has d em o n strated th e im portance
he attaches to prayer, an d particularly pray er for aw areness o f divine pow er
an d stren g th en in g th ro u g h th a t pow er, in his own prayers for th e read ers re -
p o rted in 1:15– 23 an d 3:14–21. T h e im m ediate context o f th e battle against
evil powers only m akes all the clearer th e constant n eed for calling on divine
aid.
Praying “in the S pirit” has reference to the Holy Spirit (cf. also J u d e 20,
“Pray in the Holy S pirit”) ra th e r th an to the h u m an spirit (pace W estcott,
97). In P aul’s th o u g h t, the Spirit is intim ately involved in believers’ prayers
(Rom 8:15, 16) a n d enables th em to re p eat th e p ray er o f Jesu s to th e F ather,
“A bba” (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15, 16). Jo n es (RevRel 27 [1976] 128– 39) rightly sees
a connection with 2:18 an d access to th e F ath er in th e one Spirit, b u t pushes
this too far w hen he in terp rets 6:18 as also about unity betw een Jew an d
G entile because o f its association with the preceding allusion to Isa 59:17,
which in its context is tied to the notion o f G od’s salvation o f the nations (cf.
also S chnackenburg, 288 n. 740). T h e w riter is calling for p ray er inspired,
guided, an d m ade effective th ro u g h the Spirit. T hose who are u n ited in th eir
access to th e F ath er th ro u g h th e Spirit (2:18), who are built into G od’s dw elling
place in the Spirit (2:22), an d who are being filled with the Spirit (5:18) can
an d should pray constantly in an d th ro u g h this Spirit (for fu rth e r discussion
o f “p ray er in th e Spirit,” see Adai, Der Heilige Geist, 237– 43).
T o give oneself to this sort o f prayer, it is essential to keep alert. T his is
u n d erlin e d by th e prepositional phrases which su rro u n d aypVTrvovvres, “keeping
alert.” T h e p receding eisairro, “to this e n d ,” stresses th at the p u rp o se o f keeping
alert is to pray constantly, an d the following ev ttojcjji irpootcaprepr^oei Kai öerpei
m akes clear th at this w atchfulness is to be accom panied by perseverance an d
prayer. T h e ex h o rtation to watch an d pray was p a rt o f early C hristian paraenetic
tradition, an d eith er aypmvew or ypriyopew, which are fo u n d as synonym s in
 Comment 453

the LXX an d the N T, can be em ployed for the fo rm er concept. In M ark

14:38 Jesus in G ethsem ane tells the sleeping P eter to watch (yprjyopew) and
pray. T his h ad been preceded by the threefold call to the disciples to watch
(once with äypvnvelv an d twice with ypqyopelp) in M ark 13:33– 37. Luke m akes
this w atching a constant activity an d links it with p rayer fo r strengthening:
“B ut watch [aypvTTveip] at all times, praying th at you m ay have stre n g th ” (Luke
21:36). (O n this traditional association o f w atching an d praying, see fu rth e r
E. Lövestam , Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament [ L und: G leerup, 1963]
64– 77.) T o be alert involves ren o u n cin g the spiritual sleep o f the darkness o f
this age (cf. also 1 Pet 4:7). As Lövestam (Spiritual Wakefulness9 75) observes:
“For the one who fails to keep awake . . . b u t is en tan g led an d absorbed in
this world an d age, this becom es h in d erin g an d devastating fo r the prayer
life.” T h e notions o f perseverance an d prayer com e to g eth er elsew here, al-
th o u g h E ph 6:18 is the only place in the N T th at the n o u n npooKaprepriois,
“perseverance,” is used ra th e r th an the cognate verb (cf. the exhortations to
persevere in p ray er in Rom 12:12 an d Col 4:2; cf. also Acts 1:14; 2:42; 6:4).
If earlier in the passage m uch em phasis has been given to G od’s provision o f
resources, th ere is now also stress on the n eed for effort an d self-discipline
on the p a rt o f believers, in o rd e r to avoid spiritual com placency an d fatigue
an d p u rsu e a life o f prayer.
T h e petitions believers offer as p art o f this life o f pray er are to be “for all
the saints.” T h e w riter has earlier rem in d ed his readers o f th eir links with all
the saints (cf. 1:15; 3:18), an d this consciousness o f fellowship with all believers,
o f being p art o f a universal C hurch, which he has attem p ted to instill should
b ear fru it in the b read th o f th eir concerns an d prayers. T h e fourfold use o f
7ras, “all,” in this verse is both typical o f th e w riter’s p lerophory o f style an d
indicative o f th e significance he attaches to prayer. As B arth (778) com m ents,
“N othing less is suggested th an th at the life an d strife o f the saints be one
great p rayer to God, th at this prayer be offered in ever new form s, how ever
good o r bad the circum stances, an d th at this p rayer not be self-cen tered b u t
express th e need an d h ope o f all the saints.”
1 9 ,2 0 m i virep epov . . . tva ev amcb napprioixiocopai Set pe \a\r)oai, “an d
for me . . . th at I may talk o f it boldly an d openly as I o u g h t to speak.” In
addition to calling for prayer for all believers, the w riter, having taken on the
persona o f Paul as p a rt o f the device o f pseudonym ity, appeals for prayer
especially for him self. T his appeal is an adaptation o f m aterial from Col 4:3, 4,
b u t with the focus on Paul him self, n o t his co-w orkers as well. Elsew here in
the Pauline writings the apostle requests pray er for him self o r assum es his
readers are praying for him . Som etim es this is in relation to a specific situation
o r need (cf. Rom 15:30– 32; Phil 1:19; Philem 22) an d som etim es it is m ore
generally for him self and his m inistry (cf. 1 T hess 5:25; 2 C or 1:11; 2 T hess
3:1, 2). T his call for prayer comes into the latter category.
Prayer is asked for the apostle’s m inistry, which is described in term s fam iliar
from earlier in the letter—m aking know n the m ystery o f the gospel. G od has
m ade known to all believers the m ystery o f his will (1:9, 10). In particular, he
has m ade it know n to Paul, who in tu rn has a m ission to enlighten all about
this m ystery (3:3– 6, 9). In addition, the C h u rch has a crucial role in m aking
it known (3 :1 0 )/T h e gospel can be identified with this m ystery. Since at the
h ea rt o f m aking known the m ystery is the reconciliation o f Jew s an d Gentiles
454 E p h e s ia n s 6 :1 0 – 2 0

in th e one body o f the C hurch, it is n atu ra l fo r th e gospel to be called elsew here

in relation to the G entile read ers “th e gospel o f yo u r salvation” (1:13) a n d
“th e gospel o f peace” (6:15). As has been em phasized earlier, m aking know n
th e m ystery o f th e gospel is n o t a purely h u m an effort b u t relies on G od’s
grace (cf. 3:2, 7, 8 ). H ere this is u n d erlin e d th ro u g h th e notion o f th e w ord
being given. T h e apostle is d e p e n d e n t on G od n o t only fo r the revelation o f
th e m ystery b u t also for its proclam ation.
Som e hold th at this em phasis is co n tin u ed th ro u g h the w ords ev avd^ei rod
oroparo^ pov, “in o pening my m o u th ,” w hich w ould re fe r to th e o p en in g o f
th e m o u th by God an d “com plete from the subjective side w hat is expressed
on th e objective side in Sodfi X0 7 0 5 [“th e w ord m ay be given”]” (Abbott, 189;
cf. also j . A. R obinson, 136; Schlier, 303). In Col 4:3, which is th e po in t o f
d e p a rtu re for the language o f opening, the o p en in g is do n e by G od, th o u g h
it is n o t o f the m o u th b u t o f a d o o r fo r th e word. In th e wisdom literatu re
W isdom is said to op en the m outh o f the righteous (cf. Wis 10:21; Sir 15:5).
T his way o f co n struing th e request, with both the giving o f th e w ord a n d the
o p en in g o f th e m o u th being d one by G od, is certainly possible. B ut it is m ore
likely th at the m ajority o f the com m entators are rig h t in taking it as a request
th at w hen th e apostle opens his m o u th (“w hen I o p en my m o u th ”) G od will
fill it with th e ap p ro p riate utterance. O p e n in g th e m o u th is a com m on biblical
expression fo r proclaim ing G od’s w ord (cf. Ps 78:2; Ezek 3:27; 33:22; D an
10:16).
T h e gospel which it is the apostle’s m ission to proclaim is one fo r which
he is “an am bassador in chains.” T his notion o f being an am bassador picks
u p on P aul’s self-u n d ersta n d in g in 2 C or 5:20 a n d Philem 9 (on this latter
disp uted reference, see O ’B rien, Colossians, Philemon [WBC 44] 290). T h e term
was used o f the e m p e ro r’s legates, w ho w ere em pow ered to be official re p re se n ta -
tives o f his governm ent. Likewise, Paul in his m ission to the G entiles was
acting as th e au thorized representative o f th e gospel (cf. also 3:7, 8 ). T h ro u g h
th e concept o f au th orized rep resen tatio n th ere are clear overlaps betw een am -
bassadorship an d apostleship. H ere the depiction o f the im prisoned apostle
continues (cf. also 3:1; 4:1). aXuais, “chain,” is used in the portrayal o f P aul’s
im p riso n m en t in Acts 28:20 an d 2 T im 1:16. T o talk o f an am bassador in
chains is to em ploy an oxym oron. N orm ally an am bassador h ad diplom atic
im m unity an d could n o t be im prisoned by those to w hom he was sent, b u t
prison chains now becom e the ap p ro p riate insignia fo r re p resen tin g th e gospel,
the m ark o f th e suffering apostle (cf. also B arth , 782).
O n e o f th e w riter’s distinctive additions to th e m aterial from Col 4:3, 4 is
his em phasis on boldness an d openness (cf. evirapprioiqL, v 19, a n d irapprjataocjpat,
v 20). E arlier he has used the n o u n Ttappr^oia, “boldness,” to re fe r to th e believer’s
direct an d bold access to G od (cf. 3:12; fo r fuller discussion an d referen ce to
the literature, see Comment on this verse). Elsew here in G reek literatu re the
term prim arily refers to freedom o f speech, the sort o f speech a p p ro p ria te to
a free h u m an being. B oldness an d freedom w ere supposed to characterize
th e speaking o f a tru e philosopher, d em o n stratin g th a t he h ad fo u n d genuine
personal freedom an d on the basis o f this could expose th e shortcom ings o f
o thers in an attem p t to educate them . Dio C hrysostom describes th e ideal
Cynic as “a m an who with purity a n d w ithout guile speaks with a p h ilo so p h er’s
boldness” (Orat. 32.11; cf. also E pictetus, Diss. 3.22.19; Lucian, Demonax 3).
 Explanation 455

In th e N T th e verb is frequently used o f P aul’s bold proclam ation o f the

gospel (cf. 1 T hess 2:2; Acts 9 :2 7 ,2 9 ; 13;46; 19:8; 26:26). In both Phil 1:20
an d Philem 8 Paul the prisoner talks about his freedom o r boldness. H ere
too the picture is o f the am bassador who continues to pass on his m essage
freely an d openly even while he is in chains. Since th at m essage is also called
the mystery, th ere is a fu rth e r connotation o f irapprioia. T h a t which was hidden,
b u t is now revealed openly, is also to be proclaim ed openly.
T hese verses obviously raise the question o f how they w ere m eant to be
taken if, as we have argued, the letter was no t w ritten by Paul him self b u t by
a follower w riting in his nam e. O n such a reading, they form p a rt o f the
literary device o f pseudonym ity th ro u g h which the m essage is conveyed. As
p art o f such a device which aim ed at verisim ilitude, th ere is no difference in
principle betw een having the apostle ask for p ray er fo r him self tow ard the
en d o f the letter, although he is in fact deceased, an d sim ply claim ing the
nam e o f the deceased apostle at the beginning. B ut these verses are m ore
th an m erely a literary device. T h ro u g h them the recipients o f the letter are
being p resen ted with the paradoxical im age o f Paul the im prisoned apostle
proclaim ing the gospel freely an d openly. T h e re is a sim ilar picture o f Paul
in 2 T im 2:9, an d it is striking th at L uke’s picture o f the im prisoned Paul at
the en d o f the Acts has the sam e features— he preaches an d teaches pera
Trdar?? irapprioias a/como?, “with all openness, u n h in d e re d ” (Acts 28:31; cf. also
Wild, CBQ 46 [1984] 292 n. 31). T h e im pression to be conveyed is o f the
u n tram m eled triu m p h o f the gospel despite opposition an d extrem e adversity.
H ere also, then, th e read ers’ prayers are to be for the triu m p h o f the apostolic
gospel th at is sum m ed u p by this im age. Since the w riter considers him self a
representative o f Paul, the request can also be u n d ersto o d as his appeal for
p ray er for his own bold proclam ation o f the Pauline gospel (see also Comment
on 3:4). T h e read ers’ intercession will dem onstrate th eir own solidarity with
this apostolic gospel. At the sam e tim e, this im age o f Paul encourages an d
braces them in th eir own C hristian witness. If, as they know, Paul proclaim ed
the gospel boldly even in prison, w hatever the difficulties o f th eir circum stances
they have no reason to be asham ed o f an d every reason for confidence in his
gospel, to which they owe th eir C hristian existence. T hey are n o t to th in k o f
them selves as a little g ro u p th at needs to hide away. R ather, they have a gospel
th at is to be an n o u n ced freely an d openly in the m idst o f the su rro u n d in g
world. Wild (CBQ 46 [1984] 294) is rig h t to claim th at “6:19– 20 presents us
with a typological m odel o f C hristian existence in the w orld” b u t w rong in
his explanation o f this. It is n o t th at C hristians are also prisoners, ap p aren tly
in bondage to th e dem onic powers, yet not prisoners because o f Christ. N ow here
does E phesians indicate any such control, even ap p a ren t, o f th e pow ers over
believers’ lives. T h e m odel is m ore indirect an d general—boldness a n d openness
in the m idst o f opposition an d adversity. For Paul, this adversity an d opposition
m ean t im prisonm ent, b u t this is no t the case fo r the readers, even m etap h o ri-
cally.

Explanation

A fter the w riter’s ethical exhortations to his readers have taken him into
th e details o f household living, he now steps back. In his concluding appeal
456 E p h e s ia n s 6 :1 0 – 2 0

in 6 : 1 0 – 2 0 , he looks at th eir task o f living in th e world from a b ro a d er an d

m ore general perspective. H e sets the task in a cosmic context an d u n d e r the
sustained new im agery o f a spiritual battle urges the readers to stand firm
against th e evil powers th at are arrayed against them . B attle im agery h ad
been used extensively in the Q u m ra n literatu re to depict the com m unity’s
role in th e world an d was em ployed in a tran sferre d sense in Stoic writings
to ex p o u n d the attitudes an d conduct o f the wise m an. T his passage is both
th e conclusion o f the paraenesis an d the final m ajor section o f th e letter as a
whole. As such, in rhetorical term s it is the peroratio, the closing p a rt o f an
address th at sum s u p its m ain them es in a way th at evokes the ap p ro p ria te
em otional response in the audience. In re g ard to both form an d content, the
ex h o rtatio n has features in com m on with the speeches in G reek literatu re o f
generals rallying th eir troops to do battle against d au n tin g enem ies. T h e m ain
sources for th e w riter’s inspiration, how ever, are th e b rief exhortations in various
places in P aul’s letters to stand, to be strong, a n d to p u t on faith a n d love as
a breastplate an d the h ope o f salvation as a helm et, an d th e language o f a
n u m b er o f passages in Isaiah, two o f which depict th e arm o r o f Y ahw eh an d
his M essiah (cf. Isa 11:4,5; 59:17; cf. also Wis 5 :l7 – 20a) an d two o f which
provide fu rth e r m otifs th ro u g h the m ention o f sword an d feet (cf. Isa 49:2;
52:7). T h e resulting picture o f the believer’s arm o r does have a correspondence
to th at o f a heavily arm ed R om an legionary, b u t this is not the w riter’s prim ary
p o in t o f d ep a rtu re. T h e call to stand firm in the battle is his distinctive addition
to the m aterial in Colossians, which has provided the source fo r the letter as
a whole. H e only re tu rn s to ad a p t a n d m odify this source at the e n d o f the
passage with th e exhortation to prayer based on Col 4:2– 4.
T h e passage has th ree m ain parts: vv 10 – 13, vv 14 – 17, an d vv 18–20. In
th e first p art, th e readers are exh o rted to be strong an d rem in d ed th at they
derive such stren g th from th eir L ord an d his pow er. T h e context fo r this call
to stren g th an d courage soon becom es clear. It is a spiritual battle in which
the readers are on the side o f G od against the devil. If they are to stand firm
in the face o f th e cu n n in g stratagem s with which the devil attacks them , th en
in o rd e r to be strong they will need divine protection an d equipping. For
this reason, th e w riter urges them to p u t on the full arm o r o f God. T h e necessity
o f G od supplying believers with his own arm o r is fu rth e r u n d erlin e d as the
w riter goes on to depict the n atu re o f the battle an d th e stren g th o f the opposing
forces. T h e battle is no t against a h u m an enem y, but, seen from a cosmic
perspective, is against spiritual powers, designated in the term inology o f the
tim e as principalities an d authorities a n d th e w orld rulers o f this darkness.
T h ese powers, u n d e r th e leadership o f th e devil, dom inate th e p re sen t evil
age an d are sum m ed u p by th e w riter as “th e spiritual forces o f evil.” In
com m on with b oth Jew ish an d Hellenistic th o u g h t, th e w riter sees these hostile
pow ers as located in the heavenly realm s. T h u s, in line with Paul, he conceives
o f the “already” an d the “no t yet,” the overlap betw een th e p re sen t age an d
the age to com e p ro d u ced by w hat has h a p p e n e d in C hrist, culm inating in
his exaltation, as involving both heaven an d earth . In the tim e betw een the
decisive defeat o f the powers by C hrist a n d th eir ultim ate subm ission, the
powers o f evil are still active, an d so believers can n o t afford to be com placent.
So fo r th e second tim e (v 13), the readers are u rg e d to take u p G od’s full
 Explanation 457

arm or, an d are thereby rem inded th at they have all the resources necessary
for successful resistance o f any inroads into th eir lives th at the hostile powers
attem p t to m ake. A p p ro p riatin g the divine resources for living is n o t only
essential now b u t will be especially crucial w hen the p resen t age culm inates
in a climactic tim e o f evil. Accordingly, having fully eq u ip p ed them selves for
battle, the readers m ust concentrate all th eir resources on standing firm .
T h e second p a rt o f the passage (vv 14– 17) begins with the im perative “stand,”
sum m ing u p th e m ain th ru st o f the w riter’s appeal to his readers to occupy
steadfastly the position in the battle against the pow ers th at is theirs in Christ.
T his tim e the w riter spells o u t some o f the specific pieces o f a rm o r they need
to have p u t on if they are to stand firm . T h e first fo u r item s are the belt o f
tru th , the breastplate o f righteousness, the sandals o f the readiness o f the
gospel o f peace, an d the shield o f faith. T ru th fu ln ess an d m oral integrity will
provide su p p o rt an d brace the believer. D oing rig h t an d practicing justice
will give essential protection. B eing in a state o f readiness by living o u t the
peace p ro d u ced by the gospel is paradoxically b u t appropriately the best p re p a -
ration for com bat against powers o u t to p roduce disunity. C onfident tru st in
an d constant openness to G od’s resources in C hrist will offer fu rth e r full p rotec-
tion against every type o f assualt rained u p o n believers by the evil one. In v
17 the syntax changes from a series o f participles to a new im perative, “receive,”
an d this signals a change in the n a tu re o f the two final pieces o f arm or. T h e
helm et o f salvation an d the sword o f the Spirit are no longer subjective qualities
req u ired o f the believer b u t objective gifts from God. O f course, for this w riter
th ere is no ultim ate distinction, an d both ethical qualities o f the new hum anity
an d soteriological benefits have th eir source in God (cf. 2 :8 – 10; 4:24). H ere
the allusions to O T language about the a rm o r o f Y ahw eh an d his Messiah
are a constant rem in d er th at all the pieces o f arm o r are p a rt o f G od’s full
arm o r th at he is giving to believers. T h ro u g h the last two pieces o f arm or,
believers are being told th at they are protected in the battle by the p resen t
reality o f salvation, th ro u g h which they have been delivered from the dom inion
o f the ru ler o f darkness, an d th at they can m ove on to the offensive against
the forces o f evil by w ielding the w ord o f the gospel, which is given its p en e tratio n
an d pow er by th e Spirit.
T h e th ird section o f the letter’s final exhortation (vv 18– 20) is closely related
to w hat has p receded th ro u g h its participial constructions, m aking clear th at
ap p ro p riatin g the divine arm o r an d standing firm in the battle req u ire a life
o f dep en d en ce on God in prayer. Believers are to pray at all times, an d th eir
prayers are to be inspired an d guided by the Spirit th ro u g h w hom they have
confident access to God the F ather. For such a life o f p ray er they need the
alertness which keeps at bay spiritual sleep an d com placency an d the persever-
ance which overcom es fatigue an d discouragem ent. T h e ir prayer will n o t only
involve d ep en d en ce on G od for th eir own stren g th en in g b u t will also include
petitioning on b eh alf o f all believers and, m ore specifically, on b eh alf o f the
apostle that, in the m idst o f his im prisonm ent for the sake o f the gospel, he
may be given th e words to proclaim boldly an d openly th e m ystery th at is at
th e h ea rt o f his gospel. By addressing them in the nam e o f the apostle who
is an am bassador in chains an d asking p ray er fo r the free an d o p en proclam ation
o f the apostolic gospel despite P aul’s im prisonm ent, the w riter is asking for
458 E p h e s ia n s 6 :1 0 – 2 0

p ray er both fo r his own m inistry in continuity with th at o f Paul a n d for th e

triu m p h o f th e apostolic gospel despite opposition a n d adversity. In asking
th e read ers to dem onstrate th eir solidarity with P aul’s gospel in this way, the
w riter, th ro u g h this p o rtra it o f Paul, is at the sam e tim e indirectly providing
th em with a m odel for th eir own task o f living in the world. T h e ir witness
too is to be bold a n d open, w hatever th e difficulties a n d how ever form idable
the opposition th at they face.
Since this passage concludes the letter’s ethical exhortations, its focus, like
th at o f th e p receding m aterial in this h alf o f the letter, is on believers an d
th eir situation. T his situation is n o t simply one o f relating to th e su rro u n d in g
society an d its values in a distinctive fashion b u t one which has a cosmic d im en -
sion. In th eir situation, believers m ust reckon with su p e rh u m a n agencies. T h e
p o in t is driven hom e th at th e w orld in which they live o u t th e ir C hristian
existence is n o t n eu tral territory b u t a battleg ro u n d . O n th eir side, believers
relate to God (vv 11, 13, 17), C hrist (v 10), an d th e Spirit (vv 17, 18). O n the
o th er side, they are u p against the devil o r evil one (vv 11, 16) a n d his spiritual
forces (v 12). T h e perspective o f th e letter as a whole indicates, how ever,
th at this dualism is only a tem porary one an d th at th e two sides are n o t equally
m atched. G od’s p u rp o se is to b rin g the whole cosmos into harm o n y in C hrist
(1:10), an d th e opposition has already been d efeated (1:20– 22; 4:8– 10). In
th e m eantim e, while history as the readers know it continues, th e re m a in d er
o f th e battle m ust be fo u g h t to a conclusion. A lthough it is G od’s p u rp o se to
sum u p all things in C hrist an d in th e process to create a new reconciled
people who live to g eth er in harm ony an d lead a holy a n d righteous life in
th e world, the defeated powers o f evil attem p t to do th eir utm ost to thw art
this plan. It is striking th at a letter which in its first h a lf depicts th e peace
p ro d u ced by th e gospel should in its second h alf conclude with an em phasis
on war. B ut this only underlines th at G od’s purposes are n o t yet com plete
an d th at th e powers th at are hostile to th e well-b eing o f believers, to th e existence
o f th e C h urch, an d to the advance o f the gospel have n o t yet given u p th eir
ultim ately futile opposition. In this way, th e read ers are given a realistic p erspec-
tive o n C hristian existence a n d disabused o f any naive notion th a t living o u t
th eir calling in th e w orld will be an effortless o r tro u b le-free assignm ent.
T h e w riter has not, how ever, suddenly fo rg o tten all th a t he has said in th e
first p a rt o f the letter about the whole ran g e o f th e benefits o f salvation th at
th e read ers enjoy in C hrist, including participation in his exaltation a n d victory
(cf. 2:6). O n th e contrary, the very depiction o f th e ir situation in its cosmic
context as a battle against the pow ers underlines its newness. Previously, the
readers w ere totally u n d e r the control o f th e prince o f the realm o f the air
(2:2). Now, because o f th eir share in C hrist’s decisive victory, they are in a
position to be able to resist the devil a n d his cohorts. All they have to do is
continue to ap p ro p riate the resources o f stren g th th at are theirs in C hrist. If
they w ere to be left to them selves o r to d ep e n d on th eir own resources, th ere
would be no contest an d they w ould be back in th eir fo rm e r bondage, darkness
an d death. B ut as it is, the full a rm o r o f God provides all th at is n eed ed to
prevail.
T his passage with its call to stand firm provides an a p p ro p ria te conclusion
n o t only to the ethical exhortations b u t to the letter as a whole. In the first
 Explanation 459

p a rt o f th e letter th e readers have been reinforced in th eir identity as C hristian

believers by being rem in d ed o f th eir relationship to C hrist, o f th e benefits o f
the salvation they have received, an d o f th eir p a rt in the one C h u rch th at
has been created o u t o f Jew s and Gentiles. In the second h alf they have been
ex h o rted to live o u t th eir new life as the C hurch in the world. T hey are to
becom e w hat they already are. All th at has been said ab o u t w hat G od has
accom plished for believers an d about the C h u rch ’s role in the w orld has been
set against a cosmic backdrop. Now in conclusion, the cosmic dim ension o f
th e d ram a o f salvation comes to the fore an d colors the way the w riter takes
u p again b oth th e issue o f believers’ identity an d th at o f th eir task in the
world. As regards th eir identity, believers are to see them selves as C hristian
soldiers fitted o u t in G od’s full arm or. In te rp re te rs have long d isputed w hether
the pieces o f a rm o r are to be taken as objective o r subjective, as soteriological
benefits o r ethical qualities. B ut the m ixture o f the two, with th e first fo u r as
activities o r attitudes to be dem onstrated by believers an d th e last two as gifts
from God, is entirely ap p ro p riate for a concluding appeal which com bines
both th e letter’s m ore recent concerns about the life o f the new hum anity
th at is to be a p p ro p riated an d lived ou t an d its earlier em phasis on a salvation
th at has been given. As regards the C h u rch ’s role in th e world, the readers
are m ade aw are th at the opposition they ru n u p against in living o u t the life
o f the new h um anity has as its source the su p ern atu ral pow ers o f evil. T h e
C h u rch ’s witness poses a th re a t to these powers by rem in d in g them o f th eir
ultim ate defeat, an d so they attem p t to retaliate with all the m eans at th eir
disposal. But, as we have seen, as well as being m ade aw are o f th e opposition
to th eir task, the readers are m ade equally aw are o f the totally adequate resources
available both fo r the defensive an d the offensive aspects o f th eir role. T h e
em phases o f this passage provide an effective conclusion to the preceding
exhortations ab out the C h u rch ’s role in the world. M aintaining the unity o f
the Spirit, attaining to m aturity an d building u p the body o f C hrist in the
face o f false teaching, living lives o f righteousness, holiness, an d tru th , dealing
with anger, cultivating edifying talk, loving others, valuing words an d conduct
th at are free from sexual im purity, w orshiping an d giving thanks, subm itting
an d loving in m arriage, obeying an d avoiding provocation in child -p a re n t rela-
tionships, an d obeying an d abstaining from th rea ten in g in slave-m aster relation-
ships can now all be seen to be p a rt o f resisting the pow ers o f evil an d to
d ep en d on ap p ro p riatin g C hrist’s strength. T h e C h u rch th at lives o u t the
ethical exhortations o f the letter is the militia Christi th at has p u t on th e divine
a rm o r an d is standing its g ro u n d in the battle with evil in all its m anifestations.
At the sam e tim e, C hristian soldiers are to be on constant prayer alert as
they p erfo rm th eir task, interceding in the Spirit not only for divine aid for
them selves b u t for the whole C hurch an d for the advance o f the apostolic
gospel in the world. T h e letter’s earlier rem inders o f the re ad ers’ com m unal
identity an d o f th e debt th at they owe to P aul’s proclam ation o f the m ystery
have n ot been forgotten. T h e em phasis on p ray er has also been pervasive in
the first p a rt o f the letter, which began with a prayer o f blessing a n d praise,
co n tin u ed with a p rayer th at the readers m ight know the greatness o f G od’s
pow er in Christ, an d en d ed with a fu rth e r pray er fo r th eir stren g th en in g
th ro u g h the Spirit. Now at the end o f the letter as a whole, believers’ own
460 E phesians 6:10– 20

praying ensures th at th eir living in the w orld retains an aw areness o f its tran scen -
d en t dim ension an d can be seen as the m eans by which they ap p ro p ria te the
divine resources o f stren g th for the battle.
T h e exh o rtatio n to stand, which sum s u p the m ain th ru st o f the ap p eal to
th e readers in this passage, has reference to th eir holding th eir position as
they live o u t th eir life in th e world. P op u lar expositions which sum m arize
the m essage o f the letter in term s o f the th ree verbs “sit,” “walk,” a n d “stan d ”
have caught th e significance o f its progression o f tho u g h t. T h e first p a rt o f
the letter has dealt with believers’ identity in term s o f th eir status a n d position.
T h e ir participation in C hrist’s victory over the pow ers is expressed m ost strik-
ingly in the assertion th at they have been seated with C hrist in th e heavenly
realm s. T h e second p a rt o f the letter with its rep eated use o f th e verb “to
walk” in all its sections appeals to them to live o u t th eir status an d calling in
th e world. Now the concluding ex hortation to stand com bines bo th o f these
earlier em phases in its call to believers to m aintain a n d ap p ro p riate th eir position
o f stren g th an d victory as they live o u t th eir lives in the w orld in th e face o f
the opposition o f evil cosmic powers.
In this way, the letter’s final appeal is adm irably suited to its w riter’s p u rp o se
o f rem in d in g his readers o f th eir distinctive calling as m em bers o f the C h u rch
in the world. Its battle im agery recapitulates his earlier exposition in a new
an d pow erful fashion. It enables him to convey the urgency an d challenge o f
th eir task as he calls for courage, firm resolve, prayerfulness, alertness, an d
perseverance. At the sam e tim e, his focus on C hrist’s stren g th an d G od’s full
arm o r enables him to leave them with a sense o f security a n d confidence.
T h e ir confidence an d firm resolve are fu rth e r stren g th en e d by his p artin g
picture o f the o p en proclam ation o f the gospel by the im prisoned apostle to
w hom , hum anly speaking, they owe th eir C hristian existence a n d who now
serves as a m odel for th eir own bold witness in the w orld in the face o f intense
opposition.
Postscript (6:21–24)
Translation

21 Now in order that you also may know my circumstances, how I am getting
along* Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you
everything.b 22I am sending him to you fo r this very purpose, that you may know
how we are and that he may encourage your hearts.
23 Peace be to the brothers and sisters,c and love with faith from God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ,
grace and immortality.de

Notes

aA literal translation of this clause would be “what I am doing” but it was frequently employed
more idiomatically (cf. BAGD 698).
bIn the Greek text the sentence does not end at this point but continues with a relative clause
“whom I am sending to you. . . . ”
crots d5e\0ot5 means literally “to the brothers,” but the plural d5e\0d can include both brothers
and sisters (cf. BAGD 16), and undoubtedly both men and women would have been among the
intended recipients.
d For justification for linking the final phrase iv äfföapoLq, with “grace” in this way, see Comment
on v 24.
eThere is a variant reading which has an additional äpriv, “Amen,” at the end of the verse
and which would bring the ending into conformity with the liturgical close o f the first half of
the letter in 3:21 (cf. Nc D R L P most minuscules syrPh goth ethPP). But the evidence for its
omission ( p 46 N* A B F G 33 copsabofay arm ethro) is far superior.

Form / Structure / Setting

In the final p art o f the paraenesis the readers had been asked to pray for
P aul’s bold proclam ation o f the m ystery o f the gospel an d h ad been rem in d ed
o f his situation o f im prisonm ent. It is a n atu ral progression to m ention in
conclusion th at Tychicus is being sent to provide the readers with fu rth e r
inform ation about P aul’s w elfare an d circum stances. T h e concluding postscript
has two sections— the recom m endation o f Tychicus an d explanation o f his
task as apostolic em issary in vv 21, 22 – an d th en two com m on features o f
the Pauline letter-ending—the wish o f peace an d the grace-benediction in vv
2 3 ,2 4 . In vv 2 1 ,2 2 two purpose clauses su rro u n d the central statem ent o f
Tychicus’ task an d the description o f him . T h e central assertion is th at “Tychicus
will tell you everything.” H e is described as “the d ea r b ro th e r an d faithful
servant in the Lord, whom I am sending to you.” P receding the assertion is a
Iva clause which explains th at the sending o f Tychicus is in o rd e r th at the
readers may know how the apostle is doing. Following it, ad ded on to the
relative clause an d un d erlin in g the notion o f pu rp o se th ro u g h both ei? avro
roöro, “for this very p u rp o se,” an d Iva, is the re p eated explanation th at this
is in o rd e r th at the readers “m ay know how we a re ” to g eth er with a new
elem ent—th at Tychicus m ight encourage th eir hearts. In the two closing episto-
lary elem ents o f vv 23, 24, the accent falls on the first words o f each: eipqvrj,
“peace,” an d r\ x^pis, “grace.” In n eith er are the readers addressed directly in
462 E phesians 6 :2 1–24

the second person plural, as is m ore com m on in the u n d isp u ted P auline letters,
b u t th e recipients o f the wish o f peace a n d the blessing o f grace are designated
in the th ird person: “the bro th ers an d sisters” for the fo rm er an d “all who
love o u r L ord Jesu s C hrist” for the latter. T o the wish o f peace is ad d ed th e
wish o f love with faith, an d all th ree benefits are said to com e “from G od the
F ath er an d th e L ord Jesus C hrist.” T h e re is also a distinctive addition to the
grace-benediction in the final phrase, ev a<$apoiq., “in im m ortality,” which con-
fers im m ortality along with grace on th e readers.
As is well known, E ph 6:21, 22 provides th e longest exam ple o f exact re p e ti-
tion o f the w ording o f Colossians to be fo u n d in th e letter. T h e final epistolary
features o f 6:23, 24, however, are quite different from those in Colossians.
T h e long personal greetings section o f Col 4:10– 17 is om itted, as is th e note
o f g reeting in P aul’s own h and, which also asks th e readers to re m e m b er his
fetters (Col 4:18ab). S chnackenburg (294 n. 750) suggests th a t th e w riter does
n o t re p e a t the au to g ra p h because he m ay believe Colossians to be a genuine
Pauline letter. Colossians has no wish o f peace, b u t does conclude with a b rief
grace-benediction (4:18c), th o u g h this bears little resem blance to th at o f E ph
6:24.
As reg ard s th e relation betw een E ph 6:21, 22 an d Col 4:7, 8, th e w riter o f
E phesians rep ro d u ces in total th irty-two w ords fo u n d in th e sam e sequence
as in Colossians. T h e tw enty-nine w ords from ira v ra yvco p io ei, “will tell every-
th in g ,” to rd ? K apStas vpcöv, “y our h earts,” are all taken from Colossians. So
w hat th e w riter o f E phesians has d one is to ad d before rd tear ep e, “my circum -
stances, affairs,” which he takes over from Colossians, th e clause Iva 8e nai
vpeu; eiSrjre, “now in o rd e r th a t you also m ay know ,” an d to ad d after it ri
n p a o o cj, “how I am getting along.” T h e rest o f vv 21, 22 are exactly the sam e
as w hat follows in Col 4:7, 8 with the one exception th at E phesians om its Kai
ovvöovX os, “an d fellow slave,” from the description o f Tychicus in Col 4:7.
Such a description h ad closely associated Tychicus with P aul’s m inistry an d
self-designation, an d its om ission in E phesians has th e effect o f m aintaining
the rest o f th e letter’s m ore exclusive focus on the apostolic m inistry o f Paul
him self. Col 4:9 h ad gone on in the sam e sentence to link O nesim us with
Tychicus an d to restate th e in ten tio n b eh in d sending these two, nam ely th at
they will tell the Colossians everything ab o u t w hat is h ap p e n in g in th e place
o f th e letter’s provenance. All o f this is om itted in Ephesians.
O n e featu re o f 6:22 in particular m ay betray the origin o f the m aterial
elsew here. It is th at the w riter has tran sferre d th e first person plural reference,
iv a yifib re rd n epi rjpQ v, “th at you m ay know how we are .” T h a t m ade good
sense in Col 4:8, w here earlier in th e prescript Paul a n d T im othy are n am ed
as co-senders o f the letter an d w here in 4:9– 14 several o th e r co-w orkers who
are with Paul are m entioned. In E p h 6:22 it m akes sense. A fter all, Tychicus
is to be envisaged as with th e apostle at th e tim e o f w riting, b u t it is o u t o f
keeping with th e consistent em phasis o f the letter as a whole on Paul alone
(cf., e.g., 1:1; 3:1– 4, 7, 8, 13, 14; 4:1).
In com parison with P aul’s letters, E phesians has red u ced th e closing elem ents
to a m inim um . Elsewhere, th ere m ay be a com m endation o f an em issary,
h o rtato ry rem arks, notices about P aul’s visits, requests fo r prayer, a wish o f
peace, greetings, a com m and fo r the recipients to g reet one a n o th e r with a
holy kiss, a personal au to g rap h , an d a grace-benediction. H e re th e req u est for
 Form / Structure / Setting 463

p ray er has already been m ade p art o f the final section o f paraenesis, an d so
th ere are simply the com m endation o f Tychicus, the wish o f peace, an d the
grace-benediction. In Pauline conclusions th ere is, how ever, a set sequence o f
the m ajor items— hortatory rem arks, wish o f peace, greetings, an d grace-b en e-
diction. W hatever elem ents may be ad ded o r om itted, this sequence does not
vary. Prim arily because o f the absence o f greetings, E phesians is the only letter
w here the wish o f peace an d the grace-benediction com e together, b u t they
rem ain in th e Pauline sequence (contra Abbott, 190, who is simply incorrect
in his claims th at elsew here the grace-benediction is first a n d the wish o f peace
last an d th at th eir different o rd e r here argues fo r the genuineness o f the
letter an d against an im itation). T h e com m endation o f an em issary may be
com pared not only with Col 4:7– 9 b u t also with Rom 16:1 an d 1 C or 16:10.
T h e wish o f peace occurs elsew here in d ifferent form ulations an d is absent
only from 1 C orinthians, Philem on, an d Colossians. In Rom 15:33 it is “the
God o f peace be with you all,” in 2 C or 13:11b “the G od o f love an d peace
will be with you,” in Phil 4:7 “the peace o f God . . . will keep your hearts
an d your m inds in C hrist Jesu s,” in Phil 4:9 “the G od o f peace will be with
you,” in 1 T hess 5:23 “m ay the God o f peace him self sanctify you wholly,”
an d in 2 T hess 3:16 “m ay the L ord o f peace him self give you peace at all
times in all ways.” Because the recipients o f the wish are no t addressed directly
in the second p erson plural in Ephesians, its wish o f peace has m ost in com m on
with th at in Gal 6:16, “peace and m ercy be u p o n all who walk by this rule,
u p o n th e Israel o f G od.” B ut the addition o f love an d faith to the wish in
E phesians m eans th at it rem ains unique am ong the wishes o f peace in the
Pauline corpus. Similarly, all the o th er grace-benedictions in the Pauline corpus
confer grace directly on the recipients, addressing them in the second person
plural. T hey declare “the grace o f o u r L ord Jesus C hrist be with you” (Rom
16:20; 1 T hess 5:28), “be with you all” (Rom 16:24; 2 T hess 3:18), “be with
your spirit” (Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23), “the grace o f the L ord Jesus be with you”
(1 C or 16:23), “the grace o f the L ord Jesus C hrist an d the love o f G od an d
the fellowship o f the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 C or 13:14), o r simply
“grace be with you” (Col 4:18; cf. also 1 T im 6:21; 2 T im 4:22). Ephesians is
un iq u e in its th ird-person designation o f the recipients o f the blessing as “all
who love o u r L ord Jesus C hrist” an d in its addition o f im m ortality to grace
in the co n ten t o f the blessing.
B oth parts o f the postscript are discrete elem ents with little relationship to
the rest o f th e letter. T h e only link betw een 6:21, 22 an d w hat has preceded
is th ro u g h the literary convention o f pseudonym ity which it ro u n d s off (cf.
1 :1 ; 3 :1–13; 4:1). T h e wish o f peace an d the grace-benediction in 6 :2 3 ,2 4
are conventional form ulae, b u t at the sam e tim e they do recall the letter’s
o p en in g salutation in 1:2, w here they occurred in the reverse o rd e r an d w here
both G od th e F ath er an d the L ord Jesus C hrist w ere n am ed as th e source. In
this way, the postscript refers back to the prescript an d can also evoke the
o th er places in the letter w here peace (cf. 2:14 – 18; 4:3; 6:15) an d grace (1:6, 7;
2:5, 7, 8; 3:2, 7, 8; 4:7, 29) are em phasized. Similarly, love an d faith (6:23)
were m entioned to g eth er in connection with believers, b u t in th e reverse o rd e r
in 1:15 an d 3:17. Elsewhere th eir love, which will be stressed again in 6:24,
is featu red in 1:4; 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2, 25, 28, 33 an d th eir faith in 1:1, 13, 19;
2:8; 3:12; 6:16.
464 E phesians 6:21– 24

How th e postscript contributes to the discussion o f the letter’s life-setting

is d eterm in ed by o n e’s views about the letter’s authenticity. If Ephesians was
w ritten by Paul him self, th en Tychicus, w ho also carried th e letter addressed
to th e specific problem s o f the Colossian C hristians, was the b ea rer o f this
general letter. B ut if, as has been suggested th ro u g h o u t this com m entary,
th e letter is n o t by the apostle him self, th en the com m endation o f Tychicus
is p a rt o f the device o f pseudonym ity, ad d in g a fu rth e r note o f verisim ilitude
to the letter, as the w riter takes u p the role o f Paul in o rd e r to p re sen t his
m essage for a new situation. T h e personal note in this postscript is how ever
kept to a m inim um . T h e re is no fiction ab o u t the apostle’s plans for th e fu tu re
o r im p en d in g visits. T h e person o f Paul is now m ediated th ro u g h th e Pauline
circle o r school, an d so one o f his co-w orkers an d followers who is know n to
believers in Asia M inor is m entioned. M itton (230) suggests th a t Tychicus
could have been the w riter o f the letter an d th at he used th e passage from
Colossians ab out him self to rem ind the readers o f the tru st which Paul h ad
placed in him . T his is o f course possible, b u t it is difficult to explain, if this is
the case, why he should have om itted th e designation “an d fellow slave” from
this description o f him self. T h e absence o f greetings indicates th a t even a
pseudonym ous letter was n o t originally in ten d ed for E phesus, because a P auline
follower would have realized th at Paul h ad w orked th ere for an ex ten d ed
period an d knew m any C hristians personally. B ut the reference to Tychicus,
who was from Asia M inor, confirm s th at th e letter was in all probability w ritten
to C hristians in th at area.

Comment

2 1 92 2 'Iva 5e Kai u/ueZ? etöfjre rd K af epe . . . Kai napaKaXcoj] rd<? /capöta?

vpcbv, “Now in o rd e r th at you also m ay know my circum stances . . . a n d th at
he may encourage your h earts.” T h e phrase Kai u/uel?, “you also,” has provoked
considerable interest am ong com m entators. Some see in it an im plicit b u t con-
scious reference to the Colossians an d T ychicus’ m ission to th em according
to Col 4:7, 8. H e is to inform not only them b u t also the recipients o f this
letter ab out P aul’s circum stances (cf. M eyer, 22, 348; Schlier, 305–6). T his
could be th e case, w hether the letter was genuinely sent along with th e one
to the Colossians o r w hether this was p a rt o f the verisim ilitude o f th e device
o f pseudonym ity (cf. Ochel, Bearbeitung, 4 ,5 ). A bbott (190) argues th a t such
a reference to the Colossians seems forced, because this significance o f Kai
could hardly occur to the readers. B ut this is to discount th eir know ledge o f
T ychicus’ mission. In any case such a reference w ould be n atu ra l fo r th e w riter,
w h eth er Paul o r a follower d ep e n d e n t on Colossians. A bbott’s own suggestion
is th at th e reference is a general one. T h e read ers o f this letter, like o th e r
believers, are to receive news o f the apostle’s situation (cf. also B arth, 809).
O thers take Kai as m ore loosely attached to th e w hole sentence with the m eaning
being th at Tychicus is beng sent so that, in addition to th eir learn in g the
contents o f the letter, the readers m ight also learn som ething ab o u t P aul’s
situation (cf. Dibelius-G reeven, 99; Gnilka, 321). All o f these suggestions may,
however, be attem pts to read too m uch into Kai, a n d it m ay well be m ore
likely th at it is being em ployed very loosely to em phasize th e following p ro n o u n
vpels an d is n o t m aking any fu rth e r p o in t (cf. the earlier use o f Käyoj in 1:15,
 Comment 465

w here th ere is no n eed to assum e th at others ap a rt from th e w riter are giving

thanks an d in terced ing on the addressees’ behalf; cf. also E rnst, 403; Schnacken-
burg, 295).
As we have seen, this recom m endation o f Tychicus repeats alm ost verbatim
th at fo u n d in Col 4:7, 8. It functions as p a rt o f th e fram ew ork th ro u g h which
th e w riter presents his m essage as a personal letter from Paul. By m eans o f
this device, th e w riter is able to avoid having to say any th in g m ore specific
ab out P aul’s situation an d can instead simply p oint the readers to Tychicus.
Some advocates o f the letter’s pseudonym ity w ould go fu rth e r an d suggest
th at this am ounts to a thinly veiled self-recom m endation on the p a rt o f the
w riter him self, conveniently taken from Colossians with which he was closely
associated (cf. W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles [C am bridge:
CUP, 1939] 203; M itton, Epistle, 268; T h om pson, 18– 19). Tychicus features
elsew here in th e N T as one o f P aul’s co-w orkers, who is particularly associated
with Asia M inor. In Acts 20:4 he is one o f the representatives from the province
o f Asia who accom panies Paul on his visit to Jeru salem , while in the Pastorals
h e is said to have been sent on missions to both Ephesus an d C rete (cf. 2
T im 4:12; T itus 3:12). H e is likely to have been know n to th e recipients o f
the letter as one o f the leading representatives o f the P auline m ission. T h e
designation o f him as a “d ea r b ro th er an d faithful servant in the L o rd ” reinforces
his intim ate relationship with Paul an d his proven record o f reliable m inistry
in the cause o f C hrist. T hese are excellent qualifications fo r the tasks with
which he is en tru sted —to pass on inform ation about P aul’s situation an d to
encourage the hearts o f the letter’s recipients. T h e latter task w ould be accom -
plished n o t only by Tychicus conveying news about Paul b u t also th ro u g h his
own stren g th en in g an d exhorting o f the readers in a m inistry in line with
w hat have been th e w riter’s concerns in this letter.
inep^a, “I have sent” (v 22), is an epistolary aorist, w hereby the sen d er o f
the letter adopts th e point o f view o f the recipients. From his own standpoint
at the tim e o f w riting the postscript, o f course, the sending o f th e b ea rer o f
the letter is an event th at is still about to h ap p en .
23 Fiprjvr] rot? d6eX0ot? Kai äyäin] p erä 7iiareco? ä7rö Oeov narpos m i Kuptov
Irjaoü XptxjTOV, “Peace be to the b ro th ers an d sisters, an d love with faith from
G od the F ath er an d th e L ord Jesus C hrist.” T h e letter began with a salutation
o f grace an d peace which served as a prayer-wish (1:2), an d it now closes
with sim ilar elem ents b u t in reverse o rd e r—a wish o f peace followed by a
blessing o f grace. As has been noted, this wish o f “peace” is unlike those in
the rest o f the Pauline corpus, with the exception o f Gal 6:16, in th at it does
n o t address the readers directly. Instead, peace is w ished on the b ro th ers an d
sisters, a designation which reflects the com m on P auline view o f all believers
as m em bers o f G od’s family in Christ. Interestingly, how ever, alth o u g h believers
are seen as m em bers o f G od’s household in 2:19, this is the only place in this
letter w here th e readers are described with this familial term . In contrast to
th e freq u en t practice o f the u n d isp u ted Paulines, it is never used to address
them . T his th ird person form ulation o f the wish o f peace, as o f the grace-
benediction which follows, m ay be a fu rth e r indication th at the letter was
in ten d ed as a general one with m ore th a n one church in view as the read ersh ip
(cf. also 1 Pet 5:9 which speaks o f “y our b ro th erh o o d th ro u g h o u t the w orld”).
A lthough the wish o f peace was a conventional elem ent o f the P auline letter’s
466 E phesians 6:21– 24

closure, at this stage o f this particu lar letter th e notion o f peace takes on
connotations beyond th at o f general C hristian well-being. It inevitably recalls
th e earlier em phasis on th at peace which is G od’s gift to a divided hum anity
o f reconciliation with him self an d with one an o th er, a gift w hich is em bodied
in C hrist an d is to be ap p ro p riated an d m aintained by believers (cf. 2:14 – 18;
4:3; 6:15). T h e w riter wishes n o t only this peace b u t also “love” an d “fa ith ”
to be co n ferred on the readers. T h e ph rase juerd m o r e cos, “w ith faith ,” does
n o t give special em phasis o r priority to faith (pace B arth, 811, w ho translates
“an d above all, faith ”). Believers’ faith an d love have been m en tio n ed to g eth er
earlier in 1:15 an d 3:17, an d for this w riter peace is realized am o n g believers
th ro u g h m u tu al love (cf. 4:2, 3). Such love presupposes a com m on a n d lively
faith (cf. 1:15; 4:5). All th ree qualities, peace, love, an d faith, have th e ir source
in an d flow from b oth G od an d Christ.
24 rj xdpt? p e r ä iravrcov rcbv a yaircovrcov ro v Kvpiov ripcbv 'Irpovv X p io r o v ev
d00apatg, “Grace be with all who love o u r L ord Jesu s C hrist, grace a n d im -
m ortality.” Again, although the grace-benediction is the conventional en d in g
fo r the Pauline letter, this one would be likely to strike its recipients as highly
ap p ro p riate fo r a letter which had earlier laid so m uch stress on all th at they
owed to th e u ndeserved favor o f G od an d C hrist (cf. 1:6, 7; 2:5, 7, 8; 4:7). As
has been noted, this particular grace-benediction is un iq u e am ong the closing
benedictions in th e Pauline corpus because it changes th e usual second person
plural address— “with you” o r “with your spirit”— to a th ird p erson plural
form ulation— “with all who love o u r L ord Jesus C hrist.” T h e prayer-wish o f
v 23 h ad spoken o f love com ing from G od a n d C hrist, an d now th e blessing
in v 24 confers grace on all those who resp o n d in love for C hrist. T his is a
Christological ad ap tation o f the com m on expression “those w ho love G od,”
fo u n d in th e O T , Second T em ple Ju d aism , a n d th e N T (cf., e.g., E xod 20:6;
D eut 5:10; 7:9; Pss. Sol. 4.25; 6.6; T. Sim. 3.6; 1 Enoch 108.8; R om 8:28; 1
C or 2:9; 8:3; Jas 1:12; 2:5). Elsew here th e letter has re fe rre d to G od’s love
fo r believers (cf. 2:4) an d C hrist’s love for th em (cf. 3:19; 5:2, 25), to believers’
love for one an o th er (cf. 1:15; 4:2), to believing h u sb an d s’ love fo r th e ir wives
(cf. 5:25, 28, 33), an d to believers’ love in general (cf. 1:4; 3:17; 4:15, 16; 5:2;
6:23), b u t this is th e only place w here th e ir love fo r C hrist is m ade explicit.
In this way, th e letter closes with a stress on believers’ personal relationship
an d com m itm ent to Christ. F or this w riter, it is im p o rtan t n o t only th at his
read ers are aw are o f the objective benefits o f the g reat salvation G od has
provided in C hrist b u t also th at they have m ade th eir subjective response.
A nd w hat is significant about th eir response o f allegiance is th at it is n o t m erely
to the apostolic teaching o r to th e P auline gospel b u t to th e o n e to w hom
these b ear witness, the L ord Jesu s C hrist who loved them an d gave him self
fo r them . T h e re is a negative equivalent in th e postscript o f 1 C orinthians,
“if any one has no love fo r the Lord, let him be accursed” (16:22). H ere,
those who, like the readers o f 1 Peter, “w ithout having seen him . . . love
h im ” (1:8) receive a blessing o f grace.
T h e final words o f the letter, ev aQdapoiq., “in im m ortality,” provide a closing
rhetorical flourish sim ilar to those with which th e read ers h ad becom e ac-
qu ain ted th ro u g h the style o f the first p a rt o f th e letter. It is, how ever, a flourish
th at has caused th e com m entators consternation in re g ard to its m eaning.
 Comment 467

T h e m eaning o f the n o u n aQOapoia itself is clear. It refers to im m ortality in

the sense o f im perishability o r incorruptibility, an d in Paul this quality prim arily
characterizes th e life o f the resurrection (cf. Wis 2:23; 6:18, 19; 4 Macc 9:22;
17:12; 1 C or 15:42, 50, 52– 54; Rom 2:7; 2 T im 1:10). Tw o recen t suggestions
for the in terp retatio n o f the phrase in which it stands seem unlikely. C aird
(94) claims th at a com plex idea has becom e com pressed into th e brevity o f a
benediction an d th at the blessing is for “those who love o u r L ord Jesus C hrist
an d share in his u ndying life.” B ut this w riter is n o t know n for his brevity o f
expression an d has shown him self quite capable o f ex p an d in g both the conven-
tional wish o f peace an d the grace-benediction in o rd e r to convey his own
m eaning. C aird’s suggestion involves having to read far too m uch into the
final two words. T h e o th er recent distinctive suggestion is th at o f B arth (812–
14), who argues, on the one hand, th at the phrase is loosely attached to all
the earlier elem ents in the blessing b u t also, on the o th e r han d , th at it should
be separated from the rest o f the sentence an d translated as “in etern ity ” so
th at the letter ends with praise o f the “etern al.” B ut it is im probable both
th at the last two words have no specific syntactical relationship to the rest o f
the sentence an d th at in this form ulation, whose function is m ean t to be the
co n ferrin g o f a blessing on believers, the w riter w ould be in ten d in g a doxology
to the quality o f the eternal. M ore serious atten tio n should be given to the
th ree stan d ard alternative explanations, each o f which links “in im m ortality”
to a p articular aspect o f the preceding sentence. Some (e.g., D ibelius-G reeven,
100; M artin, “E phesians,” 177) connect it with the im m ediately preceding “o u r
L ord Jesu s C hrist,” who is, therefore, described as in im m ortality. T hey appeal
for su p p o rt to 1 T im 1:17, w here the adjective “im m ortal” is used o f C hrist,
o r m ore broadly to Jas 2:1, w here he is described as “o u r L ord Jesus C hrist
o f glory,” an d arg ue th at the letter has previously associated C hrist with the
heavenly realm an d th at now this is being recalled in d ifferent term inology.
A gainst this in terp retatio n , however, is the fact th at ax^apoia is not em ployed
locally elsew here. Some (e.g., r s v ; n i v ; M eyer, 351– 53; A bbott, 191; W estcott,
100; J. A. Robinson, 138, 220; H oulden, P auls Letters, 341) m ake the connection
n ot with C hrist b u t with the preceding participle ayancovTGJV, so th at th e blessing
is co n ferred on all those who love o u r L ord Jesus C hrist with an undying
love o r a love th at is free from corruption. Im perishability, it is claim ed, is
the characteristic o f the life o f the new age and, th erefo re, o f believers’ love
which belongs to th at age. A ppeal is som etim es m ade to the sim ilar syntax o f
T itus 3:15 which exhorts: “G reet those who love [Qikovvras] us in the faith
[ev niaret] .” T his view is certainly a plausible one, th o u g h on th e face o f it
one m ight have expected this w riter to have linked im m ortality m ore closely
with God o r one o f his benefits th an with the quality o f believers’ love. T his
is why a th ird in terp retatio n , which is probably the m ajority one (cf. n e b ;
Schlier, 311– 12; Gnilka, 325– 26; M itton, 232; Ernst, 405; S chnackenburg,
297– 98; M ussner, 174; B ruce, Epistles, 416), is m ore attractive. T his view associ-
ates “in im m ortality” with the preceding n o u n “grace,” alth o u g h it is fu rth e r
rem oved in the syntax, ev is used as a connective betw een n o uns earlier in
th e letter (cf. 2:7, w here the first n o u n is “grace”; 3:12; 6:2). So ju s t as “a n d
love with faith ” is an addition to peace in 6:23, “in im m ortality” is an addition
to grace h ere in 6:24. B oth grace an d im m ortality are seen as blessings from
468 E phesians 6:21– 24

God th at the w riter desires to be co n ferred on his readers. T h e com bination

o f grace with im m ortality is an ap p ro p riate one, allowing fo r each notion to
color th e oth er. G od’s grace, em phasized th ro u g h o u t the letter, can be seen
to be im perishable, not subject to co rru p tio n , while im m ortality can be seen
as th e result o f G od’s undeserved favor, the im m easurable riches o f which
are to be shown in the com ing ages (cf. 2:7).

Explanation

T h e w riter concludes his letter with th e m ost extensive piece o f direct borrow -
ing from Colossians (cf. Col 4:7, 8) in th e letter. In it Tychicus is reco m m en d ed
as P aul’s em issary who will tell the readers all they n eed to know ab o u t the
apostle’s situation an d who will encourage them . In this way, th e postscript
com pletes th e literary device o f pseudonym ity which fram es the letter (cf.
also 3:1– 13; 4:1). T h e two final epistolary elem ents— the wish o f peace an d
th e grace-benediction—correspond to the o p en in g salutation o f grace a n d peace
(1:2). T h ey com e in the sam e o rd e r in which they are fo u n d in th e closures
o f the u n d isp u ted Pauline letters, b u t are distinctive because they are fo rm u lated
in the th ird p erson plural ra th e r th a n the second an d because they ad d fu rth e r
blessings. T h e readers are described for the first tim e in th e letter as th e b ro th ers
an d sisters an d as all who love o u r L ord Jesu s C hrist. T h e wish o f peace is
ex p an d ed to a wish o f peace, love, an d faith, an d the blessing o f grace becom es
a blessing o f grace an d im m ortality. In continuity with the contents o f the
letter as a whole, 6:23, 24 speak o f bo th th e gifts believers receive from God
an d C hrist, nam ely peace, love, faith, grace, a n d im m ortality, a n d th e response
they m ake to Christ, nam ely love. T h e com m on factor o f love highlights w hat
has been a consistent em phasis o f the w riter: w hat is re q u ired o f believers is
already given by God.
T h ro u g h thanksgiving an d paraenesis the w riter has been concerned to
reinforce his read ers’ sense o f th eir calling in C hrist, to re m in d th em o f the
privileges o f salvation th a t are theirs, a n d to encourage th em in th e light o f
these to lead a distinctive life in the world. In such a letter, w hich has attem p ted
to m ake P aul’s gospel speak again to a new situation am ong som e o f th e churches
o f th e Pauline mission in Asia M inor, th e final grace-benediction is particularly
ap p ro p riate. T h e blessing o f grace, which was a liturgical form before it was
an epistolary form , recalls the language o f w orship an d the liturgical form s
which fram e th e first h alf o f th e letter. It also recalls th ro u g h its co n ten t two
o f th e great them es o f th e first h alf—th at all th e privileges o f salvation believers
enjoy are theirs th ro u g h G od’s grace, w hich has b een lavished o n th em in
Christ, an d th at one o f the greatest o f those privileges is th eir share in C hrist’s
resu rrectio n an d exaltation, which they experience now b u t which they will con-
tinue to experience in th e com ing ages. H aving ex h o rted his read ers in th e
second h alf o f th e letter to m aintain th e C h u rc h ’s unity a n d participate in its
grow th an d to d em onstrate th e life o f the new h um anity in society, a n d having
braced th em fo r th e battle against the pow ers o f evil which this will involve,
the w riter com es full circle, as he once again points th e read ers back to the
divine resources th at are available a n d calls on G od to bestow his a b u n d a n t
grace a n d glorious im m ortality u p o n them .
 Index of Principal Subjects

Access 149– 50, 189– 91 Conduct xxxvii Growth 157, 2 6 0 –6 4 , 26 6 – 67

Adm inistration liii, 31– 32, 173– 74, 184 Congratulation x l - xli G uarantee 40– 41
Adoption 25– 26 Cosm os xcv - xcvi, 33– 34, 65– 70, 77,
Advice xli 128– 30, 188– 89, 203– 4, 210– 11, H eart 58, 205– 7, 278, 346, 42 0 – 21
Anam nesis rem em bering, rem inder 239, 248, 268– 69, 458 Heaven,^heavenly realms lxiii, 19– 2 1 ,3 4 ,
xxxvi - xxxvii, xl - xli, 132, 135 Covetousness 279, 321, 324 62, 95– 96, 106– 9, 186, 248, 423–
A nger 301– 2, 308– 9, 406– 7 Cross lvii, xc - xci, 146 24, 445
Apostles lxiv, lxxi, 153– 5 4 ,1 7 8 – 8 0 ,2 4 9 – H oliness xcv, 5– 6, 24– 25, 288, 375– 78
50 Darkness 58, 277, 326– 27, 329, 334– 35, H om ily, serm on xl
A postleship lxii - lxiii, 5– 6, 182– 83 444 H ope 36– 37, 59, 137– 38, 238– 39
Arm our 435– 37, 439, 442, 447– 51 Date o f Ephesians lxiii - lxxiii H ouseh old code lxiv, xcv, 350– 428
Authorship o f Ephesians lix - lxxii, 52 Death xxxi, 85– 86, 92– 93, 286 H ym n 13– 14, 50, 127– 31, 318– 19, 331,
Asia Minor lxxii, lxxx - lxxxv, 464, 465 Deliberative genre xli - xlii, lxxv 345–4 6 , 378
Devil 302, 443
Baptism xl, lxxix, 18, 39– 40, 58, 90– 91, D ig re ssio xliii - xliv, 168, 171 Identity lxxxvi - lxxxvii, 81– 82, 201, 219,
130– 31, 2 28–29, 240, 272, 284– 85, D oxology xxx, 198– 201, 216– 18 291, 335– 36, 349, 440– 41, 458– 60
296, 326, 331– 33, 375– 76, 44 0 Idolatry 279, 325
Battle lxxxvii - lxxxviii, 109, 429– 60 Election 17, 22– 25, 35– 36 Im itation 310– 11
B e r a k a h , blessing, eulogy xxxvii, 8 – 44 Ephesus lxxx - lxxxi, 1– 4 Im plied author lx - lxii, lxxv - lxxvi
B lood 28, 139 Epideictic genre xli—xlii, lxxv Im plied readers lxxv - lxxvii
Boasting 113 Eschatology lxxxix - xc, 14, 21, 37, 41, Impurity 278– 79, 321– 22, 324
Body liii, xciv, 67– 72, 80, 180– 81, 189– 6 5, 97, 186, 268– 6 9, 342, 442–4 3 Inheritance 40– 4 4 , 59– 60, 181, 324– 25
90, 238, 254– 55, 261–6 3 , 3 7 0 –72, realized xiv, xc, 34– 35, 66, 92– 93, Intercessory prayer report xxxvi, lxxviii,
3 78– 80 105– 6, 108, 450 49– 51, 197– 201
Body o f letter xxxviii - xxxix future xc, 65, 261, 422– 24, 446 Israel xxxvi, lxiii, xciii, 132– 34, 136– 37,
Boldness 454– 55 Evil 95, 342, 444– 46, 450 162–6 4 , 362– 63
Bride xciv, 352– 53, 362– 63, 376– 77 E x h o rta tio xliii, xliv, 224
E x o r d iu m xliii - xliv, 53– 54 Judaism lxxix, xciii—xciv
Calling xxxvi, 59, 231, 234– 35, 238– 39 H ellenistic Judaism lxxxiii, 42, 70,
Canon lxxii, xcvi, Faith 5– 6, 39, 46, 54– 55, 111– 12, 190, 130, 237– 38, 297, 321, 357, 399–
Children and parents lxiv, 3 9 5–410 206– 7, 239– 40, 256, 4 49– 50, 465– 401, 416
Christ lxiv - lxv, xc - xcii, 6, 43, 119, 136– 66 Justification lxii - lxiii, xcii, 104
37, 140, 160– 61, 183– 84, 206 – 7, Family xciv, 152, 196, 202^1
209– 10, 239, 256, 268, 279– 83, Fear 354, 366– 67, 384– 85, 420 K now ledge 57– 58, 78– 79, 212– 1 3 ,2 5 5 –
311– 12, 315, 325, 368, 369– 73, Flesh 97– 98, 124, 135, 142, 362, 378– 56
379– 83, 388– 90, 401, 408, 4 20– 24, 8 3 ,4 1 1 ,4 2 0 , 444
426 Forgiveness 28– 29, 30 9 – 10 Law lxiii, xciii - xciv, 112– 13, 142–4 3 ,
Ascent o f 242– 43, 247– 48 Fullness liii - liv, lxiv, xciv, 32, 72– 7 8 ,8 0 – 275, 404– 5
Cosmic Christ lvi, xc - xcii, 18, 32– 33, 81, 214– 15, 247, 344– 45 Letter form xxxvii—xliii, lxx—lxxi, 4 – 5,
65– 70, 77– 78, 128– 30, 209– 10, 52– 53, 225– 27
247– 48, 415 Gentiles xxxvi - xxxvii, lxiii, lxxxiv, 88, Life xxxvi - xxxvii, 101– 2, 277– 78
Death o f lxiii - xiv, xciv, 142, 146, 148– 92, 132– 34, 135– 36, 142, 150– 51, Light 58– 5 9 ,1 8 4 , 326– 2 8 ,3 3 0 – 33, 334–
49, 161–6 2 , 374– 75 162– 65, 173, 180– 81, 274, 276– 79, 36
D escent o f 244–4 8 289, 326 Liturgy, liturgical form s xxxvi, xxxvii,
Exhaltation o f lxiii, xci, xcvii, 22, 34, Glory 59–6 0 ,1 9 1 – 9 2 ,1 9 8 – 9 9 ,2 0 4 ,2 1 6 – 10– 12, 50– 52, 88– 89, 200– 201,
61– 62, 108– 9, 154, 155 18, 377 331– 32
H eadship o f xci, 67– 70, 261– 62, 3 68– G nosticism lxxix, lxxxii - lxxxiii, 58, 68– Love 17, 24– 25, 54– 55, 196– 97, 207,
70 71, 73– 74, 92– 93, 107, 130, 157, 219– 20, 23 6 – 37, 260– 61, 263– 64,
“in Christ” 6, 11, 21– 22, 26– 27, 34, 185, 187, 205, 208, 331– 32, 362, 311– 1 2 ,3 7 3 – 7 4 ,3 7 8 – 7 9 ,3 8 4 – 85,
44, 105, 138, 157, 181, 217, 326– 382– 83, 444– 45 394, 465– 68
27, 395, 402, 441 G od 25, 42– 43, 56, 81, 119, 138, 194,
Love o f 212– 14, 219– 20, 373– 78 2 2 0 –21, 240– 41, 288, 310– 11, 315, Magic lxxxi, 209, 440, 443–4 4
Pre-existence o f 22, 24 325– 26, 451 Marriage liv, xcvi, 350 – 94
Resurrection o f lxiii, xcvii, 61, 1 0 1– As Father 6– 7, 10, 56, 149– 50, 202– Midrash lviii, 127– 28, 225, 244– 48
2, 105– 6, 108– 9 4, 240 Ministers xciv, 232– 34, 448– 55
“with Christ” 101– 2, 105 Glory o f 26, 36, 42, 44, 56 Mystery xxxvi, liv - lv, 30– 31, 35, 174 –
Church lxiv, xciv—xcv, 66– 68, 79–82, Love o f 100– 101 76, 180, 184– 85, 193– 95, 380– 84,
156, 161– 63, 186, 188– 89, 193– 94, Mercy o f 100 453– 54
217, 220, 257, 264– 69, 315, 372– Power o f 60– 6 1, 79, 85– 86, 182, 2 1 5–
83, 388– 90 16 xliii - xliv, 91, 131– 32
N a r r a tio
Colossians, relation to xlvii - xlviii, Ixvi - Will o f 5, 23, 26, 30– 31, 36, 328– 29, N ew creation 113– 14, 143– 4 4 , 287– 88
lxviii, lxxv, 69, 71, 73– 75, 8 9 –90, 415, 421 N ew hum anity, new person xxxvi -
93, 105– 7, 128– 30, 135, 168– 70, Grace xcii, 0 –7 ,2 6 ,2 9 , 100, 102– 4, 109– xxxvii, 116– 17, 143– 44, 273– 74,
174, 177, 199– 200, 214, 228– 31, 10, 116, 118, 119– 21, 181– 82, 241– 285– 91
273– 74, 295– 96, 298, 319– 20, 339, 42, 4 6 6 –68
354– 55, 3 96–97, 412– 14, 419– 20, Grace benediction xxxviii, 461– 64, 4 6 6 – O ld hum anity, old person 116– 17, 2 1 3–
434– 35, 462 68 14, 284– 86, 2 9 0 –91
470 Index of Principal Subjects

“Once-now ” contrast 86 – 88, 124 – 26, Q um ran lxxx, 58, 92, 107– 8 , 114, 156, Thanksgiving period xxxvi—xxxix, 19,
130, 138– 39, 318, 326 185, 187, 205, 297, 302, 326– 27, 45– 82
341, 381, 4 1 6 , 43 8 , 44 1 , 44 4 , 44 6 T o p o s 294– 95
Paranaesis xxxvii, xxxix, xli, 224 , 2 3 1– Tradition lxx, lxxii - lxxiii, 2 7 1 ,2 7 4 ,2 7 9 –
3 2 ,2 7 1 – 7 3 ,2 7 5 ,2 9 4 – 9 7 ,2 9 9 ,3 1 4 – Reconciliation xciii, 144– 46, 161–6 2 80, 282– 83
15, 320– 21, 430– 31, 438 R edem ption 27– 28, 41–4 2 , 307– 8 Traditional material xlvii - xlviii, 13– 14,
Parousia lxiv, 360, 377, 390, 406 Revelation 57, 170, 175, 184– 85 126–31, 227– 31, 298– 99, 361– 6 2 ,
Paul lvi - lxx, xcvi - xcvii, 4– 7, 54, 71– 72, Rhetoric xxxvii - xxxviii, xli - xliv, lxxiv - 397, 43 5 – 38
118– 1 9 ,1 3 3 – 34, 143, 152– 54, 1 7 1– lxxix, 15, 18, 53– 54, 86, 91, 131– T r a n s itu s liii - xliv, 2 00
73, 176– 77, 182– 83, 191– 94 , 229– 32, 20 0 , 29 5 , 432– 34 Trinitarian pattern 13, 43– 4 4 , 80–8 1 ,
30, 234– 35, 304– 5, 390, 398, 414, R ighteousness 288– 89, 328, 40 3 , 448 160, 26 6 , 348
419, 433, 435– 36, 453– 55, 464 T ruth 38– 39, 25 9 –6 0 , 2 8 0 – 83, 288– 89,
D eath o f lxxix, lxxxv, 7, 2 3 3 ,2 6 9 ,3 6 0 , Saints 5–6 ,5 5 ,5 9 –6 0 ,1 5 0 – 5 2 ,2 1 3 ,2 5 3 – 3 0 0 –301, 328, 4 48
406
5 4, 453
Pauline corpus, relation to lvi - lviii
Salvation lxiv, xcii - xciii, 38, 104– 5, 118, Unity xxxvi, lxxx, xcv, xcvi - xcvii, MO–
Pauline school lxx - lxxii
45 0 4 1 , 162, 164– 6 5 , 222–6 9 , 363– 6 4 ,
Peace xliv, 6, 140–4 1 , 146– 49, 161– 62,
Sealing 3 9 –4 0 , 307 3 8 9 –9 0 , 393– 94
237, 4 4 8 –49, 465–6 6
Setting lxxiii - lxxxvii
Pentecost lxxix, 243–4 4 , 340, 344
Sins 29, 9 3, 99– 100 Vices and virtues 272, 278– 79, 295– 98,
P e r o r a tio xliii - xliv, lxxv, 432– 3 4 ,4 3 8 – 39
Slaves and m asters 4 1 1 – 28 308– 12, 318
Postscript xxxvii - xxxviii, 461– 6 8
Power lxxx, 204– 5, 215– 16, 4 4 1–42 Speech 305–8 , 322– 23, 325, 329– 30,
Powers lxiv, lxxx - lxxxi, 35– 36, 62– 65, 334, 348, 453– 54 Walk xxxvi, 94, 116, 234– 35, 274– 76,
94– 97, 108– 10, 185– 86, 4 40 –4 1 , Spirit 19, 3 9 –4 2 , 56– 57, 96– 97, 149– 50, 338, 341
443–4 5 , 461 158– 59, 180, 204– 6, 237– 38, 2 4 6 – W isdom 17– 18, 29– 30, 56, 74– 75, 187–
Praise 44, 345– 46 47, 286– 87, 306– 8, 340, 343– 45, 88, 211– 12, 340– 43
Prayer 55– 5 6 ,2 0 1 – 2 ,2 1 8 – 2 0 ,4 3 4 ,4 5 1 – 34 8 – 49, 45 1 – 52 Wish o f peace xxxvii - xxxviii, 46 1 – 6 3,
53, 461 Stand, withstand 44 2 – 4 3 , 44 5 –4 7 , 4 59– 46 5 – 66
Prescript xxxvii - xxxviii, 1– 7 60 W ives and husbands 35 0 – 94
Prom ise 3 9 –4 0 , 137, 181, 405– 6 Style xliv - xlvi, xcvi, 11– 12 W ork 303– 5
Prophets lxiv, 153– 54, 178– 80, 2 4 9 –50 Subm ission 351, 365– 6 8 , 372– 73, 393 Works lxiii, xcii - xciii, 112– 16
Proselytes 138– 3 9 ,1 4 3 –4 4 , 146– 4 7 ,2 9 7 Suffering xcvii, 1 9 1–92 W orld xciv - xcv, 80, 95, 138, 268– 69,
Pseudonym ity, lix - lxxii, 7 ,1 6 8 – 6 9 ,1 7 6 – 276, 348–4 9 , 458
77, 453– 55, 463–6 5 T em p le xxxvi, xciv, 1 4 1–42, 152– 59 W orship 44, 22 0 – 21, 345–4 8
Purpose lxix, lxxiii - lxxxvii Thanksgiving 55, 324– 25, 346– 47 W rath 9 8 , 3 2 5 –26
 Index of Authors Cited

Aalen, S. 327 Beare, F. W. xxix, 2, 46, 57, 75, 135, 188– 8 9 ,1 9 2 ,2 1 2 ,2 2 2 ,2 4 3 – 4 4 ,2 4 6 ,

Abbott, T . K. xxix, 2, 9, 17, 20, 28, 32, 184, 189 251, 253, 278, 281–8 2 , 284, 325,
37, 39, 41, 47, 54, 57, 60, 66, 75, Beasley-Murray, G. R. 4 0, 91, 106 368, 376, 402, 404, 436, 441, 445,
7 7 ,9 5 ,1 0 1 ,1 0 5 ,1 1 2 ,1 1 5 ,1 3 5 ,1 4 1 , Bedale, S. 4 5, 67– 6 8 , 70, 380 467
148, 150, 156, 174, 177, 179, 180, Beet, J. A . xxix Caldwell, E. C. xxxi
185, 189, 192, 212, 240, 246, 253, B ehm , J. 28, 408 Calvin, J. xxix, 212
257, 259, 262, 287– 88, 302, 3 0 6 – Beker, J. C. 35 Cambier, J. xxxi, 8 –9 ,1 3 – 1 5 ,3 7 ,4 1 ,2 2 2 ,
7, 312, 325– 26, 330– 31, 342– 44, B engel, J. A. xxix 243, 245, 350, 376, 378, 381
370, 372, 375– 76, 378, 395, 403, Benoit, P. xxix - xxx, xlvii, Ixxxviii, 45, Cancik, H . 225
407, 445–4 6 , 448–4 9 , 451, 454, 68, 72– 73, 76– 77, 83, 222, 244, 270 C annon, G. E. 2 9 6 –97, 356
463– 6 4 , 467 Berger, K. xxxv, xxxviii, xli - xlii, lxx, 67, Caragounis, C. C. xxxi, 8– 9, 12, 17, 20–
Adai, J. xxx, lxix, Ixxxviii, 337, 343– 45, 103, 27 2 , 295– 97, 356– 57 22, 3 0 –31, 35, 166, 168, 171, 178,
B ergm an, J. 296 181– 82, 185, 187, 189, 191, 196–
347, 429, 452
Bertram , G. 342, 398, 407– 8 97, 212, 216, 381
Agrell, G. 292, 300, 302– 5
Best, E. xxx, lxxiii, lxxxi, 1– 4, 8, 21, 45, Carr, W. xxxi, 21, 45, 63– 64, 83, 95,
Ahern, B. 8
68, 71– 72, 75– 76, 83, 90, 92– 93, 429, 443
Aland, K. lix, lxxi
101, 145, 154, 166, 179, 222, 257, Carrington, P. 272, 324, 375
Albani, J. xxx
350, 379 Casel, O. 316, 324, 375
Alexander, N. xxx
Betz, H. D. 295– 97, 310, 383 Cerfaux, L. xxxi
Alexander, P. S. xxxv, xxxix, lxxi Bieder, W. xxx, 222, 245 Chadwick, H. xxix, xxxi, lxxiii, lxxx
Allan, J. A. xxix, xxx, 8, 22, 105 Billerbeck, P. (See Strack, H. L.) Chavasse, C. 350, 352
Allen, T . G. 45, 83 Bjerkelund, C. J. xxxv, xxxviii, 2 2 2 ,2 2 6 – Childs, B. S. xxxv
Arnold, C. E. xxx, lxxii, lxxix, lxxxi, 27, 231 Clark, S. B. 350, 365, 368
lxxxv, Ixxxviii, 65, 196, 209, 429, Black, M. 45 C oggan, F. D. 122
431, 440, 442, 444–4 5 Blakeney, E. H. 448 C oleridge, S. T. x
Arnold, M. 323 Blass, F. (Debrunner, A. and Funk, C oipe, C. xxxi, 45, 69, 71
Audet, J. P. xxxv, xxxvii, 48, 42 9 R. W.) 2, 17, 26, 77, 96, 124, 173, C onzelm ann, H. xxix, xxxviii, lix, lxx,
A une, D. E. xxxv, xxxvii, xlii, 249, 295 177, 183, 189, 197, 206, 212, 236, lxxiv, 20, 103, 154, 183, 187
246, 260, 280– 81, 283, 300, 303, C oppens, J. 31, 166, 381
Bailey, K. E. 126 309, 317– 18, 330, 345, 380, 383 Corley, B. xxxi, Ixxxviii
Baker, N. L. xxx Bloch, R. lviii C oune, M. 8, 270, 292
Balch, D. L. 355, 357– 60, 418 B lom enkam p, P. 398 Countess, R. H. 83
Baltensweiler, H. 350 de Boer, M. C. 172 Coutts, J. xxxi, xl, xlvii, li, lxxix, 8, 13,
Balz, H. R. lix, lxxii, 366, 385 Bogdasovich, M. 45 18, 37
Banks, R. 27, 67 Bonhoffer, A. 99 Cranfield, C. E. B. 5, 106
Barclay, W. 122, 398 Bonner, S. F. 398 Crem er, H. 408
Barker, G. W. xxxv Bony, P. 222 Cross, F. L. xxxi
B arr,J. 32, 33 Borland, A. xxx Crouch, J. E. 356– 357, 418– 19
Bartchy, S. S. 415, 417, 418 Bornkam m , G. 31, 381– 82 Crowther, C. 83
Barth, C. 92 Bouttier, M. xxx, Ixxxviii, 21, 327 C ullm ann, O. ix, 328
Bouw m an, G – 350, 378 C ulpepper, R. A. lxx
Barth, K. 116, 207
Barth, M. xxix - xxx, xlvii, lxii, lxix, lxxiii, Bow m an, J. W. xxxi
Bradley, D. G. 294– 95 Dahl, N. A. xxix, xxxi, xxxv, xl, xlvii, 1,
Ixxxviii, 2, 9, 17, 20, 24, 29, 32– 33,
Bratcher, R. G. xxxi, 73, 77, 148, 150, lviii, lx, lxiii, lxxix, lxxxiv, Ixxxviii,
37, 40, 47–4 8 , 51, 57– 58, 60, 64–
191, 197, 212, 253, 25 6 , 259, 287, 1, 4, 8, 11, 17– 19, 37– 38, 114, 144,
66, 68, 73, 75, 77, 88– 89, 91– 94,
322, 326, 330, 378 1 6 6 ,1 7 0 ,1 8 7 – 8 9 ,1 9 6 ,2 1 0 – 1 1 ,2 1 3 ,
9 7 ,9 9 , 101, 110, 115– 16, 122, 127–
Brown, R. E. Ixxxviii, 1 7 ,3 0 – 3 1 ,3 5 ,1 6 6 , 309, 316, 320
28, 135– 38, 142, 144–4 6 , 148, 150,
381– 82 Dale, R. W. xxix
152, 154, 157, 177– 78, 182, 189–
Brox, N . lix Danker, F. W. xxxi, 11
9 1 ,2 0 3 ,2 0 6 ,2 1 3 – 1 4 ,2 2 2 ,2 2 8 ,2 4 0 , Bruce, F. F. xxix, xxXi, lxii, lxxix, 27, Daube, D. 283
245, 250, 253, 255, 259, 262, 278, D autzenberg, G. xxxi, Ixxxviii
3 9 ,4 7 , 1 1 2 ,1 5 4 , 1 8 2 ,2 0 3 , 2 5 3 ,2 8 2 ,
280, 285, 287, 294, 296, 302, 306– 2 8 4 ,2 8 6 ,3 0 7 – 8 ,3 2 6 ,3 4 0 ,3 4 5 ,3 7 0 , Davey, F. N. 283
9, 312, 325– 26, 331, 341, 343, 346, 376– 7 7 ,3 8 1 ,3 9 5 – 9 6 ,4 0 3 ,4 4 1 ,4 4 5 , Davies, L. 166, 175
3 6 6 –6 8, 370, 372, 375, 377– 78, 467 Davies, W. D. xxxi, 34, 71
380– 84, 391– 92, 395, 436, 441– 42, Brunt, J. C. 294– 95 D ebrunner, A. 8, 13
446, 448, 450, 453– 54, 464, 467 Büchsei, F. 21, 28, 24 4 – 45, 341 Deichgraber, R. xxxi, 8, 11– 15, 18– 19,
Bassler, J. M. 424 Buckland, W. W. 415 45, 51, 90, 122, 127, 196, 198, 216
Batey, R. I. 350, 362, 376, 383 Bujard, W. xlviii, lxvi Deissm an, A. 21
Bauckham, R. J. lix, lxxi - lxxii Bultm ann, R. 98, 103, 113, 283, 327 D elling, G. 45, 75, 365, 367
Bauer, W. (Also Arndt, W. F., Gingrich, Burger, C. xxxi, 122, 128– 30, 148 D enton, D. R. 8, 41
F. W. and Danker, F. W.) lxxxiii - Burgess, T . C. xiv, xxxv, xlii, xliv, 433 Dibelius, M. iX, xxix, xlvii, liii, 141, 154,
lxxxiv, 36, 7 7 ,9 9 ,1 7 5 – 7 6 ,2 5 6 ,2 5 9 , Buscarlet, A. F. 448 253, 357, 370, 382, 404, 435, 445,
278, 306, 329, 341, 346, 378, 406, 464, 467
441, 461 Cadbury, H. J. xxxi, lix, 244 Dickey, S. lxxxiii
Baumert, N. 191, 216 Caird, G. B. xxix, lxii, lxviii - lxix, 17, 20, Dillon, J. 311
Baur, F. C. lix, lxii 2 8, 33, 37, 55, 57, 6 0, 64– 6 5 , 73, D odd, C. H . x
Bean, G. E. lxxxiii 95– 9 7 ,1 4 1 ,1 4 5 ,1 4 8 ,1 5 0 ,1 5 4 ,1 7 9 , Dölger, F. J. 316, 319, 332
472 Index of A uthors C ited

Donelson, L. R. lix, lxxi—lxxii G iblet,J. 316 H ort, F. J. A. xxxii, 28 0 – 81

D onfried, K. P. 5 Gnilka, J. xi, xxix, xxxi, xxxix, xlvii, liii, H oskyns, E. 282
Doty, W. ix, xxxv, xxxviii, 4 lv, lxvi, lxx, lxxii, lxxxiii, lxxxv, H oulden, J. L. xxix, xxxii, lxxxviii, 3,
D oughty, D. 1. 103 lxxxviii, 2, 9, 12, 14– 18, 22, 28, 30– 39, 41, 58– 61, 65, 104, 115, 141,
Drago, A. 8 35, 37– 39, 4 1, 47, 51, 54, 57, 59, 150, 154, 172– 75, 185, 20 8 , 212–
Dreyfus, F. 8, 36 64, 66, 73, 75, 77, 88, 91, 93– 94, 13, 240, 246, 283, 287, 324, 340,
Dubois, J .-D. 222, 259 9 6 ,9 9 , 1 0 5 ,1 1 0 , 1 1 2 ,1 2 2 , 128, 130, 343, 395, 432, 44 5 , 467
D uling, D. C. xxxv 137– 138, 141, 1 4 5 ^ 6 , 148, 150, Howard, G. E. xxxii, 45, 66, 6 8, 77, 190,
D unn, J. D. G. lix, lxx - lxxii, 24, 39, 91, 154, 157, 166– 6 8 ,1 7 4 , 177– 80, 222, 260, 350
244, 247, 343, 345, 375– 76 184– 85, 189, 191– 92, 197, 207, Howard, J. E. 122
D upont, J. 45, 108, 145, 196, 210, 244 209– 1 0 ,2 1 5 – 1 6 ,2 2 8 ,2 3 7 ,2 4 0 ,2 4 5 , H u ged e, N. xxix
253, 257, 259, 263, 270, 281, 285, H unter, A. M. 356
Eadie, J. A. xxix 287, 294, 29 9 – 300, 302– 3, 306– 7,
Easton, B. S. 296, 297 311– 12, 318– 19, 322, 325– 26, 330, Innitzer, T. 8, 13
Efird, J. M. xxxi 338, 340, 342– 4 3 , 356, 362, 373–
Eiliger, W. lxxxiii 74, 376, 380– 82, 395, 403– 5, 40 7 – Jankowski, A. 8, 37
Elliott, J. H. lxxxiii, 356– 57 8, 424, 436, 44 0 –4 1 , 446–4 7 , 449, Jayne, D. 8, 38
Elliott, J. K. 337 464, 467 Jeal, R. R. xxxii, xli
Ellis, E. E. lxx, 243, 396 G oguel, M. xxxi J ensen, J. 321
Em onds, H. 437 G oodspeed, E. J. x, xxxi, lvi, lviii - lix, Jentsch, W. 398
Engberg-Pedersen, T . 316, 327, 329– 30 lxix, lxxix, 175, 353 Jerem ias, J. 122, 154, 243, 250, 380
Engelhardt, E. 222, 241, 244 G oppelt, L. 356– 57 Jervell, J. 270, 284– 85
Erasmus, lix, lxii Gore, C. xxxi Jewett, R. xxxv, xxxviii, 98, 205
Ernst, J. xxix, xxxi, xlviii, 1, liii, lxviii, van G oudoever, J. 244 Johanson, B. C. xxxv, xli
9, 14, 17, 22, 37, 39, 45, 54, 60, Grabner-Haider, A. 234 Johnson, L. T . xxxv, lxii, 324
73, 75– 76, 88, 91, 95– 96, 110, 115, G reeven, H . (see also under Dibelius, J ohnson, S. E. lxxxiii
128, 135, 150, 174, 181, 184, 189, M.) 350 Johnston, G. xxix
191, 196, 203, 207, 210, 213– 14, G regg, J. A. F. xxxi, 2, 448 Jones, A. H. M. lxxxiii
222, 240, 243, 245, 250, 254, 257, Grob, F. xxxi Jones, P. R. 429, 452
260, 282, 287, 294, 300, 302, 307, G rudem , W. 369 Jülicher, A. lxix
325– 26, 330– 31, 343, 404, 449, 467 G rundm ann, W. 102, 236
Evanson, E. lix, lxii Gülzow, H . 415 Kahler, E. 350
Ewald, P. xxix G undry, R. H. 45, 72 Kamlah, E. 272, 2 9 6 –97, 350, 356, 367,
G uthrie, D. xxxv, liii, lix, lxii, lxviii, lxxii 42 9 , 43 5 , 4 3 7 , 440
Fee, G. D. 369 G uthrie, W. C. 362 K äsem ann, E. x, xxxii, xxxviii, lxxx,
Fendt, L. xxxi, lxxxviii lxxxviii, 20, 45, 68, 105, 122, 133,
Fennem a, D. 350 H adidian, D Y . 222 247, 253
Fenton, J. C. lix H ahn, F. 250, 691 Keck, L. E. xx x v - xxxvi
Feuillet, A. 45, 73, 75– 7 6 ,1 9 6 , 2 0 8 ,2 1 2 , H alter, H. xxxii, lxxxviii, 37– 39, 83, 87– K ennedy, G. A. xxxv, xli, Ixxvii
350 88, 90– 91, 94, 110, 115, 222, 270, Kessler, P. D. 8
Fiedler, P. 356 287, 292, 299– 300, 307, 310, 316, Kim, S. 166
Filson, F. V. 251 330, 350, 376 King, A. C. xxxii, xlvii, 272, 340
Findeis, H .-J. xxxi H am ann, H. P. 222, 254 Kirby, J. C. xxxii, xxxix, xl, lxxix, 2, 39,
Findlay, J. A. 292, 306 H am erton -Kelly, R. 22, 24, 115 52, 91, 126, 139, 168, 22 2 , 243– 44,
Finley, M. I. 415 H am m er, P. L. 8, 41 246, 376, 445
Fischer, K. M. xxxi, xxxv, xxxviii, xlvii, H anson, A. T . 222, 244, 318 Klauck, H .-J. 222, 230, 234, 237, 245,
lix, lxxiii, lxxx, 8, 13, 14, 45, 50– H anson, S. xxxii, lxxxviii, 3 3 – 34, 45, 75, 249– 50, 253, 257, 263
51, 83, 89, 122, 126–30, 133, 148, 77, 122, 141, 150, 154, 157, 222, Klein, G. 166, 296– 97
166, 222, 232– 33, 251, 270, 311, 229, 240–4 1 , 243, 253, 256– 57 Klijn, A. F. J. 285
316, 332, 350, 362, 371, 383, 429, Harnack, A. 1 ,3 , 42 9 Klinzing, G. 122, 150
440 Harris, W. H. 222, 224, 243– 46 K noch, O. xxxii, lxxxviii
Fitzmyer, J. A. 146, 239 Harrison, P. N . lix Knox, W. L. 380– 81, 419, 465
Flowers, H. J. 25, 45, 57 Harrisville, R. 286 K oester, H. xxxv, lxxxiii
Foakes-Jackson, F. J. (and Lake, K.) 2 Hartin, P. J. 8 Krämer, H. 8– 9, 13– 18, 37
Foerster, W. 370 Hartm an, L. xl, 356, 359 Kretschmar, G. 244
Foulkes, F. xxix H arvey, A. E. 30– 31 Kroeger, C. C. 369
Fowler, R. 45 Hasenstab, H . 226, 235 Kruse, C. 8
Francis, F. O. 52– 53 Hauck, F. 236, 321 K uhn, H .-W. 30, 92, 107
Fuller, R. H. xxv, xxxviii H aupt, E. xxix K uhn, K. G. xxxii, xlv, lxvi, 12, 30, 114,
Fung, R. xxxi, 222 H ay, D. M. 62 176, 205, 316, 327, 330, 332, 341
Furnish, V. P. xxix, xxxvi, 234, 326 H eadlam , A. x, lxv K üm m el, W. G. xxxv, xxxviii, xl, lxviii,
H egerm ann, H . 45, 69– 70, 110, 157 lxxiii, 2
Gamble, H. 4 – 5 H em er, C. J. lxxxiii - lxxxiv Küng, H. xcvi
Gärtner, B. 122, 150, 157 H endriksen, W. xxix, 142, 370, 376– 77,
Gärtner, M. 398, 403, 407– 8 44 9 Lacey, W. K. 398
G augier, E. xxix, xxxvi, 50, 54, 57, 59– H en gel, M. lix, 337, 343 Lam pe, G. W. H. 39, 40
60, 73, 77, 95, 110, 112, 124, 144, H en le, F. A. xxix Lane, W. L. xxxv
146, 150, 167, 177, 180, 183, 184– H ester, J. D. 41 Lang, F. 8, 11, 14, 17– 18
85, 189, 197, 210, 216, 245, 368, H ill, D. 28, 41, 153 Larsson, E. 83, 270, 280, 282
451 Hitchcock, A. E. M. 45, 73 Lash, C. J. A. 429– 30
Gavin, F. xl Hock, R. F. 303–4 Laub, F. lix, lxxii, 40 5 , 41 9
Gayer, R. 415 H odge, C. xxix Lausberg, H. xxxv, xli, xliv, xlvi, lxx, 295
Gewiess, J. xxxi, 45, 75, 77 H ofius, O. 8, 23– 24, 145 Leipoldt, J. 437
Giavini, G. 122, 126 H oltzm ann, H. J. xxxii, 1 Lem m er, H. R. 100
Gibbs, J. G. 8 van der H orst, P. W. 285, 316, 323 Levine, E. 447
 Index of Authors Cited 473

Lightfoot, J. B. xxix, xxxii, lxvii, 1, 3, Ixxxviii, 83, 122, 128, 130– 33, 140, Nida, E. A. (see under Brachter, R.)
8– 9, 17, 45, 74– 75, 262 144, 148– 50, 152, 154, 166, 168, N ineham , D. E. lix, lxvii, lxix
Lillie, W. 356 170, 174– 75, 177– 80, 222, 227, Noack, B. 244, 316, 319
Lincoln, A. T . xxxii, xlvii, lv, lx, lxxxiv, 232– 33, 241, 245, 250– 54, 2 5 6 –57, Nock, A. D. 94, 197
Ixxxviii, 8, 14, 21, 35, 60, 63, 65– 260, 263, 270, 274– 75, 292, 316, N orden, E. 11
6 6 ,8 3 , 1 0 6 ,1 0 8 , 122 ,1 7 4 , 1 7 8 ,1 9 8 , 320 Norris, F. W. lxxxiii
222, 350, 359, 362, 381, 383, 398, M etzger, B. M. xxxii, lix, 47, 124, 317,
429, 445 337, 395, 427 O ’Brien, P. T . xxx, xxxv, xxxviii, xlvii,
Lindars, B. 222, 242–4 4 , 247, 310 M euzelaar, 1. 1. 45, 68, 71, 124, 139, lxvi, 8, 14, 18– 19, 45, 48–4 9 , 52,
Lindem ann, A. xxix, xxxii, xxxviii, Ixxiii, 150, 246 5 5 ,6 4 , 1 8 4 ,2 6 3 , 2 8 5 ,2 9 6 , 3 2 3 ,3 5 5 ,
lxxix, Ixxx, lxxxiii - lxxxiv, Ixxxviii, Meyer, H. A. W. xxix, 1, 96, 101, 112, 357, 429, 454
1– 2, 32– 34, 37– 38, 45, 51, 65, 73, 115, 138, 141, 145– 46, 150, 152, O chel, W. xxxiii, xlvii, liii, lv - lvi, lxviii,
77, 83, 88, 94, 98, 104– 5, 110, 122, 156, 172– 74, 179, 180, 183, 185, 464
127– 2 9 ,1 4 8 ,1 5 0 ,1 5 4 ,1 6 6 –6 7 ,1 7 4 , 189, 192, 197, 207, 212, 240, 244, O deberg, H. xxxiii, lxxxix, 8, 20, 244,
184, 189, 244– 45, 307, 332, 337, 256, 260, 262, 270, 278, 284, 287, 464
340, 342, 397, 429, 436, 440, 442, 302, 310, 312, 325– 26, 331, 343, O epke, A. 398, 429, 435, 447– 50
445 375– 78, 380– 81, 395, 403– 4, 408, O lbrechts-Tyteca, L. xxxv, xli
Lindhagen, C. 305 445, 447– 51, 467 O llrogg, W .-H . Ixx
Loader, J. A. 139 Meyer, R. P. xxxii, lxxxix, 45, 77, 166, O lshausen, H . xxx
Loader, W. R. 62 172, 222, 261 Orbe, A. 166, 178
Lock, W. xxix Michaels, J. R. xxxv Oster, R. E. lxxxiii
Lohfink, G. 242 M ichel, O. 122 O verfield, P. D. 45, 74– 76
Lohm eyer, E. 8, 13, 16, 102 Miletic, S. F. 350, 352, 361, 367, 36 9 –
Lohse, E. xxix, liii, lxvi, 27, 40, 47, 55, 73, 392– 93 Pagels, E. 350, 379, 382– 83
58, 60, 69, 74, 90, 105, 130, 184, M illing, D. H. 196, 198, 216 Patzia, A. G. xxx, xxxvi, lix, lxx
356– 57 Miltner, F. lxxxiii Pelletier, A. lx
Lona, H. E. xxxii, Ixxiii, lxxvii, lxxxiv, Minear, P. S. 166, 187 Percy, E. xxxiii, xlvi - xlvii, liii, lix, Ixii,
Ixxxviii Mitton, C. L. xxix, xxxii, xlvii, xlviii, li - lxviii—lxix, lxxix, 1, 3–4 , 17, 21– 22,
Lövestam, E. 429, 453 lvi, lviii - lix, lxii, lxvi - lxix, lxxix, 37, 45, 72, 95, 98, 123, 145, 154,
Lührm ann, D. 146, 166, 170, 3 5 6 –57 lxxxiv, 14, 17, 27, 34, 37, 52, 57, 166, 210, 245, 257, 445
Lutz, C. 359 5 9 –6 0 ,6 5 , 72, 7 9 ,9 5 ,1 0 9 ,1 1 2 ,1 3 2 , Perelm an, Ch. xxxv, xli—xlii, xlv
Luz, U. 83, 88, 90, 110 137, 141, 145, 148, 150, 154, 156– Perels, O. xxxiii, lxxxix
Lyall, F. 25, 122 5 7 ,1 7 5 ,1 8 3 ,1 8 9 – 9 1 ,2 0 2 ,2 1 2 ,2 4 0 , Peri, I. 222
Lyonnet, S. 8, 10, 17, 37 243, 245, 247, 253, 256– 57, 259, Perkins, P. 350, 363
Lyons, G. xli 282, 287, 303, 307, 310, 320, 325, Perrin, N . xxxv
339, 343– 45, 371, 376, 381, 391, Pesch, R. 166, 196, 210
M acDonald, M. Y. xxxii, Ixxiii, Ixxxviii, 3 9 5 ,4 0 3 – 4 ,4 0 8 ,4 2 3 ,4 3 6 ,4 3 8 ,4 4 5 – Peterson, E. 190, 238
356, 360, 364, 379, 391, 418– 19 46, 464– 65, 467 Pfammatter, J. xxx, 123, 150, 153 – 54
Mackay, J. A. xxxii, 301 Moffatt, J. xxxv, lxvi, lxviii Pfitzner, V. 42 9 , 444
MacPhail, J. R. xxxii Moir, I. A. xxxii Pierrou, J. 429
MacRae, G. W. 69 M ontagnini, F. 8, 27 Pohlenz, M. 322
Magie, D. lxxxiii M oody, D. xxxii Pokorny, P. xxxiii, xl, Ixxx, 45, 68, 133,
Maillet, H. 350, 372, 384 M ooney, C. F. xxxii 2 5 6 ,3 3 2
Malherbe, A. J. xxxv, x l - xli, 437 M oore, M. S. 122 Polhill, J. B. xxxiii, xlvii, 1
Malina, B. 321 M oore, W. E. 222, 229 Pope, R. M. 341
Mare, W. H. 166, 177 Morris, L. 27– 28 Porter, C. H. 222, 246
Marrou, H. I. 398 M oule, C. F. D. xxix, xxxii, 22, 34, 40, de la Potterie, I. 45, 73, 270, 280– 82
Marrow, S. 190 4 5 ,4 7 , 55, 73, 7 7 ,1 5 6 – 5 7 ,1 7 3 ,2 8 1 , Preisendanz, K. 209
Marshall, 1. H. 27, 41, 46 303, 317, 327, 331, 341, 421 Proksch, O. 150
Martin, F. 222 M oule, H. C. G. xxxiii
Martin, R. P. xxix, xxxii, xxxv, lxvi, lxix, M oulton, H. K. xxix Rader, W. 123, 130, 134
Ixxiii, lxxxiv, Ixxxviii, 40– 41, 60, M oulton, J. H. 2, 178, 303, 306, 316 Ram aroson, L. 46, 83– 84, 97, 101, 123
122, 128, 133, 135, 139, 141, 147, M uirhead, I. A. 350, 377 Ramsay, W. R. lxxxiii
246, 326, 337, 345, 356– 57, 397, Müller, K. H. 356, 359 Reitzenstein, R. 332, 40 9
467 M ullins, T. Y. 226, 294 Rengstorf, K. H. 153, 285, 350, 356–
M arxsen, W. xxxv M unro, W. 350, 354, 414 57, 367
Masson, C. xxix, 11, 13, 184, 240, 253– M urphy-O ’C onnor, J. xxxiii, 3 1 ,3 8 ,2 7 1 , Rese, M. 123, 137
54, 263 283, 289, 328 R eum ann, J. H. P. 32, 174
Maurer, C. 8, 14, 17– 18, 37 Murray, J. 283 Reuss, J. xxxiii
M cEleney, N .J . 122, 294 M ussner, F. xxx, xxxiii, xl, lx, lxviii, Ridderbos, H. xxxiii, lxxxix, 35, 46, 68,
McGlashan, A. R. 45, 73 lxxxix, 8, 15, 31, 33– 34, 37, 45, 59, 75, 77, 98
M cHugh, J. 8, 33 67, 71, 73, 75, 77, 83, 92, 95, 107, Riensche, R. 83
McKelvey, R. J. 122, 141, 154– 55, 157 110, 112, 122, 128, 138, 141, 148, Rist, M. lix
M eN icol,J. 8 150, 152, 153– 54, 157, 166, 180, Robbins, C. J. 9, 15
M eade, D. G. lvii, lix, lxviii, lxx, Ixxii - 184– 85, 189, 191, 196, 204, 210, Roberts, J. H. xxxv, xxxviii
lxxiv, lxxxv 2 3 3 ,2 4 0 – 1 1 ,2 4 5 ,2 5 3 ,2 5 6 – 5 7 ,2 6 3 , Robinson, J. A. xi, xxx, 3, 17, 26, 28,
Meeks, W. A. xxxii, lxxiv, lxxxiii, Ixxxviii, 287, 294, 300, 302, 307, 325– 26, 31, 36– 37, 41, 47, 59, 75– 76, 84,
122, 241, 243, 284, 350, 383, 4 19 331, 342– 4 3 , 350, 364, 368, 376, 86, 88, 95– 97, 99, 105, 124, 136,
M ehlm ann, J. 83, 99 378, 380– 81, 395, 403, 408, 445, 138, 141, 150, 157, 167, 180, 189,
M einardus, O. F. A. lxxxiii 467 196, 203, 210, 215, 240, 244, 253,
M einertz, M. xxix 2 5 9 ,2 6 2 , 2 7 8 ,2 8 3 , 2 8 7 ,3 0 7 – 8 ,3 2 4 ,
Meritan, J. xxxii Nauck, W. 123, 130– 31 3 2 6 ,3 3 0 – 3 1 ,3 3 9 –4 1 ,3 4 4 ,3 7 0 ,3 7 2 ,
Merkel, H . xxxii, lxxxii, Ixxxviii N eudecker, F. 2 376, 382– 84, 403– 4, 43 0 , 436, 446,
Merklein, H. xxxii, xlvii - xlviii, 1, liii—lv, N eugebauer, F. 21 454, 467
lviii - lix, lxvii - lxviii, lxx, Ixxiii, Neuhausier, E. 350 R obinson, J. A. T . 46, 68, 72, 75– 76
474 Index of A uthors C ited

Robinson, J. M. 48 376, 378– 82, 395, 404– 7, 43 6 , 441, T ooley, W. 32

Robinson, T . A. lxiöciv 44 6 – 48, 4 50– 52, 462, 467 Traub, H. 245
Roels, E. xxxiii, lxxxix, 46, 77– 78, 150, Schneider, G. 244 Travis, S. H. 422
212, 246, 253 Schoenberg, M. W. 25 T rench, R. C. 407
Roetzel, C. J. xxxv - xxxvi, xxxix, 123, Schräge, W. 356– 57, 373 Trinidad, J. T . 9
132, 142 Schrenk, G. 398, 403 T rom p, S. 222
Rogers, C. L. 337, 343–4 4 Schroeder, D. 3 5 6 – 57 Turner, N. 2, 178
Roller, O. 3 Schubert, P. xxxv, xxxviii - xxxix, 1 9 ,4 6 –
Rom aniuk, K. 83 50, 52 van U nnik, W. C. 190
van Roon, A. viii, xxx, xxxiii, xlv—xlvii, Schulz, A. 310 Urbach, E. E. 415
1–li, Iv, lviii—lix, lxii, lxvi, lxxiii, 1, Schulz, S. 236, 321 U sam i, K. xxxiii, lxxxix
3–4 , 12– 13, 20, 212 Schürm ann, H. 2 5 0 – 52 U ssher, J. 3
Rowston, D. J. xxxiii Schüssler Fiorenza, E. lxxv, 350, 366, Usteri, L. lix, lxii
Royse, J. R. 337 368, 373– 74, 418, 424
Rubinkiewicz, R. 222, 243 Schweizer, E. xxx, xxxiii, liv, lix, lxvi, V anhoye, A. xxxiii
Rudolph, K. 205 lxviii, 2 5 ,4 6 ,6 9 , 7 1 ,7 4 , 7 7 ,9 0 ,1 0 2 – Verm es, G. 139
Russell, W. H. 25 3 ,1 3 0 ,1 8 4 ,2 2 7 ,2 5 3 ,2 6 3 ,2 9 2 ,2 9 6 , V em er, D. 356– 57, 35 9 – 6 1, 369, 417
Ryrie, C. C. 166, 177 310, 356– 57, 3 5 9 ,4 1 5 Vielhauer, P. 123, 150, 154, 157, 256
Scott, E. F. xxx V ogt, J. 41 5
Seebass, H . 98 V ögtle, A. 296– 97
Sahlin, H. 123, 138, 153
Salm ond, S. D. F. xxx Selwyn, E. G. 272, 283, 340, 356
Siber, P. 102, 316 W alker, W. O. 350
Sam pley, J. P. xxxiii, 292, 300, 306, 350,
Sim pson, E. K. xxx Wall, R. W. 350, 368– 70, 391
3 5 2 ,3 5 6 ,3 6 1 – 6 3 ,3 6 5 – 6 6 ,3 6 8 ,3 7 1 ,
Sint, J. A. lix, lxxi W arnach, V. xxxiii, 222
375– 76, 379– 82, 384, 391
Small, D. H . 350 W edderbum , A. J. M. 46, 71, 382
Sand, A. 98
Sm alley, S. S. xxxiii W egenast, K. 270, 279
Sanday, A. x, lxv
Sm ith, C. M. 192 W eidinger, K. 356– 57
Sanders, E. P. xxxiii, 28, 103
Sm ith, D. C. xxxiii, lxxiv, lxxx, 123, 147 Weiss, H .-F. xxxiii
Sanders, J. N . lix, lxvii, lxxiii
Sm ith, G. V. 222 W endland, H .-D. 356
Sanders, J. T . xxxiii, xxxv - xxxvi, xxxix,
Smith, J. Z. 285 W engst, K. 89, 123, 128– 29, 223, 229
xlvii, 9, 14– 15, 46, 50– 51, 83, 89–
Sm olders, D. 190 W estcott, B. F. xxx, 9, 47, 176– 78, 182,
90, 123, 127– 28, 200
von Soden, H. 246 185, 189, 213, 253, 259, 278, 280–
Santer, M. 1, 3
Souter, A. 4 8 1 ,3 0 9 , 3 2 5 ,3 3 0 ,3 7 5 – 7 6 ,3 7 8 ,4 4 1 ,
Sasse, H. 94– 95, 110
Speyer, W. lix 44 6 , 44 8 , 45 2 , 462
Schäfer, K. T . 123, 154 W esterm ann, C. 10
Staab, K. xxx
Schattenm ann, J. 9, 13 W esterm ann, W. L. 41 5 , 417
Stachiowak, L. R. 327
Schenk, W. 1– 2, 6 Stagg, F. 18 de W ette, W. M. L. xxx, lx, lxii
Schenke, H .-M. xxxv, xxxviii, lix, lxx, Stählin, G. 234 W etter, G. P. 103
46, 69, 71 Stauffer, E. 362 W hitaker, G, H. 223, 262
Schille, G. xxxiii, lix, 9, 13, 34, 50, 83, Stegem ann, E. 123 W hite, J. L. ix, xxxvi, xxxviii
87– 89, 123, 127– 28, 148, 316 Steinm etz, F.-J. xxxiii, lxxxix, 83, 8 8 ,9 1 , W hite, L. M. 223
Schlatter, A. xxx 9 4 ,1 5 0 ,1 7 7 – 7 8 ,1 8 4 , 1 8 9 ,2 2 2 ,2 6 0 , W hiteley, D. E. H. 42 9
Schlier, H . xxx, xxxiii, lx, lxii, lxxix, 261 W ibbing, S. 296– 97
lxxxix, 4, 9, 14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, Stott, J. R. W. xxxiii Wicker, K. O. 356
30– 33, 35, 37, 41, 46, 54, 58– 60, Stowers, S. K. xxxv W iedem ann, T . 415– 16, 42 2 – 23
64– 6 5 , 68, 73, 75, 77, 88, 91, 94, Strack, H. L. 140, 142, 147, 202, 390 W ikenhauser, A. xxxv, 46
96– 97, 99, 105, 110, 112, 115, 127– Strobel, A. 356 W ilckens, U . 187
2 9 ,1 4 1 – 4 2 ,1 4 5 ,1 4 8 ,1 5 0 ,1 5 4 ,1 5 6 – Stuhlm acher, P. 1 2 3 ,1 2 7 , 1 3 8 ,1 4 0 , 146, W ild, R. A. xxxiii, lxxxix, 270, 28 8 , 292,
57, 174, 177– 80, 182, 184– 85, 187– 148, 415– 16 310– 11, 4 2 9 , 43 1 , 4 3 9 , 45 0 , 455
89, 192, 203, 205, 208, 234, 2 4 0 – Stuiber, A. 216 Wiles, G. P. 50, 200
4 1 ,2 4 5 ,2 5 0 ,2 5 3 ,2 5 7 ,2 5 9 –6 0 ,2 6 3 , Suggs, M. J. 296 W ilhelm i, G. 123
2 7 7 ,2 8 1 – 8 2 ,2 8 7 – 8 8 ,2 9 9 ,3 0 1 ,3 0 3 , Sum m ers, R. xxxiii Williams, R. R. xl, 223, 238
306– 7, 309– 10, 312, 322, 326, 330– Swain, L. xxx W illiam son, L. xxxiv
331, 338, 343, 347, 351, 362, 371, Synge, F. C. xxx W ilson, R. A. xxxiv, 9, 38
373– 74, 376– 78, 380– 81, 383, 395– W ilson, R. McL. 184, 205
9 6 ,4 0 4 ,4 0 8 ,4 2 1 ,4 3 6 ,4 4 1 –4 2 ,4 4 5 – T achau, P. xxxiii, 83, 86– 88, 91, 123, Wink, W. xxxiv, 4 6 ,6 3 – 6 4 ,9 6 ,1 6 6 ,1 8 6 ,
46, 448– 50, 454, 464, 467 125, 128, 138 42 9
Schm id, J. xxxiii, xlvi - xlviii, 1, lxvii, lxxi, Tannehill, R. C. 102 W itherington, B. 350
lxxxix, 1, 3, 18 Taylor, V. 145 W obbe, J. 103
Schmitz, O. 234 Taylor, W. F. xxx W olter, M. 123, 127, 148
Schnackenburg, R. xi, xxx, xxxiii, xl, lx, Terrien, S. 350, 374
lxvi - lxviii, lxxiv, lxxx, lxxxix, xcvii, T h eissen , G. 360 Yam auchi, E. lxxxiv, 69
2, 9, 14– 17, 34, 37, 46, 51, 59, 65, T h eron, D. J. 25 Yarbrough, O. L. 359
73, 75, 77, 83, 88, 91, 94, 105, 110, T h eron, F. T . 222 Yates, R. xxxiv, 4 6 , 75– 76
112, 115, 123, 127– 28, 145, 154, T hiselton, A. C. 98, 283 Yoder, J. 356
157, 167, 174, 177– 81, 184, 187, Thom as, J. 296, 328
189, 191, 197, 202, 207, 210, 216, T h om pson, G. H . P. xxx, 166, 191– 92, Zeitlin, S. 415
222, 229, 240–4 1 , 245, 247, 249, 465 Zepf, M. 94
253– 54, 256, 259, 260, 263, 282, T hraede, K. 35 6 – 57, 359 Zerwick, M. xxx
285, 287– 88, 294, 300, 302, 307, Thrall, M. E. 53 Zimmerli, W. 103
309– 10, 316– 17, 319, 322, 325– 26, T h üsing, W. 9 Zuntz, G. 3
329– 31, 343–4 4 , 350, 370, 373– 74, T h yen , H. xxxvi, xxxix de Zwaan, J. xxxiv, xxxvi, xlv
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient
Sources
A. The Old Testament

G e n e sis L e v itic u s 33:2 332

33:5 26
1:1 34 1:3 149 27
33:12
1:26–28 66 2:9 312 33:26 26
1:26 287 2:12 312 34:9 56
1:27 383 3:3 149
2:23 351 4:14 149
2:24 lvii, 694, 352, 354, 361, 369, 378, 18– 19 297 Josh ua
380, 381, 382, 383, 388– 389, 393 18:1– 5 272
8:21 277 18:24– 30 272 1 :6 ,7 441
9:2 42 0 19:2 311 1:9 441
11:5 178 19:11 303
12:3 21, 202 19:17 329 Judges
14:20 10 19:18 361, 378, 379, 384, 388
15:1 449 20:9 399 10:18 67
15:6 143 20:23 272 11:11 67
15:7– 21 137
17:1– 21 137 N u m b e rs
17:17 277 1 Sam u el
20:16 259 6:14 21
26:16 98
21:12 21 15:39 98
24:27 10 17, 18 244
24:45 277 19:2 24 2 Sam u el
26:2– 5 137 26:55, 56 36
27:41 277 7 137
28:13– 15 137 12:5 98
D e u tero n o m y xl
28:17 157 13:21 306
38:17– 20 40 2:25 420 19:27 259
42:16 259 4:9 400 21:3 59
4:20 59 22:44 67
Exodus 5:10 103, 466
5:16 396, 401
1 K in g s
3:14 2 5:19 303
4:21 278 6:4 240 5:7 11
7:3 278 6:5 421 8:13 158
9:12 278 6:7 400 8:15 10
12:14 135 7:6– 8 23 8:39 158
15:6 62 7:8 27 8:41– 43 149
15:16 420 7:9 103, 466 8:41 138
19, 20 244 7:12 103 8:43 158
19:3 246 9:26 59, 27 8:49 158
19:5 42 9:29 59, 36 8:51 59
19:6 6 11:19 400 8:53 59
19:14 246 11:26– 28 272 8:56 10
19:20 246 13:5 27 18:24 65
19:25 246 14:2 42, 23 19:18 202
20:6 46 6 15:15 27
20:9 303 21:18– 21 399
20:12 lxiv, 396, 397, 404– 5 22:7 397, 404 2 K in g s
20:15 303 24:15 302
6:17 34
24:1– 8 137 24:18 27
21:14 59
24:18 246 26:18 42
25:17 154
28:3 56, 277 27– 30 297
29:18 298 , 312 28:13 67
29:37 24 28:49 138 1 C h ro n icles
31:3 56 29:22 138
32:15 246 30:15– 20 272 16:36 200, 199
33:19 103 32:4 288 17:21 27
34:4 246 32:8, 9 36 22:12 29
34:6 100 32:15 26 28:8 156
34:29 246 32:17 63 29:11 198
35:31 56 32:46 400 29:20 201
476 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

2 C h ro n icles 77:22 55 Isa ia h

78:2 454
1:10– 12 29 78:62 59 2:2–4 140
2:11, 12 11 5:1 27
78:71 59
6:41 289 80:1– 3 5:7 27
332
31:20 328 80:7 5:26 138
332
80:18 62 5:30 327
Job 80:19 332 6:1 75
85:5 217 6:3 73
1:6 34, 96, 186 88:3– 6 6:10 278
92
5:9 183, 212 88:6 60 7 : 8 ,9 67
5:27 212 88:8 60 9:2 327
8:8 212 89:5, 6 154 9 : 5 ,6 127
9:10 1 8 3 ,2 1 2 89:13 9:6 140
62
11:5– 9 211 89:28 103 10:17 327
1 1 :8 ,9 210 89:52 10, 199 11:2 56, 29, 4 3 6
13:9 212 91:4 114, 44 9 11:4, 5 43 6 , 45 6
14:12 332 94:11 11:4 451
277
15:15 60, 151 94:14 59 11:5 44 7 , 44 8
22:26 190 95:8 19:25 59
278
27:9, 10 190 96:7, 8 26:19 318
198
28:12– 22 190, 211 100:3 28:16 154, 155
109
28:27 212 102:20 40:26 203
98
29:14 284 106:5 41:10 62
59
34:24 183, 208, 212 106:40 42:6 327
59
106:48 10, 199– 200 42:13 43 6
P s a lm s 110:1 xci, 51, 61, 62, 64, 66, 79 42:16 327
115:9– 11 449 43:7 36
1 272 43:21 36
118:22 154, 155
3:8 199 119:36 279 44:2 26
4:5 298, 301 132:9 284 44:26 251
5:2 44 9 139:15 245 45:23 40 9
7:13 45 0 142:5 114 47:5 327
8:6 xci, 51, 64, 65, 66, 79, 369 143:3 92 47:6 59
9 50 144:17 288 48:9– 11 36
9:17 44 9 145:8 100 48:13 62
10:6 217 147:4 203 49:6 327
11:1 178 148:14 139 51:4 327
11:8 178 51:6 20
13:1– 3 92 P roverbs 51:8 217
14:2 24 52:1 4 36
17:24 24 1:2 29 52:7 126, 131, 148, 147, 159, 160,
18:1, 2 436 1:14 36 4 3 6 , 44 8
18:2 44 9 3:11 40 8 54:8– 10 103
18:32 43 6 , 447 3:19 29 56:6– 8 149
18:39 436, 447 4 :1 0 – 14 341 56:6, 7 156
18:46–4 8 45 0 8:1 29 57:15 60
20:6 62 9 67 4 , 341 57:19 126, 127, 128, 131, 146, 147,
23:1 75 9:7 330 148, 159, 178
27:1 327 10:8 341 59:9 327
28:9 59 10:14 341 59:17 43 6 , 44 8 , 4 50
29 50, 247 10:23 29 60:1 318, 319, 327
30:3 92 10:31, 32 305 60:2 327
31:12 92 12:17– 19 305 63:10 306
33:12 59 13:24 401 63:17 59, 278
35:1– 3 43 6 15:1 301 65:17 20
39:6 312, 298 15:2 305 66:22 20
41:13 10, 199 15:4 305
44:2 178 15:12 330
J e re m ia h
44:3 62 15:18 301
45 363 19:18 401 2:5 277
48:2 178 21:3 25 9 5:15 139
48:10 62 22:6 4 00 10:12 29
49:19 326 22:24 301 10:16 59
50:2 332 23:13, 14 401 11:15 27
59 50 23:31 340 12:6 55
63:9 245 26:18 45 0 12:7 27
65:5 45 0 29:8 301 13:11 36
65:6 447 29:11 301 17:7, 8 446
68 xci, 230 29:15 401 21:5 302
68:9 59 29:17 401 21:8 272
68:18 463, 242–4 7 , 493 22:17 279
E cclesia stes
68:34 199 22:24 62
69 50 6:10 203 23:2 251
72:18, 19 10 7:9 301 23:23, 24 73
72:19 73, 199 12:9 212 23:24 77
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 477

31:33 4 50 7:18 217 Jonah

51:19 59 7:22 107
7:27 107 1:5, 6 318
8:13 60 2:6 92
E z e k ie l
10:1 176 2:9 199
3:27 454 10:13 96, 186
9:4–6 39 10:16 454 M ic a h
16:8– 14 763, 375, 387 10:20 63
16:10– 14 377 10:21 96, 186 4:1– 4 140
20:41 298, 312 12:1 4 46 6:8 328
22:27 279
33:22 454 H abakkuk
34:11 251
H o sea 2:9 279
43:5 75
44:4 75 13:14 92
48:16 209 H aggai

D a n ie l 2:6 20
Joel 2:7 75
2:8 341
2:18 30 2:2 217
Z ec h a ria h
2:19 30 2:28– 32 40
2:20– 23 53 3:20 217 3:1 34
2:21 29 8:16 298, 300– 302
2:27– 30 30 8:20– 23 149
2:47 30 A m os 11:16 251
3:52 217
3:90 217 3:1 156 M a la c h i
4:34 27, 28 4:2 60
6:10 201 5:18–20 446 3:17 42

B. The New Testament

M a tth e w 5:34 104 11:22 110, 442
6:52 278 12:57 403
5:5 236 7:7 258 14:26 398
5:22 301 7:9– 13 398 15:13 344
6:13 198, 199 7:10 405 15:24 93
7:13, 14 272 7:21, 22 296 15:32 93
7:17, 18 305 7:22 579 17:18 198
8:22 93 8:17 278 17:19 104
9:16 75 8:20 75 18:11 201
11:29 236 9:35 254 18:13 201
12:32 65, 110 10:7 352 18:20 405
12:33, 34 305 10:13– 16 398 18:30 110
13:19 45 0 10:17 201 20:13 27
13:22 286 10:19 303, 405 20:17, 18 155
13:48 305 10:29, 30 398 20:34– 36 383
15:4 405 10:30 110 20:42 345
15:9 258 10:42– 45 254 21:28 28
15:19 296 10:52 104 21:36 453
16:18 154 11:10 46 22:41 201
17:14 201 11:25 201 23:2 398
18:4 236 12:10 155 24:44 345
18:15– 17 330 12:25 202 24:47 179
19:5 352 13:12 398
19:19 405 13:33– 37 453
19:28 107 14:26 345 John
23:12 236 14:38 453
23:15 99 1:4 278, 321
14:58 136
25:1 255 1:5 327
25:6 255 1:7– 9 327
26:30 345 L/ukß
3:13 246
28:19, 20 179 3:19– 21 656, 327
1:28 26 5:24, 25 93
1:68– 75 10 6:62 246
M ark
1:75 288 7:8 32
1:15 71, 284 2:4 202 8:12 278, 327
1:40 201 2:30 450 9:5 327
3:5 278 3:6 450 9:24 198
3:28 178 6:35, 36 311 10:11 250
3:31– 35 398 7:50 104 10:14 250
4:19 286 9:59–62 398 12:31 94
5:33 420 9:60 93 12:35, 36 321
478 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

12:40 278 20:29, 30 250 3:27 112

15:3 376 20:32 60 3:29, 30 240
16:11 94 20:36 201 3:30 111
17:15 450 21:2 276 3:31 lxxxviii, xciii, 143
17:17 376 21:4 276 4 xciv, 143
21:16 251 21:5 201 4:2 lvii, 104, 112, 113
21:8 250 4:3 112, 242
A cts hcxxii 21:9, 10 153 4:4 113
22:3 40 7 4:5 112
1:7 32 22:16 375 4:6 112
1:8 179 22:28 32, 137 4 : 7 ,8 242
1:20 345 23:29 234 4:11 39
2:4 340, 344 25:25 208 4:13, 14 41
2:13 344 26:18 6 0, 326 4:15 98
2:15 340, 344 26:26 455 4:17 102
2:17 40 26:29 234 4:20 198
2:32, 33 61 26:31 234 4:25 29
2:33 244 28:20 454 5– 7 93
2:34 62 28:28 450 5:1, 2 149
2:36 156 28:31 455 5:1 104, 140
2:37– 39 39 5:2, 3 113
2:37 38 R om ans x xxix, Ix iii, h civ, Ix vi, I x vii, x c v , 5:2 lvii, 104, 128, 190, 447
2:38 18, 241 cxxx, 5:5 100, 42 0 , 237
3:25 202 5:8– 11 86– 87
4:11 155 1 272, 277 5:8 87, 100, 207
4:13 208 1:1–15 5 5:9, 10 87, 100, 207
4:24– 30 204 1:1 5, 179, 182 5:9 87, 98, 104, 28 6
5:17 2 1:3 256 5:10 145– 146, 256
5:42 280 1:4 61, 205, 256 5:11 Ixv, 113, 145
7:2 56 1:5 liv, 171, 174 5:12– 21 71, 93, 99, 102, 104
7:22 401 1:7 3, 4, 6 5:15 29, 112, 182
7:48 136 1:8 54 5:16 29, 93
7:60 201 1:9, 10 49 5:17 112, 182
8:12– 17 39 1:9 49, 56, 256 5:20, 21 103
8:14– 17 25 0 1:11– 15 168 5:20 29
8:17, 18 40 1:13, 14 171 6 236
8:20 241 1:13 31 6:1– 11 105
9:27 455 1:15 4 6:1–4 91
9:29 455 1:16 39 6:1 103
9:36 115 1:18 – 3:20 99 6:4 56, 102, 235, 272
9:40 201 1:18 – 32 325 6:5 1 0 2 ,2 1 9
10:34 208 1:18– 23 278 6:6 2 1 1 ,2 8 4 – 28 5 , 569
10:44– 46 40 1:18 98 6:7 104
10:45 241 1:20 114 6:8 101– 2, 105
11:17 241 1:21 lvii, 273, 277, 273, 324 6:10, 11 105
11:27 153 1:24– 32 279 6:12 286
12:23 198 1:24 lvvii, 273, 279, 286 6:13 9 3, 435
13:1– 3 153, 250 1:26 99 6:14 103, 143
13:1, 2 153 1:29– 31 27 6 6:15– 23 86
13:1 2, 2 5 0 – 51 1:29 279 6:16– 18 87
13:7 38 1:30 398, 402 6:16 87
13:33 345 2:2 281 6:20 87
13:44 38 2:4 110 6:21 87
13:46 455 2:5 98, 307 6:22, 23 87
14:4 250 2:6– 11 414 6:23 87, 92– 93, 435
14:13 2 2:6– 10 422 7:4– 6 143
14:14 250 2:7 115, 467 7:4 142
14:23 233, 251 2:8 98 7:5, 6 86– 87
15:11 104 2:11 lvii, 42 3 , 424 7:5 29, 87, 93, 97
15:32 153 2:13 104 7:6 87, 143
16:25 345 2:14, 15 99 7:7– 25 146, 164
16:26 234 2:18 328 7:7, 8 286
17:26 156 2:21 303 7:9 93
17:30 278 2:27 99 7:10 93
18:19– 21 1 2:28, 29 136 7:13 93
19:1– 20:1 1 3:5 98 7:22 205
19:2 39 3:19, 20 146, 164 7:23 205
19:5, 6 39, 40 3:20 156 7:25 205
19:6 40, 153 3:22– 25 111 8:1 22
19:8 455 3:22 54 8:3 256
19:10 38 3:24– 28 lvii, xcii, 119 8:4 234
20:4 cxxiii, 465 3:24 104, 112, 182 8:5– 7 98
20:17– 38 1 3:25, 26 111 8:6 237
20:17 233, 251 3:25 54, 139 8:8 98
20:23 234 3:26 282 8:9– 11 247
20:28 42, 233, 251 3:27, 28 111 8:9, 10 206
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 479

8:9 206 12:5 lvii, 71, 298 1:31 113

8:10 207 12:6–8 229 2:1 31
8:11 102, 206, 282 12:6 153, 229, 241 2:3 414, 42 0
8:14, 15 25 12:7 251, 254, 258 2:4 205
8:15, 16 149, 452 12:8 251 2:6– 16 57
8:15 lv, 25, 57, 240 12:9, 10 229 2:6– 8 187
8:16 57 12:12 453 2:6 65, 94– 95, 256– 57
8:17, 18 192 12:13 304 2:7– 10 170
8:17 lvii, 41, 102, 101, 107, 181 12:15 283 2:7 25, 31, 184
8:18– 23 33 12:16 235 2:8 65, 94, 95
8:21 286 12:19 98 2:9 46 6
8:23 lvi, 25, 28, 307 13:1 365 2:10– 13 57
8:24 104 13:3 115, 385 2:10 180
8:26–30 23 13:4 385 2:12 97
8:28 36, 80, 46 6 13:4, 5 98 3:1 257
8:29 lvi, 23, 25, 215, 256 13:5 365 3:3 234
8:30 25, 235 13:7 385 3:5 182
8:34 6 1 ,6 2 13:8– 10 143 3:6, 7 261
8:35 214 13:9 33, 303 3:6 lvii
8:35– 39 207, 212 13:10 74 3:9– 17 152
8:38 63 13:11– 14 432 3:9– 12 lvii
8:39 100, 214 13:11, 12 307 3:9 72, 156, 260
£ – 11 xciv, 134, 137, 164 13:11 104 3:10, 11 154– 55
9:1 281 13:12– 14 272 3:10 liv, 103, 152, 174
9:4, 5 137 13:12, 13 3 2 6 –27, 344 3:11 lxiv, 152– 53, 155
9:4 24, 137 13:12 lvii, 272, 284– 84, 329, 435 3:12 152
9:11 36, 112 13:13 279, 234, 296 3:14 152
9:13 24 13:14 97, 284, 286 3:15 104
9:15, 16 100 14:8, 9 239 3:16, 17 156
9:15 242 14:11 202 3:16 lvii, 152, 158, 206
9:16 112 14:15 234, 312 3:17 152
9:17 242 14:17 237 3:18, 19 95
9:18 24, 100 14:18 329 3:18 65
9:22 24, 98, 109, 254 14:20 114 4:1, 2 174
9:23 100, 115, 204 14:23 4 4:1 31– 32
9:25 27 15 xciv 4:7 113
9:26 25 15:4 258 4:9– 13 171
9:30– 10:4 146, 164 15:8 281 4:12 292, 298, 304
9:32 112 15:10 242 4:14 lvii, 407
10:3 112 15:13 237 4:16 lvii, 226
10:4 143 15:14 650 4:21 236
10:6, 7 245 15:15 174 5:1 321
10:9, 10 229 15:16 171, 182 5:5 lxv, 104, 303
10:9 104, 239 15:18 171 5:8 309
10:10 104 15:21 280 5:9– 11 320, 325
10:11 242 15:25– 31 2 5:10, 11 279, 296
10:13 104 15:25 151 6:2 107
10:14– 17 38 15:26 151 6:9– 11 86– 87
10:14 280 15:29 74 6:9, 10 lvii, 41, 296, 325
10:15 448 15:30 226 6:9 320
11 xciii, 185 15:31 151 6:10 303
11:2 242 15:33 4, 463 6:11 375
11:3 202 16 13 6:12– 20 321
11:6 112 16:1 463 6:14 56, 61
11:7 278 16:17 226, 280 6:15, 16 lvii
11:9, 10 242 16:20 lxv, 303, 463 6:16 361, 378, 382
11:12 74 16:24 463 6:19 156
11:13 171, 254 16:25– 27 170, 175, 217 6:20 28
11:15 145 16:25 31, 184, 215 7 lxiv, xcv, 390
11:13– 32 133 16:27 199 7:2 321
11:20 235, 447 7:5 lxv, 303
11:22 110 1 C o rin th ia n s x c iv 7:7– 14 418
11:25– 27 34 7:14 398
11:25 31, 74, 75, 278 1:1 5, 15 7:16 370
11:26 156 1:2 4 7:17 234
11:30–32 86– 87, 100, 125 1:3 6 7:20–22 421
11:33– 36 211 1:4 54– 55 7:21 41 9 – 20
11:33 lvii, 183, 1 8 8 ,2 1 2 1:9 235 7:22, 23 414
11:36 199, 240, 229 1:10 226, 254 7:22 4 19
12 xciv, 71, 230, 24 9 262 1:18 39, 104 7:23 28
12:1 lxxiv, 2 2 6 –27, 229, 231, 234 1:20 65, 95 7:26 446
12:2 lvii, 65, 416, 286, 571, 320, 329, 1:21 104 7:29– 32 341
340, 343 1:23 280 7:30, 31 305
12:3 lvii, liv, 174, 229, 242 1:27, 28 140 8:3 214, 46 6
12:4, 5 71, 301, 713 1:28– 31 119 8 : 5 ,6 138
12:4 229 1:30 140 8:6 229, 237, 240
480 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

9:17 32, 174 15:32 lxxxi 6:4 182

10:4 137 15:42 467 6:5 171, 304
10:8 321 15:43, 44 205 6:6, 7 205, 296
10:11 65, 407 15:44– 49 20, 71 6:6 23 6
10:12 447 15:44 40 6:7 85, 281, 4 3 5 , 44 8
10:16, 17 71 15:45– 49 143 6:14– 7:1 326, 327
10:16 139 15:45 102, 20 6 , 247 6:15 6
10:20 444 15:47– 4 9 108 6:16 156, 242
10:26 74– 75 15:50 41, 325, 44 4 , 467 6:18 25
10:32 xciv, 67, 144, 276 15:51 31 7:1 36 6
11 153, 369 15:52– 54 467 7:14 281
11:3 lvii, 67, 361, 369 15:56 93 7:15 41 4 , 4 2 0
11:10 186 15:58 432 8:4 151
11:14 99 16:1 309 8:22 190
11:21 343 16:8 cxxiii 9:1 151
11:23–32 71 16:10 463 9:8 29, 115, 304
11:25 135, 139 16:13 432, 435, 44 1 , 447 9:10 260, 263
12– 14 264 16:15 22 6 9:12 151
12 xciv, 71, 2 29– 30, 247, 249, 262 16:22 46 6 9:14 110
12:3 237, 282 16:23 463 9:15 112, 182
12:4– 13 150 10– 13 176
12:4– 6 229 2 C o rin th ia n s 10:1 172, 226– 27, 236
12:4 229, 2 4 1 ,2 4 7 10:2, 3 23 4
12:5 229, 254 1:1 3, 5 10:2 190
12:6 36, 76 1:2 6 10:3, 4 435
12:7, 8 247 1:3– 11 53, 171 10:4 442
12:9, 10 180 1 :3 ,4 11 10:15 261
12:10 229 1:3 lvi 10:17 113
12:11– 13 228 1:6 192 11:2 376, 387
12:11 229, 242 1:8 – 14 168 11:3 259
12:12– 27 71, 301 1:11 453 11:4 282
12:12, 13 71, 143, 229 1:15 190 11:10 281
12:13 238, 240, 247, 414, 418, 423, 1:19 256, 280 11:14 lxv, 303
818 1:22 lvi, 86, 89 11:23– 33 171
12:27 71, 361 2:8 226 11:23 171, 304
12:28, 29 251 2:11 lxv, 303 11:27 304
12:28 lvii, lxiv - lxv, xciv, 67, 153, 2:14– 17 53 11:30 113
229, 230, 249– 51, 252 2:14– 16 298 12:2–4 108
13 207, 229, 237 2:15 104 12:6 281
13:2 31, 213 3:4 190 12:7– 10 171
13:4 236 3:6 102, 182 12:7 lxv
13:9– 13 213 3:7– 11 146, 164 12:9 113
13:12 58 3 : 8 ,9 254 12:18 234
14 57, 153 3:12 190 12:20, 21 29 6
14:2 31 3:14 278 12:21 279
14:3– 5 255 3:17 206, 247 13:4 6 1 , 102, 106
14:6 57 3:18 215 13:11 254, 463
14:12 255 4:1 191, 254 13:14 463
14:15 324 4:2 85, 234, 259
14:16, 17 324 4:4 56, 6 5, 94, 9 5 , 327
14:16 xxxix, 200 4:5 282 G a la tia n s Ix x x viii, x c iv , x c v
14:20 25 6 4:6 56, 205, 327
14:24, 25 330 4:7– 11 171 1– 2 176
14:26 57, 251, 255, 345 4:10 282 1:1 61
14:30 57 4:11 282 1:3 6
14:34 365 4:12 192 1:4 29, 65
14:36 38 4:14 101, 282 1:5 199
14:37, 38 176 4:16 191, 205, 286 1:10 lvii, 4 1 4 , 421
15:2 104 4:17 192 1:11 182
15:3 29, 61 5:1 lxv 1:12 175
15:7 29 5:5 40 1:13 lxiv, xciv, 67
15:9, 10 lvii 5:7 234 1:15, 16 179
15:9 lxiii - lxiv, xciv, 67, 182 5:10 115, 176, 4 0 5 ,4 1 4 1:15 103, 174
15:10 103, 174, 182 5:11 366 1:16 171, 175, 182, 25 6 , 280, 444
15:19 37 5:12 205 1:23 86
15:20– 22 71 5:14 214 2:5 38, 260, 282
15:22, 23 101 5:17 49, 114, 144, 272 2:7– 9 171
15:22 21, 143 5:18– 21 146 2:9 103, 174
15:24– 28 51, 66, 77, 325 5:18, 19 lxv, 145 2:14 38, 176, 260, 282
15:24– 27 51 5:18 254, 297 2:15 99
15:24– 26 64 5:19 29, 38 2:16 5 4 ,1 1 9
15:24 lvi, 63 5:20 lvii, 145, 234, 45 4 2:19 102, 143
15:25– 27 xci 6:1 22 6 2:20 lvii, 54, 207, 214, 256, 298, 361
15:27 lvi, 66 6:2 104, 242 2:21 103
15:28 76, 77, 215, 24 0 , 372 6:3– 10 171 3– 4 xciv
15:30– 32 171 6:3 173, 254 3:2– 5 112
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 481

3:3 98 1:3– 12 lxi 1:23 xlvi, liv, lxxxix, lxiv, xciv, 35,
3:4 173 1:3– 11 xlv 7 2 ,9 2 ,1 2 8 ,1 4 2 ,1 5 5 ,1 8 0 ,2 1 2 ,2 1 4 ,
3:5 263 1 :3 ,4 235 231, 238, 2 3 9 –4 0, 247, 249, 254,
3:9, 10 112 1:3 lxiv, Ixv, xc, 6, 19, 19– 22, 34, 56, 257, 344
3:9 6 72, 86, 150, 158, 181, 203, 207, 2 lxiv, Ixxv, 19
3:10–22 146, 164 217, 253, 340 2:1– 22 1, lxi, lxxvii, 86
3:13 28, 142, 312 1:4 lii, lxv, xcv, 6, 22– 25, 59, 86, 115 – 2:1– 10 xxxvi, xxxvi, xlvii, li, xcii,
3:14 lvi, 20, 23, 4 0 –41 16, 207, 231 84– 121, 131, 165, 275, 326
3:16– 22 137 1 :5 ,6 xlvi, 25– 27, 253 2:1– 7 xlv, lxvi, 88
3:16 23, 242 1:5 xlvi, lvi, lxxvi, 19, 36, 59, 95, 2:1– 3 lxxvii, 34, 102, 104
3:18 41 115, 149 2 : 1 ,2 116
3:19 29 1:6, 7 lii, 6, 104 2:1 xxxvi, xxxviii, xlv, lxv, 9 0, 91– 93,
3:22 54 1:6 lxxvi, 72, 100, 109, 192, 217 278
3:24, 25 143 1:7, 8 27– 30, 183 2 : 2 ,3 25
3:26 25, 55 1:7 xlv - xlvi, xlviii, lxiii, lxv, lxxvi, xci, 2:2 xc, lxv, cxxxix, 35, 64, 89, 93– 97,
3:27, 28 143, 240 42, 50, 86, 109, 139, 146, 204 108– 9, 138, 184– 85, 231, 234,
3:27 272, 284– 85 1:8 xlv, lii, lxxvi, 18, 50, 57, 176, 187, 276, 312, 445
3:28 xcv, 134, 161, 163, 383, 418, 211 2:3– 7 lxi
419, 423 , 424 1:9, 10 liv, 19, 30– 35, 114, 167, 170, 2:3 lvii, lxv, 90, 97– 99, 104, 135,
3:29 2 3 ,4 1 174– 75, 184, 188, 239, 268 146, 189, 286, 326
4:1 41 1:9 lxv, 19, 25, 35, 50– 51, 181, 194, 2:4– 10 87
4:3– 7 86– 87 2 1 0 ,2 1 3 2:4– 8 xlv
4:4, 5 32 1:10 lii - liii, lv, lxv, xci, xcv, 18– 19, 2:4 26, 99– 100, 138, 207, 214
4:4 lvi, 25, 256 59, 65, 74, 77, 132, 144, 161, 164, 2:5– 8 174
4:5 25, 28, 341 173– 74, 181, 184, 194, 203, 241 2:5, 6 lxxvi, 61, 91, 10 0 – 109, 146,
4:6 149, 206, 240, 256, 452 1:11– 13 88 180
4:7 41 1 :1 1 ,1 2 35– 3 7 ,8 6 2:5 liii, lxxvi, xci, 6, 19, 26, 39, 89,
4:8– 10 86 1:11 xlv, lxv, 19, 59, 9 5, 115, 189 206, 275, 281, 450
4:8 99, 138 1:12 26, 50, 55, 59, 109, 115, 192, 2 : 6 ,7 19, 181
4:9 58, 214 217, 239 2:6 lxiv, lxv, xc, 19, 22, 34, 41, 62,
4:16 259 1 :1 3 ,1 4 lvi, 19, 37– 42, 131, 158, 90, 151, 154
4:25– 27 134 170, 205, 340 2:7– 9 104
4:26 108, 151 1:13 lii, lx, lxv, lxxvi, 19, 54, 88, 104, 2:7 xlvi, xcii, 6, 19, 29, 64– 65, 94,
4:30 41, 242 137, 181, 190, 234, 247, 260, 2 8 0 109– 11, 183– 84, 204, 218, 253
5:1 447 1:14 lix, lxi, xci, 19, 26, 28, 50, 59, 2:8– 10 lxiv, 193
5:2 33 65, 108– 9, 181, 192, 217 2 : 8 ,9 lvii, xcii, 90, 111– 13
5:4 103 1:15– 23 xxxvi, xlv, lxi, lxvi, 38, 46– 2:8 lxxvi, xci, 6, 19, 26, 39, 190, 206,
5:5 104, 320 83, 131, 165, 170, 197– 9 9, 220 2 8 1 ,4 4 9
5:6 58, 114 1:15– 17 li 2:10 lxi, lxxvi, lxxvi, 109, 113– 16,
5:7 38, 281, 282 1:15, 16 lxi, lx, 54– 56 143, 184, 231, 234, 276, 288, 312
5:13 366 1:15 lxv, lxxvii, lxxivl, 2, 6, 17, 132, 2:11– 22 xxxvii, xlvii, 1, lxiii, lxv, xciii,
5:14 237 151, 190, 200, 207, 213, 231, 254, 85, 91, 124– 6 4 , 170, 172, 176,
5:16 97, 234, 286 282 177, 181, 200, 232, 276, 275
5:19–23 296 1:16– 19 lxxvii, 49 2:11– 18 lxi
5:19– 21 320 1:16, 17 55– 58, 198 2:11– 16 li
5:19 279, 321, 329, 557 1:16 189 2:11– 13 lxxvii, 125, 130, 140
5:20 301 1:17– 19 lxvii, 256 2:11, 12 c, 139
5:21 41 1:17, 18 xlv, 213, 251, 277 2:11 xxxvii, lxi, lxxvi, 38, 91, 97, 101,
5:22 236– 237, 320, 328 1:17 lxv, 57, 66, 150, 176, 368, 187, 134– 36, 149, 276
5:23 236 192, 200, 203, 205, 428, 217, 287, 2:12 lvii, lxv, 59, 136– 38, 150, 178,
5:24 97, 286 340 181, 229, 239, 277
6:1 57, 254 1:18, 19 58–61 2:13 xci, 138– 39, 148, 181
6:8 286 1:18 xxxvi, xlvi, lii, lxxvi, 37, 41, 138, 2:14– 18 xlv, lxxvi, 125, 126– 30,
6:9 191 151, 181, 184, 192, 204, 206, 209, 132, 146, 231– 32, 3 7 1 ,4 4 9
6:10 114, 152, 304, 342 213, 229, 231, 234, 238– 39, 254 2:14– 17 209
6:13 113 1:19– 23 146 2:14– 16 xlvii, lxi, lxxvii, 139–46,
6:14 113 1:19, 20 xlv, liii, 26, 100 148, 2 0 8 ,2 1 1 ,2 3 8
6:15, 16 163 1:19 xlv, lxi, lxv, 66, 73, 85, 95, 110, 2:14, 15 xciii, 124
6:15 114, 144, 272 114, 182, 190, 205, 215, 2:14 6, 97, 245
6:16 134, 463, 465 263 2:15, 16 170
6:17 171, 282, 441 1:20–23 xlvii - xlviii, lxi, xci, 34, 47, 2:15 lxiii, xciii, xcv, 6, 112, 114, 133,
6:18 463 51, 153, 186 184, 239, 245, 256, 275, 287– 88
1:20–22 xci, 51, 108, 242 2:16 lxiii, lxv, lxxvi, xci, xciii, xcv,
1:20, 21 61– 65, 85, 185, 250 71, 146, 150, 181, 228, 239
E p h e s ia n s
1:20 xlvii, lxv, xc, 19, 21– 22, 26, 2:17, 18 xciii
86, 97, 105, 107, 109, 216, 248 2:17 xlvii, cxii, xciv, 6, 146 – 149
1– 3 xxxvi, xlii, 231 1:21– 23 188, 194 2:18– 22 172
1 xxxiv, xci 1 :2 1 ,2 2 lvi, 203, 242 2:18 lvii, lxi, 149– 50, 158, 170, 181,
1:1, 2 xxxvii, xlviii, 1– 7 1:21 lii, xc, 21, 34– 35, 47, 121, 94, 95, 189– 91, 202, 228, 478, 340
1:1 lx, lxxvi, 54– 55, 60, 151, 213, 254 110, 184, 198, 2 0 0 ,4 1 1 ,2 1 8 2:19– 22 1, lxi, lxxvi, 130– 31
1:2 202 1:22, 23 xxxviii, lxi, lxiv, xclv, xcv, 2:19 lxxvi, xciv, 6 0, 126, 132, 146,
1:3– 3:21 xxxvi, xxxvii, 51 1 9 ,6 6 – 78, 130, 217, 2 3 1 ,2 4 1 , 150– 52, 170, 180, 209, 213, 254,
1:3– 2:10 xxxvi 248, 261 265
1:3– 14 xxxvi, xlvii, xliv, liii, lvi, lxi, 1:22 xlvii, liii, lix, lxiv, xci, 34– 35, 6 5 – 2:20– 22 lxii, xciv, 127, 140, 149,
lxvi, lxxvii, lxxx, 8–4 4 , 5 4 ,1 0 9 , 170, 6 6 ,7 7 ,1 8 6 ,1 8 6 ,2 4 9 ,2 6 0 ,3 6 8 ,7 3 3 , 152– 59
189, 218, 275 770 2:20, 21 261
482 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

2:20 lv, lxi, lxiv, xci, xcv, 57, 151, 4:1 xxxvi, xxxvii, xlix, lvii, lx, lx, 5:2 xxxvii, xlvii, lvii, lxi, lxi, lxxvi,
170, 179, 231, 245 249, 280 lxxii, lxxvi, xci, 5, 19, 26, 54, 59, cxi, 17, 94, 100, 109, 146, 207, 214,
2:21, 22 75, 151, 180 94, 100, 109, 173, 22 7 , 22 9 , 234– 2 2 1 ,2 3 2 ,3 1 3 ,3 1 0
2:21 xcv, 206, 230– 3 1 ,2 5 5 , 524 35, 238, 276, 312 5:3– 14 xxxvii, lvii, xcv, xcv, 272,
2:22 lxv, 180, 205– 6, 217, 340 4:2– 4 liii, 227 274, 316– 33 6
3 xxxix, xl, liv, 19 4:2, 3 23 5 – 37 5:3– 5 lii
3 : 1 ,1 4 – 19 xxxvii, 50, 180 4:2 17, 207, 221, 229, 264 5 : 3 ,4 xlvii, 29 6 , 321– 324
3:1– 13 xxxvi, xlix, li, lvii, lxii, lxxvii, 4:3– 5 132 5:3 lxv, 151, 2 7 1 , 279
lxxv, lxxix, lxxvii xcv, 132, 166, 4 : 3 ,4 158, 246 5:4 305
167– 9 5, 233 4:3 xlii, lxv, 6, 19, 132, 161, 287 5:5 lxii, lxiv, xcii, 19, 41, 6 5, 108,
3:1– 7 xlv, lxvi 4:4–6 xlvii, 150, 217, 237–4 1 , 266 181, 239, 261, 27 1 , 27 9 , 325– 26
3:1 lxxiv, lx, lxxi, lxxvi, 5, 53, 135, 4:4 lxii, lxiv, lxxvii, xcv, 37, 129, 71, 5:6 lii, 98, 32 5 – 26
172– 73, 190, 198, 201, 214 138, 144, 150, 181 5:7– 14 80
3:2– 13 xxxvii, xliv, lxxvii 4:5 lxxix, 255 5:7– 13 lxvii
3:2– 12 191 4:6 19, 184, 202, 204, 248 5:7– 10 88
3:2–« lxi 4:7– 16 155, 221, 233 5:7 326
3:2 – 4 32 4:7 lxi, xciv, 6, 19, 6 6 , 112, 181, 5:8– 14 1, 227
3:2 xlviii, li, liv, lx, lxxvii, 2, 6, 19, 241– 4 2 , 263 5:8– 10 326– 29
32, 66, 173– 74, 184, 241, 280, 392 4:8– 10 lx, lxxvi, 34, 154 5:8 xxxvii, lii, lvii, lxxvi, xci, 86, 94,
3:3– 10 3 1 ,3 5 4:8 xlvii, lxi, lxv, 6 6, 2 4 2 – 44 109, 232, 312
3:3– 6 liv, 34 4:9, 10 224, 244– 4 8 5:9 xlvii, 232, 281, 305
3:3– 5 1 9 ,2 1 3 4:10 xci, 19, 35, 62, 77, 239, 240 5:10 lxiii
3 : 3 ,4 210 4:11– 16 xlv, lxvi, xciv, 224 5:11, 12 32 9 – 30
3:3 lxxvii, 31, 56, 57, 153, 174–75, 4:11, 12 lxiii, 248– 55 5:11 lvii, lxv
184 4:11 lvii, lxv, 66, 153, 176, 241, 263, 5:13, 14 330– 31
3:4 lxiv, 31, 165, 175– 77 280 5:13 lxv
3 : 5 ,6 132 4:12 xlvi, 71, 132, 151, 156, 264 5:14 xlvii, lxi, lxv, lxxvi, 58, 90,
3:5 liv, lxi, lxiii, xciv, xciv, 56, 57, 150, 4 :13 – 15 lxi 93, 242, 331– 33
153, 177– 80, 183, 184, 218, 231, 4:13 liv, xciv, 58, 74, 155, 199, 214, 5:15– 6:9 xliv, 337, 4 38
249, 28 0 240, 253, 258, 344 5:15– 20 xxxvii, lii, 272, 275, 321,
3:6 lvii, lxiii, lxxvii, 71, 135, 137, 151, 4:14 lxxxiii, 38, 154, 21 9 , 25 3 , 2 5 7 – 3 3 7 – 49
180– 81, 186, 231, 232 59 5:15, 16 341– 42
3:7– 13 lxi 4:15, 16 liii, xci, xciv, 68, 71, 132, 5:15 xxxvii, lxv, xci, 57, 94, 109, 232,
3:7 xlv, lxi, lxxvi, 6, 19, 60, 61, 66, 155, 157, 206, 22 9 , 23 7 , 26 1 , 301, 312
112, 181– 82, 241, 262 369, 370 5:16 445–4 6
3:8 xlvi, lvii, lxiii, lxi, xxxvi, 6, 19, 60, 4:15 lxiv, 17, 19, 39, 68, 77, 221, 5:17 lviii, 19, 213, 3 4 2 ^ 3
66, 135, 151, 182– 84, 204, 212, 261– 269, 283 369 5:18, 19 307
213, 241, 259 4:16 xlviii, lxvvi, xciv, 17, 71, 5:18 xlvii, 19, 214, 247, 287, 343– 45
3:9, 10 liv, xcvi, 19, 34, 132, 184– 156, 158, 189, 207, 221, 242 5:19, 20 345–4 7
89, 231, 239, 265 4:17– 5:20 1 ,4 3 8 5:19 20, 206, 306
3:9 xlviii, liii, 19, 31– 32, 34, 94, 174, 4:17– 24 xxxvii, li, xcv, 81, 82, 88, 5:20 lii, lxvii, 202, 217, 324, 452
1 7 7 ,2 1 0 ,2 1 3 ,2 1 8 , 240 132, 2 7 0 –91, 321 5:21– 6:9 xxxvii, xlvii, lii, xcv
3:10 lxi, lix, lxv, lxiv, 19, 20, 24, 4:17– 19 lvii, xcv, 27 3 , 276– 7 9, 282 5:21– 33 xlvi, l, 3 5 0 –95
56– 57, 63, 67, 78, 95, 110, 161, 4:17 xxxvii, lxi, lxxvi, xci, 94, 109, 5:21 338, 365– 6 7, 384
203, 21 1 , 217 135, 23 2 , 2 7 6 , 312 5:22 367– 6 8
3:11, 12 189– 91 4:18 58, 93, 1 3 1 ,2 0 6 5:23– 33 xciv
3:11 lxv, 170, 218 4:19 444 5:23– 25 lxiv
3:12 lvii, lxi, lxxvi, 111, 132, 149, 20 6 4:20– 24 lxvi, lxxvii 5:23 lviii, lxxvii, xci, 39, 67, 6 8, 71,
3:13 lx, lxxii, lxxvi, 191– 9 3, 217 4:20, 21 xlii, 232– 33, 251, 279– 83 232, 368– 72
3:14– 21 xxxvi, xliv, xlix, liii, lvii, lxi, 4:20 lxv 5:24 67, 372– 73
166, 171, 190, 196– 221 4:21 lxv, 1, 2, 19, 38, 173– 74, 232, 5:25– 27 xcv, 371
3:14– 19 lxvi, lxxvii, 1 25 0 5:25 xlvii, lvii, lxiii, lxxvi, cxl,
3 : 1 4 ,1 5 201– 2 0 4 ,2 4 0 4:22– 24 xlvii, 22 7 , 271 1 7 ,6 7 ,1 0 0 ,1 4 6 ,2 0 7 ,2 1 4 ,2 2 1 ,2 3 2 ,
3:15 185 4:22 97, 283– 86 310, 373– 75
3:1 6 – 19 256 4:23 lxv, 57, 205, 286– 87 5:26, 27 lxiv, 6
3:16, 17 204– 7 4:24 lxv, xcv, 114, 205, 23 2 , 287– 91, 5:26 375– 76
3:16 xlvi, liii, 66, 183, 216, 217, 247, 44 8 5:27 lxiv, lxxvii, 60, 65, 67, 108, 157,
287, 345, 441 4:25– 5:20 xlvii 217, 376– 78
3:17 liii, 17,111, 152, 207, 231, 247 4:25– 5:14 H 5:28– 30 37 9 – 80
3:18, 19 xlv, 207– 215, 231, 251 4:25– 5:2 xxxvii, lvii, 275, 291– 315, 5:28 17, 221, 232, 378– 79
3:18 lxxvi, 55, 255 3 1 9 ,3 2 1 5:29 lxv, 67, 71, 97
3:19 liii, liv, 58, 73, 74, 76, 135, 155, 4:25, 26 xlvii 5:30, 31 lviii
214– 15, 231, 257, 344 4:25 lvi, lxxi, lxxvii, 19, 46 6 , 281, 5:30 301, 432
3:20, 21 xxxvi, 215– 18, 435–4 0 300– 301, 448 5:31, 32 xlvii, 380– 83
3:20 liii, lxi, 61 4:26, 27 301– 303 5:31 97
3:21 xli, lxi, lxxiii, lxiv, 60, 67, 110, 4:26 40 6 5:32 liv, lxiv, lxiv, 31, 34, 68
189 4:27 lxv, 66, 95, 97, 43 8 , 43 9 , 443 5:33 17, 221, 232, 383– 85
4–6 xxxvi 4:28 lvii, 303– 5 6:1–4 39 5 –4 2 8
4 xxxvii, xci, xc, 236 4:29 6, 19, 66, 156, 305– 6, 322 6:1 40 2 – 3
4:1– 6:20 xxxvi, xxxix 4:30 lvii, lxiv, lxiv, xci, 19, 28, 39, 6:2, 3 xlvii, lxiii, xciii, 4 0 4 – 6
4:1– 6:9 200 42,, 65, 108, 247, 261, 3 0 6 –8, 345 6:2 143
4:1– 5:20 227 4 : 3 1 ,3 2 xlvii, lii, 293, 308– 10 6:3 275
4 : 1–16 xxxvii, xliii, xlvi, liii, lxi, 4:32 lxv, lxxvi, 22 8 , 23 6 6:4 379, 40 6 – 8
lxxvii, xciv, xcv, 213, 222– 6 9 , 274 5 lxiv, xcv 6:5– 9 411–4 2 8
4:1– 6 lxvi, 225, 232 5 : 1 ,2 310– 12, 373 6 : 5 ,6 liv
4:1– 3 274 5:1 lvii, lxv, lxxvi 6:5 97, 206, 3 8 5 ,4 1 1 ,4 2 0 – 21
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 483

6:6, 7 421– 22 3:3 113 1:28 29, 189, 256, 280, 408
6:6 19, 411 3:4 190 1:29–2:10 1, 199, 206, 214, 218, 227
6:7 lxv 3:6 xciv, 67 1:29 liii, 182
6:8 xci, 65, 108, 307, 422– 23 3:7– 10 171 2:1– 3 3
6:9 lvi, 62, 248, 423– 24 3:9 22, 54, 112 2:1 5
6:10– 20 xxxvii, xlii, xlvi, Iviii, lxxv, 3:10 61, 102 2:2, 3 212, 255
lxxvii, lxxviii, lxxx, 97, 3:11 255 2:2 liv, 34, 58, 176, 262
4 3 0 –4 6 0 3:16 283 2:3 29, 184
6:10– 18 39 3:17, 18 234 2:4 325
6:10– 17 xlii, 1 3:20 108, 151, 371 2:5 54
6:10 xlv, 60, 205, 219, 441– 42 3:21 66, 72 2:6, 7 250, 274, 279
6:11– 16 xci, 109 4:1 447 2:6 189, 234
6:11 lxv, 94, 95, 259, 303, 442– 43 4:6 lvii, 324, 452 2:7 1liii, lv, lxiv, 152, 240, 320, 324
6:12 lxi, lxiii, lxv, lxxvi, 19– 21, 35, 4:7 463 2:8 63, 74, 258, 286, 320, 325
63, 64, 96– 97, 185, 253, 443–4 5 4:8 296, 40 3 , 441 2:9, 10 lii, 73, 75, 214
6:13, 14 261 4:9 46 3 , 558 2:9 liv, 73, 74, 76, 215
6:13 lxiv, xci, 65, 108, 261, 342, 4:18 lvii, 298, 312 2 :1 0 – 13 89
4 4 5 – 47 4:19 204 2:10 liii, liv, 63, 67, 74, 214
6:14– 20 xlv, lxvi 4:20 199 2:11 li, 40, 102, 106, 135, 136, 139
6:14– 17 xlvii 4:23 463 2:12– 15 89
6:14– 16 xlv, lvi 2:12 liii, 50, 61, 91, 102, 105, 106
6:14 19, 232, 245, 260, 281, 44 7 – 48 2:13 liii, 85– 87, 89, 92– 93, 101– 102,
6:15 6, 132, 147, 161, 181, 44 8 – 49 C olo ssia n s lv i—lx x ii, lii, x x v ii, x c iii—x c v ii, 135
6:16 94, 95, 245, 4 4 9 –50 c x x iv 2:14 li, 142
6:17, 18 340 2:15 6 3, 6 6, 242
6:17 19, 245, 308, 376, 45 0 – 51 1:1, 2 xlvii 2:18 98, 363
6 :1 8 –20 lii, lvii, 4 3 9 1:1 5 2:19 xlviii, liii, 68, 71, 157, 230, 260,
6:18 lxxvi, 19, 55, 151, 212, 287, 1:2 5– 6 261, 262, 26 3 , 265
451– 53 1 :3 ,4 52, 55 2:20– 23 363
6:19, 20 lxi, 234, 453– 55 1:3 48, 54– 55 2:20– 22 258
6:19 lxxvii, 19, 31, 34, 57, 66, 181, 1:4, 5 55 2:20 63, 102, 106, 142
190 1:4 li, 5, 17, 4 8, 49, 50, 54– 55 2:22 230, 258
6:20 lxxii, lxxvii, 171, 190 1:5– 7 250 2:23 29
6:21– 24 xxxviii, 461– 68 1 :5 ,6 282 3:1– 17 227
6 :2 1 ,2 2 xlviii, 1, lii, lii, lxi, cxii, 2, 1:5 lii, lxv, 37– 38, 59, 286 3:1– 3 xc, 111
3, 464– 65 1:6, 7 280 3:1 2 2 , 6 1 ,6 2 , 102, 105, 106
6:22 206 1:6 77, 261, 280– 81 3 : 1 ,2 106, 119
6:23, 24 6, 17, 221 1:7 250 3 : 3 ,4 106, 111
6:23 lxv, 202, 465– 66 1:8 17 3:3 106, 185
6:24 lxv, 19, 55, 207, 46 6 – 68 1:9– 12 52 3:4 lxiv, 101, 140, 192
1:9, 10 55 3:5– 17 1
P h iliitb ia n s Iv iii 1:9 li, lii, 20, 48– 49, 56– 57, 173, 3:5– 12 272
176, 343 3:5– 11 li, lii, 272– 274
1:1 3, 5, 251, 252 1:10 5 8 , 7 7 ,1 1 5 , 2 3 4 ,2 6 1 , 3 2 8 3:5– 8 320
1:2 6 1:11 133, 204– 5, 236, 442 3 : 5 ,6 98
1:3 4 8, 54 1:12, 13 52, 58, 319, 326– 27 3:5 lii, lvii, 87, 270, 272, 279, 286,
1:4 48, 49, 55, 452 1:12 34, 59, 152, 324 296, 321, 324
1:6 48, 114, 307 1:13, 14 1, lii, 27 3:6 lii, 87, 326
1:7 171 1:13 18, 27, 95, 256, 3 2 5 3:7, 8 lii, 86
1:9– 11 199 1:14 xlviii, 18, 2 6, 28, 93 3:7 87, 90, 93, 234
1:9, 10 17, 24, 328 1:15– 20 xlviii, li, 50, 71, 128, 129 3:8– 14 319
1:9 48 1:15, 16 24 3 :0 – 12 272
1:10 307 1:16 lii, liii, lxv, 34, 6 4 , 114 3:8– 10 227, 282, 283
1:11 26 1:18 liii, liii, xciv, 50, 67, 69, 71, 128, 3:8, 9 30 0
1:12– 26 168 144 3:8 xliv, 566, 284, 295, 296, 297,
1:12– 17 173 1:19 liii, 20, 73, 74, 76 305, 308, 309, 32 3
1:12– 14 171 1:20 lii, lxiii, lxiv, lxv, 27, 33– 34, 140, 3:9 28 5 , 300, 566
1:15 28 0 144–4 5 , 146 3:10, 11 143
1:17 171 1:21– 23 xlvii, 1, 125, 130 3:10 58, 272, 286, 287, 337
1:19 263 1:21, 22 li, 86, 129 3:11 76, 142, 161, 413, 41 4 , 41 9 , 423
1:20 455 1:21 lix, lvii, 136, 274, 277 3:12– 15 liii, 227, 235
1:23 101 1:22 liii, 24, 143, 145, 146, 376, 377 3:12– 14 lii, 313
1:26 192 1:23– 28 l, 168, 199 3:12 lii, 27, 236, 2 9 5 , 29 6 , 308, 309
1:27, 28 447 1:23 xlviii, liii, 58, 152, 172, 182, 3:13 lii, 236, 293, 308, 310, 309
1:27 234 207, 240, 250, 255, 28 0 , 173 3:14, 15 236, 237
2:3, 4 366 1:24– 29 li, 169, 170 3:14 23 6
2:3 236 1:24 xciv, 6 6 ,6 9 , 71, 171, 191, 192 3:15 7 1 ,2 3 5 , 238
2:6– 11 51, 236, 246 1:25– 27 32 3:16, 17 lii, 348
2:8 146 1:25 xlviii, li, liv, 32, 174, 175, 182 3:16 20, 38, 339, 341, 407
2:9– 11 65, 239 1:26– 28 188 3:17 lii, lxvii, 324, 421
2:9 61 1:26, 27 liv, 34, 174 3:18–4:1l lii, 354– 55
2:10, 11 66 1:26 xlviii, lv, 29, 57, 167, 177, 177, 3:18, 19 1
2:10 202, 282 178, 179, 184 3:18 lvii, 364, 367, 373
2:12 104, 41 4 , 42 0 1:27– 2:10 liii 3:19 3 0 8 ,3 7 3
2:16 38, 307 1:27 liii, liii, 34, 58, 138, 176, 184, 3 :2 1 ,2 1 732, 396
3:2, 3 136 190, 204 3:20 296, 297, 3 2 0 , 40 2 , 403
484 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

3:21 396, 4 06 5:2 307 4:3 283

3:22– 4:1 41 2 – 14 5:5 – 8 332 4:6 258
3:22 lvii, 366, 419, 420, 421 5:5– 7 lvii 4:8 40 5
3:24 41, 422 5:5 320 4:10 6
3:25 lvii, 422 5:6– 8 344, 43 2 4:11 251
4:1 403, 423, 424 5:8 lvii, 272, 284, 435– 36, 4 4 8 – 49, 4:12 6
4:2 – 4 lii, lvii, 43 4 , 452 45 0 4:13 251, 258
4:2 453 5:10 101 4:14 23 3 , 251
4:3, 4 453, 4 54 5:12 251 4:16 25 1 , 258
4:3 liv, 34, 171, 176, 454 5:13 216 5:6 93
4:5, 6 li 5:14 226, 236 5:8 152
4:5 lii, 234, 339, 348 5:15 114, 303 5:10 115
4:6 305 5:18, 19 308 5:16 6
4:7– 17 li 5:18 306, 324, 347 5:17 233, 250, 251, 258
4:7– 9 463 5:19, 20 180 5:18 242
4:7, 8 xxxvlii, x , lii, Ixxxii, 3, 462, 464, 5:20 153 5:19 23 3 , 251
46 5 , 468 5:21 328 5:25 115
4:7 250 5:23 463 6:1, 2 360, 420
4:10– 17 li, 462 5:25 453 6:1 25 8
4:10 171 5:28 463 6:2 6
4:12 250, 447 6:3– 5 258
4:13 lxxxiv, 3, 5 6:4, 5 2 96
4:15, 16 xciv, 66 2 T h essa lo n ia n s Ix x vi 6:5 283
4:16 176 6:11 2 96
4:17 250, 254 1:2 6
6:15 32
4:18 1 7 1 ,4 6 2 , 463 1:3 52, 54– 55, 55, 261
6:16 199
1:7 60, 151
6:18 115, 304
1:10 60, 151
6:20 258
2:2 307
1 T h e ssa lo n ia n s x x x v iii, x l, 2:3– 12 44 6
2:7 31 2 T im o th y
1:1 6
2:8 451
1:2– 3:13 xxxviii
2:9 lxv 1:8 173, 234
1:2– 5 xxxviii 170
2:10 28 6 1:9, 10
1:2 48, 55, 56
2:11, 12 25 9 1:9 2 3, 1 0 4 ,1 1 2
1 :3 ,4 48
2:12 282 1:10 3 7 1 ,4 6 7
1:3 54, 55
2:13 23, 27, 52, 55, 281– 82 1:13 55
1:4 24, 27
2:15 447 1:16 454
1:5 205, 451
2:17 115, 304 2:2 251
1:6– 3:13 xxxviii
3:1, 2 453 2:9 234, 455
1:6 310 2:10 192
3:2 85
1:8 38 283
3:3 45 0 2:15
1:10 61, 256, 282 283
3:6– 12 304 2:18
2:1– 12 160 2:24, 25 236
3:13 151, 191
2:2 455 2:24 251
3:15 302
2:3 259, 279
3:16 463 2:25 281, 283
2:7 379
3:18 463 2:26 303
2:11, 12 227 259
3:1– 9
2:12 lvii, 276 3:1 342
2:13 24, 38, 48, 52 1 T im o th y 296
3:2– 5
2:14 310 3:7, 8 283
2:18 lxv, 172, 303 1 :3 ,4 258 3:7 281
3:8 443 1:9, 10 296 3:14 280
3:9 52 1:10 258 3:15 55
3:10 216, 254 1:13, 14 8 6 – 87 3:16 251, 407
3:12, 13 17, 24 1:13 100 4 : 2 ,3 251
3:13 60, 151 1:14 55, 87 4:3 250
4 272 1:15 55, 183 4:4 283
4:1 226, 227, 276 1:17 50, 181, 199, 467 4:5 250
4:3– 8 272 2:4 281, 282 4:12 Ixxxii, 4 65
4:3– 7 321 2:7 281, 282 4:18 199
4:3 321 2:8– 3:15 391
4:5 138 2:8 301
4:6 322 2:10 115, 322 T itu s
4:7 279, 322 2:11 365
4:8 306 3 : 1 ,2 233 1:1 281, 283
4:10 226 3 : 2 ,3 296 1 :2 ,3 170
4:11, 12 303 3:2 250, 251 1:4 371
4:11 298 3:4, 5 402 1:5 172, 23 3 , 251
4:13 lvii, 137 3:4 365 1:6 6, 344
4:14 101, 282 3:5 233 1:7, 8 296
4:16 245 3:7 303 1:7 233, 301
4:17 101, 255 3:13 55 1:9 250, 251, 258
5:1– 11 272 3:15 283 1:10– 16 259
5:1 32 3:16 51, 170 1:14 283
5:2–4 446 4:1– 3 364 2:1– 10 360
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 485

2:1 251, 258, 322 Jam es 3:2 371

2:5 365, 367 3:3 342
2:7 1 1 5 ,2 5 1 ,2 5 8 1:6 258
3:17 259
2:9, 10 420 1:12 466
3:18 199, 371
2:9 365 1:18 272
2:12 407 1:19, 20 301, 308
2:13 371 1:21 272, 284 1 John
2:14 115 1:27 340
2:1 467 1:5 327
3:1 365
2:5 46 6 2:8 327
3:2 236 2:13, 14
3:1 251 45 0
3:3– 7 86, 88, 91
3:17 296 2:22 282
3:3– 5 87, 100 3:14
4:7 303, 445 93
3:3 87, 296
5:13 341 4:3 282
3:4 87, 110
5:14 251 4:6 259
3:5 87, 112, 236, 272, 287 4:11 309
3:6 371 5 : 1 8 ,1 9 450
3:7 87 1 P e te r lx x x iv , 2 7 2
3:8 115
3:10 407 1:3– 12 11 2 John
3:12 465 1:3– 9 38
3:14 115, 329 1:8 46 6
1:12 185 3 John 50
3:15 467
1:13 448
1:14 278 Jude x lv iii
P h ile m o n
1:20 23, 170
1 lvii, 171, 173 1:22 272 4 279
3 6 2:1 272, 284, 296 11 259
4, 5 lvi 2:2 272 12, 13 258
4 2:4– 9 340 12 329
48, 49, 54, 55, 56
5 47, 48, 54, 55 2:5 158 20 452
6 48 2:6– 8 155 24, 25 2 1 5 ,2 1 7
8– 10 226 2:9 4 2, 326 25 199
8 455 2:10 86, 87, 100
9 lvii, 171, 173, 454 2:12 358
2:18– 3:7 R e v e la tio n Ixxx
10 171 360
11 86 2:18 385, 42 0 1:3 153
13 171 2:25 86, 87, 250 1:6 199
18 303 3:1 367 1:16 451
19 172 3:2 385 2:12 451
23 171 3:4 206 2:16 451
3 : 5 ,6 368 3 lxxxiv
3:7 181
H ebrew s 3:1 93
3:8 296 3:14– 17 3
1:3 20, 66 3:15, 16 358 3:21 xc, 107
1:13 66 3:18 101 4:9 198
2:5– 8 66 3:19– 22 186 5:9 345
2:8 115 3:22 66 5:13, 14 199
345 4:3 279, 296
2:12 7:1– 8 39
2:14 444 4:4 344 7:12 199
451 4:7 453
4:12 9:2 277
4:16 190 4:11 198, 199 9:4 39
5:12 251 4:15 303 10:11 153
5:13, 14 251 5:1– 4 251 11:13 198
5:14 256 5:1 251 14:3 345
6:4 320, 319 5:2 251 14:7 198
6:5 110 5:5 236, 251, 366 15:3 345
8:1 32, 62 5 : 8 ,9 44 9 16:5 288
9:11 136 5:8 302 16:6 153
9:24 136 5:9 445, 465 16:9 198
10:19– 22 190 5:10 254 16:10 277
375 5:11 199
10:22 18:2 158
10:24 115 5:12 175 18:20 153
10:32 314, 320 18:24 153
11:9 181 2 P e te r x lv ii, Ixxi 19:1– 4 199
11:23 406 19:7 198
12:1 284 1:1 371 19:10 153
12:5 407 1:5– 7 296 19:13 879
12:7 407 1:8 329 19:15 879
12:8 407 1:11 371 20:4 107
12:11 407 2:2 279 21:8 296
12:22 151 2:3 279 21:14 154
13:9 258 2:7 279 21:16 209
13:20 250 2:10– 22 259 22:6– 10 153
13:21 199, 254 2:18 259 22:15 296
13:22 175 2:20 371 22:18, 19 153
486 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

C. Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

A p o c a ly p s e o f A b r a h a m 96:2 446 142 141
99:4 446 182 44 8
22 115 99:13 103 228 401
29:9 44 6 103:2 277 277
30
104:10 30
A p o c a ly p s e o f E lija h 106:5 202 1 M a cc a b ees lxxi
108:8 46 6
37:3, 4 107 108:12 107 420
2:37
12:6– 18 49
A p o c a ly p s e o f M o s e s
2 E n o ch 12:11 56

3 98 20– 22 63 2 M a cc a b ees lxxi

29:4, 5 96
A sc e n sio n o f I s a ia h 67:3 199 1:1– 10 49
1:10– 2:18 53
7:9 96 3:24 63
1 E s d ra s
7:10 157 3:25 442
9:18 107 4:59 4:11 137
198
10:29 96 2 79
4:50
11:23 96 9 6 , 186
4 E zra 5:2
7:37 238
B a ru ch 4:37 32 8:17 137
5:9 187 10:28 444
3:9 – 4:4 187 5:22 4 44
176 14:18
6:5 39 15:9 44 4
2 B aru ch xxx ix 7:14 21
7:83 21 3 M a cc a b ees
4:2–6 157
9:26– 10:59 363
21:12 21 2:17
13:1– 13 43 5 279
40:30 32
13:18 21 2:26 279
48:23, 24 23 8
14:5 30
48:31 446
14:40 176 4 M a cc a b ees
48:36 187
14:47 176
48:49 21 1:18 29
52:7 21
E p is tle o f J e r e m ia h lx x i 9:22 467
54:1– 4 211 9:23 310
78– 87 lxxi 310
13:9
78:2 6 J o sep h a n d A se n a th
17:12 467
81:4 30
8:9 23 18:24 199
85:14 238
8:10 326
15:13 326 O d es o f S o lo m o n
3 B a ru ch 61:4, 5 144
7:11 74
2:1, 2 129 7:13 74
J u b ile e s 14:18, 19 326
1 E noch
15 58
1:5 244 15:2 27 9
2:2 63 17:7 74
5:4– 8 103
6:11 244 19:5 74
9:6 30
6:17 244 26:7 74
14:9 129
7:20 401 35:6 74
15:8– 12 44 4
10:3 44 4 36:1, 2 74
16:1– 4 21
10:5 44 4
21:1– 16 21 36:6 74
10:13 444 41:13 74
49:3 56
1 1 :4 ,5 44 4
50:2 44 6
12:20 444
51:3 30 P ra ye r o f M a w s se h
15:1– 24 244
55:3– 57:3 435
22:6– 9 53 15 199
55:3 44 6
23:16– 25 4 46
60:11, 12 63
60:11 210 P sa lm s o f S o lo m o n
61:10 63, 96, 186 J u d ith
63:8 44 6 4 : 7 ,8 421
69:3, 4 202 7:28 276 4:19 421
71:1 202 8:32 217 4:25 465, 46 6
89:59, 60 21 14:3 442 6:6 46 5
90:21 96, 186 16:1– 4 332
90:24 9 6, 186 L e tte r o f A riste a s Iv i, lix , lx x i
90:29 157
P s e u d o -P h o cylid cs
91:16 21 122 284
92– 105 lxxi 139 141 8 402
93:11– 14 210, 211 140 277 22 304
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 487

63– 64 301 4:1 420 5:10, 11 243, 435

153– 74 303 4:6 321, 324 5:12, 13 157
153– 54 306 5:1 321
175– 227 357 5:3 321 T esta m e n t o f N a p h ta li
184– 85 40 0 6:1 321
195– 97 374 3:1 325
207– 9 400 T e sta m e n t o f S im eo n 8:10 361
207 4 06
224 41 6 3:6 4 66
T e sta m e n t o f G a d
4:4 309
S ib y llin e O ra c le s 4:5 421 2:1 421
4:9 444 5:7 277, 278
3.11 238 5:3 321 6:2 277
3 .2 2 0 –35 277 5:5 435
3.629 238 6:6 4 44
T esta m e n t o f A sh e r

S ira c h T esta m e n t o f L e v i 4:3 311

1:3 210, 212, 428 2:3 176
T esta m e n t o f B e n ja m in
1:22 301 2:7 129
1.27 407 3 67 1:5 421
3:1– 16 401 5:5 44 6 3:1 310
4:11 187 13:7 278 3:4 96
4:30 41 6 14:4 277, 327 4:1 310
5:10– 14 305 14:5, 6 322 5:3 327
6:18, 19 187 15:1 279 10:3 300
7:15 303 18:1 176
7:20, 21 41 6 18:2–4 332
7:23 401 18:7 176 T o b it
7:27, 28 401 18:12 444 1:4 217
14:18 4 44 19:1 327 4 : 3 ,4 40 1 , 403
14:20– 15:8 187
6:18 370
15:1 208
T esta m e n t o f J u d a h 8:5 217
15:5 454
8:15 217
15:7 208 11:2 34 0 11:14 217
17:31 44 4 12:3 340 13:4 217
18:1 185 13:6 340 13:10 217
18:4 212 14:1 289, 348 13:16 217
18:6 212 14:5 279 14:5 32, 217
18:15– 19 305 16:1 340
19:13– 17 329 18:2 322
21:25, 26 305 19:1 324 W isd o m
23:1 407 20:1– 3 289
23:3 278 1:7 73
23:1 27 9 , 324
23:16– 27 321 1:14 185
24:1 332
24:8– 23 187 2:9 36
24:8 185 2:16 27 9
24:28, 29 212 T e sta m e n t o f Issa ch a r 2:23 467
24:28 212 3:8 107
3:1–6 420 3:9 103
27:30 301
4:1– 6:1 42 0 4:2 310
28:7, 8 278
7:2, 3 340 4:14, 15 103
30:1– 13 401
7:2 321 5:5 36, 60
31:4 259 7:5 304 5:15, 16 107
33:31 41 6
39:9 217 5:17– 20 45
T e sta m en t o f Z e b u lu n 5:18 448
5:19 44 9
T e s ta m e n t o f I s a a c
5:1 309 6:18, 19 467
4:14 6:1– 8 304 6:22 212
305
4:17 7:2 309 7:22 188
305
4:40 8:1 309 9:3 288
306
9 : 5 ,6 342 9:8 157, 310
T e s ta m e n t o f J o b
9:8 332 9:16 212
10:21 454
33:3– 5 107 T e sta m e n t o f D a n
12– 15 277
13:1 277, 278
T e s ta m e n t o f th e T w e lv e P a tr ia r c h s 1:7, 8 302 13:8 278
2:1– 5:1 301 13:9 278
T e s ta m e n t o f R e u b e n
2:4 277 13:12 44 9
3:6 302 14:12 324
1:6 321 4:7– 5:1 302 14:25, 26 297
2:1 321 5:2 300, 301, 302 14:26 279
3:3 321 5:4– 6 44 6 15:9 310
3:8 277, 403 5:4 342 18:10– 19 277
488 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

D. Dead Sea Scrolls

CD 11:27 10 3:24, 25 327
11:29 10 4:2– 26 28 8
2 :1 7 ,1 8 278 11:32 10 4:2 236, 288, 289
3:5 278 11:33 10 4:3– 5 56
3:11 278 12:13 176 4:9– 11 27 9
3:15 26 12:35 415 4:9, 10 322
4:17, 18 322 14:14 139 4:18, 19 188
5:11, 12 307 15:13– 22 25 4:18 30, 32
5:11 306 16– 18 50 4:24 341
6:14, 15 320 16:8 10, 185 4:26 36
7:2, 3 302 5:3 236
7:2 306, 329 5:4 278
1Q M 43 5 , 438
8:8 278 5:6 155
9:6 302 1:1– 16 327 5:9 328
9:8 329 1:10– 13 446 5:10, 11 320
10:17, 18 305 3:6 327 5:10 288
13:7– 11 251 3:8 30 5:19 277
20:3– 5 331 3:9 327 5:24 329
20:4 329 10:5 205 5:25 236
20:25, 26 332 10:8 185 5:26– 6:1 302
1 2 :1 ,2 151 5:26 329
1Q H xlvi, lxvi, 109 13 4 44 6:16 139
13:16 327 6:22 139
1:9– 11 185 14:14 32 7:9 305
1:26, 27 288 14:17 327 7:14– 18 233
1:30 288 15:6– 8 441 8:2 328
2:13 176 16:9 30 8:4– 10 156
3:7 30 16:11– 16 444 8:4, 5 155
3:19– 22 107 17:5– 9 444 8 : 5 ,6 151
3:19– 21 332 8:18 139
3:19 92 IQ S 9:5, 6 156
3:21– 23 151 9:15, 16 139
3:22 36 1:4, 5 326 9:16 330
3:24– 39 435, 438 1:5 328 9:18 176
4:5, 6 332 1:6 278 10:21– 23 323, 324
4:23 332 1:7– 2:19 244 11:1 236
4:30– 32 114 1:9, 10 327 11:3– 6 58
5:20 10 2:3 58 11:7, 8 60, 151, 157
6:7 151 2:14 278 11:7 36
6:10– 14 151 2:24 23 6 11:15 10
6:28– 35 43 5 , 438 2:26 278 11:34 30
7:17 205 3– 4 272
7:19 205 3:3 277, 278
lQ p H a b
7:27 30 3:4 375
9:31 332 3:8– 10 375 7:2 32
10:4 30 3:8 236 7:4 30
10:14 10 3:13– 4:26 97, 297 7:8 30
11:7, 8 60 3:13 327 7:13 30, 32
11:9 30 3:19– 25 341
11:10– 14 92 3:19– 21 327 4 Q F lo r
11:10– 12 107, 375 3:20, 21 444
11:16 30 3:21– 23 30 1 :6 ,7 156

E. Philo
D e A br. D e D e ca l. D e F ug.

99– 102 362 84 259 63 280

107 259 119, 120 399
208 288 121 404 D e G ig .
243 444 165– 67 357, 399
6 ,7 9 6 , 186
D e E b r. 47 77
D e C o n f. L in g .
11 344 H y p o th e tic a
31 284
17 401
78 151
95 344 7.1– 14 357
125– 26 344 7.2 400, 401
D e C o n g re ss. 146 – 48 344 7.3 358, 367
154 341 7.7 400
97 205, 572 223 308 7.14 397, 401
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 489

D e Jos. Q u a est. in G en . 1.210 70

1.272 75
95 257 1.25 383 1.304 288
4.29 249 2.45 186
L e g . a d G a iu m 2.66– 68 41 6
Q u a est. in E x o d . 2.67, 68 361
31 401 2.8 9 –91 41 6
2.40, 43 243 2.123 416
2.117 69 2.165 203
L e g . A lle g .
2.180 574
Q u is D iv . H e r. 2.224– 225 403
1.4 77
1.163 328 2.225, 226 399
164 383
2.1 238 2.227 399
2.13 383 2.228 401
Q u o d D e t. P o t. In s. 2.232 4 0 0 – 401
2.19– 50 383
3.4 73 2.235– 236 403
23 205 2.236 401
2.239 407
D e M ig r . A b r. Q u o d D eu s 2.261 404
2.262 405
220 70 54 407 3.51 321
3.108– 19 40 0
Q u o d . O m n . P ro b . L ib . 3.131 70
D e M u t. N o m .
, 3.137– 143 416
41 75
40 401 3.189 203
79 416 4.159 238
4.5 279
D e O p. M u n d i D e S a crif. 4.72– 73 311
4.73 311
80 330 20–4 5 297 4.96 407
82 70 57 288 4.187– 88 311
67– 68 77
67 73
D e P la n t. D e V irt.
68 311
7 70 7.35 238
14 96, 186 D e S a crif. A b el, e t C a in . 50 288
42 205 168 311
126 32 258 179 326
324
131 324
D e S om n . D e V ita C o n t.

D e P o st. C a in i 1.128 69 70 41 6
1.186– 88 243
14 243
1.200 362
30 77 D e V it. M o s.
181 357, 401
D e S pec. L eg . 1.158 243
1.305 279
D e P raem . et P oen. 1.23 324 2.127 70
1.25 324 2.133, 134 70
65 75 1.52 238 2.177 259
109 75 1.66 96, 186 2.186 279
114 125 1.96 70 2.198 401
125 125, 262 1.203 190 2.238 73, 77

F. Josephus
A n tiq u itie s 8.318 279 2 .1 9 0 –210 357
8.343 238 2.193 230
2.4.4 190
9.4.3 277 2.199 358
4.6.10 287
9.58 403 2.201 367
4.6.143 288
10.9 449 2.202 400
4.151 279
10.104 276 2.204 401
4.264 400– 401 137
12.3.1 2.206 4 0 0 –40 1 , 403
5.1.3 190 lv
12.12– 118 2.216 358
5.97 238 341
12.323
5.195 110
15.11 141
6.23 110
20.112 279
6.165 403
7.305 341 J e w ish W a r
8.50– 54 lxxi, 53 C o n tra A p io n e m
8.53 11 4.494 235
8.208 403 1.12 401 5.5 141
8.252 279 2.18 401 6.1.8 448
490 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

G. Rabbinic Writings
M is h n a h P a le s tin ia n T a lm u d M id r a s h S a m u e l

28.6 147
A b o th B era k o th

1 :1 ,2 141 2.4 92 M id r a s h T eh illim

3:18 141
Ps 24:1 243
– Q id d u s in Ps 106:2 243
E duyyot
1.7 40 6
92 M e k ilta E x o d u s
5.2

M id r a s h 18:5 139
T o s e p h ta B e ra k o th 20:25 147

7.13 39 G en esis R a b b a h
A b o th R . N a th a n
1.5 24
B a b y lo n ia n T a lm u d 2.2a 243
4.2 157
39.7 92
B era k o th 39:14 144 P esik ta R a b b a ti
68.12 157
18a 92 35 147
29b 301
34b 147 E xodus R abbah P ir k e A b o th

40.3 71 2.9 114

M e g illa

31a 244
N u m b e rs R a b b a h P ir k e R . E lie z e r

Q id d u s in 8.4 139, 147 32:35 157

11.7 147
29a 303 12.4 S hem on eh E sreh 25, 50
157
S a n h e d r in
Y a lk u t G enesis
D e u tero n o m y R a b b a h
98b 203
120 157
6 404
Shabbat
T argum s
88b 243 M id r a s h on P sa lm s

T a rgu m o fJob
Y ebam oth 74.1 24
93.3 5:7 96
62b 374

Yom a M id r a s h Q o h eleth T a r g u m o n th e P sa lm s

54b 151 9.5 92 68:18 242– 43

H. Apostolic Fathers
B arnabas Ixxi 21 402 D id a c h e
21:6– 9 360
3:6 26 21:8 40 8 1– 5 543
4:3 26 32:3 112 3:2 301
4:8 26 33:2– 6 185 3:5 300, 303
4:9 322 35:5 279 4:9– 11 360
4:10 277 36:2 58 4:9 385
5:9 183 42:1– 5 Ixxi 4:11 385, 421
9:6 39 44 :1, 2 Ixxi 5:1 279
18– 20 272 58, 128 5:2 277
59:3
19:5– 7 360 60:1 185 9:2, 3 347
19:5 385 61:3 217 10:1– 4 347
19:7 4 20 10:3 184
20:1 2 79 11– 13 153, 249
20:2 277 2 C le m en t 13:2 251
21:4 308 15:1, 2 251, 49 9
4 272 15:1 251
1 C le m e n t 6:4 286
7:6 39
5:2 Ixxi 8:6 39 D io g n e tu s
7:2 272 13:1 421
12:5 3 16 14 371 5:9 151
19:2– 20:12 185 14:1 24 10:4– 6 310
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 491

H e r m a s , S h e p h e r d o f M a n d a te s 2.3.1 402 P o ly c a rp
2.4.1 24
5.1 302 4 : 1–6:1 360
3.2.5 209
5.2.4 309 5:1 lxxii
3.5.1 251
6.1 272 3.7.2 279
6.2 279 4.3 110 Rom am
6.5 279 4.5 110
8.5 279, 286 2:1 421
9.4 277 9:1 251
10.1.1 Ig n a tiu s
308
10.2.4 306
S m yr n e a m
10.2.5 308 E p h e sia n s
10.3.2 306 inscr. 24
11 249 1:1 310 1:1 lxxii
11.8 277 4:2 237 9:1 303
11.12 286 5:1 237
12.6 277 10:3 303 T r a llia m
14:1 237
1:2 617
S im ilitu d e s
8:2 277
4.8 110 M a g n e s ia n s 13:1 183
6.2.1 286
5 272 M a r ty r d o m o f P o ly c a r p
6.3.3 286
6.4.4 7:1 452
286
2:3 341
8.6.3 39
3:1 303
9.16.3– 6 4 0, 93 P h ila d e lp h ia m 15:1 218
9.17.4 40
16:2 251
2:1 251
20:2 215
V is io m 2:2 237
21 217
3:2 237
1.1.6 24 5:2 237 P o ly c a r p ’s L e tte r to th e P h ilip p ia m
1.3.1, 2 402 7:1 259
2.2.2 279 8:1 237 4:2–6:3 360
2.2.4 308 9:1 237 12:1 302

I. Other Early Christian and Gnostic Writings

A c ts o f A n d r e w E p ist. C o rp u s H e rm e tic u m

14 208 112.14 208 1:2, 3 70

120.26 208 1:15 205
A c ts o f P a u l a n d T h e c la
120.36 208 4:2 70
364
4:11 58
5:9 203, 205
A c ts o f P e te r D e D o c tr. C h rist.
6:4 74, 75
9 208 2.41 208 7:1 58
9:5 205
10:12 70
A c ts o f P h ilip B a s il
10:25 210
140 208 11:6–8 203
11:20 210
H ex .
12:15 74, 203
A c ts o f T h o m a s
9.1 254 13:7 205
110.43–4 8 332 13:8, 9 567
131 40 13:14 205
C hrysostom 14:4 203
16:3 74
A m m o n iu s Horn. 2.1 in Tit. 254

A c. C le m en t D id a s c a lia A p o sto lo ru m

18.25 508 21 319

P ro tr.
A p h r a a te s E p ip h a n iu s
9.84.2 319

H orn. H aer.
S tro m .
1 :6 ,7 159 42.12.3 318
A th a n a s iu s 3.1.1 383
Orat. contra Arian. 3.5.1 383
1.23, 24 203 4.26 254 E p is tle to d ie L a o d ic e a m xxi

Augustine 3 Corinthians Ixxi Eusebius

492 Index of B iblical and Other A ncient Sources

H is to r ia E c c le s ia s tic a R ef. P is tis S o p h ia

3.37.2, 3 25 0 1.21.5 73 130 210

5.10.2 25 0 5.7.35, 36 205 133 21 0
6.29– 34 74 148 21 0
P r a e p a r a tio E u a n g e lic a 6 .35.6 93
P s e u d o -C y p r ia n
9.34 27, 53
Ire n a e u s
14.18.26 285
D e A le a t.
E x e g e sis o n th e S o u l 371 A d v e r s u s h aereses
3 306
132– 34 162 1.1– 5 74
1.6.3, 4 383 T e r tu llia n
G in z a 1. 11.1 74
1.11.3 74 Adv. Marc.
99:15– 32 444 3:7 145
1.11.5 74
104:5, 6 444 4.5 lxxii
1.21.4, 5 205
105:24– 33 444 5.11 4
3.11.1 74
3.18.1 33 5.17 4
G o s p e l o f P h ilip D e je ju n .
5.2.3 351
5.17.14 208 17 383
64– 72 562
T e sta m e n t o f S o lo m o n
67 282 5.29.2 33
8:2 444
70 282
18:2 444
70:10– 17 93 J u s tin
22:7– 23:3 154
71 282
T h eo p h ilu s
76 362
A p o lo g y A d A u to ly c u m
101 285
1.6 188
1:2 421 2.16 188
G o sp e l o f T h o m a s 61:12, 13 319 T re a tise o n R e su rre c tio n
61:12 58 44 74
22 282
65:1 58, 319 45 107
37 285
67:5 319 46 74
G o s p e l o f T r u th 49 74
T rim o rp h ic P r o te n n o ia 378
D ia lo g u e ivith T ryp h o
16 74 T r ip a r tite T r a c ta te
22, 38– 23, 1 110 58 70 74
39.2
27, 5– 7 110 122.1, 2 58 75 74
34– 36 74 58 77 74
122.6
41 74 78 74
80 74
H ip p o ly tu s O rig e n
86 74
90 74
E le n c h . D e P r in c ip iis 93– 95 74
97 74
5:7 154 2.8.4– 8 33 122– 25 74
5:35 154 3.6.6 33 136 74

. Other Ancient and Classical Texts

A esch in e s F ra g m e n ts D e E x . A lex .
3.150 137 123 33 2.83 433
A p u le iu s D e G e n . e t C o rr. C ebes T a b le t
M e ta m o r p h . 1 .6 ,8 263 23– 24 2 86
11:24 284 M e ta p h . C h ry sip p u s
A ris tid e s 4.4 263 F ra g .
Or. 10.3 263 395 309
45.21, 24 73 P h ys. A u sc . C icero
A r is to p h a n e s 4.6 263 D e Dom o
Ranae P o l. 29.77 399
340– 42 657 1.1, 2 70 N a t. D ea r.
A r is to tle 1.1253b - 1254a 415 1.35 70
D e C a e lo 1.1253b 357 3.9 70
1.11 263 1.1255b 369 D e Off.
E th . E tu i. 1.1259a 357 1.25 70
3.7.1234a. 4– 23 323 3.6 .1 2 7 8 b - 1279a 137 1.58 401
E th . N ie . R h e t. 1.85 70
4 .8 .1 128a. 14– 15 323 2 .1 2 .1389b. 10– 12 232 P h il.
4.8.1128a.23– 24 323 3.6.1– 11 cliv 8.5, 16 70
5.1134b 41 6 3.14.11 42 T u sc.
6.6.7 29 3.19 432 1.64 210
8.1161ab 416 A r r ia n 5.69 210
 Index of Biblical and Other Ancient Sources 493

E p istle s o f C ra te s G a iu s P lin y
6 272 In st. E p.
7 272 1.55 399 8.13 310
18 272 H e r o d ia n u s 8.39 441
19 272 3.6 433 P lu ta r c h
21 272 H e ro d o tu s A lc ib ia d e s
C u r tiu s R u f u s 1.74.3 262 35.6 76
H is to r ia e A le x a n d r i M a g n i 7.91 44 9 C a to M a io r
M a c e d o n e n s is H om er 20 400
10.9.1 67 II. C or.
D em o sth en es 5.452 44 9 19.4 284
8.46 284 Isaeus P ra e c . G er. R e ip .
D e x ip p u s O ra t. 6.7.803B 433
H is t. 11.48 76 P o lyb iu s
32 37 Iso cra tes 1.35.5 279
G a l. A n tid . 3.63 433
16,822 37 296 323 6.23.2 435, 4 49
D io C a ssiu s A reo p . 9.40.4 279
38.36– 46 433 49 323 P o s id ip p u s
50.16– 30 433 L iv y 27.8 37
D io C h ryso sto m 2.32.8– 12 70 P s e u d o -C a llisth e n e s
O r. 21.8 450 H ist. A le x . M a g n i
7.112 303 26.16.19 70 1.22.4 368
7.124– 25 303 L u c ia n P s e u d o-D io g e n e s
32.11 454 B is A ccu s. EP.
67.6, 8 557 16 422 10.1 437
D io d o r u s S ic u lu s D em . P s e u d o -Iso cra tes
18.15 433 3 454 D e m o n icu s
20.84.3 435 51 301 11.36 310
20.96 43 0 D ia l. M o r t. P s e u d o -P lu ta r c h
D io g e n e s L a e r tiu s 10.8, 9 284 D e L ib . E d u c .
4.46 308 M . A n t. (M a r c u s A u r e liu s ) 12 399
7.108 401 M e d ita tio n s Q u in tilia n
7.114 308 2.12.1 92 3.6.47 cliv
7.120 401 4.23 240 3.8.7 xliv, 42
7.138 70 12.33.2 92 4.1.5 xliv, 42
7.142, 143 70 M usonius Rufus 4.2.1 xliv
7.147 70 O r. 4.3.1 xliv, 171
9.66 568 3 359 4.3.9 xliv
D io n y siu s o f H a lic a r n a s s u s 12 359 4.3.14 171
R o m . A n t. 13A 358 5.10.20 587
2.24.3– 2.27.4 358 O rp h ic F ra g m e n ts 6.1 33
2.26.1– 4 401 168 69 6.1.1 432
2.26.4 378 O rp h ic H ym n s S en eca
2.27.1 399 50.9 331 D e B en efic.
E cce lu s P h ilo d e m u s 4.8.2
O n J u s tic e C o n c e r n in g H o u s e h o ld D e C lem .
78.10– 11 422 M an agem en t 1.5.1 70
E p ic te tu s 30.18– 31.2 415 D e C o n st. S a p .
D iss. P la to 3.4– 5 437
1.3.3 92 A p o lo g y
1.9.10 235 35D 288 M 343
1.16.16– 17 303 C rito 6 .5 ,6 309
1.20.7 328 54B 288 11.9, 10 309
2.17.6 403 G o rg ia s S extu s
2.17.31 401 493E 76 S en ten ces
2.19.27 92 507B 288 201 288
2.19.28 258 L eg es 216 288
2.23.6, 8 328 3.690a - D 357 399 288
3.7.26. 401 6.771E– 7.824C 357 S to b a eu s
3.20.10 251 P ro t. A n th .
3.22.19 454 337E 262 3.1.80 401
3.24,25 R esp . 4.25.53 401
3.24.56 35 4.425B 401 4.26.7 401
3.26.6– 7 303 5.464B 70 4.26.13 401
4.1 418 9.589A 205 T a citu s
4.5.16 328 10.619C 137 A n n a ls
4.6.13 328 T h ea tetu s 1.12, 13 69
4.7.40 328 172B 288 D ia l.
4.9.16 251 176AB 34 29.1– 3 40 0
E u r ip id e s 176B 288 H ist.
H e r a c l. T im . 5.1– 13 141
159 444 28C 203 5.5 397
494 Index of B iblica l and O t h e r A n c ie n t S ources

T h u c id y d es X en o p h o n M em .
1.127.3 137 A nab. 4.4.19, 20 401
2.29.6 262 C yr. O ec.
2.61 278– 27 9 7.5.45 149 13.0– 12 42 2
V it . A e s o p i H e lle n ic a
l.c .9 379 5.4.56 76

K. Papyri and Inscriptions

PGM POxy. Preisigke
4.960– 85 494.6 422 1.460 37 9