Ephesians, Volume 42

Dr. Andrew T. Lincoln, Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts, Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780310586340
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.

Overview of Commentary Organization

• Introduction—covers issues pertaining to the whole book, including context, date, authorship, composition, interpretive issues, purpose, and theology.
• Each section of the commentary includes:
• Pericope Bibliography—a helpful resource containing the most important works that pertain to each particular pericope.
• Translation—the author's own translation of the biblical text, reflecting the end result of exegesis and attending to Hebrew and Greek idiomatic usage of words, phrases, and tenses, yet in reasonably good English.
• Notes—the author's notes to the translation that address any textual variants, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions, basic meanings of words, and problems of translation.
• Form/Structure/Setting—a discussion of redaction, genre, sources, and tradition as they concern the origin of the pericope, its canonical form, and its relation to the biblical and extra-biblical contexts in order to illuminate the structure and character of the pericope. Rhetorical or compositional features important to understanding the passage are also introduced here.
• Comment—verse-by-verse interpretation of the text and dialogue with other interpreters, engaging with current opinion and scholarly research.
• Explanation—brings together all the results of the discussion in previous sections to expose the meaning and intention of the text at several levels: (1) within the context of the book itself; (2) its meaning in the OT or NT; (3) its place in the entire canon; (4) theological relevance to broader OT or NT issues.
  • General Bibliography—occurring at the end of each volume, this extensive bibliographycontains all sources used anywhere in the commentary.

Prescript (1:1, 2)

Bibliography

Batey, R. “The Destination of Ephesians.” JBL. 82 (1963) 101. Best, E. “Ephesians i. 1.” Text and Interpretation, ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, 29–41. ———. “Ephesians 1.1 Again.” Paul and Paulinism, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: S.P.C.K., 1982, 273–79. ———. “Recipients and Title of the Letter to the Ephesians: Why and When the Designation ‘Ephesians’?” ANRW 2.25.4 (1987) 3247–79. Dahl, N. A. “Adresse und Proömium des Epheserbriefes.” TZ 7 (1951) 241–64. ———. “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.” ZNW 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.” NTS 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

1Paul, 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

a. The 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.1”) gives an overview of more recent proposals.

The manuscript evidence is as follows. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is omitted by P⁴⁶

* B* 424^c 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 τοῖς before οὖσιν. The vast majority of manuscripts do have ἐν Ἐσέσῳ, including

^c A B³ D G K, although D (Codex Claromontanus) also differs from the others by the omission of the definite article before οὖσιν.

The combination of the original scripts of codices Sinaiticus and Valicanus with the earliest manuscript evidence for Ephesians, P⁴⁶, is strong external evidence for the omission of the geographical 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 of Pauline authorship and an Ephesian address, has to confess, “Nevertheless, this epistle, as an apostolical letter to the Ephesians . . . remains an enigma awaiting further solution.” Against the suggestion of Barth, 11, 67 (made earlier by Neudecker Einleitung ins NT [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 of 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 of Paul’s ministry, would not be concerned with the verisimilitude, yet this appears to be exactly his concern in including 6:21, 22.

The earliest extant text then is likely to have read τοῖς ἁγἱοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς. It is comparatively easy to see how the other variants could have developed from this original. Because of the three successive -οις endings, the scribe of P⁴⁶ may have been guilty of haplography and missed the second τοῖς. Then, once the superscription “To the Ephesians” became attached to the letter, and because οὖσιν in other Pauline addresses is followed by ἐν and a geographical location, it would only seem natural to supply ἐν Ἐφέσῳ to this particular address.

The earliest reading also satisfies the criterion of 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 of the participle οὖσιν to be impossible without a further adjunct to the predicate, which evidently in their judgment ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ does not supply, whereas ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, would do so. Schnackenburg, 38, believes τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν 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 of 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. 1,” 33). But in any case discussions of the participle by itself still ignore the very important fact that the καί 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. 1,” 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 τοῖς οὖσιν to refer to those called out of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 of address in order to preserve continuity with the apostolic tradition, would introduce such a change of meaning. The same objection tells against those who would take οἱ ἅγιοι 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 of 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 τοῖς οὖσιν because this was a circular letter and as it, or copies of it, circulated to the various churches, the messenger or the church itself would supply the appropriate place name. 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 of considerations that tell decisively against this suggestion. There are no texts of Ephesians that actually contain such lacunae. Furthermore, O. Roller. Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933) 199–212, 520–25, has shown that there are no other examples of letters in the ancient world with such lacunae. Also, would not such a circular have included ἐν, 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 καί, which remains awkward and inconsistent with the other Pauline addresses.

These difficulties in construing the reading τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς 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 τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 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 καὶ πιστοῖς. 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 of 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 of “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 (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ) or Phil 1:1 (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις). 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 καί. 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—τοῖς ἅγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν . . . καὶ ἐν . . . πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ—this would not only help to explain the καί 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 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, and similarly Rom 1:7 has πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμη ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. 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...