The Letter to the Ephesians

By Constantine R. Campbell

A clear and comprehensive commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians.  
 
In the latest Pillar New Testament Commentary, Constantine R. Campbell illuminates the Letter to the Ephesians with scholarly precision and pastoral warmth. In line with the christological concerns of the letter, Campbell calls special attention to its theme of union with Christ. His thorough analysis covers a breadth of topics, including salvation and grace, the glory of God, and the church and its mission. 
 
Aimed at students and scholars of the Pauline letters, Campbell’s commentary carefully explains each verse of Ephesians with attention to historical and linguistic context. Yet the commentary prioritizes imminent theological concerns and remains accessible to any serious reader of the New Testament.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: May 4, 2023
• ISBN: 9781467466820

Constantine R. Campbell

Constantine R. Campbell (PhD, Macquarie University) is a New Testament scholar, author, musician, and documentary host, and lives in Canberra, Australia. He was formerly professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is the author of several books, including Paul and Union with Christ, Advances in the Study of Greek, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, Keep Your Greek, Outreach and the Artist, and 1, 2 & 3 John in The Story of God Bible Commentary series.

Book preview

Introduction

New Testament scholar Raymond Brown claimed that Among the Pauline writings, only Romans can match Ephesians as a candidate for exercising the most influence on Christian thought and spirituality.¹ Since the apostle Paul is the dominant theologian in Christendom (after Jesus), and given Christianity’s vast and deep impact throughout the world over the past two thousand years, there are few historical figures who could rival his widespread influence. So, as one of Paul’s two most influential letters, Ephesians is rightly regarded as one of the most significant letters of human history.

As grandiose as that may sound, adulation for the letter to the Ephesians can hardly be overstated. It is, in its own way, majestic, profound, exhilarating, and—if its message is taken seriously—nothing short of earth-shattering. Its scope is cosmic, addressing the whole of creation—including physical and spiritual realms—and eternal, addressing the mission of God before the foundation of the world through to its ultimate fulfillment in the age to come. It presents a cosmic Christ who is the central figure of the universe and the One through whom God is bringing all things together. He is supreme over all competing powers and yet operates intimately in the hearts and lives of human beings. God has caused a people to be raised from the dead with Christ and to be seated with him in the heavens, making him the reconciling centerpiece of God’s plans for humanity and everything else. He is the head of his body, the church, which is now to live out its noble calling by the power of God in Christ. The presence of Christ pervades the full sweep of existence from the lofty reaches of the universe through to domestic household relationships. He dwells in and with his people, transforming them into a new creation and a new humanity, all to the praise and glory of God.

Given its ongoing significance today—nearly two thousand years after its composition—the letter to the Ephesians has attracted much scrutiny and discussion alongside adoration. While this commentary cannot possibly engage it all, it offers a representative snapshot of scholarly discussions about the most pertinent issues, with a strong leaning toward their contemporary exponents. But above all, the commentary is devoted to the text of Ephesians—its themes and its details, its argument and its difficulties, its theology and its implications. The remainder of the introduction is designed to orient the reader to significant discussions regarding the letter’s composition and original audience, as well as its major themes and structure.

I. AUTHORSHIP

Perhaps the most contested question of the academic discussion of Ephesians is its authorship. This is a lamentable situation, since it consumes considerable energy and attention that would be better focused on more constructive questions. As the following (unfortunately necessary) discussion will suggest, to question the authorship of Ephesians is a red herring that has been inherited from a mostly discredited methodology of studying the New Testament.

Most scholars who deny Pauline authorship of Ephesians describe the letter as pseudonymous in an honest, rather than dishonest, sense.² The widespread ancient phenomenon of writing in the name of a famous, long-dead, figure was not regarded fraudulent, as it would now be.³ It was an accepted way to lean on an authoritative tradition, rather than an assertion of literary origin.⁴ Honest pseudonymity was understood and accepted as such, and was not therefore regarded duplicitous. Modern scholars who regard Ephesians as pseudonymous do so with the understanding that the letter’s claim of Pauline authorship is not intended to be deceitful (1:1; 3:1).

What follows is not a thorough-going account of the debate, which would be tedious for most readers (and this author).⁵ I offer only a sketch of the kinds of issues that have led some to question—or outright deny—Paul’s authorship of Ephesians. In the end, I give the historical aspects of the discussion the most weight, since it is a bold claim that attempts to overthrow nearly two thousand years of consensus. But it is not the duration of such consensus that is most significant. It is, rather, the very early and thoroughly consistent nature of the consensus that matters most. As Harold Hoehner states, The early church was not only closer to the situation but also they were very astute in their judgment of genuine and fraudulent compositions.⁶ We turn first to a brief history of the discussion.

A. A Brief History of the Authorship Question

No one seriously questioned the Pauline authorship of Ephesians until the eighteenth century. Unlike some other parts of the New Testament, the early church immediately and unanimously accepted Ephesians as a genuine part of the canon, since Paul’s authorship of the letter was never in doubt.⁷ The widespread, consistent, and early consensus of the early church is seen through a variety of factors, as D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo summarize:

From early days the letter was in wide circulation, and its authenticity does not seem to have been doubted. It was accepted by Marcion (as the Letter to the Laodiceans); it is in the Muratorian Canon and was used by heretics as well as the orthodox. It was apparently viewed as a Pauline letter by Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Hermas, and others of the apostolic fathers. No one seems to have queried Pauline authorship until the modern period.⁸

As Hoehner highlights, Ephesians is the first New Testament book to be called Scripture by the early church fathers.⁹ Polycarp (AD 69–135), the bishop of Smyrna, wrote in the early second century, As it is expressed in these Scriptures, ‘Be angry and sin not,’ and ‘Let not the sun go down on your wrath,’ referring to Ps 4:5 and Eph 4:26 as Scripture.¹⁰ With several other similar attestations both to its authorship and status as scripture, Hoehner concludes that the Pauline authorship of Ephesians has not only had strong and widespread geographical attestation in the early church, but it has had continued support in recent time.¹¹

First doubts about Paul’s authorship of Ephesians were raised in 1792 by Edward Evanson, an English clergyman who thought that Paul’s extended period of ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19) was inconsistent with the letter’s apparently impersonal tone (cf. 1:15–16).¹² In the nineteenth century, other scholars questioned the authenticity of the letter based on its similarity to Colossians, its supposed verbosity, and its identification with the postapostolic era.¹³ Hoehner constructed an extensive record of scholarly opinion from 1501 to 2001, demonstrating overall that 54 percent of scholars affirmed Pauline authorship, 39 percent denied it, and 7 percent were uncertain.¹⁴ Until 1960, more scholars favored Pauline authorship than denied it, with a very slight dominance of those who denied it between 1971–2001.¹⁵ Though two decades have passed since Hoehner’s research was published, it is nevertheless clear that the denial of Pauline authorship of Ephesians is a modern phenomenon, and is far from the dominant view among scholars in spite of claims to the contrary.¹⁶

B. Arguments against Pauline Authorship

There are four basic areas in which scholarship has challenged Pauline authorship of Ephesians: (1) theology; (2) grammar, vocabulary, and syntax; (3) historical circumstances; and (4) relationship to Colossians.¹⁷ I will offer representative examples of each to illustrate the nature of these challenges.

Regarding (1) theology, one of the most important claims is that Ephesians displays a realized eschatological outlook, which jars against authentic Paul who expresses an inaugurated eschatology. When Ephesians states that Christ is already seated far above every ruler and authority, power, and dominion (1:20–22), it depicts something now that authentic Paul sees in the future, not now (cf. 1 Cor 15:24–28).¹⁸ Similarly, Ephesians states that believers are already saved from God’s wrath (2:5b, 8), while authentic Paul says that they will be saved (cf. Rom 5:9–10). Other distinctives include details such as the fact that Ephesians uses the term church to refer to the whole association of believers (e.g., Christ is the head of the church; 5:23), while other letters use the term to refer to local communities (e.g., Rom 16:4, 16; 1 Cor 1:2; 4:17; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1:2; Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 2:14).¹⁹

As for (2) grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, claims are made that certain words are used in Ephesians that authentic Paul does not use. It is also claimed that the grammar and syntax are more convoluted and elaborate than authentic Paul, with its extraordinarily long sentences, its pleonasms, and its numerous prepositional, genitival, participial, and infinitive constructions.²⁰ In short, the writing style of Ephesians is claimed to be different from Paul’s undisputed letters.²¹

Regarding (3) historical circumstances, it is claimed that the impersonal nature of Ephesians does not fit with the historical account of Paul’s extensive ministry in Ephesus, which spanned nearly three years (Acts 19). Ephesians even goes so far as to say that I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints (1:15), as though its author had no personal knowledge of its recipients. There is also no mention of specific circumstances that the church is facing, such as we see in abundance in the Corinthian correspondence.

As for (4) relationship to Colossians, it has been argued that Ephesians is too similar to Colossians to be Pauline, since someone apparently copied and expanded Colossians into Ephesians.²² It is more or less a case of plagiarism with some unconvincing attempts to mask the plagiarism.

These few examples oversimplify the discussion, but they do not misrepresent its nature. The discussion might be more complex, with much more data employed, but the core arguments boil down to these types of issues. In short, some scholars view Ephesians as being inconsistent in various ways with what we know about authentic Paul. Rejection of Pauline authorship is grounded on comparisons between the two.

Though Douglas Campbell argues for Pauline authorship of Ephesians, he offers an alternate—and evocative—summary of the issues:

Its instructions are highly generalized and even abstract; few if any specific details or problems are apparent in relation to a particular community. Coupled with this, the style of the letter, whether judged grandiose or ponderous, seems quite distinctive. Various substantive emphases are distinctive as well—most famously, a sustained emphasis on the Christian community usually articulated in terms of the church. The letter consequently seems to belong to a later, calmer, more ecclesial era than to that of Paul’s gritty struggles with small groups of people, many of whom could be named if necessary. Hence, a judgment of pseudonymity is invited quite quickly.²³

C. Evaluation

We will now revisit the four areas in which scholarship has challenged Pauline authorship of Ephesians, this time offering some evaluative reflections.

Regarding (1) theology, the supposed differences between Ephesians and authentic Paul have been dramatically overplayed.²⁴ For example, Ephesians displays a much more inaugurated theology than many critics recognize. As Lynn Cohick states, The claims that Ephesians promotes only a realized eschatology fail to consider fully the apocalyptic emphasis on this present age of darkness and the need for God’s armor to stand fast against the principalities and powers at war with those who walk in the light (Eph 1:10, 21; 2:7; 4:30; see also Gal 1:4; 1 Thess 5:8).²⁵ While there is a strong emphasis in Ephesians on the now of the now-and-not-yet eschatological schema typical of Paul, the not-yet element is clearly present.

Other supposed theological difficulties may be resolved similarly. Regarding the church as the whole association of believers rather than local assemblies, Luke Timothy Johnson asks, Does the difference reveal the perspective of a Pauline successor who looked back to the joining of many local assemblies into a self-consciously worldwide movement? Or was the perspective available as well to the Paul who engaged in a collection precisely to engender such a sense of church as something more than a local congregation?²⁶ As Johnson’s questions imply, it is not necessary to posit that such a difference was somehow impossible for Paul.

Rather than interpreting such perceived tensions as evidence of pseudonymity, Clinton Arnold prefers to explain them in terms of the apostle Paul’s skillful and contextually appropriate remarks to people who need to be reminded of Christ’s supremacy over the powers of darkness.²⁷ As N. T. Wright surmises, if Paul were to decide to write a circular to be sent to all the churches in the region, adopting the somewhat florid Asiatic style but incorporating much of his basic teaching in summary form, it is easy to imagine Ephesians as the result.²⁸ Indeed, Johnson regards Ephesians as the preeminent summary of Paul’s gospel, so that themes from other letters are developed, but also economized, as Paul sets forth various emphases that have arisen during the course of his ministry.²⁹

As for (2) grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, any claims against Pauline authorship are grounded in an unrealistic expectation of what can be known about Paul’s possible language use. A basic premise of corpus linguistics is that a sample size much bigger than Paul’s extant corpus is required before we can claim what an author could or could not write.³⁰ There is simply no linguistic warrant to make judgments about Paul’s possible or impossible language choices. In any case, as Campbell reflects,

It is true that tabulations can be made of various stylistic features that are particularly distinctive to Ephesians, most notably, sentence length. But many stylistic features are shared unremarkably with other undisputed letters. So the key question is, again, not so much whether Ephesians has distinctive stylistic features, because it does, as whether those are different enough from the style of other Pauline Letters to suggest a judgment of pseudonymity. The statistical analysis of this question is at best ambiguous, and at worst negative.³¹

Indeed, that question has not often enough been considered, since Ephesians’ structure is similar to undisputed epistles, and the letter displays plenty of Pauline language that is also found in his other epistles, while absent from the styles of other New Testament authors.³² So, as H. J. Cadbury asks, is it more likely that a Pauline imitator wrote in 95 percent accordance with Paul’s style, or that Paul wrote with a 5 percent divergence from his own extant style?³³ Robert Grant’s answer is that we are not in a position to judge the authenticity of such a letter, so it should be regarded genuine in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.³⁴

Regarding (3) historical circumstances, there are several plausible reconstructions far more compelling than resorting to pseudonymity. If, for example, Paul wrote a letter intended to circulate around the churches of western Asia Minor (as argued below), it would naturally exclude personal references to specific individuals who would not be known to the majority of readers.³⁵ The same argument applies to the lack of reference to specific church circumstances, but Cohick also adds that "vagueness about the church’s situation … could equally apply to Romans, a letter no one disputes as genuinely Paul [sic]."³⁶

Johnson points out that if Ephesians had been written pseudonymously, the author in this case failed to create a plausible impression of intimacy between Paul and a church he apparently knew so well.³⁷ Moreover, a reference such as 6:21–22—in which the author promises that Tychichus, whom he is sending to them, will inform readers of Paul’s news—reveals bold confidence that the claim to Pauline authorship would not be overturned.³⁸ If pseudonymous, such a reference would be risky, not to mention gratuitous.

As for Ephesians’ (4) relationship to Colossians, the whole question is quite the red herring for the simple reason that authors often borrow from their own previous work.³⁹ Even if it can be demonstrated that Ephesians relies on Colossians—and this question is more complex than it might seem—it does not prove anything about authorship.⁴⁰

Regarding pseudonymity in general, Cohick correctly notes that ancient pseudepigrapha implied authorship of figures who had been dead for centuries. Living figures or those recently deceased were not considered acceptable subjects of pseudipigraphic epistles.⁴¹ Moreover, though there was a wide range of pseudepigraphic documents within Judaism—such as 1 Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs—"there are no clear examples of pseudepigraphical letters within Judaism, as Arnold and others note.⁴² But if Ephesians is indeed pseudonymous, it contravenes the normal expectation since nothing in the letter betrays to the casual reader its fictional character.⁴³ And as Campbell comments, The contention of pseudonymity can point to no decisive evidence in terms of incontestable anachronisms or the like.⁴⁴ On the contrary, Frank Thielman states that if the letter is pseudonymous, then it is difficult to see this portrait as anything other than an attempt to lend an air of authority to the letter that could come to it only if it were thought to be the product of one of Christianity’s foundational figures on the verge of martyrdom.⁴⁵ If Ephesians is pseudonymous, its author successfully deceived all its readers for nearly two thousand years and it should not be in the canon of Holy Scripture. As Thielman again comments, It urges its readers to speak truthfully, but resorts to lying about its own author without any clear moral justification."⁴⁶

The claim of pseudonymity depends on accepting the premise that someone else could write so convincingly as Paul that they deceived everyone in the early church. And if that is the case, it raises the question as to how compelling the supposed divergences from Paul really are. The scholars who endorse the pseudonymity of Ephesians are forced to admit that the letter is extremely like Paul, while also admitting that they are able to tell it is not Paul—though none of Paul’s contemporaries were able to do so. How marvelous New Testament scholarship has become two thousand years after the New Testament was written! However, we must question how plausible it is—nearly two thousand years later—to overturn the undisputed position of those who lived closest to the time of the letter’s composition. It would be akin to scholars two thousand years from now trying to claim that Abraham Lincoln was not the real author of the Gettysburg Address. To us today that would seem absurd. We can only imagine what Paul’s contemporaries would have thought had they known what claims would be made about Ephesians two thousand years later.

II. RECIPIENTS

A. Whom Does the Letter Address?

While this commentary accepts the traditional view regarding Ephesians’ Pauline authorship, it challenges the traditional view of its original recipients. Ephesus is mentioned only in the first verse of the letter, and the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include it.⁴⁷ This raises several questions: Was in Ephesus accidentally omitted from some early texts? Was it added to later texts? What other evidence supports the letter being addressed to the church in Ephesus? How does the closely related letter to the Colossians speak to the issue? What plausible explanations account for all the evidence?

Campbell summarizes the situation well, commenting that the case for the letter’s Ephesian addressees is rather weak. The main uncials, 𝔓46, and the earliest traceable patristic comments are all against this identification.⁴⁸ The earliest textual tradition, established by the major uncial manuscripts Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (ℵ) and the vitally significant P46 do not include in Ephesus in 1:1. But it is also significant that the apostolic fathers do not give unanimous support to an Ephesian audience.⁴⁹ Unlike the claim of pseudonymity, which has zero textual or early church support, the non-Ephesian position has both.

As for the textual evidence, the absence of in Ephesus in these important early manuscripts is unlike the thousands of other discrepancies between the New Testament manuscripts. Most such discrepancies involve different word order, word substitutions, intentional and unintentional additions, and accidental omissions. The likelihood of all the manuscripts in question accidentally omitting in Ephesus is extremely low. First, we are talking about the opening verse of the letter and its addressees—it is hardly insignificant. Though scribes (copyists) frequently made mistakes, it is simply not plausible to suggest that such an important omission could be accidental. The absence of in Ephesus from 1:1 is explained either by intentional omission, or by the possibility that it did not exist at all in the earliest manuscripts—and therefore possibly not in the autograph (the original letter). But if in Ephesus is not original, why did the letter become associated with Ephesus? And from a technical perspective, some scholars have argued that the Greek syntax of 1:1 does not work without in Ephesus (or in somewhere).⁵⁰

The relationship of Ephesians to Colossians may hold some clues. While it will be explored in more depth below, it is impossible to deny their close—and at times verbatim—correspondence. This should not be overplayed, since the two letters have distinct emphases and Ephesians is significantly longer than Colossians. Nevertheless, the two letters bear a genetic relatedness. As suggested above, this relationship says very little about authorship—given that authors often borrow from themselves—but it may shed some light on the intended audience. One of the distinct differences between Ephesians and Colossians is that the former is extremely impersonal, while the latter is the opposite.⁵¹ Ephesians mentions no one by name apart from its author and its courier (1:1; 3:1; 6:21–22), while Colossians refers to Timothy (1:1), Epaphras (1:7; 4:12), Tychicus (4:7), Onesimus (4:9), Aristarchus, Mark, and Barnabas (4:10), Jesus/Justus (4:11), Luke and Demas (4:14), Nympha (4:15), and Archippus (4:17). If Ephesians was really addressed to the church in Ephesus—where Paul spent nearly three years on his third missionary journey (Acts 19:10; 20:31)—its impersonal nature is extremely odd compared to Colossians, given he had never even visited Colossae (Col 2:1)! Putting these two facts together—that Ephesians and Colossians share a genetic relationship and that the former is highly impersonal while the latter is the opposite—offers a major clue. If Colossians was written first (as most scholars believe), Ephesians borrows, adapts, and extends its contents. While Colossians was intended for the church in Colossae, the letter known as Ephesians was intended to circulate among the churches throughout Western Asia Minor (western Turkey today). Paul may have felt that some of the content sent to the Colossians would be relevant to other churches in the region too, so he reused and expanded it to create a general letter. The impersonal nature of Ephesians is therefore by design so that it would be equally appropriate for churches in general rather than just one specific church.

The general nature of the letter means that its earliest copies did not include in Ephesus but may have left a blank space so that the intended addressee of each copy could be added in.⁵² Over time, scribes may have omitted the blank space so that our earliest extant manuscripts simply do not include a location of address, nor a blank space in which to supply one.⁵³ And since Ephesus was one of the cities in Western Asia Minor—indeed, its major hub—it would make sense that it did receive a copy of Ephesians with in Ephesus added. Given the prominence of the city of Ephesus for the region, and its centrality for the Christian community, it is not surprising that the letter eventually became associated with it.⁵⁴ It became known as Ephesians even though it was originally intended to be a general circular letter. ⁵⁵

Putting all this together, it is reasonable to conclude that the letter known as Ephesians was written by Paul, inspired by his earlier letter to the Colossians, sent around the churches of Asia Minor—including Ephesus—and later became associated with that city. This accounts for the letter’s close relationship to Colossians, its impersonal nature (in contrast to Colossians), the absence of in Ephesus in some important manuscripts, the slight ambiguity about its relationship with Ephesus in early church accounts, but also its association with that city.

B. Ephesus as Regional Hub

Whether in Ephesus was originally included in the text of the letter, or only in the copy sent to Ephesus, many commentators agree that the letter was nevertheless intended to circulate in and around the city of Ephesus.⁵⁶ At the time of writing, there was likely more than one house church in the city itself, and there were several churches in nearby cities such as Hierapolis, Laodicea, Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Thyatira, and Philadelphia.

Ephesus was the mother city (metropolis) for Western Asia Minor (western Turkey today) in several respects.⁵⁷ It was the third-largest city in the Roman Empire at the time, and it was a major political, economic, social, and religious center. Home to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world—the temple of Artemis—Ephesus attracted a steady stream of visitors for the purposes of worship and commerce. It was a desired destination, bustling and glamorous.⁵⁸

Its strategic significance is no doubt why Paul—after a brief visit during his second missionary journey—made a beeline to Ephesus and stayed there nearly three years during his third missionary journey (ca. AD 52–55). It is likely that some of the churches near Ephesus were begun by Paul’s converts there, as appears to be the case with the church in Colossae (Col 1:7; 4:12–13).⁵⁹ This would have made Ephesus the Christian center of the region, as missionaries radiated out from it to establish daughter churches in other cities. After Paul’s death, the apostle John was based in Ephesus and similarly exercised a ministry that radiated through that city and its neighbors.

Given that Ephesus was the major hub of the region, it had pervasive influence through Western Asia Minor. As such, the challenges that Ephesus posed for Christian faith and practice were shared with its nearby cities. That explains why a general circular letter such as Ephesians could share many of the concerns raised in its sister epistle, the letter to the Colossians. Colossae was only about one hundred miles east of Ephesus, and the shared content of the two letters reveals that the kinds of issues faced by the church in Colossae were also confronting believers elsewhere in the region.

C. Magic, Worship, Power

One of these challenges was the regional focus on magic, worship, and power.⁶⁰ Though religiously pluralistic—including a vigorous Jewish community—with as many as fifty gods and goddesses worshiped in the city, Ephesus was dominated by its worship of the goddess Artemis (also known as Artemis of the Ephesians), the founder and protector of the city, whose grand temple was four times the size of the Athenian Parthenon (Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 36.21.95–97).⁶¹ Artemis was believed to wield great power over heaven, earth, and the underworld, attracting the titles Lord and Savior. She could protect her worshipers from astral, underworld, and terrestrial spirits, helping them to avoid illness and injury.⁶² As Arnold summarizes,

The influence of this goddess and the cult attached to her permeated every area of life for those who lived in this city. The temple was the major banking center for the city, her image adorned the coinage, a month of the year was named after her, Olympic-style games were held in her honor (called the Artemisia), and she was trusted as the guardian and protector of the city.⁶³

The worship of Artemis occurred in a context that was highly interested in the spiritual domain. It was believed that spiritual powers influenced and interacted with every sphere of life—for good or ill. This worldview encouraged the practice of magical rituals, incantations, and invocations, which were used in order to wield spiritual power and to achieve a positive outcome in life’s challenges. Magic was a method of manipulating spiritual powers to accomplish certain tasks with guaranteed results.⁶⁴ Examples of magical spells, rituals, and curses are known to us through hundreds of magical papyri discovered in Egypt, preserved in its dry sands.⁶⁵ And though the practice of magic was illegal in the Roman Empire, and was regarded socially deviant, it nevertheless flourished in Ephesus.⁶⁶ As such, Ephesus has been described as a metropolis for magic, with a reputation in the ancient world for its widespread magical practices.⁶⁷

The magical and spiritual context of Ephesus and its surrounding region goes a long way to account for certain features of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. The first thing to note is that Ephesians does not undermine the widespread cultural belief in the spiritual forces that influence and interact with every sphere of life. On the contrary, it acknowledges them (1:21; 2:2; 6:12). Second, the letter does not directly critique magical practices as though they lacked power or could not deliver desired results. Rather, the letter sets Christ as superior to the powers and authorities (1:20–22), thus making obsolete any need to resort to magical tricks in order to manipulate spiritual forces. Through their union with Christ, believers are connected to the one who rules over all other powers. They have been delivered from the ruler of the power of the air (2:1–10), and need not fear evil spirits or malevolent beings as long as they share in the Lord’s armor and weaponry, which is effective and powerful protection from them (6:10–17).

III. SETTING AND DATE

Traditionally it has been understood that Ephesians was written during Paul’s Roman imprisonment in the last few years of his life (ca. AD 60–62; Acts 28:30–31), alongside the other prison epistles—Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians.⁶⁸ The sibling relationship between Ephesians and Colossians reinforces the likelihood that the two letters were composed at the same time, or at least within a narrow timeframe. Both letters were apparently sent at the same time, with Tychicus delivering each to their respective destinations (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7–9).⁶⁹ Colossians mentions a number of people whose greetings Paul conveys, and who were evidently in direct contact with him at the time of writing (Col 4:10–14). Most importantly, this includes Luke, the dearly loved physician (4:16), who was Paul’s traveling companion up to and including his Roman imprisonment. All of these elements offer good support for the Roman provenance of Ephesians.⁷⁰

The only other two serious contenders for the provenance of Ephesians are Caesarea and Ephesus itself.⁷¹ Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea on the west coast of Palestine for two years before sailing to Rome (AD 57–59; Acts 24:27), making it a possible location for the composition of his so-called prison epistles, including Ephesians. The chief weakness of this theory, however, is that there is no indication that Paul was able to receive visitors during his Caesarean imprisonment. Since Colossians suggests that Paul enjoyed the freedom to receive visitors and maintain relationships, this better fits the picture presented of his Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:17, 23, 30).

Though there is no record of Paul having been imprisoned in Ephesus, some have suggested that it was one of the imprisonments that Acts did not record. In 2 Cor 11:23, Paul mentions in passing that he had already experienced multiple imprisonments by the time of writing that letter, which was sent before his Caesarean and Roman imprisonments. The only other imprisonment recorded by Acts is his single night in the Philippian jail (Acts 16:23–36), so it is clear that Paul suffered other imprisonments in addition to those recorded by Luke. It is possible that Paul was imprisoned after the riot in Ephesus, which saw the whole city in uproar against him (Acts 19:21–41). Though the narrative suggests that Paul left Ephesus immediately after the riot (20:1), it is possible that an intervening period preceded his departure. It is also argued that Onesimus—Philemon’s slave who accompanied Tychicus (Col 4:9)—was more likely to have found his way to Ephesus—a mere 120 miles from Colossae—than to Rome, if indeed he had fled his master as traditionally held.

Against the proposed Ephesian provenance, however, is the weakness of its argument from silence.⁷² Without any record of Paul having been imprisoned in Ephesus—either in Acts or Paul’s letters—and with Acts seeming to suggest that Paul left the city after the riot of Acts 19, an Ephesian imprisonment is a much weaker candidate than the well-established Roman imprisonment.⁷³ As for Onesimus’s presence with Paul, his supposed inability to travel to Rome has been overstated, since it was possible to sail there in about three weeks, and such travel was more common than previously thought.⁷⁴ Furthermore, as Cohick argues, there is no direct evidence in Paul’s letter to Philemon that Onesimus was a runaway slave; he may well have been sent by Philemon to assist Paul in Rome, just as the Philippian church had sent Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25).⁷⁵

With the removal of the supposed barrier of Onesimus’s ability to travel to Rome, there is no compelling reason to reject the traditional setting of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Along with the other prison epistles, Paul composed Ephesians while under house arrest in Rome within the last few years of his life. He adapted material from his letter to the Colossians in order to produce a general letter that was to circulate around the churches in the cities of Western Asia, of which Ephesus was the spiritual, commercial, and political hub. He sent Tychicus to deliver the letters to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and to Philemon in around AD 62.⁷⁶

IV. EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS

Much has been made of the relationship between the letter to the Ephesians and the letter to the Colossians, and for good reason. Before exploring this relationship further, it is worth noting how vital this question has already proven for discussions about the authorship, recipients, setting, and date of Ephesians. The relationship between the two epistles is not a mere academic curiosity; it is an issue of essential significance for understanding the purpose of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Ephesians shares with Colossians its interest in the cosmic supremacy of Christ over all competing supernatural powers and all creation (e.g., Eph 1:20–22; Col 1:15–17). While other Pauline letters demonstrate a high Christology, none are so bold in their christological claims as Ephesians and Colossians. The two letters also share a strong interest in believers’ union with Christ, especially the notion of having been made alive and raised with Christ (e.g., Eph 1:3–13; 2:4–6; Col 2:13; 3:1–4). Related to union with Christ, both letters present Christ as the head of his body, the church (Eph 1:22–23; 5:23, 29; Col 1:18, 24; 2:19). While other letters describe the church as the body of Christ (e.g., Rom 12:4; 1 Cor 12:27), they do not present Christ as its head. Ephesians and Colossians both reveal an interest in the unseen spiritual realm and the opposition of malevolent spiritual powers (e.g., Eph 6:10–17; Col 2:15). They both describe Paul as a steward of the mystery of Christ, which speaks to the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham to bless all peoples of the earth (e.g., Eph 3:1–13; Col 1:24–29). Finally, both letters include Paul’s only household codes, which demonstrate an intricate literary relationship (Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1).⁷⁷

These several shared themes give the two letters an air of sibling relationship, as though they share a common source of DNA. But alongside these broad thematic echoes are more precise shared elements, such as the thirty-two identical words used with reference to Tychicus in Eph 6:21–22 and Col 4:7–8, and the twenty-two vocabulary items they share that are not found in other Pauline letters.⁷⁸ Moreover, according to C. Leslie Mitton, 26.5 percent of the wording of Colossians appears in Ephesians, but mostly in quite small units.⁷⁹ This suggests that, while the two letters often use the same words and phrases, there is little clear evidence of direct copying (with the exception of the Tychicus passages).⁸⁰

While some commentators have seen the obvious and compelling relationship between Ephesians and Colossians as evidence that one (or both) letters is not genuinely Pauline, it has already been argued that such a conclusion is unnecessary.⁸¹ While Andrew Lincoln suggested that the author of Ephesians used parts of Colossians to offer his own presentation of Paul’s ministry, such a conclusion is no more compelling than to suppose that Paul authored both epistles.⁸² Indeed, Ernest Best—who does not endorse Pauline authorship of Ephesians—nevertheless admits that Paul could easily have used the same words in both letters, and kept in mind what he wrote in one letter to use it in the other, assuming the two letters were written in quick succession.⁸³ So, as Arnold summarizes, the best explanation of the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians is the traditional view held until the 1800s and by many scholars today: The apostle Paul wrote both letters at approximately the same time, to the same general area (western Asia Minor), with many of the same pastoral concerns for his readers, to be carried to the respective recipients by the same person (Tychicus).⁸⁴

But, as Arnold also demonstrates, the similarities between Ephesians and Colossians should not be overstated.⁸⁵ The most striking difference between the two letters is that Colossians addresses a specific localized threat to genuine Christian faith, dubbed by scholars the Colossian heresy, which he directly critiques in 2:1–3:4. Ephesians addresses no specific theological threat, localized or otherwise, and yet teaches content that would effectively and preemptively counteract any possible strain of the Colossian heresy should it spread beyond the Lycus Valley.⁸⁶ And so, Ephesians and Colossians serve different purposes. While Colossians was written to believers in a specific location a hundred miles inland who were facing a specific theological and ethical danger, Ephesians is a general letter aimed at a variety of churches throughout a major region.⁸⁷ Both letters exalt the supremacy of Christ over all competing powers and authorities, and demonstrate that union with Christ supersedes all rival forms of spirituality and the quest for spiritual fullness.

V. THEMES

Ephesians exhibits a variety of themes, each of which enriches the distinctive teaching of the letter. Three features stand out in relation to these themes. First, while each one connects to themes addressed in the wider Pauline corpus, they make unique contributions to said themes. Second, the themes of Ephesians are best understood in an interlocking fashion. No theme stands on its own, and no theme may be understood without acknowledgment of its dependence on several others. The thematic material of Ephesians is therefore mutually reinforcing so that increased understanding of one further illuminates the others. Third, while these themes exhibit an interlocking nature, they are also unfolded in a logical fashion as the letter progresses. In this sense, an understanding of the thematic teaching of the letter significantly assists in observing its overall logical argumentation. The following exploration of Ephesians’ themes offers a birds-eye view in order to orient readers to the teaching of the letter. It is hoped that readers will benefit from seeing these themes articulated as they unfold through the latter.

A. Union with Christ

If there is one theological theme to which Ephesians contributes more than any other Pauline letter, it would be his theology of union with Christ. While it is prevalent in his other letters, especially Colossians, the theme of union of Christ is deeply woven into the fabric of Ephesians. It is central to every other major theme in the letter, such as salvation, Jew and gentile reconciliation, the church, walking in the light, and spiritual warfare. Indeed, it could be argued that union with Christ is the single most essential theological ingredient for the argument of Ephesians.

The theme of union with Christ can be identified through a range of idioms that employ certain prepositions, such as in Christ (and its variations, such as in him, in whom, etc.), with Christ (and with him, etc.), through Christ (and through him, etc.), and similar phrases.⁸⁸ In fact, the frequency of in Christ and related phrases in Ephesians (and Colossians) is significantly higher than in other Pauline letters. But union with Christ is not conveyed only through such prepositional phrases. There are also a range of metaphors used, such as body, temple, building, clothing, and marriage, which convey significant elements that speak to believers’ union with Christ.⁸⁹

But what is union with Christ? Several descriptions have been offered over the years, but it is not easily defined.⁹⁰ My own research has concluded that the full spectrum of Paul’s language, ideas, and themes that are bound up in the metatheme of union with Christ can be described through the umbrella terms union, participation, identification, and incorporation.⁹¹ The following summary begins to articulate what is meant by these terms:

Union gathers up faith union with Christ, mutual indwelling, trinitarian, and nuptial notions. Participation conveys partaking the events of Christ’s narrative. Identification refers to believers’ location in the realm of Christ and their allegiance to his lordship. Incorporation encapsulates the corporate dimensions of membership in Christ’s body.⁹²

In Ephesians, union with Christ is clearly in view from the very first verse ("To the faithful saints in Christ Jesus"), and receives royal treatment in the opening doxology of 1:3–14.⁹³ The doxology is introduced and summarized in 1:3: "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ. The remainder of the doxology articulates some of the spiritual blessings that are found in Christ, including being chosen in him (1:4), being predestined for adoption through Jesus Christ (1:5), being lavished with God’s grace in the Beloved One (1:6), and receiving redemption in him (1:7). God’s good pleasure was purposed in Christ (1:9) to bring everything together in Christ (1:10). Believers have received an inheritance in him (1:11), and have put their hope in Christ (1:12), having been sealed with the Spirit in him (1:13). With such a concentration of in Christ"-type phrases, the opening doxology of Ephesians is the richest collection of union with Christ language found anywhere in the New Testament.

The next major section of the letter that depends on the centrality of union with Christ is 2:1–10, which famously argues that believers are saved by grace through faith. While salvation by grace is the inevitable outcome of the argument, union with Christ does the heavy lifting. The problem raised at the outset is spiritual death and alienation from God (2:1–3), and the solution is that God has made believers alive with Christ, raised them up with him and seated them with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus (2:4–6). This with language indicates participation with Christ