The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (133 page)

Therefore, opponents of authenticity claim that these three theological themes do not represent developments of the undisputed Pauline letters but departures from these.
⁷⁵
Proponents of Paul's authorship respond by pointing out texts in the undisputed Pauline letters that parallel the thought of Ephesians. These resemblances are close enough to represent an organic relationship between the theology of Ephesians and the undisputed Pauline letters.
⁷⁶
One must also remember that pastoral factors may also play a role in these theological emphases. C. E. Arnold argued strongly that the emphasis on cosmic Christology and realized eschatology is intended to strengthen believers in the cosmic conflict against the “principalities and powers.”
⁷⁷

In terms of vocabulary, those who reject Paul's authorship point out that Ephesians uses unique language not found elsewhere in Paul and contend that the letter has too many
hapax legomena
(words that only occur once in the Pauline corpus) to be considered Pauline.
⁷⁸
Proponents of Paul's authorship generally protest by pointing out that Paul's undisputed letters also contain a high number of
hapax legomena
, so that Ephesians is not unique in the Pauline corpus in this regard.
⁷⁹
Hoehner highlighted the comparison between Ephesians (41 words not found elsewhere in the NT and 84 words not found
elsewhere in Paul) and Galatians (35 words not found elsewhere in the NT and 90 words not found elsewhere in Paul). No one doubts the authenticity of Galatians, even though Galatians contains six more words than Ephesians that are not found elsewhere in Paul
and
Galatians is 10 percent shorter than Ephesians.
⁸⁰
In other words, assessing authorship must not rest solely on a statistical analysis of vocabulary.

In terms of literary style, opponents of authenticity cite the high percentage of pleonastic elements (i.e., prepositions, participles, etc.), the compound use of the genitive, unusually long sentences, and elevated diction.
⁸¹
Proponents of Paul's authorship counter with the claim that many of these features are not unusual for Paul, especially in light of the doxologies and prayers in chaps. 1—3.
⁸²
They also add that many significant vocabulary words and literary examples in Ephesians resemble material found only in Paul.
⁸³

In terms of the relation to Colossians, many opponents of authenticity claim Ephesian dependence upon Colossians,
⁸⁴
though others argue for Colossian dependence
⁸⁵
or no interdependence.
⁸⁶
Some scholars say that Ephesians represents the “actualization of authoritative tradition” as the author updated Paul's gospel.
⁸⁷
Advocates of authenticity claim that the conceptual closeness between the two letters does not call common authorship into question.
⁸⁸

In terms of the impersonal nature of Ephesians, some scholars observe that the letter lacks any personal greetings and ends with an impersonal farewell. Moreover, the author apparently knew the readers only on a general level. These observations seem out of place in light of the fact that Paul spent three years in Ephesus (Acts 20:31). Many advocates of authenticity are quick to point out that the letter is a circular letter because of the probability on text-critical grounds that the words “at Ephesus” (1:1) are not part of the original text.
⁸⁹
The impersonal nature of the letter would fit well with the theory that it is a general letter written to believers in Asia Minor. But advocates of authenticity who
doubt the circular letter hypothesis point out that Paul does not give personal greetings in 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philippians.
⁹⁰

In the face of so many challenges to authenticity, some scholars are willing to concede that Ephesians contains genuine Pauline material because the author was a disciple of Paul.
⁹¹
Others see serious social consequences arising from the Deutero-Pauline distortion of Paul's message in the genuine letters.
⁹²

One is left wondering how to respond. The reader may say that the point-counterpoint nature of the case renders the decision difficult. However, when all arguments are weighed, the Pauline authorship of Ephesians rests upon a firm foundation. The arguments that the proponents of authenticity set forward appear more formidable. Despite complicated disagreements among scholars over how to weigh statistical analysis,
⁹³
Hoehner convincingly showed that the use of unique vocabulary in Ephesians is not unusual for Paul, especially in comparison with Galatians. Though the stylistic and theological differences are real, there is no clear conflict between Ephesians and Paul's other writings. The stylistic features of the letter are not unusual for Paul, especially the elevated diction in the doxologies and prayers. The theological emphases can be traced out in other Pauline writings, and Paul's emphasis on the principalities and powers accounts for the cosmic Christology, realized eschatology, and the focus on the church.

Conversely, the counterresponse that the proponents of authenticity have made against the opponents of authenticity does not constitute the strongest case for authenticity. Paul's authorship of Ephesians rests most securely upon two early and influential claims for authenticity: (1) the claim of the letter, and (2) the testimony of the early church.
⁹⁴
The
case against authenticity is further plagued by questions surrounding the practice and validity of pseudonymity.
⁹⁵

Therefore, the sheer number of modern scholars who discount Paul's authorship need not dictate a decision in favor of inauthenticity.
⁹⁶
The student should interact with the arguments of critical scholarship instead of uncritically accepting their conclusions. When one weighs the evidence and does not merely count the opinions, the totality of the data favors Pauline authorship.

Literary Integrity
In terms of literary integrity, there are no significant partition theories for Ephesians. In terms of textual integrity, the textual tradition is well preserved except for the debated phrase “in Ephesus” (1:1). Therefore, apart from the question of destination, the textual variants do not create any substantial cause for doubting the literary integrity of the letter.
⁹⁷

Date

The date for Ephesians depends on complex questions concerning authorship and provenance. If the letter was written during Paul's Roman imprisonment, then it dates to 58—60 (60—62 in the conventional reckoning).
⁹⁸
Since Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon appear to have been written at approximately the same time and since Philemon belongs to the final phase of Paul's imprisonment, a date around the year 60 is reasonable. If one places Ephesians earlier in Paul's ministry, then it dates to the early or mid-50s. Most who see the letter as Deutero-Pauline or post-Pauline date the letter somewhere between 70 and 90.
⁹⁹

Provenance

The provenance of Ephesians is inextricably related to issues such as authorship, the identity of the addressees, and the date. Many hold that Ephesians was written from the same place as Colossians and Philemon, and possibly Philippians.
¹⁰⁰

Destination

The fact that some important manuscripts do not include “at Ephesus” (1:1) poses problems for identifying a destination.
¹⁰¹
Prominent textual critics such as B. Metzger doubt the integrity of the phrase “at Ephesus.”
¹⁰²
Therefore, some scholars have theorized that Ephesians was a circular letter.
¹⁰³
As mentioned above, this assumption coheres with some of the internal evidence of the letter. The impersonal tone throughout Ephesians is surprising in light of the considerable amount of time that Paul spent in Ephesus (Acts 19:8,10; 20:31). Moreover, some texts seem to imply that the author did not even know the readers (Eph 3:2; 4:21).

However, one should also note that the circular letter hypothesis is not without problems in that even the manuscripts that do not contain the phrase “at Ephesus” have “Ephesus” in the title.
¹⁰⁴
What is more, even those who adhere to the circular letter hypothesis admit that the omission of “at Ephesus” creates an awkward grammatical construction: “to the saints and believers in Christ Jesus.”
¹⁰⁵
This debate seems somewhat inconsequential because some scholars who think that “at Ephesus” is part of the original text still believe that the letter circulated to the churches in Asia Minor as well.
¹⁰⁶

Occasion

Paul's letters are not expressions of theoretical theology. They are occasional pastoral letters that address specific congregational circumstances. But Ephesians appears to break this mold, and thus it is difficult to detect a clear occasion for the letter.
¹⁰⁷
Most agree that Gentile readers are the primary audience, but the consensus quickly begins to crumble after that observation. In contrast to the tone and content of Colossians, Ephesians does not read like a response to false teaching. Some have questioned the search for an occasion to the extent that they doubt whether Ephesians is a letter at all. These scholars prefer to describe it as a homily or a speech.
¹⁰⁸

If one assumes the circular nature of the letter, Ephesians represents a careful summary and exposition of Paul's thought. If the letter was addressed to the Ephesians, then questions concerning the occasion of the letter largely become educated guesses culled from the content of Ephesians. Views regarding the occasion also vary according to whether scholars adhere to authenticity or inauthenticity. Among those who argue for inauthenticity, N. A. Dahl detects a baptismal setting for the letter as a pseudonymous writing intended for new believers that stresses the implications of their baptism.
¹⁰⁹
A. T. Lincoln believed that many of the issues in Ephesians arise out of a context in which Paul had just passed from the scene and thus the readers lack a sense of unity because of the loss of Paul as their unifying source of authority.
¹¹⁰
R. Schnackenburg argued that Ephesians confronts a group of churches in Asia Minor around the year 90 with the need for unity and a Christian lifestyle that is distinct from their pagan neighbors.
¹¹¹
C. L. Mitton identified a gnostic threat as the occasion.
¹¹²

Among those who argue for Pauline authenticity, most stress that there is no specific crisis in view. Paul had time to write a positive exposition of his theology while under house arrest in Rome.
¹¹³
Others identify specific needs that Christians in Asia Minor would have had. F. Thielman argued that Christians possibly facing suffering in Asia Minor would have needed an encouraging reminder of all that God had done for them in Christ and a challenge to live in a manner consistent with God's purposes for the church in summing up all things in Christ.
¹¹⁴
C. E. Arnold stated that Christians in Asia Minor would have required positive grounding in Paul's gospel because they were converts from a pagan past saturated with magic, astrology, and mystery religions. Their pagan past also necessitated moral guidance for living a life consistent with the lordship of Christ. Arnold also noted that the flood of Gentile converts into the church required Paul to address the Jew-Gentile
tensions that customarily would come to the surface. He therefore argued that Paul wrote a genuine pastoral letter for “a multiplicity of needs shared by the readership.”
¹¹⁵

Purpose

Despite the variegated proposals for the life setting of the letter, most scholars agree on the main themes in Ephesians. They see Ephesians emphasizing cosmic reconciliation in Christ and stressing the need for (1) unity in the church, (2) a distinctive Christian ethic, and (3) vigilance in spiritual warfare.
¹¹⁶
As noted above, various exegetes take these emphases and then attempt to develop points of contact with possible concrete needs.

The attempt to ascertain a specific purpose may engender a variety of proposals, but most would acknowledge, as Carson and Moo pointed out, that Ephesians is “an important statement of the gospel that may have been greatly needed in more than one first-century situation.”
¹¹⁷
The general nature of Ephesians renders it particularly suitable for application by present-day believers.

LITERATURE

Literary Plan

Recent works have set forth a variety of proposals regarding the literary plan of Ephesians. In terms of rhetorical analysis, N. A. Dahl proposed that Ephesians is a variant of epideictic or demonstrative rhetoric.
¹¹⁸
A. T. Lincoln
¹¹⁹
and A. C. Mayer
¹²⁰
came to the same conclusion, although they admit that the letter does not fit the conventional ancient Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks with precision and resists generic classification. P. S. Cameron discovered a chiastic structure for Ephesians, though he favored the termpalinstrophe over
chiasm.
¹²¹
Mayer advocated two chiastic sections (1:3—3:21; 4:1—6:9). J. P. Heil proposed another chiasm for the letter.
¹²²
This proliferation of proposals is problematic for rhetorical and chiastic analysis. Though these studies are insightful and thought provoking, many rightly remain unpersuaded by macrochiastic
¹²³
and rhetorical analyses
¹²⁴
because of the ever-present danger of pressing Paul's letters into preconceived models.

OUTLINE

1. OPENING (1:1-2)
   
2. BODY: SEATED WITH CHRIST, WALKING WITH CHRIST, STANDING FOR CHRIST (1:3-6:20)
   
   1. Shared Spiritual Blessings in Union with Christ and Unity in Christ (1:3-3:21)
      
      1. Spiritual Blessings in Christ (1:3-14)
         
      2. Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:15-23)
         
      3. Believers' Past and Present Life (2:1-10)
         
      4. Jews and Gentiles One in Christ (2:11-22)
         
      5. Paul's Ministry and the “Mystery” (3:1-13)
         
      6. Prayer for Unity in Christ (3:14-21)
         
   2. Walk with Christ and Stand for Christ (4:1-6:20)
      
      1. The Church's Sevenfold Unity (4:1-16)
         
      2. Living as Children of Light (4:17-5:17)
         
      3. Spirit-Filled Living in the Home and at Work (5:18-6:9)
         
      4. Putting on the Armor of God (6:10-20)
         
3. CLOSING (6:21-24)