Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V09, Page 672 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

See also:

EPHESIANS, See also:EPISTLE TO THE . This See also:book of the New Testament, the most See also:general and least occasional and polemic of all the Pauline epistles, a large See also:section of which seems almost like the See also:literary elaboration of a theological topic, may best be described as a See also:solemn oration, addressed to absent hearers, and intended not primarily to clarify their minds but to stir their emotions. It is thus a true See also:letter, but in the See also:grand See also:style, verging on the nature not of an See also:essay but a poem. Ephesians has been called " the See also:crown of St See also:Paul's writings," and whether it be measured by its theological or its literary See also:interest and importance, it can fairly dispute with See also:Romans the claim to be his greatest epistle. In the public and private use of Christians some parts of Ephesians have been among the most favourite of all New Testament passages. Like its See also:sister Epistle to the See also:Colossians, it represents, whoever wrote it, deep experience and bold use of reflection on the meaning of that experience; if it be from the See also:pen of the Apostle Paul, it reveals tows a distinct and important phase of his thought. To the nature of the epistle correspond well the facts of its See also:title and address. The title " To the Ephesians " is found in the Muratorian See also:canon, in See also:Irenaeus, See also:Tertullian and See also:Clement of See also:Alexandria, as well as in all the earliest See also:MSS. and versions. See also:Marcion, however (c. A.D. 15o), used and recommended copies with the title " To the Laodiceans." This would be inexplicable if Eph. i. i had read in Marcion's copies, as it does in most See also:ancient authorities, " To the See also:saints which are at See also:Ephesus "; but in fact the words iv 'E4 aw of See also:verse 1 were probably absent. They were not contained in the See also:text used by See also:Origen (d.

253); See also:

Basil (d. 379) says that " ancient copies " omitted the words; and they are actually omitted by Codices B (Vaticanus, 4th See also:century) and a (Sinaiticus, 4th century), together with Codex 67 (11th century). The words " in Ephesus " were thus probably originally lacking in the address, and were inserted from the See also:suggestion of the title. Either the address was general (" to the saints who are also faithful ") or else a See also:blank was See also:left. In the latter See also:case the name may have been intended to be supplied orally, in communicating the letter, or a different name may have been written in each of the individual copies. Under any of these hypotheses the address would indicate that we have a circular letter, written to a See also:group of churches, doubtless in See also:Asia See also:Minor. This would See also:account for the general See also:character of the epistle, as well as for the entire and striking See also:absence of See also:personal greetings and of See also:concrete allusions to existing circumstances among the readers. It appears to have See also:drawn its title, " To the Ephesians," from one of the churches for which it was intended, perhaps the one from which a copy was secured when Paul's epistles were collected, shortly before or after the See also:year See also:loo. That our epistle is the one referred to in See also:Col. iv. 16, which was to be had by the Colossians from See also:Laodicea, is not unlikely. Such an See also:identification doubtless led Marcion to alter the title in his copies. The structure of Ephesians is epistolary; it opens with the usual salutation (i.1-2) and closes with a brief personal See also:note and formal farewell (vi.21-24).

In the intervening See also:

body-of the epistle the writer also follows the See also:regular See also:form of a letter. In an See also:ordinary See also:Greek letter (as the papyri show) we should find the salutation followed by an expression of gratification over the correspondent's See also:good See also:health and of See also:prayer for its continuance. Paul habitually See also:expanded and deepened this, and, in this case, that See also:paragraph is enormously enlarged, so that it may be regarded as including chapters i.-iii., and as carrying the See also:main thought of the epistle. Chapters iv.-vi. merely make application of the main ideas worked out in chapters i.-iii. Throughout the epistle we have a singular See also:combination of the seemingly desultory method of a letter, turning aside at a word and straying wherever the See also:mood of the moment 'leads, with the See also:firm, forward See also:march of See also:earnest and mature thought. In this combination resides the doubtless unconscious but nevertheless real literary See also:art of the See also:composition. The fundamental theme of the epistle is The Unity of Mankind in See also:Christ, and hence the Unity and Divinity of the See also:Church of Christ. See also:God's purpose from eternity was to unite mankind in Christ, and so to bring human See also:history to its See also:goal, the New See also:Man, the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Those who have believed in Christ are the See also:present representatives and result of this purpose; and a clear knowledge of the purpose itself, the See also:secret of the ages, has now been revealed to men. This theme is not formally discussed, as in a theological See also:treatise, but is rather, as it were, celebrated in lofty eulogy and application. First, in chapters i.-iii., under the See also:mask of a conventional congratulatory paragraph, the writer declares at length the privileges which this See also:great fact confers upon those who by faith receive the See also:gift of God, and he is thus able to See also:touch on the various aspects of his subject. Then, in chapters iv.-vi., he turns, with a characteristic and, impressive " therefore," to set forth the obligations which correspond to the privileges he has just expounded.

This author is indeed interested to prosecute vigorous and substantial thinking, but the mainspring of his interest is the conviction that such thought is significant for inner and See also:

outer See also:life. The relationship, both literary and theological, between the epistle to the Ephesians and that to the Colossians (q.v.) is very See also:close. It is to be seen in many of the prominent ideas of the two writings, especially in the See also:developed view of the central position of Christ in the whole universe; in the conception of the Church as Christ's body, of which He is the See also:head; in the thought of the great See also:Mystery, once secret, now revealed. There is further resemblance in the formal moral See also:code, arranged by classes of persons, and having much the same contents in the two epistles (Eph. v. 22-Vi. 9; Col. iii. 18-iv. 1). In both, also, Tychicus carries the letter, and in almost identical See also:language the readers are told that he will by word of mouth give See also:fuller See also:information about the apostle's affairs (Eph. vi. 21-22; Col. iv. 7-8). More-over, in a great number of characteristic phrases and even whole verses the two are alike.

Compare, for instance, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14; Eph. i. ro, Col. i. 2o; Eph. i. 21, Col. i. 16; Eph. i. 22, 23, Col. i. 18, 19; Eph. ii. 5, Col. ii. 13; Eph. ii. If, Col. ii.. 11; Eph: ii. r6, Col. i.

20; Eph. iii. 2, 3, Col. i. 25, 26, and many other See also:

parallels. Only a comparison in detail will give a true impression of the extraordinary degree of resemblance. Yet the two epistles do not follow the same course of thought, and their contents cannot be successfully exhibited in a See also:common synoptical abstract. Each has its See also:independent occasion, purpose, character and method; but they draw largely on a common See also:store of thought and use common means of expression. The question of the authorship of Ephesians is less important to the student of the history of See also:Christian thought than in the case of most of the Pauline epistles, because of the generalness of See also:tone and the lack of specific allusion in the See also:work. It purports to be by Paul, and was held to be his by Marcion and in the Muratorian canon, and by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, all See also:writing at the end of the 2nd century. No doubt of the Pauline authorship was expressed in ancient times; nor is there any lack of See also:early use by writers who make no See also:direct See also:quotation, to raise doubts as to the genuineness of the epistle. The See also:influence of its language is probably to be seen in See also:Ignatius, See also:Polycarp and See also:Hermas, less certainly in the epistle of See also:Barnabas. Some resemblances of expression in Clement of See also:Rome and in Second Clement may have significance. There is here abundant See also:proof that the epistle was in existence, and was highly valued and influential with leaders of Christian thought, about the year zoo, when persons who had known Paul well were still living.

To the See also:

evidence given above may be added the use of Ephesians in the First Epistle of See also:Peter. If the latter epistle could be finally established as genuine, or its date fixed, it would give important evidence with regard to Ephesians; but in the present state67 ~ ' of discussion we must confine ourselves to pointing out the fact. Some of the more striking points of contact are the following: Eph. i. 3, z Peter i. 3; Eph. i. 20, 21, 1 Peter iii. 22; Eph. ii. 2, 3, iv. 17, r Peter iv. 3; Eph. ii. 21, 22, 1 Peter ii. 5; Eph. v.

22, 1 Peter iii, 1, 2; Eph. v. 25, I Peter iii. 7, 8; Eph. vi. 5, r Peter ii. 18, 19. A similar relation exists between Romans and z Peter. In both cases the dependence is clearly on the See also:

part of z Peter; for ideas and phrases that in Ephesians and Romans have their firm See also:place in closely wrought sequences, are found in z Peter with less profound significance and transformed into smooth and pointed See also:maxims and apophthegmatic sentences. Objections to the genuineness of Ephesians have been urged since the early part of the 19th century. The influence of See also:Schleiermacher, whose See also:pupil Leonhard Usteri in his Entwickelung der paulinischen Lehrbegriffs (1824) expressed strong doubts as to Ephesians, carried See also:weight. He held that Tychicus was the author. De Wette first (1826) doubted, then (1843) denied that the epistle was by Paul. The See also:chief attack came, however, from See also:Baur (1845) and his colleagues of the See also:Tubingen school.

Against the genuineness have appeared See also:

Ewald, See also:Renan, See also:Hausrath, See also:Hilgenfeld, See also:Ritschl, See also:Pfleiderer, See also:Weizsacker, See also:Holtzmann, von See also:Soden, Schmiedel, von Dobschutz and many others. On the other See also:hand, the epistle has been defended by See also:Bleek, See also:Neander, See also:Reuss, B. See also:Weiss, See also:Meyer, See also:Sabatier, See also:Lightfoot, See also:Hort, Sanday, See also:Bacon, Julicher, See also:Harnack, Zahn and many others. In See also:recent years a tendency has been apparent among critics to accept Ephesians as a genuine work of Paul. This has followed the somewhat stronger reaction in favour of Colossians. Before speaking of the more fundamental grounds urged for the rejection of Ephesians, we may look at various points of detail which are of less significance. (1) The style has unquestionably a slow and lumbering See also:movement, in marked contrast with the See also:quick effectiveness of Romans and See also:Galatians. The sentences are much longer and less vivacious, as any one can see by a superficial examination. But nevertheless there are parts of the earlier epistles where the same tendency appears (e.g. Rom. iii. 23-26), and on the whole the style shows Paul's See also:familiar traits. (2) The vocabulary is said to be See also:peculiar.

But it can be shown to be no more so than that of Galatians (Zahn, Einleitung, i. pp. 365 ff.). On the other hand, some words characteristic of Paul's use appear (notably five times), and the most recent and careful investigation of Paul's vocabulary (Nageli, Wortschatz der paulinischen Briefe, 1905) concludes that the evidence speaks for Pauline authorship. (3) Certain phrases have aroused suspicion, for instance, " the See also:

devil " (vi. 11, instead of Paul's usual See also:term "Satan"); "his See also:holy apostles and prophets" (See also:ill. 5, as smacking of later fulsomeness); " I Paul " (iii. 1); " unto me, who am less than the least of all the saints " (iii. 8, as exaggerated). But these cases, when properly understood and calmly viewed, do not carry conviction against the epistle. (4) The relation of Ephesians to Colossians would be a serious difficulty only if Colossians were held to be not by Paul. Those who hold to the genuineness of Colossians find it easier to explain the resemblances as the product of the See also:free working of the same mind, than as due to a deliberate imitator. Holtzmann's elaborate and very ingenious theory (1872) that Colossians has been expanded, on the basis of a shorter letter of Paul, by the same later hand which had previously written the whole of Ephesians, has not met with favour from recent scholars.

But the more serious difficulties which to many minds still stand in the way of the See also:

acceptance of the epistle have come from the developed phase of Pauline See also:theology which it shows, and from the general background and See also:atmosphere of the under-lying See also:system of thought, in which the absence of the well-known earlier controversies is remarkable, while some things suggest the thought of See also:John and a later See also:age. Among the most important points in which the ideas and implications of Ephesians suggest an authorship and a See also:period other than that of Paul are the following : (a) The See also:union of Gentiles and See also:Jews in one body is already accomplished. (b) The Christology is more advanced, uses Alexandrian terms, and suggests the ideas of the See also:Gospel of John. (c) The conception of the Church as the body of Christ is new. (d) There is said to be a general softening of Pauline thought in the direction of the See also:Christianity of the and century, while very many characteristic ideas of the earlier epistles are absent. With regard to the changed See also:state of affairs in the Church, it must be said that this can be a conclusive See also:argument only to one who holds the view of the Tubingen scholars, that the Apostolic Age was all of a piece and was dominated solely by one controversy. The See also:change in the situation is surely not greater than can be imagined within the lifetime of Paul. That the epistle implies as already existent a developed system of Gnostic thought such as only came into being in the 2nd century is not true, and such a date is excluded by the See also:external evidence. As to the other points, the question is, whether the admittedly new phase of Paul's theological thought is so different from his earlier system as to be incompatible with it. In answering this question different minds will differ. But it must remain possible that contact with new scenes and persons, and especially such controversial necessities as are exemplified in Colossians, stimulated Paul to work out more fully, under the influence of Alexandrian categories, lines of thought of which the germs and origins must be admitted to have been present in earlier epistles. It cannot be maintained that the ideas of Ephesians directly contradict either in formulation or in tendency the thought of the earlier epistles.

Moreover, if Colossians be accepted as Pauline (and among other strong reasons the unquestionable genuineness of the epistle to See also:

Philemon renders it extremely difficult not to accept it), the chief matters of this more advanced Christian thought are fully legitimated for Paul. On the other hand, the characteristics of the thought in Ephesians give some strong evidence confirmatory of the epistle's own claim to be by Paul. (a) The writer of Eph. ii. 11-22 was a See also:Jew, not less proud of his See also:race than was the writer of Rom. ix.—xi. or of Phil. iii. 4 if. (b) The centre in all the theology of the epistle is the See also:idea of redemption. The use of Alexandrian categories is wholly governed by this interest. (c) The epistle shows the same panoramic, pictorial, dramatic conception of Christian truth which is everywhere characteristic of Paul. (d) The most fundamental elements in the system of thought do not differ from those of the earlier epistles. The view which denies the Pauline authorship of Ephesians has to suppose the existence of a great literary artist and See also:pro-found theologian, able to write an epistle worthy of Paul at his best, who, without betraying any recognizable See also:motive, presented to the See also:world in the name of Paul an See also:imitation of Colossians, incredibly laborious and yet See also:superior to the See also:original in literary workmanship and See also:power of thought, and bearing every See also:appearance of earnest sincerity. It must further be supposed that the name and the very existence of this See also:genius were totally forgotten in Christian circles fifty years after he wrote. The See also:balance of evidence seems to See also:lie on the See also:side of the genuineness of the Epistle.

If Ephesians was written by Paul, it was during the period of his imprisonment, either at Caesarea or at Rome (iii. 1, iv. 1, Vi. 20). At very nearly the same See also:

time he must have written Colossians and Philemon; all three were sent by Tychicus. There is no strong See also:reason for holding that the three were written from Caesarea. For Rome speaks the greater See also:probability of the See also:metropolis as the place in which a fugitive slave would try to hide himself, the impression given in Colossians of possible opportunity for active See also:mission work (Col. iv. 3, 4; cf. Acts See also:xxviii. 30, 31),thefact that See also:Philippians, which in a measure belongs to the same group, was See also:pretty certainly written from Rome. As to the Christians addressed, they are evidently converts from heathenism (ii. 1, 11-13, 17 f., iii.

1, iv. 17); but they are not merely See also:

Gentile Christians at large, for Tychicus carries the letter to them, Paul has some knowledge of their See also:special circumstances (i. 15), and they are explicitly distinguished from " all the saints " (iii. 18, vi. 18). We may most naturally think of them as the members of the churches of Asia. The letter is very likely referred to in Col. iv. 16, although this theory is not wholly free from difficulties. BIBLIoGRAPIY.--The best commentaries on Ephesians are by C. J. Ellicott (1855, 4th ed. 1868), H.

A. W. Meyer (4th ed., 1867), (Eng. trans. 188o), T. K. See also:

Abbott (1897), J. A. See also:Robinson (1903, 2nd ed. 1904) ; in. See also:German by H. von Soden (in Hand-Commentar) (1891, 2nd ed. 1893), E. See also:Haupt (in Meyer's Kommentar) (8th ed., 1902).

J. B. Lightfoot's commentary on Colossians (1875, 3rd ed. 1879) is important for Ephesians also. On the See also:

English text see H. C. G. Moule (in See also:Cambridge See also:Bible for See also:Schools) (1887). R. W. See also:Dale, Epistle to the Ephesians; its See also:Doctrine and See also:Ethics (1882), is a valuable See also:series of expository discourses. Questions of genuineness, purpose, &c., are discussed in the New Testament Introductions of H.

Holtzmann (1885, 3rd ed. 1892); B. Weiss (1886, 3rd ed. 1897, Eng. trans. 1887); G. See also:

Salmon (1887, 8th ed. 1897); A. Julicher (1894, 5th and 6th ed. 1906, Eng. trans. 1904); T. Zahn (1897—1899, and ed. 1900); and in the thorough investigations of H.

Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- and Kolosserbriefe (1872), and F. J. A. Hort, Prolegomena to St Paul's Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians (1895). See also the See also:

works on the Apostolic Age of C. Weizsacker (1886, 2nd ed. 1892, Eng. trans. 1894–1895); O. Pfleiderer (Das Urchristenthum) (1887, 2nd ed. 1902, Eng. trans. 1906); and A. C.

See also:

McGiffert (1897). On early See also:attestation see A. H. Charteris, Canonicity (1880) and the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (See also:Oxford, 1905). The theological ideas of Ephesians are also discussed in some of the works on Paul's theology; see especially F. C. Baur, See also:Paulus (1845, 2nd ed. 1866–1867, Eng. trans. 1873–1874); O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus (1873, 2nd ed. 1890, Eng. trans. 1877); and in the works on New Testament theology by B.

Weiss (1868, 7th ed. 1903, Eng. trans. 1882–1883); H. Holtzmann (1897), and G. B. See also:

Stevens (1899). See also See also:Somerville, St Paul's Conception of Christ (1897). For a See also:guide to other literature see W. See also:Lock, art. " Ephesians, Epistle to," in See also:Hastings's See also:Dictionary of the Bible, the various works of Holtzmann above referred to, and T. K. Abbott's Commentary, PP.

35-40. (J. H.

End of Article: EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
EPHEMERIS (Greek for a " diary ") 		[next]
EPHESUS

Site © 2006 - Net Industries