1.  G. L. Munn, “Introduction to Colossians,” SWJTh 16 (1973), p. 10.

2.  Schweizer, Colossians, p. 14, quotes Cicero’s Pro Flacco 28.

3.  B. Reicke, “The Historical Setting of Colossians,” RevExp 70 (1973), pp. 429–33.

4.  For additional information on the nature of the false teaching and some of the difficult problems of interpretation, see the commentary text and additional notes on 2:8–23.

5.  Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, p. 98.

6.  For some helpful sources on Gnosticism see R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959); H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958); R. McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973).

7.  F. Cumont, Oriental Religion in Roman Paganism (New York: Dover, 1956).

8.  For further insights into inclusivism in Colossians, see G. Cannon, The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1983), pp. 217–29.

9.  On the question of Pauline and non-Pauline authorship, see A. Patzia, “The Deutero-Pauline Hypothesis: An Attempt at Clarification,” EQ 52 (1980), pp. 27–42; also see disc. in the Introduction to Ephesians.

10.  For a detailed listing and analysis of the vocabulary, cf. Lohse’s excursus: “The Language and Style of Colossians,” in Colossians and Philemon, pp. 84–91. Further parallels between Colossians and Ephesians are discussed in J. B. Polhill, “The Relationship between Ephesians and Colossians,” RevExp 70 (1973), pp. 439–57; and J. Coutts, “The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians,” NTS 3–4 (1956–58), pp. 201–7.

11.  Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 40; Cannon, p. 175.

12.  Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, pp. 177–83.

13.  Cannon, pp. 196–203.

14.  Ibid., p. 14. Schweizer makes an appropriate comment on this issue when he writes: “Whether the voice of the apostle comes to us directly or through the mouth of his fellow-worker, it is the message that is essential, not the way in which it reaches us” (“Christ in the Letter to the Colossians,” RevExp 70 [1973], p. 467); in his Colossians, Schweizer has some good practical applications as he addresses the topic, “The Epistle to the Colossians Today,” pp. 298–302.

15.  See n. .

16.  Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 26.

17.  Reicke, “Caesarea, Rome and the Captivity Epistles,” in Apostolic History of the Gospel, ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 277–82; Reicke, “The Historical Setting of Colossians,” pp. 429–38.

18.  Reicke, “The Historical Setting of Colossians,” p. 435. For some decisive arguments against this theory, consult Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 25.

19.  Reicke, “The Historical Setting of Colossians,” p. 435.

20.  Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 30. For supporters of the Ephesian origin of Colossians, cf. G. S. Duncan, St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (New York: Scribner, 1930); idem, “Were Paul’s Imprisonment Epistles Written from Ephesus?” ExpT 67 (1955–56), pp. 163–66; B. W. Robinson, “An Ephesian Ministry of Paul,” JBL 29 (1920), pp. 181–89; D. T. Rowlingson, “Paul’s Ephesian Ministry: An Evaluation of the Evidence,” ATR 32 (1950), pp. 1–7; Schweizer, Colossians, pp. 25–26.

21.  A variety of views on the authorship, origin, and nature of Colossians can be found in all of the major “introductions” to the New Testament. Cf. also F. F. Bruce, “St. Paul in Rome. 3. The Epistle to the Colossians,” BJRL 48 (1966), pp. 268–85.

Note: A list of the abbreviations used in the commentary is found at the front of the book (see p. xvii). See also “For Further Reading” (p. 295); full bibliographical references for works referred to in short-form notes within the commentary are supplied there.

1.  Barth, Ephesians 1–3, p. 37; Mitton, Ephesians, pp. 2–4. For a helpful article see J. B. Polhill, “An Introduction to Ephesians,” RevExp 76 (1979), pp. 465–79.

2.  For further details on the circular letter theory, see most introductory sections in the major commentaries and D. Guthrie’s New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, III.: InterVarsity Press, 1971), pp. 510f. (hereafter cited Introduction). Several specialized studies include R. Batey, “The Destination of Ephesians,” JBL 82 (1963), p. 101. (Batey suggests that during the process of transmission the textual reading ousin replaced the original Hasias.) D. A. Black, “The Peculiarities of Ephesians and the Ephesian Address,” Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981), pp. 59–73; M. Santer, “The Text of Ephesians I.1,” NTS 15 (1969), pp. 247–48. Best gives a very thorough study of all the evidence in “Ephesians I.i,” in Text and Interpretation, pp. 29–41.

3.  Mitton, Ephesians, p. 11; cf. also The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951), pp. 243ff., for a more complete treatment of his views on the date of Ephesians. For clarification on this view of a later author, see A. Patzia, “The Deutero-Pauline Hypothesis,” pp. 27–42.

4.  R. P. Martin, “An Epistle in Search of a Life-Setting,” ExpT 79 (1968), pp. 296–302. For comments on Martin’s views, cf. D. J. Rowston, “Changes in Biblical Interpretation Today: The Example of Ephesians,” Biblical Theological Bulletin 9 (1979), pp. 121–25.

5.  Wood, “Ephesians,” p. 7. For a defense of Pauline authorship on these grounds, see Guthrie, Introduction, pp. 491ff.; Barth, Ephesians 1–3, p. 6. The most thorough book in English dealing with all matters of introductory problems in Ephesians is A. van Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians, Supplement to NovT, vol. 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1974). Cf. also J. N. Sanders, “The Case for Pauline Authorship,” in Studies in Ephesians, ed. F. L. Cross, pp. 9–20.

Much of the debate regarding authorship centers around the similarities between Ephesians, Colossians, and other NT epistles. Useful comparisons can be found in most commentaries; see Abbott, Ephesians and Colossians, pp. xxiii–xxix; Foulkes, Ephesians, pp. 20–30; Mitton, Ephesians, pp. 11–18; idem, The Epistle to the Ephesians, parts II and III and appendixes; Moule, Ephesians, pp. 29–32; Westcott, Ephesians, pp. xxv–lx. Two excellent articles are Coutts, “The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians,” pp. 201–7; Polhill, “The Relationship between Ephesians and Colossians,” pp. 439–50.

6.  Guthrie, Introduction, p. 497.

7.  Barth, Eph. 1–3, pp. 3–4.

8.  For an explanation of Käsemann’s ideas on “Early Catholicism,” see Patzia, “The Deutero-Pauline Hypothesis,” pp. 30–31.

9.  Barth, Eph. 1–3, p. 45.

10.  J. A. Allan, “The ‘In Christ’ Formula in Ephesians,” NTS 5 (1958–59), pp. 54–62.

11.  W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 17th ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), p. 361. See also D. E. Nineham, “The Case Against the Pauline Authorship,” in Cross, Studies in Ephesians, pp. 21–35. All the issues surrounding the authorship, destination, purpose, and so forth of Ephesians can be frustrating to the reader. H. J. Cadbury recognized this a long time ago in his article, “The Dilemma of Ephesians,” NTS 5 (1958–59), pp. 91–102.

12.  Guthrie, Introduction, pp. 507, 508.

13.  The value and authority of Ephesians as a deutero-Pauline epistle is discussed by Mitton in his The Epistle to the Ephesians, pp. 270–78. He believes that on the analogy of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews an initial loss turns out to be a gain. As a deutero-Pauline letter, Ephesians reveals a new mind and an authoritative voice in the generation of believers that followed Paul.

14.  A. M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), p. 120. Other studies that express similar views include N. Alexander, “The Epistle for Today,” in Biblical Studies, ed. R. J. McKay and J. F. Miller (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), pp. 99–118; W. B. Colbe, “The Queen of the Epistles,” SWJTh 6 (1963), pp. 7–19.

15.  Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, p. 83; Bruce, Ephesians, p. 11; C. R. Erdman, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1931), p. 14.

16.  J. N. Sanders, “The Case for Pauline Authorship,” p. 16.

17.  Martin, “Ephesians,” p. 126. See also M. Barth, “Traditions in Ephesians,” NTS 30 (1984), pp. 3–25.

18.  Goodspeed’s ideas are presented in The Meaning of Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933) and The Key to Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956). For a critique of Goodspeed’s hypothesis, see Guthrie, Introduction, pp. 512–14; Wood, “Ephesians,” p. 112.

19.  E. Lohse, “Pauline Theology in the Letter to the Colossians,” NTS 15 (1969), pp. 211–20.

20.  N. A. Dahl, “Interpreting Ephesians: Then and Now,” Theology Digest 25 (1977), p. 314.

21.  Ibid., p. 314.

22.  For a long list of scholars with this persuasion, see Barth, Ephesians 1–3, pp. 12ff.

23.  Dahl, “Interpreting Ephesians: Then and Now,” p. 307.

24.  H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1962), p. 21. For Beare’s comments, see his “Ephesians,” pp. 674–75.

25.  See Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism.

26.  Kuhn, “Der Epheserbrief im Lichte der Qumrantexte,” NTS 7 (1960–61), pp. 334–46; Murphy-O’Connor, “Who Wrote Ephesians?” BibTod 18 (1965), pp. 1201–9; F. Mussner, “Beiträge aus Qumran zum Verständnis des Epheserbriefes,” Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1963).

27.  See Mitton’s summary, Ephesians, pp. 18ff.

28.  Murphy-O’Connor, “Who Wrote Ephesians?” “The sometime Essene, now a disciple of the man who wrote 1 Corinthians 13, had well assimilated the most profound lesson of his master” (p. 1209).

29.  Barth, Ephesians 1–3, p. 21; cf. also R. A. Culpepper, “Ethical Dualism and Church Discipline: Ephesians 4:25–5:20,” RevExp 76 (1979), pp. 529–39, for comparisons between Ephesians and Qumran.

30.  J. Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918), p. 388.

31.  Martin, “Ephesians,” p. 128. See also Martin, Reconciliation, p. 157.

32.  Kirby, Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost.

33.  One example is J. T. Sanders, “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1–3,” ZNW 56 (1965), pp. 214–32.

34.  Kirby, Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost, p. 170.

35.  Dahl, “Adresse und Proömium des Epheserbriefes,” TZ 7 (1951), pp. 241–64; “Bibelstudie über den Epheserbrief,” in Kurze Auslegung des Epheserbriefes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 7–83; “Anamnesis,” Studia Theologica I (1948), pp. 69–95. For other studies on the liturgical/baptismal nature of Ephesians, see R. R. Williams, “The Pauline Catechesis,” in Studies in Ephesians, ed. Cross, pp. 89–96; P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940); E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1946); J. Coutts, “Ephesians I:3–14 and 1 Peter 1:3–12,” NTS 3 (1956–57), pp. 115–27.

36.  Mitton, Ephesians, p. 30.

37.  Martin, “Ephesians,” p. 129.

38.  See Cannon, pp. 183–96. For some helpful correctives to the usual interpretation of Paul’s attitude toward the law, cf. K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Others Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

39.  H. Chadwick, “Die Absicht des Epheserbriefes,” ZNW 51 (1960), pp. 145–53; also his “Ephesians,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. M. Black and H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1962), pp. 980ff.

40.  E. Käsemann, “Ephesians and Acts,” in Studies in Luke–Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), pp. 288–97.

41.  W. Grundmann, “Die NEPIOI in der Paränese,” NTS 5 (1958–59), pp. 188–205.

42.  See K. M. Fischer, Tendenz und Absicht des Epheserbriefes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973).

43.  Quoted from C. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul—Conversations in Context, 2d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), p. 104.

44.  Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 364.

45.  Barth, Ephesians 1–3, p. 66.

46.  H. von Soden, quoted in Wood, “Ephesians,” p. 18.

47.  For a discussion on the origin of Colossians, see the “Introduction” to that epistle. Beyond the sources listed there, additional studies by Duncan on the origin of the captivity epistles can be found in ExpT 43 (1931), pp. 7–11; ExpT 46 (1935), pp. 293–98.

48.  Wood, “Ephesians,” p. 12.