The title and salutation in the NIV indicate that this is Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians (“Paul … To the saints in Ephesus …”). From its earliest times, this epistle has been regarded as an authentic epistle of the Apostle Paul, written to the church in Ephesus where he spent about three years as a teacher (Acts 19:10; 20:31).
Since the epistle claims to have been written by Paul, it is not unusual to find a number of personal references to himself and the situation to which he is writing. Basically, he identifies himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God on their behalf (1:1) who, although he is in prison (3:1; 4:1), appeals to his office as one entitled to proclaim the mystery of the gospel to the Gentiles (3:1–9) and to relate to his readers the essence of the Christian life (4:17ff.).
Although the epistle does not follow the epistolary form of Paul’s letters completely (salutation—thanksgiving—prayer—body—ethical exhortations—greetings), it has many verbal, theological, and literary affinities with Paul’s thought. At first glance, there appear to be no glaring differences in Ephesians from the picture that we get of Paul and his thought in other books of the NT. The epistle contains familiar Pauline themes such as God’s sovereignty, resurrection, the Holy Spirit, ethics, and so forth; and even though there are some new theological emphases, they appear to be consistent with Paul’s thought.
The external factors surrounding this epistle likewise suggest that its authenticity was not disputed in the early church. It is listed in Marcion’s canon of the NT as the epistle to the “Laodiceans” (ca. A.D. 140) and is recognized in the Muratorian canon (A.D. 180) as Paul’s work. This is supported by the testimony of the early church fathers of the second century, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. With a few minor exceptions, the consensus of scholarly opinion is that Ephesians was consistently regarded as a Pauline epistle until the age of critical scholarship in the eighteenth century.[1]
Identifying the destination of the epistle, however, has not been without debate. The phrase, “in Ephesus” (en Ephesō) is missing in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. As in other translations (RSV, GNB, NEB), the footnote in the NIV indicates that there is a textual problem at this point. This reading is verified by Origen, Tertullian, and Jerome, even though church tradition has associated the letter with the city of Ephesus.
The reasons why the address was omitted—if it was ever present—and why it became associated with Ephesus are varied and complex. The most popular theory, in part suggested by the general nature of the epistle, claims that it was a circular letter that Paul intended to be read at more than one place. The original manuscript may have had a blank space, and each congregation could have read its own name into that blank.[2] For various reasons—primarily because of Paul’s long association with that church and the importance of that congregation in Asia Minor—it became attached to Ephesus.
With the rise of critical Bible scholarship in the eighteenth century, the attitude toward Pauline authorship changed dramatically. By adopting a critical methodology and applying its principles to the external and internal study of the epistle, more and more scholars concluded Ephesians was not authentically Pauline. The end result is that there are two major positions regarding the authorship of Ephesians today: either it is Pauline or non-Pauline.
Scholars who doubt the Pauline authorship of certain epistles (generally Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals) claim that they were written by a “second,” that is, “deutero,” Paul. Basically, this necessitates envisioning an individual or a group of Paul’s close co-workers who earnestly desired to communicate the message and authority of Paul to succeeding generations. Many scholars see this as a plausible solution to some of the questions related to authorship.
Several things about the deutero-Pauline hypothesis need clarification. First, it is quite possible that the practice of pseudonymity (writing in the name of someone else) in the first century included some of the letters that make up the canon of the NT. Unfortunately, a number of NT scholars look upon this in a negative way. They see it as constituting forgery or fraud and the authors of such pseudonymous materials as nothing but charlatans, imposters, or deceivers. But such is not the case: Anyone writing in Paul’s name could have done so out of sincere motives and believed that he or she would not dishonor God or the apostle or deceive readers.
Second, a deutero-Paulinist would not be just a compiler, copier, and transmitter of genuine Pauline material. This would make the deutero-Pauline literature nothing more than a mosaic of passages from Paul’s epistles. The one writing in Paul’s name would have been a theologian in his or her own right. The author would be faithful to Paul but would find it necessary to modify and expand Paul’s ideas and apply them to later developments in the church.
A number of Paul’s close associates, such as Timothy, Tychicus, and Luke, would be capable of producing this kind of material. It is even possible that Paul may have led some kind of theological school “in the lecture hall of Tyrannus” while he was in Ephesus, where his ideas were presented and continued to be discussed even after his death (Acts 19:9). Some of his pupils could have felt responsible to interpret, reinterpret, and apply their master’s theology to new situations in the post-apostolic period. Writing in Paul’s name would have given their letters the stamp of apostolic authority, especially where false teaching was threatening the church.
If Ephesians fits into this hypothetical reconstruction, it could be regarded as a continuation of Paul’s thought in another generation. It would be an attempt by the author to present a timely reaffirmation of Paul’s understanding of “the mystery of Christ” to the Gentiles. Or, as C. L. Mitton puts it: “the author has presented us in Ephesians with a brilliant and comprehensive summary of Paul’s main theological emphases, though he has, where necessary, adapted and interpreted them for the needs of a new situation. Published about a generation after Paul’s death, it is, as it were, ‘Paul’s Message for Today.’ ”[3] R. P. Martin’s suggestion that Luke wrote Ephesians is both intriguing and commendable.[4]
Of the factors that raise questions about the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, there is, first of all, the vocabulary of the epistle. About ninety words and phrases in Ephesians, including such things as “the devil,” “in the heavenly realms,” and “the One he loves” (as a title for Christ), are not used elsewhere in Paul’s epistles.
In addition to vocabulary, there is the matter of the style in which the epistle is written. In contrast to the polemical tone and rapid movement in Paul’s chief letters, Ephesians has a poetic or liturgical ring to it. This comes from a number of features, including its long and complex sentences, an extensive use of prepositions, and the joining of synonyms.
Although most scholars will agree that linguistic and stylistic differences alone do not disprove Pauline authorship, they do find it difficult to conceive of Paul writing Ephesians in this form. Proponents for its authenticity counter by claiming that the language and style can be accounted for by such considerations as Paul’s versatility as a writer, changed historical circumstances, and the fact that the epistle is more reflective and liturgical in nature. “Could,” writes A. S. Wood, “an imitator have given birth to anything at once so authentic and yet so original? If he rivaled Paul as a spiritual genius, it is strange that the primitive church knew nothing of him.”[5]
A second set of questions about Pauline authorship relates to the repetition in Ephesians of Pauline words, phrases, and concepts, especially from Colossians. Approximately one fourth of the vocabulary and one third of the content of Ephesians are paralleled in Colossians, including some verbatim agreement (cf. Eph. 6:21ff. and Col. 4:7ff.). Numerous parallels to other Pauline epistles, as well as affinities with 1 Peter, Hebrews, Luke–Acts, and the Gospel of John have been observed, contributing further to the suspicion that the author of Ephesians was borrowing material from some of these letters for his composition rather than creating his own epistle. Some scholars have found more affinities to the writings of Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Gnosticism than to the NT. Even more problematic is the claim that certain words and ideas are used differently or take on a different meaning in Ephesians than they have in Paul’s genuine letters (church, stewardship, mystery, and fullness, to name a few).
To counter such conclusions, proponents of Pauline authorship believe that the close connection between Ephesians and other Pauline epistles, including Colossians, is accounted for better by Pauline than by non-Pauline authorship. They argue that the apparent differences in usage or meaning of terms do not warrant denying them to Paul. Here D. Guthrie speaks for a number of people when he writes that “the most natural conclusion from the abundance of parallel passages is that the same mind is reflected in Ephesians as in the other Pauline epistles.”[6]
A third consideration related to Pauline authorship is that the historical circumstances surrounding the epistle are vague. It is difficult to believe that Paul would write to a congregation with whom he had spent three years and not include any personal greetings or refer to any local issues. The author writes as if he and the readers do not know each other (1:13, 15; 3:1; 4:21). Even if Ephesians were a circular letter, one would expect some allusions to personalities or circumstances associated with Paul’s missionary activity in that part of Asia Minor. Barth’s suggestion that the epistle was written to Gentile converts who came into the church after Paul’s ministry in Ephesus is unconvincing.[7]
There are other problems beyond the impersonal nature of the epistle. Historically, the controversy related to Jews and Gentiles in the church that occupied so much of Paul’s life appears to be over (cf. Acts 15; Gal. 2). Many scholars feel that Ephesians reflects the situation sometime after Paul when the church was being prepared to face the future and to guard itself against the threat of heresies like Gnosticism.
Unfortunately, the historical factors alone cannot decide the question of authorship. The problems between Jewish and Gentile Christians are difficult to document historically and may have varied from one area of the empire to another. Some authors place considerable emphasis upon the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, claiming that if the epistle had been written after this period there would have been some specific reference to that fact, especially in the context of 2:11–22.
Fourth, there are some theological issues that raise questions about Pauline authorship. For convenience, they can be discussed according to the following categories:
Cosmology. Ephesians, even more than Colossians, presents a cosmic picture of God’s saving activity and the role of Christ. It gives increasing attention to the principalities and powers and their defeat by God.
Ecclesiology. One of the most significant and noticeable differences from letters that are undeniably Pauline is that the church in Ephesians is universal, not local. The author writes to embrace all believers everywhere, not only those in Ephesus. Here, as in Colossians, the church is defined as the body of Christ, and Christ is related to the body as the head. In Romans and Corinthians the head is not given such distinction but is recognized as another part of the body.
In Ephesians, the church takes on a cosmic function; through it, the angelic rulers and powers in the heavenly world might know God’s wisdom, in all its different forms (3:10). This goes far beyond the local function that the church serves in Paul’s undisputed epistles. Some, particularly the German scholar E. Käsemann, see Ephesians moving from Christ—which was the center for Paul—to the church as the center. For Käsemann, this is a sure sign of “early Catholicism.”[8]
Part of the ecclesiology in Ephesians centers around the prominence and role of the apostles and prophets (2:20; 3:5) in the founding of the church. For some, the veneration of these offices, the structure and function of the ministry (4:11–16), and the acknowledgment of apostolic authority are signs of a post-Pauline church. These are matters that arose after Paul’s lifetime.
Eschatology. In Paul’s undisputed epistles one gets the impression that the Parousia is imminent, that is, Christ is about to return. Consequently, much of Paul’s theology and ethical instruction is placed within the context of the end times. Ephesians lacks that eschatological urgency and presents more of a realized eschatology by emphasizing the believers’ present experience with Christ. Resurrection and exaltation are already enjoyed by believers in Christ; more attention is given to life in the Spirit now and less to the future; and even though the church maintains a future hope (1:18), the directives in the epistle prepare the believers to live out that hope in the realities of daily life.
This change in eschatological perspective affects how the author prepares readers to face the future. Thus the mission of the church takes on a new significance: The church becomes the instrument for fulfilling God’s purposes in the world, particularly in uniting Jews, Gentiles, and the cosmos (2:21; 3:10; 4:13, 16; 5:27). The ethical exhortations, household rules, and so on suggest that the church is to be as concerned about social and community relationships (socioethical) as it is with personal salvation or reconciliation.[9]
Christology. Some scholars feel that Ephesians omits crucial elements of Paul’s Christology and presents a different understanding of the person and role of Christ. Missing is Paul’s emphasis on Christ’s death, the doctrine of justification, and the Parousia; prominent is the resurrected, exalted, and triumphant Christ. According to J. A. Allan, the “in Christ” formula in Ephesians lacks the mysticism that was so characteristic of Paul.[10] Also, reconciliation is not between humanity and God but socially between Jew and Gentile and cosmically with the spiritual principalities and powers. Acts that Paul attributes to God, such as reconciliation (Col. 1:21; 2:13, 14) and the appointment of church officials (1 Cor. 12:28), are, in Ephesians, presented as the work of Christ (2:16; 4:11).
The conclusion to which many scholars have come after analyzing the theological, historical, ecclesiological, and cosmological thought of Ephesians is that it is difficult—if not impossible—to maintain the Pauline authorship of this epistle. W. G. Kümmel probably represents most scholars who question Pauline authorship when he writes: “In view of this linguistic, literary and theological state of affairs, it cannot seriously be doubted that Ephesians does not come from Paul and is therefore a pseudonymous writing.”[11]
The big question, of course, is whether such observations are true and capable of only one conclusion. Could it be that critics of Paul have misunderstood Ephesians and are guilty of utilizing false assumptions and methodologies—thus arriving at false solutions? That this is possible is certainly made evident by the host of serious scholars who believe that the external and internal evidence with respect to Ephesians confirms the traditional conclusion. For them, Ephesians will remain Pauline until it can definitely be proved that it is non-Pauline.
D. Guthrie represents such a conviction when he states: “To maintain that the Paulinist out of his sheer love for Paul and through his own self-effacement composed the letter, attributed it to Paul and found an astonishing and immediate readiness on the part of the Church to recognize it as such is considerably less credible than the simple alternative of regarding it as Paul’s own work.”[12]
The question of the authorship of Ephesians currently is at an impasse, with reputable scholars on both sides of the issue. Here it needs to be stressed that this matter should not divide scholarship into conservatives and liberals. Rather than looking at the problem as a case of right or wrong, one needs to appreciate that though both sides are sincere in their approach, everybody possesses certain theological presuppositions that affect the approach to an understanding of God’s Word and, in this case, the Epistle to the Ephesians.
Above all, one should avoid concluding that deutero-Pauline authorship of Ephesians makes this a false document that, consequently, has no inspiration, validity, or authority for the church today. Once the motives of a deutero-Paulinist are properly understood and appreciated, Ephesians can speak to the church with the same authority as Paul himself. The church retained and canonized the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, even though its author is anonymous.[13]
Although the matter of authorship has had a negative effect, polarizing scholarship, there have been two striking positive results with respect to studies in Ephesians: First, the detailed linguistic, literary, and theological study of the epistle has led to a new appreciation of its value to the church. A. M. Hunter includes several centuries of thought when he writes: “John Calvin called it his favourite epistle; Coleridge pronounced it ‘one of the divinest compositions of man’; Dr John Mackay has said, ‘To this book I owe my life,’ and C. H. Dodd has named it ‘the crown of Paulinism.’ ”[14]
Beyond such a eulogy, it is not unusual to discover other accolades, namely, “The Queen of the Epistles,” “the quintessence of Paulinism,” “The Epistle of the Ascension.”[15] J. N. Sanders considers this book Paul’s spiritual testament to the church, “the final summing up of the apostle’s life, work and thought.”[16]
Second, new studies on the nature, purpose, and content of the epistle have been produced. Of the more significant theories are those suggesting that it is a summary of Paul’s theology, a reminder and congratulation, an antiheretical tract, a liturgical document, a discourse on the unity of the church.
Though most of these insights do not depend upon Pauline authorship and can be appreciated by everyone, one idea is that Ephesians is a comprehensive summary of Paul’s theology or a commendation of Paul’s theology to the church of another generation (Beare; Mitton). R. P. Martin, writing in the Broadman Commentary, sees the author “gathering a compendium of Paul’s teaching on the theme of Christ-in-his-church; and added to this body of teaching a number of liturgical elements (prayers, hymns, and confessions of faith) drawn from the worshiping life of the apostolic communities with which he was himself familiar.”[17]
One of the most ingenious and elaborate theories in this regard is by E. J. Goodspeed. Vexed by the internal and external problems of Ephesians, Goodspeed suggested that the epistle was written by Onesimus (former slave and later bishop of the Ephesian church) as a cover or introductory letter for the collection of Paul’s epistles (corpus) that was made near the end of the first century after the publication of Acts had created a new interest in Paul. For Goodspeed, Ephesians is “a rhapsody on the worth of salvation,” “a mosaic of Pauline material,” “a Pauline anthology.”[18] The strength of Goodspeed’s hypothesis lies more in his understanding of the nature of Ephesians than its purpose.
Some of Goodspeed’s insights on the linguistic and literary peculiarities in Ephesians paved the way for other studies. Consequently, it is not unusual for scholars to see the epistle as a summary of Paul’s thought to a later generation even if it is not some kind of cover letter for the Pauline corpus. The key to the deutero-Pauline hypothesis, however, is that the author is more than just a collector of Pauline ideas from his genuine epistles; he is “an independently acting and judging theologian of Pauline stamp.”[19]
The theory that it is a reminder and congratulation is largely promoted by N. A. Dahl, who understands Ephesians to be addressing the problem of disunity in the church. Consequently, the author appeals for unity by calling the churches back to their beginnings and reminding them that they too share in the privileges that God granted to the Jews. Based upon his understanding of the concepts of “once” and “now” in the epistle, Dahl suggests that Ephesians is “a letter of reminder and congratulation, i.e., not so much as some abstract doctrine on the church, but rather as simply reminding us that we do indeed belong to the church, the body of Christ, and asking us to dwell on all that that implies.”[20]
The value of Ephesians for Dahl is that, although its original message had a definite historical context, it can be universalized to speak to the church in every generation: “For the letter to the Ephesians is a congratulation for and a reminder of the sum total of what has been given to us.”[21]
As such, the letter presents the reader with both a privilege and responsibility: Believers are privileged to have received such a rich inheritance in Christ. This, however, should not lead to spiritual pride or Christian triumphalism, because believers are reminded of the “once you were” of their lives. The “now you are” is the ethical imperative to live out the new life responsibly.
The view that it is an antiheretical tract includes a vast array of scholarly opinion on the nature and purpose of Ephesians. Some scholars, such as F. C. Baur, P. Pokorný, H. Schlier, E. Käsemann, H. Conzelmann, and F. Mussner, believe that the epistle can best be understood within the context of first-century Gnosticism.[22] They find Ephesians to contain a large number of Gnostic terms (“knowledge,” “fullness,” “mystery,” “perfection,” “body,” “new man,” “heavenly union,” “revelation,” “principalities and powers”) and concepts (dualism, cosmology, and ethics). These scholars are not suggesting that the author is a Gnostic or that Ephesians is a Gnostic tract; rather, they believe that the author transfers Gnostic language and thought to the church in order to counter this heresy, which was threatening the church. His method is to provide a point of contact with the readers, but in the process he gives these words and concepts new meaning: “Ephesians turns Gnostic language against Gnosticism.”[23]
In this process, scholars such as H. Schlier and F. Beare see the author developing a distinct Christian “gnōsis” (a theory of knowledge) that explained such things as a knowledge of God, humanity, and the world. Schlier went so far as to call Ephesians a meditation on the wisdom of the mystery of Christ—a “Weisheitsrede or Sophiarede.”[24]
All this research has opened up another possibility for understanding the nature and purpose of Ephesians. Unfortunately, not enough is known about first-century Gnosticism to conclude whether the author was confronting this heresy directly or just utilizing the language and concepts of his day.[25]
Another group of scholars has sought to explain the origin of Ephesians on the basis of parallels to the language and theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls—that body of literature belonging to the Qumran community. So far, the most valuable contributions have come from individuals like K. G. Kuhn, J. Murphy-O’Connor, and F. Mussner.[26]
These scholars have made extensive comparisons between Ephesians and the Dead Sea Scrolls regarding the hymnic and paraenetic (exhortative material) structure; general concepts like cosmology, creation, dualism, evil; and specific parallels, such as the mystery, saints, temple of God, and so forth.[27] Most of these scholars hoped to establish direct literary influence by Qumran on Ephesians. Murphy-O’Connor went so far as to suggest that Ephesians was written by an amanuensis of Paul who had come from the ranks of the Essenes.[28]
Unfortunately, the evidence does not permit one to come to any definite conclusions regarding the literary connections between Ephesians and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The author of this epistle may simply be using expressions that were common in his day and that he and the writers of the scrolls used independently. For Barth, “Ephesians in toto is neither in form nor in substance any more closely related to Qumran than any other key passages in undisputed Pauline writings.”[29]
This brief survey is intended to show that Gnostic and Qumran parallels have received considerable attention and serve as a framework out of which a number of scholars seek to explain the epistle. If the author is consciously combating Gnosticism, then Ephesians could be called an anti-Gnostic tract. With respect to the relationship between Ephesians and Qumran, however, it does not appear that the author is addressing a heretical threat to the church. In this case, he may simply belong to the same literary tradition as that of Qumran.
An analysis of the stylistic features of Ephesians has led a number of scholars to propose that this is some kind of liturgical document rather than an epistle. Moffatt, for example, refers to Ephesians as a “homily” rather than a letter.[30] And, on the basis of stylistic features such as the hymnic material, long sentences, and the piling up of synonyms, Martin calls this an exalted prose-poem, “a typical early Christian liturgy.”[31] J. Kirby’s work on Ephesians led him to conclude that the epistle is a prayer and a discourse cast into the form of a letter.[32]
Although some hymnic elements of Ephesians were identified quite early by scholars such as M. Dibelius, E. Lohmeyer, and T. Innitzer, the extensiveness and function of hymnic-catechetical-liturgical material in Ephesians had not been explored until recently.[33] Many scholars concur that the utilization of so much traditional material directs Ephesians toward a liturgical function in the church. But just what that function was varies from scholar to scholar.
Kirby, for example, claims that the author writes chapters 1–3 in the form of a Jewish berakah (blessing), possibly to be used at the celebration of the Eucharist. Beyond that, the epistle incorporates liturgical material from the church of Ephesus, particularly that which was used for the renewal of the covenant to celebrate Pentecost.[34] N. A. Dahl, in a number of his writings, has proposed that Ephesians is a baptismal letter.[35] This theory has found popular acceptance among a number of NT scholars who believe that the epistle can best be understood in a baptismal setting.
References to the baptismal nature of Ephesians will be made throughout the commentary. It is my opinion that even though Ephesians employs a significant amount of baptismal imagery, it was not written as a baptismal tract to be used in celebrating baptism or giving baptismal candidates catechetical instruction; rather, baptismal language and theology are used to develop the author’s theme of unity in the church.
A number of scholars, among them C. L. Mitton, do not attempt to identify the purpose of Ephesians with any specific event such as baptism, the Eucharist, or Pentecost. The writer used this liturgical style, according to Mitton, because he has the worshiping congregation in mind; he knows that they will be reading this letter in the context of worship and prayer. Consequently, “he phrased what he wrote in a style suitable for the hearer and the worshipper rather than the private reader. This would lead him to use a declaratory style—what today is often called a liturgical style. It would not be surprising if he incorporated here and there snatches from a familiar hymn or a phrase from a creedal affirmation; but the liturgical style comes not so much from his borrowings as from his awareness of the context in which his writing would be used.”[36]
A Discourse on the Unity of the Church
Anyone reading Ephesians will soon become aware that the church (ekklēsia) is given considerable attention:
a. It is mentioned nine times (Greek text, 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32).
b. It is discussed by means of various metaphors: biological (the body of Christ: 1:22, 23; 2:16; 4:4, 12, 16; 5:23, 30), architectural (the holy temple: 2:20–22; 4:12, 16), and social (the bride: 5:21–33).
c. It has a universal rather than local meaning. Here “church” is the new creation and the universal society consisting of Jews and Gentiles, not the local congregation “in Ephesus.” This also is demonstrated by the transcendental status that believers have in the church because of the realized eschatology in the epistle. “The church shared the heavenly life of its exalted Lord even now in this age (1:22; 2:6; 5:27).”[37] It has a message that is valid for all generations, including the principalities and powers (3:10).
d. The church (body) and Christ (head) are united and interdependent rather than the Head simply being one of many members, as in Romans 12:4, 5, and 1 Corinthians 12:12–26. These observations make one aware that the teaching of the church in Ephesians is both important and new. Basically, the creation of this “one new man” shows that God has acted historically to unite humankind and that the church is a witness to God’s ultimate plan to unite all things in Christ (1:10, 22, 23; 2:14–16). The church is, as John Stott so perceptively entitled his book, God’s New Society.
Since the unity of the church has received so much attention in Ephesians, one naturally wonders what historical and theological factors led to that emphasis. One suggestion relates this theme to the problem of Gnosticism, which essentially de-historicized Christianity into timeless myths. Thus the author seeks to ground the Christian life in the verities of history and to show that the church is a historical witness of God’s redemptive activity through Christ.
But the focus of scholarly speculation on the occasion and purpose of Ephesians centers more around the problem of Jewish-Gentile relations. Both Jews and Gentiles were becoming Christians, but there were some basic differences in their understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
One opinion sees the theme of unity in Ephesians necessitated by the problem of Jewish exclusivism in the early church. Basically, this is the negative attitude on the part of Jewish believers toward the Gentiles who were becoming Christians. Given their adherence to some of the prescriptions in the law (Torah)—particularly circumcision and Jewish food laws—some Jewish believers felt that Gentiles had to obey these Jewish laws when they became Christians. This was a threat to the gospel that Paul preached and would have made Christianity a sect of Judaism.
This problem of Jewish exclusivism is described and dealt with at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:1–35 and in Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Galatians. The council decided that Paul could evangelize the Gentiles without requiring them to be circumcised or to adhere to Jewish dietary laws (cf. Acts 15:19–29; Gal. 2). The heart of Paul’s gospel is marked by inclusivism rather than exclusivism; it is a gospel characterized by faith in Jesus Christ, not works of the law—that is, circumcision and food laws; both Jews and Gentiles participate in Jesus Christ, and in him there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28).
Though the guidelines for Paul’s gospel were established at the Jerusalem council, Jewish exclusivism continued, making it necessary to apply these principles in Paul’s churches. Consequently, a major theme in Romans is that the Gentiles had as much right to receive salvation from God as did the Jews; they have been grafted into the “olive tree,” which, at one time, had been the exclusive right of the Jews (11:13–24).
In Galatians, Paul faces a similar problem of Jewish exclusivism. His answer to the Jews is that the Gentiles are justified before God by virtue of their “faith in Jesus Christ,” not by “observing the law” (2:16). In other words, Gentiles are not required to “live Jewishly” by submitting to circumcision and observing Jewish food laws.[38]
Could it be that the problem of Jewish exclusivism lies behind the writing of Ephesians? Did the religious and social barriers that separated Jews and Gentiles and that led to Jewish exclusivism continue to operate in spite of Paul’s earlier clarification of the gospel? Is Ephesians a final attempt to destroy Jewish bigotry by reaffirming Paul’s universal vision and showing that the essence of the “mystery” is that Jewish and Gentile believers have been united in one body?
Most of the content of Ephesians could be interpreted as a message to Gentile believers that they have no need to feel excluded from God’s people. True, at one time their lives were characterized by disobedience and sin (2:1–3); they were called—probably disparagingly—“ ‘uncircumcised’ by those who call themselves the ‘circumcision’ ” (2:11); they were “foreigners” who were “excluded from citizenship in Israel” and as such had no part in the covenants, were without hope and without God (2:12). But the central message of Ephesians is that this is no longer true because in Christ they have been brought near (2:13), and “the law with its commandments and regulations” (circumcision and dietary restrictions) that separated Jews from Gentiles, has been broken down (2:14, 15).
The end result of God’s redemptive activity is the union of Jew and Gentile in the church. This is more than the picture of grafting provided by the imagery of the olive tree in Romans 11:13–24. The union between Jews and Gentiles is not effected by Gentiles becoming Jews but by the creation of a “new man,” the church, that includes both Jew and Gentile (2:15; 3:6). Ephesians clearly teaches that the Gentiles have every right to be considered members of the body of Christ.
Another and more popular approach is to look at Ephesians from the perspective of Gentile exclusivism. H. Chadwick has suggested that the letter was written to correct a spiritual misunderstanding that had arisen within post-Pauline Christianity.[39] Apparently, the Gentile congregations had divorced themselves from the salvation-history of the Jewish Christians and considered themselves a separate spiritual entity. According to Chadwick, Ephesians insists upon the continuity of Gentile Christianity with Judaism and teaches that Jew and Gentile have been united in Christ.
Chadwick’s interpretation is similar to the view of E. Käsemann, who believes that the author of Ephesians needs to remind the Gentile Christians of their roots and of the historical origin of the gospel because they were despising their Jewish fellow believers. In this respect, the epistle elaborates upon a theme that is briefly discussed by Paul in Romans 11, namely, the incorporation of Gentiles into Jewish Christianity.[40]
All this, however, does not provide any clue as to what occasioned such strained relations between Jewish and Gentile believers. W. Grundmann attempts to make a historical connection with the migration of Jewish Christians to Asia Minor after the Jewish war and argues that the influx of this Jewish-Christian circle into the predominantly Gentile-Christian churches of Asia Minor led to a split that a Pauline pupil sought to bridge in Ephesians with the application of Pauline thoughts about the unity of these two groups.[41]
A more recent theory by K. M. Fischer attempts to locate the problem of a Jewish and Gentile schism in the church within the context of the Roman Jewish war during the years preceding and following the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[42] This war threatened the close relationship between Jewish (synagogue) and Gentile (church) believers because the Gentiles felt that they had to disassociate themselves from all forms of Jewish nationalism (the Zealots) so as not to raise suspicions and risk reprisals from the Roman authorities.
The author of Ephesians, according to Fischer, addresses this situation. Whereas Paul had argued for the inclusion of the Gentiles into the church without their becoming Jews (Rom. 9–11; Gal. 1–3), “the author of Ephesians uses Paul’s name to argue for the inclusion of Jewish Christians in the community without assimilation to the views of the Gentile majority. When Paul had argued for the inclusion of gentiles qua gentiles, the author of Ephesians argued for the inclusion of Jewish Christians qua Jewish Christians.”[43]
Unfortunately, all these views are highly conjectural, and one is forced to agree with W. G. Kümmel that the concrete situation that occasioned “this reworking of the Pauline message by emphasizing the unity of the church comprised of Gentiles and Jews cannot now be perceived.”[44] All one can envision is some kind of spiritual crisis in post-Pauline Gentile Christianity that necessitated an emphasis upon the universal church consisting of Jews and Gentiles.
From the perspective of Gentile exclusivism, these Christians were reminded not to disregard their spiritual heritage with Israel. In their pagan state they were separated from the Jews and had no point of contact with God’s covenant people (2:11ff.). But through Christ and in the church, they have become “fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (2:19; 3:6). If the Jews had no right to exclude them from the church, then it was equally wrong for them to disregard the Jews!
Perhaps Ephesians has a dual message: A deutero-Paulinist could be extending Paul’s vision of a universal and united church that includes the incorporation of the Gentiles while at the same time reminding them that they are part of God’s history of salvation. “Ephesians,” writes Barth, “more than any other New Testament epistle, will press the point that Gentiles receive no salvation other than the one they share with Israel and receive through the Messiah. It is the salvation first promised and given to this people alone: Israel.”[45]
Failure to identify the concrete situation that occasioned the epistle does not, however, detract from the fact that unity is its dominant theme. Although some of this has already been mentioned, there are some specific characteristics of Ephesians that make this obvious and by which the author develops this theme:
a. The source of all unity is in the elective will and purpose of God (1:4, 5, 10; 3:11).
b. Christ is the agent by which or through whom this unity is accomplished. According to J. A. Allan, the phrase “in Christ,” “in whom,” and so on is used thirty-four times in Ephesians.
c. There are twelve occurrences of the word “one” (hen) in the Greek text (“the two one,” 2:14; “one new man,” 2:15; “one body,” 2:16; 4:4; “one Spirit,” 2:18; 4:4; “one hope,” 4:4; “one Lord,” 4:5; “one faith,” 4:5; “one baptism,” 4:5; “one God and Father,” 4:6; “each one of us,” 4:7; “each part,” 4:16; “each one of you,” 5:33); also, the force of ana in anakephalaioō (1:10) is “one by one,” bringing separate items into a single whole.
d. The preposition syn (“with,” “together with”) is used with a number of verbs and nouns. In some cases, these words are used in connection with the believers’ union with Christ, such as he “made us alive with Christ” (synezōopoieō, 2:5), “God raised us up with Christ” (synegeirō, 2:6), he seated us in the heavenlies (synkathizō, 2:6).
The syn nouns are also used to describe the fact that the Gentiles are “joined together” (synarmologeō, 2:21; 4:16), “held together,” (symbibazō, 4:16), and “are being built together [synoikodomeō] to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit” (2:22). Consequently, they are “heirs together” (synklēronomos, 3:6), “members together of one body” (syssōmos, 3:6), and partners (symmetochos, 3:6). On two occasions there is a negative use of these compound words: The believers are not to become partners (symmetochos, 5:7) with immoral people or join together in fellowship (synkoinōneō, 5:11) with the heathen.
e. Considerable attention is given to the concept of peace. Apart from the standard greeting (1:2) and farewell (6:23), peace is central to the idea of reconciliation and unity between Jews and Gentiles (2:14, 15, 17) and is essential for maintaining the unity of the body (4:3). Finally, believers are to arm themselves with “the gospel of peace” (6:15).
f. The Greek word for “unity” (enotēs) occurs twice in Ephesians (4:3, 13) and nowhere else in the NT.
g. Apart from these specific examples, there are some general observations that appear to accentuate the need and the possibility for unity: The ethical exhortations are given to the church as a means of maintaining the unity and peace that was brought about by Christ (4:1–6); the gifts of the Spirit show that there can be unity and singleness of purpose in the midst of diversity; believers in the body of Christ “put away” those vices that harm interpersonal relationships (4:25); rather than promoting individualism, life in the church is a joyful sharing together in the common elements of worship (5:15–20); and finally, the principle of submission is given, so that the different members of the household can live together in unity, peace, and love (5:21–6:9).
The attention given to this theme has led H. von Soden to view Ephesians as a “hymn of unity.”[46] One dimension of that theme is ecclesiological: Jew and Gentile have been brought together into one body, the church. The other dimension is cosmological: The church is a witness to the cosmic powers (3:10) that God’s ultimate purpose of bringing all creation together is being accomplished (1:10, 22, 23).
Throughout the epistle the author uses the language and theology of baptism to develop the theme of unity. He considers baptism to be the rite by which one participates in Christ (2:5–10) and thus partakes of all the blessings of God (1:3–14; 2:13ff.; 5:8ff.). Furthermore, the appearance of the one baptism in 4:5 as one of the foundational principles of the unity of the church demonstrates the importance of this sacrament for the author and his agreement with the tradition of the early church in considering baptism a sacrament of unity (1 Cor. 1:13ff.; 12:12, 13; Gal. 3:27, 28; Col. 3:10, 11).
The act of baptism is also used to describe the change of status from pagan to believer. The author accentuates this change by contrasting what his readers once were (2:1ff., 11ff.; 5:8a) and what they have now become in Christ (2:4ff., 13ff., 5:8bff.) This also is in keeping with the view of the early church that interpreted baptism as participation in the events of Christ (indicative) and the beginning of a new ethical life (imperative; cf. Rom. 6:1–11; 2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:3; Titus 3:5–7).
Ephesians contains a large amount of paraenetic material (4:1–3; 4:17–5:20; 5:21–6:9) that probably belonged to the common catechetical tradition of the early church. The author uses these exhortations to expound upon the nature of the new life in Christ and to show the unifying effect this ethical action is to have upon all human relationships in the church (4:3, 15, 16, 25–32; 5:31–33).
From the preceding discussion it becomes obvious that all questions about Ephesians are related to the question of authorship. If Ephesians is written by Paul, the following conclusions are possible:
Origin. Ephesians is one of the “captivity epistles,” written while Paul was in prison. The NT records a brief imprisonment in Philippi (Acts 16:19–33), two years in Caesarea (Acts 23:23–26:32), and two years in Rome before the end of Paul’s life (Acts 28:16–31).[47]
Although there is no specific mention of an Ephesian imprisonment, Paul’s references to the suffering and affliction he experiences in Asia (2 Cor. 1:8–10), to other imprisonments (2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23), and his statement, “I fought wild beasts in Ephesus” (1 Cor. 15:32), have been taken to imply an Ephesian imprisonment of some duration. Though this theory has some appeal, it is basically an argument from silence and depends upon its association with Colossians (cf. Introduction to Colossians). The same can be said for an origin from Caesarea (cf. Introduction to Colossians). If it is seen as a Pauline epistle, there is precious little evidence to overthrow the traditional theory that it was written by Paul during his Roman imprisonment. The style and content make more sense if associated with the final years of Paul.
Date. A Roman origin would date the epistle somewhere between A.D. 62 and A.D. 64; if Ephesus, about A.D. 54–57; if Caesarea, about A.D. 59–61.
Destination. Given the problem regarding the phrase “in Ephesus,” the best solution appears to take the epistle as some kind of circular letter that was intended for more than one church but that, in the course of events, became associated with Ephesus.
This identity with Ephesus could be the result of Paul’s personal ministry there as well as the significance of that city as a religious center and capital city in Proconsular Asia. The NT references to Ephesus indicate that it held a strategic position for the missionary activity of the early church (Acts 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:18; 4:12; Rev. 1:11; 2:1–7).
While Paul was teaching in Ephesus (in the “hall of Tyrannus,” Acts 19:9, 10), Epaphras heard the gospel and, as a result of his conversion to Christianity, went back to his home in Colossae and started a church there (Col. 1:7; 4:12). Much the same thing may have happened with the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 1–3 and other cities not mentioned in the NT. A. S. Wood observes that “Ephesus was surrounded by 230 independent communities within the Roman province of Asia. If the Christian faith were firmly established in the capital city, it could be spread from the hub to the rim.”[48]
If Ephesians is the product of a deutero-Paulinist, then the following conclusions are possible:
Origin. The origin must remain highly conjectural. But given the significance of Ephesus as an evangelistic and teaching center for Paul and his “school,” the epistle probably emerged from this location.
Date. The date must be somewhere after Paul’s death (ca. A.D. 64) and before the end of the first century. Since there are some echoes of Ephesians in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (ca. A.D. 95), it must have been written no later than the early 90s.
Destination. Ephesians is a universal letter intended for a number of Gentile churches in Asia Minor, including the Ephesian congregation.
All the internal and external questions surrounding this epistle should not detract from its essential beauty, value, and complete authority for the church. It just happens that there is a uniqueness or elusiveness about it that makes it difficult to categorize or place within the context of Paul’s life. And because it is capable of fitting into more than one historical context, it seems best to regard it as a development of Paul’s vision for a universal and unified church consisting of Jewish and Gentile believers.
§1 The Opening Greeting (Eph. 1:1–2)
1:1 / Except for the omission of Timothy, the opening of this greeting is quite similar to Colossians 1:1. The letter claims to be from Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus. This term was one that Paul used frequently to indicate that he was “one who was sent” (apostellō, “to send”) as a missionary or special envoy of God. It is used of the twelve disciples as well as for others who fulfill an apostolic function, such as Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7). At times, it is applied to Christians who have a very vivid experience of Christ (Acts 1:21, 22; 1 Cor. 9:1). By the time Ephesians was written, it was used primarily for those who were the founders of the Christian church (2:20).
The statement that Paul’s apostleship is by the will of God repeats a theme that Paul emphasizes throughout his epistles: At his commissioning, he and Barnabas are set apart to do the work to which God has called them (Acts 13:2); to the Romans he writes “called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (1:1); to the Galatians he states in no uncertain terms that his call did not come from “men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father” (1:1; cf. also 1:13–16); and though Paul may at times feel unworthy of his calling (1 Cor. 15:9), he affirms that God’s grace has made him what he is (1 Cor. 15:10). This awareness of God’s initiative in his call kept Paul from boasting about his position; it also legitimized his office as an apostle on occasions when his authority was questioned (cf. Galatians and Corinthians).
The readers are identified, first of all, as saints. As such, they are people who are consecrated to God by being separated from sin. Second, they are the faithful in Christ Jesus, i.e., those who are being faithful or trustworthy. The footnote in the NIV text indicates that the Greek pistois (faithful) could also be taken to mean “believers.” Thus the greeting would read “to the saints and believers who are …” Both meanings, however, are expressed within the body of the letter: God’s people are those who have put their faith in Christ (the indicative) and who live out that faith in obedience to the Lord (the imperative).
The text indicates that the letter is addressed to God’s people who live in Ephesus, although the NIV footnote indicates that there is a textual question concerning the inclusion of the phrase in Ephesus. Most likely the destination was not present in the original manuscript because the epistle was intended to be a universal letter to be circulated among a number of churches (see Introduction).
1:2 / The greeting ends with Paul’s usual mention of grace and peace (cf. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; and Titus 1:4 include grace, mercy, and peace). Chairein (“Greetings”) was a common word for greeting in the Greek world (Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1). Paul uses charis (“grace”), which to believers has come to mean God’s free and unmerited goodness upon humankind.
The Hebrews greeted each other with šalôm, a common term for “peace” as well as fullness or wholeness of life. The apostle, likewise, is doing more than just greeting his readers with these terms, because grace and peace are gifts of God given through Christ. By bringing these two gifts together, he is urging that his readers enjoy life because of the favor that God freely has bestowed upon them. Both concepts form an important part of the letter (peace: 2:14, 15, 17; 4:3; 6:15; grace: 2:5, 7, 8; 3:2, 7; 4:7).
One cannot help but notice the significant role attached to Christ in these opening verses. Paul is designated as an apostle of Christ Jesus; the believers live their life in Christ Jesus; and together with God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ bestows the divine gifts of grace and peace upon his people.
In the following discussion it will be noted that Ephesians has a number of stylistic features similar to Colossians. First, Ephesians follows the pattern of praise, thanksgiving, and prayer. In Colossians, Paul began by thanking God for his readers (1:3–8) and then praying that God would accomplish certain things in their lives. In Ephesians, there is a similar structure: The epistle begins with a great hymn of praise or thanksgiving to God (1:3–14) and follows up with a long prayer (1:15–2:20) in which the apostle expresses the concern that his readers understand how God has blessed them through Christ.
A second similarity relates to the hymn and its place in the epistle. In Colossians, the ideas of the Christ hymn (1:15–20) were applied again and again throughout the letter. Much the same could be said of Ephesians, for this opening eulogy serves as an excellent preface to the remaining doctrinal section. The idea of redemption is prominent in the phrases dealing with the exaltation of Christ (1:15–22), salvation by faith (2:1–10), the unity between Jew and Gentile (2:11–22), and the revelation of the mystery of Christ (3:1–12).
Third, Ephesians may be divided conveniently into a doctrinal and a practical section, since we find the author providing a theological base (chapters 1–3) and then applying these truths to the Christian life (chapters 4–6). Such divisions, however, should not be taken too rigidly, for one finds ethical exhortations in the midst of doctrinal discussion (e.g., 1:4; 2:10) and doctrinal teaching continues throughout the last chapters (4:4–16; 5:21–6:9).
§2 A Hymn of Praise (Eph. 1:3–14)
Many elevated words and phrases have been used to describe the beauty of this opening hymn that praises God for the spiritual blessings he has bestowed upon the believer in Christ. Stott, in his commentary (p. 32), quotes a number of authors who use such phrases as “a magnificent gateway,” “a golden chain of links,” “a kaleidoscope of dazzling lights and shifting colors,” a “rhapsodic adoration,” a “paean of praise.”
Unfortunately, the English translations do not retain the hymnic nature and rhythmic pattern that is discernible in the original language. In the Greek, for example, the entire section of twelve verses is one long sentence. This helps one to appreciate how the author’s thoughts keep moving to new heights. Having to divide the section into sentences (RSV and NIV, eight; NEB, eight; GNB, fifteen) destroys the continuity of both style and thought.
A number of proposals have been offered with respect to the origin of the hymn. Those who take the Ephesian letter to be genuinely Pauline naturally attribute these verses to the great apostle. Scholars who question Pauline authorship suggest that an author writing in Paul’s name borrowed terms and phrases from Paul’s other epistles and composed a hymn that resembles something that Paul would have written.
The search for origins and models has moved in a number of directions. J. Kirby believes that this passage is modeled after a Jewish berakah (“blessing”) in which God is praised for his goodness. Others have noted the strong liturgical nature of the passage and have suggested that it belongs to the worshiping community. As such, either it could have a prior and independent existence apart from Ephesians or it could have been written by the author to provide a liturgical piece to be used for church worship and instruction (Mitton, pp. 22–24).
A number of scholars who have tried to explain the origin of Ephesians from a baptismal context have focused their attention on this particular hymnic section. In the hymn, the author utilizes baptismal terms and concepts such as sonship (1:5), redemption (1:7), and sealing (1:13). The most likely explanation for this is that the writer is drawing upon baptismal theology to thank God for all the blessings of redemption that he has provided through Christ to those who have believed. Since the passage is a hymn, it is quite possible to regard it as a baptismal hymn that may have been part of the worshiping tradition in the early church and that the author took over and incorporated into his redemptive doxology. The baptismal motifs in this hymn have been so convincing to some scholars that they have concluded that the entire epistle was written as a baptismal tract or at least connected with the celebration of baptism in the church.
From the baptismal nature of this opening hymn, however, it does not necessarily follow that the occasion of this epistle is to instruct the readers on the meaning of their baptism. If this were the purpose, one might expect baptism to be mentioned more explicitly, for as it stands, the word “baptism” occurs only once (4:5). Rather, the author finds the baptismal motifs and language appropriate to describe to his readers all the blessings that God has bestowed in Christ. The early church understood baptism to be the act in which the believer appropriates in faith the blessings of redemption in Christ. Thus it was sufficient for him to allude to baptism but not to define its meaning directly.
Another noticeable feature of the hymn is the place that it gives to all three members of the Trinity. In a broad sense, the work of the Father is described in verses 3–6; the Son, in verses 7–12; and the Holy Spirit, in verses 13–14. But all three persons permeate the entire passage. God is the source of all the spiritual blessings mentioned in the hymn; Christ is the agent in whom these blessings are realized for the believer. The name “Christ”—or some form of that name, or the personal pronoun “in him”—occurs thirteen times in this passage. All that God has purposed for the believer is fulfilled in Christ. The Holy Spirit is mentioned as the one who seals or marks the believer as belonging to Christ. And, since the blessings that are enumerated in this passage are “spiritual,” they are given by the “Spirit.”
1:3 / Praise be: The Greek word is eulogētos, which carries the meaning of speaking (legō) well or kindly (eu) of someone. In this context, the phrase could be expressed as “thanks be,” “blessed be,” as well as praise be to God. In the NT, the word is used exclusively for God, since he alone is worthy to be blessed; he is blessed because he is the author of all the blessings that he bestows upon the believer in Christ. Since such forms of blessings were common among the Jews, this passage may have a Jewish antecedent.
Praise is given to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). Grammatically, the phrase could read, “God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” As such, it indicates the unique relationship that God and Christ have to each other. In the context of the NT, believers call God “Father” because of the sonship that is received through Christ (cf. 1:5; Rom. 8:14–17; Gal. 4:6, 7).
Who has blessed us: It is important to note that this is in the past (Greek aorist) tense, meaning that the author is envisioning a time when God acted to provide these blessings rather than anticipating that God will do something in the future. These blessings became a reality for the believers in Christ—that is, in baptism.
The nature or essence of the blessing is spiritual. Although the word is singular (every spiritual blessing), it needs to be understood as a comprehensive phrase: God’s blessings are unlimited, and he does not withhold anything from his people. The sphere of these blessings is the heavenly realms. Thus, the reference is not to material, physical, or temporal blessings: They are not part of one’s treasure “where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matt. 6:19). As spiritual gifts in the heavenly world, they are imperishable and belong to the eternal order “where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matt. 6:20).
The phrase in the heavenly realms is a translation of the Greek “in the heavenlies” (en tois epouraniois). Since it is an adjective without a noun, English translations supply such terms as “world” (GNB), “places” (RSV), or realms (NIV). This clarification, however, should not lead one to conclude that Paul has a geographical place or cosmic location in mind somewhere in the universe above the earth. Heavenlies is a term signifying the spiritual world, that is, the unseen world of spiritual reality and activity. This is the sphere in which the believers are blessed. The other four occurrences of “heavenly realms” in the epistle (1:20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12) help to express this idea more clearly.
In the ancient world, it was believed that there was a great cosmic struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Generally, the heavens were considered to be the place where this battle between the evil rulers, principalities, powers, and ruling spirits of the universe (stoicheia tou kosmou) was being waged. A significant part of the message in Colossians is that these spiritual forces are inferior to Christ in the order of creation (Col. 1:16) as well as subject to Christ through his victory on the cross, where Christ “having disarmed the powers and authorities, … made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col. 2:15). Ephesians continues these ideas by teaching that, because of Christ’s victory over these evil powers, he is exalted to God’s right hand “far above all rule and authority, powers and dominion” (1:20, 21). Furthermore, these powers are learning of God’s wisdom through the witness of the church (3:10).
Ephesians teaches that believers are involved in a similar battle: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (6:12). But by virtue of their union with Christ, they share in Christ’s victory and likewise rule with Christ in the heavenly world (2:6). In fact, all the blessings that are enumerated in this passage are either fulfilled in union with Christ or are mediated through the agency of Christ.
1:4 / The first specific blessing mentioned is what is known in theological circles as election or predestination. Basically, this doctrine affirms that God has taken the initiative in the “electing” or “choosing” process. In the OT, God chooses Israel from among all the nations of the earth to be his covenant people (Deut. 4:37; 7:6, 7; Isa. 44:1, 2); in the NT, God chooses people to become members of the new covenant, the church (John 15:16; Rom. 8:29; 9:11; Eph. 1:4, 5; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:2); and individuals such as Jeremiah (1:5) and Paul (1 Cor. 15:9–11) believed that even their vocation was destined by God.
Unfortunately, the Christian church has become polarized into theological camps over this doctrine. Some (namely, the Calvinists) have placed all the emphasis upon the sovereign grace of God in matters of salvation; others (namely, the Arminians) have emphasized human free will in the salvation process. Since the Bible does not attempt to harmonize this apparent paradox, it continues to remain one of the more divisive and speculative “mysteries” of the Christian faith.
When dealing with this issue, one should avoid the extremes in theory and practice that so often characterize adherents of one view or another. Election to salvation does not imply that God, therefore, predestines the rest of humanity to damnation; nor should election lead to spiritual pride among the elect. Election simply affirms that personal faith rests upon the prior work (grace) of God, so that, with respect to salvation, God has taken the initiative to claim a people for himself. An individual is free to choose God only because God has already decided for such a person from eternity. Likewise, election should not lead to spiritual complacency; it is a privilege and responsibility that is unto holiness of life and for good works (1:4; 2:10).
The author indicates that God’s intention for the salvation of humanity precedes the creation of the world and the historical process (for he chose us in him before the creation of the world). When Paul, a member of the church and a chosen apostle to the Gentiles, reflects upon the doctrine of election, he may be reasoning in the following way: “How did I, a Pharisee and a former persecutor of Christians, get to be what I am? How is it that the Jews—and now the Gentiles—have become part of God’s family? Surely it is not because of some national merit or personal attainment through faith or good works! This had to be God’s doing. He knew from eternity how he would work in me and in the world; it was not a last-minute decision that the Gentiles were to become heirs of salvation” (3:6). When the apostle writes to the Corinthians about their new existence in Christ, for example, he states: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17–19).
Stott makes a helpful comment by drawing attention to the relationship of the three pronouns in the phrase he chose us in him. God chose us, even before we were created, to be redeemed through the work of Christ that had not yet taken place (Stott, p. 36). Such, however, is the marvel of God’s elective grace toward the human race.
The goal of election is that the believer be holy and blameless before God. This phrase is similar to Colossians 1:2 and may be part of the OT sacrificial language that the NT uses on other occasions (cf. 5:27; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19; Jude 24). In some cases, the doctrine of predestination has led to moral license rather than personal holiness. Not a few believers have reasoned that since they are “eternally secure,” their ethical life is no longer of concern to God or to other people. This reasoning, however, is unfortunate, because the believers’ standing before God and election (the indicative) are demonstrated by the kind of life that they live ethically (the imperative).
1:5 / It is difficult to know what to do with the phrase in love. The NIV (as RSV, GNB) takes it to go with verse 5, thereby indicating that God’s choosing was motivated by his love. On the basis of this love, God predestined us to be adopted as his sons and daughters through Jesus Christ. But the phrase could be taken with the action described in verse 4, as humanity’s love to God rather than God’s love for humanity. Thus the meaning would be that believers should be holy and without fault before him in love (en agapē). Agapē is used elsewhere in Ephesians for Christian love (3:17; 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2). Still, it is fitting to mention God’s love so early in the epistle, and that this is what motivated him to decide (lit., “foreordain”) to redeem humanity: adopted as his sons and daughters … in accordance with his pleasure and will.
Sonship—referring to being a child of God (i.e., eligible to inherit his promises)—is the second blessing listed in this passage, and this, too, is a gift mediated through Jesus Christ. Paul uses this term in Romans 8:15, 23, 29, and Galatians 4:5 to indicate the special relationship that believers have to God. Here sonship is tied in with God’s elective purpose for humanity.
The language of this passage is similar to that in the accounts of Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21, 22) and transfiguration (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). In these Gospel accounts of Christ’s baptism, as in Ephesians 1:5 and 6, baptism and sonship are closely related and Christ is given the title “beloved” or the One he loves (1:6). This similarity of language and ideas (sonship, huiothesia; good pleasure, eudokia; and beloved, agapētos) leads one to infer that this reference to the election and sonship of the Christian may have some connection with the baptism of Jesus. Thus one could say that as Jesus was proclaimed Son at his baptism, baptism is the event whereby believers obtain their sonship. This thought is quite explicit in the baptismal passage in Galatians 3:26–27 that states that “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
1:6 / Theology is doxology! In other words, sonship (the indicative) is a summons to praise God for his glorious grace. Literally, from the Greek, the phrase reads, “to the praise of the glory of the grace of him of which he graced us in the beloved.” This reading helps one to see how much emphasis the writer puts upon grace (cf. 1:2). He seems so enraptured by the thought of God’s grace that he does not want to let it go. Also, it is a fitting way to end a section devoted to the work of the Father (1:3–6). That almost identical phrases are used in 1:12 and 1:14 (“the praise of his glory”) confirms the hymnic nature of this entire section.
1:7 / There is a definite parallel here to Colossians 1:14, where redemption and the forgiveness of sins are closely connected. But in Ephesians, the means of redemption is amplified by the phrase through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. The emphasis here is upon forgiveness, which in turn is followed by the resounding response concerning the greatness of God’s grace. Since sonship takes place through baptism, and since sonship and forgiveness are so closely linked in this passage, one wonders if the author still has the baptismal event in mind when he speaks of the forgiveness of sins.
1:8 / The magnitude of God’s grace is amplified in this opening phrase, that he lavished on us (eperisseusen). The poetic nature of the Greek makes it difficult to know whether to attach the following words (with all wisdom and understanding) with verse 8 or verse 9. Is it God’s wisdom and insight (GNB, RSV) or is it wisdom and insight that God, through his grace, has lavished upon believers so that they could understand God’s will (NIV, NEB)? Given the parallel with Colossians 1:9 and the meaning of verse 9, it seems better to take wisdom and insight as coming from God’s grace.
The two terms, wisdom (sophia) and understanding (phronēsis), though not consistently distinguished in Scripture, generally refer to the knowledge of something, followed by the ability to apply that knowledge or wisdom to a right course of action. God has provided the knowledge and ability to know and to do his will.
1:9 / God’s gift of wisdom and insight enables the believer to understand the mystery of his will (cf. GNB: “secret plan”). In Colossians, that mystery meant that the Gentiles were recipients of the gospel and heirs of salvation (1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3). Though this thought appears also in Ephesians (cf. 3:3–6), this epistle carries the concept somewhat further with its emphasis upon the church and the unity of mankind. The revelation is part of God’s eternal plan (his good pleasure which he purposed) and is something that will be accomplished in Christ. As in verse 5, God’s purpose includes his good pleasure as well (cf. eudokia in Luke 2:14; Gal. 1:15). It pleased God to make his plan or will known and to complete that plan in his Son.
1:10 / God’s “good pleasure” is put into effect or administered by Christ (for the use of oikonomia as “management,” “stewardship,” or “administration,” cf. Luke 16:2–4; 1 Cor. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:10). He is the steward through whom God is working out his plan for the world—a plan that is in process and that will be culminated when the times will have reached their fulfillment (lit., “in the fullness of time”).
God’s ultimate plan is to unify all of creation under the headship of Christ. Elsewhere in the epistle, the author talks about bringing the Jews and Gentiles together into one body (2:11, 12; 3:6); here, however, he envisions a global unity. In many ways the words are reminiscent of the Christ hymn in Colossians, in which all things on earth and in heaven are reconciled in Christ (1:20).
It is difficult to know how far one should push this language or attempt to comprehend the scope of the author’s ideas. Are all things (ta panta) and heaven and earth just metaphors for universality, or does he mean the unity of heavenly beings (i.e., angels, principalities, powers, spirits, etc.) with human beings? Is he thinking of a cosmic and earthly renewal characteristic of the end times (Matt. 19:28; Rom. 8:18–25; 2 Pet. 3:10–13)? Although one cannot be sure of the details, it is clear that this hymn praises God that ultimately all things will find their place and unity in Christ.
The difficult word anakephalaiōsasthai is translated appropriately in the NIV to bring … together under one head, even Christ. In secular terms, the word is used for the summation of things, such as adding up numbers in mathematics or concluding an argument in a debate. In today’s language, people speak of “the bottom line” in much the same way. Paul uses the term in Romans 13:9 when he indicates that all of the commandments are being “summed up” in the one command of love.
In Ephesians, however, “addition” or “summation” does not quite express the author’s thought adequately. To bring everything together under one head, even Christ suggests that all things (human beings, history, and the entire universe) find their focus in Christ. This, essentially, is the content of God’s secret plan!
1:11–12 / Up to this point in the hymn (vv. 3–10), the personal pronouns “we” and “us” refer to all Christians, irrespective of ethnic origin. But an important change takes place in the concluding verses of the hymn, where a distinction is made between Jewish and Gentile Christians: In verses 11–12, the “us” with whom the author identifies himself is the Jewish Christians; in verse 13, the “you” definitely refers to the Gentile believers; then the “we” in verse 14 refers to all of God’s people—both Jewish and Gentile believers. The distinctions mentioned here will receive further attention in chapter 2 of the epistle, where it is shown how Jews and Gentiles were brought together into one body in Christ.
When the author describes God’s action upon the Jewish believers, he repeats many of his earlier words and ideas: having been predestined (1:4) according to the plan (cf. 1:5, 9) of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (1:5). With respect to the Jewish Christians, he wants to emphasize that what has happened to them was not by chance or by human merit but is due entirely to the eternal and elective purposes of God in Christ. All is of God!
The NIV In him we were also chosen does not quite capture the essence of the Greek eklērōthēmen. The verb klēroō means “to choose,” “to appoint by lot.” The noun (klēros), therefore, would be “the lot,” “share,” or “portion” that was obtained by lot. The Greek word for “inheritance,” “possession,” or “property” is the cognate word klēronomia (cf 1:14).
Behind this language is the OT concept that Israel was God’s “lot” or “chosen people” (Deut. 4:20; 9:29; 32:9; 1 Kings 8:51; Ps. 106:40; Jer. 10:16; Zech. 2:12). Given the context of verse 11 within a hymn that is celebrating God’s elective purpose, it seems likely that the author is referring to the Jewish Christians as those whom God has chosen as his own people. Now, however, that possession is claimed by virtue of their union with Christ (in him).
While being God’s people may result in praising God through prayer, worship, etc., the phrase in order that we … might be for the praise of his glory suggests that one’s very being or existence is involved. These new people of God are summoned to be a praise to God in the same manner that Israel was called as a nation to declare God’s glory in their life, witness, and worship (Isa. 43:21; Jer. 13:11).
Who are those who were the first to hope in Christ? Some commentators, by virtue of the Greek article with Christ, take the reference to be to the Jewish nation and their expectation of “the Christ,” that is, the coming Messiah; others see the comment applying to those Jews who believed in Christ and became the first Christians. In priority of time, they preceded the Gentiles with their hope (and faith) in Christ. This latter view appears to fit this context where the contrast between Jewish (1:11–12) and Gentile believers (1:13) is being discussed.
1:13 / Here the author turns to the Gentiles and affirms that they, too, were included in Christ. He then proceeds to outline the steps that were involved in their coming to Christ:
First, they heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. On some occasion these readers heard the message of the gospel, which resulted in their salvation. In this context, salvation probably signifies inner renewal and all the blessings and privileges available to believers because of their status in Christ (cf. 2:1ff.) rather than preservation from the wrath of God (cf. Rom. 5:9).
The phraseology of this opening statement is similar to Colossians 1:5 and to the ideas in Romans 10:14 and 17, which show that the proclamation of the gospel precedes faith in the gospel. A similar sequence takes place during Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost when he summons those who heard the gospel to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:37ff.).
Second, they believed in Christ, literally, “in whom also having believed.” Although the content of belief is not mentioned, it definitely must include the person of Christ (“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved,” Rom. 10:9) or the gospel that bears witness to him.
Third, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit. The imagery behind this phrase comes from the ancient custom of sealing (sphragizō), in which personal possessions (e.g., animals, household goods, slaves) received a mark or stamp of ownership in much the same way that things are branded or identified today. This act also confirmed or authenticated something as genuine. A seal on a letter or document, for example, declared that it was legally valid. People belonging to religious cults often were sealed with marks that bore the image of their god(s). The Book of Revelation talks about those who have or do not have “the seal of God on their foreheads” (Rev. 9:4; cf. also 7:2–8; 22:4; 2 Tim. 2:19).
In the NT, there are a number of references that indicate that the Holy Spirit is the Christian’s seal: In Romans, Paul relates the inner witness of the Spirit to the believer’s sonship (8:15, 16; cf. Gal. 4:6), thus affirming that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer is a sign that he or she belongs to God. The apostle is even more explicit in 2 Corinthians 1:22, “[God] set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.” Ephesians 1:13 confirms this by assuring the believer that the seal is the possession of the Holy Spirit. It is a visible attestation that one belongs to Christ.
Although Paul connects the giving of the Holy Spirit to the acts of “hearing” the gospel and “believing” in Christ, there are credible reasons to believe that verse 13 has the baptismal event in mind, even though the term is not mentioned explicitly. First, there is an inseparable connection between faith and baptism in the NT. Baptism is believers’ baptism, and those who believed in Christ expressed their faith almost immediately in baptism (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 35–38; 9:18; 10:47, 48; 19:5). Faith and baptism went so closely together that they were regarded as one act rather than two. Peter, for example, instructs his hearers to repent, that is, to have faith, believe, and to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (2:38). When Paul becomes a Christian, he is told to “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Within the framework of the NT, one was not baptized unless one believed; nor did one believe without being baptized.
Second, the NT connects baptism with the reception of the Holy Spirit. Peter summons his audience to be baptized and receive “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Paul associates baptism and the Holy Spirit on several occasions in his letters (1 Cor. 6:11; 12:13; Titus 3:5). And when Luke describes some of the major epochs in the life of the early Christian church, he includes faith, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Spirit as essential parts of becoming a Christian, that is, of Christian initiation (Acts 2:38ff.; 8:12–17; 19:1–6; cf. 10:44–48). There is no need for a “Spirit baptism” or a rite of confirmation apart from the reception of the Holy Spirit at the time of water baptism.
On the basis of these observations it appears legitimate to interpret 1:13 within the context of baptism. The aorist participles “having heard” (akousantes) and “having believed” (pisteusantes), followed by the aorist passive (“you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”), are reminiscent of the faith, baptism, Holy Spirit pattern noted above. The author does not envision a sequence of events separated by a long period of time.
Although the Holy Spirit is the seal (1:13; 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22), and 1:13 is a strong allusion to baptism, it is by no means certain that sealing is used as a technical term for baptism in Ephesians. The first definite reference to the “seal of baptism” occurs in the second century (ca. A.D. 150) in the Second Letter of Clement (7.6; 8.6). From this time onward, sphragis is the seal received by all Christians at baptism and thus becomes a term for baptism itself.
The effect of the Holy Spirit is to mark the believer with a seal. As a seal, the Spirit marks one out as belonging to Christ. It is interesting to note that this is virtually the same effect that baptism “into Christ” has. To be baptized into the name or person of Christ is to become Christ’s possession, to be placed under the Lord’s authority and protection.
1:14 / In addition to ownership, the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing that believers will receive God’s promises. Most commentators suggest that the idea of guarantee (arrabōn) came into the Greek world from the Phoenicians who, in matters of trade, often would make a deposit or an installment as earnest money with the balance to be paid in full at some later date. This act obliged both buyer and seller to complete the transaction. But “the deal” included a sense of “quality” as well, for the person receiving the down payment looked forward to receiving full payment with goods of the same quality (Mitton, pp. 62–63). In the Christian life, the Holy Spirit is a pledge that God will complete his promise to deliver our inheritance. The statement in 2 Corinthians 5:5 is more specific about this idea: “God … has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.” One’s present life in the Spirit is a foretaste of one’s future and eternal life with the Spirit!
Beyond guaranteeing one’s inheritance, the Holy Spirit assures believers of the redemption of those who are God’s possession. Included in this translation are the two important theological concepts of redemption (apolytrōsis) and possession (peripoiēsis). Some commentators (cf. Abbott, p. 24) believe that the context (our inheritance) requires that possession likewise be “our possession.” Thus, believers are redeemed, but await a future time when they will take full possession of their redemption. This view has led to the ambiguous and inadequate translation in the RSV, “which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.”
Most commentators—and as a result most English translations, like the NIV—think the verse is stressing that God is the agent of redemption and that believers are God’s possession (NIV, NASB), “his own” (NEB), or “those who are his” (GNB). Although redemption is a present gift, the Holy Spirit assures the believer that ultimately God will redeem completely those who are his; he is a guarantee until the complete freedom (redemption) of God’s own people (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9).
These thoughts recall the “already” and the “not yet” aspect of the Christian life. Believers have been given the Holy Spirit, enjoy new life in Christ, have been redeemed, but still await the fulfillment of these blessings at the second Advent. The sealing of the Holy Spirit has an eschatological function that points toward the final day, when their bodies will completely be freed (redeemed) from all the effects of sin. Ephesians 4:30 expands this concept more fully when it refers to “the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” A similar thought concerning redemption is expressed in Romans 8:23, where Paul discusses the future glory of God’s people and God’s creation: “We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”
This great hymn of praise (vv. 3–14) ends with a note that has been sounded several times before with respect to God’s elective purpose for humanity. Hence, election and sonship are to the praise of his glorious grace (v. 6); redemption, and all of its benefits (vv. 7–11), are to culminate in a life of praise (that we … might be for the praise of his glory—v. 12); finally, the pledge of the Holy Spirit is presented in relation to the unfolding plan of God. This, also, is to the praise of his glory (v. 14).
On 1:3–14 cf. J. T. Sanders “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1–3,” ZNW 56 (1965), pp. 214–32. Other specialized studies include V. A. Bartling, “The Church of God’s Eternal Plan: A Study of Ephesians 1:1–14,” Concordia Theological Monthly 36 (1965), pp. 198–204; J. Coutts, “Ephesians 1:3–14 and 1 Peter 1:3–12,” pp. 115–27; N. H. Keathley, “To the Praise of His Glory: Ephesians I,” RevExp 76 (1979), pp. 485–93; P. T. O’Brien, “Ephesians I: An Unusual Introduction to a New Testament Letter,” NTS 25 (1979), pp. 504–16. O’Brien notes that vv. 3–14 have a “didactic intent,” a “paraenetic aim,” and an “epistolary function.”
The following phrases from vv. 3–14 in the NIV indicate the many variations of the “in Christ” statements:
in Christ (v. 3)
in him (en autō, i.e., Christ, v. 4)
through Jesus Christ (v. 5)
in the One he loves (v. 6)
in Christ (v. 9)
under one head, even Christ (v. 10)
in him (v. 11)
in Christ (v. 12)
in Christ (v. 13)
in him (v. 13)
1:3 / Some helpful material on “heavenlies” includes Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion, pp. 146–52; Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 20–22; A. T. Lincoln, “Re-Examination of ‘The Heavenlies’ in Ephesians,” NTS 19 (1973), pp. 468–83. Lincoln gives a good history of interpretation as well as an examination of H. Odeburg’s The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1934). He differs with Odeburg by concluding that 3:10 and 6:12 have a “local” rather than a “spiritual” meaning: “In Ephesians then it would not be surprising if en tois epouraniois were to have a reference to heaven as a distinct part of the created universe but one which retains its concealing relation to the spiritual world and to God himself, and thus also its aspect of incomprehensibility” (p. 480). See also Lincoln’s Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology, SNTSMS 43 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), esp. pp. 135–68.
1:7 / For the association between baptism and the forgiveness of sins in the NT, cf. Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–21 and the disc. on Col. 2:11–15.
1:10 / The ideas in this verse should not be used to promote a doctrine of “universalism” that teaches that all humanity ultimately will be saved (see Stott, God’s New Society, pp. 42–45; Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion, pp. 143ff.; Hanson, on anakephalaiosis, in his The Unity of the Church in the New Testament, pp. 123–25).
1:11–12 / On “we” and “you,” see D. Jayne, “ ‘We’ and ‘You’ in Ephesians,” ExpT 85 (1974), pp. 151–52; R. A. Wilson, “ ‘We’ and ‘You’ in the Epistle to the Ephesians,” Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), pp. 676–80.
1:13 / G. Fitzer, “sphragis,” TDNT, vol. 8, pp. 939–53; P. W. Evans, “Sealing as a Term for Baptism,” The Baptist Quarterly 16 (1955–56), pp. 171–75; J. Ysebaret, Greek Baptismal Terminology (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1962), pp. 182ff.
On water and Spirit baptism, see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962); J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM, 1970).
1:14 / On the “already” and the “not yet” in Paul’s theology, cf. J. D. Hester, Paul’s Concept of Inheritance. Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers No. 14 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1968), esp. pp. 90–104; D. R. Denton, “Inheritance in Paul and Ephesians,” EQ 54 (1982), pp. 157–62; P. L. Hammer, “Comparison of klēronomia in Paul and in Ephesians,” JBL 79 (1960), pp. 267–72.
§3 Prayer for Divine Enlightenment (Eph. 1:15–19)
From the context of 1:15–2:10 it appears that these verses form the next major section of Ephesians. The apostle has just finished recalling the spiritual blessings that God, through Christ, has bestowed upon all believers. From this universal truth, he turns to something more specific: His thoughts move from doxology to prayer; he reminds his readers that he thanks God for them (vv. 15, 16) and that he prays specifically that they will have the necessary wisdom to understand these blessings in Christ (vv. 17–19).
When the apostle begins talking about Christ, however, he seems to abandon the form of prayer and move into an exposition of God’s power as manifested in Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and headship over the church (1:20–23) and as manifested in the new life that he gives to the believer in Christ (2:1–10). It is possible to regard 1:20–3:13 as a long doctrinal parenthesis in which the apostle develops his ideas on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the church (2:11, 12) and expounds upon his personal role as a messenger of the gospel (3:1–13). In 3:14–21 he returns to the form of prayer found in 1:15.
1:15 / For this reason may refer to all that has been said in 1:3–14 about the blessings of God. But the apostle may have something more specific in mind, because he immediately mentions the faith and love of the readers. No doubt his thoughts and prayers go back to the fact that they, as Gentiles, heard the gospel and became God’s people (1:13, 14).
The statement ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus speaks strongly against Ephesus as the destination of the letter, for it is unlikely that Paul would have been so vague and impersonal with people to whom he had ministered for three years (Acts 20:31). This is more what one would expect with Colossians; he does not know that congregation personally and only hears about the church through Epaphras’ report (Col. 1:4, 7, 9). But it is remotely possible that he could be referring to a recent report—perhaps from someone like Epaphras—on the progress of their faith. All that he has heard is that God’s people who are faithful (1:1) have their faith grounded in the Lord Jesus. Faith is given practical expression through their love for all the saints (cf. Col. 1:4); or to state it another way, love toward God’s people is an outgrowth of their faith in Christ. Love, faith, and hope (1:12, 18) appear in Ephesians and in the Pauline epistles as basic Christian graces (cf. Col. 1:5).
1:16 / The report that the apostle has heard drives him to a prayer of thanksgiving for his readers (I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers). The combination of prayer and thanksgiving, as well as constancy in prayer, are characteristic of Paul (Rom. 1:8–10; Phil. 1:3, 4; 4:6; Eph. 5:19, 20; Col. 1:3; 3:15–17; 4:2; 1 Thess. 1:2; 5:18). In this prayer one notes that the petitions become more specific and relate to a deeper understanding and appropriation of the blessings that the readers already possess by virtue of being in Christ.
1:17 / Prayer is made to the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father. Basically, this is a variation of the title of God in 1:3. Christ not only addresses God as his “Father” (Luke 10:21; John 17:1ff.; 20:17) but reveals him as such (John 14–17). Here that revelation is expanded by the phrase the glorious Father. This concept of God received considerable attention in the opening doxology (1:6, 12, 14) and beyond this verse is mentioned again in 1:18; 3:14, 16, 21. God not only is the Father of glory, “but he is the Father to whom all glory belongs.” The glory of God is the full revelation of his attributes, including his majesty and power.
The first request in this prayer is that God will give believers the Spirit of wisdom and revelation so that you may know him better (lit., “in the knowledge of him [God]”). From the Greek, there is no way of knowing that the Holy Spirit is meant by “spirit” (pneuma). Normally, when “the Spirit” is intended, it is preceded by the article the. Without the article some manifestation or gift of the Spirit must be intended, such as the spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4), gentleness (1 Cor. 4:21; Gal. 6:1), truth (John 14:17), or faith (2 Cor. 4:13; e.g., Westcott, p. 24). This accounts for the RSV reading of “spirit” with a small s (cf. NIV text note).
The readers already have received and been sealed in the Holy Spirit at the time of their baptism. This prayer, therefore, is not for the Holy Spirit itself, but for a spirit of wisdom and revelation, which is a special gift, manifestation, or application of the Holy Spirit. This giving of the Spirit will make the readers wise with respect to their understanding (epignōsis) of God. Epignōsis, as contrasted to gnōsis, which normally has a broad application, is “knowledge” limited to religious and moral things, hence directed toward God or the ways of God in some manner. The following verses reveal the spiritual direction of this request and how it is illustrated and developed. To know God is to “be enlightened” (1:18a); enlightenment leads to an understanding of the hope of God’s call (1:18b), God’s blessing (inheritance, 1:18c), and God’s power (1:19), as demonstrated in Christ’s resurrection (1:20) and exaltation (1:21–23).
1:18 / I pray should not be taken as a second request but as a continuation of the prayer that began in 1:17 (the Greek does not repeat the purpose clause): Enlightenment is the result of knowing God and his will more perfectly. Light and knowledge often are linked together in Scripture. Psalm 119:18, for example, is a form of a petition in which the author asks, “Open my eyes that I may see wondrous things in your law.” In the NT, human beings are often depicted as living in darkness and needing the light of Christ or the light of the gospel to change their lives (cf. John 1:9; Acts 26:18; Eph. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 1:7; 2:8ff.).
This illumination takes place—literally—in the eyes of your heart. In biblical language, the “heart” is a comprehensive term used for the entire inward self or personality of an individual, including intellect, will, and emotions (Matt. 5:8; Rom. 10:8–10). Being enlightened by the light of God’s truth affects one’s entire inward being.
One of the problems in the interpretation of this verse is the meaning of “enlightenment.” In the Greek, pephōtismenous is a perfect passive participle that denotes completed action, a present state that has resulted from past action. The tense of the verb here prohibits taking “enlightenment” in a progressive sense—that is, as becoming more and more enlightened. Such an observation leads to an obvious question: When has God acted upon the believer in such a way?
In the NT, the verb phōtizein (“to give light,” “to illuminate”) and the noun phōtismos (“enlightenment,” “illumination”) are used to express the results of spiritual encounter. Christ, for example, is the “true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world” (John 1:9). Second Corinthians 4:4 speaks of “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,” and 4:6 says that “God … made [past tense] his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” In 2 Timothy 1:10, the gospel is the means of bringing “life and immortality to light” (phōtisantos). Illumination, in other words, comes through the reception of the gospel.
On the basis of what has been said previously about the baptismal nature of Ephesians, is it possible that the author is thinking of baptism as the time when the believer was “enlightened”? It certainly is an appropriate term for baptism inasmuch as those who receive the light of God’s word are baptized and in their baptism are given the Holy Spirit and its gift of wisdom and understanding (1:17).
Hebrews and 1 Peter provide some interesting insights on this point. In 1 Peter, an epistle that many scholars associate with baptism, the writer speaks of believers as “a people belonging to God” whom God called “out of darkness into his wonderful light” (2:9; cf. Eph. 5:8 and the disc. of 5:8–14 as a baptismal liturgy). On two occasions, Hebrews uses “enlightenment” in the past tense: In 6:4 it occurs in the context of teaching about “baptism” (cf. 6:2) and leads the author to state, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened [phōtisthentas], who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, … if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance.” In 10:32 he summons his readers to “remember those earlier days after you had received the light [phōtisthentas], when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering.”
Although the NT speaks of enlightenment in ways unconnected with baptism, Hebrews 6:4 and 10:32, 1 Peter 2:9, and Ephesians 5:8–14 provide some textual evidence to indicate that a connection was made and that “enlightenment” in Ephesians 1:18 could refer to baptism. In the second and third centuries, enlightenment definitely became a technical term for this Christian rite.
The prayer for enlightenment leads to a number of specific requests: first, that the readers will know the hope to which God has called them. Hope, here, is not some subjective feeling or personal aspiration such as “I hope that” or “I hope for” (cf. 1:12). Rather, it is an objective element that belongs to the believer. Elsewhere in Scripture, it is a deposit in heaven (Col. 1:5), Christ in the Christian (Col. 1:27), something “offered to” the believer (Heb. 6:18), and the second Advent (Titus 2:13). In this context, the author prays that his readers will have wisdom, understanding, and enlightenment to know the full meaning of their call from God (cf. 4:4) and the assurance that their life in Christ and sealing with the Holy Spirit brings.
A second request is that they will know the riches of his glorious inheritance. One way to understand this phrase is to see it as a clarification of the hope to which God has called his people—that is, that hope consists of the inheritance that God has granted to the believer (cf. 1:14 and Col. 1:12, which must be in the writer’s mind). The Greek, however, indicates that this is God’s inheritance (tēs klēronomias autou) and not something that the saints receive, as in 1:14 and Colossians 1:12. As such, the apostle is thinking of the church as God’s people—God’s inheritance. The prayer would then be for a deeper understanding of what it means to be God’s possession. The focus is upon the “state” of the believers as God’s people rather than on the details of the blessings that that inheritance includes.
1:19 / A third request is that believers know about the greatness of God’s power within them. After the apostle has mentioned the hope of God’s calling and the glory of God’s inheritance, he is led to contemplate the power of God that makes all that possible. Stylistically, the sentences are highly poetic (liturgical language) in nature and in the Greek include such synonyms as power (dynamis), working (energia), and mighty (kratos) strength (ischys). By this, he simply wishes to emphasize that nothing is impossible for God. The power of God that is at work in the believer is the same power (mighty strength) that is manifested in the resurrection, exaltation, and universal dominion of Christ. The author returns to that power at the end of his prayer in 3:20.
1:15 / The NIV does not indicate that some Greek manuscripts omit the word love. The result of this is the unusual and unprecedented expression that faith is toward (eis) God’s people. The best explanation is that love belonged in the original text but was unintentionally omitted in the process of copying the manuscripts (see B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Society, 1971], p. 602; also, the explanation in Moule, Ephesians, p. 56). For comments on saints, cf. disc. on 1:1 and Col. 1:2.
1:17 / Westcott provides a helpful summary and explanation of “glory” in his Ephesians, pp. 187–89. On “knowledge” and wisdom, cf. disc. on Col. 1:9, 10, and the extended note on epignōsis in Robinson, pp. 249–54.
1:18 / The baptismal nature of 1 Peter is surveyed in R. P. Martin’s “The Composition of I Peter in Recent Study,” Vox Evangelica, 1 (1962), pp. 29–42. See also J. Coutts, “Ephesians 1:3–14 and 1 Peter 1:3–12,” NTS 3 (1956–57), pp. 115–27; F. L. Cross, 1 Peter: A Pascal Liturgy (London: Mowbray, 1954); F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 3d ed. (Oxford: Blackwell’s, 1970). The reference for identifying enlightenment and baptism is in Justin’s Apology I, 61, 65. Additional discussion is in Ysebaret, Greek Baptismal Terminology, pp. 157ff.
§4 The Result of Christ’s Enthronement (Eph. 1:20–23)
1:20 / The writers of the NT show that the early church was convinced that the Jesus of Nazareth, who died by crucifixion, also was raised by the power of God and exalted to a position of authority: “Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Rom. 8:34; cf. also Acts 2:32, 33; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30, 31; 10:40; Rom. 4:24; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:15; 2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 1:1; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 1:21). The early church also believed that he was very much alive in their midst through the Holy Spirit.
Although it is common to think of resurrection and exaltation as two separate events, it is helpful to consider them as two different ways of expressing the same theological truth, namely, the triumph of God over the forces of death. Paul illustrates God’s power by stating that it was manifested when he raised Christ from death and seated him at his right side in the heavenly world (cf. also Acts 2:32, 33; Rom. 8:11; Phil. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Christ’s post-resurrection appearances should be interpreted as periodic earthly visitations and manifestations of the resurrected and exalted Lord during a period of forty days. What Luke is saying in Acts 1:1–11 is that the ascension marked the end of that kind of appearance; henceforth, Christ will manifest himself through the Holy Spirit.
The phrases seated him at his right hand and heavenly realms come from Psalm 110:1ff.; all the honor, dignity, and authority of the enthroned king are now ascribed to Christ. These phrases are not to be interpreted literally but understood as metaphorical language expressing Christ’s presence with his Father in the invisible world, the sphere of eternal reality. Later, in 2:1–10, the author will apply these statements to the believer as well. The reality of Christ’s resurrection and exaltation becomes a sign and pledge of the triumph of the Christian (cf. Rom. 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Pet. 1:21).
1:21 / Christ’s heavenly ascension and authority are expressed by stating that he rules there, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion. These categories are similar to the lists in Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 15:24, Colossians 1:16 and 2:15, and 1 Peter 3:22. Such concepts of “heavenly beings” belonged to the ancient world, were expanded during the intertestamental period in the apocryphal literature, and were employed by some authors of the NT to illustrate the spiritual struggle between the forces of good and evil or light and darkness. The exorcism of demons by Jesus, for example, is seen as a sign of his authority and power over demonic forces (cf. Mark’s Gospel and disc. on Col. 1:16).
Part of the message of Colossians is that Christ is superior to all evil powers. In the Christ hymn (1:15–20), Paul affirms Christ’s sovereignty by stating that these powers are created by Christ and thus are subject to his authority. Later, he shows that, by virtue of Christ’s death on the cross, he has triumphed over them and leads them as a victorious captor (2:15). As a result of Christ’s supremacy and victory, these evil forces are reduced to a state of impotence and inferiority; they no longer exert any power or influence over the believer who has identified with Christ.
Ephesians does not appear to direct any polemic against a false system that was elevating the importance of these spiritual powers. Although some interpreters have argued for a Gnostic background to the epistle (see Introduction), it certainly is not as obvious as it is for Colossians. The closest the author comes is to indicate that the Christian’s spiritual battle is “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (6:12).
In 1:21, these powers are mentioned only in the context of Christ’s exaltation. In fact, the verse states that he is also seated above … every title that can be given (lit., “above every name that is being named”; cf. Phil. 2:9). Furthermore, this supremacy is so expansive or all-encompassing that it spans both the present and future ages. J. A. Robinson puts these great thoughts together succinctly when he writes: “Above all that anywhere is, anywhere can be—above all grades of dignity, real or imagined, good or evil, present or to come—the mighty power of God has exalted and enthroned the Christ” (p. 41).
1:22 / The apostle presses on with thoughts of Christ’s supremacy, using images characteristic of a royal court, where the defeated foes pay homage to their victor: God placed all things under his feet. This appears to be an obvious quotation from Psalm 110:1 and, as applied to Christ, illustrates his conquest of all spiritual enemies and his authority over them.
Sometimes the readers of the NT find it difficult to interpret and apply this principle of Christ’s sovereignty because it uses ancient cosmological concepts and is stated in mythic and poetic language unfamiliar to modern people. The tendency is either to dismiss the language as irrelevant and nonsensical or to demythologize it.
M. Barth has made an attempt to understand the apostle’s thoughts by probing into the history, essence, and function of these spiritual powers. From his study, he concludes that “Paul means by principalities and powers those institutions and structures by which earthly matters and invisible realms are administered, and without which no human life is possible” (Eph. 1–3, p. 174). Barth includes categories such as kings, procurators, senators, judges, and high priests, who function in political, financial, juridical, and ecclesiastical offices. C. L. Mitton carries this even further and wonders about substituting for principalities and powers the “evil powers in our contemporary world [such] as racism, nationalism, hate, fear, uncurbed sexual desire, drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. As with ‘principalities and powers,’ before these the individual feels helpless even though he recognizes their power to destroy the best things in human life” (p. 72).
1:23 / From the ideal of sovereignty the apostle moves to the concept of vital union, which he expresses by the head-body metaphor of the church: which is his body. This idea is unique to the teaching of Ephesians (1:23; 5:23) and Colossians (1:18, 24; 2:19) and goes beyond Paul’s idea on the church in Romans and Corinthians, where “head” is mentioned along with other members of the body (1 Cor. 12:14–26). Christ is not a part of the body (e.g., the head or the foot), but rather the whole of which the various members are parts (1 Cor. 12:12). In Romans and Corinthians, Christ equals the body; but in Ephesians and Colossians, the church equals the body, and Christ is the head.
In Colossians, the head-body metaphor was used to combat heretical ideas that limited Christ’s unique position of authority in the universe and in the church. Paul’s concern there is to restore Christ to his rightful place of preeminence in all things—including his headship over the church (cf. disc. on Col. 1:18). In Ephesians, there is no direct polemic against false teachers. The idea of Christ’s headship over the church is introduced to illustrate another dimension of Christ’s exaltation.
In some ways, Christ’s lordship over the church is similar to his lordship over all things. As Lord, he rules, guides, inspires. However, Christ’s lordship over the church is of a different nature, because the church is his body, and he is its head. As such, it is in vital union with Christ; it belongs to him and derives its meaning in union with him; it is the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. Thus, in some mysterious way, the church is necessary to Christ’s completeness, and he imparts to it his fullness.
Up to this point in the text the author has indicated that God has put “all things under his feet” and made him Lord over all things, including the church. Now he enlarges on this by indicating that Christ fills everything in every way, literally, “all (things) in all (things)”! Perhaps these ideas are an expansion of 1:10, which states that it is God’s plan “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” Does he envision that this is being done through the church (cf. 3:10)?
The concept of Christ’s fullness or completion is brought out several times in Colossians, where it is stated that the full nature of God dwells in the Son (1:19; 2:9). The believer, in turn, comes to fullness of life through union with Christ in baptism. Ephesians presents the same thought on two different occasions: The apostle prays that his readers may “be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” (3:19) and exhorts them to reach “to the whole measure (lit., “stature”) of the fullness of Christ” (4:13).
Scholars continue to struggle over the difficult theological concept and the grammatical construction translated the fullness [plērōma] of him. Some interpreters understand the church as somehow “completing” or “filling up” Christ. However, most take the phrase to mean that the Christ who fills everything also fills the church so that it (the church) is described as the fullness of him. One may wisely heed the caution of C. L. Mitton, who concludes: “It must be frankly confessed that the meaning of these concluding words in verse 23 is quite uncertain, and, therefore, they cannot legitimately be used to support any item of doctrine about Christ or his Church” (p. 79).
1:20 / A useful discussion of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances in relation to the ascension can be found in F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 30ff.
1:21–22 / The many books and articles dealing with such concepts as principalities, powers, etc. in the NT is an indication of the difficulty there is in understanding them. Some helpful resources include G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956); W. Carr, Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase “hai archai kai hai exousiai,” SNTSMS, vol. 42 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), esp. pp. 47–85 on Colossians and pp. 93–111 on Ephesians; G. H. C. MacGregor, “Principalities and Powers: The Cosmic Background of Paul’s Thought,” NTS 1 (1954), pp. 17–28; R. Yates, “The Powers of Evil in the New Testament,” EQ 52–53 (1980–81), pp. 97–111; idem, “Principalities and Powers in Ephesians,” New Blackfriar 58 (1977), pp. 516–21; J. Y. Lee, “Interpreting the Demonic Powers in Pauline Thought,” NovT 12 (1970), pp. 54–69.
P. T. O’Brien has written a helpful article entitled “Principalities and Powers and Their Relationship to Structures,” RefThR 40 (1981), pp. 1–10, in which he reviews a number of scholars (namely, Barth, Berkhof, Caird, Rupp, Sider, Yoder) who interpret principalities and powers as sociopolitical structures, tradition, law, authority, religion, etc. For additional disc. on this topic in Ephesians, see disc. and notes on 3:10 and 6:12.
1:23 / The linguistic, syntactical, and exegetical technicalities go beyond the scope of this commentary. For an important and helpful discussion, cf. notes on Col. 1:18; also, G. Howard, “The Head/Body Metaphors of Ephesians,” NTS 20 (1974), pp. 350–56. Valuable information on plērōma and the technicalities of this verse can be found in the commentaries of Barth (Eph. 1–3), pp. 200–10; Mitton, pp. 76–79; Robinson, pp. 42–45, 87–89; Stott, God’s New Society, pp. 62–65. More specialized studies include P. Benoit, “Body, Head and Plērōma in the Epistles of the Captivity,” RB 63 (1956), pp. 5–44; A. R. McGlashan, “Ephesians 1:23,” ExpT 76 (1965), pp. 132–33. This last article led to a reply from R. Fowler, “Ephesians 1:23,” ExpT 76 (1965), p. 294. R. Yates provides a more thorough examination of the problem in his “A Re-examination of Ephesians 1:23,” ExpT 83 (1972), pp. 146–51. Yates’s conclusions produce the following translation (p. 154): “And he (God) has brought all things into subjection under his (Christ’s) feet, and he (God) gave him (Christ) to be head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, the fulness (that which completes) of him (Christ) who all in all (completely) is being fulfilled (i.e., made complete as men and women are being reconciled to God through Christ’s work and incorporated into him through his Body, the Church).”
§5 Christ and the Salvation of Believers (Introduction to Eph. 2:1–10)
Chapter 1 of Ephesians is dominated by the theme of praise and thanksgiving. In verses 3–14 the apostle utilizes a redemptive eulogy to praise God for all the spiritual blessings that he has bestowed upon the believer. These blessings are mediated through the Son and are confirmed in the believer through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The use of baptismal themes suggests that the hymn may have been connected with the celebration of baptism in the early church.
From doxology, he turns to a prayer in which he expresses the wish that his readers personally understand and appropriate the blessings that he has just enumerated. Consequently, there are many verbal and doctrinal similarities between these two sections. In the prayer, the apostle asks that the believers might increasingly know the hope to which God has called them (1:18a) and the richness of God’s blessing (1:18b) and that they will see God’s power as manifested in Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and headship over all things, including the church (1:19–23).
The context makes it apparent that the mention of Christ’s resurrection and exaltation provides the background for the thoughts that he develops in 2:1–10 and in 2:11–22. The apostle wants to demonstrate that the mighty power of God that was at work in Christ is also at work in the believer; what is true of Christ is also true for each believer in Christ. Unfortunately, this flow of thought is broken by the division of the text into chapters and verses. The Greek text permits one to appreciate the hymnic (liturgical) nature of this section because verses 1–7 form one sentence, and the first main verb does not occur until verse 5 (he made us alive).
In chapter 2, the apostle develops two specific themes that he has already mentioned: In 2:1–10, he picks up redemption and forgiveness (1:7) and applies it to the reconciliation of sinful humanity kind by God; in 2:11–22, he applies the principle of unity from 1:10 to the specific case of Jews and Gentiles and shows how they have been brought together into one body.
Chapter 2:1–10 contains a number of contrasting features: First, there are the people who are mentioned. The author begins by referring to the Gentiles specifically (2:1), but then in 2:3 he expands his audience to include the Jews as well. By this, he shows that all of humanity was alienated from God and became recipients of his grace (2:3–7). And even though he returns to “you” (second person plural) in 2:8, one gets the impression that he still has both groups in mind until he addresses the Gentiles directly in 2:11.
Second, there is the contrast between their former pagan way of life (2:1–3) and their new life in Christ (2:4–10). At one time they were spiritually dead, and because of their sinful nature, they lived sinful lives, walked in the evil ways of the world, and disobeyed God; but now, as a result of God’s grace and mercy upon their lives, they have been made spiritually alive and share in Christ’s resurrection and exaltation. Their new creation is a manifestation of “good works” (2:10) rather than a life of disobedience and evil.
Third, these two ways of life reflect the contrasting forces that confront mankind: On the one side, there is the world (“the ways of this world”), Satan (“the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient”), and the flesh (“the cravings of our sinful nature”); offsetting these are God’s mercy, love, and grace, which make life, resurrection, and enthronement with Christ possible.
§6 Salvation from Spiritual Death (Eph. 2:1–3)
2:1 / The main contrast that the apostle makes in this section is between “death” and “life.” He begins by reminding his readers of their past condition and then proceeds to describe the causes and effects of their spiritual death. One has to wait until verse 5 to pick up the contrasting idea of life (he “made us alive with Christ”) and the features that characterize existence in Christ.
Those who live without Christ are described as being spiritually dead. In such a condition there is no desire to relate one’s life to God, because such a life is characterized by disobedience (lit., “trespasses,” paraptōma, and sins, hamartia). Many attempts have been made to distinguish these two terms and to define trespass as “false step,” “deviation from a prescribed path,” and so on, and sin as “missing the mark” or “falling short of a standard.” However, the usage of these terms in the NT varies and does not permit refined distinctions. In this context it is better to take them as all-encompassing phrases that describe the lives of those who are spiritually dead.
2:2 / Before they became Christians these Gentiles followed the ways of this world. The word followed in Greek is “walked” (peripateō) and expresses one’s way of life or manner of moral conduct. The Gospels talk about an open gate or one “way” that leads to life and another to death (Matt. 7:13, 14). Jesus is designated as “the way” (John 14:6), and his disciples are followers of “the Way” (Acts 9:2), “the way of the Lord” (Acts 18:25), and “the way of God” (Acts 18:26).
This “walk” or “way of life” is described by the following statements: First, it is the ways of this world. In other words, it is a pattern of life characterized by the world, which, in this context, means what is contrary to and apart from God. First John 2:15–17 aptly comments on this concept by defining “world” as “the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does.” Paul admonishes believers not to “conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).
Second, it is obedience to the ruler of the kingdom of the air. The apostle already has spoken about Christ’s exaltation over such spiritual powers (1:21), and he will go on to indicate that believers, likewise, are engaged in a vicious struggle against demonic forces (6:11, 12). Before one becomes a Christian, however, one virtually gives spiritual allegiance to these evil forces, particularly to the ruler, who is envisioned as Satan, or the devil (6:11). That ruler is defined further as the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. The apostle envisioned that people in their pre-Christian state obeyed Satan and were under the controlling power of evil spirits that led them to disobey God (cf. Luke 11:14–26; John 13:2; Acts 5:3; 2 Thess. 2:9).
2:3 / This dreadful condition of life also applied to Paul and his fellow believers before they became Christians. What was true of the Gentiles was true of all humanity, for “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23): All of us also lived among them. To live as the Gentiles is to live according to the cravings of our sinful nature. This does not appear to be a reference to the doctrine of original sin as taught elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 1–3; 5:12–14). The phrase is more suggestive of a pattern of life that emerges when one is left to follow one’s natural desires.
In such a condition, people do whatever suits the desires and thoughts of their sinful nature. Literally, the phrase is “lusts of the flesh” (sarx). The word sarx does not imply that the body is intrinsically evil but refers rather to the sinful principles, passions, or physical appetites that dominate one’s life (Gal. 5:19–21). Thoughts includes one’s intellectual and reasoning ability (cf. Col. 1:21). The consequence of such evil and ungodly action is to become objects of wrath. Thus, by following their natural desires, people became subject to the dreadful judgment of God (“we were by nature children of wrath,” RSV).
2:1 / On spiritual death, see e. Best, “Dead in Trespasses and Sins (Eph. 2:1),” JSNT 13 (1981), pp. 9–25.
§7 Salvation to Spiritual Life (Eph. 2:4–10)
2:4–5 / From the perversity of humanity as disobedient sinners deserving God’s wrath, the apostle turns, in sharp contrast, to the mercy and love of God. God’s mercy proceeds from his love and is his way of reaching out to those totally undeserving. We were, he claims, dead in transgressions. However, the good news of the gospel is that God has acted decisively in Christ to correct that situation. And finally, in 2:5, one finds the verb that has kept the reader in suspense since the beginning of 2:1: Those who were spiritually dead (2:1) have become the recipients of God’s mercy and love in that he made us alive with Christ.
This action of God is the first of three experiences that the believer has in union with Christ. Literally, it reads that God’s love and mercy have “made us alive together with Christ” (synezōopoiēsen), stressing the intimate union believers have with the Lord. All three verbs—“brought us to life,” “raised us up,” and “to rule with him”—are compound verbs prefixed with the Greek preposition syn, which means “together with.” These terms express that the believer shares these experiences with Christ and thus with everyone else in the body of Christ. Believers who “die” or are “buried” with Christ (Rom. 6:4, 6, 8; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 2:12), also are made alive (Eph. 2:5), raised (Rom. 6:4; Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:12) and enthroned (Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1).
There is no significant theological distinction between being “made alive” and “raised” with Christ. Both terms vividly contrast with the state of spiritual death that was mentioned earlier. In the Greek text (cf. RSV, NIV) the phrase it is by grace you have been saved appears as a parenthesis and receives no further explanation until 2:8. Grace is God’s unmerited favor to humanity, and reference to it here is a sharp reminder that the change from death to life is due entirely to God’s initiative and not human action. Saved, apparently, is equivalent to being brought to life with Christ. It appears in the perfect passive form as you have been saved (sesōsmenoi)—the tense in Greek that describes a present state that has resulted from a past action. Salvation, therefore, is an accomplished fact (fait accompli), and its effects are continuous upon the believer.
2:6 / In addition to life and resurrection, the believer also is exalted (synēgeiren) with Christ and seated … with him in the heavenly realms. Earlier, the apostle had talked about the believer’s blessings “in the heavenly realms” (1:3); then he mentioned Christ’s exaltation in the “heavenly realms” (1:20); and now the believer, by virtue of his union with Christ, is likewise enthroned in the invisible world of spiritual reality where Christ reigns supreme. The thought resembles Colossians 3:1, where believers are exhorted to set their mind on heavenly things because they have been raised to new life with Christ.
This teaching of the believer’s participation in Christ is similar to the thoughts that occur in the baptismal texts of Romans 6:1–11 and Colossians 2:11–13 and 3:1–4. Ephesians, however, makes no mention of the believer’s death or burial with Christ in the way in which it is presented in Romans or Colossians. The death of which Ephesians speaks is not the mystical participation in Christ’s death but the natural state of humanity as being dead in trespasses and sins. But even though the reference is to people who are “spiritually dead,” it is through union with Christ that they have been made alive.
On the basis of the baptismal nature and teaching of Romans and Colossians, it is not unreasonable to assume that the author of Ephesians has the baptismal event in mind when he speaks of the Christian’s participation in Christ. Although he does not explicitly mention the rite, his readers would recognize that the language of life, resurrection, and exaltation with Christ alluded to baptism. The new feature in Ephesians is that it places the believer in the heavenlies along with the exalted Lord. By doing this, the author shows that the fullness of life “in Christ” includes all that has happened to Christ himself, including enthronement (1:20). As such, believers already share in Christ’s heavenly rule.
The idea of enthronement or exaltation with Christ is difficult to grasp because there is a tendency among believers to think of this as something to be realized in the future—that is, at the end of this present age. Jesus, for example, tells his disciples this: “at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30). And some of the apocalyptic imagery in the NT speaks of a future time when the saints will be resurrected and reign with the Lord (1 Cor. 15:51–54; 1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 3:21; 20:4; 22:5).
C. L. Mitton has noted in his commentary that some scholars go to great lengths to give a future meaning to the verbs in 2:5 and 6 even though they are in the past tense. They propose that the believer’s resurrection can be referred to in the past tense because the future resurrection has already been guaranteed; or, the future state of believers with Christ is so secure that they already have a place in heaven assigned to them (pp. 89–90). These arguments have a certain kinship with the “prophetic future” wherein a coming event is so certain of being fulfilled that it is described as already having taken place.
Such interpretations, however, do not do justice to the thoughts in Ephesians, where the resurrection and exaltation of the believer are described as events that have taken place in union with Christ. In a number of cases, such views reflect attempts to make the eschatology of Ephesians—and Colossians—conform to the same pattern developed in the undisputed Pauline epistles.
One of the most significant aspects of Paul’s understanding of eschatology is that he conceived of the eschatological process as having begun in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. For him, these events represented God’s breaking into the world and inaugurating his reign on earth. In Christ, therefore, the eschatological promises were already in the process of being fulfilled.
That there is an “inauguration” of the eschatological process does not, however, eliminate the futuristic element. Paul retains the conviction that the eschatological process now begun is moving forward toward a final day of consummation. This has a significant bearing upon Paul’s theology because it places the individual in tension between the two aeons—the one begun with the coming of Christ and the one yet to come at his Parousia. The Christian occupies a position between the times because the Kingdom has come and is yet to come. One could characterize this position as the “now” and the “not yet” of Christian existence—one of the great paradoxes of the Christian faith.
Various phases of this paradox are brought out in the Pauline letters. Christ has come (1 Cor. 15:3ff.), yet he will come again (1 Thess. 4:16); the Christian has died to sin (Rom. 6:6), yet he or she is still in the flesh (1 Cor. 3:3); believers are citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20a), yet eagerly await the Savior to come from heaven (Phil. 3:20b); Christians are new beings—a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17)—yet are to become new people at every moment of their lives (Rom. 12:1–2); believers have the first fruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23a), yet groan within themselves as they “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23b); here believers receive all of Christ’s abundant wealth (Phil. 4:19), yet there is a glory to be revealed (Rom. 8:18).
To a certain extent, Ephesians and Colossians retain a belief in the Parousia as the hope of God’s people. In Colossians, the Christian has died with Christ (3:3a), but this new life is hidden with Christ in God, that is, its fullness will be revealed at the Parousia (3:3b); believers are resurrected with Christ (2:12; 3:1) but are, nevertheless, admonished to set their hearts on the things that are in heaven, “where Christ is seated at the right hand of God” (3:1). In Ephesians, the baptized possess the Spirit as a first installment, a guarantee of a future inheritance (4:30). The church has been redeemed but still awaits its final glorification (5:27); the believer has been delivered from evil powers (2:1–5), but finds it necessary to be armed against principalities, powers, and so forth (6:12).
Even in Colossians and Ephesians humankind stands between the times—between promise and fulfillment. In one sense, the new “life” in Christ can be regarded as complete as “death” in Christ. Yet since human beings exist in a real world, Ephesians, as well as Romans and Colossians, lays great stress upon one’s ethical life. Those baptized into Christ are to “live a new life” (Rom. 6:4) or are admonished to “set” and to “keep” their minds on things that are in heaven (Col. 3:2). In Ephesians, the author is no less explicit about the Christian’s walk. Those baptized into Christ are created to “do good works” (2:10) and are exhorted to “live a life worthy of the calling you received” (4:1).
2:7 / When the apostle spoke about the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, he indicated that this was a demonstration of God’s “power” (1:19, 20). But he speaks of the believer’s resurrection and exaltation with Christ as a demonstration of the incomparable riches of [God’s] grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
God already has demonstrated this grace in the present by blessing the believer so richly in Christ. To this, one naturally responds with comments such as “how wonderful,” “how marvelous. “This, however, is just a foretaste of the ongoing activity of God’s grace in the coming ages. The reference here is not to the final coming age (cf. previous discussion on 1:21: in the one [age] to come) but in the coming ages. The author’s use of the plural (en tois aiōsin) probably signifies that he envisions a series of “ages” (?generations) in which the riches of his [Christ’s] grace are extended toward humankind through the church (3:10) until the inauguration of the final age.
2:8–9 / These verses often have been called the heart of Paul’s gospel because they capture and summarize the essence of some of the great thoughts that he develops in Romans and Galatians. In this context, grace and faith are mentioned as the key elements in the believer’s union with Christ. The apostle dispels any idea that their change in status from spiritual death to life and exaltation with Christ is due to any human effort. He concludes by stating that salvation is a call to a life of good works.
Grace can be defined as favor, graciousness, goodwill, and so on. When it is applied to God, it signifies that action of God by which he moved graciously upon undeserving humanity. The essence of grace is that it is God’s (for it is by grace) and that it is free; otherwise, it would not be grace.
With respect to salvation, God always is the source of grace. When Scripture speaks about the “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” it does so to indicate that Christ is the agent of God’s grace—that is, he is the means by which God’s grace is made known to humanity. Although the agency of Christ is not mentioned here, it definitely is affirmed in the preceding verses, where the parenthetical reference to God’s grace (2:5) comes in the context of discussion about life in Christ.
Grace and faith are listed as the two essential elements in salvation. Basically, faith is the means by which God’s grace for salvation is appropriated. One popular way of discussing the nature of faith is to develop, in the form of an acrostic, the letters that spell out the word: Forsaking—All—I—Take—Him! One side of faith is passive: it is “forsaking all.” As such, it implies surrender before God, a willingness on the part of an individual to be open and receptive to God’s grace. This, in a sense, also is a gift from God, because one’s natural tendency is to be closed and unreceptive to God.
The other side of faith is active: “Forsaking all,” I take him. Those who are willing to receive God’s grace must respond personally in order to appropriate it. Faith is personal trust and confidence in God and the reception of the message of salvation that is offered in the gospel. In the NT, Christians are described as believers—that is, as those who have faith (hoi pisteuontes, Rom. 1:16; 3:22; 4:11; 1 Cor. 1:21) because they turned to God in faith (pisteuein, 1 Cor. 15:2, 11). Faith includes a willingness to surrender as well as a commitment to obey (cf. 2:10).
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith. As in 2:5, the word for “salvation” occurs in the Greek perfect passive tense, thus reaffirming to the readers that their present and continuing state of salvation is the result of some action in the past when God’s grace and their faith came together—undoubtedly when they were baptized into Christ as believers. In the framework of the NT, believers’ baptism is a personal response to the proclamation of the gospel (Acts 2:38, 41, etc.).
Some commentators question this occurrence of “salvation” because Paul normally uses the word in the future tense as “you are being saved” (see Mitton, p. 94). Others wonder about the absence of the great Pauline themes of justification and reconciliation. However, believers need to recognize that the NT uses a number of different words and concepts when it talks about salvation or the process whereby one becomes a Christian. When, for example, one wants to know how to receive salvation, Scripture states that salvation is through faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:30, 31; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8, 9), repentance (2 Cor. 7:10; 2 Pet. 3:9), confession (Acts 19:18; Rom. 10:9), regeneration (Titus 3:5), and baptism (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Pet. 3:21).
Since grace and to some extent faith are gifts of God, the readers are reminded that their salvation is not due to human effort and cannot, therefore, lead to spiritual pride. The principle of grace prohibits boasting (Rom. 3:27). The NIV is a bit ambiguous at this point with respect to the word this (touto). Because this follows immediately after faith (you have been saved through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, many have taken it to refer to faith rather than grace, thus emphasizing faith as a gift. But even though the idea is true theologically, the Greek sentence does not permit such an identification, because the two words differ grammatically.
The apostle has more than the gift of faith in mind, for this refers to the entire process of salvation of which faith is but a part. And since salvation is all God’s doing, one cannot work for it or boast about it. Not by works is not the “works of the law” to which Paul referred when he wrote to the Romans (3:20) and to the Galatians (3:10). To these Gentile readers, works would be any human efforts directed toward obtaining salvation. If successful, such efforts would lead only to boasting and self-aggrandizement.
2:10 / This verse continues to emphasize God’s activity and neatly sums up themes developed earlier in the epistle. First, we are God’s workmanship (poiēma). This idea echoes the entire aspect of rebirth or re-creation that took place in Christ Jesus (2:4–6; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17, where Paul writes that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation”). All of this is God’s doing and eliminates any sense of pride that would come if this were a “self-creation.”
Second, God has created us in Christ Jesus to do good works (cf. 1:4, 6, 12, 14, 15). The whole context, which emphasizes God’s gift of grace and faith, as well as the stress upon being God’s creation in Christ, prohibits one from taking good works in any meritorious way, even though they are an essential ingredient of one’s new life in Christ. The expression means that believers are created with a view toward good works; believers are saved for or unto good works, not by or because of them. Good works are the outcome, not the cause, of salvation.
The contrast here is between the spiritually dead who once walked (peripateō) in disobedience and sin (2:1, 2) and those newly created in Christ to a life (peripateō) of good works. Such a life belongs to one’s calling as a believer because faith is a call to obedience. And all of this is part of God’s will from the beginning. As he chose us “to be holy and blameless in his sight” (1:4), he also determined that faith would issue forth in deeds which God prepared in advance for us to do.
This verse stands as a vivid reminder that there is more to salvation than just “getting saved.” Though faith in Christ is important and is the beginning of the Christian life (the indicative), believers must remember that they are called to a life of faith, a life in which faith is demonstrated in good works (the imperative). James, for example, is one of the writers of the NT who places a strong emphasis upon the relation between faith and works (1:22; 2:14–26). On many occasions Christians are called upon to be examples of good deeds before the world (1 Tim. 6:18; Titus 2:7; 1 Pet. 2:12). Jesus put it very clearly when he said “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). C. L. Mitton concludes his discussion on this verse with an appropriate comment: “This final phrase about our ‘walking in them’ reminds us that fine phrases or eloquent sermons about love are not what is required, but the actions, costly actions, which express in practical conduct the love which God’s saving power has created in our hearts” (p. 99).