Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Ephesians 0:1 - 0:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY
ON
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
BY
T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D.LITT
Formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, Now of Hebrew, Trinity College, Dublin
EDINBURGH
T & T. CLARK LIMITED, 59 GEORGE STREET
1909
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of T. & T. Clark Ltd.
PREFACE
————
The following Commentary is primarily philological. Its aim is to ascertain with as great precision as possible the actual meaning of the writer’s language. The Commentaries which have been regularly consulted are those of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, amongst the ancients; and amongst the moderns, Alford, Barry, De Wette, Eadie, Ellicott, Meyer (W. Schmidt), Moule, von Soden, and the Speaker’s; also for Ephesians, Harless, Stier, and Macpherson; and for Colossians, Lightfoot The Commentary of von Soden, though concise, is very acute and independent. Mr. Moule’s also, although bearing a modest title, is of great value. Other writers have been occasionally consulted. Much use has been made of Fritzsche’s occasional notes in his various commentaries, especially in connexion with the illustration. of the language of the Epistles from classical and late Greek authors. Wetstein, of course, has not been overlooked.
The text adopted is that of the Revisers, except where otherwise stated.
T. K. ABBOTT
INTRODUCTION
————
§1. TO WHAT READERS WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED?
This question cannot be treated apart from that of the genuineness of ἐ Ἐέῳin 1:1.
MSS. All extant MS. authority, with three exceptions, is in favour of the words. The three exceptions are אB 672.
In אthey are added by a later hand (א
In B they are also added by a corrector (B3), although Hug was of opinion that the correction was by the first hand.
In 67 they were written by the original scribe, but are expunged by the corrector. Possibly this correction is not independent of B. Lightfoot observes that a reading in St. Paul’s Epistles supported by אB 672 almost always represents the original text.
In addition to these, however, we have the express testimony of Basil that the words were absent from the most ancient, or rather all the ancient, MSS in his day His words are: Τῖ Ἐείι ἐιτλω, ὡ γηίςἡμνι τ ὄτ δʼἐινσω, ὄτςατὺ ἰιζνω ὠόαε, επν τῖ ἁίι τῖ οσ κὶπσοςἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦ οτ γρκὶο πὸἡῶ πρδδκσ κὶἡεςἐ τῖ πλιῖ τνἀτγάω ερκμν(Adv. Eunom. ii. 19). The hypothesis that he is referring, not to ἐ Ἐέῳ but either to τῖ or to οσν is quite untenable. How strange it would be that he should go on to quote the words κὶπσοςἐ Χ. Ἰ which had no relation to the interpretation in question, and omit the intervening ἐ Ἐέῳ the absence of which was no doubt what gave rise to it! The οτ γρmust surely refer to the whole quotation as he gives it. Moreover, he distinguishes the MSS from ο πὸἡῶ, by which he doubtless meant Origen, who omitted the words. Besides, his proof from this passage (against Eunomius), that Christ may be called ὁὤ, would have no foundation if he had read ἐ Ἐέῳafter οσν
Versions. All the Versions have the words, but it must be borne in mind that we have no MSS of any of these as old as אB.
Fathers, etc. Origen’s commentary is quoted in Cramer’s Catena as follows: Ὠιέη δ φσ, ἐὶμννἘείνερμνκίεο, τ “τῖ ἁίι τῖ οσ· κὶζτῦε ε μ πρλε (i.e. is redundant) ποκίεο τ “τῖ ἁίι τῖ οσ· τ δντισμίεν ὅαονε μ ὥπρἐ τ Ἐόῳὄοάφσνἑυο ὁχηαίω Μσῖτ ὢ, οτςο μτχνε τῦὄτς γννα ὄτς κλύεο οοε ἐ τῦμ ενιεςτ ενι“ἐεέαογρὁΘὸ τ μ ὄτ” φσνὁατςΠῦο “ἵατ ὄτ κτρήῃ ” κτλ AS τῖ ἁίι τῖ οσ·occurs with ἐ and the name of the place in other Epistles (2 Cor., Phil.; cf. Rom_1:7), it is clear that what Origen refers to as used of the Ephesians only is τῖ οσνwithout ἐ Ἐέῳ
Tertullian informs us that Marcion gave the Epistle the title “ad Laodicenos” (Adv. Marc. v. 17): “Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare (i.e. falsify)1 gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator; nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.” Compare ibid. 11, “praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptum (i.e. superscribed) habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos.” It is clear from this that Marcion had not the words ἐ Ἐέῳin his text. But it is also inferred with great probability that Tertullian himself had them not. For he does not charge Marcion with falsifying the text but the title, and he vindicates the title “ad Ephesios” by an appeal to the “veritas ecclesiae,” not to the actual words in the text, which would have been conclusive. Moreover, how strange the remark, “nihil autem de titulis interest,” etc., if he had ἐ Ἐέῳin the text of the apostle! It is clear that “titulus” here means the superscription, not the address in the text.
Lightfoot points out that there are indications in the earlier Latin commentators that in the copies they used the word “Ephesi,” if not absent, was in a different position, which would betray its later introduction. Thus in the middle of the fourth century, Victorinus Afer writes: “Sed haec cum dicit ‘Sanctis qui sunt fidelibus Ephesi,’ quid adjungitur? ‘In Christo Jesu’” (Mai. Script. Vett. Nova Coll. 3. p. 87).
Ambrosiaster, in his Commentary, ignores “Ephesi”: “Non solum fidelibus scribit, sed et sanctis: ut tunc vere fideles Sint, si fuerint Sancti in Christo Jesu.”
Sedulius Scotus (eighth or ninth century) writes: “Sanctis Non omnibus Ephesiis, sed his qui credunt in Christo. Et fidelibus. Omnes sancti fideles sunt, non omnes fideles sancti, etc. Qui Bunt in Christo Jesu. Plures fideles sunt, sed non in Christ.,” etc. The omission of “Ephesi” in the quotations from the text is of no importance; but the position of “qui sunt” is remarkable. It would seem as if some transcriber, finding “sanctis qui sunt et fidelibus in Christo Jesu,” and stumbling at the order, transposed “qui sunt” into the position in which Sedulius, or some earlier writer whom he copies, appears to have found them.
Jerome is doubtless referring to Origen when he says (in loc.): “Quidam curiosius (i.e. with more refinement) quam necesse est, putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum sit ‘Haec dices filiis Israel: qui est misfit me,’ etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos. …Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui sint, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint, scriptum arbitrantur.” This is obscurely expressed, and it is not clear whether he means to refer to a difference of reading. But as we know that he had read Origen’s commentary, he can hardly have been ignorant of the fact that the interpretation he quotes implied the omission of ἐ Ἐέῳ and the reader will observe that the word is “scriptum,” not “scriptam,” as some commentators have quoted it. If this is taken strictly it must refer to the reading.
When we turn to the Epistle itself we find its whole tone and character out of keeping with the traditional designation. St. Paul had spent about three years at Ephesus “ceasing not to warn every one day and night with tears” (Act_20:31). On his last journey to Jerusalem he sent for the elders of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus. His address to them (Act_20:18 sqq.) is full of affectionate remembrance of his labours amongst them, and of earnest warnings. The parting is described in touching words “They fell on his neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more.” There was no Church with which his relations were more close, nay, so close and affectionate, or in connexion with which he had such sacred and affecting memories. We might expect a letter written to Ephesus to be full of personal reminiscences, and allusions to his labours amongst them; instead of which we have a composition more like a treatise than a letter, and so absolutely destitute of local or personal colouring that it might have been written to a Church which St. Paul had never even visited. We need not attach much importance to the absence of personal greetings. There are no special salutations in the Epp. to the Corinthians and to the Philippians, for example, perhaps because, as Lightfoot says: “Where all alike are known to us, it becomes irksome, if not invidious, to select any for special salutation.” But there is not even a general friendly greeting as in those Epistles; there is nothing but the impersonal ερν τῖ ἀεφςκτλ 6:23. But in addition to the general greeting in Phil., for example, ἀπσσεπναἅιν…ἀπζνα ὑᾶ ο σνἐο ἀεφί κτλ that Epistle abounds in personal remininscences, to which there is no parallel here. Even the Epistle to the Colossians, whom St. Paul had never seen, betrays a more lively personal interest
It is impossible to explain this on the supposition that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesian Church, so loving to the apostle and so beloved.
But we may go farther than this, for there are expressions in the Epistle which seem impossible to reconcile with the supposition that it is addressed to that Church. Ch. 1:15, “Having heard of your faith,” etc., may perhaps be explained, though not very naturally, as referring to the period since his departure from them. Not so the following: 3:2, “For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles,—if indeed ye have heard of (or ‘were instructed in’) the dispensation of the grace of God which was given me to you-ward”; 4:21, 22, “But ye did not so learn Christ, if indeed ye heard of Him, and were taught in Him,” etc
Dr. Hort thinks the usual reply to the argument from the two latter passages true and sufficient, namely, that εγ “is not infrequently used with a rhetorical or appealing force where no real doubt is meant to be expressed,” and St. Paul could not express any real doubt in either case about any Church of Proconsular Asia, any more than about the Ephesian Church.
Let it be granted that εγ does not imply the existence of a doubt, it certainly (as an intensified “if”) implies that doubt is not inconceivable. It cannot mean more than “I am sure,” “I do not doubt,” “I know,” “I am persuaded.” But this is not the way in which a man expresses himself about a matter of his own experience, or in which he has himself been the agent. A preacher occupying a friend’s pulpit may say “I know,” or “if indeed ye have been taught,” but not when addressing those whom he has himself taught.Dr. Hort in confirmation of his remark about the appealing force of εγ refers to Ellicott’s note, which is a notable instance of petitio principii. Having said that εγ “does not in itself imply the rectitude of the assumption made,” as Hermann’s Canon implies (“εγ usurpatur de re quae jure sumpta creditur”), but that this must be gathered from the context, he proceeds: “In the present case there could be no real doubt; ‘neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii quibus Paulus ipse evangelium plusquam biennio praedicaverat,’ Estius; comp. ch. 4:21; 2Co_5:3; Col_1:23. No argument, then, can be fairly deduced from these words against the inscription of this Ep. to the Ephesians.” That is to say, if εγ implied doubt, the Epistle could not be addressed to the Ephesians; but it was so addressed, therefore εγ does not imply doubt, and therefore is not inconsistent with such an address. The three passages referred to in illustration are singularly unsuitable for the purpose. Ch. 4:21 belongs to the very Epistle in question. In 2Co_5:3, εγ κὶἐδσμνιο γμο ερθσμθ, and in Col_1:23, εγ ἐιέεετ πσε, κτλ it is the future that is spoken of, and the particle has its usual sense, “if, as I assume.” Lightfoot, indeed (on Gal_3:4), expresses the opinion that in the N.T. εγ is even less affirmative than επρ
Eph_3:4 also (whether we adopt Hort’s view that ἀαιώκνε means “reading the O.T. Scriptures” or not) seems to imply that the author was not well known to his readers. The Ephesians had not now first to learn what St. Paul’s knowledge of the mystery was.
In the early Church the Epistle was universally regarded as addressed to the Ephesians. It is so referred to in the Muratorian Canon; by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 3. 1, 4; i. 8. 4; v. 2. 36); by Tertullian (quoted above); by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 65); and by Origen, who, as we saw above, had not ἐ Ἐέῳin his text (Comment. in loc., and Contra Celsum, iii. 20).
There is one important exception to this general belief, namely, Marcion, who, as above mentioned, held the Epistle to be addressed to the Laodiceans. This fact has been generally put aside as of no importance, it being supposed that this was a mere critical conjecture of Marcion (as Tertullian assumes), and probably suggested by Col_4:16. But considering the antiquity of Marcion, who was of earlier date than any of the Catholic writers cited, we are hardly justified in treating his evidence so lightly, seeing that he could have no theological motive for changing the title. Even if his “ad Laodicenos” was only a critical conjecture, this would justify the inference that the destination of the Epistle was at that time to some extent an open question. But it is unlikely that he should have been led to adopt this title merely by the fact that mention is made elsewhere of an Epistle (not to, but) from Laodicea. There is nothing in the Epistle itself to suggest Laodicea. It is, then, not improbable that he had seen a copy with ἐ Λοιεᾳin the text.
Passing by this, however, for the present, we have the following facts to account for: First, the early absence of ἐ Ἐέῳ As Lightfoot puts it: “We have no direct evidence that a single Greek manuscript during this period (second and third centuries) contained the words in question. The recent manuscripts to which Basil refers in the latter half of the fourth century, are the earliest of which this can be distinctly affirmed” (Biblical Essays, p. 381). Secondly, the early and universal recognition in the Church of the Epistle as written to the Ephesians.
Writers who hold ἐ Ἐέῳto have been an integral part of the original text suppose the words to have been omitted for critical reasons, namely, because they seemed not to agree with the character of the Epistle. This theory, to be plausible, would require the facts to be reversed, i.e. that the words should be omitted by the later not the earlier authorities, and that the opinion of the early Church should be vacillating. In fact, it explains the unanimity of early opinion by supposing that ἐ Ἐέῳwas read without question, and explains the early omission of the words by supposing that opinion was not unanimous.
Apart from this, the theory postulates a critical study of the relations between the apostle and the Churches which it would be a complete anachronism to ascribe to that early age. Much later, indeed, we find Theodore of Mopsuestia led by ἀοσςin 1:15 to regard the Epistle as written by St. Paul before he had seen the Ephesians. “Numquam profecto dixisset se auditu de illis cognoscentem gratiarum pro illis facere actionem, si eos alicubi vel vidisset, vel ad notitiam ejus illa ratione venire potuissent.” So also Severianus and Oecumenius. But it did not occur to Theodore or the others to question the correctness of the text.
An accidental omission of the words is out of the question. The only hypothesis that agrees with the facts is that the Epistle was in some sense an encyclical or circular letter. This seems to have been first suggested in a definite form by Ussher (Ann. V. et N. Test. a.d. 64): “Ubi notandum, in antiquis nonnullis codicibus (ut ex Basilii libro ii. adversus Eunomium, et Hieronymi in hunc Apostoli locum commentario, apparet) generatim inscriptam fuisse hanc epistolam, τῖ ἁίι τῖ οσ κὶπσοςἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦ vel (ut in litterarum encyclicarum descriptione fieri solebat) sanctis qui sunt …et fidelibus in Christo Jesu, ac si Ephesum primo, ut praecipuam, Asiae metropolim missa ea fuisset; transmittenda inde ad reliquas (intersertis singularum nominibus) ejusdem provinciae ecclesias: ad quarum aliquot, quas Paulus ipse nunquam viderat, illa ipsius verba potissimum spectaverint.”
There are two forms of this hypothesis. The first (agreeing with Ussher’s view) supposes that a blank was originally left after τῖ οσν which would be filled in with the names of the respective Churches for which the copies were intended, while in the Church at large some copies would be circulated with a vacant space, in which case, of course, in the copies made from these the blank would be disregarded. Or we might suppose, with Hort, that there was originally only one copy sent by the hand of Tychicus, the blank being filled orally when the Epistle was read in each place, and the name so supplied being naturally written in the copy or copies which would be made for preservation there.
The objection most strongly urged against this view is that there is no trace of copies with any other name in the place of Ἐέῳin the text, and that it is highly improbable that none such should have been preserved. A little consideration will show that no weight is to be attached to this argument. The Epistle “from Laodicea” was either identical with the present Epistle or distinct from it. In the latter case, it has wholly perished, not a single copy having been preserved even to the time of Marcion. In the former case, only the copies bearing other names than that of Ephesus disappeared. Is not this quite natural? When copies were in demand, where would they be sought for but in the metropolitan city and commercial centre of Ephesus? No interest would attach to any particular address. Why, then, should it be thought much more probable that all copies should have been allowed to perish than that only those with names of minor importance should fail to be multiplied? Indeed, the fact itself is not certain, for it is not improbable that a transcript from the Laodicean copy was in Marcion’s hands. In any case, we have a close parallel in the fact that the ancient copies which omitted ἐ Ἐέῳhad already before Basil’s day been superseded by those which inserted the words, and although אB remain (being on vellum), no succeeding copyists have a trace of the reading until we come to the late corrector of 67.
It must be admitted that this plan of leaving blanks savours more of modern than of ancient manner, and resembles the formality of a legal document more than the natural simplicity of St. Paul. Indeed, we have examples in 2Co_1:1 and Gal_1:2 of the form of address which he would be likely to adopt in an encyclical letter. Besides, any hypothesis which makes Ephesus the chief of the Churches addressed, is open, though in a less degree, to the objections alleged above against the traditional designation.
A second form of the hypothesis supposes the sentence to be complete without anything corresponding to ἐ Ἐέῳ Origen’s view of the meaning of the passage when these words are not read has been quoted above, viz. “to the saints who are.”
This view has been recently espoused by Dr. Milligan (Encycl. Brit., art. “Ephesians”), who translates: “To the saints existing and faithful in Christ Jesus.” But the passages to which he refers in justification of this are by no means sufficient for the purpose. They are—Col_2:3, ἐ ᾧεσ πνε ο θσυο …ἀόρφι ib. 10, κίἐτ ἐ ατ ππηωέο: 3:1, ο ὁΧιτςἐτνἐ δξᾳτῦΘο κθμνς these the predicate is completed by ἐ ᾧ ἐ ατ, ο, and so the passages supply no parallel to the supposed absolute use of τῖ οσ here as “those existing.” Besides, κὶπσοςcomes in very awkwardly and weakly after such an epithet. Bengel, again, interprets: “Sanctis et fidelibus qui sunt in omnibus iis locis, quo Tychicus cum hac epistola venit,” so that τῖ οσν= “qui praesto sunt,” comparing Act_13:1, κτ τνοσνἐκηίν and Rom_13:1, α δ οσιἐοσα. But in the former case ἐ Ἀτοεᾳhad just preceded, so that only ἐε has to be supplied; in the latter the verb simply means “to be in existence.” Not to dwell on the untenable suggestion that τῖ οσνshould be taken with ἁίι (“the saints who are really such”), there remains the perfectly grammatical construction, “the saints who are also faithful” (see note in loc.). The difficulty of the construction is actually diminished by the absence of ἐ Ἐέῳ
The Epistle, then, is best regarded as addressed, not to a Church, but to the Gentile converts in Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae, and elsewhere in Phrygia and the neighbourhood of that province. This is the view adopted by Reiche, Ewald, and (independently) by Prof. Milligan (who, however, supposes the Epistle addressed only to the Gentile converts of Laodicea and Colossae). It meets most of the difficulties. It explains the absence of local references combined with the local limitation implied in 6:22. It also escapes the difficulty of supposing a blank space in 1:1. Further, it explains the remarkable expression, Col_4:16, “the Epistle from Laodicea.” That the Epistle referred to was not written to Laodicea appears highly probable from the fact that a salutation is sent through Colossae to the Laodiceans, which would be inexplicable if they were receiving by the same messenger a letter addressed to themselves; and the expression “from Laodicea” agrees with this, since Tychicus would reach Laodicea first, so that the Colossians would receive the letter from thence. Moreover, the hypothesis explains the remarkable fact that the Epistle contains no allusion to doctrinal errors such as had taken so great a hold in Colossae. Yet that such errors extended at least to Laodicea is not only probable, but is confirmed by the apostle’s direction that the Epistle to Colossae should be read in Laodicea also.
There is no difficulty in understanding how the title “to the Ephesians” would come to be attached to the Epistle, since it was from Ephesus that copies would reach the Christian world generally. A parallel case is the title of the Epistle to the Hebrews, πὸ Ἐρίυ, which, though of doubtful appropriateness, was never questioned. Once accepted as addressed to the Ephesians, the analogy of other Epistles in which τῖ οσνis followed by the name of a place would naturally suggest the insertion of ἐ Ἐέῳ
The hypothesis that the Epistle is a “circular” letter has been adopted (with various modifications) by a very great number of scholars, including Bengel, Neander, Harless, Olshausen, Reuss, Arch. Robertson, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Hort, B. Weiss, Wold-Schmidt, Milligan.
§2. OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE
External Evidence—The earliest express reference to the Epistle as St. Paul’s is that of Irenaeus; but inasmuch as, if not genuine, it must be much later than St. Paul, evidence of acquaintance with it on the part of early writers is important. When we add to this the fact that it professes to be St. Paul’s, we are fairly justified in saying that evidence of its reception is evidence of its genuineness. We begin then with—
Clement of Rome, c. 64, ὁἐλξμνςτνΚρο Ἰσῦ Χιτνκὶἡᾶ δʼατῦεςλὸ προσο. Compare Eph_1:4, Eph_1:5, κθςἐεέαοἡᾶ ἐ ατ …πορσςἡᾶ …δὰἸσῦΧιτῦ Still closer is c. 46, ἢοχ ἕαΘὸ ἔοε κὶἕαΧιτν κὶἓ πεμ τςχρτςτ ἐχθνἐʼἡᾶ κὶμακῆι ἐ Χιτ; compare Eph_4:4-6. Again, c. 36, ἠεχηα ἡῶ ο ὀθλο τςκρίς cf. Eph_1:18. And c. 38, ὑοασσωἕατςτ πήινατῦ cf. Eph_5:21.
The part of the Didachécalled the Two Ways contains the following (Did. iv. 10, 11, also worked up by Barnabas, 19:7): οκἐιάεςδύῳσυἢπιίκ τῖ ἐὶτνατνΘὸ ἐπζυι ἐ πκί συ and to servants: ὑεςδ ο δῦο ὑοαήεθ τῖ κροςὑῶ ὡ τπ Θο ἐ ασύῃκὶφβ. Compare Eph_6:9, Eph_6:5. The coincidence is in substance rather than in words, but it is best accounted for by supposing a knowledge of our Epistle.
Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph. c. 12, Πύο σμύτι(ἐτ), τῦἡισέο, …ὃ ἐ πσ ἐιτλ μηοεε ὑῶ ἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦ Many writers (including Hefele, in loc., Alford, Harless, and, less decidedly, Westcott and Robertson) render this “in all his Epistle,” viz. to you, or “in every part of his Epistle.” But this is untenable. For, in the first place, it is ungrammatical; certainly no example has been produced which is quite parallel. Hefele adduces πσ Ἱρσλμ, Mat_2:3; and πςἸρή, Rom_11:26; but these are proper names. Other supposed parallels are examined by Lightfoot, in loc. Two have been relied on by later writers, viz. Act_17:26, ἐὶπνὸ ποώο τςγς and Aristot. Eth. Nic. i. 13, 7, πνσμ. But neither are these analogous. There is only one πόωο τςγς hence this term is used (not, indeed, with πν without the article in the Sept. (Gen_4:14, Gen_6:7, Gen_11:8, π. πσςτςγς= Luk_21:35). It is easy to understand, then, how it should come to be so used even with πνpreceding.
At first sight πνσμ in Aristotle, l.c., seems to present a closer parallel. The passage runs: δῖτνπλτκνεδνιπςτ πρ ψχς ὥπρκὶτνὀθλοςθρπύνα κὶπνσμ; i.e. he that heals the eyes must know the whole body. But σμ in the abstract sense, i.e. as meaning, not this or that individual body, but the body as opposed to the soul, is used by Aristotle without the article, just as ψχ is also used (see, for example, Eth. Nic. i. 8. 2; 6. 12, etc.). In this particular instance the omission of the article was, in fact, necessary to precision; for πντ σμ might mean the body of him whose eyes were to be healed, whereas what is intended is the human body generally. Since, therefore, πνσμ here does not mean the whole individual body, it furnishes no parallel to the alleged meaning of πσ ἐιτλ, and we are compelled to abide by the rendering “in every Epistle.”
But, in the second place, the proposed rendering gives a wholly unsuitable sense. The fact of St. Paul devoting a letter to the Ephesians would deserve mention, but to what purpose to say, “in his whole letter to you he mentions you”? We do not speak of making mention of a man to himself, nor did the Greeks so use μηοεεν But even if this were possible, it would be, as Lightfoot says, “singularly unmeaning, if not untrue,” of the present Epistle. Alford, indeed, thinks the expression fully justified, and quotes Pearson, who says: “Tota enim Epistola ad Ephesios scripta, ipsos Ephesios, eorumque honorem et curam, maxime spectat, et summe honorificam eorum memoriam ad posteros transmittit. In aliis epistolis apostolus eos ad quos scribit saepe acriter objurgat aut parce laudat. Hic omnibus modis perpetuo se Ephesiis applicat,” etc. All this if said of the Ephesians in a letter addressed to others might be called μηοεεν although this would be a strangely weak word to use. Does not “acriter objurgare” involve μηοεενas much as “laudare”? But the peculiarity of the Epistle is that nothing is mentioned or even alluded to which is personal to the Ephesians.
Kiene (Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 286) understands by πσ ἐιτλ “an entire letter,” but without attempting to show the possibility of this rendering. But can we say that St. Paul mentions the Ephesians “in every letter”? Allowing for a natural hyperbole we may answer, Yes. Ephesus and the Christians there are referred to either alone or with others in Rom_16:5; 1Co_15:32, 1Co_15:16:8, 1Co_15:19; 2Co_1:8 sq.; and 1 and 2 Tim.
The longer recension of Ignatius has (ὃ πνοεἐ τῖ δήει ατῦμηοεε ὑῶ. The Armenian Version reads μηοεω which would be true to fact, for in five out of the six other Epistles, Ignatius does mention the Ephesians. But the authority is insufficient.
Accepting, then, the usual reading and the grammatical rendering, we cannot infer from the words that Ignatius knew the Epistle as addressed to the Ephesians. Rather they would suggest the opposite conclusion. For, when Ignatius desired to remind his readers of St. Paul’s regard for them, it would be strange that he should only refer to the mention of them in other Epistles, and not at all to that which had been specially addressed to them.
The word σμύτιhas been thought to have been suggested by Eph_1:9, Eph_1:3:3, Eph_1:4, Eph_1:9, etc.; but this is very precarious, for St. Paul uses no expression there which would suggest Ignatius’ word, and σμύτςis used by Origen (In Jes. Naue Hom. 7, ii. p. 413), “ipse (Paulus) enim est symmystes Christi,” and by Hippolytus (in Dan. p. 174, Lagarde).
The question as to Ignatius’ knowledge and reception of the Epistle is quite a different one. In the address of his Epistle he has several expressions which may have been suggested by the early verses of our Epistle: τ ελγμν, πηώαι πορσέῃπὸαώω ενι…εςδξν ἐλλγέη, ἐ θλμτ τῦπτό. More certain is cap. i., μμτὶὄτςτῦΘο, borrowed apparently from Eph_5:1, and Polyc. 5, ἀαᾶ τςσμίυ ὡ ὁΚρο τνἐκηίν a reminiscence of Eph_5:29. In the following ch. 6. the reference to the Christian’s πνπί was probably suggested by Eph_6:11, although the parts of the armour are differently assigned. Also Ign. Eph. c. 9, ὡ ἄτςλθινο πτό, ἡομσέο εςοκδμνΘο πτό (Eph_2:20-22).
Contemporaneous with Ignatius is the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. It contains two quotations from the present Epistle in cap. i., χρτ ἐτ σσσέο, οκἐ ἔγν from Eph_2:5, Eph_2:8, Eph_2:9; and c. 12 (of which the Greek is lost), “ut his scripturis dictum est, irascimini et nolite peccare et, sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram, from Eph_4:26. Some commentators, indeed, suppose that Ignatius here is, independently of our Epistle, making the same combination of two O.T. texts, or that both adopt a combination made by some earlier writer. That is to say, they regard “let not the sun go down on your wrath” as a quotation from Deu_24:13, Deu_24:15, verses which have nothing in common with this but the reference to the sun going down, for what they deal with is the hire of a poor man and the pledge taken from the poor. That two writers should independently connect the words in Deut. with those in Ps. 4., changing in the former “his hire” into “your anger,” is beyond the bounds of probability. As to the difficulty which is found in Polycarp citing the N.T. as Scripture, perhaps the explanation may be that, recognising the first sentence as a quotation from the O.T., he hastily concluded that the second was so also. For in the context immediately preceding he confesses that his acquaintance with the Scriptures was not equal to that of the Philippians. This is at least more probable than an accidental coincidence.
Hermas, Mand. iii., has, ἀηεα ἀάακὶπσ ἀηεαἐ τῦσόαό συἐπρυσω doubtless from Eph_4:25, Eph_4:29. A little after we have, μδ λπνἐάεντ πεμτ τ σμῷκὶἀηε; cf. ib. ver. 30. Again, Sim. ix. 13, ἔοτιεςἓ πεμ κὶἓ σμ, and 17, μαπσι ατνἐέεο seem to be reminiscences of Eph_4:4, Eph_4:5.
The Valentinians also quoted the Epistle, 3:4-18, as γάη(Hipp. Philos. vi. 34).
By the close of the second century the Epistle was universally received as St. Paul’s. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. v. 2, 3, has, κθςὁμκρο Πῦό φσν ἐ τ πὸ Ἐείυ ἐιτλ·ὅιμλ ἐμντῦσμτς ἐ τςσρὸ ατῦκὶἐ τνὀτω ατῦ(5:30). Also 1:8, 5, he similarly quotes Eph_5:13. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. §65, having quoted 1Co_11:3 and Gal_5:16 sqq., with φσνὁἀότλς adds, δὸκὶἐ τ πὸ Ἐείυ γάε ὑοασμνιἀλλι ἐ φβ Θο, κτλ Eph_5:21-25. Also Paed. i. §18, ὁἀότλςἐιτλω πὸ Κρνίυ φσν(2Co_11:2) …σφσααδ Ἐείι γάω …λγν μχικτνήωε ο πνε, κτλ Eph_4:13-15. Tertullian and Marcion have already been quoted.
From this evidence it is all but certain that the Epistle already existed about 95 a.d. (Clement), quite certain that it existed about 110 a.d. (Ignatius, Polycarp).
Not to be overlooked as an item of evidence of the genuineness of the Epistle is the mention, in Col_4:16, of an Epistle “from Laodicea.” This has been already referred to for a different purpose. We learn from it that St. Paul wrote at or about the same time, besides the Epistles to Philemon and to the Colossians, an Epistle of a more or less encyclical character, not addressed to the Laodiceans, else it would be called the Epistle “to Laodicea,” or “to the Laodiceans,” and, for a similar reason, not addressed by name to any particular Church or Churches. It must also be considered highly probable that it was conveyed by the same messenger, Tychicus, for it was not every day that St. Paul would have the opportunity of a disciple travelling from Rome (or even from Caesarea) to Laodicea. It is hardly credible that a Church which carefully preserved and copied the unimportant private letter to Philemon, should allow this important encyclical to be lost. There was a further guarantee of its preservation in the fact that this did not depend on one single Church. Now, here we have an Epistle which satisfies these conditions; it is in some sort at least an encyclical letter; according to the best evidence, it was not addressed to a particular Church, and indirectly it purports to have been written about the same time and conveyed by the same messenger, as the Epp. to the Colossians and to Philemon. This would amount to nothing if there were reason to suspect a forgery suggested by Col_4:16. But this is entirely out of the question, for there is not the slightest indication in the Epistle which could lead an ordinary reader to that identification. So effectually, indeed, was it concealed, that with the exception of the heretic Marcion, it does not seem to have occurred to any ancient writer; and on what ground Marcion judged that the Epistle was to the Laodiceans we do not know. We do know, however, that his adoption of that title did not lead others to think of Col_4:16, and even his own disciples seem not to have followed him.1
Whatever probability belongs to this identification (and the reasons alleged against it have little weight), goes directly to confirm the genuineness of the Epistle, and must in all fairness be taken into account. As the Canon of Marcion must have been drawn up before the middle of the second century, there is evidence of the general reception of the Epistle as St. Paul’s at that period.
Many of the ablest opponents of the genuineness admit the early date of composition and reception of the Epistle. Ewald assigned it to about 75-80 a.d. Scholten also to 80. Holtzmann, Mangold, and others to about 100. The late date 140, assigned by some of the earlier critics, is irreconcilable with the evidence of its early recognition.
Internal Evidence.—Objections. The genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been first questioned by Schleiermacher (who suggested that Tychicus was commissioned to write it) and Usteri; but the first to examine the internal evidence in detail was De Wette. His conclusion was that it is a verbose amplification (“wortreiche Erweiterung”) of the Epistle to the Colossians, and in style shows a notable falling off from that of St. Paul. Against the subjective element of this estimate may be placed the judgment of Chrysostom, Erasmus, Grotius, and Coleridge. Chrysostom says: “The Epistle overflows with lofty thoughts and doctrines …Things which he scarcely anywhere else utters, he here expounds.” ὑηῶ σόρ γμιτννηάω·ἃγρμδμῦἐθγαο τῦαἐτῦαδλῖ Erasmus (although noting the difference in style, etc.): “Idem in hac epistola Pauli fervor, eadem profunditas, idem omnino spiritus ac pectus.” He adds: “Verum non alibi sermo hyperbatis, anapodotis, aliisque incommoditatibus molestior, sive id interpretis fuit, quo fuit usus in hac, sive sensuum sublimitatem sermonis facultas non est assequnta. Certe stilus tantum dissonat a caeteris Pauli epistolis ut alterius videri possit nisi pectus atque indoles Paulinae mentis hanc prossus illi vindicaret.” Grotius: “Rerum sublimitatem adaequam verbis sublimioribus quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana.” Coleridge (Table Talk): “The Epistle to the Ephesians …is one of the divinest compositions of man. It embraces every doctrine of Christianity;—first, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and then those precepts common to it with natural religion.” Others have also judged that, as compared with Colossians, it is in system “far deeper, and more recondite, and more exquisite” (Alford).
De Wette was answered by Lü Meyer, and others. Some of the critics who followed De Wette went beyond him, rejecting the Ep. to the Colossians also, which he fully accepted, and assigning to both a much later date. Schwegler and Baur, finding in the Epistle traces of Gnostic and Montanist language and ideas, ascribed both Epistles to the middle of the second century. Similarly Hilgenfeld, who, however, attributed the Epistles to distinct authors. The fallacy of these latter speculations has been shown by Holtzmann, who has devoted an entire volume to the criticism of the two Epistles (Kritik der Epheser und Kolosserbriefe auf Grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhä Leipz. 1872). His conclusion is that the writer of the present Epistle had before him a genuine, but much shorter, Epistle to the Colossians, on which he founded his encyclical, and that the same writer subsequently interpolated the Epistle to the Colossians. (This was first suggested by Hitzig, 1870.) Soden (in two articles in the Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. 1885, 1887) maintained the genuineness of Col. with the exception of nine verses, and in his Comm. he withdraws this exception, regarding only 1:16b, 17 as a gloss.
Lastly, the most recent writer on the subject, Jü (Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1894), will only go so far as to say that our Epistle cannot with certainty be reckoned as St. Paul’s, while neither can its genuineness be unconditionally denied.
Objections from the Language of the Epistle.—Let us first notice the argument from the language of the Epistle. Holtzmann remarks, as favourable to the Pauline authorship, that it contains eighteen words not found elsewhere in the N.T. except in St. Paul. ἄαονoccurs eight times in Romans, and besides only in Gal_1. and 2 Thess. and Eph. each once; δό a favourite of St. Paul, occurs in Eph. five times (not in Col.). But the favourable impression created by this is outweighed by the peculiarities found in the Epistle. It is indeed admitted that the existence of ἅα λγμν would be no argument against the genuineness, if only they were not so numerous. There are, in fact, 42 words which are ἅ λ (in the N.T.), not including αχαωεεν which is in a quotation. (Holtzmann reckoned only 37, but Thayer gives 42.1) This number, however, is not greater in proportion than that in admitted Epistles of St. Paul. Romans contains 100 (neglecting quotations); 1 Cor. 108; 2 Cor. 95; Gal. 33; Phil. 41 (Col. has 38). The percentage is, in fact, rather less in our Epistle (see Robertson, Dict. of Bible, i. 954a, note). It is, indeed, fair in such a comparison to take account of St. Paul’s vocabulary rather than that of the N.T. generally. Accordingly, Holtzmann notes that there are here 39 words which, though occurring elsewhere in the N.T., are not found in St. Paul (the Pastoral Epp. and Col. are, of course, not counted). In Col. there are 15. Some of these, indeed, are such common words, that it is somewhat surprising that St. Paul has not used them elsewhere, such as ἄνι, ἀαά, δρν φόηι, ὕο, to which we may add, though not common, στρο, εσλγνς But then, each of these occurs only once, and hence they cannot be regarded as indications of a different writer. Of the other words that have been noted as peculiar, some belong to the description of the Christian’s armour, and for these there would be no obvious place except in connexion with a similar figure; while others, such as κτριμς ποκρέηι, ὁιτς cannot properly be reckoned as peculiar, since in other Epistles we find κτρίω κτριι, ποκρεεν ὁίς So also, although ἄοξςdoes not occur elsewhere, ἄοξςτῦσόαο, 6:19, is parallel to 2Co_6:11, τ σόαἡῶ ἀέγ. Even without making these allowances, there is little difference between this Epistle and that to the Galatians, for example, in this respect. The latter Epistle, which is rather shorter, contains, in addition to 32 ἅα λγμν, 42 words which, though occurring elsewhere in the N.T., are not found in the other Epistles of St. Paul. Such calculations are, indeed, futile, except in connexion with words so frequently used as to be characteristic of the writer.
More weight is to be given to the principle of the objection, that words are used here to express certain ideas which St. Paul is in the habit of expressing differently, and, again, that words used by him are here employed with a different meaning. But when we come to the instances we find them few, and for the most part unimportant. Of the first class, De Wette mentions τ ἐορναfor “heaven” (five times); τ πεμτκ for “spirits”; δάοο twice (elsewhere only in 1 and 2 Tim.), κσορτρ στρο. Soden adds, as favourite words of the writer, μθδί (twice), and δσις(twice). These, with τ ἐορναand δάοο, he says, it is strange not to find slipping from St. Paul’s pen elsewhere. As to δσις however, it actually occurs in Philemon, and Holtzmann had already pointed out that it was not to be expected except in Epistles written when St. Paul was a prisoner. As to δάοο, of which much has been made because St. Paul elsewhere uses Στνς if the writer of the Acts, or of the Fourth Gospel, and other N.T. writers, could use Στνςand δάοο indifferently, why might not Paul use the former in his earlier Epistles, and the latter twice in this? The difference is only that between the Hebrew and the Greek forms, and is analogous to that between Πτο and Κφς of which the former is used twice and the latter four times in the Epistle to the Galatians. Again, although τ ἐορνα(which is not = “the heavens”) is not found elsewhere in St. Paul, the adjective occurs with the meaning “heavenly” in 1Co_15:40, 1Co_15:48, 1Co_15:49, and in Php_2:10. Other un-Pauline expressions are found in τ θλμτ, α δάοα, πὸκτβλςκσο, φτζι as a function of the apostle, ὁἄχντςἐοσα τῦἀρς ὁΘὸ τῦΚρο ἡῶ ἹσῦΧιτῦ(1:17, 3); πεμ τῦνό, ἡἁί ἐκηί (ver. 27, not, however, in this form); ο ἅιιἀότλικὶποῆα, ἴτ γνσοτς δδνίτν τ (1:22, 4:11); ἀαὸ πό τ (4:29); ἀαᾶ τνΚρο (Paul has ἀ. τνΘό), ἀαᾶ τνἐκηίν of Christ; εςπσςτςγνὰ τῦαῶο τναώω.
It is, for the most part, only by their number that these and similar instances can be supposed to carry weight as an objection to the Pauline authorship; two or three, however, are somewhat striking. On ὁΘὸ τῦΚρο ἡῶ, see the note. It is certainly an unexpected expression, but it is one which no later imitator, holding such lofty views of Christ as are here expressed, would have ventured on without Pauline precedent. It has its parallel in Joh_20:17. Again, although the expression ὁΧιτςἠάηετνἐκηίνtaken by itself sounds peculiar, it is not so when we find that it is suggested by the preceding words, ο ἄδε, ἀαᾶετςγνῖα κθςκί κτλ
The phrase which seems to create the greatest difficulty is τῖ ἁίι ἀοτλι κὶποῆας It is said that this, especially when compared with Col_1:26, is strongly suggestive of a later generation which set the apostles and prophets (of the new dispensation) on a lofty pedestal as objects of veneration. Some of those critics who accept the Epistle as genuine have suggested that we have to do with a gloss (the whole or, at least, the latter half of ver. 5, Reuss; the word ἁίι, Jü or a dislocation of the text (Robertson), ἁίι being the mediate or general (ἐα&ep