None of the epistles which are ascribed to Paul have a stronger chain of evidence to their early and continued use than that which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians. Leaving for the moment the question of the relation of Eph to other New Testament writings, we find that it not only colors the phraseology of the Apostolic Fathers, but is actually quoted. In Clement of Rome (circa 95 ad) the connection with Ephesians might be due to some common liturgical form in xlvi.6 (compare Eph 4:6); though the resemblance is so close that we must feel that our epistle was known to Clement both here and in lxiv (compare Eph 1:3-4); xxxviii (compare Eph 5:21); xxxvi (compare Eph 4:18); lix (compare Eph 1:18; Eph 4:18). Ignatius (died 115) shows numerous points of contact with Ephesians, especially in his Epistle to the Ephesians. In chap. xii we read: “Ye are associates and fellow students of the mysteries with Paul, who in every letter makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.” It is difficult to decide the exact meaning of the phrase “every letter,” but in spite of the opinion of many scholars that it must be rendered “in all his epistle,” i.e. in every part of his epistle, it is safer to take it as an exaggeration, “in all his epistles,” justified to some extent in the fact that besides Ephesians, Paul does mention the Ephesian Christians in Rom (Rom 16:5); 1 Cor (1Co 15:32; 1Co 16:8, 1Co 16:19); 2 Cor (2Co 1:8 f); 1 Tim (1Ti 1:3) and 2 Tim (2Ti 1:18). In the opening address the connection with Eph 1:3-6 is too close to be accidental. There are echoes of our epistle in chap. i (Eph 6:1); ix (Eph 2:20-22); xviii (oikonomía, Eph 1:10); xx (Eph 2:18; Eph 4:24); and in Ignat. ad Polyc. v we have close identity with Eph 5:25 and less certain connection with Eph 4:2, and in vi with Eph 6:13-17. The Epistle of Polycarp in two passages shows verbal agreement with Eph: in chap. i with Eph 1:8, and in xii with Eph 4:26, where we have (the Greek is missing here) ut his scripturis dictum est. Hermas speaks of the grief of the Holy Spirit in such a way as to suggest Ephesians (Mand. X, ii; compare Eph 4:30). Sim. IX, xiii, shows a knowledge of Eph 4:3-6, and possibly of Eph 5:26 and Eph 1:13. In the Didache (4) we find a parallel to Eph 6:5 : “Servants submit yourselves to your masters.” In Barnabas there are two or three turns of phrase that are possibly due to Ephesians. There is a slightly stronger connection between II Clement and Ephesians, especially in chap. xiv, where we have the Ephesian figure of the church as the body of Christ, and the relation between them referred to in terms of husband and wife.

(3) Certain of these positions require that we should examine the doctrinal objections. (a) First of these is the claim that Ephesians has a different conception of the person and work of Christ from the acknowledged epistles of Paul. Not only have we the exaltation of Christ which we find in Col 1:16, but the still further statement that it was God's purpose from the beginning to “sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth” (Eph 1:10). This is no more than the natural expansion of the term, “all things,” which are attributed to Christ in 1Co 8:6, and is an idea which has at least its foreshadowing in Rom 8:19, Rom 8:20 and 2Co 5:18, 2Co 5:19. The relation between Christ and the church as given in Eph 1:22 and Eph 5:23 is in entire agreement with Paul's teaching in Rom 12, and 1 Cor 12. It is still the Pauline figure of the church as the body of Christ, in spite of the fact that Christ is not thought of as the head of that body. The argument in the epistle does not deal with the doctrine of the cross from the standpoint of the earlier epistles, but the teaching is exactly the same. There is redemption (Eph 1:7, Eph 1:14; Eph 4:30); reconciliation (Eph 2:14-16); forgiveness (Eph 1:7; Eph 4:32). The blood of Christ shed on the cross redeems us from our sin and restores us to God. In like manner it is said that the Parousia is treated (Eph 2:7) as something far off. But Paul has long since given up the idea that it is immediately; even in 2 Thess 2 he shows that an indeterminate interval must intervene, and in Rom 11:25 he sees a period of time yet unfulfilled before the end. (b) The doctrine of the church is the most striking contrast to the earlier epistles. We have already dealt with the relation of Christ to the church. The conception of the church universal is in advance of the earlier epistles, but it is the natural climax of the development of the apostle's conception of the church as shown in the earlier epistles. Writing from Rome with the idea of the empire set before him, it was natural that Paul should see the church as a great whole, and should use the word ekklesia absolutely as signifying the oneness of the Christian brotherhood. As a matter of fact the word is used in this absolute sense in 1Co 12:28 before the Captivity Epistles (compare 1Co 1:2; 1Co 10:32). The emphasis here on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the church finds its counterpart in the argument of the Epistle to the Romans, though in Ephesians this is “urged on the basis of God's purpose and Christian faith, rather than on the Law and the Promises.” Neither is it true that in Ephesians the Law is spoken of slightingly, as some say, by the reference to circumcision (Eph 2:11). In no case is the doctrinal portion of the epistle counter to that of the acknowledged Pauline epistles, though in the matter of the church, and of Christ's relationship to it and to the universe, there is evidence of progress in the apostle's conception of the underlying truths, which none the less find echoes in the earlier writings. “New doctrinal ideas, or a new proportion of these ideas, is no evidence of different authorship.” (c) In the matter of organization the position of Ephesians is not in any essential different from what we have in 1 Cor.

(4) The linguistic argument is a technical matter of the use of Greek words that cannot well be discussed here. The general differences of style, the longer “turgid” sentences, the repetitions on the one hand; the lack of argument, the full, swelling periods on the other, find their counterpart in portions of Romans. The minute differences which show themselves in new or strange words will be much reduced in number when we take from the list those that are due to subjects which the author does not discuss elsewhere (e.g. those in the list of armor in Eph 6:13). Holtzmann (Einl, 25) gives us a list of these hápax legómena (76 in all). But there are none of these which, as Lock says, Paul could not have used, though there are certain which he does not use elsewhere and others which are only found in his accepted writings and here. The following stand out as affording special ground for objection. The phrase “heavenly places” (tá epouránia, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:10; Eph 2:6; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12) is peculiar to this epistle. The phrase finds a partial parallel it in 1Co 15:49 and the thought is found in Phi 3:20. The devil (ho diábolos, Eph 4:27; Eph 6:11) is used in place of the more usual Satan (satanás). But in Acts Paul is quoted as using diabolos in Act 13:10 and satanas in Act 26:18. It is at least natural that he would have used the Greek term when writing from Rome to a Greek-speaking community. The objection to the expression “holy” (hagíois) apostles (Eph 3:5) falls to the ground when we remember that the expression “holy” (hágios) is Paul's common word for Christian and that he uses it of himself in this very epistle (Eph 3:8). In like manner “mystery” (musterion), “dispensation” (oikonomia) are found in other epistles in the same sense that we find them in here.

This almost universal evidence for Ephesus as the destination of our epistle is shattered when we turn to the reading of the first verse. Here according to Textus Receptus of the New Testament we read “Paul unto the saints which are at Ephesus (en Ephésō) and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.” When we look at the evidence for this reading we find that the two words en Ephésō are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and that the corrector of the cursive known as 67 has struck them out of his copy. Besides these a recently described MS, Cod. Laura 184, giving us a text which is so closely akin to that used by Origen that the scribe suggests that it was compiled from Origen's writings, omits these words (Robinson, Ephesians, 293). To this strong manuscript evidence against the inclusion of these two words in the inscription we must add the evidence of Origen and Basil. Origen, as quoted in Cramer's Catena at the place, writes: “In the Ephesians alone we found the expression 'to the saints which are,' and we ask, unless the phrase 'which are' is redundant, what it can mean. May it not be that as in Exodus He who speaks to Moses declares His name to be the Absolute One, so also those who are partakers of the Absolute become existent when they are called, as it were, from non-being into being?” Origen evidently knows nothing here of any reading en Ephesō, but takes the words “which are” in an absolute, metaphysical sense. Basil, a century and a half later, probably refers to this comment of Origen (Contra Eun., ii.19) saying: “But moreover, when writing to the Ephesians, as to men who are truly united with the Absolute One through clear knowledge, he names them as existent ones in a peculiar phrase, saying 'to the saints which are and faithful in Christ Jesus.' For so those who were before us have handed it down, and we also have found (this reading) in old copies.” In Jerome's note on this verse there is perhaps a reference to this comment on Origen, but the passage is too indefinitely expressed for us to be sure what its bearing on the reading really is. The later writers quoted by Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 384 f) cannot, as Robinson shows (Eph, 293), be used as witnesses against the Textus Receptus. We may therefore conclude that the reading en Ephesō was wanting in many early manuscripts, and that there is good ground for questioning its place in the original autograph.

But the explanations suggested for the passage, as it stands without the words, offend Pauline usage so completely that we cannot accept them. To take “which are” in the phrase “the saints which are” (toís oúsin) as absolute, as Origen did; or as meaning “truly,” is impossible. It is possible to take the words with what follows, “and faithful” (kaí pistoís), and interpret this latter expression (pistois) either in the New Testament sense of “believers” or in the classical sense of “steadfast.” The clause would then read either “to the saints who are also believers,” or “to the saints who are also faithful,” i.e. steadfast. Neither of these is wholly in accord with Paul's normal usage, but they are at least possible.

The determining factor in the question of the destination of the epistle lies in the epistle itself. We must not forget that, save perhaps Corinth, there was no church with which Paul was so closely associated as that in Ephesus. His long residence there, of which we read in Acts (chapters 19; 20), finds no echo in our epistle. There is no greeting to anyone of the Christian community, many of whom were probably intimate friends. The close personal ties, that the scene of Acts 20:17-38 shows us existed between him and his converts in Ephesus, are not even hinted at. The epistle is a calm discussion, untouched with the warmth of personal allusion beyond the bare statement that the writer is a prisoner (Eph 3:1; Eph 4:1), and his commendation of Tychicus (Eph 6:21, Eph 6:22), who was to tell them about Paul's condition in Rome. This lack of personal touch is intensified by the assumption underlying Eph 3 and 4 that the readers do not know his knowledge of the mysteries of Christ. In Eph 3:2 and Eph 4:21, Eph 4:22 there is a particle (eíge, “if indeed”) which suggests at least some question as to how far Paul himself was the missionary through whom they believed. All through the epistle there is a lack of those elements which are so constant in the other epistles, which mark the close personal fellowship and acquaintance between the apostle and those to whom he is writing.

The connection with the Apocalypse is based on Eph 2:20 as compared with Rev 21:14; Eph 3:5 and Rev 10:7; Eph 5:11 and Rev 18:4, and the figure of the bride of the Lamb (Rev 19:7; compare Eph 5:25). Holtzmann adds various minor similarities, but none of these are sufficient to prove any real knowledge of, let alone dependence on Ephesians. The contact with the Fourth Gospel is more positive. Love (agápē) and knowledge (gnō̇sis) are used in the same sense in both Ephesians and the Gospel. The application of the Messianic title, the Beloved (Eph 1:6), to Christ does not appear in the Gospel (it is found in Mat 3:17), but the statement of the Father's love for Him constantly recurs. The reference to the going up and coming down of Christ (Eph 4:9) is closely akin to Joh 3:13 (“No man hath ascended into heaven, but he,” etc.). So, too, Eph 5:11, Eph 5:13 finds echo in Joh 3:19, Joh 3:20; Eph 4:4, Eph 4:7 in Joh 3:34; Eph 5:6 in Joh 3:36. Eph 5:8 f is akin to 1Jo 1:6 and Eph 2:3 to 1Jo 3:10.

When we turn to Colossians we find a situation that is without parallel in the New Testament. Out of 155 verses in Ephesians, 78 are found in Colossians in varying degrees of identity. Among them are these: Eph 1:6 parallel Col 1:13; Eph 1:16 parallel Col 1:9; Eph 1:21 parallel Col 1:16; Eph 2:16 parallel Col 2:20; Eph 4:2 parallel Col 3:12; Eph 4:15 parallel Col 2:19; Eph 4:22 parallel Col 3:9; Eph 4:32 parallel Col 3:12; Eph 5:5 parallel Col 3:5; Eph 5:19 parallel Col 3:16; Eph 6:4 parallel Col 3:21; Eph 6:5-9 parallel Col 3:22 through 4:1. For a fuller list see Abbott (ICC, xxiii). Not only is this so, but there is an identity of treatment, a similarity in argument so great that Bishop Barry (NT Commentary for English Readers, Ellicott) can make a parallel analysis showing the divergence and similarity by the simple device of different type. To this we must add that there are at least a dozen Greek words common to these two epistles not found elsewhere. Over against this similarity is to be set the dissimilarity. The general subject of the epistles is not approached from the same standpoint. In one it is Christ as the head of all creation, and our duty in consequence. In the other it is the church as the fullness of Christ and our duty - put constantly in the same words - in consequence thereof. In Ephesians we have a number of Old Testament references, in Colossians only one. In Ephesians we have unique phrases, of which “the heavenly spheres” (ta epourania) is most striking, and the whole treatment of the relation of Jew and Gentile in the church, and the marriage tie as exemplified in the relation between Christ and the church. In Colossians we have in like manner distinct passages which have no parallel in Ephesians, especially the controversial section in chapter 2, and the salutations. In truth, as Davies (Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians.) well says: “It is difficult indeed to say, concerning the patent coincidences of expression in the two epistles, whether the points of likeness or of unlikeness between them are the more remarkable.” This situation has given rise to various theories. The most complicated is that of H. Holtzmann, who holds that some passages point to a priority of Colossians, others to that of Ephesians; and as a result he believes that Colossians, as we have it, is a composite, based on an original epistle of Paul which was expanded by the author of Ephesians - who was not Paul - after he had written this epistle. So Holtzmann would give us the original Colossians (Pauline), Ephesians (based on it), and the present Colossians (not Pauline) expanded from the former through the latter. The theory falls to the ground on its fundamental hypothesis, that Colossians as it stands is interpolated. The most reasonable explanation is that both Colossians and Ephesians are the work of Paul, written at practically the same time, and that in writing on the same subjects, to different people, there would be just the differences and similarity which we have in these epistles. The objection that Paul could not repeat himself and yet differ as these two letters do is purely imaginary. Zahn shows us that men do just this very thing, giving an account of Bismarck's speaking on a certain subject to a group of officers and later to a large body of men, and yet using quite different language. Moreover, Paul is not averse to repeating himself (compare Romans and Galatians and 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) when to do so will serve his purpose. “Simultaneous authorship by one writer,” and that writer Paul, is the only explanation that will satisfy all the facts in the case and give them due proportion.

The teaching as to the church is one of the most striking elements of the epistle. In the first place we have the absolute use of the term, which has been already discussed. The apostle sees the whole Christian community throughout the world bound together into a unity, one fellowship, one body. He has risen to a higher vision than man had ever had before. But there is a further teaching in the epistle. Not only is the church throughout the world one body, but it is the body of Christ who is its Head (Eph 1:21 f). He has, as Lightfoot suggests, the same relation to the church which in Eph 1:10 He has to the universe. He is its Head, “the inspiring, ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the center of its unity, and the seat of its life.” But the relation is still closer. If, as the evidence adduced would necessitate, one accepts J. Armitage Robinson's explanation of plḗrōma, as that without which a thing is incomplete (Eph, 255 f), then the church, in some wonderful mystery, is the complement of Christ, apart from which He Himself, as the Christ, lacks fullness. We are needed by Him, that so He may become all in all. He, the Head of restored humanity, the Second Adam, needs His church, to fulfill the unity which He came upon earth to accomplish (compare Stone, Christian Church, 85, 86). Still further, we find in this epistle the two figures of the church as the Temple of ;the Spirit (Eph 2:21, and the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:23). Under the latter figure we find the marriage relation of the Lord to Israel, which runs through the Old Testament (Hos 3:1-5 :16, et al.), applied to the union between Christ and the church. The significance is the close tie that binds them, the self-sacrificing love of Christ and the self-surrender of obedience on the part of the church; and the object of this is that so the church may be free from any blemish, holy and spotless. In the figure of the Temple, which is an expansion of the earlier figure in 1Co 3:16; 2Co 6:16, we see the thought of a spiritual building, a sanctuary, into which all the diverse elements of the churches grow into a compact unity. These figures sum up the apostle's thought of that in which the Divine purpose finds its fulfillment. The progress forward to that fulfillment is due to the combined effort of God and man. “The church, the society of Christian men ... is built and yet it grows. Human endeavor and Divine energy cooperate in its development” (Westcott). Out of this doctrinal development the apostle works out the practical life by which this Divine purpose can find its fulfillment. Admitted into the fellowship of the church by baptism, we become members one of another Eph (Eph 4:25). It is on this basis that he urges honesty and patience and truth in our intercourse with each other, and pleads for gentleness and a forgiving spirit (Eph 4:25-32). As followers of God we are to keep free from the sins that spring from pride and self-indulgence and any fellowship with the spirit of evil (Eph 5:1-14). Our life is to be lived as seeking the fulfillment of God's purpose in all the relationships of life (Eph 5:15 through Eph 6:9). All is to be done with the full armor of the Christian soldier, as is fitting for those who fight spiritual enemies (Eph 6:10). The epistle is preëminently practical, bringing the significance of the great revelation of God's will to the everyday duties of life, and lifting all things up to a higher level which finds its ideal in the indwelling of Christ in our hearts, out of which we may be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph 3:17-19).

J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; Westcott, Epistle to the Ephesains; Abbott, “Ephesians and Colossians,” International Critical Commentary; Moule, “Ephesians,” Cambridge Bible; Salmond, “Ephesians,” Expositor's Greek Testament; Macpherson, Commentary on Ephesians; Findlay, “Epistle to the Ephesians,” Expositor's Bible; Alexander, “Colossians and Ephesians,” Bible for Home and School; Haupt, Meyer's Exeget. und krit. Kommentar; von Soden, Handcommentar; Hort, Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians; Dale, Lectures on the Ephesians.

This page uses the TITUS Cyberbit Basic font for the Greek & Hebrew letters. If the Greek & Hebrew text doesn't display right then you can download the free font here