S. M. Baugh - Ephesians. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, 2015

8/16/2019 S. M. Baugh - Ephesians. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, 2015

1/399

EvangelicalExegeticalCommentary

EphesiansS. M. Baugh

General Editor: H. Wayne House Ne !estament Editors: W. Hall Harris """# $ndre W. %itts

Ephesians: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary

Copyright &'() S. M. Baugh. $ll rights reserved.

%u*lished *y +exham %ress# (,(, Commercial St.# Bellingham# W$ -&&)

http://.lexhampress.com

0ou may use *rie1 2uotations 1rom this commentary in presentations# articles# and *oo3s. 4or all other

uses# please rite +exham %ress 1or permission. E5mail us at permissions6lexhampress.com.

English 2uotations 1rom Ephesians are the author7s on translation.

8nless otherise indicated# Bi*le 2uotations outside o1 Ephesians are ta3en 1rom !he Holy Bi*le: EnglishStandard 9ersion# copyright &''( *y Crossay Bi*les# a division o1 Good Nes %u*lishers. 8sed *y permission. $ll rights reserved.

http://www.lexhampress.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.lexhampress.com/


2/399

;E;"C$!"


3/399

EDITORS’ PREFACE

We are happy to present the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary ?EEC series on the Bi*le.!hough there are many excellent commentaries that have *een produced in recent years# the EECis a needed addition 1or scholars# pastors# and students o1 the Bi*le. $s the title o1 the seriesindicates# the authors o1 this series are committed to *oth the evangelical 1aith and a care1ulexegesis o1 the *i*lical text. Each o1 the authors a11irms historic# orthodox Christianity and theinspiration and inerrancy o1 the Holy Scriptures. "n this series# the *i*lical *oo3s are studied iththe tested tools o1 *i*lical scholarship# 3eeping in mind that these *oo3s# produced *y humanauthors# come 1rom the very mouth o1 God ?& !im ,:(Y. !he EEC re1lects the importantinterpretative principles o1 the Ze1ormation# hile utili[ing historical5grammatical andcontextual interpretative methods.

Each part o1 the *i*lical text\as re1lected in the original reading\has something to teach usa*out God# His orld# and ho e should relate to Him and to others. !hus in this series# each *i*lical unit is analy[ed and interpreted. !hen recommendations 1or application to everyday li1eand *i*lical theology are o11ered. !his last step ill aid pastors and teachers in their ministry o1

God7s Word.!he EEC is the 1irst commentary series produced 1irst in electronic 1orm. ;oing this has

ena*led +ogos to lin3 each volume to the other resources o1 their massive electronic li*rary.$dditionally# the electronic volumes may contain such items as charts# graphs# timelines# and photos. $nother *ene1it o1 the electronic edition is that authors ill *e a*le to add to their original contri*ution hen ne archaeological discoveries or additional insights *ecomeavaila*le. !hus# the oner o1 this series can *ene1it 1rom an expanding resource. !he EEC isscheduled 1or completion in hal1 the time o1 compara*le series. !he dedication o1 the authors andthe +exham %ress sta11 ma3e this possi*le.

We hope that you ill have greater appreciation 1or the Word o1 God and the a*ility to *etter share it *ecause o1 reading the EEC.

4or us# the EEC is an o11ering o1 praise to the great !riune God ho is our Creator# Savior#and Sustainer# ho# through esus the Messiah and +ord# delt among humanity to *ring ussalvation and gi1ts o1 His grace.

IP ] O IF OP J ^P O IF OP J K O IF J V IO J Q_VIO`ὅ ἐ ὐ ῦ ʼ ὐ ῦ ἰ ὐO I ^]O K IF J K O VOK# UbVὐ ῷ ἡ ἰ ἰῶ ἀ ?Zom ((:,Y.

Because out o1 Him and through Him and unto Him are all things!o Him *e the glory unto all the ages# amen ?Zom ((:,Y.

H. Wayne House# M.$.# !h.;.# .;.General Editor

;istinguished Zesearch %ro1essor o1 Bi*lical and !heologicalStudies4aith Evangelical Seminary# !acoma# Washington

William ;. Barric3# !h.M.# !h.;.


4/399

W. Hall Harris# !h.M.# %h.;. N! Editor %ro1essor o1 N! Studies;allas !heological Seminary# ;allas# !exas

ABBREVIATIONS

$B $nchor Bi*le$B; Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited *y ;. N. 4reedman. Y vols. Ne 0or3# (--&. ABR Australian Biblical Review ACCS Edards# Mar3 . alatians! Ephesians! "hilippians. $ncient Christian

Commentary on Scripture. &nd ed. ;oners Grove# "+: "nter9arsity# &'').$; anno ;omini$G8 $r*eiten [ur Geschichte des anti3en udentums und des 8rchistentums A#" American #ournal o$ "hilology$nBi* $nalecta *i*lica A%R& Au$stieg un' %ie'ergang 'er r(mischen &elt $N!4 $r*eiten [ur neutestamentlichen !ext1orschung A)# Ashlan' )heological #ournal $8SS $ndres 8niversity Seminary Studies BA* Biblical an' Ancient reek *inguistics BBR Bulletin $or Biblical ResearchBC *e1ore ChristB;$G Bauer# W.# 4. W. ;an3er# W. 4. $rndt# and 4. W. Gingrich. reek+English *e,icon

o$ the %ew )estament an' -ther Early Christian *iterature# ,rd ed. Chicago#&'''

B;4 Blass# 4.# $. ;e*runner# and Z. W. 4un3. $ Gree3 Grammar o1 the Ne !estamentand


5/399

ca. circaCB0 Catholic Biblical 0uarterlyc1. con$er # comparechap?s. chapter?sC# Classical #ournal

ConBN! Coniectanea neotestamenticaed?s. edition edited *y editor?se.g. e,empli gratia# 1or exampleesp. especiallyetc. et cetera# and the rest ?Gree3: I.# OP J IO J FTQO# ktl1! kai ta loipaC"hil Classical "hilologyC0 Classical 0uarterlyC)# Calvin )heological #ournal C)0 Concor'ia )heological 0uarterlyC)R Criswell )heological ReviewCurBS Currents in Research2 Biblical Stu'ies

;; ;iscoveries in the udean ;esert D"* Dictionary o$ "aul an' 3is *etters. Edited *y G. 4. Hathorne and Z. %. Martin.+eicester# 8# (--,

ED%) E,egetical Dictionary o$ the %ew )estament . Edited *y H. Bal[ and G. Schneider.Grand Zapids# (--'A-,

E44%) Evangelisch+katholischer 4ommentar 5um %euen )estament Ep1 Epistle6s7esp. especiallyE! English translationES9 English Standard 9ersionE9 English 9ersion?s Ev0 Evangelical 0uarterly4S 8estschri$t GNCN! Good Nes Commentary Ne !estamentGNS Good Nes StudiesGZBS Gree3# Zoman# and By[antine Studies)# race )heological #ournal HN! Hand*uch [um Neuen !estamentH!N! Herders theologischer ommentar [um Neuen !estament 3)R 3arvar' )heological ReviewH8! Hermeneutische 8ntersuchungen [ur !heologie IBS Irish Biblical Stu'ies"CC "nternational Critical Commentaryi.e. i' est # that is Int Interpretation IvE Die Inschri$ten von Ephesos. Edited *y Z. Meri# Z. Mer3el*ach# . Noll# and S.

Sahin. Bonn: Zudolph Ha*elt# (-j-A@ #AC #ahrbuch $9r Antike un' Christentum #:AI #ahreshe$te 'es (stereichischen arch;ologischen Institutes in &ienB erusalem Bi*le


6/399

#B* #ournal o$ Biblical *iterature #E)S #ournal o$ the Evangelical )heological Society #RCh# #ournal o$ reco+Roman Christianity an' #u'aism #0R #ewish 0uarterly Review #S%) #ournal $or the Stu'y o$ the %ew )estament

SN!Sup ournal 1or the Study o1 the Ne !estament: Supplement SeriesS

Edited *y ohannes %. +ou and Eugene $. Nida. Ne 0or3# (-+N!S +i*rary o1 Ne !estament Studies+S +iddell# H. G.# Z. Scott# and H. S. ones. A reek+English *e,icon. -th ed. ith

revised supplement.


7/399

N!C Ne !estament Commentary N!; ;as Neue !estament ;eutsch N!+ Ne !estament +i*rary N!M Ne !estament Monographs %)S %ew )estament Stu'ies

-CD )he -,$or' Classical Dictionary. Edited *y Simon Horn*loer# $ntonySpa1orth# and Esther Eidino. @th ed.


8/399

)D-) )heological Dictionary o$ the -l' )estament . Edited *y G. . Botterec3 and H.Zinggren. !ranslated *y . !. Willis# G. W. Bromiley# and ;. E. Green. vols.Grand Zapids: (-j@A

)heol=eit )heologische =eitschri$t !+G !hesaurus +ingua Graeca

!N!C !yndale Ne !estament Commentarytrans. translator?s translation)rin# )rinity #ournal )ynB )yn'ale Bulletin8BS@ 8nited Bi*le Society reek %ew )estament . @th ed.v?v. verse?s>C >igiliae christianae>E >o, evangelica9g. 9ulgateWBC Word Bi*lical Commentary&)# &estminster )heological #ournal

W8N! Wissenscha1tliche 8ntersuchungen [um Neuen !estament =%& =eitschri$t $9r 'ie neutestamentliche &issenscha$t un' 'ie 4un'e 'er ;lteren 4irche

="E =eitschri$t $9r "apyrologie un' Epigraphik =)4 =eitschri$t $9r )heologie un' 4ircheq section/paragraph "ndicates places here the stone is *ro3en on inscriptions ith only con=ectural

readings

Grammatical Abbreviations

acc. accusativead=. ad=ectiveadv. adver*# adver*ialaor. aoristcon=. con=unction1em. 1emininegen. genitiveimpv. imperativeindic. indicativein1. in1initivemasc. masculine

o*=. o*=ect pass. passive pl. plural poss. possessive prep. preposition pres. present ptc. participlesg. singular


9/399

voc. vocative

Ancient Sources

Ol Testament

Gen GenesisExod Exodus+ev +eviticus Num Num*ers;eut ;euteronomyosh oshuaudg udges(5& Sam (5& Samuel(5& gs (5& ings(5& Chr (5& Chronicles Neh NehemiahEsth Esther %sa/%ss %salm/%salms%rov %rover*sEccl EcclesiastesSong Song o1 Songs"sa "saiaher eremiah+am +amentationsE[e3 E[e3iel;an ;anielHos Hosea


10/399

(5& !im (5& !imothy%hlm %hilemonHe* He*resas ames(5& %et (5& %eter

Zev Zevelation

A"ocr#"$a an Pseue"i%ra"$a

? Bar1 ? Baruch@ Bar1 @ Baruch( Esd ( Esdras( Macc ( Macca*ees& Macc & Macca*ees /acc /accabees /acc /accabees

Bar Baruchdt udithu*. u*ilees "ss1 Sol1 "salms o$ SolomonSir Sirach/Ecclesiasticus)1 Ben1 )estament o$ Benamin)1 #os1 )estament o$ #oseph)1 %ap1 )estament o$ %aphtali)1 Reu1 )estament o$ Reuben)1 Sim1 )estament o$ Simeon)1 Sol1 )estament o$ Solomon)1 =eb1 )estament o$ =ebulun!o* !o*itWis Wisdom o1 Solomon

Classical &ritin%s

Aen1 9irgil# Aenei' Anab1 enophon# Anabasis Anach1 +ucian# Anacharsis Ann1 !acitus# Annales Argon1 $pollonius o1 Zhodes# Argonautica Brut1 Cicero# Brutus or De claris oratoribusChar1 !heophrastus# CharacteresClau'1 Suetonius# Divus Clau'iusComp1 ;ionysius o1 Halicarnassus# De compositione verborum ?


11/399

Diatr1 Epictetus# Diatribai 6Dissertationes7 Din1 ;ionysius o1 Halicarnassus# De Dinarcho Dom1 Suetonius# Domitianus Eloc1 ;emetrius# -n Style 6Elocution7 8ort1 Rom1 %lutarch# De $ortuna Romanorum

eog1 Stra*o# eographica 6eography7 3ist1 %oly*ius# )he 3istories I'1 Hermogenes# -n )ypes o$ Style Il1 Homer# Ilia' Inst1 uintilian# Institutio oratoria Ira Seneca# De ira #ul1 Suetonius# Divus #ulius *euc1 Clit1 $chilles !atius# *eucippe et Clitophon 6)he A'ventures o$ *eucippe an'

Cleitophon7 *ib1 e'1 %seudo5%lutarch# De liberis e'ucan'is /em1 enophon# /emorabilia

/or1 %lutarch# /oralia %at1 %liny the Elder# %aturalis historia 6%atural 3istory7 %at1 '1 Cicero# De natura 'eorum %av1 +ucian# )he Ship! or )he &ishes-'1 Homer# -'yssey-ec1 enophon# -economicus-p1 Hesiod# -pera et 'ies-r1 Brut1 Cicero# -rator a' /1 Brutum%lutarch# Ant1 %lutarch# Antonius "omp1 %lutarch# "ompeius "rotr1 Epictetus# E,hortation to the reeks Rhet1 $ristotle# RhetoricaSatyr1 %etronius# Satyricon)heog1 Hesiod# )heogonia 6)heogony7)huc1 ;ionysius o1 Halicarnassus# De )hucy'i'e>it1 soph1 %hilostratus# >itae sophistarum>it1 Apoll1 %hilostratus# >ita Apollonii

Dea Sea Scrolls

(Ha Hodayota or !han3sgiving Hymnsa

(() %salms Scroll(S Sere3h ha‐0ah ad or Zule o1 the Community ?1ormerly called Manual o1

;iscipline

Earl# C$ristian an Relate &ritin%s

? Clem1 ? Clement @ Clem1 @ Clement Ap1 #ohn Apocryphon o$ #ohn Apol1 !ertullian# Apologeticus


12/399

Barn1 Barnabas Di'1 Di'ache Eph1 "gnatius# )o the Ephesiansos1 )hom1 ospel o$ )homas 3ist1 eccl1 Euse*ius# Ecclesiastical 3istories

3om1 Col1 ohn Chrysostom# 3omilies on Colossians 3om1 Eph1 ohn Chrysostom# 3omilies on Ephesians /agn1 "gnatius# )o the /agnesians /arc1 !ertullian# Against /arcion /art1 "ol1 /artyr'om o$ "olycarp-'es1 Sol1 -'es o$ Solomon "hl'1 "gnatius# )o the "hila'elphians "ol1 "gnatius# )o "olycarp "ol1 "hil1 %olycarp# )o the "hilippiansSmyrn1 "gnatius# )o the Smyrnaeans

'ose"$us Ant1 #ewish Antiirtues -n the >irtues

E%HES"$NS

INTROD(CTION

Aut$ors$i"

$nyone riting on Ephesians today must deal ith the issue o1 the denial o1 %auline authorship *y a signi1icant num*er o1 scholars. S3epticism that %aul rote this epistle as 1irst raised *y a1e lone voices in the seventeenth century# *ut *ecame more idespread in the mid5nineteenthcentury a1ter 4. C. Baur proposed that Ephesians originated in the second century. Be1ore thecritical period# there had never *een any 2uestion a*out %auline authorship or the canonical


13/399

identity o1 this epistle# including its acceptance in the early church among even the earliestapostolic 1athers.

Generally# there are 1ive issues raised to deny %auline authorship:

(. the voca*ulary&. the epistle7s theological interests,. the impersonal tone o1 the epistle@. the relationship o1 Ephesians to Colossians). the Gree3 style o1 Ephesians versus the other %auline epistles

$ll o1 these issues and more have *een discussed at great length and have *een countered ine2ual length *y various riters and commentators# such that a 1ull revie o1 all o1 them is notnecessary here. "t is sa1e to say that among some scholars# non5%auline authorship o1 Ephesianshas reached the status o1 un2uestioned dogma ? !hese are the sorts o1 critical issues related to ancient Gree3 style that ill *ediscussed *rie1ly *elo ?and *rought up throughout the comments here relevant.

4inally# the issue o1 pseudonymity in Christian circles is currently *eing researched andaddressed in help1ul ays. !here are actually very 1e pseudepigraphical ?1orged epistles 1romearly Christianity ?c1. comments on Y:&(A&@# *ut recent research has shon that there is reasonto *elieve that the early church opposed this practice and ould have *een ready to re=ectEphesians i1 it ere suspicious. "1 the recipients had received this epistle 1rom anyone *eside


14/399

!ychicus in %aul7s day# suspicions ould have *een con1irmed ?see again comments on Y:&(A&&." thin3 e underestimate the ancient interest in this issue and the discernment o1 ancientChristians on this score ?c1. Zev &:&.

4or example# it is not as i1 ancient authors did not consider or discuss matters o1 stylea11ecting authorship in or3s that ere suspicious. !hey did# as hen ;ionysius o1

Halicarnassus desired to distinguish genuine 1rom spurious speeches o1 the orator ;inarchus o1 Corinth# ho lived roughly to centuries earlier# and noted regarding ;inarchus7 style: "t isdi11icult to de1ine# 1or he possessed no 2uality common to all his oratory# or any individualcharacteristic# either in his private or in his pu*lic speeches ? Din1 ). "t seems to me that %aulhad a 1lexi*le style o1 this sort# exacer*ated *y 1ree involvement o1 his secretarial assistants?*elo.

Paul t$e Aut$or

;io Chrysostom advises: Writing# hoever# " do not advise you to engage in ith your onhand# or only very rarely# *ut rather to dictate to a secretary ?-r1 (.(. ohn Calvin 1olloed

this advice in the 1ormation o1 his commentary on "saiah# hich he explains in a letter to 4rancis;ryander:

0ou say that you are aiting 1or my meditations on "saiah. !hey ill come outsoon. But they ere ritten *y des Gallars 1or " do not have much time 1or riting. He ta3es don hat " dictate to him# and later arranges it at home. !hen "read it over again# and i1 anyhere he has not 1olloed my meaning# " restore thesense.

Writing in anti2uity as a particularly arduous *usiness. "t as done hile seated on the groundith the ta*let or papyrus suspended on one7s garment *eteen crossed legs. !he reed pen had to *e sharpened =ust so and the in3 made *y hand. "t is no onder that secretaries ?ROUUOITK#

grammateis ith speciali[ed 3noledge o1 the mechanics o1 riting ere usually employed indra1ting one7s ritings.4or some time# scholars have proposed that the di11erences o1 style *eteen %aul7s epistles

ere caused *y the in1luence o1 di11erent secretaries in their composition# hich accounts 1or di11erences *eteen Ephesians and the other %auline epistles. !his as sound con=ecture# *uthat as needed as a thorough study o1 the hole role o1 secretaries in ancient compositions tocompare ith %aul# hich as 1inally pursued in nota*ly help1ul doctoral research *y E.Zandolph Zichards# pu*lished as )he Secretary in the *etters o$ "aul .

" ill not rehearse all o1 Zichards7 points# *ut the impact o1 his study 1or the 1lexi*ility o1 style in the %auline letters cannot *e underestimated. He shos that the secretary might have hada signi1icant role in the Gree3 style o1 the composition# much as de Gallars had ith Calvin7s

"saiah commentary. "t has *een noted repeatedly that another e11ect o1 using a secretary ?in anymanner except as a recorder is variation in the language# style# or content o1 the letter. !he more1reedom that the secretary as given# the more variance that as possi*le. 0et %aul thoroughlycontrolled the meaning# content# and style *y 1olloing up the secretary7s or3\also as Calvinnotes ith his "saiah commentary. "rrespective o1 any secretarial in1luence# the author assumedcomplete responsi*ility 1or the content# including the su*tle nuances. Because o1 hisaccounta*ility# he chec3ed the 1inal dra1t.(& But this means that the elements o1 the compositionthat are %aul7s and that are the secretary7s ill *e almost impossi*le to tell 1or certain.


15/399

!his situation is 1urther complicated *y an unusual 1eature o1 the %auline epistles in that theyere not all sent *y him alone: he names three cosenders\Sosthenes# Silvanus ?Silas# and!imothy\in his epistles# ith only six ?including Ephesians having %aul7s name alone as thesender. !hese cosenders ?such as !imothy 1or Colossians *ut not Ephesians might very ellhave *een coauthors. Zichards states:

"t is 2uite unli3ely# though# that %aul7s re1erences to others by name in his addressas intended to indicate anything less than an active role in the composition o1 the letter. $ practice o1 including others in the address as a nicety is notsupported *y the evidence. What constitutes an active role is more de*ata*le. !heco5authors apparently ere not 1ull contri*utors on an e2ual level ith %aul.


16/399

UIO J Q_K /012345675894: OP J 170;/:/5

UIO J ?


17/399

the epicenter o1 a li*eral education.&@ 4rom the *eginning o1 his schooling# every *oy learnedcertain 1eatures o1 Gree3 composition 1or oral pu*lic presentation.

4urthermore# any loer5level education %aul received in Gree3 literature and rhetoric ouldhave *een 1urther re1ined *oth through hearing others and through his on practice daily in theschool ?{Fb# scholē o1 !yrannus during his extended residence in Ephesus ?$cts (-:-. While

this *uilding# home# or portico area cannot no *e identi1ied# it as li3ely on the Em*olosstreet near the city center and the theater.&j "t is impossi*le to imagine someone totally inept at pu*lic spea3ing 1inding an audience in such a venue ith the outcome that all $sia heard hismessage ?$cts (-:('.

%aul7s on donplaying o1 his oratorical s3ills ?& Cor (':(' ((:Y# should pro*a*ly *e seenover against the *ac3ground o1 excessively ela*orate sophistic adornment prevalent in therhetorical schools o1 the time. Certainly the Ephesians ould have 3non o1 %aul7s unconcern1or the in1inite cra1ting o1 pyrotechnic speeches in contrast ith various sophists ho shoo3 Ephesus ith a chorus o1 rhetoricians and their noisy applause ?!acitus# Dial1 (Y.(@. 0et# ase ill see *elo and in the commentary# %aul7s compositional style did have its on strengthsand character and is impressive in its on ay. %aul7s letters ere eighty and strong ?•OR OP ῖ

OP J {ROTἰ # bareiai kai ischyrai in compositional style ?& Cor (':('.Granted that Ephesians is not a %auline oration# nevertheless the oral character o1 all ancientritings must *e stressed. !hese ere documents to *e hear' # as N! scholars are increasinglyrecogni[ing.&- !he evidence 1or this is extensive and impressive. 4or example# it is interesting toread that !hucydides rote his history 1or posterity rather than 1or a one5time hearing ? 3istoryo$ the "eloponnesian &ar (.&&.@ emphasis added hile a couple o1 centuries later ;ionysius o1 Halicarnassus analy[ed the aural e11ects !hucydides7 composition had on his audience ?IF K ῖ

FzFPἀ # tois akouousi Comp1 ,jYAjj.,' ;emetrius gives an o11hand remar3 that repetitionhelps a prose composition to *e properly heard and that one should use the nominative or accusative case to *egin a period *ecause use o1 the other cases ill cause some o*scurity andtorture 1or the actual spea3er and also the listener ? Eloc1 (-YA-j# &'(.

Nevertheless# Ephesians is an epistle and not a ritten version o1 an oration. We can utili[eancient rhetorical and literary treatises as guides 1or the Gree3 compositional elements o1 Ephesians# *ut e recogni[e that they ere usually guiding and analy[ing the composition o1 orations or o1 other 3inds o1 prose texts# not o1 letters. When e do get advice 1or riting ancientletters# it sometimes seems rather dull. 4or example ;emetrius rites: !he length o1 a letter# noless than its style# must *e 3ept ithin due *ounds. "t is a*surd to *uild up periods# as i1 youere riting not a letter *ut a speech 1or the la courts ? Eloc1 @.&&A&-. Hoever# the context1or ;emetrius7 statement is that a letter to a 1riend or circle o1 1riends should not *ecome atreatise ?R_UUO# syngramma ith the heading My dear So5and5So. !he %auline epistle#though# is much more li3e a treatise than a personal letter in many ays# so perhaps e can seesome value in treating Ephesians in light o1 ancient instruction in literary prose.

!o summari[e to this point# Ephesians is not an oration# yet it does sho itsel1 to *e a literarycomposition ith certain oral 1eatures 1rom someone ith *oth a 1air degree o1 Gree3 literaryand presentational training and a good deal o1 native a*ility. Ephesians is not a pure essay or aspeech# *ut neither is it an in1ormal letter. $s a result# " ill not analy[e the epistle along the lineso1 rhetorical divisions o1 a speech# as 1ound in Witherington and others ?see *elo. "nstead "ill *e pointing out the 1eatures o1 Gree3 literary compositional elements and their analysis as1ound in Gree3 authors ho discuss such things in anti2uity.


18/399

R$#t$m

!his leads no to the rhythm o1 Ephesians# mentioned a*ove ?point & and used 1rom time totime to determine %auline authorship o1 this epistle. 4or example# Nigel !urner notes thatEphesians shares a simple rhythm ith the other %auline epistles and sees this as evidence thatEphesians is %auline.


19/399

!o anticipate my conclusion on this point# " *elieve this discussion o1 sentences in %aul or other ancient Gree3 authors is misleading and anachronistically uses a modern conception o1 discourse 1or the ancient text. !o say# 1or example# that Eph (:,A(@ is one sentence ma3es it seemli3e there ould have *een no *rea3 1or the hearer or reader in their experience o1 the text#hereas in 1act hen ancient authorities spo3e a*out division o1 a Gree3 text# they did not

usually spea3 o1 grammatical sentences ?+atin sententia# thought# *ut rather o1 the colonand the period as the essential *uilding *loc3s o1 discourse. "n light o1 this ancient analysis#Eph (:,A(@ ould not appear to *e one long sentence *ut an interconnected paragraph o1 nineeasily managea*le periods\as " suggest the text *e arranged\ith an un1olding unity o1 thought. "n 1act# given the nature o1 %auline style along these lines# Ephesians loo3s very similar to other such periodic sentences in Zomans and elsehere# since longer units ?sometimes calleda periodic sentence might *e composed o1 more than one grammatical sentence.

$ Gree3 colon ? FVῶ # kōlon pl. Oῶ # kōla# cola as originally modeled on the dactylichexameter o1 epic poetry# and thus as approximately telve to seventeen sylla*les in length. "n practice# the colon could *e only a ord or to ?e.g.# Eph @:) or 2uite longer. Some orators?rhetors sought roughly e2ual length o1 cola ?isocola# *ut some 1ound this monotonous

and taught and practiced riting cola o1 varying length 1or variety and to hold the audience7sinterest ?;ionysius# Comp1 ()&A)). Without dou*t# though# the colon as the essential elemento1 discourse# though one did not ant to present a UFVwFK FK ?monokōlos logos?monocolon discourse stringing together ideas in a series o1 discrete and unconnected cola.

Hence# the ell5ordered discourse consisted o1 a series o1 succeeding# un1olding cola#usually *eteen to and six# into the period ? QRTF^FKἡ # hē perio'os pl.# QRTF^FP# perio'oi.!he period as the su*=ect o1 much discussion in anti2uity and the *ac3*one o1 to primarilydi11erent styles# the periodic or turned don ?]PK OIIROUUV# le,is katestrammenē and the spare# loose# or strung5together style ?]PK RFUVἰ # le,is eiromenē $ristotle# Rhet1 ,.-. Hoever# " am not alays using the term perio' technically# particularly 1or the moreconversational latter chapters o1 Ephesians here the period is simply a grouping o1 cola itha unity o1 thought. !echnically# a period as a grouping o1 cola that a trained spea3er could present in one *reath and had a certain rounded character. Hence# the end o1 the period as a place o1 particular 1ocus and emphasis since there as a pause hile the spea3er or reader too3 a *reath and le1t the last 1e ords in the audience7s mind *e1ore starting up again ?see discussionon the end o1 periods in (:,A(@ in particular in the comments. !he correct pauses at the end o1 cola and periods in delivery and reading as part o1 elementary education in anti2uity ?e.g.#uintilian# Inst1 (. ((.,.('AY'.

$ldo Scaglione explains 1urther that delivery is important even 1or understanding the divisiono1 a text:

!he di11erence *eteen a non5periodic se2uence and a periodic one is that# in the1ormer# all units are pronounced ith the same expression# hile in the latter

the membra Oῶ are held suspended *y the spea3er7s voice until the last oneis completed. "n other ords# the di11erence is one o1 musical movement or rhythm# and the manner o1 de1inition thros the emphasis on delivery.

Hence# division o1 texts into cola is something o1 an art that even the ancients ould notnecessarily have agreed on 1or someone else7s ritten text hen there as no original presentation o1 the or3 *y its author to guide. Scaglione again rites:


20/399

Elements o1 rhythm# 1ormal arrangement# and physiological division ?on the *asiso1 delivery according to *reathing capacity remained# to ancient ears# more *asicthan considerations o1 logical content and organi[ation. !hus# 1or instance# *othcomplete periods and parts there1ore ?mainly cola are sometimes hard 1or us toreconstruct# *ecause they do not necessarily correspond to our sentences and

clauses or even phrases\hich are essentially logical and# concurrently# syntacticunits.

Nevertheless# most o1 the cola in Ephesians do pro*a*ly open particularly ith items li3econ=unctions# adver*ial participles# or repeated prepositions. Where these 3ind o1 ords are not1ound# one may have a colon li3e LF IF J ^ RFVῦ ῶ ?theou to 'ōron ?the gi1t is 1rom God inEph &:# here the 1ronted# anarthrous LFῦ ?theou is stri3ingly prominent *ecause the colonstarts in an unusual ay.

+et me repeat that the division into cola and periods " provide 1or Ephesians is suggested.!o 3no the exact division o1 a text li3e this ould re2uire one to hear it read 1rom the originalauthor or his reader. !his came clear to me hen ;ionysius o1 Halicarnassus# an expert teacher o1 rhetoric# divided the *eginning o1 !hucydides7 3istory o$ the "eloponnesian &ar # ritten

some 1our centuries earlier# and says he cannot *e a*solutely certain o1 his division: !osummari[e# " have adduced some telve periods# i$ the breathing+space be taken as the unit o$ 'ivision# and these comprise no 1eer than thirty clauses ? Oῶ # kōla ?Comp1 (-'A-(#emphasis added. Most o1 these periods in !hucydides are in the range o1 thirty5six to 1ortysylla*les long# hich compare ell to the length o1 periods in Ephesians. What is nota*le is that;ionysius evaluates the third period in !hucydides as *eing sixty5one sylla*les in length# hichre2uires su*stantial lung poer to pronounce in one *reath# *ut this does not dra his commentas *eing particularly trou*lesome.

!he conclusion to dra 1rom this is that the periodic sentence as 1ound# 1or example# inEph (:,A(@# ith over to hundred Gree3 ords# is really the e2uivalent o1 an English paragraph# hile the nine periods comprising this section are more li3e English sentences. While

perio'ic sentence is used to descri*e these long divisions o1 the text# it ill *e noted in theanalysis o1 the Gree3 composition throughout the comments that e are dealing ith somethinghere that is more a3in to a long paragraph than a modern sentence.

"n the course o1 this analysis# e ill gain greater appreciation 1or %aul7s expressive a*ilities \even though his epistolary style might not have matched an oration *y a sophistic rhetor.


21/399

sentence in Eph (:,A(@ is a classic example o1 $siatic rhetoric in its epideictic 1orm# hereampli1ication is accomplished *y repetition o1 *oth content and 1orm ?Witherington# &&A&-.

" thin3 there is merit to using rhetorical analysis 1or the %auline epistles# and it may *e thatthere are some $siatic characteristics o1 Ephesians in its use o1 unusual# expressive voca*ulary?e.g.# QFR_VPFPἐ # epouranioi# high5heavenlies and some sections ith 1loing periods\

though they are not rounded. Hoever# Witherington7s evaluation that this epistle is a homilyand $siatic epideictic oration is stated too strongly. He says# 1or instance# that such epideicticrhetoric is 1ound in praise o1 emperors and other *ene1actors# *ut he gives no examples 1romEphesus 1or comparison# hen it turns out that e have many such pieces inscri*ed in theepigraphical remains 1rom Ephesus he could have used ?e.g.# IvE &&. !his issue o1 hether Ephesus itsel1 as a center o1 the $siatic style o1 rhetoric deserves more attention# *ut theremay *e some slight indication that at least some Ephesian rhetors and sophists in its schools alsohad a more $ttic 1lavor.

4urthermore# $siatic rhetoric relates in large part to its per1ormance through extravagantoral devices# 1re2uent use o1 mythology# 1ar51etched metaphors# and cola o1 e2ual length that1re2uently end ith similar sounds ?Cicero# -r1 (-.Y). "n particular# it as mar3ed *y

rhythmical rounding out o1 its periods ?Cicero# Brut1 .,, hich Ephesians does not exhi*it?as erome noted on Eph ,:(. 4urthermore# $sianism as mar3ed *y use o1 regular meters#hich ere regarded as more appropriate 1or songs and poetry. uintilian says o1 $siaticoratory: 4or hat can *e less *ecoming to an orator than modulations that recall the stage and asing5song utterance hich at times resem*les the maudlin utterance o1 drun3en revelers> ?et nonun


22/399

o1 the line per se *ut introduces unelcome pauses *e1ore the end o1 the colon and ma3es thedelivery choppy and grate on the ears.

+i3e !hucydides# %aul throughout his compositions# including Ephesians# shos littleinterest in this 3ind o1 smoothness to his cola that a ;ionysius or other rhetors ould demando1 an agonistic or other 3ind o1 oratory. "n the ords o1 erome# $s a He*re o1 the He*res#

he lac3ed the polish o1 rhetorical speech# the 3noledge o1 the proper arrangement o1 ordsand the grace o1 elo2uence. Hence the V5Q ?n+p com*ination in IF J QR•_Fὑ ?to hyperballo 41 Ln pMF IFKῦ ?loutos ?Eph &:j creates an unelcome pause in midcolon that IF J QF IFK IF JῦQR•_FVὑ ?to ploutos to hyperballon ould have avoided. 0et there are some 1ine 1eatures to

%aul7s prose# even though these seem to *e more a matter o1 1eel and intuited good taste rather than hat %aul ould pro*a*ly have regarded as the pointless preoccupation o1 1lam*oyantshomen ?sophists he undou*tedly encountered in places li3e Ephesus# $thens# or Corinth.

4or 1ine instances o1 style# consider these to small examples 1rom *oth Ephesians andZomans. !he 1irst is called tricolon crescendo or rising cola# here parallel cola increase insi[e# creating a 3ind o1 selling e11ect to conclude the period. !he second example 1rom Zomansincludes the preceding three cola# hich have 1alling cola# here the cola get increasingly

smaller. !he examples are presented ith sylla*le counts in parentheses:E"$ +*+-+ ?see also Y:(&:ITK IPV QP JK I K bwK O IFἐ ἡ ἐ ῆ ὐ ῦ ?(&ITK QF IFK I K ̂ ]K I K RFVFUTOK O IF V IF K TFPKὁ ῦ ῆ ῆ ὐ ῦ ἐ ῖ ἁ ?&'(- OP J IT IF J QR•_FV ULFK I K ̂ V_UwK O IF K U K IF J K QPIzFVIOK OIO J I J Vὑ ῆ ὐ ῦ ἰ ἡ ᾶ

VRPOV IF R_IFK I K {zFK O IFἐ ῦ ῆ ἰ ὐ ῦ ?@(

v. (c what ?ITK# tis is the hope o1 his callingv. (d what ?ITK# tis is the glorious ealth o1 his inheritance among the saintsv. (- and what ?IT# ti is the supreme greatness o1 his poer toard us ho *elieve in

accordance ith the e11ectiveness o1 the strength o1 his might

Rom ++*))-) ?c1. & Cor Y:(@A(Y,, •_LFK QFzIF OP J F}TOK OP J V€wK LFὮ ῦ ?()

K V]ROzVIO IO J RTUOIO O IFὡ ἀ ὐ ῦ ?(,OP J V]P{VTOIFP O ^FP J O IFἀ ἱ ὁ ὐ ῦ ?(&

,@ ITK O JR Vw VF V RTFἔ ῦ ? ITK zU•FFK O IF VIF ὐ ῦ ἐ ?((

,) ITK QRF^wV O I OP J VIOQF^FLbIOP O I ὐ ῷ ἀ ὐ ῷ ?(

v. ,,a < the depth o1 the riches and o1 the isdom and o1 the 3noledge o1 Godv. ,,* Ho inscruta*le are his =udgments

v. ,,c and ho untracea*le are his aysƒv. ,@a 4or who has 3non the mind o1 the +ord>v. ,@* v. ,)

!he second example is o1 a 1alling *icolon# here one or more pairs o1 cola have a long1irst mem*er and a shorter second one. "n *oth the Ephesians and Zomans passages# %aul usesthis device as he dras a long digression to a close:


23/399

E"$ )*+,-+)(& V {FUV I J V QORRTOV OP J QRFOw J V V QQFPLbPἐ ! ἔ ἐ ?&'^PO J I K QTIwK O IFῆ ὐ ῦ ?(, ^PF J O IF UOP U J O V V IO K LT‚TV UF Q JR U Vἰ ῦ ἐ ῖ ἐ ῖ ὑ ὑ ῶ ?(-

IPK IP J V ^]O U V" ἐ ὑ ῶ ?

v. (&a in hom e have *old access ith con1idencev. (&* through our 1aith in him

v. (,a Where1ore# " as3 you not to lose heart at my tri*ulations on your *ehal1 v. (,* hich is your glory.

Rom *,b-cRO F V O IF JK w J I U J V VF„ J ^Fzw VU LF# ὖ ὐ ἐ ῷ ῳ ῦ ?(

I ^ J ORP J VU UORITOK$ ῳ ἁ ?('

v. &)* So then " am mysel1 in my mind# on the one hand# slave to the la o1 God

v. &)c *ut on the other# in my 1lesh to the la o1 sin.

Many more examples 1rom *oth Ephesians and Zomans and the other %aulines could *e given o1 the ha*its o1 literary composition o1 the same riter ?even given secretarial mediation.


24/399

4or our purposes# it ill in1orm our on analysis o1 the text to consult ancient scri*es o1 Ephesians to see ho they read the sense o1 the text. and have the advantage o1 text division *ased on Gree3 rather than on the conventions o1 other languages.!he 1olloing ta*le shos various section divisions in 1our 3ey early MSS o1 Ephesians:

9aticanus ?B# Sinaiticus ? # F # $lexandrinus ?$ and the partial Codex Ephraemi Zescriptus?C. !hese 1our MSS mar3 sections to varying degrees o1 detail# ith devices that includespacing# some punctuation dots ?IPUOT# stigmai# ekthesis# and paragraphoi lines.

E"$esians Sense Division in Four Ancient QSSB

(') A C

1:1–2 1:1–2 1:1 vacant to 2:19

1:2

1:3–14 1:3–10 1:3–9a

1:9b–12

1:11–14 1:13–14

1:15–23 1:15–23 1:15–2:3

2:1–3 2:1–3

2:4–7 2:4–7 2:4–5b

2:5c–10

2:8–10 2:8–10(?)

2:11–18 2:11–12 2:11–12

2:13–16 2:13–18

2:17–18

2:19–22 2:19–22 2:19–22 2:19–22

3:1–13 3:1–4 3:1–12 3:1–3

3:4–7


25/399

3:5–7

3:8–12 3:8–9

3:10–12

3:13 3:13 3:13

3:14–19 3:14–19 3:14–19 3:14–19

3:20–21 3:20–21 3:20–21 3:20–21

4:1–16 4:1–6 4:1–3 4:1–4

4:4

4:5–6 4:5–6

4:7–10 4:7–10 4:7–8

4:9–10

4:11–13 4:11–14 4:11–12

4:13–14

4:14–16

4:15–16 4:15–16

4:17–28 4:17–18 4:17 vacant to end

4:18–19

4:19

4:20–24 4:20–24

4:25 4:25–27

4:26–27

4:28 4:28

4:28 4:28


26/399

4:29–30 4:29 4:29–30

4:30

4:31–32 4:31 4:31–32 (?)

4:32–5:2

5:1–2 5:1(?)–2

5:3–5 5:3 5:3–5

5:4

5:5

5:6–14 5:6 5:6–14a

5:7–10

5:11–14a

5:14b–14e 5:14b–17

5:15–21 5:15–17

5:18–19 5:18–21

5:20(?)

5:21

5:22–24 5:22–24 5:22–24

5:25–33 5:25–28c 5:25–30

5:28d–31

5:31

5:32 5:32–33

5:33

6:1–3 6:1–3 6:1–4


27/399

6:4 6:4

6:5–8 6:5–8 6:5–8

6:9 6:9 6:9

6:10–13 6:10–12 6:10

6:11–12

6:13 6:13

6:14–20 6:14–18a 6:14–20

6:18b–20

6:21–23 6:21–23 6:21–23

6:24 6:24 6:24

"1 e ere to add the later# more standardi[ed Euthalian $pparatus# Ephesians is dividedinto to lectionary divisions o1 Eph (A, and @AY# hich sections are then su*divided into tenchapters ?}_OPO# kephalaia at: (:,A(@ (:()A&:(' &:((A&& ,:(A(, ,:(@A&( @:(A(Y@:(jA):& ):,A&( ):&&AY:- Y:('A&'.

!he 1irst point to notice is trends among the 1our MSS. 9aticanus ?B is happy to divide thetext into larger units ?e.g.# (:,A(@ (:()A&, &:((A( ,:(A(, @:(A(Y ):YA(@# hile the other

MSS usually divide these into to or three shorter sections ?e.g.# # F divides (:,A(@ into to *eteen vv. (' and (( and &:((A( into three at &:((A(& &:(,A(Y &:(jA(# yet it agrees ith Bin having (:()A&, as one periodic sentence.

;espite the di11erences here# though# the 1our MSS surveyed do sho agreement on certain *oundaries o1 our text. 4or instance# all see a *oundary *eteen (:(@ and (:() &:, and &:@# &:('and &:((# etc.j, "t seems that these ancient divisions o1 the text may have generally set the tone1or later divisions as 1ound in the Euthalian material and modern paragraph and chapter divisions.

My on analysis on the *est ay to divide Ephesians into pericopes is to 1avor the longer types as 1ound in 9aticanus. !his is partly due to the oral nature o1 these texts and the character

o1 1loing periodic sentences# hich 1avor longer units o1 discourse. !he *ene1it o1 this approachis *oth to read the text in a ay closer to ho it as intended to *e heard and to see the larger unity o1 thought that is too o1ten *ro3en up and missed *y 1ocusing on individual verses. (

1 Ho!e" #$ H$" Ba%%&c'" #$ $" Ha%%&!" H$ #$" ***$ (2015)$ +d&to%!, -%e.ace$ *n

#$ H$ Ho!e" H$ #$ Ha%%&! ***" A$ #$ -&tt! (+d!$)" Ephesians: Evangelical

Exegetical Commentary (//$ &&&–30)$ Be&na" #A: ea -%e!!$


28/399

Date an Place o &ritin%

%aul mentions that he is a prisoner o1 Christ ?,:(# a prisoner in the +ord ?@:(# and anemissary in chains ?Y:&'# hich is not merely a metaphor ?c1. & Cor ((:&, %hil (:j# (,# (j Col@:,# ('# (. !his suggests that %aul as actually *eing detained hen he rote this epistle. Hehad spent a little more than to years at Ephesus in the early to mid5)'s ?$cts (:(A(-:&'.+ater he as detained in Caesarea# 1rom around $; )j to )- ?$cts &(:(jA&@:&j# and a1ter a trial *e1ore 4estus ?around $; ) to Y' he as sent to Zome to *e held in house arrest hile aaitingtrial *e1ore Caesar# sometime around $; )-AY& ?$cts &):(A&:,(. !his puts %aul in Zomancustody 1or roughly 1our years in the range o1 $; )j to Y or anyhere 1rom 1ive to ten yearsa1ter he as in Ephesus. 8sually people ho hold to %auline authorship place the riting o1 Ephesians toard the end o1 that period ?$; Y'AY&# hen %aul as *eing detained in Zome *e1ore his 1irst trial.

Occasion

!here seem to *e no serious pro*lems or concerns ith his addressees that led %aul to riteEphesians. !his gives this epistle somehat o1 a generic character and sets it o11 1rom most o1 his other letters to churches# such as those at Corinth# Galatia# and even Colossae# here pro*lems can *e discerned in the congregations that led to %aul7s ritings. !his more neutral andless polemic tone o1 Ephesians has supported the notion that it as a circular epistle.

Nevertheless# %aul is interested that his audience hear a*out his a11airs ?see on Y:&(A&&# andhe ants them to pray 1or him ?Y:(- as he is praying 1or them ?(:()A&,. "n particular# he ismost concerned that his imprisonment may not upset their 1aith or cause them to dou*t that# asGentiles ?&:(( ,:(# their status as 1ello citi[ens ith the saints ?&:(- as somehoun1ounded or in =eopardy ?see ,:(A(-. Hence# the tone o1 the epistle is positive and opens ith asomehat lengthy explanation o1 the eternal council o1 God *ehind their election# calling# andsalvation in the disclosed mystery in Christ esus and the unity o1 the hole church# occupyingEph (A@ in particular.

Reci"ients

Some early and important MSS lac3 the phrase in Ephesus ? V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ# en Ephesō in theopening address or give it as a correction# giving rise to a num*er o1 hypotheses a*out theoriginal recipients o1 the epistle *y those ho thin3 this phrase is missing in the autographa.


29/399

((# or their region or province is given in the address ?Gal (:&. Even multiple provinces may *ementioned ?( %et (:(. %aul rote to *oth a city and to a province in & Corinthians# *ut heidenti1ies them in his address: to the church o1 God in Corinth along ith all the saints ho arein the hole o1 $chaia ?& Cor (:(. Circular letters may simply ma3e general re1erence to *elievers in general as their audience ?as (:( ude ( & %et (:( or no re1erence at all ?He*res#

( ohn. !he notion that Ephesians is circular is an attractive idea# *ut the evidence 1romanti2uity does not support it.$s " discuss in the note on Eph (:(# it is pro*a*le that in Ephesus dropped out o1 a very

early copy o1 the epistle and as omitted *y a 1e later copyists and then reinserted *ycorrectors. !here is early and idespread attestation among the MSS and early church 1athers?e.g.# "renaeus#


30/399

the erection o1 the Celsus +i*rary and other great *uildings mar3ing the modern site# many o1 hich ere *uilt in the second to early third centuries.

While one encounters the population estimate o1 %auline Ephesus at around a 2uarter o1 amillion people ?e.g.#


31/399

ver*s and their distinctives o1 aspect# and on the 1actors in the use o1 the language that guided anauthor to choose one tense 1orm over another in a particular situation# ill hope1ully soon see pu*lication. !here1ore only the *rie1est introduction to the viepoint represented in thecomments ill *e given here.@

4irst# the indicative mood and only some uses o1 other moods ?e.g.# in1initives in indirect

discourse o1ten communicate *oth tense and aspect in their tense 1orms# sometimes =ust one or the other. !ense communicates time and ansers the 2uestion When does the event occur>$spect communicates the author or spea3er7s description o1 the manner in hich the eventoccurs\hether it is attempted ?conative# 1inished ?resultative# *egun ?inceptive# repeated?iterative or customary# etc.\and ansers the 2uestion Ho does the event occur> My termevent is used 1or anything to hich a ver* or ver* phrase re1ers.

Most uses o1 the non5indicative moods do not convey tense. 4or example# an aoristimperative re1ers to a 1uture event the spea3er ishes or commands someone to per1orm 1rom thetime 1rame o1 utterance. "t cannot re1er to a past event. Because o1 this# e in the N! studentcommunity o1ten have thought that these non5indicative 1orms alays there1ore communicateaspect. Hence# the present imperative is alays progressive# and the aorist is alays

punctiliar ?or orse# one5time and the li3e.!he mitigating 1actor that is not alays appreciated is that the Gree3 language very1re2uently has hat can *e called 'e$ault 1orms in many situations. "n the language o1 thelinguists# these 1orms are semantically unmar3ed rather than mar3ed. !his means that thede1ault tense 1orm carries no ?or little semantic value it simply is the 1orm in that situation thatthe community o1 Gree3 spea3ers expects as normal or proper. !he corollary to this is thathen a spea3er or author uses the 1orm that is not de1ault and is there1ore mar3ed# one can thencon1idently interpret that ver* tense 1orm as having aspectual value ?see# e.g.# QRPQOI OPῆ # peripatēsai as inceptive set out in @:(.

!he exact 1actors governing de1ault 1orms is a very large and involved study# particularlysince# " *elieve# each mood has its on rules governing the de1ault situation 1or that particular

mood. Nevertheless# to recurring 1actors particularly involving in1initive and su*=unctive ver*1orms are: ?( the construction the 1orm is 1ound in# and ?& hat is termed the telic or atelicnature o1 the event itsel1. $s 1or the constructions# there are some constructions that aresomehat rigid# and to use the rong tense 1orm might have *een considered a mista3e o1 usage. 4or example# a1ter F Ubὐ ?ou mē # the aorist # not the present su*=unctive# is normallyexpected in Gree3# hereas an in1initive complement 1or R{FUOP% ?archomai expects that the present # not the aorist 1orm# *e used. Hence# 1orms that con1orm to the expected pattern in thoseconstructions are de1ault# and their tense 1orm carries no particular semantic value.

Students 1amiliar ith the or3 o1 Buist 4anning 3no that he divides the nature o1 eventsinto a num*er o1 di11erent su*groups. !his is very valua*le or3. Hoever# 1or the sa3e o1 simplicity# " divide them into =ust to groups: telic and atelic. $telic events are a state o1 *eing# a

condition# a relationship# or even a certain 3ind o1 action that has no natural terminus implied inits *eing or accomplishment.


32/399

Outline

%auline texts are typically divided into to parts: ?( an indicative opening that concentrates onan exposition o1 various aspects o1 the Christian 1aith# and ?& a closing imperative section ithexhortations to live a Christian li1estyle *ased on those truths. "n Ephesians# one can see thetransition to the second section *egin in chapter @. We ould expect a simple division o1 Eph (A,as indicatives and Eph @AY as imperatives# yet the transition to the second section is notseamless# as %aul ela*orates 1urther on the *asis o1 the inaugurated ne creation li1e o1 Christians in this age in the victorious ascent o1 the Messiah to his throne and its results.$ccordingly# the exhortations proper do not *egin until @:&)# ith much 1oundational teaching?indicatives sprin3led throughout the second part o1 the epistle as ell. Here is the structureand development o1 the epistle:

".+etter


33/399

(. !he orthy al3 ?@:(cA&a&. %atient endurance in love ?@:&*,. eal 1or the church7s unity in peace ?@:,

B. !he *asis o1 the exhortation ?@:@AY". Gi1ts 1rom the $scended Messiah to 8ni1y His Church ?@:jA(Y

$. Gi1ts 1rom Christ7s triumphant victory and ascent ?@:jA('(. Gi1ts o1 grace ?@:j&. %salm Y:( ?@:,. Gi1ts given to loyal su*=ects a1ter Christ7s victory in death ?@:-A('

B. Word5*ased church o11icers as gi1ts 1or edi1ication ?@:((A(,C. !he outcome o1 the gi1ts in operation ?@:(@A(Y

(. %rotection 1rom error and deceit ?@:(@&. ;octrinal maturity in love ?@:(),. Ecclesiastical unity in love ?@:(Y

. !he Ne Way o1 +i1e versus the


34/399


35/399

+aus*erg# H. 3an'book o$ *iterary Rhetoric2 A 8oun'ation $or *iterary Stu'y. Edited *y ;.erb in %ew )estament reek . SBG ). Ne 0or3: %eter +ang#(--@.

Mitton# C. +. )he Epistle to the Ephesians2 Its Authorship! -rigin an' "urpose. erbal Aspect in the reek o$ the %ew )estament . SBG (. Ne 0or3: %eter +ang# (--.Zichards# E. Z. "aul an' 8irst+Century *etter &riting2 Secretaries! Composition an' Collection.;oners Grove# "+: "nter9arsity# &''@.

\\\. )he Secretary in the *etters o$ "aul . W8N! &.@&. !f*ingen: Mohr Sie*ec3# (--(.Zi=3s*aron# $. )he Synta, an' Semantics o$ the >erb in Classical reek2 An Intro'uction. ,rd ed.

Chicago: 8niversity o1 Chicago %ress# &''&.Zo**ins# C. . !he Composition o1 Eph. (:,A(@. #B* (') ?(-Y: YjjAj.Scaglione# $. )he Classical )heory o$ Composition $rom its -rigins to the "resent . Chapel Hill:

8niversity o1 North Carolina %ress# (-j&.Scheppers# 4. )he Colon 3ypothesis2 &or' -r'er! Discourse Segmentation an' Discourse

Coherence in Ancient reek . Brussels: 98B%ZESS# &'((.Scherrer# %. Ephesus2 )he %ew ui'e. !ur3ey: ero# &'''.Sic3ing# C.# and %. Stor3. !he Synthetic %er1ect in Classical Gree3. "n )wo Stu'ies in the

Semantics o$ the >erb in Classical reek # ((-A&-. Ne 0or3: Brill# (--Y.Stor3# %. )he Aspectual .sage o$ the Dynamic In$initive in 3ero'otus . Groningen: Bouma7s

Boe3huis# (-&.!a=ra# H. )he /artyr'om o$ St1 "aul . W8N! &.Yj. !f*ingen: Mohr Sie*ec3# (--@.!re*ilco# %. )he Early Christians in Ephesus $rom "aul to Ignatius. Grand Zapids: Eerdmans#

&''. 4irst pu*lished &''@.van Zoon# $. )he Authenticity o$ Ephesians. Nov!Sup ,-. +eiden: Brill# ([email protected]# M. Intro'uction to reek /etre.


36/399

$m*rosiaster. In epistolam Beati "auli a' Ephesios. %aris: Excude*atur et 9enit $pud .5%.Migne Editorem# (@).

$2uinas# !homas. Commentary o$ Saint "aulGs Epistle to the Ephesians . $l*any# N0: MagiBoo3s# (-YY.

$rnold# Clinton E.# 4ran3 !hielman# and S. M. Baugh. Ephesians! "hilippians! Colossians!

"hilemon2 =on'ervan illustrate' Bible Backgroun's Commentary. So1tcover ed. GrandZapids: ondervan# &''&.$rnold# Clinton. Ephesians. Grand Zapids: ondervan# &'('.Barclay# William. )he *etters to the alatians an' Ephesians. Zev. ed. !he ;aily Study Bi*le.

%hiladelphia: Westminster ohn nox# &''&.Barth# Mar3us. Ephesians. & vols. $B. Garden City# N0: ;ou*leday# ([email protected]# frgen. Die Brie$e an 'ie alater! Epheser un' 4olosser . (th ed. G†ttingen:

9andenhoec3 Zuprecht# (--.Beet# oseph $gar. A Commentary on St1 "aulGs Epistle to the Ephesians! "hilippians!

Colossians! an' to "hilemon. +ondon: Hodder and Stoughton# (-'.Belser# ohannes Evang. Der Epheserbrie$ 'es Apostles "aulus. 4rei*urg im Breisgau:

Herdersche 9erlagshandlung# (-'.Best# Ernest. A Critical an' E,egetical Commentary on Ephesians. "CC. Edin*urgh: !! Clar3#(--.

Bouttier# Michel. *GKpLtre 'e saint "aul au, KphMsiens. Geneve: +a*or et 4ides# (--(.Bruce# 4rederic3 4yvie. )he Epistles to the Colossians! to "hilemon! an' to the Ephesians. &nd

ed. N"CN!. Grand Zapids: Eerdmans# ([email protected]# G. B. "aulGs *etters $rom "rison2 Ephesians! "hilippians! Colossians! "hilemon! in the

Revise' Stan'ar' >ersion. Ne Clarendon Bi*le.


37/399

Eald# %aul. Die Brie$e 'es "aulus an 'ie Epheser! 4olosser un' "hilemon . (' vols. +eip[ig: $.;eichertische 9erlags*uchhandlung# (-').

4oul3es# 4rancis. Ephesians2 An Intro'uction an' Commentary. !N!C. Zepr. ;oners Grove#"+: "nter9arsity# &''.

Gaugler# Ernst. Der Epheserbrie$ . frich: E959erlag# (-YY.

Gnil3a# oachim. Der Epheserbrie$ . H!N!. 4rei*urg: Herder# (-j(.Hendri3sen# William. Ephesians. N!C. Grand Zapids: Ba3er# (-Yj.Hodge# Charles. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians . Grand Zapids: Eerdmans# (--@

?(st ed.# ()Y.Hoehner# Harold W. Ephesians2 An E,egetical Commentary. Grand Zapids: Ba3er# &''&.Houlden# . +. "aulGs *etters $rom "rison2 "hilippians! Colossians! "hilemon! an' Ephesians.

Baltimore: %enguin# (-j'.Hu*ner# Hans. An "hilemon1 An 'ie 4olosser1 An 'ie Epheser . HN!. !f*ingen: Mohr# (--j.Hugede# Nor*ert. *GKpLtre au, KphMsiens. Geneve: +a*or et 4ides# (-j,.erome. )he Commentaries o$ -rigen an' #erome on St1 "aulGs Epistle to the Ephesians .

!ranslated *y Z. Heine.


38/399

Mussner# 4ran[. Der Brie$ an 'ie Epheser . Gftersloh: Gftersloher 9erlagshaus# (-&.


39/399

Synge# 4. C. St1 "aulGs Epistle to the Ephesians2 A )heological Commentary . +ondon: S%C#(-@(.

!al*ert# Charles. Ephesians an' Colossians. Grand Zapids: Ba3er# &''j.!an[er# Sarah . Ephesians. "n Searching the Scriptures2 A 8eminist Commentary# edited *y

Elisa*eth Schfssler 4ioren[a# vol. ,&)A@. Ne 0or3: Crossroad# (--@.

!aylor# Walter 4.# r. Ephesians. Minneapolis: $ugs*urg# (-).!heodore o1 Mopsuestia. Commentary on the /inor "auline Epistles. !ranslated *y Zoan $.Greer. WGZW. $tlanta: SB+# &'('.

!hielman# 4ran3. Ephesians. Grand Zapids: Ba3er# &'('.!hompson# G. H. %. !he +etters o1 %aul to the Ephesians# to the Colossians and to %hilemon.

Cam*ridge: Cam*ridge 8niversity %ress# (-Yj.!hurston# Bonnie. Rea'ing Colossians! Ephesians! an' @ )hessalonians2 A *iterary an'

)heological Commentary. Ne 0or3: Crossroad# (--).!urner# Max. Ephesians. "n %ew Bible Commentary2 @?st Century E'ition# ed. ;. $. Carson#

Z. !. 4rance# . $. Motyer# and G. . Wenham# (&&&A@@. @th ed. ;oners Grove# "+:"nter9arsity# (--@.

!urner# Samuel H. )he Epistle to the Ephesians in reek an' English. Ne 0or3: ;ana# ()Y.9erhey# $llen# and oseph Harvard. Ephesians2 A )heological Commentary on the Bible.+ouisville: Westminster ohn nox# &'((.

Westcott# Broo3e 4oss. Saint "aulGs Epistle to the Ephesians2 )he reek )e,t with %otes an' A''en'a. +ondon: Macmillan# (-'Y.

Wette# W. M. +. 4ur5e Erklarung 'er Brie$e an 'ie Colosser! an "hilemon! an 'ie Ephesier un' "hilipper . &nd ed. +eip[ig: Weidmann7sche Buchhandlung# (@j ?(st ed.# (@,.

Williamson# %eter S. Ephesians. Grand Zapids: Ba3er# &''-.Witherington# Ben """. )he *etters to "hilemon! the Colossians! an' the Ephesians2 A Socio+

Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles. Grand Zapids: Eerdmans# &''j.Wood# $. S3evington. Ephesians. "n )he E,positorGs Bible Commentary2 Ephesians through

"hilemon# ed. 4ran3 E. Ga*elein# (A-&. Grand Zapids: ondervan# (-j.Wright# N. !. "aul $or Everyone2 )he "rison *etters2 Ephesians! "hilippians! Colossians! an'

"hilemon. &nd ed. +ouisville: Westminster ohn nox# &''@.

etter O"enin% L+*+-,M

Introuction

%aul opens his letter *y identi1ying himsel1 and his addressees# and then pronouncing anapostolic *enediction 1or grace and peace. !hese elements are standard 1or the %auline epistles.!he one thing that ma3es the opening o1 Ephesians distinctive and controversial is that the ordsthat identi1y the audience as V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ ?en Ephesō ?in Ephesus are missing in some 3ey earlyMSS ?discussed at length *elo.


40/399

implication o1 this is that the physical remains o1 this ancient city\hich has *een excavated 1or more than a century\can illumine certain aspects o1 the people and society relative to theepistle. "t should *e noted# hoever# that i1 this identi1ication o1 the epistle ith Ephesus isrong someho# the *ac3ground material 1rom Ephesus ill still *e illuminating# since ancientcities in the eastern Zoman provinces have many things in common despite any individual

distinctions. !here are certainly di11erences *eteen cities# o1 course# yet the core similaritiesstill outnum*er the di11erences."n all later sections# " ill *e providing a division o1 the Gree3 text into cola and periods in

addition to the modern 1ormat and punctuation provided in critical texts. !he explanation anddiscussion o1 this issue is addressed in the *oo37s introduction and the introduction to (:,A(@ *elo.

Outline

". +etter


41/399

(. IF K TFPK F PV OP J QPIF K V XRPI F \ ῖ ἁ ὖ ῖ ἐ ῷ Ἰ ῦ ?tois hagiois ousin kai pistois enChristō IēsouO @Y

&. IF K TFPK IF K F PV OP J QPIF K V XRPI F ῖ ἁ ῖ ὖ ῖ ἐ ῷ Ἰ ῦ ?tois hagiois tois ousin kai pistois en

Christō Iēsou\ ?F # B# Y# @&@c# (j,-# and


42/399

4irst# as can *e seen in the 1irst proposal a*ove# @Y drops the article in 1ront o1 F PVὖ ?ousin#hich turns TFPKἁ ?hagiois into a predicate and ma3es the participle 1unction as a su*stantive toread: to those ho exist as saints and as 1aith1ul hich ma3es even less sense than the

reading o1 ?F and B# hich have the article *ut not in Ephesus. Even i1 the papyrus hadin Ephesus# the reading ithout this article ould still *e most unli3ely and in need o1

correction.Second# @Y deletes ten ords in v. , ? FIF JK LF JK OP J QOI JR IF RTF U V Fὐ ὁ ῦ ἡ ῶ Ἰ ῦ

XRPIFῦ# eulogētos ho theos kai patēr tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou to read {_RPK U V OP Jὑ ῖ RbV QF J LF QOIRF JK U V OP J RTF F XRPIF FbOK U Kἰ ἀ ῦ ἡ ῶ Ἰ ῦ ῦ ὁ ὐ ἡ ᾶ . !his yieldsan ungrammatical reading here the nominative participle FbOKὁ ὐ ?ho eulogēsas mustrather *e expressed as a genitive to agree ith either QF J LF QOIRF JKἀ ῦ ?apo theou patros or RTF F XRPIFἸ ῦ ῦ ?kyriou Iēsou Christou. !he scri*e7s eye o*viously s3ipped 1rom FIKὐ ?eulogētos to FbOKὐ ?eulogēsas# yet this simple copyist mista3e as notcorrected.

$nd# third# the original text o1 the second colon o1 Eph @:- is U Jἰ ?ei mē /3ὅ Lhoti M OP JOI• ?kai katebē ?*ut that he had also descended# ES9# yet @Y inexplica*ly has a dative

participle o1 UTἰ ?eimi here to read U Jἰ ?ei mē 4/3ὅ Lhonti M OP J OI• ?kai katebē ?except $or the one who e,ists he also descended>ƒ. $gain# this nonsensical reading should have *eencorrected *ut as not.

$lthough it must *e stressed that @Y is our earliest and among our most important itnessesto the text o1 Ephesians# it seems 2uite li3ely that V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ ?en Ephesō as accidentally le1tout o1 this MS and that the mista3e as not corrected# even though the resultant reading made poor sense. !he omission o1 V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ ?en Ephesō created =ust one o1 many eccentric readingsin this early papyrus MS# hich contains 1e corrections 1or Ephesians ?e.g.# at &:(&. !heconclusion one can most plausi*ly dra# there1ore# is that the omission o1 V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ ?en Ephesōin @Y or an early relative stands *ehind those 1e other MSS that do not include the epistle7sdestination in (:(. We are on solid ground to accept the overhelming testimony o1 our Gree3

MSS# the prescripts and postscript re1erences to Ephesus# and o1 all early versions that V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ?en Ephesō is part o1 the original text o1 the epistle.

Translation

+ %aul# an apostle o1 Christ esus through the ill o1 God# to the saints ho are in Ephesus#even-- those ho *elieve in Christ esus# , grace to you and peace 1rom God our 4ather and 1romesus Christ.

Commentar#

+*+ ~O FK QIFFK XRPIF F ^PO J LbUOIFK LFῦ ἀ ῦ Ἰ ῦ ῦ ? "aulos apostolos Christou Iēsou'ia thelēmatos theou# %aul# an apostle o1 Christ esus through the ill o1 God. "t is normal 1or the author o1 a letter to identi1y himsel1 *y name to his addressee?s. $lthough %aul as 3nonto have *een *orn a Zoman citi[en ?$cts (Y:,jA, &&:&)A&- &,:(j and there1ore ould have possessed a 1ull name ?in the +atin tria nomina style# such as C. ulius %aulus or Gn. Cornelius%aulus# it as 1airly normal 1or people to use =ust one name among 1riends and ac2uaintancesand even among others i1 he ere ell 3non. 4or example# %ilate ?$cts ,:(,# 4elix ?e.g.# $cts


43/399

&,:&Y# and Gallio ?$cts (:( (@# (j ere all Zoman citi[ens ith tria nomina *ut arere1erenced in $cts only ith their cognomen.

While the identi1ication o1 an author *y name is normal in a letter# this letter opening is more1ormal than an ordinary letter *eteen 1riends or ac2uaintances in that %aul includes a re1erenceto his o11ice: an apostle o1 Christ esus through the ill o1 God# rather than simply saying

something li3e %aul# to the saints in Ephesus# greetings ?e.g.# $cts &,:&Y as one might expect.0et this more 1ormal tone is customary 1or %aul# ho re1erences his apostolate at the opening o1 his correspondence nine times ?in Zomans# (5& Corinthians# Galatians# Ephesians# Colossians# (5& !imothy# and !itus.('@

!he 1ormality o1 %aul7s opening is carried 1urther hen he adds that he is QIFFKἀ?apostolos [738/5 :85ῦ Ἰ ῦ LChristou IēsouM ?an apostle o$ Christ #esus. Grammaticallyspea3ing the genitive XRPIF Fῦ Ἰ ῦ ?Christou Iēsou is possessive# *ut the idea should *ere1ined to say that %aul is an apostolic representative o1 Christ# much li3e an am*assador ?c1.Y:&' Best# -'A-(


44/399

hagiois N tois ousin en Z3@1153 L PhilippoisM# to the saints ho are among the "hilippians ?%hil (:(. Hence# e could expect in Eph (:( V }TFPKἐ Ἐ ?en Ephesiois ?amongthe Ephesians rather than the city name V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ ?en Ephesō# in Ephesus. !his 1ocus onciti[ens rather than location comes across even ith the ord rendered Ephesus ? }FK) # Ephesos# hich is 1eminine despite the masculine ending ?e.g.# /: \ 4 tēn }) # Ephes54 on

$cts &':(Y *ecause it may originally have *een an ad=ective i.e.# }FK QPKἡ ) ?hē Ephesos polis# meaning the Ephesian city ?the ad=ectival 1orm }PFKἘ # Ephesios ouldhave come to prominence later c1. IvE here }FK) ? Ephesos occurs ith names meaningSo and So the Ephesian. 0et the city name }FKἡ ) ?hē Ephesos is used 1re2uently *y %auland others in the N! ?( Cor ():,& (Y: ( !im (:, & !im (:( @:(& Zev &:( c1. Zev &:( and,:(# and V }ἐ Ἐ ῳ ?en Ephesō does appear in the Ephesian inscriptions e.g.# IvE (a., ?$;@@.

!he phrase QPIFP J V XRPI Fἐ ῷ Ἰ ῦ ? pistoi en Christō Iēsou can re1er to people ho are1aith1ul or relia*le in union ith Christ# *ut " have already de1ended the common renderingthose ho *elieve in Christ esus.


45/399

QF J LF QOIRF JK U V OP J RTF F XRPIFἀ ῦ ἡ ῶ Ἰ ῦ ῦ ?apo theou patros hēmōn kai kyriou IēsouChristou# 1rom God our 4ather and 1rom the +ord esus Christ. We might expect the source o1 all *lessings to *e identi1ied *y a 1irst5century e steeped in the

"n a phrase e have gron used to# %aul pronounces a *lessing on his audience 1rom God our 4ather. !hat God the 4ather is our 4ather should *e seen as the most extraordinary privilegeimagina*le. Both the

Selecte Biblio%ra"$#

$gne# 4. #S%) &j ?(-Y: ,A&).Blac3# ;. !he %eculiarities o1 Ephesians and the Ephesian $ddress. )# & ?(-(: )-Aj,.Camp*ell# C. "aul an' .nion with Christ2 An E,egetical an' )heological Stu'y . Grand Zapids:

ondervan# &'(&.;unn# . )he )heology o$ "aul the Apostle. Grand Zapids: Eerdmans# (--.Hemer# C. !he Name o1 %aul. )ynB ,Y ?(-): (j-A,.%orter# S.# and S. $dams. "aul an' the Ancient *etter 8orm. Boston: Brill# &'('.%urvo# Z. ". )he /aking o$ "aul2 Constructions o$ the Apostle in Early Christianity.

Minneapolis: 4ortress# &'('.

Zichards# E. )he Secretary in the *etters o$ "aul . W8N! &.@&. !f*ingen: Mohr Sie*ec3# (--(.Schreiner# !. "aul! Apostle o$ o'Gs lory in Christ2 A "auline )heology. ;oners Grove# "+:"nter9arsity# &''(.

Scheit[er# $. )he /ysticism o$ "aul the Apostle. !ranslated *y W. Montgomery. +ondon: $. C. Blac3# (-,(. Zepr.# Baltimore: ohns Hop3ins 8niversity %ress# (--.

Sherin5White# $. Roman Citi5enship. &nd ed.


46/399

O"enin% Beneiction L+*)-+.M

Introuction

"n Eph (:,A(@ %aul *lesses the 4ather 1or his eternally planned and graciously executed

redemption on *ehal1 o1 all his elect in his Son# sealed to them through the Holy Spirit. !hecontext here is that %aul is opening his epistle ith genuine praise and onder at God7s lavishgrace. !he su*text is that this praise teaches us these things and ho e should over1lo ith praise as ell.

$s explained in the commentary7s introduction# e analy[e the text o1 Ephesians ascontaining 1loing periodic sentences ith some literary 1eatures# granting the less demanding1eatures o1 epistolary prose on Gree3 authors. We are doing this *ecause that is ho everyonelearned to compose Gree3 1rom grammar school onard. %auline texts overtly exhi*it this periodic style to varying degrees# in contrast to the simpler# more Semitic style o1 or3s li3eMar3 or the ohannine Epistles.


47/399

^PO J F XRPIF K O IVἸ ῦ ῦ ἰ ὐOIO J I J V ^FTOV IF LbUOIFK O IFὐ ῦ ὐ ῦY K QOPVFV ̂ ]K I K {_RPIFK O IFἰ ἔ ῆ ὐ ῦ

; K {ORTIwV U K V I OQUVἧ ἐ ἡ ᾶ ἐ ῷ ἠ ῳj V {FUV I J V QFzIRwPV ^PO J IF O UOIFK O IFἐ ! ἔ ἀ ῦ - ὐ ῦI J V }PV I V QOROQIwU_IwV% ῶOIO J IF J QF IFK I K {_RPIFK O IFῦ ῆ ὐ ῦ

E K QRTV K U Kἧ ἐ ἰ ἡ ᾶ V Q_ F}T OP J }RFVbPἐ ῃ '

- VwRTOK U V IF J UIbRPFV IF LbUOIFK O IFἡ ῖ ῦ ὐ ῦOIO J I J V ^FTOV O IFὐ ὐ ῦ

4 V QRFLIF V O I. ἐ ὐ ῷ(' K F FVFUTOV IF QR€UOIFK I V OPR Vἰ ἰ ῦ ῶ ῶ VO}OOP€OLOP IO J Q_VIO V I XRPIἀ ἐ ῷ ῷ

IO J QP J IF K F ROVF K OP J IO J QP J I K K V O Iἐ ῖ ὐ ῖ ἐ ῆ ῆ ἐ ὐ ῷG (( V OP J R€LUV QRFFRPLVIKἐ ! ἐ

OIO J QRLPV IF IO J Q_VIO VRF VIFKῦ ἐ ῦOIO J I J V •F J V IF LbUOIFK O IFῦ ὐ ῦ(& K IF J VOP U K K QOPVFV ̂ ]K O IFἰ , ἡ ᾶ ἰ ἔ ὐ ῦIF J K QRFQPIOK V I XRPIἐ ῷ ῷ

H (, V OP J U K FzOVIK IF J V FV I K LTOKἐ ! ὑ ῖ ἀ ῆ ἀIF J OPFV I K wIRTOK U Vὐ ῆ ὑ ῶ V OP J QPIzOVIKἐ !}ROTLI I QVzUOIP I K QOTOK I Tἐ ῷ ῆ ἐ ῷ ἁ ῳ

" (@ IPV RRO•w J V I K RFVFUTOK U Vὅ ἐ ἀ ῆ ἡ ῶ K QFzIRwPV I K QRPQFPbwKἰ ἀ ῆ K QOPVFV I K ̂ ]K O IFἰ ἔ ῆ ὐ ῦ.

!o descri*e Eph (:,A(@ as a long Gree3 sentence# as is o1ten done# is misleading to a modernEnglish reader. "t ma3es it seem that %aul is riting an undi11erentiated stream o1 text that gives asilent reader no *rea3 in thought.


48/399

%et (:@# and common Christian ords li3e o' and salvation. !he to texts are actually 2uitedi11erent in rhythm and other mar3s o1 style. While one can easily imagine *oth texts ?and other


49/399

portions o1 *oth epistles as part o1 a *aptism rite# they merely present *asic Christian teachingthat is appropriate in many contexts. 8nless e ere to 1ind concrete evidence o1 such an early#original liturgical 1orm# it remains an imaginary source at *est.

$ hymnic *ac3ground to Eph (:,A(@ has also *een proposed. What is most interesting a*outthis idea is ho it connects to Eph ):(-# here e are told to address one another ith psalms

and hymns and songs o1 the Spirit perhaps %aul is doing =ust that in (:,A(@. %ro*lems come inthe details# hoever. !o ma3e a prose hymn out o1 Eph (:,A(@ e have to remove importantstrands o1 the text ?e.g.# vv. (&* and (, and have to com*ine large chun3s o1 text into three or 1our long and unieldy strophes that undercut the periodic structure that the unaltered textnaturally exhi*its.

Edgar rent[ has recently provided a ell5researched investigation into ancient Gree3 hymnody in prose# and %aul possi*ly may have 3non a*out such prose hymns. !he Gree3s#hoever# still pre1erred metrical 1orms 1or hymns and other types o1 poetry ?see the remar3s on):(@ and Excursus: Hymns. Granting %aul7s *enediction in Eph (:,A(@ is a 1orm o1 praise? QOPVFKἔ # epainos# as " *elieve ?see vv. Y# ( (@# here is an example o1 praise in moretraditional Gree3 1orm ?elegiac couplets inscri*ed on an Ephesian *uilding roughly thirty years

a1ter Ephesians as ritten:kO^TO RF}TU R QRzIOVPK IT QOPVFV RO‚`ἱ ῆ ἡ / ῃ ἔ ἔŠ IO OP J UO_RPV QbR V }RFzVOPPVὕ ἐ ʼ ἐ ὐ #

O I OP J LORF J V } K OI{P QOIRT^FK`ὕ ῶÎ_IO ̂ O UFV# UF L_FK# VOFV } Kἁ ῖ ἀ ῶ

ÔI{PK •wUF K ÔF J V Q F ROVLV0 ῖ ἀ ʼ ὐ .

Claudia !rophime# the priestess ?and %rytanis# composed this praise ? QOPVFKἔ to Hestia:She ?Hestia *oth helps the Blessed


50/399

!he conclusion# then# is that e11orts to divine liturgical 1orms or hymns *ehind Eph (:,A(@have not succeeded. "1 the passage loo3s li3e a hymn# it is *ecause hymns can *e prayers o1 praise# and our passage is a prose composition o1 prayer to the praise o1 the glory o1 his grace?v. Y. !he text divides itsel1 naturally into a succession o1 normal Gree3 periods# not strophesor stan[as# despite some repeated ords or phrases ?1ound also in other *enedictions li3e !o*

(, or +u3e (:YjAj.


51/399

Y&-# et al. con1orms the statement to the divine testimony at esus7 *aptism ?Matt ,:(j and par.c1. & %et (:(j.

Uc. ?F # ;# ˆ ? "S # ('@# ()')# and a 1e other MSS have aorist {FUVἔ ?eschomen ?inhom e have ac2uired our redemption 1or present {FUVἔ ?echomen ?e have. Either

reading ma3es good sense in context# *ut the present5tense 1orm has *etter MS itnesses throughider geographical distri*ution and is 1ound in the earliest itnesses# outside ?F . !he MSS $#,Y)# and a 1e others have {RIFIIFK ?chrēstotētos ?o1 his kin'ness 1or {_RPIFK ?charitos?o1 his grace# hich as clearly in1luenced *y this phrase in Zom &:@ ?c1. Eph &:j.

+_U. uite a 1e good MSS including $# ,,# (j,-# and (( smooth up QP J IF K F ROVF Kἐ ῖ ὐ ῖ ?epitois ouranois# hich might *e read as upon the heavens# ith Vἐ ?en# in. Zeading QTἐ ?epihere has the colon open ith a nice paean meter: IO J QP J IF Kἐ ῖ ?ta epi tois ? # hich thestylists recommended in prose and mar3s the other many short sylla*les in vv. -cA('.

++Ue. !he ver* R€LUVἐ ?eklērōthēmen# rendered e have *een appointed# is a di11icultone in context# so it is not surprising that a 1e MSS ?$# ;# 4# and G read bLUVἐ

?eklēthēmen# e ere called# in an attempt\hether deli*erate or not\to ma3e an easier reading. !he principle o1 lectio 'i$$icilior applies here ith the pre1erred 8BS/N$ reading.

+.U . ?F # ;# ˆ ? "S # ,,# and have masculine Kὅ ?hos in place o1 neuter ὅ ?ho ?hich agreesith its neuter antecedent QV UOῦ # pneuma. Bruce Met[ger notes that the masculine may *ein1luenced *y the ?masc. gender o1 the predicate noun RRO•€Vἀ ?arrabōn# guarantee# *ut itmay also *e the case that either %aul or the scri*es used the masculine *ecause o1 the natural?versus grammatical gender o1 the Holy Spirit ?hich also happens in Gree3 generally.

Translation

) Blessed *e the God and 4ather o1 our +ord esus Christ# ho has *lessed us ith every *lessing o1 the Spirit in the high5heavenlies(,, in Christ# . inso1ar as he chose us in him *e1orethe 1oundation o1 the orld that e should *e holy and *lameless *e1ore him. "n love he predestined us 1or adoption to himsel1 through esus Christ according to the good pleasure o1 hisill ] 1or praise o1 the glory o1 his grace# hich (,j he *estoed on us in his(,- Beloved# inhom e have our redemption through his *lood# the 1orgiveness o1 our transgressions#according to the riches o1 his grace# ^ hich he lavished(@& upon us in all isdom and insight hen he made 3non to us the mystery o1 his ill according to his good pleasure# hich he purposed in him +_ 1or the administration o1 the 1ullness o1 ?all eras to sum up (@@ all things inthe Messiah# the things in heaven and things on earth in him# ++-+, in hom also e ho had

hoped *e1orehand in the Messiah(@j ere apportioned to *e 1or the praise o1 his glory# since eere predestined according to his plan ho *rings all things into e11ect in accordance ith thecounsel o1 his ill#()'+) in hom you as ell# hen you heard the ord o1 truth#()& the gospel o1 your salvation# in hom also hen you *elieved# you ere sealed ith the promised Holy Spirit#+. ho is a don payment o1 our inheritance 1or redemption o1 his pri[ed possession 1or the praise o1 his glory.


52/399

Commentar#

+*) D FIF JK LF JK OP J QOI JR IF RTF U V F XRPIFὐ ὁ ῦ ἡ ῶ Ἰ ῦ ῦ ? Eulogētos ho theos kai patēr tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou# Blessed *e the God and 4ather o1 our +ord esus Christ. $sshon in the periodic division given in the introduction# this period consists o1 1our cola# ith atrinitarian 1ocus on God the 4ather# the Spirit ?through the ad=ective spiritual# and theincarnate Son# our +ord esus Christ ?v. ,a and in Christ ?v. ,d. !he passage is 1illed ithlong sylla*les# hich are appropriate 1or the ma=esty o1 the su*=ect and the solemnity o1 God7sglorious praise.

Blessed ?*e ? FIKὐ # eulogētos introduces a common 1orm o1 He*raic prayer o1 praise recited throughout the day *y es in %aul7s day. !his 1orm o1 prayer is very ancient andcommon in the

!o say that God the 4ather is the God o1 esus ?also (:(j is not to deny the incarnate Son7strue divinity *ut to express his true humanity and that through him God is also our God and4ather ?see esp. ohn &':(j. !o ancient pagan peoples li3e the Ephesians# the appearance o1 agod in human $orm as 1airly common in their literature and religious 1estivals. !he language o1 this is QP}_VPOἐ ?epiphaneia# mani1estation or appearance ?hence English epiphany

and cognates li3e QP}OVbKἐ ?epiphanēs ?mani1est c1. $cts &:&'# hich as sometimes usedto express a divine appearance. 4or example# in IvE &)( ulius Caesar is honored as themani1est god ?IF J V QF J RwK OP J }RF^TIK LF J V QP}OVἀ # Ἀ ἐ ῆ# ton apo Areōs kai Aphro'eitēstheon epiphanē sprung 1rom $res and $phrodite# and in IvE &j $rtemis Ephesia is called agoddess QP}OVI_Iἐ ?epiphanestatē ?most mani1est# hile coins 1rom Ephesus depictdoorays in the pediment o1 her temple here it is thought that $rtemis or a priestess made anappearance during 1estivals.


53/399

!here is# hoever# no parallel 1or a Gree3 or Zoman god to appear among us as a truehuman. !he N! authors have to or3 hard to clari1y to their contemporaries that the Son o1 Godmade his appearance ?& !hess &: ( !im Y:(@ & !im (:(' @:(# !itus &:(, as a man in the1lesh ?e.g.# ohn (:(@ Y:)( ( ohn @:&A, $cts (j:,( ( !im &:) He* &:(@. So %aul7s re1erenceto the 4ather as the God o1 our +ord esus in Eph (:, as to *ring out Christ7s human identity

as the one true mediator ?( !im &:) He* &:(@ again# expressed 1urther in the passage ith themany re1erences to the redemptive *ene1its lavished on his people in or through Christ ?vv.,d# @a# )*# Y*# ja# -*# ('*Ac# ((a# (,c.

FbOK U K V Q_ FT QVUOIP V IF K QFROVTFPK V XRPIὁ ὐ ἡ ᾶ ἐ ῃ ὐ ' $ ἐ ῖ ἐ ἐ ῷ ?ho eulogēsashēmas en pasē eulogia pneumatikē en tois epouraniois en Christō# ho has *lessed us ithevery *lessing o1 the Spirit in the high5heavenlies in Christ. "t is common in *enedictions andother 1orms o1 praise to speci1y the *asis 1or this praise. !he most overt ay to signal this is ithIPὅ ?hoti# 1or or *ecause# as here:

D FIF JK zRPFK LF JK IF RObὐ ὁ ῦ Ἰ #/3ὅ IQ‚OIF OP J QFTV zIRwPV I O O IFἐ ῷ ῷ ὐ ῦ

Blessed *e the +ord# the God o1 "srael#

$or he has had regard 1or and rendered redemption 1or his people ?+u3e (:Y.

"n more He*re5inspired 1orm# the speci1ication can *e given as a 2uali1ication in a relativeclause:

FIF JK zRPFK LF JK ŒROὐ ὁὃ K^wV bURFV IF QRUOIK UF OLbUVFV QP J IF LRVF UFἐ ῦ ἐ ῦ

Blessed *e the +


54/399

possession o1 the Spirit *y the *eliever is regarded in the light o1 an anticipation.!he Spirit7s proper sphere is according to this the orld to come 1rom there He pro=ects Himsel1 into the present.

!he spiritual *lessings o1 God in Christ are V IF K QFROVTFPKἐ ῖ ἐ ?en tois epouraniois ?in thehigh5heavenlies# hich is this realm o1 the Spirit and o1 the orld to come ?c1. esp.


55/399

temporary term o1 o11ice# *ut has its *eginning in this li1e and its consummate per1ection at the *eliever7s resurrection. Christians have *een chosen 1or this great inheritance and given the Spirito1 holiness# through hom Christ as raised ?Zom (:@ as its guarantee ?Eph (:(@.

!he God hom the Ephesian Christians no orship is 1ar more exalted and divine than$rtemis ?hose orship and temple have 1allen into a *oggy ruin. She as thought to have

*een *orn in time 1rom +eto and eus# *ut the living God ?" $M WH


56/399

con=unction OT ?kai is not used in this construction# and use o1 participles in periodic style suchas e 1ind in Ephesians has many o1 these participles mar3ing the *eginning o1 periods.

!he meaning o1 the ver* QRFFRT|w ? proori5ō is to ma3e a previous determination a*outsomething or someone and is closely related to choose in v. @ ?see also v. (( c1. $cts @:&Zom :&-A,' ( Cor &:j. While one must *e particularly cautious a*out using etymology to

understand a ord7s meaning# the etymology o1 RT|wὁ ?hori5ō is instructive. "t is derived 1romthe noun RFKὅ ?horos ?or "onic# F RFK2 # houros# hich re1ers to a mar3er used to mar3 out one7s property. Hence# RT|wὁ ?hori5ō can *e rendered to mar3 out or determine. 4rom there# themeaning hen people are the o*=ects o1 the action is closer to appoint# as in (:)# since the electare predetermined ?i.e.# preappointed to the position o1 FLTORἱ ?huiothesiar ?*elo.

What is most remar3a*le a*out the period o1 (:@eAYa is that it consists entirely o1 six prepositional phrases 2uali1ying QRFFRTOK ? proorisas. !his is a very high num*er and shosthe 1ocus here on the act o1 predestination. !he logical relations o1 these phrases can *e s3etchedout as 1ollos:

%redestined:

God7s motive: V _Qἐ ἀ ῃ# in loveGoal: K FLTOVἰ ἱ # 1or adoptionMediation: ^PO J F XRPIFἸ ῦ ῦ# through esus Christ"nterrelation o1 adoption: K O IVἰ ὐ # to himsel1Standard governing the act: OIO J I J V ^FTOV IF LbUOIFK O IFὐ ῦ ὐ ῦ# according

to the good pleasure o1 his illZesult: K QOPVFV ̂ ]K I K {_RPIFK O IFἰ ἔ ῆ ὐ ῦ# 1or the praise o1 the glory o1 his

grace.

K FLTOVἰ ἱ ?eis huiothesian# 1or adoption. While English adoption is the *estrendering 1or FLTOἱ ?huiothesia# this term does not convey the same connotations today as itdid in a Graeco5Zoman city li3e Ephesus. !he 1irst part o1 the etymology o1 ? 5ἱ LhuioMLTO?thesia ?appoint as son as still active in its meaning# as also in the rarer terms >?0/75LthygatroMLTO ?thesia ?adopt as daughter or /2=45 LteknoMLTO ?thesia ?adopt as child.!his is important *ecause o1 the importance o1 sons in the Gree3 F FK , ?oikos ?1amily#household or Zoman $amilia ?also 1amily# household.

!he primary connection *eteen ancient adoption and the son?s as inheritance.


57/399

!he adoption o1 %. Cornelius Scipio $emilianus $1ricanus ?Numantius ?()/@A(&- BC is =ust one instructive example.(j ;iodorus Siculus rites: No %u*lius Scipio as the naturalson ?OIO J }zPV Kἱ # kata physin huios o1 $emilus ho had triumphed over %erseus and heas given in adoption ?^FLP JK ^ J K FLTOVἰ ἱ # 'otheis 'e eis huiothesian to Scipio succeeding to a 1amily ?F TOἰ # oikia and clan ?VFK# genos o1 such importance ?,(.&Y.@ also

9elleius %aterculus# (.('.,AY (.((.&A,.With this ?too *rie1 s3etch o1 adoption *ac3ground# e can return to Eph (:@A) andhope1ully see its implications more clearly# as ell as the connection o1 sonship and inheritancein vv. (,A(@. %aul declares that all *elievers ?us e and Gree3# male and 1emale# slave and1ree have *een trans1erred *y the $iat ?according to the good pleasure o1 his ill v. ) o1 the4ather o1 the hole o1 his $amiliaQoikos in heaven and earth ?see on ,:() as sons into his onoikos ?to himsel1 v. )* also &:(- through the redeeming act o1 his on *eloved Son ?v. )*i.e.# a Son *y nature. $nd this act as motivated *y love# not sel15interest.

Graeco5Zoman adoptees ere o1ten mem*ers o1 the 1ather7s extended relations. "n the caseo1 *elievers# God has ta3en the most distant 1oreigners to *e his 3in 1or inheritance o1 his holeestate. Not the deserving or good ?Zom ):j# not many ell5*orn# poer1ul# or ise ?( Cor (:&YA

,'# *ut those ho ere *y nature ?}zP# physei not o1 his 3in at all *ut children o1 rath?Eph &:, and dar3ened sons o1 diso*edience ?Eph ):Y# also @:(jA&@\his helpless# ic3ed#sin1ul enemies ?Zom ):YA(' under thrall to the realm o1 dar3ness ?Eph &:(A, Col (:(, ohn:@@ etc.. God does not place these ne sons into a su*ordinate# in1erior 1amily he appointsthem all to *ecome coheirs ith his natural# 1irst*orn Son# in hom the hole creation issummari[ed ?v. (' 1or corule over all things ith him as those ho have *een coseated ithhim in the high5heavenlies ?&:Y Zom :(@A(j# &-A,& c1. Gal ,:&YA@:j Col (:(&A(@ & !im&:(& Zev ,:&(. !hese stupendous acts o1 divine grace have no parallel in Graeco5Zomansociety. "t surpasses even the unthin3a*le idea o1 the Zoman emperor adopting a slave 1rom themost *ar*aric hinterlands to *e the next emperor. "t is no onder that %aul exults in praise o1 theglory o1 his grace# hich he *estoed on us in his Beloved ?(:Y.

"t is orth stressing that the inheritance to the highly exalted position as sons is not restrictedto males# or to es ?"srael is my 1irst*orn son# Exod @:&&# or even to 1ree persons# *ut to allto hom the +ord extends his grace ?c1. Gal ,:&A&-. We have lost the momentous impact%aul7s statement ould have had in its original setting. Slaves in Graeco5Zoman anti2uity erelegally not human persons ?even i1 they ere treated as such *y 3indly masters see comments onY:)A-. 4or the Christians at Ephesus ho ere or had *een slaves# to hear that God had predestined them not =ust to *ecome God7s 1reedmen ?( Cor j:&& or 1ree children ?ohn (:(& *ut through FLTOἱ ?huiothesia to *ecome ruling sons ?hether male or 1emale as anastoundingly magni1icent statement o1 God7s lavish grace# poured out upon the o*=ects o1 hiseternal love.

OIO J I J V ^FTOV IF LbUOIFK O IFὐ ῦ ὐ ῦ ?kata tēn e

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daniel-hutagalung
View:	275 times
Download:	0 times

S. M. Baugh - Ephesians. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, 2015

Documents