Bible Commentaries

In this chapter we have, I. The introduction to the whole epistle, which is much the same as in others, Eph 1:1,2. II. The apostle's thanksgivings and praises to God for his inestimable blessings bestowed on the believing Ephesians, Eph 1:3-14. III. His earnest prayers to God in their behalf, Eph 1:15-23. This great apostle was wont to abound in prayers and in thanksgivings to almighty God, which he generally so disposes and orders that at the same time they carry with them and convey the great and important doctrines of the Christian religion, and the most weighty instructions to all those who seriously peruse them.

INTRODUCTION

THE headings

(Eph 1:1, and Eph 3:1,

show that this Epistle claims to be that of Paul. This claim is confirmed by the testimonies of IRENÆUS, [Against Heresies, 5.2,3; 1.8,5]; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, [Miscellanies, 4, P. 65, and The Instructor, 1.8]; ORIGEN, [Against Celsus, 4,211]. It is quoted by VALENTINUS, A.D. 120, namely,

Eph 3:14-18,

as we know from HIPPOLYTUS [The Refutation of All Heresies, p. 193]. POLYCARP [Epistle to the Philippians, 12], testifies to its canonicity. So TERTULLIAN [Against Marcion, 5,17]. IGNATIUS [Epistle to the Ephesians, 12], which alludes to the frequent and affectionate mention made by Paul of the Christian state, privileges, and persons of the Ephesians in his Epistle.

Two theories, besides the ordinary one, have been held on the question, to whom the Epistle is addressed. GROTIUS, after the heretic Marcion, maintains that it was addressed to the Church at Laodicea, and that it is the Epistle to which Paul refers in

Col 4:16.

But the Epistle to the Colossians was probably written before that to the Ephesians, as appears from the parallel passages in Ephesians bearing marks of being expanded from those in Colossians; and Marcion seems to have drawn his notion, as to our Epistle, from Paul's allusion

(Col 4:16)

to an Epistle addressed by him to the Laodiceans. ORIGEN and CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, and even TERTULLIAN, who refers to Marcion, give no sanction to his notion. No single manuscript contains the heading, "to the saints that are at Laodicea." The very resemblance of the Epistle to the Ephesians, to that to the Colossians, is against the theory; for if the former were really the one addressed to Laodicea

(Col 4:16),

Paul would not have deemed it necessary that the churches of Colosse and Laodicea should interchange Epistles. The greetings, moreover

(Col 4:15),

which he sends through the Colossians to the Laodiceans, are quite incompatible with the idea that Paul wrote an Epistle to the Laodiceans at the same time, and by the same bearer, Tychicus (the bearer of our Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as of that to Colosse,

Eph 6:21; Col 4:7);

for who, under such circumstances, would not send the greetings directly in the letter to the party saluted? The letter to Laodicea was evidently written some time before that to Colosse, Archbishop USHER has advanced the second theory: That it was an encyclical letter headed, as in Manuscript B., "to the saints that are . . . and to the faithful," the name of each Church being inserted in the copy sent to it; and that its being sent to Ephesus first, occasioned its being entitled, as now, the Epistle to the Ephesians. ALFORD makes the following objections to this theory: (1) It is at variance with the spirit of the Epistle, which is clearly addressed to one set of persons throughout, co-existing in one place, and as one body, and under the same circumstances. (2) The improbability that the apostle, who in two of his Epistles (Second Corinthians and Galatians) has so plainly specified their encyclical character, should have here omitted such specification. (3) The still greater improbability that he should have, as on this hypothesis must be assumed, written a circular Epistle to a district, of which Ephesus was the commercial capital, addressed to various churches within that district, yet from its very contents (as by the opponents' hypothesis) not admitting of application to the Church of that metropolis, in which he had spent so long a time, and to which he was so affectionately bound. (4) The inconsistency of this hypothesis with the address of the Epistle, and the universal testimony of the ancient Church. The absence of personal greetings is not an argument for either of the two theories; for similarly there are none in Galatians, Philippians, First and Second Thessalonians, First Timothy. The better he knows the parties addressed, and the more general and solemn the subject, the less he seems to give of these individual notices. Writing, as he does in this Epistle, on the constitution and prospects of Christ's universal Church, he refers the Ephesians, as to personal matters, to the bearer of the Epistle, Tychicus

(Eph 6:21, 22).

As to the omission of "which are at Ephesus"

(Eph 1:1),

in Manuscript B., so "in Rome"

(Ro 1:7)

is omitted in some old manuscripts: it was probably done by churches among whom it was read, in order to generalize the reference of its contents, and especially where the subject of the Epistle is catholic. The words are found in the margin of Manuscript B, from a first hand; and are found in all the oldest manuscripts and versions.

Paul's first visit to Ephesus (on the seacoast of Lydia, near the river Cayster) is related in

Ac 18:19-21.

The work, begun by his disputations with the Jews in his short visit, was carried on by Apollos

(Ac 18:24-26),

and Aquila and Priscilla

(Ac 18:26).

At his second visit, after his journey to Jerusalem, and thence to the east regions of Asia Minor, he remained at Ephesus "three years"

(Ac 19:10,

the "two years" in which verse are only part of the time, and

Ac 20:31);

so that the founding and rearing of this Church occupied an unusually large portion of the apostle's time and care; whence his language in this Epistle shows a warmth of feeling, and a free outpouring of thought, and a union in spiritual privileges and hope between him and them

(Eph 1:3,

&c.), such as are natural from one so long and so intimately associated with those whom he addresses. On his last journey to Jerusalem, he sailed by Ephesus and summoned the elders of the Ephesian Church to meet him at Miletus, where he delivered his remarkable farewell charge

(Ac 20:18-35).

This Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians during the early part of his imprisonment at Rome, immediately after that to the Colossians, to which it bears a close resemblance in many passages, the apostle having in his mind generally the same great truths in writing both. It is an undesigned proof of genuineness that the two Epistles, written about the same date, and under the same circumstances, bear a closer mutual resemblance than those written at distant dates and on different occasions. Compare

Eph 1:7 with Col 1:14;

Eph 1:10 with Col 1:20;

Eph 3:2 with Col 1:25;

Eph 5:19 with Col 3:16;

Eph 6:22 with Col 4:8;

Eph 1:19; 2:5 with Col 2:12, 13;

Eph 4:2-4 with Col 3:12-15;

Eph 4:16 with Col 2:19;

Eph 4:32 with Col 3:13;

Eph 4:22-24 with Col 3:9, 10;

Eph 5:6-8 with Col 3:6-8;

Eph 5:15, 16 with Col 4:5;

Eph 6:19, 20 with Col 4:3, 4;

Eph 5:22-33; 6:1-9 with Col 3:18;

Eph 4:24, 25 with Col 3:9;

Eph 5:20-22 with Col 3:17, 18.

Tychicus and Onesimus were being sent to Colosse, the former bearing the two Epistles to the two churches respectively, the latter furnished with a letter of recommendation to Philemon, his former master, residing at Colosse. The date was probably about four years after his parting with the Ephesian elders at Miletus

(Ac 20:6-38),

about A.D. 62, before his imprisonment had become of the more severe kind, which appears in his Epistle to the Philippians. From

Eph 6:19, 20

it is plain he had at the time, though a prisoner, some degree of freedom in preaching, which accords with

Ac 28:23, 30, 31,

where he is represented as receiving at his lodgings all inquirers. His imprisonment began in February A.D. 61 and lasted "two whole years"

(Ac 28:30)

at least, and perhaps longer.

The Church of Ephesus was made up of converts partly from the Jews and partly from the Gentiles

(Ac 19:8-10).

Accordingly, the Epistle so addresses a Church constituted

(Eph 2:14-22).

Ephesus was famed for its idol temple of Artemis or Diana, which, after its having been burnt down by Herostratus on the night that Alexander the Great was born (355 B.C.), was rebuilt at enormous cost and was one of the wonders of the world. Hence, perhaps, have arisen his images in this Epistle drawn from a beautiful temple: the Church being in true inner beauty that which the temple of the idol tried to realize in outward show

(Eph 2:19-22).

The Epistle

(Eph 4:17; 5:1-13)

implies the profligacy for which the Ephesian heathen were notorious. Many of the same expressions occur in the Epistle as in Paul's address to the Ephesian elders. Compare

Eph 1:6, 7; 2:7,

as to "grace," with

Ac 20:24, 32:

this may well be called "the Epistle of the grace of God" [ALFORD]. Also, as to his "bonds,"

Eph 3:1, and 4:1 with Ac 20:22, 23.

Also

Eph 1:11,

as to "the counsel of God," with

Ac 20:27.

Also

Eph 1:14,

as to "the redemption of the purchased possession," with

Ac 20:28.

Also

Eph 1:14, 18; 2:20; 5:5,

as to "building up" the "inheritance," with

Ac 20:32.

The object of the Epistle is "to set forth the ground, the course, and the aim and end of THE CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL IN CHRIST. He speaks to the Ephesians as a type or sample of the Church universal" [ALFORD]. Hence, "the Church" throughout the Epistle is spoken of in the singular, not in the plural, "churches." The Church's foundation, its course, and its end, are his theme alike in the larger and smaller divisions of the whole Epistle. "Everywhere the foundation of the Church is in the will of the Father; the course of the Church is by the satisfaction of the Son; the end of the Church is the life in the Holy Spirit" [ALFORD]. Compare respectively

Eph 1:11; 2:5; 3:16.

This having been laid down as a matter of doctrine (this part closing with a sublime doxology,

Eph 3:14-21),

is then made the ground of practical exhortations. In these latter also (from

Eph 4:1,

onward), the same threefold division prevails, for the Church is represented as founded on the counsel of "God the Father, who is above all, through all, and in all," reared by the "one Lord," Jesus Christ, through the "one Spirit"

(Eph 4:4-6,

&c.), who give their respective graces to the several members. These last are therefore to exercise all these graces in the several relations of life, as husbands, wives, servants, children, &c. The conclusion is that we must put on "the whole armor of God"

(Eph 6:13).

The sublimity of the STYLE and LANGUAGE corresponds to the sublimity of the subjects and exceeds almost that of any part of his Epistles. It is appropriate that those to whom he so wrote were Christians long grounded in the faith. The very sublimity is the cause of the difficulty of the style, and of the presence of peculiar expressions occurring, not found elsewhere.

Introduction to Ephesians

Section 1. The Situation of Ephesus, and the Character of its People

This Epistle purports to have been written to the "Saints in Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus," though, as we shall see, the fact of its having been directed to the church at Ephesus has been called in question. Assuming now that it was sent to Ephesus, it is of importance to have a general view of the situation of that city, of the character of its people, and of the time and manner in which the gospel was introduced there, in order to a correct understanding of the Epistle. Ephesus was a celebrated city of Ionia in Asia Minor, and was about 40 miles south of Smyrna, and near the mouth of the river Cayster. The river, though inferior in beauty to the Meander which flows south of it, waters a fertile valley of the ancient Ionia. Ionia was the most beautiful and fertile part of Asia Minor; was settled almost wholly by Greek colonies; and it embosomed Pergamos, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Miletus; see "Travels" of Anacharsis, i. 91, 208; vi. 192, 97, 98. The climate of Ionia is represented as remarkably mild, and the air as pure and sweet, and this region became early celebrated for everything that constitutes softness and effeminacy in life. Its people were distinguished for amiableness and refinement of manners, and also for luxury, for music and dancing, and for the seductive arts festivals occupied them at home, or attracted them to neighboring cities, where the men appeared in magnificent habits, and the women in all the elegance of female ornament, and with all the desire of pleasure (Anachar).

Ephesus was not, like Smyrna, distinguished for commercial advantages. The consequence has been that, not having such advantage, it has fallen into total ruin, while Smyrna has retained some degree of its ancient importance. It was in a rich region of country, and seems to have risen into importance mainly because it became the favorite resort of foreigners in the worship of Diana, and owed its celebrity to its temple more than to anything else. This city was once, however, the most splendid city in Asia Minor. Stephens, the geographer, gives it the title of "Epiphanestate" (Most Illustrious). Pliny styles it "the Ornament of Asia." In Roman times it was the metropolis of Asia, and unquestionably rose to a degree of splendor that was surpassed by few, if any, oriental cities.

That for which the city was most celebrated was the Temple of Diana. This temple was 425 feet in length, and 220 feet in width. It was encompassed by 127 pillars, each 60 feet in height, which were presented by as many kings. Some of those pillars, it is said, are yet to be seen in the mosque of Sophia at Constantinople, having been removed there when the Church of Sophia was erected. These, however, were the pillars that constituted a part of the temple after it had been burned and was repaired, though it is probable that the same pillars were retained in the second temple which had constituted the glory of the first. All the provinces of Asia Minor contributed to the erection of this splendid temple, and 200 years were consumed in building it. This temple was set on fire by a man named Herostratus, who, when put to the torture, confessed that his only motive was to immortalize his name. The general assembly of the states of Ionia passed a decree to devote his name to oblivion; but the fact of the decree has only served to perpetuate it; Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 2. 27; Plutarch, Life of Alexander; compare Anachar. vi. 189. The whole of the edifice was consumed except the four walls and some of the columns. It was, however, rebuilt with the same magnificence as before, and was regarded as one of the wonders of the world. It is now in utter ruin. After the temple had been repeatedly pillaged by the barbarians, Justinian removed the columns to adorn the Church of Sophia at Constantinople. The place where it stood can now be identified certainly, if at all, only by the marshy spot on which it was erected, and by the prodigious arches raised above as a foundation. The vaults formed by them compose a sort of labyrinth, and the water is knee-deep beneath. There is not an apartment entire; but thick walls, shafts of columns, and fragments of every kind are scattered around in confusion (Encyclopedia Geog. ii. 273, 274).

During the reign of Tiberius, Ephesus was greatly damaged by an earthquake, but it was repaired and embellished by the emperor. In the war between Mithridates and the Romans, Ephesus took part with the former, and massacred the Romans who dwelt in it. Sylla severely punished this cruelty; but Ephesus was afterward treated with leniancy, and enjoyed its own laws, along with other privileges. About the end of the 11th century it was seized by a pirate named Tangripermes, but he was routed by John Ducas (the Greek admiral) in a bloody battle. Theodorus Lascarus, a Greek, made himself master of it in 1206 a.d. The Muslims recovered it in 1283. In the year 1401 Tamerlane employed a whole month in plundering the city and the neighboring country. Shortly afterward, the city was set on fire, and was mostly burnt in a combat between the Turkish governor and the Tartars. In 1405 it was taken by Muhammed I, and has continued since that time in the possession of the Turks (Calmet).

There is now (circa 1880's) a small, ordinary village, named Ayasaluk, near the site of the ancient town, consisting of a few cottages, which is all that now represents this city of ancient splendor. Dr. Chavolla says, "The inhabitants are a few Greek peasants, living in extreme wretchedness, dependence, and insensibility; the representatives of an illustrious people, and inhabiting the wreck of their greatness - some in the substructions of the glorious edifices which they raised - some beneath the vaults of the stadium, once the crowded scene of their diversions - and some by the abrupt precipice in the sepulchres which received their ashes. Its streets are obscured and overgrown. A herd of goats was driven to it for shelter from the sun at noon, and a noisy flight of crows from the quarries seemed to insult its silence. We heard the partridge call in the area of the theater and the stadium. The glorious pomp of its pagan worship is no longer numbered; and Christianity, which was here nursed by apostles, and fostered by general councils, until it increased to fullness of stature, barely lingers on in an existence hardly visible" (Travels, p. 131, Oxford, 1775). A very full and interesting description of Ephesus, as it appeared in 1739, may be seen in Pococke's Travels, vol. ii. part ii. pp. 45-53, ed. Lend. 1745. Several ruins are described by him, but they have mostly now disappeared. The Temple of Diana was on the western side of the plain on which the city was built, and the site is now in the midst of a morass which renders access difficult. The ruins of several theaters and other buildings are described by Pococke.

In the year 1821 Mr. Fisk, the American missionary, visited the city of Ephesus, of which he has given the following account: "We sent back our horses to Aisaluck, and set out on foot to survey the ruins of Ephesus. The ground was covered with high grass or grain, and a very heavy dew rendered the walking rather unpleasant. On the east side of the hill we found nothing worthy of notice; no appearance of having been occupied for buildings. On the north side was the circus or stadium. Its length from east to west is forty rods (one stadium). The north or lower side was supported by arches which still remain. The area where the races used to be performed is now a field of wheat. At the west end was the gate. The walls adjoining it are still standing, and are of considerable height and strength. North of the stadium, and separated only by a street, is a large square, inclined with fallen walls, and filled with the ruins of various edifices. A street running north and south divides this square in the center. West of the stadium is an elevation of ground, level at the top, with an immense pedestal in the center of it. What building stood there it is not easy to say. Between this and the stadium was a street passing from the great plain north of Ephesus, into the midst of the city.

"I found on the plains of Ephesus some Greek peasants, men and women, employed in pulling up tares and weeds from the wheat. I ascertained, however, that they all belonged to villages at a distance, and came there to labor. Tournefort says that, when he was at Ephesus, there were 30 or 40 Greek families there. Chandler found only 10 or 12 individuals. Now no human being lives in Ephesus; and in Aisaluck, which may be considered as Ephesus under another name, though not on precisely the same spot of ground, there are merely a few miserable Turkish huts.

"The plain of Ephesus is now very unhealthy, owing to the fogs and mists which almost continually rest upon it. The land, however, is rich, and the surrounding country is both fertile and healthy. The adjacent hills would furnish many delightful situations for villages if the difficulties were removed, which are thrown in the way by a despotic government, oppressive agas, and wandering banditti" (Missionary Herald for 1821, p. 319).

Section 2. The Introduction of the Gospel at Ephesus

It is admitted by all that the gospel was introduced into Ephesus by the apostle Paul. He first preached there when on his way from Corinth to Jerusalem, about the year 54 a.d. Acts 18:19. On this visit Paul went into the synagogue, as was his usual custom, and preached to his own countrymen, but he does not appear to have preached publicly to the pagan. He was requested to remain longer with them, but he said he must, by all means, be in Jerusalem at the approaching feast - probably the Passover, Acts 18:21. He promised, however, to visit them again if possible, and sailed from Ephesus to Jerusalem. Two persons had gone with Paul from Corinth - Priscilla and Aquila - whom he appears to have left at Ephesus, or who, at any rate, soon returned there, Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26. During the absence of Paul there came to Ephesus a certain Jew, born in Alexandria, named Apollos, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who had received the baptism of John, and who taught the doctrine that John had taught, Acts 18:24-25.

What was the precise nature of that doctrine it is now difficult to understand. It seems to have been in substance: (1) that repentance was necessary, (2) that baptism was to be performed, and (3) that the Messiah was about to appear. Apollos, who had embraced this doctrine with zeal, was ready to defend it, and was in just the state of mind to welcome the news that the Messiah had come. Priscilla and Aquila instructed this zealous and talented man more fully in the doctrines of the Christian religion, and communicated to him the views which they had received from Paul, Acts 18:26. Paul, having gone to Jerusalem as he planned, returned again to Asia Minor, and taking in Phrygia and Galatia in his way, he revisited Ephesus, and remained there for about three years (Acts 18:23; Acts 19:1 ff). It was during this time that the church was founded, which afterward became so prominent, and to which this Epistle was written. The principal events in the life of Paul there were:

(1) His baptizing the twelve persons whom he found there, who were disciples of John; see notes at Acts 19:1-7.

(2) Paul went into the synagogue there and engaged in an earnest discussion with the Jews respecting the Messiah for about three months Acts 19:8-10.

(3) when many of the Jews opposed him, he left the synagogue and obtained a place to preach in, in the schoolroom of a man by the name of Tyrannus. In this place he continued to preach without molestation for two years and proclaimed the gospel, so that a large portion of the inhabitants had an opportunity to hear it.

(4) the cause of religion was greatly promoted by the miracles which Paul performed Acts 19:11-17.

(5) Paul remained there until his preaching excited great commotion, and he was finally driven away by the tumult which was excited by Demetrius, Acts 19:23-41.

At this time the gospel had secured such a hold on the people that there was danger that the Temple of Diana would be forsaken, and that all who were dependent upon the worship of Diana for a livelihood would be thrown out of employment. It is not probable that Paul visited Ephesus after this, unless it was after his first imprisonment at Rome; see the introduction to 2 Timothy. n his way from Macedonia to Jerusalem he came to Miletus, and sent for the elders of Ephesus and gave them his deeply-affecting, parting address, expecting to see them no more Acts 20:16.

Paul remained longer at Ephesus than he did at any other one place, preaching the gospel. He seems to have set himself deliberately to work to establish a congregation there, which would ultimately overthrow idolatry. Several reasons may have led him to depart so far from his usual plan by laboring so long in one place. One may have been that this was the principal seat of idolatry in the world at that time. The evident aim of Paul in his ministry was to reach the centers of influence and power. Hence, he mainly sought to preach the gospel in large cities, and thus it was that Antioch, and Ephesus, and Corinth, and Athens, and Philippi, and Rome, shared so largely in his labors. Not ashamed of the gospel anywhere, Paul still sought mainly that its power should be felt where wealth, and learning, and genius, and talent were concentrated. The very places, therefore, where the most magnificent temples were erected to the gods, and where the worship of idols was celebrated with the most splendor and pomp, and where that worship was defended most strongly by the civil arm, were those in which the apostle sought first to preach the gospel.

Ephesus, therefore, as the most splendid seat of idolatry at that time in the whole pagan world, particularly attracted the attention of the apostle, and hence it was that he was willing to spend so large a part of his public life in that place. It may have been for this reason that John afterward made it his permanent home, and spent so many years there as the minister of the congregation which had been founded by Paul; see section 3. Another reason why Paul sought Ephesus as a field of labor may have been that it was at that time not only the principal seat of idolatry, but was a place of great importance in the civil affairs of the Roman empire. It was the residence of the Roman proconsul, and the seat of the courts of justice in Asia Minor, and, consequently, was a place to which there would be attracted a great amount of learning and talent (Macknight). The apostle, therefore, seems to have been anxious that the full power of the gospel should be tried there, and that Ephesus should become as important as a center of influence in the Christian world as it had been in paganism and in civil affairs.

Section 3. Notices of the History of the Church at Ephesus

The church at Ephesus was one of the seven churches of Asia, and the first one mentioned to which John was directed to address an epistle from Patmos Revelation 2:1-7. Little is said of it in the New Testament from the time when Paul left it until the Book of Revelation was written. The tradition is, that Timothy was a minister at Ephesus, and was succeeded by the apostle John; but whether John came there while Timothy was living, or not until his removal or death, even "tradition" does not inform us. In the subscription to the Second Epistle to Timothy, it is said of Timothy that he was "ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians;" but this is of no authority whatever. All that can be learned with certainty about the residence of Timothy at Ephesus is what the apostle Paul says of him in his First Epistle to Timothy 1 Timothy 1:3, "As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine."

From this it would appear that the residence of Timothy at Ephesus was a temporary arrangement, designed to secure a result which Paul wished particularly to secure, and to avoid an evil which he had reason to dread would follow from his own absence. That it was only a temporary arrangement, is apparent from the fact that Paul soon after desired him to come to Rome, 2 Timothy 4:9, 2 Timothy 4:11. The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written but a few years after the first letter. According to Lardner, the first letter was written in the year 56 a.d., and the second letter in the year 62 a.d.; according to Hug, the first letter was written in the year 59 a.d., and the second letter in the year 61 a.d.; according to the editor of the Polyglott Bible, the first letter was written 65 a.d., and the second letter in 66 a.d. According to either calculation, the time of the residence of Timothy in Ephesus was brief. There is not the slightest evidence from the New Testament that he was a permanent Bishop of Ephesus, or indeed that he was a "bishop" at all, in the modern sense of the term. Those who may be disposed to look further into this matter, and to examine the relation which Timothy sustained to the church of Ephesus, and the claim which is sometimes set up for his having sustained the office of "a bishop," may find an examination in the Review of Bishop Onderdonk's Tract on Episcopacy, published in the Quarterly Christian Spectator in March, 1834, and March, 1835, and republished in 1843 under the title of "The Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church," pp. 99-107.

Whatever was the relation which Timothy sustained to the church in Ephesus, it is agreed on all hands that John the apostle spent a considerable portion of his life there. At what time John went to Ephesus, or why he did it, is not known now. The common opinion is, that he remained at or near Jerusalem for some 15 years after the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, during which time he had the special charge of Mary, the mother of the Saviour; that he then preached the gospel to the Parthians and the Indians, and that he then returned and went to Ephesus, in or near which he spent his latter days, and in which, at a very advanced age, he died. It was from Ephesus that, under the Emperor Domitian, 95 a.d., he was banished to the island of Patmos, from which he returned in 97 a.d., on the accession of Nerva to the crown, who recalled all who had been banished. At that time, John is supposed to have been about 90 years of age. He is said to have died at Ephesus in the third year of Trajan (in 100 a.d.), at about 94 years of age. For a full and interesting biography of the apostle John, the reader may consult the "Lives of the Apostles," by David Francis Bacon, pp. 307-376.

Of the subsequent history of the church at Ephesus, little is known, and it would not be necessary to dwell upon it in order to an exposition of the Epistle before us. It is sufficient to remark, that the "candlestick is removed out of its place" Revelation 2:5, and that all the splendor of the Temple of Diana, all the pomp of her worship, and all the glory of the Christian church there, have faded away alike.

Section 4. The Time and Place of Writing the Epistle

It has never been denied that the apostle Paul was the author of this Epistle, though it has been made a question whether it were written to the Ephesians or to the Laodiceans; see Section 5. Dr. Paley (Horae Paulinae) has shown that there is conclusive internal proof that this Epistle was written by Paul. This argument is derived from the style, and is carried out by a comparison of this Epistle with the other undoubted writings of the apostle. The historical evidence on this point also is undisputed.

It is generally supposed, and, indeed, the evidence seems to be clear, that this Epistle was written during the imprisonment of the apostle at Rome; but whether it was during his first or his second imprisonment is not certain. Paul was held in custody for approximately two years in Caesarea Acts 24:27, but there is no evidence that during that time he addressed any epistle to the churches which he had planted. That this was written when he was a prisoner is apparent from the Epistle itself. "The two years in which Paul was imprisoned at Caesarea," says Wall, as quoted by Lardner, "seem to have been the most inactive part of Paul's life. There is no account of any proceedings or disputations, or of any epistles written in this space." This may have arisen, Lardner supposes, from the fact that the Jews made such an opposition that the Roman governor would not allow him to have any contact with the people at large, or procure any intelligence from the churches abroad.

But when he was at Rome he had more liberty. He was allowed to dwell in his own hired house Acts 28:30, and had permission to address all who came to him, and to communicate freely with his friends abroad. It was during this period that he wrote at least four of his letters - the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Epistle to the Philippians, the Epistle to the Colossians, and the Epistle to Philemon. Grotius, as quoted by Lardner, says of these Epistles, that though all Paul's Epistles are excellent, yet he most admires those written by him when a prisoner at Rome. Concerning the Epistle to the Ephesians, he says it surpasses all human eloquence - rerum sublimitatem adaequans verbis sublimioribus, quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana - describing the sublimity of the things by corresponding words more sublime than are found elsewhere in human language. The evidence that it was written when Paul was a prisoner is found in the Epistle itself.

Thus, in Ephesians 3:1, he says, "I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ - ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χπριστοῦ ho desmios tou Christou - for you Gentiles." So he alludes to his afflictions in Ephesians 3:13, "I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you." In Ephesians 4:1, he calls himself the "prisoner of the Lord," or in the margin, "in the Lord " - ὁ δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίω ho desmios en Kuriō. And in Ephesians 6:19-20, there is an allusion which seems to settle the inquiry beyond dispute, and to prove that it was written while he was at Rome. He there says that he was an "ambassador in bonds" - ἐν ἅλυσε en haluse - "in chains, manacles," or "shackles;" and yet he desires Ephesians 6:19-20 that they would pray for him, that utterance might be given him to open his mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, that he might speak boldly as he ought to speak.

Now this is a remarkable circumstance. A man in custody, in bonds or chains, and that too for being an "ambassador," and yet asking the aid of their prayers, that in these circumstances he might have grace to be a bold preacher of the gospel. If he was in prison this could not well be. If he was under a strict prohibition it could not well be. The circumstances of the case tally exactly with the statement in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that Paul was in custody in Rome; that he was permitted to "dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him" Acts 28:16; that he was permitted to call the Jews together and to debate with them freely Acts 28:17-28; and that Paul dwelt in his own hired house for two years, and "received all that came in with him, preaching the kingdom of God," etc. Acts 28:30-31. So exactly do these circumstances correspond that I have no doubt that that was the time when the Epistle was written.

And so unusual is such a train of circumstances - so unlikely would it be to occur to a man to forge such a coincidence, that it furnishes a striking proof that the Epistle was written, as it purports to be, by Paul. An impostor would not have thought of inventing such a coincidence. If it had occurred to him to make any such allusion, the place and time would have been more distinctly mentioned, and not have been left as a mere incidental allusion. The apostle Paul is supposed to have been at Rome as a prisoner twice (compare the introduction to Second Timothy), and to have suffered martyrdom there about 65 or 66 a.d. If the Epistle to the Ephesians was written during his second imprisonment at Rome, as is commonly supposed, then it must have been somewhere between the years 63 and 65 a.d. Lardner and Hug suppose that it was written April, 61 a.d.; Macknight supposes it was in 60 or 61 a.d.; the editor of the Polyglott Bible places it at 64 a.d. The exact time when it was written cannot now be ascertained, and is not material.

Section 5. To Whom Was the Epistle Written?

The Epistle purports to have been written to the Ephesians - "to the saints which are at Ephesus," - Ephesians 1:1. But the opinion that it was written to the Ephesians has been called in question by many expositors. Dr. Pales (Horae Paulinae) supposes that it was written to the Laodiceans. Wetstein also maintained the same opinion. This opinion was expressly stated also by Marcion, a heretic of the second century. Michaelis (Introduction) supposes that it was a "circular epistle," addressed not to any congregation in particular, but that it was intended for the Ephesians, Laodiceans, and some other churches of Asia Minor. He supposes that the apostle had several copies taken; that he made it intentionally of a very general character so as to suit all; that he affixed with his own hand the subscription, Ephesians 6:24, to each copy - "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity;" that at the beginning of the Epistle the name was inserted of the particular church to which it was to be sent - as "to the church in Ephesus" - "in Laodicea," etc.

When the several works composing the New Testament were collected into a volume he supposes that it so happened that the copy of this Epistle which was used was one obtained from Ephesus, containing a direction to the saints there. This is also the opinion of Archbishop Usher and Koppe. It does not comport with the design of these notes to go into an extended examination of this question; and after all that has been written on it, and the different opinions which have been entertained, it certainly does not become any one to be very confident. It is not a question of great importance, since it involves no point of doctrine or duty; but those who wish to see it discussed at length can be satisfied by referring to Paley's "Horae Paulinae;" to Michaelis' "Introduction," vol. iv. chapter xx., and to the "Prolegomena" of Koppe. The arguments which are alleged to prove that it was addressed to the church at Laodicea, or at least not to the church at Ephesus, are summarily the following:

(1) The testimony of Marcion, a heretic of the second century, who affirms that it was sent to the church in Laodicea, and that instead of the reading Ephesians 1:1, "in Ephesus," in the copy which he had it was "in Laodicea" But the opinion of Marcion is now regarded as of little weight. It is admitted that Marcion was in the habit of altering the Greek text to suit his own views.

(2) the principal objection to the opinion that it was written to the church at Ephesus is found in certain internal marks, and particularly with the lack of any allusion to the fact that Paul had ever been there, or to anything that particularly related to the church there. This difficulty comprises several particulars.

(a) Paul spent nearly three years in Ephesus, and was engaged there in deeply interesting transactions and occurrences. He had founded the church, ordained its elders, taught them the doctrines which they held, and had at last been persecuted there and driven away. If the Epistle was written to them it is remarkable that there is in the Epistle no allusion to any one of these facts or circumstances. This is the more remarkable, since it was his usual custom to allude to the events which had occurred in the churches which he had founded (see the Epistles to the Corinthians and Philippians), and, since on two other occasions, he at least makes direct allusion to these transactions at Ephesus; see Acts 20:18-35; 1 Corinthians 15:32.

(b) In the other epistles which Paul wrote, it was his custom to salute a large number of persons by name. However, in this Epistle, there is no salutation of any kind. There is a general invocation of "peace to the brethren" Ephesians 6:23, but no specific mention of an individual by name. There is not even an allusion to the "elders" whom, with so much affection, he had addressed at Miletus Acts 20, and to whom he had given so solemn a charge. This is the more remarkable, as in this place he had spent three years in preaching the gospel, and must have been acquainted with all the leading members in the congregation. To the church at Rome, which he had never visited when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, he sends a large number of salutations 1 Corinthians 16; to the church at Ephesus, where he had spent a longer time than in any other place, he sends none.

(c) The name of Timothy does not occur in the Epistle. This is remarkable, because Paul had left him there with a special charge 1 Timothy 1:3, and, if he were still there, it is singular that no allusion is made to him, and no salutation sent to him. If he had left Ephesus, and had gone to Rome to meet Paul as he requested 2 Timothy 4:9, it is remarkable that Paul did not join his name with his own in sending the Epistle to the church, or at least allude to the fact that he had arrived. This is the more remarkable, because in the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians, the name of Timothy is joined with that of Paul at the commencement of the Epistle.

(d) Paul speaks of the persons to whom this Epistle was sent as if he had not been with them, or at least in a manner which is hardly conceivable, on the supposition that he had been the founder of the church. Thus, in Ephesians 1:15-16, he says, "Wherefore also after I heard of your faith in Christ Jesus," etc. But this circumstance is not conclusive. Paul may have been told of the continuance of their faith and of their growing love and zeal, and he may have alluded to that in this passage.

(e) Another circumstance on which some reliance has been placed is the statement in Ephesians 3:1-2, "For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given to you-ward," etc. It is argued (see Michaelis) that this is not language which would have been employed by one who had founded the church, and with whom they were all acquainted. He would not have spoken in a manner implying any doubt whether they had ever heard of him and his labors in the ministry on account of the Gentiles. Such are the considerations relied upon to show that the Epistle could not have been written to the Ephesians.

On the other hand, there is proof of a very strong character that it was written to them. That proof is the following:

1. The common reading in Ephesians 1:1, "To the saints which are in Ephesus." It is true, as we have seen, that this reading has been called in question. Mill says that it is omitted by Basil (lib. 2, Adversus Eunomium), as he says, "on the testimony of the fathers and of ancient copies." Griesbach marks it with the sign "om.," denoting that it was omitted by some, but that, in his judgment, it is to be retained. It is found in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Ethiopic in Walton's Polyglott. Rosenmuller remarks that "most of the ancient codices, and all the ancient versions, retain the word." To my mind this fact is conclusive. The testimony of Marcion is admitted to be of almost no authority; and as to the testimony of Basil, it is only one against the testimony of all the ancients, and is at best negative in its character; see the passage from Basil, quoted in Hug's Introduction.

2. A slight circumstance may be adverted to as throwing light incidentally upon this question. This Epistle was sent by Tychicus Ephesians 6:21. The Epistle to the Colossians was also sent from Rome by the same messenger Colossians 4:7. Now there is a strong improbability in the opinion held by Michaelis, Koppe, and others, that this was a "circular" letter, sent to the churches at large, or that different copies were prepared, and the name "Ephesus" inserted in one, and "Laodicea" in another, etc. The improbability is this, that the apostle would at the same time send such a circular letter to several of the churches, and a special letter to the church at Colossae. What claim had that church to special notice? What pre-eminence had it over the church at Ephesus? And why should he send them a letter bearing so strong a resemblance to that addressed to the other churches, when the same letter would have suited the church at Colossae as well as the one which was actually sent to them; for there is a nearer resemblance between these two epistles, than any other two portions of the Bible. Besides, in 2 Timothy 4:12, Paul says that he had sent "Tychicus to Ephesus;" and what is more natural than that, at that time, he sent this Epistle by him?

3. There is the utter lack of evidence from manuscripts or versions, that this Epistle was sent to Laodicea, or to any other church, except Ephesus. Not a manuscript has been found (circa 1880's) having the name "Laodicea" in Ephesians 1:1; nor any manuscript which omits the words "in Ephesus." If it had been sent to another congregation, or if it had been a circular letter addressed to no particular congregation, it is scarcely credible that this could have occurred.

These considerations make it plain to me that this Epistle was addressed, as it purports to have been, to the church in Ephesus. I confess myself wholly unable, however, to explain the remarkable circumstances that Paul does not refer to his former residence there; that he alludes to none of his troubles or his triumphs; that he makes no mention of the "elders," and greets no one by name; and that, throughout, he addresses them as if they were personally unknown to him. In this respect, it is unlike all the other epistles, which he ever wrote, and all which we should have expected from a man in such circumstances. May it not be accounted for from "this very fact," that an attempt to specify individuals where so many were known, would protract the Epistle to an unreasonable length? There is, indeed, one supposition suggested by Dr. Macknight, which may possibly explain to some extent the remarkable circumstances above referred to. It is, that an instruction may have been given by Paul to Tychicus, by whom he sent the letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans, with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians. In such a case everything local would be designedly omitted, and the Epistle would be of as general a character as possible. This is, however, mere conjecture, and does not remove the entirety of the difficulty.

Section 6. The Object for which the Epistle Was Written

Very various opinions have been formed in regard to the design for which this Epistle was written. Macknight supposes that it was with reference to the Eleusinian mysteries, and to various religious rites in the Temple of Diana, and that Paul intended particularly to state the "mysteries" of the gospel in contradistinction from them. But there is no clear evidence that the apostle had any such object, and it is not necessary to go into an explanation of those mysteries in order to an understanding of the Epistle. The Epistle is such as might be addressed to any Christians, though there are allusions to customs which then prevailed, and to opinions then held, which it is desirable to understand in order to a just view of it. That there were Jews and Judaizing Christians in Ephesus, may be learned from the Epistle itself. That there were those there who supposed that the Jews were to have a more elevated rank than the Gentiles, may also be learned from the Epistle; and one object was to show that all true Christians, whether of Jewish or pagan origin, were on a level, and were entitled to the same privileges. That there was the prevalence of a false and dangerous philosophy there, may also be learned from the Epistle; and that there were those who attempted to cause divisions, and who had violated the unity of the faith, may also be learned from it.

The Epistle is divided into two parts -

I. The doctrinal part Ephesians 1-3; and

II. The practical part, or the application Ephesians 4-6.

I. The doctrinal part comprises the following topics:

(1) Praise to God for the Revelation of his eternal counsels of recovering mercy, Ephesians 1:3-14.

(2) a prayer of the apostle, expressing his earnest desire that the Ephesians might avail themselves fully of all the advantages of this eternal purpose of mercy, Ephesians 1:15-23.

(3) the doctrine of the native character of man, as being dead in sins, illustrated by the past lives of the Ephesians, Ephesians 2:1-3.

(4) the doctrine of regeneration by the grace of God, and the advantages of it, Ephesians 2:5-7.

(5) the doctrine of salvation by grace alone without respect to our own works, Ephesians 2:8-9,

(6) The privilege of being thus admitted to the fellowship of the saints, Ephesians 2:11-22,

(7) A full statement of the doctrine that God meant to admit the Gentiles to the privileges of his people, and to break down the barriers between the Gentiles and the Jews, Ephesians 3:1-12.

(8) the apostle prays earnestly that they might avail themselves fully of this doctrine, and be able to appreciate fully the advantages which it was intended to confer; and with this prayer he closes the doctrinal part of the Epistle, Ephesians 3:13-21.

II. The practical part of the Epistle embraces the following topics, namely:

(1) Exhortation to unity, drawn from the consideration that there was one God, one faith, etc., Ephesians 4:1-16.

(2) an exhortation to a holy life "in general," from the fact that they differed from other Gentiles, Ephesians 4:17-24.

(3) exhortation to exhibit "particular" virtues - "specifying" what was required by their religion, and what they should avoid - particularly to avoid the vices of anger, lying, licentiousness, and intemperance, Ephesians 4:25-32; Ephesians 5:1-20.

(4) the duties of husbands and wives, Ephesians 5:21-33.

(5) the duties of parents and children, Ephesians 6:1-3.

(6) the duties of masters and servants, Ephesians 6:4-9.

(7) an exhortation to fidelity in the Christian warfare, Ephesians 6:10-20.

(8) Conclusion, Ephesians 6:21-24.

The style of this Epistle is exceedingly animated. The apostle is cheered by the intelligence which he had received of their deportment in the gospel, and is warmed by the grandeur of his principal theme - the eternal purposes of divine mercy. Into the discussion of that subject he throws his whole soul, and there is probably no part of Paul's writings where there is more ardor, elevation, and soul evinced, than in this Epistle. He approaches the great doctrine of predestination as a most important and vital doctrine; he states it freely and fully, and urges it as the basis of the Christian's hope, and the foundation of eternal gratitude and praise. Perhaps nowhere is there a better illustration of the power of that doctrine to elevate the soul and fill it with grand conceptions of the character of God, and to excite grateful emotions, than in this Epistle; and the Christian, therefore, may study it as a portion of the sacred writings eminently suited to excite his gratitude, and to fill him with adoring views of God.

(1) The salutation, Ephesians 1:1-2.

(2) the doctrine of predestination, and its hearing and design, Ephesians 1:3-14.

(a) It is the foundation of praise to God, and is a source of gratitude, Ephesians 1:3.

(b) Christians have been chosen before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1:4.

(c) The object was that they should be holy and blameless, Ephesians 1:4.

(d) They were predestinated to be the children of God, Ephesians 1:5.

(e) The cause of this was the good pleasure of God, or he did it according to the purpose of his will, Ephesians 1:5.

(f) The object of this was his own glory, Ephesians 1:6.

(3) the benefits of the plan of predestination to those who are thus chosen, Ephesians 1:7-14.

(a) They have redemption and the forgiveness of sins, Ephesians 1:7-8.

(b) They are made acquainted with the mystery of the divine will, Ephesians 1:9-10.

(c) They have obtained an inheritance in Christ, Ephesians 1:11.

(d) The object of this was the praise of the glory of God, Ephesians 1:12.

(e) As the result of this, or in the execution of this purpose, they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, Ephesians 1:13-14.

(4) an earnest prayer that they might have a full understanding of the great and glorious plan of redemption, Ephesians 1:15-23,

(a) Paul says that he had been informed of their faith, Ephesians 1:15.

(b) He always remembered them in his prayers, Ephesians 1:16.

(c) His special desire was that they might see the glory of the Lord Jesus, whom God had exalted to his own right hand in heaven, Ephesians 1:17-23.

Preface to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians

Ephesus was a city of Ionia, in Asia Minor, and once the metropolis of that part of the world. The ancient city was situated at the mouth of the river Cayster, on the shore of the Aegean Sea, about 50 miles south of Smyrna. The Ephesus in which St. Paul founded a Church, and which for a time flourished gloriously, was not the ancient Ephesus; for that was destroyed, and a new city of the same name was built by Lysimachus.

This most famous of all the Asiatic cities is now a miserable village, composed of mean huts formed out of the ruins of its once magnificent structures; and these huts are now the residence of about forty or fifty Turkish families, without a single Christian among them! For other particulars see the note on Acts 18:19.

It is, however, a doubt with many learned men, whether this epistle was sent to the Church at Ephesus. They think that the proper direction is, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans; and suppose it to be the same which the apostle mentions, Colossians 4:16 : "When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." Dr. Paley's arguments in the affirmative are entitled to much regard.

"Although it does not appear to have ever been disputed that the epistle before us was written by St. Paul, yet it is well known that a doubt has long been entertained concerning the persons to whom it was addressed. The question is founded partly in some ambiguity in the external evidence. Marcion, a heretic of the second century, as quoted by Tertullian, a father in the beginning of the third, calls it, The Epistle to the Laodiceans. From what we know of Marcion, his judgment is little to be relied upon; nor is it perfectly clear that Marcion was rightly understood by Tertullian. If, however, Marcion be brought to prove that some copies in his time gave εν Λαοδικειᾳ in the superscription, his testimony, if it be truly interpreted, is not diminished by his heresy; for, as Grotius observes, 'cur in ea re mentiretur nihil erat causae.' The name εν Εφεσῳ, in Ephesus, in the first verse, upon which word singly depends the proof that the epistle was written to the Ephesians, is not read in all the manuscripts now extant. I admit, however, that the external evidence preponderates with a manifest excess on the side of the received reading. The objection therefore principally arises from the contents of the epistle itself, which, in many respects militate with the supposition that it was written to the Church of Ephesus. According to the history, St. Paul had passed two whole years at Ephesus, Acts 19:10. And in this point, viz. of St. Paul having preached for a considerable length of time at Ephesus, the history is confirmed by the two epistles to the Corinthians, and by the two epistles to Timothy: 'I will tarry at Ephesus until pentecost;' 1 Corinthians 16:8. 'We would not have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia;' 2 Corinthians 1:8. 'As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia;' 1 Timothy 1:3. 'And in how many things he ministered to me at Ephesus thou knowest well;' 2 Timothy 1:18. I adduce these testimonies because, had it been a competition of credit between the history and the epistle, I should have thought myself bound to have preferred the epistle. Now, every epistle which St. Paul wrote to Churches which he himself had founded, or which he had visited, abounds with references and appeals to what had passed during the time that he was present amongst them; whereas there is not a text in the Epistle to the Ephesians from which we can collect that he had ever been at Ephesus at all. The two epistles to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Philippians, and the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, are of this class; and they are full of allusions to the apostle's history, his reception, and his conduct whilst amongst them; the total want of which in the epistle before us is very difficult to account for, if it was in truth written to the Church of Ephesus, in which city he had resided for so long a time. This is the first and strongest objection. But farther, the Epistle to the Colossians was addressed to a Church in which St. Paul had never been, This we infer from the first verse of the second chapter: 'For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.' There could be no propriety in thus joining the Colossians and Laodiceans with those 'who had not seen his face in the flesh,' if they did not also belong to the same description. Now, his address to the Colossians, whom he had not visited, is precisely the same as his address to the Christians to whom he wrote in the epistle which we are now considering: 'We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints;' Colossians 1:3. Thus he speaks to the Christians, in the epistle before us, as follows: 'Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you in my prayers; Ephesians 1:15. The terms of this address are observable. The words, 'having heard of your faith and love,' are the very words, we see, which he uses towards strangers; and it is not probable that he should employ the same in accosting a Church in which he had long exercised his ministry, and whose 'faith and love' he must have personally known. The Epistle to the Romans was written before St. Paul had been at Rome; and his address to them runs in the same strain with that just now quoted: 'I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world;' Romans 1:8. Let us now see what was the form in which our apostle was accustomed to introduce his epistles, when he wrote to those with whom he was already acquainted. To the Corinthians it was this: 'I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Christ Jesus;' 1 Corinthians 1:4. To the Philippians: 'I thank my God upon every remembrance of you;' Philippians 1:3. To the Thessalonians: 'We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labor of love;' 1 Thessalonians 1:3. To Timothy: 'I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;' 2 Timothy 1:3. In these quotations it is usually his remembrance, and never his hearing of them, which he makes the subject of his thankfulness to God.

As great difficulties stand in the way, supposing the epistle before us to have been written to the Church of Ephesus; so I think it probable that it is actually the epistle to the Laodiceans, referred to in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians. The text which contains that reference is this: 'When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea;' Colossians 4:16. The epistle from Laodicea was an epistle sent by St. Paul to that Church, and by them transmitted to Colosse. The two Churches were mutually to communicate the epistles they had received. This is the way in which the direction is explained by the greater part of commentators, and is the most probable sense that can be given to it. It is also probable that the epistle alluded to was an epistle which had been received by the Church of Laodicea lately. It appears, then, with a considerable degree of evidence, that there existed an epistle of St. Paul nearly of the same date with the Epistle to the Colossians, and an epistle directed to a Church (for such the Church of Laodicea was) in which St. Paul had never been. What has been observed concerning the epistle before us, shows that it answers perfectly to that character.

"Nor does the mistake seem very difficult to account for. Whoever inspects the map of Asia Minor will see, that a person proceeding from Rome to Laodicea would probably land at Ephesus, as the nearest frequented seaport in that direction. Might not Tychicus, then, in passing through Ephesus, communicate to the Christians of that place the letter with which he was charged? And might not copies of that letter be multiplied and preserved at Ephesus? Might not some of the copies drop the words of designation εν τῃ Λαοδικειᾳ, which it was of no consequence to an Ephesian to retain? Might not copies of the letter come out into the Christian Church at large from Ephesus; and might not this give occasion to a belief that the letter was written to that Church? And, lastly, might not this belief produce the error which we suppose to have crept into the inscription?

"And it is remarkable that there seem to have been some ancient copies without the words of designation, either the words in Ephesus, or the words in Laodicea. St. Basil, a writer of the fourth century, speaking of the present epistle, has this very singular passage: 'And writing to the Ephesians, as truly united to him who is through knowledge, he (Paul) calleth them in a peculiar sense such who are; saying, to the saints who are and (or even) the faithful in Christ Jesus; for so those before us have transmitted it, and we have found it in ancient copies.' Dr. Mill interprets (and, notwithstanding some objections that have been made to him, in my opinion, rightly interprets) these words of Basil, as declaring that this father had seen certain copies of the epistle in which the words 'in Ephesus' were wanting. And the passage, I think, must be considered as Basil's fanciful way of explaining what was really a corrupt and defective reading; for I do not believe it possible that the author of the epistle could have originally written ἁγιοις τοις ουσιν, without any name of place to follow it."

It must be allowed that the arguments of Dr. Paley, the sum of which may be found in Wetstein, that this is the epistle to the Laodiceans, are both plausible and strong; and yet almost the whole of antiquity, with the exceptions which those learned men mention, is in favor of the epistle being sent originally to the Church at Ephesus. Puzzled with these two considerations, some critics have pointed out a middle way. They suppose that several copies of this epistle were directed to no particular Church, but were intended for all the Churches in Asia Minor; and that different copies might have different directions, from this circumstance, that St. Paul, in writing the first verse Παυλος αποστολος Ιησου Χριστου - τοις ἁγιοις τοις ουσιν, Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the saints which are, left a blank after ουσιν, are, which was in some cases filled up with εν Εφεσῳ, in Ephesus; in others, with εν Λαοδικειᾳ, in Laodicea; though there might be one copy expressly sent by him to the Church of the Laodiceans, while he wished that others should be directed to the different Churches through Asia Minor. That there were copies which had no place specified, we learn from St. Basil; and the arguments in favor of Laodicea are certainly the strongest; the circumstance, that the apostle salutes no person, agrees well with Laodicea, where he had never been, Colossians 2:1; but cannot agree with Ephesus, where he was well known, and where, in preaching the Gospel, he had spent three years. See Acts 20:31.

As this point is very dubious, and men of great abilities and learning have espoused different sides of the question, I judge myself incompetent to determine any thing; but I felt it my duty to bring the arguments for Laodicea fairly before the reader; those in favor of Ephesus may be met with every where. The passages in the body of the epistle, alleged by critics who espouse opposite sides of this subject, I have seldom noticed in a controversial way; and the notes on those passages are constructed as though no controversy existed.

Many expositors, and particularly Drs. Chandler and Macknight, have thought that they have perceived a great number of references to the temple of Diana at Ephesus; to the sacred mysteries among the Greeks; to the Hierophants, Mystagogues, Neocoroi, etc., in the temple of the celebrated goddess. It may appear strange that, with these opinions before me, I have not referred to the same things; nor adduced them by way of illustration; the truth is, I have not been able to discover them, nor do I believe that any such allusions exist. I see many allusions to the temple of God at Jerusalem, but none to the temple of Diana at Ephesus. I find also many references to the sacred service and sacerdotal officers in the Jewish temple; but none to Mystagogues, etc., among the heathens. I find much said about, what is to be understood most literally, the mystery which had been hidden from all ages, viz. of uniting Jews and Gentiles in one Church, but no reference to the Eleusinian, Bacchic, or other mysteries in the abominable worship of the Greeks, was suggesting to the mind of the apostle any parallel between their mysteries and those of the Almighty. My reasons for my dissent from these respectable authorities I have given in the notes.

June 20th, 1815.

The apostle's salutation to the Church, Ephesians 1:1, Ephesians 1:2. He blesses God for calling the Gentiles to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, by whose sacrificial death both they and the Jews find redemption, Ephesians 1:3-7. He shows that it was through the great abundance of God's wisdom and goodness that the Gentiles were called into a state of salvation, and that they should receive the Holy Spirit as the earnest of their inheritance, Ephesians 1:8-15. He praises God for their conversion, and prays that they may be farther enlightened, that they may see the glory of Christ, and partake of the blessings procured by his passion and exaltation, Ephesians 1:16-23.

INTRODUCTION TO EPHESIANS

The city of Ephesus is, by Pliny (a), called the other light of Asia; Miletus was one, and Ephesus the other: it was the metropolis of the lesser Asia, and one of the twelve cities of Ionia, and the first and chief of them: it is said to be built by the Amazons (b): it was famous for the magnificent temple of Diana; and the inhabitants of it were very much given to superstition and idolatry, and even to devilish arts, Acts 19:19. It abounded with orators and philosophers, and men of great wisdom and learning (c); and was formerly a very rich, trading, flourishing city, but now a village, and a poor desolate place; it retains the name of Efeso, though the Turks call it Aia Salik. Hither the Apostle Paul first went after he had been at Corinth, though he then made but a short stay; when he came thither again, he found twelve disciples, and was the instrument of making a great many more: here he continued two or three years and formed a Gospel church, very large and flourishing, to whom he writes this epistle; and which was written by him when he was a prisoner at Rome, as appears by several passages in it, Ephesians 3:1, and seems to have been written much about the same time as were the epistles to the Philippians, and to the Colossians, and to Philemon. Dr. Hammond thinks it was written about the year 58, and Dr. Lightfoot places it in 59, and the fifth year of Nero. The occasion of it was the foresight the apostle had of false teachers that would spring up in this church, after his death, and spread their pernicious doctrines, and draw away disciples after them, and do great mischief in the church; wherefore the design of this epistle is to establish the saints in the doctrines of the Gospel, that so they might not be carried away with the errors of the wicked: the subject matter of it is most excellent; it treats of the most sublime doctrines of grace, of divine predestination, and eternal election, of redemption by Christ, and of peace and pardon by his blood, of conversion by the power of efficacious grace, and of salvation by the free grace of God, in opposition to works: it also very largely treats of the nature and usefulness of the Gospel ministry, and of gifts qualifying for it, and of the several duties of religion incumbent on Christians; and the method which is used is exceeding apt and beautiful, for the apostle first begins with the doctrines of the Gospel, which he distinctly handles and explains, and then proceeds to enforce the duties belonging to men, both as men and Christians.

INTRODUCTION TO Ephesians 1

In this chapter are contained the inscription of the epistle, the salutation of the persons to whom it is written, the apostle's thanksgiving for blessings received by him, and them; in which the efficient, moving, procuring, and final causes of salvation are taken notice of, and the several parts and branches of it observed; and the whole is concluded with prayers for the Ephesians; in which mention is made of various things to the comfort of the saints, and to the glory of Christ. The inscription is in Ephesians 1:1, in which the author of the epistle puts his name, declares his office, and how he came into it; and describes the persons to whom he wrote it, by their religious characters, and the place of their abode. The salutation is in Ephesians 1:2, which is common to all his epistles: and in Ephesians 1:3, is the thanksgiving to God, as the God and Father of Christ, for spiritual blessings in Christ in general; and then he proceeds to particulars, and begins with election, which is represented as an act of God the Father, as of particular persons, as done in Christ, and from the foundation of the world, the end of which is perfect holiness and love, Ephesians 1:4, and which is further illustrated under the name of predestination; the blessing which that is an appointment to, is the adoption of children; the moving cause of it, is the good pleasure of the divine will; the instrumental cause, or means, is Christ Jesus; the end with God is for himself, Ephesians 1:5, and which, in the next verse, is explained of the glory of his grace; to which grace, acceptance with him in Christ is owing; and which is another spiritual blessing, or a branch of election and predestination, Ephesians 1:6. To which is added another, and that is redemption; the author of which is Christ; the price, or procuring and meritorious cause of it is his blood; a branch of which is forgiveness of sins; and the whole is according to the plenteous and free grace of God, Ephesians 1:7, the entire plan and scheme of which is the produce of abundant wisdom and prudence, Ephesians 1:8, and is no other than the mystery of the will of God revealed in the Gospel, according to his sovereign will and purpose, Ephesians 1:9, which lay hid within himself until the fulness of times, or the Gospel dispensation, in which Christ being sent, has gathered all together in himself, Ephesians 1:10, through whom the saints enjoy the inheritance they are adopted to in predestination, which is the effect of an unfrustrable purpose, and a wise counsel and will, Ephesians 1:11. The end of which is, that those predestinated, redeemed, and adopted ones, should be to the praise and glory of God, Ephesians 1:12, and who are described as such, who first trusted in Christ upon hearing the Gospel; and after they had believed in him, were sealed by the Holy Spirit, said to be the Spirit of promise, Ephesians 1:13, and who is also spoken of as the earnest and pledge of the saints' inheritance, and who will continue so until all the people of God are redeemed from the grave in the resurrection morn, which will also issue in the praise and glory of God, Ephesians 1:14, and now on account of all these blessings of predestination, adoption, redemption, calling, and the sealing of the Spirit; as also, because of their faith in Christ, and love to the saints, these believers were possessed of, the apostle gave thanks, and continued to give thanks to God in his prayers to him, Ephesians 1:15. The object of his prayers is described as the God of Christ, and Father of glory; the petitions to him are for an increase of knowledge of Christ from the Spirit, as a spirit of wisdom and revelation, Ephesians 1:17, and that they might have a clearer view of the nature of that glory they were called unto, and were hoping for, Ephesians 1:18, and observe the wonderful display of the power of God in their conversion and faith; which is illustrated by comparing it with that power which was shown in raising Christ from the dead, Ephesians 1:20, which leads the apostle to take notice of the exaltation of Christ at the right hand of God in heaven, consequent on his resurrection; where he is advanced above angels and men, and has all things in subjection to him for the good of his church, of which he is the head, and which is his body and fulness, Ephesians 1:21.

THE EPISTLES TO THE EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, AND COLOSSIANS.

BY

THE RIGHT REV. ALFRED BARRY, D.D.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

TO

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL’S FIRST CAPTIVITY.

THE Epistles of St. Paul’s captivity—to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon—form a distinct group, distinguished by certain marked characteristics both of style and subject, in the series of the writings of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Just as, in comparison with the Thessalonian Epistles, belonging to the second missionary journey, the four great Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, written at the close of the third missionary journey, show a “second manner,” with exactly that union of similarity and diversity which marks a true development of thought and circumstance—so, in comparison with this latter group, the Epistles of the Captivity present a “third manner,” itself again markedly distinct from that of the Pastoral Epistles, of still later date. In those early days of Christianity events moved fast; under the living Apostolic inspiration and the rapidity of the Apostolic mission, successive years marked changes as great as would have indicated the lapse of generations in more ordinary times. When we compare the marvellous growth of the Christian Church in the thirty years (or thereabouts) of St. Paul’s own Apostolate—from a small sect limited to Palestine, hardly as yet completely distinguished from the Judaic system, to a community which had its branches in every province of the Roman world, and which was obviously advancing to a world-wide dominion—we may be prepared to find obvious and important developments, both of teaching and of circumstance, even in the various periods of his Apostolic ministry.

I. The Period to which they belong.—In accordance with the great majority of commentators, ancient and modern, I take these Epistles to belong to the Roman captivity, in which the history of the Acts leaves St. Paul, and to which he was consigned about the year A.D. 61. It has, indeed, been proposed by Meyer and other German commentators to refer them to the Cæsarean captivity of Acts 24-26. The reasons on which this proposal is based may be seen in Meyer’s edition of the “Epistle to the Ephesians” (Introduction, sect. 2). They prove, however, on examination, to be not only trivial, even if maintained, but in themselves uncertain, resting largely on mere supposition, and certainly incapable of standing against the powerful arguments which may be brought on the other side. These are of two kinds—general and special. Of the first kind is the whole style and tone of the Epistles, indicating a transition to an entirely different and most important sphere of missionary labour, such as could not possibly be found in the comparatively unimportant town of Cæsarea; and, moreover, the obvious expectation by the writer (see Philippians 2:24; Philemon 1:22) of a speedy release from captivity, which would enable him to visit, not Rome and Spain, as was his intention at the time when he was taken prisoner at Jerusalem (Acts 19:21; Romans 15:24-25), but Macedonia and the Eastern churches, where at the earlier time he declared that he had “no longer any place” (Romans 15:23; comp. Acts 20:25). Of the latter kind are the references found—especially in the most personal of all the Epistles, the Epistle to his beloved Church at Philippi—to the manifestation of his bonds “in the whole Prætorium” (Philippians 1:13)—a phrase which (in spite of the verbal coincidence with Acts 23:35) could not well be used of his prison at Cæsarea; to the converts made from “Cæsar’s household,” which must surely have belonged to Rome (Philippians 4:22); to the circumstances of his captivity, which describe with an almost technical accuracy (see Note on Ephesians 6:20) the imprisonment at Rome “in his own hired house with the soldier that kept him,” and the freedom which he then had (Acts 28:16; Acts 28:30-31), but which at Cæsarea, especially considering the especial object contemplated by Felix in prolonging his captivity (Acts 24:26), was eminently improbable.

In accordance, also, with the general opinion, I should designate this as St. Paul’s “First Roman Captivity;” though it will be, perhaps, more appropriate that the evidence for the common belief that St. Paul was set at liberty from his captivity, and that, after a period of freedom, he underwent a second imprisonment, which was only closed by his death, should be considered in relation to the PASTORAL EPISTLES. For with this belief the acceptance of these Epistles as genuine is closely, if not inseparably, connected. On the general character and circumstances of both captivities see Excursus (at the close of the Acts of the Apostles) on the Later Years of St. Paul’s Life.

II. The Genuineness of these Epistles.—On this point external evidence is strong and unvarying. It will be sufficient here to notice that all were included unhesitatingly in all the catalogues and versions of St. Paul’s Epistles, and placed by Eusebius (as by others before him) in the list of the New Testament books “acknowledged by all.” More detailed evidence will be with more advantage given in the Introduction to each Epistle.

It is true that, as in the case of many other New Testament books, their genuineness has been challenged, on supposed internal evidence, even by critics who are ready to acknowledge the four Epistles of the preceding group. This adverse criticism has been advanced with different degrees of positiveness against different Epistles of this group. Thus, the Epistle to the Philippians has been but little doubted; and, indeed, the similarities to St. Paul’s earlier Epistles, and especially to the Epistle to the Romans, are so striking that it requires singular perversity to discover or imagine dissonance with them. The beautiful little Epistle to Philemon, again, can hardly be said to have been questioned, except in the mere wantonness of arbitrary criticism. On the other hand, the two Epistles which bear most distinctly the peculiar impress of St. Paul’s “later manner”—the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians—have been far more seriously attacked on that very ground; the Epistle to the Colossians, moreover, on the supposition that it involves references to a Gnosticism of later date; and the Epistle to the Ephesians, on the supposition—which it might have been thought that an attentive study of these two Epistles would have soon shown to be untenable—that it is a mere copy and expansion of the Epistle to the Colossians. On the peculiar grounds of scepticism in each case it will be more convenient to speak in connection with each Epistle separately; but on the general question of the relation of these Epistles to the earlier group it will be best to dwell here, not merely with a view to show the hollowness of this destructive criticism, but with the more important object of sketching out the main characteristics of this group of Epistles as a whole.

Now it must be considered exactly what is the nature of the question. We have not here an anonymous document, like the Epistle to the Hebrews, as to which we have to inquire into the degree of its likeness or unlikeness to St. Paul’s acknowledged Epistles. We have Epistles which not only bear his name, but present various indications marking them as his; and these Epistles are received as his at a very early date—alluded to by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, formally included in the Muratorian Canon about the year 170. Accordingly, they are either his genuine Epistles, or Epistles written in his name at an early period by some adherent of the “Pauline School” desiring to claim a forged authority from his great master. Now, in the case of forgery, we should expect to find substantial inferiority of power and inspiration, and possibly some discrepance of the inner reality, as contrasted with the outward form, of doctrine; but certainly no marked difference of style, no peculiar words and phrases previously unknown, no change of expressions, which had become markedly characteristic of St. Paul in the acknowledged Epistles of the earlier group. In the case of genuineness, on the other hand, we should look for substantial identity of thought and teaching, coupled with free variation of expression and style, and with indications of a development of doctrine, corresponding to progress of time, change of scene and circumstance, increase of the power of Christianity over thought and society, as exemplified in the development of the Christian Church. It is all but impossible for any careful student to doubt that it is always the latter—never the former—condition which is distinctly realised in these Epistles. This will be seen clearly on examination both of their style and of their substance.

III. The Style of the Epistles.—There is unquestionably a marked difference of style, although in various degrees—the Philippian Epistle showing such difference far less than the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. Now it is not a little remarkable that the nature of this acknowledged change of style singularly corresponds with the historical change in St. Paul’s circumstances. When he wrote the former Epistles he was in the full tide of his Apostolic work; at periods, moreover, of marked excitement and interest—just after the tumult at Ephesus, or on his circuit through Macedonia “round about into Illyricum,” or at Corinth in the very heat of the Judaising controversy. He was then emphatically the preacher and the church-founder. His Letters, written in the intervals of his busy work, would be like fragments of his preaching, marked by the incisive earnestness, the close argument, the impressive abruptness, of a pleader for God. When he wrote these later Epistles he was in the enforced inactivity and the comparative rest of imprisonment, and this imprisonment (as, indeed, we might have expected) appears to have been to him a time of study, in those “many writings” which Festus thought at that time to have “made him mad” (Acts 26:24), with such “books and parchments” round him as those which he asked for even in the greater severity of his second imprisonment (2Timothy 4:13). He is now not so much the worker as the thinker. The impassioned emphasis of the preacher might naturally be exchanged for the quiet, deliberate teaching of the Christian sage; sounding the lowest depths of thought; wandering, as it might seem, but with subtle links of connection, from one idea to another; rising constantly in secret meditation from truths embodied in the practical forms of earthly life, to truths as they exist above in the calm perfection of heaven. Who can doubt that this is exactly the change of style which we trace in these Epistles of the Captivity? The Epistle to the Philippians has least of it: for there his remembrance of earlier times would be strongest, and would tend most to reproduce the earlier tone of thought. But in the Colossian Epistle, written to a Church which he had never seen—knowing it, indeed, well, but only by hearsay—still more in the Epistle to the Ephesians, probably an encyclical letter, certainly approaching more nearly to the nature of abstract general teaching, this characteristic difference is most vividly marked.

It manifests itself in the appearance of many word? used in no other Epistles, and these frequently words compounded with a thoughtful felicity of compressed meaning. It manifests itself in sentences which, unlike the terse and often abrupt incisiveness of his earlier Letters, flow on without grammatical break, sometimes not without grammatical harshness and obscurity, but with an unfailing connection and evolution of thought, a singular and (so to speak) philosophical completeness of doctrine, a sustained perfection of meditative and devotional beauty. It manifests itself, again, in a constant looking upward to “the heavenly places” of the Ephesian Epistle; sometimes, as in the opening of that Epistle, to the source of all Christian life in the election of the divine love; sometimes to the angelic “principalities and powers,” invisibly fighting for or against that love of God in salvation; sometimes to the life of Christians “hid with Christ in God,” in virtue of which we sit with Him in heaven even now; most often, perhaps, of all, to Christ in His heavenly glory, seen now by the eye of faith, ready to reveal Himself in the Epiphany of the great day. Yet, with all this difference of style, the detailed links of connection, both in word and thought, are (as the Notes on the Epistles will show) simply numberless—mostly showing similarity, not absolute identity, of expression; an independent likeness, not an artificial copyism. Above all, the general impress of the mind and character of St. Paul comes out more and more clearly as we pursue the detailed study of the Epistles. Thus, the character which paints itself in the Epistle to the Philippians is obviously the same as that which we know in the Epistles to the Corinthians, or in that yet earlier Epistle to the other Macedonian Church at Thessalonica, which presents some striking similarities in detail. But there is a greater calmness and maturity, sometimes of peacefulness, sometimes of sadness: it is the picture of an older man. Again, the notion that the teaching of the Ephesian or Colossian Epistle could possibly have come from the weaker hand of a disciple will seem fairly incredible to any who have ever glanced at the writings of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, or of Polycarp, the scholars of St. Paul and St. John. The inspired hand of the Apostle is traceable in every line; the very change of style argues at once identity and development. It is a strong internal evidence of the Apostolic authorship; it is in itself full of deep interest and significance.

IV. The Substance of the Epistles.—Still more striking is the corresponding phenomenon in relation to substance. In the doctrine of these Epistles there is the same indication of a true development.

(1) The Doctrine of Salvation.—Thus, for example, it is profoundly instructive to examine the relation of these Epistles to that primary doctrine of “justification by faith” which had been the one all-important subject of the Galatian and Roman Epistles. It is touched on here with the same master hand. “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). “That I may be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Philippians 3:9). But it is no longer the one subject to which all else leads up. It is treated as a thing known and accepted, with a quiet calmness utterly unlike the impassioned and exhaustive earnestness of St. Paul’s pleading for it in the crisis of the Judaistic controversy. The emphasis on faith is less vivid and less constant. “Salvation by grace” takes the place of “justification by faith,” and leads the thoughts on from the first acceptance in Christ to the continuous work of grace, of which such acceptance is the first beginning. The Law, which before its idolaters in Galatia or at Rome was resolutely thrust down to its right secondary position, described as the servile “pedagogue to bring men” to the true Teacher, depreciated as the mere subsidiary guard of the covenant of promise, is now less often touched upon, and less unreservedly condemned. It has obviously lost the dangerous fascination with which such idolatry invested it. It is only “as contained in ordinances” that it is now viewed as a separation between Jew and Gentile, or between man and God, or considered as cancelled by “nailing it to the cross” of Christ. We feel that St. Paul is already passing on from the earnest pleading of advocacy of the freedom of the gospel to the judicial calmness which was hereafter to tell how “the law is good if a man use it lawfully” (1Timothy 1:8). Judaism has, in great measure, at least in the Eastern churches, changed its character. St. Paul’s earnest pleading for Christ as all in all has similarly changed its direction and its tone. Against new idolatries it is still necessary to fight to the death. But the old battle is substantially won; on the old field no more is needed than to maintain the victory.

(2) The Doctrine of the Catholic Church.—Nor is it less interesting to note how in these Epistles, and especially in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the prominence of the idea of the Kingdom of God has marvellously increased. The Galatian and Roman Epistles (as the history of the Reformation of the sixteenth century showed) are the treasure-house of the truths of personal Christianity; for the very thought of justification, dominant in them, brings each soul face to face with its own sin and its own salvation, in that supreme crisis of life and death in which it is conscious of but two existences—God and itself. These later Epistles are equally the storehouse of the less vivid, yet grander, conception of the Holy Catholic Church. The central idea is of Christ the Head, and the whole collective Christianity of the Church as His Body. He is conceived not solely or mainly as the Saviour of each individual soul, but rather as “gathering up” all humanity, or even all created being, “in Himself.” The two conceptions are, of course, inseparable. In the earlier Epistles the Church is constantly recognised; in these the individual relationship to God in Christ is never for a moment ignored. But the proportion (so to speak) of the two truths is changed. What is primary in the one case is secondary in the other.

It is obvious that this is the natural order. The Christian unity is directly the unity of each soul with Christ, the Head; indirectly the unity of the various members in one Body. When the gospel of salvation first speaks, it must speak to the individual. When the grace of Christ draws all men unto Him, each individual must move along the line of his own spiritual gravitation. But when the truth has been accepted in a faith necessarily individual; when the Saviour has been found by each as the Christ who “liveth in me”—then the question arises, What are His truth and His grace to that great human society, to which we are bound by a network of unseen spiritual ties? The first and proper answer to that question is the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church. There is a second answer, larger, but less distinct, which goes even beyond this, to contemplate our Lord as the Head of all created being. The relation, therefore, of these Epistles to the earlier group is profoundly natural, even on the consideration of the right and necessary course of idea.

But here, again, it is impossible not to trace in these Epistles a special appropriateness to this period of St. Paul’s life and work. Of the three great threads of ancient civilisation—the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Roman—two had already been laid hold of by Apostolic hands, and fastened to the cross of Christ. Now, as “ambassador for Christ,” although “in bonds,” St. Paul had been permitted to “see Rome;” the circumstances of his imprisonment had placed him in the Prœtorium, in the very citadel of the Imperial grandeur, and had given him access to “those of Cæsar’s household.” The Epistles of the former group had been written from cities where Greek thought reigned supreme—from Ephesus, from Philippi, from Corinth. These later Epistles came from the centre of Imperial Rome. Now, it is a common-place to remark that the main element of all Greek thought was the freedom and sacredness of the individual, whether in the realm of thought, or of imagination, or of action. But the mission of the Roman (as Virgil has, with a true insight, declared in well-known lines) was to teach the greatness of the community—the family, the state, the whole race of humanity; to give laws, which were to be the basis of the “law of nations;” to unite all peoples in one great empire, and, perhaps by an inevitable inference, to deify its head. It can hardly be accidental that, while the former Epistles dealt with the individual, pointing him to the true freedom and the true wisdom, which Greek philosophy sought for in vain, these Epistles should similarly face the great Roman problem, and sketch out that picture which was hereafter to be wrought into the chief masterpiece of Latin theology—the picture of “the city of God.” We note in the Epistle to the Ephesians the emphatic reference to the three great social relationships, so jealously and sternly guarded by Roman law—the relations of parents and children, husbands and wives, masters and servants—as deriving a higher spiritual sacredness, above all law and convention, from the fact that they are types of the relations of man to God in the great unity in the Lord Jesus Christ. We read in the Epistle to the Philippians of the “city in heaven”—not now the “heavenly Jerusalem” of Jewish aspiration, but simply the city of which all are citizens, whether “Jew or Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free.” We find, both in the Ephesian and Colossian Epistles, a constant recurrence to the thought of all as “one body” or “one temple” in Jesus Christ—supplying that supreme personal relation, which changes the shadowy dream of a divine republic, where the individual is lost, to the solid reality of a well-centred Kingdom of God, preserving at once perfect individuality and perfect unity. We are reminded at every step of the “fifth empire”—“a stone cut out without hands” form the mountain of the Lord, and growing till it displaced the artificial fabrics of the kingdoms of the world, and filled the whole earth. We contrast the inevitable idolatry of the Roman emperor—remembering that, by a strange irony of circumstance, that emperor was now a Nero—with the worship of the true Son of Man and Son of God, of which all such idolatries are perverted anticipations. I pass over minor points of coincidence between idea and circumstance—such as the remarkable metaphor of the Christian armour, working out a figure previously touched by St. Paul, with an obvious detailed reference to the armour of his Roman jailor; or the adaptation of Stoic ideas and phrases in the Epistle to the Philippians, bearing (as Dr. Lightfoot has shown) peculiar resemblances to the later Stoicism of Seneca, then the leader of Roman thought. But taking only the main idea of these Epistles, and comparing it with the main principle of Roman greatness, it is impossible again not to be struck with a coincidence—which must surely be more than mere coincidence—between the teaching and the circumstances of this period of the Apostle’s life.

(3) The advanced Christology.—There is another true development, of infinitely greater importance and deeper interest, in respect of what is called the “Christology” of these Epistles. At all times the preaching of Christianity is the preaching of “God in Christ.” But attentive study of the New Testament shows that gradually, line by line, step by step, the full truth was revealed as the world was able to bear it—passing, according to the true order of teaching, from visible manifestations to invisible realities—guarding at every step the supreme truth of the unity of the Godhead, so jealously cherished by the Jew, so laxly disregarded in the elastic Polytheisms of the Gentile world. The manifestation of Christ in the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and Ascension, is, of course, really one. Yet at different times each of the different steps of that one manifestation appears to have assumed greater prominence in Christian teaching; and it may be noted, that as, when we dig through the strata of the earth, we uncover first what is latest, and come only at last to what is earliest in deposition, so in the realisation of gospel truth, the order of preaching is the reverse of the order of actual occurrence of the great facts of the divine manifestation. First, as is natural, came the preaching of “Christ risen;” for the Resurrection—the great miracle of miracles—was the seal of our Lord’s Messiahship, declaring Him who was “of the seed of David according to the flesh” to be “the Son of God with power.” As risen and exalted to the right hand of God, in fulfilment of oft-repeated ancient prophecy. He was declared to be both “Lord and Christ.” Even clear-sighted heathen ignorance could declare that the great question between Christian and unbeliever was then—as, indeed, it is now—“of one Jesus who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” But then, when men were called to receive in the risen Christ remission of sins, to see in His resurrection the pledge of a spiritual resurrection for themselves here, a resurrection of body and spirit in the hereafter, came the question, How can this be? To that question the answer is found in the one truth which St. Paul declared that in his teaching at Corinth, and (we may add) in his teaching to the Galatians and Romans, he cared to know—the truth of “Jesus Christ, and Him as crucified.” The Resurrection, in itself, was accepted as known; to unfold its meaning it was necessary to go back to the Atonement. Hence the great teaching of these Epistles is of Christ as the one Mediator between God and the countless souls which He has made. That mediation is described sometimes in the phrase “through Christ,” bringing out the access through His atonement to the Father who sent Him; sometimes in the phrase “in Christ,” dwelling not so much on our justification as on our regeneration in Him to the new life. Perhaps in the great struggle for Justification by Faith the former idea was the more prominent. In either phase, however, it is the sole and universal mediation of Christ which is the one leading conception of Apostolic teaching. But, again, the question arises, Who is He who thus is—what surely no merely created being can claim to be—a mediator between God and all human souls, in all lands and in all ages of the world? To answer that question it was needful to go back once more to “Christ Incarnate:” i.e., ultimately, to Christ as He is, not in manifestation, but in His own true being, before He was pleased to stoop to earth, and since He has ascended again to His own glory in heaven. It is on this last phase of thought that the Epistles of the Captivity appear to enter, standing in this respect parallel with the Epistle to the Hebrews, leading on to the yet fuller teaching of the Epistles and Gospel of St. John.

We notice that it is always through the knowledge of His mediation that they lead us into the region of yet higher truth. St. Paul, in brief yet exhaustive description of that mediation, tells us of Christ, as One “in whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” We notice, also, that the phrase “in Christ,” rather than “through Christ,” is the dominant note in these Epistles. As we have seen already in relation to justification and sanctification, so we find in relation to the objective truths corresponding to them, that it is not so much on “Christ crucified” as on “Christ living in us” that he emphatically dwells. But the especial point of transcendent importance is that he leads us on from the fact of this mediation to draw out explicitly what such mediation implies. The Philippian Epistle, simple and practical as its purpose is, recites, in the great passage of its second chapter (Ephesians 2:5-11) the whole creed of our Lord’s Nature and Office—the distinctive creed of Christianity. It marks the two-fold humility of His mediation for us: first, the “taking on Him the form of a servant;” next, the “humbling Himself to the death of the cross.” It turns next to the corresponding exaltation of His human nature in the Mediatorial kingdom (described in 1Corinthians 15:20-28), so that “in the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” But it does more than this. It speaks of Him as being essentially “in the form,” that is, in the nature, “of God,” in the eternal glory of which “He stripped Himself” for us; it tells us that to Him is given “the name which is above every name”—the awful and incommunicable name of JEHOVAH. In that deeper teaching it tells us, not of His office, but of Himself; not of His mediation, but of the divine nature which alone made such mediation possible. Again, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, starting from “the redemption in His blood, the remission of sins,” the idea of our Lord’s mediation is infinitely enlarged and exalted in the conception, that “in Him all things are gathered in one head, both which are in heaven and which are on earth;” that “He filleth all in all;” “ascending above all heavens,” “descending into the lower parts of the earth,” “that He might thus fill all things.” That He is, indeed, the Head of the Church we are told again and again in various forms of expression; but He is more. In Him all created being is summed up; He is, in all that relates to it, the manifestation of God. As in the unity of the Church, so in the wider unity of all creation, we have, co-ordinate with one another, the “one Spirit,” the “one Lord,” the “one God and Father of all.” But far even beyond this, the Epistle to the Colossians carries the same higher teaching. Standing face to face with an incipient Gnosticism, stiffened to some degree into a Jewish type, but presenting all the essential features of the Gnostic idea—of one supreme God and many emanations, all real and all imperfect, from the divine fulness—St. Paul declares explicitly all that the earlier teaching had implied with ever increasing clearness. Our Lord is not only “the firstborn of God before all creation,” “in whom,” “through whom,” “for whom,” “all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, were created,” and in whom “all things consist.” In this the Colossian Epistle would but draw out more forcibly the truth taught to the Ephesians of His relation to all created being. But what is He in Himself? St. Paul answers, “the image”—the substantial manifestation—“of the invisible God,” in whom “all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily.” The parallel is singularly close with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, in similar connection with the great mediation of His one priesthood and one sacrifice, declares Him (Hebrews 1:3) to be “the brightness of the glory of the Father, and the express image of His person” (the “substance,” or essence, of the Godhead). There remains little beyond this to bring us to the full declaration of “the Word” who “was in the beginning,” who “was with God, and was God.” These Epistles of St. Paul correspond, with marvellous appropriateness, to that intermediate period, when his great evangelising work was almost done, and the time was coming for the growth of the school of deep thought on a now acknowledged Christianity, which was to surround the old age of “St. John the Divine.”

(4) The Condition and Trials of the Church.—The examination of the substance of the Epistles would not be complete without some brief reference to the condition of the Church which they disclose.

In this view, also, we trace the same coincidence with the natural growth of events. The whole tenor of the Epistles indicates that the Church had reached a condition in which the consideration, not so much of its extension, as of its unity, became the prominent idea. With but little hyperbole, St. Paul could say that the gospel had come into “all the world” of the Roman empire. His own career of active evangelisation had been stopped; in his prison at Rome, the centre of communication with all nations, he would, no doubt, hear of the growth and the trials of other churches, as we know that he heard of Philippi and Colossæ; he looked eagerly, as from a distance, on the building up of the Temple of God, which was going on by many hands and under many conditions. The one thought and prayer of his captivity was that it should grow as one, “fitly framed and joined together,” on the one foundation and in the one corner-stone. To the Philippian Church the burden of his exhortation is to unity of spirit. In the Ephesian Epistle the great central passage is that which brings out, with all the incisive emphasis of a creed, the description of the “one body” and the “one Spirit”; and the fundamental conception of the gospel, as the reconciliation of the soul to God in Jesus Christ, carries with it as a perpetual undertone, the union of Jew and Gentile in the covenant of God. Even in the Colossian Epistle, although there the main idea of the sole headship of Christ assumes a more absolute predominance, yet the great anxiety of St. Paul for Colossae and its sister churches was that their hearts might be “knit together in love” and the “full assurance of the knowledge” of a common gospel. The whole tenor of these Epistles, standing in contrast with those of the earlier group, thus corresponds with the needs of the more advanced period of Church history.

Nor is this coincidence less evident in relation to the forms of danger, by which the progress of the Church is here seen to be menaced. The old leaven of Judaism still works in the “so-called circumcision,” which now deserves, in St. Paul’s eyes, only the name of “concision,” or self-mutilation. But it has changed its character. The Pharisaic idolatry of the Law, as a law by obedience to which man might work out, if not his own salvation, at least his own perfection, has passed away in the East, though it lingers in the simple, unspeculative Christianity of Macedonia. Perhaps by the very extension of the Church the providence of God had clenched the victorious argument of St. Paul. A church truly catholic could hardly rest on a rigid code of law, or find the spring of a world-wide salvation anywhere, except in the grace of God accepted by faith. But now, as the Epistle to the Colossians shows, Judaism had allied itself with those wild speculations, weaving the gospel into philosophical or mystic theories of religion, which arose inevitably, when Christianity, assuming to be the religion of humanity, naturally came in contact with the various philosophies and religions of all mankind. Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with much probability, that one form in which it adapted itself to the new condition of things was the form of the old Essenic mysticism. The Epistle to the Hebrews suggests that, on the other hand, it had also fixed its faith on the ritual and sacrifice from which the Essenes shrank—doubtless as having in themselves a mystic efficacy, perhaps as enabling men to enter into the region of mystic speculation, where they might learn the secrets hidden from the mass of Christians, and revealed only to the perfect. In both forms it is seen as gradually dissolving its old rigidity and carnality, and claiming, in accordance with the spirit of the age, the title of spirituality and mystic perfection.

Still more is the progress of the times shown in this very tendency, to which Judaism so strangely and incongruously allied itself. Gnosticism, in later days, marked the attempts—sometimes serious, sometimes fantastic—to weave Christianity into systems designed to solve the insoluble problem of the relation of the infinite God, both in creation and manifestation, to His finite creatures; to fix the place to be assigned to matter and spirit in the universe; to answer the question how far evil is necessarily associated with matter; and in contemplation of the gospel itself, to determine the relation between the Old and New Covenant, and to define or explain away the mystery of the Incarnation. To what wild developments it ran is told in the true, but almost incredible, record of a subsequent chapter of Church history. But it showed itself—we may almost say that it could not but have shown itself—at the close of the Apostolic age: as soon as the gospel showed itself to be not only a divine life, but a divine philosophy, to an age radically sceptical, both in its eagerness of inquiry and its discontent with all the answers hitherto found. We find traces of it—easily read by those who have studied its after-development—in the “endless genealogies,” the false asceticism, or still falser antinomianism of the later Epistles of St. Paul and St. John, in the denial that “Jesus Christ was come in the flesh,” and the idea that “the Resurrection was passed already.” In these Epistles of the Captivity there are similar traces, but less fully developed, especially in the Colossian Epistle. The spurious claims to spiritual “perfection;” the “deceits by vain words;” the “systematic plan of deceit” of a specious antinomianism, for which St. Paul can hardly find language of adequate condemnation; the “philosophy and vain deceit” of the traditions of men, with its mere “show of wisdom” and its “intrusion” into the regions of the invisible; the supposed emanations from the Godhead taking the angelic forms of “thrones and principalities and powers”—all these mark the first beginning of that strange progress which ran its pretentious course in later times. To this time of St. Paul’s history they belong, and to no other.

Thus, as it seems every way, a careful study of the style and substance of these Epistles not only confirms the external testimony which refers them to St. Paul, but illustrates to us the course of the development of the gospel, the progress and the trials of the Church. They light up the historical darkness in which the abrupt close of the record of the Acts of the Apostles leaves us; they are full of those lessons for our own days in which the close of the Apostolic age is especially fruitful.

V. The Order of the Epistles.—That the Epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon belong to the same time, and were sent by the same messengers, is tolerably clear. The one question is, whether the Epistle to the Philippians recedes or follows them; and this question can only be answered by probable conjecture. It is obvious, from the progress already made (Philippians 1:12-18), from the whole description of the mission and the sickness of Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-30), from the anticipation of release (Philippians 2:24), that some time must have elapsed between St. Paul’s arrival at Rome and the writing of this Epistle. It has also been noticed, as at least a remarkable coincidence, that Aristarchus and St. Luke, who accompanied the Apostle to Rome (Acts 27:2), are named in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Colossians 4:10; Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24), and not in the Epistle to the Philippians. But this last may be a mere coincidence; and the fact that the Philippian Epistle was not written early in the imprisonment determines nothing as to its priority or posteriority to the other Epistles. The only strong argument on the subject—which has been admirably worked out by Dr. Lightfoot in his Introduction to the Epistle to the Philippians, sect. 2—is the remarkable similarity in word and style between it and the Epistle to the Romans, its position as a link between the strong individuality of the earlier teaching and the characteristic universality of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and its dealing with trials and difficulties more nearly resembling those of an earlier time. The argument is strong, yet not necessarily conclusive; for much in all these points depends on the character, and even the geographical position, of the Church addressed. To it, however, in the absence of any solid controverting evidence, we may give considerable weight and perhaps incline, without absolute decision, to place the Philippian Epistle before the other group in the Epistles of the Captivity.

[In relation to the treatment of the Epistles of the Captivity, it seems right to acknowledge the deep obligation of the writer to the Commentaries of Ellicott, Alford, Wordsworth, Meyer, Harless, and, above all, to the admirable and exhaustive treatment by Dr. Lightfoot of the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon; to Conybeare and Howson, and Lewin, for their full and learned summaries of all that illustrates the life and, in less degree, the writings of St. Paul; but perhaps not least to the Homilies of St. Chrysostom—simply invaluable as a commentary, venerable in its preservation of ancient tradition, critically precious as dealing with the Greek as still a living language, and yet modern in that breadth and simplicity of treatment, which contrast with the frequent mysticism of great ancient commentators. The writer desires also to add that, while he has not generally thought it desirable to confuse the reader by the enumeration of various translations and interpretations, he has yet, to the best of his ability, studied all these carefully, and has endeavoured to give in the Notes the result, rather than the process, of such study.]

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

I. The Date and Place of Writing.—This Epistle, for reasons hereafter to be considered, has few detailed indications, either of the personal condition of the writer or of the circumstances of those to whom it is addressed. But one point is made perfectly clear, that it was written by St. Paul when he was the “prisoner of Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 4:1), suffering some special “tribulations for them,” which he bade them consider as “their glory” (Ephesians 3:13), and being an “ambassador for Christ in a chain” (Ephesians 6:20)—the word here used being the same as in Acts 28:20, and being a word almost technically describing the imprisonment “with a soldier that kept him” (Acts 28:16). All these things point unmistakably to what we have spoken of in the General Introduction as the first Roman captivity. That captivity began about A.D. 61, and lasted, without change, for at least “two full years.” In the Letter to Philemon, sent by Onesimus, who is associated with Tychicus, the bearer of this Epistle, in Colossians 4:7-9, St. Paul prays him to “prepare him a lodging” against the speedy arrival, which he then confidently expected. Hence our Epistle must be placed late in the captivity—not earlier than A.D. 63.

II. The Church to which it is addressed.—The Epistle has borne from time immemorial the name of the “Epistle to the Ephesians.” To the Church at Ephesus most certainly, whether solely or among others, it is addressed.

EPHESUS.—Of St. Paul’s preaching at Ephesus we have a detailed account in the Acts of the Apostles. At the close of his second missionary circuit he had touched at Ephesus, and “entered the synagogue” to “reason with the Jews.” In spite of their entreaty, he could not then remain with them, but left Aquila and Priscilla there. From them, probably, with the aid of their convert Apollos, the Christianity of Ephesus began its actual rise. It is not, indeed, impossible that there may have been some previous preparation through the disciples of St. John the Baptist. The emphatic allusion to him and to the simply preparatory character of his work in St. Paul’s sermon at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:24-25), seems to point to knowledge of him in Asia Minor. We know that afterwards St. Paul found some disciples at Ephesus, baptised only with St. John’s baptism (Acts 19:3); and we note that Apollos, while “knowing only the baptism of John,” yet still “teaching the things of the Lord,” found a ready acceptance at Ephesus (Acts 18:24-25). But however this may be, the full development of the Christianity of Ephesus was made under St. Paul’s charge in his third missionary circuit. His first circuit had been an extension of that Asiatic Gentile Christianity which began from Antioch; his second was notable as the first planting of European Christianity, having its chief centre at Corinth; now his headquarters for the evangelisation of the Roman province of Asia were fixed for three years at Ephesus, a city specially fit for the welding together of Asiatic and European Christianity—for there Greek civilisation met face to face with Oriental superstition and magical pretensions, in that which was made by Rome the official metropolis of pro-consular Asia; and the strange union is curiously symbolised by the enshrining in a temple which was the world-famed masterpiece of Greek art of an idol—probably, some half-shapeless meteoric stone—“which fell down from Jupiter.” The summary of his work there—his re-baptism with the miraculous gifts of the disciples of St. John Baptist; the “special miracles” wrought by his hands; the utter confusion both of Jewish exorcists and of the professors of those “curious arts” for which Ephesus was notorious; the sudden tumult, so skilfully appeased by the “town clerk,” who must surely have been half a Christian—make up (in Acts 19) one of the most vivid scenes in St. Paul’s Apostolic history.

Another—not less striking, and infinitely pathetic—is drawn in Acts 20:16-38, in the farewell visit and address of St. Paul to the Ephesian presbyters at Miletus, indicating, alike by its testimony and by its warnings, a fully-organised and widely-spread Christianity—the fruit of his three years’ labour. What had been the extent of the sphere of that labour we know not. We gather, with some surprise (Colossians 2:1), that the churches of the valley of the Lycus—Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae—had not been visited by him personally. Yet, whether by his own presence, or through such delegates as Epaphras (Colossians 1:7), “all which dwelt in Asia had heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10). They might well “sorrow” and “weep sore” at the thought that they should “see his face no more.”

Now, in his captivity, certainly to Ephesus, and (as we shall see hereafter) probably to the other churches of Asia, he writes this Epistle—itself a representative Epistle, almost a treatise, bearing to the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church a relation not unlike that which the Epistle to the Romans bears to the fundamental truths of personal Christianity.

After this, in the interval between the first and second captivity, we find (see 1Timothy 1:1; 2Timothy 1:18) that St. Paul did revisit Ephesus at least once; that, in his deep anxiety for its welfare, he placed it under the quasi-episcopal charge of his “own son Timothy;” and that, in his last captivity, he sent Tychicus, the bearer of this Epistle, to Ephesus again (2Timothy 4:12), perhaps in view of the coming absence of Timothy in obedience to the Apostle’s summons.

From that time Ephesus passed into the charge of St. John, as the first of the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 2:1), commended for its steadfastness, but yet rebuked as “having fallen from its first love.” Of this phase of its Christianity, and its subsequent importance in the future history of the Church, especially as the scene of the Third great Council and the previous Latrocinium, it would be out of place here to dwell.

THE CHURCHES OF ASIA.—But while there is no doubt that the Epistle was addressed to Ephesus, there seems very strong reason for the opinion, now held by many commentators, that it was an encyclical letter to the churches of Asia, of which Ephesus was the natural head.

The evidence of this opinion may be thus summarised:—

Direct Evidence.—Taking first the direct evidence, we observe (1) that in the opening salutation, which in the ordinary reading is addressed to “the saints which are at Ephesus, being also faithful in Christ Jesus,” the words “at Ephesus” are omitted in our two oldest MSS. (the Vatican and the Sinaitic), and in both supplied by a later hand. This omission is exceptional, all other MSS. and versions inserting the words. But it agrees with two remarkable ancient testimonies. Origen, the first great Biblical critic in the early Church (A.D. 186-254), (as appears from a fragment quoted in Cramer’s “Catenæ in Pauli Epistolae,” p. 102, Oxford edition, 1842), noticed that in the Ephesian Epistle alone there was the “singular inscription,” “to the saints who are, being also faithful.” Basil of Cæsarea (A.D. 329-379) expressly says (in his treatise against Eunomius, Book 2, c. 19), “this reading was handed down by those who have gone before us, and we ourselves have found it in the ancient MSS.”

Now (2) the effect of this omission is to make the passage obscure, if not unintelligible; for the only simple rendering of the Greek would be to “the saints who are also faithful,” and this would give an impossible vagueness and generality to the address. Accordingly, ancient criticism (perhaps derived from Origen in the first instance) actually faced the difficulty by giving a mystic sense to the passage. St. Basil, in the passage above quoted, explains it thus:—“But, moreover, writing to the Ephesians as to those truly united by full knowledge to HIM WHO IS, he gives them the peculiar title of the ‘saints who are.’“ To this interpretation, also, St. Jerome refers thus (in his Commentary on Ephesians 1:1):—“Some, with more subtlety than is necessary, hold that, according to the saying to Moses, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, HE WHO IS hath sent me unto you, those who at Ephesus are holy and faithful are designated by the name of essential being, so that from HIM WHO IS these are called They who are;” and adds, with his usual strong critical good sense, “others more simply hold that the address is not to Those who are, but to Those who are at Ephesus.” Certainly, nothing could show a firmer conviction that the omission of the words “at Ephesus” was necessitated by MS. authority, than the desperate attempt to meet the difficulty of rendering by this marvellous interpretation.

But (3) we also find that Marcion the heretic, by Tertullian’s twice-repeated testimony (in his work against Marcion, Book 5, c. 11, 16), entitled this Epistle “The Epistle to the Laodiceans.” “I omit,” he says, “here notice of another Epistle, which we hold to have been written to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans;” and he then proceeds to refer to our Epistle. In another place:—“In the true view of the Church, we hold that Letter to have been sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion has made it his business to interpolate an address in it, to show that on this point also he is a most painstaking critic.” Now (as Tertullian adds) the question of the address was of no doctrinal importance; accordingly, Marcion could not have been tempted in this respect to falsify or invent. He gave the address on critical grounds; and Tertullian says that he “interpolated” it, presumably where there was a blank. Epiphanius, also (320?—402), in his notice of Marcion (adv. Hær., Lib. i., Tom. iii., xii.), after quoting “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” &c., adds:—“For the miserable Marcion was pleased to quote this testimony, not from the Epistle to the Ephesians, but from the Epistle to the Laodiceans, which is not in the Apostle’s writings,” He apparently refers to an apocryphal letter, of which he says elsewhere that “Marcion received fragments;” and such a letter is noticed in the Muratorian Canon. But looking to Tertullian’s clear declaration, we may, perhaps, see here a confused reminiscence of this same critical achievement of Marcion. Marcion, no doubt, was led to it by a consideration of the well-known passage in the Colossian Epistle (Ephesians 4:16) speaking of the “letter from Laodicea,” which he (it would seem, correctly) identified with our Epistle.

(4) Now, all these things lead plainly to one conclusion—that, while an unvarying tradition declared that the Letter was “to the Ephesians,” yet there was a blank in the oldest MSS. after the words “which are,” generally filled up (as in most of our later MSS.) with the words “in Ephesus;” but by Marcion, with no MS. authority, simply on grounds of critical inference, with the words “in Laodicea.” That this insertion of Marcion, if intended to infer that the Letter was addressed specially to the Laodicean Church, was unwarrantable, appears obvious, from the whole stream of ancient tradition assigning the Letter to the Ephesians, and the absence of any vestige of such a reading in the existing MSS. But if the Epistle were a circular letter, of which many copies were sent at one time, it would be at least probable that blanks might be left, to be filled up in each case with the proper name of the Church; and this supposition, which has been adopted by many, would furnish a very simple explanation—indeed, the only simple explanation—of this perplexing MS. phenomenon.

Indirect Evidence.—This being the state of the case in relation to direct evidence, we naturally pass on to consider what may be gathered indirectly, either to confirm or to confute this supposition, from the Epistle itself.

Now, the study of the Epistle, as a whole, must surely convey to the mind the impression of a certain generality and abstractness of character. It approaches closely—at least, as closely as the Epistle to the Romans—to the character of a treatise, dealing, with a singular completeness, accuracy, and symmetry of handling, with a grand spiritual truth—the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church. The very opening—strongly reminding us in form, though not in substance, of the opening of the General Epistle of St. Peter to these churches and other churches of Asia Minor (1Peter 1:3-7)—is a complete and exhaustive statement of the mysterious truth of the election of the whole Church, as gathered up in Christ and redeemed by Him, in the eternal counsels of God. The celebrated passage (Ephesians 4:4-6) on the unity of the Church, while it is full of an almost poetic beauty, has all the fulness and precision of a creed. The practical exhortations of the Epistle are drawn, with a philosophic generality, from the fundamental conception of religious unity. Nor can we fail to notice that the Epistle is entirely destitute of any reference—such as is invariable in St. Paul’s other Epistles—to the particular condition, blessings, trials, graces, or defects, of those to whom it is addressed. They are simply spoken of as “you Gentiles,” in contradistinction to the children of the old covenant. The sins against which they are warned are the typical sins forbidden in the Second Table, or the sins specially rife in the heathen society of that time in general.

The comparison in this respect with the Colossian Epistle is most instructive. Everywhere the Ephesian Epistle is general and (so to speak) philosophical in treatment; while in the parallel passages the other Epistle is particular and practical. Now it so happens that in the Epistles of this period we have the Philippian, written to a Church personally known and. loved, while the Colossian is addressed to a Church known perhaps well, but indirectly, and not by personal intercourse. The former Epistle is pervaded from beginning to end with the personality of the writer, as fully as the Corinthian or Galatian. Epistles themselves. The latter is more distant and more general, introducing the special warnings of the second chapter with a half-apologetic reference to the deep anxiety felt “for them, and for the Laodiceans, and for those who had not seen his face in the flesh.” The Church of Ephesus must have been even more intimately known and bound to St. Paul than the Church at Philippi. How near it lay to his heart we know by the pathetic beauty and yearning tenderness of his address to the elders at Miletus. An Epistle written to this Church should surely have had all the strong personality of the Philippian Epistle; yet our Epistle, on the contrary, is infinitely less direct, personal, special, than the Epistle to the Colossians. The inference, even from these general considerations, seems unmistakable—that it was not addressed to any special Church, but least of all to such a Church as Ephesus.

But there are also some indications in detail, looking in the same direction, which are referred to in the Notes on the various passages. Such, for example, is the vagueness which has been noticed in the two passages (Ephesians 1:15; Ephesians 3:2), “after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus,” and “if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God given me to you-ward.” It is true that the former may be explained of St. Paul’s hearing of them since he had left them; and, if confirmed by the parallel case of the Colossians (Colossians 1:4), may be neutralised by comparison with Philemon 1:5 (“Hearing of thy love and faith”). It is also true that in the latter case the “if” of the original is not, except in form, hypothetical, and the verb may be “heard,” not “heard of.” But, making all reservation, there still remains a vagueness, hardly conceivable in reference to such a Church as Ephesus, especially when we remember how St. Paul in parallel cases refers to his former preaching. (See, for example, 1Corinthians 2:1-4; 2Corinthians 1:12-19; 2Corinthians 11:6-9; 2Corinthians 13:2; Galatians 4:13; Philippians 4:9; 1Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1Thessalonians 3:4; 2Thessalonians 2:5.) Such, again, is the generality, absolutely without parallel elsewhere, in the salutation “which is the token in every Epistle”—“Grace be to all them who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity”—compared with the “Grace be with you” or “with your spirit” of the other Epistles. The conclusions, again, of the Ephesian and Colossian Epistles may be compared. I do not lay stress on the simple absence of greetings: for it has been shown (by Alford), by comparison with other Epistles, that this argument is precarious. But it is impossible not to be struck with the vague generality of the one, as compared with the fulness of detail and strong personality of the other. They coincide verbally in the quasi-official commendation of Tychicus, and in this alone.

These indications may be thought to be slight, but they all point one way, and their combined force is not to be lightly put aside.

The indirect evidence, therefore, appears strongly to confirm the supposition which alone gives any simple explanation of the MSS. phenomena. But is there any trace of such an encyclical letter? That there was an “Epistle from Laodicea” to be read by the Colossians, we know; and the context shows conclusively that this was an Epistle of St. Paul himself. Laodicea was near Colossæ, and evidently in close union with it. The special warnings of the letter addressed to the Colossian Church were probably applicable to it also, and accordingly it was to be read there. But why should Colossæ read the “Epistle from Laodicea?” Had it dealt with the peculiar needs of that sister church this would be inexplicable; but if it were what our Epistle is—general in character, and dealing with a truth not identical with the main truth of the Colossian Epistle, but supplementary to it—then the direction is intelligible at once. It is not (it will be observed) an “Epistle to the Laodiceans,” but an Epistle “coming from Laodicea,” which would be reached from Ephesus before Colossæ, and which, being the larger and more important town, might naturally be made the recipient of a letter intended for it and Colossæ, and perhaps Hierapolis.

It may be asked, If this be so, why have no MSS. any other address than to the “saints at Ephesus?” and why has tradition invariably called this “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” and nothing else? The answer which has been often given appears to be entirely sufficient. Ephesus was, as the metropolis of Asia, the natural centre of the Apostolic ministry, and the natural leader of the Asiatic churches: standing, as in the apocalyptic epistles (Revelation 1:11), at the head of all. There the Epistle would be first read; thence it would go out to the other Asiatic churches; there it would be best treasured up, and copies of it multiplied; and through these it would be likely to become known to the European churches also. It must have been quoted by some title. What title so natural as “To the Ephesians?” The use of this title evidently preceded the insertion of the words “in Ephesus” in the text. This is natural. We remember that no extant MS., except the Vatican and Sinaitic, is earlier than the beginning of the fifth century. By that time most of the Asiatic churches had sunk into insignificance. The tradition already prevalent of the address to the Ephesians would naturally express itself by the insertion of the words, without which the context of the opening passage is hardly intelligible.

This supposition seems also to be confirmed by the occasional appropriation to Laodicea. For, though after a long interval, Laodicea comes next after Ephesus in importance in Church history. On that ground St. Paul made it the centre of the churches of the Lycus valley. On that ground, also, some claim to the Epistle, as an Epistle to the Laodiceans, may have survived till the time of Marcion. It is curious that the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170?), after noting the Epistle to the Ephesians among St. Paul’s Epistles, adds: “There is in circulation also an Epistle to the Laodiceans . . . forged in the name of Paul, to aid the heresy of Marcion . . . which cannot be received into the Catholic Church.” Now the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, still extant, is clearly of later date, made up of quotations or imitations of various passages of St. Paul’s Epistles, and in no way bearing on Marcionism. It may perhaps be conjectured that Marcion, not content with altering the title of our Epistle, tampered with it and mutilated it, as we know that he did in the case of other New Testament books. There maybe in the Canon (as afterwards in Epiphanius) a reference to this corrupted form of our Epistle, as a separate work; and this would be a kind of survival of the designation of it as an Epistle to the Laodiceans.

On all these grounds, therefore, we must hold it at least highly probable that we have in it an encyclical letter to Ephesus and the sister churches of Asia.

III. The Genuineness of the Epistle.—External Evidence.—The external evidence, as has been already said (see Introduction to the Epistles of the Captivity), is strong—as strong as for any other of St. Paul’s Epistles.

Among the Apostolic fathers there seem to be unquestionable allusions to passages in it: as in Clement of Rome, chap. 46, dwelling on “the one God, one Christ, one spirit of grace . . . one calling” (comp. Ephesians 4:4-6); and in Polycarp, chap. 12, uniting the two quotations: “Be ye angry and sin not,” “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (comp. Ephesians 4:26-27). In Ignatius (to the Ephesians, chap. 12) we have a remarkable reference to the Ephesians as “fellow-mystics” with St. Paul, sharing the mystery of the gospel with him (comp. Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:4-9; Ephesians 6:19); and he adds of St. Paul that, “in all his letter he is mindful of you in Christ Jesus.” In the “longer Greek” version of the same Epistle—interpolated at a later date—there is in chap. 6 a direct quotation, “as Paul wrote to you—one body and one Spirit” (Ephesians 4:4-6), and a clear reference to the address (Ephesians 1:1) in chap. 9.

Passing on to a later date, we have the Epistle formally recognised in the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170), apparently representing the tradition of the Church of Rome: quoted repeatedly, and in some cases unmistakably, by Irenæus in the Church of Gaul (about A.D. 130-200); quoted also by Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 150-210), and Tertullian (A.D. 160-240), representing the opposite school of Carthage. It is found in all ancient versions; and henceforth held without doubt among the acknowledged books in the Church.

Dr. Westcott has also shown (“Canon of the New Testament,” pp. 314, 323, 338) that it is quoted by the heretical and Gnostic writers—the Ophites, Basilides, Valentinus, and others. Marcion’s recognition and criticism of it we have already seen.

Internal Evidence.—The doubts of its genuineness which have been advanced in our own times turn entirely on internal evidence.

(1) The differences in style and substance between these Epistles of the Captivity and the earlier Epistles of St. Paul have been already discussed. I have ventured to urge that, corresponding as they do to the time and circumstances of the captivity, marking a true and natural development of doctrine, abounding in points both of similarity and independent originality, these differences are decisive against the idea of imitation, and strongly confirmatory of Apostolic authorship. To the Epistle of the Ephesians these remarks bear a special application, for this Epistle bears most distinctly of all the marks of St. Paul’s later manner. I may add, also, that in a very special degree the grandeur and profoundness of treatment, which make it one of the great typical Epistles of the New Testament, speak for themselves as to its Apostolic origin. To lose it would be to leave a strange gap in the development of Christian doctrine, and to mar the harmony of the individual and corporate elements in the Scriptural exposition of the concrete Christian life. To ascribe it to the weaker hand of a mere disciple of St. Paul might, but for actual experience, have well been thought impossible.

(2) But this Epistle in particular has been described as simply an elaborate reproduction of the Colossian Epistle, and accordingly represented as of doubtful originality. It is, of course, obvious (as will be shown in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Colossians) that there is a very marked similarity, sometimes in idea, sometimes in actual expression, between the two Epistles. But the more both are studied, the more it must be seen that this similarity is exactly such as belongs to contemporaneousness, and is utterly incompatible with dependence of either upon the other.

In the first place, it is found that there are sections of the Colossian Epistle to which there is nothing to correspond in the Ephesian Epistle, and that these sections are principal and not subordinate. Such are, for example, Colossians 1:15-17 (on the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ), Colossians 2:8-18 (the warning against mingled Judaism and Gnosticism), and Colossians 4:9-17 (the special salutations and cautions). The absence of these in the one case, and their presence in the other, are perfectly intelligible on the theory of contemporaneousness, entirely inexplicable on the theory of dependence.

On the other hand, there are sections in the Epistle to the Ephesians of the most emphatic originality, which have no counterpart in the other Epistle. Such are the great opening on the “election of God and the gathering up of all in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3-14); the sublime Apostolic prayer in Ephesians 3:14-21; the celebrated and exhaustive passage on the unity of the Church in God (Ephesians 4:4-6); the profound comparison of marriage to the union of Christ with the Church in Ephesians 5:23-33; the magnificent description of the Christian armour (Ephesians 6:13-17). To these the same remark must apply: to suppose these the work of a copyist appears all but preposterous.

Next, a careful study shows repeatedly and unmistakably that these differences are not accidental; they arise from a fundamental distinction between the leading ideas in the two Epistles. The Epistle to the Ephesians is the exposition of the reality, the blessing, and the glory, of the Catholic Church as the body of Christ. The famous image of the spiritual temple (in which, perhaps, we may trace some recollection of that magnificent Temple of Artemis, “which all Asia and the world worshipped”) belongs to this Epistle (Ephesians 2:20-22), and has no place in the other. The passage to which all else works up as a climax is Ephesians 4:4-6, on the “one Body and the one Spirit.” Even the ordinary moral duties and social relations of life are treated in Ephesians 4, 5 with a characteristic reference to this great principle of unity with man in Christ, which is wanting in the parallel passages of the Colossian Epistle. On the other hand, the Colossian Epistle, having to deal with an incipient Gnosticism, is specially emphatic on the sole headship and the true Godhead of Christ. Its great teaching is of Him, as “the image of the invisible God,” “in whom all the fulness (the pleroma) of the Godhead dwells bodily” (Colossians 1:15-17; Colossians 2:3-8; Colossians 2:10). The passage which occupies the chief place, corresponding to the great passage on Unity in the Ephesian Epistle, is that which dwells on our life as risen with Christ, and hid in God with Him, who Himself “is our life” (Colossians 3:1-4).

But besides this, it will be seen in the Notes on various passages that, on the one hand, in detailed passages parallel to each other, the similarity is almost always mingled with clear and characteristic difference, marking an independent coincidence; and on the other, that identical expressions occur again and again in entirely different contexts, and in different degrees of prominence. These are exactly the phenomena which we may expect when two letters are written at the same time to churches neither wholly identical nor wholly dissimilar in character, and under the guidance of distinct, yet complementary, ideas. They are wholly incompatible with dependence or deliberate copyism.

On this particular subject, therefore, I cannot but draw the same conclusion as on the general subject of the Epistles of the Captivity, viz., that the indirect evidence which has been thought to weaken, will be actually found to confirm the strong external evidence for the genuineness of the Epistle.

IV. The Contents of the Epistle.—The general character and substance of the Epistle have been already glanced at, both in the General Introduction and in the preceding sections of the Special Introduction, and they will be found to be treated in detail in the Notes on the chief passages of the Epistle itself. Full analyses, moreover, are given in each chapter.

It will be sufficient here simply to repeat that the Epistle falls into two great sections: Doctrinal and Practical. In both the one great subject is the UNITY IN CHRIST, in some sense of all created being, in a closer sense of humanity, in the closest and most sacred sense of the Holy Catholic Church.

In the doctrinal section (Ephesians 1:1 to Ephesians 4:16), we find this unity noticed in the first chapter as ordained in the eternal predestination of God’s love, and manifested in the actual communication to His members of the Resurrection, the Ascension, and glorification of Christ, their head. Next it is shown (in Ephesians 2) how the Gentiles are called into this regenerating unity out of the deadness of their old life; and thus at once brought into the covenant of God, and so united with His chosen people of Israel, that all alike, as living stones, are built into the great Temple of God. Then (in Ephesians 3), after an emphatic declaration of the newness of this mystery of grace, and of the special commission for the revelation of it entrusted to St. Paul, there follows a solemn and fervent Apostolic prayer for their knowledge of the mystery, not by human wisdom or thought, but by the indwelling light and grace of Christ. Finally, the whole is summed up in a grand passage (Ephesians 4:1-16), which brings out in perfect completeness the whole doctrine of this unity first in its grounds, its means, and its conditions; next in its variety of spiritual gifts; lastly, in the oneness of the object of all, in the reproduction of the life of Christ in the individual and the Church.

The practical section (Ephesians 4:17 to Ephesians 6:24) opens with an unique treatment of morality and of human relationship, as dependent upon the mysterious unity of man with man and of man with God. First (Ephesians 4:17 to Ephesians 5:21), that unity is made the basis of ordinary moral duties towards man, and the safeguard against the besetting sins of heathen society—bitterness, impurity, and reckless excess. Next (Ephesians 5:22 to Ephesians 6:9), it is shown as the secret of the sacredness of earthly relations of marriage, of fatherhood, and of mastership. In the first case this idea is worked out with a transcendent beauty and solemnity, which have beyond all else hallowed Christian marriage; in the others it is more briefly touched upon, with a view chiefly to temper and soften the sternness of a recognised authority. Finally (Ephesians 6:10-24), this portion of the Epistle is wound up by a magnificent and elaborate description of the full panoply of God; and the Epistle then ends, briefly and rather vaguely, with commendation of Tychicus and a general form of salutation.

The general sketch of this wonderful Epistle will, perhaps, be best explained by the analysis here subjoined, shortened from the analyses of the various chapters.

1.Doctrinal Section.

(1)THE INTRODUCTION (Ephesians 1):

(a)Salutation (Ephesians 1:1-2);

(b)Thanksgiving for the election of the whole Church in God’s love, given through redemption by unity with Christ, shown in the calling and faith both of Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 1:3-14);

(c)Prayer for their fuller knowledge of this unity with the risen and ascended Christ, the Head of the whole Church (Ephesians 1:15-23).

(2)THE CALL OF THE GENTILES (Ephesians 2):

(a)Out of the deadness of sin and power of Satan into the new life of the risen Christ, accepted in simple faith, wrought out in good works (Ephesians 2:1-10);

(b)Out of alienation from the covenant, into perfect unity with God’s chosen people, all division being broken down, and full access given to the Father; so that Jew and Gentile alike, built on the one foundation, grow into the living Temple of God (Ephesians 2:11-22).

(3)PRAYER FOR THEIR FULLER KNOWLEDGE (Ephesians 3):

(a)The mystery of the universal call, new in revelation, specially intrusted to St. Paul (Ephesians 3:1-13);

(b)Prayer for their full knowledge of it (though passing knowledge) through the indwelling of Christ, accepted in faith and love (Ephesians 3:14-19);

(c)Doxology to the Father through Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:20-21).

(4)FINAL SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE (Ephesians 4):

(a)The unity of the Church in one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:1-6);

(b) The diversity of gifts in the glorified Christ (Ephesians 4:7-11);

(c)The unity of the purpose of all, viz., the individual and corporate regeneration (Ephesians 4:12-16).

2.Practical Section.

(1)THE NEW LIFE: learning Christ and growing unto His image (Ephesians 4:17-24).

(2)CONQUEST OF SIN:

(a)The conquest of sin in general in virtue of the sense of unity with man in Christ (Ephesians 4:25-30);

(b)Conquest of special besetting sins of malice, impurity, recklessness of excess (Ephesians 4:31; Ephesians 5:21).

(3)REGENERATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS:

(a)The relation of husbands and wives consecrated as a type of union of Christ with His Church (Ephesians 5:22-23);

(b)The relation of parents and children hallowed as in the Lord (Ephesians 6:1-4);

(c)The relation of masters and servants made a brotherhood of service to one Master (Ephesians 6:5-9).

(4) FINAL EXHORTATION:

The armour of God and the fight against the powers of evil (Ephesians 6:10-17).

3.Conclusion.

(a)Special desire of their prayers for him in his captivity (Ephesians 6:18-20);

(b)Commendation of Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21-22);

(c)Salutation and blessing (Ephesians 6:23-24).

In conclusion I may add that it does not appear to me fanciful to suppose that the teaching of this Epistle has as special an applicability to our age as the teaching of the Galatian or Roman Epistles had to the sixteenth century. For in all spheres of life—the political, the social, and the ecclesiastical alike—it would seem that our prominent questions are not those of individualism, but of socialism in the true sense of the word. Society is contemplated in its corporate life; in its rights over the individual; in the great eternal principles which it truly embodies and partially represents; and, moreover, this contemplation has a breadth of scope which refuses to be confined within the limits of family, or nation, or age. Humanity itself is considered, both historically and philosophically, as only the highest element in the order of the universe, which is itself bound together in a unity of unbroken connection and continuous development. It is asked, What has Christianity to declare as a gospel to society at large, and as a key to the mysterious relation of humanity with creation, and so with Him who created it? To that question, perhaps, the answer is nowhere more truly given than in the Epistle to the Ephesians. We need a real and living unity; but it must be such as will preserve the equally sacred individuality of freedom. This Epistle presents it to us in its magnificent conception of the unity of all with God in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Title

The oldest known form is the briefest, To (the) Ephesians. So in the “Subscription” to the Epistle, which see. The title as in the Authorized Version agrees with that adopted in the editions of the Greek Testament printed (1624, 1633), at Leyden by the brothers B. and A. Elzevir.