EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. I. This epistle expressly claims to be the production of the Apostle Paul (i. 1; r); and this claim the writer in the latter of these passages follows up by speak ing of himself in language such as that apostle is accustomed to use in describing his own position as an ambassador of Christ (iii. I, 3, 8, 9). The jus tice of this claim seems to have been universally admitted by the early Christians, and it is expressly sanctioned by several of the fathers of the second and third centuries (Irenwus, Adv. Her. W. 2, 3; Clemens Alex. Protrept. ix. p. 69, ed. Potter ; Stavni. iv. 8, p. 592 ; Origen, Cont. Gels. iv. p. 211, ed. Spencer ; Tertullian. Adv. Alan.. v. xi, ; Cyprian, Testing. iii. 7, etc.) The epistle is also cited as part of sacred Scripture by Polycarp (El. ad Philipp. c. t ; c. 12) ; and it is probably to it that Ignatius refers when, in writing to the Ephesians, he calls them 11a6Xou ovq.uiffraL . .
as IF 7rdav heti.onicoveliet 41.40.,9 Ev Xptcrrtp 'IsooiI (c. 12, Conf. Cotelerii, Annot. in lac.; Pearson, Vind. Ignatian. Par. ii. p. II9; Lard ner's Works, vol. ii. p. 70, Svo). It is certain that Marcion accepted it as canonical, and by Valentian and his school it was cited as Scripture (Hug. In trod. Fosdick's Trans. p. 551; Hippolytus, Philo sophumena, vi. 34)• In the face of this decided and general testimony, the objections which have been urged on internal grounds against the genuineness of this epistle cannot be allowed to influence us, even did they possess more intrinsic weight than can be assigned to them ; for it is incredible that a forged writing should have obtained such general reception as genuine, at so early a period from the time of its alleged author. These objections are chiefly :--1. The absence of any friendly greetings in this epistle, coupled with what are alleged to be indi cations of want of previous acquaintance on the part of the writer with the Ephesians, facts which, it is asserted, are incompatible with the supposi tion that it was written by Paul, whose relations with the Ephesian Church were so intimate ; 2. The occurrence of words, and phrases, and senti ments, which indicate acquaintance with those Gnostic ideas which were familiar only at a period much later than that of the Apostle ; and 3. The close resemblance of this epistle to the Epistle to the Colossians, suggesting that the former is only a copious expansion (‘ wortreiche erweiterung,' Baur) of the latter. These objections do not rise above the level of mere cavils. The first may be passed by here, as the allegations on which it rests will be particularly considered when we come to the question of the destination of the epistle ; at pre sent it may suffice to cite the remark of Reuss in reference to the unreasonableness of such objections : ' If Paul writes simple letters of friendship they are pronounced insignificant, and so spurious, because there is a want of the didactic character in them ; and, on the other hand, if this prevails, there is proof of the spuriousness of the writing in the absence of the other. What ! must both elements
always be united according to some definite rule? is it so with us? or are any two of Paul's epistles alike in this respect?' (Die Geschichte d. H. &hr. Neuen Test., p. to4, 3d edit.) The second of the above objections has reference to such passages as i. 21; 11. 7 ; ill. 21; where it is alleged the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons is recognised ; and to the expression 7,-X4pw,aa, i. 23, as conveying a purely Gnostic idea ; and to such words as p.vo-TOLov, aoq5la, ^ymllurts, cpc7.n, etc. On this it seems sufficient to observe, without denying the existence of Gnostic allusions in this epistle, that on the one hand the objection assumes, that because Gnostic schools and systems did not make their appearance till after the age of the apostles, the ideas and wands in favour with the Gnostics were unknown at an earlier period, a position which cannot be maintained [GNomcs]; and on the other, that because the apostle uses phraseology which was employed also by the Gnostics, he uses it in the same sense as they did, which is purely gratuitous and indeed untrue, for to confound the cci6J'per and 71-Mpte,uct of the apostle with the aLives and 7rXhioga of the Gnostics, as Baur does, only proves, as Lange has remarked, that 'a man may write whole books on Gnostics and Gnosticism, without detecting the characteristic difference between the Christian principle and Gnosticism' (Apostol. Zeitalt. i. 124). With regard to the resemblance between this epistle and that to the Colossians, it can sur prise no one, that, written at the same time, they should in many respects resemble each other ; but it does not require much penetration to discover the many points of difference between them, especially in the point of view from which the writer contemplates his main subject, the Lord Jesus Christ, in each ; in the one as the prehistoric, pre-existent, supreme source of all things, in the other as the incarnate, historical, exalted, glorified head of the Church, to whom all things are sub jected (comp. Eph. i. 20-23, with Col. i. 15-20 ; and Lange, Ap. Zeit. i. liS). As for the alleged copious expansion,' that may be left to the judg ment of the reader; as well as the counter notion of Schneckenburger, that the Epistle to the Colos sians is an epitome of that to the Ephesians made by Paul himself. On such objections in general, we may say with Reuss, that 'rash hypotheses, whatever acceptance they may have received, tell by their deficiency or strangeness not against the epistle but against themselves ; and in opposition to all cavils, the many traits which disprove the presence in the thoughts of a deceptive imitation by a foreign hand, stand as valid arguments in its defence' (Gesch. p. 104).