Ephesians. Lynn H. CohickЧитать онлайн книгу.
of the data suggests that many of the similar terms include common prepositions, pronouns, and the words God and Christ. Again, scribes often made copies of their letters, in case the first was inadvertently destroyed or failed to make its destination. For example, Cicero remarks that his letter to Julius Caesar was ruined because the carrier managed to get it wet and the ink ran. But all was not lost, because Cicero had a copy of the letter, and so he re-sent it.22 It was common to keep copies23 and to share letters with friends, as does Cicero when he sends a copy of his letter to Pompey to Atticus.24 It was assumed that people shared their letters, such that Cicero’s friend Curius specifically asks Cicero not to show this particular letter to anyone.25 And Cicero, Atticus, and others saved copies of what they wrote to use the text in other, similar circumstances. At one point Cicero blushes at this practice, for he admits that he used the same preface in two works. He clarifies that he was not paying attention when he sent the work in question to his friend Atticus, and it was only a bit later when he was reading another work that he saw it had the same preface. He explains that he keeps a volume of his prefaces from which he chooses suitable beginnings for his projects. In this case he was writing a new preface, and requests that Atticus cut out the old preface and glue the new one in place.26
Thus if Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossians within the same basic time frame, which fits with the note that Tychicus delivered both letters, then one might comfortably assume Paul used the same scribe, and might have wished to stress similar ideas to churches in the same general region. Moreover, it seems ironic to declare that Ephesians is not by Paul because it uses language found in other Pauline material. Why assume a second author instead of asserting that the same author reused much of his material to address a similar circumstance? What is really at stake is not the vocabulary per se, but the alleged meaning of those terms. For that we turn in the next section to the theological arguments against Pauline authorship. In summary, the literary analysis does not show conclusively that Paul could not have written the epistle. Indeed, the evidence points to Pauline authorship inasmuch as it highlights the creativity of Paul to tailor his language to the audience and occasion. The number of hapax legomena or unique occurrences of terms in Ephesians are no more than we find in the undisputed letter to the Galatians, for example. Two options are left to consider: either Paul wrote the epistle which varied from his other letters by about 5 percent, or someone was able to match Paul’s writing by 95 percent. These percentages suggest that Paul wrote Ephesians, but it is not on literary analysis alone that most render their judgments concerning Paul’s authorship.
Theological Emphases in Ephesians
More troubling for many who argue a pseudepigraphic status for Ephesians are the theological and ideological statements permeating the letter that seem at odds with Pauline thought. For example, it is often said that Ephesians assumes a realized eschatology, with salvation having been accomplished fully in the past with no future implications (2:8–9). For example, Paul uses the perfect tense when speaking about believers being saved, rather than talking about the hope which looks forward. The cross is not emphasized, nor is justification; instead the exaltation of Christ and his cosmic superiority over all powers take center stage. Again, the emphasis on the church universal rather than the local body strikes many as deutero-Pauline. A closer look at the theology in Ephesians, however, suggests close connections with theology expressed in the undisputed letters. For example, although the term “cross” is found only once (2:16), this reference forms the platform upon which is built the arguments for reconciliation of humanity to God and between human groups (Jews and Gentiles). A similar case is made in 2 Cor 5:18–21 concerning reconciliation, where, interestingly, we also find Paul describing himself as God’s ambassador, a term used in Eph 6:20 (“ambassador in chains”). Justification is a central concept in Romans and Galatians, but Paul does not use it in Colossians or the Thessalonian correspondence, and in 1 Corinthians the noun occurs only once (1:30), and the verb “to justify” twice (4:4, 6:11). The absence, then, of this particular word group should not disqualify Ephesians as Pauline. Additionally, the claim that Ephesians holds a realized eschatology fails to consider adequately both the future expectations noted in the epistle, as well as the use of the past tense by Paul in other letters when dealing with salvation. In 4:30, we find reference to the coming day of redemption, a future event (see also 1:10), as well as mention of the age to come in 1:21 and 2:7. Additionally, in Romans we discover Paul explaining the hope by which a believer is saved (past tense, 8:24) as well as declaring, also in the past tense, Christian brothers and sisters predestined, called, justified, and glorified (8:30). Speaking more broadly about eschatology, some suggest that in Ephesians Christ’s imminent second coming has receded to the background, and shoved to the forefront is Paul’s concern with the here and now. To substantiate this claim, the household code (Eph 5:21—6:9) is contrasted with 1 Cor 7:7 and Paul’s encouragement later in 7:29–31 to refrain from marriage because the time is short. This contention, however, fails to appreciate fully the context of each argument. In 1 Corinthians, Paul faces a community struggling with issues of sexuality, and it seems that some married couples are refraining from sex with each other (7:1–5), although perhaps some husbands are visiting prostitutes (6:15–18). Moreover, the Corinthians downplayed the eschatological future in Christ, leaving Paul to insist upon it at every opportunity. Ephesians does not address sexual immorality or confusion within marriage; rather, it describes the institution in light of Christ and the church. And within the description is a forward looking emphasis, namely that the purpose of Christ’s death was to make the church holy and blameless (see also 2 Cor 11:2). The church is not presently holy or blameless (at least as Paul describes the behaviors of believers in his letters!), but Paul is consistent with the larger New Testament picture of the church as the bride of Christ who, in the Last Day, will be presented to Christ (Matt 22:1–10; 25:1–13; Rev 19:7–10; 21:9). A final point concerning eschatology in Ephesians: Paul’s command to put on the armor of God to fight against the powers and principalities (6:10–20) would be nonsensical if he believed that Christ had already defeated such powers, as some understand 1:20–22 to say. In Ephesians, as in the rest of the Pauline corpus, believers live in the tension between the now and the not yet; now is the time of salvation, but as of yet, not all that Christ has accomplished on the cross has been realized.
Finally, much has been made of the universal church described by Ephesians. Because Paul deals only with the local community in his other letters, so the argument contends, Ephesians must be deutero-Pauline. While it is true that Paul does not refer to the local church in Ephesians, it must also be stated that he does refer to the universal church in the uncontested letters. In 1 Corinthians, he addresses the letter not only to the local congregation but to all those everywhere who likewise call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor 1:2). Moreover, he speaks to the Corinthians of baptism into one Spirit (1 Cor 12:7–14, see also Gal 3:27–9). The body of Christ is described as having various parts or dedicated ministries, such as apostles, prophets, teachers, and so on (12:27–31), with no hint that this configuration is based on the local church (a similar listing is found in Eph 4:11–13). In both Romans and Galatians, Paul speaks of believers as children of Abraham (Gal 3:29; Rom 4:16), clearly imagining a wide-reaching community. Lastly, as Paul describes his persecution of believers, he speaks of attacking the church of God, implying not isolated congregations but a larger group of communities (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6). Paul refers to the church as the “Israel of God” in Gal 6:16. Just as an individual synagogue would hardly imagine itself as other than part of the larger Jewish community, it appears that Paul too sees each congregation as connected to a larger entity, what he can refer to as the body of Christ (Eph 5:29; 1 Cor 12:13).
A final sticking point is Paul’s declaration that the church is built on the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). This is said to conflict with his claim that the church’s foundation is Christ (1 Cor 3:11, see also Col 2:7). But is there a sharp difference? Paul understands his apostolic ministry as speaking only of God’s work in and through Christ, that is, the gospel and its ramifications. He is not at liberty to expand or eliminate any part of the tradition handed down to him. However, Paul should be given the flexibility to develop imagery that best describes the concepts, for his metaphors gain much of their power because they are dynamic. In Eph 2:20, Paul describes Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone that secures the foundation of the building (the church), a sentiment not at all foreign to his point made to the Corinthians. In both cases, it is Christ who establishes the shape of the building and gives