epistle, it is true that d-rra^ Xeyo^va occur in it ; but it has been
long ago remarked that, considering the small extent of Paul's
epistles all together, such must occur in each. Its style is also
very rich and full ; but, when De Wette sees in it a mere " coma
verborum, without new ideas," this is, as Harless (Introd. 3) has
shewn in detail, an entirely unfounded charge ; the richness of
style, the fulness of the sentences, is rather to be referred to the
thronging ideas, which sought for simultaneous expression. As to
the matter, in the second place, many variations in " conceptions,
opinions, and doctrine" are said to occur in the Epistle to the
Ephesians. But this assertion too amounts to nothing substan-
tial. Thus De Wette remarks among others, that the daemon-
ological conceptions in our epistle are singular, for which as-
sertion the words 6 ap%cov rfjs et-ovoiag rov depog, the prince of the
power of the air (ii. 2), -a Trvevfj-ariicd rr)<; -novripiag iv rolg ETrovpavioig,
spiritual wickedness in heavenly places (vi. 12) are quoted. But,
since the doctrine of evil spirits occurs in all Paul's epistles, it cannot
possibly be said with reason that there are here deviations from the
genuine Pauline dsemonology, simply because a subordinate trait is
here brought out, which we, accidentally, do not find elseivhere.
Such are to be looked upon as mere arro| voovfieva, and these have
per se just as little power of demonstration as the dna^ heyo/ieva,
unless they appear in conjunction with decisive arguments.* The
only thing that might be looked upon as such is the relation of our
epistle to the Epistle to the Colossians ; this requires, therefore, a
nearer investigation.
That between the Epistle to the Ephesians and that to the Co-
lossians a great affinity exists was known long ago ; but the convic-
tion was that the composition of both epistles at the same time, and
* Of what nature the other pretended variations are which De Wette says he has re-
marked, is plain from the fact that he reckons among them the exposition of Ps. IxviiL
19, the allegory of the church and marriage (iv. 8, 28, v. 18); passages which certainly,,
according to 1 Cor. x.. Gal. iv., seem quite in Paul's style. But the exhortation in iv..
28, v. IS, De Wette finds gross (!) Whence this prudery comes I know not how to ex-
plain.
VOL. V. 2
jg INTRODUCTION.
under like circumstances, was quite sufficient to account for it. But
in later times it has been attempted to dispute that, because the
affinity is so great that at bottom the Epistle to the Ephesians
"appears only a copious amplification of the Epistle to the Colos-
sians, and is wanting in everything distinctive as to aim and object."
(See De Wette, ubi supra, p. 223.) That is to say, the more definite
character of the Epistle to the Colossians is taken to prove its origin-
ality at the expense of the Epistle to the Ephesians. (Ibid., p. 230,
note a.) Now, as an argument for this alleged quality of the
Epistle to the Ephesians, De Wette gives us (pp. 224-228) a com-
parison of the two epistles (in which all those passages even which
contain like words only are set down as parallel passages), careless
whether the connexion in which they occur is the same or a totally
different one.* Harless (p. Ixix.) has already shewn in detail how
very differently the comparison of the two epistles results, if we
look to their connexion and tendency. With all the concord be-
tween them they still both exhibit an independent character. That
is to say, whilst the Epistle to the Colossians has a perfectly defi-
nite polemical bearing, since an heretical party, characterized by
peculiar features, is combatted in it, this is totally wanting in the
Epistle to the Ephesians. True, some passages are found which
at first sight appear to have a polemical tendency (see iv. 3, 4, 14,
20, 21 ; v. 6) ; but, on a more accurate consideration, even in these
all properly polemic allusion disappears, and the epistle stands,
as a warning, it is true, against possible errors, but, on the whole,
as merely a lively effusion of the heart, full of faith and joy,
by which the readers are to be strengthened in the faith, en-
couraged to the practice of love, and stirred up to patience in
hope. Schneckenburger's assumption that (Introd. p. 135, seq.)
our epistle relates to the theosophic system, which had spread in
Asia Minor, is, at all events, completely inadmissible. Why should
that polemical reference be so veiled here, when it is so openly
expressed in the Epistle to the Colossians ? The only thing in
the Epistle to the Ephesians which must be considered as having
a special regard to the circumstances of the first readers is the
manner in which Paul speaks of his knowledge of Christianity
(iii. 4), and especially of the position of the Gentiles towards the
Jews with reference to the gospel (see. ii. 2, seq., ii. 11-22, iii. 6,
seq.), in ^to which our epistle seems to have a greater affinity to
those written ^ to the Galatians and Romans than to that written
to the Colossians. If we compare with those copious and impres-
sive representations as to the right of the Gentiles to an imme-
diate entrance into the kingdom of God the exhortations to con-
* The separate parallels will, in every case, meet with a closer examination in the
exposition, and so we do not go into them more closely here.
INTRODUCTION. 19
cord which (iv. 1, seq.) are annexed to them, it surely cannot be de-
nied that Paul must have entertained the apprehension that Jewish
Christians might at some future time distract the minds of the con-
verts in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, just as had already happened
in the neighbouring Galatia. That is to say, there is no certain trace
in the Epistle to the Ephesians (see the Comm. on Eph. iv. 14) that
false teachers of this bias had already gained influence ; Paul's in-
tention seems to have been merely to counteract betimes their pos-
sible and probable future, influence. But the matter has quite an-
other aspect in Colossse, where the apostle's arguments combat with
all their force a false doctrine which had already obtained circula-
tion. When Mayerhoff (on Col. p. 143, seq.) finds also a contro-
versy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he confounds a positive state-
ment of truth with an antagonistic. True, every proposition con-
tains a reference to its opposite, but, if that opposite is nowhere
openly prominent, a polemical tendency is out of the question.
Had Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians combatted an actually
existing error, he would have been obliged not merely to set forth
the truth in addresses to the Gentile Christians, but also to describe
their errors with a clear reference to the mistaken Jewish Christians ;
but of that not a trace is found. Even supposing, therefore, that,
in passages like Eph. i., 20-23, just as in Col. i. 15, seq., there floated
before his mind a reply to false teachers, who, like those of Colossas,
denied the Divine dignity of Christ and put angel-princes on a level
with him, we should not be justified in supposing such a reply to exist
in the Epistle to the Ephesians, except with a view to the possi-
bility that such false teachers might come from the neighbouring
Colossae to Ephesus also, it would by no means follow that such views
had already been disseminated there when Paul wrote to Ephesus.
Paul's melancholy prophecies as to the false teachers to be expected
in Ephesus (Acts xx. 29, seq.) were not realized until the time of the
composition of the Epistles to Timothy and of the first Epistle of
John. But, besides this, the remaining entirely general contents of
our epistle are communicated so completely in Paul's language and
manner, that, were the epistle not genuine, the author must be
supposed not merely to have formed his style on Paul's, but to
have copied Paul exactly word for word. But, had any one under-
taken anything of the sort, he would, in all probability, have intro-
duced above all into the epistle open polemical tendencies, and not
have obliterated those which are manifest in the epistle to the
Colossians ; since the attempts at forgery were usually required to
serve the purpose of adding apostolical authority to the personal
bias that was to be rendered current. What we are to think of
such hypotheses, derived from intrinsic reasons, and set up without
any support from extrinsic arguments, is especially shewn in this
20 INTRODUCTION.
case by the fact that Mayerhoff asserts the originality of the Epis-
tle to the Ephesians and spuriousness of that to the Colossians
with the same confidence and decision with which De Wette con-
versely maintains the originality of the Epistle to the Colossians,
and the derivation therefrom of that to the Ephesians. (See Mayer-
hoff's work, " The Epistle to the Colossians examined, with especial
regard to the three pastoral epistles," Berlin 1838, p. 105, seq.)
And, in fact, if this assertion of Mayerhoff's was not just as arbi-
trary, in the absence of all other decisive reasons, it would have, at
least, this advantage over the totally untenable and in itself empty
one of De Wette's, that there would be a reasonable foundation for
the fiction, viz., the insertion of the polemical element in the epistle,
whereas, according to De Wette's view, that element must have
been even purposely left out, by which omission the work seems
wholly aimless. Accordingly, we are justified in saying, that nothing
at all can be discovered in our epistle which affords reasonable ground
for a suspicion of its genuineness.
3. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE.
This enquiry cannot be carried on with reference to the Epistle
to the Ephesians alone, as Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon, which are closely connected with each other, must neces-
sarily be referred to the same time as our epistle, on account of the
near affinity of the former of them with our epistle, and of the very
similar circumstances under which they were composed Nay the
very same thing holds good of the Epistle to the Philippians also,
as Bdttger (Beitr. part 2d, p. 60) has already correctly remarked :
It will ever be a fruitless labour to attempt to separate the Epistle
to the Phihppians by any considerable space of time from those to
the Ephesians Colossians, and Philemon," which Schulz, Schott,
^ ^ ?' T S ; Q hnec kenburger have attempted, more or less de-
cid dly to do. (See the passages in point in Bottger, ubi sup.)
Thu two questions arise for us to solve, first, when these four
epistles were composed, ,'. e ., during what imprisonment, whether
during the one at Borne, or that at C^sarea (for these two alone can
tiffiSZTS! tru ?' be named as the dates of their com p :
other ? *' m What rdei they 8tand wifch re g* rd to each
ro
he end of t MSE? at R me ' which Lukc
Slot atg' int T* ' ** " 3d
'
a e end of t M '
ae) Slot atg' int T* f^' ** "^ 3d **
254) SchneckenbuL^Bdtr' D 14s' ^ ^ ^^ (Intr d ' P "
. P- H3, seq.), and especially Bottger
INTRODUCTION. 21
(Beitr. part 2), recommended with great acumen the other view,
viz., that of their composition in Csesarea. For that these epis-
tles were all written during one imprisonment is clear from their
open declarations (Eph. iii. 1, 13, iv. 1, vi. 19, seq. ; Phil. i. 7,
12, 14, seq., ii. 17, seq. ; Col. i. 24, iv. 3, 7 ; Philem. ver. 9). But
we know of only the two chief imprisonments of Paul in Home and
Caesarea ; to one of these, therefore, the composition of the four
epistles must be referred. For the circumstance, that we find the
same persons mentioned as companions of Paul in all four of them,
which cannot possibly be supposed of both imprisonments, does not
permit a partition of the epistles between the two. These persons are
Timothy (Phil. i. 1 ; Col. L 1 ; Philem. ver. 1), Epaphras (Col. i. 7,
iv. 12 ; Philem. ver. 23), Aristarchus, Marcus, Jesus Justus, Demas,
Lucas (Col. iv. 10, 11, 14 ; Pbilem, ver. 24), Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21,
seq. ; Col. iv. 7), Onesimus (Col. iv. 9 ; Philem. ver. 10). The only
thing which strikes us here is, that in the Epistle to the Ephesians
no mention is made of Timothy. The supposition that he is not
named because he was a stranger to the readers (see Harless, p
Ixi.), seems to me improbable, because Timothy, according to Acts
xx. 4, was with Paul in Asia, and on this visit no doubt also visited
the churches to which our epistle is addressed. But if we consider
that the Epistle to the Ephesians contains, on the whole, but few
personal references, and, besides, that Paul often sent off one or the
other of his companions on this or that business, it may be supposed
that the composition of the Epistle to the Ephesians happened
during precisely such an absence of Timothy. In no case can the
non-mention of Timothy in Ephesians become an argument which
would justify us in referring this epistle to another time than the
three others, as all arguments e silentio are of so precarious a
nature.
But now, whether we shall decide for the imprisonment at Rome,
as the date of the composition of these four Epistles of Paul, or for
that at Cgesarea, of which mention is made Acts xxiii. 23-26, 32, is
certainly a difficult question, especially after Bottger (ubi sup. p.
48, seq.) has tried to prove that the olnia Kaioapog and the -rrpai-upiov
(Phil. i. 13, iv. 22), from which it was formerly thought that the
composition of the epistles could be safely referred to Rome, can
also be understood of the Palace of Herod in Cassarea (Acts xxiii.
35), in which Paul was a prisoner, and of the domestics in it.* To
me, indeed, this view seems improbable, as Paul would scarcely
have called this palace of the king Herod alula Kaioapog ; but
we pass over this argument, since we cannot make out for cer-
tain which building Paul means in the Epistle to the Philippians,
because there were imperial palaces in many places. Among all
* See the details in the Comm. on the passages Phil. i. 13, iv. 22.
22 INTRODUCTION.
which is adduced by Bottger for CaBsarea on the one side, and
on the other side by Graul* for Home, we find so little that is
really decisive, that it is difficult to declare with entire confidence
for the one or the other view. Bottger's chief reason against
Kome is, that Paul was there but a few days in imprisonment. But
this rests on an erroneous interpretation of the conclusion of the
Acts, on which see the Comm. The epistles contain, collectively,
no historical points sufficiently definite to justify us in drawing
from them any conclusions as to the time and place of their compo-
sition. What may be gathered from any notices of frames of mind,
and similar uncertain, because purely subjective, circumstances, can
of course make no claim at all to the force of demonstration. I
find but this one decisive circumstance in favour of the imprison-
ment at Rome, viz., that Paul writes, Eph. vi. 19, 20, that he had,
though a prisoner, still the opportunity of proclaiming the gospel.
This is imaginable from the nature of his imprisonment in Rome
(see on Acts xxviii. 16, 30), but not in the case of that in Ccesarea,
where he was formally shut up in prison.
According to Acts xxvii. 2, Aristarchus, as well as Lucas, was
also with Paul in Rome ; we find both again Col. iv. 10, Philem.
ver. 24, whereas it is not known to us that they were his compan-
ions in Cassarea. For these reasons, therefore, in conjunction with
the circumstance that the phrase olnia Kaiaapog directs our thoughts
primarily, at least, to the imperial palace at Rome, I decide, with
the majority of the later critics and commentators, for the composi-
tion of the Epistles to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the
Colossians, and to Philemon, in that first imprisonment of Paul at
Rome, with the mention of which Luke closes the Acts.
But now in what order were the four epistles themselves com-
posed ? The mild captivity in which Paul was held in Rome (Acts
xxviii. 30), lasted at least two years ; which epistles did he write
first in this space of time, and which last? In the first place, as re-
gards the Epistle to Philemon, which Onesimus conveyed, i't is to
be supposed from Col. iv. 7-9, that it was written and sent off at the
same time with the Epistle to the Colossians, which Tychicus
brought. For both Tychicus and Onesimus, according to the pas-
sage cited, begin their journey from Rome to Colossaj together and
at the same time. But Harless (p. lix.) has decided the question,
whether the Epistle to the Ephesians was composed before or
after these two, by the correct interpretation of Eph vi 21 com-
pared with Col. iv. 7. That is to say, in the former passage the
words : Iva 61 ddtjre not fy% ra /car' tpt are explained only by as-
suming a reference to the similar declaration, Col. iv. 7 ; accord-
* Graul Dissertatio de Schulzii et Schottii sententid cet. Lips. 1836-8.
INTRODUCTION. 23
ing to that, the Epistle to the Ephesians was written after those to
the Colossians and Philemon. The space of time, however, between
the composition of those two and that of the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, can scarcely have amounted to more than a few days or weeks
at most, as Tychicus brought the Epistle to the Ephesians as well
as that to the Colossians. For the repetition of so long a journey
as that from Rome to Asia Minor, was, in the first place, in itself
improbable ; and, secondly, the near affinity of the epistles to each
other requires the composition of them to be placed at the same
time. The only remaining question therefore is, how the Epistle
to the Philippians stands related in the date of its composition,
to the other three, which, alike with regard to the places of their
destination and the time of their composition, fall very nearly to-
gether. There are no open and clear declarations in the Epistle to
the Philippians to enable us to answer this question satisfactorily;
we shall be obliged to confine ourselves to mere probability. How-
ever, from Phil. i. 12, seq., ii. 26, seq., this epistle seems to belong
to the latter part of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, whereas the
three other epistles might belong to its earlier period. For the
passages cited presuppose that Paul had passed a long time in
Rome, and could already remark the effects of his preaching. (See
De Wette's Introd., p. 232.) Further, the announcement, Phil, ii
24, that he will come to them ra^ewf, quickly, seems to intimate a
prospect of his imprisonment soon coming to an end, while Philem.
ver. 22 certainly expresses only a more distant hope of such an
event.
4. THE COURSE OF THOUGHT IN THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle to the Ephesians rejects all specialities, which lies
in the very nature of an encyclical epistle. It treats only of general
Christian ideas and relations in a dogmatical and ethical point of
view. Accordingly, this epistle may be divided into two parts ; in
the former (i. 1 iii. 21) the dogmatical element prevails ; in the
latter (iv. 1 vi. 24) the ethical. The former part contains three
sections, the first of which (i. 1-14), after the salutation, contains a
thanksgiving to God for the work of redemption wrought in Christ,
and the eternal election of man for salvation in him ; the second (i.
15 ii. 10) contains Paul's special thanks for the faith of the readers,
and the prayer that God would, by his Holy Spirit, advance them in
this their state, and make them, who were dead in sin, alive with
Christ, that they may, as created anew in Christ Jesus, bring forth
fruit in good works. Finally, the third section (ii. 11 iii. 21) con-
trasts the former state of the readers (before their conversion) in
24 INTRODUCTION.
heathenism with the succeeding one in regeneration, and makes it
especially prominent that the separation between Jews and Gen-
tiles was through Christ abolished,, and a unity of mankind estab-
lished. This unity Paul compares to a temple of God, into which
all believers are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
Now Paul sets himself forth as him to whom the grace had been
granted of accomplishing, through his ministry, this call of the Gen
tile world to be the people of God ; he therefore beseeches his read-
ers on their part, not to become weary in the conflict which faith in
Christ has for its indispensable consequence in this sinful world, and
to think of the glory which is prepared in Christ for those who over-
come.
In the second part (iv. 1 vi. 24) we distinguish four sections.
The ethical exhortations in the fourth section (iv. 1-16) open with
calling upon the readers to preserve the unity of the faith with hu-
mility, to avoid all divisions, and to that end to recognize the dis-
tinctions which were established by God in the church, which is
compared with the human body. In the fifth section there is an-
nexed to the above the exhortation to walk no longer after the
manner of the Gentiles, but to be renewed in spirit, and to put on
the new man ; which is afterwards applied to the several moral re-
lations, in so far as they have reference to men generally (iv. 17 v.
20). The sixth section makes a transition to the special relations of
life, and treats, first of all, in detail, the matrimonial relations, which
are so important ; in connexion with which the relation of Christ to
the church, as a type of matrimony, is set forth. There is further
annexed to the above, a discussion of the relation between parents
and children ; and finally, of that between masters and servants (v.
21 vi. 9). In the seventh and last section, the discussion again re-
turns from the special to the general ; Paul describes the faithful
as soldiers called upon to fight for truth and righteousness on account
of the opposing kingdom of darkness, and depicts the armour which
they must use. For all the details respecting himself, Paul refers
his readers to the bearer of the epistle, Tychicus, and concludes with
the usual benediction (vi. 10-24).
5. LITERATURE.
The Epistle to the Ephesians has been specially commented on
by Schiitz (Lips. 1778. 8.); by Cramer (translation, with Introd. and
notes, Kiel, 1782. 4.) ; by Miiller (Heidelberg, 1793. 8.) ; by Flatt
(published by Kling, Tubingen, 1828). The last few years have
produced no less than five new commentaries on our epistle, four of
which appeared in the year 1834, viz., the Commentaries of Holz-
INTRODUCTION. 25
hausen (Hanover., 1833) ; of Meyer (Berlin, 1834) ; of Matlhies
(Oreifswald, 1834); of Riickert (Lips., 1834) ; and of Harless (Er-
langen, 1834). The last named excellent work of my respected
colleague has rendered the other modern works on our epistle almost
superfluous. (See the general criticism of all the modern comment-
aries on the Epistle to the Ephesians in Tholuck's Anzeiger for 1838,
Nos. 34, seq.)
EXPOSITION
OF THE
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
i.
PART FIRST,
I. 1. III. 21.
1. THANKSGIVING FOE SALVATION IN CHRIST.
(i. 1-14.)
AFTEK what has been already remarked in the Introduction to
this epistle ( 1) on rol<; dyioi$ rolg ovaiv EV 'E^eaw, the salutation
(vers. 1, 2) contains nothing which has not been already sufficiently
discussed in the prefaces to the earlier epistles. The name of Timothy,
which is found in the prefaces to the contemporaneous Epistles to the
Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians, is wanting in this ;
therefore we do not know to whom Paul dictated it. The epistle
itself begins (ver. 3) with a thanksgiving to God for the blessings in
Christ. Though Paul is, of course, also grateful to God for all ma-
terial, bodily blessings in earthly things, still he had no.occasion here
to put forward that side of the picture ; he simply thanks God here
for spiritual blessings in heavenly things. (On the phrase o Bed? KOI
narrjp rov icvpiov TIIMJV 'Irjaov Xpiarov, see on Matth. xxii. 31, 32 ; 2 Cor.
i. 4. If the meaning were only, " Praised be God, who is the Father
of Jesus Christ," the words would run, evAoy^rof Qeb$ 6 Tcarrjp K. r. A.
But in this connexion the genitive also must be referred to 6 9ed?.
Besides this phrase, which occurs in this passage (and which is also
found in Paul at Bom. xv. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31 ; CoL i. 3), the
apostle uses still the following ones : 6 Gsof KOI Trarijp (1 Cor. xv. 24),
6 6eo rov Kvpiov rjfJMV 'Irjaov Xptcrrov (Eph. i. 17), 6 nari]f> rov Kvpiov
jyjuah' 'Irjaov Xoiorov (Eph. iii. 14), 6 Qebg nai TTarijp (Eph. v. 20), and
ee6? -narrtp (Gal. i. 1, 4 ; Eph. vi. 23 ; Phil. i. 3 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2
Tim. i. 2 ; Tit. i. 14), in which the reference of the conceptions of
" God" and of " the Father" to the Son is always to be maintained.