Sermon Tone Analysis

Andrew Hodge                                                                                                       8th June 2007

 

 

New Testament Survey NTES 111

 

 

Seminar 11

 

 

Ephesians

 

 

General References:

/The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians/

Irving L. Jensen /Jensen//’s Survey of the New Testament /1981, Moody Press, Chicago Ch 14

Guthrie, Donald  /New Testament Introduction  /Apollos, Leicester, England 4th Ed  1990 Ch 13

/Libronix DLS/: searches, additional material, footnote references, etc

 

 

/Survey the authenticity of the Epistle:/

/            /Jensen - in my view wisely - does not specifically devote any space to this, whereas Guthrie feels bound to present a controversy raised by others who think Ephesians is “only a reproduction of Pauline themes by another mind”.[1]

He then devotes pp 496-528 to exploring this issue - more than half of his total treatment of the Book.

Along the way, as before in his liberal rationality, he disregards the concepts of Divine inspiration and literal historico-grammatical exegesis, creating and destroying straw-men arguments and allowing consideration of clear foolishness.

To his credit, in the end he concludes with: “To maintain that the Paulinist out of his sheer love for Paul and through his own self-effacement composed the letter, attributed it to Paul and found an astonishing and immediate readiness on the part of the church to recognize it as such is considerably less credible than the simple alternative of regarding it as Paul’s own work.”

[2] And  “When all the objections are carefully considered it will be seen that the weight of evidence is inadequate to overthrow the overwhelming external attestation to Pauline authorship, and the epistle’s own claims.”

[3] Note that he places the greatest emphasis on external evidence.

In my view the best evidence occurs internally.

The following is a distillation of Jensen’s point of view, as I understood it:

/            /Paul identifies himself by name as the writer twice within the Letter - 1:1 and 3:1 - but refers to himself as “I” a further 12 times.

Style and content internally, and tradition externally support Paul as the writer (Jensen p 313).

In the letter to Philemon, Paul describes himself as ‘the aged’; he would have been about 65 when he wrote during this period of imprisonment (Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians) around 61 AD.

Paul ministered in Ephesus between 52 and 55 AD and he knew that when he left there toward the end of the third journey that he would not be returning (Acts 20:25).

And so it was; when he reached Jerusalem he was arrested and ultimately taken to Rome.

There is no scriptural or traditional suggestion that he travelled into Asia again, even between his two final episodes of imprisonment.

There is no reason given in the Epistle that Paul is writing to correct a specific problem in Ephesus (ie in a similar manner to Colossians [heresy], 1 Corinthians [internal strife], 2 Corinthians [false accusations], and Galatians [false doctrine] Jensen pp 315-316).

The relationship of Ephesians to Colossians (possibly similar to that between Galatians and Romans) suggests that both letters were written regarding the same Colossian problem - from positive and negative viewpoints respectively, establishing the authenticity of both Books.

Jensen supposes, not unreasonably, that Paul was concerned about the concurrent doctrinal heresies in the nearby church at Colossae - Colossians was written at about the same time to counteract such heresy (Jensen p 316).

The letter to the Ephesians would eventually do the rounds to all the local churches in Asia; Jensen usefully takes the trouble to chart the similarities between Ephesians and Colossians (Chart 83 p 317).

He also compares Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians in Chart 84 (p 318).

Jensen clearly has no doubt about the authenticity of all these books.

Ephesians addresses the Christian’s basic need for spiritual growth and it does so by (1) increasing awareness of the Christian’s relationship to Christ, and His ministry to them through the Holy Spirit and (2) the practical day-to-day experience of walking by faith (Jensen ibid).

The fact that the Letter serves the same purpose today is itself an evidence of its authenticity.

Given the circumstances of writing - ‘house arrest’ almost certainly included times of being chained to Roman soldiers (Acts 28:16, 20) - Paul had opportunity to meditate on heavenly things in worship and praise; Jensen (ibid) states that Ephesians “is the sublimest of all Paul’s epistles and has been called ‘The Grand Canyon of Scripture’“.

In a sense, all of Paul’s letters are individually unique, but Ephesians contains words and phrases not found in any of his other letters, and 42 words (doctrinally important) not found in any other NT book (Jensen p 317).

This viewpoint is in marked contrast to some sources in Guthrie, who make a big deal out of the similarities between Ephesians and Paul’s other writings, especially Colossians, and accuse him of plagiarism.

This freshness indicates to me that Paul was still growing spiritually, God was still using him to communicate new revelation, and that Paul was excited about being used in this way, in spite of his external circumstances.

That Paul is the writer seems beyond contradiction.

However, even if he was not (eg Hebrews), the inspiration of God shines through and overshadows all such distractions.

What a joy it is to have a “primitive faith”!

/Trace the destination of the Epistle:/

Jensen (p 313) “It is generally held that the prison epistles were written at Rome, during the imprisonment of Acts 28.

Some advocate either Caesarea or Ephesus as the place of writing”.

Rome clearly makes the most literal and historical sense based on the imprisonment of Paul at the presumed time of writing, and his references to his imprisonment within this Letter (Ephesians 3:1, 4:1, 6:20).

Allegorising Paul as ‘the prisoner of Christ’ in a spiritual sense rather than as ‘the prisoner of the Romans’ in a physical sense (3:1 and 4:1) is balanced by 6:20 where he is described as “an ambassador (ie spiritual mission) in bonds (ie physical restraints)”, these latter being house arrest for about two years, physically guarded by a Roman soldier and at times held in a light chain.

[4] It is perhaps not impossible that both views could be accepted.

It would appear completely superfluous to write to the Ephesians from Ephesus, and there is no scriptural warrant for Caesarea, particularly when the redactor of the postscript states that it was from Rome by the hand of Tychicus - two items of information that, although not scripture, together suggest that this is what actually happened.

Jensen gives two main views as to the destination of this epistle (p 314).

It might be considered laudable to define the intended readership of letters such as Ephesians very closely so that interpretation can be made very specific.

On the other hand, if interpretation is restricted to the specific original readership, application of doctrine and practice might not be made to others when it would be appropriate to do so.

The content of Ephesians, written by God and contained within the preserved canon, has much that can be applied outside the readership of a specific church or region.

This is not a reason for disregarding the issue of whether or not the letter was intended for a relatively small group, but it does make the definition of that group less critical.

The two main views regarding destination are (1) The Church at Ephesus and (2) ‘a circuit of various unspecified churches’ (Jensen p 314).

Internal evidence used to support (1) is 1:1 (which to me seems definitive), and the assumption that a specific group is in mind in 4:17 and 6:21-22.

This is supported by the use of the words “ye” or “you” 52 times throughout ie Paul knew exactly who he was writing to (the church at Ephesus is presupposed).

External evidence for (1) is the traditional title given the Book by the early Church fathers - “To Ephesians”.

Internal evidence for (2) is that “the epistle as a whole lacks the usual Pauline greetings, and so appears to be a circular letter” (Jensen p 314).

The same situation applies to Galatians (which is clearly Pauline on other grounds - see Seminar 10) hence this observation is not helpful.

External evidence to support (2) cited by Jensen (ibid; footnote 4) is “that some important ancient manuscripts omit the phrase ‘at Ephesus’ in 1:1” which if credible would be a significant blow against the argument that the letter went to the church at Ephesus.

These manuscripts are the Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus (4th C) and the Chester Beatty papyri (3rd C), primarily used as the basis (Alexandrian family, employed by Westcott and Hort) for the multitude of modern translations available today.

The KJV is based on the Byzantine family of manuscripts and is therefore less divergent from the original autographs 4a.

On his way back to Jerusalem on the final leg of his third journey, Paul addresses the Ephesian elders at Miletus and mentions the three years he laboured among them.

In that three years he is thought to have ministered to the congregations round about Ephesus as well as in the city itself (Jensen Map V p 337) and it may be that the Letter addressed to the Ephesians was also intended for the region.

To these Guthrie adds the following suppositions regarding destination and purpose (pp 528-535):

* The epistle was sent to Laodicea

* The epistle was Paul’s spiritual testament

* The epistle was an introduction to the Pauline corpus

* The epistle was intended as a philosophy of religion for the whole Christian world

* The epistle was a general safeguard against the spread of the Colossian heresy

* The epistle was a combination of a liturgy and a Pentecost discourse

 

To support these, Guthrie appeals to “the generally reliable Alexandrian tradition”, Marcion’s (the heretic) view of Ephesians (relating to the Laodicean destination), and other suppositions eg that the letter was intended as a regional circular letter, intended to return eventually to Ephesus from where it was written.

To be fair, Guthrie does not agree with most of these arguments and provides reasons why not.

For the moment I have assumed that the complete message of Ephesians is in no way affected by opinions concerning its precise destination.

Most of the opinions given above regarding this focus on just one aspect of the Book.

The city of Ephesus itself was regarded as the principal city of Asia although Pergamum in the North was the capital.

It was one of the three principal sites of international trade (with Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria) and was a haven for the arts and sciences (Jensen p 314) rivalled only by Corinth.

The worship of the goddess Diana was widespread and her Temple (size, grandeur, riches and practices) was world famous (Acts 19:21-41).

Other idolatries were Emperor (Augustus) worship and witchcraft.

Paul’s ministry against all these was successful (Acts 19:17-20).

The Church at Ephesus was still young when Paul wrote this letter to them - they were converted under his ministry in 52-55 AD and he wrote in 61 AD.

Together with the social and economic importance of the city and the time that Paul spent in ministry there, the Church became the ‘mother’ for the surrounding local churches (eg the developing seven churches of Revelation 1-3 of which Ephesus is mentioned first - Jensen Map V p 337) and by the end of the first century AD in the time of the apostle John, Ephesus had become the missionary centre of Christianity, having succeeded Antioch in Syria, which had succeeded Jerusalem (Jensen p 315).

           

/ /

/Evaluate the greetings and thanksgiving at the beginning of the Epistle 1:1-23:/

/            /Two observations might be made about 1:1-2.

First, Paul baldly states that he is “an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God”, no longer needing to support his authority with any argument, nor name-dropping any other individual to endear himself to his readers; and second, he does not address the Ephesians with specific terms of endearment as he does in most of his other communications, preferring instead to lump them all together as “the saints which are at Ephesus”.

Perhaps this reflects the Holy Spirit’s intention for the letter - the communication of revelatory truth and instruction in Christian living in general, not the correction of any specific personal problems threatening the new Church in a single place.

This is supported by the short concluding benediction, again without mentioning specific individuals which are sometimes profusely represented in the conclusions to other Letters eg Romans, 1 Corinthians.

Jensen makes the important division in the book clear: Chh 1-3 describe what we have in Christ and Chh 4-6 show how this must be worked out in the life of each Christian - doctrine followed by practise (Chart 85 p 321).

/            /Jensen (p 320) styles 1:3-14 as “a hymn of grace” and 1:15-23 as a ‘notable prayer’.

The key phrase of this section is in v 18 “that ye may know” concerning the doctrines of salvation:

·         The Father planned it 1:4-6

·         The Son paid for it 1:7-12

·         The Spirit applied it 1:13-14

 

Guthrie (p 536) observes that it is unusual of Paul to begin this way and I agree.

The Holy Spirit is setting the tone for the first half of the letter in its spiritual character.

The notable prayer of 1:15-23 is the natural consequence of praise for the actions of God in salvation, and Paul’s intercession for the saints in Ephesus that they may come to a full, in depth awareness of what God has provided for them, particularly the power of the resurrection.

/ /

/ /

/Interpret the greatness of Christian salvation 2:1-22:/

/            /This passage assumes that the Ephesians knew what it was to be saved and Paul is ‘fleshing-out’ their knowledge by appealing to their experience of salvation as an illustration.

As individuals, he reminds them that they were dead in sin and are now quickened by grace alone unto good works (2:1-10).

As a corporate body in Christ he uses their experience of reconciliation and peace between Jew and Gentile as evidence of the work of Christ, whose work on the Cross has broken down the middle wall of partition between them (2:11-22).

The result is a single, unified Christian structure under Christ as its Head.

For Christ’s work to have achieved this must have amazed saved and unsaved alike.