My work on this: my own preaching and writing on Ephesians is gathered on the Ephesians hub. This page collects the best of what others have written.
I submitted this annotated bibliography for Prison Epistles in Greek at Bob Jones University on November 28, 2000.
An Annotated Bibliography on Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians
Best, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, ICC.
Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1998.
About the Author: Ernest Best is Emeritus Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, at the University of Glasgow. He would be moderately conservative from what I can tell.
About the Commentary: A thorough introduction of 94 pages commences this sizable piece of literature of 686 pages. An extensive bibliography of 10 pages will also be of great value to its owner. In the back are author, subject, and Scripture indexes that make this work easier to use. Because it is a newer addition to the series, this nicely bound hardback volume will cost you around $55.00.
About the Series: The International Critical Commentary series is well known for is high level of scholarship. Unfortunately, this kind of scholarship is often the work of less conservative men. The series is excellent for a detailed scrutinizing of the text, but the reader must use much discernment in matters of theological interpretation.
Authorship: Best undertakes a very thorough investigation of the traditionally held Pauline authorship in no fewer than 30 pages. Best affirms, “the author is almost certainly a man” (7). For this he finds support from the duties that are mentioned specifically for men. He also states the author must be “a Jewish Christian” (8). Then, after a very lengthy discussion of the authorship, he concludes that Paul is most likely not the author of Ephesians. His lack of confidence in the Pauline authorship is displayed by his continual use of “AE.” This expression is used hundreds of times throughout the commentary referring to the Author of Ephesians. He continually plays with the idea of Pauline authorship but thinks it to be unlikely.
Recipient: Best asserts that it is not possible to deal with the question of who read this epistle, but rather whom AE intended be the recipient of it. “It would be wrong to conclude that it can be definitely established that AE wrote for readers in Asia Minor but a stronger case can be made out for this area than any other and it should probably be accepted as the area of the intended readers” (6).
1:4–5 Best seems here to affirm an unconditional election by asserting that God is blessed, “not because we decide to turn to him nor because he foresaw that we would be deserving of salvation, but because he chose us” (119). The term προορίσας is “to be distinguished from a general predestination of all that happens….[Likewise], their election and foreordination are to be thought of as simultaneous” (123).
2:8 He argues that the phrase by faith “refers to the faith of believers. Since in vv. 8b-10 the place of believers is stressed, v. 8 probably also refers to their faith…‘Faith’ is always faith in someone or something….In 1.13, 15; 3.12 it is in Christ and we may assume it is the same here.” He continues, “While [it] may be theologically true [that faith is God’s gift] it is not what v. 8 signifies, even though examples exist of neuter pronouns taking up feminine nouns. If faith is defined here as God’s gift, οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν would be parenthetical, yet it belongs to the main theme and in what follows the idea pursued is not that of faith but the antithesis of grace and human activity. τοῦτο must therefore be given a more general reference and, with the great majority of modern commentators, taken to refer to the whole of v. 8a” (226).
3:12 Best, in his vacillating way says, “It is possible that in v. 12 the faith is not that of believers but of Christ, αὐτου/ being taken as a possessive and not an objective genitive. Both usages appear in Paul, the latter being the more frequent” (330). This seems to be a tendency of most modern commentators, emphasizing Christ’s work rather than ours.
4:22–24 In agreement with Robertson and Moule, he takes the three infinitives as dependent on the verb ἐδιδάχθητε and functioning epexegetically. He then comments, “If that is the case [they should probably] be given an imperatival sense” (430). He continues, “Whatever the action is, it lies in the future [and not in the past]” (431).
Evaluation: The work is a very helpful one for close analysis of the original language and careful examination of the meaning of words and phrases in their context. One may not always agree with his conclusions, but his careful exegesis is of much value. Often times he is indecisive, giving many options and never taking one. This is helpful however, because it allows the reader to analysis the evidence and to make his own decision. This commentary should be a part of the library of every student who desires to do careful exegetical analysis of Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, while being acquainted with multiple interpretations.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.
About the Author: Bruce was the Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, in England. He was a strongly conservative evangelical scholar.
About the Commentary: This volume is somewhat smaller and not quite as thorough as Best’s. It has 18 pages of introductory material and 188 pages of comments. This volume will cost you about $25.00.
About the Series: The New International Commentary of the New Testament has proven itself to be a solidly conservative series. This series is scholarly yet strongly conservative, a set that should be frequently consulted.
Authorship: Bruce assumes the Pauline authorship and spends no time considering the objections to such a view. Due to the brevity of his commentary, the introductory material does not even deal with the issue.
Recipient: Bruce considers the phrase ἐν Ἐφέσω| to most likely be an addition to the text. He says that the letter “might be called a general letter to Gentile Christians, more particularly in the province of Asia” (230). He also claims that they to whom Paul is writing are “not personally known to [him],” and therefore not in a province were Paul had already visited (230). This rules out Ephesus as the specific intended audience of the letter.
1:4–5 Bruce is thoroughly Calvinistic in his interpretation of predestination and election, putting much emphasis on the fact that our election is ἐν Χριστω/ͅ. He says that injustice is done to the text “when it is debated whether Christ is the foundation or origin, or merely the executor of election. He is foundation, origin, and executor: all that is involved in election and its fruits depends on him” (254–55)
2:8 Along with the majority of modern commentators, he mildly affirms that the τοῦτο of 2:8 “does not necessarily refer to faith [but] it may refer generally to faith…It is probably best to understand ‘and this’ as referring to salvation as a whole, not excluding the faith by which it is received” (289–90).
3:12 Bruce disagrees with Best and O’Brien arguing that the phrase διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτου should be translated “through faith in [Him]…, the genitive αὐτου/ being taken as objective” (322). He does not see this as a reference to Christ’s faithful obedience to His Father’s will as many modern commentators do.
4:22–24 He translates these three infinitives imperativally, in contrast with the same expression used in Colossians that “reminded [them] that they have put him off” (357). His reason for the imperatival usage is theological rather than grammatical. “Colossians was sent to established Christians, whose baptism had signified the putting off of their old ways; if Ephesians is addressed to new Christians on the occasion of their baptism, the imperative ‘put off…put on’ would be very much in order” (358).
Evaluation: While Bruce’s commentary is somewhat brief compared to Best’s and O’Brien’s larger works, it is still of value, and more so if one is but using it for quick reference rather than intensive study. Bruce can always be trusted to give thoroughly biblical exposition of Scripture. This is a good commentary for less in depth study.
O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1999.
About the Author: O’Brien is vice principal and senior research fellow in New Testament, at Moore Theological College, in Sydney, Australia. He is thoroughly conservative.
About the Commentary: O’Brien has written 536 pages of commentary material with 82 pages of introductory material. Has a very extensive bibliography of 19 pages that will prove to be valuable. This volume will cost you about $30.00. This commentary is a unique blend of exegesis and practical application, paying close attention to the original language but also bringing out the significant points of relevance for the believer.
About the Series: The Pillar New Testament Commentary series, which has just recently come out and is being expanded, is designed for serious students and ordinary layman alike. Their ideal is a blend of rigorous exegesis and exposition, scholarship and pastoral sensitivity, with an eyes alert both to biblical theology and to the contemporary relevance of the Bible. The general editor of the series is D.A. Carson. This series will be solidly conservative.
Authorship: O’Brien spends over 40 pages of his introduction to deal with the question of authorship. After a thorough and fair-minded dealing with the arguments and criticism opposing the Pauline authorship he concludes, “In our judgment the traditional view has the most evidence in its favour…‘The best explanation…seems to be that the same man wrote Colossians and Ephesians a little later, with many of the same thoughts running though his head and with a more general application of the ideas he had so recently expressed’”(47).
Recipient: He “contend[s] that the textual tradition which omits the words ‘in Ephesus’ was the original (see on 1:1). At the same time, the evidence…suggests that the letter…in some form or another, was sent to Ephesus” (48). The reasons for the “overwhelming manuscript evidence in favour of Ephesus suggests that most of the extant copies…may have been made from one that was sent to Ephesus” (49).
1:4–5 O’Brien argues for the traditional Reformed view of sovereign, unconditional election. “Election [is] due solely to God’s gracious decision; it [has] nothing to do with…choice or righteous behavior” (99). He recognizes the corporate dimension to election in God’s creating a people for Himself, but says, “it is inappropriate, however, to suggest that election in Christ is primarily corporate rather than personal and individual” (99).
2:8 He strongly insists of 2:8 with reference to τοῦτο that “this interpretation is grammatically possible…and is consistent with Pauline teaching elsewhere (cf. Phil. 1:29). However, the context demands that this be understood of salvation by grace as a whole, including the faith…through which it is received” (175).
3:12 With reference to the phrase διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτου/, O’Brien claims, “The concluding words ‘through his [sc., Christ’s] faithfulness’ focus on his obedience to the Father’s will as the means by which this marvelous privilege of coming to the throne of grace is provided” (249). Elsewhere he mentions that he believes that the genitive construction “faith of Jesus Christ” should be “regarded as subjective [denoting] ‘the faith [or faithfulness] of Jesus Christ’ [namely] his unflinching obedience to the Father’s will” (175).
4:22–24 O’Brien examines the many options for these three infinitives, considering them to be either “imperatives, as indicating the purpose of the instruction, or as denoting the result” (326). But he follows the NIV concluding that “it seems best to treat them as epexegetical” (326–27). He then concludes that in this ethical context “the three infinitives also seem to have an implied imperatival force, not in the sense that the readers are to repeat the event of putting off the old person and putting on the new, but in terms of their continuing to live out the implications of their mighty break with the past” (327).
Evaluation: O’Brien’s commentary is thorough, strongly conservative, and nicely balanced between scholarly exegesis and practical application. This volume will be of value to anyone studying this excellent book. I would give it a very high recommendation.