Interpretation Questions in Ephesians 1–3

I wrote this interpretation-questions project on Ephesians 1–3 for Paul’s Shorter Epistles on December 7, 2001.

Ephesians 1:1—Textual/Historical Problem

• Problem: Was the Church of Ephesus the originally intended recipient of this epistle?

• Various Views
  • Paul wrote it to the many churches of Ephesus, intending it to be a circular letter (C. Arnold).
  • Paul wrote it to the church of Laodicea (Marcion).
  • Paul’s followers wrote it as an introduction to the collection of his epistles (E. J. Goodspeed).
  • Paul wrote it to the churches of Asia Minor in general as a circular letter (O’Brien).

• Proposed Solution: Nonexclusive Ephesian Destination (d?)
  • The data is not conclusive enough to be dogmatic.
  • Obviously, the letter went to Ephesus at some point, or it would not have acquired the reading “in Ephesus.”
  • If the letter originally included the reading “in Ephesus,” then there needs to be some explanation for its absence from the earlier manuscripts.
  • Most likely ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ was not in the original. The earliest manuscripts do not have it. The support for omitting it is as follows: P46, a, B, 424c, 1739 Basil, Origen, apparently Marcion, and Tertullian.
  • The epistle is more impersonal in nature. Most of Paul’s epistles are more personal, with greetings to specific individuals whom he had met previously (Paul had already been to Ephesus on his second and third missionary journeys).
  • The epistle also deals with general concepts, not pointing out any specific issues that he knew to be problematic in an individual church.
  • The evidence tends toward support for a letter not specifically or exclusively Ephesian. Beyond this, we may only speculate.

Ephesians 1:11—Theological Problem

• Problem: How extensive is the sovereign will of God? Does this mean that God is actively bringing to pass sinful activity?

• Various Views
  • God’s will does not include nor does He have any involvement in sinful and calamitous events. He is involved only by advanced knowledge and permission of them. He desires that they do not happen but has to let man act according to his own free will.
  • God has from the foundation of the world sovereignly determined whatsoever comes to pass, both good and evil, which very purpose He effectually brings to accomplishment through secondary causes and means (O’Brien).

• Proposed Solution: Absolute Sovereignty (b)
  • Scripture unequivocally affirms the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, both good and evil (2 Sam. 24:1; Prov. 21:1; Acts 4:27–28).
  • Paul affirms the sovereignty of God in salvation (1:4–5) in light of man’s radical fallenness and inability (2:1–9). He bases God’s predestination of salvation upon His predestination of all things (1:11)—basing the specific upon the general.
  • God is never culpable or chargeable with blame for what He ordains and accomplishes (Rom. 9:19–21).
  • Man’s actions are always free in that they flow from the desires of his heart. He is never coerced to do something that he does not want to do. He always acts willingly, even in doing exactly what God has determined that He will do.
  • Man is always the one chargeable and accountable for his sinful desires and actions (Acts 2:22–23; 4:27–28).
  • The mystery lies in that God can sovereignly ordain and actively effect without being evil Himself and without being unjust in holding men accountable for what He ordained and moved them to do (Jud. 9:23; 2 Sam. 24:1; Ps. 105:25; Rev. 17:16–17).

Ephesians 2:3—Theological Problem

• Problem: When does a man become a child of wrath? Can children be deserving of wrath prior to committing any sin?

• Various Views
  • Man is by nature (i.e. at conception, Ps. 51:3) inherently sinful and deserving of the just wrath of God prior to the commission of any actual sin (Calvin).
  • Man is by nature sinful, but is not deserving of the wrath of God until his sin becomes actual (Arminius).
  • Man is not born with a sinful nature; his nature becomes sinful when if/when he chooses to sin (Pelagius; Finney).

• Proposed Solution: (a)
  • This passage teaches that man is deserving of wrath by nature.
  • He moves from the progression of deeds (2a), which flow from sinful desires (3a), which flow from a sinful nature (3b).
  • “By nature” is understood by most commentators to mean “by birth” or prior to any actual sin on the part of the individual.
  • If the intended meaning were “by behavior or character,” the word ἐγινόμεθα would be expected instead of ἤμεθα.
  • Man is therefore guilty as a human being by virtue of his federal connection with Adam (Rom. 5:12ff).
  • Man is not only corrupt at birth, as other texts make clear (Ps. 51:5), but he is guilty at birth (actually at conception), so that God has sufficient and just grounds (although not necessary grounds) for condemning one who is not yet a sinner in deed.

Ephesians 2:14—Explanational Problem

• Problem: What is the meaning of “the middle wall of partition”?

• Various Views
  • Gnostic: The analogy is of Gnostic origin referring to the barrier between the world below and the upper world (Schlier; F. C. Baur).
  • Temple: It refers to the temple balustrade separating the court of the Gentiles from the inner courts and the sanctuary in the Jerusalem temple (F. F. Bruce?).
  • Law: The barrier was the Mosaic Law itself with its detailed holiness code (Peter O’Brien; F. F. Bruce).
  • Metaphorical: The wall is simply a metaphor that has no recondite meaning (E. Best).

• Proposed Solution: Simple Metaphorical (d)
  • The Gnostic view is unlikely for the following reasons: (1) there is little to no early evidence for this view; (2) this barrier is not described as a μεσότοιχον; and (3) there is no evidence that these Gnostic concepts were present in Asia Minor.
  • The temple balustrade view is not likely for the following reasons: (1) the people of Asia Minor would probably have not been aware of this balustrade in the temple; and (2) nowhere, either in Josephus or elsewhere, is this wall referred to as a μεσότοιχον.
  • The law view has weaknesses as well in that not all Gentiles would have thought this way concerning the law. The law existed primarily from a Jewish or Judaistic standpoint.
  • While one of the above may be possible, the best solution may simply be that Paul is speaking more generally than specifically. The reference to “the wall” is simply a metaphor referring to the many differences that divided Jews from Gentiles. Christ, as the Messiah for Jews and Gentiles, brought them together into one body, thus removing anything that might partition them.

Ephesians 3:12—Theological Problem

• Problem: Whose faith is Paul referring to by the phrase “by the faith of him” (διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ)?

• Various Views
  • Faith in Christ: The common view has been to regard the genitive construction as a simple objective genitive—“faith in Him.” (F. F. Bruce).
  • Christ’s Faithfulness: Many modern commentators see this type of expression as a subjective or possessive genitive, usually referring to the faith (or faithfulness) of Christ—“faith(fullness) of Him.” (P. T. O’Brien; E. Best).

• Proposed Solution Christ’s Faithfulness (b?)
  • It is argued that the αὐτοῦ would be redundant seeing that the ἐν ᾧ already designates that Christ is in view.
  • Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Mat. 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom. 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor. 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor. 10:15; Phil. 2:17; Col. 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thes. 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thes. 1:3; Tit. 1:1; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet. 1:5).
  • The subjective genitive position also argues that “faith in” is expressed with the prepositions ἐν, εἰς, or ἐπὶ.
  • The word πίστις is the word that would be used to communicate “faithfulness” (Mat. 23:23; Rom. 3:3; Gal. 5:22; 2 Thes. 1:4; Tit. 2:10).
  • The passages in question (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Phil 3:9; and many others) make sense either way, and both are theologically correct—the faithfulness of Christ being the ground for our confidence, etc., and our faith being that which connects us to Christ and His work.
  • Both ideas are usually inherent in the text (i.e., The believer’s only hope is in the faithfulness of Christ, and personal faith in Christ is the only way to experience the fruits of His work.).
  • Making a decision should be on a passage-by-passage basis, trying to determine what the context has in view.

Ephesians 3:17—Theological Problem

• Problem: How could Paul pray that Christ would indwell the hearts of believers? Did He not already live within them?

• Various Views
  • What Paul was praying for was not already true because they were still unbelievers.
  • What Paul was praying for was not already true, but it is not a salvific indwelling.
  • What Paul was praying for was already true, but he wanted their experience of it to increase.

• Proposed Solution: (c)
  • As far as the believer’s position goes, by virtue of his union with Christ he is already in Christ (Ephesians 1, etc.) and Christ is in him (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 4:10f; 13:3, 5; Gal. 2:20; 4:19: Col. 1:27).
  • Paul clearly is addressing believers (Eph. 2:19, etc.), therefore an indwelling which begins at salvation is not in view (Rom. 8:9).
  • Never is there any mention of a second indwelling of any kind.
  • Paul is dealing with the believer’s experience of the indwelling Christ and his submission to the Lordship of Christ.
  • By faith, they realize and experience increasingly the indwelling Lord, being changed into His image.