Ephesians, Epistle to the

EPHESIANS, EPISTLE to the. — Letter of St. Paul,
the first, in the Tridentine canon, of the group of the
captivity.

SUMMARY:

I. Content

II. Recipients

III. Pauline
authenticity. — IV. Place and date of composition.

I. CONTENT

It is a calm letter of broad scope, which develops at length—although not always according to an evident logical order—the fundamental theme of the divine plan by which all, Jews and Gentiles, are saved through incorporation into a single body of which Christ is the head. The very thanksgiving with which the letter opens, and the statement concerning the content of the mission entrusted to Paul, are

integral parts of the dogmatic exposition. In its elevated, almost liturgical tone, E., more than any other letter of s. Paolo, calls to mind the Epistle to the Hebrews. But its content is profoundly different. Here, in fact, the theme is decidedly ecclesiological, with very broad scope given to our union with Christ; hence it may be said to be, par excellence, Mystical Body (v.), both in its dogmatic and in its moral section.

A brief introduction (1, 1 ff.), strictly epistolary in character, contains the heading and address of the letter, together with the customary greeting of grace and peace.

1. Dogmatic section (1, 3–3, 21)

After a) an extensive thanksgiving (1, 3–23) for the gift of unifying Redemption, there follows b) a strictly doctrinal exposition of the vocation of all human beings to unity in the Mystical Body of Christ (chap. 2); then c) a declaration of the particular mission entrusted to Paul, namely, to proclaim the mystery of this divine union (chap. 3).

a) Paul blesses God the Father for having destined us from eternity to be his adopted children through union with his Beloved (1, 1–6); in him, all of us, Jews and pagans, have received the gift of divine sonship, preceded by Redemption and the remission of sins, and the seal of the Holy Spirit, pledge of the eternal inheritance (1, 7–14). He therefore does not cease to give thanks to God for what he sees accomplished in his readers, and to pray that God’s plan of salvation may be ever better understood by them and fully realized (1, 15–19), “in Christ,” the exalted head above every earthly and heavenly creature, the head of the Church, which is his “fullness” (1, 20–23).

b) With every distinction between Jews and Gentiles now abolished, the latter too are called from the darkness of their sins, from which even the former were not immune (cf. Rom. 2), to the light of life in Christ; in him all have been made alive together and raised together and destined to sit (indeed, are virtually seated) with him in the heights of heaven (2, 1–6). God has done this to manifest the magnificence of his Grace, through which—not by works, so that no one may boast—all have been saved and made a new creation in Christ (2, 7–10). Thus, the Gentiles, once strangers to the promises, now, with the dividing wall demolished and every enmity destroyed by virtue of the Cross, form with Israel a single family, a single household, whose foundation is the apostles and prophets and whose cornerstone is Christ, the stone placed at the summit (or corner?): a house that is also a temple and dwelling place of God (2, 11–22).

c) Paul, prisoner of Christ Jesus, has received a particular knowledge of the divine design by which the pagans are coheirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise (3, 1–7). To him, the least among the saints, has been entrusted the task of proclaiming the unsearchable riches of Christ and enlightening all concerning the mystery hidden in God from eternity; for this reason, for the glory of the Gentiles, he suffers (3, 8–13). He implores the Father of every fatherhood to grant that the readers may have the grace to live fully and to understand the immeasurable riches of life in Christ. Glory, in the Church and in Christ, to Him who can do all things with a fullness surpassing what we are able to ask or understand! (3, 14–21).

2. Moral section (4, 1–6, 20)

It consists of three sections: a) an exhortation to live in harmony with the nobility of the Christian vocation (4, 1–24); b) precepts concerning the conduct of the Christian, in general and, in particular, domestic life (4, 25–6, 9); c) the Christian’s battle and his armor (6, 10–20).

a) The essential point is to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, in harmony with the various motives of unity that are the foundation and condition of the life of the Mystical Body (4, 1–16). The Christian’s conduct must be very different from that of the Gentiles: he has the duty of stripping off the old man and putting on the new (4, 17–24).

b) Taking up this idea, the Apostle indicates the vices to be avoided and the virtues to be practiced (4, 25–32), so as to be imitators of God and live in a manner worthy of the children of light, making the most of the time because evil days are impending, and filling themselves not with wine but with the Holy Spirit, in order to live in a holy spiritual intoxication (5, 1–20). The precepts concerning domestic life (5, 21–6, 9) are preceded by a general admonition to submission (5, 21). The recommendations are addressed first to the inferior and naturally subordinate party: to wives before husbands, to children before parents, and to slaves before masters. In setting forth the duties of wives toward their husbands and vice versa, the Apostle rises to a very lofty conception of marriage and married life, which he views in relation to the “mystery” of the relations between Christ and his Church (5, 22–33). The duties of children toward their parents and of parents toward their children (6, 1–4), and of slaves toward their masters and of masters toward their slaves (6, 5–9), follow.

c) The pictorial depiction of Christian warfare and panoply opens with the recommendation to be strong, trusting in the power of the Lord. To withstand the struggle undertaken, not against creatures of flesh and blood but against spiritual beings who wield the power of the world, they must put on “the armor of God” (6, 10–17). To this the readers are to add vigilance in prayer for all the saints, and for Paul in particular, so that he may fulfill his mission as preacher of the “mystery,” as God’s ambassador, for whose cause he is a prisoner (6, 18–20).

E. concludes with an epilogue (6, 21–24): Tichico will provide further information about Paul’s circumstances, and Paul takes leave of his correspondents with a blessing that is also a general greeting.

II. DESTINATARI

Da questa succinta esposizione, specialmente dall'inizio e dalla finale, si può rilevare una certa genericità, un muoversi cauto come di chi non conosce bene coloro a cui scrive. Alcune espressioni (1, 15; 3, 2; 4, 21) sono difficilmente conciliabili con una conoscenza personale dei lettori; la mancanza di ogni Efeso (v.), così laboriosa e feconda, è un argomento assai forte contro la destinazione efesina. Perciò già nell'antichità, forse all'epoca della raccolta delle lettere paoline all'inizio del sec. II, sorsero delle incertezze sui destinatari della E.

Oggi la grande maggioranza, anche dei cattolici, la concepisce o come una lettera circolare o come destinata ai Laodicesi. Ambedue le opinioni (cf. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kalosser- und Epheserbriefs [Acta Reg. Soc. Human. Litter. Lundensis, 39], Lund 1946, pp. 449-66) si avvalgono dell'assenza di èv 'Epèeō (1, 1), in alcuni codici importanti (P⁴⁴ [sec III], unciali B⁴ S⁴) confermata da Origene (in J. A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Nov. Test., VI, Oxford 1844, p. 102), da s. Basilio (Contra Eunomium, II, 19: PG 29, 612); cf. s. Girolamo, In Ephesios, I, 1: PL 26, 472 sg. Anche Marcione doveva ignorare e rigettare questa lezione, poiché sosteneva, secondo Tertulliano (Adv. Marcionem, 5, 11: PL 2, 532; CSEL 47, 614; ibid., 17: PL 2, 544 sg.; CSEL 47, 632), la destinazione ai Laodicesi; il che sarebbe confermato anche dai cosiddetti prologhi marcioniti e dal Frammento Muratoriano, il quale dice che Marcione ammetteva una lettera « ad Laodicenses » e un'altra « ad Alexandrinos ». Di qui le due teorie accennate. Secondo la prima, la E. sarebbe stata indirizzata a varie chiese dell'Asia proconsolare; perciò senza indicazione di destinatari. Alcuni hanno pensato che ci fosse, dopo volc oëow di 1, 1, uno spazio da riempire con il nome delle singole comunità a cui la lettera, secondo le disposizioni di Paolo, doveva pervenire. L'ipotesi di una lettera circolare, insinuata già da T. Beza e da J. Ushar, ha trovato, ai nostri tempi molti sostenitori. Basti ricordare: P. Ladeuze, Les destinataires de l'Epître aux Ephésiens, in Revue biblique, 11 (1902), pp. 573-80; J. E. Belser, p. 3 sgg.; J. Schmid, Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus (Biblische Studien, XXII, 3-4), Friburgo in Br. 1928, pp. 93-129; J. M. Lagrange, in Revue biblique, 38 (1929), pp. 290-93 (difende èv 'Epèeō come originale); T. K. Abbott, pp. 1-12; J. Sickenberger, Kuragefäste Einteilung in das N. Test., 5ᵃ a 6ᵃ ed., Friburgo in Br. 1939, p. 131 sg.; A. Médebielle, p. 18 sgg.;

A. Merk, Introductionis in S. Scripturae Libros Compendium, II, 12ᵃ ed., Parigi 1940, p. 874 sg.

Per quanto attraente, « prima vista, questa ipotesi presenta serie difficoltà, per le quali cf. O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft. vom A. u. N. Test., IV, 6), Stoccarda 1933, pp. 199-212, 382 n., 520-25; J. Huby, p. 130 sg. Si nota, in particolare, la costanza con cui le parole èv 'Epèeō sono attestate dai codici, fatte le eccezioni suaccennate. Infondata sembra particolarmente la supposizione che Paolo abbia affidato al latore più copie di una lettera con facoltà di apporre, nello spazio lasciato in bianco, il nome delle comunità a cui lo scritto veniva successivamente consegnato. Di lettere circolari di questo tipo non si hanno, secondo O. Roller, esempi nell'antichità. Così il Merk, pure accettando sostanzialmente l'ipotesi di una lettera circolare, ritiene che essa usciese dalle mani di Paolo con il nome di Efeso, la prima « la principale delle chiese alle quali era destinata.

Alla seconda ipotesi, quella della destinazione laodicea, hanno aderito, tra i più recenti: A. Deismann, Paulus, 2ᵃ ed., Tubinga 1925; A. Harnack, Die Adresse des Epheserbriefs des Paulus, in Sitzungsberichte der K. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaft., Phil. Hist. Classe, 37 (1910), pp. 696-709; B. W. Bacon, St. Paul to the Laodiceans, in Exposition, 17 (1919), pp. 19-36; J. Knabenbauer, p. 10 (con qualche esitazione); M. Meinertz, Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe des heiligen Paulus, 4ᵃ ed., Bonn 1931, pp. 54-57; J. M. Vosté, Comment. in Epistolium ad Ephesios, 2ᵃ ed., Roma-Parigi 1932, p. 19 sgg. (con particolare decisione); J. Huby, p. 131 sgg. Il suo fondamento positivo è particolarmente il testo di Col. 4, 16, in cui si parla di uno scambio di lettere che deve avvenire tra Colosse e Laodicea. La lettera che i Laodicesi dovevano trasmettere a quei di Colosse sarebbe precisamente la E. Altri, però, considerano come poco adatta l'espressione èx Λαοβικελος (« da Laodicea »), per indicare una lettera indirizzata ai Laodicesi; per cui intenderebbero il testo in favore dell'ipotesi di una lettera circolare, che i Colossesi dovevano ricevere da Laodicea. Ma l'osservazione sottile non esclude che una lettera che viene da Laodicea sia stata indirizzata ai fedeli di quella città; e, inoltre, è poco verosimile che Paolo abbia precisato così l'itinerario che doveva percorrere la supposta lettera circolare. Per spiegare la scomparsa della primitiva intestazione ai Laodicesi, l'Harnack, seguito da vari critici (tra i cattolici, J. M. Vosté, p. 27 sg.; J. Huby, p. 132), ricorre all'ipotesi di una soppressione provocata dal biasimo, di cui la chiesa di Laodicea è oggetto in Apoc. 3, 15 sgg. In contrario, cf. G. Ricciotti, Paolo apostolo, Roma 1946, p. 534.

Nessuna delle due opinioni presenta argomenti tali da poter prevalere sull'altra. Cf. E. F. Scott, p. 121 sgg.

III. PAULINE AUTHENTICITY

E. Renan (St Paul, Paris 1869, p. XXIII) already had to acknowledge that, among the letters of s. Paolo, the E. is perhaps the one cited from the earliest times as his work. Precisely because there are already probable allusions to it in Pseudo-Barnabas, and certain ones in Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp, present-day opponents of its Pauline authenticity are compelled to retreat from the positions of F.-C. Baur and others, who regarded it as a writing of the second century. The testimony of Valentinus, Basilides, and other representatives of the Gnostic currents that spread in the first half of the second century also protests against this view; according to s. Ippolito, they cited the E. insistently. Marcion, who held that it was addressed to the Laodiceans, had no doubt of its Pauline authenticity. There is no doubt that it was recognized as Pauline in the time of the Muratorian Fragment, s. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, who, together with many others, are explicit witnesses. For the texts cf. J. Schmid, op. cit., pp. 16-36, and J. M. Vosté, pp. 60-63.

In recent decades there has been a movement back toward the traditional positions. M. Goguel, too, one of the most prominent opponents of the authenticity of the E., moves, in his Introduction au Nouv. Text., IV, 11, Paris 1926, pp. 446-75, to the study “Esquisse d'une solution nouvelle du problème de l'épitre aux Ephésiens,” in Revue de l'histoire des religions, 111 (1935), pp. 254-84; 112 (1935), pp. 73-99, from the simple denial of its authenticity to the distinction between two sources: one by Paolo, the other by one of his disciples, who would have interpolated the master’s writing ten or twenty years later. The painstaking study by E. Percy concludes decisively in favor of authenticity, particularly pp. 248 ff., 355 ff., 433.

The opponents of authenticity have also undergone a certain evolution in their selection and evaluation of the arguments. Today, for example, far less emphasis is placed than in the past on the number of hapax, which are not proportionally more numerous than in the Pauline letters of indisputable authenticity (cf. J. Schmid, op. cit., pp. 132-36), and, in general, on the linguistic argument; for, although there are elements that would point to a different author, there is also the counterweight of vocabulary and constructions that are authentically Pauline (J. M. Vostè, pp. 66 ff.; J. Huby, pp. 138-42).

Greater emphasis is instead placed on the letter’s doctrinal content, especially on its problematic relationship with Colossians. That the E. opens up a horizon different from that of the four major Pauline letters is not surprising, if one takes into account the years that had passed and the different questions being debated in the circles to which the individual letters were addressed. The major issue of justification by faith, without the works of the law, which had inspired the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Romans, had for practical purposes been overcome. According to a thorough study by P. Benoit, “L'horizon paulinien de l'Épitre aux Ephésiens,” in Revue biblique, 46 (1937), pp. 342-61, 506-25, the E. undoubtedly represents an evolution in s. Paolo’s thought, but one that fits well with the preceding letters.

M. Goguel (Introd. au Nouv. Text., IV-2, p. 406) calculated that, of the 155 verses comprising the E., 73 have a parallel in Colossians. De Wette had made similar observations much earlier, as reported by T. K. Abbott, p. XXIII, and by J. M. Vostè, p. 72. On the basis of an equally detailed comparison, H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, Leipzig 1872, had reached the conclusion that the E. is generally later than Colossians—or, alternatively, that the reverse is true—except in the few cases in which Colossians, conversely, has been interpolated on the basis of the E.

An affinity between the E. and Colossians, within certain limits, cannot surprise anyone who regards both letters as works of s. Paolo, written at approximately the same time, to communities living in almost the same environmental conditions and exposed to the same periods of deviation. But the affinity between the two writings is so strong, often indeed verbal, that it raises the question whether the same writer could have composed two letters so similar to one another. The problem becomes more complicated, but also offers certain elements for its solution, if one takes account of the differences between the two letters carefully listed by H. Coppietera, p. 368 ff. One should also add the almost bizarre way in which Colossians is used in the E.: in chapters 1 and 2 of the latter, concepts and expressions drawn from almost the whole of Colossians are found; conversely, elements that are joined together in the E. appear scattered throughout the latter. Nor do the individual parallel passages correspond in every respect: at times identical in thought and wording, they otherwise diverge, especially in form (cf. A. Merk, op. cit., p. 878).

At the center of the two letters stands the fundamental theme of the “mystery” of which Paolo is the herald; but in Colossians this point is treated much more briefly, since the author does not dwell, as the E. does (2, 11-18), on the specific matter of the union between Jews and Gentiles. In Christology, the E. gives prominence to the conception of Christ as head of the mystical Body, whereas in Colossians Christ’s function as head is more universal, one might say cosmic; there it is the Church in its relations with Christ, here it is the whole of creation. Within the predominantly ecclesiological framework of the E., the doctrine of marriage is also developed—only barely mentioned in Colossians—which likewise treats the other points of domestic morality much more briefly.

IV. LUOGO E DATA DI COMPOSIZIONE

La determinazione del luogo e, conseguentemente, del tempo approssimativo di composizione rientra nell'impostazione generale delle lettere della prigionia. I rilievi fatti sulla profonda somiglianza tra la Colossesi e la E. suggeriscono per ambedue le stesse circostanze di composizione. La E. parrebbe composta dopo la Colossesi, come la Romani dopo la Galati. Infatti tanto quest'ultima che la Colossesi affrontano il proprio tema nel fervore di una lotta vissuta, mentre nella Romani e nella E. l'ardore polemico ha ceduto il passo ad una considerazione più calma e più dottrinale degli stessi problemi. Poiché l'atere, come nella Colossesi, fu Tichico, in breve tempo dovettero essere scritte l'una e l'altra. Ritvendo che la prigionia di cui ambedue le lettere parlano apertamente sia quella romana, si è portati ad assegnare la E. al biennio 61-63, piuttosto verso la fine che al principio, a motivo delle speranze di liberazione manifestate nel biglietto a Filemone (v. 22), che li certamente gruppo con la E. e la Colossesi.

BIBLI: Vergono indicate le pubblicazioni più rappresentative degli ultimi decenni. Commenti cattolici: J. E. Belser, Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus, Friburgo in Br. 1906; J. Knabenbauer, Commentarius in s. Pauli Apostoli Epistolos, IV. Epistolos ad Epheser, ad Philippiens et ad Colossenter, Paris 1912, pp. 1-174; M. Saka, La Sacra Bibbia, Il Nuovo Testamento, II, Torino 1914, pp. 268-300; M. Meinertz, Die Grössenverheißbriefe des heli. Paulus, 4ª ed., Bonn 1931, pp. 50-106; J. M. Vostè, Comment. in Epist. ad Ephesiens, 2ª ed., Roma-Paran 1932; J. Huby, Les Épîtres de la captivité (Verbum Salutis, 8), Parigi 1935; A. Médebiel, Épître aux Ephésiens (La Ste Bible di L. First, 12), ivi 1938, pp. 6-74; P. Benoit, Les Épîtres de St Paul aux Philippiens, à Philémon, aux Colossiens, aux Ephésiens, in La Ste Bible, trad. fr., Ecole biblique de Jérusalem, Parigi 1940, pp. 71-103. Acattolici: H. Von Soden, Der Brief an die Epheser, in Hand-Kommentar, III, 1, 2ª ed., Friburgo in Br. 1893, pp. 79-154; T. K. Abbott, Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossiens, Edimburgo 1895, ultimo ristampa 1946; P. Ewald, Die Briefe des Paulus und die Epheser, Kolosser und Philémon (Kommentar zum N. Test. di Th. Zahn, 10) Lipsia 1905, pp. 56-266 agg.; B. F. Westcott, S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Londra 1906; J. A. Robinson, St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 2ª ed., Londra 1914; M. Dibelius, An die Kolosser, an die Epheser, an Philémon, in Handbuch zum N. Test., XII, 2ª ed., Tubinga 1927; E. F. Scott, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philémon and to the Ephesians, Londra 1930, ristampa 1948, pp. 117-257.

Agli studi citati nel corso di questo articolo si aggiunga: H. Coppietera, Les récentes attaques contre l'authenticité de l'Épitre aux Ephésiens, in Revue biblique, 6 (1912), pp. 316-06; A. Vati, Militum Christi Regis arma inuta S. Paulum, in Verbum Domini, 7 (1927), pp. 310-18; W. Koester, Die Idee der Kirche beim Apostel Paulus (Neufestamentliche Abhandlungen, 14, 1), Münster 1928, pp. 51-60. Teodorico da Castel San Pietro