EPHESIANS, Epistle to the. - Letter of St. Paul, the first, in the Tridentine canon, of the group of the captivity.
I. CONTENT
It is a calm letter and of broad scope, which develops at length - though not always according to an evident logical order - the fundamental theme of the divine plan by which all, Jews and Gentiles, are saved through insertion into a single body of which Christ is the head. The very act of thanksgiving with which the letter opens, the declaration concerning the content of the mission entrusted to Paul, are integral parts of the dogmatic treatment. Because of its sustained, almost liturgical tone, the E. calls to mind, more than any other letter of St. Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the content is profoundly different. Here, in fact, the theme is decidedly ecclesiological, with the widest scope given to our union with Christ; whence it may be said to be, par excellence, the letter of the Mystical Body (v.), both in its dogmatic part and in its moral part.
A brief exordium (1:1 f.), strictly epistolary, contains the heading and the address of the letter, with the customary wish of grace and peace.
1. Dogmatic part (1:3-3:21)
After a) an extensive thanksgiving (1:3-23) for the gift of the unifying Redemption, there follows b) an exposition of an eminently strictly doctrinal character on the vocation of all men in the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ (ch. 2); then c) a declaration of the particular mission entrusted to Paul, to proclaim the mystery of this divine union (ch. 3).
a) Paul blesses God the Father for having destined us from eternity to be his adopted sons through union in his Beloved (1:1-6); in whom all, Jews and pagans, have obtained the gift of divine filiation, following upon the 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 thank God for what he sees realized in the readers, and to pray that God's salvific plan may be ever better understood by them and be fully accomplished (1:15-19), "in Christ," the head exalted above every creature earthly and heavenly, head of the Church, which is his "fullness" (1:20-23).
b) Every distinction between Jews and Gentiles now abolished, the latter too are called, from the darkness of sins, from which not even the former were immune (cf. Rom. 2), to the light of life in Christ; in whom all have been brought to life and raised up with him and destined to sit (indeed, are virtually seated) with him in the heavenly heights (2:1-6). This God has done to show the magnificence of his Grace, by which - not by works, so that no one may boast - all have been saved and made a new creature in Christ (2:7-10). Thus, therefore, the Gentiles, once strangers to the promises, now that the wall of division has been broken down and all enmity destroyed by virtue of the Cross, form with Israel a single family, a single house, of which the apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ the stone placed at the summit (or cornerstone?): a house that is also a temple and dwelling 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 co-heirs and co-members and co-partakers of the promise (3:1-7). To him, least among the saints, has been entrusted the task of proclaiming the unsearchable riches of Christ and of enlightening all concerning the mystery hidden in God from eternity; for this, for the glory of the Gentiles, he suffers (3:8-13). He implores from the Father of every fatherhood 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 is given us to ask and to understand! (3:14-21).
2. Moral part (4:1-6:20)
It consists of three sections: a) 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 maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, in harmony with the manifold motives for unity, which are the foundation and condition of the life of the Mystical Body (4:1-16). Very different from the conduct of the Gentiles must be that of the Christian: the latter has the duty to strip off the old man and put on the new (4:17-24).
b) Linking back to this idea, the Apostle indicates the vices to be shunned and the virtues to be practiced (4:25-32), so as to be imitators of God and to live in a manner worthy of the children of light, redeeming the time, because evil days are at hand, and being filled, rather than with wine, 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 of submission (5:21). The recommendations are addressed first to the party inferior and naturally subject: to wives before husbands, to children before parents, to slaves before masters. In setting forth the duties of wives toward husbands and vice versa, the Apostle rises to a very lofty conception of marriage and of married life, which he sees in relation to the "mystery" of the relations between Christ and his Church (5:22-33). There follow the duties of children toward parents and of parents toward children (6:1-4), of slaves toward masters and of the latter toward slaves (6:5-9).
c) The pictorial tableau of the Christian militia and panoply opens with the recommendation to be strong, trusting in the power of the Lord. In order to resist in the struggle engaged, not against creatures of flesh and blood, but against spiritual beings who hold the power of the world, put on "the armor of God" (6:10-17). To this the readers add vigilance in prayer for all the saints, for Paul in particular, that he may fulfill his mission as a preacher of the "mystery," as an ambassador of God, for whose cause he is a prisoner (6:18-20).
The E. closes with an epilogue (6:21-24): Tychicus will give further information about Paul's condition, who takes leave of his correspondents with a wish that is also a generic greeting.
II. ADDRESSEES
From this succinct exposition, especially from the beginning and the ending, one can detect a certain generality, a cautious manner of proceeding, as of one who does not know well those to whom he is writing. Some expressions (1:15; 3:2; 4:21) are hardly reconcilable with a personal knowledge of the readers; the lack of any allusion to the long stay at Ephesus (v.), so laborious and fruitful, is a very strong argument against an Ephesian destination. Therefore already in antiquity, perhaps at the time of the collection of the Pauline letters at the beginning of the 2nd century, uncertainties arose about the recipients of the 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 Kalosserund 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.
However attractive this hypothesis may be at first sight, it presents serious difficulties, for which cf. O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft. vom A. u. N. Test., IV, 6), Stuttgart 1933, pp. 199-212, 382 n., 520-25; J. Huby, p. 130 ff. One notes, in particular, the constancy with which the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are attested by the codices, with the exceptions mentioned above. Particularly unfounded appears the supposition that Paul entrusted to the bearer several copies of a letter with the faculty of inserting, in the blank space left, the name of the communities to which the writing was successively delivered. Of circular letters of this type there are, according to O. Roller, no examples in antiquity. Thus Merk, while substantially accepting the hypothesis of a circular letter, holds that it left Paul's hands with the name of Ephesus, the first and principal of the churches for which it was destined.
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
Already E. Renan (St Paul, Paris 1869, p. XXIII) had to acknowledge that, among the letters of St. Paul, Ephesians is perhaps the one most anciently cited 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, today's defenders of Pauline authorship are forced to retreat from the positions of F.-C. Baur and others, who made it a writing of the 2nd century. Against this, the testimony of Valentinus, Basilides and other representatives of the Gnostic currents that spread in the first half of the 2nd century also protests; they, according to St. Hippolytus, cited Ephesians insistently. Marcion, who held that it was addressed to the Laodiceans, did not doubt its Pauline authorship. There is no doubt that it was recognized as Pauline at the time of the Muratorian Fragment, of St. Irenaeus, of Clement of Alexandria and of Tertullian, who are, with many others, 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 of return to the traditional positions. Even M. Goguel, one of the most prominent opponents of the authenticity of Ephesians, passes, in his Introduction au Nouv. Test., IV, 11, Paris 1926, pp. 446-75, to the study Esquisse d'une solution nouvelle du problème de l'épître aux Ephésiens, in Revue de l'histoire des religions, 111 (1935), pp. 254-84; 112 (1935), pp. 73-99, from the simple denial of authenticity to the distinction of two strata: one from Paul, the other from a disciple of his, who would have carried out the interpolation in the master's writing at a distance of ten or twenty years. Clearly in favor of authenticity is the conclusion of the meticulous study of E. Percy, particularly pp. 248 ff., 355 ff., 433.
Also in the choice and evaluation of arguments the opponents of authenticity have undergone a certain evolution. Today, for example, far less insistence is placed than in the past on the number of hapax legomena, which are not in greater proportion than in the Pauline letters of undoubted authenticity (cf. J. Schmid, op. cit., pp. 132-36), and, in general, on the linguistic argument; since, if there are elements that would argue for a different author, there is also the counterbalance of authentically Pauline vocabulary and constructions (J. M. Vosté, p. 66 ff.; J. Huby, pp. 138-42).
Instead, greater stress is laid on the doctrinal content of the letter, especially in its problematic relations with Colossians. That Ephesians opens a horizon different from that of the four major Pauline letters is no wonder, if one takes into account the years that had passed and the different questions agitating the milieu for which the individual letters were destined. Practically superseded was the great question of justification through faith, without the works of the law, which had inspired the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Romans. According to an exhaustive study by P. Benoit, L'horizon paulinien de l'Épître aux Ephésiens, in Revue biblique, 46 (1937), pp. 342-61, 506-25, Ephesians represents, without doubt, an evolution of St. Paul's thought, but one that grafts well onto the preceding letters.
M. Goguel (Introd. au Nouv. Test., IV-2, p. 406) has calculated that of the 155 verses of which Ephesians consists, 73 have a parallel in Colossians. Similar observations had been made much earlier by De Wette, reported by T. K. Abbott, p. XXIII, and by J. M. Vosté, p. 72. With a no less meticulous comparison H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheserund Kolosserbriefe, Leipzig 1872, had reached the conclusion that Ephesians is, in general, posterior to Colossians, or does not depend on it, except in the few cases in which, conversely, the latter is interpolated on the former.
An affinity between Ephesians and Colossians, within certain limits, cannot surprise anyone who holds both letters to be works of St. Paul, written in the same period of time, to communities living in almost the same environmental conditions and exposed to the same perils of deviation. But the affinity between the two writings is so strong, often indeed verbal, as to give rise to the doubt whether the same writer could have written two letters so similar to each other. The problem becomes more complicated, but also offers certain elements of solution, if one takes into account the differences between the two letters carefully listed by H. Coppieters, p. 368 ff. Add to this the almost bizarre way in which Colossians is used in Ephesians: in chapters 1 and 2 of the latter are found concepts and expressions drawn from almost the whole of Colossians; conversely, there appear scattered in the latter elements that are joined together in Ephesians. Nor do the individual parallel passages correspond to each other in every respect: identical, at times, as to thought and words, they diverge, at others, particularly 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 Paul is the announcer; but in Colossians this point is treated much more briefly, the author not dwelling, as in Ephesians (2:11-18), on the particular of the union between Jews and Gentiles. In Christology, the conception of Christ as head of the Mystical Body prevails in Ephesians, whereas in Colossians the function of Christ as head is more universal, one might say cosmic; there it is the Church in its relations with Christ, here it is the entire creation. In the predominantly ecclesiological framework of Ephesians, the doctrine of marriage is also developed, barely hinted at in Colossians, which treats much more briefly also the other points of domestic morality.
IV. PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
The determination of the place and, consequently, of the approximate time of composition falls within the general framework of the letters of the captivity. The observations made on the profound similarity between Colossians and E. suggest the same circumstances of composition for both. E. would appear to have been composed after Colossians, as Romans after Galatians. In fact, both the latter and Colossians confront their own theme in the fervor of a lived struggle, whereas in Romans and in E. the polemical ardor has given way to a calmer and more doctrinal consideration of the same problems. Since the bearer, as in Colossians, was Tychicus, the one and the other must have been written in a short time. Holding that the imprisonment of which both letters speak openly is the Roman one, one is led to assign E. to the biennium 61-63, rather toward the end than at the beginning, by reason of the hopes of liberation manifested in the note to Philemon (v. 22), which was certainly grouped with E. and Colossians.
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