ALONE WITH GOD     

      THE headings (@Eph 1:1), and @Eph 3:1, show that this Epistle claims to be that of Paul. This claim is confirmed by the testimonies of IRENÆUS, [Against Heresies, 5.2,3; 1.8,5]; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, [Miscellanies, 4, P. 65, and The Instructor, 1.8]; ORIGEN, [Against Celsus, 4,211]. It is quoted by VALENTINUS, A.D. 120, namely, @Eph 3:14-18, as we know from HIPPOLYTUS [The Refutation of All Heresies, p. 193]. POLYCARP [Epistle to the Philippians, 12], testifies to its canonicity. So TERTULLIAN [Against Marcion, 5,17]. IGNATIUS [Epistle to the Ephesians, 12], which alludes to the frequent and affectionate mention made by Paul of the Christian state, privileges, and persons of the Ephesians in his Epistle.

      Two theories, besides the ordinary one, have been held on the question, to whom the Epistle is addressed. GROTIUS, after the heretic Marcion, maintains that it was addressed to the Church at Laodicea, and that it is the Epistle to which Paul refers in @Col 4:16. But the Epistle to the Colossians was probably written before that to the Ephesians, as appears from the parallel passages in Ephesians bearing marks of being expanded from those in Colossians; and Marcion seems to have drawn his notion, as to our Epistle, from Paul's allusion (@Col 4:16) to an Epistle addressed by him to the Laodiceans. ORIGEN and CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, and even TERTULLIAN, who refers to Marcion, give no sanction to his notion. No single manuscript contains the heading, "to the saints that are at Laodicea." The very resemblance of the Epistle to the Ephesians, to that to the Colossians, is against the theory; for if the former were really the one addressed to Laodicea (@Col 4:16), Paul would not have deemed it necessary that the churches of Colosse and Laodicea should interchange Epistles. The greetings, moreover (@Col 4:15), which he sends through the Colossians to the Laodiceans, are quite incompatible with the idea that Paul wrote an Epistle to the Laodiceans at the same time, and by the same bearer, Tychicus (the bearer of our Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as of that to Colosse, @Eph 6:21 Col 4:7); for who, under such circumstances, would not send the greetings directly in the letter to the party saluted? The letter to Laodicea was evidently written some time before that to Colosse, Archbishop USHER has advanced the second theory: That it was an encyclical letter headed, as in Manuscript B., "to the saints that are . . . and to the faithful," the name of each Church being inserted in the copy sent to it; and that its being sent to Ephesus first, occasioned its being entitled, as now, the Epistle to the Ephesians. ALFORD makes the following objections to this theory: (1) It is at variance with the spirit of the Epistle, which is clearly addressed to one set of persons throughout, co-existing in one place, and as one body, and under the same circumstances. (2) The improbability that the apostle, who in two of his Epistles (Second Corinthians and Galatians) has so plainly specified their encyclical character, should have here omitted such specification. (3) The still greater improbability that he should have, as on this hypothesis must be assumed, written a circular Epistle to a district, of which Ephesus was the commercial capital, addressed to various churches within that district, yet from its very contents (as by the opponents' hypothesis) not admitting of application to the Church of that metropolis, in which he had spent so long a time, and to which he was so affectionately bound. (4) The inconsistency of this hypothesis with the address of the Epistle, and the universal testimony of the ancient Church. The absence of personal greetings is not an argument for either of the two theories; for similarly there are none in Galatians, Philippians, First and Second Thessalonians, First Timothy. The better he knows the parties addressed, and the more general and solemn the subject, the less he seems to give of these individual notices. Writing, as he does in this Epistle, on the constitution and prospects of Christ's universal Church, he refers the Ephesians, as to personal matters, to the bearer of the Epistle, Tychicus (@Eph 6:21,22). As to the omission of "which are at Ephesus" (@Eph 1:1), in Manuscript B., so "in Rome" (@Ro 1:7) is omitted in some old manuscripts: it was probably done by churches among whom it was read, in order to generalize the reference of its contents, and especially where the subject of the Epistle is catholic. The words are found in the margin of Manuscript B, from a first hand; and are found in all the oldest manuscripts and versions.

      Paul's first visit to Ephesus (on the seacoast of Lydia, near the river Cayster) is related in @Ac 18:19-21. The work, begun by his disputations with the Jews in his short visit, was carried on by Apollos (@Ac 18:24-26), and Aquila and Priscilla (@Ac 18:26). At his second visit, after his journey to Jerusalem, and thence to the east regions of Asia Minor, he remained at Ephesus "three years" (@Ac 19:10, the "two years" in which verse are only part of the time, and @Ac 20:31); so that the founding and rearing of this Church occupied an unusually large portion of the apostle's time and care; whence his language in this Epistle shows a warmth of feeling, and a free outpouring of thought, and a union in spiritual privileges and hope between him and them (@Eph 1:3, &c.), such as are natural from one so long and so intimately associated with those whom he addresses. On his last journey to Jerusalem, he sailed by Ephesus and summoned the elders of the Ephesian Church to meet him at Miletus, where he delivered his remarkable farewell charge (@Ac 20:18-35).

      This Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians during the early part of his imprisonment at Rome, immediately after that to the Colossians, to which it bears a close resemblance in many passages, the apostle having in his mind generally the same great truths in writing both. It is an undesigned proof of genuineness that the two Epistles, written about the same date, and under the same circumstances, bear a closer mutual resemblance than those written at distant dates and on different occasions. Compare @Eph 1:7 with @Col 1:14; @Eph 1:10 with @Col 1:20; @Eph 3:2 with @Col 1:25; @Eph 5:19 with @Col 3:16; @Eph 6:22 with @Col 4:8; @Eph 1:19 2:5 with @Col 2:12,13; @Eph 4:2-4 with @Col 3:12-15; @Eph 4:16 with @Col 2:19; @Eph 4:32 with @Col 3:13; @Eph 4:22-24 with @Col 3:9,10; @Eph 5:6-8 with @Col 3:6-8; @Eph 5:15,16 with @Col 4:5; @Eph 6:19,20 with @Col 4:3,4; @Eph 5:22-33 @Eph 6:1-9 with @Col 3:18; @Eph 4:24,25 with @Col 3:9; @Eph 5:20-22 with @Col 3:17,18. Tychicus and Onesimus were being sent to Colosse, the former bearing the two Epistles to the two churches respectively, the latter furnished with a letter of recommendation to Philemon, his former master, residing at Colosse. The date was probably about four years after his parting with the Ephesian elders at Miletus (@Ac 20:6-38), about A.D. 62, before his imprisonment had become of the more severe kind, which appears in his Epistle to the Philippians. From @Eph 6:19,20 it is plain he had at the time, though a prisoner, some degree of freedom in preaching, which accords with @Ac 28:23,30,31, where he is represented as receiving at his lodgings all inquirers. His imprisonment began in February SIZE=-1>A.D. 61 and lasted "two whole years" (@Ac 28:30) at least, and perhaps longer.

      The Church of Ephesus was made up of converts partly from the Jews and partly from the Gentiles (@Ac 19:8-10). Accordingly, the Epistle so addresses a Church constituted (@Eph 2:14-22). Ephesus was famed for its idol temple of Artemis or Diana, which, after its having been burnt down by Herostratus on the night that Alexander the Great was born (355 B.C), was rebuilt at enormous cost and was one of the wonders of the world. Hence, perhaps, have arisen his images in this Epistle drawn from a beautiful temple: the Church being in true inner beauty that which the temple of the idol tried to realize in outward show (@Eph 2:19-22). The Epistle (@Eph 4:17 5:1-13) implies the profligacy for which the Ephesian heathen were notorious. Many of the same expressions occur in the Epistle as in Paul's address to the Ephesian elders. Compare @Eph 1:6,7 2:7, as to "grace," with @Ac 20:24,32: this may well be called "the Epistle of the grace of God" [ALFORD]. Also, as to his "bonds," @Eph 3:1 4:1 with @Ac 20:22,23. Also @Eph 1:11, as to "the counsel of God," with @Ac 20:27. Also @Eph 1:14, as to "the redemption of the purchased possession," with @Ac 20:28. Also @Eph 1:14,18 2:20 5:5, as to "building up" the "inheritance," with @Ac 20:32.

      The object of the Epistle is "to set forth the ground, the course, and the aim and end of THE CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL IN CHRIST. He speaks to the Ephesians as a type or sample of the Church universal" [ALFORD]. Hence, "the Church" throughout the Epistle is spoken of in the singular, not in the plural, "churches." The Church's foundation, its course, and its end, are his theme alike in the larger and smaller divisions of the whole Epistle. "Everywhere the foundation of the Church is in the will of the Father; the course of the Church is by the satisfaction of the Son; the end of the Church is the life in the Holy Spirit" [ALFORD]. Compare respectively @Eph 1:11 2:5 3:16. This having been laid down as a matter of doctrine (this part closing with a sublime doxology, @Eph 3:14-21), is then made the ground of practical exhortations. In these latter also (from @Eph 4:1, onward), the same threefold division prevails, for the Church is represented as founded on the counsel of "God the Father, who is above all, through all, and in all," reared by the "one Lord," Jesus Christ, through the "one Spirit" (@Eph 4:4-6, &c.), who give their respective graces to the several members. These last are therefore to exercise all these graces in the several relations of life, as husbands, wives, servants, children, &c. The conclusion is that we must put on "the whole armor of God" (@Eph 6:13).

      The sublimity of the STYLE and LANGUAGE corresponds to the sublimity of the subjects and exceeds almost that of any part of his Epistles. It is appropriate that those to whom he so wrote were Christians long grounded in the faith. The very sublimity is the cause of the difficulty of the style, and of the presence of peculiar expressions occurring, not found elsewhere.