his own expansive vision of God’s plans and the church’s role in the advance of God’s purposes.85 Speaking in Paul’s name, the author wants to reiterate Paul’s prominence as a recipient of treasured revelation so that the author’s message in Ephesians will be more readily honored and embraced as the “standard tradition.”86
Robert Wild suggests that even though Ephesians is written falsely under Paul’s name, the intent of the author in his depiction of Paul is not to deceive but to motivate. Paul is highlighted as the ideal prisoner who is not constrained by his captors but bound only to Christ. He thus speaks boldly as a free man, serving as a model for other Christians to do likewise, regardless of opposition.87
In his commentary on Ephesians Lincoln highlights the portrayal of Paul from the vantage point of the literary feature of the “implied author” of a document.88 After surveying the representation of the implied author from select verses in Ephesians, Lincoln concludes that the resulting image is too forced to be the product of Paul himself. Specifically, the implied Paul of Ephesians esteems his own revelation and ministry too highly, and then overcorrects this imbalance by insisting on his own lowly status (Eph 3:8).89
Victor Furnish devotes a significant amount of space to how Paul’s projected image in Ephesians undermines the case for Pauline authorship.90 He believes that language especially from chapter 3 presents Paul as a “mystagogue” who occupies an indispensible position among early church leaders.91 Even language designed to diminish Paul’s status (“the least of all the saints”) reveals the hand of a later imitator who venerated both the authority and the humility of the apostle.92
Klyne Snodgrass, a defender of the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, notes that the content describing Paul’s ministry can be seen either to strengthen or to weaken the case against the authenticity of the letter. Snodgrass observes that the balance of assertion and self-effacement found in Eph 3:1–13 is compatible with testimony from Paul’s earlier letters.93 On the whole, the idea of Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles and a prisoner fulfills Paul’s own rhetorical agenda more reasonably than it does the goals of a later writer.94
Ernest Best, though denying the authenticity of Ephesians, nonetheless avoids using the presentation of Paul as weighty evidence in the discussion on authorship. Slight divergences from Paul’s picture in the authentic letters can be detected, but these are within the bounds of what could be expected from Paul himself.95 Best even rejects outright the idea that the author ascribes to Paul the exalted status of either a “role model” or a “hero of the faith.”96 Best accepts the pseudepigraphal character of the letter, but does not observe the author tipping his hand in the sections that concern Paul’s identity.
Peter O’Brien interacts with Lincoln, Snodgrass, and Best, echoing Snodgrass’ conclusion that Paul’s authorship is supported in the section. The problematic statements that place an exclusive focus on Paul on the one hand and reduce him to a lowly status on the other conform to the complex identity of Paul in his generally accepted letters.97
Similar to Best, John Muddiman does not embrace Pauline authorship for the letter as a whole but does reject the idea of an artificially glamorized Ephesian portrait of Paul. His conclusions stem from the perspective that Ephesians is the product of careful redaction of an authentic Pauline letter to the Laodiceans.98 From this viewpoint, some of the material (for instance, much of Eph 3:1–13) reflects the genuine Paul, while the hand of a later editor can be detected throughout (for instance, in 3:5, 9–11).99 The redaction was not undertaken for the purpose of elevating Paul but nonetheless reflects a “post-apostolic perspective” in some cases.100
Resisting the trend towards skepticism about exalted apostle arguments for Ephesians, Gregory Sterling revisits the issue of how after his lifetime, Paul’s influence is promoted in pseudepigraphal letters.101 He argues that order to construct a credible persona for Paul, the author of Ephesians relied heavily on Colossians, especially in his presentation of the revealed mystery entrusted to Paul and others.102 According to Sterling, the subtle changes the author of Ephesians made to content from Colossians and to prevailing tradition about Paul’s relationship to the other apostles help demonstrate the author’s intention to grant Paul “pride of place in the revelation of God’s mystery.”103
Clinton Arnold finds that the sections of the letter that describe Paul’s calling and ministry are best taken at face value. He summarizes his skepticism towards those who have proposed alternate interpretations for the material related to Paul in the letter: “[E]xplanations I have read of this material by those who affirm pseudepigraphy are not at all compelling.”104
Summary of Studies Pertaining to the Topic
Numerous other authors have made the claim, often without extensive substantiation, that Colossians and/or Ephesians depict an artificially pronounced view of Paul. Often scholars insist that the pseudonymous authors hoped to speak authoritatively under Paul’s name and thus presented Paul according to their idealized memory of him. Unlike Lohse, who used data from biographical sections in Colossians to challenge the origins of the letter, many scholars in recent decades have used the assumption of pseudepigraphy to further illuminate the authors’ shaping of Paul’s image for their purposes. Recent skepticism by Snodgrass, Best, Muddiman, and O’Brien about the strength of exalted apostle arguments in Ephesians may signal a change in perception, though a similar turn has yet to surface in studies on Colossians.105 The debate over Paul’s image in studies on Colossians and Ephesians calls for detailed inspection of the key passages in order to determine whether Paul’s portrait more likely reveals the imprint of an imitator or exhibits the self-perception of Paul himself.
1. Beker, Heirs of Paul, 68, 72.
2. De Boer, “Images of Paul,” 361.
3. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 148.
4. Lincoln, Ephesians, lxiii.
5. Keck, “Images of Paul in the New Testament,” 341–51.
6. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 72.
