with 1 Cor 7:7 and Paul’s encouragement later in 7:29–31 to refrain from marriage because the time is short. This contention, however, fails to appreciate fully the context of each argument. In 1 Corinthians, Paul faces a community struggling with issues of sexuality, and it seems that some married couples are refraining from sex with each other (7:1–5), although perhaps some husbands are visiting prostitutes (6:15–18). Moreover, the Corinthians downplayed the eschatological future in Christ, leaving Paul to insist upon it at every opportunity. Ephesians does not address sexual immorality or confusion within marriage; rather, it describes the institution in light of Christ and the church. And within the description is a forward looking emphasis, namely that the purpose of Christ’s death was to make the church holy and blameless (see also 2 Cor 11:2). The church is not presently holy or blameless (at least as Paul describes the behaviors of believers in his letters!), but Paul is consistent with the larger New Testament picture of the church as the bride of Christ who, in the Last Day, will be presented to Christ (Matt 22:1–10; 25:1–13; Rev 19:7–10; 21:9). A final point concerning eschatology in Ephesians: Paul’s command to put on the armor of God to fight against the powers and principalities (6:10–20) would be nonsensical if he believed that Christ had already defeated such powers, as some understand 1:20–22 to say. In Ephesians, as in the rest of the Pauline corpus, believers live in the tension between the now and the not yet; now is the time of salvation, but as of yet, not all that Christ has accomplished on the cross has been realized.
Finally, much has been made of the universal church described by Ephesians. Because Paul deals only with the local community in his other letters, so the argument contends, Ephesians must be deutero-Pauline. While it is true that Paul does not refer to the local church in Ephesians, it must also be stated that he does refer to the universal church in the uncontested letters. In 1 Corinthians, he addresses the letter not only to the local congregation but to all those everywhere who likewise call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor 1:2). Moreover, he speaks to the Corinthians of baptism into one Spirit (1 Cor 12:7–14, see also Gal 3:27–9). The body of Christ is described as having various parts or dedicated ministries, such as apostles, prophets, teachers, and so on (12:27–31), with no hint that this configuration is based on the local church (a similar listing is found in Eph 4:11–13). In both Romans and Galatians, Paul speaks of believers as children of Abraham (Gal 3:29; Rom 4:16), clearly imagining a wide-reaching community. Lastly, as Paul describes his persecution of believers, he speaks of attacking the church of God, implying not isolated congregations but a larger group of communities (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6). Paul refers to the church as the “Israel of God” in Gal 6:16. Just as an individual synagogue would hardly imagine itself as other than part of the larger Jewish community, it appears that Paul too sees each congregation as connected to a larger entity, what he can refer to as the body of Christ (Eph 5:29; 1 Cor 12:13).
A final sticking point is Paul’s declaration that the church is built on the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). This is said to conflict with his claim that the church’s foundation is Christ (1 Cor 3:11, see also Col 2:7). But is there a sharp difference? Paul understands his apostolic ministry as speaking only of God’s work in and through Christ, that is, the gospel and its ramifications. He is not at liberty to expand or eliminate any part of the tradition handed down to him. However, Paul should be given the flexibility to develop imagery that best describes the concepts, for his metaphors gain much of their power because they are dynamic. In Eph 2:20, Paul describes Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone that secures the foundation of the building (the church), a sentiment not at all foreign to his point made to the Corinthians. In both cases, it is Christ who establishes the shape of the building and gives it security and strength.
Historical Context of Ephesians
A third area of concern for those who postulate Ephesians as pseudo-apostolic is the historical context of the letter, or more accurately, the apparent lack of historical context. In other letters, Paul is responding to intruders in the congregation (Galatians, 2 Corinthians), a letter sent by the community (1 Corinthians), a false teaching (Colossians), or even a gift sent by the community (Philippians). With Ephesians, nothing of the sort immediately presents itself. Additionally, alleged glimpses of the church suggest to some a congregation of a generation or more after Paul. Specifically, the church is described as fully integrated, with Jew and Gentile now one in the peace of Christ (2:14–18). Such a scene is markedly different from the tensions between Jew and Gentile that seem to permeate the Galatian churches or the Roman community. While these points have some merit, not all churches struggled with such tensions; for example, 1 and 2 Thessalonians as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians rarely mention the law or Jews or Judaism. It may be because the communities were mainly Gentile, but if Acts can be used to shed light here, we might suggest that some allied with the synagogue (Jews and God-fearers) began to associate with followers of Christ. Moreover, history does not support the assumption that a generation or two after Paul the church had sorted out the Jew/Gentile situation. Thus pushing the epistle into the second century does not help the problem. A close reading of Eph 2:11–21 suggests Paul is not describing the current state on the ground, as it were, in his congregation. Instead, he is declaring what the cross and resurrection have done to bring Gentiles, those formerly alienated from the true God, into fellowship with God’s people (2:19). Indeed, it is precisely this truth that presents the historical setting for the epistle, namely the urgency for living out this unity within the congregations. And, we might add, interpreters have struggled to discern Paul’s overarching reason for writing Romans (beyond his personal introduction and request for aid in his planned visit to Spain), but have accepted the letter as genuinely Pauline. Furthermore, the description of Paul in 3:1–11 raises problems for some. They note that the description of Paul as less than the least of the saints (3:8) is too harsh. Yet Paul describes himself elsewhere as one who was like an aborted fetus (1 Cor 15:8)—hardly a flattering picture. Others suggest that Paul would not identify apostles as holy (Eph 3:5), as this was a later, post-apostolic appellation. But Paul is quite complimentary when speaking of apostles as gifted by God (1 Cor 12:28). Could the same writer be both highly critical of Paul, and warmly sympathetic to the apostles (which included Paul, Eph 1:1)? Another problematic aspect of 3:1–11 is the apparent assumption by the author that the audience has not seen Paul, but has heard of him (see 3:1, which notes that they heard of Paul, implying that they did not know him directly). Presumably if Paul spent over two years in Ephesus (Acts 19:10), then many in that city would have known Paul personally. If this is an encyclical letter, however, then Paul could not assume that he has met with each of the churches who will hear this letter read in their congregations. A second possibility is to understand Paul’s remarks as referring narrowly to his current imprisonment. If he is writing from Rome, the majority in Ephesus would be aware of his circumstances but not know them from personal encounter. Paul’s point, then, in these verses would be to set his current situation in context: he is a prisoner for the sake of Gentiles (3:1) and rather than that news dismay or shame them, his sufferings are a source of glory for them (3:13). In sum, the biographical details of chapter 3 need not indicate an author other than Paul himself.
In conclusion, the results of the internal evidence point to including Ephesians as one of Paul’s genuine letters, with the admitted distinctive language and content varying within an acceptable range from the undisputed letters. We proceed under the assumption that this letter was commissioned directly by Paul and was executed under his guidance and authority.
Pseudonymity in the Greco-Roman World
and the Early Church
Historical Survey of Pseudonymity
Having examined much of the evidence put forward in support of understanding Ephesians as deutero-Pauline, a brief exploration of the notion of pseudonymity (borrowing a well-known author’s name for one’s own work) in the ancient world merits our attention. Until about 300 years ago, most readers of the Pauline corpus assumed all letters attributed to Paul were penned by him or his scribe. But with the rise of the modern criticism of the Bible, and a renewed interest in ancient literary practices, various scholars today assert that pseudonymity was an accepted and common literary convention in the ancient world. Some even assert that only four of Paul’s
