Paul the Myth Versus the Real Paul

      The apostle Paul gives his readers a very lofty admonition: “Imitate me” (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1 NKJV). The problem is, we tend to have such a distorted view of Paul that this seems to be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. One of the reasons this is such a challenge is because numerous misconceptions about the apostle have been generated over the centuries. Sometimes he is referred to as “Saint Paul” to distinguish him from the ordinary Christian. He is commonly viewed as an inaccessible authority figure, high up on a pedestal with a halo encircling his head. We hear of “Pauline theology” and “Pauline churches,” as though he were a lone maverick who developed his own brand of Christianity distinct from that of the Jerusalem apostles. He is often regarded as a fearless missionary who boldly marched into unknown territories, bravely confronting religious error and conquering men’s souls without the slightest apprehension.

     With such an inflated view of the apostle Paul, how can any of us mere mortals ever hope to comply with the apostolic directive to imitate him? Few can live up to such a high standard, and since I am no “Saint Paul,” I have an excuse for not doing more for the Lord, for not being more involved in the church, and for not being more faithful in my Christian walk. However, to be fair to Paul, to give credit to God (who is the real reason for the apostle’s success), and to counter some of our flimsy excuses, we need to have a more realistic view of Paul. The purpose of this article is not to take anything away from the apostle that is his due but simply to dispel some of the mistaken ideas about him.

Paul the “Theological Genius” is a Myth

     Is it legitimate to speak of “Pauline theology” as though the apostle developed his own doctrine and his own brand of Christianity? What does Paul himself say? “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). The message that Paul preached was something he himself had “received” (1 Corinthians 15:1-3), and the directives he recorded were ultimately “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37).      

     Whether or not Paul was highly intelligent, talented or creative is beside the point. Everything he believed, taught, and stood for did not originate with him. It all came from a much higher source. Rather than promoting anything about himself, he hid behind the message of a crucified and risen Savior. How, then, do I imitate Paul in this regard? “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God . . .” (1 Peter 4:11).

Paul the “Fearless Warrior” is a Myth

     Is it realistic to think of Paul as a man without apprehensions, trepidations, or fears? If so, it makes it much more difficult for most of us to imitate him. But is this what the apostle was really like? During their first missionary tour, Barnabas and Paul were working in areas familiar to them, namely Cyprus and Southern Galatia (Acts 13–14). On the second tour it seems that again Paul was wanting to stay fairly close to home, namely in Asia and Bithynia (Acts 16:6-7). However, the Lord wanted him to go even farther a field (Acts 16:9-10). While Paul obeyed this missionary call, it was anything but easy for him.

     In Achaia the Lord reassured him: “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent: for I am with you . . .” (Acts 18:9-10). Paul later admitted to the Corinthians, “I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3). He also wrote, “when we came to Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Outside were conflicts, inside were fears” (2 Corinthians 7:5). Apparently the apostle Paul was just as human as the rest of us!

     Simply based on the information available to us, there does not appear to have been anything all that remarkable about Paul as a man. Both his bodily presence and his speech were considered unimpressive (2 Corinthians 10:10). A second-century description of him portrays him as a man of small stature, with a bald head, hooked nose and crooked legs (Acts of Paul and Thecla 1.4-7). Considering the extreme maltreatment he endured through the years (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:23-28), it is not surprising that his body bore visible scars (Galatians 6:17). On top of all that, it has been suggested that what he describes as his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) may have been some physical malady that he struggled with for most of his life.

     If Paul were such a pitiful and unimpressive specimen of humanity, how does one explain his phenomenal success as a missionary? First and foremost, credit must be given to the mighty working of God (1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 15:10). Secondly, one cannot discount the invaluable assistance of Paul’s co-workers (Acts 20:4; etc.). But as far as Paul himself is concerned, what made the difference in his life was a convicted heart and the burden he carried for a lost world (1 Corinthians 9:16). No matter how untalented, inadequate, or fearful you might feel, if your heart is convicted by the message of Christ, you will be compelled to step out in faith and allow God to powerfully accomplish his will despite your imperfections.

Paul the “Individualist” is a Myth

     The lone maverick and solo missionary are not the images of Paul we get from the New Testament. Of the thirteen letters bearing Paul’s name, only five begin with his name alone (each for a special reason). However, the normal practice was to include references to co-senders: Sosthenes (1 Corinthians), Timothy (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon), “all the brothers with me” (Galatians), Silvanus and Timothy (1, 2 Thessalonians). In addition, there are numerous co-workers mentioned in the body of Paul’s letters as well as those who send greetings at the end. The apostle was anything but a loner.

     On his first journey he worked in partnership with Barnabas and for a time with John Mark (Acts 13–14). On the second expedition he labored with Silas, Timothy, Luke, Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 16–18). On the third tour at least ten companions are mentioned in the biblical record (Acts 19–20). Of course the chief partner in Paul’s lifelong ministry was the Lord himself (cf. Acts 14:27; 15:4; 21:19; 1 Corinthians 3:6-7).

     Paul the so-called “theological genius,” “fearless warrior,” and “individualist” are myths that have no basis in scripture. The apostle did not give an impossible directive when he said, “Imitate me.” To truly imitate Paul, as he imitated Christ, we must: (1) hide behind the message of a crucified and risen Savior; (2) step out in faith, confront our fears, and do what the Lord has commissioned us to do; and (3) understand that we are called upon to work within a community, in partnership with one another and ultimately with God.

–Kevin L. Moore

Originally appearing in The Voice of Truth International (58:97-99) and republished in The Summit Chronicle 11:1 (June 2008): 3, 6, 9. 

Related Posts: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions Part 3, Part 4

Image credit: http://www.fredmckinnon.com/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/stpaul01.jpg

Paul’s Letter to Philemon

     The letter to Philemon is the shortest of Paul’s extant documents, consisting of merely 334 words (comparable in size to an average Greco-Roman letter). It is the most personal of the Pauline writings, addressed to “Philemon the beloved and our fellow worker” (v. 1).¹ While the address also includes, “to Apphia the sister, and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the assembly in your house” (v. 2), it is written almost entirely in the second person singular (“you”) form of address and thus directed to Philemon alone. It is commonly believed that Apphia was Philemon’s wife and that Archippus may have been their adult son. Philemon appears to have been a relatively affluent Christian, as he owned a house large enough to accommodate congregational meetings and was also a slave owner.

     Except among the most liberal scholars, Pauline authorship is not seriously questioned and the letter is counted among his undisputed writings. Even though Timothy is also named in the prescript (v. 1), the forty-two first person singulars with which the document is written distinguishes Paul as the sole author (note v. 19), leaving no room for Timothy in the letter’s composition, unless, of course, he served as amanuensis.²

     The Philemon epistle was composed while Paul was incarcerated (vv. 1, 9, 10, 13, 23), likely during the two years he was confined to house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:16-31). A comparable timeframe with Colossians is presupposed by the close relationship between the two documents. In both letters Timothy is named as co-sender, while reference is also made to Epaphras, Archippus and Onesimus (Col. 1:7; 4:9, 17; Philm. 2, 10, 23). In both letters Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are included as the apostle’s immediate companions (Col. 4:10, 14; Philm. 24).

     Since Paul was expecting potential release in Philm. 22, with no indication of such in Colossians, the Philemon epistle was probably drafted in early 62 after Colossians. In Colossians, Paul's appeal for prayers involved a petition for evangelistic opportunities in view of his "chains" (Col. 3:3), whereas in Philemon the prayer request included his anticipated release. Paul’s letter to Philemon would have been sent to the city of Colosse, seeing that Epaphras was associated with the Colosse church (Col. 1:7; 4:12) and acquainted with Philemon (Philm. 23), and Onesimus was Philemon’s slave (Philm. 15-16) and a resident of Colosse (Col. 4:9).

     The traditional view is that Onesimus was a runaway slave who encountered Paul in Rome (cf. W. Barclay, Letters to Timothy, Titus, Philemon 269-76). But it has also been suggested that Onesimus may have already known Paul and sought him out for help after having gotten into trouble with his master (cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Colossians and Philemon 301-304). An alternative proposal is that Onesimus was the messenger of Philemon’s house church who delivered financial aid to the imprisoned apostle and overstayed his visit (cf. S. C. Winter, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon” NTSup 33 [1987]: 1-15).

     According to recent studies of ancient Roman slavery law, it “was a legally recognized practice for a slave who had incurred his or her master’s wrath to flee to one of the master’s trusted associates to plea for his intervention and protection. The associate then served as a kind of official mediator, who would try to smooth out differences that had arisen through misunderstanding or even malfeasance” (B. D. Ehrman, The NT: Historical Introduction 353-54). It is interesting that in the opening of this epistle Paul does not describe himself as a doulos (“slave”) of Christ (as in Philippians 1:1), perhaps because of the sensitive issue he is addressing.

     Slavery in the Greco-Roman world was practically viewed as an economic necessity, incomparable to the harsher forms in other times and societies. Different kinds of slavery co-existed, and one must be careful not to make presumptuous generalizations. The domestic house slaves were much better off than those working in the fields or mines. A slave middle class consisted of skilled craftsmen, secretaries, educators, and medical practitioners.³

     The apostle urges a new relationship between Philemon and Onesimus, but he stops short of demanding emancipation. Elsewhere Paul encourages Christian slaves who could legally obtain freedom to take advantage of this opportunity, but otherwise their situation in life was to be accepted and used to the glory of God (1 Cor. 7:17-24). A Christian slave was still free in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:1), just as a free Christian was Christ’s slave (1 Cor. 7:22). Paul taught obedience for slaves and fairness for masters (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22–4:1). Nevertheless, the principles of Christianity (cf. Gal. 3:28) were to mitigate the harshness of slavery and would eventually lead to its demise.

     Within this brief epistle to Philemon the providential working of God is clearly evident, even though the details cannot be identified specifically (v. 15). We are thus reminded that God’s will is going to be accomplished despite our human shortsightedness and our clumsy, ignorant, fallible ways. The gospel molded an unprofitable slave into a useful, trustworthy servant (vv. 11-13), and the divine message and its transforming power remain unchanged. If brotherhood can be fostered between an irresponsible slave and his frustrated master (vv. 15-16), imagine how Christ can impact any of our less-than-ideal relationships.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ All scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² Perhaps Timothy was brought into the picture to add support to what Paul was about to say, while Apphia and Archippus may have been included in the address as a subtle way of pressuring Philemon to comply with Paul’s request (J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer 53). Timothy was from that general vicinity and could have been acquainted with Philemon.

     ³ Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke observe: “The dividing line between slaves and free persons was not always sharply drawn or easily recognized …. Often a reasonably rich man’s slave was better off than a poor citizen in possession of all civil rights …. Among ancient slaves there were highly intelligent and well-trained people who did qualified work and had – especially in Paul’s day – a fair chance of being eventually manumitted and/or of marrying into the owner’s or another free person’s family …. in many respects an ancient slave’s treatment was better and his life conditions more secure than those of a nineteenth-century factory worker” (The Letter to Philemon 3-4).

Related Posts: Paul's Prison Epistles, Colossians Part 1, NT Context: Households & Slavery

Image credit: https://revonator.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/philemon1.jpg

The Letters of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy to the Thessalonians

     Who wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians? While the apostle Paul was a capable evangelist and prolific letter writer, he rarely worked alone.¹ To focus exclusively on his personal involvement in his ministry and writing projects is to discount the invaluable contributions of his colleagues.

     The naming of three senders in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2 Thessalonians 1:1 is a unique feature, unlike any other opening address in the Pauline corpus.² Moreover, of all the first person verbs, pronouns, participles, adjectives and articles in the extant writings of Paul, the highest concentration of plurals (‘we,’ ‘us,’ ‘our’) is found in the Thessalonian letters. Over 96% of the first person terminology in 1 Thessalonians is plural, with 92% plural in 2 Thessalonians. No compelling reason can be given for not taking these “we” references at face value and as indicative of a cooperative endeavor.

     The fact that first person singulars appear in both 1 Thessalonians (2:18; 3:5; 5:27) and 2 Thessalonians (2:5; 3:17), twice with Paul’s name emphatically appended (‘I, Paul’), shows that he was the leading correspondent, although he kept his personal comments to a minimum. And the implication of 2 Thess. 3:17 is that the actual writing of the material preceding the postscript was done by someone other than Paul himself.³

     A distinct feature of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians is the wording of the introductory thanksgiving. Elsewhere in Paul the introductory thanksgiving is typically in the first person singular (eucharistō = ‘I thank’), even when co-senders have been named.⁴ Yet in 1 Thess. 1:2 (eucharistoumen = ‘we give thanks’) and 2 Thess. 1:3 (eucharistein opheilomen = ‘we ought to give thanks’) the plural form appears – clearly suggestive of multiple persons – while a distinction is made with the second-person readership (‘you’). Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy are most naturally understood as the thanks-giving communicants, as no doubt the initial recipients would have inferred.⁵

     Also unique to the Thessalonian correspondence is how the Pauline parakaleō formula is worded. The apostle’s frequent use of this clause, while customarily in the first person singular (parakaleō humas = ‘I appeal to you’),⁶ is consistently plural in the Thessalonian letters (1 Thess. 2:12; 4:1, 10; 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:12). Outside of these letters, only in 2 Cor. 6:1 (where ‘we’ naturally includes Timothy [1:1, 13] and is contrasted with ‘you’) and in 1 Cor. 4:13 (where parakaloumen applies to ‘us the apostles,’ v. 9) is the first person plural used.

     With Paul as the prominent figure, 1 and 2 Thessalonians were co-authored by him, Silvanus (a.k.a. Silas), and Timothy from Corinth in late 50 and/or early 51. The two letters appear to have been composed within close proximity of one another, and 1 Thess. 2:17 indicates that this was a relatively short time after the three-man mission team had left the Thessalonian brethren. Having planted churches in Macedonia and then separating for a time, Paul and his companions rejoined one another in Corinth in late 50 (Acts 16–18).⁷ At the time of writing the three missionaries were together, and Timothy had had time to revisit Thessalonica and rejoin his colleagues (1 Thess. 3:1-6; cf. Acts 18:5). Corinth (as opposed to Athens) is the most likely place where these documents were penned, since enough time needed to elapse for the situation addressed in the letters to develop.

     The Thessalonian epistles seem to be the earliest extant writings in which Paul was involved.⁸ The question of what happens to Christians who die before the Lord’s return (1 Thess. 4:13 ff.) must have arisen fairly early in the history of the church. In the openings of 1 and 2 Thessalonians Paul is mentioned by name only, with no reference to his apostleship or any other appendage, while in every subsequent letter a descriptive designation is added. Moreover, a number of manuscripts of 1 Thess. 1:1 have the abbreviated greeting, “grace to you and peace” (cf. N/ASV, ESV),⁹ while the other Pauline documents include the added phrase, “from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” This could suggest that the stereotypical Pauline greeting developed after the earliest letter (1 Thessalonians) had been composed.

     Because of discernable differences between the two documents, a number of critics have rejected 2 Thessalonians as a genuine Pauline writing. The sentences are longer and more complex in 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians is more formal in tone than 1 Thessalonians. It has also been alleged that the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians (with a sense of the imminent return of Christ) is different from 2 Thessalonians (warning against thinking the Lord’s return is imminent).

     While the extent of the differences has been exaggerated in some scholarly circles, one must appreciate the collaborative effort of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy in producing these letters. If Silvanus did the actual transcribing of one and Timothy the other, both the similarities and the differences are not only explicable but are perfectly understandable. Further, the respective issues and emphases would readily account for the seemingly different tones.

     The two epistles are responding to two different ideas about the Lord’s second coming. The first letter responds to the fear that those who had died will miss out on the return of Christ, and emphasis is placed on the suddenness and unexpectedness of the return (whenever that might be). The second letter addresses the false idea that Christ has already come back, therefore emphasis is on certain events that must take place first. The theology is not different between the two letters, but the emphasis is because of different circumstances.

     Under the guidance of God's Spirit, who wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians? Do we believe in giving credit to whom credit is due? When reading, for example, “you received the word of God which you heard from us …” (1 Thess. 2:13) and “we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ …” (2 Thess. 3:6), why do so many emphasize Paul alone and dismiss the contributions of Silvanus and Timothy? All of these men were spiritually gifted (cf. Acts 15:32; 2 Tim. 1:6) and equally involved in the Lord’s work. Rather than speaking of “Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians,” would it not be more accurate to make reference to “the letters of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy to the Thessalonians”? Not only does the New Testament teach the importance of unity and cooperation among brethren, the Thessalonian correspondence is a product, example and demonstration of it.

 --Kevin L. Moore  

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Paul the Myth Vs. the Real Paul, and Biblical Authorship (Part 4).

     ² Two senders are designated in 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, and only one in Romans, Ephesians, and the Pastorals. While at least three (possibly more?) co-senders are mentioned in Galatians, only Paul is actually named.

     ³ Cf. Rom. 16:22; 1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; Philm. 19. Since Timothy is mentioned in the third person in 1 Thess. 3:2-6 and the adept writing ability of Silvanus (a.k.a. Silas) is elsewhere suggested (Acts 15:22-23; 1 Pet. 5:12), Paul’s authorial partner in 1 Thessalonians was probably Silvanus. Timothy’s name in the opening address on the same level as Paul and Silvanus suggests his collaborative role, and the verbal and stylistic differences between 1 and 2 Thessalonians may be due to a greater involvement of Timothy in the drafting of the second letter.

     ⁴ Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; Phil. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Philm. 4. In 2 Cor. 1:3 and Eph. 1:3 the introductory blessing or eulogy is worded generically with no reference to person. Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are the author's own translation.

     ⁵ The first person plural is also used in the introductory thanksgiving of Colossians, naturally inclusive of Timothy (1:1-3). The main difference between Colossians and the Thessalonian letters is that the “we-you” contrast does not extend beyond 1:12 in Colossians (except for sporadic instances in 4:3, 8), whereas it is maintained throughout the Thessalonian correspondence.

     ⁶ Thirteen times this formula is used in Paul’s writings in the first person singular: Rom. 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10; 4:16; 16:15; 2 Cor. 2:8; 10:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 4:2; 1 Tim. 2:1; Philm. 9, 10.

     ⁷ Silas and Timothy met up with Paul in Athens (Acts 17:15; 1 Thess. 3:1), apparently returned to Macedonia, and then joined Paul again in the city of Corinth (1 Thess. 3:2-6; Acts 18:5). Claudius had dispelled Jews (including Aquila and Priscilla) from Rome in 49, and Gallio began as proconsul of Achaia in June 51 (cf. Acts 18:2, 12).

     ⁸ The letter embedded in Acts 15:23-29 would be an exception, but this is best left for another discussion.

     ⁹ Both the Alexandrian and Western text types are in agreement on the abbreviated clause. It seems more reasonable to conclude that later copyists sought to harmonize the shorter reading of 1 Thessalonians with the conventional longer version than having omitted the rest of the phrase (see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 561).

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions Part 3 and Part 4

Image credit: http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/ethiopian-icons.htm

Authorship of Ephesians

     Questions about the composition of Ephesians were raised as far back as Erasmus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jerome, not necessarily doubting Pauline authorship but noting unusual features of the epistle. More substantial attacks came from E. Evanson in 1792 and W. M. L. de Wette in 1826, followed by F. D. E. Schleiermacher, F. C. Baur and the Tübingen school. Ephesians is currently counted among the "disputed" Pauline letters by up to 70-80% of critical scholars (cf. Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the NT 620, 629).¹

     Those who reject Paul’s authorship have pointed out that the letter differs from the undisputed Paulines in at least the following ways. (1) The vocabulary of Ephesians contains over ninety words not found elsewhere in Paul’s extant writings. (2) The literary style of Ephesians is more formal (with long, elaborate sentences) than the undisputed letters (with a more direct, conversational style). (3) Ephesians appears to have borrowed wording from Colossians, with seventy-five of the 155 verses in Ephesians paralleled in Colossians. (4) The theology of Ephesians lacks emphasis on typical Pauline doctrines (e.g. justification by faith) and is at variance with the theology espoused in the genuine Paulines. For example, (a) in Ephesians the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (2:20), whereas elsewhere Paul unequivocally affirms that the only foundation is Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11). (b) In Ephesians there is reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles (2:11-18), but in Paul’s undisputed writings the Jew-Gentile conflict is an unresolved issue (Romans 2–4, 9–11, 14–15; Galatians 2–4). (c) Ephesians anticipates a long period of development for the church (3:21), in contrast to the expected immediacy of Christ’s return in the genuine Paulines (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Philippians 4:5).
     Are these objections as decisive as anti-conservative critics would have us believe? Consider the following responses. (1) The distinctive thrust of Ephesians necessarily calls for specific terminology. While word usage is an extremely subjective gauge for evaluating an author’s writing style, surely Paul’s vocabulary was broader than what is contained in a selective handful of his letters (see Biblical Authorship Part 3). Seeing that Ephesians is the only Pauline epistle wherein the terms politeia ("citizenship," 2:12) and hudōr ("water," 5:26) are employed, is it reasonable to conclude that these basic words were not in the apostle’s vocabulary and that he did not and could not have ever used them?!² The other side of the proverbial coin is having to explain why there are so many more words in Ephesians that are shared with the undisputed Paulines but no other New Testament writings (see F. B. Clogg, Introduction to the NT 96). In fact, liberal critics like G. Johnston ("Ephesians," in IDB 2:110-11) curiously maintain that Ephesians exhibits signs of forgery because it contains too many parallels to the authentic Pauline letters!
     (2) A hypothetical "Pauline literary style" fails to appreciate the varied contributions of Paul and his coworkers (see Biblical Authorship Part 4), not to mention the different purposes and themes that would naturally affect the writing style from one document to the next. The less-than-personal nature of this letter (see Ephesians: Why So Impersonal?) is a significant factor that would obviously affect its manner of presentation. A. Roon argues that at least some of the differences between Ephesians and the other Pauline letters may be due to the fact that Ephesians was written by Paul alone, whereas the rest were written with secretarial assistance (Authenticity of Ephesians 85-87). Obviously the manual writing of a letter is quite different than verbally dictating a letter. Alternatively, G. L. Borchert suggests that Paul’s amanuensis (perhaps Luke) may have had more liberty in drafting the form and content of Ephesians, as the letter betrays Lukan patterns of writing (Galatians 248, 257). Even W. G. Kümmel, who rejects Pauline authorship, acknowledges that the amanuensis hypothesis could explain the unique style and language of Ephesians (Introduction to the NT 252).
     (3) The relationship between Ephesians and Colossians (and other Paulines) argues for common authorship. It has been estimated that between one third and one half of the verses in Ephesians are parallel to Colossians in both order and content, one fourth of the words in Ephesians are in Colossians, and one third of the words in Colossians are in Ephesians (R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT 627-28). Similar parallels are also recognized between Ephesians and the other Pauline letters (see G. Johnson, "Ephesians," in IDB 2:110-11).
     (4) It is not realistic to expect Paul to have addressed the exact same themes in exactly the same way in all of his letters, irrespective of audience, circumstances, and occasion. This is particularly relevant to Ephesians, seeing that for three years Paul did not refrain from declaring to these brethren the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:20, 27). Further, when the apostle’s teachings are read in context and one recognizes that similar metaphors are sometimes used to emphasize different points for different purposes (e.g. 1 Corinthians 3:6-9; 15:36-37; Galatians 6:7-9), the theology of Ephesians is easily harmonized with that of the other Paulines.
     (a) In Ephesians the church is said to be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (2:20) because of the important contributions these godly men made through their inspired teachings (3:1-5). At the same time, Jesus Christ is still acknowledged as the preeminent foundation stone (2:20b), consistent with the comparable imagery of 1 Corinthians 3:5-11. (b) In Ephesians 2:11-22 the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles is stated according to God’s purpose rather than assuming a lack of any Jew-Gentile tensions. (c) That the Lord is to be glorified in the church "unto all generations" (Ephesians 3:21) is actually a prayer for eternity. And Paul never expressed certainty as to the timing of Christ’s return, whether it was to be during the apostle’s lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4:15) or after his death (1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14). The reference to the nearness of the Lord in Philippians 4:15 is thus better understood as an affirmation of spatial proximity rather than time.
     None of the objections against Pauline authorship is convincing enough to override the weighty evidence to the contrary. The author claims that he is "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), with the added self-description, "I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus" (3:1).³ The author asserts apostolic authority (1:1; 3:1-9; 4:1, 17) and exhibits an obvious familiarity with his audience (1:15-17; 3:2, 13-19; 4:17-20; 6:21-22). He even makes a personal prayer request: "for me, that speech may be given to me in opening my mouth in boldness to make known the mystery of the gospel" (6:18-19). For whom were these readers being asked to pray, and how would they have understood and responded to this request? Notice further that Tychicus was to personally communicate to these brethren specific news about this author who professed to be the apostle Paul (6:21).
     The outright dismissal of the self-claims of the text (1:1; 3:1; cf. 6:18-21) unnecessarily impugns the moral integrity of the writer. Why would he purposefully deceive his readers by alleging to be someone he is not despite the repeated emphasis on speaking truth (4:15, 25; 6:14)? This would also raise serious doubts, without solid justification, about matters of canonicity and divine inspiration (cf. 3:1-7; 6:14-17). Would the first recipients (who supposedly knew the author) have been duped? For whom would they have prayed (6:18-19)? About whom would Tychicus (a party to the deception?) have brought news (6:21)?
     Another significant factor is the vast manuscript evidence. Of the 779 extant copies of the Pauline writings,⁴ the authorship of Ephesians is ascribed to no one other than the apostle Paul. There is also the unanimous testimony of the early church (and even heretics like Marcion!), who were in a much better position than any modern critic (historically and geographically) to receive and transmit authentic information. By the mid-second century Ephesians was widely circulated and Pauline authorship undisputed.⁵
     Either Paul is the inspired author of Ephesians or he is not. It is the height of inconsistency to maintain the letter’s divine inspiration or at least its moral value, on one hand, while rejecting Pauline authorship, on the other. Is it realistic to argue that the contents of Ephesians are credible and true except for 1:1 and 3:1? If the authorial claims of 1:1 and 3:1 are false and misleading, how can the rest of the document be trusted? Unless one’s agenda is to undermine the integrity of the biblical record, it is hard to understand how so many significant variables can be ignored and how one can confidently maintain that Ephesians belongs in the suspect category of "disputed" writings.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
         ¹ Note, however, that H. W. Hoehner has shown this figure to be exaggerated (Ephesians 2-20).
      ² Furthermore, if Ephesians 1:3-14 and 5:14 are potential samples of pre-formed materials that have been adopted from other sources and incorporated into this epistle, as a number of modern scholars contend, is it then legitimate to include these words in the embellished charge of the author’s use of non-Pauline vocabulary?
      ³ All scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.
      ⁴ See Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the NT (2nd ed.) 91; also David Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection (1994).
      ⁵ The Marcionite canon (ca. 140), the Muratorian canon (ca. 180), early Latin and Syriac versions; cf. also Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Hermas. Even critics like W. G. Kümmel concede: "Without question Ephesians was extraordinarily well attested in the early church" (Introduction to the NT 251).

Related Posts: Pastoral Epistles: Authorship, Authorship of 2 Peter

Image credit: https://chocolatebook.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/20170518-ephesians-1-greek-interlinear-bible.jpg