THE MASTER’S SEMINARY

THE AUTHENTICITY OF PAULINE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

BY
SANGHUI LEE

SUN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

MAY 2019
 CONTENTS

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

Theological Distinction ........................................................................................................1

Language and Style ..............................................................................................................6

The Relationship to Colossians ............................................................................................8

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................14

i
 2
Introduction

The author of Ephesians, from the very first verse, clearly identifies himself as

Paul. Again, in verse 3, he refers to himself as Paul. Thus, it appears that the authorship

of Ephesians shouldn’t be a complicated issue. However, since Edward Evanson

introduced doubt of Pauline authorship in 1792, more and more scholars have rejected

Pauline authorship.1 Their argument is based on several reasons. This paper will discuss

and refute three of them: theological distinction, language and style and the relationship

to Colossians.

Theological Distinction

The distinctive theological characteristic of Ephesians is one of the arguments

used against Pauline authorship. Werner Kümmel says, “the theology of Ephesians makes

the Pauline composition of the letter completely impossible.”2 This argument will be

measured in three aspects: soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

In reference to its soteriology, Ephesians is considered to display the death of

Christ and the theology of the cross less prominently than other Pauline literature. On the

other hand, Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and cosmic lordship are seen as more

prominent.3 Rudolf Schnackenburg assents to this, stating that the cross is only

mentioned once as the place of reconciliation of the Jew and the Gentile with God

(2:16).4

1
Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians, An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002), 2.
2
Werner G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1975), 360.
3
Hoehner, Ephesians, 50.
4
Rudolf Schnackenburg, Ephesians, trans. Helen Heron (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 27.
 3
Regarding these claims, Peter O’Brien aptly made two observations. First, he

states, “the stress on Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and enthronement in Ephesians is

an emphasis of the New Testament as a whole, appearing in the sermons of Acts (by

Peter: Acts 2:24-36; 3:15-16, 21, 26; and by Paul: 23:6; 24:14-15; 26:23), in the generally

acknowledged writings of Paul (Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:3-28; Phil 2:9-11), as well as in

other authors (Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21).” 5 Thus, Christ’s

resurrection and exaltation is not a theology uniquely distinctive to Ephesians.

Furthermore, O’Brien notes that the writer of Ephesians is reminding the readers

that through Christ’s resurrection and exaltation all his enemies have been decisively

conquered (1:20, 21), and God has now placed them under his feet (v. 22). This will bring

great ramifications for the recipients of the letter because they are unified with him in his

resurrection and exaltation.6 Hence, he concludes, “the stress on their union with him is

grounded in his resurrection and exaltation rather than in their being baptized into his

death. The latter motif has not faded into the background, but it did not need to be

mentioned in light of the author’s purpose.”7

Secondly, O’Brien pays attention to the fact that the death of Christ is not

neglected in this letter. Traditional terminology for Christ’s death, such as his ‘blood’

(1:7, 2:13), ‘cross’ (2:16), ‘flesh’ (= ‘death’ at 2:15), ‘sacrifice’ (5:2), and ‘gave himself

up’ (5:25), all appear. Also, in what has been described as the theological centerpiece of

Ephesians, namely 2:14-18, it is confidently asserted that both Jews and Gentiles have

been reconciled to one another and to God through the cross. Thus, it is unwarranted to

5
Peter O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary. (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 21-23.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
 4
conclude the death of Christ and the theology of the cross are not prominent in this letter.

With regard to the ecclesiological aspect of Ephesians, it is suggested that the

author of Ephesians employs ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsia) exclusively in reference to the universal

church whereas the term in the undisputed Pauline literature most frequently refers to the

local churches.8 Advocates of authenticity, however, argue that other Pauline texts also

refer to the universal church as the church of God (1 Cor 10: 32; 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil

3:6). That’s why Paul addressed not only “the church of God at Corinth,” but also “all

those … who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord—both their Lord and ours” (1

Cor 1:2).9

Regarding another issue of the ecclesiology of Ephesians, Ernst Käsemann says

that the emphasis on the church as one body (4:4), universal (1:22-23), built on the

apostles and prophets (2:20), and holy and blameless (5:26-27) probably reflects a stage

after the ministry of Paul, an emergent catholicism.10 He noted that it is Ephesians that

most clearly marks the transition from the Pauline tradition to the perspectives of the

early Catholic era.11

However, this argument doesn’t refute the fact that the foundation of the church is

Christ. As Andreas Köstenberger states, “the apostles and prophets establish this

foundation through their witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, so that

Jesus remains the “cornerstone” (Eph 2: 20-22).”12 Thus, Ephesians presents the risen

8
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), lxiv.
9
Andreas J. Köstenberger, Scott L. Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and
the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 581.
10
Ernest Käsemann, Ephesians and Acts in Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966),
288.
11
Ibid.
12
Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 581.
 5
Jesus as the cornerstone of the church, who continued to give the gifts of apostles and

prophets to the church at the time the letter was written (4:11-12).13

Concerning eschatology, some suggest that in Ephesians, the constant expectation

of the Christ’s second coming evidenced in the early years of Paul’s ministry has now

faded into the background.14 Leslie Mitton has such an argument. He states not only that

there is no suggestion of a Second Coming, but also that the writer seems to anticipate a

long period of development for the Christian community, on the basis of 3:21.15

Advocates of Pauline authorship argue that Ephesians presents a future dimension

to salvation. Clinton Arnold notes that the twofold reference to the “[day of] redemption”

(1:14; 4:30), the reference to the future outpouring of God’s wrath (5:6), and the future-

looking promise that God will bring everything under the headship of Christ (1:10)

should be taken seriously.16 Plus, although not stated in the same terms, the undisputed

Pauline corpus also conveys the concept of the present age (Rom 12:2; Gal 1:4; 2 Cor

4:4) and the future age (1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21).17 Thus, it is true that while the

author deals with the present age, a future eschatology in Ephesians is in line with the

other Pauline epistles.

Therefore, although Ephesians may exhibit theological differences from other

Pauline letters, it’s hard to conclude that Ephesians is not written by Paul himself. As

Donald Guthrie aptly points out, mere differences in doctrine cannot be regarded as

13
Ibid.
14
Hoehner, Ephesians, 56.
15
Leslie C. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin, and Purpose (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1951), 21.
16
Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, vol.
10, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 48.
17
Hoehner, Ephesians, 57.
 6
evidence of dissimilarity of authorship unless real want of harmony in proved.18 In

addition, differences in doctrine should be considered in light of the circumstances. F. J.

A. Hort states, “It seems tolerably obvious that a great theological teacher, Paul, in

writing to different circumstances would naturally be led to lay stress on different parts of

the sum total of his belief.”19

Language and Style

Linguistic aspects of Ephesians have also been put to the test by opponents of

Pauline authorship. One of their arguments is the vocabulary in Ephesians is too unique.

Mitton notes that many of the words and phrases in Ephesians have an un-Pauline ring

about them because they have no parallels in the other Pauline epistles.20 For example,

about 90 words in Ephesians are not used elsewhere in the Pauline epistles.

However, this can be easily refuted by a comparison with Galatians. The statistics

of Raymond F. Collins demonstrate that Galatians has 2220 words with a total

vocabulary of 526 words, and there are ninety words in Galatians not found elsewhere in

Paul, but which occur elsewhere in the NT.21 Given the fact that Galatians is about 10

percent shorter, the unique vocabulary in both Ephesians and Galatians are almost

identical, but few argue Galatians is not a Pauline epistle.

Usage of some of the unusual words is noteworthy as well. D. A. Carson and

18
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990),
525.
19
F. J. A. Hort, Prolegomena to St Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians (London:
Macmillan, 1895), 123.
20
Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 8.
21
Raymond F. Collines, Letters That Paul did not write: The Epistles to the Hebrews and the
Pauline Pseudepigrapha, Good News Studies, vol. 28 (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988), 142.
 7
Douglas J. Moo introduce some examples.22 For instance, Paul uses hoi ouranoi for

“heaven” in his other writings, whereas in Ephesians he uses en tois epouranioism,

“heavenly realms.” Also, Paul usually refers to Satan, but in Ephesians “the devil” is

found.

Does this cause any question to Pauline authorship? No, it is not convincing. In

regard to the usage of “heavenly realms,” William Klein aptly mentions that the author of

Ephesians also uses “heavens” (1:10; 3:15; 6:9). Thus, he uses both “heavens” and

“heavenly realms.”23 Also, Paul uses Satan ten times in his other letters, but devil is a

common word used thirty-times in the NT.24 Therefore, it is not unusual for Paul to use

“the devil” in Ephesians. Moreover, Hort notes that both of these terms are used in six

NT books written by four different authors, namely, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, 1

Timothy, and Revelation.25

Therefore, the number of the unusual vocabulary and its usage are not formidable

enough to cancel Pauline authorship. In addition, there is no reason why Paul could not

use unique vocabulary in his letters and also demonstrate flexibility in vocabulary usage.

Even Milton admits, “Several of the undoubtedly genuine epistles have an even higher

percentage of words which are not found in the other Pauline writings.”26

The literary style of Ephesians has caused some questions to Pauline authorship as

well. Some argue the length of the sentences is showing distinction from Pauline corpus.

22
D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992), 484.
23
Tremper Longman, and David E. Garland, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 12,
Ephesians ~ Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 25.
24
Hoehner, Ephesians, 27.
25
Hort, Prolegomena to St Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians, 158.
26
Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians 29.
 8
Lincoln argues, “Gone is the direct, incisive argumentation of the earlier letters. This is

replaced by a heavier pleonastic style.”27 With this statement, he listed 8 verses as

supporting details (1:3-14, 15-23; 2:1-7; 3:2-13, 14-19; 4:1-6, 11-16; 6:14-20).

However, as discussed above, it can be counterargued by comparison with

Galatians again. Although the short incisive language and abrupt statements of Galatians

are missing from other Pauline letters, few, if any, would agree Galatians is not from

Paul.28 As the urgency of the situation in Galatians affects Paul’s style in Galatians, the

absence of pressing problems gives reflective mood to Ephesians, which generated

several lengthy sentences. Carson and Moo argue along the same lines.29 The reason is

the pleonastic style dominates only the first half of the letter; the style of the second half

falls within customary Pauline range. Thus, it’s reasonable to understand the style of each

half differs according to each substance.

In conclusion, while it is true Ephesians seemingly has distinctive language and

literary style, it is extremely untenable to determine authorship solely based on them.

The Relationship to Colossians

Arnold states, “most scholars who see Ephesians as pseudonymous contend that it

depends heavily on Colossians as its primary literary source (e.g., Lincoln,

Schnackenburg, Lindemann, Mitton et al.).”30 Some scholars such as Schnackenburg

argue that the dependence is based on the author’s memory of Colossians, but others such

as Mitton and Lincoln contend that the author must have possessed a copy of Colossians

27
Lincoln, Ephesians, lxv.
28
Hoehner, Ephesians, 28.
29
Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 484.
30
C. E. Arnold, Ephesians, Letter to the in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F.
Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid (Downer Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 242-43.
 9
which he redacted according to his own interests.31 The detailed arguments of Mitton and

Lincoln will be discussed below.

Mitton sums up the corresponding words and less exact corresponding words that

are still recognizable between two epistles and concludes that 26.5 percent of Ephesians

is paralleled verbally with Colossians and 34 percent of the shorter Colossians is

paralleled in Ephesians.32 Especially, information regarding the sending of Tychicus has

29 consecutive words of Colossians repeated in Ephesians. Thus, he states the author of

Ephesians must have been somebody who had known Colossians by heart, though not in

a mechanical way.33

However, Hoehner aptly presents a couple of points to disagree: (a) by using a

database to observe the parallels, it becomes apparent that there are only 246 words

shared between the two epistles out of a total of 2429 words for Ephesians and 1574

words for Colossians (b) many of the shared words used are the multiple use of

conjunctions, pronouns, prepositions, and proper nouns.34 Therefore, it’s hard to conclude

Ephesians’ heavy dependence on Colossians.

Also, Hoehner wonders why anyone would memorize such insignificant details

regarding Tychicus.35 Clinton Arnold comments as well, “It seems especially odd that the

longest passage reproduced in Ephesians is not from the theological argumentation or

paraenesis of Colossians, but about the sending of Tychicus.”36 Hence Hoehner states, “It

31
Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 32. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians 67. Lincoln, Ephesians, lv.
32
Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians 57.
33
Ibid., 67.
34
Hoehner, Ephesians, 31.
35
Ibid.
36
Arnold, Ephesians, Letter to the, 242.
 10
seems more reasonable to imagine that Paul wrote both epistles around the same time and

that toward the end of the second letter he referred to the conclusion of his first letter,

since it was applicable to both.”37

Lincoln presents similar arguments to Mitton’s. Lincoln argues that the writer of

Ephesians depended on Colossians “in terms of its overall structure and sequence, its

themes, and its wording. Yet what is also absolutely clear is that this is a free and creative

dependence, not a slavish imitation or copying.”38 Lincoln tries to prove the author of

Ephesians had seen a copy of Colossians or had memorized it by three comparisons

below.

First, he observes verbal correspondences within parallel sections.39 In the first

half of the books, similar greetings, key words (such as redemption, reconciliation,

mystery, etc.) are observed. Lincoln contends the writer combines wording from two

parts of the parallel section, which shows clear taking up from Colossians (Col 1:15-22,

Eph 2:11-16). In the last half of the books, Ephesians utilizes Colossians to refer to the

put-on put-off principle, household codes and the commendation of Tychicus.

However, Hoehner mentions, “Verbal links between the two epistles are also

readily explainable if these letters were written by the same person. Since some of the

same issues are discussed in both, it would be normal to use the same vocabulary and

expression.” 40 Thus, it is a little overstated to assert that the writer clearly took up from

Colossians.

37
Hoehner, Ephesians, 31.
38
Lincoln, Ephesians, lv.
39
Ibid., li.
40
Hoehner, Ephesians, 35.
 11
Secondly, Lincoln also argues that there are terminological links outside of major

parallel sections.41 He argues, “The turn of the phrase in 1:4, ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους

κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, is taken from Col 1:22 but omits its additional καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους. Also,

1:6, 7 incorporates Col 1:13, 14 but substitutes ‘in the beloved’ for ‘in the Son of his

love’ and ‘transgressions’ for ‘sins,’ and adds ‘through his blood’ in an apparent

conflation with Col 1:20.”42 However, this argument sounds a little farfetched. Rather, as

Hoehner states, it is natural for a single individual to use both similar vocabulary and/or

expressions and yet incorporate different emphases for a different audience.43

Thirdly, Lincoln brings the use of the same term but with different connotations.44

For instance, the term σῶμα refers to the cosmos in Col 2:19 but the church in Eph 4:15-

16. However, Guthrie states, “the alleged difference between Eph 4:15-16 and Col 2:19

in their description of Christ’s headship cannot seriously be maintained in view of the

fact that both epistles specifically identify ‘the body’ as the church (Col 1:18; Eph

5:23).”45 C. F. D. Moule also expresses doubt about any difference between the use of

σῶμα.46 Therefore, Lincoln’s attempt to disprove Pauline authorship by highlighting

distinctive similarities between the two epistles is not strong enough.

One last thing worth to be mentioned regarding the relationship to Colossians is

the assumption that Ephesians depend on Colossians. Ernest Best mentions that because

the acceptance of the priority of Colossians is so widespread as if it was proven fact that

41
Lincoln, Ephesians, lii.
42
Ibid.
43
Hoehner, Ephesians, 35.
44
Lincoln, Ephesians, liii-liv.
45
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 514.
46
C. F. D. Moule, “E. J. Goodspeed’s Theory regarding the Origin of Ephesians,” ExpTim 60
(May 1949): 224.
 12
the possibility of the use of Ephesians by Colossians is not even considered.47

However, there are opposed studies that give other possibilities. First, as Best

refutes Milton regarding the reference to hope in Ephesians 1:18 and Colossians 1:27, he

states that the grammatical and relational differences between two verses show that the

author of Ephesians cannot be dependent of Colossians.48 Also on Mitton’s regarding

Ephesians 1:20 as a conflation of Col 2:12 and 3:1, he explains, “Yet the resurrection and

the ascension are common themes in the NT and are naturally associated. There is

nothing peculiar about the language of either Eph 1:20 or the Colossian passages to

suggest that either depends on the other.” A. van Roon also mentions that in his

comparison of the two letters he “found no indication of literary priority on the part of

either letter.49”

O’Brien introduces the influential study of H. J. Holtzmann in 1872, which

concluded “the evidence of some of the parallels between the two letters pointed more in

the direction of the dependence of Colossians on Ephesians.50” Holtzmann argued, “Paul

had originally written a brief letter to Colossae; its existence can be supported from an

examination of the more Pauline sections of our Colossians; this brief letter was then

developed by a later unknown author into our Ephesians; the same author then

extensively rewrote and lengthened the original Colossians, resulting in our present

Colossians.”51

47
E. Best, “Who Used Whom?” The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians,” NTS 43 (January
1997): 72-96.
48
Best, “Who Used Whom?” 89.
49
A. Van. Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians, vol. 39 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 426.
50
O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 14. H. J. holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser – und
Kolosserbriefe: Auf Grund einer Analyhse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhälinisses (Leipzig: Wilhelm
Engelmann, 1872).
51
Best, “Who Used Whom?” 72.
 13
Therefore, as O’brien notes, “It is inappropriate to conclude that Ephesians is non-

Pauline because of the author’s use of Colossians. Colossians may have been written

prior to Ephesians, but, if so, it is probable that the two epistles were written within a

short time of each other, perhaps no more than a year or two apart.”52

Conclusion

Three of the reasons for rejecting Pauline authorship of Ephesians have been

discussed. Ephesians has distinctive theological features in soteriology, ecclesiology and

eschatology. Ephesians has quite a few unusual words called hapax legomena and

pleonastic phrases. Lastly, the argument was that the similarity to Colossians makes

Ephesians look like it is copied. In spite of plausibility of each reason, each has room for

dispute in light of the other Pauline epistles and the NT. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude

that Paul wrote Ephesians.

52
O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 20.
 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, Clinton E., Ephesians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament, vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

––––––. Ephesians, Letter to the in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F.
Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid. Downer Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.

Best, Ernest., “Who Used Whom?” The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians,” NTS
43 (January 1997): 72-96.

Carson, D. A., Moo, Douglas J., An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Collines, Raymond F., Letters That Paul did not write: The Epistles to the Hebrews and
the Pauline Pseudepigrapha, Good News Studies, vol. 28. Wilmington, Del:
Michael Glazier, 1988.

Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1990.

Hoehner, Harold W., Ephesians, An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2002.

Hort, F. J. A., Prolegomena to St Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians
London: Macmillan, 1895.

Käsemann, Ernest, Ephesians and Acts in Studies in Luke-Acts. Nashville: Abingdon,

1966.

Kümmel, Werner G., Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1975.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., Kellum, Scott L., and Quarles, Charles L., The Cradle, the
Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2016.

Lincoln, Andrew T., Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Longman, Tremper, and Garland, David E., ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol.
12, Ephesians ~ Philemon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Mitton, Leslie C., The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin, and Purpose.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

Moule, C. F. D., “E. J. Goodspeed’s Theory regarding the Origin of Ephesians,” ExpTim
60 (May 1949): 224.
 15
O'Brien, Peter, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1999.

Roon, A. Van., The Authenticity of Ephesians, vol. 39 Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf, Ephesians, trans. Helen Heron. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.