Did Paul write Ephesians?

Many of us, I would assume, have never doubted whether we should believe that the writers to our beloved New Testament epistles are who they claim to be. The very fact that Paul begins all of his letters with his name [along with the names of his occasional co-authors] is good enough for us. We take it as an article of faith. However, as is often the case in the world of higher-critical scholarship, disputes concerning Paul's actual authorship abound. None more so than Ephesians.

The first reason why many have doubted that Paul really wrote Ephesians is that the letter is so different from the rest of his other letters. There is, for example, unique vocabulary and phrases that Paul doesn't employ elsewhere. Not only that, there is a perceived emphasis in theology that many scholars say is different, even contradictory to the theological issues that are taught in the rest of Paul's known corpus. The author to the Ephesians seems too focused upon the institutional church, in their opinion, to really be the apostle Paul, who was more focused upon an individual's personal religious experience and the free association of like-minded believers.

Aside from a faulty theology of the church, this position assumes that the apostle Paul was incapable of having a wide-ranging vocabulary and that He would never use different (yet similar) words or phrases to convey the same concepts. Likewise, this position also entails that Paul's theology was one-dimensional, and that he could not apply different theological points to different issues that confronted the various churches whom he was writing. Do these men forget Paul's vast education and intellect?

The second reason why many doubt Pauline authorship of Ephesians is that the book is too much like Paul. You may be asking at this point: "How can Ephesians be not like Paul and too much like Paul at the same time?" Well, as you may already have guessed, the book of Ephesians is remarkably similar to the book of Colossians; they are traditionally known as "sister epistles." Rather than explain their similarity by assuming that they are from the same author, many scholars suggest that one is a copy of another. Typically, therefore, Ephesians is explained away as a product of a pseudonymous author who is borrowing from another one of Paul's works.

What we find in Ephesians, however, is not a cut-and-paste product that reeks of pure plagarism, but a brilliant treatise that teaches similar ideas, while applying them in different ways. Certainly, this is Paul's prerogative and to suggest somehow that Paul would not or could not do this is the height of arrogance in my opinion. To conclude, I appreciate this quote taken from Carson, Moo, and Morris' Introduction to the New Testament: “Which is more likely – that an imitator of Paul in the 1^st century composed a writing 90 to 95% in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging 5 to 10% from his usual style?”

Finally, many scholars doubt Paul's authorship of Ephesians because the book is not friendly enough. What I mean is that there are relatively few personal greetings at the end (or anywhere else, for that matter) of the letter. We know that Paul spent a significant amount of time living in Ephesus, over two years, in fact (Acts 19:10). One would expect therefore, a lengthy list of personal greetings like those found elsewhere in his writings (cf. Romans 16, and keep in mind that Paul hadn't even been to Rome!). Is this not a sign of forgery?

I would first respond to this by saying that no one can be completely sure why Paul wrote the way he did, but to automatically assume that it can't be him is a big mental leap for me. What we do know is that Paul was sending the letter to the Ephesians by a man named Tychicus, who was to report on all of Paul's exploits and, we would assume, to also give personal greetings. Perhaps Paul wanted to save space on the parchment he was writing on, who knows? Another explanation that is given is that Ephesians was meant to be a circular letter, that is one that was not intended for any particular city, but rather, was to be copied and sent around from church to church in Asia Minor. Certainly, if this was the case, we would not expect to see any personal greetings. To bolster this argument, there is some textual evidence that we have that proponents point to. In some of our really good manuscripts, the words "in Ephesus" in 1:1 are not there. Perhaps these are copies of this apparent circular letter that did not originate from the Ephesian's copy of the letter. While this theory may or may not be true, one thing is sure, Paul was certainly not rude to his audience and his tone of writing was certainly appropriate to the occasion.

How to read a letter... continued.

[For the first part of this entry, see below]

3. Letters must be read literarily.

I think it is a very common notion that when Paul sat down to write to the Romans or the Ephesians, for example, that he just grabbed a pen and paper and jotted down a few thoughts the same way you and I write an email or other casual correspondence. But the fact of the matter is that the New Testament epistles are all literary works in their own right, often full of many complex and intriguing elements. Passages like Philippians 2 or Colossians are thought to be actual "hymns" or poems that were no doubt sung by the early Christians. We must give care to study not only what the apostles taught, but also how they said it.

4. Letters must be read theologically.

New Testament epistles are theological to be sure, but not always in the way that we assume. When we think of theological works, I bet many of us think of some thick tome or even multiple volumes with thin pages and tiny font where one can look up just about any theological topic and read all that one would ever want to know about it. This is known as "systematic theology." New Testament epistles are not systematic theology. When one seeks to understand what specific authors are saying in specific literary works, he or she is engaging in "Biblical theology." Paul, nor any of the other apostles, never wrote an exhaustive treatment on a particular theological subject. He wrote what he felt was necessary to address the particular needs of his readers. It is the job of the systematic theologian to look at the whole of Scripture and see what all of the relevant passages teach on specific theological topics. The two methods are not opposed to each other, rather they are complimentary.

5. Letters must be read authoritatively.

When reading these letters in the New Testament, we must always remember that we are not reading merely the words of men (they are certainly that), but we must always remember that they are also the very words of God. The doctrine of inspiration teaches that God the Holy Spirit worked with a particular author's knowledge, education, experience, temperament, feelings, desires, fears, hopes, etc. to produce the word of God. This is true of the whole of Scripture ("plenary"), down to the very words ("verbal"). That Paul was acutely aware of the fact that he was writing with such authority is clear in all of his letters, especially at the opening when he almost always mentions the fact that he was an apostle. An apostle was an emissary or an ambassador that spoke on behalf of the Lord with equal authority (it is for this reason that there are no apostles today).

May you have fruitful reading!

How to read a letter...

As 21st century Americans, we have an historically unprecedented amount of access to the Word of God. Whether it's an old copy on your shelf, a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room, or even an audio MP3, it seems that the Scriptures are ubiquitous in our society. But even though personal Bible-reading is at an all-time high, it does not necessarily mean that everyone is profiting from it.  In other words, not all Bible-reading is created equal. Part of the problem is that people do not recognize the fact that the Scriptures contain various genres that were composed by numerous people throughout a significant amount of time. In order to fully understand the various books of Scripture, they will have to be read in subtle, yet different ways. 

One of the major genres which we encounter in the New Testament is that of the "epistle" or "letter."  Whether it's the 13 letters written by the apostle Paul, or the "general epistles" of James, Peter, John, and Jude, what we have in our possession are real correspondence from real individuals to real congregations in the first century world. In order to fully appreciate this part of Scripture, here are a few guidelines for profitable reading:

1. Letters must be read as a whole. 

How often do you get a letter from a friend and instead of reading from beginning to end in one sitting, you read a few paragraphs, then stop, a few days later you read the end, and then you sporadically read random sections over the next few weeks. Certainly this is NOT the proper way to read a letter. In the first century church the New Testament canon was still being composed, and when a church got a letter from one of the apostles (like Peter or Paul), they would assemble together (typically on the Lord's Day) and have it read out-loud in one sitting. This way, they were able to know the context of what the apostle was saying to them. One of the biggest reasons why particular Bible verses are misunderstood today is due to the fact that they were taken out of their context. The best way to insure that you are properly understanding what is being said in New Testament letters, is to read them in their immediate and broader context. 

2. Letters must be read historically.

Part of knowing a letter's broader context is to have, as best we can, an understanding of the historical situation in which particular letters were composed. As I mentioned above, these are real letters, written by real people to real churches. Gaining a knowledge of what was going on in certain situations helps immensely. This always involves a bit a guess work, but the evidence that one looks for is classified as "internal" and "external." Internal evidence are those things which we read within the text itself. External evidence are clues that we gain from other extant documents (the Book of Acts is key), as well as the tradition that we have from the Early Church. Some of the letters in the New Testament are known as "occasional" letters. This does not mean that they were written every once in a while, but that their writing was precipitated by a certain occasion. Sometimes they preceded a visit or served as a follow up letter after one. Other churches were in the midst of controversy or under the sway of various heresies. Those letters where the occasion[s] seems to be the overriding interest of the author are a bit like hearing a one-sided phone conversation; you only hear the person your with, but you still can piece together what's being said. This is the same way we can figure out what heresies Paul confronted or what issues plagued the early church. 

coming soon... 3 more ways in which letter ought to be read.

"If you have seen me..."

Scripture is emphatically clear that no man has ever seen God (Exo 33:20; John 1:18; I John 4:12). This is the reasoning behind the second commandment which is against making a graven image. In Deuteronomy 4:15-19, Moses warns the Israelites to make sure that they keep this command by reminding them that when the Lord spoke to them out of the midst of the fire in Horeb, they saw no "form" of God. Therefore, they should not try to replicate or represent God in any way. 

In the upper room on the night before Christ's death, he told his disciples that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6). One of his disciples must have been a bit confused, because he responded by saying to Christ, "Show us the Father, and it will be enough." After expressing a bit of frustration at the fact that even his closest friends still didn't get, Jesus responds, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (v.9). In other words, what God didn't do on Mount Horeb with the Israelites so many years prior, he did do in the incarnation of his only begotten Son.  Jesus Christ is the revelation of God for all the world to see. 

Having this understanding, we can now ask the practical question: "Are images of Jesus Christ permissible?" This question is further complicated when we consider the fact that we have no idea what Jesus looked like. There is no authentic portrait or description of him that we have, nor did he or the gospel writers see the need to provide us with one. When people attempt to portray Jesus, they usually produce a stereotypical "Jesus" (i.e. a white man with a beard and long hair). If I, as a married man, carried a picture of another woman in my wallet and showed it to people when they asked to see my wife, you would think I was insane!  If people really wanted to know who my wife is, an accurate picture, and not just of some random girl, must be used. Likewise, when Jesus says, "If you have seen me..." it must really be Jesus that we see. 

When Peter writes, some 30 years after the Ascension of Jesus, to Christians living in Asia Minor he says concerning their Lord, "Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory" (1 Peter 1:8). You see, Peter has no problem with Christians not having ever seen Jesus or even knowing what he looks like; they still can have a relationship with him. But that is not all there is, because Peter also speaks of a "blessed hope," which includes nothing less than seeing the risen Lord upon his return in glory. As John reminds us in his first epistle "We know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). Having a desire to see Jesus is not wrong, on the contrary, it is to be commended. However, now is not the time, but we must eagerly await the day.  

For more on this issue see: "Iconoclasm, Incarnation, and Eschatology: Toward a Catholic Understanding of the Reformed Doctrine of the 'Second' Commandment," David VanDrunen, International Journal of Systematic Theology, vol. 6 number 2 (April 2004).

For a discussion of how God has provided visible means of grace for us, you can read a new book written by my pastor, Daniel R. Hyde, entitled In living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace, Reformed Fellowship Inc. (Grandville, MI: 2009). 

Get the picture?

The second commandment forbids the manufacturing of any image for the purpose of worshiping it. If the first commandment condemns worshiping false gods, the second commandment condemns worshiping the true God in false ways. Certainly, in our culture at least, idolatry has taken on a more subtle, yet still prevalent, presence.  Everyone knows that God is invisible and that he cannot be imaged. But what about images of Jesus? Since Jesus was a man and men are portrayable, are we allowed to have images of him? If one would observe the home of even a typical Evangelical family in America, he would no doubt find numerous pictures of Jesus: perhaps a children's Bible with him on the cover, or a sentimental painting on the wall, or some sort of Jesus movie, or on a T-shirt, and the list goes on. The Reformers, on the other hand, were very emphatic in their denunciation of any attempt a of portrayal of Jesus Christ, and they did so on the authority of the second commandment. For most Christians today, however, the typical reformed argument seems to be a non sequitur. In other words, the argument: "God may not be imaged in any way, Jesus is true and eternal God, so, Jesus may not be imaged," does not seem to be very persuasive to the vast majority of Christians.  

A common response to the question of whether pictures of Jesus are permissible is that they are alright, as long as we do not worship them.  This is, however, a slippery slope to be on. At what point does the admiration and inspiration one derives from pictures of Jesus cease to be just that and not also some sort of worship and devotion. If indeed, Jesus is a wonderful person and deserving of praise, how are we to clearly divorce in our minds the feelings we get when we view a picture purporting to be Jesus and when we are really offering up worship to him? This is, no doubt, further complicated with those who are coming out of a Roman Catholic background where images of Jesus are expressly given devotion and prayed to.

Another response is that pictures of Jesus should be tolerated to serve as teaching aids for children and the unlearned. This is an identical argument employed by the Roman Catholic church during the Reformation in defense of the stain-glass windows and other images displayed in their churches. They called them "books for the laity," since most parishioners were illiterate and unable to read the Biblical stories themselves. To this argument I can respond with the Heidelberg Catechism #98: "We should not be wiser than God..." In other words, if one observes the entirety of Scripture, he will find that God never instructs his people to produce images to help educate their children in spiritual matters. Rather, what he has ordained is preaching, thus placing emphasis and efficacy in the hearing (not seeing) of the word. 

coming soon... how the incarnation effects our understanding of the second commandment.

God in a Box

Cessationism is the belief that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit that were given to Christians (including such things as the power to heal, speak in another language, prophecy, etc.) have ceased to exist since the closing of the apostolic era. Charismatics, those who hold to the perpetuity of supernatural gifts, often chide their fellow cessationist brothers in the Lord for being guilty of "putting God in a box." Who are we to say what God can and cannot do? Is He not sovereign? If God wants to work in miraculous ways among his people, is it not sinful to try to limit him? Furthermore, Charismatics challenge cessationists to produce a single verse from Scripture that explicitly states that miraculous gifts will cease at a particular time in redemptive history. As a result, I Corinthians 13:8-12 is often twisted to prove things that it never was meant to say in the first place. 

Of all the objections against cessationism, this has to be the most valid. As forceful as the historical and experiential arguments are, no cessationist would have a leg to stand on if it were not proven in Scripture. We are, after all, people of the Book.  A full and detailed Biblical argument in favor of cessationism is not even close to what you are reading now (for a good start, check out Perspectives on Pentecost, by Richard Gaffin, Jr. [P&R publishing]), but suffice it to say, that not all Biblical doctrines are proven from explicit statements found in Scripture, but rather, are rightly deduced from inductive observations. One clear example is the doctrine of the Trinity.  One would search in vain in Scripture if he was trying to find a single "proof text" that would summarize all the various aspects of the doctrine we know today as the Trinity (e.g. that there is only one God in three distinct Persons). Orthodox Christians, however, have rightly held to this believe in all times and in all places. What I am trying to say is that the Bible can clearly speak on a certain subject without addressing it directly.  

When it comes to the subject of miracles, the uniform testimony regarding them in Scripture is that they are given to validate new revelation given by God. When Moses was at the burning bush, for example, he asked how he would prove that he was not just crazy, but that people would really believe him (Exo 4).  God responded by giving him miracles to perform. When Elijah and Elisha prophesied against to the Northern kingdom of Israel who had all but abandoned belief in Yahweh in favor of Baal worship, they were given the ability to work miracles to show that their God was superior (e.g. Baal was the storm god who brought rain and Elijah brought a drought for 3 1/2 years!). In the New Testament we find another deluge of miracles with the ministry of Christ and the apostles in the Gospels and Acts. In short, we find clusters of miracles given in Redemptive History whenever new and significant revelation of God is proclaimed. This is confirmed by the writer to the Hebrews who speaks of the new revelation given by Christ which was in turn "attested by those who heard" (i.e. "the apostles") and then to validate the message, we read, "God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will" (2:3-4). 

Here we find a clear Biblical teaching on the purpose of miracles: they are given to validate new revelation. If we rightly believe that the canon is closed and no more new revelation is being given by God, what purpose remains for supernatural gifts? 

Can God work miracles today? Yes, he can and he does. Are we putting God in a box? No, we are only trying to have a Biblical perspective on  how he has revealed himself and his actions. 

How'd you like another black eye?

Popular treatments of the Reformation have latched onto the sensational story of the burning of Michael Servetus in Calvin's Geneva. Indeed, this has become a proverbial "black eye" for those who identify themselves as Reformed Christians; it is not something we're terribly proud of.  Well, it may or may not come as a surprise to you to learn that this was not the only case of well-known and influential Reformers being involved in the execution of a heretic.  

To make a long story short: Johann Sylvan was a minister and superintendent in the Palatinate during the 1560's till the early 1570's. He had made the transition from a Roman Catholic priest to a Lutheran to nominally Reformed over the course of about ten years. Although there is no evidence concerning his involvement with the formation of the Heidelberg Catechism, he did take part in the translation of the  New Testament for the Heidelberg Bible.  Although his aloofness as a pastor led to popular resentment, it was the controversy over the introduction of a presbyterial church government that revealed his religious dissent. It became clear that Sylvan not only favored the Zwinglian style of church government (controlled by the magistrate), but he also revealed affinity for Zwingli's purely memorial view of the Supper. He feared that even Calvin's view of a "Spiritual presence" led to idolatry due to God's utter transcendence. 

Sylvan's demise was further solidified with his association with those who held anti-trinitarian beliefs. One of these men, Adam Neuser, was, at one point, minister of St. Peter's Church in Heidelberg. Neuser had authored a confession of faith in 1570 which explicitly denied the Trinity, labeling it unbiblical and an invention of the early church fathers. He ended up fleeing to Turkey where he converted to Islam and also was an alcoholic. Sylvan was also planning an escape, but he was not so lucky. Once in custody, Fredrick III was torn about what to do with him.  While the civic judges favored corporal punishment for Sylvan, religious leaders, including our own Olevianus and Ursinus, wanted to make an example out of him. Johann Sylvan was beheaded on December 23, 1572 in the Heidelberg market square, even after making an apparent recantation of his views. To his credit, Fredrick III vowed to care for Sylvan's wife and child.

As modern-day readers, we may be at a loss about what to make of all of this. First, I think it is important to not judge these individuals with the same standard that we have today. While not excusing their sin, understanding that these were men of their times helps us to see that their actions were not out of the ordinary or especially heinous. Heresy was often a capital punishment as it also was viewed as a type of treason against the throne, especially for those who held public office. Religious dissent was not handled all that well (to say the least). 

Secondly, it is important for us to keep in mind that the church of Christ, as it is manifested here on earth, has never been without sin or fault. This is, of course, because God has so chosen to govern his church with sinful men. There has never been, nor will there ever be in this life, a so-called Golden Age of the church where everything is pure and pristine (even the first-century church had its problems!). As Christians we should pray for those sinful men that God has chosen to rule his church that He would lead them to all truth by his word and Spirit.