familj' life are laid down in each ; the same phrases and words recur ; they are both conveyed by Tychicus (cf. Iloltzmann, Einleitung'' p. 291, foi exact details). But there are important tliiferences ; the personal element is strongly marked in Col (2i-< 411) ") and almost absent here ; the controversial tone (Col 2'''^) is dropped ; the stress there was on Christ's relation to the universe, here on His relation to the Church ; there Christ was spoken of as the irXiipwpa of God, here the Church as the 7r\);pw/io of Christ and of God. Again, there are new points emphasized in this Ep. ; the sense of the continuity of the Church throughout the agea (Eph p-»), the work of the Holy Spirit (12 times in Eph, 1 in Col), the unity of the Church (2"-"" 4*"'), the analogy between family life and the Church (5''*-G''), the simUe of the (Christian armour (6'"""), are all additions in this Ep., or at best are expansions of very slight references there.
The points of similarity justify us in finding below the surface allusions to the Col. controversy. That arose from teaching which either grew simjily out of Jewish soil, or perhaps was influenced by extraneous Oriental speculation (cf. Lightfoot, Colussians: 'The Colossian Heresy'; and Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 116-129), laying great stress on a system of elaborate rules, termed a philosophy, and separating God from the material world by the introduction of the worship of angels. In answer to this the Ep. to the Col emphasized the cosmic work of Christ, and the need of a truer and higher wisdom, and of faith as the means of approach to God. This controversy is now in the background ; but it is justifiable to (ill out the vague allusions in such jiiissiiges as I'-i"-*' 2"" 3'"' 18. IS 41U. 14. 21 gia^ by the more detailed parallels in Col (cf. esp. Findlay in Expositors Bible).
On the other hand, the points of dissimilarity which cover the larger part of the Ep. sliow that the stress of that controversy is absent here, and that other motives are juominent.
The purpose, then, is primnrHy to stir up the readers to a higher activity and a closer unity by reminding them of the ideal of the Church in God s eteru.al iiur[)0ses ; sccdiularily, to guard them against false teaching that was current at the time, tending to take a low view of the created world.
ii. AUTHOR.SHIP AND Dati:.— Three imssihle alternatives are ojien to us : either the author is .St. Haul, or some friend writing for him and with his knowledge, or some later writer assuming after .St. Paul's death that he is justilied in writing in his name. The second of these altenuitives may be put a.side ; it is only another form of the liist, an the Eji. would pniclically be St. I'aul's and have all his authority. Now, as the third alternative is possible, we must eliminate at hrst from the dis- cussion all that speaks of the e.\«ct situation in St. I'aul's life; for on that alternative, that will be part of an imngimiry situation. Itut, apart from this, we have a few indications of date and writer.
Diite. — The terminus n qyo is A.I). ."iS or ."iO, llie earliest date at which St. I'aul could he described as having sull'ereil a lung imprisonment (3''" 4') as the champion of the Cciitilcs.
The tcnnuius ad f/ift'm is more doubtful. The Church oiganizatioii implied is very sliglit ; there is a ministry, both of apostles and prophi'ts for the first foimdation of Churches (2* 3" 4"), anil of evangelists, shepherds and teachers for the hiiiMIng up of diurches once founded (4"). Tliere is stress laid on itaptism, pcrliiips an allusion to the pro- fession at liaptisni of f.'iith in (iod, the l.onl, and
716 EPUESIANS, EPISTLE TO
EPHESIA^S, EPISTLE TO
(cf. 5'«-" with 1 Co 10". Tert. Apul. 39). But this evidence is indeterminate ; it might all be illustrated from 1 Co (6" 12^-'- ^s 14-«) ; wliile the absence of mention of iirLuKOTroi, Trpfc!,ivTepot, and oiaKovm is af;ainst a late date. The aksence of the freer xapLaiWiTa of 1 Co 12 is no objection, as they were esp. characteri.stic of the Corinthian Church, and as, even there, St. Paul discouraged them in comparison with the more fixed ministry.
The controversies referred to are again undecis- ive. The attempt to see allusions to a developed 2nd cent. Gnosticism are now abandoned, for its technical words aiii^'es, TrXripufia, yeveal are clearly used here in a less technical sense ; again, possible allusions to a false Docetism in 4" 5"' are too uncer- tain to build upon. On the doctrinal side there is notliing whicli may not be e.xiilained as falling within the 1st century. So ^^ith the struggle of parties within the Church. There is still a certain friction between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the danger is that the Gentiles may despise the Jewish Christians; they need reminding that they have been brought into a commonwealth « liich e.\isted before (1'^ 2"). Such a condition would have been possible even in the 2nd cent. (cf. Justin Martyr, Tri/pho, ch. 47) ; but it would also have been possible at any date after St. Paul's missionary work (cf. Ro 11""^), and the language used seems to imply that the readers belonged to the first generation of converts, who had them- selves come over from paganism to Christianity