It is doubtful whether in any case the amount of similarity is sufficient to preve literary depend- ence. The similarity with St. John is one mainly of thought. It is possible that the language of St. .lolm was influenced by this Ep., but it is more
Erobable that this Ep. was \vritten by one who ad heard of that great prayer of our Lord. May not St. Paul have heard it direct from St. John's lips, pos.sibly at Jerus., when they met to di.scuss the terms of unity between Jew and Gentile in the one Church ; or possibly at Rome, if, as Renan suggests, St. John had been there, or even was there when St. Paul was writing ? In the ca.se of 1 Peter there is a stronger probability of literary dependence ; if so, and if we assume the priority of 1 Peter (but see Weiss, Introd. i. p. 355), we should have indication that our Ep. was in existence before A.D. 70 or 80 — at leaat it proves that the tone of thought and phraseology is such as was possible and natural before that date.
Author. — The author must have been a Jewish Christian, proud of his Jewish privilege*, steeped
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 717
in OT symbolism (1'" 6'*"). Fiuther, he must have been an ori^nal tliinker, able to trace out a philosoiiliy of history througli the a^'es, able to move in tlie mystical sphere of heavenly places, and yet able to pass thence into the lower region of simple daily duties and of family life. Lastly, he was one who cared that his writing should appear under the name and with all the authority of St. Paul. There is, then, ajmrnd facie proba- bility that it was St. Paul himself ; and a detailed examination will bear this out.
(o) Toe Btructure of the Ep. a clearly Pauline. The com- mencenient with words ot thanksgiving (ct. Ro l», 1 Co 1^, 2 Co l*); the ^reat statement ot doctrine as the basis for moral exhortation (ct. llo l'»-8) ; the moral exhortation, introduced by •!. (cf. Ro 121, Gal 5'), and passing from the general to the particular (ct. Ro 12-16) ; the apparent digression on family Ute which really proves to be an important illustration of the whole subject (ct. 1 Ck> 7>?« 91-1013, Bo 9-llX »U find parallels in ist. I'auL
((<) The main thought* often show an advance on the earlier Epp., but it is an atham-e on a line alre-idy marked out. Tlius the contmtiitv of the Christian Church with the Jewish, as a part ol Ood'8 itenial plan (l^l-*). finds parallels in Ro 9-11. 162^2;, Old 41"* ; the conception of Christ as the original source of creation ami the restorer ot its unity (11<>). in 1 Co 86, 2 Co S18- 1», Ro 8l*2S ; the conception of the Church as the body ot Christ, which receives His life and shows it forth to the universe, is an exi>aiision of the genus in 1 Co 49 12'-'' ; the unity of the Church IS prcsuppo.'icd in the whole argumont of 1 Co, where 6t. Paul is anxious to keep the customs and doctrines of the Corinthian Church in a line %vith those ot all the Churches of the Sainu (1 Co 1^ 41" 71' 111" IS*") — even tlie use of i»«A.i»^;« for the Church universal is probable in 1 Co 12 lO-nm 122J ; the stress laid on the Holy Spirit as the inspirerot the Church's life is analogous to 1 Co 12 ; the identification ot the events of Christ's death and resurrection with those ot the life of each Christian (21 i"), to Ro 8 and 1 O 15 ; the residence of sin in the «/!£ (2'), and its eticct on intellect as well as will, to Ro 7 ; the univeraal sinfulness ol Jew and Gentile alike as the basis it a universal redemption (21-4) is a summary ol Ro 118-2^', of. Gal 211^21 ; the destruction ol the barrier between Jew and Gentile (2"^ is St. Paul's most favourite doctrine.
But it is urged that here the parts are changed: elsewhere Bt. Paul is the champion of the (Sentile a^inst Jewish narrow- ness ; here he reniintis Gentiles of the privileges of the Jews, and appears as the champion ol Jewish Christians against Gentile exclusiveness. This is true, but the balance between the preponderance of Jew and Gentile might differ in each CJhurch, or even at different moments in the history ol one Church ; and St. Paul was bent always, not on viphoUliiig one side, but on securing the rights of both within the Church. Further, this attitude on his part towards the Gentile Christians finds an emct parallel in Ro 111" 2t. Indeed the strongest argument lor the Pauline authorship lies in the undesigned coincidences tietwecn Eph and the Ep. to the Romans. Both are of the nature ol a general treatise ; both are an attempt to show that Jew and Gentile are united by the work ol Christ ; both base this on the sinlulneas ol Jew and Gentile alike ; both emphasize the jrivileges ol the Jews ; both build up a new morality, centring .n love and made possible by the gilt ol the Spirit ; both bint at the extension ol Christ's work beyond man to the whole creation ; both emphasize the eternal plan ol God, hidtlen lor ages, hinted at in prophetic writings and revealed at the due moment ; both express the writer's amazement at the depths ol the wisdom ol Owl, and in each case the style rises into the beautv and cadence ol a poem (Ro S31-*9).