(iv.) VV.29. 30. Pure conversation, lest others be in- jured, and the Holy Spirit be grieved.
(v.) vv.31-32. Gentleness, as God was gentle in Christ.
(vi.) 51-2. Love, as Christ loved.
(vii.) vv-Si*. Purity of speech and action, even to the avoidance of the foolish word and jest, as un- worth.y of our calling (vv.3. 4)^ as incurring (Jod's wrath (vv.5- 6), as wholly foreign to the life of light in Christ (vv.7-i4).
(viii.) vv.1517. Wise use of time, since the days are evil.
(ix.) vv.18 21. Temperance and orderl.v thanksgiving in public worship, and in particular at the love- feasts (in the spirit of 1 Co 11-14).
(2) 5^'-6^. An exhortation to members of Chris- tian families. The writer takes the family as the type of the Cliurch (cf. 3"^), and ajiplies the general princii)les of the unity of the Spirit to the details of family life.
(a) 522-24. Wives are to recognize the position of the husband as head of the family, as Christ is head of the Church.
(6) vv. 25-33. Husbands are to love their wives, with whom they have been made one, as Christ loves the Church, with which He is one.
(c) 613. Children must obey their parents, as is naturally right, and as God has commanded.
(d) v.*. Parents ought to train their children wisel.v.
(e) vv.5-8. Slaves are to obey loyally, since their obedi- ence is to God Himself.
(/) v. 9. Masters must treat their slaves justly, since they themselves are but slaves of a Master in heaven.
(3) 6"-2^ A general exhortation to all Chris- tians to fight God's battle in His strength (v.i") and clad in His armour (vv."- 1^""), seeing that the enemy is more than man (v.'-). The sec- tion passes into a request for prayer for tlie writer in prison (vv.^**- ^O), and thus it naturally leads up to a commendation of Tycliicus, the bearer of the letter, and then to a final greeting. i. Authorship. — The above analysis will make it clear how carefully constructed and worked out Ephesians is. The long sentences, cumbrous and difficult to follow as they are, are yet almost rhythmic in their balance. Everything is con- nected and co-ordinated with the one great idea, and the result is a composition quite unlike any other writing assigned to St. Paul. Yet the claim to Pauline authorship is quite explicit. It not only occurs in the address (V) and in the final messages (6^"), but is woven into the very structure of the Epistle in 3^ and 4^, Either we have a genuine work by the Apostle or else a pseudonymous writing, composed at a very early date by a disciple upon whom had fallen a double portion of the Apostle's spirit. And of such a disciple we have no other trace.
(1) Internal evidence. — The very simplicity of the references to St. Paul is a strong argument for the authenticity of the Epistle. There is a great contrast between Eph. and 2 Pet. in this respect. The laboured allusions of the latter to St. Peter's life are not convincing ; but could even a close disciple have coined the beautiful and simple phrase, 'I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus'? Or would he have been likely to refer to his great master as 'less than the least of all saints' (3*) even with 1 Co IS** before him? On the other hand, there are one or two phrases, apart from questions of style and doctrine, which will be dis- cussed later, which seem to some critics to be ' watermarks of a later age ' (Moffatt, LNT, p. 386). Such is the phrase, ' built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets' (2-'*), an expression not very suspicious in itself, but rendered suspect by the phrase ' his holy apostles and pro])hets ' (3^). Such language would certainly be natural at a later date, and it is hardly like St. Paul to include him.self under the term ' holy apostles.' Two ex- planations have been given, {a) It is suggested that the word aylois is not part of the original text. It? is true that Origen and Theodoret show traces of a text which omitted the word, but this is not very strong evidence. Yet it might easily have been added at an early date by a reverent scribe, or liave crept in by dittography from airoffroXois (TOICAnOICAnOCT . . .), or by confusion with Col 1-®. (b) It is pointed out, e.g. by Salmond ('Ephesians 'in EOT, pp. 223 and 304), that Hyios does not mean 'holy' in our modern sense, but simply 'consecrated to God's service.' This is its sense in the Pauline salutations and in 3^, and it is tluis possible to conceive St. Paul including him- self under tlie phrase in 3^ But (c) it is not obvious that he does do so. St. Paul had always stood apart from the original Twelve, and tliough sometimes, as in Gal. and 2 Cor., he is concerned to defend his commission, he was fully aware of a real ditt'erence of position (1 Co 15"). Here some real point seems to lie in the distinction. St. Paul
EPHESIAJfS, EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE 345
is arguing that he was specially chosen of God for this ministry. Humble though he was, he had shared the revelation given to the Twelve (cf. St. Peter and Cornelius), and he, and not they, had been called to proclaim the mystery of the Church to the Gentiles (3**). The words in S'-*^ seem to distinguish him from the 'holy apostles' of 3^ where St. Paul is not thinking of himself at all. If this is so, 3'', though certainly unique, is not unnatur,al. In any case, whatever be the explana- tion of 3'', 3^ remains a ' watermark ' of St. Paul himself, as indeed does the whole passage, 3-"^^, in its abrupt intrusion into the sequence of thought. The passage ' whereby, when ye read, ye can per- ceive my understanding . . .' (S'') also sounds to Molfatt characteristic of a disciple of St. Paul rather than of St. Paul himself, but the conclusion is not at all necessary.