against Gnosticism. Pfleiderer, e.g., sees in 4^'''' an allusion to ' a Gnostic theory which separated the Christ of speculation from the Jesus of the evangelical tradition' {Primitive Christinnitij, iii. 3U3). He finds that the quotation of Ps 0S'« in 48'- depends on tiie ' Gnostic myth of the victorious de- scent to hell and ascent to heaven of the Saviour- god to which allusion is also made in Col 2'^ ' ( p. 311). He traces the use of 'pleroma' to Gnosti- cism, ignoring the fact that it was a good Pauline word {e.g. Ro 11-®), and that it is certainly not used in any Gnostic sense.
The external evidence alone is sufficient to rule out such theories, throwing the Epistle back to a date before the technicalities of Valentinianism had been developed. More plausible is the view of Holtzmann, who regards Ephesians as written at about the end of the 1st cent., in view of incipient Gnosticism and of ecclesiastical needs. He thinks that an old letter to Colossfe by St, Paul existed and that Eph, and Col. were composed by a single writer, in the one case using its ideas and in the other expanding it. The proof, how- ever, that there is nothing necessarily un-Pauline in Col. (see art. COLOSSIANS) does away with the need for this theory, which is in any case hampered by two difficulties : (a) that of finding a writer capable of composing such a work and at the same time of being so servile in his adherence to the lan- guage of Colossians ; and {b) that of finding a his- torical setting for the Epistle. There must surely be a greater gulf between it and Ignatius with his violent attacks on Judaizers and Docetists and his emphasis on the monarchical episcopacy.
It is, therefore, more common nowadays among those who find difficulties in the Pauline author- ship to assign Eph. to a Paulinist writing quite soon after St. Paul's death (see e.g. Mofiatt, op. cit. p. 388). It is argued that the theology of the Epistle marks a transition stage between St. Paul and the Johannine literature.
' This does not involve the assumption that Paul was not oriijinal enoug:h to advance even beyond the circle of ideas reflected in Colossians, or that he lacked constructive and broad dideas of the Christian brotherhood. It is quite possible to hoi that he was a fresh and advancing- thinker, and yet to conclude, from the internal evidence of Ephesians, that he did not cut the channel for this prose of the spiritual centre ' (Moffatt, op. cit. p. 389).
Upon this view, the theology of Eph., though quite continuous with that of St. Paul, is a later development, under the influence of Johannine, and possibly Lucan, ideas.
Such a view is too intangible to admit of very easy refutation. At the same time, it should be noted that it provides very little ground for dis- puting the strong and early tradition of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle. A discussion of the doctrinal standpoint of Eph. will serve to put the matter in a clearer light.
{a) The Church. — The whole Epistle turns upon the doctrine of the unity of the Church. This is made the key both to the relations of Jcav and Gentile (2""-'^) and to the problems of the Christian life (4 and 5). Its unity is not merely that of any human organization, but rests directly upon the unity of God— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (4^-«). That unity is derived from the Father (3^"), by_ whom it was fore-ordained in Christ (l"*-"'*). It is ideally complete in Christ and in Him is to become actually complete (1»- '^"" -* 2^'* 4i--'«). Even now it has as its principle of life the One Spirit (1" 2'** 3"* 4^). In some sense it is the completion of the Incarnation (P^; cf. Armitage Robinson, ' On the meaning of TrXijpw/ta ' in Ephesians, p. 255 ff.), for in it Christ comes into all the saints (3") and all the saints into Him (2'^- ^^ 4^--i*). The organization of the Church is simply the expression of this unity, and the means, given by Christ Himself,
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIAlsS, EPISTLE TO THE 347
■whereby it is being actualized (4^"^2). Baptism is the door of the Church (4^ 5'-^), faith its bond of union (4''), love the expression of that union (4^5-, etc.). The unity even extends beyond this earth into the heavenly regions (2'' ; cf. l'-^" 3^*).
Such an emphasis upon the Church is certainly not found elsewhere in St. Paul. Yet there is no one feature which is specifically un-Pauline, and no reason can be given why St. Paul should not in a time of leisure, undisturbed by the clash of con- troversy, have set down for the churches he had founded those principles which had underlain all his ministry.
It has been urged that St. Paul dealt only with individual churches, and that the use of the term ' church ' (iKK\i]a-ia) in Eph. is foreign to his writings. But as a matter of fact the idea of one Church Universal underlies all St. Paul's thought. Especi- ally in 1 Cor. he appeals throughout to general church practice {e.g. 1 Co lO^^ jjis 1433. 36)_ jjg speaks of the churches as a whole (Ro 16^*, 1 Co 417 'jn>j_ They are 'one body in Christ,' with an articulated, organized membership (Ro 12^), and this conception is expanded in 1 Co 12'-^-. They form one Church {iKKX-rjaia, in the singular ; cf. 1 Co 12^, Gal V^). The same conception and usage are repeated in the later Epistles (Ph 3^ Col 118.24^^ The statements in Col. are, indeed, quite as full in idea as those in Ephesians. The con- ception of Christ as awaiting ' fulfilment' or com- pletion in some sense in His Body, tlie Church, is present in Col !-■•. The organic unity of Christ with the Church as its Head is in Col P^ The conception of the Church as extending into the heavenly regions is directly involved in St. Paul's answer to the Colossian heretics (Col P** ^). This adaptation of his thought is quite natural, though its first clear formulation in his mind may have been due to the troubles at Colossre, leading him to correlate his views on angelology (see art. COLOSSIANS) with his views on Christ and the Church. The thought is present, in an unapplied form, in Ph 3^° (with which also cf. Eph 2^», Ph 1^7).