The Expositor's Bible: The Epistle to the Ephesians

George Findlay

George G. Findlay

The Expositor's Bible: The Epistle to the Ephesians

THE INTRODUCTION

Chapter i. 1, 2

ОџбЅђ ОјбЅ№ОЅОїОЅ бј?П†бЅіПѓОїП… бјЂО»О»бЅ° ПѓП‡ОµОґбЅёОЅ ПЂбЅ±ПѓО·П‚ П„бї†П‚ бј€ПѓбЅ·О±П‚ бЅЃ О О±бї¦О»ОїП‚ ОїбЅ—П„ОїП‚ ПЂОµбЅ·ПѓО±П‚ ОјОµП„бЅіПѓП„О·ПѓОµОЅ бј±ОєО±ОЅбЅёОЅ бЅ„П‡О»ОїОЅ (Demetrius the Silversmith).

В В В В Acts xix. 26.

CHAPTER I.

THE WRITER AND READERS

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints, who are indeed faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”[1 - The translation given in this volume is based upon the Revised Version, but deviates from it in some particulars. These deviations will be explained in the exposition.]– Eph. i. 1, 2.

In passing from the Galatian to the Ephesian epistle we are conscious of entering a different atmosphere. We leave the region of controversy for that of meditation. From the battle-field we step into the hush and stillness of the temple. Verses 3–14 of this chapter constitute the most sustained and perfect act of praise that is found in the apostle’s letters. It is as though a door were suddenly opened in heaven; it shuts behind us, and earthly tumult dies away. The contrast between these two writings, following each other in the established order of the epistles, is singular and in some ways extreme. They are, respectively, the most combative and peaceful, the most impassioned and unimpassioned, the most concrete and abstract, the most human and divine amongst the great apostle’s writings.

Yet there is a fundamental resemblance and identity of character. The two letters are not the expression of different minds, but of different phases of the same mind. In the Paul of Galatians the Paul of Ephesians is latent; the contemplative thinker, the devout mystic behind the ardent missionary and the masterly debater. Those critics who recognize the genuine apostle only in the four previous epistles and reject whatever does not conform strictly to their type, do not perceive how much is needed to make up a man like the apostle Paul. Without the inwardness, the brooding faculty, the power of abstract and metaphysical thinking displayed in the epistles of this group, he could never have wrought out the system of doctrine contained in those earlier writings, nor grasped the principles which he there applies with such vigour and effect. That so many serious and able scholars doubt, or even deny, St Paul’s authorship of this epistle on internal grounds and because of the contrast to which we have referred, is one of those phenomena which in future histories of religious thought will be quoted as the curiosities of a hypercritical age.[2 - The case against authenticity is ably stated in Dr. S. Davidson’s Introduction to the N. T.; see also Baur’s Paul, Pfleiderer’s Paulinism, Hilgenfeld’s Einleitung, Hatch’s article on “Paul” in the Encyclopædia Britannica. The case for the defence may be found in Weiss’, Salmon’s, Bleek’s, or Dods’ N. T. Introduction– the last brief, but to the point; in Reuss’ History of the N. T.; Milligan’s article on “Ephesians” in Encycl. Brit.; Gloag’s Introduction to the Pauline Epp.; Meyer’s, or Beet’s, or Eadie’s Commentary; Sabatier’s The Apostle Paul.]

Let us observe some of the Pauline qualities that are stamped upon the face of this document. There is, in the first place, the apostle’s intellectual note, what has been well called his passion for the absolute. St Paul’s was one of those minds, so discomposing to superficial and merely practical thinkers, which cannot be content with half-way conclusions. For every principle he seeks its ultimate basis; every line of thought he pushes to its furthest limits. His gospel, if he is to rest in it, must supply a principle of unity that will bind together all the elements of his mental world.

Hence, in contesting the Jewish claim to religious superiority on the ground of circumcision and th