Introduction and Overview of Ephesians

Ephesians 1:1a

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus . . .

Amphitheatre and Arcadian Way in Ephesus with ancient seaport in the background

Martyn Lloyd-Jones began his five-year exposition of Ephesians with these words:

“As we approach this Epistle I confess freely that I do so with considerable temerity. It is very difficult to speak of it in a controlled manner because of its greatness and because of its sublimity.”¹

With that I heartily agree. In my some 30 years of preaching, I have never preached anything that affects me as does Ephesians. This is not to imply that other series have not affected me. On the contrary. My four years expositing Matthew, for example, influenced me profoundly and molded much of my thought on the true Gospel. My year or so in Galatians was equally valuable in emphasizing the true Gospel over religion and just how much false teaching on the Gospel exists in our day. But always I return to Ephesians. While I exposited it once several years ago, taking about two years to do so, I return to it again. Maybe this time, with the aid of over 70 resources and years of study, I’ll get it right.

I would begin our study by saying, we are about to embark on a journey through the grandest, most awe-inspiring piece of writing known to man. That is, of course, my opinion, but I do not stand alone in such speech. The eloquent J. Sidlow Baxter writes of Ephesians:

“Although not the longest of Paul’s Epistles, Ephesians is generally conceded to be the profoundedest. There is a grandeur of conception about it, a majesty, a dignity, a richness and fullness which are peculiar to it.”²

Another author writes,

“[Ephesians] is a book greatly loved; it is probably loved more than any other book by most people. With strong wings it soars among the heights of theological thought and glides upon the winds of the greatest of truths. It is like the delivery of a great sermon that holds a person spellbound. It is like the greatest of prayers that draws a person into the very presence of God. It is like a great doxology that leaves a person with a deep sense of worship.”³

There have been many such descriptions of the value and blessing of the Epistle to the Ephesians.

John A. Mackay, past president of Princeton Theological Seminary, and who was converted at the age of fourteen through the reading of this Epistle, wrote:

“Never was the reality of Revelation more obvious and the reflective powers of the Apostle’s mind more transfigured than in the great book which is known by the title, The Epistle to the Ephesians...[t]he sublimest communication ever made to men . . . The crown and climax of Pauline Theology”. . .The greatest . . . maturest . . . [and] for our time the most relevant of Paul’s letters.” ⁴

Bible scholar F.F. Bruce calls Ephesians, “The quintessence of Paulinism.”⁵

Scott Lidget likewise writes,

“The consummate and most comprehensive statement which even the New Testament contains of the meaning of the Christian religion. It is certainly the final statement of Pauline theology.”⁶

English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge called Ephesians “the divinest composition of man” because “it embraces, first, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and, then, those precepts with it in natural religion.”⁷

In his expositional commentary, James Montgomery Boice calls Ephesians, “A mini-course on theology, centered on the church.”⁸

Armitage Robinson called it, “The crown of Saint Paul’s writings.”⁹

Nineteenth Century preacher, scholar, and commentator F. W. Farrar called it “the most sublime, the most profound, the most advanced and final utterance of St. Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles.”¹⁰

W. O. Carver, American Baptist theologian, viewed it as “the greatest piece of writing in all history.”¹¹

Irving Jensen, Bible teacher and author of the excellent book Survey of the New Testament writes:

“Ephesians is a book of grand superlatives. It is the sublimest of Paul’s epistles . . . the apostle has a vision of the heavenly realm, and in the quiet and calm of his imprisonment he is inspired by the Spirit to share that with his readers.”¹²

William Morehead, nineteenth and early twentieth century pastor and scholar, wrote, “We pass into the stillness and hush of the sanctuary when we turn to Ephesians. Here prevails the atmosphere of repose, of meditation, of worship and peace.”¹³

There have been many other picturesque descriptions. Ruth Paxson calls it, “The Grand Canyon of Scripture,”¹⁴ and William Barkley views it as, “The Queen of the Epistles.”¹⁵ Still others have described it as, “The Pikes Peak of Scripture,” “The Treasure House of the Bible,” and “The Holy of Holies of the Epistles.”

And finally, quoting an unnamed writer, Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, “The distilled essence of Christianity, the most authoritative and most consummate compendium of our holy Christian faith.” Then, comparing Romans to Ephesians, Lloyd-Jones adds in his own words, “If Romans is the purest expression of the Gospel [as Luther stated], the Epistle to the Ephesians is the sublimest and most majestic expression of it.”¹⁶

What marvelous language, indeed! Is this just heaping superlative upon superlative. Perhaps, but the true Christian believer cannot read this Epistle without being struck by its many profound and clear truths.

As mentioned earlier, Ephesians has for some time been a personal passion of mine. But for quite awhile I did not know why. That passion for the Epistle was ignited by the monumental eight‑volume exposition of Ephesians by Dr. David Martyn Lloyd‑Jones, but the reason for my special love for the book eluded me. Then I read the following words in a particular commentary:

“In many respects Ephesians reads more a like a sermon . . . than a letter written to meet some special need in a church or group of churches. It is like a sermon on the greatest and widest theme possible for a Christian sermon—the eternal purpose of God which he is fulfilling through His Son Jesus Christ, and working out in and through the Church. It is like a sermon, but the medium is the written word and the appeal is addressed to readers.”¹⁷

When I read that statement, I knew why I love Ephesians so much. Ephesians does not read like a letter; it reads like a sermon. May we put it this way: By itself, Ephesians preaches. There is a progression of thought in Ephesians that flows along as the spoken word. This strikes me so profoundly because it is the preaching of the Word that makes the difference in people’s lives. In a day and age when preaching is more and more de-emphasized and even ridiculed as old fashioned and out of date, Ephesians illustrates its need all the more.

Besides this, however, as I have analyzed the impact that Ephesians has made in my own life, I find at least five very specific affects that have changed my life.

First, and I think foremost, is how it has altered my entire view and outlook on the doctrines of salvation, what are called the Doctrines of Grace. Paul’s presentation in chapter 1 concerning what God alone did in eternity past to elect us and predestinate us to His own glory is a transforming truth. When we realize that our salvation is totally of God, accomplished by God in eternity past, before the foundation of the world, it transforms us and changes our outlook on everything.

Second, Ephesians 4 has taught me much about ministry. It has shown me the office gifts given to the church and shown me their purpose and functions.

Third, Ephesians 4 has also taught me much about personal living by detailing the characteristics of the New Man and how he is to live

Fourth, the truths in Ephesians 5 concerning marriage are the profoundest of all the Scripture. I cannot even imagine having a successful marriage—which by God’s grace I have enjoyed for 29 years—without these truths.

Fifth, Ephesians 6 has given me the tools, more precisely the armor, that is needed to fight the spiritual war in which we are engaged and has taught me how be victorious.

What is Ephesians about? We can boil it down to one word—wealth. Not the kind of wealth we think of today, that is, monetary wealth, but rather spiritual wealth. We will begin exploring this as we begin our exposition of verse 3, but for now let’s consider a couple of illustrations.

Several years ago there was a story in Los Angeles Times that reported the story of an elderly man and wife who were found dead in their apartment. While the autopsies revealed that both had died of severe malnutrition, investigators found a total of $40,000 stored in paper bags in a closet.¹⁸

Another legendary story is of Henrietta “Hetty” Green, who was at her death in 1916 the wealthiest woman in the United States. After doing a little research, I discovered that after being left with an estate of $10 million acquired from the family’s shipping and trading business, she turned it into $100 million by shrewd management. But part of that management also earned her the nickname “America’s Greatest Miser.” In spite of her unimaginable wealth, she ate cold oatmeal to avoid the cost of heating the water. Her son lost his leg to amputation because of the infection that set in while she looked for a free clinic to treat his injury. As the story goes, she even contributed to her own death by bringing on a stroke while arguing that skim milk is better than whole milk because it’s cheaper.

Some Christians do the same thing—they ignore the spiritual wealth that they possess in Christ. A study of Ephesians, however, will show them just how rich they are. They’ll discover their riches, their inheritance, and their fullness in Christ. This wealth falls into two broad categories: a wealth of doctrine, and a wealth of practical instruction.

We will see this over and over in this study and throughout our series.

For now, to introduce this infinitely rich Epistle, let us examine thirteen foundational subjects.

I. AUTHORSHIP

The first foundational subject is that of authorship.

The very first verse, of course, declares that Paul wrote this letter. Originally named Saul, probably after King Saul, he was of the tribe of Benjamin, the most prestigious of tribes. He was educated by the legendary Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and became a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of Israel. But in his unrivaled zeal for Judaism, he also became the most aggressive and violent persecutor of Christians (Acts 22:4-5; I Tim. 1:13). He stood by and guarded the cloaks of the men who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58) and began his own crusade to destroy such followers.

It was on his way to Damascus to arrest Christians there, that the Lord Jesus struck him down, temporarily blinded him, and drew him to salvation (Acts 9:1-8). After his three-year training by the Lord Himself in the desert of Nabataean Arabia near Damascus (Gal. 1:17-19), Paul co-pastored the church of Antioch in Syria along with Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen (Acts 13:1). It was at that time that he was called by his Roman name Paul, and it was from there that the Holy Spirit sent him and Barnabas out to begin the Biblical ministry of evangelism and church planting.

Having said all that, the question has been raised, “Was it, indeed, the Apostle Paul who wrote this letter?” Interestingly, Pauline authorship stood absolute for some 1800 years, but the question arose as a result of the rise of rationalistic criticism at the turn of the 19th Century. The German liberal theologian and philosopher Freidrich Schleierlmacher (1768-1834), who rejected the teaching of a personal God and Christ’s Deity, was the first to reject Pauline authorship. Later Liberals such as James Moffat (1870-1944) and Edward J. Goodspeed followed suit.

Specifically, several objections were raised and some “scholars” eventhought the book was a forgery, written by someone else who put Paul’s name on it. One liberal, for example, called it a “verbose amplification” of the Epistle to the Colossians.¹⁹ But all the objections that have been raised by the Liberals and the Higher Critics are without conclusive proof. Some, in fact, are downright silly and betray the real motive for their argument. While we won’t go into great detail, it’s important to note some of these objections and why they have even been raised.²⁰

Andrew L. Lincoln, a contemporary liberal, provides us with a good example of this position in his commentary on Ephesians published by Word Publishing. (I would interject, if I may be so bold, that the fact that Word Publishing would even publish this book shows how far its owners are willing to drift from the truth just to sell books.) Lincoln begins by stating that in his early writing on Ephesians he held to Pauline authorship but then writes:

“However, the more I have worked on the text as a whole, the more persuaded I have become that seeing the letter as the work of a later follower of Paul makes better sense of its contents.”²¹

We would ask here, “Makes better sense to whom?” Certainly not the person who believes what the text says, and the text is always the issue. From the start this whole idea flies in the face of the Biblical text of 1:1 and 3:1, which plainly state that Paul is the one writing. To deny or disregard this is to fundamentally deny the authenticity and accuracy of Scripture. It basically says, “The text is wrong. Paul did not write this letter.” The whole concept of Biblical authority has just been washed down the drain.

May we also ask, whoever this “other author” is, are we to believe that someone so immersed in Paul’s writings, so fluent in his Theology, so aware of his spirituality and moral conduct, would then turn around and deliberately lie and pass himself off as the Apostle? This not only denies Biblical authority but logic as well. How possible would it be to imitate the Apostle Paul so exactly? As one writer puts it:

“Any imitator is betrayed by his inferiority . . . this letter contains nothing which might not have been written by Paul, while it is everywhere marked by a grandeur and originality of thought which would seem utterly beyond the reach of a mere imitator.”²²

May we also point out that if this view is true, then the ancients who recognized true Scripture and who therefore finalized the Canon of Scripture were all duped. We must further conclude, in fact, that even the Holy Spirit was fooled into allowing the inclusion of such a dubious forgery by some unknown impostor.

But Lincoln goes on to write:

“For what it is worth, this is now the consensus view in NT scholarship, though a sizable minority continues to uphold Pauline authorship.”²³

While he is correct about a “consensus,” that consensus consists of liberal scholarship, not evangelical. In fact, in studying the book’s extensive bibliography, it contains conspicuously few evangelicals.

So what are the arguments for this supposed alternate authorship? Do they have any merits?²⁴

First, one argument revolves around the fact that almost 100 words and phrases appear in Ephesians that are not found in any other letter of Paul. Such phrases are “in heavenly places” (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), “in the beloved” (1:6), and “flesh and blood” (6:12). But to this we ask, “So what?” Paul is dealing with themes he has never dealt with before, so obviously the vocabulary will be different. This objection is ludicrous and downright childish.

Another aspect of this, according to the critic, is that certain words are used differently in Ephesians than they are in other Pauline Epistles. The word plerōma, fullness, for example, is used in Col. 1:19 and 2:9 to indicate the fullness of Christ’s Deity but is used in Eph. 1:23 to speak of Christ as the fullness (or complement) of the Church. Another example is that while “mystery” in Col. 1:22 speaks of coming glory, the same word in Ephesians 1:9 and 3:3-6 is used of accepting Gentiles. This, it is concluded, shows that someone else wrote Ephesians. But again, this is ridiculous. Just as in English, a Greek word can have a different meaning in different settings or contexts. The word “mystery,” in fact, is used several times in the Epistles to speak of different mysteries (that is, things hidden to Old Testament believers but now revealed to New Testament believers).

Second, it is argued that the style of the writing is more complex and cumbersome than Paul’s usual dynamic style. As proof they cite the long, involved sentences of 1:3-14, 1:15-23, 4:11-16, and others. But Paul was not dealing with church problems as he was in his other letters. He could, therefore, be at liberty to express himself freely. As we’ll see, Paul was truly carried away by the themes on which he wrote. What writer would not feel this way when dealing with the grand subjects of this letter? I certainly am, and I’m not inspired.

Third, a major argument against Pauline authorship of Ephesians revolves around the similarities between it and its “sister book” Colossians. In short, the accusation is that Ephesians is merely a wordy imitation, or “verbose amplification,” of Colossians. One proof, the critics say, is that approximately one-third of the words in Colossians are repeated in Ephesians. “Would Paul,” they ask, “borrow from himself this way. Is it not probable that someone else wrote Ephesians by building on Colossians?”

But may we ask in response, is it likely that an imitator would so freely add to the text? Is it not more reasonable to think that an imitator would stick very close to the text? On the contrary, it is when a writer borrows from himself that he can take liberties because it’s his text. The fact is, when you read the two Epistles side by side, the supposed variations are not as pronounced as the liberal critic would have us believe.

Fourth, it is also argued that Ephesians lacks personal references on several counts. For one, it contains no real allusions or references to Paul. In other words, as we saw earlier, 1:1 and 3:1, which say Paul wrote the letter, are simply lies. Again, this is without doubt the most offensive argument in this controversy because it flies in the face of Biblical authority. It also totally obliterates the doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture. If these references to Paul are not true, then all the Greek texts, all the ancient versions, and all our present translations are not the preserved Word of God. What then do we have? Nothing. If we can’t trust statements as to the origin of one of the most pivotal Epistles, how can we trust any part of the Bible?

Another attack here is that since 3:5 refers to the “holy apostles and prophets,” it would be very pretentious and arrogant of Paul to include himself in this lofty title. But it’s no such thing. All believers are said to be “saints” in 1:1, which is from hagioi, meaning “holy” or “set apart.”

Still another assault on the subject of personal references is that the author makes no personal salutations at the end of this letter as he does in other letters. This, it is argued, is unlike Paul. But to this we say, it most certainly is not unlike Paul. II Corinthians, Galatians, and I and II Thessalonians also lack such greetings, even though Paul founded those churches. In contrast, Romans contains personal greetings even though Paul did not found that church. This argument, therefore, is one that ignores the simple evidence.

Quoting another writer, the great nineteenth-century theologian Charles Hodge offers this astute comment in reference to such objections:

“If Paul wrote friendly letters, these critics say they are spurious, because they are not doctrinal; and if he wrote doctrinal letters, they say they are spurious, because not friendly.”²⁵

How right he is. The liberal critic simply is not happy with Paul or his message. Paul needs to be silenced, so the critic will do what he must to that end, no matter how foolish his argument is.

Fifth, and finally, the critic has one more basic attack. This one is aimed at supposed theological discrepancies. It is argued that since Ephesians goes into much more detail on doctrines such as Christology, apostolic authority, and the Universal Church, this indicates another author. But may we point out that more detail on such doctrines does more to prove Pauline authorship than deny it. Since he hasn’t gone into such detail before, is it not reasonable that he would do so sooner or later, so why not here? Also, the only way that this view could be true was if this more fully developed doctrine either contradicted what Paul had already written or gone farther than Paul could have gone. And to that we must ask, Who but Paul could have written the deep, lofty doctrine we find in Ephesians?

In light of all this, let it be very clear that there is overwhelming proof for Pauline authorship of Ephesians. As one writer puts it, “None of the epistles which are ascribed to Paul have a stronger chain of evidence to their early and continued use that that which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians.”²⁶ Let us consider five other proofs.

First, not only does Paul identify himself in 1:1 and 3:1, but he then ascribes his apostolic authority to the “will of God,” as he does in other Epistles (II Cor. l:l; Gal. 1:1; Col. l:l). For a forger to lie about authorship and then further lie by saying it’s by the “will of God” is an appalling thought. On the contrary, Paul wrote other Epistles by God’s will, so why would we doubt that he also wrote this one by the will of God? And if he didn’t, as mentioned earlier, how in the world could this Epistle ever be recognized as Scripture?

May we also consider 6:21-22:

“But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things: Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts.”

We mention this because if the author is a forger, he is now claiming knowledge of Tychicus and once again lies about it. As William Hendrickson asks here,

“Would a disciple of Paul, a collector of his letters whose mind was saturated with Pauline teaching, have dared to identify himself with Paul so brazenly?”²⁷

May we say once again, to deny this clear internal evidence is to make some supposed alternate author a liar.

Second, it is beyond comprehension that there could have been a forger so brilliant as to create this masterpiece. To be able to duplicate the style, logic, organization, structure, and Theology of the Apostle Paul would require intellectual and literary genius even beyond Paul himself. Considering just the Theology alone, who else but the divinely inspired Paul could have written it? Are we to believe that a sovereign God would not only inspire such a forger but would then condone his deception and then allow it to continue for thousands of years? In the end, this entire argument attacks the very nature of God!

Third, the similarities to other Epistles, such as Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, make Pauline authorship obvious. Plus, as we’ve mentioned already and will detail a little later, there are many parallels between Ephesians and Colossians. This leads to another thought.

Fourth, the structure and organization of Ephesians is absolutely classic Paul. We’ll see this in more detail later, but as with other Epistles, the first half is doctrinal, while the second half is practical. Additionally, we find the same flow of development in all his Epistles: salutation, thanksgiving, exposition, application, and benediction.

Fifth, and finally, Ephesians is well attested in the early church, and it is extremely significant that Paul has always been recognized as the author. William Hendrickson does an excellent job in documenting this ancient evidence. We’ll consider just a few points.²⁸

Writing in the early fourth century, Eusebius, the earliest of church historians, recognized that the entire Orthodox Church considered Ephesians as belonging to Paul. As a result of his research, he wrote:

“But clearly evident and plain are the fourteen [letters] of Paul; yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the [letter] to the Hebrews.”

This is not only interesting because it includes Ephesians as one of the fourteen, but it also includes Hebrews as well, though most in our day deny it. (I for one strongly support Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but that’s another story).²⁹

In the third-century, Church Father Origen quoted several passages from Ephesians in his work De Principiss (On Principles) and assigned them to Paul. The same was true of Origen’s teacher Clement of Alexandria, who quoted Eph. 4:13-15 in his work The Instructor and attributed it to Paul.

Even before that, in the Second Century, Irenaeus wrote in his work Against Heresies, “This also Paul declares in these words,” and then quoted Eph. 5:13. He prefaces another quotation from Eph. 5:30 with the words, “As the blessed Paul says in his epistle to the Ephesians.”³⁰ We also find allusions to Pauline authorship in Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome, the most important of the Apostolic Fathers (c. A.D. 30‑100).

So, there was no question whatsoever in the Early Church of who wrote Ephesians. May we therefore ask, who are we to believe, the testimony of the godly leaders of the Early Church or the liberal critic of today?

After citing other evidence, Hendrickson concludes:

“It has been shown, therefore, that as soon as the church began to assign the New Testament writings to definite authors it “with one accord” named Paul as the author of Ephesians. There was no doubt or dissent . . . There is no reason to depart from these traditional convictions.” ³¹

The statement that most caught my eye was, “There was no doubt or dissent.” Indeed not. Not until some 1800 years later did the dissention begin. It took the pseudo-intellectualism, irrationality, and probably unregenerate hearts of men to create a controversy where none ever existed.

To bring this debate to a close, in light of all this detail, I greatly appreciated this simple comment by R. C. H. Lenski:

“The hypothesis that some brilliant pupil of the apostle impersonated his great teacher and wrote this epistle invents a second St. Paul, one who stooped to falsification and succeeded in deceiving the entire church. Such a view scarcely merits serious consideration.”³²

He’s right. How ridiculous it all is!

So why the challenge? And why the need for our defense? It is this: the real issue here is really not whether Paul wrote Ephesians; the real issue is the critic’s agenda, his real purpose. As always, the critic’s agenda is to tear down Scripture. His real purpose has always been to attack the historicity of Scripture. One graphic example has always been the ancient city of Jericho. The liberal critics once attacked the Scripture by saying that Jericho never existed and that the Bible story was a fantasy. Until the archeologists went out and began digging in the sand and revealed the ancient city, even verifying that the walls indeed fell outward. The critic’s agenda is always to destroy the Bible’s historicity, and he will go to any length to do so. If this can be compromised, the doctrines of Inspiration, Inerrancy, Infallibility, Authority, Sufficiency, and even Canonicity crumble.

II. DATE AND OCCASION OF WRITING

Now that we know who wrote this Epistle, we now consider when it was written. Having dismissed the silly but insidious idea of a forger, which would place it late in the first century (between 90-95), we need now only consider the Biblical chronology and early church history to discover the real date.

Ephesians is one of the “Prison Epistles.” Ephesians (3:1), Philippians (1:7), Colossians (4:10), and Philemon (9) all mention Paul's imprisonment. Evidence from Clement of Rome and Eusebius, indicates that Paul suffered two Roman imprisonments. According to Acts 28:30, during his first imprisonment Paul was under “house arrest” in a rented house at his own expense. He anticipated being released (Phile. 22), and following that release he made several trips, wrote his first letter to Timothy and one to Titus. He was then rearrested, at which time he wrote his final letter, II Timothy, and was then, according to early church history, beheaded.

So, we find that Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were all written at the same time (A.D. 60‑61). Colossians and Philemon were probably written first. Since Epaphras brought disturbing news from Colosse (Col. 1:7 and context), then Paul would have wanted to answer quickly. And since Paul was anxious to return Onesimus, the runaway slave, to Philemon, he likewise would have written this letter quickly. But before Tychicus, the one who carried these letters, left Rome, Paul had finished a third letter which, as some commentators surmise, he had been working on for some time. This was the letter to the Ephesian Church.

III. RECIPIENTS

There is yet another major controversy over this Epistle. While not as important or crucial as the question of authorship, this additional issue is significant, namely, exactly to whom Ephesians was written.³³

From a personal perspective, I am greatly troubled by this issue. In my early study of Ephesians back in the late 1980s, I was sucked into and accepted the view I am about to refute. This time around I spent weeks studying this and am convinced of its importance. Again, like authorship, in spite of the fact that the entire Early Church regarded this as a letter that had been sent to the Ephesians by Paul, this has been challenged in recent years. It is believed by many that it was not, in fact, addressed to the Ephesians but was rather a circular letter.

The first extremely significant fact about this is that the first man to question the recipients of the letter was the Second Century Gnostic heretic Marcion. Reading Paul’s request in Col. 4:16 that the Colossians and Laodiceans should exchange letters, he concluded that “the letter to Laodicea” mentioned there actually refers to this letter to the Ephesians. Based on that single opinion, he actually altered the copy of the Greek text he had from “at Ephesus” to “at Laodicea.” But this was conclusively proven to be an absurd conclusion. Except for his altered copy, not one single manuscript contains the heading, “to the saints that are at Laodicea.” ³⁴ It has been further shown that Marcion, as one writer puts it, “cut and slashed texts to suit his purposes in an astounding manner.”³⁵ Tertullian, a contemporary of Marcion, wrote: “Instead of a stylus, Marcion employed a knife.” He went on to say that Marcion even changed the title of the letter.³⁶

I mention this not only because of its historical importance, but also to say that modern thought is really not much different. The whole question of the destination of this letter actually revolves around a textual issue. The real issue is this: because the words “at Ephesus” do not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts, then some other destination is implied. But when we objectively and honestly analyze the textual evidence, we must conclude otherwise. The simple fact of the matter is that only six manuscripts omit the words “at Ephesus” while all others, thousands in fact, contain them. Among these six are the revered, but arguably corrupt, fourth-century codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is argued that since they are the oldest, they are the best, which is the foundation of the modern Textual Criticism and modern translations. But this argument has been shown by several conservative scholars to be illogical. How can it possibly be rational to accept a handful of manuscripts—which are in fact suspicious to begin with and actually contradict each other some 3,000 times—over thousands of other copies that say something different and agree among themselves? The fact is, to say that older is always better is absurd, and any first semester student of logic would recognize it.[1]

We might also add, it has also been shown by two scholars that it’s very possible that the reason these wrongly revered fourth-century manuscripts omit the words “at Ephesus” might well be the result of Marcion’s tampering with the text 200 years earlier.³⁸

It’s also conveniently ignored that while Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words “at Ephesus” in the text, they still retain the title of the letter, “The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians.”³⁹ The same is true of the Chester Beatty papyrus manuscript (P46) dated A.D. 200, which is the earliest extant manuscript of Paul’s epistles. It, too, has Pros Ephesious (“to Ephesians”) at the top of the first page. Why the contradiction? We also should note that Vaticanus includes the words “in Ephesus” in the margin.

Another manuscript that is cited as not containing the words “in Ephesus” is the twelfth-century Codex 67. But the truth here is that originally it actually did contain the words but some later correctionist deleted them apparently to make it conform to Vaticanus!⁴⁰ Doesn’t this bother anyone?

It is further argued that since Paul sends no greetings to the people in a church he labored in for three years, this implies that Ephesians was actually a circular letter, that is, not one sent to the single church but a general one sent to many churches. “Surely he knew everybody,” it is argued, “so why wouldn’t he send greetings?” As mentioned earlier, this is not proof because other Epistles lack such greetings. But one scholar adds another perceptive point:

“[This] argument is two-edged, for Paul’s long years of labour at Ephesus must have made him acquainted with so many Christian people there, that their very number may have prevented him from sending any salutation. A roll far longer than the epistle itself might have been filled, and yet the list would have been by no means exhausted. Omissions might have given offence . . .”⁴¹

Still another commentator makes this observation:

“The better he knows the parties addressed, and the more general and solemn the subject, the less he seems to give of these individual notices.”⁴²

In other words, personal greetings are far from being the most important issue, rather the lofty truths that the Epistle presents. This reminds me of the “user friendly” churches in our day, which are more concerned about being “touchy-feely” than they are about truth. In this Epistle, Paul presents some of the grandest truths he ever penned, so it is easy to assume that presenting these far exceeded any need for personal greetings.

Another important point here is that omitting “at Ephesus” makes the verse grammatically incorrect and even unintelligible. The verse therefore says, “to the saints which are,” a statement that makes no sense and one which we find hard to accept that Paul would write. Paul always includes the destination of his letters, so why not here?

To answer this, the critic argues—and this is perhaps the most absurd theory of all—that the two clauses “to the saints that are . . . and to the faithful” imply a blank space; perhaps multiple copies were made and the name of each church was inserted in the copy sent to it. But this just begs the question and assumes that these few manuscripts are correct in omitting “at Ephesus.” May we add, in fact, such a fill-in-the blank document was, as one writer puts it, “without parallel in the annuals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, essentially a modern notion.”⁴³ In other words, to prop up their position, somebody just made up the idea of a blank space in the manuscript, despite the fact that such a practice was unknown in that day.

That writer was nineteenth-century scholar Dean John W. Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort. Burgon thoroughly dismantled their Critical Theory of textual criticism but is ignored today by liberal critics and even by evangelicals who have bought into the liberal theories.

I must say again, this issue greatly troubles me. It does so because it is important in view of Biblical authority. This theory challenges the clear text of Scripture that is supported by the majority of the Greek manuscripts. As we’ll mention later, the majority of modern commentators and expositors spew out this unfounded theory. In essence, they say, “Well, since those six manuscripts don’t have ‘at Ephesus,’ then this was probably just a circular letter in which they perhaps just wrote in the name of the church before they sent the copy.” Every time I read such a statement, written by a godly and intelligent man, it simply amazed me at how undiscerning we have become. Why do want to hold on to some ridiculous theory that has not one shred of support?

As I pondered this, I thought of an analogy. The same evangelicals who most certainly reject evolution because it is a God-rejecting and totally unprovable theory, then turn right around and accept a ridiculous and pointless theory such as this. After careful examination of this theory, I am totally appalled at its widespread acceptance and the caviler attitude with which it is treated.

May we also point out, not only do the majority of Greek manuscripts include “at Ephesus,” but so do all the ancient versions (translations) of Ephesians without exception, as do the all the ancient commentaries on Ephesians.

Another nineteenth-century scholar, John Eadie, who wrote one of the most authoritative commentaries on Ephesians, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, is very difficult to argue with when he sums up this matter:

“We are therefore brought to the conclusion that the Epistle was really meant for and originally entituled [sic] to the church at Ephesus. The strong external evidence is not weakened by internal proof or statement; the seal and the inscription are not contradicted by the contents. Such was the opinion of the ancient church as a body, as seen in its [manuscripts], quotations, commentaries, and all its versions; of the mediaeval church; and in more modern times of the commentators Calvin and [many others].”⁴⁴

Clearly, the Church has, through the ages, universally accepted the fact that this Epistle was written by Paul and addressed to the Church at Ephesus.

Why make such an issue of this? I do so because only in recent years have both of these been challenged, and challenged even by Evangelicals. I for one refuse to be sucked into anything that in any way weakens, waters down, compromises, or casts doubt on Scripture. And that is exactly what this theory does. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists today have been sold a bill of goods by so-called “scholars” who in reality merely undermine the Word of God in their speculations.

The fact is that for people today to argue against the authenticity of the words “at Ephesus” is total folly. We say again, the real issue here is textual. This whole thing would not even arise were it not for modern Textual Criticism that ignores (and even scoffs at) the Traditional (Majority) Text theory, which holds that the true text of Scripture has been providentially preserved in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Burgon again writes:

“It is absolutely unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the words [in Ephesus] . . .”⁴⁵

What a significance statement! They have truly gone “out of their way” to explain a problem where no problem exists. Against simple and overwhelming evidence, they have created a ridiculous theory—and please get this—a theory that has no positive end and no good purpose. As I researched, pondered, and wrote about this hour after hour, I finally asked, “What possible good can come out of denying the words ‘at Ephesus’ and coming up with some preposterous theory to explain the absence?” I could find only one answer—none. It accomplished nothing good. All it ultimately accomplishes is to cast one more doubt on the veracity and trustworthiness of our present translations. This, Dear Reader, upsets me, and it ought to upset every Christian who loves God’s Word. We should all be sick and tired of the constant subtle challenges made by not only liberals but even Evangelicals and Fundamentalists today of the veracity of Scripture. Instead of accepting the simple facts before them, they create theories that ultimately dishonor God’s Word.

As mentioned already, it is most interesting and instructive that most modern commentators and expositors have swallowed this view of Ephesians against the ancient evidence. It’s tragic just how gullible and undiscerning we have become. One refreshing exception to this, however, is the Bible Knowledge Commentary, written by the faculty of Dallas Seminary. Harold W. Hoehner writes:

“It seems better to accept ‘in Ephesus’ as genuine because of the wide geographical distribution of the Greek manuscripts that do include those words. Also no manuscripts of this epistle mention any other city, and none have only the word “in” followed by a space to insert a city’s name. The prescript or title ‘To the Ephesians’ appears in all manuscripts of this epistle. Furthermore, all the letters Paul wrote to churches mention their destinations. “

Another comment in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary is also worth mentioning:

“Some believe that this epistle may have been a circular letter addressed to a number of different churches. It seems more likely, however, that a particular congregation was in view, and there is no strong reason for rejecting the traditional destination—Ephesus.”

Still another respected commentator, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, who actually leans on the Critical Text, accepts “in Ephesus” as genuine.

May I share one other quotation. Writing in 1891, after the discovery of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, B. W. Johnson writes in his work The People’s New Testament with Explanatory Notes:

“The absence of at Ephesus in a few manuscripts of the fourth century, and in the Vatican, as well as all other difficulties, can be explained without the necessity of denying that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians. Hence the great majority of critics have agreed in following the authority of existing manuscripts and of the ancient church in the statement that the Epistle was addressed to the great congregation founded by its writer in the capital of proconsular Asia, which had enjoyed his apostolic labors for a longer period than any other of which a record has come down to us.”

Two things struck me as I read that. First, any difficulties that arise can be explained without denying that the letter was addressed to the Ephesians. We have, in fact, dealt with these difficulties. The second thing that struck me, however, is even more profound, namely, “the great majority of critics have agreed in following the authority of existing manuscripts and of the ancient church in the statement that the Epistle was addressed to [the Ephesians].” In other words in his day, 1891, just like throughout Church history, the majority of the church accepted this letter as being addressed to the Ephesians. In other words, in his day there was no problem. In our day, however, there is a problem, namely, we have rejected time-honored truth and have been sold a lie by liberal criticism.

As I continued pondering all this, I asked myself, why don’t more of us see this development? Why aren’t more of us bothered by it? Why aren’t more of the intelligent, educated, and godly men of today concerned about all this? Why can’t we get it through our heads that the Bible is under attack from every direction? Some might ask, “So what? What’s the big deal that the words ‘at Ephesus’ aren’t there? What difference does it make?” The difference is that it is just one more subtle attack on the veracity of the Word of God. Instead of looking at Scripture rationally, may we just look at the text—the issue is always the text. Those we reject these well-attested words are, whether they recognize it or not, undermining the text. They say they believe in the authority of Scripture, but then tolerate and even embrace something manufactured by the liberal critic.

Another reason we make an issue of all this is because as we enter into our study of this wondrous Epistle, like any other study, what is the first prerequisite? It is this: before we can study it, we must first believe that it is God’s Word. And if we swallow some liberal criticism, we might as well stop now because other doubts will arise. There are, in fact, other challenges to the text of Ephesians by the critic,[2] so we better decide right now whether we will stand or compromise.

Before going on, I would submit one more thought. This seemingly insignificant attack has accomplished something else, namely, that the Critical Text, and therefore the modern translations based on it (such as the NIV),[3] have been so elevated that most people today simply ignore the facts of something basic to New Testament history—the recipients of the Epistle that Paul obviously wrote to the Ephesians. How tragic it is. What is the matter with us that we ignore such a danger?

In summary, there is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever to doubt that the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by the Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus. It is, in fact, foolish, irrational, and destructive to do otherwise. Might it still have been circulated among other churches? That is certainly possible,⁴⁶ but this in no way detracts from the fact that it was addressed by Paul to the Ephesians.

IV. BACKGROUND

Paul spent an unusually long time in Ephesus, almost three years (Acts 18:18-21; 19), longer than any other place during his church planting ministry. The reason for the long stay was undoubtedly because of how strategic that city was to the spread of Christianity.

To say the very least, Ephesus was an important city in the ancient world (see the pictures page). Located on the Western shore of Asia Minor, modern day Turkey, it was, in fact, the capital of that Roman province and its greatest commercial city. It sat at the mouth of the important Cayster River, right on the shore of the Aegean Sea, and therefore functioned as the “Gateway to Asia.” An analogy of this would be old colonial Pittsburgh, which was called the “Gateway to the West” because it sat on the Ohio River, which in turn flowed into the Mississippi. As in that day before mechanized travel, so it was in ancient times that waterways were the crucial to travel and trade. Also, as Chicago serves as a hub for railroad travel, a highway to Ephesus made it the hub of caravan travel. It was because of this strategic location that Ephesus was important to commerce and the military. It likewise proved valuable as a strategic location from which to launch evangelistic work. It is this latter point that provided the reason for Paul’s lengthy stay. Because of this city’s strategic location, he wanted to found a church and teach it at length so as to create a solid launching pad for further work.

Ephesus was also important for another reason—its pagan worship. Ephesus was among the most pagan cities of that day. One of the seven wonders of the ancient world was the great temple of Diana (or Artemis in Greek), which was located at a sacred site of an ancient Anatolian fertility goddess, about a mile and a half northeast of the city. It was widely represented on Roman coins, and was reported to be four times the size of the Roman Parthenon. Consisting of 127 white marble columns, each 62 feet high, it was 425 feet long and 220 feet wide. Besides ornate carvings and paintings, it was best known and most revered for the image of Diana, which supposedly had fallen directly from Heaven to Earth. The image was of a crowned woman with multiple breasts that symbolized fertility. The temple was so popular that Ephesus became the religious center of all Asia. Besides Diana worship, Ephesus was also known as the center of occult arts and practices. Indeed, what better place could there have been from which to launch evangelistic outreach? Paul wanted to go to the center of pagan worship and then go out from there. And it is, indeed, amazing what happened in that city.

Directly linked to this worship was commerce and tourism. People from all over the region visited the temple, carried on worship, and purchased silver shrines of Diana (Acts 19:24). The significance of this is one of the most dramatic illustrations in all Scripture of the effect the Gospel has on those who believe.

May we interject here that there has in recent years been great debate over what is called “Lordship Salvation,” that receiving Christ as Savior also includes receiving Him as Lord. Those who take the opposite view argue that someone can believe in Christ for salvation but can wait till a later time to “make Him Lord of their life.” It is at that time, they insist, that the believer surrenders to obedience. This controversy is tragic because the real issue boils down to one simple principle: when Christ comes into your life, your life changes. God’s Word everywhere declares that a change is automatic when someone believes. II Corinthians 5:17, for example, declares:

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

This verse (as well as the context) says the believer (obviously from the moment of salvation on) is a new creature, not will be a new creature. This is really all that is meant by so-called “Lordship Salvation.” It is a total contradiction to say that a person can believe in Jesus as Savior but reject Him as Lord simply because a change of life automatically results in a change in lordship. Before salvation, we were lord, but after salvation, Christ is Lord, not because we make Him Lord by some subsequent “decision,” but because He is Lord. Further, everything else changes: our values, attitudes, actions, goals, allegiance, and all else.

One of the greatest examples of this principle appears in Acts 19, where we read the details of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. We read there that when people came to Christ, their entire lives changed. Verses 8-10 tell us:

“And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”

Boldly preaching the Gospel in the synagogue for three months, the longest stay in any synagogue during his travels, Paul encountered many “hardened” hearts. The Greek for “hardened” is sklērunō, to make hard or stiff. Used figuratively, it means to make obstinate. That’s what these hearers were: hard, obstinate, even defiant against God. This is what we can expect from many as we go forth as ambassadors of Christ.

But there were also those who believed. Verses 18-20 declare:

“And many that believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.”

As a result of receiving the Gospel, those who were involved in occult practices burned their books on spells, sorcery, and other such things. Their life change was dramatically demonstrated by the value of those books. 50,000 pieces of silver today would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’re reminded here of how even some Christians today ignorantly dabble in such things as horoscopes and Harry Potter, books that ought to be burned.

The impact of the Gospel went still further. Verses 23-29 describe an even more dramatic scene:

“And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.”

As people came to Christ, they no longer invested money in pagan practices or paraphernalia. The result was a devastating blow to local commerce. The silversmiths were being driven out of business because people no longer bought silver shrines of Diana, which were used as household idols. Paul’s statement that these were “no gods” at all, as well as the stir churned up by the silversmiths, combined to trigger a riot. This probably took place during the annual spring festival held in Diana’s honor. When Paul couldn’t be found, the people seized two of his helpers and dragged them into the amphitheatre, which held 25,000 people. So serious was the situation that there was the danger of Diana worship being destroyed altogether.

May we see that that is what the Gospel does. It changed people’s lives. If one chooses to called this “Lordship Salvation,” so be it, but the fact is true conversion means true change. Christianity is not a creed, a code, or some other system of ethics. Christianity is a life, a new reality that comes when we trust Christ as Savior and Lord.

Ponder something else. The silversmiths feared that Diana worship was in danger of being destroyed altogether. Was their fear founded? Indeed it was. In that day, the temple was one of the great wonders of the world. Today no one worships there. Mark it down: Christianity makes no peace with idolatry. A direct result of the conversion of the Ephesians was that they got rid of their idols.

We’re reminded again of how in ignorance (and sometimes even in knowledge) some Christians allow the remnants of paganism into their lives. Ironically, I’m writing this the day before Halloween, which has become second only to Christmas in American commerce. How sad it is that the majority of Christians think this day is full of innocent fun when in truth it is full of demonic activity. “Halloween” literally means “All Hallow’s Eve,” that is, “the night before All Hallows” (“All Saint’s Day”). It was at this time, according to the Druids, that Saman, Lord of the dead, called up hosts of evil spirits who did evil things to mortals. To escape these, mortals would have to build fires, offer food, and/or dress up like demons and witches and roam about with them. Of course, it is from this that we get “trick or treat” and Halloween costumes. It is truly appalling that Christians allow this to go on! It is no less than outright blasphemy that pastors allow “Halloween parties” to go on in their churches! Halloween comes right out of Hell itself, but sad to say, there are Christians who think it’s “cute.” Like the Ephesians, may we get rid of our idols and sympathy for pagan practices.

So Ephesus was, indeed, a strategic location for the spread of the Gospel and the founding of a pivotal church. Some time after Paul left, however, several problems arose in the church. After his first imprisonment, Paul revisited several of the churches he’d labored in and left Timothy in Ephesus to pastor the church for about a year and a half. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul addressed those problems so Timothy could combat them: false doctrine (1:3–7; 4:1–3; 6:3–5), disorder in worship (2:1–15), and unqualified leaders (3:1–14), problems with which many churches are still plague today.

Sadly, we read about the tragic end of the Ephesian church in Rev. 2:1-7. In his personal letter to the church, our Lord said that they had “left their first love.” They had deserted and forsaken the simplicity, joy, and thrill of a personal relationship with Christ. Some 30 years after Paul and Timothy had labored there, they still had “purity,” but they had no “passion.” Everything had become cold, mechanical orthodoxy. As a warning, our Lord said He would “remove [their] lampstand,” that is, would remove their light, the real life and vitality of the church. And this was exactly what happened to that historic church. Today there is no church in that region of the world. The entire area was swallowed by the Moslems, and there is no Christian church for miles around. But what’s more, there isn’t even a city where Ephesus once stood. Ephesus was destroyed by the Goths in A.D. 262, and even though it was rebuilt, it never rose to its former glory and completely declined by the fifth century. Only a small Turkish town (Ayasaluk) remains in the area. Writing in 1861, John Eadie graphically described the Ephesus of his day:

“The candlestick was at length removed out of his place, and Mahametan gloom overspread the city. The city also has become one of external desolation. The sea has retired from the harbour, and left behind it a pestilential morass. Fragments of columns, arches, and porticos are strewn about, and the wreck and rubbish of the great temple can scarcely be distinguished. The brood of the partridge nestles on the site of the theatre, the streets are ploughed by the Ottoman serf, and the heights of Coressus are only visited by wandering flocks of goats. The best of the ruins—columns of green jasper—were transplanted by Justinian to Constantinople, to adorn the dome of the great church of Sancta Sophia, and some are said to have been carried to Italy. A straggling village of the name of Ayasaluk, or Asalook, is the wretched representative of the great commercial metropolis of Ionia. While thousands in every portion of Christendom read this epistle with delight, there is no one now to read it in the place it was originally addressed. Truly the threatened blight has fallen on Ephesus.”⁴⁷

What a vivid example this is of what a lack of God’s Word and passion for It will do to a church and society.

Thankfully, the tragic end to the church at Ephesus in no way diminishes the value of the letter Paul wrote to those believers. On the contrary, it makes it all the more appropriate and challenging. While that church ultimately forgot the deep and exciting truths of this letter, we are encouraged not to make the same error. As we continue our study of this great Epistle, may we listen intently to and then obey diligently the truths that Paul gives us.

V. THEME AND PURPOSE

Ephesians is so broad, so sweeping in its content, that recognizing the underlying theme is easily missed. Some view 2:8-10—that great passage that declares, “For by grace are ye saved”—as the key passage and therefore conclude that the theme is “the Grace of God.” Others are struck by 4:1—“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called”—and therefore view “our Christian calling” as the theme. Many others, in view of 2:11-22, consider “unity” as the central message. Others define the theme, based on 1:3, as “the Christian’s riches in Christ,” while still others think it’s “the mystery of the church.”

But while all those subjects are vital, none of them is the central theme of the letter. The theme is far more sweeping. To put it succinctly, The prevailing theme in Ephesians is God's eternal purpose and the place of Christ and His people in that purpose.⁴⁸ Chapter 1 lays the foundation by showing us the eternal purpose of God in choosing the elect who would be His people. We then see many figures of this throughout the letter: God’s children (1:2), God’s heirs (1:11), Christ’s body (1:22-23), God’s building (2:19-22), Christ’s bride (5:22-31), and the Church (1:22; 3:10, 21; etc.).

Recognizing this theme is of the utmost importance because everything begins with God. The comprehensive idea in the letter is what God is doing. God is mentioned by proper name or pronoun in every verse of chapter 1 except verses 16 and 21, but is still implied in both of those. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ exposition of chapter 1 stands as one of the greatest in church history. In it, which is appropriately titled God’s Ultimate Purpose, he writes with almost as sweeping of language as what we read in the Epistle itself:

“The Bible is God’s book, it is a revelation of God, and our thinking must always start with God. Much of the trouble in the church today is due to the fact that we are so subjective, so interested in ourselves, so egocentric . . . Having forgotten God, and having become so interested in ourselves, we become miserable and wretched, and spend our time in “shallows and in miseries.” The message of the Bible from beginning to end is designed to bring us back to God, to humble us before God, and to enable us to see our true relationship to Him. And that is the great theme of this Epistle; it holds us face to face with God, and what God is, and what God has done; it emphasizes throughout the glory and greatness of God—God the Eternal One, God the everlasting, God over all—and the indescribable glory of God.”⁴⁹

That thought immediately points us to several verses in chapter 1:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;” (v. 3)

“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;” (vs. 6-7)

“That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.” (v. 12)

“Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” (v. 14)

Permeating this chapter is the praise of God’s grace and glory. That is the theme.

One of the great tragedies in the church today is that it has become “purpose-driven,” “seeker-sensitive,” and “user-friendly.” The accepted approach today is more concerned with “meeting needs” than proclaiming truth. Modern ministry is “people-centered.” Many pick up a newspaper and shop for a church like they are shopping for a movie. “Ah, look what is playing in this church today,” they say. “Ah, but look what they are doing over at this other one. It looks even better.” Many are looking for what they can get, how they can be “ministered to.” We are starting with man instead of God, but Paul declares that this approach is wrong. We are to worship, not be entertained.

Before going on, ponder one more thought here. What is the appeal of Ephesians? What is its charm? What makes it so loved? After all, there are no new doctrines in it, nothing, in fact, that isn’t in other Epistles. So what is the attraction? It is this: Ephesians, unlike any other Epistle, is the best statement of basic Christian doctrine and practice in all of Scripture. I am convinced that no other Epistle is more basic to living the Christian life than Ephesians.

Consider this. While troubles arose later, at the time Paul wrote this letter there were no problems in the church at Ephesus (1:15). Unlike its sister book Colossians, which was written as a “preemptive strike” to warn of and ward off the heretical teachings that threatened the Colossian church, Ephesians had no such purpose. It’s purpose was to present doctrine for doctrine’s sake, to express the basic doctrines of Christianity in language unequalled anywhere else.

Beyond tragic is today’s de-emphasizing of doctrine and doctrinal preaching. The emphasis is upon what is entertaining, what is thrilling, what is titillating, and what is stirring. This was brought home to me back in 1984 when my wife and I were in a traveling ministry. While trying to get meetings, I sent a tape of my preaching to a particular pastor. During my follow-up call, his response was, “Well, it was a good message, brother, but it’s really more teaching than preaching. What I need is more of an orator who will get the people stirred up.” I remember thinking as the call ended, “Those poor people.” Yes, you can get people “all stirred up,” but that will wear off very quickly. What will bring growth, depth, and maturity is doctrine, teaching, and truth.

“But wait,” it is argued, “what about the practical?” Oh, Paul most certainly gets to the practical. As we’ll see, in Chapters 1-3 he lays the foundation with doctrine, and then in Chapters 4-6 he challenges us our practice.

May I say again, there is nothing more foundational to the Christian life than Ephesians. As one writer puts it: “With strong wings it soars among the heights of theological thought and glides upon the winds of the greatest of truths.”⁵⁰

One might be thinking, “Wait, what about Romans? Isn’t it the greatest of Paul’s doctrinal treatises?” Indeed it is. But as commentator R. C. H. Lenski writes about this very comparison:

“Ephesians is unlike any other of Paul’s letters in that it treats a great subject for the purpose of edification only. Even Romans has the special purpose of preparing for Paul’s proposed visit and in 14:1-15:13 treats a peculiar situation that had developed in the Roman church.”⁵¹

Finally, as noted earlier by Lloyd-Jones, “If Romans is the purest expression of the Gospel [as Luther stated], the Epistle to the Ephesians is the sublimest and most majestic expression of it.”[4] Or if I might put it another way: While Romans is the most thorough and comprehensive presentation of Gospel doctrine, Ephesians is the most basic, the most profound, and the most and awe-inspiring.

VI. CONTENT

With its grand theme in mind, let’s take a look at the key words, phrases, and verses in Ephesians.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES

There are several key words and phrases in Ephesians that immediately provide us with an immediate grasp of its content.

First, in light of the theme, there are three words that are related in concept: “purpose” (prothesis), which appears three times (1:9,11; 3:11), “counsel” (boulē), which appears once (1:11), and “will” (thelēma), which appears six times (1:1,5,9,11; 5:17; 6:6). All three words, in fact, appear together in 1:11: “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” We’ll study each more deeply later, but briefly, prothesis (purpose) speaks of an intention or plan and literally means “a laying out before hand.” God created this plan by his own counsel, a translation of the word boulē, which speaks of a deliberate determination. But behind this deliberate, determined plan was God’s will, a translation of thelēma, which denotes a desire that springs from the emotions. God’s will is not a cold calculation, but rather a heart’s desire. This, indeed, reemphasizes the theme: God's eternal purpose and the place of Christ and His people in that purpose.

Second, “Grace.” If any word stands out as the main key, it is this one, which appears a total of twelve times (1:2,6,7; 2:5,7,8; 3:2,7,8; 4:7,29; 6:24). It is an amazing fact that grace is spoken of more in Ephesians than in any other New Testament book, even more than in Romans! Ephesians has been described as “The Epistle of Grace” and rightly so. It is a misunderstanding of grace that is at the very root of all false doctrine concerning salvation. All such teaching tries to mix grace with works, and even the minutest additional of works immediately negates grace. Ephesians details what grace really means.

Third, “Riches.” This word appears five times in Ephesians, all of which occur in the first half of the book (1:7,18; 2:7; 3:8,16). Why? Because the thrust of the first half of Ephesians is our wealth in Christ. Right in line with this is the next key word.

Fourth, “Walk.” This word, along with “walked,” appears seven times (2:2,10; 4:1,17; 5:2,8,15). Amazingly, just as “riches” appears five times in the first half of Ephesians, “walk” appears five times in the second half. Why? Because the thrust in the second half of the book is our walk in Christ.

Fifth, “Body.” This word appears nine times and refers to the Church as an organism, the living, breathing Body of Christ (1:23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4,12,16 [twice]; 5:23,30). Coupled with this word is the next.

Sixth, “Church.” This word also appears nine times (1:22; 3:10,21; 5:23,24,25,27,29,32). Ephesians contains the highest Church truth while containing very little about church order. So, the main view is the Church as an organism, the Body of Christ. However, at times the local church is in view. For example, 4:11‑16 shows that the office gifts were given to the Body, but it also shows the local church as the place where these gifts are utilized.

Seventh, “In Christ.” The phrase “in Christ” (or “in Him”) occurs fifteen times (1:1,3,4,10 [twice],12,20; 2:6,10,13; 3:6,11). It shows us that we are in Christ, that we are in His Body and all we have is because we are in Him.

Eighth, “heavenly places” (or “high places”). Here is a truly fascinating phrase that appears five glorious times in this letter and nowhere else in the New Testament. As we’ll see in more detail later, the Greek is en tois epouraniois, literally “in the heavenlies.” Each occurrence is unique.

The first occurrence (1:3) tells us that the riches we have in Christ are “in the heavenlies.” The riches we claim are not earthly; they are heavenly.

The second occurrence (1:20) declares that Christ is now “in the heavenlies.” We also read in 4:8‑10 that Christ ascended into heaven and is seated there right now.

The third occurrence (2:6) affirms that we too are “in the heavenlies.” Not only are we on this earth, but we are also in the heavenlies right now; our place there is already set. We are not yet there physically, but we are there positionally.

The fourth occurrence (3:10) speaks of the holy angels who dwell “in the heavenlies.”

The fifth and final occurrence (6:12) shows that evil angels, to some degree, have access to the heavenlies. An example of this is when Satan came before God to accuse Job.

What a marvelous phrase this is! It is used in Ephesians to contrast that which is earthly from that which is heavenly. Paul speaks here of glorious things, things that transcend this earth. But he doesn’t leave us “up there” in some “mystical trance,” as some view spirituality in our day. No, he brings us crashing back to earth in Chapters 4-6 with the practical application of these spiritual truths. True spirituality is always practical.

KEY VERSES

First, in the first half of the book the key verse is 1:3:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

God has truly blessed us. He has given us riches and wealth beyond our imagination, wealth that the world cannot understand. Why can the world not understand? Because this wealth is “in the heavenlies.”

Second, the key verse in the second half of the book the is 4:1:

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,”

In view of all that we have in Christ, there are now things we are to do in Christ. As 1:4‑5 tell us, we have been chosen before the foundation of the world and have been predestined to the adoption of sons. What a statement! But did He do that just so “we can go to heaven and have eternal happiness,” as is taught today? No, for as Paul then says, “Walk worthy of that calling.” In our day of “easy believeism,” this principle has been lost. Mark it down: Doctrine always leads to duty. These key verses lead us to our next point.

VII. STRUCTURE

As already mentioned, there are two distinct parts to Ephesians, but we also see that the two parts are in perfect balance. In fact, one of the most outstanding features of all Paul’s Epistles is their perfect balance of doctrine and duty. Other non‑Pauline Epistles show this, but Paul’s are the most vivid. Colossians 1-2, for example, present doctrine while 3-4 present practice. The same is true of Galatians 1-3 and 4-6. Even Romans demonstrates this: chapters 1‑8 are Paul’s great doctrinal treatise, chapters 9‑11 are a parenthetical section on Israel, and chapters 12‑16 then deal with conduct and duty. But Ephesians is the most vivid example of this feature. We can demonstrate this in several ways:

Chapters 1‑3 present our Riches in Christ; 4‑6 show us our Responsibilities in Christ. Chapters 1‑3 present our Wealth in Christ; 4‑6 show us Walk in Christ.Chapters 1‑3 contain the truth Stated; 4‑6 contain the truth Applied.Chapters 1‑3 present our Heritage in Christ; 4‑6 present our Life in Christ.Chapters 1‑3 present the Exposition of what we have in Christ; 4‑6 give us the Exhortation of what we are to do in Christ.

This structure provides us with a natural outline of the book, which leads to our next point.

VIII. BASIC OUTLINE

In a moment we will see a detailed outline, but for now let us get a strategic grasp of the book with this basic outline.

I. The Christian’s Wealth In Christ (Ch. 1‑3)

A. His Riches in Christ (Ch. 1)

B. His Reconciliation to God (Ch. 2)

C. His Rank in God's plan (Ch. 3)

II. The Christian’s Walk In Christ (Ch. 4‑6)

A. Walk in unity (4:1‑16)

B. Walk in purity (4:17‑32)

C. Walk in love (5:1‑7)

D. Walk in light (5:8‑14)

E. Walk in wisdom (5:15‑17)

F. Walk in submission (5:18‑6:9)

G. Walk in victory (6:10‑20)

III. Benediction (6:21‑24)

IX. APPLICATION

Earlier we quoted 4:1. May we ponder it again, for in it we find the application:

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called.”

There are some preachers today who emphasize only “doing right,” “serving the Lord,” or “being practical” but who fail to give the doctrinal teaching on how to do it. This is often characterized by “legalism,” that is, the keeping of some law or code as the producer of spirituality. Others concentrate only on deep teaching but fail to apply it to practical living. But either extreme brings failure in the Christian Life.

Thankfully, Paul gives us the balance. He first gives us doctrine, for this must come first; it is the foundation. We can never do right without first having Truth. Paul then gives us duty, for this is how doctrine is applied; it shows us how to live. Knowledge without practical application is worthless. To put this contrast simply: Duty without Doctrine is legalism but Doctrine without Duty is lifeless.

How wonderful, indeed, Ephesians is in showing us the things that are “in the heavenlies.” But at the same time it does not “let us off easy,” for it shows us what God demands in our daily walk. True Christianity is not theoretical; it’s practical. May we put it this way: Ephesians demands that we walk according to our wealth.

X. EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS COMPARED

The similarities between Ephesians and Colossians are truly amazing. In fact, there are more similarities between these two letters than between any other pair of New Testament Epistles. Some scholars have observed that in one way or another 75 of the 155 verses of Ephesians are found in Colossians.

Of course, one way in which these two Epistles are similar is in their basic structure. As we’ve seen, like all Paul’s Epistles, both begin with doctrine and progress to duty. But this actually goes deeper in these two Epistles in that the first half of each speaks of the grandeur of Christ and the formation of His Body, the “mystery,” while the second half of deals with Christian conduct in specific areas of life.

But deeper still is the fact that we find similar terms, similar expressions, and many other categories of similarity between these two letters. One example is how both speak of the how the believer puts off the characteristics of the Old Man and puts on the character of the New Man (Col. 4:17ff and Eph. 3:5ff). Likewise, perhaps the most vivid example is the teaching on the Christian family. Paul touches on this in Colossians (3:18-21) by showing that it is another aspect of the New Man, but goes into more detail in Ephesians (5:22-6:4).

But these are only selected examples. The many similarities are too numerous to deal with in detail here, but we offer the chart below,⁵³ which the student can use to compare these two glorious Epistles.

Ephesians	Colossians	Ephesians	Colossians
1:1	1:1	4:15	2:19
1:2	1:2