Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 25 –
August/2007
Who Were the
Recipients of the Epistle to the
Ephesians?
Ephesians
1:1
PAUL, AN
APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST BY the will of God, to the
saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in
Christ Jesus.”
Perhaps you are thinking, “How
could this verse possibly be a tough text?” Well,
incredibly, there is a major controversy concerning the
Epistle to the Ephesians that has arisen in recent
years. While some do not consider this very important or
crucial, I am convinced that it is a significant issue.
The issue is this: exactly to whom
was Ephesians written? “But doesn’t this verse clearly
tell us?” you ask. Ah, but that is precisely the
problem. The key words at Ephesus are the words under
dispute!
From a personal
perspective, I am greatly troubled by this issue. In my
early study and exposition of Ephesians back in the late
1980s, I was sucked into and accepted the view I am
about to refute. In my second 3-1/2 year study and
exposition during 2003-06, I spent weeks studying this
issue and am convinced of its importance. Like Pauline
authorship (which is denied by liberal scholarship),
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
2nd Century Gnostic heretic Marcion. Reading
Paul’s request in Colossians 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 irrefutably 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.”[i] It has been further shown
that Marcion, as one writer puts it, “cut and slashed
texts to suit his purposes in an astounding
manner.”[ii] 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.[iii]
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 entirely 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 questionable, 4th 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. 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.[iv]
We might also add, it has
been shown by two scholars that it’s very possible that
the reason these wrongly revered 4th Century
manuscripts omit the words “at Ephesus” might well be
the result of Marcion’s tampering with the text 200
years earlier.[v]
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.”[vi] 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? Why is it retained in the title but not
in the text? 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
12th 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![vii] 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?” This is not proof,
however, because other Epistles lack such greetings. 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. . . .[viii]
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.[ix]
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.
Henry Alford,
19th Century biblical scholar, adds another
objection to the circular theory. He writes that it is
“[improbable] that the apostle, who in two of his
Epistles (Second Corinthians and Galatians) has so
plainly specified their encyclical character, should
have here omitted such specification.”[x] Indeed, Galatians 1:2
makes it clear that Paul is writing to “the churches of
Galatia,” and II Corinthians 1:1 declares that that
letter was meant not only for “the church of God which
is at Corinth” but also “with all the saints which are
in all Achaia.” In both cases Paul makes it clear that
the letter is meant to be circular, so if Ephesians was
purposely designed to be such a letter, why does he not
make that equally clear?
One verse that is cited as
“proof” that Paul didn’t write this letter directly to
the Ephesians is 1:15, “Wherefore I also, after I heard
of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the
saints.” Albert Barnes sums up the argument and then
answers it this way:
The argument is, that he
writes to them as if they were strangers to him, and
that it is not language such as would be used in
addressing a people among whom he had spent three years.
. . . But this inference is not conclusive. Paul had
been some years absent from Ephesus when this epistle
was written. In the difficult communication in those
times between distant places, it is not to be supposed
that he would hear often from them. Perhaps he had heard
nothing after the time when he bade farewell to the
elders of Ephesus at Miletus (Ac 20), until the time
here referred to. It would be, therefore, a matter of
great interest with him to hear from them; and when, in
some way, intelligence was brought to him at Rome of a
very gratifying character about their growth in piety,
he says that his anxiety was relieved, and that he did
not cease to give thanks for what he had heard, and to
commend them to God in prayer.[xi]
Likewise, Charles Hodge
writes:
As Paul was the founder of
the church in Ephesus and had labored long in that city,
it has always caused people to wonder that he should
speak of having heard of their faith, as though he had
no personal acquaintance with them. This expression is
one of the reasons why many people think, as mentioned
in the Introduction, that this letter was addressed not
to the Ephesians alone or principally, but to all the
churches in the western part of Asia Minor. It is,
however, not unnatural that the apostle should speak in
this way about so large and constantly changing a
congregation after being absent from them for a time.
Besides, the expression need mean nothing more than that
he continued to hear about their general
welfare.[xii]
John Eadie agrees and boldly
states:
It is wrong to argue
from this expression . . . that the apostle had no
personal knowledge of the persons whom he addressed.
This was an early surmise, for it is referred to by
Theodoret. Some, says he, have supposed that the apostle
wrote to the Ephesians, os medepo theasamenos
autous, (as having never seen
them.) But some years had elapsed since the apostle had
visited Ephesus, and seen the Ephesian Church; and might
he not refer to reports of their Christian steadfastness
which had reached him? Nay, his use of the word may
signify that such intelligence had been repeatedly
brought to him.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown make
still another point:
“Ever since I have heard.”
Not implying that he had only heard of their conversion:
an erroneous argument used by some against the address
of this Epistle to the Ephesians; but referring to the
report he had heard since he was with them, as to their
Christian graces. So in the case of Philemon, his
“beloved fellow laborer” (Phm 1:1), he uses the same
words (Phm 1:4,5).
We could also cite R. C. H.
Lenski, who makes the same point, as well as Eadie’s.
Finally, Matthew Poole puts the matter very simply with
this comment:
He was an eyewitness of
their first believing, but here he speaks of their
increase and constancy in the faith since, of which he
had heard by others.
All these comments should
demonstrate just how ridiculous this whole theory
is.
Another important point
here is that omitting “at Ephesus” makes the verse not
only grammatically incorrect but 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.” More importantly, 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.”[xiii] 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.
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. Sadly, 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 amazes me at how undiscerning we have
become. Why do we want to hold on to some ridiculous
theory that has not one shred of support but makes no
positive contribution to the text?
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 improvable 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
cavalier attitude with which it is treated.
We should 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 all the
ancient commentaries on Ephesians.
Another
19th 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].[xiv]
It could not be
clearer, therefore, that 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 upon 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 with 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:
In the face of this
overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that
[Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] must yet be accounted right,
and all the rest of Antiquity wrong, is simply
irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this
nonsensical reading, of two MSS confessedly
untrustworthy in countless other places,—against
all the MSS—all the versions,—is nothing
else but an act of vulgar prejudice. . . . 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] . . .[xv]
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 to the
veracity of Scripture today made by not only liberals
but even Evangelicals. 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, however, is the
commentary on Ephesians contained in 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.
Additionally, Jamieson, Fausset,
and Brown, and others, accept “in Ephesus” as genuine.
If I may 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; that is, 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 recognize 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, let
us just look at the text—the issue is always the
text. Those who 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 one enters into a study
of this wondrous Epistle (an Epistle that has been my
passion for 20 years), like any other study, what is the
first prerequisite? It is this: before studying it, one
must first believe that it is God’s Word. But if we
swallow some liberal criticism, one might as well stop
immediately because other doubts will arise. There are,
in fact, other challenges to the text of Ephesians by
the critic,[xvi] so one had better decide
up front whether he will stand or compromise.
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,[xvii] but that in no way
detracts from the fact that it was addressed by
Paul to the
Ephesians.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bibler
Church
NOTES
[i]
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary, Critical,
Experimental, and Practical, three
volumes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1993 Reprint).
[ii] R.C.H. Lenski,
Commentrary on the New Testament: Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1937, 2001), p.
337.
[iii] Cited in John
Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of
Mark (Oxford and London: James
Parker and CO., 1871, Reprinted by The Dean Burgon
Society), p. 106.
[iv] Theologian and
philosopher Gordon Clark, who taught logic for 50 years,
provides an excellent example: “It is not true that the
oldest manuscripts are always the best. If the original
X were copied in A.D. 110, and this copy was copied in
A.D. 120, and so on to A.D. 200, there would be ten
generations between the original and the final copy.
Each step would incorporate an error or two. But suppose
another copy was made directly from X in A.D. 210. This
manuscript would be later than A.D. 200, but it
would be only one step away from the original,
not ten steps; and would therefore be better than the
more ancient copy. This would be true even if all errors
were accidental. But now suppose that two copies
of the original were made: one contains a few accidental
mistakes, but the other was written by a man who wanted
to change the message and who therefore deliberately
altered the text. In this case, and this case did in
fact occur, the earlier manuscript would be worse
than the majority of very late copies with their purely
accidental mistakes. Manuscripts [Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus] are supposed to be two copies of the
same earlier manuscript. They attest the same readings.
But can it be shown that this earlier, now non-existent
manuscript was a good copy? Might it not be the one
Marcion mutilated?” (Ephesians, [Trinity Foundation, 1986], p. 3, emphasis
added).
[v] Lenski (p. 338) and Clark
(p. 3).
[vi] Noted in
Wycliffe Bible Commentary
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1975).
[vii] Lenski (p. 337) and
John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the
Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998; reprint of
2nd Edition, 1861), p. xxii.
[ix] Jamieson, Fausset, and
Brown.
[x] Cited in Jamieson,
Fausset, and Brown.
[xi] Barnes Notes on
the New Testament (electronic edition in The
Online Bible).
[xii] Commentary on
the Epistle to the Ephesians
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994. Electronic edition,
Logos Library Systems).
[xv] Burgon, pp. 99 and 108
(emphasis in original).
[xvi] E.g., the words “through
Jesus Christ” in 3:9 and “with his flesh and blood” in
5:30.
[xvii] Charles Hodge writes:
“The assumption that this letter was designed specially
for any one church but intended equally for all the
churches in that part of Asia Minor has met with more
favor. This view, first suggested by Archbishop Ussher,
has been adopted, and variously modified, by many
others. The great objection to it is the overwhelming
authority in favor of the reading “in Ephesus” in the
greeting and the unanimous testimony of the early
church. Perhaps the most probable solution of the
problem is that the letter was written to the Ephesians
and addressed to them, but being intended specially for
the Gentile Christians as a class, rather than for the
Ephesians as a church, it was designedly thrown into
such a form as to suit it to all such Christians in the
neighboring churches, to whom no doubt the apostle
wished it to be communicated. This would account for the
absence of any reference to the peculiar circumstances
of the saints in Ephesus.”.
D. Edmond Hiebert also writes: “The Epistle was
written to the Ephesians and addressed to them, but . .
. the Apostle intentionally cast it into a form which
would make it suitable to the Christians in the
neighboring churches and intended that it should be
communicated to them.” (An Introduction to the
Pauline Epistles, p.
266).
Harold Hoehner concurs: “Even so, the epistle may
still be considered a circular letter, with Ephesus
being the primary church addressed since Paul had stayed
there so long and since it was the capital city of the
province of Asia. This helps explain the absence of
personal names of Ephesian believers. If this epistle
were routed to other churches after the Ephesians read
it, it may have gone to Laodicea and Colosse, for Paul
in writing Colossians urged the believers there to “read
the letter from Laodicea” (Col. 4:16), possibly a
reference to the Ephesian epistle.” (“Ephesians” in
The Bible Knowledge Commentary [Wheaton, IL: Victor Books,
1984]).
