Gordon Fee on the Holy Spirit

With all the discussion going on about the Holy Spirit these days (HERE for example), I was surprised that no one had yet mentioned Gordon Fee’s book, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, not the least because he devotes an entire chapter to one of the issues most discussed - whether it is the Holy Spirit or a holy spirit. For that reason, I decided that it would probably be helpful to provide a summary of the chapter 2, “Preliminary Observations on Usage.” I’m not going to reproduce all of the references or the Greek discussed. This is from a book, you can go pick it up yourself and read it - this is summary of pages 14-24.

I am also aware that Fee does not answer all the questions being asked out there, but nonetheless, its a very interesting discussion.

The Holy Spirit or A Holy Spirit?

Some of suggested that when Paul’s πνεῦμα usage lacks the article it refers to a spirit, something with divine influence, but not the Spirit of God - more like “a spirit from God.” So lets take a look at the numbers:

A while back, Fee did a study of the use of the article with porper names in working on studying John’s style for text critical matters. The application of a similar study to πνεῦμα is also very revealing:

πνεῦμα in the nominative:

The word occurs 17 times - 15 articular. Interestingly, the two anarthrous occurrences are those that are most clearly references to the Holy Spirit - Romans 8.9 &  Ephesians 4.4.

πνεῦμα in the genitive:

Ignoring prepositional phrase for a moment, πνεῦμα occurs 30 times in the genitive, 28 of those times refer to the Holy Spirit and 18 are articular. The numbers suggest and preference for articular usage, for one. But also, those which are not articular can be easily explained based on other Greek conventions - for example, Paul tends to make either both genitive articular or neither genitives articular (cf. Romans 15.19, or 2 Corinthians 13.13 or Philippians 2.1).

When πνεῦμα occurs in the prepositional phrase we find the same thing. There are 13. Nine of them refer to the Holy Spirit and of them six are articular. “Of the 3 anarthrous instances which refer to the Holy Spirit, two (Rom 5.5; 2 Tim 1.14) are qualified by the additino of “Holy” and a substantival participle, thus making them references to the Holy Spirit; the other (2 Thes 2.2) is an indirect reference (= through a prophetic utterance that comes from the Spirit). Again, articular usage, prevails, and anarthrous usage has other explanation” (20-21).

πνεῦμα in the accusative:

The accusative is similar in usage to the genitive. But we should note that consistently there are good expanations available regarding why Paul did not use the article with the anarthrous instances in every case here. Sometimes its a modifier, sometimes formulaic usage, and a number of other reasons, which you can go read for yourselves.

πνεῦμα in the dative:

This is where most of the difficulties lie - especially since with the dative we have the issue of phrases like ἐν πνεύματι. Here the numbers are flipped. There are 37 instances of the Holy Spirit being directly or indirectly in view (I’m not sure what Fee means by indirectly). 32 of them are anarthrous with only 5 being articular.

What can see say about usage? Paul obviously prefer not to use the article with the formulaic, “ἐν πνεύματι” or even the “πνεύματι.” Instead of explaining why there is no article, now we’re looking at why there is one. In 1 Corinthians 6.11, Paul uses the article in order to maintain a balance pair in phrases. The two in 1 Corinthians 12.9 are, “in a context where it is being argued that the ‘one and the same Spirit’ is responsible for the diversity of gifts; the context calls for this repetition” (23). This is also the case in 12.18. In Ephesians 1.13, the article appears as a result of emphasis - observe the same usage in the accusative later in 4.30.

Overall, 1/3 of the anarthrous occurences are in major discussion of the Spirit and spirituality. They consistly occur surrounded by articular instances, which makes non-Holy Spirit usage extremely unlikely. Also, most other instances have a context that seems to demand Paul meaning “by [the Holy] Spirit” rather than “by a spirit.”

Finally, we are clearly dealing with stereotyped usage. This is especially obvious when you examine other phrases, such as “by the flesh.” In the nominative and accusative. The same pattern appear. Flesh is consistently articular in those cases, but in the dative, with πνεύμα, flesh is consistenly anarthrous.

Conclusion:

In seems quite clear that Paul’s lack of article does not mean “a spirit.” Not only that, but the evidence accumulated here should be remembered when one examines the debated passage (Ephesians 5.18, for example). Lastly, we must observe that there is no unambiguous anarthrous occurrence of πνεύμα referring to a human spirit anywhere in the Pauline Corpus.

So there you go, according to Fee, there is no reason that we should trust the occurence of the article with πνεύμα to show whether it refers to a spirit or the Spirit.

 

Chrysostom on Ephesians 5.21: Translation & Comment Part I

I’ve spent the afternoon working on translating John Chrysostom’s discussion of Ephesians 5.21. Most of it is complete - there’s one paragraph left. Here’s what I have so far. I’ve put the Greek text in it to the right for Eric. Its literal in that it accurately conveys Chrysostom’s meaning (and hopefully some of his speaking skill too…):

“Submit to each other”, he declares, “in fear of God.” If you submit because of rulers, money or honor, how much more should you submit because you fear God? There should be an exchange between slavery and submission so that there is no true slavery. No one sits in the rank of the freeman while another sits in the rank of the slave. Instead, both the master and the slave become slaves to each other. It is so much better to be a slave like this than free any other way. Let me explain:	Ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις, φησὶν, ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ. Εἰ γὰρ δι’ ἄρχοντα ὑποτάττῃ, ἢ διὰ χρήματα, ἢ δι’ αἰδὼ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον διὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φόβον. ἔστω δουλείας καὶ ὑποταγῆς ἀντίδοσις· οὕτω γὰρ οὐκ ἔσται δουλεία. Μὴ ὁ μὲν ἐν τάξει καθεζέσθω ἐλευθέρου, ὁ δὲ ἐν τάξει δούλου, ἀλλὰ καὶ δεσπότας καὶ δούλους ἀλλήλοις δουλεύειν βέλτιον· πολλῷ βέλτιον οὕτως εἶναι δοῦλον, ἢ ἑτέρως ἐλεύθερον. Καὶ δῆλον ἐκεῖθεν·
Suppose there is a person with a hundred slaves who would never serve any of them. But suppose there was also someone with a hundred friends, regularly serving each other. Which one would have the better life? Who lives more happily and comfortably. For one of them there is no anger, no irritation, no angst, or anything else of that kind, while for the other there is only anxiety and fear. In one case, they are forced, but in the other, all choose freely. In one case, they are constrained, but in the other, they serve and enjoy mutual benefaction and reciprocity.	ἔστω τις οἰκέτας ἔχων ἑκατὸν, καὶ μηδεὶς ἐν αὐτοῖς διακονείτω· ἕτεροι δέ τινες ἔστωσαν ἑκατὸν φίλοι, ἀλλήλοις διακονούμενοι· τίνες ἄμεινον βιώσονται; τίνες μετὰ πλείονος ἡδονῆς, μετὰ πλείονος εὐφροσύνης; Οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ ὀργὴ, οὐδὲ παροξυσμὸς, οὐδὲ θυμὸς, οὐδὲ ἄλλο τῶν τοιούτων οὐδέν· ὧδε φόβος καὶ δειλία· κἀκεῖ μὲν ἀνάγκης, ἐνταῦθα δὲ προαιρέσεως τὸ πᾶν· κἀκεῖ μὲν βιαζόμενοι, ἐνταῦθα δὲ χάριν ἔχοντες ἀλλήλοις δουλεύουσιν.
And that’s God’s desire; that is why he washed the disciples’ feet. But there’s more! If anybody carefully studies this issue, they will find there is indeed an exchange between the slave and the master! Surely your pride won’t suffer by accepting such an exchange of service? When a person makes himself available for service, you must provide for him physically: food, clothing, and shoes. This, I tell you, is the way you should serve, because if you do not follow through on your end, the slave won’t either. He’ll be free and no law will constrain him nor will food convince him. And what’s more, if this is the case for slaves, what’s so unusual about it being the same with freemen?	Οὕτω βούλεται ὁ Θεός· διὰ τοῦτο ἔνιψε τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν, Μᾶλλον δὲ, εἰ θέλεις ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάσαι, καὶ ἐπὶ δεσποτῶν ἀντίδοσίς ἐστι δουλείας. Τί γὰρ, εἰ ὁ τῦφος οὐκ ἀφίησι φανῆναι τὴν ἀντίδοσιν; Ὅταν γὰρ οὗτος μὲν τὴν σωματικὴν διακονίαν παρέχῃ, σὺ δὲ τὸ σῶμα τρέφῃς, καὶ θεραπεύῃς καὶ τροφαῖς καὶ ἐνδύμασι καὶ ὑποδήμασι, καὶ οὗτος δουλείας ἐστὶ τρόπος· ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ παρέχῃς καὶ σὺ τὴν σὴν, διακονίαν, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἔσται ἐλεύθερος, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτὸν ἀναγκάσει νόμος καὶ μὴ τρεφόμενον τοῦτο ποιεῖν. Εἰ τοίνυν καὶ ἐπὶ δούλων τοῦτό ἐστι, τί ἄτοπον, ἐὰν καὶ ἐπὶ ἐλευθέρων τοῦτο γίνηται;

So…

Obviously, our friend John had a very high Christology. Every time he mentions God in this passage, he is referring to the Jesus.

But the other question is this: How does Chrysostom view slavery? The first two paragraphs are positively against slavery. But the third comes back to the more moderate, but traditional view of the issue. And so I ask, should we right the first two paragraphs in light of the more traditional third? Or the third paragraphs in light of the rather progressive sounding first two?

Let’s have a vote!

 

A Minor Criticism of Talbert

• Talbert, Charles H. Ephesians and Colossians Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.
• ISBN: 0801031281
• Amazon Link

This is a smaller criticism of Charles Talbert’s commentary on Ephesians and Colossians that simply grew too large for the review itself, so I’m posting it separately for people to read. I am for the most part very impressed by this commentary. The fact that I disagree with Talbert regarding Ephesians 5.21 should not be very surprising, those of you who have read my blog for long know that I’m quite picky about this verse.

One minor criticism of this section is Talbert’s conclusion that verse 21 of chapter 5 should not be read as part of the household code section. He believes that the absence of verb does at time introduce a new section. His examples of this is come of a few passage. Phil 2.5b and 2 Tim. 3.16 both lack the copula. More over Talbert notes that Rom. 12.9a; 2 Cor 8.16; lack the imperative copula (131). But this argument cannot stand. If Talbert cannot find a non-copula verbless clause that begins a new section, he argument fails. Ephesians 5.22 is an instance of an ellipsis where the verb is supplied by verse 21. A missing copula does not function in this manner.

[S]trictly speaking, the absence of the copula is not ellipsis, but a remnant of a primitive idiom, since some primitive tongues could do without the copula.

A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research ( Logos, 1919; 2006), 395.

Robertson’s point is the two noun phrases can function as a clause by themselves without the copula - a phenomena, though foreign to English, is pervasive in numerous languages, including Greek. Though he’s wrong in thinking that this is a primitive construction or idiom. Its occurs in a number of modern langauges. Tolstoy would probably have been offended by this statement, since Russian has nominal existential clauses as well- and his language is far from primitive.

This sort of construction is also described in introductory books on Grammatical Analysis:

The linking verb … does satisfy a basic requirement of English Grammar which sates that every sentence must contain a verb. This requirement does not hold for all language, however. In a number of languages, sentences … [can] be expressed without any verb at all.

Paul R. Kroeger, Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction (Cambridge: University Press, 2005), 174.

Stanley Porter writes:

The clause in Greek does not necessarily consist of a subject and predicate, as students of other languages are often taught. For example, there is nothing un-Greek or unnatural about the following Greek clauses: Mt. 5.3: μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι (the poor in spirit [are] blessed), a verbless clause with a subject (adjective) and a predicate complement, a fairly common sentence type; Rom. 7.16: καλός ([it is] good), with a simple adjective serving as the entire clause. . . .

It is often said that several of these constructions have elided items (e.g. omission of a form of the verb εἰμί), but this kind of analysis is not necessary. It is sufficient to say that what constitutes a ‘clause’ in Greek may be different from what constitutes a clause in other languages. For Greek, a subject word (noun, adjective) and a predicate word (verb) are not required to constitute a clause, no matter what elements may appear in English translation.

Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), 287.

Porter is right, but he’s a bit imprecise with his words. The words subject and predicate are semantic terms. So while a nominal clause may not have a verb, that is not to say that it does not have a predicate. But I digress…

All of this to say, Talbert’s examples are not examples of what he wants them to be. The reason that these verbless clauses begin new sections (which in of itself could be debated) is that they are typical, normal clauses. According to Opentext.org’s analysis, there are over four hundred occurrences of verbless clauses in Paul’s letters. The vast majority of these simply lack the copula.

Talbert’s other objection to understanding 21 as being connected with verse 22 deals with the question of “mutual submission,” which he rejects because, “Submission is not reciprocated to husbands, parents, and masters” (131). The problem with this argument is that it ignores the structure of the passage. Talbert has already admitted that there is a possible inclusio involved with with verse 21 and verse 33 with the word φοβος (fear/respect). If this inclusio is followed then it makes sense that the mutual submission of verse 21 applies only to the husband and wife relationship. And as many have claimed before, surely the husband sacrificially loving his wife is an act of mutual submission. Paul has not removed the social order, but he has changed it, just as he did in 1 Corinthians 7.3-5. While Talbert believes Paul has only made a spiritual change (154), these two passages, Eph 5.21-33 and 1 Cor 7.3-5 suggest physical changes to the present order as well (For more discussion of this passage, cf. HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE). And if you would like to read a 45 page paper I’ve written on this topic, leave a comment and I’ll e-mail you - if I know who you are.

 

History. What’s the Point?

Evangelicals, does history matter? Most would say, “Yes.” Or at least, I would hope they would.

it seems to me that we often talk about having a historical faith. A faith grounded in history!

But its hard for me to see some times what that actually means for our reading of the text itself. Now this isn’t always the case. When we’re talking about the resurrection, then the text is a historical text - its a text grounded in history. We’re quick to emphasis that fact. Jesus rose from the dead. Its a historical fact! That’s what we say.

But what happens to history when we move to other topics?

What comes to my mind first is the post I wrote several weeks ago about a article in JETS, September 2006.

Paul’s Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11.8-9 and 1 Timothy 2.13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered” by Benjamin L. Merkle

Merkle seeks to fill a gap in complementarian argumentation. And that is commendable, very commendable because the gap needing filling is a canyon. The problem has been that complementarians argue that the reason women cannot teach men in the church is because in 1 Timothy 2.8-15, Paul argues from the creation order, something which in of itself is too simplistic a description (cf. Towner). That is, because man was created before woman, women do not have authority over men. The problem with this interpretation has been that Paul makes the exact same case “from the creation order” to argue that women should wear veils in 1 Corinthians 11.7-9. And yet, veils are cultural and 1 Timothy 2 is taken as a universal requirement from the dawn of time.

It is good that Merkle addresses this problem. Its a big one. His argument is that Paul is speaking of something more than just veils. This is fact many commentators have noted and mentioned. Merkle proposes that the “something” behind the veil is that Paul sees an important distinction between men and women that needs to be maintained (i.e. men are in control and women are not). There are gender roles to hold on to.

As I observed previously, Merkle jumps directly from the text to theology, skipping right over the question of history. Merkle’s interpretation is completely unaware of recent historical work on women in the Greco-Roman world. Does history matter?

Another example is found in just about any discussion of Ephesians 5.18-33. There is much discussion at least about the the household code and its origins, but there is less discussion about the historical context of both households and family in the first century. And interestingly enough, the two main historical discussion of this passage that I can think of come form egalitarians - Gordon Fee’s article “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5.18-6.9″ and Craig Keener’s book, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul.

Again, does history matter? How historical is our faith?

The only notable exception in this trend among complementarians that I can think of is Stephen Baugh (if anyone can think of other exceptions, I’d be interested in reading them).

This question of history is probably one of the biggest issues holding me back if someone wanted to convince me of the complementarian view.

I wanted to see history being done on both sides.

We’re so often told that 1 Timothy 2.9-15 is universal with a dismissal of proposetd historical settings for the passage. If the passage is universal, then there should be a historical context for that universal command to fit (this also assumes that “excercise authority” is the best translation of αυθενειν, which has not been conclusively shown).

We have a faith grounded in history, let’s interpret it in history too!

 

Ephesians 5 Revisited Again

If 5.22-33 are the out working of v21 though, could not one argue - in the context of marriage this is - that the mutual submissions ‘looks like’ loving sacrifice one way, and respectful submission/subjection the other?

I think that’s only half of it. Paul does something very interesting in this chapter. He only tells women directly to submit to their husbands ad he only tell men directly to love their wives as Christ love the church.

But I think that the context of the whole chapter is very evidence that submission and love are expected for both the husband AND the wife

It would be hardly fair to say that because Paul did not tell wives to love their husbands that wives should not love their husbands (I’ve checked wives are never commanded that in the NT). But just as both husbands and wives are commanded to submit, so also are both wives and husbands commanded to love in 5.2.

Its not a issue of the wife does one and the husband does the other. Its both/and.

If Paul had commanded husbands to submit direct instead of merely indirectly, the gospel would have gone down the drain in the Roman Empire.

NOTE: This is a comment that I wrote at the Complegalitarian Blog 

 

Book Review: Peter O’Brien - Ephesians Part II

O’Brien, Peter Thomas. The Letter to the Ephesians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999. (Westminster Theological Seminary Book Store) OR (Amazon)

Support my library, click on Westminster’s book store link!

Previously in part one (HERE), we dealt with O’Brien’s discussion of the question of authorship in Ephesians, where he concluded that the evidence for Pauline authorship is strong enough to be accepted as valid. In this second part of the review, we will focus on the Destination (II) and the Life Setting, Purpose, and Provenance (III).

II. Destination

O’Brien’s discussion of the destination of Ephesians is not terribly original. It functions mainly as a survey of scholarship, with with very little in terms of original conclusions. While some might be disappointed by this, it is actually completely understandable because there is very little to be said in terms of developments. Thus, the question is, “How well does O’Brien do in surveying the literature accurately and fairly?”

With the modern consensus, O’Brien rightly rejects E. J. Goodspeed’s theory that Ephesians functioned as an introduction to Paul’s letters written by a disciple who collected them. This rejection is based on the fact that there is no evidence at all that Ephesians every functioned in this way. Ephesians, among other things, does not appear at the beginning of the corpus in the Pauline lists of letters. The theory has inherent difficulties.

O’Brien also notes that Clinton Arnold and Harold Hoehner believe that the original text of Ephesians 1.1 contained the phrase “εν Εφέσω.” He notes Arnold’s arguements, but says little more. These include the fact that Ephesians was a city of at least 250,000 people at this time in history. It would be fair to assume that a letter to Ephesus would likely be a letter dozens or more smaller house churches. The fact that in 1.15, Paul states that he “heard of their faith” may very well simply mean that Paul has heard about the progress that the Ephesian believers have made since they were last together.

It is also possible that Ephesians could have been a letter intended to be read by a wide range of believers through western Asia Minor with Ephesus as the center point.

Finally, O’Brien notes that Arnold argues that the lack of personal greetings is not necessarily significant since other letters whose authorship has not been questioned to churches Paul knew quite well also do not have such personal greets, such as 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians and Galatians.

The next paragraph begins, “In contrast to Arnold, we contend that the textual tradition which omits the words ‘in Ephesus’ was the original” (48). But this supposed “contrast” does not actually carry very much weight. O’Brien’s conclusion is not very different at all. The main different is that he considers the impersonal nature of the letter to be more significant for the destination than Arnold. For O’Brien, Ephesians is not written to many many house churches in a very large city and the surrounding area, rather, Ephesians is just written to the surrounding area, “perhaps in and around Ephesus, or on the road to Colossae” (49). The manuscript evidence, for O’Brien, shows nothing more than the fact that most of the copies made of Ephesians came from the copy Paul had sent to Ephesus.

III. Life-Setting, Purpose, and Provenance

O’Brien begins with the quite common observation that Ephesians is the most general of all Paul’s letters. Nevertheless, he does attempt to glean as much information as he can from the letter in order to determine as much as possible its setting, purpose, and provenance. He notes the following:

• The original audience has been blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ by God (1.3).
• God has chosen them from the foundation of the world (1.4-5).
• They have heard the gospel, the word of truth, and have made it their own (1.13).
• Paul describes them with a number of designations for God’s people in both the OT and the NT.
• Paul uses multiple images to describe his audience, including “saints,” “follow citizens with God’s holy people,” brothers and sisters,” and others.

But as O’Brien himself knows, all of these designations and images are true of all followers of Christ and thus do not say much about these particular believers (50). So then, more concretely, it is clear that Paul’s reader’s have heard of him (1.1; 3.1; 6.21-22), his imprisonment and sufferings (3.13; 4.1). Potentially, they also knew about his status in Roman awaiting trial to bear witness of Christ before Caesar himself (51). Lastly, Paul’s audience will receive with this letter a visit from Tychicus who will tell them about Paul’s personal circumstances that they might discover how Paul is doing and be encouraged (6.21-22, page 50).

Regarding the purpose of the letter, O’Brien’s discussion begins with a quite survey of previous suggestions, just as he did with the destination of the letter. Because the information that can be gathered from Ephesians about the original audience is not very specific, (not to mention the lack of authorship agreement) there has be very little consensus about the purpose of Ephesians.

Some scholars doubt that Ephesians is a letter. For them it becomes a baptism or Eucharist liturgy, a wisdom discourse, an early Christian hymn, a sermon, or a theological tract. To these proposals, O’Brien states that we should not be so confident in our specification of a concrete situation when none is described in the text.

There is no reason, in principle, why a letter could not be general in nature and written for the purpose of instructing and edifying Christians over a wide area or in a range of congregations. In the case of Ephesians, its solemnity and broad sweep of God’s majestic saving purposes set forth in the first half of the epistle, together with the wide-ranging exhortatory material of chapters 4-6, suggest that Paul could have had such purposes in mind (51-52).

In his survey, O’Brien speaks quite highly of Clinton Arnold’s proposal (though he rejects that the letter was only written to Ephesians as Arnold holds). Arnold focuses on the theme of the spiritual powers in Ephesians, which O’Brien sees as a definite strength in comparison to other proposals who have ignored that element in their analysis. But in the end, Arnold’s proposed setting for Ephesians does not satisfy or explain the other important themes of the letter such as cosmic reconciliation in Christ, something that Arnold himself admits. Nevertheless, O’Brien view’s Arnold’s proposal as a “creative and fresh approach.”

O’Brien also considers A. T. Lincoln’s warning against creating a specific life setting as justified on account of the wide and divergent views amongst commentators and students of the letter. The best way forward in O’Brien’s view is to view the purpose of Ephesians as one of “identity formation, following Klyne Snodgrass (NIV Application Commentary) and J. P. Sampley (56).

Thus a plausible situation for O’Brien places Ephesians being written by Paul from Rome around 61-62 CE. Tychicus then carried Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians to their respective recipients, accompanied by Onesimus. On this view, in agreement with Max Turner,

[Ephesians] was written for the churches along or near the road Tychicus would have taken from Ephesus to Colosse, including Magnesia, Tralles, Hierapolis and Laodicea (58, citing Turner).

The central message is cosmic reconciliation and unity in Christ. Within this pointed is the fact that all things are summed up in Christ (1.9). In fact, O’Brien considers the berakah or eulogy of verses 1.3-14 to be the summarizing section of the letter, through which the rest can be explained and understood. Throughout the eulogy, all of God’s purpose described is said to be “in Christ” or “in Him.” O’Brien views this phrase not to denote instrument (that is through Christ or by Christ), but rather denoting the sphere.

Christ is the one in whom God chooses to sum up the cosmos, the one in whom he restores harmony to the universe. He is the focal point — not simply the means, the instrument, or the functionary through whom all this occurs. The previous examples of ‘in Christ’ and its equivalents within the eulogy focussed [sic] on the Son as God’s chosen one in whom believers have been blessed…. The mystery which God has graciously made known refers to the summing up and bringing together of the fragmented and alienated elements of the universe in Christ as the focal point. All things are to be summed up in God’s anointed one and presented as a coherent totality in him (59).

For this reason, the second half of the letter, which contains significantly more imperatives and exhortations draws on this theme.

Significantly, Paul’s exhortations are directed against those sins, such as anger and falsehood (4:25–26), which cause dissension and alienation within the [Page 65] body, that is, they are sins which work against the body’s unity (64).

Not surprisingly, O’Brien rejects that Ephesians should be described with ancient rhetorical forms. On the basis of the initial verses and the closing, he considers it to be a letter and attributes its uniqueness as a letter to it much more general circumstances as compared to Paul’s other letters.

The challenge to the genre of Ephesians is found in its body. No one is completely sure where the body begins or ends. Because this is true to some extent of Paul’s other letters as well, O’Brien sees it best to speak of the “Pauline body” of the letter, such as the extended paraenetic (exhortation) section of the letter and various types of prayer materials. Also noteworthy of Paul’s letters in general and found in Ephesians is the extensive use of and dependence on the Old Testament for themes allusions and direct quotes.

Because of the closely woven themes through the first three chapters of the letter, O’Brien sees it best to view 1.3-3.13 as a unit in of itself. He notes that this is very similar to the structure of 1 Thessalonians, which also has an extended thanksgiving section.

He is also cynical of the claim that Ephesians is a sort of theological tract dressed up as a letter. This is “unnecessary” he says because of the lengthy exhortation in 4.1-6.20.

On better footing, but still not acceptable to O’Brien is Andrew Lincoln’s theory that Ephesians was sent as a homily to be sent to Asia Minor.

This suggestion is plausible, but it should not be based on the absence from Ephesians of specific issues or personal greetings. Furthermore, if Ephesians is regarded as a written sermon or homily, then what are we to make of Romans, Galatians, and several other Pauline letters, which were obviously read aloud like homily to a Christian audience?

This statement is one that I do not entirely understand. If it should not be based on the absence of specific issues, then what is it to be based upon? Upon what criteria does O’Brien reject this proposal? This question is pertinent because of his following statement about Romans, Galatians and other letters. These letters while to be read out loud, do refer to specific issues and personal greetings. O’Brien rejects Lincoln’s criteria and then argues that Ephesians as a homily cannot stand because like Ephesians, Romans and Galatians were also intended to be read out loud, two letters that do not fit the criteria Lincoln proposed. Such argumentation is unfair to Lincoln and his commentary.

O’Brien is rightly highly critical of the use of rhetorical criticism and its application to Paul’s letters. He writes quoting Stanley Porter:

After a careful evaluation of some nineteen rhetorical analyses of seven Pauline letters (including six on Galatians), produced by New Testament scholars between 1977 and 1995, Stanley Porter makes the following observations: first, the dissimilarity in the findings among the commentators results from differences in the analyses, both as to the genre of rhetoric and the arrangement of the rhetorical parts. Secondly, there is ‘a wide divergence in the categories’ used, including Aristotelian and a mix of Greek and Roman categories, which is not evidenced in the ancient rhetorical handbooks themselves. Thirdly, the amount and kind of Pauline material placed within each rhetorical category vary significantly. Fourthly, and most seriously, a consistent difficulty that surfaces in these analyses is ‘the relationship of [the] rhetorical and epistolary structures’. Porter points out, as he has done in earlier evaluations of this issue, that ‘the Pauline writings are first and foremost letters, no matter what other category of analysis [exists] into which they may fit’ (74; citing S. E. Porter, ‘Paul of Tarsus and His Letters’, in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.-A.D. 400, ed. S. E. Porter [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 533–85).

When it comes down to it, it is unlikely that Paul was trained in Greco-Roman rhetoric, especially since he was schooled in Jerusalem. The Corinthians were not impressed with his speaking abilities, considering “his speech of no account” (2 Co 10.10). The Corinthians also viewed him as untrained, which Paul himself acknowledged. “I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way” (2 Co 11.6). O’Brien also makes the observation that Paul’s speeches in Acts do not reflect the categories on Greco-Roman rhetoric, a point that damages the case of those who believe rhetorical criticism is the best way to interpret Paul’s letters.

Thirdly, rhetorical criticism fails to recognize that ancient writers do not use rhetorical categories in their own epistolary handbooks and nor do the rhetorical handbooks make any more than cursory references to the writing of letters. Indeed, those comments they do make are focused on the question of style, not rhetoric.

The fact is, the parallels between Paul’s letters and ancient rhetorical strategy has more to do with the fact that “argumentation is universal as well as particular” (78, citing J. T. Reed, ‘The Epistle’, 174 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric).

Finally, O’Brien points out that those early church fathers, who were trained in rhetoric, did not interpret Paul in light of rhetorical theory.

But all of this is not O’Brien’s central problem with the application of rhetorical theory being applied to Paul’s letters. The greatest issue is that those who concentrate on the genre and arrangement of sections in Paul’s letter from a a rhetorical perspective “have no real theoretical basis for their enterprise” (79). And for the reasons stated above, “the notion that ‘this method better than any other holds the hermeneutical key that will unlock the true meaning of the apostles writings’ is seriously flawed” (80, citing J. A. D. Weima, ‘Rhetorical Criticism’, 468, in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric).

O’Brien’s Exposition and Exegesis of the Text:

Over all, O’Brien’s discussion of the text of Ephesians is one of the best available. O’Brien does not avoid challenges, but does not get bogged down in the details. O’Brien’s argumentation so convincing that he converted me to be a complementarian for several months during my study of Ephesians 5.18-24 last year (though it must be noted that in the end as I studied more I found his arguments wanting).

What is most impressive is that his discussion with those with whom he disagrees is always extremely irenic and fair. He represents Gilbert Bilezikian’s view of Ephesians 5.21 very well. The failure of O’Brien’s argument in this passage is that in delineating the meaning of υποτασσομαι (submit) he fails distinguish between sense and referent. The sense of the word is to place oneself under another for any number of reasons. Often times the referent of the word deals with placing oneself under a person of authority. But this is not always the case (Cf my post, “The semantic range of υποτασσω,” forthcoming). Thus he incorrectly writes, “[T]he term regularly functions to describe the submission of someone in an ordered array to another who was above the first, that is, in authority over that person (401). It would be more accurate to say that the term regularly functions to describe one person placing themselves under another where the reason and manner are only derived from the context, the concept of authority is not inherent in the word itself.

That the word inherently contains the concept of submission to an authority does not account for such usage as 1 Clement 38.1:

“So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

or for that matter, 2 Macc 13.23,

“[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (ὑπετάγη) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”

It can be hardly said that the Jews were in authority over Antiochus Eupator, the Seleucid king. Similarly in 1 Clement submission does not refer to and ordered structure of authority but simply where one defers to another regarding gifting. Submission becomes an act where one person defers to another depending on circumstances. In fact we see that the one who is supposedly in authority in 1 Clement actually ends up serving the one who submits. The following sentence states:

The strong must not neglect the weak, and the weak must respect the strong. Let the rich support the poor; and let the poor give thanks to God, because He has given him someone through whom his needs may be met. Let the wise display his wisdom not in words but in good works. The humble person should not testify to his own humility, but leave it to someone else to testify about him. Let the one who is physically pure remain so and not boast, recognizing that it is someone else who grants this self-control (1 Clement 38.2).

The strong are the authority on strength. The rich were always the ones who had authority of all sorts, but they submit to the poor by supporting them, and so forth.

So then, we see rather apparently that υποτάσσομαι is a much broader term than O’Brien is willing to admit.

With all this said, though I disagree with O’Brien on this point, this does not detract from the value of his commentary in any way. I say this because he works incredibly hard to be fair to those with whom he disagrees. This fact is seen through out the volume.

His exegesis is thoroughly stimulating and engaging throughout the volume. He is fair to those with whom he disagrees and rarely, if at all, gets bogged down by too many details. He also brings with him the experience of already writing on Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. On top of that, O’Brien’s commentary of theologically refreshing in many ways. His ability to develop and expound Paul’s theology from this letter is top notch. In fact, if I were forced to choose only one commentary on Ephesians, this would be it.

 

Kruse Kronicle

Once again, I point your attention to the discussion of Ephesians at Kruse Kronicle.

Household: Ephesians Part I

Household: Ephesians Part II

Household: Ephesians Part III

In part one, there are some very good points. Particularly:

“[M]any of us are coming to the passage [Eph 5.18-33] looking for an answer to a question the author isn’t asking or addressing.”

In part two, Michael Kruse, rightly I think, points to the conceptual and verbal connections between Ephesians 5.18-33 and 1 Corinthians 6-7. And finally, in part three, his discussion of the chaistic structure of this passage is incredibly stimulating.

Its definitely worth the read.

UPDATE: Household: Ephesians Part IV is up.

The concluding statement to the post, I think, is the highlight for the day:

But clearly the Ephesians code is tied to the broader them of unity and the demonstration of unity as a witness to the world of Jesus Christ is the letter’s missional theme. The household codes are not cultural compromises but calls to missional living.

Thanks, Michael, for a thoughtful discussion of Ephesians! I’ll be returning to your posts when I get to Ephesians 5.18-6.9 in my outlines of Ephesians.

 

Noteworthy reading on Ephesians:

Michael Kruse over at the Kruse Kronicle has been going through a series on the household metaphor in the New Testament. The whole thing has been excellent and I’ve been following it closely.

In particular, he has some great thoughts on Ephesians 5 posted for one of the posts on household codes Be sure to check it out!

Household: Household Code Lost in Translation: Kephale

And…be sure to note that in the index, he has several other posts dealing with Ephesians 2 and also a couple up coming posts focusing on Kephale in even more detail. I’m sure they will be worth reading as well.

Here is the Index for the whole series.

 

Thoughts on Eph 5.21 (Again)

Eric Rowe (a sort of mysterious man who occasions my site from time to time with insightful thoughts and arguments) and I have been having an ongoing discussion about Ephesians 5.21. In particular, we’ve seriously discussed the word ἀλλήλων and the extent of its mutuality and reciprocity in this verse. So far, we have not agreed.

I have a few more thoughts of on the subject. I would like to present a principle for interpretation that in my opinion in quite valid.

As Suzanne of the Better Bibles Blog mentioned recently in her post, “The Kindness of God,” there is an important element of aural meaning that we often miss since we read scripture generally in our heads. The point I would like to make is related to that.

I do admit it could be argued that the context of the following verses in 6.1-9 Paul does not intend mutual relationships between husband and wife, which from what I understand, Eric argues for. But for some time, I’ve felt as if there was a problem with this that I couldn’t put my finger on.

I think I’ve found it and I’m interested in feedback.

It seems to me illegitimate to interpret the meaning of ἀλλήλων on the basis verses 6.1-9 and the relationships described there. Paul would know that his letter would be read out loud to the church. It is hardly fair to the Ephesian congregation. Why should they have to listen to one hundred ninety-three more words before discovering that ἀλλήλων is to be understood in a non-mutual sense? Or, I should say, how could they?

Can we expect the original audience to suspend their interpretation of ἀλλήλων for such twelve verses before making a ruling on the level of its reciprocity and mutuality?

“Ohh…now we understand…submit one to another is hierarchical!”

Based on the fact that the native Greek speaker could understand ἀλλήλων as mutual (though I’ll grant its not necessary, but quite possible) , it is most reasonable to take this as the best meaning in verse 21. The best evidence is found in the immediate context, namely verse 18-20 and verses 22-27 especially.

 

Metzger and Ephesians 5.22

I came across an interesting occurrence in Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary. Regarding Ephesians 5.22, “αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ,” He writes,

5.22 γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς {B}

On the one hand, several early witnesses (P B Clement^1/2 Origen Greek mss^{acc. to Jerome} Jerome Theodore) begin the new sentence without a main verb, thus requiring that the force of the preceding ὑποτασσόμενοι be carried over. On the other hand, the other witnesses read either ὑποτάσσεσθε or ὑποτασσέσθωσαν after either γυναῖκες or ἀνδράσιν. A majority of the Committee preferred the shorter reading, which accords with the succinct style of the author’s admonitions, and explained the other readings as expansions introduced for the sake of clarity, the main verb being required especially when the words Αἱ γυναῖκες stood at the beginning of a scripture lesson.

 

Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 541.

I’m in the process of re-working through this textual issue. I’ve done it once for a paper I wrote back in April and I wanted to go back and get into a bit more detail.

What is interesting and confusing about this issue are the words, “On the one hand, several early witnesses (P B Clement^1/2 Origen Greek mss^{acc. to Jerome} Jerome Theodore) begin the new sentence without a main verb.” Right beside Metzger, I had Tischendorf’s apparatus open, which says,

υποτασσεσθωσαν cum אAP al fere¹⁰ (et. cat^txt) f vg go cop arm aeth Clem³⁰⁸ (sed ibi tantum v. 22 affert) Bas^{eth 309} (sed incipit locus a versus 22) Euthal^cod Thdrt Dam^{parall 406} et Dam^paris Or^{int 3,61} Victorin Ambrst al

Novum Testamentum Graece. (ed. Constantin von Tischendorf et al.; Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869-94), 2:693.

Those of you who have not used Tischendorf’s apparatus are probably thinking, “What the hell does that mean???” Basically, these are the manuscripts and verses Metzger referred to above saying, “the other witnesses read … ὑποτασσέσθωσαν after either γυναῖκες or ἀνδράσιν.”
What is important for us here though is the “Or^{int 3,61}.” This is Origen. Metzger reads Origen as not having a verb in his text, while Tishendorf reads him as have the verb υποτασσεσθωσαν.

I checked some other commentaries.

Lincoln writes, “ὐποτασσέσθωσαν is placed after γυναῖκες in … Origen.” Ephesians, 351.

But Peter O’Brien simply follows Metzger’s information.

The verb ‘submit’ does not appear in the best Greek text, so that the verse is dependent for its sense on the participle of v. 21. This is the reading of P⁴⁶ B Clement Origen and several Greek mss. according to Jerome.

Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (, The Pillar New Testament commentaryGrand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 411 n202.

Ernest Best and the NET mentions all of the other sources lacking a verb except Origen. It doesn’t seem to make sense that they would neglect such an important, datable witness to the text of this verse if Origen was lacking the verb.

 

So finally, I checked Origen for myself. Here is his text as published in the Patrologia Graece.

 

“αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτασσέσθωσαν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ·”

 

Its entirely possible that other manuscripts of Origen do not have a verb at verse 21, but I can’t find any information about them.

 

This is a good lesson for all of us as scholars. We need to check out sources. Depending on another scholar who has done the work does not guarantee accuracy. Even Bruce Metzger can make a mistake, which seems to be the case here.

 

It think is also shows the importance of doing our own textual work. Too often we use the standard editions, NA27 and UBS4, as if they were definitely the original text. We use textual commentaries as crutches for our own work.