The Letter to the Ephesians

Abstract

Lynn Cohick’s anticipated NICNT commentary on Ephesians deservedly takes its place in what is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous, thorough, historically and socio-culturally informed, and theologically insightful and balanced series available. Overall, the commentary reflects the scholarship and style we have come to expect from Cohick: well- researched, judicious, expert, and pastorally sensitive and wise.Especially valuable are the fifteen excursuses scattered throughout the work, covering topics from (for example) “The Meaning of Kephalē” (pp. 130–34) and “Supersessionism” (pp. 189–95) to “Household Codes in the Ancient World” (pp. 342–48) and “Slavery in the Ancient World” (pp. 391–407). Throughout, Cohick shows herself to be not only a sharp historical critic but also a sensitive expositor of these volatile issues for our troubled times.Any commentary on Ephesians, of course, must start with the contested question of authorship (pp. 3–25). Particularly valuable in this connection is the discussion of the role of an amanuensis and of the potential role of the co-senders of Paul’s letters (pp. 23–24). After a careful discussion, Cohick concludes that Ephesians is Pauline. She then turns her attention to the question of the letter’s original recipients, a question complicated by the fact that “in Ephesus” (1:1) is missed out in some early and important witnesses. In any event, Cohick decides on an Ephesian address (pp. 25–30). This decision then prompts a helpful, concise survey of the Artemis and imperial cults (pp. 34–40). From here, Cohick turns to the contested question of the letter’s provenance, some scholars advocating an Ephesian provenance and others a Roman one. Having carefully weighed the evidence, she concludes that Paul wrote Ephesians from Rome (pp. 45–47). Moreover, beyond these fundamental matters of the text’s historical exigencies, Cohick also provides valuable introductory material on a number of topics, prominent among which is a lengthy discussion of the text’s Christology and proto-trinitarianism (pp. 57–70).All relevant matters text-critical, linguistic, rhetorical, historical, socio-cultural, and theological are handled with thoroughness and care. But a few features of the volume deserve special mention.A thorough and yet succinct discussion of the so-called Haustafeln (“household codes”) can be found on pp. 342–48. A couple of Cohick’s summary remarks with respect to Ephesians 5:21–6:9 are worth quoting at length.Cohick then helpfully locates Paul’s vision of the household, and of its constituent members and relationships, in relation to the visions of the ancient philosophical tradition (pp. 342–50, 385–401).For Paul, she argues, unlike (for example) for Plato, “there is no ontological difference between the slave and the master.” And Paul, moreover, unlike (for example) Aristotle, shows no strong interest in “maintaining class distinctions or [in] isolating virtues to specific groups on a sliding scale of social worth” (345). Finally, Paul, unlike (for example) Plutarch, “seems unconcerned about the wife working to make her husband happy. Instead, Paul emphasizes a husband’s sacrificial, self-giving love that is more in keeping with Plutarch’s description of a wife” (p. 347).Moreover, although she acknowledges, here quoting Margaret Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, Sacra Pagina 17 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 341, that “it is important to acknowledge that the text presents a vision of household relationships, rooted in an ancient setting, that is considered unjust today (and, in the case of slavery, completely immoral),” she also concludes the following: “Paul eliminates the power of the superordinate—husband and (male or female) slave master—and elevates the importance and worth of the subordinate. By so doing, he effectively cuts the bottom out of the institutions of patriarchy and slavery” (p. 388).Cohick also appreciates throughout that—though I am putting this in my words and not hers—unless we are to have a docetic bibliology and consequently a docetic view of scriptural inspiration, we ought to expect the authors of scripture to be, as we often wrongly say with no small amount of chronological snobbery, “people of their time.” The point of inspiration is not that the authors of scripture attained to a point of view that was timeless, somehow completely detached from the (broken) context within which alone they understood God, themselves, and everything else. Rather, the point is that they said precisely what God wanted them to say from within and in relation to this broken context.We owe Cohick a debt: this is now one of the best Ephesians commentaries we have.