A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. By Ernest Best. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998, xxix + 686
pp., $69.95.
Once
a neglected book, Ephesians now boasts an increasing number of excellent commentaries
to guide scholars, teachers, and pastors who wish to understand this rich work.
Best’s thorough treatment is among the better ones to emerge. He had a distinguished
academic career in Scotland and retired from the divinity faculty of the
University of Glasgow. This commentary replaces T. K. Abbott’s original ICC
volume on Ephesians and Colossians, first issued in 1897. It contains three
sections: an introduction section that covers the usual areas; the commentary
itself, in which are embedded six detached notes on major Ephesian topics (the
heavenlies, in Christ, the powers, the body of Christ, Israel and the Church,
and the Haustafel); and two concluding essays (on the church and moral teaching).
Three indexes complete the volume. Best has included a wealth of bibliographic
entries; indeed, each section or subsection begins with an impressive list of
pertinent resources.
The
knotty problem of the authorship of this allegedly Pauline letter receives
considerable and tightly reasoned attention. Since Ephesians so uniquely
parallels Colossians, Best includes the latter in his assessment of what he
sees as the main possible solutions: Paul wrote both letters; someone else
wrote both letters; Paul wrote Colossians but not Ephesians; Paul wrote
Ephesians but not Colossians; and the two letters were written by two different
unknown authors. Next he sketches out the profile Ephesians presents of its
author: a male, a Hellenistic Jewish Christian who possessed complex Greek writing style (often with a
liturgical sound to it), and one who consciously specified his name as Paul the
apostle. If the writer was not Paul, how can we account for this claim? For
Best, the answer is found in the device of pseudonymity. Paradoxically, he
allows, “Were Ephesians not by Paul its content might still be true and helpful
to believers” (p. 11)—except, of course, in its claim to authorship!
Yet,
in fact, Best does his best to defend the notion that pseudonymity need not imply
deception, for AE (Best’s convention for referring to the author of Ephesians) was
simply writing “to instruct Christians in the new situations in which they were
finding themselves in the way Paul would have done had he still been alive” (p.
13). Though admitting that by the third century pseudonymous writings were
condemned by Christians, Best argues that this was not necessarily true at this
early date. He assesses the possible ways in which Ephesians and Colossians
might be related. He evaluates the linguistic phenomena in Ephesians and the
hypothesis of a secretary to account for the divergences from Paul’s typical
style. He compares the “thought” of Ephesians to that of Paul. He concludes
that Ephesians and Colossians were produced by different authors—not Paul—who
were part of some Pauline school. They take up Pauline concepts and terms, but
extend them in new directions.
His
case is well argued and certainly plausible, given his assumptions. I think he too
quickly dismisses the ethical issue inherent in the hypothesis of pseudonymity
to which I briefly alluded above. Two recent theses in Great Britain suggest
that we cannot so easily dismiss the element of deception in pseudonymous
writing. See T. L. Wilder, “New Testament Pseudonymity and Deception”
(unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen, 1998) and Jeremy Duff, “A
Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity” (unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Oxford University, 1998). Both Wilder and Duff argue that deception is
inherent in the genre of writing pseudonymously. What makes Best’s approach
more curious is how he proceeds to describe the “picture of Paul” we get from
this unknown author as reported in the letter, e.g. Paul is a prisoner, or Paul
asks for prayer for himself (p. 42). Yet if this is written several decades
after Paul’s death by a member of a Pauline school, it all turns out to be
spurious concoctions anyway. Of course Paul was once a prisoner, but he’s dead
now. This has the appearance of verisimilitude; but if it is only fiction—as if
Paul were really in prison requesting prayer—how can we truly derive any
picture of Paul from it? All we can know, in Best’s theory, is what AE wanted
his readers to think about Paul, and what they were to imagine Paul would say
were he alive between ad 80–90.
Best
concludes that Ephesians is not a genuine letter after all, but a homily or
sermon written and sent out for wider circulation (like Hebrews, James, and
Jude). But since Paul normally wrote letters, AE disguises his homily as a
letter, says Best. As to the purpose and occasion of Ephesians, Best considers
but rejects, as do most, Goodspeed’s theory as well as those who posit that
Ephesians was written to oppose the growing threat of gnosticism. He also
rejects the view popularized by F. F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary (1984) that
Ephesians expanded or universalized the principal tenets of Colossians (see
also Moffatt’s Introduction, 1918). Likewise he dismisses the position of Schnackenburg’s
(1982; ET, 1991) and Lincoln’s (1990) commentaries that sees the letter as a
response to crises in the congregations. Best’s conclusion is rather more
general: the AE seeks to help Christians, who have now entered into a new group—the
church—out of their former paganism, to know what is the church’s nature and
what conduct is now required of them.
The
commentary itself is a model of thoroughness, and Best takes pains not to
neglect any crucial exegetical matter. Modern and ancient sources are used with
facility and leave readers feeling that Best has carefully considered the
entire history of exegesis in assessing the letter’s issues and implications.
Though adopting the Nestle-Aland27 critical Greek text, he considers
the variant readings in that edition all along the way, though few, as he says,
seriously alter the meaning of the text.
A
review like this must pick on specific questions or highlight possible
problems, but let readers know that my concerns are minuscule compared to the
otherwise masterful analysis of this letter. I was disappointed that, while
Best correctly and importantly notes concerning 1:4, “Election and
predestination in our passages are not related primarily to individual
salvation but to God’s purpose,” he does not proceed to tease out the possible
corporate implications of these theological constructs within the wider
community issues of the church’s identity in Ephesians. At the same time, in
his note on “in Christ,” Best articulates the corporate nature of that phrase
in its local sense: the church is the body that is “in Christ.” Best fully
unpacks his understanding of the corporate nature of the church in Ephesians in
Essay I at the end of the commentary (pp. 622–41).
The
sealing of the Spirit (1:13) specifies the “mark” that the Spirit leaves on
believers at the point of their conversion including, but not limited to,
charismatic gifts and the fruit of the Spirit, and indicates to them that they
belong to God and are under his protection. Wisely, Best explains AE’s use of
the “powers” in 1:21 and elsewhere in a way that combines both their natural
and supernatural elements, despite the qualms of many in the West to
acknowledge supernatural realities. They are connected to the heavenlies (and
the stars) and spirits, and they influence or control the lives of people.
Importantly, in the view of AE all such powers are now subject to Christ’s
allencompassing dominion, and the church proclaims God’s wisdom (3:10), in
Best’s terms, “to facts and observable forces” (p. 179). On the thorny problem
of 1:23 Best opts for taking the participle pleroumenou and pleroma (fullness) as passive
and the clause in apposition to soma (body): the pleroma is filled by Christ who is himself filled by God. Christ is both
the head of the church and fills it as his pleroma (p. 180). And then, what means “head” in this letter? Best
concludes his note by including both ruler and source: “Of the occasions when
Christ is described as head in Ephesians he is clearly depicted as overlord in
5.23 and 1.22. Probably this holds also for 4.15 even if Christ, and not the
head, is to be viewed as the source of the body’s growth and development” (p.
196).
Considering
the many possibilities for the “quotation” in 4:8, Best believes that AE was
citing part of a Christian hymn whether or not he actually knew it derived from
Ps 68:18. Though finding the view of W. H. Harris and others on the descent
(4:9) attractive—that it refers to the Spirit’s descent to give gifts at
Pentecost—Best finds it, and the patristic view that Christ descended to the
underworld, unconvincing. He opts for the simple view that the text refers to
Christ’s incarnation in this world. He questions the popular view of 4:11 that
the one article governing “shepherds” and “teachers” identifies them as one
group, often pastor-teachers. According to Best, they may indeed be two—as
there are three other groups: prophets, apostles, evangelists— though obviously
closely identified and overlapping in their roles.
As
to the Haustafel, Best observes, “Christianity contains an unresolved tension between
authority and mutuality or, in the terms of our passage . . . , between mutual subordination
and the authority of some” (p. 517). In other words, he says, though all believers
are to be mutually submissive, in their differing functions in the household, some
must exercise authority over others, and some must submit to others. As AE is certainly
addressing Christian readers, submission would be the voluntary response of those who
wished to respond “as to the Lord.” Disagreeing with Bedale (JTS 5 [1954] 211–15), Best
believes the sense of “head” in 5:23 must be “rule” since headship of the husband
is linked to the wife’s subordination.
In
Essay II (pp. 642–59) Best analyzes the moral teaching of this letter. In a few
words, he is not impressed by what AE has constructed. He finds it lacking in
depth, penetration, and focus, compared with other authors of the NT,
especially Jesus and Paul. And he finds it very culturally bound with little
transfer to modern Christians. In its favor, he admits, is Ephesians’
insistence that all Christians are morally responsible, and all must follow the
same standards of conduct. Having studied, written, and taught on Ephesians for
many years, I find this section very disappointing and wide of the mark. It
left a bad taste in my mouth after having profited so much from Best’s wise
insights throughout the volume. I wonder whether his disavowal of Pauline authorship
restricted his ability to understand the book’s ethics in the larger
understanding of what Paul sought to do towards the conclusion of his career.
Notwithstanding, I would recommend this commentary highly. Its judgments are
sane and well argued. It is written clearly and well.
William
W. Klein
Denver Seminary, Denver, CO
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten