Use of The OT in Ephesians (A. T. Lincoln)

Journal for the Study of
the New Testament

http://jnt.sagepub.com
The Use of the OT in Ephesians

Andrew T. Lincoln
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1982; 4; 16
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X8200401402
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jnt.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the New
Testament can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

© 1982 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
unauthorized distribution.
16
THE USE OF THE OT IN EPHESIANS
Dr. Andrew T. Lincoln,

St. John’s College,
Bramcote,
NOTTINGHAM.
1. Introduction
The use of the OT in Ephesians has not attracted a great

amount of scholarly attention. Quite a lot has been written of
course about individual usages, particularly the interpretation
of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8-10, but overall study of the use
of the OT in the letter has remained a relatively neglected
aspect of scholarship /1/.
Among the few who have devoted some focused or extended

discussion to this topic was J. Schmid in Der Epheserbrief des
Apostels Paulus /2/. His primary interest was in comparing the
use of the OT in Ephesians to that in the generally acknowledged
Pauline letters and he could conclude that in this regard the
Paul of the homologoumena was to be recognized in Ephesians also.
More recently, M. Barth’s treatment of the topic in the context
of the historical and literary relations of Ephesians in the
introduction to his commentary is also concerned with the
implications for authorship and he too concludes &dquo;nil obstat
against the traditional assumption that Paul wrote this
epistle&dquo; /3/. Barth also argues that the OT must be considered
a more determinative factor for the thought of Ephesians than
Gnosticism /4/. This latter issue of the comparative
contributions of the OT and Gnosticism to Ephesians had been
raised in an earlier article by C. r9aurer. The article was
specifically on Ephesians 1:3-14, but he considered this passage
to be a key to the whole letter, because it provides the model
for the interplay of OT and what he believes to be Gnostic ideas
which characterize the letter /5/. Maurer counted forty-two
&dquo;OT parallels and citations&dquo; in Ephesians and held that the
author had filled Gnostic motifs with content heavily influenced
by OT revelation /6/. However these parallels include notions
as broad as election, blessing, the relation of the servant of

17
God to the title &dquo;Beloved&dquo; and the relation of the use of the
Hebrew - ~ to the instrumental use of lv XPL-OTt¡J. Some of
these themes are clearly derived ultimately from the OT but may
well have been mediated to the writer through Christian
tradition and so can scarcely be included in an analysis of the
writer’s actual use of the OT. The contributions of two other
scholars should be mentioned in this brief review. Taking up
KUsemann’s view that Ephesians is a mosaic of traditional
materials /7/, J.P. Sampley has focused attention on the OT and
Jewish aspects of those traditions in his monograph on Ephesians
5:21-33 /8/, and in an article on Ephesians 4:25 ff /9/ in both
of which he offers some observations about the use of the OT
in Ephesians as a whole. A. Lindemann in his study of Ephesians,
Die Aufhebung der Zeit /10/ has devoted a section to the use of
the OT as part of his investigation of the writer’s understanding
of history and of whether the union of Jews and Gentiles in the
church plays an important role in the letter /11/. While
Sampley makes fairly extensive claims about the OT’s role as a
guide in Ephesians /12/, Lindemann holds that its significance
is fairly minimal and that one cannot speak of a use of the OT
in any specific sense in connection with the author of
Ephesians /13/.
A number of reasons may be suggested why more scholars have
not dealt with this topic /14/. First, the number of citations
from the OT is not very large. Nevertheless, clear uses of the
OT do occur in every chapter except chapter 3. Secondly, in
regard to the religious background of the letter, attention has
been focused on either Gnosticism, under the influence of the
earlier work of Schlier and Kasemann /15/, or Qumran /16/
rather than the OT. Thirdly, it is usually assumed, in line
with the treatment by Schmid and by Barth mentioned above, that
there are no differences of any significance between the use of
the OT in Ephesians and that in the undisputed Paulines. I hope
to show, however, that a fresh look at the topic raises doubts
about this last assumption, leads to conclusions about the role
of the OT in the letter which differ from those of both Sampley
and Lindemann and can prove fruitful for other related areas of
interpretation of Ephesians.
This look at the topic will focus only on actual quotations
from the OT in Ephesians and not on allusions, such as the
&dquo;cornerstone&dquo; imagery in 2:20 with its allusion to Isa.28:16,
or the sacrificial imagery in 5:2 with its allusions to OT
passages like Ps.40:6; Gen.8:21; Exod.29:18,25,41, or on the

general theological influence of OT ideas, such as election,

18
salvation or the people of God. Texts which are candidates for

actual quotations are 1:20,22 (cf. Ps.110:1 and Ps.8:6), 2:17
(cf. Isa.57:19), 4:8-10 (cf. Ps.68:18), 4:25,26 (cf. Zech.8:16
and Ps.4:4), 5:18 (cf. Prov.23:31), 5:31,32 (cf. Gen.2:24),
6:2,3 (cf. Exod.20:12) and 6:14-17 (cf. Isa.ll:4,5; 52:7; 59:17).
Of these only the use of the OT in 4:8-10 is accompanied by an
introductory formula - 61.-0 XeyEu. Other direct uses of the OT
but without an introductory formula are 2:17, 5:31,32 and 6:2,3.
There is indirect use of the OT in 1:20,22. 4:25,26 and 5:18
represent minor and most likely indirect uses of the OT in
paraenetical material and there is creative use of OT
traditions in 6:14-17. Because of the limits of this study most
attention will be paid to what are probably the most significant
usages of the OT, the direct ones in 4:8-10, 2:17, 5:31,32 and
6:2,3 and the indirect one in 1:20,22, though some brief comments
will be made on the other usages. Although it is introduced by
the same formula as in 4:8-10 - ÓI.-Ô X~ycu, the citation in 5:14
has not been included because it is not an OT citation. With
most commentators I consider it most likely to be a quotation
from a Christian baptismal hymn /17/.
2. The Use of Ps.68:18 in Eph.4:8-10

After his stress on maintaining the unity of the Spirit
in 4:1-6, the writer introduces in v.7 the note of diversity in
the distribution of grace to individuals by Christ. The key
concept in his flow of thought is giving. It is this which
sparks off the Scripture citation and which enables v.ll to
follow on naturally from v.7, cf. ~66en, Tns 6WPEa~ rov XpuoToD
(v.7), £6WHEV óó~aTa (v.8) and a4Tl g 16wxev (v.ll). The citation
is introduced to underline that it is Christ who is the giver
of gifts.
As we have noted, it is only this OT citation which is

accompanied by an introductory formula - 61.-0 X6yEu. Elsewhere
in the Pauline Corpus &dquo;it says&dquo;, &dquo;Scripture says&dquo;, &dquo;God says&dquo;
or &dquo;David says&dquo; are different ways of saying the same thing,
that is, that the quoted words have divine authority.
As is well-known, in his citation of Scripture the writer

has modified the LXX text (Ps.67:19). The Vaticanus text of
the LXX does already have the aorist participle instead of the
second person singular of the aorist tense and this more easily
prepares the way for the alteration from the second person
singular of the original to the third person in the rest of the
citation. The major change however is that Ephesians has

19
16wxev 66PUTa Tocg &V-5p(5nOUS instead of ËÀa8Eç bduara 6V åv~pwTI~.

It has been held that this modified form of the text closely
follows the Syriac Peshitta, but the reading at this point in
the Peshitta may be a corruption, which makes its value as
evidence precarious /18/. More significant, however, is the
fact that in the Targum on the Psalms the concept of receiving
has been changed to that of giving in the same way as in
Ephesians 4:8 - &dquo;You have ascended to heaven, that is, Moses
the prophet; you have taken captivity captive, you have learned
the words of the Torah; you have given it as gifts to men&dquo;.
Since the Targum on the Psalms is a late work, it is probable
that the writer has made use of an ancient rabbinic tradition
which the Targum has also preserved /19/ and that this tradition
has interpreted the Hebrew np5 rather than reflected a variant
textual tradition which had ?5n /20/. The tradition has been
taken over by the writer to the Ephesians and incorporated into
a midrash pesher rendering of the text in which he integrates
his exposition of its meaning in the light of fulfilment in
Christ into the actual quotation, a procedure which is of course
not unusual in the contemporary Jewish exegetical techniques or
elsewhere in the use of the OT in the NT /21/.
The original force of Ps.68:18 was in praise of Yahweh’s

deliverance of his people and he is pictured as triumphantly
ascending Mt. Zion. It is this triumphant ascent and the gifts
which particularly interest the author of Ephesians as parallels.
He does not develop explicitly the concept of leading captive a
host of prisoners, although it certainly fits his earlier
depiction of Christ’s exaltation over the powers in 1:21,22
(cf. also Col.2:15). His use of Ps.68:18 in regard to Christ
is in contrast to the use made of it in Rabbinic tradition
where it could refer to an ascension to heaven by Moses (cf.
the Targum; the Midrash Tehillim on Ps.68,11; Aboth R. Nathan
2,2a). Ps.68:18 was linked with Moses going up Sinai and
interpreted as an ascent to heaven to receive not only the
Torah but also other heavenly secrets. The &dquo;Moses mysticism&dquo;
with which this interpretation is to be associated was
widespread. It can be found elsewhere in the rabbinic writings
(e.g. Midrash Tehillim on Ps.24:1 and Ps.106:2; B.Shabb.88b)
and in Philo (e.g. Quaest. Exod.II, 40,43; De Vit. Mos.I, 158;
De Post. Caini 14; De Somn.I, 186-188) /22/. Already Philo had
used this tradition to speak to Hellenistic cosmological
concerns and it could well be that it was current in the
religious syncretism of Asia Minor and used to support an
interest in heavenly visions. In this case the writer could
be relating Christ to the similar interests of his readers and

20
in a &dquo;new Moses&dquo; typology showing that Christ has provided a

link with the heavenly world that could not be matched by
Moses /23/. As a greater than Moses, Christ has ascended far
above all heavens in order to fill all things (cf. v.10). His
gift is not the Torah but his grace (v.7) nor are his various
special gifts heavenly secrets for the enlightenment of a few
but people whose ministries will build up the whole body (w.llff).
The application of Ps.68:18 to Christ’s ascent and his

distribution of gifts may well have been aided by the psalm’s
association with Pentecost /24/. As we have seen, the psalm
citation was connected with Moses and the giving of the law, and
Pentecost, besides celebrating harvest, was more and more coming
to be regarded as the feast which commemorated the law-giving
at Sinai. There is good reason to believe that this association
existed from the middle of the second century B.C. The Book of
Jubilees, which is usually dated between 135 and 105 B.C., makes
Pentecost or the Feast of Weeks the most important of the annual
festivals in the Jewish liturgical year, associating it with the
institution of the various covenants in Israel’s history but
above all with the covenant at Sinai (cf. 1:5; 6:11,17; 15:1-24).
The Qumran community followed the calendar of the Book of
Jubilees and celebrated an annual renewal of the covenant, in
all probability combining it with the annual renewal of the
members’ own oath of entry into the community which took place
at Pentecost (cf. IQS1:7-2:19) /25/. Additional evidence is
available from the synagogue liturgy which may have been in
existence at the time of Christ. In the triennial cycle of
readings both Exodus 19,20 and Numbers 17,18 were read at
Pentecost, while, according to the Megilla (B.Meg.31a)
representing the tradition which replaced the triennial cycle,
the psalms for the day were 29 and 68 /26/. Together with
these factors, the two central themes of the Christian
interpretation of the psalm citation, the exaltation of Christ
and his distribution of gifts, suggest that Pentecost lies in
the background to the citation’s use here. Some writers also
hold that Ps.68:18 has had a role in the formation of the
theologumenon &dquo;the gift of the Spirit&dquo; and Acts 2:33f /27/.
The midrash on the citation follows in vv.9,10. Here the
key question is whether this midrash is simply an interruption
to the a parenthesis which digresses from the
argument,
subject in hand or whether it is meant to function as a support
for the writer’s assertion about Christ’s gift. The answer to
this hangs on the interpretation of the descent about which
these verses speak.

21
In facing the problem of the reference of the descent,

which the writer takes to be an inference from the ascent, we
should first mention the variant reading which has npWTOv after
xaT£sn and which has been influential in the history of
interpretation of these verses. This variant is read in
AcBCcKP and the majority of the Latin manuscripts. It is
omitted, however, in p46, /l*AC*DG and the quotations in
Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, and thus on the weight of the
manuscript evidence it is certainly not original. That an
early copyist felt it necessary to add this interpretative
gloss suggests that in the original the sequence of the ascent
and descent could be taken either way and means that the
question of the meaning of the descent can be approached
without prejudice about its temporal relation to the
ascent /28/. There have been three main interpretations, for
each of which a good case can be made - a descent into Hades,
the descent of the pre-existent Christ in his incarnation and
the descent of the exalted Christ in the Spirit at Pentecost.
The interpretation of a descent into Hades is sometimes

associated with the traditional doctrine of a descensus ad
inferos or sometimes seen simply as a reference to Christ’s
death /29/. It is argued that if HUTC5TEPU Tfig yns is to be in
genuine contrast with 6REP&VW N&VTWV rwv ovpavwv this requires
a reference to an underworld. This interpretation can also
appeal to a Pauline passage, Romans 10:6,7, where ascent into
heaven is contrasted with descent into the abyss, which is
explicitly said to be bringing Christ up from the dead, and
where Paul’s interpretation of the OT was influenced by a
Targum on the passage which spoke about Moses ascending to
heaven to receive the law. On the other hand it can be argued
that the contrast in Eph.4:8-10 appears to be between an ascent
to heaven and a descent from heaven, but the descent of a
descent into Hades takes place from earth. If the writer had
had three levels in mind and meant that Christ descended to the
deepest level just as he ascended to the greatest height, he
would have been more likely to have used a superlative than a
comparative. In fact the psalm passages (63:9 and 139:15) which
talk about the underworld as the depths of the earth are
translated in the LXX by the superlative Ta xaTwTaTa Tfig YnS not
by the comparative. In addition, a three-storey cosmology does
not fit the world-view we encounter elsewhere in Ephesians where
the cosmos is seen as simply having two main parts - heaven and
earth. Finally, while the use of xaTaSaCVEL-V in Romans 10:6,7
demands a reference to Christ’s death, this is by no means true
of Eph.4:9,10 (cf. also 1 Thess.4:16 where it refers to Christ’s

22
parousia), and indeed it is extremely difficult to see how such

a descent into Hades could be logically deduced from Christ’s
ascent, which, after all, appears to be the force of the
argument here, or why the identity of the descender and of the
ascender should be stressed.
For these reasons other scholars have argued that it is

preferable to take the Tig ynç in Ta xaT£Tepa rns yig as a
genitive of apposition which further defines the preceding noun.
This grammatical feature occurs a number of times in Ephesians
(cf. 2:14,15,20; 6:14,16,17). Now Ta xaTwTEpa are not the lower
parts of the earth but rather the lower parts of the cosmos, that
is, the earth and the writer is speaking of a descent to the
earth. Those who support both the following views hold to this
interpretation but differ on whether the descent to earth was
before or after the ascent to heaven.
The view which sees a prior descent in the incarnation /30/

has the advantage of following the order in the original meaning
of the psalm, for the descent to be inferred from the ascent of
Yahweh to P9t. Zion would be the fact that he first came down to
deliver his people and triumph over his enemies before going up
to his dwelling place. On this view the passage can be seen as
a typical instance of a xaTa0aoLS-aB’aPao~ Christology to be
found elsewhere in the NT, especially in the fourth gospel
(cf. Jn.3:13; 6:62). When asserted of Christ &dquo;he ascended&dquo;
could certainly imply a previous descent, yet it is hard to see
what the writer’s point in stressing this would be, particularly
since in his assertion the ascent is the known factor from which
the descent as a less obvious element is to be inferred. Some
who hold this second interpretation have suggested that the
reason for stressing the identity of descender and ascender in
v.10 is to guard against Docetism, but traces of such a notion
are not reflected elsewhere in this letter. Others suggest
that this clause simply underlines that the psalm citation
applies to Christ, the one who descended and ascended. Yet the
very use of the citation presupposes Christ as its reference
and it seems strange to have to spell it out in this rather
tortuous fashion.
On the third interpretation, which takes the descent as

subsequent to the ascent and thus as a descent in the Spirit
at Pentecost /31/, it is argued that the ascent and the giving
of gifts can maintain their central function in the passage.
The descent fits easily between the two and is seen to be a
necessary and logical deduction in connecting the one who

23
ascended to heaven with the gifts he has given to his Church on

earth. In other words, it is suggested, the movement of thought
from Christ’s ascent to his gifts in the Church requires a
descent in the Spirit. It would be natural that the writer,
having spoken of the Spirit’s work in the unifying of the body
in vv.3,4, in arguing from Christ’s gift via his ascent to the
gifts he has given to help maintain unity, should include the
vital connecting link of the coming of the Spirit. That xaT£sn
is preceded by xdu in v.9 may indicate that the chronological
order of an ascent and then also a descent was in view. It is
this order also which is followed in the exegetical tradition
which applied the psalm to Moses and which is in the background
here. After Moses ascended he would have to descend before
being able to give the law (cf. Exod.19:3,14; 19:20,25; 24:18
and 32:15; 34:4,29). It is interesting that Philo also used
Moses’ ascent followed by a descent at Sinai to argue for the
necessity of a subsequent descent after the ascent of a
mystical experience (cf. Quaes. Gen.IV.29). For the author of
Ephesians Psalm 68 is no longer to be viewed as a Jewish
Pentecostal psalm concerning Moses but as &dquo;a Christian
Pentecostal psalm, celebrating the ascension of Christ and his
subsequent descent at Pentecost to bestow spiritual gifts upon
the church&dquo; /32/. This descent of Christ in the Spirit to give
gifts would be in line with the similar passage in 1 Corinthians
12 where in regard to the variety of gifts within the one body
the Spirit is most prominent in their distribution (cf. vv.4,7,
8,11,13). On this interpretation it also becomes apparent why
the identity is a matter for emphasis - 0 xaTaslg aurds eoTbB’
xa~ 6 avasas. It brings home to the readers once more their
link with their exalted Lord. The one who by virtue of his
ascent became cosmic Lord is the same one who by his Spirit is
active in giving gifts to the Church and equipping it for its
role. As Kasemann points out in regard to the writer’s
discussion of gifts, &dquo;The presupposition of this chain of
reasoning is the principle that the Giver is not to be
...
separated from his gift but is really present in it&dquo; /33/. The
main difficulty that some have found with this interpretation
is that it is unusual for Pentecost to be spoken of as a
descent of Christ /34/. Yet a close association and indeed
virtual interchange between Christ and the Spirit is evidenced
elsewhere in Ephesians. In 1:13 the believer is sealed in
Christ with the Spirit, while in 4:30 he or she is said to be
sealed in the Spirit. In 3:16 the Spirit is in the &dquo;inner man&dquo;,
while in the following verse, 3:17, Christ dwells in the heart.
In 1:23 the Church is the fulness of Christ, while in 5:18
believers can be exhorted to be filled with the Spirit.

24
Elsewhere in the Pauline Corpus the last Adam is said to

become life-giving Spirit in 1 Cor.15:45 and in Rom.8:9-11
Christ and Spirit are used interchangeably. Another objection
to the third view is that the climactic statement in v.10 to
the effect that the ascent is in order to fill all things rules
out the thought of a subsequent descent being in the writer’s
mind /35/. But to this it can be replied that, once the
inference of a subsequent descent has been made, the author
returns to the ascent as his main notion and the one explicit
in the psalm, and that the assertion of v.lOb no more rules out
a subsequent descent than it rules out a subsequent giving of
gifts. A final point should be made about the force of v.lOb -

lva TIÀnpwa~ Ta navTa - in the midrash. Many commentators link
this clause with both the descent and ascent in order to argue
that by having Christ descend to the lower parts and then ascend
to heaven the requirements for filling the universe are met /36/.
In this way they interpret the filling in a quasi-physical sense.
Strictly speaking, however, the clause is connected to the
statement about Christ’s ascent and not to both the descent and
the ascent. Noting this enables us not to be misled by the
concept of filling and to see the parallel with 1:22,23 where
it is by virtue of his exaltation that Christ can be said to
fill the universe in every respect as he pervades it with his
rule.
The choice between the three views of the descent to which

the midrash refers is a difficult one. It will have become
evident, however, that on balance I prefer the third. One would
expect the midrash on Ps.68:18 to have some integral part in the
argument of the writer rather than to be pure digression. This
tilts the balances in favour of this third view since its
interpretation of the descent best explains why its inference .
from the ascent is necessary for the writer’s argument. In

addition, it best fits the context and the probable background
and associations of the psalm citation and the objections raised
against it are by no means insuperable.
How then is the OT used in Ephesians 4:8-10? It is used
Christologically as, by means of a pesher quotation of Ps.68:18,
the writer finds Scriptural support for his statement about the
various gracious gifts of Christ to his people. Then through a
rabbinic type of midrash on the psalm citation he makes clear
that the ascent mentioned in the psalm also implies a descent
and that the one who descended in the Spirit to distribute his
gifts in the Church is the same one whom the psalm has spoken
of as ascending to fill all things. In this way the midrash

25
fulfils a typical function of haggadah, filling out possible

gaps in the meaning of a text.
3. The Use of Isa.57:19 in Eph.2:17

This of the OT is embedded in a section of the letter
use
(2:11-22) in which the writer reminds his Gentile Christian

readers of the heritage into which they have entered and how
through Christ’s death the barrier between Gentiles and Jews
has been removed and one new entity has been created, an entity
which is then depicted by means of temple imagery.
Any discussion of the

role of Isa.57:19 in vv.13-18 has to
come to terms with the extensive debate
on the form, tradition
history and conceptual background of these verses. This is not

the place for a full scale interaction with the literature on
this issue /37/. However, a sketch of the salient features of
the debate as they impinge on the interpretation of the Isaiah
passage does need to be provided. The crucial questions for our
purposes are as follows. Does the passage contain a hymn which
has been reworked by the writer to fit this context /38/? If so
what is the extent of this traditional material? Does it involv
v.17 and therefore include the reference to Isa.57:19 /39/? Or
does it only involve vv.l4-16 /40/? What is the conceptual
background for such a hymn and has the author applied it to the
relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the history of
salvation /41/? Or is there no redaction of traditional
liturgical material at all, so that the whole of vv.13-18 should
be seen as a Christian exegesis of Isa.57:19 /42/ or as a
straight forward argument in which Isa.57:19 is simply employed
in a subsidiary way /43/?
,
My own view at present is that the writer may well have
taken over traditional material which spoke of Christ as the one
who brings cosmic peace and reconciliation. This material need
not however be thought to have a Gnostic origin. It lies
behind only vv.l4-16, since the language and concepts of the
OT passage in v.17 are scarcely integral to such a notion and
clearly take up v.13, v.18 constitutes an elaboration of the
significance of the previous verse in this context and neither
verse v.17 nor v.18 easily provides reconstructed lines which
would be of an appropriate length for the original hymnic
material /44/. If we take seriously this letter’s links with
Colossians and its thought world, it is significant that this
original hymnic material which can be reconstructed is
strikingly similar to the original hymn behind Co1.1:15-20,

26
the second part of which also deals with cosmic reconciliation

through Christ. Just as in Colossians the notion of cosmic
reconciliation is immediately adapted to apply to the
reconciliation the readers of the letter had experienced
(Col.1:21,22), so here in Ephesians it is adapted to
reconciliation on the human level and the situation of Jews
and Gentiles, this time by a number of glosses on the original
material. I am not at all convinced by the view of which
Stuhlmacher is the chief representative, that the whole
passage is a Christian exegesis of Isa.57:19. V.13 does not
quote Isa.57:19 /45/ but speaks of those far off becoming near,
a notion not expressed in Isa.57:19 itself but common in Jewish
discussions of proselytes, and one whose language of &dquo;far&dquo; and
&dquo;near&dquo; then prompts the reference to the different use of these
terms in Isa.57:19 which does not however come until v.17 /46/.
Nor can auTOS Ydp (OTL-V h elp4vn hpEv of v.14 be held to be a
reference to Isa.9:5f /47/. There is a strand in Rabbinic
exegesis in which Isa.9:5f and 52:7 were linked together in a
Messianic interpretation /48/, and it is certainly the case
that the wording of v.17 combines Isa.52:7 with Isa.57:19, but
it does not follow from either of these assertions that Isa.9:5f
is being referred to here in v.14 or provides the link between
a reference to Isa.57:19 in v.13 and its combination with
Isa.52:7 in v.17. The gulf between the wording of Isa.9:5f
about the prince of peace which in the LXX is to be found only
in Codex Alexandrinus or the general LXX rendering of lyll yap
&~w E:~p4vriv ETtu TO)[ 6PXOVTOL~ and Mau Tnç C~p4VnS aurou 06H ~oic~
lpLov and the wording of v.14 is too wide for even the claim of
an allusion to be definitely substantiated /49/. The most that
can be said is that Isa.9:5f and Jewish interpretations of it
may have paved the way for the sort of application of peace to
a person that is made here. Nor does the passage read like a
continuous exegesis. In fact the flow of thought in this second
part of Eph.2 is such that v.19 follows on most naturally from
v.13 and vv.14-18 clearly introduce new material before there is
a return to the pattern of thinking of vv.11-13. The beginning
of v.14 auros Yap ~CTLV signals a break and then there is a
...
further subsidiary break in the flow signalled by nau e~9a)B) in

v.17 which introduces the OT citation.
The sequence of thought then appears to be this. In v.13

the writer, in contrasting the present situation of his Gentile
readers with their past alienation from God who was at work with
Israel, says that through Christ’s death those who were far off
have become near. The terms &dquo;far&dquo; and &dquo;near&dquo; remind the writer
of one of the Scriptural origins for this terminology -

27
Isaiah 57:19 which speaks of peace for two groups of people, one
of which is &dquo;far&dquo; and the other &dquo;near&dquo;. However, before he
introduces what strikes him as a fitting citation he wants to
prepare the way for its notion of peace and link it firmly with
Christ and what he has accomplished. Since he has to hand
traditional material which speaks of Christ as the embodiment of
he
peace and agent of reconciliation for the divided cosmos
reworks this in vv.14-16 in terms of the division between Jew
and Gentile so that v.17 can then introduce the Isaiah 57:19
quotation in combination with a further reference to the
proclamation of peace from Is.52:7 and do so in a way which can
encapsulate the significance of Christ’s peace-making death for
both Jews and Gentiles.
Now to the details of the actual use of the OT. Of course

the original reference of rous PCLHPCBLV Mau Tocg cyyúç in Isa.57:19
was not to Gentiles and Jews but to two groups of Jews, those in
exile and those who remained in the land. In later Jewish
interpretations of Isa.57:19 however &dquo;far&dquo; and &dquo;near&dquo; could
refer to other divisions within Israel - those who through sin
have fallen away from God and the righteous (Berakhoth 34b) or
repentant sinners and the righteous (Num.R.11,7; Mekhilta Exod.
20,25). But there was also a tradition which interpreted the
&dquo;far&dquo; of Isa.57:19 as Gentiles - Gentile proselytes. Num.R.8
has an extended discussion of proselytes, in which in one place
on the basis of the word order in Isa.57:19 a certain advantage
can even be attributed to proselytes. &dquo;Why all this? To inform
you that the Holy One, blessed be He, brings nigh those that are
distant and supports the distant just as the nigh. Nay more, He
gives peace to the distant sooner than to the nigh, as it says,
’Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near’
(Isa.S7:19)&dquo; (Num.R.8,4 cf. also Midr. Sam.28,6). As indicated
earlier, the terms &dquo;far&dquo; (cppim) and &dquo;near&dquo; (d~~7~7)) occur
frequently in discussions of and in fact the related
proselytism,
verbs ~ip and 7nl could mean respectively &dquo;to bring a
non-Israelite near to God&dquo;, that is to accept him as a proselyte
or &dquo;to hold a non-Israelite at a distance&dquo;, that is, to reject
him as a proselyte. One example of this can be found in the
Mekhilta on Exod.18:5 - R. Eliezer says : This was said to Moses
by God: &dquo;I, I who said the word by which the world came into
being, I am One who welcomes ( » 7), not One who repels i7ril
As it is said, &dquo;Behold, I am a God that brings near ( » 7), saith
the Lord, and not a God that repels (PDI)&dquo; (Jer.23:23). &dquo;I am
He that brought Jethro near ( » 7), not keeping him at a
distance (7n~). So also thou, when a man comes to you wishing
to become a convert to Judaism, as long as he comes in the name
of God for the sake of heaven, do thou, likewise, befriend him

28
( 5~7) and do not repel him ( 7rl&dquo;l )&dquo;. Proselytes then were those
who &dquo;came near&dquo; the blessing and community of Israel. » 7 is
also used in the Qumran literature for the notion of bringing
someone into the community (cf. IQH XIV, 14; IQS VI.16,22;
VIII.18; IX.15f). Given the immediate context of vv.11,12,
it is surely along the lines of traditional proselyte terminology
that the writer of Ephesians formulates his statement in 2 :13 -
ol Here ovTes uaxpav LYEV4,~nTE ~yy0s. The difference is that
now because of Christ’s work such a statement can be made to
Gentiles as a whole not simply proselytes to Judaism and no
longer do any special conditions have to be fulfilled.
Similarly, when this terminology prompts the reference to
Isa.57:19 in Eph.2:17 that text can now be applied not just
to proselytes and Israelites but to the writer’s Gentile
readers and Israelites.
The LXX wording of Isa.57:19 which reflects the Hebrew

construction of the MT is elpfivnv )x’ elp(vp TOtg uaxpav xdL-
TOtg eyyus ouou. The participle o6aL is not in Eph.2:17.
The most significant modification in Ephesians however is the
creative combination with the notion of preaching peace from
Isa.52:7 whereby c~p4vqv becomes the object of 66nyyEX~OUTO.
The LXX wording of this part of Isa.52:7 is c6(xyyF-Xt,~op6vou
Gxohv c~p4vng but in this combination apparently the
construction of the MT is preferred to that of the LXX.
There is evidence of the Messianic interpretation of this text
in Rabbinic interpretation in Pesikta Rabbati 35 /50/ but as
always there are questions about how early and widespread this
tradition is likely to have been. Certainly this aspect of the
servant passages lent itself to Christological interpretation
by the early Christians and here such an interpretation enables
the writer to the Ephesians to link what he has said about
Christ as the embodiment of peace and about his work of
reconciliation in w .14-16 to the &dquo;peace to the far and near&dquo;
language of the Isa.57:19 citation in v.17. He also makes use
of the language of Isa.52:7 in a different context in Eph.6:15.
There are other significant differences in the wording of

Eph.2:17 when it is compared to Isa.57:19. The twofold reference
to peace at the beginning (E~pr1vnB’ EK’ c~p4vp - LXX) has been
broken up so that the re-wording with the second c~p4vnv
immediately before Tocg lyy4g now emphasizes that Christ’s peace
is proclaimed to the two distinct groups, Gentiles and Jews.
In the present context which has emphasized the estrangement
between the Gentiles and Israel (vv.ll-13) and the making of

29
peace as a removal of hostility in order to reconcile the two

groups (vv.14-16), the wording &dquo;preached peace to the far and
near&dquo; could well be taken to mean primarily an announcement of
peace between the two groups. However, the wording of the verse,
which actually has peace preached to the two groups separately,
makes it harder to take a horizontal reference for peace as
the primary one. The force of the rewording is that a vertical
reference for peace has to be the primary one. V.16 has
combined the two references in speaking of a reconciliation of
the two Ev ~v~ allyaTL (horizontal cf. 4:4 - &dquo;there is one body&dquo;)
and Tw 3e~ (vertical). V.17, by talking of a proclamation of
peace by Christ to each of the groups, makes the latter vertical
reference dominant /S1/ . Christ’s work brings about a peace
with God for each of the groups, though as the preceding context
makes inescapably clear this has secondary repercussions on the
horizontal level for a new unity between Jews and Gentiles /52/.
That the vertical reference of peace is dominant in v.17 is
reinforced by the elaboration of v.18 with its assertion that
through Christ the two groups now have access npos Tbv narepa.
A further addition to Isa.57:19 by the writer is the 6pZv
before Tocg paxp~v. This reflection on the message about peace
to Jews and Gentiles is being specifically addressed to the
Gentile readers as a reminder to them of the new situation into
which they have entered through their Christian confession and
the writer does not want to lose sight of this in his discussion.
This aspect of address to Gentile Christian readers was clear
in vv.11-13 and now v.17 takes up again the second person plural
pronoun from v.13, a further indication of the material in
w.14-16 providing a parenthetical preparation for the citation
in v.17. The citation of the OT does not stand in its own
right as a prediction or prophecy that is then said to be
fulfilled, but rather the OT wording is used in address to the
readers.
The lead into the combined citation at the beginning of

v.17 - xhL eB9(j~ - is the final aspect of the writer’s use of
the OT here which needs comment. If we are correct that w .14-16
prepare the ground for the Christological interpretation of
Isa.52:7 and 57:19 then the vac E~9wv clause provides the link
which summarizes this preparatory material. This perspective on
the flow of thought in the passage renders redundant much of the
discussion in the commentaries about which specific aspect of
Christ’s ministry Ea3cw has in view. Some take it as a
reference to the proclamation of the earthly Jesus /53/ others
as a reference to the proclamation of the exalted Christ through

30
the apostles /54/ and others as a telescoping together of the

Redeemer’s ascent, his manifestation to the powers and his
manifestation to the world /55/. Others still have taken it as
a general reference to the whole of Christ’s work /56/, but it
can now be seen a little more specifically as a retrospective
reference to vv.14-16, i.e. to that coming of Christ which
climaxed in his reconciling death. It is the effect of that
accomplishment on the cross (v.16) which can be identified as
a preaching of the good news of peace to the far off - the
Gentiles - and a preaching of that same good news to the near -
the Jews.
The major elements in the thought of vv.14-16 are

reminiscent of both Col.1:20-22 and Rom.5:1,2,and the central
thrust of the second part of Eph.2 in reminding Gentile
Christians of the significance of their relationship to Christ
for their relationship to Israel is reminiscent of Rom.9-11
which is also addressed to Gentiles (cf. 11:13,2S). In Rom.9-11
also Paul had used OT texts which originally referred to part of
Israel to refer to the inclusion of the Gentiles (cf. 9:25 26).
Though the overall purpose of Rom.9-11 and this sort of
application of a particular OT passage to Gentiles provide
parallels to Eph.2:11-22 and its use of the OT, there is a
significant difference. Whereas in Rom.9-11 in relating Gentile
Christians to the history of salvation Paul’s use of the OT
underlies and is woven into the whole discussion, here in Eph.2
the use of the OT is far more incidental. It is simply sparked
off by the use of traditional proselyte terminology in v.13 and
does not form the basis and dominant mode of expression for the
theology of Eph.2:11-22.
4. The Use of Gen.2:24 in Eph.5:31,32
In Eph.5:21-33 the writer’s primary aim in this part of the
&dquo;Haustafel&dquo; is to give instructions about marriage, yet in so
doing he elaborates considerably on the equivalent instructions
in Col.3:18,19 in order to base his exhortations on the
relationship of the heavenly bridegroom, Christ, to his bride,
the Church. Throughout the passage there is the interplay
between the relationship of husband and wife and that of Christ
and the Church, marked out by the use of comparative particles -
s (vv.23,24), may (vv.25,29) and 0 ~ TW~; (vv.24,28). The
husband - wife relationship is expounded in vv.22,23a and
supported by exposition of the Christ-Church relationship in
vv.23b,24. The latter is then applied to human marriage in

31
vv.24b,25a and v.25a again finds its Christological basis in

vv.25b-27. This in turn provides the model for the husband’s
attitude to his wife in vv.28,29a which is compared once more
to Christ and the Church in vv.29b,30. The two relationships
are brought together in vv.31,32 via the reference to Genesis
2:24 and the writer then summarizes his instructions to
husbands and wives in v.33.
As J.P. Sampley in ’And The Two Shall Become One Flesh’

has argued, the OT hieros garros between Yahweh and Israel,
particularly the imagery of Ezek.16:8-14, lies behind the
imagery of Eph.5:25-27 /57/, and Lev.19:18 - &dquo;you shall love
your neighbour as yourself&dquo; may well have exerted some influence
on the formulation of Eph.5:33a (cf. also 5:28) /58/. Our
interest however is in the direct quotation from the OT in
5:31 and what is said about it in 5:32.
In fact the citation of Gen.2:24 appears to have been in

view and been influencing the writer’s thinking as early as
v.28. Christ’s love for the Church, his body (v.23), has been
described in vv.25-27 and now in v.28 it is said that in the
same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own
bodies. It is surely because of the notion of Gen.2:24 that
the act of marriage makes husband and wife one flesh that the
writer can make this comparison of the wives to their husband’s
bodies. The quotation of course has the term adp~, but aGpE and
ooipa are equivalent in the writer’s purposes here as the shift
to adpe in v.29a before the citation shows (cf. also the
interchangeable relation between the two terms when Paul cites
Gen.2:24 in 1 Cor.6:16). Since from the Genesis 2 perspective
marriage declares that husband and wife are in fact one body,
the husband, says the writer, must love his wife as his own
body. And because of this profound union where each belongs to
and becomes part of the other, the husband in loving his wife
can be said to be loving himself (v.28b). Everyday experience
shows that no one hates himself, that is, his own flesh (the
shift to adp~ is in preparation for the citation), but
nourishes and cherishes it. Therefore (and this conclusion is
delayed until v.33a while the analogy to Christ and the Church
is resumed) there is every reason for a husband to love his wife
as himself. Christ nourishing and cherishing his body, the
Church (vv.29b,30) functions as more than an analogy,it is also
the model for the husband-wife relationship. This can be so,
claims the writer, because the relationship between Christ and
the Church is what the Gen.2:24 passage he has had in mind is
in fact all about. He quotes the passage (v.31) and then adds

32
his comment in v.32 - I

To PUGTIPUOV
I
Touro 11 e yot laTLv lyw bye
X6yW ELÇ XPUCTDV Mac ELÇ Tnv ~XHXflCY~a’J.
The texts which have ex rns oapxôç aurou xau EX Twv 6OTeWV
a6Toi3 after v.30 inan allusion to Gen.2:23 and anticipating the
citation of Gen.2:24 are unlikely to contain the original
reading. p46 ~* AB and Origen all do not know this elaboration.
Irenaeus does show knowledge of it in a context in which he
deals with gnostic opponents of the real physical existence of
Christ and of the bodily resurrection (Adv. haer. 5,2,3) and it
could well be that anti-docetic convictions prompted the scribal
expansion in the first place /59/.
The wording of the citation of Gen.2:24 in v.31 is
substantially that of the LXX. It differs at only two points,
having lvTl TOOTOU instead of lvexev TOOTOU and omitting the
possessive pronoun aurou after naT~pa and PnT~pa. After the
citation in this form we then have the writer’s comment in which
Gen.2:24 is said to refer to Christ and the Church. This does
not mean that every part of the citation is being applied to
Christ and the Church. All allegorizing to the effect that
Christ left his heavenly Father and his mother, either the
heavenly Jerusalem or Mary at the cross, in order to cleave to
his Church is out of place /60/. It is the union between
Christ and the Church with which the writer is concerned and so
it is only the latter part of the quotation that is meant to
serve his purposes here - xau Eoovrau ol 660 c~S odpxa p~av.
This is termed a great mystery. The question here is

whether puornpcov has a meaning quite distinct from that of
its other uses in the letter. Some believe that it does have
a different meaning and take it simply as a reference to a
deeper meaning of the Scripture passage /61/ or as a reference

to marriage as such from which mystical and symbolic truth is
to be drawn /62/. WUGT6puov as a deeper meaning would not only
be distinctive in Ephesians but also unparalleled in the NT,
though it can be found with this sense in some second century
Christian writings, including Justin. In the other five
references in Ephesians (1:9,3:3,4,9; 6:19) &dquo;mystery&dquo; involves
the once hidden purpose of God which has now been revealed in
Christ, particularly the coming together in Christ of Jews and
Gentiles in the one Church. Different aspects of that mystery
can be highlighted according to the context /63/. Is it not
most likely that in his use cf the term &dquo;mystery&dquo; here in 5:32
the writer has this same Christ-event in view, highlighting the
particular aspect of it that has been central in this passage,

33
namely the intimate union between Christ and his Church?

Certainly the OT passage and the marriage relationship of
which it speaks are connected with the mystery but their
connection is that they point to the secret that has now been
revealed in the apostolic age, that of the relationship between
Christ and the Church, so that &dquo;mystery&dquo; here is not any deeper
meaning of an OT passage but precisely this meaning posited by
the writer /64/. To claim that the presence of the words TOUTO
and laT£v in 5:32 indicate the presence of the pesher formula
Toured ~atuv as in Acts 2:16, Rom.9:7 or 10:6-8, is surely
misguided, since the Touro here does not refer directly to the
citation but specifically modifies T8 yuaT4pLov, and eof~
makes p~ya a predicate adjective. The clause then is properly
translated as &dquo;this mystery is great&dquo; and not &dquo;this is a great
mystery&dquo; /65/. It is presumably a typological exegesis,
resting on a correspondence between creation and redemption,
which allows the writer to make the link he does between
Gen.2:24 and Christ and the Church. Christ has already been
seen as the last Adam in Eph.1:22, the Church is his body and
so a text that refers to Adam’s bodily union can now be claimed
for Christ’s union with the Church. No doubt this exegetical
move may have been aided also by Paul’s depiction of the
Corinthian church as Eve in 2 Cor.11:3.
The emphatic eyai and the particle 6e in 5:32b make clear

that the writer is stressing that this particular interpretation
of Gen.2:24 as a reference to the profound mystery of the union
. between Christ and the Church is his own. Èyw 6e aey~ occurs
also in the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5
where it serves to introduce an interpretation contrary to the
generally accepted interpretation of the Scripture passage in
view /66/. Here also it sets the interpretation of Gen.2:24
which is offered over against other interpretations. The
question then is whether it simply sets the writer’s
interpretation over against that which limits the meaning of
Gen.2:24 to what we would regard as its more straightforward
reference, the physical union between a man and a woman (cf.
Mk.10:7; Matt.19:5; 1 Cor.6:16) /67/ or whether it has more
polemical overtones and is aimed at other interpretations of
Gen.2:24 which were current and to which the writer is
opposed /68/. It is hard to come down decisively on one side
or the other of this issue. Certainly the latter option is a
strong possibility since there were a variety of interpretations
of Gen.2:24 which might well have been current in the syncretis-
tic religious environment of Asia Minor and associated with
mysteries other than the one that the author of Ephesians is
,

34
advocating. In gnostic and encratite circles in the second and

third centuries the human plight was seen in terms of the
differentiation of the sexes and correspondingly salvation
involved the restoration of the original androgynous unity.
Not surprisingly, Genesis 2 figured prominently in the
elaboration of this pattern of salvation. A number of the
documents in the Nag Hammadi library reflect this schema,
including The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The
Hypostasis of the Archons and The Exegesis on the Soul. In
the Gospel of Philip 68 it is said, &dquo;When Eve was still in
Adam death did not exist. When she was separated from him death
came into being. If he again becomes complete and attains his
former self, death will be no more&dquo;. Again in Gospel of Philip
70 it is said that &dquo;Because of this Christ came to repair the
separation which was from the beginning and again unite the
two ... But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal
chamber. Indeed those who have united in the bridal chamber
will no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam
because she was never united with him in the bridal chamber&dquo; /69/.
&dquo;Great is the mystery of marriage&dquo;, says Gospel of Philip 64 and
this spiritual, sacramental union in the bridal chamber is called
a mystery in Gospel of Philip 67,71 and has its archetype in the
union of the Saviour with Sophia. Through it also the gnostic
receives a foretaste and assurance of ultimate union with an
angelic heavenly counterpart. There is some discussion of
whether this Valentinian Gnosticism involved an acting out of
the sacred marriage in a ritual of sexual intercourse, although
the early church fathers believed that it did, cf. Irenaeus,
Adv.haer.I, 6,3f; Clement of Alexandria, Strom.III, 1,1; 5,1;
10,1; 27,5; Tertullian, de jejunio 17 /70/. The Christian
Gnostic Gospel of Philip probably comes from the second half of
the third century but the notion of the restoration of the
androgynous image can be found earlier in the Gospel of Thomas
which may be dated in the second half of the first century and
in the Encratite Christianity of eastern Syria, with which most
scholars connect the Thomas traditions. In logion 22 of the
Gospel of Thomas one of the mysteries Jesus utters is, &dquo;When you
make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside
and the outside like the inside and the above like the below,
and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so
that the male not be male nor the female female then will you ...
enter the Kingdom&dquo; /71/. In encratite circles this union of male

and female represents a renunciation and neutralization of
sexuality /72/. The notion cf the unification of male and
female can of course be traced further back to Christians in
Corinth where a &dquo;realized eschatology&dquo; probably suggested to the

35
Corinthian pneumatics that they were already enjoying

resurrection existence and thus equal to the angels who neither
marry nor are given in marriage (cf. Lk.20:34-36). Many
interpreters hold that such a view lies behind the sexual
libertinism, the sexual asceticism and the confusion about the
role of women reflected in 1 Corinthians /73/. And Paul himself
in Galatians 3:28 appears to have used a baptismal reunification
formula which reverses the &dquo;male and female&dquo; distinction of
Gen.1:27 /74/. The androgynous interpretation of Gen.l and 2,
that the &dquo;man&dquo; in Gen.l was bisexual, was then divided into two
when his rib was taken and Eve formed and was finally reunited
into &dquo;one flesh&dquo; by God when he led the woman to the man in
Gen.2:24, can be found also in Philo, cf. Leg.Alleg.II, 13,19-48;
Quis Div. Her.164; Quaes. in Gen.1, 25. Given the early
existence of such androgynous interpretations of Genesis 1 and
2 in the Pauline communities, it is not difficult to see that
the writer to the Ephesians might have elaborated on the marriage
section of the Haustafel and given his own interpretation of
Gen.2:24 over against some who failed to give marriage its
proper due and linked Gen.2:24 with the mysteries of other types
of spiritual union.
In Ephesians 5 the straightforward reference of Gen.2:24 to

the husband-wife relationship is not denied. Indeed, as we have
seen, that interpretation of Gen.2:24 underlies the exhortation
to husbands in vv.28,29. However, for this writer the Genesis
text has a further and distinctive reference to the archetypal
union between Christ and the Church. In this way the use of the
OT fits into the structure of the whole passage which moves
backwards and forwards between the human marriage relationship
and the marriage of Christ to his bride, the Church. Gen.2:24
is related to both of these foci as it first strengthens the
exhortation to husbands and then speaks of the Christ-Church
union. But it functions in this way only in vv.28-33. This is
to disagree with Sampley /75/ who holds that Gen.2:24 is
foundational for the whole of 5:21-33. He claims that it
governs the pattern of thought from the start because the writer
is in line with the pattern of early Christian thinking that
always supports the notion of female submission with a reference
to OT law, and so here Gen.2:24 is the pentateuchal text which
grounds the whole Haustafel admonition to wives to be submissive
to their husbands. Sampley is correct to note that 1 Cor.11:8,9,
1 Cor.14:34 (where the law is presumably that part already
indicated in 1 Cor.l1), 1 Tim.2:11-14 and 1 Pet.3:5,6 all contain
the verb 4xoTKaaoyaL and ground the subordination in the Torah.
But in each of these passages in the view of the writers the

36
Torah text explicitly involves the notion of subordination.

That is not the case with Gen.2:24. Despite the passivity of
the woman in Gen.2:24, to which Sampley points /76/,
subordination is not in view in this particular verse. The
other passages in the Pauline Corpus refer to the preceding
verses, Gen.2:21-23, when they support subordination. Besides,
the whole point of the citation of Gen.2:24 by the writer to
the Ephesians is to stress its final words which express the
mutual &dquo;one flesh&dquo; relationship. The OT text does not
therefore govern the whole of the writer’s exhortation to
wives and husbands. When it is introduced towards the end, it
does inform the writer’s perspective on marriage, but his own
distinctive interpretation of it is a Christological and
ecclesiological one and in this usage it merely corroborates
a notion, that of the mystery of the union between Christ and
the Church, which the writer holds independently of any exegesiss
of this text /77/.
Finally, it is worth comparing this writer’s use of

Gen.2:24 with that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16,17. There
only the last six words of the text are quoted. There is a
similarity, as we have already noted, in that oojpa in v.16a is
synonymous with the aclpE of the text in v.16b. More striking,
however, is the difference. There the &dquo;one flesh&dquo; union of the
Genesis text is strictly limited to the physical union between
male and female and its significance - &dquo;the one who joins
himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her&dquo;. The union
between Christ and believers is contrasted to the &dquo;one flesh&dquo;
union, for it is introduced with an adversative 6c and its
medium is said to be nvEUua and not odpc - &dquo;but he who is united
to the Lord becomes one spirit with him&dquo;. The union here is
between Christ and the individual believer, not the Church, and
no doubt the fact that the sexual relationship is with a
prostitute and not between husband and wife colours the contrast,
but it remains significant that it is not at all within Paul’s
perspective on Gen.2:24 to apply it to Christ and believers and
that instead he will only talk of this latter union in terms of
Ev xvebya. An interpretation of ËaoVTaL- o~ 6do e~s adpxa ylav
which can take it to refer to both sexual and spiritual union
seems quite different from Paul’s. I would suggest that,
although other differences between Eph.5:21-33 and the
homologoumena might be accounted for on the hypothesis of a
development in Paul’s own thinking, this change in interpretation
of Gen.2:24 is harder to accommodate to a view of Pauline
authorship of Ephesians.

37
5. The Use of Exodus 20:12 in Eph.6:2,3

At first sight this further use of the OT to elaborate on
the basic Haustafel pattern of Colossians, this time in
connection with the exhortation to children (cf. Col.3:20),
seems to be a straightforward one. It does not seem to have
attracted special attention outside the commentaries. Yet on
closer inspection it raises some perplexing issues on which
the commentaries cannot agree.
It might be held that since Paul does not build his

ethical exhortations from the ten commandments, this use of the
fifth commandment in ethical paraenesis is not likely to be
Pauline. In itself this point does not carry much weight,
because the writer does not build his exhortation to children
from the commandment. In fact it is only brought in as the
third of the supporting motivations. The first is supplied by
the Christological dimension the writer gives to this section of
the household code by the reference to &dquo;in the Lord&dquo; /78/. The
second is the statement - TODTO yap EQi~v 6lxaLov, which most
probably has reference to what is generally recognized as right
and as one’s natural duty (cf. Phil.4:8 - 6aa 6£xaLa). Then, if
the specifically Christian and the general ethical motivations
are not enough, the writer adds a third from the OT and Jewish
ethical tradition by citing the fifth commandment.
There is often some confusion about which version of the

fifth commandment the writer quotes. E.E. Ellis, for example,
believes Deut.5:16 to be in view /79/, while R.P. Martin speaks
of a complex conflation involving Exod.20:12, Deut.5:16 and
Deut.22:7 /80/. It is true that the clause &dquo;that it may be well
with you&dquo; is not found in the Massoretic text of Exod.20:12
whereas it is in Deut.5:16 and 22:7. But what these writers
have failed to notice is that it is found in the LXX version of
Exod.20:12. This makes Eph.6:2,3 closer to LXX Exod.20:12 than
to LXX Deut.5:16, since in both cases it would have replaced
~va ...
y~vn by EQn and then omitted the specific description
of the land after Tfig y~ç, but in the case of Deut.5:16 would
have had to make the further omissions of the aou after PnT6pa
(it is only in the B text of Exod.20:12) and the clause 5v
Tpdxov ~VF-TE’:*LX(XTO xupuos 6 Se6S cou after ynT£pa.
Into his modified citation of the LXX version of Exod.20:12
the writer inserts the statement iTLg 6aTUV ~VTOX~ Rp(:)Tn Ev
£TIaYyEÀLa. Its intention was to underline the importance of the

38
commandment, but it has puzzled the commentators. How can the

fifth commandment be said to be the first commandment with a
promise when the second commandment in Exod.20:4-6 also appears
to include a promise about God showing steadfast love to those
who love him and keep his commandments? Some commentators have
therefore suggested that the writer must view the fifth
commandment as the first after the four chief commandments which
deal with a person’s relationship to God and point to a similar
view in Philo, De Spec. Leg.II, 261, although De Deca1.121 treats
the fifth commandment as the last of those concerned with
specifically divine duties /81/. Others argue that lvToXi npwTn
should not be understood numerically but in terms of the
importance or difficulty of the commandment (cf. Mk.12:28,29).
Attention is then drawn to the rabbinic tradition preserved in
Midrash Deut. R.6 on Deut.22:6 which holds that God has provided
the most difficult and the easiest of the commandments with a
promise. The most difficult is said to be the fifth commandment,
and the easiest is said to be Deut.22:7 which states that if one
comes across a bird’s nest with mother and young in it, one is
to let the mother go but may keep the young. Both have the same
promise attached - &dquo;that it may go well with you, and that you
may live long&dquo; /82/. Neither of these explanations are
particularly convincing and on balance it may be best to question
the assumption that has led to them, namely, that the second
commandment has a promise attached. Strictly speaking, the words
&dquo;but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me
and keep my commandments&dquo; in Exod.20:6 are not a promise
connected with &dquo;you shall not make for yourself a graven image
...&dquo; in Exod.20:4 but the positive side of the description of
God as a jealous God which follows in Exod.20:5. It should not
therefore be surprising for Exod.20:12 to be spoken of as the
first commandment with a promise. To the objection that this
would make the fifth commandment not simply the first but the
only commandment with a promise, it must be replied that the
writer views the decalogue as but the beginning of the many
commandments contained in the Torah /83/.
The promise, which is only quoted here and not when the
fifth commandment appears elsewhere in the NT in Mk.7:10 and
Matt.15:4, omits the words &dquo;which the Lord your God gives you&dquo;
which tied the original promise to the land of Canaan. This
omission was common in Jewish tradition once the question of
the promised land was no longer a current one /84/, but this is
not sufficient evidence for the view that this use of the OT in
Ephesians 6:2,3 is not a direct one and that the writer is
simply taking up general Jewish Christian tradition at this

39
point /85/. The omission of course has the effect of making

the commandment’s promise more generally applicable. The
promise is now of long life on the earth. This raises
questions however. Has the promise only been included to
emphasize the importance of the commandment /86/ or does the
writer expect his readers to apply it to themselves? The
modification in the direction of general applicability, although
it was fairly common in Judaism, suggests strongly that the
latter option is the correct one. If so, how was it meant to
be taken? Some commentators believe that the promise has a
spiritualized force. Philo had already interpreted it in this
way by taking the &dquo;well with you&dquo; to be the virtue a person
possesses because of obeying the commandments and the &dquo;live
long&dquo; to be immortality (cf. De Spec. Leg.II, 262). But the
writer of Ephesians has provided no hint at all that this is
what he intended. In Paul the OT promises about the seed and
the land are seen as fulfilled in the salvation provided in
Christ and the inheritance which that provides (cf. Gal.3 and 4;
Rom.4 and 8) and earlier in Ephesians the notion of inheritance
has been interpreted in a similar way (cf. 1:14,18; 3:6), and so
some commentators have tied the promise into this soteriological
interpretation of inheritance /87/. But again this involves
reading a tremendous amount into Eph.6:3 which is simply not
there in the verse or its immediate context. It does most
justice to the text to take it at its face value as promising
well-being and long life on the earth, to realize that it had
been introduced to reinforce the commandment and that as a
consequence the writer may have failed to integrate its Jewish
this-worldly perspective consistently with his earlier
interpretation of inheritance. Certainly the use of the OT
to support earthly rewards for Christian obedience seems foreign
to the Paul of the homologoumena who, when he does talk of
rewards as part of his ethical motivation, has in view a future
life after the judgement (cf. 1 Cor.3:12-15; 2 Cor.5:10). It
is closer to the ethical perspective of the Pastorals where
godliness can be said to be &dquo;of value in every way, as it holds
promise for the present life and also for the life to come&dquo;
(1 Tim.4:8). To take the promise in a communal sense to mean
that a society in which the aged are respected and cared for by
their children is a healthy one is a modern reinterpretation /88/;
the rewards of well-being and long life on earth were originally
being held out to those children who honoured their parents.
Again, it is worth asking, in comparing the use of the OT in
Ephesians with that by Paul, if not only the earthly reward but
also the specific content of that reward, long life on earth,
would not seem very strange coming from the Paul who expected

40
an imminent parousia, even if this Paul had already come to

terms with his own decease before the parousia and would not
be more likely to have come from a Jewish Christian follower of
the apostle who had become more acclimatized to a longer period
of the church before the return of Christ.
6. The Use of Ps.110:1 and Ps.8:6 in Eph.1:20,22

This first clear use of the OT in Eph. occurs in a context
where the writer’s intercessory prayer of w.17-19 has shaded
over into the magnificent statement in vv.20-23 of God’s power
and purpose in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. Some ,
scholars have suggested that these last verses of the chapter

incorporate a hymn /89/, but it is far more likely that the
writer simply makes use of traditional credal formulations
phrased in exalted poetic language /90/. Such language
includes the common early Christian tradition of Christ’s
session at the right hand of God, which of course takes up
Ps.110:1, one of the portions of the OT most frequently referred
to in the NT.
In the LXX Ps.109:1 the wording is xa9ou ~x 6e~uojB) pou,

while here clearly the verb and possessive adjective have been
changed to xaJ£aag and au-rou to fit the flow of thought in the
context and to parallel EYe~pas. The change of wording from
~x 6eEL&v to ~v 6egLi is common in those NT passages where the
full psalm verse is not cited (cf. Rom.8:34; Col.3:1, Heb.l:3;
8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet.3:22). The psalm may well originally
have been employed as an enthronement psalm for the king. Its
terminology of a session at the right hand had parallels in the
ancient near eastern world where the king was often represented
as seated next to the tutelary deity of a particular city or
nation and where occupying a place on the god’s right hand meant
that the ruler exercized power on behalf of the god and held a
place of supreme honour. On occasions it also seems to have
implied a participation in deity. In the OT itself Yahweh’s
right hand is represented as the position of favour (Ps.80:18;
Jer.22:24), of victory (Ps.20:6; 44:3; 48:10; Isa.41:10) and of
power (Exod.15:6; Ps.89:13; Isa.48:13). There is however no
firm evidence that prior to the time of the NT the imagery of
the psalm was given a Messianic interpretation in Judaism. The
earliest definite messianic use is to be found in rabbinic
traditions dating from the second half of the third century
A.D. /91/. Whether these traditions have a long history and
pre-date the NT or whether Christians were the first to use the
psalm messianically is therefore difficult to say, though a

41
number of recent treatments incline to the former view /92/. In

any case Ps.110:1 came to be applied frequently to Jesus in the
early church. Paul had taken up this Christological interpreta-
tion in Rom.8:34; 1 Cor.15:25 and Col.3:1 and here the writer
continues this tradition in order to evoke Christ’s position of
supreme favour and honour, his place of victory and power
associated with his heavenly exaltation.
As the writer elaborates he asserts

on Christ’s lordship,
in v.22 RCEVTA 6ReTa~EV uno Tolg x66ag a6TOD This citation ....
of Ps.8:6 differs from the LXX in that a finite form of the verb
replaces a participle and 6R6 T06~ nobas is preferred to
unoxdTw Twv noówv. Nfhereas Heb.2:8 in its citation of Ps.8:6
follows the LXX, Eph.1:22 corresponds to the version of the
citation used by Paul in 1 Cor.15:27, indicating again its
author’s close links with the apostle. Indeed the other place
in the NT where there is a clear allusion to Ps.8:6 is Phil.3:21.
Ps.8:6 itself recalled Gen.1:26-28 and honored humanity as
created in God’s image to exercise dominion over the rest of
the created order. In typological fashion Paul had applied this
to Christ as the last Adam to whom, by virtue of his resurrection,
had been restored dominion over the cosmos. Here also this
interpretation has been continued. R6VTU in the citation in
v.22 has the same scope as Ta nam a in 1:10,23 so that the whole
universe and its inhabitants are seen as subordinated to the
exalted Christ.
The combination of the use of Ps.110:1 and the use of

Ps.8:6 in this context is also significant. Again Hebrews and
1 Cor.15 provide points of comparison, as does 1 Pet.3:22.
Hebrews can be seen as an extended midrash on Ps.110 where
Ps.110:1 is referred to in the prologue in 1:3 and then cited
in 1:13 and where the next OT quotation which follows hard on
its heels in 2:5ff is of Ps.8:4-6. The conjunction of Ps.110:1
and Ps.8:6 is even closer however in 1 Cor.15:25,27. But in
1 Cor.15:25, as opposed to Eph.1:20, it is the second part of
Ps.110:1 and not the session at the right hand of the first
part to which reference is made. 1 Pet.3:22 has a reference to
the session at the right hand from Ps.110:1 followed by a
probable allusion to Ps.8:6 through 6noTCLYeVTWV. It is likely
that Paul, Hebrews and 1 Peter draw on a common exegetical
tradition in the early church whereby Ps.8:6 had become linked
to Ps.110:1 in drawing out the implications of Christ’s
resurrection and exaltation /93/. Other features of these
passages which suggest that they belong to a common tradition
are the use of the title Christ and some mention of the powers

42
which have been subjected to him /94/. Eph.1:20 and 22 have

become part of this widespread development through their
dependence on I Cor.15, a dependence indicated both by the
similar wording of Ps.8:6 in Eph.1:22 and 1 Cor.15:27 and by
the terminology for the subjugated powers being identical in
Eph.1:21 and I Cor.15:24.
The use of the OT in the last part of Eph.l then appears
not be direct but to be mediated via traditional formulations
to
and 1 Cor.15:24-28. The striking difference from the use in
1 Cor.lS however is that whereas there it supports a view of
Christ’s cosmic lordship which focuses on its full realization
at the end of history, here in Ephesians it is from a perspective
of realized eschatology, as the 6T[eTaCEV is to be taken in a
straightforward sense indicating that the subjection is seen as
having already occurred. This phenomenon in itself is not
decisive in regard to the question of authorship, for the
victory over the cosmic powers is also seen as having already
taken place in Phial.2:10,11; 3:21b and Col.2:l5. Here in
Ephesians 1 the language of worship of the exalted Lord
anticipates the consummation of history.
7. The Uses of Zech.8:16 in Eph.4:25, Ps.4:4 in Eph.4:26,
Prov.23:31 in Eph.5:18 and Isa.ll:4,5; 52:7; 59:17 in
Eph. 6:14-17
These remaining uses of the OT occur in the paraenetical

material in Ephesians. It seems clear that the ultimate source
of &dquo;let every one speak the truth with his neighbour&dquo; in 4:25
is the OT /95/. The only difference in wording is that LXX
Zech.8:16 has npos T&dquo;OV nxria~ov while Ephesians has ueTa roD
nanaCov. Reinforcing a plea for truthfulness by words from
Scripture would give it added authority. But is this a direct
appeal to Scripture /96/ or does it adopt Jewish ethical
traditions which had already taken up the words of Scripture in
their formulations /97/? Sampley in his article on this
passage says he is bracketing out the important question of
the history of OT traditions as they have been mediated to the
author of Ephesians, but in fact his thesis virtually demands
direct use of Scripture, since he argues that the original
context of Zech.8:16 has influenced the form of Eph.4:25ff.
However, the parallels he adduces are very strained and his
thesis that &dquo;even the form of the entire passage is derived
from the OT&dquo; is unconvincing /98/. Warnings against lying and
anger can be found together in Jewish paraenetical tradition,
particularly in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

43
(cf. Test. Iss.7:4; Test. Dan 1:3; 2:1,4; 3:5f; 4:6f; S:lf;
6:8) and the LXX wording of Zech.8:16 occurs in just such a
context in Test. Dan 5:2. It is quite likely then that the
use of Zech.8:16 in Eph.4:25 was mediated by this or a similar
Jewish paraenetical tradition. The same judgement applies to
the Scriptural material in the paraenesis about anger in the
very next verse, Eph.4:26, where the wording is exactly the
same as that of LXX Ps.4:5 /99/. The exhortation of 5:18
&dquo;do not get drunk with wine&dquo; is again held by some to be a
direct use of Scripture, Prov.23:31 /100/, though here,
because of the more everyday nature of the statement, one has
more sympathy with Lindemann’s view of coincidental
agreement /101/. Nevertheless, the most likely suggestion is

that again this usage has been mediated through Jewish ethical
traditions /102/. And it is again the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs which provide a parallel, because there, as here in
Eph.5:18, warnings against drunkenness are closely linked with
warnings against debauchery (cf. Test. Iss.7:2; Test. Jud.ll:2;
12:3; 13:6; 16:1) and the warning in Test. Jud.14:1 has exactly
the same wording as that of Ephesians - urj peJ4axeaJe o~vw 1103/.
In the homily on the battle against spiritual powers which

forms the last part of the paraenesis in Eph.6 OT traditions
about the armour of Yahweh and his Messiah are applied to
believers. Scholars again differ on the exact relationship to
Scripture that is involved here. Barth holds that the author
quotes Isa.ll:4,5 and 59:17 in Eph.6:14,17 and alludes to
Isa.52:7 in Eph.6:15 /104/, Schlier and Caird argue for
conscious allusions to the Isaiah passages /105/, while Gnilka
believes the usage to be indirect by way of tradition /106/ and
Lindemann claims there are no conscious reminiscences of OT
sentences or formulations /107/! The Isaiah passages had been
developed in intertestamental times in the depiction of the
divine warrior in Wisdom of Solomon 5:15-23 and Paul had already
applied some of the imagery to believers in 1 Thess.5:8. These
usages may have been suggestive for the writer of Ephesians,
particularly the new application of 1 Thess.5:8, but in each
case the wording is different and actual dependency on these
traditions cannot be established. In addition, the use of
Isa.52:7 looks like the writer’s own (cf. his earlier use of
this verse in conjunction with Isa.57:19 in 2:17). The best
conclusion appears to be that, inspired by the Pauline depiction
of the believer’s armour in 1 Thess.5:8, the homily of Eph.6
has made its own creative use of the Isaiah passages.

44
8. Conclusions
In the use of the OT in Ephesians introductory formulae to

the citations are conspicuous by their absence. Only in
connection with the citation of Psalm 68:18 in Eph.4:8-10 does
such a formula occur. Of course in Paul OT citations are not
always introduced by a formula with its explicit appeal to
authority, but they do appear far more frequently. In fact, on
a rough count of the OT citations listed by Ellis in Paul’s Use
of the Old Testament /108/ three out of every four quotations in
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians have an introductory
formula. Here in Ephesians, if for the sake of the argument we
count only five direct uses of the OT, the ratio of one to five
in terms of an accompanying formula is significantly different.
To this observation can be added the fact that the precise
formula which does occur in Eph.4:8 - 6L8 X6ycu - is found only
this once in the Pauline Corpus as an introduction to an OT
citation. Elsewhere in the NT it appears as an introductory
formula in James 4:6. Paul does have a small number of
introductory formulae which use aeYE~ without an explicit
subject (cf. X£yeL - Rom.9:25, XKXLV X£yeL - Rom.15:10; X£yeL
yáp - 2 Cor.6:2 and o6 X6yEL &XX’ - Gal. 3:16), but the
...
predominant formula in the Paulines is yeYpanTa~,

undisputed
which occurs some twenty nine times. The other significant
feature of the use of introductory formulae in Ephesians is, as
we noted at the beginning, that the same formula which
introduces the OT citation in Eph.4:8 is used to introduce some
lines from an early Christian baptismal hymn in Eph.5:14. Again,
this is a phenomenon which cannot be paralleled in the undisputed
Paulines. 1 Cor.2:9, which might be proposed as a parallel, is
surely meant to be an OT citation, whether a Spirit-inspired
rendition of Isa.64:4 and 65:16 which originates with Paul
himself or a conflation of those texts already existent in
Jewish midrashic tradition which Paul takes up /109/. In
Ephesians then it appears that a similar sort of divine authority
is being assigned to both Scripture and Christian tradition.
Harnack used this phenomenon to argue that for the writer, whom
he took to be Paul, only the divine origin of a saying, not its
OT or Christian origin, was important /110/. But this attempt
to drive a wedge between divine and Scriptural authority surely
derived more from the &dquo;liberal&dquo; thesis he wished to prove that
Christianity is not to be considered in any way a book religion
than from the phenomenon of Ephesians /111/. What might more
plausibly be concluded from this phenomenon is that,in a letter
which appears to use a number of elements of tradition in its
updating of Paul’s message, the OT is employed in the same way

45
as liturgical and catechetical traditions, as one major

authoritative tradition among others, which provides a vehicle
for the expression of the writer’s thoughts.
Before attempting to substantiate such an evaluation of

the use of the OT in Ephesians we should first set out our
conclusions about the writer’s use of OT sources and text-forms
and about his exegetical techniques and relation to other
hermeneutical traditions in a few brief summarizing remarks.
As in the undisputed Paulines, the major sources of the writer’s
OT citations are the Psalms, Isaiah and the Pentateuch. There
are only minor uses of other OT material in 4:25 and 5:18. It
is the LXX which is the text form used in Ephesians, as one
might expect. Nowhere is the form of a citation in Ephesians
dependent on the h1T rather than the LXX (though the construction
of the MT seems to have influenced the wording of Isa.52:7 which
is joined to Isa.57:19 in Eph.2:17), and in some places it is
only the LXX and not the MT which can provide the basis for the
citation (cf. 4:26; 5:18 and 6:23 if Exod.20:12, and not Deut.
5:16, is the source of the citation, as we have argued). There
is a similar amount of deviation from the LXX in Ephesians by
changing or omitting words as can be found in the undisputed
Paulines, and, as we have seen in 4:8, the writer shows himself
to be familiar with a Targumic version in one of his
modifications. He not only appears to be familiar with
targumic traditions but also with rabbinic (cf. 2:17) and
Jewish paraenetical (cf. 4:25,26; 5:18) traditions of
interpretation and with Pauline interpretation (cf. 1:20,22;
6:14-17) and could be reacting to a &dquo;Moses mysticism&dquo;
interpretation in 4:8-10 and to a gnosticizing development in
5:31,32. As far as the writer’s own hermeneutical methods are
concerned, there is a similar variety to that which can be
discovered in Paul. The author of Ephesians can produce a
creative combination of two OT texts (2:17), use a midrash
pesher exegesis (4:8-10), adapt rabbinic exegesis (2:17;
4:8-10), employ typology (1:20,22; 4:8-10; 5:31,32) and
sometimes take over a basically straightforward original
meaning of the text (4:25,26; 5:18; 6:2,3). In all cases
except 6:2,3 and the minor uses in 4:25,26 and 5:18 these
exegetical techniques are subservient to a Christological
perspective whereby the OT texts are read in the light of the
new situation which the writer believes God has brought about
in Christ.
According to Ephesians 2, a major element in that new

situation is the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles into the

46
one new entityof the Church and indeed in Ephesians 3:1-6,

Paul’s major contribution is seen to be the stewardship of the
mystery that &dquo;the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same
body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the
gospel&dquo;. Yet we concluded from our discussion in Eph.2:17 that
the use of the OT in the writer’s treatment of this topic is
relatively incidental, sparked off by the proselyte terminology
of 2:13, and not a major element in his theology of the
Gentiles’ relationship to Israel. It is worth reflecting on
this in regard to the writer’s overall use of the OT. In Paul’s
letters to the Galatians and to the Romans, where unity between
Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the church is a
live issue, the OT plays a large part in his argument. In
Romans it can be claimed that his use of the OT forms the
substructure of his theology and in chapters 9-11 in order to
demonstrate the righteousness of God he attempts to show that
the present situation of his mission to the Gentiles, while
Israel as a whole remains in unbelief, corresponds to God’s
purpose as delineated in OT prophecy. Especially in Gal.3 and
4 and Rom.4,9-11, 15 the OT is cited as an integral part of a
fulfilment of promise or prophecy approach to Scripture. In
Ephesians, however, this use of the OT is absent. This need
not mean, as Lindemann claims, that the writer does not think at
all in terms of the history of salvation and sees no continuity
between the Church and Israel /112/. It seems inescapable to
me that part of his letter of congratulation to Gentile Christians
on the salvation upon which they have entered involves in 2:11-22
the reminder that they have come into the heritage of Israel.
It is also clear that the writer does think in a general way in
terms of promise and fulfilment (cf. 2:12ff; 3:6) but that this
is not a dominant mode of thought for him and does not control
his use of the OT. Instead, the absence of this perspective in
the use of the OT and the writer’s generalized discussion in
2:11-3:6 may well suggest that, although Gentile Christians can
be reminded that the blessings that have come to them include
participation in Israel’s heritage and in the mystery of the
one Church of Jews and Gentiles, the Jewish Christian - Gentile
Christian issue is not a particularly live one in the churches
of Asia Minor to which the letter is addressed. To be sure, a
reminder of this sort could serve to prevent arrogance on the
part of Gentile Christians, but there is nothing like Paul’s
treatment of arrogant Gentile Christians in Rome through a
discussion of ethnic Israel’s future salvation (cf. Rom.11:11-32)
nor are there any exhortations to unity between Jewish Christians
and Gentile Christians like those using OT texts in Rom.lS:7-13.
The appeal for unity in Ephesians 4 is a far more general one.

47
This is to contradict Barth who in his treatment of the OT in

Ephesians can assert that in both the undisputed Paulines and
Ephesians &dquo;the OT is a living voice telling Jews and Gentiles

how to believe in Christ and to live together in peace&dquo; /113/.
It is precisely this sort of usage, which can be seen
particularly in Romans, that is not to be found in Ephesians.
This assessment of the writer’s handling of Scripture in
terms of the lack of a promise and fulfilment usage fits the
perspective on the OT he expresses himself in Eph.3:5. There
it is said in a reformulation of Col.1:26 that the mystery that
the Gentiles would be incorporated into Christ and the Church
on equal terms with Jews &dquo;was not made known to the sons of men
in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit&dquo;. The OT writers therefore
were ignorant of the sort of blessing that was to come to the
Gentiles. Some commentators have attempted to weaken the force
of such an assertion by suggesting that WS in this verse
indicates a gradual comparison and that the thought is simply
that in the past the mystery was not known as clearly as it is
now /114/. But the writer is not talking about something that
could be found in the OT but was not particularly clear. His
notion of &dquo;mystery&dquo; involves a hidden purpose of God that has
only now been revealed and not before. This causes Barth a
number of problems. He writes, &dquo;Verse 5 makes an affirmation
which seems difficult to reconcile with the prophetic and Psalm
quotations used in Ephesians: not even the elect men of Israel
knew of the secret that is now revealed&dquo; /115/ and &dquo;If the
author of Ephesians were pressed to say whether he really wanted
to deny that the prophets and psalmists of Israel knew about the
Gentiles’ access to God and his people, he would probably refer
to his OT allusion and quotation in 2:13,17. For him Isa.57:19
predicted the approach of the nations&dquo; /116/. In the end Barth
is forced to make the suggestion that Eph.3:5 is a quotation
used by Paul and that therefore the idiosyncrasy of its subject
matter need not affect the question of the authenticity of
Ephesians /117/. The confusion here surely belongs to Barth
and not to the writer’s inconsistent use of a quotation. Barth
has failed to recognize that Ephesians does not use its
quotations from the psalms and prophets, even the Isa.57:19
quotation, as part of a prediction and fulfilment schema.
Rather than there being a conflict between the writer’s use of
the OT and the thought of Eph.3:5, the perspective of the latter
provides a further explanation of the sort of OT usage we have
discovered.

48
What we have discovered in terms of differences from the

use of the OT in the undisputed Paulines might simply be
attributed to a different setting and not a different author,
but, as we have seen, a different Jew/Gentile setting of the
sort reflected in Ephesians could well be a post-Pauline one.
When one adds to these reflections the strong differences we
have noted between the use of Gen.2:24 in Eph.5:31,32 and that
in 1 Cor.6:16 and between the use of the OT in Eph.6:2,3 and
what one might expect from Paul, it becomes quite difficult,
despite the similarities in actual exegetical technique,
to attribute the overall handling of the OT in Ephesians to the
apostle himself. It is equally difficult to attribute it to
Luke, whom R.P. Martin has proposed as the author /118/, because
Luke in his interest in the continuity between the Gentile
mission and Israel has a clear promise and fulfilment use of
the OT whereby Gentile salvation is shown to be the fulfilment
of OT promises (e.g. Luke 2:32; 3:6; 24:45-47; Acts 13:46,47;
15:15-18). In this respect, K~semann’s statement in his essay
&dquo;Ephesians and Acts&dquo; /119/, with which Sampley takes issue /120/,
that Luke’s theology is related &dquo;backward to the history of
Jesus and to the Old Testament - matters in which Ephesians,
despite several Old Testament reminiscences, is scarcely
interested&dquo; is not far off the mark.
to Colossians, on which it appears in large part

Compared ’
to be based, Ephesians has a quite extensive use of the OT. In

Colossians, with its direct confrontation of syncretistic
teaching, no OT citations are used nor is there any explicit
mention of the law. But in the more well-rounded presentation
of Paul’s message in Ephesians the sort of thought found in
Colossians can be developed with the help of various traditions -
from the other Pauline letters, from liturgical and paraenetical
traditions and not surprisingly from the OT. In the attempt to
establish his own thesis Lindemann plays down the extent of
Ephesians’ use of the OT. He argues that 4:25,26 and 5:18 are
the author’s own formulation and that it is coincidental that
their wording corresponds to that of the OT, that 6:2,3 only
use Jewish tradition and not the OT directly and that again
6:14-17 contain only a use of tradition and no conscious
allusions to OT phrases. He goes on to claim that the OT is not
even understood in Ephesians as part of Israel’s history /121/.
On the other hand Sampley claims, &dquo;The OT continues as a guide
... to the church as a whole, to the understanding of what she
is and, in fact, to God’s purposes. The theological stance and
the ethical perspective of the author of Ephesians are informed
by and grounded in the OT In fact, it is precisely through
...

49
OT traditions that the author calls his readers back to a

realization of their place in God’s overall purposes extending
from creation to the end of all times&dquo; /122/. We have already
argued that Sampley overestimates the role Gen.2:24 plays in
Eph.5:21-33 and the influence Zech.8 has had on the formulation
of Eph.4:25 ff., and this criticism of his detailed study
applies to his overall judgement about the role of the OT - it
is too sweeping and claims too much.
Undoubtedly in the understanding of the Christian gospel

which was possessed by the author of Ephesians the theology
of the OT played a formative part. A number of its leading
theological ideas have been integrated into his presentation
of the Christian message, much of this integration having been
mediated through the teaching of Paul, through other Jewish
Christian traditions and through liturgical formulations.
However, what we have been investigating is his actual use of
the OT. Now it may well be the case that actual use does not
tell us all there is to know about the author’s attitude to the
OT but it does tell us something significant. In terms of
actual use the OT in Ephesians is very much in a supportive
rather than a formative role. OT traditions are one source
among a number of authoritative traditions which can be
employed to further the writer’s purposes. As they serve his
Christological and ecclesiological purposes in 1:20,22; 2:17;
4:8-10 and 5:31,32 OT texts are clearly interpreted authorities,
being read in the light of what the writer knows to be true
independent of the text and their meaning being derived from
that independent source - the understanding of God’s activity
in Christ for human salvation. When the original meaning of OT
texts carries over in a more straightforward way in some of the
ethical contexts (cf. 4:25,26; 5:18; 6:2,3) they are still not
an ultimate authority but rather convenient vehicles and
supports for ethical exhortations the writer is able to ground

in other ways. What Lindars holds to be true of NT theology as
a whole, namely, that the place of the OT in it &dquo;is that of a
servant ready to run to the aid of the gospel whenever it is
required, bolstering up arguments, and filling out meaning
through creative allusions, but never acting as the master or
leading the way&dquo;/123/ is certainly true of Ephesians. The
writer has recourse to the OT, as he does to other traditions,
when it is helpful for his purpose. Stated in its baldest form
that purpose appears to be to remind Gentile Christians, who
might be attracted by the claims of others to knowledge of
cosmic mysteries, of the privileges that are theirs now as
members of the Church - all the blessings of salvation and life

so
in Christ and of having entered into the heritage of Israel -

and at the same time to remind them of the accompanying
responsibility to maintain unity in the Church, to live
differently from the surrounding world and to stand firm in
the battle against the evil powers ranged against them. The
uses of the OT are spread fairly evenly throughout the letter
and serve the major aspects of that purpose. This use of
Scripture along with that of other traditions known to the
churches has a certain cohesive and unifying function for the
churches the writer addresses, and the very fact that the OT
is used at all establishes a certain continuity with God’s
dealings with Israel in the past. Yet to go further and claim
with Barth that the main purpose of the use of the OT in
Ephesians is &dquo;the demonstration of the oneness and sameness
of the God who called first Israel, then the Gentiles&dquo; /124/
is to go too far. Instead the distinctiveness of the letter’s
setting and purpose determines the distinctive function of the
OT. That distinctive function can be expressed negatively and
positively, as our study has shown. On the one hand, reinforcing
the discontinuity between the OT and the new situation which is
expressed in Eph.3:5, there is no promise and fulfilment function
of Scripture in Ephesians. On the other hand, Scripture does
play a part, though a clearly subordinate one, in supporting the
letter’s particular focus on Christological, ecclesiological and
ethical concerns.
NOTES
/1/ Markus Barth in the introduction to his commentary on
Ephesians writes, "Except the essay by Maurer ... no recent

special discussions on the use of the OT in Ephesians as a whole
have come to my attention", Ephesians, New York, 1974, p.28
n 108.
/2/ Freiburg, 1928, pp.313-331.
/3/ Ephesians, p.31.
/5/ "Der Hymnus von Epheser 1 als Schlüssel zum ganzen Briefe",
EvTh 11 (1951-52), 151-172.
/6/ "Hymnus", pp.158, 167-172.
/7/ cf. "Ephesians and Acts" in Studies in Luke-Acts, eds.
L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn, London, 1968, p.288.
/8/ ’And The Two Shall Become One Flesh’, Cambridge, 1971.
/9/ "Scripture and Tradition in the Community as seen in
Ephesians 4:25 ff", Studia Theologica 26 (1972), 101-109.
/10/ Gütersloh, 1975.

51
/11/ Aufhebung, pp.80-89.

/12/ cf. ’... One Flesh’, p.161.
/13/ cf. Aufhebung, p.89. ’Es hat sich gezeigt, dass der
Verfasser des Epheserbriefes über einen ’Schriftgebrauch’ im
spezifischen Sinne nicht verfügt".
/14/ cf. also Sampley’s observations on this in "Scripture
and Tradition", pp.101,102.
/15/ cf. H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief,
Tübingen, 1930 and E. Käsemann, Leib und Leib Christi,
Tübingen, 1933.
/16/ cf. K.G. Kuhn, "The Epistle to the Ephesians in the light
of the Qumran texts", in Paul and Qumran, ed. J. Murphy -
O’Connor, London, 1968, pp.115-131 and F. Mussner,
"Contributions made by Qumran to the understanding of the
epistle to the Ephesians", in Paul and Qumran, pp.159-178.
/17/ e.g. J. Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief, Freiburg, 1971,
pp.259-263; Barth, Ephesians, pp.574-577. Pace A.T. Hanson,
The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture, London, 1980,
pp.142,143 no clear links can be established between this hymn
and Jonah 1:5,6 or a descensus ad inferos.
/18/ cf. B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, London, 1961,
p.52 n 2.
/19/ pace Lindars, Apologetic, p.53 and Schmidt, Epheserbrief,
pp.320, 321 who argue for simple coincidence, and Lindemann,
Aufhebung, p.85 who claims that the author was simply offended
by the notion of Christ receiving gifts.
/20/ cf. E.E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament,
Edinburgh, 1957, p.144.
/21/ cf. Ellis, Paul’s Use, p.144; Lindars, Apologetic, p.53.
/22/ cf. W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King, Leiden, 1967 pp.122-125,
205-209.
/23/ cf. J. Jeremias, "Mω&upsi;σñ&sfgr;", TDNT 4, pp.848,849; J. Cambier,
"La Signification Christologique d’Eph.4:7-10", NTS 9 (1963),
p.265; J. Ernst, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon, an
die Kolosser, die Epheser, Regensburg, 1974, p.351: Hanson,
an
New Testament Interpretation, p.137 contra Lindars, Apologetic,
p.59 n 1; Lindemann, Aufhebung, p.85.
/24/ cf. J.C. Kirby, Ephesians, Baptism and Pentecost, London,
1968, pp.138-139, 146; G.B. Caird, "The Descent of Christ in
Ephesians 4:7-11", Studia Evangelica II, Berlin, 1964, p.544.
/25/ cf. also J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars, Leiden,
1959, pp.139-144; Kirby, Ephesians, pp.61-69.
/26/ cf. Goudoever, Calendars, p.201; Caird, "Descent", p.54
n 1; Kirby, Ephesians, pp.92-94.

52
/27 cf. Lindars, Apologetic, pp.51-59; J. Dupont, "Ascension

du Christ et don de l’Esprit d’apres Actes 2.33" in Christ and
Spirit in the New Testament, eds. B. Lindars and S. Smalley,
Cambridge, 1973, pp.219-228.
/28/ contra Lindemann, Aufhebung, p.85 n 110.
/29/ cf. P. Benoit, "L’Horizon Paulinien de l’Épitre aux
Éphésiens", RB 46F. Büchsel, TDNT 3, pp.641,642;

(1937), p.348;
H. Odeberg, The View of the Universe in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, Lund, 1934, pp.17,18; J.A. Robinson, St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Ephesians, London, 1928, p.180; J. Schneider,
TDNT 4, pp.597,598, who was convinced by Büchsel’s article and
changed the view he had expressed in "&aacgr;ναβ&aacgr;ινω", TDNT, 1,
pp.521,522; Hanson, New Testament Interpretation, pp.135-150;
J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, London, 1980, pp.186,
187.
/30/ cf. Cambier, "Signification", pp.262-275; F. Mussner,
Christus, das All und die Kirche, Trier, 1968, pp.28,41-44;
H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, Düsseldorf,1957,
pp.192,193; R. Schnackenburg, "Christus, Geist und Gemeinde
(Eph.4:1-16)", in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, eds.
B. Lindars and S. Smalley, Cambridge, 1973, 279-296; H. Traub,
"o&uacgr;ραν&oacgr;ς", TDNT 5, p.525; J. Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief,
Freiburg, 1971, p.209; C.L. Mitton, Ephesians, London, 1976,
pp.147,148; Lindemann, Aufhebung, pp.84-86, 218-221.
/31/ cf. H. von Soden, Der Brief an die Epheser, Freiburg,
1891, p.132; T.K. Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and
to the Colossians, Edinburgh, 1897, p.116; Caird, "Descent",
pp.536-543; Paul’s Letters from Prison, Oxford, 1976, pp.73-75;
C.H. Porter, "The Descent of Christ: An Exegetical Study of
Eph.4:7-11" in One Faith, ed. R.L. Simpson, Oklahoma, 1966,
p.47; Kirby, Ephesians, p.187 n 51; R.P. Martin, "Ephesians"
in Broadman Bible Commentary, vol.11, London, 1971, p.156;
J.L. Houlden, Paul’s Letters from Prison, Harmondsworth, 1970,
pp.310,311.
/32/ cf. Caird, "Descent", p.541.
/33/ "Ministry and Community in the NT" in Essays on NT
Themes, London, 1964, p.74.
/34/ cf. Mitton, Ephesians, p.148; Schnackenburg,"Christus",
p.287; Dunn, Christology, p.331 n 89.
/35/ cf. Schnackenburg, "Christus", p.287.
/36/ e.g. Hanson, New Testament Interpretation, p.139.
/37/ In addition to the commentaries, see C. Burger,
und Versöhnung : Studien zum liturgischen Gut im
Schöpfung
Kolosser - und Epheserbrief, Neukirchen - Vluyn, 1975,
pp.117-157; R. Deichgraber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus
in der frühen Christenheit, Göttingen, 1967, pp.165-167;

53
K.M. Fischer, Tendenz und Absicht des Epheserbriefes,

Göttingen, 1973, pp.131-137; J. Gnilka, "Christus unser
Friede - ein Friedens - Erlöserlied in Eph.2, 14-17.
Erwägungen, zu einer neutestamentlichen Friedenstheologie" in
Die Zeit Jesu, hrsg. von G. Bornkamm und K. Rahner, Freiburg,
1970, pp.190-207; Lindemann, Aufhebung, pp.152-181; H. Merklein,
"Zur Tradition und Komposition von Eph.2,14-18", BZ 17 (1973),
pp.79-102; J.T. Sanders, "Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1-3",
ZNW 56 (1965), pp.216-218; G. Schille, Frühchristliche Hymnen,
Berlin, 1965, pp.24-31; P. Stuhlmacher,’ "Er ist unser Friede"
(Eph.2,14). Zur Exegese und Bedeutung von Eph.2,14-18’ in
Neues Testament und Kirche, hrsg. von J. Gnilka, Freiburg,
1974, pp.337-358; K. Wengst, Christologische Formeln und
Lieder des Urchristentums, Gütersloh, 1972, pp.181-186;
M. Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil, Berlin, 1978,
pp.62-73.
/38/ cf. Schlier, Epheser, pp.122,123; Gnilka, Epheserbrief,
pp.147-152; Barth, Ephesians, pp.261,262 sees this as "probable,
but not certain"; Burger, Schöpfung, pp.117-133.
/39/ cf. Schlier, Epheser, p.123; Gnilka, Epheserbrief,
pp.147-152; Barth, Ephesians, p.276; Fischer, Tendenz, p.132;
Burger, Schöpfung, pp.128-133.
/40/ cf. Sanders, "Hymnic Elements", pp.216-218; Wengst,
Christologische Formeln, pp.181-186; Lindemann, Aufhebung,
pp.156-159.
/41/ Schlier, Epheser, pp.123-140 sees the background of the
first part of the hymn as Jewish Gnosticism and the Jew-Gentile
relationship as original to the hymn, while Fischer, Tendenz,
p.132; Wengst, Christologische Formeln, pp. 185, 186; Schille,
Hymnen, pp.24-31 and Lindemann, Aufhebung, pp.157-170 believe
the background to be Gnostic but the letter-writer to have
given the hymn its Jew-Gentile context. Burger, Schöpfung,
pp.133-139 sees the background as Hellenistic Judaism and the
proclamation in history to Jews and Gentiles as part of the
original hymn, while Gnilka, Epheserbrief, pp.150,151 also holds
the background to be Hellenistic Judaism but the application to
Jews and Gentiles to have been made by the writer to the
Ephesians.
/42/ cf. Stuhlmacher, ’"Er ist unser Friede" ...’ pp.347-358;
Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus, p.167 n 1; Wolter, Rechtfertigung,
pp.62-70.
/43/ cf. Mussner, Christus, pp.100,101; Ernst, Briefe,
pp.314-321; Merklein, "Zur Tradition ...", pp.79-102.
/44/ cf. also Wengst, Christologische Formeln, pp.182,183.
/45/ contra Barth, Ephesians, p.278; Stuhlmacher, ’"Er ist
unser Friede" ...’, p.347.

54
/46/ so Lindemann, Aufhebung, pp.84,177.

also
/47/ Barth, Ephesians, p.261 n 36; Stuhlmacher, ’"Er ist
contra
unser Friede" ...’, p.345; Wolter, Rechtfertigung, p.72.
/48/ cf. H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol.III, München, 1926, p.587.
/49/ contra Stuhlmacher, ’"Er ist unser Friede" ...’, p.358.
/50/ cf. also Strack-Billerbeck, III, pp.9-11.
/51/ cf. also Mussner, Christus, pp.101,102; Burger, Schöpfung,
p.155; Wolter, Rechtfertigung, p.71; contra Barth, Ephesians,
p.278.
/52/ Lindemann, Aufhebung, pp.84,177,178 correctly sees this
vertical emphasis, but is not to be followed in his attempt to
rid the passage of any salvation history perspective nor in his
beliefs that the author misunderstood the LXX wording he has
changed and that the citation does not particularly fit its
context in 2:14-18.
/53/ cf. Mitton, Ephesians, p.109; Fischer, Tendenz, pp.131,132.
/54/ cf. Abbott, Epistles, p.66; Schille, Hymnen, p.30; Gnilka,
Epheserbrief, p.146; Caird, Paul’s Letters, p.60.
/55/ cf. Schlier, Epheser, pp.137-139.
/56/ cf. Mussner, Christus, p.101; Stuhlmacher, ’"Er ist unser
Friede" ...’, p.353 n 59; Burger, Schöpfung, p.156; Lindemann,
Aufhebung, pp.176,177.
/57/ pp.34-51.
/58/ pp.32-34.
/59/ cf. Schlier, Epheser, p.261 n 1; Gnilka, Epheserbrief,
p.286.
/60/ contra W.L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles,
Cambridge, 1939, p.200; J. Jeremias, "ν&uacgr;μϕη, ν&upsi;μϕ&iacgr;o&sfgr;", TDNT 4,
pp.1104,1105.
/61/ cf. G. Bornkamm, "μ&upsi;στ&eeacgr;ριoν", TDNT 4, p.823; R.E. Brown,
The Semitic Background of the Term ’Mystery’ in the New
Testament, Philadelphia, 1968, pp.65,66; Mussner, Christus,
p.152; Barth, Ephesians, pp.642-644.
/62/ cf. Knox, St. Paul, pp.183,184; Mitton, Ephesians, p.207.
/63/ cf. C.C. Caragounis, The Ephesian ’Mysterion’, Lund, 1977,
esp. pp.136-146 for a fuller discussion, though he believes 5:32
to contain a special usage referring simply to the incomprehensi-
bility of the union of the Church with Christ (cf. p.59 n 15).
/64/ cf. also J. Coppens, ’"Mystery" in the Theology of St. Paul
and its Parallels at Qumran’ in Paul and Qumran, ed. J. Murphy -
O’Connor, London, 1968, p.147; Schlier, Epheser, pp.262,263;
Sampley, ’...One Flesh’, pp.90-96; Gnilka, Epheserbrief, p.288.
/65/ contra E.E. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early
Christianity, Grand Rapids, 1978, p.161.

55
/66/ cf. M. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels,

Philadelphia, 1951, p.28; also Sampley,’... One Flesh’
pp.88,89.
/67/ cf. Brown, Semitic Background, p.65 n 190; Gnilka,
Epheserbrief, p.294.
/68/ cf. Bornkamm, TDNT 4, p.823; Schlier, Epheser, p.262;
Sampley, ’... One Flesh’, pp.87-89.
/69/ cf. ed. J.M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, Leiden,
1977, pp.141,142.
/70/ cf. W.A. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne : Some Uses
of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity", History of Religions 13
(1974), p.191; R. Batey, "The Union of Christ and the Church",
NTS 13 (1966-67), p.276; Barth, Ephesians, p.729 and n 462;
Fischer, Tendenz, p.192.
/71/ cf. ed. Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, p.121.
/72/ cf. Meeks, "Image", pp.193-197; Fischer, Tendenz,
pp.192,193.
/73/ cf. Meeks, "Image", pp.199-204.
/74/ cf. Meeks, "Image", pp.180-186; H.D. Betz, Galatians
Philadelphia, 1979, pp.195-200.
/75/ ’... One Flesh’, pp.96-102, 110-114.
/76/’... One Flesh’, p.112.
/77/ cf. also E. Best, One Body in Christ, London, 1955, p.180.
/78/ Though some weighty manuscript and patristic evidence
early
which includes B D *G it d.g Marcion Clement, supports the
omission of &eacgr;ν &kap a;&upsi;ρ&iacgr;ω, very strong evidence supports its
inclusion as original, including 46
p A D
c K P Ψ, the minuscule:
other versional witnesses and Origen. In addition, if it had
been added by a scribe on the basis of Col.3:20, it is likely
to have been placed in a similar position to that which it
occupies in Col.3:20 and therefore after δ&iacgr;καιoν.
/79/ Paul’s Use of the OT, pp.152,185.
/80/ "Ephesians", p.171.
/81/ cf. Gnilka, Epheserbrief, p.297 who claims that the
meaning of the writer’s comment is that the commandment stands
in the first place in regard to duties towards other humans and
possesses a promise.
/82/ cf. Schlier, Epheser, p.281 n 3; Ernst, Briefe, p.393.
/83/ cf. J.A. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,
London (2nd ed.), 1904, p.210; Mitton, Ephesians, pp.211,212.
/84/ cf. Strack-Billerbeck III, p.614.
/85/ Lindemann, Aufhebung, p.87.
contra
/86/ So
Gnilka, Epheserbrief, p.297.
/87/ cf.
Schlier, Epheser, p.282.
/88/ as Mitton, Ephesians, p.213, who is one of the
commentators who suggest this, acknowledges.

56
/89/ cf. Schille, Hymnen, p.103 n 4; Sanders, "Hymnic

Elements", pp.220-223; Fischer, Tendenz, pp.118-120.
/90/ cf. Schlier, Epheser, p.86; Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus,
Epheserbrief, pp.93,94; Barth, Ephesians,
pp.163,164; Gnilka,
p.153.
/91/ On the use and meaning of the psalm in Judaism cf.
D.M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand : Psalm 110 in Early
Christianity, Nashville, 1973, pp.19-153.
/92/ cf. Hay, Glory, p.30; W.R.G. Loader, "Christ at the
Right Hand - Ps.cx.1 in the New Testament", NTS 24 (1978),
p.199.
/93/ cf. also Lindars, Apologetic, p.50; contra Lindemann,
Aufhebung, p.83 n 101.
/94/ cf. also Loader, "Christ at the Right Hand", pp.208-213.
/95/ contra Lindemann, Aufhebung, pp.82,86 who holds that
the wording is the author’s own formulation and agreement with
the OT is purely coincidental.
/96/ cf. Robinson, Ephesians, p.192; Mitton, Ephesians, p.167;
Sampley, "Scripture and
Tradition", pp.101-109.
/97/ cf. Gnilka, Epheserbrief, pp.28,234; Ernst, Briefe, p.367;
Caird, Paul’s Letters, p.82.
/98/ cf. "Scripture and Tradition", pp.103 n 9, 109.
/99/ cf. Caird, Paul’s Letters, p.82; contra Lindemann,
Aufhebung, p.86 who again argues that agreement of wording is
only coincidental, and Abbott, Epistles, p.139; Robinson,
Ephesians, p.192; Ernst, Briefe, p.367 who believe direct use
of Scripture to be involved.
/100/ e.g. Houlden, Paul’s Letters, p.328.
/101/ Aufhebung, p.82.
/102/ cf. Gnilka, Epheserbrief, pp.28,269; Ernst, Briefe, p.379.
/103/ This wording is in agreement with the A text of the LXX.
The B text has &eacgr;ν o&iacgr;ν&ogr;ι&sfgr; while the &KHgr; text has o&iacgr;ν&ogr;ι&sfgr;.
/104/ Ephesians, p.788 n 175.
/105/ Epheser, pp.294-297; Paul’s Letters, p.93.
/106/ Epheserbrief, pp.28,310.
/107/ Aufhebung, p.89.
/108/ pp.156-183.
/109/ As A.T. Hanson has argued at some length in The New
Testament Interpretation of Scripture, pp.21-96.
/110/ cf. A. Harnack, "Das Alte Testament in den Paulinischen
Briefen und in den Paulinischen Gemeinden", Sitzungsberichte
der Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1928, Berlin, p.125.
preussischen
/111/ "Das Alte Testament", pp.129-138 and cf. the criticism of
Harnack on this point by Lindemann, Aufhebung, p.81.
/112/ Aufhebung, esp. pp.80-89,191,192,237-259.

57
/114/ e.g. Abbott, Epistles, p.82.

/116/ Ephesians, p.334 n 45.
/117/ Ephesians, pp.331,332.
/118/ cf. "An Epistle in Search of a Life-Setting", ET 79 (1968),
pp.296-302; New Testament Foundations, Vol.2, Exeter, 1978,
esp. pp.227-233.
/119/ "Ephesians and Acts", p.293.
/120/ ’... One Flesh’, pp.3,4,161.
/121/ Aufhebung, pp.86-89.
/122/ ’... One Flesh’, p.161.
/123/ "The Place of the OT in the Formation of NT Theology",
NTS 23 (1976), p.66.


Use of The OT in Ephesians (A. T. Lincoln)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of The OT in Ephesians (A. T. Lincoln)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of The OT in Ephesians (A. T. Lincoln)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament

The Use of the OT in Ephesians

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

THE USE OF THE OT IN EPHESIANS

Dr. Andrew T. Lincoln,

The use of the OT in Ephesians has not attracted a great

Among the few who have devoted some focused or extended

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

passages like Ps.40:6; Gen.8:21; Exod.29:18,25,41, or on the

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

salvation or the people of God. Texts which are candidates for

2. The Use of Ps.68:18 in Eph.4:8-10

As we have noted, it is only this OT citation which is

As is well-known, in his citation of Scripture the writer

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

16wxev 66PUTa Tocg &V-5p(5nOUS instead of ËÀa8Eç bduara 6V åv~pwTI~.

The original force of Ps.68:18 was in praise of Yahweh’s

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

in a &dquo;new Moses&dquo; typology showing that Christ has provided a

The application of Ps.68:18 to Christ’s ascent and his

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

In facing the problem of the reference of the descent,

The interpretation of a descent into Hades is sometimes

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

parousia), and indeed it is extremely difficult to see how such

For these reasons other scholars have argued that it is

The view which sees a prior descent in the incarnation /30/

On the third interpretation, which takes the descent as

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

ascended to heaven with the gifts he has given to his Church on

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

Elsewhere in the Pauline Corpus the last Adam is said to

gifts. A final point should be made about the force of v.lOb -

The choice between the three views of the descent to which

from the ascent is necessary for the writer’s argument. In

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

fulfils a typical function of haggadah, filling out possible

3. The Use of Isa.57:19 in Eph.2:17

(2:11-22) in which the writer reminds his Gentile Christian

Any discussion of the

history and conceptual background of these verses. This is not

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

the second part of which also deals with cosmic reconciliation

further subsidiary break in the flow signalled by nau e~9a)B) in

The sequence of thought then appears to be this. In v.13

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

Now to the details of the actual use of the OT. Of course

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

The LXX wording of Isa.57:19 which reflects the Hebrew

There are other significant differences in the wording of

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

peace as a removal of hostility in order to reconcile the two

The lead into the combined citation at the beginning of

Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Alvaro Pereira on January 23, 2008

the apostles /54/ and others as a telescoping together of the

The major elements in the thought of vv.14-16 are