Did Paul write Ephesians to those “in Ephesus”?

The three earliest witnesses to Ephesians (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and an early papyrus [P 46]) do not contain the phrase “in Ephesus.” However, there are good reasons to believe it was the original reading. Clinton E. Arnold has a very helpful discussion on this debated phrase. Here are four of his six reasons for the authenticity of “in Ephesus.”

  1. The Greek manuscript evidence: “[T]he inclusion of “in Ephesus” has the unanimous support of the Western and Byzantine text families in addition to the support of numerous Alexandrian witnesses. This tilts the favor largely in the direction of the inclusion. Granted, we still lack the support of three major witnesses of the Alexandrian (or proto-Alexandrian) tradition, but we need to be cautious about assuming that the combined testimony of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and an early papyrus will always convey the original text.”[1]
  2. The versional manuscript evidence. “The inclusion of “in Ephesus” is the only reading known in all the extant versions.”[2]
  3. The late first-century or early second-century evidence from Ignatius. Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians (probably written toward the end of the first century) assumes that Paul wrote an epistle to the Ephesians.[3]
  4. There is a plausible explanation for the omission of “in Ephesus.” The best explanation for its absence is that a scribe in a church left it out in order that the letter would appear more immediately relevant to his congregation and/or other congregations. The same problem occurs in Rom.1:7 where “in Rome” is omitted in several manuscripts. Arnold quotes Bruce Metzger who argues that its omission in Romans is best understood “as a deliberate excision, made in order to show that the letter is of general, not local, application.”[4] The same applies to its absence in some witnesses to Ephesians.

 


[1] Clinton E. Arnold, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 27.

[2] Arnold, Ephesians, 27.

[3]  Arnold, Ephesians, 27-28.

[4] Arnold, Ephesians, 28.

Family-Integrated Church 4: The Family-Integrated Critique of the Modern Family and Church

I must confess to feeling a little strange as I read into Voddie Baucham’s book on Family-Driven Faith. Why? Because I kept agreeing and agreeing vigorously with almost everything he said. I knew or thought I knew that I should be disagreeing, but I kept feeling that Voddie’s critique was right on the mark as he spoke about modern families and modern churches. He endeared himself to me, for instance, when he said this: “Like many parents, they found themselves traveling to tournament after tournament and praying for the opportunity to be out on Sunday since that meant they were playing for a title somewhere. What they didn’t realize is that they were teaching Thomas to prioritize baseball above the Fourth Commandment. They were teaching Thomas that he should honor the Sabbath and keep it holy unless it’s baseball season.” (35) At another point I was encouraged to see the sensitive way he pressed home the duty of family worship and teaching the Bible in our homes. (105)

I was also encouraged by Voddie’s willingness to qualify some of the views often associated with the Family-Integrated movement. He makes clear that there are legitimate reasons to limit the size of one’s family (26). I appreciate it when he said this: “It is very important that we live by biblical standards. However, it is equally important that we continually examine those standards to ensure that we don’t fall prey to legalism.” (87) Further, Voddie even carefully qualifies what he says about the importance of home education: “I would never suggest that everyone should educate his or her children the same way we educate ours.” (123) I don’t want to be naïve. I expect that, if I had an in-depth discussion with Voddie, we might find some difference of perspective about this. Nevertheless, what he actually says about the subject of the education of children in the section of his book which follows this qualification I can certainly affirm. (123-128)

Of course, there were points at which Voddie said things that made me scratch my head. For instance, he says: “I believe one of the greatest crutches in the church is the nursery. Parents who have neglected to train their children have very little encouragement to do so when there is a place to hide them. The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child has subjected him ends up going with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.” While there is an element of truth about this especially with regard to children older than two or three, it seems a trifle far-fetched with regard to infants and toddlers. The subject of nursery is, however, for another post.

Here is my overall reaction to Voddie’s book. I agree heartily and mostly with his critique of the modern church and family in the first seven chapters. It is with his prescription and solution in the last two chapters that I find myself struggling. I think I can agree about the problem without agreeing that the solution advocated by the family-integrated church movement is entirely correct and balanced. Interestingly enough I discovered that Michael Lawrence’s response to Family-Driven Faith has a similar analysis. To see that response click here. To see Voddie’s two-part response to Lawrence, please click here and here.

Mike Horton: What is the Gospel?

Theologian Mike Horton seeks to maintain distinctions where distinctions need to be made and kept. Can we do the gospel? Or do we do the law? Both? Other? Watch it here.

MCTS Podcast 12: Dr. James White – Q:Should we allow Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons into our home?

2 John 10, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.”

“It’s amazing that we will be willing to trapes half-way across the world to do mission’s work and slam the door in the face of people who knock on our front door.” – Dr. James White

Brief thoughts on Adam, Christ, image bearing and dominion

Both Adam and the incarnate Son of God are image bearers of the invisible God (Genesis 1:26-27; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15). 

Both Adam and the incarnate Son of God had/have dominion over the entire creation (Genesis 1:28; Ephesians 1:20-23; Colossians 1:15). Adam was the firstborn in terms of time and preeminence. But he failed his dominion mandate. He did not extend the culture of the garden across the face of the earth. The last Adam, however, is now presiding over all things created and he is in the business of recreating image bearers all across the face of the earth. He is extending the garden-temple to the farthest corners of the globe. The creation mandate is not being fulfilled by generic humanity, but by Christ through His Church preaching His Word.

Pin It on Pinterest