Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/480

Rh 460 EPHESIANS by St Paul to different members of the churches known to him. Such greetings are wanting also in the epistles to Thessalonica, although the apostle wrote to that city under circumstances peculiarly calling forth his affectionate re membrance of his converts there. It is otherwise with the indications contained in the epistle itself that its writer was personally unknown to those to whom he writes, and that they, on their part, knew of him and of his work rather by the information of others than by actual experience : &quot; If so be that ye heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given me to you ward &quot; (iii. 2), where the particles el ye cannot be understood as stat ing only the ground, without the introduction of doubt, upon which the argument was proceeding (Alford), a use of ei ye not allowed by grammarians (Moulton s Winer, p. 5G1), atid where the certainty wanting in the particle is not given by the context (as Meyer) ; &quot; For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is in yourselves,. . . cease not to give thanks for you (i. 15, 16), where the parallel passage in Colossians (i. 9 compared with i. 6), contrasting the day when the apostle first &quot;heard&quot; of their knowledge of the grace of God in truth with that when they first &quot; heard &quot; of that grace, points out to us in a way not to be mistaken the sense in which the verb is to be understood (Lightfoot, On the Col., p. 28). But St Paul could not have used such language in reference to the Ephesians. He had laboured too long among them, had been too successful in his ministry, and had acquired too intimate a personal knowledge of their condition, to have permitted him to speak thus either of himself or them. Add to this the fact that in Eph. i. 1 the apostle does not associate Timothy with himself, although that disciple was well known to the church at Ephesus, -while he does mention him in the salutations of the epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon written at the same time, and the evidence is very strong that the epistle before us was not, in the first instance at least, addressed to the Ephesiau church. 1 (2.) Another theory, generally associated with the name of Archbishop Ussher, although hardly less connected with that of Beza, has in later years found such general acceptance that it may probably be regarded as at this moment the prevailing view, that the epistle is a circular letter, designed, not for Ephesus alone, but for many churches of Asia or the Peloponnesus or still wider districts. The modifications of this theory have been extremely numerous, varying with the adoption or rejection of the reading &amp;lt;( at Ephesus &quot; in i. 1, as well as with the difficulties felt by those adopting it as to the manner in which the epistle was to be cir culated. It is unnecessary to examine these theories separately. They are, as a group, exposed to objections which appear to be insuperable. 1, There is not the slightest trace of the existence of such a theory in Christian antiquity. 2. Had the apostle intended the epistle to be a circular one, nothing would have been easier for him than to say so. He does employ such a general designa tion in Gal. i. 2 and 2 Cor. i. 1, The expression &quot;the 1 Another consideration worthy of notice is suggested to the writer by a friend. In Eph. v. 1 the apostle calls upon his leaders to be imitators of God. It is the only occasion on which he does so. Writ ing to those to whom he was personally known, he always calls upon them to imitate himself, 1 Cor. iv. 16, i. 1; 1 Thes. i. 6; 2 Thes. iii. 7-9. The same friend (Mr A. Forbes, Aberdeen) suggests also, the importance of comparing the tone of the Ephesian epistle with that of St Paul s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts xx. From that address we learn how he would have spoken, as he did speak, to members of the Ephesian church not &quot;if ye have heard,&quot; or &quot;when ye read ye may understand,&quot; or &quot;if so be that ye were taught in him ;&quot; but &quot;ye know;&quot; &quot;I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God ; &quot; &quot;I kept back nothing, but have showed you,&quot; &c. : &quot;remember that I ceased cot to warn every one of you.&quot; The difference in tone is vevy marked. churches of Asia&quot; was familiar to him (1 Cor. xvi. 19, coinp. Rev. L 4). 3. No other name than Ephesus, except Laodicea, appears to have been at any time connected with the epistle. Even this name, too, seems not to have been placed in the text. The statement of Marcion, our only authority for thus associating Laodicea and the epistle with one another refers not to the text, but to the title. 4. The epistle has distinct reference to particular persons (i. 15, 16, vi. 22). 5. The idea of a number of copies furnished to Tychicus with a space in blank for the name to be filled in is entirely at variance with ths simplicity of the apostle and the character of the apostolic age. The circular hypothesis, in any of the forms thus proposed, may be abandoned with little hesitation. (3.) There remains a third theory which cannot be omitted. It adopts the circular idea, but at the same time identifies the epistle to the Ephesians with the epistle spoken of at Col. iv. 16 as &quot; that from Laodicea.&quot; This theory has beeen adopted by Canon Lightfoot in the following words : &quot;The apostle wrote at this time a circular letter to the Asiatic churches, which, got its ultimate designation fiom the metropolitan city, and is consequently known to us as the epistle to the Ephesians. It was the immediate object of Tychicus s journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christianity in the dis trict, and at the same time to communicate by woid of mouth the apostle s special messages to each (Eph. vi. 21, 22). Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought him into the im mediate Lcighbourhood of Colossne. But he was not chaiged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossoe itself, for tin s church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea ; and, besides, he was the bearer of a special letter from the apostle to them. It was sufficient, therefore, to piovide that the Laodicean copy should be circulated aud read at CoJossae. &quot; Dr Lightfoot further expresses his belief that &quot; educated opinion is tending, though slowly, in this direction,&quot; and that &quot; ultimately this view will be generally received &quot; (Colossians, p. 347). In the absence of Dr Lightfoot s as yet unpublished arguments in favour of the view thus taken by him, it is impossible to say whether he may be success ful in establishing it or not. But, in the meantime, it seems liable, with the exception of that part which identifies the epistle to the Ephesians with the epistle &quot; from Laodicea &quot; of Col. iv. 16, to all the objections which we have urged against the circular hypothesis, together with the additional difficulty of supposing that Tychicus, starting with a number of copies of the letter in his hands, should either leave his last copy at Laodicea, or that, if any remained, the Colossiau church, instead of getting one of them, should be instructed to procure its copy from Laodicea. If, on the other hand, it be said that the words &quot; the epistle from Laodicea &quot; are not a mere note of the place whence the epistle might be procured, but that, in one way or another, they point to a special connexion between the epistle and the city, it will follow that the former had a particular designation and was not circular. The theories examined by us are all unsatisfactory. We have to ask whether there is any other way of meeting the difficulties of the case, 1. The first thing here arresting attention is, that wholly The Gentile readers are presupposed in the epistle (ii, 11, 12, &amp;lt;jP ist! iii. 1 ; iv. 17). Nor this alone. When St Paul speaks of ^ his apostleship, he speaks of himself with much greater Gentil emphasis than usual as the apostle of the Gentiles (iii. Ch&quot; s &quot; 1-8). And, still further, in two highly important passages, tians- the force of which is lost in the Authorized Version, he shows that he has the Gentiles in view, not in what they become when they are brought to form part of the one holy temple, of the one redeemed family, of God, but in what they are when regarded as distinct and separate from the Jews : &quot; In whom every building fitly framed together groweth into a temple holy in the Lord&quot; (ii. 21) ; a &quot; For 1 The word &quot;building&quot; here is certainly not to be understood,