MIQRA Institute of Biblical Studies
Reading Scripture, Hearing God
Best, E. Ephesians. ICC. T & T Clark, 1998 (674 pp). B gives us an academic treatment of Ephesians, attributing over ninety pages to critical (i.e., analytical, not negative) engagement with issues of authorship (Did Paul really write the book?, a question B leaves open in the commentary, referring to the Author of Ephesians as “AE”), date, recipients, the condition of the text, etc. The commentary itself is full, and readers will benefit from proficiency in Greek (though it is not absolutely necessary). The exegesis is nicely interrupted here and there by “detached notes” of a more theological flavor (e.g., “The Heavenlies,” “The Body of Christ,” “Israel and the Church”). However, while B’s is a valuable voice to consider for exegetical details, it is not sufficient in itself for getting hold of the theology of the book—let alone its canonical function as instructive scripture (e.g., B expends much more energy pointing out the disparities between Ephesians and other Pauline works than he does coordinating them).
Hoehner, H. W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commmentary. Baker, 2002 (939 pp.) H’s massive commentary here and Talbert’s much smaller work (below) represent the poles of the spectrum in commentary writing today (and in our small survey here). H provides an encyclopedia, right down to the ten page chart which locates other Ephesians scholars in terms of their positions relative to Pauline authorship (for, against, uncertain), an issue apparently worth 58 pages. The actual commentary itself is thorough (one would expect), presenting each line of the text in Greek, followed by H’s translation and extensive comments. It’s the kind of commentary in which the author feels the need to say everything that can be said about each verse without making decisions that come from having a particular goal for this kind of work (e.g. the Church’s need to hear Ephesians addressing its current challenges). Perhaps this is what a commentary is for. But that is increasingly an open discussion, as shown by the surge of recent commentaries (much like the ancient ones) addressed directly to the Church and its need for instruction.
Lincoln, A. T. Ephesians. WBC. Word, 1990 (494 pp.). Although L, like most of the others reviewed here, explores the authorship issue at length, he also provides what may be the clearest explanation of scriptural authority relative to the issue of authorship (lxxiii). The perspective about the “implied readers” or “implied audience” of Ephesians running throughout his commentary is also quite helpful in bridging any perceived gap between the ancient Church and its modern form. The commentary itself is laid out according to Word’s format, with the author’s original translation and textual notes at the heading of each pericope, followed by brief discussion of the form/structure/setting, then the comments (receiving the most page space), and finally an explanation section to tie things together. Though this kind of blocked layout may appear be a bit more academic, some will find it helpful for quick reference (e.g., if you just want to know what L himself thinks about certain passages, you can skim down through his “explanation” sections). More technical than Talbert (below), but much less tedious than Hoehner (above).
O’Brien, P. T. The Letter to the Ephesians. PNTC. Eerdmans, 1998 (536 pp.). Again, the currently fashionable debate over Pauline authorship is unfortunately allowed to dominate O’s Introduction, even when it comes to rehearsing the theological emphases of the book (the engagement of which is presented in service to arguments defending, you guessed it, Pauline authorship, rather than for its own inherent revelatory value). So, the “high Christology” and “high ecclesiology” of Ephesians are discussed in part in order to determine whether they are native to Paul or not. Things shift, however, as soon as O gets into the text. He makes up a good deal of ground with his clear and helpful explanations of the meaning and theological implications of each part of the letter. More detailed textual observations are reserved for the footnotes. This seems like an intelligent formatting move, both for the way it reduces interruptions to the flow of the more readable main body and for the way it rounds out the value of the commentary for those looking for a bit more depth. Of the commentaries reviewed here, O’s and Talbert’s (below) might be the clearest choices for Bible Study resources.
Talbert, C. H. Ephesians and Colossians. PCNT. Baker, 2007 (296 pp.). T’s commentary is presented from the far side of Hoehner’s (above). If unclarity about authorship, destination, audience, and date of composition complexify the goal of understanding the purpose of the book for Hoehner (Ephesians, 97), the opposite seems to be the case for T. Completely unbothered by such “problems,” T raises to prominence the book as it and its author are presented by their now-inspired home in the canon of Christian scripture, and he is off and running. In other words, the canon itself trumps Paul the apostle in terms of what counts as biblical authority. There is something refreshing in this deferral to the canon rather than to an individual or the details behind his work as the ground for authority as well as the context of and for its sense. This gives the lie to the assumption that a commentary cannot do justice to the theology of a book without accounting first for its provenance. Of course T canvasses the issues (nicely disentangling the authorship issue in the process). But at under a third of Hoehner’s page count (yet managing to include Colossians as well), the obvious conclusion is that the theological instruction of canonical Paul has been prioritized (11).
