Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Crux Sola: Formed by Scripture to Live like Christ

Home
Evangelical
Clinton Arnold’s Commentary on Ephesians (ZECNT)

Clinton Arnold’s Commentary on Ephesians (ZECNT)

Last updated on: June 29, 2011 at 5:28 pm by Nijay Gupta

Clinton Arnold’s Commentary on Ephesians (ZECNT) 2011-06-29T17:28:29-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Some of you may know that I am writing a commentary on Colossians (Smyth & Helwys) right now. While I am in the initial primary research phase, I am avoiding any contact with Colossians scholarship and commentaries – that will come later.

However, when Clinton Arnold’s commentary on Ephesians came out recently (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), I felt that it would be helpful to see how he interprets this cousin of Colossians. There are, of course, so many overlapping issues – I knew that Arnold would offer much in terms of talking about spiritual powers, magic, and folk religion.

Overall, I have enjoyed his commentary, the format of the commentary, and his positions on various controversial matters are well-stated, though I don’t always agree with him. I will offer some bits and pieces from the commentary below

Introduction: “This letter [of Ephesians] summarizes what it means to be a Christian better than any other book in the Bible” (p. 21)

Key issues that Ephesians deals with:

assimilation ministry and the training of new believers
the issue of divine sovereignty and human free will
spiritual warfare
worship in the church, including the issue of diversity of form and style
spiritual formation
gender roles in marriage
racial reconciliation
God’s design and plan for the church
the basis and call for ecumenical unity
the gospel in an animistic context
the contextualization of theology
living in a context of religious pluralism
the gift of being an apostle
the gift of prophecy
the role of the Jewish law
the local church and missions
intercessory prayer in the Christian life
the nature of spiritual power
the ongoing work of Satan and demons

Destination: Ephesus – but it was intended “to circulate in nearby villages, and possibly to churches in cities as far away as Smyrna, Miletus, and the Maeander and Lycus valleys” (p. 29)

1 Corinthians 15:32 – Paul writes, “I fought with wild animals at Ephesus” – Arnold convincingly argues (with Guy Williams) that “within Judaism, wild animals and various kinds of beasts were often used symbolically for evil spirits. This is true even in the NT letters, where Satan is represented by Peter as a “roaring lion” (1 Pet 5:8-9)” (p. 39)

So… “Paul’s beast fight reflects the spiritual warfare struggle that Paul experienced while he attempted to reach Ephesus with the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. (39).

Purpose of Ephesians – I was impressed by what Arnold had to say about the purpose of this letter. Neither does he see serious doctrinal or moral matters that need a response (like 1 Corinthians or Galatians), nor did he simply write a universal sermon about whatever and sent it off “to whom it may concern.” This letter engages in “identity formation” – a serious matter, but not reparative. Here is Arnold’s statement on purpose

Paul wrote this letter to a large network of local churches in Ephesus and the surrounding cities to affirm them in their new identity in Christ as a means of strengthening them in their ongoing struggle with the powers of darkness, to promote a greater unity between Jews and Gentiles within and among the churches of the area, and to stimulate an ever-increasing transformation of their lifestyles into a greater conformity to the purity and holiness that God has called them to display (p. 45).

Authorship – Arnold admits up front that he is not going to dwell on this matter, since there is already much published on it. Of course, he concludes that this document is written by Paul and all attempts to argue for pseudonymity fall short in his opinion. Two arguments that Arnold puts forward are helpful in my opinion. First, “The pseudepigraphical hypothesis cannot adequately account for the autobiographical material in the letter” (p. 46). If a false-writer was devising a false situation and context for the letter, he really seemed to go out of his way! As Arnold points out, he even describes his posture when praying (3:14)!

Secondly, while pseudepigraphical apocalyptic works were rather accepted and common in early Judaism, we cannot confidently say the same about pseudepigraphical personal letters (p. 49).

The Commentary: Notes

Overall, Arnold does a good job dealing with the various exegetical difficulties in the text. Here are some notes.

1:18 – the “holy ones” are the redeemed people, not angels.

1:21 – all terms for supernatural powers (“hostile angelic powers”) (pp.

112-115. While Arnold has really studied the folk religious beliefs and practices in Asia Minor in the ancient world and brought much light to bear on Ephesians, I feel that Arnold downplays the imperial, human counterparts to these spiritual powers. I don’t see it as either-or, but both-and. Fred Long (Asbury Seminary) is working on an Ephesians commentary (Rhetoric in Religious Antiquity series) where he has studied many inscriptions, especially bringing to bear how the terminology used in Ephesians alludes and refers to worship of the emperor. I think both perspectives need to be there.

2:2 – the “ruler of the air” is Satan – “the air” is referred to in early Judaism as a place where evil spirits reside – “Philo speaks of demons as hovering in the air (On Giants, 1.6, 8).” (132) – 1 Enoch has demons “dwelling in the clouds (15:10-11)” (132)

2:20 – the “prophets” are first century ones, not OT ones (170).

4:5 – “one Lord” – “Gentiles in the churches confessing Jesus as the one Lord would recognize that Artemis of Ephesus was not Lord regardless of the fact that she was acclaimed as such” (p. 234)

5:14 – “Get up, O sleeper…” – “The best interpretation is that Paul is here citing an early Christian hymn, which in turn had been deeply influenced by a christological interpretation of [two passages from] Isaiah” (334)

5:18 – not getting drunk on wine may be a reference to practices in association with Bacchus.

Conclusion

the book ends with a mini chapter on the Theology of Ephesians – brilliant! Every commentary should end like this!

In terms of secondary interaction, Arnold refers often to the work of Barth, Best, Lincoln, O’Brien, Schnackenburg, Hoehner, and Calvin.

Overall, a very useful commentary, especially for interaction with magic and folk religion contextual pointers.

Note – he forcefully defends a complementarian view of the Haustafel in Ephesians. I found his argument mediocre at best; better than in most conservative commentaries. His strongest argument is that there is a theological underpinning and analogy of Christ’s authority behind the wife-husband dynamic in Ephesians. I might ask, though, whether it is possible for Paul to give such a theological rationale, because it fits the circumstances and context, but was not meant to be universalized or without exception? Consider, in 1 Corinthians 9:14, that Paul was given not only the authority, but also the command to receive his income from his converts – a command from the Lord Jesus. However, he did not follow this in Corinth. Why would anyone not follow a command from the Lord Jesus? What compelled Paul to (temporarily or contextually?) over-turn this Dominical command?

I am not trying to be liberal (Arnold criticizes I.H. Marshall on gender issues for moving beyond what Scripture says; I think Arnold’s rebuke is uncalled for) – at least no more liberal than Paul. Just some food for thought.

I am interested in the soon-coming book by Alan Padgett: As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission (Baker, August 2011). Though the focus in this book is in church leadership (I presume), it may address Arnold’s approach to Eph’s Haustafel.

I would certainly recommend this to anyone researching Ephesians, but you could also find a good amount of the same views and thoughts, in more detail, in his many books. However, if you are commentary “collector,” this is worth the cost.

If you are looking for a single commentary to have on Ephesians (as your go-to one), I would still recommend O’Brien, Barth, or Lincoln.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 28, 2011

Arland Hultgren on Romans (Review)

Next Post

July 10, 2011 Gaventa and Scottish Journal of Theology

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz