Ephesians

Gary M. Burge, Galatians and Ephesians Through Old Testament Eyes

Burge, Gary M. Galatians and Ephesians through Old Testament Eyes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2025. Pb. 327 pp. $28.99.   Link to Kregel

Gary Burge, a Wheaton College emeritus professor of New Testament and well-known scholar, contributes the first volume in the Through Old Testament Eyes series on Paul’s epistles. In his short introduction to the commentary, Burge illustrates the difficulty of interpreting something from another culture. Beit Alpha has a synagogue mosaic with a series of recognizable Jewish symbols, but it also has zodiac symbols and an image of Helios, the Roman sun god, at the center. Burge suggests it takes humility to look at a Jewish mosaic with zodiac symbols and admit that we do not know what the combination means. A similar humility is required for interpreting Galatians and Ephesians (or any other biblical book). We are reading ancient letters in another language, from another culture, and we only hear Paul’s side of the argument. This TOTE commentary series attempts to bridge the gap by offering insights from the Old Testament to help a modern reader interpret Paul’s letters. By ignoring this context, Burge suggests, we risk interpreting these letters in a way that Paul would not recognize.

Galatians and Ephesians Through Old Testament Eyes

Like previous TOTE commentaries, Burge does not write a detailed intertextual study, nor is the commentary on “how the New Testament uses the Old” in Galatians and Ephesians. Burge does not discuss intertextual methodology (how to detect allusions to the Old Testament) or address hermeneutical issues of how Paul interpreted the Old Testament. Burge recognizes that Paul used the Septuagint but does not draw parallels to rabbinic exegesis (Galatians 4:21-31, for example). On one occasion, he draws attention to Second Temple literature (Jubilees in the endnote 5 on Galatians 4), but the focus of the commentary is on how the Old Testament sheds light on Galatians and Ephesians.

His twelve-page introduction to Galatians begins with a discussion of the location of Galatia and the timing of the letter with respect to the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15). Burge accepts a southern Galatia position. Although this is compatible with either a date before Acts 15 or after, Burge uses the early date in his interpretation of the letter. Galatians is therefore the earliest of Paul’s letters, written just after the conclusion of the first mission trip (Acts 13-14). The introduction briefly describes the spiritual climate of the Galatian churches in a Hellenistic culture where Roman gods mixed with local religious practice. The crisis in Galatia is that “certain men from James” came to Paul’s churches, telling the Gentiles that they must be circumcised to be fully saved. Paul hears of this, postpones his return to the churches, and returns to Jerusalem to settle the issue (Acts 15). The Letter to the Galatians confronts the Jewish teachers. Burge suggests that Paul “believes that an epic shift has occurred in history” (36), by which Gentile Christians are now part of God’s family, the children of Abraham, without keeping the Law (starting with circumcision).

In the introduction to Ephesians, Burge suggests, “Paul is a different person when he writes Ephesians.” Since commentary series rarely pair Galatians and Ephesians, the contrast between “early Paul” and “later Paul” is even more profound. Like most commentaries on Ephesians, Burge discusses the letter’s destination (to the Ephesians or not?) and authorship (written by Paul, or not?) He surveys the critical consensus is that Paul did not write the letter and suggests that an amanuensis or the circumstances later in Paul’s life may account for these objections. Paul might be the author, or the letter could be written “in Paul’s voice.” He concludes Ephesians is “curiously unlike the other Pauline letters.” After offering a brief overview of the context of western Anatolia (culture, religion, imperial cult, mystery religions), Burge says the message of Ephesians is a “grand vision for the church, its place in the world, its qualities, and its mission to create a society unlike any known in the Roman world” (164). In Ephesians, the Christian life is like a battle with dark spiritual forces (like the mystery cults).

Through Old Testament Eyes commentaries have three types of sidebars. First, “What Does the Structure Mean?” These sidebars comment on structural elements of the text, such as the rhetorical strategy of pathos in Galatians 4:11-20. Second, every chapter contains several “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebars. Burge uses these spaces to focus on how Paul uses certain Old Testament passages (Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:11-12; Isaiah 57:19 on Ephesians 2:13), but also for tracing important Old Testament themes in Paul’s thought. For example: Yeast (Gal 5:9), New Creation (Gal 6:15), The Temple (Eph 2:19-22), or Sealing (Eph 4:30). Third, each chapter contains at least one sidebar entitled “Going Deeper.” These sections draw application from the text and are pastoral. For example, while discussing Galatians 5:14, “Love your Neighbor,” Burge draws application for believers who find loving some neighbors difficult. Others interact with contemporary scholarship. Commenting on Galatians 2:19-21, Burge discusses the contribution of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift.

Compared to other volumes of the TOTE series, there are far more “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebars. There are 25 for Galatians and 31 for Ephesians (nearly five per chapter). The Matthew commentary in this series had 29 sidebars in this category, one per chapter of Matthew. In addition, there are fewer “What Does the Structure Mean?” sidebars, only seven in the entire commentary and only one for Ephesians. By comparison, there were 26 in the Matthew volume.

This is an improvement since the commentary’s theme is reading the text through Old Testament Eyes. I found Karen Jobes’ commentary on John curiously lacking in comments on how the Old Testament illuminates John’s Gospel (there were no “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebars in chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11). Burge’s commentary has far more commentary on how the Old Testament illuminates Galatians and Ephesians. I hope this is the case for future commentaries in this series.

The commentary proper is based on the English text (NIV) with occasional comparison to other modern translations. When Burge refers to a Greek word or phrase, it appears in transliteration. Readers without Greek will be able to use the commentary without difficulty. In the body of the commentary, he rarely refers to secondary sources. Endnotes refer to other commentaries. Burge also uses endnotes for Greek grammatical issues and occasional references to historic interpreters. Although I prefer footnotes, the body of the commentary is distraction-free and a pleasure to read.

Conclusion: Burge’s Galatians and Ephesians Through Old Testament Eyes is an excellent commentary on these two books and will be helpful for pastors and teachers preparing sermons or lessons. Although the TOTE commentaries do not deal with every detail of the text, the focus on how the Old Testament illuminates the text is a welcome contribution to the study of the New Testament.

 

Other volumes in the Through Old Testament Eyes series:

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Gregory MaGee and Jeffrey Arthurs, Ephesians (Kerux)

MaGee, Gregory S. and Jeffrey D. Arthurs. Ephesians. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2021. 281 pp. Hb. $29.99   Link to Kregel Ministry  

The Kerux commentary series pairs an exegete and a preacher. In this case, both authors have experience in both the academy and ministry. Gregory MaGee (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is associate professor of biblical studies and chair of the Biblical Studies, Christian Ministries, and Philosophy Department at Taylor University. His other publications include Studying Paul’s Letters with the Mind and Heart (Kregel 2018) and Portrait of an Apostle: A Case for Paul’s Authorship of Colossians and Ephesians (Pickwick, 2013).  Jeffrey Arthurs (PhD, Purdue University) is Robinson Chair of Preaching and Communication and Dean at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and published Preaching with Variety (Kregel 2007) and Devote Yourself to the Public Reading of Scripture (Kregel 2012). He contributed the preaching section to the Kerux commentary on Colossians and Philemon (Kregel 2022).

MaGee and Arthurs, EphesiansIn the introduction, “at first glance there is not much to say about the authorship of the Ephesians: the apostle Paul wrote it!” (31). Nevertheless, the introduction deals with five common objections to the traditional authorship with responses for each. They suggest these arguments against Pauline authorship “fail to account for Paul’s ability to apply complex an insightful theological guidance to different settings according to the specific needs there” (33).

The authors suggest the most likely scenario is Paul wrote Ephesians shortly after Colossians and sought to articulate the same ideas in both letters. Colossians was fresh in his mind when he wrote the book of Ephesians. They briefly agree with the traditional view the book was written from Rome A.D. 60-61 as a circular letter to several churches in Asia Minor, including both Ephesus and Laodicea. MaGee deals with the textual variant in 1:1, in the body of the commentary.

The introduction also provides a brief historical background for Ephesus and Asia Minor. This section develops two major themes in the background of Ephesians, political power and magic in diaspora Jewish communities, as seen Acts 19. MaGee is guided by the work of Paul Trebilco and John Barclay throughout the commentary. Paul is writing to house churches in Asia minor, a wide network of gentile believers learning to be unified as a single body, as equal family members.

The introduction also highlights several theological themes to be found in the book of Ephesians. First, Paul main theme throughout the book is being united in Christ. Focusing on “in Christ” language in the book, the authors suggest the believer is completely identified with Christ.  Second, walking in Christ. Paul focuses on a life marked by love (5:2) and holiness (4:15; 5:8). Third, Paul develops Christ’s authority in heaven and earth in Ephesians. Although Jesus is presently ruling, in the future he will assume his comprehensive rule and restore all things 1:9-10. Fourth, the believer’s identity in Christ can be summed up under the phrase “sit, walk, stand.” The believer’s identity in Christ should shape how they live out their life and mission.

Like other volumes in this series, the body of the commentary begins with a summary of the preaching unit. MaGee distills the unit into a brief, single sentence exegetical idea and theological focus. Each section of the commentary begins with a few comments on the literary structure and connections to the larger themes of Ephesians. This is followed by detailed exegesis of the section. Greek appears without transliteration and MaGee often makes in-text citations to the standard lexical and syntactical reference works. The commentary frequently deals with syntactical issues and compares various commentaries where necessary.  He often uses sidebars labeled “translation analysis” to comparing various commentaries and modern translations, or analyze textual critical issues.

Each chapter is supplemented by sidebars offering details on cultural background. For example, a sidebar on the dividing wall of hostility connects to the Jewish temple. Here is an excellent sidebar on shared identity of Jews in the Roman world, following John Barclay and N. T. Wright. The sidebar entitled “Magnifying Caesar Augustus and Ephesus” is particularly helpful for putting Paul’s gospel in the context of the Roman world. The use of psalms 68 in Ephesians 4:8 and a longer discussion of Christ’s descent are excellent. MaGee compares two positions on the Christ’s descent and concludes Paul is referring to the incarnation (163). There is an excellent lengthy sidebar on Household Codes, comparing Ephesians to similar ideas in Greco-Roman writers. In addition to the sidebars, MaGee also contributes photographs of Ephesus to illustrate aspects of the commentary.

Following the exegesis is a brief theological focus tying the exegesis back to the theological summary of Ephesians in the introduction.

For each of the thirteen chapters, Jeffery Arthurs offers a series of preaching and teaching strategies. He first summarized the exegetical and theological sections and present a single sentence preaching idea for the unit. One of the values of the preaching section is connections to contemporary culture. Arthurs offers illustrations draw from a wide range of sources, including recent news stories, visual aids, stories, and skit suggestions, and even a reference to Bono and Kanye West (Jesus is King). He provides URLs for many of his suggestions. For many (older?) pastors, these insights will be valuable for contextualizing Ephesians for American churches. I notice there are more sidebars and charts in the preaching and teaching sections than other commentaries in this series.

Conclusion. MaGee and Arthurs commentary on Ephesians provides pastors and teachers tools to use when preparing lessons and sermons on this important book. MaGee grounds his exegesis in the culture of first century Ephesus and Arthurs brings that exegesis to life in a twenty-first century pulpit. Like others in the Kerux series, the commentary is solidly evangelical and does not stray far from traditional views on the Pauline setting for the book.

I noticed there is a footnote missing for the sidebar on page 36. The chart on page 108 seems to be duplicated on page 132.

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

 

 

 

Like a Virgin Bride – Ephesians 5:25-30

The idea that the church is the bride of Christ is common in popular thinking, especially in hymns and songs. This is based on the common metaphor drawn from the Hebrew Bible that Israel is God’s bride. Beginning in Hosea, the prophets use the metaphor of a marriage relationship frequently to describe God’s relationship to his people. This metaphor is almost entirely negative since Israel was an unfaithful bride. Jesus employs similar language as the Hebrew prophets, calling his himself a bridegroom and comparing both his current ministry and future return to a wedding banquet (Matt 22:1-12, 25:1-14).

Veiled BrideAs the idea that the Church has replaced Israel as God’s people became dominant, it was quite easy to extend the metaphor of a marriage to the church. Just as the idea was common in the Hebrew Bible, so too the image of the church as the bride of Christ became pervasive in medieval theology and art. For many, the idea of the church as the bride of Christ is the dominant metaphor in their theology. But the basis for this metaphorical transfer is a replacement theology (even if it is implicit); anyone who rejects replacement theology will also think about the usefulness of this metaphor for the church.

It remains a fact, however, that Paul describes the church as like a virgin being prepared for marriage in Ephesian 5:21-33. Christ’s love for the church is described in 5:25-26, 29. Paul cites foundational text for marriage in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 2) and draws an analogy from it. The relationship of Christ and church similar to that of the married couple – they are “one flesh” in Gen 2. Therefore there is some intimate connection between Christ and the church which can be described in similar terms.

There is something of an eschatological perspective in this bridal metaphor in Ephesian 5. Christ is the head of the church, which submits to his authority. That all things will submit to the authority of Christ is a view of the future when Christ returns (cf. Phil 2:5-11). But, on the other hand, the marriage is already in existence and there are aspects of a realized eschatology here. On the other hand, the idea of a splendid church (5:27) may imply a future eschatological element is present.

At some point in the future the church will finally be a pure and spotless bride prepared for the bridegroom at the Second Coming (the “wedding supper”). I am tempted to see this as another aspect of the already / not yet tension of Pauline eschatology, but I am not sure Paul’s topic in Ephesian 5 is eschatology at all, but rather the purity of the church in the present age.

It could therefore be argued that Paul, who took a negative approach of sexual purity (commands not do be immoral, 5:3-7), now adopts a positive argument, “reflect the love of Christ” in sexual ethics (your own partner). The “function” of the metaphor is to get the husbands to see themselves as in some ways an “ecclesial bride,” if Christ and the church are “one flesh,” and covenant loyalty is obvious and required, then the husband ought to have the same level of commitment to their wives.

So Paul does use the marriage metaphor, but he spins in the direction of a ethical teaching on the relationship of a husband and wife in their marriage relationship. How then can the church be the pure virginal bride of Christ? How does this function as a metaphor for ethical community conduct?

Not Even a Hint of Immorality – Ephesians 5:3-7

In Ephesians 5:1-2 Paul called on the one who is in Christ to “imitate God” by living out their life in the same sacrificial love with which Christ loved us when he gave up his life on the Cross as a “fragrant offering” to the Lord. Although there is no other place in the New Testament where the believer is called to imitate God, here Paul says we imitate God by living in the pattern of Christ’s self-sacrificial love.

Sexual immorality and impurity seem obvious, but Paul mentions greed in the same line. This is similar to 4:19, all three words appeared there as well.

Immorality is a generic word (πορνεία) that covers a wide range of sexual sin, often called “fornication.” As the Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart once described pornography, “I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it.”

Impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) refers to anything which is filthy or corrupting, so the word is used in ethical texts for sexual sins. In 1 Enoch 10:11, for example, the sin of the angels is impurity. Paul often links filth and corruption, see 2 Cor 12:21, for example. but he does not need to define them since the meaning would be obvious to the reader.

By translating πλεονεξία as covetousness (ESV) or greed (NIV), the reader may think only of financial greed, and then wonder why greed is connected to two words which generically describe sexual sins. In classical Greek, however, this word refers to “vice pure and simple” and is among “the three most disgraceful things” (BDAG).

These vices are not even to be mentioned (looking forward to the next line), because they are not fitting for “the saints.” The verb Paul uses (ὀνομάζω) is rare, and in the passive (as it is here) can have the sense of “be known.” In Romans 15:20, for example, Paul’s desire is to preach the Gospel where “Christ is not known.” Paul’s exhortation here is that the believer is better off ignorant of these things!

For example, I do not need to know the details or experience the details personally to know that heroin addiction is not a good lifestyle choice. In the same way, Paul is simply saying the Christian does not need to dwell on the details of immorality in order to know it is not appropriate for the Christ. This has obvious implications for pornography, but also for other entertainment choices (film, music, literature). Although I would not advocate only Christian entertainment, there are some forms of entertainment which “are not fitting.”

The reason there is no need to know these things is that they are not fitting for those who are being built into a holy Temple of God (2:20). Paul is developing a metaphor of a Temple, and individual members of the Body of Christ are part of that temple. Some behaviors simply “do not fit” into that Temple. Most Christians who have unsaved friends have experienced have experienced some sheltering, “we cannot watch that movie because Bob is a Christian.”

Standing on the Edge of an Abyss

Paul also refers to obscenity, foolish talk coarse joking are three terms found only here in the NT and are fairly self-explanatory (cf. 4:29 and Col 3:8). Filthiness (αἰσχρότης) refers to obscene talk or “obscenity,” or behavior which “behavior that flouts social and moral standards” (BDAG). Foolish talk (μωρολογία) does not refer to stupidity, but intentionally foolish speech, even “foolish gossip” (EDNT, following TDNT, 4:844; cf. 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9). The word had a positive sense in earlier Greek literature (“adroitness of speech”), but in this context the noun is obviously negative. Crude joking (εὐτραπελία) or “base jesting,” or somewhere between “the extremes of buffoonery (βωμολοχία) and boorishness (ἀγροικία)” (BDAG).

Paul is in line with Jewish wisdom literature, and there is a remarkable parallel in the Dead Sea Scrolls Community Rule (1QS 10.21-25):

1 QS 10.21-25 I shall not retain Belial within my heart. From my mouth shall not be heard 22 foolishness or wicked deceptions; sophistries or lies shall not be found on my lips. The fruit of holiness will be on my tongue, profanity 23 shall not be found on it. With hymns shall I open my mouth and my tongue will continually recount both the just acts of God and the unfaithfulness of men until their iniquity is complete. 24 I shall remove from my lips worthless words, unclean things and plotting from the knowledge of my heart. With prudent counsel {I shall hide} /I shall recount/ knowledge, 25 and with discretion of knowledge I shall enclose him with a solid fence to maintain faithfulness and staunch judgment according to the justice of God.

These kinds of people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Although Paul says a similar thing in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the immoral will not inherit the kingdom), it is surprising to find Paul using kingdom of God as more or less equivalent to salvation.

I find this all very convicting. It seems obvious the Christian ought to avoid obvious immoral things (and there are good psychological reasons for anyone to avoid the things which are corrupting). But it is quite easy for me to tell a flippant joke or engage in gossip. For Paul, the Christian needs to be wise in their speech and not “talk like the world.” This does not mean Christians have to be boring, but it is very easy to get a laugh with a crude joke.

 

 

Bibliography: René A. López, “Paul’s Vice List in Ephesians 5:3–5,” BSac 169 (2012): 203–18; Peter W. Gosnell, “Honor and Shame Rhetoric in Ephesians,” BBR 16 (2006): 105–28; esp. 123–24.

Ephesians 2:19-22 – Growing into a Temple

Ephesians 2:19-22 is the conclusion of an argument which began in 2:11. Paul began this section by pointing out in that the gentiles were once enemies of God and totally separated from the Jews (2:11-13).  This left Gentiles without hope of salvation, especially since the hatred went both ways. There was a wall, a dividing wall of hostility, between the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul may very well be thinking of the literal wall in the Temple marking off the limited access for the Gentiles to worship in the Temple.

But in 2:14-18 Paul states that through Jesus we have peace with God, the enmity between Jew and Gentile is destroyed.  What Jesus did in his body on the cross created a peace between Jew and Gentile which was unimaginable in previous ages.

Perhaps his allusion to the Temple led Paul to use a Temple metaphor in verses 19-22.  On the other hand, architectural metaphors are common in the first century.  In Galatians Gal 2:9 Paul called the apostles “pillars,” a metaphor which is repeated in Revelation. Another example is 4Q Florilegium (4Q174) describes the “holy ones” as a temple, but one that is built in the last days.  For the writer of this document, the an image of exclusion, only the holy ones are a part of the temple, and of course the holy ones include only the writer and his community.  Paul’s church, on the other hand, is inclusive.  If the true Temple of God is built from both Jews and Gentiles, then all who are in Christ are a part of this temple.

House made of junkSeveral implications flow from this metaphor of the church as a Temple of God. If Paul has in mind the Temple in Jerusalem, then he may be thinking of the stones prepared by Herod’s stone workers.  These stones were cut and dressed so that the fit perfectly in the spot intended  If the individual believer is “like a stone” in the Temple, then we ought to find some comfort in the fact that God has prepared us for the role we play.

Second, the Temple is built on the proper foundation, the “apostles and prophets.”  It seems to me that Paul has in mind the first generation of the Church, the apostolic traditions and teachings.  But notice the “chief cornerstone” is Jesus himself.  In the traditional view, Paul is writing this letter in the early 60’s.  If is very likely that the first generation was beginning to die off.  Certainly the second generation of the church struggled with deviations in both doctrine and practice.  Using this metaphor, Paul is saying that anything not built on the foundation of the existing tradition is bound to be dangerous.

Third, the building is growing. This is a natural extension of the metaphor, since Greek and Roman buildings “grew up” as they were being built.  Like a tree, buildings start from the ground (the foundation)  and grow upward. There is a step-by-step process which must be followed over a long period of time.  The Church universal is continuing to grow, Paul says, until it is a Temple fit for God.

This third point ought to be a warning: We are continuing the process of “growing the church.”  What are we contributing to the Temple?  Is the contribution of the western Church material which strengthens and builds up the church?