Introduction

Expressions, linked to one another, are more fundamentally linked in their source and hence a discussion "of the radical meaning of literature, of myth and mystery, of ritual and dance must be genetic." 1 Inasmuch as the Letter to the Ephesians is both literature 2 and the expression, or aggregate of expressions, of an insight, or a manifold of insights, it follows that a discussion of the total theology of the Letter, or of any part of that theology, must be genetic. A genetic method is one which finds its heuristic notion in development. 3 Expression is a function both of controlling meaning and of underlying psychic flow. 4 While the underlying flow is the ground of the inadvertent recurrence of characteristic patterns, hence allowing a systematic component in expression which grounds the possibility of investigation, there are the further genetic and incidental components in expression. These components, it would seem, are grounded in the controlling meaning. For the genetic component arises from the fact that the system which the dynamic structures of the psyche strive to satisfy is not a static system but one on the move, and the controlling meaning is just such a system. The incidental component arises from the possibility of the intervention of the principal acts of meaning interrupting the sensitive automatism so that, for now irretrievable and unverifiable reasons, there is produced a difference in usage or an unexpected turn of phrase.

In dealing with the theology of the Letter to the Ephesians, it is the systematic component which must ground the investigation of the possible Pauline provenance of the Letter; it is the genetic component which will ground the chronological, historical and theological relations of the Letter to the other works in the Pauline corpus or, where the first investigation concludes otherwise, to the other works in whatever the series to which it belongs. It is the incidental component which will ground the divergence of concrete expressions or usages from the relative actual frequencies of concrete expressions or usages in the other works in the series, whether Pauline or not.

1.1 Approaches to the Letter

Cambier has remarked, 5 as other have also doubtlessly done, that Paul himself is not bound to his images. In the interpretation of his thought he is consequently not to be so bound. Yet one can only feel that, in much of the effort that is expended on the interpretation of Pauline categories and thought patterns, the presumption is rather that Paul is eternally bound not merely to the theological content of his teaching but also to the literary form. Paul is not allowed by his interpreters to write at less depth on some point if at some earlier time he has treated that point at greater depth, and this even when in the later context Paul's interest is clearly other. It should be clear that Paul's presumption, albeit unconscious, is rather that the theological insight he strives to convey is not commensurate with the literary form. Incongruity of literary forms, where there is no contradiction on the theological level, is not a criterion for founding theories of authorship or provenance. John L. McKenzie gives it as his opinion that "those who have been pushed into exegesis and history by personal interest have learned that some of the mightiest names in theology were illiterates." 6 One might well press the charge and claim that, given the way in which writing on biblical matters became excessively dissecting, there is in writing about biblical theology a danger of pedantry, ignorance of genius which makes creative writing, in any form, creative, and unaware of the distinction between the systematic, genetic and incidental components of any expression. The contention, for example, that Paul could not have said things in a certain way is a hazardous one. To conclude from this contention that a letter containing such "non-Pauline" expressions is certainly "non-Pauline", is to base the possibility of an investigation into the Pauline nature of the letter on the incidental component instead of on the systematic one, and it is to ignore the relevance of the genetic component.

It is not the purpose of this paper to deal with the Pauline methodology in depth; nor is it to elaborate the systematic, genetic and incidental components which determine the relation of the Letter to the Ephesians to the other works in the Pauline corpus, for our interest here is the Christology of the Letter and not its Pauline or other authorship. Still, what we have said is relevant to the paper. For while the totality of the Christological vision of Paul may be, analogically, a thing inasmuch as it is an intelligible concrete unity, and moreover a thing explained inasmuch as it is differentiated by explanatory conjugates and scientific probabilities, 7 (and hence the Christology of the Letter to the Ephesians, if it is part of the Pauline Christology, is not a thing in itself 8), still, prior to the conclusion resulting from an investigation into its coherence with the systematic component of Pauline Christology, the Christology of the Letter to the Ephesians may be a thing in itself inasmuch as it is an expression of meaning and hence an intelligible concrete unity.

The purpose of the paper is circumscribed: instead of a complete treatment of the Christology of the Letter to the Ephesians, this paper is an illative attempt to approach a methodology by pointing out, affirmatively but not exclusively, elements which should aggregate to form that intelligible concrete unity which is the Christology of the Letter. It seems opportune to do this since it does not seem to have been done in any degree approaching its full scope, for most related treatments set out, not to delimit the Christological or other doctrine of the Letter, but to respond to the assumption (whether a priori or a posteriori matters little) of its Pauline or non-Pauline authorship.

1.2 Paulinity

The belief that Ephesians is the "quintessence of Paulinism", 9 or that it is a "masterly summary of Paul's theology by a disciple who was capable of thinking Paul's thoughts after him"10, or that it is an explicitation of themes implicit in greater or lesser degree in Pauline thought, 11 may all be valid as conclusions, but methodologically they are useless as principles of simple interpretation, though they, or their denials, are, materially if not formally, prerequisite for reflective interpretation. 12 This is all the more important when we do not forget that "Paulinism" and "Paulinity" are both constructs. Each is an ens rationis cum fundamento in re, as Scholasticism would have said, a mental abstraction grounded in reality. Methodologically, the res (the reality) is given, in the Church's tradition, in the Pauline corpus without the later acquired learned distinction of Protopauline versus Deuteropauline. It is a delicate matter to determine whether we are moving from the reality to the construct or from the construct to the reality, whether we are using reality to determine the parameters of the construct or using what is essentially an a priori construct to determine what the reality should be.

A number of questions then arise. Which kind of interpretation do we wish to engage in? What is the material for interpretation, the contents of the thirteen "Pauline" letters or the constructs "Paulinity" and "Paulinism"? What is the formal element in the interpretation? We could perhaps derive insights from structural methodologies, semiology and semiotics, to critique both our constructs and interpretations. Thus, applying G?del's theorem, what Umberto Eco has to say about systems and contradictions may be of relevance to the debate: "A system must have a contradiction to undermine it, for a system is a structural model which arrests reality for an instant and tries to make it intelligible. But this arrest, necessary for communication, impoverishes the real instead of enhancing it. The model is of value only if it stimulates an advance to a new level of understanding of reality, a level on which it then seems inadequate". 13 The almost intransigent reference to Romans as the yardstick for "Paulinism" or "Paulinity" seems inevitably exclusive of any "moving viewpoint" no matter how much historical consciousness demands such a moving view-point. Consequently, the same sacrosanct reference to Romans even more inevitably excludes the "higher viewpoint" needed, a viewpoint to which we may presume "Paulinism" or "Paulinity" aspires. 14

In a determination of the nature and hence the Paulinity or authenticity of the Letter to the Ephesians, a total consideration of the letter in its internal constitution and in its external relationships would have to be undertaken. Internally the probability of Pauline authorship might be advanced by an analysis not only of concepts but also of structure. For, in spite of more recently expressed reservations about such a dichotomy, it may still be accepted in general as a reasonably valid exegetical tool, that the letters of the Pauline corpus have two sections, one doctrinal, the other exhortatory or paraenetic. 15 The distribution of the formula εν Χριστω or its equivalents, for example, would seem to support this division. 16

The theme of the Letter to the Ephesians would also have to be clearly decided before any conclusion could be reached on its relation to the Pauline or other literature. Yet commentators vary considerably on the theme of the Letter. We are told that there are two central themes, one Christological and one, more important, Ecclesiological; 17 that the predominating and controlling theme is unity; 18 that the themes of Ephesians are gnosticizing tendencies and antinomian tendencies; 19 that the will of God is a dominant theme, 20 and that peace is a basic theme. 21 It is obvious that not all these formulations of the theme are mutually exclusive.

Heuristically of more value would be the validation of the formula: "As Galatians is to Romans, so is Colossians to Ephesians". 22 However, the similarities between Colossians and Ephesians must be the systematic component grounding the affirmation of the formula and not the conclusion resulting from it.

1.3 Relation to Lucan and Johannine Theologies

Beyond the relationship to the Pauline corpus there should be considered the possible relationship of Ephesians to other books of the NT and even of the OT. A similarity between the eschatology of Luke-Acts and that of Ephesians has been suggested as providing clues to authorship and background. 23 The evidence presented by Martin is linguistic and thematic. There is a high coincidence of linguistic features common to Luke-Acts and Ephesians: the Easter-Ascension-Pentecost distinction; the incidence of Greek verbs προ-; the occurrence of Ephesians' non-Pauline vocabulary in Luke-Acts. There is also thematic similarity: the universalist ecclesiology; the apostolate as bulwark; ecclesia pressa et militans; the structured, sacramental, institutionalized Church derivative of a recession of the hope of an imminent parousia. Nor is the linking of material from the Pauline corpus to Lucan authorship a new idea: according to Martin, 24 the Pastorals are thus linked by Moffatt, Abbott and Moule. There is also the generally accepted connection of Paul and Luke.

The traditional title of the Letter "to the Ephesians" may reflect some feeling for the Johannine similarities that have been noticed in it, this time more in connection with Christology than with eschatology or ecclesiology, though these latter have important bearings on the former. In both John and Ephesians, truth only appears in the Jesus of history. 25 In Eph 1:23, a passive sense for both the noun πλ?ρωμα and the participle would yield a similarity of ideas, and even of expression, to Jn 1:16; 14:20; l7:22-23. 26 As we shall see in dealing with the interpretation of Ps 68:18 in Eph 4:9f, the Lucan style based on the Easter-Ascension-Pentecost distinction might have to yield to a more Johannine style, if that distinction cannot be maintained for Ephesians. As background to the whole discussion we might point to the more general problem of the relation of Johannine and Lucan theologies.

It has been suggested that there is a similarity between the concept of redemption in the Book of Ruth and that in the Letter to the Ephesians. 27 While this insight may be of value in itself, it does not seem likely to provide clues to the relation of Ephesians to a specific theology of the New Testament; for, apart from the genealogies in Mt 1 and Lk 3 (where it is Matthew who makes more use of Ruth), there is no extensive use of Ruth in the New Testament.

1.4 Dependence on a Baptismal Liturgy

Lastly, an important element in the discussion would be the dependence of the early chapters, especially 1:3-14, on some other composition. While Goguel's thesis, that the Letter to the Ephesians is a heavily interpolated 28 version of a primitive Pauline letter, is generally rejected, more light on the nature and doctrine of Ephesians would seem to be afforded by relating it to a primitive baptismal liturgy, and hence to the early chapters of 1 Peter. After the greeting, instead of the more usual Pauline thanksgiving (occurring in Ephesians in 1:15-23), there is an extended blessing (1:3-14), 29 modelled on the liturgical recitals of the magnalia Dei, 30 and derived ultimately from the Christian preaching. 31

In a close study of the texts, Coutts finds that behind Eph 1:3-14 and 1Pet 1:3-12 there are "forms of liturgical prayer, similar in structure, though not identical in content", and that the relation between each passage and the form behind it is the same, that is to say, a "homily based on a form of prayer and to some extent reproducing its words"; these forms are, moreover, found to be connected with the rite of baptism. 32 Both the liturgical nature of the passages and their connection with baptism are strengthened by the use of ευλογητ?? (Eph 1:3; l Pet 1:3 etc), and the references, in different degrees of clarity, to the baptism of Jesus: εν τω ηγαπημενω (1:6), υιοθησ?α (1:5) and ευδοκ?α (1:5,9). 33 Baptismal references are also clear when there is mention of the forgiveness of sins ( απολ?τρωσι?, αφεσι? ) (1:7) and of "sealing" (εσφραγ?σθητε) (11:13-l4). 34

The baptismal references or liturgical tendencies are not, however, confined to 1:3-14. The interplay of "we" and "you" also occurs in 2:1-5. It perhaps misses the point to say that these pronouns "seem to be used almost interchangeably." 35 Coutts sees the interplay coincident with repeated transition from homily to prayer, similar in both Ephesians and 1 Peter, and without apparent logical reason. 36 Wilson, however, seems to supply the logical reason in seeing "we" as referring to all Christians, while "you" refers to the newly baptized. Thus the whole epistle would be addressed to the newly baptized, the doctrinal part dealing with the act of God joining them to the Church, the paraenetic section giving them elementary moral instruction. 37 Coutts reaches the conclusion that Ephesians may have been a pastoral letter written for the baptism of new converts, possibly at Easter, and sees the extension of the baptismal motif to the whole letter. 38

Allan 39 finds that in 1:13 there is no connection between baptism and Christ in the profound Pauline way. If the Letter is in reality an expression of baptismal liturgy and if the Christology of the Letter is found to be both an overriding dimension and Pauline, the apparent superficiality of certain concrete expressions would have to be reconsidered and judged over again, and their depth of meaning found to be derivative of presuppositions rather than formally expressed.

1. Navone, J., Ongoing Collaboration: The First International Lonergan Congress. Gregorianum 51(1970) p. 553. There is much more literature on Ephesians that could be reviewed than is found in these notes. The point, however, is not to review all that has been written about Ephesians but to see the point of the question of method.

2. Cf. Fitzmyer, J.A., New Testament Epistles. In R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary [JBC]. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968, #47; idem, Introduction to the New Testament Epistles. In R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, [NJBC]. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, #45.

3. On genetic method, cf. Lonergan, B.J.F. Insight. A Study of Human Understanding. London: Longman, Green, 1965, pp. 458-483.

4. For this statement and what follows, cf. Lonergan, Insight, op. cit., p. 593.

5. Cambier, J., La Signification Christologique d'Eph 4:7-10. New Testament Studies 9(1962-1963) p. 274, note 4.

6. McKenzie, J.L., cited in Navone, art. cit., p. 552.

7. Cf. Lonergan, B.J.F. Insight, op. cit. p. 253

8. Cf. Lonergan, B.J.F. Insight, op. cit., p. 258-9.

9. Bruce, F.F., St Paul in Rome, 4: The Epistle to the Ephesians. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 49 (1966-1967) p. 303.

10. Caird, G.B., The Apostolic Age, p. 133, cited by Bruce, art. cit., p. 304.

11. Harrison, P.H. Paulines and Pastorals, p. 35, cited by Bruce, art. cit., p. 304, note 1. On this topic, cf. Barth, M., Ephesians 1-3, NY: Doubleday, 1974, Anchor Bible 34 [AB], Introduction VI, A Criterion of Authenticity, pp. 41-50, and IX, Structure, Purpose, Character, pp. 53-59.

12. Cf. Lonergan, B.J.F. Insight, op. cit., pp. 562-3 for the difference between simple and reflective interpretation.

13. Eco, U., The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas (Translated from the second Italian edition by Hugh Bredin), Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press (1988), pp. x-xi; cf. Preface, passim and VIII, Conclusion. Cf. Lonergan, B.J.F. Insight, op. cit., pp. 562-3 for the difference between simple and reflective interpretation.

14. Cf. Lonergan, Insight, op. cit., pp. xxiii-xxvi, 191, 635-636, 730 on "moving viewpoints"; pp. 13-19, 233-234, 257, 374, 439 on "higher viewpoints"; pp. xxiv- xxv, 574 on G?el's theorem.

15. Fitzmyer, JBC 47:8C, NJBC 45:8C.

16. Following A.Schmoller, Handkonkordance zum gr. N.T., the count is: Chapter 1, 12*; chapter 2: 7*; chapter 3: 4*; chapter 4: 4*; chapter 5: 1*; chapter 6: 2(3)*.

17. Dacquino, P., Interpretatio Epistulae ad Epheseos in luce finis intenti. Verbum Domini 36 (1958) p. 339; Schrenk, G., article πατρι?, TDNT 5:1018.

18. Allan, J.A., The 'In Christ' Formula in Ephesians. New Testament Studies 5(1958-1959) p. 61; Grassi, J.A., The Letter to the Ephesians. In R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary [JBC]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice Hall (1968) #56:29; somewhat less emphatically than Grassi, Kolbeski, P.J., The Letter to the Ephesians. In R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary [NJBC]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice Hall, (1990) #55:25. Cf. Amiot, F., Le Th?me de l'Unit? dans Saint Paul. Stud.Paul.Cong.Int.Cath., I, 157-163.

19. Martin, R.P., An Epistle in Search of a Life-Setting. Expository Times, 79(1968) p. 300.

20. There are six references to the will of God in Ephesians (1:1,5,9,11; 5:17; 6:6), Grassi, JBC 56:13,16. Does this help to put Ephesians outside the Protopauline corpus?

21. There are seven references to peace in Ephesians (1:2; 2:14,15,17; 4:3; 6:15,23), more than in any other epistle except Romans (10 references), Grassi, JBC 56:13. Does the larger number of references in Romans help to keep Ephesians within the Protopauline corpus? This question and the one in the previous note may seem otiose or futile. Yet many of the attempts to determine statistically what is Pauline vocabulary and what is not seem to be just as otiose or futile.

22. Benoit, P., L'Horizon paulinien de l' ?p?tre aux Eph?siens. Revue Biblique. 46(1937) p. 509; L'Unit? de l'?glise selon l' ?p?tre aux Eph?siens. Stud.Paul.Cong.Int.Cath. I, p. 57. This formula would now, of course, be read in a more nuanced way than when it was first expressed.

23. Martin, R.P., art. cit., pp. 300ff; ibid. p. 301, citing Masson, C., L' ?p?tre aux Eph?siens, p. 199, on the difference in these eschatologies. Cf. Grassi's tabulation, JBC 56:19, of D.M. Stanley's suggestions on the relation of Eph 2:1-22 to Lk 15:11-32, CBQ 23(1961) pp. 26-39.

24. Art. cit., p. 301.

25. Potterie, I. de la, J?sus et la V?rit? d'apr? Eph 4:21. Stud.Paul.Cong.Int.Cath., II, p. 56.

26. Bogdasavich, M., The Idea of Pleroma in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. Downside Review. 83(1965) p. 127, note 16.

27. Ap-Thomas, D.R., The Book of Ruth. Expository Times 79 (1967-68) pp. 369-373; Storer, R., A Possible Link between the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Book of Ruth. St.Ev. IV pp. 343-346.

28. Goguel, M. Rev. Hist. Rel. cxi, p. 283, note 1; the interpolations are cited in Benoit, P., L'Horizon, art. cit. p. 343, note 5.

29. Fitzmyer, JBC 47:8B.

30. Stanley, D.M., Christ's Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology. Rome: Analecta Biblica 13, 1961, p. 217.

31. Sanders, J.T., Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1-3. Zeitschrift f?die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56(1965) p. 222.

32. Coutts, J., Ephesians 1:3-14 and 1 Peter 1:3-12. New Testament Studies 3 (1956-1957) p. 114.

33. Ibid. p. 116.

34. Ibid. pp. 224-225.

35. Barth, M., Conversion and Conversation. Israel and the Church in Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Interpretation 17(1963) p. 5; but cf. a more nuanced discussion in AB 34, pp 92, 212.

36. Coutts, art. cit., p. 120.

37. Wilson, R.A., "We" and "You" in the Epistle to the Ephesians. St.Ev. II, pp. 676-680, 679-680.

38. Coutts, art. cit., p. 124.

39. Allan, art. cit., pp. 54-62, 58.