Sunday School Notes – Ephesians

We’ve completed the first two lessons of Bob Cornwall’s study guide (Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide) in my Sunday School class. I planned to write some notes earlier, but I’ll try to catch up.

These first two lessons complete the first chapter of Ephesians. There’s quite a lot of material just in the first couple of verses, and Bob doesn’t hesitate to lead the study into potentially deep waters by bringing up the issue of authorship. Just about anyone with theological training knows that the authorship of Ephesians is disputed, along with a number of other letters attributed to Paul. More people are aware of the dispute with regard to 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, but Ephesians, Colossians,  and 2 Thessalonians are also disputed by some.

Bob Cornwall does a good job of giving the basics of the dispute, insofar as one can in a small study guide of this nature. In fact, the way Bob tackles this and other disputes is one of the great features of this particular guide. We went into greater detail in the class, as this was what interested most people there. I was gratified to note that most people had studied the lesson, and so we could safely pick and choose.

There were three major issues we discussed:

1) What is the basis for the claim of authorship?

One of the things that disturbs me concerning Bible study in mainline churches is that many people will simply state that it’s the “scholarly consensus” or more likely “the best biblical scholarship says,” and they’re satisfied with that. I see this as parallel to the conservative tendency to say, “this is traditional.” One side dismisses and the other accepts the results of critical scholarship, while neither side actually understands what is going on.

We had a good discussion of the theological issues and possible historical connections that indicate to some scholars that Ephesians is not a Pauline work. I tend to think the balance is in favor of Pauline authorship, but at the same time, I tried to make sure people understand that the other view is not just plucked from air. There is valid reason for the dispute.

2) Was pseudonymous writing an accepted standard in the ancient world?

I’d reduce this more to whether it was an acceptable practice amongst the early Christians. I don’t know the answer to this. We know a number of books in circulation were not written by the person to whom they were attributed, but whether everyone realized that this was so and found it acceptable, I don’t know.

Bart Ehrman (Forged) has recently claimed that this practice was not acceptable. I haven’t read his book, so I can’t respond in any detail. This is a topic I’ll be interested in studying further.

3) How does the authorship issue relate to inspiration?

In this case, I pointed out that when we dispute authorship of Matthew, for example, we’re dealing with authorship that is attributed outside the text. In the case of Ephesians, the text itself says it’s from Paul, and I know of no textual dispute on this point.

If writing in someone else’s name was an acceptable practice, for example, honoring a teacher, again there would be no particular issue for inspiration.

I would tend not to worry in either case, because I would depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church accepting the work as canonical. I don’t see inspiration primarily as a characteristic of the text, and if the author was imperfect and did something he should not have (by the standards of his time), that would not disturb me.

All this said, however, I would note that I find the balance of the evidence to lean in favor of Pauline authorship, partially based on the text. When the authorship claim is integral to the text, it seems to me it requires greater evidence to overturn that attribution than when the attribution itself is later.

So again, thanks to Bob for setting up this discussion.

The next chapter has such a huge amount of material, even though it again covers only a few verses, well, 21 verses. Bob emphasizes the worship aspects, while my class got completely involved in the word “predestined.”

Here most of the class came to the same conclusion as Bob did in the lesson. In this case the predestination is more corporate than individual. It refers to God’s eternal plan to bring the gentile believers into God’s people. As agreeable (!) as we all were, we still spent most of the time talking about words like “chosen” and “predestined” and other places they occur where the intention is not quite as clear as it is in this chapter.

A class using this lesson would ideally spend more time on prayer and worship, which is clearly Bob’s intent in the study guide. We started with the prayer in the book and ended with the hymn at the end, but we didn’t quite stay on the track between the two. But others can do so. Don’t assume you have to spend your time on predestination!