“To the saints which are at Ephesus”
By Jeffrey T. Riddle
Retrieving the Classic Christian Consensus on the Intended Recipients of Ephesians
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1).
I recently began a new Lord’s Day expositional sermon series through the book of Ephesians. In the initial sermon, in the very first verse, I encountered a significant challenge posed against the traditional text of this epistle. Namely, for whom was this epistle originally intended? Was it written “to the saints which are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”? Or, was it a generic letter, intended from the start for a general Christian audience, to which the designation “at Ephesus” was only added later.
Modern challenges to the text
With the publication of the great uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the nineteenth century the text of Ephesians 1:1 has come under special scrutiny, since in both of those influential manuscripts, so beloved of the nineteenth century textual critics, the phrase εν εφεσω (“at Ephesus”) is missing. In the current edition of the modern critical text of the Greek New Testament (the Nestle-Aland 28th edition) the phrase is placed in single brackets in order to cast doubt on its authenticity. In Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary, he notes that in addition to the phrase’s absence from the original hand of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, it is also missing in Papyrus 46 and in minuscules 424c and 1739, “as well as from manuscripts mentioned by Basil and the text used by Origen1.” Metzger also mentions lack of “explicit quotation” of εν εφεσω in discussion of Ephesians in Tertullian and Ephraem, but this is an argument from silence. Metzger concedes that “all witnesses except those mentioned above” include the phrase. This means it appears in over 99% of the extant Greek manuscript evidence. Its inclusion, originality, and authenticity is the overwhelming consensus of historical Christianity.
With the publication of the great uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the nineteenth century the text of Ephesians 1:1 has come under special scrutiny, since in both of those influential manuscripts, so beloved of the nineteenth century textual critics, the phrase εν εφεσω (“at Ephesus”) is missing. In the current edition of the modern critical text of the Greek New Testament (the Nestle-Aland 28th edition) the phrase is placed in single brackets in order to cast doubt on its authenticity. In Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary, he notes that in addition to the phrase’s absence from the original hand of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, it is also missing in Papyrus 46 and in minuscules 424c and 1739, “as well as from manuscripts mentioned by Basil and the text used by Origen.” Metzger also mentions lack of “explicit quotation” of εν εφεσω in discussion of Ephesians in Tertullian and Ephraem, but this is an argument from silence. Metzger concedes that “all witnesses except those mentioned above” include the phrase. This means it appears in over 99% of the extant Greek manuscript evidence. Its inclusion, originality, and authenticity is the overwhelming consensus of historical Christianity.
Modern translations
Changes to the modern text have naturally resulted in changes to modern translations. The English Revised Version (1881) included “at Ephesus” but added a marginal note, “Some very ancient authorities omit at Ephesus.” The Revised Standard Version (1952) took the bolder action of removing “at Ephesus” altogether from the text proper, to read, “To the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus,” with a footnote adding, “Other ancient authorities read who are at Ephesus and faithful.” The RSV’s daughter translations, the NRSV (1989), the ESV (2001), and the NRSV-UE (2020), however, restored the reference to Ephesus in the main text, alongside explanatory footnotes casting doubts on its authenticity. The Legacy Standard Bible (2021) includes “at Ephesus,” but adds a footnote reading, “Three early mss omit at Ephesus.” One wonders what impact such a note would have on the reader if it read instead, “Though a small, obscure handful of extant Greek manuscripts omit at Ephesus, over 99%, including some of the most ancient, include it.” In modern Bibles, explanatory notes regarding “at Ephesus” have become yet another occasion for raising questions about the overall stability, transmissional integrity, and authenticity of the text of the Bible. It is hard to calculate the overall effect of such notes upon the ordinary reader and his confidence in the reliability of Holy Scripture.
Ephesians as a circular letter?
In his Textual Commentary, Metzger also states that there are “certain internal features of the letter” that argue for omission, but he offers no specific examples or descriptions. Most likely, he is referencing the letter’s supposed lack of personal or particular information linking the letter specifically to Ephesus, like the mention of the names of specific persons known both to Paul and the church. One might point out, however, that there is one glaringly significant exception to this challenge. Namely, Tychicus, “a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord,” is mentioned in Ephesians 6:21. He was, in fact, a Pauline companion elsewhere associated, at least in part, with Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:4; 2 Timothy 4:12). He is likely the bearer of the epistle, with Paul promising the recipients that this messenger “shall make known to you all things” (Ephesians 6:21).
Metzger also mentions that the early heretic Marcion designated the letter as the epistle to the Laodiceans. It might well be that Marcion was influenced by Paul’s reference to an epistle “from Laodicea” in Colossians 4:16. Marcion’s judgement is certainly not to be trusted as normative.
Metzger further notes that questions about the phrase εν εφεσω “have led many commentators to suggest that the letter was intended as an encyclical, copies being sent to various churches, of which that at Ephesus was chief” (page 532). Indeed, this idea of Ephesians as an “encyclical letter” or a “circular letter” was known already in the early eighteenth century. Samuel Rosewell (1679-1722) in his contribution to the completion of Matthew Henry’s unfinished New Testament commentary, offered this in his introduction to Ephesians, “Some think that this epistle to the Ephesians was a circular letter sent to several churches, and that the copy directed to the Ephesians happened to be taken into the canon, and so it came to bear that particular inscription2.” Rosewell added that this conclusion had been reached “because it is the only one of Paul’s epistles that has nothing in it peculiarly adapted to the state or case of that particular church; but it has much of common concernment to all Christians3.” This notion of Ephesians as a “circular letter” only gained traction in the nineteenth century, alongside the publications of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and their omissions of “at Ephesus,” and it is still embraced and promoted today, including among evangelical scholars and pastors.
Plausible explanations for a handful of manuscript omissions
If conservatives uphold the traditional Protestant text of Ephesians 1:1, including the designation of its recipients as those “at Ephesus,” how then do we explain the handful of manuscripts which omit εν εφεσω? We cannot know for certain how these few omissions came about, but we can conceive of some possible explanations. The phrase might have been accidentally omitted and the error perpetuated in various isolated manuscripts, until this mistake was firmly corrected. It might have been intentionally omitted by some anonymous party due to some unknown conflict with the church at Ephesus or with those associated with it. Perhaps there was even some effort to apply the letter to churches other than that at Ephesus by removing εν εφεσω. What is clear is that the tradition represented by the tiny minority of manuscripts that omit “at Ephesus” was neither approved nor perpetuated in wider Christianity.
Modern challenges to the authorship of Ephesians
A corresponding trend in the nineteenth century to question the originally intended recipient of Ephesians was a challenge to the letter’s authenticity. That is, many scholars of the post-Enlightenment era began to challenge Pauline authorship of the letter, along with that of the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus4). There is little doubt that these two trends, challenging the recipients of Ephesians and challenging the authorship of Ephesians, are inter-related. If one accepts Ephesians as a generic circular letter with no particular connection to any actual congregation associated with Paul, it makes more plausible the notion that it was not written by Paul of Tarsus himself but by some anonymous early believer who attempted to write “in the style of Paul” a universal letter to all churches that would gain wider acceptance if written under the imprimatur of the apostle’s name. The overall notion that there are pseudonymous works in the New Testament only serves to weaken the authority and reliability of the Christian Scriptures and should be soundly rejected.
Contemporary evangelical commentaries
As I began to read some contemporary evangelical commentaries on Ephesians in preparation for preaching through the epistle, it was clear to see how the influence of nineteenth century modern textual criticism has trickled down into these works. One of the works I consulted was a short exposition of Ephesians by popular Presbyterian apologist R. C. Sproul (1939-2017).5 His work will serve as an example of many similar interpretations by modern evangelical scholars.
From the first page of the introduction to his exposition Sproul tells his readers, “There is a tremendously fascinating mystery about whether or not this book was ever intended for the Ephesians in particular,” noting that “recent scholarship” has raised “various questions about its destination” and “serious questions” about its authorship.6 With regard to whether the epistle was directed to Ephesus, Sproul says, “The problem boils down to textual criticism.” He then defines textual criticism as “the attempt to reconstruct, as accurately as possible, the original Greek of the New Testament.7” One should note that even at the time Sproul wrote this commentary (in the 1990s), such a definition of the goal of textual criticism was fast becoming outdated.8 Modern academic scholars no longer believe they are able to use the extant, empirical manuscript evidence to reconstruct the original, authorial text. The best they believe they can do is to restore what they call the “initial text,” the text as far back as they can reconstruct it without ever claiming it to be the actual original.
Rightly pointing out that 99% of the extant Greek manuscripts include “at Ephesus,” while “only two or three” omit it, Sproul adds, “The unfortunate problem is, however, that two of the very finest and most trustworthy of the surviving manuscripts from the ancient world” are the ones which omit it, and therefore “the evidence is almost equally weighted.9” He is speaking, of course, of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which he assumes provide a new standard for evaluating the text of the New Testament, without ever demonstrating why this is the case, especially given that the two manuscripts do not always agree even with one another.
Like Metzger, Sproul mentions that “personal communication is glaringly absent from the letter to the Ephesians,” and this provides added support for the idea “that perhaps this letter was not originally destined specifically for the congregation at Ephesus.10” Perhaps sensing such a comment might cause his conservative readers some distress, Sproul points out in a footnote his personal connection with the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy, declaring, “I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.11” Following the path of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which he helped to write,12 Sproul concludes this note, “Conservative Christianity has been very jealous to say that inspiration belongs only to the original autographs of Scripture.” Sproul does not address, however, a clear problem with his approach. It affirms the inspiration of Scripture but neglects its preservation. It insists the original autographs were inspired, but it does not claim they were preserved by God’s singular care and providence. They were corrupted, and now, according to this view, there must be a process of reconstruction, even if the authorial text can never be successfully restored en toto.
Having embraced the omission of “at Ephesus,” and even justified it as a proper act of reconstruction, Sproul proceeds to affirm the “majority viewpoint” that Ephesians was “in all probability… written originally as a circular letter.13” Despite affirming that the letter was originally written “to a large number of churches in Asia Minor” rather than to a single church in Ephesus, Sproul proceeds, nonetheless, to offer a description of Ephesus in the first century, including an account of the founding of that church, as reported in Acts 19.14
Though siding with modern textual criticism on the letter’s destination, Sproul defends Pauline authorship. He concludes, “There is every reason to affirm what the epistle claims, namely, that it was written by the apostle Paul to the churches of Asia Minor.15” What Sproul does not acknowledge is the connection between destination and authorship. If the church at Ephesus is not the first recipient of the epistle, and it is, instead, merely a generic letter, this supports the notion that Paul himself might not have personally written it. It potentially undermines the epistle’s authenticity.
What we encounter in Sproul’s brief exposition is perhaps typical of what one finds in many, if not most, contemporary “evangelical” commentaries on Ephesians, even in the writings of otherwise conservative and confessionally Reformed men.
We even find the influence of modern criticism in David Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ exposition of Ephesians written a few decades earlier than Sproul’s. The chapter heading for this exposition of Ephesians 1:1 reads, “Saints … and the faithful in Christ Jesus,” with “at Ephesus” omitted, though the verse is written below in full, from the King James Version. Lloyd-Jones, likewise, embraces the “circular letter” theory, though he speculates, like Rosewell, that this may be due to the fact that the original copy might have been sent first to Ephesus. He writes,
We must be clear about the fact that the Apostle was writing what can be described as a general letter. The Revised Version does not say ‘to the saints which are at Ephesus’. ‘Ephesus’ is omitted and that reminds us that in some of the oldest manuscripts the words ‘at Ephesus’ are not included. The oldest manuscripts do not contain the words ‘at Ephesus’, but they are found in other ancient manuscripts. The authorities however are agreed in saying that what really happened was that the Apostle wrote a kind of circular letter to a number of churches, and that his amanuensis probably left a gap so that the name of any one particular church could be inserted. This Letter to the church at Ephesus went to other churches also in the province of Asia, and it is probable that the traditional description ‘The letter to the Ephesians’ arose from the fact that the original copy did go to the church at Ephesus itself.16
Lloyd-Jones demonstrates confidence in what the contemporary “authorities” deem to be the “oldest manuscripts,” and offers speculation on what is “probable,” even suggesting that Paul’s secretary “left a gap” where the names of various recipients could be inserted.
Listening to the voices of Protestant Fathers
A clear contrast is noted when one turns from the more recent discussions of Ephesians to listen to the voices of the older Protestant Fathers, yet untouched by contact with the “assured results” of modern scholarship.
Paul Baynes (1573-1617) wrote a commentary on Ephesians, based on his sermons through the epistle, which was first published in 1643. Baynes, like the other men of his era, simply received the consensus view on the original recipients of this epistle. He wrote of the recipients:
In Ephesus. This was the mother city, famous for idolatry and conjuring, as the Acts of the Apostles testify, so given to all riot, that it banned Hermodore, on no other consideration but that he was an honest sober man. This people were so wicked, that heathens themselves did deem them from their mother worthy to be strangled; yet here God had his church.17
He simply assumes the letter was, as it had been received, originally written to the Ephesians.
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680), likewise, offered commentary on the opening chapters of Ephesians which were collected in his published works. He assumed that Paul’s letter was written to the “converted Ephesians,” noting Philostratus’s description of Ephesus as excelling “all other cities in wisdom and learning, and over-abounding in thousands of learned men.18” In discussing the recipients he wrote the following:
…for the saints at Ephesus were now a settled church when this was written. At first indeed at Ephesus there were but a few, about twelve, called disciples, that knew nothing of the way of worship of the New Testament, nor so much as of the Holy Ghost, Acts xix.1, whom our Apostle lays hands upon, and gathers into a body, a church, for so, chap. xx.17, they are called.19
Notice that since Goodwin, without suspicion, received this letter as written to the church at Ephesus, he can winningly and harmoniously draw upon the account of Paul’s founding of the church at Ephesus in Acts 19 and Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.
Goodwin can also proceed to give emphasis to the particular identity of the church at Ephesus as the letter’s original recipients:
And after that it was that this epistle was written to them, who therefore, chap. ii.22 of this epistle, are said to be ‘built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit,’ a little temple, (besides that general universal temple, whereof, he says, ver. 20, 21, that they were a part in consideration,) as the word ‘also’ in the 22nd verse implies.20
He proceeds to reflect on the phrase “all churches of the saints” used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:33, in light of comparison to Ephesians 1:1 (“to the saints which are at Ephesus”) and 1 Corinthians 1:2 (“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth… called to be saints”), observing,
That was the primitive language, for that was the constitution of churches then. He says not, to all saints in churches, but churches of the saints, as we say colleges of scholars, house of peers. The primitive constitution acknowledged no other members, and he speaks not of the universal catholic Church, but particular churches.21
Goodwin does indeed see doctrinal significance embedded in the fact that Ephesians was not a generic letter to all saints, or even “to all saints in churches,” but to all saints in a particular church, the one at Ephesus.
Conclusion: Retrieving the classic Christian consensus on Ephesians 1:1
How did I choose to handle Ephesians 1:1 when I preached my first sermon in the Ephesians series? I proceeded upon the assumption that the apostle wrote this letter “to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1). I called attention to Paul’s founding of this church at Ephesus as recorded in Acts 19 and how he later, from Miletus, “sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). Though noting that the content of Ephesians was universally applicable to all churches in all ages, I made no mention of the omission of “at Ephesus” in very few manuscripts or any theory suggesting it to be merely a circular letter.
I noted the fact that Tychicus was likely the bearer of the letter and that he perhaps had been one of the Ephesian believers who had travelled with Paul and now served him in his imprisonment (cf. Ephesians 3:1; 4:1; 6:20). Yes, Tychicus is also mentioned as bearing the letter to Colosse (Colossians 4:7), and Paul intended to send him as well to Titus at Crete (Titus 3:12). He was listed, however, among seven men who accompanied Paul after the conflagration at Ephesus in Acts 19, and it is especially noted by Luke that he and Trophimus were “of Asia” (Acts 20:4).
Perhaps most significantly Paul notes in 2 Timothy 4:12, “And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.” Was this the trip and task mentioned in Ephesians 6:20, or was this another occasion when Paul sent Tychicus to Ephesus? Did Paul send Tychicus to Ephesus, in fact, because this was his home church, and he would be well-known and trusted by the brethren in that body (cf. his commendation of Epaphroditus to the Philippians in Philippians 2:25-30; 4:18-19).
Though other names might be lacking in this letter it does address specific pastoral needs, like the household code in Ephesians 5:21—6:9, which gives special emphasis to the relationship between wives and husbands (see chapter 5:22-33). Compare the much shorter treatment of the same topic in Colossians 3:18-19. Did Paul expand upon his apostolic marital teaching here to address specific questions and concerns that had come to his ear about pastoral needs in Ephesus?
If Ephesians were originally a generic letter with no specific intended recipient, it would be the only such epistle among Paul’s writings in the New Testament. Paul’s letters were generally each addressed to a specific church (cf. Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians) or to specific individuals (cf. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon), except for Galatians, which was written to a group of churches, but even this is made plain in Galatians 1:2, “unto the churches of Galatia.” “The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews” would also be an exception, given that it is not explicitly addressed to a particular church or person. Paul himself, however, describes it both as a “word of exhortation” (perhaps a sermon or doctrinal treatise) and as “a letter” (Hebrews 13:22). Even then, its ancient title identifies a particular addressee, “to the Hebrews” (i.e., Jewish Christians).
Yes, it is proper to say that once Ephesians was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit it did indeed become a “circular letter” to be read with profit by all Christians and all churches in all ages. This, however, was a result of the acknowledgement of it as Scripture (its inspiration and preservation), and not because Paul supposedly sent it out at first to no clear recipient.
If anything, we can conclude that there is profit to be found in listening to the voices of the mature Protestant Fathers, and there might also be some appropriate corresponding suspicion in reading contemporary commentaries, even from evangelical and Reformed men. Discernment, of course, is needed for all men at all times. The modern historical-critical method, including modern textual criticism, might well be described as an engine of “therapeutic disenchantment”22 meant to undermine the supernatural authority of Holy Scripture. Rather than embrace the modern views on Ephesians 1:1, let us resolve instead to retrieve the old Christian consensus. Ephesians was written “to the saints which are at Ephesus.”
- For this citation and others below from Metzger, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2012), page 532. ↩︎
- Samuel Rosewell, “Ephesians,” in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 6, Acts to Revelation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), page 552. For Rosewell as the author of the Ephesians Commentary in this work, see ix. ↩︎
- Rosewell, “Ephesians,” page 552. ↩︎
- See the discussion in D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), pages 480-486, 554-568. ↩︎
- R. C. Sproul, Ephesians (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1994). ↩︎
- Sproul, Ephesians, page 9. ↩︎
- Sproul, Ephesians, page 9. ↩︎
- See Abidan Paul Shah, Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2020. ↩︎
- Sproul, Ephesians, page 10. ↩︎
- Sproul, Ephesians, pages 10-11. ↩︎
- Sproul, Ephesians, page 11, n. 1. ↩︎
- See Stephen J. Nichols, R. C. Sproul: A Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2021), 125-132. ↩︎
- See Stephen J. Nichols, R. C. Sproul: A Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2021), 125-132. ↩︎
- Sproul, Ephesians, pages 11-13. ↩︎
- Sproul, Ephesians, page 17. ↩︎
- D. M. Lloyd-Jones, God’s Ultimate Purpose: An Exposition of Ephesians 1:1 to 23 (Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker House Books, 1978), pages 22-23. ↩︎
- Paul Baynes, A Commentary Upon the Whole Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians (Edinburgh, Nichols, 1866), page 8. ↩︎
- Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D. (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1861), 1:2. ↩︎
- Goodwin, Works, 1:12. ↩︎
- Goodwin, Works, 1:12. ↩︎
- Goodwin, Works, 1:12. ↩︎
- Google AI offers this definition: “Therapeutic disenchantment, in a general sense, refers to the process of becoming disillusioned or losing faith in something, often a belief or a system, which can be a necessary step towards growth and change.” For modern sceptics, “growth and change” would refer to what they would see as the gains of abandoning traditional Christian beliefs and practices. For us, of course, it would be declension and loss. ↩︎