or Paul's letter addressed to the Christian Church at the ancient and famous city of Ephesus (see below), that church which the apostle had himself founded (Acts 19:1 sq.; comp.Acts 18:19), with which he abode so long (τριετίαν , Acts 20:31), and from the elders of which he parted with such a warm-hearted and affecting farewell (Acts 20:18-35). (See PAUL).

I. Authenticity. — This epistle expressly claims to be the production of the apostle Paul (Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 3:1); and this claim the writer, in the latter of these passages, follows up by speaking of himself in language such as that apostle is accustomed to use in describing his own position as an ambassador of Christ (Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 3:3; Ephesians 3:8-9). The justice of this claim seems to have been universally admitted by the early Christians, and it is expressly sanctioned by several of the fathers of the second and third centuries (Irensus, adv. Haer. 5:2-3; 5:14; 5:3; Clemens Alexandr. Paedagog. 1:108; Protrept. 9:69, ed. Potter; Strom. 4:8, page 592; Origen, cont. Cels.3:20; 4:211, ed. Spencer; Tertullian, adv. Marc. 5:11; 5:17; De Prescr. Her. chapter 36; Cyprian, Testim.3:7, etc.); and after them the constant and persistent tradition of the ancient Church. Even Marcion did not deny that the epistle was written by Paul, nor did heretics refuse occasionally to cite it as confessedly due to him as its author lrcnaeus, Hesr. 1:8; 1:5; see Hug, Introd. Fosdick's transl. page 551; Hippolytus, Philosophumena, 6:34). In recent times, however, its genuineness has been somewhat vehemently called in question. The epistle is also cited as part of sacred Scripture by Polycarp (Ep. ed Philipp. c. 1; c. 12); and it is probably to it that Ignatius refers in writing to the Ephesians (c. 12; compare Cotelerii Annot. in loc.; Pearson, Vind. Ignatian. part 2, page 119; Lardner's Works, 2:70, 8vo). De Wette has attempted, from internal evidence, to set aside this external proof of the Pauline origin of this epistle; but his cavils have been so fully and satisfactorily answered by Schott (Isag. in N.T. page 260), Guerike (Beitrage zur hist. krit. Einleitung ins N.T. page 106), Hemsen (Der Ap. Paulus, page 130), Rickert (Der Br. Pauli an die Epheser, page 289), and others, that later De Wette himself, both in the introductory pages of his Commentary on this epistle (ed. 2, 1847), and in his Introduction to the N.T. (ed. 5, 1848), only labors to prove that it is a mere spiritless expansion of the epistle to the Colossians, though compiled in the apostolic age. Schwegler (Naehapost. Zeitalt. 2:330 sq.), Baur (Paulus, page 418 sq.), and others advance a step farther, and reject both epistles as of no higher antiquity than the age of Montanism and early Gnosticism. The objections adduced are chiefly the following:

1. The absence of any friendly greetings in this epistle, coupled with what are alleged to be indications of want of previous acquaintance on the part of the writer with the Ephesians, facts which, it is asserted, are incompatible with the supposition that it was written by Paul, whose relations with the Ephesian Church were so intimate.

2. The occurrence of words, and phrases, and sentiments, which indicate acquaintance with those Gnostic ideas which were familiar only at a period much later than that of the apostle.

3. The close resemblance of this epistle to the epistle to the Colossians, suggesting that the former is only an enlargement of the latter. The first of these objections may be passed by here, as the allegations on which it rests will be particularly considered when we come to the question of the destination of the epistle; at present it may suffice to cite the remark of Reuss in reference to the unreasonableness of such objections: "If Paul writes simple letters of friendship, they are pronounced insignificant, and so spurious, because there is a want of the didactic character in them; and, on the other hand, if this prevails, there is proof of the spuriousness of the writing in the absence of the other. What! must both elements always be united according to some definite rule? is it so with us? or are any two of Paul's epistles alike in this respect?" (Die Geschichte d. H. Schr. Neuen Test. page 104, 3d ed.) The second of the above objections has reference to such passages as Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:21, where it is alleged the Gnostic doctrine of Sons is recognised; and to the expression πλήρωμα, Ephesians 1:23, as conveying a purely Gnostic idea; and to such words as μυστήριον, σοφία, γνῶσις, φῶς, σκοτία, etc. On this it seems sufficient to observe, without denying the existence of Gnostic allusions in this epistle, that, on the one hand, the objection assumes that, because Gnostic schools and systems did not make their appearance till after the age of the apostles, the ideas and words in favor with the Gnostics were unknown at an earlier period, a position which cannot be maintained, (See GNOSTICS); and, on the other, that, because the apostle uses phraseology which was employed also by the Gnostics, he uses it in the same sense as they did, which is purely gratuitous and indeed untrue, for to confound the αἰῶνες and πλήρωμα of the apostle with the αἰῶνες and πλήρωμα of the Gnostics, as Baur does, only proves, as Lange has remarked, that "a man may write whole books on Gnostics and Gnosticism without detecting the characteristic difference between the Christian principle and Gnosticism" (Apostol. Zeitalt. 1:124).

With regard to the resemblance between this epistle and that to the Colossians, it can surprise no one that, written at the same time, they should in many respects resemble each other (see Klopper, De origine Epp. ad Ephesians et Colossians Gryph. 1853); but it does not require much penetration to discover the many points of difference between them, especially in the point of view from which the writer contemplates his main subject, the Lord Jesus Christ, in each; in the one as the prehistoric, pre- existent, supreme source of all things; in the other as the incarnate, historical, exalted, glorified head of the Church, to whom all things are subjected (comp. Ephesians 1:20-23, with Colossians 1:15-20; and Lange, Ap. Zeit. 1:118). As for the alleged "copious expansion," that may be left to the judgment of the reader, as well as the counter notion of Schneckenburger, that the epistle to the Colossians is an epitome of that to the Ephesians made by Paul himself. On such objections in general, we may say with Reuss that "rash hypotheses, whatever acceptance they may have received, tell by their deficiency or strangeness, not against the epistle, but against themselves; and, in opposition to all cavils, the many traits which disprove the presence in the thoughts of a deceptive imitation by a foreign hand stand as valid arguments in its defense" (Gesch. page 104). For a detailed reply to the arguments of De Wette and Baur, the student may be referred to Meyer, Einleit. z. Ephesians page 19 sq., ed. 2; Davidson, Introd. to N.T. 2:352 sq., and Alford, Prolegomena, page 8.

II. The Readers for whom this Epistle was designed. — In the opening words, "'Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints that are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus," the words in Ephesus, ἐν Ε᾿φέσῳ, are omitted by the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS., the cursive numbered 67, by Basil (expressly), probably by Origen, and possibly by Tertullian. This. combined with the somewhat noticeable omission of all greetings to the members of a church with which the apostle stood in such affectionate relation, and some other internal objections, have suggested a doubt whether these words really formed a part of the original text. On the subject of the persons addressed, therefore, two hypotheses have been principally entertained, besides the common opinion which, following the (disputed) reading in Ephesians 1:1, regards the party to whom it was sent as the Church at Ephesus. (See the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1866, page 129 sq., 742 sq.)

1. Grotius, reviving the opinion of the ancient heretic Marcion, maintains that the party addressed in this epistle was the Church at Laodicea, and that we have in this the epistle to that Church which is commonly supposed to have been lost. The view of Grotius, which has been followed by some scholars of eminent name, among whom are found Hammond, Mill, Venema, Wetstein, and Paley, rests chiefly on two grounds, viz. the testimony of Marcion, and the close resemblance between this epistle and that to the Colossians, taken in connection with Colossians 4:16. With respect to the former of these grounds, it is alleged that, as Marcion was under no temptation to utter a wilful falsehood in regard to the destination of this epistle, he probably had the authority of the Church at Laodicea, and, it may be, the tradition of the churches generally of Asia Minor, for the opinion which he expresses (Grotius, Proleg. ad Ephes.; Mill, Proleg. ad N. Test. page 9, Oxon. 1707). But, without charging Marcion with designedly uttering what was false, we may suppose that, like some critics of recent times, this view was suggested to him by the apostle's allusion, in Colossians 4:16, to an epistle addressed by him to the Laodiceans. Nor is there the least ground for supposing that Marcion spoke in this instance on the authority of the Asiatic churches; on the contrary, there is every reason to believe the opposite; for not only do Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who were fully acquainted with the views of the Eastern churches on such matters, give.no hint of any such tradition being entertained by them, but Tertullian, to whom we are indebted for our information respecting the opinion of Marcio, expressly says that in that opinion he opposed the tradition of the orthodox churches, and imposed upon the epistle a false title, through conceit of his own superior diligence in exploring such matters (adv. Marc. Ephesians 5:17). With regard to the other argument by which this view is advocated, admitting the fact of a close resemblance between the epistle to the Colossians and that before us, and the fact that Paul had, some time before sending the former epistle, written one to the Church at Laodicea, which he advises the Colossians to send for and read, how does it follow from all this that the epistle to the Laodiceans and that now under notice were one and the same?

It appears more probable that, seeing the two extant epistles bear so close a resemblance to each other, had the one now bearing the inscription "to the Ephesians" been really the one addressed to the Laodiceans, the apostle would not have deemed it of so much importance that the churches of Colossee and Laodicea should interchange epistles. Such being the chief arguments in favor of this hypothesis (for those which, in addition, Wetstein alleges from a comparison of this epistle with that to the Church at Laodicea, in the Apocalypse, are not deserving of notice; see Michaelis, Introd. 4:137), we may venture to set it aside as without any adequate support. It may be observed, also, that it seems incompatible with what the apostle says, Colossians 4:15, where he enjoins the Church at Colossie to send his greetings to the brethren at Laodicea, etc. No one sends greetings by another except when it is impossible to express them one's self. But if Paul wrote to Laodicea at the same time as to Colossee, and sent both letters by the same bearer, Tychicus, there was manifestly no occasion whatever for hit sending his salutations to the latter of these churches through the medium of the former; it was obviously as easy, and much more natural, to send his salutations to the Church at Laodicea in the epistle addressed to themselves. This seems to prove that the epis'tle to the Laodiceans had been written some consider.able time before that to the Colossians, and therefore could not have been the same with that now under notice. (See LAODICEANS (EPISTLE TO).)

2. The opinion that this epistle was not specially addressed to any one church, but was intended as a sort of circular letter for the use of several churches, was first broached by archbishop Usher (Annal. Vet. et Nov. Test. page 680, Bremae, 1686). To this opinion the great majority of critics have given their suffrage; indeed, it may be regarded as the received opinion of Biblical scholars in the present day. This may make it ap.parently presumptuous in us to call it in question, and yet it seems to us so ill supported by positive evidence, and exposed to so many objections, that we cannot yield assent to it.

(1.) In the first place, it is to be observed that this is a hypothesis entirely of modern invention. No hint is furnished of any such notion having been entertained concerning the destination of this epistle by the early Church. With the solitary exception of Marcion, so far as we know, all parties were unanimous in assigning Ephesus as the place to which this epistle was sent, and Marcion's view is as much opposed to the supposition of its being a circular letter as the other. As respects the external evidence, therefore, this hypothesis is purely destitute of support

(2.) It is a hypothesis suggested for the purpose oaf accounting for certain alleged facts, some of which are, to say the least, doubtful, and others of which may be explained as well without it as with it. These facts are, a. The alleged omission of the name of any place at the commencement of the epistle; b. Marcion's assertion that this epistle was addressed to the Laodiceans, which, it is said, probably arose out of his having seen that copy of this circular epistle which (had been sent to Laodicea; c. The want of any precise allusions to personal relations subsisting between the apostle and those to whom this epistle was addressed; and d. The expressions of unacquaintedness with those 'to whom he wrote, which occur in this epistle, e.g. Ephesians 3:1-4. How these facts may be reconciled with the supiposition that this epistle was addressed to the Ephesians will be considered afterwards; at present the question is, How do they favor the hypothesis that this was a circular letter? Now, supposing them to be unquestionable, and admitting that they are not irreconcilable with this hypothesis, it must yet appear to all that they go very little way towards affording primary evidence in its support. It is not one which grows naturally out of these facts, or is suggested by them; it is plainly of foreign birth, and suggested for them. But when it is remembered that the first of these alleged facts is (to say the least) very doubtful; that the second is made to serve this hypothesis only by means of another as doubtful as itself, and that, were its services admitted, it would prove too much, for it would go to show that, to the Laodiceans, the apostle not only sent a peculiar epistle, mentioned Colossians 4:16, but gave them a share also in this circular epistle written some time after their own; and that;the third and fourth are both either partially or wholly questionable, it must be admitted that this hypothesis stands upon a basis which is little better than none.

(3.) Had the epistle been addressed to a particular circle of churches, some designation of these churches would have been given, by which it might have been known what churches they were to which this letter belonged. When it is argued that this must be a circular letter, because there is no church specified to which it is addressed, it seems to be forgotten that the designation of a particular set of churches is as necessary for a circular epistle as the designation of one church is for an epistle specially addressed to it. If we must leave out the words ἐν Ε᾿φέσῳ in Ephesians 1:1, what are we to put in their place? for if we take the passage as it stands without them, it will follow that the epistle was addressed to all Christians everywhere, which is more than the advocates of the hypothesis now under notice contend for. The supposition that the title was left blank is equally gratuitous, unreasonable, and unnecessary.

(4.) In Ephesians 6:21-22, Paul mentions that he had sent to those for whom this epistle was destined Tychicus, who should make known to them all things, that they might know his affairs, and that he might comfort their hearts. From this it appears that Tychicus was not only the bearer of this letter, but that he was personally to visit, converse with, and comfort those to whom it was addressed. On the supposition that this was a circular letter, this could hardly have been practicable.

3. We return, then, to the question of the genuineness of the suspected words "at Ephesus," ἐν Ε᾿φέσῳ .. At first sight the doubts against them seem plausible; but when we oppose to these

(a) the preponderating weight of diplomatic evidence for the insertion of the words,

(b) the testimony of all the versions,

(c) the universal designation of this epistle by the ancient Church (Marcion standing alone in his assertion that it was written to the Laodiceans) as an epistle to the Ephesians,

(d) the extreme difficulty in giving any satisfactory meaning to the isolated participle (τοῖς ο῏υσι, to those that are), and the absence of any parallel usage in the apostle's writings, we can scarcely feel any doubt as to the propriety of removing the brackets in which these words are enclosed in the 2d and later editions of Tischendorf, and of considering them an integral part of the original text.

If called upon to supply an answer to, or an explanation of the internal objections, we must record the opinion that none on the whole seems so free from objection as that which regards the epistle as also designed for the benefit of churches either conterminous to, or, dependent on that of Ephesus. The counter-arguments of Meyer, though ably urged, are not convincing. Nor can an appeal to the silence of writers of the ancient Church on this further destination be conceived to be of much weight, as their references are to the usual and titular designation of the epistle, but do not and are not intended to affect the question of its wider or narrower destination. It is not unnatural to suppose that the special greetings here omitted might have been separately intrusted to the bearer Tychicus, possibly himself an Ephesian, and certainly commissioned by the apostle (Ephesians 6:22) to inform the Ephesians of his state and circumstances.

III. Occasion of writing this Epistle. — It does not seem to have been called out by any special circumstances, nor even to have involved any distinctly precautionary teaching (compare Schneckenburger, Beitrage, page 135 sq.), whether against Oriental or Judaistic theosophy, but to have been suggested by the deep love which the apostle felt for his converts at Ephesus, and which the mission of Tychicus, with an epistle to the Church of Colossae, afforded him a convenient opportunity of evincing in written teaching and exhortation. The epistle thus contains many thoughts that had pervaded the nearly contemporaneous epistle to the Colossians, reiterates many of the same practical warnings and exhortations, bears even the tinge of the same diction, but at the same time enlarges upon such profound mysteries of the divine counsels, displays so fully the origin and developments of the Church in Christ, its union, communion, and aggregation in him, that this majestic epistle can never be rightly deemed otherwise than one of the most sublime and consolatory outpourings of the Spirit of God to the children of men. To the Christians at Ephesus dwelling under the shadow of the great temple of Diana, daily seeing its outward grandeur, and almost daily hearing of its pompous ritualism, the allusions in this epistle to that mystic building of which Christ was the corner-stone, the apostles the foundations, and himself and his fellow-Christians portions of the august superstructure (Ephesians 2:19-22), must have spoken with a force, an appropriateness, and a reassuring depth of teaching that cannot be overestimated.

IV. Contents. — These easily admit of being divided into two portions, the first mainly doctrinal (1-3), the second honorary and practical.

1. The doctrinal portion opens with a brief address to the saints in Ephesus, and rapidly passes into a sublime ascription of praise to God the Father, who has predestinated us to the adoption of sons, blessed and redeemed us in Christ, and made known to us his eternal purpose of uniting all in him (Ephesians 1:3-14). This not unnaturally evokes a prayer from the apostle that his converts may be enlightened to know the hope of God's calling, the riches of his grace, and the magnitude of that power which was displayed in the resurrection and transcendent exaltation of Christ-the head of his body, the Church (Ephesians 1:15-23). Then, with a more immediate address to his converts, the apostle reminds them how, dead as they had been in sin, God had quickened them, raised them, and even enthroned them with Christ; and how all was by grace, not by works (Ephesians 2:1-10). They were to remember, too, how they had once been alienated and yet were now brought nigh in the blood of Christ; how he was their Peace, how by him both they and the Jews had access to the Father, and how on him as the corner-stone they had been built into a spiritual temple to God (Ephesians 2:11-22). On this account, having heard, as they must have done, how to the apostle was revealed the profound mystery of this call of the Gentile world, they were not to faint at his troubles (Ephesians 3:1-13): nay, he prayed to the great Father of all to give them inward strength, to teach them the love of Christ, and fill them with the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:13-19). The prayer is concluded by a sublime doxology (Ephesians 3:20-21), which serves to usher in the more directly practical portion.

2. This the apostle commences by entreating them to walk worthy of this calling, and to keep the unity of the Spirit: there was but one body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one God (Ephesians 4:1-6). Each, too, had his portion of grace from God (Ephesians 4:7-10), who had appointed ministering orders in the Church, until all come to the unity of the faith, and grow up and become united with the living Head, even Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16). Surely, then, they were to walk no more as darkened, feelingless heathen; they were to put off the old man, and put on the new (Ephesians 4:17-24). This, too, was to be practically evinced in their outward actions; they were to be truthful, honest, pure, and forgiving; they were to walk in love (Ephesians 4:25-32; Ephesians 5:1-2). Fornication, covetousness, and impurity were not even to be named; they were once in heathen darkness, now they are light, and must reprove the deeds of the past (Ephesians 5:3-14). Thus were they to walk exactly, to be filled with joy, to sing, and to give thanks (Ephesians 5:15-21). Wives were to be subject to their husbands, husbands to love and cleave to their wives (Ephesians 5:23-33); children were to honor their parents, parents to bring up holily their children (Ephesians 6:1-4); servants and masters were to perform to each other their reciprocal duties (Ephesians 6:5-9). With a noble and vivid exhortation to arm themselves against their spiritual foes with the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-20), a brief notice of the coming of Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21-22), and a twofold doxology (Ephesians 6:23-24), this sublime epistle comes to its close.

V. Date. — This epistle was written during the latter part of the apostle's first imprisonment at Rome, at about the same time with that to the Colossians, A.D. 57. This appears from the following circumstances: Timothy was not yet with Paul (Ephesians 1:1); Paul was then a prisoner (Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 4:1), but had been allowed to preach (Ephesians 6:20; comp. Acts 28:30-31); Tychicus (on his first journey) carried this epistle (Ephesians 6:21; comp. Colossians 4:7-8). The question of order in time between this epistle and that to the Colossians is very difficult to adjust. On the whole, both inter. nal and external considerations seem somewhat in favor of the priority of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Comp. Neander, Planting, 1:329 (Bohn), Schleiermacher, Stud. und Krit. for 1832, page 500, and Wieseler, Chronol. page 450 sq. (See COLOSSIANS (EPISTLE TO).)

VI. Commentaries, etc. — The following is a full list of separate exegetical helps on this epistle, the more important having an asterisk (*) prefixed: Victorinus, In ep. ad Ephes. (in Mai's Script. Vet. III, 1:87); Jerome, Commentarii (in Opp. 7:537; also in Opp. Suppos. 11:995); Chrysostom, Homilice (in Opp. 11:1; Bibl. Patr. 9); Claudius Taurinensis, Expositio (in Mabillon, Vet. Anal. 91); *Calvin, Commentarii (in Opp.; also tr. into English, Lond. 1854, 8vo); also Sermons (tr. by Golding, Lond. 1577, 4to); Ridley, Commentary (in Richmond's Fathers, 2:14); Megander, Commentarius (Basil. 1534, 8vo); Sarcer, Adnotationes (Frckf. 1541, 8vo); Major, Enarratio (Wittemb. 1552, 8vo); Nailant, Enarrationes (Ven. 1554; Lond. 1570, 8vo); Weller, Commentaries (Norimb. 1559, 8vo); Vellerus, Enarrationes (Nuremb. 1559, 8vo); Bucer, Praelectiones (Basil. 1562, fol.); Musculus, Commentariis (Basil. 1569, fol.); Heminge, Commentary (Lond. 1581,. 4to); Binemann, Expositio (Lond. 1581, 4to); Anon., Exposition (Lond. 1581, 4to); Stewart, Commentarius, (Ingolst. 1593, 4to); Rollock, Commentarius (Edinb. 1590, 4to; Genesis 1593, 8vo); Zanchius, Commentaria: (Newstad. 1594, fol.); Weinrich, Explicatio (Lips. 1613, 4to); Battus, Commentarii (Rost. 1620, 4to); De Quiros, Commentarius (Hisp. 1622, fol.; Lugd. 1623, 4to); Meeleuhrer, Commentarius (Norimb. 1628, 4to); Hanneken, Explicatio (4to, Marp. 1631; Lips., 1718; Jen. 1731); Tarnovius, Commentarius (Rost. 1636, 4to); Cocceius, Commentarius (in Opp. 5); Althofer, Animadversiones (Alt. 1641, 4to); Crocius, Commentarius (Cassel, 1642, 8vo); Bayne, Commentary (Lond. 1643, fol.); Wandalin, ParapIrasis (Slesw. 1650, 8vo), Boyd, Praelectiones (fol., London, 1652; Genesis 1660); Anon., Annotationes (8vo, Cambr. 1653; Amst. 1703; also in tihe Critici Sacri); Ferguson, Exposition (Edir b. 1659, 8vo); Crell, Commentarius (in Opp. 1:4); Lagus, Commentatio (Gryph. 1664, 4to); Schmidt, Paraphrasis (Arg. 1684, 1699, 4to); Du Bosc, Sermons (Fr., Rotterd. 1699, 3 volumes, 8vo); Goodwin, Exposition (Strasb. 1699, 4to); Spener, Erklar. (Hal. 1706, 1730, 4to); Gerbaden, Geopent Door (Tr. ad Rh. 1707, 4to); Pfeffinger, Dissertationes (Arg. 1711, 8vo); also, De visitatione Pauli ap. Ephesios (Arg. 1721, 4to); Roll, Commentarius (Tr. ad Rh. 1715, 1731, 2 volumes, 4to); Hazevoet, Verklaar. (L.B. 1718, 4to); *Dinant, Commentalrii (Rotterd. 1721, 4to; also in Low Dutch, ib., 1711, 1722, 2 volumes, 4to); Van Til, Commentarius (Amsterd. 1726, 4to); Fend, Erlaut. (s. 1. 1727, 4to); Ziegler, Einleit. (in Henke's Magaz. 4:225); Crusius, De statu Ephesinorum (Hafn. 1733, 4to); Gude, Erleut. (Laub. 1735, 8vo); also, De eccl. Ephesians statu (Lips. 1732, 8vo); Royaards, Verklaar. (Amst. 1735, 3 volumes, 4to); Van Alphen, Specimen (Tr. ad Rh. 1742, 4to); Huth, Ep. ex Laod. in encycl. ad Ephesians (Erlang. 1751, 4to); Justi; Br. a. Laod. d. Br. an d. Ephesians (in his Verm. Abhandl. page 81); Pezold, De sublimitate in ep. ad Ephesians (Lips. 1771, 4to); Moldenhauer, Uebers. (Hamb. 1773, 8vo); Chandler, Paraphrase (London, 1777, 4to); Schitze,. Commentarii (8vo, Lips. 1778, 1785); Cramer, Ausleg. (Hamb. 1782, 4to); Esmarch, Uebers. (Alton. 1785, 8vo); Krause, Anmerk. (Frkf. 1789, 8vo); Brinkman, Uebers. (Hamb. 1793, 8vo); Muller, Erklar. (Hdlb. 1793, 4to); Morus, Acroases (Lips. 1795, 8vo); Hanlein, De lectorib. ep. ad Ep. (Erl. 1797, 4to); Popp, Erklar. (Rost. 1799, 4to); Van Bemmlen, Epp. ad Ephesians et Colossians collatce (L.B. 1803, 8vo); Schneckenburger, Aphorismen d. Br. a. d. Ephesians (in his Einl. ins N.T. No. 13); Von Flatt Vorles. (Tub. 1828, 8vo); Holzhausen, Erklar. (Hanov. 1833, 8vo); Simcoe, Illustration (Lond. 1833, 4to); *Meier, Commentar (Berl. 1834, 8vo); *Harless, Commentar (8vo, Erl. 1834; Stuttg. 1858); *Ruckert, Erklar. (Lpz. 1834, 8vo); Matthies, Berucks. (Griefsw. 1834, 8vo); Lohlein, Syrus interpres (Erl. 1835, 8vo); Passavant, Ausleg. (Basel, 1836, 8vo); Lunemann, De ep. ad Ephesians authentia (Gott. 1842, 8vo); *De Wette, Handb. (Lpz. 1843, 8vo, volume 2); *Stier, Auslegung (Berl. 1848- 9, 2 volumes, in 3 parts, 8vo; abridged, 1859, 8vo); Perceval, Lectures (Lond. 1846, 12mo); M'Ghie, Lectures (Dublin, 1846, 2 volumes, 8vo); *Baumgarten-Crusius, Commentar (Jena, 1847, 8vo); *Meyer, Commentar (Gott. 1853, part 2); *Eadie, Commentary (Glasg. 1854, 8vo); Bisping, Erkldr. (Munst. 1855, 8vo); Kahler, Predigten (Kiel, 1855, 8vo); Hodge, Commentary (N.Y. 1856, 8vo); *Turner, Commentary (N.Y. 1856, 8vo); *Ellicott, Commentary (8vo, Lond. 1855, 1859, 1864; Andov. 1860); Neuland, New Catena (Lond. 1861, 8vo); Clergymen (4), Revision (Lond. 1861, 8vo); Pridhamr, Notes (Lond. 1862, 12mo); Lathrop, Discourses (Phila. 1864, 8vo); Bleek, Vorlesungen (Berl. 1865, 8vo). (See EPISTLES).

Bibliography Information
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Ephesians, Epistle to'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/e/ephesians-epistle-to.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.

Bible Encyclopedias Ephesians, Epistle to

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Bible Encyclopedias
Ephesians, Epistle to