Ephesians 6:19–20: A Mystery For The Sake Of Which The Apostle Is An Ambassador In Chains

By Gene R. Smillie

[Gene R. Smillie is a candidate for the Ph.D. in Theological Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.]

I. Introduction

Most people in ministry feel from time to time that their effectiveness is inhibited by circumstances. Sometimes the situation is so binding and constrictive that we almost feel as though we are wrapped up in chains. What God is doing often remains mysterious and hidden from our eyes and understanding. For those in such conditions, the short prayer request in Eph 6:19–20 written by the apostle Paul—who actually was, at the time, literally bound in chains—may provide insight into the mysteries of God’s providence.

What is certain is that the apostle would wish his readers fully to grasp what is the mystery of the gospel that he preaches. Yet the very term mystery (μυστήριον) implies that such understanding is not easily attained. Paul’s use of the word μυστήριον can itself be “mysterious.” But his unveiling of the mystery of the gospel seems to reach a kind of climax in Ephesians. There he employs the term six times, clearly explaining the socio-cultural implications of the gospel which he preaches along the way.

Then he culminates the argument of Ephesians in 6:19–20 with a significant final usage of μυστήριον which, when understood, should be an encouragement to those who feel their ministries restricted by “chains” of circumstances.

II. Preliminary Overview

In Eph 6:19–20 Paul alludes to his desire to make the mystery of the gospel known in the public arena and enlists the recipients of the letter to pray that he may do so boldly, freely, and clearly[1] when the occasion comes.

The strongest indications of what he means in this, Paul’s concluding reference to μυστήριον in the epistle, are provided in his references to μυστήριον earlier in Ephesians, particularly in chap. 3. Examining parallels outside Ephesians, particularly the nearly identical terms and constructs in Colossians (whose syntactical overlap with Ephesians approaches fifty percent), profiles what is common between the two letters and what is peculiar to Ephesians 6.

In addition, though often overlooked, the slightly enigmatic dependent clause that follows immediately in Eph 6:20, ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει (“for which I am an ambassador in chain[s]”)may also illuminate Paul’s use of μυστήριον at 6:19. If we grasp why Paul is in chains—plainly under official arrest—we may better understand the mystery itself. For the antecedent of οὗ in 6:20 is either μυστήριον, or εὐαγγελίου,[2] or the whole syntagme γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, which amounts to the same thing.

What is unique, then, about this occurrence of μυστήριον is that Paul says he is in chains because of—or, for the sake of—his open and public proclamation of it.

Identifying what “mysterious” message would cause imprisonment in the mid-sixties of the first century, and why Paul eagerly seeks to proclaim it publicly, involves considering μυστήριον in its socio-political context.[3]

Paul asks for intercessory prayer that he might be given “a choice word” and boldness to speak it out clearly:[4] ἐν παρρησίᾳ γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον (“to make known the mystery”). The question of what Paul is alluding to in vv. 19–20 will also occupy us: is this a general request that Paul is making for boldness and perspicuity at any and all opportunities he may have for sharing the gospel? Or does he have a particular occasion in mind when he anticipates proclaiming this mystery of the gospel?

At the very minimum, we recognize that 6:19–20 has in view public proclamation. Moreover, several clues in the text, and from NT history, hint that what Paul may be referring to here is an anticipated opportunity to address a powerful and distinguished audience. Unless he deliberately exaggerates his own significance with a metaphorical use of the heavily-freighted term πρεσβεύω, Paul sees himself as an ambassador of one realm sent to bring a message to the viceroy of another. Traditionally, scholars have postulated that the boldness and clarity, the special “word” or utterance which he seeks to receive through the prayers of his fellow Christians, the recipients of the letter, is towards the end of freely and clearly making the μυστήριον known to no less a figure than the Emperor of the civilized world of his day, or a deputy legate of his court.

The scope of this suggestion must be delimited: ongoing dispute over the provenance of Ephesians resists pretensions of historical exactitude. Evidence is insufficient to reconstruct the particular situation of the author.[5] But if we examine the text and what is known of the middle decades of the first century, and propose a historically-consequent interpretation, this may be evaluated for plausibility, if not for certitude.

If in this text Paul envisions “making the mystery known” (γνωρίσαι) not only to Gentile converts (as he has clearly spelled it out in chaps. 1–3) but more broadly, to those outside the Christian community—specifically to the official powers of the society, the state—Paul would be expanding the purview of the term. It would move the sphere of γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον considerably beyond the Qumran-like atmosphere of 1 Corinthians 2, where those who are privileged to understand the wisdom of God revealed in his mystery seem to be differentiated from those who are not.[6]

In that text, in the context of differentiating the “wisdom of this age” from the “wisdom of God,” Paul particularly mentions τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (“the rulers of this age”), who crucified the Lord, as examples of those who did not know "the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery” (θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην; 1 Cor 2:7–8). In contrast with that, in Ephesians, already in 3:10, Paul declares that ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ (“the manifold wisdom of God”) is now manifested, through his own preaching, to rulers:ἵνα γνωρισθῆ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας (“in order that he might now make [it] known to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenlies, through the church”), an expression that complements and explicatesφωτίσαι [πάντας]τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου (“to make clear what is the stewardship of the mystery”) in the preceding clause (3:9).[7]

From this broad theoretical base he then seems to focus, in 6:18–20, on a more particular application: public proclamation of “the mystery of the gospel.” Demonstration of this, however, will depend on inferential analysis of the flow of the discourse in which Eph 6:18–20 plays a part, and of the cumulative effect of several expressions in either Ephesians 6 or Colossians 4, or both.

III. The Context And Structure In Which Eph 6:19–20 Is Embedded

Nearly all commentators include 6:19–20 within 6:10–20 as a block. The remark is often made that there is no break in the syntax that develops from 6:10 through 6:20. Some, though not all, even see the prayer commanded or requested in 6:18–20 as a seventh weapon, filling out the πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (“the full armor of God”) discussed from v. 11 on.[8] While of only minor interest to our subject, this is relevant to the question of continuity.

The unique “full armor of God” material in Eph 6:10–17 appears to break the parallelism between Colossians and Ephesians, since it intrudes between the masters-slaves item in the Haustafeln and the prayer request. But this may not, after all, be so far as it seems from the structure of Colossians, if one but looks at both texts from a slight distance. The apparent interlude of Eph 6:10–17, when seen in context of the structure of the rest of Ephesians, is not parenthetical but represents a similar sequence of thoughts to that in Colossians. Both in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 the commands to persevere in prayer, particularly for Paul to be able freely to relate the μυστήριον, follow directly upon the Haustafeln, ending the paraenetic section of each letter with an address to the whole congregation, after having instructed individual classes of people on their respective duties.[9] Immediately following Paul’s request in Col 4:4 that he be able to speak the mystery “as it is necessary for me to speak” (identical with Eph 6:20b), Paul turns to how to treat τοὺς ἔξω, “those of the outside,” i.e., unbelievers, in Col 4:5–6. Though this material is not repeated in Ephesians 6 after v. 20, v. 10 begins τοῦ λοιποῦ. While this is invariably translated “finally”—and Paul does sometimes use this expression to signal “in conclusion” or “furthermore”—he also uses οἱ λοίποι at Phil 1:13; Rom 11:7; 1 Thess 4:13, 5:6; and Eph 2:3 in a different way: to refer to “the rest” or “the others,” i.e., unbelievers outside the covenant community. In other words, the adjective λοιπός, when substantival, can function as synonymous with οἱ ἔξω (cf. Col 4:5–6) and in fact does so in the only other use of this word in Ephesians, at 2:3: “Among them [the sons of disobedience] we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh … and were by nature children of wrath just like the others [ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί].” If τοῦ λοίπου is considered a neuter collective noun, it also would mean “for the rest,” or “for the others,” at 6:10. So Eph 6:10–20 might start, “As for the others,” meaning “In regard to how to deal with those outside the household of faith,” a natural sequence to the Haustafeln structure that this verse follows. This seems borne out by Eph 6:12, which otherwise appears out of thin air and has no obvious antecedent or introduction.

But even apart from the admittedly ambiguous expression τοῦ λοίπου, a certain continuity may be observed in discourse analysis between Eph 6:10–17 and what preceded it: Paul in both Colossians and Ephesians has been going down the typical Haustafeln list working outwards, from the most intimate relations, those of husbands and wives, out through children, to slaves, to masters. The next expected category in this sequence would be “those outside the household,” οἱ ἔξω or οἱ λοίποι, or else “authorities and kings” (as in 1 Peter). The content of 6:10–17 is indeed instruction on how to deal with “those outside the household of faith,” specifically, the powers of the world, whether they be spiritual or social. The sequence is reminiscent of Eph 3:10 and 4:17–20, both of which also follow descriptions of “life on the inside” of the community with contrasting allusions to those “outside.” So, in both Colossians and Ephesians the insertion of the request for prayer in anticipation of public dealings with “outsiders” would fit into the normal pattern of Haustafeln structure.

When the author takes up the subject of “outsiders” at 6:10–17, however, it is not the typical “submission” theme of Haustafeln that emerges but that of conflict and resistance. So urgently pressing is the author’s own personal case that he launches the commands to persevere in prayer for boldness to speak the message, commands that are bolstered by the augmented “prepare-for-spiritual-battle” material of Eph 6:10–17. Rather than a section that suddenly interrupts the flow, then, Paul’s request for παρρησία to [publicly] proclaim the μυστήριον in 6:18–20 is rather an extension of the conflict material. Going into combat for the gospel, Paul seeks support.

The “full armor of God” material immediately preceding Paul’s expression of desire to make known the mystery of the gospel, paired with Paul’s plea to make the most of opportunities to speak graciously and effectively[10] “to those outside” in Col 4:5–6 (which immediately follows an expression of his desire to speak the mystery of Christ clearly and boldly), suggests that in both these paragraphs at the end of Ephesians and Colossians “outsiders” are the presumed recipients of the envisioned speech.[11]

The atmosphere of the letters is substantially different. Colossians betrays no apprehensions about the encounter; rather, the request that God “open for us a door for the Word,” echoes similar expressions where Paul optimistically anticipated or reported opportunities to preach the gospel.[12] And the request is also congruent with the positive expectation implied in Col 4:5–6. In Ephesians, however, the long introductory remarks about fighting “the world forces of this darkness, spiritual [forces] of wickedness” (6:12), the altered syntax with “open” (ἀνοίγω) and “word” (λόγος),[13] and the introduction of a twice-repeated request for παρρησία combine to give Eph 6:19–20 a much more ominous atmosphere, or at least to increase the gravity of the situation presumed in the prayer request.

Paul’s claim that, “The struggle for us[14] is not with blood and flesh but rather with [the powers … ]” (Eph 6:12), is another hint about the Sitz im Leben of the author. If ἡμῖν (“us”) is indeed original, it increases the likelihood that Paul’s own situation—to be brought to the fore at vv. 19–20—is his more pressing concern. But he suppresses it for the moment in favor of the wider teaching principles, before giving his own special request for intercessory prayer for his upcoming interview, that he might be bold and speak “as it is necessary for me to speak.” Presumably he does this as a model of the courage and perseverance needed, “when having done all things,” believers must take their “stand.”

IV. Authorities, Powers, And World Forces Of Darkness

Verse 12 begins in a peculiar way: “it is not against flesh and blood that we have our struggle.” The abrupt way in which the negative corollary of 6:12 is stated, without introduction of who the parties might be that are represented in the “flesh and blood” category, implies that some situation lies behind 6:12–20 that Paul assumes his readers are disposed to thinking about in a way he feels compelled to correct. They evidently are regarding some struggle known both to themselves and to Paul as between the Christian (Paul?) and some other human being(s). Paul corrects this, telling them, no, our battle is not against them, but against other forces.

The “principalities,” “authorities,” “cosmic rulers of darkness,” and “evil spiritual beings in the heavenlies” may be spiritual beings,[15] or they may include human beings and social structures. The question is too large to resolve in this paper, but it does influence the interpretation of 6:19–20. Berkhof, Wink, and Yoder favor “mostly social, or structural, or political powers” as Paul’s normal referents for τᾶς ἀρχᾶς καὶ τᾶς ἐξουσίας andτοὺς κοσμοκράτορας, while Arnold, Stott, and O’Brien line up on the purely spiritual side, and Mouw, Green, Barth [and later Caird] affirm that both socio-political and spiritual forces are in view.[16]

The sharp division of opinion may arise from some interpreters’ tendency to treat the entire pericope Eph 6:10–20 as an almost docetic spiritualization of the cosmic conflict. This occurs because we are looking at the text from this side of the issue: we understand what the original readers apparently did not understand at first. They apparently thought “our struggle is with flesh-and-blood human beings,” or else Paul would not have felt the need to correct their mistaken apprehension.

But interpreters often ignore that 6:12 is a corrective, and apply the more familiar spiritual lessons of 6:11–17, forgetting that for the original readers the more obvious danger lay in the realm of the human political/social sphere. Those who line up on the purely spiritual side of the interpretation are not to be faulted as disciples—but as interpreters they miss the obvious. If we hear a father at the zoo say to his son, “No, that’s not a camel,” we may reasonably assume that the child has just mistaken something for a camel. When Paul says “it is not against flesh and blood that we have our struggle,” we may reasonably assume that at least some of Paul’s readers did think that the major conflict in the near future was against “flesh and blood.” The language of the verse offers a major clue to the historical particularity of the text. So, while acknowledging the plain meaning of the text—that we really are in a battle against the devil (v. 11), spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenlies (v. 12), the evil one (v. 16)—one must also try to discern what the original readers, to whom Paul is offering all this as a corrective, mistakenly thought, in order to situate the text historically.

If Paul had to disrupt their initial thought about those with whom they (note the second person plural verbs in vv. 10–19) had difficulties, we must at least consider Wink’s opinion that “Paul seems to have launched the phrase ἀρχὰι καὶ ἐξουσίαι on its peculiarly Christian voyage as denoting spiritual entities.”[17] Wink comes to this view after investigating the LXX and telling us that ἀρχή, which means merely “a position of authority,” can be a human incumbent, that ἀρχών, apart from Daniel, is used exclusively with reference to humans, and that ἐξουσίαι, like ἀρχή, is never used for “angels, demons, or spiritual powers” in the LXX, Philo, or Josephus.[18] However, even if Paul were, as Wink suggests, the innovator who “launched these terms on their peculiarly Christian voyage,” this would not exclude the possibility that the concept was already there, as Yates, following Caird, argues (see below).

The powers referred to by so many different terms throughout Ephesians are most often treated as primarily spiritual entities in popular interpretation of the Bible. But it is likely that in the pressing historical context of the writing of Ephesians Paul had at least some interest in the earthly, political manifestations which these powers sometimes take, and considered them, at least in part, as “the powers behind the throne.” Caragounis’s remark about Eph 6:20 and 3:1, that “the author suspects that behind his earthly persecutors lie the πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας with their malevolent designs,”[19] seems the very minimum one can say, no matter which side of the fleshly-spiritual continuum one comes down on. He argues for theological and terminological influence of Daniel on Ephesians, and thinks therefore that the author of Ephesians assumes spiritual “powers” are behind human political structures and/or individuals—just as Christ is “behind” the visible human corporate body called the church.[20] The latter model is quite clear in Eph 1:22–4:16; the former is not spelled out, but may be an implicit understanding between author and readers in expressions like those in 6:12.

MacGregor also interprets the language of Ephesians in terms of spiritual beings “behind” earthly forces. With reference to 1 Corinthians 2, he affirms that in the thought of Paul,

Behind Caiphas, Pilate, and Herod stand invisible powers, infinitely more dangerous, of whom the visible human “rulers” are the mere agents. By “rulers of this world” the Apostle appears to mean both the cosmic “principalities and powers” and also their actual human executives.[21]

Yates (citing G. B. Caird’s Principalities and Powers) posits that the angels of the nations, the hosts of heaven, and the sons of God (Hebrew ideas) melded with Greek notions to produce something like a nascent gnosticism, which he traces all the way back through Philo into the LXX. These cosmic influences bring pressure to bear on individuals “by the various social, religious, and political collectives in which his life is involved, with particular emphasis on the political life of man.”[22] This “pressure” may actually lead to a blending where the spiritual and the human/social are indistinguishable. For Markus Barth, the “principalities and powers,” or “governments and authorities,” of Eph 6:12 “are at the same time intangible spiritual entities and concrete historical, social, and psychic structures or institutions of all created things and all created life.”[23] Barth strenuously argues for the social dimensions of the “powers” in Ephesians 6, based on his interpretation of Ephesians as quintessentially a theology of man’s social essence. With this view, it would be unnatural to posit the cosmic conflict as taking place primarily between two unlike orders of existence, fleshly beings and spirit beings.

Beyond these “pressures” and “at one and the same time” dualities, it is possible to depict the spiritual influences on human social and political life as even more solidly manipulative and coercive. Schlier does so, affirming that the spiritual powers “can occupy human body, spirit, what we call ‘nature,’ even the forms, bearers, and situations of history.”[24] They conceal themselves in operation through people and institutions; they imbue whatever they occupy (idols, the totalitarian state, etc.) with their own created interpretation, viz., they make everything seem subject to death.[25] It is with reference to these spiritual forces that Paul “urged the church to pray unceasingly [in Eph 6:18] as part of the struggle against the principalities.”[26] Paul’s admonition draws the attention of the Ephesian readers away from the human institutions about which they are apprehensive (perhaps in his behalf, as we shall see below) to the spiritual powers behind the human political powers.

To what particular struggle (πάλη[27]), then, does he refer here in Eph 6:12–20?

V. The Historical Particularity of Eph 6:12–20

The imperatives to put on the spiritual armor listed in Eph 6:10–17 are applied regularly, and validly, to the daily struggle with evil common to all believers. Yet the expression “in the evil day” (v. 13) focuses upon a more particular sinister moment in time,[28] or at least upon a proverbial “evil day,” a moment when the onslaught of the devil threatens utterly to undo the Christian. The exhortations in 6:18 to stay awake and persevere in intercessory prayer for all fellow Christians flow grammatically directly from the preceding warfare verses, and they are of equal urgency and severity with the repeated injunctions to “stand” found there. The writer speaks to every generation in both the exhortations to “stand and fight” (6:10–17) and those which command believers to persevere in interceding for their fellow-warriors in combat (6:18–20).

But the historical concreteness of this part of the letter that emerges with Paul’s request, “And [pray] especially for me,” followed by two specific content-ladenἵνα (“in order that”) clauses, is not only crucial to understanding the terms of 6:19–20, but also may shed light on “our struggle” in 6:12.

Following directly upon his exhortation to persevere in prayer περὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων (“for all the saints”), Paul adds καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ (“and for me,” cf. Col. 4:3, καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν[29]). Salmond is probably right that καί here has adjunctive force, “and pray particularly for me” (Ellicott cites Winer for this special use of καί).[30] Why did Paul need prayer at this moment? Why was he in chains for preaching the mystery of the gospel, the mystery of Jewish/Gentile unity made known clearly in Ephesians? If Luke is to be believed, it was not for violating Roman law. Paul was acquitted by officials each time he was accused—in Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, etc. The words exchanged between Agrippa and Festus in Acts 26:31–32 encapsulate Luke’s presentation of the official Roman government’s point of view: “This man is not doing anything worthy of death orimprisonment… [had] he not appealed to Caesar he would have been released” (cf. Acts 28:18). It was, rather, the Jews who seemed to grasp earlier than Paul’s followers what the ramifications were of the gospel mystery which Paul preached: the so-called “third race,” the Christian Gentiles, “by their very existence put Judaism on the defensive; for, if their position was justified, it was hard to see what right Judaism had to be… the unique privileges of Israel were void.”[31] This led directly to Jewish hostility and attacks, riling up the pagans against the apostles where they could, accusing them before Rome, etc.

So now Paul prepares for a spiritual struggle, in which his weapon is “the Word of God” (ῥῆμα θεοῦ, v. 17). Paul’s special case here serves, as his experience often does, as a prototype for his readers.[32] The original circumstances of “our struggle” afford him the opportunity to validate his exhortation: literally, to practice what he preaches.

VI. A Synoptic Comparison of Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 in Their Respective Contexts

EPHESIANS

COLOSSIANS

5:21–6:9 (Haustafeln) Wives, husbands, children, fathers slaves, masters 6:10–17 “For the rest, be strong in the Lord, put on the whole armor of God: Stand!” 6:18διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρυπνοῦντες ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει καὶ δεήσει περὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων 6:19 καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου ἐν παρρησίᾳ γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 6:20 ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παρρησιάσωμαι ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. 6:21–22 I’m sending you Tychicus to let you know all about us.

3:18–4:1 (Haustafeln) Wives, husbands, children, fathers slaves, masters 4:2Τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτερεῖτε, γρηγοροῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, 4:3 προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι, 4:4ἵνα φανερώσω αὐτὸ ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. 4:5–6 Be wise & gracious towards outsiders, 4:7–8 I’m sending you Tychicus to let you know all babout us.

Three unique expressions stand out from a comparison of Eph 6:19–20 with Col 4:3–4.[33] Each suggests circumstances of the writing, and all, taken cumulatively, shed light on the historical situation in which the mystery was about to be proclaimed publicly.

First, the syntax of ἀνοίγω (“open”) and λόγος (“word”) is altered. In Col 4:3, Paul asks that God may “open a door for us [or, by means of us, if instrumental dative] for the Word.” But in Eph 6:19, he asks that “a word [or, free utterance] may be given me in the opening of my mouth” [or, “when I open my mouth to speak”]. Second, the word πρεσβεύω “for which I am an ambassador in chain,” appears in Ephesians,” with no counterpart in Col 4:3 (which has simply “for which I am bound”). Third, Paul introduces both παρρησία (“boldness”) and its verbal form παρρησιάσωμαι, with their broad range of meanings, to the Ephesian pericope.

Aquinas (reported in Barth) and Bruce perceive the Ephesians language μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου (“a word might be given to me in the opening of my mouth”) to be equivalent to the ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου (“open a door for us for the Word”) of Colossians, though Bruce sees the expression “an open door” (cf. 1 Cor 16:9, 2 Cor 2:12) to be the more common NT expression for opportunity.[34] Salmond thinks ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου may be simply another way to say “with liberty” or “boldly,” if one takes the following words ἐν παρρησία as epexegetic.[35]

But Ellicott rightly notices that ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματος in the Bible “nearly always appears to specify the solemnity of the act and the occasion,” e.g., Job 3:1, Matt 5:2, Acts 8:35, 18:14.[36] The latter two examples introduce, respectively, the proclamation of the gospel to an Ethiopian court official and Paul’s (aborted) defense before a Roman official on the occasion of an official Jewish complaint against him.

The self-designation of Paul as an “ambassador” for the mystery of the gospel seems to be a development since the penning of Colossians,[37] pointing (perhaps) towards an apparent imminent interview with the empirical court. But the lofty term is tied ironically to ἐν ἁλύσει, “in chain.” For Bockmuehl the chains of Paul’s bondage are more than circumstantial. Following, but correcting, an inherent connection between φανερόω (“make manifest”) and Paul’s bonds observed first by Chrysostom and then developed by Abbott and Von Soden, Bockmuel shows that in Phil 1:7, 12f; Phlm 9, 13; Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:9; and Acts 28:20 the “symbolic demonstrative function of his chains has been recognized.”[38] One might say Paul considered his chains to be his credentials as an ambassador. They testify in some symbolic way to his calling, actually serving as validation of the message of the gospel, opening the door, so to speak, for him to speak boldly, and thus demonstrating it (hence the connection with φανερόω).[39] The actual words φανερώσω αὐτό, of Col 4:3, “that I might demonstrate it as I ought to speak,” is exchanged for ἐν αὐτῷ παρρησιάσωμαι, “in it[40] I might speak freely, as I ought to speak,” in Eph 6:20. In both texts the bonds are clearly in the forefront of Paul’s associative language.

Though Paul claims to be a prisoner in both the Colossian and the Ephesian passages, in Eph 6:19 he refers to himself as an ambassador in chain. Acts 28:20, a text which has both the same unusual singular “chain” and a causal explanation (like ὑπερ οὕ of our present text), may supply both the reason he is imprisoned—which Eph 6:20 ties directly together with μυστήριον—and reasonable material for conjecture about the Sitz im Leben of Ephesians: ἕνεκεν γὰρ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι, “it is because of the hope of Israel that I wear this chain.” Cf. Paul’s words to Agrippa, Acts 26:6, “I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers.” Paul recognizes a direct connection between his chains and “the hope of Israel.”

Yet in Ephesians itself he has called himself δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [᾿Ιησοῦ]ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν, “Christ’s prisoner because of you Gentiles” (3:1). Is this a contradiction? No, for when he tells the Gentile converts “therefore” not to be discouraged by his afflictions which are “on your behalf” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), Eph 3:13, the διό (“therefore”) has as its antecedent the clear explanation of Paul’s μυστήριον that falls between these two verses. These two key verses, and the explanation they enclose, are also the definitive antecedent that explains μυστήριον in 6:19–20. Succinctly, in 3:6 “by means of the gospel the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, fellow-members of the Body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Messiah Jesus” (εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου).

So there is no contradiction. The mystery of the gospel that Paul preaches is that God has fulfilled the promise made to the Hebrew fathers; and Gentiles are included in that promise. They are now in fact “fellow-citizens of the holy ones and members of the household of God” (συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ [Eph 2:19]).

VII. The Mystery of the Gospel as the Reason for Paul’s Imprisonment

In Eph 6:20 (and Col 4:3) Paul understands that it is precisely because of, or, for the sake of (ὑπὲρ οὗ in Ephesians; δι᾿ ὅ in Colossians) his open declaration of this mystery that he is in chains. This understanding surpasses that of his readers, both original and modern, in that the natural response to such circumstances would be to feel self-pity and resentment and to seek to be released, none of which is present in his writing. On the contrary, Paul actually revels in this mission, calling it “a gift of God’s grace” for him (Eph 3:7) and “glory for you” (3:13–14). This is because, rather than considering the chains to be onerous, Paul recognizes that “my circumstances have turned out for the better progress of the gospel,” to borrow his language from another letter (Phil 1:12). What he would have little hope of ever achieving otherwise, he can do as an accused prisoner: Paul will soon be able to address the Emperor of the entire civilized world with his special message. He is truly an ambassador in chains.

In other words, ὑπὲρ οὗ is not an expression of chagrin, but of eagerness. It looks joyfully forward, not ruefully backward, to public proclamation of the “mystery.” Paul is in custody for “the mystery of Christ.”[41] As a “steward of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1) he now has a special task: to proclaim the mysteries to those who are ἔξω;[42] specifically, he is in chains for the opportunity to preach to Nero’s court. The apostle therefore seeks the prayer support of his readers, that he might be given the right word(s) with which to make this mystery of the gospel known, so that he might do it boldly and clearly, speaking in a manner appropriate to the circumstances.

Τοῦ εὐαγγελιοῦ[43] is probably subjective genitive: “the gospel announcing the mystery.” Noting the difference between Eph 6:19 and Col 4:3 to be between “mystery of the gospel” and “mystery of Christ,” in syntagmes which are nearly parallel otherwise, Brown calls them “only different aspects of the same basic reality.” He cites Deden favorably, to the effect that in a way the gospel itself is interchangeable with the mystery:[44] “The mystery in itself signifies the hidden nature of the divine plan; the gospel is the external manifestation of that plan to the people affected by it.”[45] Colossians and Ephesians reveal that this gospel is for everyone. “That which was hidden, but is now revealed openly, is also to be proclaimed openly.”[46]

Paul recognizes that proclamation, in the august presence of the Emperor, of a message of such cosmic proportions as that which is encapsulated under the expression “mystery” in Ephesians and Colossians, will require παρρησία. So he asks for it. But commentators are divided over whether Paul signifies “boldness” or “clarity” in his double use of παρρησία here in Eph 6:19–20. A strong case may be made for both meanings. Παρρησία originally meant “the freedom to say everything” in the public arena of Greek democratic society. Through the inherent courage needed to speak openly in public, the concepts of “boldness” and “audacity” came to be associated with it.[47] Yet van Unnik has demonstrated that it is often paired as an antonym of “obscurely,” or “enigmatically,” and lists many examples where the correct translation in English would be “plainly” or “clearly” or, in certain contexts, “openly” or “publicly.”[48] This is clearly the sense in many NT contexts; yet the occurrences of παρρησία in Acts are invariably associated with Jewish resistance to Paul, in the face of which he shows boldness in continuing the proclamation despite fierce opposition and danger to his life (e.g., 9:27, 28–29; 13:46; 19:8; 26:26).[49]

Perhaps the noun “freedom” and adverb “freely” might approximate in English the polyvalence of παρρησία in Greek, capturing the range of meaning on the continuum between “boldness” and “clarity.”[50] Thus, to say that Paul is seeking to be able to “speak freely,” to “make known freely the mystery of the gospel,” includes both meanings. An expert knowledgeable or conversant in his field (μυστήριον) can express himself and his material freely; one accused before the supreme tribunal of Rome feels the need to be able to defend himself and his gospel freely.

The παρρησία which Paul seeks for himself in Eph 6:19–20 is a bold freedom in his speech that is especially pertinent and necessary if he is about to represent the gospel at the imperial tribune.[51] Three factors push the significance of παρρησία in this context towards the clarity side of the continuum. 1) The record of Paul’s audacity before governing officials: he often had to be held back by his cronies from diving in to situations where prudence was the better part of valor.

There is little reason to suspect that his well-known courage was failing him now. 2) The identical expression ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι, literally “as I ought to speak,” follows both ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παρρησιάσωμαι in Eph 6:20 and ἵνα φανερώσω αὐτό in Col 4:4 (which is translated “that I might make it clear” or the like in NKJ, NRS, NAS, RSV, Phillips, NEB, Jerusalem, TEV, and NIV). The opinion of many commentators is that ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι in both Ephesians and Colossians refers more to the manner of speaking than to its cause or necessity.[52] 3) This latter expression ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι is followed immediately by ἐν σοφίᾳ (“in wisdom,” “wisely”) and instruction about how to speak effectively and winsomely to outsiders in Col 4:5–6 (though not in Eph 6:21–22). While ἐν σοφίᾳ and the rest of that discourse admittedly apply to the readers, the fact that ἐν σοφίᾳ follows directly upon “as I ought to speak” suggests a continuity of thought between the two subjects. What Paul counseled the Colossians to cultivate—the ability to speak effectively to outsiders—was the very thing he knew he needed as he contemplated his appearance at the Imperial court.

Does the resemblance of the language of Paul’s request in Eph 6:19–20 (ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος … ἵ̔να ἐν αὐτῷ … λαλῆσαι) to Jesus’ promise in Matt 10:19–20 to those he sent on mission (that when they are called into court on behalf of the gospelδοθήσεται ὑμῖν τί λαλήσητε) indicate that Paul was at this moment unsure of what he ought to say? To put it another way: was the “mystery of the gospel” still somewhat a mystery to Paul himself? Or, related closely with this, does the similarity of this language (δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου) with that of Jer 1:9 or Ezekiel 2 and 3 imply that he was requesting that a particular supernatural utterance be placed in his mouth? The language of the Mission Discourse at Matt 10:20, “It will not be you, but the Spirit of the Father who speaks in you,” seems to imply no forethought or real personal expression on the part of the disciple: is this what Paul is requesting?

It does not seem so. Paul has already expressed assurance of his own prior understanding of the mystery (Eph 1:9, 17–23; 3:3–10); so it would be incongruous to interpret 6:19 as if he were puzzled, stymied, and seeking “what to say” in a substantive way. He already knows the content of “the mystery.” What he is seeking, as does every nervous preacher, is the liberty of the Spirit to express it freely, clearly, and boldly. Calvin remarks that “to open the mouth” at 6:19 means to make a strong and clear confession, to speak with perfect freedom, not dissimulating by muttering.[53]

The Book of Acts shows Paul exercising great freedom in addressing the facts of the mystery of the gospel to government figures; no one would say that his personality has been sublimated or over-ridden in those speeches! On the contrary, far from stilted and stylized “prophetic oracles,” Paul’s speech in Acts is fresh and personal—anything but the florid oratory that pagans of the day associated with supernatural revelation. As to the content of those speeches, Acts shows that before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, Paul inevitably focused on the Jew/Gentile fulfillment of God’s-plan-promised-to-the-Hebrew-fathers theme,[54] which is already the central motif of the mystery in Ephesians 2, 3, and 4.

Therefore for Paul to ask that “a [choice] word” be given him for the purpose of expressing the mystery of the gospel does not imply his seeking new revelation, or even a new facet to the mystery that he has already explicated in Ephesians 3. It is better to understand anarthous (δοθῆ) λόγος at 6:19 as “ be given utterance” or, as at 1 Cor 1:5, “the ability to speak.” Even if Paul here is requesting that he be supplied with the precise words to use at his hearing, which is possible, this does not imply that he is still ignorant of the contents of the mystery himself. Rather he is seeking to express it clearly[55] ὡς δεῖ λαλῆσαι.

“To speak” (λαλῆσαι) the mystery of Christ in Col 4:3 is replaced by “to make known” (γνωρίσαι) the mystery of the gospel at Eph 6:19. Yet the temptation to exaggerate the cultic sense of γνωρίζω[56] is quickly brought under harness by the observation that Paul uses γνωρίζω twice in a most banal sense in the immediately following remark (identical in Ephesians/Colossians) that Tychicus will “make known” to you how he is doing, which is why he sent him, to “make known” to you all about them (Eph 6:21–22; Col 4:7–8).

Caragounis imagines that Paul “strains about for appropriate and adequate forms and words to express the inexpressible”[57] at 6:19. He exaggerates here, for in his later comments, he makes clear that the mystery is expressible, to some degree, and that the articulation of it is effective on a cosmic scale. He says that “6:19 is no more than a back reference to 3:3, 4, 9, ” which give the definitive use of “mystery” for Ephesians,[58] and that by revealing the mystery, the author helps bring the church into existence, which existence then testifies to “the powers” of God’s wisdom.[59]

This effect is not only the regeneration of individuals but the re-ordering of the whole universe under the headship of Christ, according to the mystery revealed in Eph 1:9–10.

VIII. The Mystery Of The Gospel As A Threat To World Powers

The church as a universal corporate body comprised of both Jews and Gentiles of every tribe and nation in one people, which comes into existence through the proclamation of the mystery of the gospel, is according to Eph 3:9–10 a witness to world powers and other powers.[60] Yet there is little to suggest that worldly authorities welcome this rival to their own claims to power. Jewish literature of the second and third centuries ad referred to the Roman Emperor and other human potentates as κοσμοκράτορας (“world-rulers”; cf. Eph 6:12), and while these are late references, “the spirit of the age—any age—is rarely found in alliance with the Spirit of Christ.”[61] Paul anticipates that by his proclamation of the mystery[62] great powers will be made to know the wisdom of God, but he does not suggest that his announcement of a universal and eternal kingdom will be a wholly welcome message in the courts of the great. On the contrary, he must ask that his readers pray for him to exercise παρρησία in so daunting an arena.

A natural predicate of the kind of socio-cosmic theology developed in Colossians and Ephesians would be to realize that the church, the social unity of Jews and Gentiles together revealed in Paul’s mystery, is as the Body of Christ potentially superior to and hierarchically dominant over any other socio-political power. Much of Colossians and Ephesians in fact reads this way. From a hostile understanding of this aspect of the mystery which Paul preaches, “charges” might be developed against him from two sources who would naturally feel threatened by this: the Jews (as suggested earlier), and the state, if the transcendent social implications of “mystery” are understood.

With such potential menace all about, it would seem prudent for Christians to keep their mysteries to themselves, as did the Qumran community, for example,[63] or most of the Hellenistic mystery cults.

But while those “mysteries” were to be held secret, the mystery of the gospel was to be published,[64] and that as publicly as possible. Paul did not try to avoid the Emperor’s attention, which would have been more prudent. He sought it.

Another fundamental difference between the mystery revealed by Paul and the classical mystery religions was the historicity of the Christian message. Prümm applauds Oepke’s TWNT exposition of the fundamental a-historical nature of the mysteries and goes on to develop his own analysis of their eventual decline: “All their religious realities were, always, outside of history, cyclical, because there is [for the mysteries] no real finality to history, willed and ordained by a personal God.”[65] Even Cumont admitted that the mysteries were vague and deliberately “foggy” referentially.[66] By contrast, in his defense before Festus, Paul appealed to public facts which he asked Agrippa to verify (Acts 26:26). Paul’s methodical rooting of his mystery theology in concrete historical facts suggests that our interpretation of his theology might best proceed from a corresponding historical basis. Historical interpretation, however, must be done with humble tentativeness. While most NT exegesis proceeds from a historical platform and develops a more universal theological framework, interpretation of this pericope has to form an aggregate picture of the apparent historical circumstances from the accumulated hints of the text put together. As Marxsen wryly admitted about the circuitous nature of background studies: historical background understanding is pre-requisite to exegesis, yet the science of introduction derives much of its material from the completed work of exegesis![67]

IX. Hints from History

What era best reflects the ambience we have perceived in this pericope? Certainly not the extended decades of the benevolent Flavian dynasty, which brought back the Empire from the brink of disaster after Nero’s suicide and restored order, prosperity, and peace. Vespasian (69–79), coming to the throne directly from the walls of Jerusalem, was aware that the Christians had refused to participate in the Jewish rebellion at Caesarea and at Jerusalem, as was his son Titus (79–81) who succeeded him, both as general in charge of the siege of Jerusalem and as emperor. It is not surprising that official persecution of Christians is not remembered from their terms of office. Even Titus’ younger brother Domitian (81–96), like Nero, began his reign well before slipping into paranoia and murderous autocracy in his final decade. Though his name is often associated with an alleged Empire-wide persecution of Christians, ironically, it is his clemency (towards the grandsons of Jude, brother of Jesus, supposed leaders of the Palestinian Jewish Christian church) that is better documented than the alleged persecutions.

So the three decades following Nero—the span favored by advocates of a post-Pauline pseudepigrapher for Ephesus—are remarkably inapt for the atmosphere and the “struggle” that we have observed in Ephesians 6. While persecution “for the Name” was always a possibility (as is testified by 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation), it remained a local, sporadic phenomenon throughout the first century of the church’s existence. Only under Nero—and that only in Rome itself—did it appear for a time to be an official policy.

Moreover, the latter years of Nero’s reign (after the traditional date of Paul’s death) are also rendered suspect as a potential Sitz im Leben for Ephesians by Tacitus’ account that Nero’s excessive cruelty to Christians, in his attempt to shift blame onto them for the fire of 64, actually backfired on him and won sympathy for the Christians with the citizenry of Rome (Annals 20.44).

So the alternative hypothesis of Ephesians as a posthumous, diaphanous approximation of what Paul “would have said in the present circumstances,” by a close associate writing in his name some time after his death, is also incongruous with the concrete and the historical. An objective analysis of what is known of the middle and late decades of the first century of the Christian era would find the atmosphere, the vocabulary, the “burden” of Ephesians difficult to assimilate into that later period. Only the middle sixties of the first century correspond easily to those aspects of Ephesians upon which we have focused in this paper.

If, however, these lines were written as Paul awaited his appearance before Nero, it is not difficult to suppose that for him, and for his concerned readers (6:22), the prospect of that imminent moment was daunting, and might be in the forefront of his own thoughts, even as he used the occasion to instruct and exhort fellow-warriors in the spiritual combat. After the death of Nero’s moderate counselor Burrus, and Seneca’s withdrawal from his side, in ad 62, the emperor quickly plunged into the dissolution that had already been signaled by the assassination of his mother in 59. Suspected disloyalty in the senate led to the death of many; even Seneca, Nero’s former tutor, was required to commit suicide. Nero’s paranoia and megalomania threw the entire Empire into chaos for half a decade: at his self-inflicted death in 68, four successive claimants within a single year tried to hold the imperial throne, a clear sign of the disintegration Nero left in his wake.[68]

The torture of Christians whom Nero blamed for the fire of ad 64 (see Tacitus’ well-known description in Annals 20.44.3–8) is usually thought to be the context for the death of Paul. But scholars disagree about whether Paul was tried, convicted, and executed at his “first trial,” presumably soon after the end of Acts,[69] or whether he was either acquitted or else released for lack of plaintiffs, and enjoyed a further itinerant ministry for up to two years, traces of which appear in the Pastoral Epistles.[70] What we may be fairly certain of, however, is that if Paul was interred at Caesarea from 57 to 59 or 58–60, and the two years of his house arrest in Rome mentioned at the end of Acts fall between 60–63, then Paul waited in the shadow of the Imperial palace right at the moment when Nero was turning away from all pretense of restraint and had become a recognized menace, a threat to all living persons whom he might meet personally. Such an atmosphere corresponds to the ominous urgency of Eph 3:13 and 6:10–20.

As it was Nero’s practice to let his prefect represent him in cases of citizens’ appeals like Paul’s (requested of Festus, Acts 25:11),[71] the person before whom Paul would actually appear for his day in court could have been either mild Burrus before 62, or the cruel psychopath Tigellinus after that. Paul himself believed, however, on the basis of an angelic message, that he “must stand before Caesar,” Acts 27:24, and all indications are that he was eager to do so. It would be an unparalleled opportunity to proclaim and make known the mystery of the gospel—that all who call on the name of Jesus may be fellow-heirs, fellow-members of the body, fellow-participants in the promises in Messiah Jesus (Ephesians 2; 3:6)—to a most significant potential convert. Paul knew that it was his destiny to “testify both to small and to great” (Acts 26:22). Two years of regular conversations with Felix in Caesarea had prepared him for court protocol, as may be remarked by the relative ease and familiarity with which Paul addresses Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26. Yet he is not overconfident: like Jesus in Gethsemane he asks his followers to persevere in watching and praying in his behalf for the particular trial which is imminent (προσκαρτερέω andγρηγορέω are found both in Mark 14 and parallels and the similar requests in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4).

Aside from evangelistic considerations, clear, plain speech about the subject revealed in the mystery—equality of Jews and Gentiles before God—would have socio-political implications of which Paul could not be ignorant. While Gallio had earlier ruled that the strife between Paul and the other Jews in Achaia was basically a matter internal to Judaism and not a concern of Roman law (Acts 18:12–17), Paul must have sensed how his own success during the seven or eight years since then, filling assemblies from Jerusalem to Illyricum with (mostly Gentile) converts, had changed the whole situation.[72] Before the Emperor Nero he might hope a) to convince him, as he had tried to convince Agrippa, that the Christians were the legitimate fulfillment of Judaism, and therefore entitled to whatever privileges Judaism already enjoyed in the empire,[73] or b) failing that, at least to convince the Emperor that the churches should be considered collegia licita and thus entitled freely to practice their worship and assembly. So the social dimensions of the mystery elaborated in Ephesians 2 and 3 were germane to Paul’s upcoming “defense” before the highest court of the Empire, and must be considered to form a central thrust in the proclamation of that mystery.

Yet for Paul to announce the “mystery of the gospel” as we have understood it in Ephesians, with its transcendent social/spiritual content, would have far-reaching implications to an Emperor who was more than annoyed with obstinate Jewry and inordinately paranoid of all human associations. So Paul calls on the recipients of his letter to stand with him in prayer that he might be granted παρρησία freely to make the mystery known publicly as he ought.

His chains have gained him an audience with the Emperor. Now he must take advantage of the opportunity. His desire, as that of every earnest ambassador of the gospel, is to make known the mystery of the gospel as boldly and clearly as possible.

No doubt when he reported in to Nero a few months before Paul’s arrival in Rome, he would have by then clearly understood that the unbelieving Jews did not consider the Christians to be, as they considered themselves, the fulfillment of Judaism, nor even a valid sect under the umbrella of official Judaism. Seutonius’ depiction of the Christians as “a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition” (Life of Nero 16.2; emphasis mine) demonstrates that they were by his time considered as something other than a branch of Judaism.

Notes

1. The range of meanings in παρρησία (6:19) and παρρησιάζομαι (6:20); W. C. van Unnik, “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44 (1961–2) 466–88; D. Smolders, “L’Audace de l’apôtre selon St. Paul, le thme de la parresia,” in Collectanea Mechliniensia (Malines: Louvain, 1958) 16–30, 117–33; H. Schlier,παρρησία, -ζομαι in TDNT V, 871- 87.
2. Codex Vaticanus, G, Tertullian, and a few others who omitτοῦ εὐαγγελίου yet retain ὑπὲρ οὗ must consider either μυστήριον or the whole syntagme as the antecedent, or else “gospel” redundant.
3. The particularity of Ephesians as social theology, especially when compared with Colossians, is reflected in the social orientation of the μυστήριον in Ephesians. From this perspective even 5:32, often considered incongruous with other occurrences of the term, no longer appears as an aberration from Paul’s normal usage, but contributes to the cumulative effect of the six references to μυστήριον in Ephesians.
4. Both M. Barth (Ephesians 4–6 [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1974] 759) and A. Lincoln (Ephesians [WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990] 429–30) use two adverbs to translate the single word παρρησία.
5. Interestingly enough, some of the more elaborate reconstructions of the presumed Sitz im Leben of the redaction of Ephesians are proposed by those who imagine a post-Pauline artificer at some remove from the life and ministry of the apostle himself; e.g. Lincoln, Ephesians, 453, 455.
6. Still in Col 1:26–27 (which most believe to precede Ephesians) R. Brown sees the μυστήριον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ as “reminiscent of Paul’s ‘mature’ of 1 Corinthians 2:6 (also the Synoptics’ ‘disciples’)” (The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968] 53). He further sees this “selectivity” of those to whom theμυστήριον is revealed continued into Eph 3:5 (p. 58).
7. Whether one construesκαὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις as epexegetic of ταῖς ἀρχαῖς, or sees the reduplication of the article ταῖς as indicating two different orders of entities (since Paul gives ample evidence elsewhere of his use of the principle elaborated in the Granville Sharpe rule, and yet here has repeated ταῖς, which on the face of it seems to imply two different orders), will contribute to one’s view of whether Eph 3:10 is referring only to celestial beings, or to both earthly rulers and celestial powers, or whether Paul deliberately blurs the distinction between political and spiritual powers in Ephesians and overlaps the semantic range of terms which may indicate one or the other.
8. Barth, after a long discussion (Ephesians 4–6, 777–86) says prayer is not the seventh weapon; so also Lincoln (Ephesians, 451).
9. P. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (Waco: Word, 1982) 235.
10. See E. Lohse (Colossians and Philemon [Her; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971] 168–9) for both Roman and rabbinic examples of the proverbial expression “speech seasoned with salt” in contexts of motivational communication (cf. Col 4:6).
11. Lohse is reminded by the proximity of μυστήριον in Col 4:3 and τοὺς ἔξω at 4:5 of Mark 4:11, where a division is noted between those who are given the μυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας whileτοῖς ἔξω everything becomes parables. But, Lohse notes, in the missionary community of the early church, outsiders are not to be kept in the dark but won over by the wise conduct and gracious speech of those who know the mystery (ibid., 164).
12. 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12. See Lohse, Colossians, 165.
13. From Colossians to Ephesians the concept changes from seeking an “opening of a door for the Word,” to “a word may be given me in the opening of my mouth with boldness.”
14. Taking ἡμῖν as the original reading. The manuscript evidence is nearly equal, with a slight preponderance towardsὑμῖν, which Metzger says may have come from copyists conforming ἡμῖν to the second person verbs in the context (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1971] 610).
15. E.g., C. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 49–69, 103–22, 129–34, 167–71.
16. R. Guelich, “Spiritual Warfare: Jesus, Paul, and Peretti,” Pneuma 13 (1991) 133–64.
17. W. Wink, Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 16–7.
18. Ibid., 152–7.
19. C. Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion: Meaning and Content (Uppsala: CWK Gleerup, 1977) 150, n. 47.
20. Ibid., 157–61.
21. C. H. C. MacGregor, “Principalities and Powers: The Cosmic Background of Paul’s Thought,” NTS 1 (1954) 23.
22. R. Yates, “The Powers of Evil in the NT,” EvQ 52 (1980) 103.
23. Barth, Ephesians 4–6, 800–2.
24. H. Schlier, Principalities and Powers in the New Testament (New York: Herder and Herder, 1961) 28.
25. Ibid., 29–33.
26. Ibid., 65.
27. Πάλη = “wrestling, struggle”; hapax in NT and LXX; used often at Ephesus for the martial contests.
28. Since the sources of much of the battle gear language in Eph 6:13–17 are eschatological passages in Isaiah, Lincoln reads the call to put on the armor of God as having both present and future orientation: “they are already in the evil days but these will culminate in a climactic evil day” (Ephesians, 445–51). Similarly, H. Lona (Die Eschatologie im Kolosser -und Epheserbrief [Würtzburg: Echter, 1984]) sees Ephesians as offering hope of present and future historical salvation to Christians tempted to succumb to the Weltangst all around them. Yet these eschatologically-oriented interpretations of Ephesians 6 are special cases, in that Ephesians contains little of the specific Pauline eschatological language familiar from the Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondence.
29. M. J. Harris (Colossians & Philemon [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991] 194), Lohse (Colossians & Philemon, 165), and O’Brien (Colossians, 238) all note that even though Col 4:3 has the first person plural the two verses are still equivalent, as Paul, though he does request prayer for those associated with him, has his own particular situation in primary focus at Col 4:3–4. Note the singular verbs δέδεμαι and φανερώσω.
30. S. D. F. Salmond, The Epistle to the Ephesians in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 3 (ed. W. R. Nicoll; Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 390; C. J. Ellicott, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (5th ed.; London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1884) 154. J. A. Robinson, however, is right to dismiss a heightened meaning in the ὐπέρ, in comparison with περὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγῖων (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians [London: Macmillan, 1903] 216). This is supported by observing that the parallel at Col 4:3 requests prayer καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν.
31. T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire (London: Methuen, 1923) 168–9.
32. So Lincoln with reference to 6:19–20: “The imprisoned apostle … who now serves as a model of their own bold witness in the world in the face of intense opposition” (Ephesians, 460) and R. Wild, who calls 6:19–20 “a typological model of Christian experience in the world” (“The Warrior and the Prisoner: Some Reflections on Ephesians 6:10–20, ” CBQ 46 [1984] 294). What they really present, however, is anti-type. Both writers’ cases would be stronger if they believed there were an historical “type” behind the text, that is, that the person writing both Eph 6:10–17, the general exhortations, and vv. 19–20, the personal application of these principles, was Paul of Tarsus, himself presently engaged in spiritual conflict of the very kind he has just been discussing.
33. As already discussed (re: ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ andπερὶ ἡμῶν), where different terms may be interpreted as the functional equivalent of one another in parallel syntax they will not be considered “unique” for the purposes of this paper; e.g., γνωρίσαι (Ephesians)ͅ/λαλῆσαι (Colossians); ὑπὲρ οὗ (Ephesians) /δι᾿ ὅ (Colossians); ἐν ἁλύσει (Ephesians)/δέδεμαι (Colossians). (The latter example is not grammatically, but conceptually, equivalent.)
34. Barth, Ephesians 4–6, 779, n. 130; Bruce, Ephesians, 298.
35. Salmond makes this depend on the punctuation accompanying ἐν παρρήσια, whether it goes with “when I open my mouth,” which precedes it, or with “in making known the mystery,” which follows it (Ephesians, 390–1). Though it is a lengthy discussion, and UBS3 registers significant differences of punctuation between versions, no great difference in meaning would obtain in either case.
36. Ellicott, Ephesians, 155. Barth supports this observation that “only grave utterances” are expressed with this syntagme, with many additional OT examples (Ephesians 4–6, 780, n. 133).
37. Though he had already made use of the general concept in 2 Cor 5:20; and, with the difference of a single ε, πρεσβύτης at Phlm 9 would read “ambassador.” Lightfoot and Lohmeyer show instances where the spelling of Phlm 9 is used elsewhere clearly for “ambassador” rather than “old man” (Bruce, Ephesians, 211–2); in Philemon also it is followed by νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος.
38. M. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990) 192, n. 176.
39. Ibid., 192, 205.
40. Perhapsἐν αὐτῷ could be rendered “in doing so” or “when I am making the mystery known.”
41. F. F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 441.
42. Ibid., 381.
43. Omitted by Vaticanus and a few other mss., followed by Westcott-Hort.
44. Bockmuehl agrees, calling τοῦ εὐαγγελίου an epexegetic genitive (Revelation and Mystery, 205). Similarly, Harris saysτοῦ Χριστοῦ in Col 4:3 is an epexegetic genitive; “Christ is the mystery” (Colossians, 194), while Bruce, commenting on Col 2:2, says the “mystery of God is Christ, who is the substance of the gospel (Eph 6:19)” (Ephesians, 231, n. 15). Lohse, on μυστήριον in Col 4:3, says it is a technical term for the Christian message of salvation equal to “the mystery of the gospel” in Eph 6:19 (and to τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως, 1 Tim 3:9, and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, 1 Tim 3:16!) (Colossians, 165).
45. Brown, Semitic Background, 64,
46. Lincoln, on the linguistic connection between μυστήριον and παρρησία (Ephesians, 455).
47. Schlier, “παρρησία,” 871–87; Smolders, “L’Audace,” 16–30, 117–33.
48. van Unnik, “Freedom of Speech,” 466–88. The NT usage is distributed unevenly: 1x Mark; 9x John; 12x Acts; 10x Pauline (“confidence” before God: 4x in Hebrews and 4x in 1 John). Some verses that demonstrate van Unnik’s thesis are: John 7:4; 10:24; 11:14; 16:25, 29; Mark 8:32; Col 2:15; Phil 1:20. He would even say that both aspects are present in 1 Thess 2:2: [Paul] “took courage (ingressive aorist) in spite of the bitter opposition, and he preached plainly, without subtle devices” (“Freedom of Speech,” 473).
49. The four additional occurrences ofπαρρησία in variant readings of Acts (6:10; 9:20; 14:19; 16:4—all concerning conflicts with or oppression from the Jews) are very slightly attested—but equally significant for determining meaning, in that they signal what sorts of contexts the copyists habitually associated with the term and thus inadvertently introduced it.
50. If, then, “in freedom” or “freely” is the best (comprehensive) translation of ἐν παρρησίᾳ (Eph 6:19) and παρρησιάσωμαι (Eph 6:20), the term will have returned full circle to its origin; see Schlier, “παρρησία,” 871–87.
51. Bruce, Ephesians, 322–3, 412.
52. Lohse, Colossians, 168–9; Harris, Colossians, 195–6; Simpson, too, argues rather strongly from Aristotle’s Rhetoric 3.1 and Plutarch’s Moralia 804 that ὡς δεῖ is not merely “as I ought,” but rather “in the fashion that I ought,” and applies it to this context (Colossians, 154).
53. J. Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Reprint; Grand Rpaids: Baker, 1989) 342.
54. See Acts 24:14–15; 25:8, 10–11, 19; 26:6–7, 17–23, 27.
55. Following van Unnik’s argument that clarity is as important a constituent element in παρρησία as audacity (“Freedom of Speech,” 466–88). O’Brien (on ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι in Colossians 4) sees this expression as applying to “manner” of speaking—how to speak it well—rather than necessity; see above, footnote 52.
56. W. Mundle remarks, rightly, that γνωρίζω is used both in LXX and in NT language for immediate proclamation of the divine will (2 Sam 7:21, Ps 16:11, and most pertinently, all the key μυστήριον passages in Eph: 1:9; 3:3, 5, 10; and 6:19). “The statements in Rom 16:25 and Eph 3:5 also crystallize the revelatory character of the apostolic message, which is identical with the mystery of Christ” (“Revelation,” NIDNTT 3.314). K. Prümm also makes much of the five times that γνωρίζειν accompanies μυστήριον in Ephesians (“Mystre,” DBSup 6.191). That the two terms go together is evident; whether γνωρίζειν is cultic is less so.
57. Caragounis, Ephesian Mysterion, 28.
58. Ibid., 59, n. 15.
59. Ibid., 142–6.
60. Barth, Ephesians 1–3 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1974) 365.
61. Bruce, Ephesians, 405–6.
62. He uses φανερώσω αὐτό at the parallel to Eph 6:20 in Col 4:3, the only time in Pauline usage when God is not the subject of φανερόω when it refers to revealing the mystery.
63. Josephus (War 2.139– 41) said the Essene adepts swore to keep secret the doctrines of the Qumran society, even u 5:7–8; 9:17–22; 10:24 (“Qumran et la théologie,” NRT 85 [1963] 680).
64. Robinson, Ephesians, 31. Van Unnik says association of παρρησία with μυστήριον makes it clear that Christianity is not a mystery religion: its message is revelation of the mystery in plain words (“Freedom of Speech,” 487).
65. Prümm, “Mystre,” 160, 191.
66. “The hazy ideas of the Oriental priests enabled everyone to see in them the phantoms he was pursuing. They were not outlined sharply… nor were they formulated with sufficient precision… The gods were everything and nothing: they got lost in a sfumato” (Cumont, Rel. Orient., 88, cited in S. Angus, The Mystery Religions [Reprint; New York: Dover, 1975] 263–4).
67. W. Marxsen, “Die Bedeutung der Einleitungswissenschaft für die Predigtarbeit,” in Der Exegete als Theologe (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968) 115.
68. E. F. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 32–5; and M. Tenney, New Testament Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 283–95.
69. As argued principally by J. V. Bartlet (e.g., “Two New Testament Problems: 1. St. Paul’s Fate at Rome,” Expositor, Series 8, vol. 5 [1913] 464–75).
70. So Eusebius, W. Ramsay, Kirsop Lake, Cadbury.
71. Bruce, Heart Set Free, 366–7.
72. Ibid., 367.
73. Actually, under Nero, the Jews already were suffering a reduction of the special treatment they had been granted under Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government [New York: Lenox Hill, 1894, reprinted 1971] 25). E.g., despite Felix’s heavy-handed attempts to subordinate the Jews of Palestine, Nero recalled him from service, and did not grant the Jewish petitioners who sought equal citizenship for themselves in Caesarea their request, reducing, instead, their rights. The strife escalated continually under Nero’s appointees Albinus and Florus, until in ad 66 the Jews revolted outright. That the Christians did not participate in the continual street fighting between Jews and Syrians which made Felix’s last two years in Caesarea so difficult did not escape his notice; and the evident hostility of the Jerusalem authorities to Paul, with whom he frequently conversed during those same two years, would also have made its mark upon Felix.