Journal: Southeastern Theological Review
Volume: STR 14:1 (Spring 2023)
Article: The Purpose Of Ephesians 3:2–13, Once More
Author: Mark Owens

STR 14:1 (Spring 2023) p. 1

The Purpose Of Ephesians 3:2–13, Once More

Mark Owens

Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH

Abstract: Recent attempts to address the purpose of the digression in Eph 3:2–13 have failed to capitalize on the significance of this text’s climax in Eph 3:13a. This essay addresses this question via a literary analysis of the passage and the wider context of the letter. In terms of the actual digression, the statements in Eph 3:2–12 provide the basis for the exhortation towards faithful Christian service in Eph 3:13a. Furthermore, the digression builds upon the missional depiction of the Church in Eph 1:23; 2:19–22 and also prepares the reader for the brief, yet important, references to opposition in Eph 4:14 and Eph 6:10–20. Ultimately, the digression in Eph 3:2–13 addresses Paul’s description of his imprisonment in Eph 3:1 and implores the reader to participate in the Church’s identity as Christ’s “body” and “fullness” (Eph 1:23), despite the very real possibility of suffering for the sake of the gospel.

Key Words: body, Christian ministry, Ephesians 3, fullness, mission, perseverance, structure, suffering, temple

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians has long held a prominent place within the Christian community. However, with the rise of historical criticism, this deeply profound text has come to hold a less than stellar reputation within some segments of the academy.1 Various historical questions (for example, the identity of its author, the identity of its recipients, the purpose of this letter, and the letter’s setting) still loom large over this text. Yet, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is not without literary conundrums as well, particularly the function of the digression in Eph 3:2–13. While the probing studies of T. Gombis and A. Sherwood have brought some measure of clarity to this particular issue, they do not sufficiently explain the place of this passage within the overall letter.2 In this paper, I will argue that Paul’s digression in