A Book Review from Books At a Glance
by Thomas Haviland-Pabst
Constantine Campbell, Professor and Research Director at the Sydney College of Divinity, has authored numerous books in the field of NT studies. One of his notable recent works is his work on Pauline eschatology titled Paul and the Hope of Glory (Zondervan Academic, 2020).
As readers familiar with the Pillar NT commentaries know, each installment is of outstanding quality and shines as an example of sound, evangelical scholarship that is penetrating yet accessible for the busy pastor or interested layperson. Happily, Campbell’s Ephesians commentary continues in the vein of this series. Already, Campbell’s consistency with Pillar is seen in his discussion of introductory matters such as his argument for the authentic Pauline authorship of Eph., countering claims of pseudonymity, stylistic differences marshalled against said authorship, or the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians.
As is customary for commentaries, the basic structure of this one is as follows: a discussion of introductory matters, followed by commentary on each pericope of the letter, with various indices at the end. Given space limitations, we will confine our review to interesting or insightful aspects of Campbell’s commentary followed by a concluding evaluation.
Regarding the contested concept of election in Eph 1:4, Campbell discusses the two options for “us”: (1) that which sees “every individual believer in Christ” as having been “chosen by God” (p. 44) (i.e., Calvinism) and (2) “a group without specific individuals implied,” i.e., a reading approximating Arminianism. Rightly affirming the first reading, Campbell argues, in light of the phrase ‘before the foundation of the world,’ that “God’s choosing of his people could not have been influenced by human decision, human actions, or human responsibility since it occurred before God” (p. 46) created anything. Helpfully, commenting on “mystery” in 1:9, he clarifies (along with Beale and Gladd, though surprisingly not cited) that this phrase does not carry the meaning of something unknown and thus mysterious but rather it refers to God’s plan, which was previously unknown but “has now been revealed in Christ” (p. 53).
As with his reading of Eph 1:4, Campbell takes Paul at face value with “you were dead in your trespasses” (Eph 2:1) to mean that his audience (and by implication, every one) is “spiritually dead” and thus “completely severed … from their creator God … unable to live for God … [or] to please him, and unable to reverse their standing with God by their own power” (p. 83). Regarding the question of the subjective (‘faithfulness of’) vs. objective reading (‘faith in’) of “faith” in 2:8, Campbell argues that, while the subjective reading does not undermine traditional Protestant reading of faith as ‘faith in Christ’ as it “underscores the work of Christ in our salvation,” argues that the objective reading (‘faith in’) is the better one since “Christ” is not mentioned as a “qualifier of ‘faith’ and must therefore be supplied” (p. 97).
Commenting on the clause “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20), he argues that ‘apostles,’ though undefined by Paul, refers to “the remaining eleven [disciples] plus Matthias, James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19), and Paul” (p. 122) given the lack of specificity in Paul’s use. However, he argues that ‘prophets’ refers to, what he designates as “‘lowercase-p’ prophets,” i.e., a group distinct from the prophets of the OT which appears to be a larger group “with milder consequences for falsehood” (p. 123), citing 1 Cor 14:29 in support. His comments on 3:5 support his exegesis of 2:20 given that the Greek of 3:5 is best understood as stating, “his holy apostles, and prophets” (p. 135). Thus, for Campbell, ‘apostles’ “held primary place in the leadership of the church” whereas NT (or, ‘lower-case p’) prophetic ministry “complements apostolic authority … as the application of apostolic teaching to specific situations” (p. 123).
Briefly, while it must be stated that this reading of Eph 2:20 and 3:5 may feel strained for those unfamiliar with the debates surrounding the roles of apostle and prophet in the early church, Campbell’s interpretation of Eph 2:20 and 3:5 could be seen as consistent with Puritan theologians, among others, who saw the act of preaching as a form of prophesying.
Working through Eph 4:11-12, he rightly discerns that this verse raised the question of who does the work of ministry. He describes two ways 4:12 could be interpreted. First, “to equip the saints” could be interpreted as referring to apostles and other leaders who “both equip the saints” (p. 180) and do the work of ministry (so KJV). Second, ‘to equip the saints’ refers to those in 4:11, while it is the ‘saints’ (and, by implication, those in 4:11) who do the work of ministry (so ESV). Based on Greek syntax and the immediate context (4:13-16, esp. v. 16), i.e., “for the work of ministry” and “to build up the body” have shared prepositions thus separating these two clauses from the earlier ‘to equip the saints,’ he argued that the second view is more viable and as such the entire church does the work of ministry.
Regarding two vexing verses in Ephesians 5, namely, 5:21 and 5:23. For the former, he argues that this verse does not communicate “symmetrical submission,” i.e., mutual submission between or among peers but rather “asymmetrical submission” (p. 243), i.e., between, for example, a father and a child (cf. 6:1-4). He states that this is the case because Eph 5:21 would be the only known example in the ancient world of symmetrical submission and, also, this verse is clearly connected not only to the preceding context but also the following (Eph 5:22-6:9), with the latter reflecting ancient household codes However, he rightly clarifies that ‘out of reverence for Christ’ (5:21 ESV) “relativizes Greco-Roman expectations of power and authority” (p. 244). For the latter, based on the Greek and LXX usage of the term translated “head” (so ESV), he argues that its meaning lies “somewhere between ‘authority’ and source’” (p. 249).
Here, he makes a helpful distinction between the “eternal” and “practical” understanding of the analogy between Christ/the church and the husband/wife. With the former, he writes, “the headship of husbands with respect to their wives must … be an unchanging reality” (p. 250). With the latter, he argues that this eternal reality is expressed differently across cultures. To clarify, he argues with complementarians that the husband/wife dynamic is asymmetrical in nature yet, gleaning from the insight of egalitarians, he affirms that the traditional Greco-Roman understanding of these roles have been relatives (or, perhaps, subverts) to some degree given the injunction for husbands to love their wives as Christ does the church (5:25) and for wives to “submit … as to the Lord,” with ‘as to the Lord’ modifying and qualifying the scope of said submission, i.e., not submitting to sin such as, for example, allowing another partner in the marriage bed (polyamory or polygamy).
To conclude, Campbell’s commentary is commendable in many ways. First, it is exemplary for its clarity and brevity of writing. Readers familiar with commentaries on Ephesians will know that there are large tomes double and even triple the size of this commentary (e.g., Markus Barth, Peter O’Brien, Hoehner). Yet, despite its relatively small size, Campbell is able to navigate the thickets of Ephesians with ease. Second, he pays careful attention to the Greek text. While this is not a technical commentary in the strict sense (e.g., the ICC series), this commentary will prove valuable to those who seek to understand better how engagement with the Greek will improve one’s exegesis. Third, as his discussions of Eph 1:9; 2:2; 5:21 and 5:23 highlight, he is both able to have nuance in his interpretation while holding to sound exegetical conclusions even if they brush against modern sensibilities. Given these strengths and the aforementioned areas of insight, this will be a go-to for the busy pastor, interested layman, as well as serious student or scholar of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Highly recommended.
Thomas Haviland-Pabst