Ephesians: Power and Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting

Written by Clinton E. Arnold Reviewed By William W. Klein

Arnold’s chief objective is to account for what he calls the ‘power motif’ in Ephesians. Prevalent uses and a high concentration of such terms as δύναμις, ἐνέργεια, ἰσχύς, κράτος and ἐξουσία show how power terminology pervades the letter. He investigates the possible sources of this emphasis: the inroads of Gnosis heresy, the existence of some kind of spiritual crisis in Asia Minor, or whether there really is no ‘situation’ at all behind the apparent stress on power (that is, perhaps the verbal emphasis is simply stylistic).

Arnold explores the Hellenistic magical tradition to understand the spiritual setting of Asia Minor. His primary source for this is K. Preisendanz, Papyri graecae magicae, and H.D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demotic Spells. He also studies the relevant OT and Jewish materials to shed light on the terms for principalities, powers and authorities. The main part of the book constitutes Arnold’s exegesis of key texts in Ephesians in view of these background studies, especially 1:10; 1:15–23; 2:2; 3:10; 3:14–19; 4:8–10; 6:10–20.

The author concludes that the Christians in Asia Minor were converted out of a background heavily influenced by magic, Phrygian mystery religions, and astrology, a central feature of which was an intense belief in and fear of evil spiritual powers. Arnold observes, ‘Ephesus stands out as unique among Hellenistic cities because of the widespread and pervasive influence of her patron goddess Artemis’. A principal need within the Christian community, then, centred in the question of the role and status of Christ—and his power—vis-à-visthe evil forces so pervasive in the culture.

To counter the natural tendency to syncretism among the Christians in Asia Minor (simply combining their Christian faith with elements of their former beliefs, e.g. continuing to wear magical amulets), the author of Ephesians argues for Christ’s superiority and supremacy over these evil, malignant ‘powers’. Predominantly, Christians have experienced ‘the transfer of dominions’ (p. 135)—from darkness to light, from death to life—when they were incorporated into Christ. They were released from the hostile powers of the old dominion and have entered into Christ. What is more, in Christ Christians are secure; they enjoy victory over the ‘powers’. Here Arnold sees, correctly I believe, that the ‘in Christ’ conception grows out of ‘the Hebrew idea of corporate personality or solidarity’ (p. 136).

Other crucial teachings Arnold finds in Ephesians that reflect this understanding of the book’s backdrop include: Christians’ access to the power of God; the fact that Christ (and the Spirit) indwells believers, providing the means to divine power, appropriated by faith; an altered view of the ‘powers’: their authority and sway have been shattered by Christ; a new posture of resistance against the evil powers through the power of God; and a new ethic of love as the purpose for God’s power within Christians.

This study says a lot about the circumstances in Asia Minor; it tells us that the author of Ephesians was responding to a crisis among the Christians there. He wanted to strengthen and support those who felt unsure about the powers of darkness, to respond to fears they had although they were now Christians. But what does all this say, if anything, about the author of Ephesians? Though the book claims to be written by Paul (Eph. 1:1; 3:1) and has internal markers that allege to support that claim (e.g. 3:1–13; 4:1; 6:19–22), such a conclusion is not popular today. The recent magisterial Word commentary by A.T. Lincoln concludes that a later follower of Paul wrote the epistle, not Paul himself. R. Schnackenburg places the book’s origin at the beginning of the post-apostolic period, around ad 90. Meanwhile, others continue to support Pauline authorship, e.g. F.F. Bruce and M. Barth. Though Arnold claims he did not presuppose any position on the issue at the outset of the study, his analysis convinces him that Paul surfaces as the best candidate for authorship (p. 171). At many places throughout the book, he presents a convincing case for fitting the elements of Ephesians within a Pauline context.

The book makes demands upon the reader; indeed, a basic knowledge of Greek and a reasonable amount of theological training are crucial to follow all the arguments and methods. Yet Arnold writes clearly, the work is thorough and easy to follow, and it exposes an important dimension for all students of Ephesians, and probably the entire NT. Missionaries and Christians in many non-Western contexts regularly confront magic and power issues. Witch-doctors, shamans and spirits dominate the world that many people inhabit, even today. Arnold helps us see what the author of this key letter said in confronting these issues in the first century. His conclusions are convincing for the first century, and they provide insight for similar situations today, for ‘our struggle is not against flesh and blood’.


William W. Klein

Denver Seminary, Denver