192 sigurd grindheim
to show that there is unity in the work of the apostle and that of the
other ministers. ephesians 2–3, on the other hand, describes the role of
the apostles as being recipients of revelation, an idea that more readily
lends itself to being envisioned as a foundation. this observation has led
helmut Merklein to conclude that “revelation” has become a more dog-
matic concept in ephesians as compared with galatians. the emphasis is
no longer on the historical act of revelation but on revelation as a norm of
tradition.44 Merklein is reading too much into the differences, however. in
galatians, an important function of the apostle’s revelation of the gospel
is to function as a norm by which even the angels and the apostle himself
are to be judged (gal 1:8–9).
on the other hand, the picture of the apostle in ephesians 3 resembles,
in important ways, that of the undisputed letters. the apostle has been
given a special insight into the mystery (eph 3:2–4, 7–8). in typical Pauline
fashion, eph 3:1–11 juxtaposes two kinds of status. the grace that has been
given to Paul (eph 3:2, 7) contrasts with his earthly status. he is a prisoner
(3:1) and the least of the saints (3:8). the same principle of revelation of
the mystery is reflected here as in 1 Cor 2:6–16; god’s revelation turns the
values of this world upside-down. the least of all has been given the most
glorious ministry of all.45 this reversal of values motif is a seal of genuine
Pauline authorship (cf. rom 4:18; 1 Cor 1:26–29; 3:18; 2 Cor 4:10–12; 6:8b–10;
12:9; 13:4; Phil 3:7). if ephesians were post-Pauline it would be difficult to
explain why the author would invoke Paul’s authority simply to down-
play it by leveling his special commission to the gentiles with that of the
other apostles and by exaggerating Paul’s humility by identifying him as
the least of the saints.46 this question becomes all the more pressing in
light of the fact that the apostolic fathers did not speak of Paul in a way
that stressed his humility and weakness, but rather his greatness and righ-
teousness (ign. Eph. 12:2; 1 Clem 5:5–7; Pol. Phil. 3:2–3; 9:1–2).47
44 Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt, 171–72, 176.
45 reynier notes the contrast between Paul as prisoner (eph 3:1) and powerful preacher
(3:7–8) and sees here a manifestation of the paradoxical nature of his ministry (Évang-
ile et mystère: Les enjeux théologiques de l’épître aux Éphésiens [ld 149; Paris: Cerf, 1992],
93–98). it is therefore an overstatement when nils dahl concludes that ephesians lacks
the paradox of life through death and power through weakness, so characteristic of Paul
(“einleitungsfragen,” 81).
46 this allegedly exaggerated expression of humility is sometimes seen as evidence of
post-Pauline authorship (Kümmel, Introduction, 361; schnackenburg, Ephesians, 136).
47 Barn. 5:9, where the apostles are said to have been “sinners above all sin,” cannot
be cited as an example to the contrary. in this instance, the apostles are not invoked as
examples. the purpose of the statement is to prove that Jesus was the son of god. the
argument is that only the son of god could save sinners (cf. Percy, Die Probleme, 351).