a deutero-pauline mystery? 193
Paul’s description of himself as the apostle to the gentiles par excellence
is well-known from the other Pauline letters (gal 1:16; 2:2, 8–9; cf. rom 1:5,
13; 11:13; 15:15–18). ephesians 3:5, however, appears somewhat anomalous,
because Paul is merely one among the apostles and the prophets. in the
undisputed letters, Paul never speaks explicitly about any revelation given
to the other apostles regarding the inclusion of the gentiles. in galatians,
the role of the other apostles is that of acknowledging the gospel Paul is
preaching, not that of receiving a similar revelation themselves.48 Many
scholars have therefore found a post-Pauline element in eph 3:5.49 how-
ever, the primary idea, when Paul portrays himself as the apostle to the
gentiles, is that he has been given a special commission to take the gos-
pel to the gentiles. the division he mentions in gal 2:7 does not have to
do with the reception of revelation, but with the sphere of missionary
activity. with regard to the divine revelation that the gospel is offered to
the gentiles apart from the law, Paul stresses, especially in galatians, that
there is unity between him and the other apostles (2:2–3, 6–9). the gospel
he preaches is recognized by the leaders in Jerusalem.50 elsewhere, Paul
underscores that he has received the same revelation of Christ as have the
other apostles (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Paul’s
unique position comes through more strongly in galatians. in ephesians,
however, when Paul departs from describing the revelation as his per-
sonal prerogative and aligns himself with the apostles and prophets, this
is not unmotivated; he recalls the expression from 2:20, where this group
is called the foundation of the church. in 3:5, then, Paul is explaining his
own role in the larger picture of the church as the temple of god. this
ecclesiological focus in ephesians is very different from the apologetic
purpose of galatians and explains the different emphasis.
that this understanding is correct is confirmed when we observe
how the apostles here are described as a function of the church. this
48 Cf. Percy, Die Probleme, 347; ernest Best, “the revelation to evangelize the gentiles,”
JTS 35 (1984): 17–18.
49 Martin dibelius and heinrich greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (3rd ed.;
hnt 12; tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1953), 74; gnilka, Epheserbrief, 166; Merklein, Das kirchli-
che Amt, 168, 170; Best, “the revelation,” 24–25; lincoln, Ephesians, 179; schnackenburg,
Ephesians, 133; Pheme Perkins, Ephesians (antC; nashville: abingdon, 1997), 83. even
ernst Percy, who usually remains unimpressed by the differences between ephesians and
the undisputed Pauline letters, finds an argument against Pauline authorship here (Die
Probleme, 347). Markus Barth’s explanation is that Paul is quoting traditional material in
eph 3:5 (Ephesians 1–3, 332).
50 even though these are not referred to as apostles, some of the other apostles are
probably in view (richard n. longenecker, Galatians [wBC 41; dallas: word, 1990], 48).