Ephesians

This commentary is widely regarded as a classic. Lincoln is thorough and judicious. The “explanation” sections of the commentary offer expert guidance through the flow of this letter. [Full Review]

 

Brand-new, expanded edition of Lincoln’s standard academic, mainline commentary, first published in 1990 and revised in 2003. [Full Review]

Too focused on authorship issues and Ephesians relationship to Colossians. Makes sense to lay out those things in the intro, but often focuses his exegesis on proving that Ephesians is not Pauline and dependent on Colossians. Nevertheless, Lincoln has provided a solid commentary, which blends a strong focus on linguistic features with overall theological thrust.

Here is an unusual one. Lincoln’s commentary receives near-unanimous praise and is considered one of the best treatments of Ephesians even though Lincoln denies that Paul wrote the letter and attempts to prove his case. (O’Brien apparently answers him convincingly.) Apart from that misstep in authorship, this is apparently an excellent volume that is faithful to the text and draws out important theological reflections. [Full Review]

It is perhaps strange to say, but this commentary is the ‘classic” on this list. Lincoln thinks that Ephesians is a reinterpretation of Colossians (page lv), but also that Ephesians draws on other authentic letters of Paul (page lvi). The book was written by a follower of Paul who attempted to summarize Pauline theology for his generation. His assumptions are worked out in the commentary. In his comments on Eph 2:11-22, for example, he points out several parallels to Colossians and argues that Ephesians is an expansion or commentary on the earlier (Pauline) material. This kind of argument is found in the “Form / Structure / Setting” sections standard to the WBC series. The exegesis sections are structured by longer phrases and is not overly technical in matters of syntax. That sort of material is found in the notes on the translation of each pericope. What is most helpful is Lincoln’s frequent comments on the use of the LXX or Hebrew Bible as foundational for understanding the text. [Full Review]

Next I turn to Andrew Lincoln who wrote that commentary at St John's College in Nottingham when I was doing my doctorate at the University, and I often saw Andrew -- I remember standing in the library when he told me he thought Eph 2:8-9 was not Pauline theology -- his commentary is thorough and sensitive to the theological contours. [Full Review]

Lincoln is a world renowned exegete, and his commentary on Ephesians is an example of how he gained this reputation. I disagree with his conclusion that Paul was not the author of the epistle, but thankfully, his conclusions regarding authorship do not affect his exegesis of specific texts much. The commentary is well worth consulting. [Full Review]

This is regarded as one of the best commentaries on Ephesians despite the face that Lincoln does not think Paul wrote it! For discerning readers only, then.

Andrew Lincoln's commentary is a good source for studying Ephesians. I consulted it several times as a reference but not as a main guide while studying through the book (I used O'Brien and Best primarily). I found it to be well written and Lincoln often had helpful insight. He often, though, had a propensity for finding parallels to existing hymns, creeds, and baptismal liturgies in unlikely places. Overall it's an excellent resource for occasional consultation, but O'Brien utilizes most of Lincoln's positive contributions while omitting much of the speculation.

[Full Review]