by J. Randal Matheny

Many liberal scholars seem to love trashing clear affirmations of Scripture. As I prepared comments on Paul's letter to Ephesians, I noticed one Belgian writer, resident in Brazil, taking the old tack that Paul did not write the letter.

One of his evidences was the similarity of the greeting in Ephesians 1:1-2 to that of Colossians 1:1-2. (Stay with me; it'll be worth it.) Says the scholar, "The author [someone other than Paul] simply copied the formula from Colossians."*

But wait! Check any translation, and you can see, even if you don't read Greek, that the author of Ephesians didn't simply copy the Colossian greeting word for word. Here's the two of them:

Colossians, supposedly the original: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father."

Now Ephesians, the copycat: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace form God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (NASU)

Notice any differences, any "changes" from Colossians to Ephesians, that would negate simple copying? Here are four obvious ones (we won't count the inversion of "Christ Jesus"):

1. There is no mention of "Timothy our brother."

2. The word "brethren" is omitted.

3. Unlike Colossians, no addressees are mentioned in Ephesians. The scholar claims manuscript evidence is against including the phrase "at Ephesus." It must have been a later addition, he thinks.

4. The phrase "and the Lord Jesus Christ" is added to the Ephesian greeting; there are some Greek manuscripts that add it in Colossians, but the evidence is against its inclusion.

How can a responsible scholar claim that an anonymous author "simply copied" the Colossian greeting with these differences? Perhaps he would keep the phrase "and the Lord Jesus Christ" in Colossians to sustain his argument that the two are similar?

No chance. In his commentary on Colossians a year earlier than his Ephesians commentary, he wrote that "the original [Greek] text must have had only the name of the Father."

It appears we have a case of shaping the facts to fit the theory. The theory refuses to take plain biblical statements at face value. The theory ignores plenty of changes, natural if they came from the same writer's pen. But this theory accomplishes what the scholars want: it diminishes the force of divine inspiration and undermines divine authority in Scripture.

No wonder some of our own brethren are going the same route.

*My translation from the Portuguese.