What do you think?
Rate this book
The Letter to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament
The letter to the Ephesians provokes an array of interpretive questions regarding authorship, audience, date, occasion, purpose of writing, and the nature of its moral instruction—including its words addressed to slaves and masters. Interacting critically in an arena of intense debate, Lynn Cohick provides an exegetically astute analysis of the six chapters of Ephesians, offering an insightful account of the letter’s theology and soteriology as she attends to its expansive prose and lofty vision of God’s redemption.
Cohick analyzes everything from the letter’s description of the church and its appeals for discipleship to the complex relationship between Jews and gentiles within the text and in the broader cultural context. Her extensive knowledge of the social realities of women and families in the ancient world is also evident throughout. Historically sensitive and theologically rich, Cohick’s commentary will be an abundant resource for a new generation of scholars, pastors, and lay leaders.
Cohick analyzes everything from the letter’s description of the church and its appeals for discipleship to the complex relationship between Jews and gentiles within the text and in the broader cultural context. Her extensive knowledge of the social realities of women and families in the ancient world is also evident throughout. Historically sensitive and theologically rich, Cohick’s commentary will be an abundant resource for a new generation of scholars, pastors, and lay leaders.
737 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 5, 2020
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 15, 2021
This volume joins two others on Colossians and Philemon by Scot McKnight to replace the influential and long-standing volume by F. F. Bruce on these three wonderful New Testament books in the venerable New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) series. Don’t you suppose contributing this commentary on Ephesians would be a daunting task both for its high-altitude theology and in following in Bruce’s footsteps? Cohick mentions as much in the preface.
Did Cohick succeed? I think for the most part she did. The farther I got into the introduction the more I liked it. The conclusions are pretty conservative. As you are probably aware, if you are going to write on Ephesians these days, you must address authorship and pseudepigrapha issues. As she notes, the answer to the question of whether Ephesians is a genuine Pauline letter will profoundly affect the trajectory of a commentary. If you were like me and have no doubt about Paul’s writing of this letter, these issues are something of a pothole on the road to understanding. Nevertheless, any good commentary must discuss it in depth and she does a good job. She lays out the arguments clearly and if you are wrestling with this you would do well to read what she has to say. Textual and historical background are also sufficiently covered, as are structure and theology. The NPP gets only about three pages which is precisely what it deserves.
I found the commentary proper to be thoughtful and helpful. It was neither too slim nor too verbose. She is especially adept at laying out arguments and reasoning to conclusions. You don’t have to, of course, agree to profit from that skill she brings to bear.
I do have one caveat in my recommendation. It’s only about one small section and perhaps I would rank its importance higher than you would, but I will share and you can decide. In her preface she mentions the “inflammatory” Household Codes, not in quotes but her words. That bias seemed present in the commentary on that section. Perhaps it was just me, but I thought her fine reasoning skills were not as present here. My more conservative position is disagreed with in many commentaries I read, so I’m used to that; but this section seemed a little agenda laden to me. When I rechecked her biography, it does turn out that she has written on the subject much in the past. It wouldn’t be fair to withhold a good recommendation over this one point involving one small section of the whole book, but you can at least be aware of it and see what you think when you look at it.
After reviewing the two new volumes on Colossians and Philemon recently, I feel that she has produced a work equal to the more well-known Scot McKnight. Warmly recommended.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
Did Cohick succeed? I think for the most part she did. The farther I got into the introduction the more I liked it. The conclusions are pretty conservative. As you are probably aware, if you are going to write on Ephesians these days, you must address authorship and pseudepigrapha issues. As she notes, the answer to the question of whether Ephesians is a genuine Pauline letter will profoundly affect the trajectory of a commentary. If you were like me and have no doubt about Paul’s writing of this letter, these issues are something of a pothole on the road to understanding. Nevertheless, any good commentary must discuss it in depth and she does a good job. She lays out the arguments clearly and if you are wrestling with this you would do well to read what she has to say. Textual and historical background are also sufficiently covered, as are structure and theology. The NPP gets only about three pages which is precisely what it deserves.
I found the commentary proper to be thoughtful and helpful. It was neither too slim nor too verbose. She is especially adept at laying out arguments and reasoning to conclusions. You don’t have to, of course, agree to profit from that skill she brings to bear.
I do have one caveat in my recommendation. It’s only about one small section and perhaps I would rank its importance higher than you would, but I will share and you can decide. In her preface she mentions the “inflammatory” Household Codes, not in quotes but her words. That bias seemed present in the commentary on that section. Perhaps it was just me, but I thought her fine reasoning skills were not as present here. My more conservative position is disagreed with in many commentaries I read, so I’m used to that; but this section seemed a little agenda laden to me. When I rechecked her biography, it does turn out that she has written on the subject much in the past. It wouldn’t be fair to withhold a good recommendation over this one point involving one small section of the whole book, but you can at least be aware of it and see what you think when you look at it.
After reviewing the two new volumes on Colossians and Philemon recently, I feel that she has produced a work equal to the more well-known Scot McKnight. Warmly recommended.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
November 8, 2024
This was my favorite for the first three chapters, but O'Brien became my favorite for chapters 4–6. I liked how much information Cohick could pack into such a small package. His wasn't the shortest book, by any means, but he got right to the point, used clear language (for the most part), yet didn't shy away from any passage. I was helped in my study for preaching through Ephesians, and I'm sad to set this book aside almost exactly one year later.
February 20, 2026
Lynn Cohicks new volume on Ephesians is a significant contribution to the NICNT series.
Cohick for the most part presents a good exegetical explanation of the text of the letter to the Ephesians, but she is woefully weak on pastoral and practical application for the believer.
In my opinion, Cohick's most controversial issue regarding this commentary, concerns her teachings on "wives submitting to their husbands" in Ephesians 5:22-24. She stresses Paul’s statement that believers are to “submit to one another” in verse 21, and argues that the subsequent passage must be understood in light of it. P. 350. She concludes that those in authority can “submit” to those in their charge in the sense of “forgoing non-Christlike actions that society allows " P. 350.
Cohick goes on to conflate a husband’s “submitting” to his wife with the sacrificial love that Christ demonstrates to the church. Following her reasoning, we would have to conclude that Christ’s giving of himself to the church constitutes him “submitting” himself to the church (cf. Eph.5:25–27). After all, as the Cohick points out, Paul says in verse 28, that husbands are to love their wives “in this same way” that Christ loves the church. How Christ could submit to both the will of his Bride - the Church, and that of the Father remains a mystery to me (cf. Luke 22:42).
Why does Cohick feel that she has to put a spin on the wife's submission, as being the sort of submission that every believer is obligated to extend to each other, out of reverence for Christ, as part of being filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. v. 21)? If this submission is the same as for every believer, why does Paul contrast the wife's submission to her husband's in terms that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Eph. 5:23-24)?
Here Paul is simply teaching us, that the husband and wife relationship, is a unique relationship from any other relationship within the body of Christ, and how they relate to each other, has spiritual implications that are unique to their marriage relationship (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5, 14; 9:5; 14:35; Eph. 5:31; 1 Pet. 3:7).
Whilst there is a need counteract the abuse of patriarchy and male domination within our churches today (cf. Col. 3:19; 1 Pet. 3:7), I find Cohick's egalitarian conclusions unconvincing, and possibly creating the unintended consequence of denying the principle of biblical male leadership within the home and the church. Unfortunately, her conclusions on Paul’s teaching about God’s design for men and women do not seem to follow Paul’s own logic on male headship in my opinion (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; 2 Tim. 2:11).
Cohick’s new volume is a significant contribution to the NICNT series. Her scholarship in relaying complex ideas and debates within the book of Ephesians is undeniable. However, I will not be getting rid of my copy of the letter to the Ephesians by F. F. Bruce (1984) in the same NICNT series yet.
Cohick for the most part presents a good exegetical explanation of the text of the letter to the Ephesians, but she is woefully weak on pastoral and practical application for the believer.
In my opinion, Cohick's most controversial issue regarding this commentary, concerns her teachings on "wives submitting to their husbands" in Ephesians 5:22-24. She stresses Paul’s statement that believers are to “submit to one another” in verse 21, and argues that the subsequent passage must be understood in light of it. P. 350. She concludes that those in authority can “submit” to those in their charge in the sense of “forgoing non-Christlike actions that society allows " P. 350.
Cohick goes on to conflate a husband’s “submitting” to his wife with the sacrificial love that Christ demonstrates to the church. Following her reasoning, we would have to conclude that Christ’s giving of himself to the church constitutes him “submitting” himself to the church (cf. Eph.5:25–27). After all, as the Cohick points out, Paul says in verse 28, that husbands are to love their wives “in this same way” that Christ loves the church. How Christ could submit to both the will of his Bride - the Church, and that of the Father remains a mystery to me (cf. Luke 22:42).
Why does Cohick feel that she has to put a spin on the wife's submission, as being the sort of submission that every believer is obligated to extend to each other, out of reverence for Christ, as part of being filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. v. 21)? If this submission is the same as for every believer, why does Paul contrast the wife's submission to her husband's in terms that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Eph. 5:23-24)?
Here Paul is simply teaching us, that the husband and wife relationship, is a unique relationship from any other relationship within the body of Christ, and how they relate to each other, has spiritual implications that are unique to their marriage relationship (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5, 14; 9:5; 14:35; Eph. 5:31; 1 Pet. 3:7).
Whilst there is a need counteract the abuse of patriarchy and male domination within our churches today (cf. Col. 3:19; 1 Pet. 3:7), I find Cohick's egalitarian conclusions unconvincing, and possibly creating the unintended consequence of denying the principle of biblical male leadership within the home and the church. Unfortunately, her conclusions on Paul’s teaching about God’s design for men and women do not seem to follow Paul’s own logic on male headship in my opinion (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; 2 Tim. 2:11).
Cohick’s new volume is a significant contribution to the NICNT series. Her scholarship in relaying complex ideas and debates within the book of Ephesians is undeniable. However, I will not be getting rid of my copy of the letter to the Ephesians by F. F. Bruce (1984) in the same NICNT series yet.
November 17, 2022
Un bon outil pour étudier l'épître mais un peu "court" par moment. En effet si l'auteur est particulièrement à l'aise dans le contexte culturel dans le commentaire même c'est un peu faible par moment.
À relever l'excellente introduction avec une très bonne défense de la position traditionnelle sur l'auteur et les destinataires de la lettre (Paul aux éphésiens), les excursus très nombreux (trop ?) et complet et les bonnes introductions aux différents paragraphes de l'épître.
Le commentaire est écrit simplement, sans fioritures ni éclat, mais inégal sur son fond.
Certains passages sont explorés en détails d'autres simplement survolté sans vraiment de justification ni de logique. Certains sont lus avec une théologie à priori, d'autres ne contiennent aucune réflexion théologique et d'autres sont très bien traités. Le problème étant que l'on ne perçoit pas toujours la logique de l'auteur dans ses choix, de" pourquoi ce texte oui et cet autre non " dans l'approfondissement.
On en ressort avec un sentiment partagé, le très bon côtoyant le très moyen.
Mais cela reste un excellent outil pour qui veut étudier ce texte
À relever l'excellente introduction avec une très bonne défense de la position traditionnelle sur l'auteur et les destinataires de la lettre (Paul aux éphésiens), les excursus très nombreux (trop ?) et complet et les bonnes introductions aux différents paragraphes de l'épître.
Le commentaire est écrit simplement, sans fioritures ni éclat, mais inégal sur son fond.
Certains passages sont explorés en détails d'autres simplement survolté sans vraiment de justification ni de logique. Certains sont lus avec une théologie à priori, d'autres ne contiennent aucune réflexion théologique et d'autres sont très bien traités. Le problème étant que l'on ne perçoit pas toujours la logique de l'auteur dans ses choix, de" pourquoi ce texte oui et cet autre non " dans l'approfondissement.
On en ressort avec un sentiment partagé, le très bon côtoyant le très moyen.
Mais cela reste un excellent outil pour qui veut étudier ce texte
December 7, 2022
Decent read but not as robust or as helpful as Frank Thielman’s Ephesians commentary.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews