Comprehensive Notes on the Strophic Structure of Ephesians 1:3-14

Historical Context and the Study of New Testament Hymnology

The study of Ephesians $1:3-14$ has been characterized by intense scholarship since Eduard Norden’s $1913$ assessment of the passage as having an awkward length and construction. Within New Testament scholarship and hymnology, the existence of hymns or hymnic fragments is an accepted fact. Martin ($1982$, $1983$) categorized these into three distinct groups: (1) The Lucan canticles, (2) the hymns in the Book of Revelation, and (3) specific Christian hymns. Ephesians $1:3-14$, alongside the prologue of the Gospel of John ($1:1-18$), falls into the third category. Unlike Philippians $2:6-11$ or $1$ Timothy $3:16$, which are clearly distinguished from their contexts, the eulogy in Ephesians is woven directly into the text. It is a critical observation that no New Testament author ‘arranged’ these hymns into specific strophes; rather, they were quoted or reworked, leading to a multitude of scholarly attempts at reconstruction, a situation Barkhuizen describes with the Latin idiom: Quot homines, tot sententiae (as many men, as many opinions).

Exegetical and Liturgical Significance of Strophic Structures

Determining the strophic structure of these hymns is not merely an aesthetic exercise but is of profound exegetical and liturgical importance. Scholars like Kramer ($1967$) argue that exegesis cannot disregard stylistic forms in such consciously formulated texts because the right understanding of the text depends on its structure. Louw ($1989$) demonstrated that the Johannine prologue contains key motives that anticipate the theme of the entire Gospel. For Ephesians $1:3-14$, Maurer ($1951/2$), Kramer ($1967$), and Schnackenburg ($1977$) view the eulogy as the key to the entire letter. Furthermore, Coutts ($1956/7$) and Lang ($1969$) emphasize its liturgical aspect, suggesting it is related to a baptismal ritual. The identification of strophic principles involves two main categories: those related to content (thematic motives) and those related to form (grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic-rhetorical elements, including metre and refrains).

The Trinitarian Theory of Cambier

Cambier ($1963$) proposed a detailed analysis based on both formal and logical-exegetical principles. His structure relies on the presence of a threefold doxological phrase as a strophic marker: (1) \text{el<; enaivou xópiTog aúxou} in verse $6$, (2) \text{elq to eli/ai r^iac; elq en aiuov 5óín(; a ú to u } in verse $12$, and (3) \text{elq ënaii/ou tfiq 5ó^ri<; aOxoO} in verse $14$. He also identified prepositional phrases using $\text{év}$ (e.g., $\text{ev Xpicrq}$, $\text{eu oircS}$, and $\text{eu S}$) as formal elements. Cambier’s logical division follows a Trinitarian scheme: the Introduction (verse $3$) is the eulogy, the First Strophe ($1:4-6$) concerns God’s adoption of the believers, the Second Strophe ($1:7-12$) focuses on salvation through Christ, and the Final Strophe ($1:13-14$) addresses sanctification through the Holy Spirit. Critics, such as Bouwman ($1974$), point out that this creates an asymmetrical division, specifically an overly long second strophe due to the rigid application of the Trinitarian scheme.

Schattenmann’s Isometric Theory

Schattenmann ($1965$) proposed an isometric principle based on a shift from quantitative metre (long-short) to rhythmical metre (accented-unaccented). His structure consists of an ‘Überschrift’ (verse $3a$), followed by four strophes and a refrain for each. His word and syllable counts are specific: Strophe $1$ contains $60$ words and $136$ syllables; Strophe $2$ also contains $60$ words and $136$ syllables; Strophe $3$ contains $40$ words and $77$ syllables; and Strophe $4$ contains $40$ words and $92$ syllables. He utilizes three ‘Verbalgriffe’ (verbal grips) at the start of each strophe for emphasis, such as \text{eOXoyfiaaq, e n e X e ^ a to , Ttpoopiaaq} in Strophe $1$. However, Kramer ($1967$) dismisses this as ‘Zahlenspielerei’ (number games), noting that it cuts across syntactical and logical structures and that the syllable counting does not comply with the principles of isosyllaby and homotony required for rhythmical poetry.

Kramer’s Formulaic Theory

Kramer ($1967$) avoids the quest for an ‘original’ hymn and focuses on the text as presented. He identifies the formula $\text{ev Xpwcq}$ as the ‘unified center’ of the eulogy. He argues that sentence endings carry special weight. Specifically, the formula $\text{eu aÚTÍp}$ at the end of verse $10$ marks the close of a period rather than the start of a new section. Similarly, he views $\text{ev óyánri}$ at the end of verse $4$ as a ‘Nachtrag’ (postscript) to \text{eXe^axo}. Kramer’s structure includes a Benedictus formula (verse $3$), a Body ($1:4-12$) divided into three sub-sections, and a Conclusion ($1:13-14$). He defines these sub-sections by a sequence of a relative pronoun or $\text{év}$-phrase, a main verb, an aorist participle, and prepositional phrases with $\text{koto}$ and \text{ei^}. A major criticism is the awkward placement of the doxological refrain in his sub-sections.

Lang’s Stylistic Analysis and Reconstruction

Lang ($1969$) follows Kramer’s linguistic analysis but emphasizes a significant style change at verse $11$, where the subject shifts from God to ‘we’ and ‘you’. He divides the eulogy into a benediction (verse $3$), a First Strophe ($1:4-10$), and a Second Strophe ($1:11-14$). Lang identifies internal sub-sections within these strophes marked by the $\text{év}$ formula. To maintain symmetry, Lang suggests that the author modified an original ‘we’ style to a ‘you’ style in verse $13$ to transition to the letter’s recipients. In his reconstruction, he transforms $\text{éa(j)payía0TDiee}$ back to its hypothesized original $\text{éa(|)payía0TDiei/}$. His work is criticized for rejecting the liturgical refrain $\text{elq enaivov}$ as a dividing principle and for the asymmetrical relationship between his two main strophes.

Coutts’s Reconstruction of the Baptismal Hymn

Coutts ($1956/7$) attempted to reconstruct the ‘original’ hymn by comparing Ephesians $1:3-14$ with $1$ Peter $1:3-12$. He recognized the dividing function of \text{el^ enaiwov xfy; 8ó^Tiq} at verses $6$, $12$, and $14$. To uncover the ‘original’ form, he omitted five short phrases: verse $12$ (\text{ToOq > XpicrcS}), verse $14$ ($\text{eiq ótnoXúxptixjtv}$), verse $11$ ($\text{npoopia0éi/re<; > evepyoGuxoq}$), verse $11$ ($\text{elq to elvai}$), and verse $4$ (\text{eli/ai ipS i; áyíouq > ev áyón^}). He also changed \text{Ka0(b^ éCeXéCato} ($1:4$) to the hymnic $\text{ó êKXeCá)i.ei'oq}$. The resulting reconstruction is a perfectly symmetrical structure of three strophes, each consisting of six lines, where the refrain comprises the final two lines of each strophe, each corresponding to a person of the Trinity.

Schnackenburg’s Linguistic and Rhetorical Theories

Schnackenburg ($1977$) applied a linguistic approach, analyzing the text under syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects. He identified a ‘Sprachbewegung’ (linguistic movement) consisting of six movements based on a pattern of participle + prepositional phrases ($\text{Ka0óx;-Katá}$) + expressions of purpose ($\text{eiq}$). He intentionally avoids the term ‘strophe’, opting for periods of pauses and new statements.

Similarly, Robbins ($1986$) utilized Greek rhetorical principles to identify a periodic structure. He argues that the passage consists of eight periods, where each period is a unit that can be pronounced in a single breath. Each period consists of smaller units called cola, with most periods containing approximately five cola. In Robbins’s structure, the refrain always concludes a specific rhetorical period ($C$, $F$, and $H$).

Barkhuizen’s New Strophic Reconstruction

Barkhuizen presents a reconstruction based on principles of form and content, arguing that the refrain is of paramount importance as a strophic marker, regardless of minor syntactical variations. He employs the structural concept of Watson ($1986$), which identifies a hierarchy: Stanza (the house), Strophe (the rooms), and Verse (the furniture). In Barkhuizen’s model, the eulogy is divided into three stanzas:

1. Stanza 1: Consists of Strophe $1$ (verse $3$, as the Prooimion), Strophe $2$ (verse $4$), and Strophe $3$ (verses $5-6$).
2. Stanza 2: Consists of Strophe $1$ (verses $7-8$), Strophe $2$ (verses $9-10$), and Strophe $3$ (verses $11-12$).
3. Stanza 3: Consists of Strophe $1$ (verse $13$) and Strophe $2$ (verse $14$, serving as the Epilogue).

Each stanza is concluded by a refrain, marking them as roughly equal in length. The prepositional $\text{év}$ phrases are identified as markers for both the beginning (verses $7, 11, 13$) and the ending (verses $4, 8, 10$) of strophes. Participial phrases in verses $5$ and $9$ signify the start of new sections.

Thematic Motives and Detailed Breakdown

The central theme identified by Barkhuizen is the “Praise of God for all his spiritual blessings in Jesus Christ.” This theme is expanded through seven dominant motives:

1. The motive of election: (Stanza $1$, Strophe $2$).
2. The motive of adoption as children: (Stanza $1$, Strophe $3$).
3. The motive of deliverance and forgiveness of sins: (Stanza $2$, Strophe $1$).
4. The motive of the unity of all things in Christ: (Stanza $2$, Strophe $2$).
5. The motive of sharing in his inheritance: (Stanza $2$, Strophe $3$).
6. The motive of the Holy Spirit as seal: (Stanza $3$, Strophe $1$).
7. The motive of the Holy Spirit as pledge of our inheritance and deliverance: (Stanza $3$, Strophe $2$).

Barkhuizen concludes that this structural recognition reveals the passage as a deliberately stylized introduction that appropriately prepares the reader for the theologically dense themes of the letter to the Ephesians.