There are books of the Bible for which owning the two highest-ranked commentaries may provide everything most readers need. Ephesians is not one of them. The leading commentaries often excel in significantly different areas, including Greek linguistics, archaeological and inscriptional evidence, the religious environment of Roman Asia, Pauline theology, literary criticism, ecclesiology, and the relationship between theological identity and Christian ethics. A commentator who provides exceptional insight into the language and historical setting of a passage may give comparatively little attention to its contribution to the theology of the whole letter. Another may offer a compelling account of Ephesians’ theological coherence while leaving important grammatical or historical questions unresolved. This diversity creates an opportunity to gain substantially more from two well-chosen commentaries than from reading either one alone.
The principle governing these recommendations is therefore complementarity rather than individual ranking. I am not simply asking which commentators are the best or which volumes contain the greatest quantity of information. The more useful question is what the second commentary enables us to understand that would remain less clear after reading the first. A successful pairing should bring together different strengths, provide meaningful independent checks on disputed interpretations, and illuminate connections that neither volume consistently develops on its own. Some overlap is essential because the two commentators must engage with the same textual questions to make comparison worthwhile. Too much overlap, however, produces diminishing returns, especially when the commentators depend upon similar sources, use the same methods, and arrive at largely identical conclusions.
The three leading pairings remain unchanged after considering several additional studies of Ephesians. S. M. Baugh and Constantine Campbell provide the strongest all-round combination of primary-source investigation, Greek linguistics, and theological synthesis. Clinton Arnold and Andrew Lincoln are especially complementary for understanding the religious environment, cosmic Christology, ecclesiology, and historical interpretation of the letter. Frank Thielman and Ernest Best offer an outstanding combination of balanced exegetical judgment and exhaustive critical analysis. Each pair serves a somewhat different reader, and the appropriate choice depends upon whether the main purpose is sustained theological reading, historically informed interpretation, or detailed academic research.
Several specialist studies now deserve closer consideration alongside these established recommendations. Martin Wright’s The Dividing Wall provides an unusually stimulating account of how Ephesians should be read within the wider Pauline corpus, while Eric Covington’s Functional Teleology and the Coherence of Ephesians offers a sophisticated explanation of the relationship between God’s cosmic purposes, the church’s vocation, and Christian ethics. Rikard Roitto’s Behaving as a Christ-Believer approaches related questions through cognitive psychology and social identity theory. Michael Immendörfer’s extensive examination of the cult of Artemis substantially expands the historical evidence available for evaluating a specifically Ephesian background, while Bonnie Thurston contributes useful literary-theological observations about the progression from reconciliation to transformed communal life. These studies do not displace the leading comprehensive commentaries, but they make possible additional combinations that are especially rewarding for particular research interests.
1. S. M. Baugh (EEC) + Constantine R. Campbell (PNTC)
Why this pairing works
This remains my first recommendation because Baugh and Campbell overlap sufficiently to test one another’s conclusions while bringing markedly different strengths to the interpretation of Ephesians. Both are accomplished Greek exegetes, both take the theological unity of the letter seriously, and both engage with disputed questions rather than simply repeat established evangelical interpretations. Yet the source of their greatest contributions differs. Baugh tends to approach exegetical questions through detailed investigation of ancient linguistic and historical evidence, while Campbell is especially strong in Greek linguistic theory, discourse, participation in Christ, and the integration of theological themes. The combination is particularly effective because a passage can receive rigorous historical and grammatical investigation without losing its place within the larger theological movement of the letter.
Baugh supplies exceptional evidential breadth and historical depth. His commentary draws upon Greek grammar, papyri, inscriptions, classical literature, textual criticism, ancient rhetoric, and the archaeology of Ephesus in a way that few contemporary commentaries can match. His willingness to return to primary sources is particularly valuable when a commonly accepted interpretation depends upon a historical claim that has been repeated without adequate verification. Rather than simply report that a particular expression was common in the ancient world, Baugh frequently investigates the relevant evidence and considers whether it actually supports the proposed interpretation. This approach is especially rewarding in passages involving unusual vocabulary, difficult syntactical relationships, historical practices, and the religious environment of Roman Asia. He also combines this research with substantial attention to the Old Testament background and theology of Ephesians, preventing historical reconstruction from becoming an end in itself. His greatest limitation as a reading companion is that the abundance of material can sometimes obscure the progression of the argument, making it difficult to distinguish the most significant interpretive decisions from the many subsidiary questions.
Campbell complements Baugh through linguistic precision and sustained theological integration. His particular expertise in union with Christ is especially valuable because Ephesians repeatedly describes God’s saving action and the believer’s identity through expressions such as being in Christ, raised with Christ, and incorporated into his body. Campbell is attentive to the different functions of these expressions and shows how they contribute to the letter’s understanding of election, salvation, reconciliation, ecclesiology, and ethical transformation. His discussions of the church as Christ’s fullness, the new humanity, the gifts associated with Christ’s exaltation, and the relationship between theological declaration and practical exhortation are especially rewarding. Campbell also engages with authorship through linguistic considerations that challenge overly confident conclusions drawn from vocabulary and stylistic differences. His commentary is generally more economical than Baugh’s, allowing the reader to perceive the connections among passages without becoming overwhelmed by documentation. Some semantic judgments require critical examination, particularly where wider theological concepts may influence the interpretation of particular Greek expressions, but Campbell normally develops his arguments with considerable clarity.
The value of reading the two together becomes particularly apparent in Ephesians 1–3. Baugh helps establish the grammatical and historical significance of the opening blessing and the language of reconciliation, while Campbell clarifies how the repeated references to participation in Christ integrate the individual blessings into a coherent account of salvation. In Ephesians 2:11–22, Baugh’s investigation of the dividing wall, citizenship, temple imagery, and the new humanity provides essential historical and textual detail, while Campbell emphasizes the theological significance of incorporation into Christ and the formation of a reconciled community. A similar relationship emerges in Ephesians 4:7–16, where detailed investigation of Psalm 68 and the language of ministry can be brought into conversation with Campbell’s understanding of the church as a body growing toward maturity in Christ. The reader consequently gains both a stronger evidential foundation and a clearer account of how individual exegetical conclusions contribute to the whole letter.
The two also provide valuable safeguards against one another’s characteristic limitations. Baugh’s detailed investigation can make the broader theological progression harder to follow, while Campbell’s synthetic approach can occasionally make an attractive theological interpretation appear more secure than a fuller investigation of the underlying evidence warrants. Read together, they encourage a productive movement between individual expressions and the larger argument. The combination is especially effective for readers who want to understand Ephesians as both an ancient document and a coherent presentation of Christian theology. Although neither commentator resolves every important question, their overlapping competence in Greek and distinctive methodological strengths provide unusually strong mutual quality control.
Who should choose this pairing?
If I could own only two major commentaries on Ephesians, Baugh and Campbell would remain my first choice. Baugh is the more substantial independent research resource, while Campbell is particularly rewarding for continuous reading and theological synthesis. Together, they provide a combination of linguistic precision, historical investigation, literary understanding, and theological interpretation that is difficult to surpass. Readers engaged in preaching, teaching, advanced biblical study, or academic research will all find the pairing valuable, although the density of Baugh’s commentary means that its greatest rewards come from deliberate rather than hurried use.
2. Clinton E. Arnold (ZECNT) + Andrew T. Lincoln (WBC)
Why this pairing works
Arnold and Lincoln provide the most striking methodological contrast among the three principal pairings. Arnold’s greatest contribution lies in reconstructing the religious and social environment of Roman Ephesus, while Lincoln excels in examining the literary, theological, and critical architecture of Ephesians. The contrast is especially productive because both commentators take the letter’s cosmic perspective seriously but explain its significance through somewhat different frameworks. Arnold regularly asks how the claims about Christ and the spiritual powers might have addressed the religious expectations of people living in Asia Minor. Lincoln is more concerned with how cosmic Christology, ecclesiology, realized eschatology, and the letter’s relationship to Pauline tradition fit together as a theological argument. Their approaches therefore illuminate different aspects of the same passages and expose the weaknesses that arise when either historical context or theological development becomes the dominant explanatory category.
Arnold brings the ancient religious world of Ephesus into the discussion with unusual clarity. His longstanding research into magic, supernatural powers, protective practices, religious names, and the cult of Artemis enables him to explain why the language of Christ’s supremacy might have held particular significance for believers familiar with the fears and expectations of Greco-Roman religion. His discussion of Ephesians 1:20–23 is especially useful because the declaration that Christ is exalted above every rule, authority, power, dominion, and name becomes more concrete when read against ancient practices involving the invocation of supernatural names and the search for protection from hostile powers. The same historical expertise enriches his treatment of the former condition of believers in Ephesians 2, the church’s relationship to the heavenly powers in Ephesians 3, and the concluding armor passage in Ephesians 6. Arnold does not merely add illustrative background material; he uses the religious environment as a means of investigating the communicative significance of the text. His principal limitation is the danger that local magical practices may sometimes be assigned more explanatory importance than can securely be established from the letter itself.
Lincoln contributes a more developed account of the literary and theological structure of Ephesians. His commentary explores how the exaltation of Christ, the gathering together of all things, the church as Christ’s body and fullness, Jew-Gentile reconciliation, and the ethical exhortations form part of a distinctive theological vision. His treatment of realized eschatology is particularly valuable because it clarifies the significance of believers already participating in Christ’s heavenly position while continuing to await the ultimate fulfillment of God’s purposes. Lincoln is also sensitive to the scriptural foundations of the letter’s cosmic language, including its use of Psalms 8, 68, and 110, and he frequently provides extended explanations showing how individual passages contribute to the broader argument. His discussion of the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians raises important questions about theological development and literary dependence. I remain unconvinced that the post-Pauline framework he adopts is necessary to explain several of the letter’s distinctive emphases, but his interpretation remains substantial enough to reward critical engagement even when that historical conclusion is rejected.
The pairing is especially fruitful in passages where historical context and theological structure can become competing explanations. In Ephesians 1:20–23, Arnold encourages the reader to consider the significance of Christ’s supremacy within a religious environment concerned with spiritual protection, while Lincoln traces the relationship between the exalted Christ, his cosmic authority, and the church as his body. In Ephesians 3:10, Arnold’s work helps make the heavenly rulers and authorities intelligible within ancient religious expectations, while Lincoln places the church’s proclamation of divine wisdom within the wider theological movement of the letter. In Ephesians 6:10–20, Arnold supplies a rich account of spiritual fears and ancient religious practices, while Lincoln helps prevent the warfare imagery from being detached from the letter’s emphasis on reconciliation, ecclesial unity, and participation in Christ. The resulting interpretation is more complete than either a purely historical reconstruction or a primarily theological exposition.
Their differences concerning Pauline authorship are also particularly useful. Arnold’s approach generally assumes that Paul is communicating within a historically plausible first-century Ephesian environment, while Lincoln understands the letter within a subsequent stage of Pauline Christianity. These different starting points produce alternative explanations of certain theological emphases, especially the prominence of ecclesiology, cosmic Christology, and the development of Paul’s earlier language. Reading both commentators forces the reader to distinguish what the text actually states from the historical reconstruction used to explain it. The contrast also encourages attention to whether a particular phenomenon is best understood through the circumstances of the intended audience, the literary relationship with earlier Pauline writings, or a combination of the two.
How the newer Artemis research affects this pairing
Michael Immendörfer’s Ephesians and Artemis considerably expands the historical material relevant to Arnold’s approach. His extensive investigation of Ephesian inscriptions, the Artemision, the cult’s religious practices, and the honorific titles associated with Artemis provides a much larger collection of possible parallels with Ephesians than most conventional commentaries offer. Particular attention is given to the temple imagery of Ephesians 2:20–22, expressions concerning divine greatness and power, the language of citizenship and inheritance, and the flaming arrows of the evil one in Ephesians 6:16. These comparisons can make the historical reading of Ephesians more vivid and encourage reconsideration of expressions whose local significance has received little attention. Nevertheless, Immendörfer often treats the accumulation of parallels as evidence of deliberate allusion, and I am not convinced that the distinctiveness of every proposed connection is sufficiently established. Some of the vocabulary and imagery involved can also be explained through Israel’s Scriptures or widely shared ancient religious and social conventions.
This is precisely why I would not replace Lincoln with Immendörfer in the principal pairing. Arnold and Immendörfer both concentrate heavily upon the Ephesian religious environment, so their strongest contributions overlap even though Immendörfer supplies a considerably more extensive body of particular historical comparisons. Reading them together is valuable for specialist research into Artemis, but it would sacrifice the sustained literary and theological perspective that makes Arnold and Lincoln so complementary. Lincoln provides an important independent framework for testing whether a proposed Ephesian cultic explanation is really needed to make sense of the text. Immendörfer is therefore best added as a specialist third resource when local religious allusions are under investigation, rather than replacing the critical-theological half of the pairing. This preserves the central principle that two commentaries become more valuable together when their methods are meaningfully different.
Who should choose this pairing?
I would choose Arnold and Lincoln over Baugh and Campbell if my primary interests were the supernatural powers, ancient religion, the cult of Artemis, cosmic Christology, ecclesiology, and the historical development of Pauline theology. The pairing is also exceptionally useful for readers who want two substantially different historical frameworks to challenge one another. Arnold supplies a concrete understanding of the world in which the letter may have been heard, while Lincoln explains how its cosmic and ecclesial claims operate within a complex theological argument. Their combined contribution is particularly rewarding for Ephesians 1:20–23, 2:1–3, 3:10, and 6:10–20.
3. Frank Thielman (BECNT) + Ernest Best (ICC)
Why this pairing works
Thielman and Best offer the strongest combination for readers whose principal purpose is to examine difficult exegetical questions with exceptional care. Thielman is a remarkably balanced interpreter who normally presents the evidence and competing explanations with considerable fairness, while Best is unusually persistent in questioning the assumptions underlying accepted interpretations. Their relationship is therefore different from that between Baugh and Campbell or Arnold and Lincoln. These two commentators often work on similar textual and critical problems, but their analytical temperaments differ sufficiently to make their discussions mutually illuminating. Thielman provides a carefully developed positive interpretation, while Best repeatedly asks whether the evidence permits the conclusions that commentators have drawn. This combination is especially useful when an academic argument must withstand close scrutiny rather than merely offer an attractive explanation.
Thielman’s greatest contribution is the consistent reliability of his exegetical judgment. His commentary combines Greek grammar, lexical evidence, Old Testament interpretation, historical background, theological reflection, and literary sensitivity without allowing one method to dominate. His investigations of Greek usage frequently draw upon a wider range of ancient sources than the immediate biblical context, while his handling of competing interpretations is marked by an appropriate distinction between probability and certainty. The treatment of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4 is an excellent example of this approach because the interpretation requires consideration of textual traditions, the relationship between the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and the way the passage functions within Ephesians. His discussions of the new humanity, church unity, and household relationships similarly show how linguistic precision and theological judgment can reinforce one another. Thielman is not always the most adventurous interpreter, but the interpretations he adopts are usually supported by arguments that survive careful examination. His commentary is consequently particularly valuable as an independent reference point against which more ambitious proposals can be evaluated.
Best brings extraordinary critical independence and a willingness to interrogate inherited scholarly conclusions.His discussions of the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians are especially important because he questions whether the observed similarities necessarily establish the direction and character of literary dependence commonly proposed. He examines the ways shared expressions function in each letter and asks whether the differences can be explained adequately by the assumption that one author simply borrowed from another. This willingness to reconsider a familiar conclusion extends throughout his discussions of ecclesiology, the body of Christ, the powers, Pauline authorship, and the ethical exhortations. Best is exceptionally useful when an interpretation appears to have gained acceptance through repeated citation rather than a continuing examination of the evidence. His limitation is that the analytical detail can be overwhelming, and some discussions give more attention to possible difficulties than to the theological movement of the text. His treatment is also less immediately useful for preaching or contemporary application because such concerns are not the principal purpose of the commentary.
The pairing works because Thielman’s interpretive clarity compensates for Best’s tendency toward exhaustive critical analysis, while Best’s persistent questioning provides an effective challenge to interpretations that might otherwise appear settled. In Ephesians 2:11–22, Thielman offers a carefully integrated account of reconciliation and the new humanity, while Best opens wider questions about the language of ecclesial unity, the place of Israel, and the literary relationship with other Pauline texts. In Ephesians 4, Thielman’s handling of scriptural quotation and the gifts given by Christ can be compared with Best’s close investigation of the underlying interpretive problems. Their discussions of Ephesians 5:21–6:9 similarly provide opportunities to test grammatical decisions against the social and theological assumptions that shape the interpretation of household relationships. The result is not always immediate agreement, but it is the kind of productive disagreement that improves the reader’s understanding of what a passage can and cannot securely mean.
The differences between their approaches to authorship provide another useful point of comparison. Thielman works within a Pauline framework and generally understands distinctive theological emphases as part of the continuing development of Paul’s own thought. Best adopts a non-Pauline position but is less willing than many critical scholars to accept conventional arguments concerning literary dependence or theological discontinuity without independent examination. Reading the two together therefore discourages a simplistic division between conservative harmonization and critical skepticism. Both commentators can be exacting in their evaluation of evidence, even while reaching different historical judgments. The reader benefits from seeing how much of an exegetical conclusion depends upon the text itself and how much depends upon assumptions about the composition and transmission of the Pauline letters.
How the newer studies strengthen this pairing
Martin Wright’s The Dividing Wall is a particularly valuable addition when Thielman and Best disagree about the significance of Pauline continuity and development. Wright argues that the division of the Pauline corpus according to authorship has sometimes obscured important intertextual relationships, particularly in Ephesians 2:8–22 and the treatment of the body of Christ. His comparison of Ephesians with Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians challenges the tendency to interpret differences from the undisputed letters as evidence of a fundamental theological departure. Wright does not eliminate historical questions concerning authorship, but he encourages readers to distinguish those questions from the interpretation of the received Pauline corpus. His approach is therefore especially useful alongside Best, whose literary-critical independence can be placed in conversation with Wright’s canonical emphasis, while Thielman’s controlled exegesis provides an additional means of testing the competing arguments. The combination is particularly fruitful for research on grace and works, the role of Israel, reconciliation, and ecclesiology.
Eric Covington also provides a worthwhile additional perspective, especially where discussions of particular grammatical or theological questions obscure the conceptual unity of the letter. His interpretation through functional teleology explains how cosmic Christology, ecclesial purpose, and ethical instruction may form a coherent system of thought rather than a collection of loosely connected subjects. This is particularly helpful for Ephesians 1:10, 3:10, and 4:11–16, where the relationship between divine purpose and the church’s vocation is central to the argument. His study also offers an interesting proposal concerning the apparent tension between the abolition of the law in Ephesians 2:15 and the positive citation of the fifth commandment in Ephesians 6:2–3. Drawing upon Thomas Aquinas, Covington explores the possibility of understanding the law’s relationship to Christ through fulfillment within a larger divine purpose. Such proposals should be tested against the detailed Greek and contextual analysis available in Thielman and Best, but they demonstrate how a conceptual framework can illuminate relationships that a primarily verse-by-verse approach may leave insufficiently developed.
Who should choose this pairing?
I would recommend Thielman and Best particularly to advanced students, researchers, teachers working through difficult passages, and readers preparing substantial academic studies of Ephesians. Thielman provides a dependable and coherent interpretation, while Best exposes the complexity and limitations of competing arguments. The pairing demands more patience than Baugh and Campbell, partly because Best’s discussions can be exceptionally dense, but the intellectual reward is correspondingly substantial. For readers who want to understand not simply what commentators conclude but whether their conclusions can withstand detailed criticism, this may be the most productive working combination of the three.
An Additional Specialist Pairing: Martin Wright + Eric Covington
Why this new pairing deserves consideration
The combination of Martin Wright’s The Dividing Wall and Eric Covington’s Functional Teleology and the Coherence of Ephesians deserves special recognition because the two studies approach the theological unity of Ephesians through substantially different frameworks. Wright investigates the relationship between Ephesians and the wider Pauline corpus, while Covington examines the internal coherence of the letter through its understanding of divine purpose and the church’s vocation. Both are concerned with questions of integration, but the objects of integration differ. Wright asks how Ephesians receives, develops, and reinterprets theological themes found in other Pauline letters. Covington asks how the apparently diverse themes within Ephesians itself can be understood as elements of a coherent explanation of cosmic purpose, ecclesial identity, and Christian conduct. The pairing is consequently strongest as a research combination rather than as a substitute for two full exegetical commentaries.
Wright is most valuable when the question concerns Pauline continuity and canonical interpretation. His investigation of Ephesians 2:8–22 provides a compelling demonstration of how the argument about salvation by grace through faith leads naturally into the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles. Rather than treating the two sections as largely independent, he traces their relationship to the argument of Romans 3 and the wider Pauline concern for the inclusion of Gentiles. His analysis of the church as God’s building also draws upon 1 Corinthians, showing how Ephesians combines imagery from different Pauline contexts in a new and coherent fashion. The subsequent discussion of the body of Christ develops the same approach across 1 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, and Ephesians, challenging accounts that treat later ecclesiology as an abandonment of earlier Pauline theology. Wright’s contribution is particularly valuable because the intertextual relationships illuminate concrete passages rather than remaining at the level of a general canonical theory.
Covington is most valuable when the question concerns how Ephesians holds together its theology and ethics.His use of functional teleology places the cosmic gathering of all things in Christ at the center of the letter’s understanding of divine purpose. Within that larger purpose, the church is described as a reconciled community whose unity and maturity reveal the wisdom of God and anticipate the fulfillment of creation. Individual believers have different functions within the body, while their ethical conduct is directed toward the flourishing of the community and the realization of its vocation. This framework is particularly illuminating in Ephesians 4:11–16, where the distribution of gifts, the equipping of believers, and the movement toward maturity are explicitly related. Covington’s investigation of ancient philosophical ethics and Aquinas’s interpretation adds historical breadth to this analysis, although comparisons with wider ethical traditions must not be mistaken for proof of direct literary dependence. His strongest achievement is to make the transition from divine purpose to communal conduct appear integral to the letter rather than merely a conventional movement from doctrine to application.
The two studies become especially fruitful when used together on Ephesians 2–4. Wright clarifies how the creation of one new humanity emerges from the earlier Pauline gospel of grace and reconciliation, while Covington explains why that new humanity is significant within God’s purpose for the entire cosmos. Wright’s discussion of the building and body metaphors establishes their relationship with other Pauline texts, while Covington’s interpretation emphasizes the differentiated functions of members within the growing community. Their methods also provide a useful check upon one another. Wright’s emphasis on canonical intertextuality can help prevent an ancient philosophical framework from displacing the biblical and Pauline connections already present in Ephesians, while Covington’s attention to purpose and ethical coherence can draw out dimensions of the letter that Wright’s more selective exegetical studies do not address comprehensively. Together, they supply a particularly rich account of the continuity, coherence, and theological significance of Ephesians.
There is nevertheless an important limitation to this pairing. Neither book is a complete verse-by-verse commentary, and both concentrate upon particular theological and methodological questions. Wright’s detailed exegesis focuses primarily on Ephesians 2 and the body of Christ, while Covington’s broader analysis is guided by the question of functional purpose and coherence. Readers seeking comprehensive treatment of textual variants, Greek syntax, lexical possibilities, historical setting, or every disputed passage will therefore require a conventional commentary alongside them. I would regard Baugh or Thielman as the most useful accompanying reference because either supplies the detailed exegetical control needed to evaluate their larger proposals. The pairing is exceptionally rewarding for advanced theological interpretation, but it should be understood as a focused research combination rather than a replacement for the established three.
Who should choose this specialist pairing?
I would choose Wright and Covington when my main interest was the theological coherence of Ephesians, especially the relationships among grace, reconciliation, the body of Christ, cosmic purpose, and Christian ethics. It is particularly well suited to research on Pauline theology, ecclesiology, biblical theology, and the relationship between the theological and practical portions of the letter. Wright supplies a strong canonical and intertextual perspective, while Covington develops the internal logic of the letter and its purpose-oriented ethical vision. For readers who already own a major commentary and want two original studies that illuminate broader relationships, this is an unusually productive combination.
How the Other New Volumes Affect the Pairings
Rikard Roitto: The Strongest Alternative When Christian Identity and Community Formation Are Central
Roitto’s Behaving as a Christ-Believer is the most significant additional option when the reader’s particular interest lies in the relationship between theological identity and practical behavior. His study differs from Covington’s because it asks how narratives about divine action, spiritual influence, and membership in Christ shape the expectations governing a community’s conduct. Through cognitive psychology and social identity theory, Roitto investigates how believers understand themselves as belonging to a distinctive group, how the group differentiates itself from outsiders, and how that identity is expressed through speech, cooperation, household relationships, and shared beliefs. His work is especially interesting in Ephesians 4–6, where the exhortations are frequently interpreted simply as the consequences of the theological teaching in chapters 1–3. Roitto argues for a more complex relationship in which identity and behavior can reinforce one another, so that communal practices help sustain the very understanding of Christian identity from which they arise. This approach illuminates the dynamics of moral formation and the social significance of the letter in ways that conventional theological exposition does not always accomplish.
Roitto also provides an important contribution to Ephesians 2 by proposing that the community of Christ-believers can be understood as a distinctive subgroup within the broader category of Israel. This model attempts to account for the letter’s combination of strong continuity with Israel’s privileges and a new communal identity embracing Jews and Gentiles through Christ. His analysis of leadership and teaching raises similarly productive questions about how authority, knowledge, and accepted communal norms interact, while his treatment of household relationships examines how domestic identities are incorporated into the overarching identity of belonging to Christ. These proposals are not without difficulties. Contemporary cognitive and social-psychological models cannot demonstrate precisely how ancient individuals experienced the identity described by the letter, and some conclusions about group control or exclusion may go beyond what the available historical evidence can establish. Nevertheless, Roitto’s analytical framework is original and often illuminating, especially when used with commentators who supply detailed textual and historical evidence.
For readers interested primarily in social identity and ethical formation, I would consider Wright + Roitto as an alternative to Wright + Covington. Wright explains the Pauline and canonical background of reconciliation, while Roitto investigates how the new identity established through reconciliation may shape communal attitudes and conduct. The combination would be particularly fruitful for Ephesians 2:11–22, 4:1–16, and 5:21–6:9. If the broader question is how God’s cosmic purpose integrates the whole letter, Covington remains the preferable partner for Wright. If the concern is how a community learns to understand and practice its new identity, Roitto becomes the more distinctive addition. This distinction is more useful than attempting to rank Covington and Roitto without reference to the specific questions being investigated.
Michael Immendörfer: Valuable Historical Research but Too Much Overlap With Arnold for a Principal Pair
Immendörfer’s Ephesians and Artemis is a substantial historical study that deserves attention because it investigates the possible relationship between the letter and the cult of Artemis more extensively than most commentaries. Its archaeological, inscriptional, and literary research brings together evidence concerning the temple, the goddess’s divine titles, protective functions, civic importance, festivals, religious practices, and distinctive terminology. The proposed connections with Ephesians include the temple and building imagery of chapter 2, the language of divine power and greatness in chapter 1, the imagery of citizenship and inheritance, and the armor and flaming arrows of chapter 6. Such comparisons are potentially illuminating because the religious life of ancient Ephesus was deeply shaped by the cult of Artemis, and readers familiar with that environment may have recognized associations that modern interpreters overlook. The study therefore expands the evidential background against which claims of deliberate Ephesian allusion can be evaluated. Its most important contribution may be to encourage a more systematic use of local historical sources rather than relying upon a small number of frequently repeated general observations.
The difficulty is that Immendörfer sometimes moves from the existence of similarities to the conclusion that Ephesians deliberately adopts and transforms Artemis-related language. Many of the themes under consideration, including divine greatness, protection, sacred buildings, wealth, and spiritual conflict, were not distinctive to the Artemis cult and have substantial parallels in Jewish Scripture or general Greco-Roman religion. Accumulating numerous possible correspondences does not necessarily establish authorial intention if the individual connections remain uncertain. This problem is especially significant when the proposed allusions become the basis for conclusions about the specific recipients or Pauline authorship of the letter. I would therefore use Immendörfer as a source of historical evidence and interpretive possibilities while maintaining a relatively high threshold for accepting particular literary allusions. Arnold and Immendörfer make a useful specialist combination for investigating Artemis and the religious background of Ephesians, but their overlapping concerns mean that the second volume provides less methodological complementarity than Lincoln does. For a general two-commentary pairing, Arnold + Lincoln remains the stronger recommendation, with Immendörfer added when the historical argument requires closer investigation.
Bonnie Thurston: A Useful Literary-Theological Companion, Especially for Reading and Teaching
Thurston’s Reading Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians makes a different contribution from the specialist monographs because its primary purpose is to explain the literary and theological movement of the biblical text in an accessible form. Her discussion of Ephesians is particularly useful in tracing the relationship between God’s saving initiative, the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles, and the ethical exhortations that describe life within the new community. She recognizes the importance of understanding Ephesians 3:14–21 as both a summary of the preceding theological material and a transition toward the practical teaching of chapters 4–6. The prayer brings together divine power, the indwelling of Christ, spiritual strengthening, love, and the fullness of God, while preparing the reader for the subsequent call to walk in love and preserve the unity of the church. This literary progression is easy to overlook when studying individual passages through large technical commentaries. Thurston’s ability to keep the overall movement visible therefore makes her work a useful teaching resource even though it does not match the leading commentaries in the depth of independent research.
Her discussion of the household instructions is especially stimulating because she considers the ancient household as an interconnected domestic and economic unit rather than simply the equivalent of a modern nuclear family. Drawing upon Charles Talbert, she examines the possible value of understanding the household code in relation to the organization of an ancient family business, where relatives, servants, enslaved persons, employees, and other dependents participated within a shared social structure. This perspective encourages readers to consider the practical and economic dimensions of the instructions rather than immediately translating them into modern assumptions about private family relationships. It also raises worthwhile questions about how Christian identity and communal unity should influence conduct within established social arrangements. The comparison must be used carefully, however, because ancient slavery and household authority cannot simply be equated with contemporary employment or domestic organization. Thurston’s interpretation also reflects scholarship substantially completed earlier than the publication of the volume, limiting its engagement with more recent linguistic and historical debates. Her principal strength is consequently synthesis and readability rather than distinctive critical research.
Thurston could be paired profitably with Covington for readers interested in the movement from theological identity to practical Christian life. Covington would provide the more sophisticated explanation of the letter’s conceptual coherence, while Thurston would make its literary progression and ordinary social implications easier to follow. Nevertheless, I would not rank this combination above the three established pairs or the Wright + Covington specialist pairing, because Thurston contributes comparatively little independent evidence and develops several themes already addressed more comprehensively elsewhere. Her most natural role is as an accessible companion for sustained reading or teaching, especially when a major technical commentary has become too detailed for the immediate purpose. This illustrates an important distinction in choosing commentaries: a work may be highly useful for a particular form of reading without necessarily becoming one half of the strongest overall scholarly pairing.
Which Pairing Should You Choose?
The appropriate choice depends upon the questions that have brought the reader to Ephesians. If the objective is to understand the letter as comprehensively as possible through two major commentaries, Baugh and Campbell remain the best combination because they bring together extensive historical and linguistic research with a coherent understanding of participation in Christ. Readers particularly concerned with ancient religious beliefs, the supernatural powers, or the ecclesiology and cosmic Christology of Ephesians will benefit most from Arnold and Lincoln. Those preparing substantial exegetical research or seeking to test the strength of contested interpretations will find Thielman and Best especially valuable. Wright and Covington form an additional research pairing for questions of Pauline continuity and theological coherence, while Roitto provides a distinctive alternative when the formation of Christian identity and the relationship between belonging and behavior are central concerns.
For Ephesians 1:3–14, I would begin with Baugh and Campbell because the opening blessing requires both precise interpretation of a remarkable Greek sentence and a sustained understanding of the blessings received in Christ. Covington becomes especially helpful when the focus shifts to the purpose-oriented language of election, inheritance, and the gathering together of all things. For Ephesians 2:8–22, Thielman and Best provide valuable exegetical scrutiny, while Wright adds an important account of the connections with Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians. Roitto’s investigation of the relationship between Israel, Gentile believers, and communal identity offers a further perspective that can deepen understanding without replacing close textual analysis. The reader gains most from choosing the additional volume according to the interpretive difficulty that remains after the primary commentary has been consulted.
For Ephesians 3–4, the most productive combination depends upon whether the emphasis is cosmic purpose or ecclesial development. Lincoln and Arnold are especially helpful for examining the church’s relationship to the heavenly powers and the significance of Christ’s exaltation. Campbell and Covington offer a particularly fruitful comparison concerning the church as Christ’s body, the distribution of gifts, and growth toward maturity, since Campbell’s understanding of participation in Christ can be brought into conversation with Covington’s explanation of the church’s distinctive vocation. Roitto adds a different dimension by examining how leaders, teachers, shared narratives, and behavioral expectations contribute to the maintenance and development of communal identity. These approaches should not be treated as interchangeable, because each investigates a different aspect of the relationship between Christ, the church, and the formation of its members.
For Ephesians 5:21–6:9, I would begin with a major commentary such as Baugh, Thielman, or Campbell to establish the grammatical relationships and the progression of the argument. Thurston can then help situate the household instructions within the domestic and economic structures of the ancient world, while Roitto provides a more theoretical account of how household roles interact with the identity of belonging to Christ. Covington offers another perspective by examining whether household conduct should be understood within the wider purpose of the new humanity. For Ephesians 6:10–20, Arnold remains my preferred specialist because he combines substantial historical knowledge of ancient spiritual beliefs with detailed interpretation of the letter. Immendörfer supplies further local historical comparisons concerning Artemis and protective religious imagery, while Lincoln helps ensure that the warfare passage remains connected with the larger theological vision of Ephesians. In every case, the strongest combination is the one that brings a different form of evidence or interpretation to the difficulty at hand.
Bottom Line
My first recommendation remains S. M. Baugh + Constantine R. Campbell. Baugh provides extraordinary breadth and depth of primary-source research, while Campbell offers linguistic sophistication and sustained theological integration, particularly through his understanding of union with Christ. Their combination covers an unusually large proportion of the exegetical, historical, and theological questions that make Ephesians rewarding and difficult. Neither is dependent upon the other for its value, but each helps compensate for limitations in the other’s presentation. If I were beginning a serious study of Ephesians with room for only two substantial commentaries, this is still the combination I would select.
Clinton Arnold + Andrew Lincoln remains the more distinctive choice for readers concerned with the religious environment of Roman Asia, spiritual powers, cosmic Christology, and the theological character of the church. Their contrasting historical frameworks create a particularly useful dialogue, and neither can easily be substituted for the other without sacrificing an important interpretive dimension. Frank Thielman + Ernest Best is the strongest pairing for sustained critical research, combining sound, balanced exegesis with exceptionally thorough scrutiny of competing arguments. For readers already possessing a major commentary who want to investigate the larger coherence of Ephesians, Martin Wright + Eric Covington now provides an additional specialist combination of considerable value. Wright illuminates the relationship between Ephesians and the Pauline corpus, while Covington explains how the letter’s diverse theological and ethical themes relate to God’s purpose for creation and the church.
The remaining specialist works are best chosen selectively rather than added simply to increase the size of a library. Roitto is particularly rewarding for the relationship between Christian identity and communal behavior, Immendörfer for detailed examination of the possible Ephesian religious background, and Thurston for sustained literary-theological reading and teaching. Each can add real value when brought to a passage whose interpretation would benefit from that particular perspective, but none automatically displaces the established pairings. The best commentary pairing is not necessarily the combination containing the two most highly regarded books. It is the combination in which each book enables the reader to see something important that the other leaves less fully explained. On that basis, the three original pairings remain the strongest general recommendations, while the newer specialist studies make the possibilities for focused research considerably richer.
Leave a Reply