There is a growing effort within the academy to reassess the portrait of time in the Pauline corpus. L. Ann Jervis (Paul and Time) has recently proposed an assessment of time in Paul that is neither salvation-historical nor apocalyptic. Jervis’ discussion of time in Paul is far-reaching and addresses a variety of theological issues. One of her key concerns is reevaluating the continued presence of evil and suffering post-Calvary. For Jervis, the solution is not to see Paul presenting a reworking of his Second Temple heritage that involves the overlap of the “present evil age” and the “age to come.” Rather, Paul’s emphasis on our union with Christ should frame how we interpret the persistent reality of evil even after Christ’s death and resurrection. Jervis principally argues Christ has defeated evil and the war against evil is finished. For Jervis, there is then no continued battle against evil, even if God’s victory is assured.
Jervis’ work does provide a helpful corrective to some apocalyptic readings of Paul. However, she does not interact closely with the letter to the Ephesians. The authenticity of Ephesians is certainly a matter of debate (I will assume Pauline authorship). Nonetheless, three features of Ephesians demand fuller consideration. First, the letter stresses the finality of Christ’s defeat of the “powers” (e.g., Eph. 1:21–22). Second, the letter explicitly refers to “the age to come” (Eph. 1:21; 2:7). Third, Paul depicts believers engaged in conflict with evil cosmic forces (Eph. 6:10–20). The presence of these three textual features within Ephesians raises questions about the viability of Jervis’ proposal and the degree to which the theology of Ephesians meshes with that of the Hauptbriefe.
This paper will argue that while Jervis’ reassessment of time in the Hauptbriefe is generally helpful at points, Paul’s discussion of the missio Dei in Ephesians presents a more viable means of accounting for the continued presence of evil post-Calvary. I will first summarize the key contours of this debate over time in Paul. While I will devote special attention to Jervis’ recent monograph, I will also examine the contributions of other scholars (e.g., B. Matlock and J. Davies). I will then argue Paul’s theology in Ephesians does not fit neatly into the categories of salvation-history or apocalyptic (cf. Eph. 1:9–10, 21; 2:7, 11–21; 5:7–16). Finally, I will argue Paul’s treatment of the missio Dei provides clarity on the relationship between Christ’s victory over evil and the continuing presence of evil. While Christ has defeated the forces of evil, God’s plan for cosmic unity is not effective apart from the gospel and God has tasked the Church with extending the impact of Christ’s victory, particularly via gospel proclamation (esp. Eph. 1:10, 21–23; 4:11–16; 6:17). There is then an eschatological tension in Ephesians. Nonetheless, this tension arises from the nature of the missio Dei, not Paul’s direct dependence on his Second Temple heritage.