I enjoyed reading Harold Hoehner’s exegetical commentary, even though I disagreed with much of his theological approach/conclusions. The detailed examination is precise and it is presented well.
http://www.amazon.com/Ephesians-Exegetical-Commentary-Harold-Hoehner/dp/0801026148/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
Though it is not a commentary per se, because of the all-important first chapter of Paul’s letter, I would also suggest W. Klein’s “The New Chosen People” as a good book to have around when studying Ephesians. It is a very solid perspective.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Chosen-People-William-Klein/dp/1579105734/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244753185&sr=1-2

I still find lots of good information and insights from Peter T. O’Brien’s Ephesians commentary in the Pillar series.
Barth is good, but Hoehner’s is looking like the one stop shop for entry into Ephesians.

Hands down: Hoehner. O’Brien is my second favorite.

Hoehner’s commentary, while sometimes effected by his dispensationalism, should be regarded, in my opinion, as the rubric for how to write a commentary. I have never seen another commentary that makes so many helpful and important comments on the grammar and syntax of the Greek while dealing deeply with the theological issues in the text. This and Thiselton on 1 Corinthians are the standards by which all other commentaries should be judged.
By the way, Jason, hows Grand Rapids?

I find it interesting that you didn’t mention Witherington’s commentary on Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians, when your endorsement is on the book, Scot.
I prefer Lincoln, Witherington, and O’Brien when it comes to studying Ephesians, though I also have Barth, MacDonald, Hoehner, and Snodgrass.

I’ve gotta agree with the others…despite my love for Barth (especially his Philemon commentary), I go with O’Brien and Hoehner as 1 and 2.

WBC has a great Ephesians commentary, also Talbert’s new-ish Paideia commentary on Ephesians & Colossians is wonderful.

Scot,
I’d have to pick Peter O’Brien in the Pillar series first up, followed by Best and Barth (I’m also a big Markus Barth fan. Must be his initial MB).

There’s a little known commentary series by Herald Press called Believers Church Bible Commentary and Thomas Yoder Neufeld writes the Ephesians volume — it’s wonderful. Exegetically based, though not exhaustive, it’s pastoral and theological and among the most helpful I’ve seen.

Snodgrass’ NIV Application Commentary is a surprise and incredibly good. I agree that Hoehner’s is exhaustive, but theologically slanted.

I like different ones for different reasons – O’Brien for theological reflection, Hoehner for grammar and sources, Barth for creative thinking. Best and Lincoln are good too, but the “author of Ephesians” bit (assuming someone other than Paul) gets tiresome and detracts from the exegesis.
Interestingly, Barth and Blanke’s Colossians commentary has the best and most thorough treatment of the relationship between Colossians and Ephesians (over 50 pages on the topic!).

John,
Please tell me, what commentary is not “theologically slanted”? Just because Hoehner taught at DTS does not mean his commentary is full of apocalyptic doom and gloom rhetoric as found in the Left Behind series (the common caricature about DTS and dispensationalism from most people). Every single commentary mentioned on this page is just as theologically slanted as the next one. I’ve actually found some of Hoehner’s conclusions quite surprising given the common caricature of “dispensationalism.” It doesn’t pervade every page of the text like others would have us think and is possibly the system of theology I have seen caricatured and blown out of proportion more so than any other.

Luke (#12) makes some excellent points. If Hoehner were slanted in the ways that some might think, then why would the likes of Frederick Danker say that “all other commentaries can be put in storage for retrieval as needed”? Maybe Danker is a closet dispensationalist!

For exegesis, I am surprised no one has yet mentioned Schnackenburg’s commentary.
For rich pastoral insight, it is hard to beat John Stott, and his commentary on Ephesians is one of his best.
I also second Scot and John’s affirmation of Kyle Snodgrass, whose NIVAC commentary has some great insights and applications, as well as some keen observations on exegesis and structure.
I appreciate Witherington’s commentary, with its insightful assessment of and wise corrective to O’Brien’s (and also Hoehner’s) reading of Ephesians 5. Witherington really helps us capture the flow of the chapter in a way that O’Brien misses, IMHO.
I would also commend Michael Gorman’s excursus on “Cruciform Love in Ephesians, with Special Reference to Ephesians 5″ in his wonderful Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Gorman grounds the entire discussion about marriage “in the larger context of the letter and what it says about the fundamental responsibility of believers to one another: self-sacrificing, mutually submitting love.”