Eamon Younis: The Broken Wall, or: From Alienation to Reconciliation

By David J. MacLeod

Dave MacLeod is Dean for Biblical Studies at Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and is Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

An Exposition of Ephesians 2:11–22

Introduction

New England poet Robert Frost (1874–1963) used to go out with his neighbor each spring to mend the stone wall between their properties that the swelling frozen ground and hunters had knocked over. After one such day he wrote a poem with the evocative line, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” [1] In that observation Mr. Frost exhibited a keen grasp of the human condition. [2] There is something in man’s nature that sets him to the task of building walls between himself and others. The walls he builds come in all shapes and sizes. He builds barriers between races, nations, economic classes, educational levels, age groups, and religions. The result is a world in which people find themselves alienated and estranged from one another. Modern man (and woman) feels alienated from his government, from his employer or employees, from his neighbors, and from members of his own family. There is disunity between man and man and within each man’s own nature.

The Bible explains that the alienation people feel is more radical than just social, economic, political, or familial hostility. It says that the real reason people find themselves cut off from one another is that they are cut off from God who created them. In fact, the Bible goes further. It asserts that the alienation is cosmic. The whole universe is rifted. [3] There exists a condition of spiritual disorder that involves conflict in our relationships with one another and with God. And the conflict exists even in nature around us (“red in tooth and claw”) and in the supernatural sphere itself, that is, in the realm of the angelic beings. Sin looms everywhere in the universe. Disharmony reigns everywhere. The cosmos is split. [4]

One of the great unifying themes of the Epistle to the Ephesians, perhaps the central unifying theme, is God’s love for man and his aim to do away with all the discord and unite all things in Jesus Christ. Or to put it another way, the theme is the church, the universal and unified fellowship of the redeemed.

Ephesians 2:11–22 addresses the alienation that exists between people and between people and God. And it tells what Christ has done to break down the barriers. In the middle of the whole discussion Paul lifts his voice in hymn like praise to God for the greatness of Christ and his work.

Before examining the text in detail, it will be helpful to grasp the structure as a whole. The gist of Paul’s message to the Gentiles among his readers may be outlined as follows: [5] First, he described their former alienation from Israel and from God, verses 11–12. Then, he told them how this alienation was removed, namely, by the death of Christ on the cross, verses 13–18. Finally, he outlined the results of this reconciliation. They were no longer alienated but full members with believing Israelites of God’s people and family, vv. 19–22. The three stages in his argument are marked by the expressions: “formerly” (v. 11, NASB; AV has “in time past,” and RSV has “at one time”), “but now” (v. 13), and “so then” (v. 19).

The Setting of the Hymn: A Description of an Alienated Humanity, verses 11–12

Alienated from Man, verse 11

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands.

Paul’s “therefore remember” (Διὸ μνημονεύετε, dio mneµmoneuete) [6] introduces what has been called “the key and high point of the whole epistle.” [7] In verses 1–10 he spoke of all individuals in the Ephesian church, Jews and Gentiles alike, as dead in trespasses and sins. Yet God showed his mercy upon them, forgave their sins, and gave them new life in Christ.

Now Paul’s emphasis changes. He shifts from an emphasis on the privileges of the Christian as an individual to the privileges of the group or community, which is made up of believers of different racial backgrounds. [8] He singles out the Gentile believers, probably the majority of the assembly in Ephesus. He seems to have believed that it is good for believers to reflect on their condition before God saved them. [9] It guards the Christian from smugness and self-satisfaction. It humbles him or her and moves him to thankfulness. [10]

It is perhaps hard for people living today to think back two thousand years and realize what a marvel it was for the non-Jew to be welcomed into Messiah’s covenant. It is the greatest of all historical illustrations of the reconciling power of the gospel. [11]

The Bible opens with a clear declaration of the unity of mankind. Then God chose Israel out of the nations to be his distinct people. His intent was that she would be a light to the nations (Gentiles). But Israel twisted her privilege into favoritism and ended up despising—even detesting—the Gentiles as dogs.

The external sign of the Jews’ special relationship to God was circumcision, the seal of the covenant God had made with Abraham. Paul tells his readers they were “Gentiles in the flesh” (ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, ethneµ en sarki). They were heathen according to the absence of a mark in the flesh. [12] The Jews immense contempt for the Gentiles evidenced itself in different ways. They said the Gentiles were created to be the fuel for hell. A Jew was not to help a Gentile woman in labor for that would bring another Gentile into the world. Just as the best of snakes was a crushed snake, so the best of Gentiles was a killed Gentile. If a Jewish boy or girl married a Gentile, the family would consider their child dead and carry out a funeral for him or her. [13] Rabbi Juda ben Elai (c. AD 150) said that every day a Jewish man should “praise God that he did not create me a heathen!” [14] The Gentiles were called the “Uncircumcision” as a word of contempt and disdain. [15]

Alienated from God, verse 12

Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

They Were Christless

There were more important things to remember than the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision, so Paul went on to express the distinction in other ways. [16] Their alienation was not only horizontal, that is, from Israel. It was vertical, that is, they were alienated from God. This is described in verse 12 as a five-fold deprivation: They were Christless, stateless, friendless, hopeless, and godless. [17]

First, they were Christless. [18] Paul said they were “separate from Christ” (χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, choµris Christou), literally, “without Christ.” The term Christ is a title meaning, “anointed one.” The Jews were awaiting their Messiah or anointed king who would inaugurate the golden age upon earth. For the Jew, history was going somewhere, namely, toward Messiah and his kingdom. The Gentiles had no such hope. For them history was cyclic and went nowhere. For the Jew history was a march toward God. The golden age of the Greeks was past. They had no promised future to which they might look forward. [19]

They Were Stateless

The Gentiles were “excluded (lit. alienated, NASB mg.) from the commonwealth of Israel” (ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας [20] τοῦ Ισραὴλ, apeµllotrioµmenoi teµs politeias tou Israeµl). [21] Israel was God’s chosen nation, a theocracy. Israel was the one nation on earth with a divine king and the one nation to whom God had revealed himself, and the Gentiles were not part of it.

They Were Friendless

They were “strangers to the covenants of promise” (ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν [22] τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, xenoi toµn diatheµkoµn teµs epangelias). Israel was supremely the covenant people. God had made a covenant (arrangement, agreement, bond, or contract) with Abraham in which he promised him a land, a posterity, and great blessing. God expanded the promises to Israel through covenants with David (a kingdom) and with Israel and Judah in Jeremiah’s time (spiritual blessing). God bound himself unconditionally to bring blessing on and through Israel (cf. Gen. 12, 15, 17; 2 Sam. 7; Jer. 31). The Gentiles had no such promises. God had befriended Abraham (2 Chron. 20:7; cf. Exod. 33:11), but the Gentile world had no such friendship with God.

They Were Hopeless

Paul added the phrase “having no hope” (ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες, elpida meµ echontes). They were hopeless because, although God had planned and promised to include them in blessing one day (Gen. 12:3), they did not know it. They had no hope to sustain them. They had no hope of blessing that would comfort and cheer them. As one of the old Scottish commentators said, “Their future was a night without a star.” [23]

Many years ago, when Henry G. Bosch was a college student, he visited a psychiatric hospital with fellow students to observe various kinds of mental illness. During their visit they saw a patient known to the staff as “No Hope Carter.” He was a victim of syphilis, which had not been treated and was now in its final stages. Before he began to lose his mind, the doctors told him that there was no known cure for him. Gradually his brain deteriorated, and he became more and more despondent. When Bosch and his friends saw him he was in a small barred room. He paced up and down with a blank look on his drawn and ashen face. “No hope!” he said. “No hope!” he said, over and over. Such is the state of every man or woman or child before Christ comes into his or her life. Such people are without hope.

O to be without a Savior,
With no hope or refuge nigh,
Can it be, O blessed Savior,
One without Thee dares to die?—Davis [24]

They Were Godless

Paul reminded the Gentile believers that they were “without God in the world” (ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, atheoi en toµ kosmoµ). [25] He did not mean that they were atheists. The Gentile world was totally given over to idolatry and polytheism. But they did not have the one true God. They were without any help from him. They had no God to counsel, befriend, guide, bless, and save them. They had no God to cry to, to trust in, to love, praise, and serve. [26] They were like sailors, says one of the commentators, without a compass, in a rudderless ship, during a starless night, on a stormy sea, far away from harbor. [27] The dreariness of it all is emphasized by the phrase “in the world” (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, en toµ kosmoµ). They were without hope and without God in the world.

The lack of hope is amply illustrated in the literature of the Graeco-Roman world. Theognes (c. 500 BC) wrote, “I will try to have a good time while I’m young, because I will lie under the earth for a long time—voiceless as a stone, and I shall leave the sunlight that I loved…then I shall see no more. Have a good time, my soul, while young; soon others will take my place, and I shall be black earth in death. No mortal is happy under the sun.” [28]

The Roman poet Catullus (c. 50 BC) wrote:

The sun can set and rise again
But once our brief light sets
There is one unending night to be slept through. [29]

This describes the feelings of many in our modern world. Will Durant, formerly chairman of the philosophy department at Columbia University, and author of the eleven-volume The Story of Civilization, pondered the loss of the sacred in our time. He wrote:

God who was once the consolation of our brief life, and our refuge in bereavement and suffering has apparently vanished from the scene; no telescope, no microscope discovers him. Life has become in that total perspective which is philosophy, a fitful [swarm] of human insects on the earth; nothing is certain in it except defeat and death—a sleep from which, it seems, there is no awakening.… Faith and hope disappear; doubt and despair are the order of the day.… It seems impossible any longer to believe in the permanent greatness of man, or to give life a meaning that cannot be annulled by death.… The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, not Europe vs. America, not even East vs. West; it is whether man can bear to live without God. [30]

Paul’s word for all of this is alienation. [31] It was the Gentile dilemma then, and it is the world’s dilemma today. It causes estrangement from other people and from God. It is the result of sin, and it is the reason so many well-intentioned people cannot get along.

A California newspaper provides the example of a 1986 peace march that self-destructed through bickering. It began in Los Angeles only to stall in Barstow, about 120 miles out of L.A., where about half of the 1,200 marchers went home. Those remaining soon polarized over those who were real walkers and those who rode in vehicles. They fought over a dress code. They decided to hold an election, but disagreed over who could vote, finally allowing even children to vote. Then the election was declared invalid. Many ended the peace march not speaking to each other. [32]

The Content of the Hymn: A Description of the Peacemaking Christ, vv. 13–18

The Prelude: The Removal of the Alienation, verse 13

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

The expression “but now” (νυνὶ δὲ, nuni de, v. 13) introduces the difference that Christ has made. [33] One of the commentators entitles his discussion of verses 12 and 13, “BC and AD.” [34] Verse 12 is “BC,” that is, what the Gentiles were before Christ, and verse 13 describes their condition “AD,” that is, what they were after Christ. Those who were far off have now been brought near. [35]

When Jewish Rabbis spoke about accepting a convert to Judaism, they said that he or she had been brought near. For example, Rabbinical writers tell of a Gentile woman who came to Rabbi Eliezer. She confessed that she was a sinner and asked to be admitted to the Jewish faith. “Rabbi,” she said, “bring me near.” The Rabbi refused. The door was shut in her face. But now, said Paul, the door was open. God closes the door to no one. [36]

Paul was not, of course, talking about Gentiles being brought near to the lifeless, rebellious Judaism of his own day, the Judaism that had rejected Christ. [37] He was talking about converted Gentiles being brought near to God and in the process being joined to the true Israel, the believing remnant of Jewish converts to Christ of which he was a part (cf. Rom. 11:5; Gal. 6:16). [38]

The means [39] by which Gentiles have been brought near is “the blood of Christ” (ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, en toµ haimati tou Christou). This expression looks at the historical event of the cross. Paul has said that in their unconverted days the Gentiles were “strangers to the covenants of promise.”

Covenants are “bonds in blood,” [40] that is, they are inaugurated or instituted by the shedding of sacrificial blood. At the cross, Jesus Christ offered the sacrifice of himself that inaugurated a new covenant, a new peace treaty, [41] in which all are invited to participate.

The blood of Jesus is the sacrificial blood of the new covenant, he says in Matthew 26:28, and that blood was poured out “for forgiveness of sins.” [42] It makes possible the reconciliation between God and man and between one person and another. It should be noted that Paul set forth no special conditions to be fulfilled, “since all that is necessary has already been accomplished through Christ’s sacrificial death.” [43]

God’s method for uniting human beings, says John MacKay, is neither intellectual nor philosophical as in Roman Catholicism, nor political conquest as in Islam or Marxism, but spiritual, that is, through redemption by Christ. [44]

The expression “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ, en Christoµ) suggests two things: First, it points to personal conversion, the personal experience of union with Christ. It is when the sinner embraces Christ in faith that reconciliation is received and enjoyed. Second, it implies that Christ did not achieve a universal reconciliation in the sense that all mankind will be saved. It is only those who have come near in faith to Christ that experience the benefits of the cross. [45]

The Hymn Itself: The Celebration of a Two-Fold Reconciliation, verses 14–16

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

The Reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles into One Body

The Object of Praise

At this point in his letter Paul broke forth in song, for verses 14–16 were, most scholars of Ephesians agree, originally a hymn or hymn fragment. [46] This is, says John MacKay, “doctrine set to music.” He goes so far as to say that the letter as a whole is “pure music.” [47]

The Greek philosophers of Paul’s day believed differently. It was the crowning glory of philosophic thought to serenely reflect upon what had been achieved in the past. For the great Rabbi Gamaliel on the other hand, the supreme truth of love awaited unveiling; it would be manifest at the coming of Messiah. But for Paul the new order had come, and it was time for music of good cheer.48

At many of the great moments of biblical history there has been musical accompaniment. At the creation “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [i.e., the angels] shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). An orchestra of angels hailed the advent of the “Child born, the Son given” (Isa. 9:6; cf. Luke 2:14), and his mother composed lovely lyrics of praise (Luke 1:46–55). And surely at the end there will be a “Grand Finale.” [49]

The Christian faith is a singing faith, and many of its sweetest songs have been “Songs in the night” (Isa. 30:29). Some of its most rapturous music had its birth in prisons. In a dungeon in Toledo, Spain, the mystic, St. John of the Cross, wrote many of his lyrics. Pilgrim’s Progress, the most famous allegory in English literature, was composed by John Bunyan in Bedford Jail. In servitude, African slaves, believers in Jesus Christ, wrote the so-called “Negro Spirituals,” some of the most splendid of America’s compositions. And from a prison cell in Rome comes the hymn in Ephesians 2:14–16. [50]

Verses 14–16, then, are probably a hymn, [51] and the object of praise is Jesus Christ. The conjunction “for” (γάρ, gar) at the beginning of the verse introduces a reason. We have been brought near because Christ is our peace. The wording is emphatic. “He” (αὐτός, autos) that is, “He Himself,” or “He truly,” or “He and no other.” [52] Paul didn’t say, “He is the peacemaker.” No, he said, “He is our peace” (Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, autos gar estin heµ eireµneµ heµmoµn)! The peace is not a mere external arrangement. Christ is no mere bureaucrat who signs a document at no personal cost to himself. It is in his own person that he gives peace. [53] The peace here is embodied in Christ. [54] He is the Author of it (“He made both groups into one,” v. 14); he is the basis of it (“through the cross,” v. 16); he is the medium of it (“through Him,” v. 18); and he is the proclaimer of it (“He preached peace,” v. 17). [55] He is our peace, the “our” (ἡμῶν, heµmoµn) including both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. He has made both groups into one.

What He Has Done

The apostle said, “He broke down the dividing wall of the barrier” (NASB, mg., τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, to mesotoichon tou phragmou lysas). Christ has demolished the spiritual and racial barrier that formerly separated Jews and Gentiles. [56] It is very likely that Paul had an analogy in mind about which he had earlier told his readers. The phrase, “dividing wall of the barrier,” probably comes from the temple in Jerusalem. The temple was constructed on an elevated platform. Round it were the Court of the Priests (where only priests could enter), the Court of the Sons of Israel (where only men could enter), and the Court of Women (where only Jewish women could enter).

All were on the same level as the sanctuary itself. From this plateau you could exit through various gates in a high wall and descend five steps to a narrow platform overlooking another large court, the Court of the Gentiles, 750 feet square. It was fourteen steps down from the narrow platform to the court of the Gentiles. At the bottom of these steps was a marble screen 4 1/2 feet high. At intervals there were pillars, some in Latin and some in Greek, warning Gentiles that if they went beyond the barrier, they would be put to death. [57]

It is likely that Paul had this marble barrier in mind [58] because of his own history. According to Acts 21:27–36 his arrest took place because he was accused of bringing Gentiles past the barrier and into the temple. [59] When Paul wrote Ephesians (c. Fall, AD 60) the barrier still stood. But it was already antiquated, obsolete, and out of date so far as its spiritual meaning went. The symbol still existed (for ten more years), but what it symbolized had been destroyed. Christ destroyed it in AD 33 [60] when he died on the cross.

How He Has Done It

Paul then turned to the question of how Christ did it. As John Stott observes, the section is “packed tight with theology.” The apostle’s thought is clarified by focusing on the three main verbs: “by abolishing…that He might make…[and] might reconcile.” [61]

The Abolition of the Law of Commandments, verse 15a. The Old Testament Law served to arouse antagonism between Jew and Gentile. The various ordinances of the Law (food laws, Sabbath observance, and temple ceremonies) made the Jew distinct and separate and excluded the Gentile. By his death, Jesus abolished the Law. [62] This source of division (τὴν ἔχθραν, teµn echthran), “the enmity” [NASB], “the hostility” [NIV) [63] was done away with. Christ fulfilled the Law in that he fully obeyed it during life and bore the penalty of our disobedience of it through his death (“in His flesh,” ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, en teµ sarki autou). [64] Now that the barrier has been removed there is no further need for the two communities, Jews and Gentiles, to be kept separate.

During World War II in France a group of American soldiers with their sergeant brought the dead body of a buddy to be buried in a cemetery. The priest gently asked them if the dead soldier had been a baptized Catholic. When they said, “No,” the priest told them he was sorry, but he could not permit burial in the churchyard. So in sorrow the soldiers took their comrade and buried him just outside the fence. The next day they returned to see that the grave was all right, but they could not find it. As they were about to leave in bewilderment, the priest came up. He told them, “The first part of the night I stayed awake sorry for what I had told you. And the second part of the night I spent moving the fence.”

Paul told his Ephesian readers that Christ has removed the fence that separated Jews and Gentiles. [65]

The Creation of a Single New Humanity, v. 15b. Paul said that Christ has made the two “into one new man” (εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, eis hena kainon anthroµpon). Christ has created a new humanity. Paul was not speaking of the Christian as an individual; rather, he was speaking of “the Christian community viewed corporately.” [66]

The word new used by the apostle is a Greek word (καινός, kainos) meaning new in kind. There are two Greek words for “new.” The other word (νέος, neos) means “new in time.” Suppose one’s company owns a machine for making ball-point pens. The millionth pen is new in the νέος sense, although it is precisely the same as the 999,999 which went before. Suppose you buy a new machine, this one for creating expensive Mont Blanc fountain pens. The first of these would be καινός, new in kind, new in quality and character, introducing something which has not been there before. [67]

Christ has in fact created “a third race,” neither Jew nor Gentile. [68] The Jews used to divide all humanity into Jews and Gentiles. Paul, however, has a threefold division: Jews, Greeks, and the church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). The third category embraces saved Jews [69] and saved Gentiles. It is significant that some early Christians did speak of themselves as “the third race.” [70]

Bishop John Reid tells a story about a man driving a school bus in North Western Australia which carried whites and aborigines. Tired of all the squabbling, one day far out in the country he pulled over to the side of the road and said to the white boys, “What color are you?” “White,” they answered. He told them, “No, you are green. Anyone who rides in my bus is green. Now, what color are you?” The white boys replied, “Green.” Then he went to the aborigines and said, “What color are you?” “Black,” they replied. “No, you are green,” said the bus driver. “Anyone who rides on my bus is green. Now what color are you?” All the aborigines answered that they were green. The situation seemed resolved until, several miles down the road, he heard a boy in the back of the bus announce, “All right, light green on this side, dark green on that side.” Bishop Reid’s bus driver had the right idea. What was needed was a new race, “the greens,” but he couldn’t pull it off. [71]

Yet the apostle said that Christ has done just that. He has created a new race. The Gentile does not become an Israelite, nor the Jew a Gentile. [72] Both become something they were not before. Chrysostom (347–407), the noted preacher of the early church, said that it is as if one should melt down one statue of silver and another of lead, and the two should come out gold. [73]

In other passages Paul wrote that the cross does away with sexual and social distinctions. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). This does not mean that sexual and social differences are obliterated (men still cannot bear children!). But all spiritual inequality before God is abolished. [74]

All of this was done “in Himself” (ἐν αὐτῷ, en autoµ), that is, it is those who are in him, in his corporate existence, who are new beings. [75] Of course, the ideal of the complete tearing down of all walls that divide people awaits the return of the Lord. Nevertheless, a start has been made, and it will one day be a worldwide reality.

The reconciling power of the gospel was demonstrated years ago in the lives of G. [Gilbert] K. Chesterton and his brother Cecil. Cecil had exposed insider trading in the pages of an English magazine, The New Witness. The affair became known as the Marconi Scandal. Godfrey Isaacs, the managing director of the Marconi Company (and brother of England’s Attorney General) sued Cecil Chesterton for libel and won. G. K. Chesterton became quite bitter over this—especially when Cecil died just a few years later from wounds suffered in World War I. This bitterness evaporated when Godfrey Isaacs was converted to Christ. Gilbert wrote of Isaacs’ conversion, “No one would have rejoiced more than my brother; or with less bitterness or with more simplicity. It is the only reconciliation; and it can reconcile anybody.” [76]

The Reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles to God, verse 16

Just as there was hostility between Jew and Gentile, there was also hostility between both of them and God. In verse 16 Paul focused his attention upon man’s hostility to God, not God’s hostility to man. He used the verb “to reconcile” (ἀποκαταλλάσσω, apokatallassoµ). Never in the New Testament do we read that God is reconciled to men. [77] It everywhere affirms that God loves man and he reconciles man to himself.

What, then, of God’s wrath toward man’s sin? The New Testament uses a different word for that, namely, the word propitiation (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2). God has poured out his wrath or anger against our sin upon Jesus Christ. The sin barrier is removed by propitiation, and God is satisfied.

God’s righteous demands needed to be satisfied, but he himself never needed to be reconciled. He has always loved man. It was man who needed to be reconciled. Man was hostile to God. On the objective level reconciliation took place at the cross. God was “the initiator” of this reconciliation. This reconciliation takes place on a subjective level when the sinner sees God’s great love for him on the cross and embraces Christ as his savior. The Holy Spirit changes his heart from an attitude of enmity to one of amity, or peace. with God. [78]

Both Jews and Gentiles are reconciled through the work of the cross and are joined into “one body,” that is, the church. Paul’s mention of “the cross” is a strong reminder that the church came into being through the death of Christ.

A mind at perfect peace with God,
Oh! What a word is this!
A sinner reconciled through blood;
This, this indeed is peace!

By nature and by practice far,
How very far from God!
Yet now by grace brought nigh to Him,
Through faith in Jesus’ blood.

So near, so very near to God,
I cannot nearer be;
For in the person of his Son
I am as near as He. [79]

The Postlude: The Proof of the Reconciliation, verses 17–18

And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

The Proclamation of Peace, verse 17

The proof that Christ has accomplished a work of reconciliation is that he has proclaimed it. [80] When Paul asserted that Christ “preached peace,” he did not use the verb κηρύσσω (keµrussoµ), which would merely mean that he announced it. Rather he used εὐαγγελίζομαι (euaggelizomai), which placed a value on the message—the message of peace is good news. By “peace” Paul includes the notions of both the cessation of hostility and the total well being of those to whom it is offered. [81] Christ has done this ever since he was exalted to heaven after his resurrection. [82] He does so, acting through his Spirit, by means of his messengers, initially his apostles, but also everyone who proclaims the gospel.

Verse 17 is a quotation of Isaiah 57:19. In the Old Testament context the appeal is to the people of Israel, both those in exile and those near at hand. In the present context, those “far away” are the Gentiles and those who are “near” are the Jews. Both are invited to be reconciled to God.

The Provision of Access, verse 18

Further evidence that sinners have been reconciled is that they now have free access into God’s presence. John Stott says, “the highest and fullest achievement of the peacemaking Christ is this Trinitarian access of the people of God.” [83] They come through Christ, in the Spirit, to the Father.

The word access (προσαγωγή, prosagoµgeµ) was used in the ancient world of introducing a person into the court of a king. The man who did it was called a προσαγωγεύς, prosagoµgeus], or “introducer.” Christians have a far greater privilege than being introduced into the presence of a mere king (or a mere president, for that matter). Christ introduces his people into the presence of God, whom they may address not as “Your majesty” but by his family name, “Abba! Father!” And when they do, Jews and Gentiles, [84] men and women, rich and poor, white collar and blue collar, they give evidence that they are all indwelt by one and the same Spirit (ἐν ἐνὶ πνεύματι, en eni pneumati). [85]

The Implications of the Hymn: A Description of a New Humanity, verses 19–22

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

United in God’s City, verse 19a

With the words, “so then” (ἄρα οὖν, ara oun) Paul begins his summary of the main point he is trying to make all along. [86] What has Christ achieved for his people? Paul uses three metaphors, or word pictures: Christians are citizens in a city, members of a family, and parts of a building. Paul wanted his Gentile readers to know their full status as Christians. After all, the first believers were Jewish, and the Gentiles may not have felt completely at home. Paul said, “You are no longer strangers and aliens” (οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, ouketi este xenoi kai paroikoi). Strangers and aliens are people with roots in another country. The word “strangers” (ξένοι, xenoi) means foreigners. Such people were visitors in a Greek city like Ephesus. They were there on sufferance, that is, by the permission of the citizens of the city. Strangers were viewed as different, hard to fathom, unsettling, sinister. To the stranger the new environment was disturbing and threatening. There was mutual fear and distrust. [87] The lot of the “stranger” in a Greek city was not an easy one. One wrote home, “It is better for you to be in your own homes, whatever they may be like, than to be in a strange land.” [88]

The word “aliens” (πάροικοι, paroikoi) actually speaks of resident aliens. Such a person had taken up residence in the city but had never become a naturalized citizen. He paid a tax for the privilege of living in a city that was not his own. He could be legally evicted on a moment’s notice, however, as in the case of the outbreak of war. [89] In short, the status of an alien was always provisional. [90]

In 1955 the writer’s parents moved their family of three sons from Nova Scotia, Canada to Massachusetts in the United States. For a number of years we were resident aliens with an alien registration card. In fact, one of the older boys in the neighborhood felt he could push the new boys around because they were “foreigners.” On December 7, 1961, however, the MacLeod family became naturalized citizens. They became “fellow citizens” with all other Americans. Even then, however, they were denied one or two privileges possessed only by natural-born citizens. For example, the writer does not have the privilege of running for the office of President of the United States.

But (ἀλλά, alla) the Gentiles are now “fellow citizens with the saints” (συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων, sympolitai toµn hagioµn). The term “saints” in verse 19 probably has reference to the very first Christians, that is, Jewish Christians or “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). [91] The Gentiles now have full rights and privileges with believing Israelites as citizens of God’s city.

And, as Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has pointed out, Gentile believers do not live on a passport or an alien registration card. They have birth certificates from this heavenly city. They really do belong. [92] There are no second-class citizens in the heavenly Jerusalem. There are no earthly distinctions. The church is an international, interracial community. All believers have roots in this city. [93]

It is one of the sad indications of the sorry state of our country—and of even our churches—that the term “saint” is used to mock people. If someone (be it man or woman) takes a stand for something, you might hear another derisively say, “What are you, a saint?” “Who does she think she is, a saint?” In Scripture the term speaks of the highest privilege of mankind, to be set apart as a worshipper and servant of the one true God. [94]

United in God’s Family, verse 19b

The apostle added that the Gentile Christians as well as the Jewish Christians are together members of “God’s household” or family (οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ, oikeioi tou theou). This second metaphor is warmer than the first. [95] It is one thing to be a citizen of a city or country; it is another to be children together in a family. We are not household servants, but sons and daughters. Nor are we guests—here today and gone tomorrow; well treated when present but forgotten when gone. [96] God is Father, and all Christians are brothers and sisters. The term “brother” is the most common word in the New Testament for Christians. It speaks of a close relationship of affection, care, and support. [97]

A number of years ago an elderly man visited an art gallery. He came upon a painting of Christ upon the cross. He was greatly stirred by what he saw, for he was a believing Christian. Filled with a sense of gratitude, he quietly spoke out, “Bless him! I love him! I love him!” Other people standing by looked at him strangely, wondering what he was talking about. One man in the crowd knew. He walked over to the old man, shook his hand, and said, “So do I. I love him too!” As the art gallery visitors watched two others walked over, took the others by the arm and each said, “I love him too!” In this world, where all Christians are “strangers and aliens,” hated and despised for Christ, believers need to remember the great family truths that unite them and not bicker over the lesser issues about which they disagree. [98]

United in God’s Temple, verses 20–22

The Foundation, verse 20a

Paul changes his metaphor again. In verses 20–22 he viewes the believing community as a building of which both Gentiles and Jewish believers are integral parts of the structure. It is a word picture he used elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor. 3:9–11). Under the old covenant there had been a special building in a special place, namely the temple in Jerusalem. Now there is a new people of God, and there is a new temple. The people themselves are that temple.

The Ephesians were told that they were not the first stones in the building; they were built [99] on others who were there before them. The foundation stones are the apostles and prophets. [100] The apostles (the Twelve plus Paul) [101] and the New Testament prophets [102] were the two sources of revelation in the early church. He is speaking, of course, of their unique office and of the revelation and instruction they gave. They were the men who established the normative teaching and practices of the Christian church (cf. Acts 2:42). Paul was implying that the building was being built in conformity to their teaching contained in the pages of the New Testament. The church must always avoid being swept away by novel developments or teaching which is not true to the founder’s original intention. The apostles are our one firm link with the founder of the building. [103]

The practical implication of this is that the New Testament church is built on the New Testament Scriptures. These are the foundation documents of the faith. And just as a foundation cannot be tampered with once it has been laid, so the New Testament foundation is inviolable and must not be changed by any additions, subtractions, or modifications offered by teachers who profess to be apostles or prophets today. [104] Even great men like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Whitefield, and Darby are not the foundation. Neither are confessions and creeds, even those most firmly wedded to Scripture. There is no substitute for the true foundation. [105]

The Cornerstone, verses 20b–21

Paul continued his metaphor by telling his readers that “Christ Jesus Himself [is] the corner stone” (ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ιησοῦ, ontos akrogoµniaiou autou Christou). Cornerstones [106] were great blocks of stone that ran up to the corner of a building. Archeologists have found one in the southern wall of the temple measuring 38 feet 9 inches. A cornerstone is one of the great Old Testament pictures of the Messiah. “Behold I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone [Isa. 28:16; LXX, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, akrogoµniaios] for the foundation, firmly placed.” [107]

The corner stone was the primary foundation stone at the angle of the structure by which the architect fixed his standard for the bearings of the walls and cross-walls throughout the building. [108] The thought, no doubt, is that Jesus Christ is the one who unites and sustains the church, the temple of God. Unity and growth depend upon him. [109] He is its “keystone” [110] who holds the whole structure together. In verse 21 Paul adds that the whole building is growing up under his direction (ἐν ᾧ, en hoµ), “in whom,” NASB; and ἐν κυρίῳ (en kyrioµ) to form a temple. He is its truth; salvation depends upon the saving truth about him (cf. John 14:6). He is its life; salvation depends upon his atoning work (cf. Rom. 3:24–25). He is its guide; the New Testament Scriptures give direction to his people (see John 16:12–13). He is its government; all of its leaders must look to him, the chief Shepherd (see 1 Pet. 5:4). He is its holiness; the sanctifying Spirit is his gift (see Acts 2:33). He is its safety; He is the one who keeps and protects it (see Jude 24). He is its center; he is the one who unites his people. He is their unifying center (see Eph. 4:5). He is its hope; it is he whose appearing is the motivating hope of his people (Titus 2:13). [111]

The Building Blocks, verse 22

The words of Paul in verse 22 are thrilling to the heart of every Christian: “You also” (καὶ ὑμεις, kai hymeis) are being built together. In context, of course, Paul was speaking to his Gentile readers. The Jerusalem temple was an exclusively Jewish edifice. No Gentile was allowed to enter. But now Gentiles are not only admitted; they are themselves constituent parts of the temple. [112]

Archeologists have carefully examined ancient Inca structures in Peru, which have been standing for two thousand years. They were built of hand-hewn rocks of different sizes and shapes. Some were three-sided, some four-sided, and some seven-sided. Without the use of mortar, they were fitted together so perfectly that they have stood for many centuries, even through earthquakes.

The Lord Jesus Christ is building his church in much the same way. The stones come in different sizes and shapes. People come from a variety of ethnic and social backgrounds. They have different backgrounds, abilities and interests. Yet out of all this diversity Christ is building a strong, solid edifice. The Inca buildings will eventually crumble. The church will last for eternity.

God builds His church with different stones,
He makes each one belong;
All shapes and sizes fit in place
To make the structure strong.—Sper [113]

Paul presented the metaphor of the building in two ways. First, he used the metaphor statically (v. 20) by depicting the people of God as an edifice. Second, he used it dynamically of the maturing of Christians in their faith. In the first case it is God who erected the edifice; in the second it is believers who build one another up in the faith. [114]

The Purpose

The purpose of this new temple is the same as the old: to be a dwelling place for God. The new temple, however, unlike the old, is not a material building, nor a national shrine, nor has it a localized site. It is a spiritual building, an international community, and it has a worldwide spread. [115] God dwells there by his Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι, en pneumati). Again the wonderful triune relationship of God is brought out. The Father dwells by means of the Spirit in the temple of which his Son is the cornerstone. [116]

When Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians, the Jewish temple built by Herod the Great stood in Jerusalem. Closer to home, in Ephesus itself, was the magnificent marble temple of Artemis, or Diana, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Two temples: one was pagan and the other, Jewish. Only Jews could enter into one, and only pagans could enter the other. Both were empty of the living God. [117] Those temples were lifeless. The true temple of God, his church, is a living growing thing. New stones are being added every day, on every continent, from every race and class of people.

Conclusion

This paragraph from the hand of Paul is important both theologically and practically. Tightly packed with theology, it addresses three important areas. First, it sets forth the doctrine of reconciliation, that is, the doctrine that the saved sinner (cf. verse 8) has been brought from a state of enmity and alienation from God and man to one of peace and access—peace with God and fellow believers and access to the living God. Second, it is a foundational text on the doctrine of the church, that body of believers in this age made up of both Gentiles and Jews. Finally, it is important Christologically, portraying Christ in four roles: peacemaker (vv. 14–15), reconciler (v. 16), evangelist (v. 17), and accessor (v. 18). [118]

Practically, Paul’s carefully argued paragraph has implications for both believers and unbelievers. The lesson for Christians is that the church is God’s agent for reconciliation in the world. It is to be a model of the gospel before men. All the old barriers of race, nationalism, tribalism, sexism, pride, prejudice, clericalism (the elevation of clergy over laity as in the Old Testament priesthood)—all these barriers should be gone from God’s family. [119] Yet, as James Denney once said, of all the Christian truths we profess in words there is not one that is so outrageously denied in deed. [120] Among God’s people there should be no one with special privileges.

When A. B. Davidson (1831–1902), later to become an outstanding Old Testament scholar, was a young man, he was living in rented quarters in a strange city. He used to walk the streets at evening time. Sometimes through an uncurtained window he would see a family sitting around the table or the fire in happy fellowship; then the curtain would be drawn and he would feel shut out and lonely in the dark. [121] This should never happen in the family of God. It should never happen in the local church. Men may put up barriers, but Christians never should.

The message of Paul to unbelievers is that God loves people and has sent his Son into the world to reconcile them to himself. One of the saddest stories in English literature is the one of the relationship of Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806–61) to her father. He so strongly disapproved of her marriage to Robert (1812–89) that he disowned her. Elizabeth wrote many love letters to her father, asking for reconciliation. He never once replied. After ten years of letter writing, Elizabeth received two packages from her father in the mail. She opened them hopefully. To her dismay and heartbreak, the packages contained all of her letters to him, the unbroken seals indicating that not one of them had ever been opened or read! [122] Today those love letters are among the most beautiful in classical English literature. Had her father opened and read only a few of them, reconciliation might have been effected. The incarnation and cross of Jesus Christ is God’s love letter of reconciliation to the human race. Paul’s lesson is clearly expressed elsewhere when he wrote, “We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).

Notes

Robert Frost, “Mending Wall,” in Complete Poems of Robert Frost (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 47. Later lines in Frost’s poem merit reflection by students of Ephesians 2: Before I built a wall, I’d ask to know; What was I walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense; Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, That wants it down.
For these introductory thoughts the writer is indebted to James E. Howard, “The Wall Broken: An Interpretation of Ephesians 2:11–22,” in Biblical Interpretation, eds. F. F. Kearley, E. P. Myers, and T. D. Hadley (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 296.
John A. MacKay, God’s Order: The Ephesian Letter and This Present Time (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 25.
MacKay, God’s Order: The Ephesian Letter and This Present Time, 25.
John R. W. Stott, God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians, BST (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1979), 94; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (1856; reprint ed., Old Tappan: Revell, n.d.), 123.
The inferential conjunction διό bases verses 11–13 on the general sense of verses 1–10. In both sections there is a “once-now schema,” i.e., a contrast between what the readers were in their former lives and what they now are in Christ. Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 237, 238.
Markus Barth, Ephesians, 2 vols., vol. 1: Ephesians 1–3, AncB (Doubleday: Garden City, 1974), 275.
C. Leslie Mitton, Ephesians, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 100.
The present tense of the verb (μνημονεύετε) suggests that the readers are to keep on remembering. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 237.
John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1883), 160–61; O. Michel, “μνημονεύω,” TDNT, 4:682–83.
H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Ephesians, CBSC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1888), 75.
J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (London: James Clarke, 1907; reprint ed., London: James Clarke, n.d.), 158. The adjective χειροποιήτος (“made by human hands”) is always used in the NT with the intention of stressing the inadequacy of its referent (Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; Heb. 9:11, 24). The Jews would never have applied it to God-ordained circumcision. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 239; E. Lohse, “χειροποιήτος,” TDNT, 9:436.
William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 107.
Actually, there were three doxologies one was to utter: “Praise God that he did not create me a heathen! Praise God that he did not create me a woman! Praise God that he did not create me an illiterate person!” Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 92.
Contra Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 56. The term περιτομή (“circumcision,” v. 11) originally signified the rite but came to mean the group of people who practiced the rite, namely, the Jews. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 239.
Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 240.
William Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 129. In Romans 9:4–5 Paul outlines the privileges of the Jews. To them belonged the sonship, the glory (i.e., the Shekhinah dwelling in the sanctuary), the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple services, and the promises. Robinson, 57; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 293.
“Before becoming Christians Gentiles would probably not have known the term ‘Christ,’ and a Jew would probably not have put it first in a list of privileges.” Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 240.
Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 57; Stott, God’s New Society, 96. Contra Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 242–43.
The term πολιτεία here refers to “membership in Israel, or, more exactly, to possessing the rights, privileges and duties which go with belonging to Israel as a defined political and religious community.” Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 241.
Here as elsewhere in the New Testament “Israel” refers to ethnic Israel, i.e., the Jewish people and not the church. As Richardson notes, it was not until approximately AD 160 that the word “Israel” was first applied (by Justin Martyr) to the Christian church. See Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 1, 158, 206.
Best finds the plural “covenants” unusual because he views the Abrahamic covenant as Israel’s only covenant, which was renewed or reaffirmed on a number of occasions. Paul’s plural here and in Romans 9:4 (cf. Gal. 4:24) supports the view that God made a number of distinct covenants with Israel, including the Abrahamic (Gen. 17:1–21), Mosaic (Ex. 24:1–8), Palestinian (Deut. 29:1; 30:1–3), Davidic (2 Sam. 7:12–14; Ps. 89:3–4), and New (Jer. 31:31–33) covenants. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 242. Even if one limits himself to covenants of promise, there are still three of these (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New).
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 167.
Henry G. Bosch, in Our Daily Bread.
The word ἄθεοι does not occur anywhere else in the Greek Bible (cf. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 159). Best notes that the word ἄθεοι can mean: (1) those who do not believe in the true God of the Bible, (2) godless, impious people, or (3) those abandoned by God. He argues that Paul intended a combination of numbers one and three. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 243.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 168.
Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians, 131.
Quoted by Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 110. The paraphrase used here is that of R. Kent Hughes, Ephesians: The Mystery of the Body of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990), 90.
Quoted by F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, WBC (Waco: Word Books, 1982), 96.
Quoted in an editorial note in the introduction to Albert C. Outler, “Loss of the Sacred, part 1,” Christianity Today (Jan. 2, 1981), 16.
The word translated “excluded” in v. 12 may be translated “alienated” (NASB mg.). The Greek word (ἀπαλλοτριόω) appears here and in 4:18. It means “to alienate or to estrange.” In the passive it means, “to be alienated or estranged.” BDAG, s.v. “ἀπαλλοτριόω,” 96.
The Orange County Register (July 6, 1986), A1, A2. Cited by Hughes, Ephesians: The Mystery of the Body of Christ, 91.
The νυνὶ δε suggested the division in the outline used in this essay. Best also finds three divisions in the passage (vv. 11–13, 14–18, 19–22), but divides it on the basis of the use of the second person plural in the first and third divisions and the use of the third person in the second division. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 236.
Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 106.
The word “proselyte” is derived from the verb προσέρχομαι, “to approach, come near.” Paul has formulated his statement along the lines of traditional proselyte terminology. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Dallas; Word, 1990), 139.
T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, ICC (New York: Scribners, 1903), 60; Moule, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 78; Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 111. On the attitude of the leaders of Judaism to proselytes, see George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 1:341–42.
The adverbs (μακράν) “afar” and (ἐγγύς) “near” are relative and require a fixed point from which to be measured. Under the old covenant they had a literal and geographical meaning (Isa. 57:19; Dan. 9:7; Acts 2:39). The presence of Yahweh was enjoyed in his temple, and that temple was in Jerusalem. Israel was “near,” but the nations were “far off.” The literal measurement became a symbol of moral and spiritual distance. Commentators are divided on the fixed point to which Paul said the Gentiles have been brought near. There are at least six views: (1) They have been brought near to God [Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 295; Stott, God’s New Society, 97; O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 190; Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 245]. (2) They have been brought near to Christ, i.e., they are now “in Christ Jesus” [Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 58]. (3) They have been brought near to the true Israel, the church [Moule, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 78]. This view fails because the church is nowhere in the NT called the true Israel or the new Israel. (4) They have been brought near to God and to the true Israel, the church [Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 59–60]. (5) They have been brought near to Israel, specifically, to believing Israel, i.e., Jewish Christians [Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 169–70]. (6) Paul’s thought probably includes by way of contrast all five elements of verse 12: those who had been “separate from Christ” are now “in Christ Jesus.” Those who were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” are now joined with believing Israel in “one new man.” Those who had been “strangers to the covenants” are now in a place where they enjoy the privileges and promises of the covenants. Those who were without hope now have hope. And those who were “without God” have been brought near to him. “Now,…for these Gentiles, everything had become different.” Cf. Francis Foulkes, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 80–81.
Best is incorrect when he says that Gentiles have become members of the “new Israel.” It is more correct to say that believing Gentiles together with believing Israelites (“the Israel of God,” Gal. 6:16) have become united in “one body,” i.e., the church. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 246.
As Best notes, the prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ is instrumental (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 246).
O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 4.
Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 63.
Moule, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 78.
Lincoln, Ephesians, 139.
MacKay, God’s Order: The Ephesian Letter and This Present Time, 43–50.
Stott, God’s New Society, 98.
For discussions of the hymnic structure of vv. 14–16, see Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 14–15, 88–92; Lincoln, Ephesians, 127–31; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 192; Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 63; John C. Kirby, Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1968), 156–57, 169; Michael S. Moore, “Ephesians 2:14–16: A History of Recent Interpretation,” Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982): 163-68. Scholars differ as to whether the hymn includes all of vv. 11–22, vv. 14–18, or just vv. 14–16. Lincoln (128) lays the hymn out as follows: (1) Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν [For he is our peace] (2) ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν [who has made the two groups one] (3) καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον λύσας τοῦ φραγμοῦ [and broke down the dividing wall of the barrier] (4) τὴν ἔχθραν καταργήσας ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν [by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances] (5) ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον [that in himself he might make the two into one new man] (6) ποιῶν εἰρήνην [thus making peace] (7) καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ [and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross] (8) ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ. [by it having put to death the enmity].
Various scholars have argued that there are hymnic elements throughout chapters 1–3. See Jack T. Sanders, “Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1–3,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965), 214–32.
MacKay, God’s Order: The Ephesian Letter and This Present Time, 17–18.
MacKay, God’s Order: The Ephesian Letter and This Present Time, 18.
MacKay, God’s Order: The Ephesian Letter and This Present Time, 19.
Hymnic elements include the opening pronoun αὐτὸς, the heavy use of participles (ποιήσας [v. 14, “who made”], λύσας [v. 14, “broke down”], καταργήσας [v. 15, “abolishing”], ποιῶν [v. 15, “establishing”], ἀποκτείνας [v. 16, “put to death”), the parallelism of the lines, the “we” style which interrupts the “you” style (of vv. 13, 19–22), and the intensely Christological content. See Sanders, “Hymnic Elements,” 217; Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 6–10; O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 192, n. 147. Not all scholars agree that Paul was quoting a hymn in vv. 14–16. Best lists a number of objections, but most, if not all, of them are answered if one assumes that Paul himself was the writer or was quoting an earlier Christian composition. The present writer agrees with Best that an original, independent existence of the hymn in a non-Christian context (namely, Gnosticism) is improbable. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 248–50.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 170; Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 58.
Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 60.
Lincoln, Ephesians, 140. The origin of the hymn’s description of Christ as peace probably lies in Isaiah 9:6, which Paul would have understood as a messianic passage. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 251.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 171. Jesus once said that he did not come to bring peace (Matt. 10:34), yet Paul later said that Christ did bring peace. There is no contradiction here. Jesus’ saying relates to the preaching of the gospel, which often brings division in human families. Paul’s saying, however, applies to the peace that comes to those who respond believingly to the gospel. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 275.
Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 296; H. W. Hoehner, “Ephesians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 626.
The wording of the inscription runs as follows: “No man of another nation to enter within the fence and enclosure round the temple. And whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death ensues” (C. K. Barrett, ed., The New Testament Background, rev. ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1987], 53). See also Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 15.410–20; idem., The Jewish War 5.194; Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 42–54. Two of the Greek warning pillars have been found, one in 1871 and one in 1934. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 59–60, 160–61; Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 297, n. 115; Adolf Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 79–81.
Contra G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters From Prison (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), 58–59. Caird’s own view is that Paul had in the mind the Law which, interpreted legally, had become a barrier between Jew and Gentile. Best argues that Paul was not alluding to a literal wall at all. Rather, he was speaking metaphorically of all that kept Jews and Gentiles apart. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 254–56.
Alford saw an analogy to the veil separating the holy of holies from the holy place. However, the veil was a barrier between Israel and God, not between Jew and Gentile, as Alford himself concedes. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 vols., vol. 3: Galatians-Philemon (reprint ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), 97. Schlier, reflecting the German obsession with the Gnostic Redeemer myth, suggested that the barrier was a horizontal one separating the upper world of the πλήρωμα from this world. According to this view, the cosmic redeemer comes down from heaven, breaks down the barrier, gathers his imprisoned people, and returns to heaven. This view is worthless for two important reasons: (1) The barrier in our text is a vertical one, not a horizontal one. (2) All literary sources to which Schlier and others appeal date a century or more later than Ephesians and are derived from the New Testament. Cf. Heinrich Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie, 6 (Tübingen: Verlag J. C. B. Mohr, 1930), 18–26; Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 296–97; Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958), 141–44; Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 47, 163–86.
The likely date of our Lord’s crucifixion was April 3, AD 33. Cf. Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 114.
Stott, God’s New Society, 99.
The Old Testament Law remains as Scripture (Eph. 6:2–3; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16) and as a revelation of the character and will of God. The righteous requirements of the Law are realized more fully during this age by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. Yet the Law is abolished by Christ, as 2 Corinthians 3:6–15 makes clear. How is it abolished? (1) As a written code, threatening death, instead of imparting life [Gal. 3:10–13], (2) as the basis and foundation of the Levitical priesthood [Heb. 7:11–12], (3) as a covenant and rule of life for the new covenant community [Rom. 6:14–15; Gal. 3:23–24; Heb. 8:7, 13], (4) as a [hypothetical] way of salvation [Rom. 10:4–5], and (5) as a barrier or dividing wall between Judaism and the Gentile world [Eph. 2:14–15]. “All its commandments were swallowed up in the new commandment of love” [Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 64]. Cf. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 298–99; Stott, God’s New Society, 100. Moule (The Epistle to the Ephesians, 80) says the entire Law, moral as well as ceremonial, was done away “taken apart from enabling motive, and viewed as the conditions of peace with God.” For further discussion, see Alva J. McClain, Law and Grace (1954; reprint ed., Chicago: Moody, 1967), 41–49 and passim; Douglas J. Moo, “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester: Crossway, 1988), 203–18; Wayne G. Strickland, “The Inauguration of the Law of Christ with the Gospel of Christ,” in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian, ed., Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 229–79.
There is some debate over the punctuation of vv. 14 and 15. The question involves the position of τὴν ἔχθραν in the apostle’s thought. It falls in v. 14 in the UBS Greek New Testament, and in v. 15 in the NASB. The punctuation has been understood in three ways: (1) “He has broken down the dividing wall, the hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the Law of commandments and ordinances” [RSV, NIV, Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 173; Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 132–33; Caird, Paul’s Letters From Prison, 57–58]. This translation takes τὴν ἔχθραν [“the hostility”] as a second object after λύσας [“has broken down”], in apposition with “wall.” (2) “In his flesh he has broken down the hostility which was the dividing wall; for he abolished the Law of commandments and ordinances.” This translation (basically the word order of NEB) is essentially the same as view # 1 but changes the order of “hostility” and “wall.” (3) “He has broken down the dividing wall, by abolishing in his flesh the hostility, the Law of commandments and ordinances” [AV, NASB, Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 161; Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 298]. This translation takes τὴν ἔχθραν as the first object of καταργήσας (“abolishing”), in apposition to Law. As Robinson pointed out, the sense remains the same whichever construction is adopted. “The barrier in the Temple court, the hostility between Jew and Gentile, and the Law of commandments…are parallel descriptions of the separation which was done away in Christ.”
Robinson (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 63–64) take “in his flesh” to mean “in his human nature, i.e., the phrase refers to the mystery of the Incarnation. Bruce (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 298) takes it to mean his death.
Variations on this story are given by Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 115, and John MacArthur, Ephesians (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 78.
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Old Tappan, Revell, 1961), 55. There are two interpretations of “one new man” (ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) in 2:15: (1) A small minority of scholars has argued that the “one new man” speaks of the Christian as an individual. Both Jews and Gentiles have received a new nature and are new persons in Christ. Supporters of this view note the change from the neuter ἓν in v. 14 to the masculine ἕνα in v. 15, a change that would not have been necessary if Paul was speaking of a group. They note further that in 4:24 the new self (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) is not a corporate being but a transformed individual. H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Ephesians, in Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament, 11 vols., vol. 7: Galatians and Ephesians (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 386–87; Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, 65; Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 261–63. (2) The majority of commentators argues that the “one new man” is a corporate entity, i.e., the new people of God, the church. They point out that in 5:22–33 the new Christian group of believing Jews and Gentiles is pictured as a single individual, the bride. They also note that vv. 15 and 16 are parallel, and in v. 16 the new group is depicted as “one body.” These commentators almost to a man conclude that while the expression is used corporately in 2:15, it is used of the individual believer in 4:24. Some, like Eadie, would also argue that the idea of moral renewal is not to be excluded from the corporate usage in 2:15. The use of the personal expression to designate the group is to be explained by the fact that Christ has created this corporate new person in himself. Moule wrote, “Christ is the cause and bond of being. The new man…exists and consists by vital union with Him.… The Old Race is solidaire with its Head, Adam, by solidarity of Nature in itself and of standing towards God. So the new Race is solidaire with its Head, Christ, in Whom, and at once, it both receives the standing of justified acceptance for His Merits, and derives ‘Divine nature’ by his Spirit. And solidarity with the head seals the mutual solidarity of the members. As the Old Race is not only men, but Man, so the new Race is not only new men, but New Man” (The Epistle to the Ephesians, 80). William Kelly, Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Ephesians (London: Morrish, 1870), 107–8, 225–27; Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 178; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (reprint ed., Old Tappan, Revell, n.d.), 136, 264; B. F. Westcott, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Macmillan, 1906), 38, 68; Foulkes, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, 83, 131; Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 300, 359; Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 309; idem., Ephesians 4–6, 509; Lincoln, Ephesians, 143, 287; Hoehner, “Ephesians,” 626, 636; Walter L. Liefeld, Ephesians, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 73, 115; O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 200, 231.
Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 116; idem., “The One, New Man,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology, ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 73–81.
Lincoln, Ephesians, 134.
The Jew, says Eadie (Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 178–79) profits as well as the Gentile. He no longer needs to provide animal sacrifices. The fires of the altar have been smothered, for the Lamb of God has been offered. The priest can take off his vestments and weep over a torn veil, for Jesus has passed through the heavens for us. The water of the brazen sea has been poured out, for believers have enjoyed the washing of regeneration. The lamps of the golden candelabra have flickered and died, for the church today enjoys the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit.
F. F. Bruce (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 296, n. 110) cites Clement of Alexandria’s quotation of an early Christian, “We who worship God in a new way, as the third race (τρίτῳ γένει), are Christians.” Mitton tells the story of early Christians who, when required in law courts to declare their race, insisted on saying only: “I am a Christian.” Mitton, Ephesians, 108.
Bishop J. R. Reid presently serves as Master of New College at the University of New South Wales. He related the story to the writer in a personal letter (Reid to MacLeod, Oct. 11, 1994).
The question of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the new people of God is a complex one. There are at least six views: (1) The theory that there is one people of God, Israel, of which Gentiles become members. So: Markus Barth, The Broken Wall: A Study of the Epistle to the Ephesians [Philadelphia: Judson, 1960], 123–36; idem., “Conversion and Conversation: Israel and the Church in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,” Interpretation 17 [1963]: 3–24; idem., The People of God [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983], 9–10 and passim. Barth is certainly correct in emphasizing God’s continuing love for the Jewish people, but he does not do justice to Paul’s depiction in Ephesians 2 of the church “in terms of a new, third entity, a third race which transcends the old ethnic and religious entities of Jew and Gentile” [cf. Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Church and Israel in Ephesians 2,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (Oct., 1987): 616]. Nor does he adequately face up to the need of the Jews, as well as Gentiles, of God’s saving grace. “Both Jews and Gentiles before they believe stand on the same level as transgressors of God’s will” [Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 268]. (2) The replacement or substitution theory, i.e., the view that Israel is replaced by the church [Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 67]. Waltke writes of “the hard fact that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the New Covenant.” He adds, “The Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God; that place has been taken by the Christian community which fulfills God’s purposes for Israel” [Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 274–75]. Waltke’s view ignores the NT’s teaching that there is a believing remnant of Israelites within the church that retains its ethnic identity as “the Israel of God” [Rom. 9:6; 11:5; Gal. 6:16; see S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 181–96]. He further ignores the full force of those texts that assume a future for the nation [Matt. 8:11; 19:28; Acts 1:6; Rom. 11:26; see Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 141–45]. He also ignores the testimony of the NT [Heb. 8:8] that the new covenant, in fulfillment of OT prophecy, was enacted with the believing remnant of Israel. The earliest Christians, namely the apostles and their associates, were all Jews, and the new covenant was made with them. Because of the divine engrafting of Gentiles through the miracle of the baptism of the Spirit, the church as a whole today enjoys the spiritual benefits of that covenant [Acts 11:15; Rom. 11:17; Eph. 3:6; see David J. MacLeod, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Dubuque: Emmaus, 1998), 80; Michael J. Vlach, “Has the Church Replaced Israel in God’s Plan?” Conservative Theological Journal 4 (April, 2000): 6–32]. (3) The “Two Covenant” Theory, i.e., the view, first advanced by Franz Rosenzweig [1886–1929], that God has established two different but equally valid covenants, one with his people Israel and the other with the Gentiles. The Jews receive salvation through their covenantal relationship with God, and the Christians receive salvation through Christ. Judaism and Christianity are co-equal and complementary faiths [cf. Nahum N. Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (New York: Schocken, 1961), 162, 341; Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith, trans. Norman P. Goldhawk (1951; reprint ed., New York: Harper, 1961), 170–74; Arthur Gilbert, “The Mission of the Jewish People in History and in the Modern World,” Lutheran World (July, 1964), 308; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), 2, 19]. This view ignores Paul’s assertion that the Mosaic covenant has been abrogated and that believing Israel has become part of the church [Eph. 2:15]. It further ignores texts which speak of the message of Christ being directed at Israel [Matt. 10:5–6; Acts 13:13–52] and being required by Israel for salvation [Acts 2:5, 14, 22, 36, 38; Rom. 1:6]. It also ignores Israel’s future in the land under the new covenant and not the old [Joseph P. Gudel, “‘To the Jew First’: A Biblical Analysis of the ‘Two Covenant’ Theory of the Atonement,” Christian Research Journal (July, 1998): 37–42; Murdo A. MacLeod, “Two Covenant Theology,” Reformed Theological Journal 4 (Nov., 1988): 30–49]. (4) The “split people” theory, a pessimistic variation of view # 3, in which Jews and Gentiles remain in schism within the one people of God [Kornelius H. Miskotte, When the Gods are Silent, trans. John W. Doberstein (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 164–69]. This view faces the same objections as those directed against view # 3 [Barth, The People of God, 24–25]. (5) The “New People of God” view of dispensationalism. The church, i.e., the “one new man” of Eph. 2:15 is a distinct work of God in the present age. It is distinct in character in that, unlike Israel of the Old Testament, it includes both Jews and Gentiles and because the new body, unlike Israel of the Old Testament, is indwelt by Christ through his Spirit [John 14:17–20]. It is distinct in time in that the church as a body did not exist until the day of Pentecost. This reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ is a mystery first made known to the apostle Paul [Eph. 3:3, 6; cf. Col. 1:24–27]. On the distinctiveness of the church, cf. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (rev. ed., Chicago: Moody, 1995), 123–29. That there is continuity in the people of God under the old and new covenants is not here denied. The people of God who make up the “one new man” include a believing remnant of Israel, i.e., “the Israel of God” [Rom. 11:5; Gal. 6:16], and both Jews and Gentiles now partake of the salvific blessings of the covenants of promise. On the current debate over the relationship of Israel to the church in dispensationalism, cf. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 131–35; Herbert W. Bateman IV, ed., Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 227–303.
Cited by Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 116.
Stott, God’s New Society, 102.
Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 263.
Joseph Pearce, Literary Converts (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), 67–68, 105.
J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan, 1895), 288; Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 264–65.
S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “From Enmity to Amity,” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (1962): 143–44. Vincent Taylor, Forgiveness and Reconciliation (London: Macmillan, 1952), 72–75; James Denney, The Death of Christ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), 103–5.
Catesby Paget, “A Mind at Perfect Peace,” in Hymns of Worship and Remembrance (Kansas City: Gospel Perpetuating Publishers, 1960), 32.
“Being peace and making peace do not avail or benefit unless the peace is made known” (Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 270).
Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 270.
Scholars have differed in their interpretation of the aorist participle ἐλθών (“he came”). The question is: when did Christ preach peace? Best reviews eight views: (1) He preached prior to the incarnation in OT times. (2) His incarnation was in itself a preaching of peace. (3) Christ’s preaching during his life on earth is Paul’s meaning. (4) The cross itself was his preaching. (5) His resurrection was his preaching. (6) Christ preached in the coming of the Holy Spirit. (7) Christ preaches by instructing and inspiring those who preach the gospel. (8) The ascent of Christ through the cosmic barrier was his preaching. The present writer combines views six and seven. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 271–73; Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 285.
Stott, God’s New Society, 104.
Paul, it should be noted, did not say “that Gentiles have gained an access that earlier belonged to Jews alone, but that both Jews and Gentiles have a new access” (Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 275).
Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 301.
Lincoln, Ephesians, 150.
G. Stählin, “ξένος,” TDNT 5:2–3.
Quoted in Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 118.
Moule, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 82; Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 118.
K. L. and M. A. Schmidt, “πάροικος,” TDNT 5:853.
O. Procksch, “ἅγιος,” TDNT 1:106; Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, 60. There are six main interpretations of the term ἅγιοι in v. 19: (1) The term, as understood in this essay, refers to Jewish Christians. (2) The term refers to the Jewish patriarchs and other celebrated Jews. (3) The term refers to Israel, or the Jews. (4) The term refers to angels. (5) The term refers to Christians. (6) The term refers to glorified believers. Lincoln, “The Church and Israel,” 613–14; Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 277–78.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God’s Way of Reconciliation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 302.
Stott, God’s New Society, 105.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 190, n. 1.
Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 278.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 192; Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 279.
Stott, God’s New Society, 106.
Richard W. DeHaan, “Family Tie,” in Our Daily Bread.
The aorist participle ἐποικοδομηθέντες (“having been built”) implies a past event, namely, their conversion. The passive voice points to God as the gracious builder. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 279.
The NEB has “the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets.” This rendering avoids a supposed conflict with 1 Cor. 3:11, “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” There is no conflict, however, if we understand that Paul simply varies his metaphor in the two passages: (1) In 1 Cor. 3 the building materials are not human lives but the instruction in faith by which various teachers built up the community. Paul does not see himself as a stone in the building, but “a wise master builder” [1 Cor. 3:10]. The foundation he has laid is his proclamation of Jesus Christ. (2) In Ephesians 2:20 the metaphor is different. Here the building materials are human lives, i.e., the stones are the people of whom the church is built. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 67–68; Caird, Paul’s Letters From Prison, 20–21.
In the NT the term apostle is used in two ways: (1) in a restrictive sense of the Twelve plus Paul, and (2) in a broader sense of those who carried out pioneer missionary work [Acts 14:4, 14; Rom. 16:7; 1 Thess. 2:6]. The parallel expression in Ephesians 3:5 suggests that Paul is here speaking in the restrictive sense. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 281.
The order of the words, “apostles and prophets,” not “prophets and apostles,” suggests that Paul is speaking of the prophets of the New Testament church. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 282.
Mitton, Ephesians, 111.
Stott, God’s New Society, 107.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 197. See also J. N. Darby, The Sufferings of Christ (London: G. Morrish, 1959), 60.
F. F. Bruce (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 305–6; see also Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 285) has argued that the translation “cornerstone” is incorrect. He preferred “top stone,” i.e., the stone which crowns a building and is the last stone to be placed in position. This view is very unlikely for these reasons: (1) It varies with Paul’s affirmation that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church [1 Cor. 3:11]. (2) The building in Ephesians was not yet complete; it was still growing. This means that Christ is given no place in its present stage of development. (3) It is difficult to see how Christ can be given a position that is not prior to that of the apostles and prophets. (4) The argument in 2:19–22 points to Jesus as the keystone around which the foundation itself has been built. (5) In Isaiah 28:16 the cornerstone is clearly understood as part of the foundation. Mitton, Ephesians, 113.
Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 69.
James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1930; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), s.v. “ἀκρογωνιαῖος,” 19.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 199; Stott, God’s New Society, 108.
NEB mg., F. F. Bruce, Ephesians, 306.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 199.
Stott, God’s New Society, 108.
David C. Egner, “Built to Last,” in Our Daily Bread.
Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, 280.
Stott, God’s New Society, 109.
Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 207; Stott, God’s New Society, 109.
Stott, God’s New Society, 109–10.
Carl B. Hoch, Jr., “The New man of Ephesians 2, ” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, eds. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids; Zondervn, 1992), 114. As Hoch notes, Christ’s role as accessor in Ephesians 2 anticipates the office of priest that is attributed to him in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Stott, God’s New Society, 110.
Denney, The Death of Christ, 145.
Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 118.
Gardner B. Taplin, The Life of Elizabeth Barrett Browning (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 248–49.

Eamon Younis

Saturday 27 April 2019

The Broken Wall, or: From Alienation to Reconciliation

No comments:

Post a Comment