See, it’s ok for philosophy nerds to get a job…
By philhigley | June 25, 2009
Topics: See All Posts | 3 Comments »
“Looking Forward in Spite of Death” Karl Barth’s Confrontation with the Reality of Death and the Hope of Resurrection
By philhigley | June 20, 2009
In contemporary evangelical theology the subject of eschatology, in its various forms, is in a precarious situation. For instance, in the wake of popular dispensationalism one may wonder whether or not the eschatological doctrine of bodily resurrection, which the New Testament so boldly emphasizes, has been raptured from theology altogether. Yet in spite of this daunting eschatological trend one can find in the theology of Karl Barth a treatment of bodily resurrection that is both theologically dynamic and also highly practical. For the following analysis, I will be principally using two shorter books written by Karl Barth at the height of his theological maturity (from my perspective). The books will be Dogmatics in Outline and The Resurrection of the Dead. The first book focuses more on a systematic and theological perspective, whereas the second book offers more of a biblical exegesis rather than systematic view. Rarely was a 19th cent. theologian considered both a biblical scholar and systematic theologian, but as for Barth, he bridged the gap by being both in addition to being a pastor and professor. Thus, I think his thought is worthy of study.
What I want to do in the following analysis is to briefly explicate Karl Barth’s conception of bodily resurrection in order to ascertain (a) how he acknowledges the reality of physical death from a theological and biblically based perspective, and (b) how this death is to be understood in light of the resurrection at the eschaton. Thus, without understanding death, says Barth, one cannot understand resurrection. In addition to looking at Barth’s perspective on this eschatological subject, I’ll also offer a personal yet brief critique of Barth’s thought in light of the my own theological convictions.
Confronting the Reality of Physical Death
“The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting” is an appropriate chapter title to conclude Barth’s Dogmatics in Outline. In it, Barth provides a short but substantive treatment of the doctrine and hope of bodily resurrection (p. 153). One can appreciate how Barth begins his perspective because he starts out with an unabashed portrayal of physical death: it is terrifying (if you don’t think that it is, then good for youJ). From my perspective it seems that the reason Barth begins with death in this respect is twofold. First, death is a reality and curse for all humanity and therefore must be directly engaged before proposing the hope of bodily resurrection. The person, says Barth, “who does not take it seriously that we are looking to that end;…who does not realize what dying means, who is not terrified at it, who has perhaps not enough joy in life and so does not know the fear of the end, who has not yet understood that this life is a gift of God;…cannot grasp the significance of ‘resurrection.’” (p. 151) Thus, Barth does not address death in a cavalier way, but understands it to be a great enemy of humankind.
Secondly, the resurrection is the remedy, as it were, for death. Barth proposes that the resurrection “is the answer to death’s terror, the terror that this life someday comes to an end, and that this end is the horizon of our existence.” (p. 151) For Barth, then, death is both the end and the beginning for humanity. It is the end because “it is the wages of sin.” However, it is the beginning for the Christian because of the doctrine and New Testament witness of the resurrection. For Barth, bodily resurrection and life everlasting signify the conquest of death and life’s completion. (p. 151) Perhaps this is the reason that he refers to it as the “horizon of our existence.”
“Practical Eschatology”
Paul’s discourse on resurrection in 1 Cor 15, says Barth, “deals with the most positive subject that can be imagined.” (That Karl Barth believes the resurrection of the dead to be the centre and basis of Paul’s preaching is indisputable. 1 Corinthians 15, he claims, deals with ‘the most positive subject that can be imagined’ and is the ‘very peak and crown of this…Epistle.’”) Resurrection, for the Christian, is positive because the shadow of death cannot touch it. In fact, Barth echoes Paul when he says that the Christian hope at its actualization will result in death being swallowed up in victory. Consequently, death will die to itself, and the resurrected body will be glorified. Thus the eschatological distinction of death literally dying at the eschaton is both a practical and glorious expectation that the believer looks forward to, or at least is supposed to look forward to.
Resurrection at the Eschaton
It is no surprise that, for Barth, the resurrection of the dead cannot be spoken of without reference to Jesus Christ. Barth speaks of the resurrection of Christ in terms of power and that the power of the resurrection as mysterious. (CD IV/2, p. 307.) Always the Christocentrist, Barth looks to the risen Jesus Christ for the power to believe in the resurrection. Unlike his contemporary Bultmann, who superciliously and unabashedly regarded the resurrection of Jesus Christ as mere mythology, Barth sees the resurrection of Christ as an objective reality which is rooted both in history and theological validity. For this reason he authoritatively quotes Paul’s discourse on the resurrection in Rom 6 and 1 Cor 15 in both his Dogmatics in Outline and The Resurrection of the Dead, both which are fairly short books that can be read in a couple of hours. The following discourse from Paul deals with the believer’s relationship to Christ’s death, resurrection, and new hope for life, all of which Barth draws upon:
… [A]ll of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death;…we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection…Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom 6:3-11)
Barth’s treatment of this passage concludes that the Christian who believes Paul’s words “is already beginning here and now to live the complete life.” But more than that, the Christian is epistemologically warranted to believe not only in the resurrection of Jesus, but also in the general resurrection of the dead. The passage implies that the two are necessarily connected.
The theory that Barth proposes in his exposition of 1 Cor 15 is important to include at this point. “Barth thinks that Paul’s opponents accepted the resurrection of Jesus as an isolated fact, but failed to perceive its centrality and significance.” For Barth, the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead at the eschaton are interlinked, and thus they cannot be considered mutually exclusive. The Corinthian error, therefore, was to disregard the idea and significance of bodily resurrection. Barth says that this is why Paul focused so much on “Death and the Dead, in sharp contrast to the abundance of the possibilities of life…” in light of the resurrection of the dead. (The Resurrection of the Dead)
“Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised.” (1 Cor 15:12-13) The words of Paul here in vv. 12-13 are demonstrative of Barth’s point about the resurrection of the dead being a central hope of the believer. He believes that the exegesis and hermeneutic of this verse demand its meaning about the reality of the resurrection be taken seriously. If these verses point to a superfluous mythology or inward experience, then the statement, Barth says, “‘Christ is risen’ then means, fundamentally, as much as little as ‘Christ is not risen.’” Barth, here, includes an interesting perspective. Like Paul, he believes that if it is the case, as some Corinthian Christians assert, that there is no resurrection of the dead, then there is a problem with believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ for two reasons.
First, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then there is a philosophical problem with asserting the resurrection of Jesus as a reality. “If no dead are to arise except One, then the resurrection of even this One is an offence dispensable, unimportant, a foreign dualistic element in a philosophy otherwise uniform, and regarding which it is only a question of religious tactics whether we amiably lend it a poetic interpretations or bluntly deny it.” (Barth is obviously taking a shot at Bultmann here) Without making it explicit, one wonders whether Barth is foreshadowing Hume’s skeptical argument about the conformity of nature as legitimate if the general resurrection is not believed. Additionally, there also seems to be a rejection here of mythical interpretations like Bultmann’s, as already mentioned.
Secondly, Barth concludes that if the general resurrection is rejected, then there is a particular problem with the idea of special revelation. The revelation of God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ is negated if this is the case. Paul says simply, and Barth affirms, that “if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.” At this point, Barth’s perspective on the resurrection is clear in that he is Pauline. He accepts Paul’s logic that Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection are integrally related. Denying one leads to denying the other.
Conclusion
The subject of bodily resurrection is a doctrine that Christianity must proclaim and hold to as a dogmatic doctrine. Karl Barth, like Paul, views the general resurrection to be inescapably associated with Christ’s resurrection. The two resurrections’ are therefore complementary and revelatory. Nevertheless, the subject of death still looms on the horizon, so to speak, in light of the general resurrection. But for Barth, death is the ultimate loser. (Seriously, it is literally the ultimate loser.) Though death is the reality of the here and now, Barth affirms that it will also die. To this, Barth calls on the Christian not to look back at death, but to look forward to the light of Christ. Thus, Barth’s perspective on physical death is not to disregard its heinousness, but to look forward to the resurrection as its conqueror.
Likewise, the subject of death in light of the resurrection at the eschaton is centered on the personal and objective reality of Jesus’ resurrection. The Christian hopes for resurrection at the eschaton because of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. To this Barth proclaims that “Eschatology, rightly understood, is the most practical thing that can be thought.” It is truly practical because it provides the answer to death, but only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Theological Critique
Karl Barth’s perspective on death and resurrection is theologically multifaceted to say the least. It also seems that any treatment of Barth’s eschatology within his larger theology must be done in humility due to the fact that so many have interpreted his theology in various ways (e.g., as foe-Van Til, Pinnock, Gerstner, Berkouwer; and as friend-Bloesch, Bromiley, Brown, Ladd, Packer). Thus, my critique will modestly put forth both some advantages and limitations of Barth’s perspective on eschatology as it relates to the subjects of death and resurrection.
Eschatological Advantages
One of the most important advantages that Barth emphasizes in his eschatology is the terrifying reality of death. By proposing death as something that persons should be existentially terrified at, Barth calls attention to the universal problem of which all humanity faces-physical death (stop here and think about your mortality. How long do you have to live?). And instead of sidestepping or spiritualizing the subject of death, Barth boldly confronts the issue and gives not just his own systematic perspective, but a genuinely biblical one. This “Crisis of Death,” as Bleosch rightly labels it, is practically understood by Barth’s distinction of looking forward toward the horizon of life. The Christian is to look forward to the only answer to the reality of death-resurrection. Thus, I believe that Barth would fully agree with the statement that “death is not a friend or brother but ‘the last enemy’ (1 Cor 15:26; Rom 6:23). The sting of death can be overcome only in Jesus Christ.” (Bloesch, The Last Things, p. 125)
This brings us to the second and perhaps most important advantage for Barth’s conception of death and resurrection. The person of Jesus Christ is the hope that Christians have for the resurrection and life everlasting. George Hunsinger, a significant Barth scholar, says that because Jesus “completely embraces our destruction, carrying us to death in his death” we will surely “be raised in and with him to newness of life.” This Christological perspective is the key to Barth’s thought. From his perspective there is no room for a “disjunction between Christology and Theology.” Yet, everything is dependent on Jesus Christ. Thus, if Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and the resurrection according to Barth is the answer to death’s terror, then indeed Jesus’ death and resurrection is the centerpiece of majestic resurrection passages such as 1 Cor 15 and Rom 6.
The idea of completeness and incompleteness is also apparent in Barth’s treatment of death and resurrection. It was said earlier by Barth that “The man who does not know what death is does not know either what resurrection is.” Barth believes this is true; however, he also postulates that humanity’s want for completion and wholeness in the present life must be believed in light of the resurrection. Barth says that “it must be believed, in death’s despite.” But surely the believer does not believe in resurrection as a “thing” but in Jesus Christ as the life and resurrection (John 11:25). Here, Barth does a particularly good job of focusing on the person of Jesus Christ for the meaning of the resurrection.
Eschatological Limitations
Although Barth proposes that the issue of resurrection is both practical and positive, one could say, at least from my thinking, that his practical perspective should integrate some of the more pressing issues that theologians/laity have found to be barriers for belief in the resurrection. Surely it is probably the case that Barth speaks about these in his Church Dogmatics as well as in other places, but in Dogmatics in Outline and The Resurrection of the Dead, where he has a direct opportunity, he does not.
What are some of the practical pressing issues, then? For one, Calvin, in the Institutes addresses the question about physical bodies being “consumed with rottenness” at death, and then thinking about this in terms of the resurrection. (3.25.3) This is surely a question that many people (e.g., Corinthians) have put forth. Even so, Calvin’s answer is that we must first presuppose that our finite minds cannot apprehend this mystery; but if we try, we must look to Christ’s resurrection and the omnipotence of God for the answer. On this point Calvin’s answer is certainly theologically coherent, but the question still remains: how can something as corruptible as the flesh be resurrected? How can a body which has returned to the earth, so to speak, be raised from the dead? Bloesch says it well, “Evangelical theology speaks not of the resurrection of the flesh but of the resurrection of the person. It entails both soul and body.” (Last Things, p. 122) Perhaps Bloesch, here, makes explicit what Barth makes implicit, namely, that God does not just raise the flesh, but the whole person, which is more than just flesh and bones.
Another possible limitation has to do with a point that Barth references in various places. He makes the assertion that the believer who believes in Christ has been put to death in Christ and thus is “already beginning here and now to live the complete life.” It might be advantageous for Barth, here, to define what he means. Surely there is something to be said about the “now and not yet” nature of the resurrection and life everlasting, but he could expound on this point a little more. To be fair, however, he does allude to the Heidelberg Catechism: “In Jesus Christ I am no longer at the point at which I can die; in Him our body is already in heaven.”
So here is my conclusion: one could certainly write volumes on the subject of death and resurrection from a Barthian perspective, but this critique of Barth is meant merely to show how immense the topic seems to be. In any case, my overall impression of Barth is that he is truly an evangelical theologian who takes the biblical witness seriously when it comes to the resurrection. Thus, he is to be commended for upholding this beloved Christian doctrine.
Bibliography and Resources for Further Study
Barth, Karl. Dogmatics in Outline. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.
______. The Resurrection of the Dead. Translated by H. J. Stenning. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003.
______. The Humanity of God. WKJP, 1960.
______. & Rudolph Bultmann. Edited by Bernd Jaspert and Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann: Letters 1922-1966. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
______. The Theology of Schleiermacher: Lectures at Gottingen, Winter Semester of 1923/24. Dietrich Ritschl, ed. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
______. Church Dogmatics. IV/2.
Bloesch, Donald G. The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Bolich, Gregory G. Karl Barth & Evangelicalism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1980.
Calvin, John. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Dawson, Dale R. The Resurrection in Karl Barth. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.
Hunsinger, George. “Karl Barth’s Christology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Sider, Ronald J. “St. Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV 1-19.” Novum Testamentum 19.2 (Apr 1977): 124-141.
Schurr, George M. “Brunner and Barth on life After Death.” Journal of Religious Thought 24.2 (Issue 2 (1967/68)): 95-110.
Topics: See All Posts | 3 Comments »
Biography recommendation on J.R.R. Tokien
By philhigley | June 16, 2009
Humphrey Carpenter’s book, J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, is one of the better biographies I’ve read about Tolkien. By the way, I’ve only read two, but you basically don’t write a book on Tolkien unless you know what you’re saying. Thus, although my sampling is limited, it is nonetheless a valid observation.
The book highlights the world’s most famous philologist and also his interactions with the stuff of life—i.e., pain, love, loss, hope, faith, creativity, etc. I particularly like the historical buildup of Tolkien’s painful childhood, his conversion to the Catholic faith, his falling in love with his wonderful wife, World War I, and then a life spent as a scholar at Oxford. Oh ya, there’s also that part about him writing what is considered to be the best fantasy fiction epic of all time! (Hey, I’m biased) One of the more intriguing issues the book deals with as well is his relationship with C.S. Lewis.
The book is based upon the letters, diaries, and other papers of the late Professor J.R.R. Tolkien, and upon the reminiscences of his family and friends.
Interestingly enough, Tolkien himself did not entirely approve of biography. Or rather, he disliked its use as a form of literary criticism. “One of my strongest opinions,” he once wrote, “is that investigation of an author’s biography is an entirely vain and false approach to his works.” Yet he was undoubtedly aware that the remarkable popularity of his fiction made it highly likely that a biography would be written after his death; and indeed he appears to have made some preparation for this himself, for in the last years of his life he annotated a number of old letters and papers with explanatory notes or other comments. He also wrote a few pages of recollections of his childhood. It may thus be hoped, Carpenter says, that this book would not be entirely foreign to his wishes.
Carpenter’s Note:
In writing it I have tried to tell the story of Tolkien’s life without attempting any critical judgements of his works of fiction. This is partly in deference to his own views, but in any case it seems to me that the first published biography of a writer is not necessarily the best place to make literary judgments, which will after all reflect the character of the critic just as much as that of his subject. I have tried to delineate some of the literary and other influences that came to bear on Tolkien’s imagination, in the hope that this may shed some light on his books. H.C. Oxford, 1976
Topics: See All Posts | 2 Comments »
The Rock Obama
By philhigley | June 12, 2009
Usually SNL sucks, but the video below was funny; at least I thought so…
Topics: See All Posts | 2 Comments »
Grammar: Things that make you say, “dang”
By philhigley | June 9, 2009
Arsenio Hall would always have a segment from his show that was titled, “Things that make you say, hmmm.” (If you don’t remember his very popular show, then you’re probably quite a bit older or quite a bit younger than me.) This was the part of the show where he would always talk about weird stuff that would, well, make you say hmmm. My post today, which might make you say hmmm, reflects something that makes me want to say dang. Specifically, when I send someone an email with a grammatical faux pas like “your” instead of “you’re” or “its” instead of “it’s” or something of this nature. For example, when I send an email and realize I have done this, it just bugs me. I can’t go back and change it; it’s sent. Now I know what you(’)re thinking: “Phil, you’re being OCD on this one.” Am I? Perhaps it depends. If I’m too lazy to write correctly, then that doesn’t really help my writing in other, more formal areas of life. However, if I’m too formal and make too much about grammar, I will sound like an annoying English major (nag nag nag–sorry you English majors but that’s what people say behind your backs, hehe).
Anyhow, just a thought for the day: Don’t be too lazy about your writing, because it’s too important for your development as a writer; however, regarding your writing and its polished nature, life is too short to be a grammar Nazi.
P.S. If I have made any blatant grammatical mistakes in the post, then please let me know:-)
Topics: See All Posts | No Comments »
A Brief Exegetical Survey of Christology in Ephesians 2
By philhigley | June 6, 2009
I haven’t had time to write much over the past few weeks, so I’m posting an entry from a paper I wrote on Ephesians 2 a while back, with some updating that I thought was necessary. This paper was used as the background and backbone for the first sermon I preached. In that sermon, my message was to convey how we humans can be reconciled to God through Christ, but also through this reconciliation we are reconciled to one another as well. A secondary result of this reconciliation is peace, but true peace, it seems to me—and as is argued by the author whom I accept to be the Apostle Paul, is only based, actualized, and realized in the person of Christ himself. Basically there is an organic correspondence between God’s salvation for us through Christ, i.e., a vertical relationship that we have with God, and our reconciliation with one another, i.e., a horizontal relationship we have with one another. Does that make sense? By the way, here’s a link to the Scripture which is exegeted below. If you don’t read it, the entry will not carry much weight or make much sense. Furthermore, I have provided a full bibliography at the end of the entry for further Ephesians study and to identify my sources.
Reconciliation and Restoration of the People of God:
A Brief Exegetical Survey of Christology in Ephesians 2:14-18
It is not difficult to imagine contemporary readers of Ephesians recognizing that the letter’s entirety presents a rich perspective about God’s mercy and love toward humanity, which finds its ultimate expression in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the letter’s message of God’s mercy and love subsequently calls believers to embody the reality of being loved by such a benevolent God. Yet there are portions of the letter which, when closely read, might prevent contemporary readers from grasping the first-century meaning and significance of the text. Case in point is the Christological excursus in Ephesians 2:14-18. This pericope is an essential element of 2:11-22, for its content gives theological explication of what Christ has accomplished, namely, the reconciliation of humanity to God and also the restoration of humanity to one another. The pericope’s content is understood through subjects such as peace, hostility, the dividing-wall, and relations between Jews and Gentiles. However, the aim of this study is that all of these subjects convey prime meaning in their first-century context, which is not directly accessible to contemporary readers who only have the text of Ephesians as their guide. Thus, understanding the first-century context of the subjects mentioned above in 2:14-18 is crucial for an informed understanding of what the author of Ephesians is trying to communicate concerning what Jesus Christ has done for humanity.
Grammatical Considerations
Before delving into the proposed subject matter of Ephesians 2:14-18 and its first-century context, it might be helpful to first determine the grammatical reasons for considering this pericope as the centerpiece of the author’s overall argument (i.e., vv. 11-22). Although most English translations of the Greek attempt to show a grammatical shift in vv. 14-18, readers of the Greek text will quickly notice the author’s shift from second to first-person language. This is particularly important when looking at vv. 11-13 and 19-22, in which the author uses “you” instead of “we”, and comparing them to vv. 14-18 (v. 17 as an exception). This shift by the author is deliberate because of the Christological exposition of vv. 14-18. This amounts to the author saying something like, “this message is not only for all of you (my audience), but for all of us-me included.” In this sense, the pericope could almost function as a parenthetical note, albeit a crucial one, to the reader which expounds on the force of the author’s overall point (vv. 11-22). Try, for example, to read v. 13 and 19 together without vv. 14-18. The author’s message about Jesus Christ is still conveyed, but with far less Christological elucidation.
Another important grammatical feature in vv. 14-18 worth mentioning is the fact that Christ has become the subject of the eleven Greek verbs used. Again, this trait is particularly important because it provides direction for the readers that the author is now calling specific attention to the person of Christ and what he has accomplished. Thus, the author’s shift in grammar from second-person to first and the verbal emphasis on Christ are signals to the reader that this pericope (vv. 14-18) is of particular value. Some scholars (most notably, Schille) have concluded that this grammatical evidence, in addition to the subject matter, signifies that vv. 14-18 are based on an existing hymn of which the author has adapted. Regardless of how interesting this hymn evidence may be, the point here is that vv. 14-18 are a Christological exegesis by the author to inform the larger context of vv. 11-22.
The Prince of Peace: Jesus Christ
The author’s assertion in v. 14, “Αυτος γαρ εστιν η ειρηνη ημων,” (For he [Christ] is our peace) begins the Christological inquiry of the subject of peace. Peace for the author, however, does not consist in a list of philosophical virtues, but in the person of Christ himself. If there were a motif in vv. 14-18, of which peace is mentioned four times, it would be that Christ is the apex of peace. But what did the original audience understand when they heard that “Christ is our peace”? For example, it is one thing to say that Christ creates, brings, and accomplishes peace, but it is quite another to say that Christ is himself the peace of his people. In light of this Christological concept of peace, it is questionable that the audience would have equated the concept of peace with the basic Greek conception of it, which is not primarily a state of relationship but a state of mind. How then should peace be understood in this context?
It may be supposed that when hearing this theme of peace, one option is that of the Pax Romana. This primarily political designation of peace, which is usually understood as “the absence of war” or hostility, is certainly an element of the peace that Christ brings. However, rather than hostility being merely absent, the author tells his audience that Christ has abolished the hostility between Jews and Gentiles through the cross (v. 16), however ironic that might be. (Keep in mind that the concept of the cross was tantamount in the first-century to torture, horror, and death rather than peace!) There is no longer just an absence of hostility, for it has been annihilated. Nevertheless, the historical-cultural designation of the Pax Romana might indicate one component of the original audience’s understanding of peace.
Another option for peace, which is perhaps more conceivable, is the OT concept of shalom. Most scholars are quick to point out the Christological allusions to peace in Is. 9:5f; 52:7; 57:19, as representative of this idea. Additionally, these references give theological definition to the peace of Christ that is very similar to our text in Ephesians (v. 17). Yet, although not having a neat and tidy definition of shalom, the primary difference between the Greek understanding of peace and the Hebrew understanding is that the latter is characterized as an “emphatically social concept.” (Gerhard von Rad) Shalom is not simply characterized by the absence of conflict, but to wholeness of person, a wholeness that is only possible through community and relationality. Take for example the Genesis account where God said that it is not good that man should be alone, but that he should have a companion (Gen. 2:18-24). It is not as though man in this sense was really alone, for he had God, animals, and nature there with him. But man was alone in the sense that he lacked community and fellowship and love with other persons (Moltmann). This social concept of peace, then, is radically understood in vv. 14-18 by the peace of Christ first uniting Jews and Gentiles in relationship (14-15), and then second, uniting them in relationship to God himself (16-18).
As we have seen, the subject of peace in this pericope (vv. 14-18) is not abstract with respect to its Christological definition. Instead, it is peace set in a social context involving relationships between persons, and then set in social relationship to God. (Barth) The author uses vivid language that his audience would have immediately recognized to demonstrate the profundity of the peace that Christ brings.
For example, the peace that Christ brings is said to have abolished the hostility between Jews and Gentiles, thereby making them one people of God. The author’s choice of words here to make his case is quite interesting. By starting with the theme of peace in v. 14, the author then expounds with metaphorical language to illustrate how this peace has been accomplished. Ironically, Christ’s peace is accomplished through pure destruction from a divine prerogative, but through this destruction he makes Jew and Gentile believers’ one. The famous “dividing wall” (μεσοτοιχον) concept is the first subject of this destruction. It represents the hostility and separation between both Jew and Gentile (v.14b). The question for the exegete at this juncture, however, is what the original audience would have inferred when they heard that the “dividing wall” has been broken down. Much has been written about this word (μεσοτοιχον) and concept, but two topics in general seem to warrant serious consideration for the space allotted.
The Dividing-Wall Controversy
First, virtually all scholars comment on the topic of the historical-culture feature of the temple balustrade in Jerusalem. It is indisputable that the balustrade was a real barrier separating the Jewish inner courts from the Gentile court in the Jerusalem temple. In 1871, an archeological discovery was made concerning this balustrade with the inscription: “No man of another race is to enter within the fence and enclosure around the Temple. Whoever is caught will have only himself to thank for the death which follows.” Obviously this designation of separation in the temple was serious to the extent that if the separation was violated by either a Gentile or a Jew bringing in a Gentile, death would be the result. (Bruce) (Recall Acts 21:28-29 where Paul was accused of bringing a Greek into the temple and was almost killed.) Such separateness is demonstrative of the seriousness by which Jews and Gentiles understood their relationship-or lack thereof-in the first-century. Their relationship was divided both ethnically and religiously.
It is also noteworthy that some scholars reject the balustrade interpretation based on their conclusions of authorship and date of the letter’s composition. Hoehner, for example, argues that one of the reasons this exegetical interpretation of the balustrade is invalid is because “the wall in Jerusalem was still standing when Paul wrote this letter.” (Hoehner) However, does Hoehner’s literal reading of the passage take into account that Paul may have considered the balustrade to be figuratively destroyed through the cross of Christ? That being said, and contrary to Hoehner’s concern, most contemporary scholarship places the authorship of Ephesians as a post A.D. 70 letter. If this latter view is accepted, then the balustrade imagery and interpretation make a great deal more sense in a first-century context. Not only would the dividing-wall have been figuratively destroyed through Christ, but prophetically destroyed in a literal sense with Titus’ destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The prophetic message of Jesus comes to mind when he said that he would destroy the temple and raise it back up (Jn. 2:19). This prophesy, which is multifaceted to say the least, fits quite nicely with a literal and figurative destruction of the balustrade along with the new bodily temple spoken of in Ephesians 2:21-22.
Furthermore, there is the question of whether or not the readers in Asia Minor would have been familiar with the balustrade imagery the author uses. This point is perhaps a little stronger than Hoehner’s previous argument because of the significant geographical divide between Asia Minor and Jerusalem in addition to the cultural divide between Jews and Gentiles. However, there are still problems with the assumption that just because the temple is geographically distant from the readers in the areas surrounding Ephesus, that they are somehow ignorant of significant features such as the balustrade. Just because the temple is far-away does not equate to it being isolated from the knowledge of the author’s original audience. There are many reasons for this: (1) early Christianity was often seen as a Jewish sect, (2) though probably mostly Gentile, we do not know what the Jewish and Gentile makeup of the Ephesians audience was, (3) there is significant temple language throughout many of the epistles and even in our own pericope’s context, vv. 11-22, and (4) the temple being destroyed in A.D. 70 would have made it known to virtually all Jewish and Gentile Christians. For these reasons, it is still plausible to conclude that the Ephesians audience would have been familiar with the temple and its separating features. Perhaps this point provides the force and significance behind the building analogy of the bodily temple in vv. 20-22. If the Ephesians audience was not aware of the temple balustrade, then why are there so many temple references in the present text?
Whether or not the balustrade is what the author had in mind when referring to the dividing-wall is impossible to conclude definitively, but it is at least a highly tenable theory. This theory is also helpful for contemporary readers to grasp the significance of the division and hostility between Jews and Gentiles, and the implications of Christ destroying the hostility between them and bringing peace. In fact, the balustrade is precisely the type of tangible representation that would encapsulate the imagery of separation and hostility between Jews and Gentiles in the first-century.
Secondly, another exegetical consideration is to interpret the dividing wall in apposition with (v. 15) the abolishment of the law and ordinances for the purpose of uniting Jews and Gentiles in peace. It is no secret that Jewish customs and law were divisive in the early church between Jewish believers and Gentile converts, so it would make sense that the author declares the separating features of the law to be abolished through the peace of Christ. This would also be relevant considering the almost sarcastic tone of circumcision in v. 11. Like the dividing wall, the law too in its function to separate Israel from the nations is now abolished in light of Christ’s accomplishment to make one new people (see Col. 3:11 and Gal. 3:28).
All in all, if one looks closely at the construction of vv. 14-15, they may see that both verses are really declaring the same thing, with the law and dividing-wall as complementary first-century concepts. In v. 14, the sentence construction starts with (a) peace, (b) making both Jews and Gentiles one, and (c) destroying hostility, which is the dividing wall. In v. 15, the construction is inversed with (c) destroying the law, commandments, and ordinances, (b) making both Jews and Gentiles one, and (a) achieving peace. Thus, this second interpretation seems a little more reasonable considering the dividing-wall, even when viewed as the balustrade, has similar meaning to the way in which the law is being defined. They both serve the role of separating believers in Christ, and they both have been destroyed by Christ for the sake of peace between Jews and Gentiles.
Conclusion
Attempting to comprehend the magnitude of Jesus’ accomplishments is not easy to fathom in any context, yet the author of Ephesians declares that Jesus accomplished peace and reconciliation for the people of God, both Jews and Gentiles. These believers are “knit together spiritually ‘into a dwelling place for God’” (v. 22), and they are reconciled to God himself. (Pauw) Therefore, understanding the subjects of peace, hostility, the dividing-wall, and relations between Jews and Gentiles within in a first-century context is obviously a great help for the contemporary reader. Markus Barth has rightly noted with respect to this pericope that “to say ‘Christ’ means to say community, co-existence, a new life, peace.” (Barth) Although the author of Ephesians almost certainly did not realize that believers of all nationalities and creeds would be reading the letter over two millennia later, the message still remains the same. Believers in Christ are to always remember that they are a reconciled people, reconciled to one another and reconciled to God through the peace of Christ. This is the Christological message of Ephesians 2:14-18.
Bibliography and Study Resources
Arnold, Bill T. and Bryan E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999)
Barth, Markus. The Broken Wall: A Study of the Epistle to the Ephesians. (Chicago: Judson Press, 1959)
_______. Ephesians. The Anchor Bible. Vol. 1. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974)
Best, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. (London: T&T Clark, 2004)
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Ephesians. (London: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1961)
Foerster, Werner. “eivrh,nh.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. vol. 2, ed. Gerhard Kittel. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964)
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002)
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999)
Laansma, J. C. “Peace.” In Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997)
Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 42. (Dallas: Word, 1990)
MacDonald, Margaret Y. Colossians and Ephesians. Sacra Pagina Series. Vol. 17. ed. Daniel J. Harrington. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000)
Moltmann, Jurgen. God in Creation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993)
O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999)
Plantinga Pauw, Amy. “Theological Meditations on Ephesians 2:11-22.” Theology Today 62.1 (April 2005): 78-83.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Ephesians: A Commentary. Translated by Helen Heron. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001)
von Rad, Gerhard. “~Alv.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 2. ed. Gerhard Kittel. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964)
Wood, A. Skevington. Ephesians. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Vol. 11. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981)
Topics: See All Posts | 1 Comment »
Killing via joystick
By philhigley | June 4, 2009
My dad works for the U.S. Airforce and recently sent me some info on the latest killing machine that our country has built. He usually has short pithy comments about life (mostly cynical or pessimistic), but in his most recent comment about the killing machine, pictured above, which is aptly called, “Reaper”, he made a valid point that I think is very insightful—yet very troubling.
He said…
Check out the latest plane that kills via joystick. When the horror and blood of war is no longer seen by the guy doing the killing, there’s probably more war in store. Compare to WWII when the Japanese tried to send bombs to the US on balloons, birds, etc. This thing is bigger than the WWII fighter aircraft and out performs all of them, without a pilot.
Again: “When the horror and blood of war is no longer seen by the guy doing the killing, there’s probably more war in store.”
Remember that…
Topics: See All Posts | 3 Comments »
The Greatest Love
By philhigley | May 27, 2009
“We love him because he first loved us.”
1 John 4:19
The entry below is from one of JE’s sermons on love. It’s short and to the point. Also, you are wrong if you thought the Puritans didn’t know anything about love! lol
The love of Christ is exceedingly sweet and satisfying from the greatness of it. This love is a dying love; such love was never seen before, and no other love can parallel it. There have been instances of very great love between one earthly friend and another; there was a surpassing love between David and Jonathan. But there has never been such love as Christ has toward believers. The satisfying nature of this love arises also from its sweet fruits. Those precious benefits that Christ bestows on his people, and those precious promises that he has given them, are the fruits of this love. Joy and hope are the constant streams that flow from this fountain, from the love of Christ.
Topics: See All Posts | 4 Comments »
Underground Catholic Churches in China
By philhigley | May 21, 2009
Topics: See All Posts | No Comments »
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Perspective on the sins of the church
By philhigley | May 18, 2009
While writing from a prison cell, and waiting to be executed by the Nazis, Bonhoeffer wrote the following:
The church confesses that it has not professed openly and clearly enough its message of the one God, revealed for all time in Jesus Christ and tolerating no other gods besides. The church confesses its timidity, its deviations, its dangerous concessions. It has often disavowed its duties as sentinel and comforter. Through this it has often withheld the compassion that it owes to the despised and rejected. The church was mute when it should have cried out, because the blood of the innocent cried out to heaven. The church did not find the right word in the right way at the right time. It did not resist to the death the falling away from faith and is guilty of the godlessness of the masses. The church confesses that it has misused the name of Christ by being ashamed of it before the world and by not resisting strongly enough the misuse of that name for evils ends. The church has looked on while injustice and violence have been done, under the cover of the name of Christ. It has even allowed the most holy name to be openly derided without contradiction and has thus encouraged that derision. The church recognizes that God will not leave unpunished those who so misuse God’s name as it does.
—from Ethics 138-139
Topics: See All Posts | 2 Comments »