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)

One Response to “A Brief Exegetical Survey of Christology in Ephesians 2”

1. Steve Lunstrum says:

   June 8, 2009 at 12:13 am

   Phil, excellent exegesis(SP?) of Eph. 2 – Vertical/Horizontal relationships. Reminds me of I John Chapter 2 except for different contexts and time frame – Eph.jews/gentiles mid 1st century in contrast to I John/late 1st century Christians/heretical ones. I use to teach pre-communion classes to 5th & 6th graders at Peace Lutheran and we always used the cross + to help the kids remember our vertical relationship to God/Christ’s sacrificial love that opened the door(veil)to our neighbor!(horizontal) – Steve L.