Christ and the Unity of Believers
The apostle is addressing Jewish and Gentile believers in 2:1–10. He begins by showing that both groups of people were living in disobedience and sin; both stood in need of God’s mercy and love. The Good News in the passage is that a loving and gracious God acted to correct that through his Son. In union with Christ, believers become a new creation and are resurrected and exalted with their Lord. As such, they are lifted out of their former evil condition that they might share in Christ’s victory over sin and live a life of good works.
Up to this point the emphasis is on the privileges that Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy in Christ. In 2:11–22, however, the author moves from their unity in Christ to discuss their unity in the church. In this passage he shows that the church no longer is to be perceived as a body of Jewish and Gentile believers; rather, it is a completely new creation (“one new man” or “people”) in which all racial barriers and prejudices are obliterated. For the apostle, the church is a vivid example of how God is working out his plan to unite (1:10) and to complete (1:23) all things in Christ.
In some ways, this concept of a “new people” is a development of thoughts about the new creation in Christ that Paul has expressed in his epistles. In 2 Corinthians 5:16ff., he refers to the process of reconciliation and how all humanity is reconciled to God as new beings; in Galatians 6:15 he indicates that racial distinctions are insignificant to the real issue of being a new creation (“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation”). The new thought in Ephesians is that these “new beings” in Christ now constitute a single new humanity as the body of Christ, the church.
In this section, the author describes the alienation in which the Gentiles found themselves before they became Christians (vv. 11, 12), indicates how Christ made a new people out of two distinct ethnic groups (vv. 13–18), and, by way of the imagery of the heavenly building, shows how the church grows together into a sacred temple in the Lord (vv. 19–22). The entire passage has many liturgical features, draws heavily upon the language of the OT, and is rich in baptismal theology.
Additional Notes
Beyond the commentaries there are some helpful studies dealing with issues in this chapter: W. Barclay, “The One, New Man,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology, ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 73–81. Barclay’s main point is that “new” (kainos) means something new in quality and character; E. K. Lee, “Unity in Israel and Unity in Christ,” in Studies in Ephesians, ed. F. L. Cross, pp. 36–50; Martin, “Reconciliation and Unity in Ephesians,” in his Reconciliation, pp. 157–98. Martin offers a detailed literary and theological analysis of 2:19–21; W. Meeks, “In One Body: The Unity of Humankind in Colossians and Ephesians,” in God’s Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. Meeks (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 209–21.
The Gentiles Apart from Christ
The apostle begins by describing the condition of the Gentiles before they became Christians. Though he already has done this to some extent, the emphasis in 2:1–3 was upon their alienation from God as individuals. In that condition, they had many things in common with the Jews, and so the author speaks about all of humanity. He goes on in 2:4–10 to emphasize God’s mercy, love, and grace and how God brought mankind into relationship with himself through Christ.
The concern in 2:11–22 is with the national and covenantal alienation between Jews and Gentiles rather than with the spiritual alienation between God and humanity in 2:1–10. Thus the emphasis here is upon those aspects of Christ’s redemption that break down divisions and lead to a new people of God characterized by peace and unity. Their past life “separate from Christ” (2:12) and their present life “in Christ Jesus” (2:13) contain some vivid contrasts.
The Gentiles in the Past vs. The Gentiles in the Present:
separate from Christ (v. 12) vs. in himself (v. 15)
far away (vv. 13, 17) vs. brought near through the blood of Christ (vv. 13, 17)
excluded from citizenship in Israel (v. 12) vs. fellow citizens with God’s people (v. 19)
foreigners to the covenants of promise (v. 12) vs. no longer foreigners and aliens (v. 19)
without hope (v. 12) vs. without God (v. 12)
2:11 The Greek text begins with the emphatic therefore, remember. On the basis of all that these Gentiles have experienced from God through Christ (1:3–2:10), they are summoned to remember what they were formerly. They are addressed as Gentiles by birth. The inclusion of the article (lit., “you the Gentiles”) indicates that the author is addressing a special class of people. It may be his way of giving special emphasis to the fact that the church is made up of two classes of people. Earlier (2:1, 2), he used only the second person plural (“you”) in his reference to them.
Those who were Gentiles by birth (“in the flesh”) were referred to by the Jews (the circumcision) as the uncircumcised. Circumcision is a physical rite performed on the Jewish male as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:11). Although circumcision is used in a spiritual sense in Scripture as something that God performs upon the human heart—thus not made with hands (Deut. 10:16; Rom. 2:28, 29; 4:11; 1 Cor. 7:19; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11)—the emphasis here is upon the human rite because it is that done in the body by the hands of men. Apparently, then, the Gentiles were distinguished from the Jews both by birth and by the outward physical rite of circumcision. These two facts provide the basis for the conditions listed in the next verse.
2:12 In the past (at that time) the Gentiles were separate from Christ. In one sense, this was their major deprivation, for to be without Christ himself is to be deprived of any of the blessings that he gives. Hence the author mentions Christ for this very reason: As they have been blessed spiritually in Christ (2:1–10), he reminds them that it is through union with Christ that they are made one with the Jews and partake of the blessings that were theirs as God’s covenant people. To be separate from Christ stands in sharp contrast to being “in Christ Jesus” (2:13). Since the first reference is just to “Christ” (in contrast to Christ Jesus), it could be that a reference to “the Messiah” is intended.
You were … foreigners to the covenants. This means that as Gentiles they were strangers or foreigners to the covenants that God made with his people. These covenants include those made with Abraham (Gen. 15:8–21; 17:1–21) and Moses (Exod. 24:1–11) and the new and everlasting covenants about which the prophets spoke (cf. Isa. 55:3; Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 37:26).
The covenants that God made with Israel served both a present and future function in that they established Israel as God’s special people and assured them of God’s continued presence (they were covenants of the promise). The wording of the Greek text (“covenants of promise”), together with a possible reference to “the Messiah,” suggests that the author may have those particular covenants in mind that promised the Messiah. But as Gentiles they were not entitled to any of the provisions that God had made for, or any of the promises he had made to, his chosen people.
Another aspect of their former estranged condition is that they were excluded from citizenship in Israel. The Greek uses the rather strong word apallotrio?, which conveys the ideas of estrangement or alienation (cf. RSV). Not belonging to Israel (lit., “commonwealth,” “polity,” politeia) meant that they had no rights of citizenship and no participation in the national or religious life of the Israelites. And since Israel was the only nation to whom God had revealed himself in a special way, the Gentiles had no access to the true God. Their life in the world was lived without hope and without God.
Given the context in which the word hope appears, it most naturally refers to the Gentiles’ general state of hopelessness: they do not belong to God’s people and do not, therefore, share in the hope of the coming Messiah. In Christianity, people without hope are those who have no certainty in the future events that pertain to the Lord’s return and everlasting life (Acts 23:6; 1 Cor. 15:29, 32; Col. 1:5, 27; 1 Thess. 2:19; 4:13; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:5).
J. A. Robinson makes an interesting observation about Jewish hope and Gentile hopelessness when he writes: “The Jew had a hope: the Gentile had none. The golden age of the Gentile was in the past: his poets told him of it, and how it was gone. The Jew’s golden age was in the future; his prophets told him to look forward to its coming” (p. 57). For a short period of time the Greek mystery religions, with their doctrines of purification, immortality, brotherhood, and so forth, offered a ray of hope to the Greeks and Romans. This, however, never approximated the Jewish belief in the coming kingdom of God or the certainty of Christianity, which based its hope on the verities of Christ’s life and resurrection.
The Gentile’s life in this world was also without God. This appears as a rather strange characterization of a people who were noted for their idolatry and polytheism (many gods). When Paul visited Athens, for example, “he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16). The irony is that, though there were “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ ” (1 Cor. 8:5), they were, in effect, “no gods” (Acts 19:26; cf. 17:22–31; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 4:8). By believing in idols or self-conceived deities, the Gentiles really had nothing—they were without God. The Greek word atheos, from which the word “atheist” comes, occurs only here in the NT. In Greek literature, it was used to describe people who either were without God’s help, lived in a godless manner, or did not believe in God at all (see Abbott, p. 59).
The Gentiles in Christ
2:13 The Good News of the gospel is that Christ came into an alienated and hopeless world to reverse the misfortunes of the Gentiles: But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. There is nothing in the previous two verses that corresponds with the ideas of far away and near other than the obvious distance between the privileged Jew and the deprived Gentile. The imagery here comes from Isaiah 57:19, where the prophet says: “ ‘Peace, peace to those far and near,’ says the Lord. ‘And I will heal them.’ ” These are the same words that Peter uses in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, when he is addressing a mixed audience (Acts 2:39; cf. also Rom. 10:15). According to Ephesians, nearness to God has been made possible through the blood of Christ.
2:14–15 Since the author returns to the concepts of “far away” and “near” in 2:17, it appears that 2:14–16 is a rather long parenthesis on how Christ’s death brought a divided humanity together. He already has given a number of reasons why the Jews and the Gentiles differed from each other (2:11, 12). These racial, social, and religious distinctions resulted in various expressions of hostility and enmity.
The apostle refers to the Jewish law with its commandments and regulations as the cause of the divisions that existed between Jews and Gentiles. The effect of that “law,” he states, was like a wall that separated both races and kept them apart as enemies. However, through Christ’s death the wall was broken down, a new humanity was created. Gentiles and Jews were reconciled to each other, and both were reconciled to God.
The phrase for he himself is our peace is much more emphatic than it appears in English. Though it is true that he is the source of peace and brings peace through his life, he is peace—he gives peace because he himself is peace. This peace came about because Jews and Gentiles were made one people. The concept is reminiscent of Galatians 3:28, where Paul states that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, … for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Once again, the author turns to the role that Christ played in effecting this peace. In verse 13 he refers to the blood (i.e., death) of Christ; now he states that in his flesh he abolished the law with its commandments and regulations (the author may consciously be using flesh [sarx] in this context to refer to the Incarnation—cf. Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14). The practical effect of this, however, was to abolish the barriers that separated Jews and Gentiles.
The image of the dividing wall that Christ destroyed must be understood in connection with the reference to the law that follows in 2:15. Basically, the dividing wall is a symbol of the divisions that the Mosaic law (“the law of the commandments in ordinances,” KJV) created and that kept the two races from having social and religious intercourse.
There has been considerable speculation with respect to the wall that is mentioned. Most scholars tend to believe that the author is referring to the wall that separated the Gentiles and the Jews in the temple area. Josephus, a Jewish historian in the first century, describes this wall as a stone barrier about five feet high (Antiquities 15.11). Gentiles may have wanted to approach the temple out of curiosity or to offer gifts and sacrifices to the God of the Jews. Hence, warnings were posted at appropriate places to remind them of their limits and the severity of punishment that would follow if the barrier were crossed. One such warning, now in the Museum of Constantinople, was discovered by archaeologists in 1871. Translated from the Greek, it reads:
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 (quoted in Robinson, p. 60).
The seriousness of this is portrayed in Acts 21:27ff., where Paul is accused of bringing Greeks (“Trophimus the Ephesian,” no less) into the temple area and thus defiling “this holy place.”
This wall, which so dramatically symbolized Jewish separatism, was broken down along with the temple when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman general Titus in A.D. 70. But the destruction of that physical wall hardly eliminated the internal barriers that the Jewish law had erected: That took place through the death of Christ when he abolished the law with its commandments and regulations. This meant the abolition of all distinctions that separated Jew and Gentile.
Other, but less common, views of the meaning of wall include (a) the curtain in the temple that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies; (b) a rabbinic statement about building “a fence around the law”; (c) sin, which is a separation between God and humanity; or (d) a Gnostic concept of some kind of wall that divided the spheres of heaven and earth (see Barth, Eph. 1–3, pp. 283–87).
The commandments and regulations are a reference to the ceremonial laws, including dietary regulations, circumcision, rites of purification, sabbath and festival observances, sacrifices, and so forth. Colossians 2:8–23, which likewise mentions the abolition of rules and regulations, expands the list beyond Jewish ceremonial law because it is dealing with a number of man-made proscriptions that the false teachers had added (“Do not handle … taste … touch!”). There the emphasis is on the believers in Colossae not becoming enslaved to such legalism, because in Christ they have been freed from these powers. In Ephesians, the point is that the abolition of the law unites two previously alienated and hostile groups.
The breaking down of this ceremonial law, however, did not mean that all moral standards were abolished. The early Christians adopted many of the moral teachings of Judaism into their theology as long as they conformed to the standard that Christ taught or that he fulfilled in his life (cf. the Sermon on the Mount, esp., Matt. 5:17–48). Stott mentions that although Jesus did not abolish the moral law “as a standard of behavior,” he did abolish it “as a way of salvation” (p. 101).
It took the early church considerable time to realize the implications of this truth and to effect what was true in principle. Theologically, it is a process begun by Stephen in Acts (chap. 7) and worked out by Paul in Romans and Galatians. Practically, some of the divisions never were abolished completely, because the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Palestine remained more Jewish in theology and practice than their brethren outside Palestine (the Diaspora).
The largest percentage of early Christians were Jewish believers (Acts 1–12) who never fully separated themselves from Judaism. When the Gentile mission was inaugurated, some of these Jewish Christians, represented by the Jerusalem and Palestinian churches, felt that the Gentiles should either become Jews before they became Christians—that is, submit to circumcision and the law (the extreme view)—or at least be sensitive to Jewish food laws in cases of social fellowship. The account of Peter’s vision at the home of Simon the Tanner recounts how God declared that all foods are clean (Acts 10:1–43). The details of this and their implications for the Gentile mission are discussed at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1–35) as well as in Galatians 2.
The Good News in Ephesians is that Christ’s death abolished the legal distinctions that separated Jews and Gentiles: The former divisive effect of the law is annulled and has lost its power (cf. Col. 2:15). Instead of enmity between the two races there is peace; in place of two separate entities there is one new man (people).
The effect of Christ’s work in breaking down the barrier is twofold: First, it resulted in the creation of a new humanity (his purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two). There is more here than simply the union or the mixture of two groups. This is not a case of the Greeks conquering the Jews or the Jews converting the Greeks to their faith and way of life. Rather, it is a completely new creation (one new man) that Christ has effected in union with himself (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). To a certain extent, the church is the sum total of individuals who have become “new creatures” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:10); but the author is thinking of something more profound—namely, the church as a corporate entity.
2:16 Second, there is the aspect of reconciliation, which, for the apostle, has two foci: On the one side, the church effected a reconciliation between Jew and Gentile. The broken barrier—accomplished through the cross—and the creation of the church (“one new people”) meant that the enmity between these two races was replaced by peace. Here the author uses the phrase “having slain (apokteinas) the enmity.” The imagery of the cross suggests that he who himself was slain (Heb. 2:14) is now the one who slays (destroys) the enmity. Peace is illustrated by the metaphor of the body, the church. Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to each other because they are united into one body by means of the cross. Thus the church is presented as a living organism, composed of diverse parts, but existing peacefully as one body (cf. 4:4; 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:13; Col. 3:15).
The other side of Christ’s work is that he brought about reconciliation between humanity and God (to reconcile both of them—i.e., the two who have been united in one body—to God). Here there is no question of Jewish privilege or Greek ignorance, since both are equally represented as objects of reconciliation: Through Christ’s work on the cross, God “reconciled us to himself” (2 Cor. 5:18; cf. also Rom. 5:10).
2:17 Before the author develops this concept of access, he turns from Christ the reconciler to Christ the proclaimer: He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. The idea of peace may be taken from Isaiah 57:19, which he used earlier (2:13), or he may be utilizing Isaiah 52:7, which announces: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace.”
Most scholars take Christ’s preaching as an act related to his death-resurrection-exaltation and not to his earthly pre-resurrection ministry. The context appears to favor the idea that the peace that he effected on the cross is itself a proclamation and his way of announcing to the world that peace has been made. This verse could be in reference to Christ’s post-resurrection appearances, in which his first followers are told not to fear (Matt. 28:5, 10), or to his benediction of peace in John 14:27 (“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you”). However, there is much to be said for the view that takes it as the preaching of the earthly Jesus himself or, at least, as the preaching of his disciples.
Jesus does adopt the words of Isaiah 61:1, 2, as his life’s mission (“the Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor,” Luke 4:18, 19), and he does become involved with a segment of society that could be considered “far away” (cf. Mitton, pp. 109–10). But regardless of what view one may take, the important point is that in the Christ event (life-death-resurrection-exaltation), peace was achieved and access to God was made possible. Thus the author reminds his readers that it is through Christ that Jews and Gentiles “both have access to the Father by one Spirit” (2:18).
2:18 Perhaps there is an allusion here to the curtain in the inner-temple that separated the people from God and through which only the high priest had access on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:1–14). The Good News of the gospel, however, is that Christ opened up a way of access to God by removing the curtain through his death (Heb. 10:19ff.). The imagery suggested by the idea of “access” (prosag?g?) is that of an Oriental court where subjects were presented to their monarch by a prosag?gos.
In the church, it is Christ who has made the way into God’s presence possible (“in him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence,” Eph. 3:12). Access to God is through the one Spirit because all Christians are united by one Spirit in their baptism into Christ (1 Cor. 12:12, 13; Eph. 4:1–6). And as a church (the body of Christ), they now are a fellowship of the Holy Spirit. In addition to this verse, the role of the Spirit in worship is mentioned in 3:18–20 and in a similar passage in Colossians (3:16, 17).
There are a number of things that suggest that the author may have baptism in mind throughout this entire discussion (2:11–18). First, baptism provides the best answer as to where and when all this took place for the Jew and the Gentile—that is, when the “far away” were brought near and, together with the “near,” united with Christ and made members of one another in the body of Christ. To be sure, Christ accomplished that at the time of his death on the cross, but the believer makes that his or her own through faith and baptism in Christ.
Second, there are many close parallels in this passage to the two baptismal passages in Colossians: Ephesians 2:11 is remarkably similar to Colossians 2:11–13; and 2:11–18 may be an adaptation of the Christ hymn in Colossians 1:15–20, which has considerable support as a baptismal hymn (see disc. on Col. 1:15–20).
Third, and perhaps most convincing, are those baptismal passages that specifically mention baptism into Christ as the means of breaking down all barriers, including racial distinctions. Thus Paul writes to the Galatians, “You … were baptized into Christ.… There is neither Jew nor Greek” (3:27, 28). And in Colossians the baptismal imagery of “putting off” and “putting on” is utilized, with the result that baptism eliminates the differences between Gentiles and Jews (3:9–11). It could be said that the author turns to baptismal language in Ephesians 2:11–18 to support his theological assertion of the unity between Jew and Gentile as one new people in Christ. Furthermore, since baptism is mentioned in his famous section on unity (4:1–6), one could infer that he understood baptism as the sacrament of unity (1 Cor. 12:13).
Additional Notes
2:14–15 M. S. Moore presents a detailed analysis of these verses in his “Ephesians 2:15–16: A History of Recent Interpretation,” EQ 54 (1982), pp. 163–69. For understanding the nature of Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the early church, see L. Goppelt, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic History (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970), esp. chap. 3, pp. 61–107.
2:17 A thorough discussion of the expressions near and far is given by D. C. Smith, “The Ephesian Heresy and the Origin of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977), pp. 78–103. Smith’s investigation leads him to conclude that it is not that Gentile Christianity was threatening to lose its connection with Jewish Christianity, but “rather the issue is that certain Gentile-‘Jewish’-Christians, on the basis of traditions derived in large part from Hellenistic Judaism, are displaying contempt toward natural Jews who have become Christians. These opponents of the author of Ephesians, then, represent a fascinating synthesis of esoteric elements drawn from Judaism, Christianity, and Hellenistic religion in general” (p. 103).
The New Unity
These verses concerning the incorporation of the Gentiles into a sacred temple in the Lord conclude the section on Christian unity (2:11–22). Consequently has the effect of pointing back to what was said in the previous verses and linking it to what follows. The main thought is that, because the Gentiles are now in Christ and have access in one Spirit to the Father, they are no longer “foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.” By virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ, the “cornerstone,” they are like an edifice that is built upon the foundation of “apostles and prophets” and that “rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.”
2:19 Now that the apostle has discussed the effects that Christ’s death had upon Jews and Gentiles (2:14–18), he returns to his discussion of the Gentiles to complete the contrasts that he began earlier. At one time they were foreigners who did not belong to God’s people (2:12), but now they are no longer foreigners (xenos) or aliens (paroikos). Foreigners are people outside a country or community, with no special rights or privileges. The word for aliens (paroikos) often is translated as “sojourners,” a term that accentuates the transient nature of the Gentiles. In that condition they were like aliens with an “immigrant visa,” which granted them limited rights and privileges, but not full citizenship or permanent residency.
But the status of the Gentiles has changed remarkably: First, the author uses a political expression and affirms that they are now fellow citizens (sympolitai) with God’s people, that is, they are on equal standing with the historic people of God. Second, he uses the imagery of a building (oikos) to affirm that they are members of God’s household.
2:20 From the concept of the household or “family” (oikos) of God, the author turns to discuss the building (oikodom?) of this family, utilizing an architectural metaphor. The language reemphasizes that the Gentiles are part of an ongoing process: You, too, are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
If the Gentiles had been guilty of forgetting or even scorning their relationship to God’s redemptive work in history, these words would serve as a significant reminder that they are not the first or only people in God’s eternal plan. Rather, they have been built (the Greek aorist tense refers to something that has happened) upon a foundation that already had been laid.
Apostles and prophets form the foundation of the church. Though some commentators take prophets to mean those in the OT, the word order—apostles and prophets—makes it more likely that the author has the NT prophets in mind (cf. Acts 11:27ff.; 1 Cor. 12:28, 29; 14:1–5, 24ff.). Both offices are used again in Ephesians (3:5; 4:11) with a clear reference to the NT period. They are considered the foundation of the church because of their importance as messengers and interpreters of the gospel.
The thoughts that the author is developing differ slightly from the picture that Paul gives in Corinthians. In Corinth, he is dealing with a divided church—a church that has polarized around Paul, Peter, Christ, and Apollos. Paul seeks to dispel party strife by showing that the ministry is the cooperative effort of a number of individuals, all of whom are servants of God and partners with each other (1 Cor. 1:10–13; 3:5–9). To anyone seeking to be the foundation of God’s building, Paul warns that “no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). In Ephesians, the apostles and prophets are the foundation and Jesus becomes the chief cornerstone (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4–8—quoting Isa. 28:16 and Ps. 118:22—where Christ is interpreted as the cornerstone).
The reasons for this apparent shift are not easy to discern. One author suggests that, by the time Ephesians was written, Christ’s centrality in the church was guaranteed, but because of the heresies that threatened the church, it became necessary to establish an authentic line of tradition through the apostles and prophets (Houlden, p. 292). T. K. Abbott reasons that the cornerstone was more important to Orientals because of its function in connecting and bearing the weight of the building (p. 71). This view does have some appeal, because in the context of the passage the emphasis is upon the function of Christ in keeping this growing structure unified. The cornerstone would have provided the key around which the foundation and the superstructure were built (Stott, pp. 107–8).
Though it is natural to think of the cornerstone as being on the foundational level of a building, there is an attractive alternative to this concept that takes the phrase not as a foundation stone but as a “keystone” to be placed at the summit of a building to crown its completion. Some believe that this is a more fitting explanation of the thought in Ephesians, where Christ is the head of the body (1:22) and the church grows into him who is the head (4:15).
The variety of interpretations of the difficult imagery and syntax should not distract the reader from the central message of this passage. The apostle is showing that the church consists of three significant elements: (a) the Gentiles, who are now part of God’s people, and the Jews; (b) the apostles and prophets; and (c) Jesus Christ. But this is more than just a random combination of parts: They are joined together by the principle of unity and growth.
2:21 The construction of this verse in the Greek is ambiguous and has led to a variety of translations and interpretations. Literally, it reads, “in whom every structure (pasa oikodom?) is joined together” (synarmologe?). The big question is whether pasa oikodom? should be translated as “every structure” or “the whole structure” and whether the thoughts should be taken literally or metaphorically.
Those opting for the former believe that this “sacred temple in the Lord” is like the Jewish temple, in which many buildings, rooms, and parts (see Moule, p. 85; Westcott, p. 41) made up the “whole temple.” Mitton accepts “every structure” as preferred grammatically but gives it a metaphorical rather than literal meaning. Hence, he follows a line of interpretation that takes the “parts” as the local congregations that make up the one universal or catholic church (p. 115).
From the context of the passage, however, one seriously wonders whether the apostle has local congregations in mind, because he has been so concerned about the unity of the entire body. Robinson, for one, admits that the words are ambiguous but, within the context of the passage, emphasizes the process of building and takes the phrase to mean “all that is builded,” that is, whatever building is being done (pp. 70, 165). What is in the author’s mind, therefore, is the entire operation of the building rather than single structures that make up the whole (cf. also Abbott, pp. 74, 75. Barth, Eph. 1–3, p. 272; Foulkes, p. 87). The NIV follows this line of interpretation in its translation, in him the whole building is joined together.
The concept of a building process is continued in the following phrase: Christ is the one in whom it rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. Though the imagery is that of a building, the next verse (2:22) makes it clear that the author has a spiritual “house” in mind where God’s presence is manifested. The holy temple is the translation of naon hagion—naos being the inner part of the temple where God was believed to reside and meet his people. In early Christian theology, believers are referred to as God’s sacred temple, not in a material sense, but as a “spiritual building” where God dwells and manifests himself. Christians are that holy (or “sacred”) temple by virtue of being in the Lord.
2:22 Once again, the apostle emphasizes that the Gentiles have a part in all of this: In him you too are being (present tense) built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. This concept is reminiscent of Paul’s ideas in his Corinthian letters, where he reminds the congregation that they are God’s building—temple—in whom the Spirit of God dwells (1 Cor. 3:9, 16ff.; 2 Cor. 6:16). To the Gentiles, all of this stands as a vivid contrast to the beginning of their lives, which was “in the body” (2:11).
This passage (2:19–22) contains a number of striking linguistic and conceptual parallels with the liturgical hymn in 1 Peter 2:4–10. Both epistles, for example, refer to Christ as the cornerstone and emphasize that Christians are part of a building process that is growing into a spiritual temple. First Peter speaks of the “stone” rejected by the builders but that has become the elected cornerstone in Zion to the believing Gentiles.
In Ephesians, there is confirmation that the Gentiles, who were at one time far off, distant from the commonwealth of Israel, have been brought near and have become one with the people of God. In 1 Peter 2:9, 10, those who have been called out of darkness into light have now become the people of God; in Ephesians, this idea of the Gentiles becoming God’s people is emphasized throughout 2:11–22, although the imagery of darkness and light is not used until 5:8–14 (cf. Col. 1:12, 13).
These similarities between 2:19–22 and 1 Peter 2:4–10 suggest that there was a tradition in the early church that described the role of Christ, the new status of Gentile believers (the indicative), and their ultimate goal (the imperative) by utilizing building imagery. Given the liturgical nature of both passages, it is not unreasonable to infer that these texts were used by the Gentile churches to celebrate their incorporation into the family of God. Although the imagery is different, there is a remarkable similarity in thought between the believers’ union with Christ and their incorporation into Christ’s body at the time of baptism.
Additional Notes
2:20 This idea of a “keystone” apparently was first initiated by J. Jeremias in his article “akrog?nias,” TDNT, vol. 1, p. 792, and is championed by Barth in Eph. 1–3, pp. 317–19. Mitton lists a number of objections to this theory and sticks with the traditional view, which sees Jesus as the cornerstone of the building “from which the future building will be gauged” (p. 115). This view is also supported by R. J. McKelvey, “Christ the Cornerstone: Eph. 2.11–22,” NTS 8 (1962), pp. 352–59. McKelvey concludes that “the interpretation which explains akrog?niaios of Eph. 2:20 as a topstone is to be abandoned in favor of the traditional understanding of akrog?niaios as a stone connected to the foundation of the building, which was located at one of the corners (probably the determinative corner) and bound together the walls and the foundation” (p. 359). For further comments, see F. F. Bruce, “New Wine in Old Wine Skins: III. The Corner Stone,” ExpT 84 (1973), pp. 231–35.
